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: Understanding World War II
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

In late 2006 I was approached by Scott McConnell, editor of The American Conservative (TAC), who told me that his small magazine was on the verge of closing without a large financial infusion. I’d been on friendly terms with McConnell since around 1999, and greatly appreciated that he and his TAC co-founders had been providing a focal point of opposition to America’s calamitous foreign policy of the early 2000s.

In the wake of 9/11, the Israel-centric Neocons had somehow managed to seize control of the Bush Administration while also gaining complete ascendancy over America’s leading media outlets, purging or intimidating most of their critics. Although Saddam Hussein clearly had no connection to the attacks, his status as a possible regional rival to Israel had established him as their top target, and they soon began beating the drums for war, with America finally launching its disastrous invasion in FebruaryMarch 2003.

Among print magazines, TAC stood almost alone in whole-hearted opposition to these policies, and had attracted considerable attention when Founding Editor Pat Buchanan published “Whose War?”, pointing the finger of blame directly at the Jewish Neocons responsible, a truth very widely recognized in political and media circles but almost never publicly voiced. David Frum, a leading promoter of the Iraq War, had almost simultaneously unleashed a National Review cover story denouncing as “unpatriotic”—and perhaps “anti-Semitic”—a very long list of conservative, liberal, and libertarian war critics, with Buchanan near the very top, and the controversy and name-calling continued for some time.

Given this recent history, I was concerned that TAC‘s disappearance might leave a dangerous political void, and being then in a relatively strong financial position, I agreed to rescue the magazine and become its new owner. Although I was much too preoccupied with my own software work to have any direct involvement, McConnell named me publisher, probably hoping to bind me to his magazine’s continuing survival and ensure future financial infusions. My title was purely a nominal one, and over the next few years, aside from writing additional checks my only involvement usually amounted to a five-minute phone call each Monday morning to see how things were going.

About a year after I began supporting the magazine, McConnell informed me that a major crisis was brewing. Although Pat Buchanan had severed his direct ties with the publication some years earlier, he was by far the best-known figure associated with TAC, so that it was still widely—if erroneously—known as “Pat Buchanan’s magazine.” But now McConnell had heard that Buchanan was planning to release a new book supposedly glorifying Adolf Hitler and denouncing America’s participation in the world war to defeat the Nazi menace. Promoting such bizarre beliefs would surely doom Buchanan’s career, but TAC was already under continuous attack by Jewish activists, and the resulting “Neo-Nazi” guilt by association might easily sink the magazine as well.

In desperation, McConnell had decided to protect his publication by soliciting a very hostile review by conservative historian John Lukacs, which would thereby insulate TAC from the looming disaster. Given my current role as TAC‘s funder and publisher, he naturally sought my approval in this harsh break with his own political mentor. I told him that the Buchanan book certainly sounded rather ridiculous and his own defensive strategy a pretty reasonable one, and I quickly returned to the problems I faced in my own all-consuming software project.

Although I’d been a little friendly with Buchanan for a dozen years or so, and greatly admired his courage in opposing the Neocons on foreign policy, I wasn’t too surprised to hear that he might be publishing a book promoting some rather strange ideas. Just a few years earlier, he’d released The Death of the West, which became an unexpected best-seller. After my friends at TAC had raved about its brilliance, I decided to read it for myself, and was greatly disappointed. Although Buchanan had generously quoted an excerpt from my own Commentary cover-story “California and the End of White America,” I felt that he’d completely misconstrued my meaning, and the book overall seemed a rather poorly-constructed and rhetorically right-wing treatment of the complex issues of immigration and race, topics upon which I’d been heavily focusing since the early 1990s. So under the circumstances, I was hardly surprised that the same author was now publishing some equally silly book about World War II, perhaps causing severe problems for his erstwhile TAC colleagues.

Months later, Buchanan’s history and the hostile TAC review both appeared, and as expected, a storm of controversy erupted. Mainstream publications had largely ignored the book, but it seemed to receive enormous praise from alternative writers, some of whom fiercely denounced TAC for having attacked it. Indeed, the response was so extremely one-sided that when McConnell discovered that a totally obscure blogger somewhere had agreed with his own negative appraisal, he immediately circulated those remarks in a desperate attempt at vindication. Longtime TAC contributors whose knowledge of history I much respected, including Eric Margolis and William Lind, had praised the book, so my curiosity finally got the better of me and I decided to order a copy and read it for myself.

ORDER IT NOW

I was quite surprised to discover a work very different from what I had expected. I had never paid much attention to twentieth century American history and my knowledge of European history in that same era was only slightly better, so my views were then mostly rather conventional, having been shaped by my History 101 courses and what I’d picked up in decades of reading my various newspapers and magazines. But within that framework, Buchanan’s history seemed to fit quite comfortably.

The first part of his volume provided what I had always considered the standard view of the First World War. In his account of events, Buchanan explained how the complex network of interlocking alliances had led to a giant conflagration even though none of the existing leaders had actually sought that outcome: a huge European powder-keg had been ignited by the spark of an assassination in Sarajevo.

But although his narrative was what I expected, he provided a wealth of interesting details previously unknown to me. Among other things, he persuasively argued that the German war-guilt was somewhat less than that of most of the other participants, also noting that despite the endless propaganda of “Prussian militarism,” Germany had not fought a major war in 43 years, an unbroken record of peace considerably better than that of most of its adversaries. Moreover, a secret military agreement between Britain and France had been a crucial factor in the unintended escalation, and even so, nearly half the British Cabinet had come close to resigning in opposition to the declaration of war against Germany, a possibility that which would have probably led to a short and limited conflict confined to the Continent. I’d also seldom seen emphasized that Japan had been a crucial British ally, and that the Germans probably would have won the war if Japan had fought on the other side.

However, the bulk of the book focused on the events leading up to the Second World War, and this was the portion that had inspired such horror in McConnell and his colleagues. Buchanan described the outrageous provisions of the Treaty of Versailles imposed upon a prostrate Germany, and the determination of all subsequent German leaders to redress it. But whereas his democratic Weimar predecessors had failed, Hitler had managed to succeed, largely through bluff, while also annexing German Austria and the German Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, in both cases with the overwhelming support of their populations.

Buchanan documented this controversial thesis by drawing heavily upon numerous statements by leading contemporary political figures, mostly British, as well as the conclusions of highly-respected mainstream historians. Hitler’s final demand, that 95% German Danzig be returned to Germany just as its inhabitants desired, was an absolutely reasonable one, and only a dreadful diplomatic blunder by the British had led the Poles to refuse the request, thereby provoking the war. The widespread later claim that Hitler sought to conquer the world was totally absurd, and the German leader had actually made every effort to avoid war with Britain or France. Indeed, he was generally quite friendly towards the Poles and had been hoping to enlist Poland as a German ally against the menace of Stalin’s Soviet Union.

ORDER IT NOW

Although many Americans might have been shocked at this account of the events leading up to the outbreak of the Second World War, Buchanan’s narrative accorded reasonably well with my own impression of that period. As a Harvard freshman, I had taken an introductory history course, and one of the primary required texts on World War II had been that of A.J.P. Taylor, a renowned Oxford University historian. His famous 1961 work Origins of the Second World War had very persuasively laid out a case quite similar to that of Buchanan, and I’d never found any reason to question the judgment of my professors who had assigned it. So if Buchanan merely seemed to be seconding the opinions of a leading Oxford don and members of the Harvard history faculty, I couldn’t quite understand why his new book would be regarded as being beyond the pale.

Admittedly, Buchanan also included a very harsh critique of Winston Churchill, cataloging a long list of his supposedly disastrous policies and political reversals, and assigning him a good share of the blame for Britain’s involvement in both world wars, fateful decisions that consequently led to the collapse of the British Empire. But although my knowledge of Churchill was far too scanty to render a verdict, the case he made for the prosecution seemed reasonably strong. The Neocons already hated Buchanan and since they notoriously worshiped Churchill as a cartoon super-hero, any firestorm of criticism from those quarters would hardly be surprising. But the book overall seemed a very solid and interesting history, the best work by Buchanan that I had ever read, and I gently gave my favorable assessment to McConnell, who was obviously rather disappointed. Not long afterward, he decided to relinquish his role as TAC editor to Kara Hopkins, his longtime deputy, and the wave of vilification he had recently endured from many of his erstwhile Buchananite allies surely must have contributed to this.

 

Although my knowledge of the history of the Second World War was quite rudimentary back in 2008, over the decade that followed I embarked upon a great deal of reading in the history of that momentous era, and my preliminary judgment in the correctness of Buchanan’s thesis seemed strongly vindicated.

The recent 70th anniversary of the outbreak of the conflict that consumed so many tens of millions of lives naturally provoked numerous historical articles, and the resulting discussion led me to dig out my old copy of Taylor’s short volume, which I reread for the first time in nearly forty years. I found it just as masterful and persuasive as I had back in my college dorm room days, and the glowing cover-blurbs suggested some of the immediate acclaim the work had received. The Washington Post lauded the author as “Britain’s most prominent living historian,” World Politics called it “Powerfully argued, brilliantly written, and always persuasive,” The New Statesman, Britain leading leftist magazine, described it as “A masterpiece: lucid, compassionate, beautifully written,” and the august Times Literary Supplement characterized it as “simple, devastating, superlatively readable, and deeply disturbing.” As an international best-seller, it still surely ranks as Taylor’s most famous book, and I can easily understand why it was still on my college required reading list nearly two decades after its original publication.

Yet in revisiting Taylor’s ground-breaking study, I made a remarkable discovery. Despite all the international sales and critical acclaim, the book’s findings soon aroused tremendous hostility in certain quarters. Taylor’s lectures at Oxford had been enormously popular for a quarter century, but as a direct result of the controversy “Britain’s most prominent living historian” was summarily purged from the faculty not long afterwards. At the beginning of his first chapter, Taylor had noted how strange he found it that more than twenty years after the start of the world’s most cataclysmic war no serious history had been produced carefully analyzing the outbreak. Perhaps the retaliation that he encountered led him to better understand part of that puzzle.

Taylor was hardly alone in suffering such retribution. Indeed, as I have gradually discovered over the last decade or so, his fate seems to have been an exceptionally mild one, with his great existing stature partially insulating him from the backlash following his objective analysis of the historical facts. And such extremely serious professional consequences were especially common on our side of the Atlantic, where many of the victims lost their long-held media or academic positions, and permanently vanished from public view during the years around World War II.

I had spent much of the 2000s producing a massive digitized archive containing the full contents of hundreds of America’s most influential periodicals from the last two centuries, a collection totaling many millions of articles. And during this process, I was repeatedly surprised to come across individuals whose enormous presence clearly marked them as among the leading public intellectuals of their day, but who had later disappeared so completely that I had scarcely ever been aware of their existence. I gradually began to recognize that our own history had been marked by an ideological Great Purge just as significant if less sanguinary than its Soviet counterpart. The parallels seemed eerie:

I sometimes imagined myself a little like an earnest young Soviet researcher of the 1970s who began digging into the musty files of long-forgotten Kremlin archives and made some stunning discoveries. Trotsky was apparently not the notorious Nazi spy and traitor portrayed in all the textbooks, but instead had been the right-hand man of the sainted Lenin himself during the glorious days of the great Bolshevik Revolution, and for some years afterward had remained in the topmost ranks of the Party elite. And who were these other figures—Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Rykov—who also spent those early years at the very top of the Communist hierarchy? In history courses, they had barely rated a few mentions, as minor Capitalist agents who were quickly unmasked and paid for their treachery with their lives. How could the great Lenin, father of the Revolution, have been such an idiot to have surrounded himself almost exclusively with traitors and spies?

But unlike their Stalinist analogs from a couple of years earlier, the American victims who disappeared around 1940 were neither shot nor Gulaged, but merely excluded from the mainstream media that defines our reality, thereby being blotted out from our memory so that future generations gradually forgot that they had ever lived.

 

A leading example of such a “disappeared” American was journalist John T. Flynn, probably almost unknown today but whose stature had once been enormous. As I wrote last year:

So imagine my surprise at discovering that throughout the 1930s he had been one of the single most influential liberal voices in American society, a writer on economics and politics whose status may have roughly approximated that of Paul Krugman, though with a strong muck-raking tinge. His weekly column in The New Republic allowed him to serve as a lodestar for America’s progressive elites, while his regular appearances in Colliers, an illustrated mass circulation weekly reaching many millions of Americans, provided him a platform comparable to that of an major television personality in the later heyday of network TV.

To some extent, Flynn’s prominence may be objectively quantified. A few years ago, I happened to mention his name to a well-read and committed liberal born in the 1930s, and she unsurprisingly drew a complete blank, but wondered if he might have been a little like Walter Lippmann, the very famous columnist of that era. When I checked, I saw that across the hundreds of periodicals in my archiving system, there were just 23 articles by Lippmann from the 1930s but fully 489 by Flynn.

An even stronger American parallel to Taylor was that of historian Harry Elmer Barnes, a figure almost unknown to me, but in his day an academic of great influence and stature:

Imagine my shock at later discovering that Barnes had actually been one of the most frequent early contributors to Foreign Affairs, serving as a primary book reviewer for that venerable publication from its 1922 founding onward, while his stature as one of America’s premier liberal academics was indicated by his scores of appearances in The Nation and The New Republic throughout that decade. Indeed, he is credited with having played a central role in “revising” the history of the First World War so as to remove the cartoonish picture of unspeakable German wickedness left behind as a legacy of the dishonest wartime propaganda produced by the opposing British and American governments. And his professional stature was demonstrated by his thirty-five or more books, many of them influential academic volumes, along with his numerous articles in The American Historical Review, Political Science Quarterly, and other leading journals.

A few years ago I happened to mention Barnes to an eminent American academic scholar whose general focus in political science and foreign policy was quite similar, and yet the name meant nothing. By the end of the 1930s, Barnes had become a leading critic of America’s proposed involvement in World War II, and was permanently “disappeared” as a consequence, barred from all mainstream media outlets, while a major newspaper chain was heavily pressured into abruptly terminating his long-running syndicated national column in May 1940.

Many of Barnes’ friends and allies fell in the same ideological purge, which he described in his own writings and which continued after the end of the war:

Over a dozen years after his disappearance from our national media, Barnes managed to publish Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, a lengthy collection of essays by scholars and other experts discussing the circumstances surrounding America’s entrance into World War II, and have it produced and distributed by a small printer in Idaho. His own contribution was a 30,000 word essay entitled “Revisionism and the Historical Blackout” and discussed the tremendous obstacles faced by the dissident thinkers of that period.

The book itself was dedicated to the memory of his friend, historian Charles A. Beard. Since the early years of the 20th century, Beard had ranked as an intellectual figure of the greatest stature and influence, co-founder of The New School in New York and serving terms as president of both The American Historical Association and The American Political Science Association. As a leading supporter of the New Deal economic policies, he was overwhelmingly lauded for his views.

Yet once he turned against Roosevelt’s bellicose foreign policy, publishers shut their doors to him, and only his personal friendship with the head of the Yale University Press allowed his critical 1948 volume President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941 to even appear in print. Beard’s stellar reputation seems to have begun a rapid decline from that point onward, so that by 1968 historian Richard Hofstadter could write: “Today Beard’s reputation stands like an imposing ruin in the landscape of American historiography. What was once the grandest house in the province is now a ravaged survival”. Indeed, Beard’s once-dominant “economic interpretation of history” might these days almost be dismissed as promoting “dangerous conspiracy theories,” and I suspect few non-historians have even heard of him.

Another major contributor to the Barnes volume was William Henry Chamberlin, who for decades had been ranked among America’s leading foreign policy journalists, with more than 15 books to his credit, most of them widely and favorably reviewed. Yet America’s Second Crusade, his critical 1950 analysis of America’s entry into World War II, failed to find a mainstream publisher, and when it did appear was widely ignored by reviewers. Prior to its publication, his byline had regularly run in our most influential national magazines such as The Atlantic Monthly and Harpers. But afterward, his writing was almost entirely confined to small circulation newsletters and periodicals, appealing to narrow conservative or libertarian audiences.

In these days of the Internet, anyone can easily establish a website to publish his views, thus making them immediately available to everyone in the world. Social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter can bring interesting or controversial material to the attention of millions with just a couple of mouse-clicks, completely bypassing the need for the support of establishmentarian intermediaries. It is easy for us to forget just how extremely challenging the dissemination of dissenting ideas remained back in the days of print, paper, and ink, and recognize that an individual purged from his regular outlet might require many years to regain any significant foothold for the distribution of his work.

 

British writers had faced similar ideological perils year before A.J.P. Taylor ventured into those troubled waters, as a distinguished British naval historian discovered in 1953:

The author of Unconditional Hatred was Captain Russell Grenfell, a British naval officer who had served with distinction in the First World War, and later helped direct the Royal Navy Staff College, while publishing six highly-regarded books on naval strategy and serving as the Naval Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph. Grenfell recognized that great quantities of extreme propaganda almost inevitably accompany any major war, but with several years having passed since the close of hostilities, he was growing concerned that unless an antidote were soon widely applied, the lingering poison of such wartime exaggerations might threaten the future peace of Europe.

His considerable historical erudition and his reserved academic tone shine through in this fascinating volume, which focuses primarily upon the events of the two world wars, but often contains digressions into the Napoleonic conflicts or even earlier ones. One of the intriguing aspects of his discussion is that much of the anti-German propaganda he seeks to debunk would today be considered so absurd and ridiculous it has been almost entirely forgotten, while much of the extremely hostile picture we currently have of Hitler’s Germany receives almost no mention whatsoever, possibly because it had not yet been established or was then still considered too outlandish for anyone to take seriously. Among other matters, he reports with considerable disapproval that leading British newspapers had carried headlined articles about the horrific tortures that were being inflicted upon German prisoners at war crimes trials in order to coerce all sorts of dubious confessions out of them.

Some of Grenfell’s casual claims do raise doubts about various aspects of our conventional picture of German occupation policies. He notes numerous stories in the British press of former French “slave-laborers” who later organized friendly post-war reunions with their erstwhile German employers. He also states that in 1940 those same British papers had reported the absolutely exemplary behavior of German soldiers toward French civilians, though after terroristic attacks by Communist underground forces provoked reprisals, relations often grew much worse.

Most importantly, he points out that the huge Allied strategic bombing campaign against French cities and industry had killed huge numbers of civilians, probably far more than had ever died at German hands, and thereby provoked a great deal of hatred as an inevitable consequence. At Normandy he and other British officers had been warned to remain very cautious among any French civilians they encountered for fear they might be subject to deadly attacks.

Although Grenfell’s content and tone strike me as exceptionally even-handed and objective, others surely viewed his text in a very different light. The Devin-Adair jacket-flap notes that no British publisher was willing to accept the manuscript, and when the book appeared no major American reviewer recognized its existence. Even more ominously, Grenfell is described as having been hard at work on a sequel when he suddenly died in 1954 of unknown causes, and his lengthy obituary in the London Times gives his age as 62.

Another top contemporary observer from that era provides a portrayal of France during World War II that is diametrically opposed to that of today’s widely-accepted narrative:

On French matters, Grenfell provides several extended references to a 1952 book entitled France: The Tragic Years, 1939-1947 by Sisley Huddleston, an author totally unfamiliar to me, and this whet my curiosity. One helpful use of my content-archiving system is to easily provide the proper context for long-forgotten writers, and Huddleston’s scores of appearances in The Atlantic Monthly, The Nation, and The New Republic, plus his thirty well-regarded books on France, seem to confirm that he spent decades as one of the leading interpreters of France to educated American and British readers. Indeed, his exclusive interview with British Prime Minister Lloyd George at the Paris Peace Conference became an international scoop. As with so many other writers, after World War II his American publisher necessarily became Devin-Adair, which released a posthumous 1955 edition of his book. Given his eminent journalistic credentials, Huddleston’s work on the Vichy period was reviewed in American periodicals, although in rather cursory and dismissive fashion, and I ordered a copy and read it.

I cannot attest to the correctness of Huddleston’s 350 page account of France during the war years and immediately after, but as a very distinguished journalist and longtime observer who was an eyewitness to the events he describes, writing at a time when the official historical narrative had not yet hardened into concrete, I do think that his views should be taken quite seriously. Huddleston’s personal circle certainly extended quite high, with former U.S. Ambassador William Bullitt being one of his oldest friends. And without doubt Huddleston’s presentation is radically different from the conventional story I had always heard.

As Huddleston describes things, the French army collapsed in May of 1940, and the government desperately recalled Petain, then in his mid-80s and the country’s greatest war hero, from his posting as the Ambassador to Spain. Soon he was asked by the French President to form a new government and arrange an armistice with the victorious Germans, and this proposal received near-unanimous support from France’s National Assembly and Senate, including the backing of virtually all the leftist parliamentarians. Petain achieved this result, and another near-unanimous vote of the French parliament then authorized him to negotiate a full peace treaty with Germany, which certainly placed his political actions on the strongest possible legal basis. At that point, almost everyone in Europe believed that the war was essentially over, with Britain soon to make peace.

While Petain’s fully-legitimate French government was negotiating with Germany, a small number of diehards, including Col. Charles de Gaulle, deserted from the army and fled abroad, declaring that they intended to continue the war indefinitely, but they initially attracted minimal support or attention. One interesting aspect of the situation was that De Gaulle had long been one of Petain’s leading proteges, and once his political profile began rising a couple of years later, there were often quiet speculations that he and his old mentor had arranged a “division of labor,” with the one making an official peace with the Germans while the other left to become the center of overseas resistance in the uncertain event that different opportunities arose.

Although Petain’s new French government guaranteed that its powerful navy would never be used against the British, Churchill took no chances, and quickly launched an attack on the fleet of its erstwhile ally, whose ships were already disarmed and helplessly moored in port, sinking most of them, and killing up to 2,000 Frenchmen in the process. This incident was not entirely dissimilar to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor the following year, and rankled the French for many years to come.

Huddleston then spends much of the book discussing the complex French politics of the next few years, as the war unexpectedly continued, with Russia and America eventually joining the Allied cause, greatly raising the odds against a German victory. During this period, the French political and military leadership performed a difficult balancing act, resisting German demands on some points and acquiescing to them on others, while the internal Resistance movement gradually grew, attacking German soldiers and provoking harsh German reprisals. Given my lack of expertise, I cannot really judge the accuracy of his political narrative, but it seems quite realistic and plausible to me, though specialists might surely find fault.

However, the most remarkable claims in Huddleston’s book come towards the end, as he describes what eventually became known as “the Liberation of France” during 1944-45 when the retreating German forces abandoned the country and pulled back to their own borders. Among other things, he suggests that the number of Frenchmen claiming “Resistance” credentials grew as much as a hundred-fold once the Germans had left and there was no longer any risk in adopting that position.

And at that point, enormous bloodshed soon began, by far the worst wave of extra-judicial killings in all of French history. Most historians agree that around 20,000 lives were lost in the notorious “Reign of Terror” during the French Revolution and perhaps 18,000 died during the Paris Commune of 1870-71 and its brutal suppression. But according to Huddleston the American leaders estimated there were at least 80,000 “summary executions” in just the first few months after Liberation, while the Socialist Deputy who served as Interior Minister in March 1945 and would have been in the best position to know, informed De Gaulle’s representatives that 105,000 killings had taken place just from August 1944 to March 1945, a figure that was widely quoted in public circles at the time.

Since a large fraction of the entire French population had spent years behaving in ways that now suddenly might be considered “collaborationist,” enormous numbers of people were vulnerable, even at risk of death, and they sometimes sought to save their own lives by denouncing their acquaintances or neighbors. Underground Communists had long been a major element of the Resistance, and many of them eagerly retaliated against their hated “class enemies,” while numerous individuals took the opportunity to settle private scores. Another factor was that many of the Communists who had fought in the Spanish Civil War, including thousands of the members of the International Brigades, had fled to France after their military defeat in 1938, and now often took the lead in enacting vengeance against the same sort of conservative forces who had previously vanquished them in their own country.

Although Huddleston himself was an elderly, quite distinguished international journalist with very highly placed American friends, and he had performed some minor services on behalf of the Resistance leadership, he and his wife narrowly escaped summary execution during that period, and he provides a collection of the numerous stories he heard of less fortunate victims. But what appears to have been by far the worst sectarian bloodshed in French history has been soothingly rechristened “the Liberation” and almost entirely removed from our historical memory, except for the famously shaved heads of a few disgraced women. These days Wikipedia constitutes the congealed distillation of our Official Truth, and its entry on those events puts the death toll at barely one-tenth the figures quoted by Huddleston, but I find him a far more credible source.

We may easily imagine that some prominent and highly-regarded individual at the peak of his career and public influence might suddenly take leave of his senses and begin promoting eccentric and erroneous theories, thereby ensuring his downfall. Under such circumstances, his claims may be treated with great skepticism and perhaps simply disregarded.

But when the number of such very reputable yet contrary voices becomes sufficiently large and the claims they make seem generally consistent with each other, we can no longer casually dismiss their critiques. Their committed stance on these controversial matters had proved fatal to their continued public standing, and although they must have recognized these likely consequences, they nonetheless followed that path, even going to the trouble of writing lengthy books presenting their views, and seeking out some publisher somewhere who was willing to release these.

John T. Flynn, Harry Elmer Barnes, Charles Beard, William Henry Chamberlin, Russell Grenfell, Sisley Huddleston, and numerous other scholars and journalists of the highest caliber and reputation all told a rather consistent story of the Second World War but one at total variance with that of today’s established narrative, and they did so at the cost of destroying their careers. A decade or two later, renowned historian A.J.P. Taylor reaffirmed this same basic narrative, and was purged from Oxford as a consequence. I find it very difficult to explain the behavior of all these individuals unless they were presenting a truthful account.

If a ruling political establishment and its media organs offer lavish rewards of funding, promotion, and public acclaim to those who endorse its party-line propaganda while casting into outer darkness those who dissent, the pronouncements of the former should be viewed with considerable suspicion. Barnes popularized the phrase “court historians” to describe these disingenuous and opportunistic individuals who follow the prevailing political winds, and our present-day media outlets are certainly replete with such types.

 

A climate of serious intellectual repression greatly complicates our ability to uncover the events of the past. Under normal circumstances, competing claims can be weighed in the give-and-take of public or scholarly debate, but this obviously becomes impossible if the subjects being discussed are forbidden ones. Moreover, writers of history are human beings, and if they have been purged from their prestigious positions, blacklisted from public venues, and even cast into poverty, we should hardly be surprised if they sometimes grow angry and bitter at their fate, perhaps reacting in ways that their enemies may later use to attack their credibility.

A.J.P. Taylor lost his Oxford post for publishing his honest analysis of the origins of World War II, but his enormous previous stature and the widespread acclaim his book had received seemed to protect him from further damage, and the work itself soon became recognized as a great classic, remaining permanently in print and later gracing the required reading lists of our most elite universities. However, others who delved into those same troubled waters were much less fortunate.

The same year that Taylor’s book appeared so did a work covering much the same ground by a fledgling scholar named David L. Hoggan. Hoggan had earned his 1948 Ph.D. in diplomatic history at Harvard under Prof. William Langer, one of the towering figures in that field, and his maiden work The Forced War was a direct outgrowth of his doctoral dissertation. While Taylor’s book was fairly short and mostly based upon public sources and some British documents, Hoggan’s volume was exceptionally long and detailed, running nearly 350,000 words including references, and drew upon his many years of painstaking research in the newly available governmental archives of Poland and Germany. Although the two historians were fully in accord that Hitler had certainly not intended the outbreak of World War II, Hoggan argued that various powerful individuals within the British government had deliberately worked to provoke the conflict, thereby forcing the war upon Hitler’s Germany just as his title suggested.

Given the highly controversial nature of Hoggan’s conclusions and his lack of previous scholarly accomplishments, his huge work only appeared in a German edition, where it quickly became a hotly-debated bestseller in that language. As a junior academic, Hoggan was quite vulnerable to the enormous pressure and opprobrium he surely must have faced. He seems to have quarreled with Barnes, his revisionist mentor, while his hopes of arranging an English language edition via a small American publisher soon dissipated. Perhaps as a consequence, the embattled young scholar later suffered a series of nervous breakdowns, and by the end of the 1960s he had resigned his position at San Francisco State College, the last serious academic position he was ever to hold. He subsequently earned his living as a research fellow at a small libertarian thinktank, and after it folded taught at a local junior college, hardly the expected professional trajectory of someone who had begun with such auspicious Harvard credentials.

In 1984 an English version of his major work was finally about to be released when the facilities of its small revisionist publisher in the Los Angeles area were fire-bombed and totally destroyed by Jewish militants, thus obliterating the plates and all existing stock. Living in total obscurity, Hoggan himself died of a heart-attack in 1988, aged 65, and the following year an English version of his work finally appeared, nearly three decades after originally produced, with the scarce surviving copies today being extremely rare and costly. However, a PDF version lacking all footnotes is available on the Internet, and I have now added Hoggan’s volume to my collection of HTML Books, finally making it conveniently available to a broader audience almost six decades after it was completed.

I only recently discovered Hoggan’s opus, and found it exceptionally detailed and comprehensive, though rather dry. I read through the first hundred pages or so, plus a few selections here and there, just a small portion of the 700 pages, but enough to develop a sense of the material.

The short 1989 introduction by the publisher characterizes it as a uniquely comprehensive treatment of the ideological and diplomatic circumstances surrounding the outbreak of the war, and that seems an accurate appraisal, one which may even still hold true today. For example, the first chapter provides a remarkably detailed description of the several conflicting ideological currents of Polish nationalism during the century or so prior to 1939, a very specialized topic that I had never encountered anywhere else nor found of huge interest.

Despite its long suppression, under many circumstances such an exhaustive work based upon many years of archival research might constitute the foundational research for subsequent historians, and indeed various recent revisionist authors have relied upon Hoggan in exactly that manner. But unfortunately there are some serious concerns. Just as we might expect, the overwhelming majority of the discussion of Hoggan found on the Internet is hostile and insulting, and for obvious reasons this might normally be dismissed. However, Gary North, himself a prominent revisionist who personally knew Hoggan, has been equally critical, portraying him as biased, factually unreliable, and even dishonest.

My own sense is that the overwhelming majority of Hoggan’s material is likely correct and accurate, though we might dispute his interpretations. However, given such serious accusations, we should probably treat all his claims with some caution, especially since it would take considerable archival investigation to verify most of his specific research findings. Indeed, since so much of Hoggan’s overall framework of events matches that of Taylor, I think we are far better off generally relying upon the latter.

 

Fortunately, these same concerns about accuracy can be entirely dismissed in the case of a far more important writer, and one whose voluminous output easily eclipses that of Hoggan or almost any other historian of World War II. As I described David Irving last year:

With many millions of his books in print, including a string of best-sellers translated into numerous languages, it’s quite possible that the eighty-year-old Irving today ranks as the most internationally-successful British historian of the last one hundred years. Although I myself have merely read a couple of his shorter works, I found these absolutely outstanding, with Irving regularly deploying his remarkable command of the primary source documentary evidence to totally demolish my naive History 101 understanding of major historical events. It would hardly surprise me if the huge corpus of his writings eventually constitutes a central pillar upon which future historians seek to comprehend the catastrophically bloody middle years of our hugely destructive twentieth century even after most of our other chroniclers of that era are long forgotten.

When confronted with astonishing claims that completely overturn an established historical narrative, considerable skepticism is warranted, and my own lack of specialized expertise in World War II history left me especially cautious. The documents Irving unearths seemingly portray a Winston Churchill so radically different from that of my naive understanding as to be almost unrecognizable, and this naturally raised the question of whether I could credit the accuracy of Irving’s evidence and his interpretation. All his material is massively footnoted, referencing copious documents in numerous official archives, but how could I possibly muster the time or energy to verify them?

Rather ironically, an extremely unfortunate turn of events seems to have fully resolved that crucial question.

Irving is an individual of uncommonly strong scholarly integrity, and as such he is unable to see things in the record that do not exist, even if it were in his considerable interest to do so, nor to fabricate non-existent evidence. Therefore, his unwillingness to dissemble or pay lip-service to various widely-worshiped cultural totems eventually provoked an outpouring of vilification by a swarm of ideological fanatics drawn from a particular ethnic persuasion. This situation was rather similar to the troubles my old Harvard professor E.O. Wilson had experienced around that same time upon publication of his own masterwork Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, the book that helped launch the field of modern human evolutionary psychobiology.

These zealous ethnic-activists began a coordinated campaign to pressure Irving’s prestigious publishers into dropping his books, while also disrupting his frequent international speaking tours and even lobbying countries to bar him from entry. They also maintained a drumbeat of media vilification, continually blackening his name and his research skills, even going so far as to denounce him as a “Nazi” and a “Hitler-lover,” just as had similarly been done in the case of Prof. Wilson.

During the 1980s and 1990s, these determined efforts, sometimes backed by considerable physical violence, increasingly bore fruit, and Irving’s career was severely impacted. He had once been feted by the world’s leading publishing houses and his books serialized and reviewed in Britain’s most august newspapers; now he gradually became a marginalized figure, almost a pariah, with enormous damage to his sources of income.

In 1993, Deborah Lipstadt, a rather ignorant and fanatic professor of Theology and Holocaust Studies (or perhaps “Holocaust Theology”) ferociously attacked him in her book as being a “Holocaust Denier,” leading Irving’s timorous publisher to suddenly cancel the contract for his major new historical volume. This development eventually sparked a rancorous lawsuit in 1998, which resulted in a celebrated 2000 libel trial held in British Court.

That legal battle was certainly a David-and-Goliath affair, with wealthy Jewish movie producers and corporate executives providing a huge war-chest of $13 million to Lipstadt’s side, allowing her to fund a veritable army of 40 researchers and legal experts, captained by one of Britain’s most successful Jewish divorce lawyers. By contrast, Irving, being an impecunious historian, was forced to defend himself without benefit of legal counsel.

In real life unlike in fable, the Goliaths of this world are almost invariably triumphant, and this case was no exception, with Irving being driven into personal bankruptcy, resulting in the loss of his fine central London home. But seen from the longer perspective of history, I think the victory of his tormenters was a remarkably Pyrrhic one.

Although the target of their unleashed hatred was Irving’s alleged “Holocaust denial,” as near as I can tell, that particular topic was almost entirely absent from all of Irving’s dozens of books, and exactly that very silence was what had provoked their spittle-flecked outrage. Therefore, lacking such a clear target, their lavishly-funded corps of researchers and fact-checkers instead spent a year or more apparently performing a line-by-line and footnote-by-footnote review of everything Irving had ever published, seeking to locate every single historical error that could possibly cast him in a bad professional light. With almost limitless money and manpower, they even utilized the process of legal discovery to subpoena and read the thousands of pages in his bound personal diaries and correspondence, thereby hoping to find some evidence of his “wicked thoughts.” Denial, a 2016 Hollywood film co-written by Lipstadt, may provide a reasonable outline of the sequence of events as seen from her perspective.

Yet despite such massive financial and human resources, they apparently came up almost entirely empty, at least if Lipstadt’s triumphalist 2005 book History on Trial may be credited. Across four decades of research and writing, which had produced numerous controversial historical claims of the most astonishing nature, they only managed to find a couple of dozen rather minor alleged errors of fact or interpretation, most of these ambiguous or disputed. And the worst they discovered after reading every page of the many linear meters of Irving’s personal diaries was that he had once composed a short “racially insensitive” ditty for his infant daughter, a trivial item which they naturally then trumpeted as proof that he was a “racist.” Thus, they seemingly admitted that Irving’s enormous corpus of historical texts was perhaps 99.9% accurate.

I think this silence of “the dog that didn’t bark” echoes with thunderclap volume. I’m not aware of any other academic scholar in the entire history of the world who has had all his decades of lifetime work subjected to such painstakingly exhaustive hostile scrutiny. And since Irving apparently passed that test with such flying colors, I think we can regard almost every astonishing claim in all of his books—as recapitulated in his videos—as absolutely accurate.

 

A few years ago I had read two of Irving’s shorter works, Nuremberg: The Last Battle and The War Path, the latter discussing the events leading to the outbreak of the conflict and therefore mostly overlapping with Taylor’s history. Irving’s analysis seems quite similar to that of his eminent Oxford predecessor, while providing a wealth of meticulous documentary evidence to support that simple story first outlined two decades earlier. This concurrence hardly surprised me since multiple efforts to accurately describe the same historical reality are likely to be reasonably congruent, whereas dishonest propaganda may widely diverge in all sorts of different directions.

I recently decided to tackle one of Irving’s much longer works, the first volume of Churchill’s War, a classic text that runs some 300,000 words and covers the story of the legendary British prime minister to the eve of Barbarossa, and I found it just as outstanding as I had expected.

As one small indicator of Irving’s candor and knowledge, he repeatedly if briefly refers to the 1940 Allied plans to suddenly attack the USSR and destroy its Baku oilfields, an utterly disastrous proposal that surely would have lost the war if actually carried out. By contrast, the exceptionally embarrassing facts of Operation Pike have been totally excluded from virtually all later Western accounts of the conflict, leaving one to wonder which of our numerous professional historians are merely ignorant and which are guilty of lying by omission.

Until recently, my familiarity with Churchill had been rather cursory, and Irving’s revelations were absolutely eye-opening. Perhaps the most striking single discovery was the remarkable venality and corruption of the man, with Churchill being a huge spendthrift who lived lavishly and often far beyond his financial means, employing an army of dozens of personal servants at his large country estate despite frequently lacking any regular and assured sources of income to maintain them. This predicament naturally put him at the mercy of those individuals willing to support his sumptuous lifestyle in exchange for determining his political activities. And somewhat similar pecuniary means were used to secure the backing of a network of other political figures from across all the British parties, who became Churchill’s close political allies.

To put things in plain language, during the years leading up to the Second World War, both Churchill and numerous other fellow British MPs were regularly receiving sizable financial stipends—cash bribes—from Jewish and Czech sources in exchange for promoting a policy of extreme hostility toward the German government and actually advocating war. The sums involved were quite considerable, with the Czech government alone probably making payments that amounted to tens of millions of dollars in present-day money to British elected officials, publishers, and journalists working to overturn the official peace policy of their existing government. A particularly notable instance occurred in early 1938 when Churchill suddenly lost all his accumulated wealth in a foolish gamble on the American stock-market, and was soon forced to put his beloved country estate up for sale to avoid personal bankruptcy, only to quickly be bailed out by a foreign Jewish millionaire intent upon promoting a war against Germany. Indeed, the early stages of Churchill’s involvement in this sordid behavior are recounted in an Irving chapter aptly entitled “The Hired Help.”

Ironically enough, German Intelligence learned of this massive bribery of British parliamentarians, and passed the information along to Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who was horrified to discover the corrupt motives of his fierce political opponents, but apparently remained too much of a gentlemen to have them arrested and prosecuted. I’m no expert in the British laws of that era, but for elected officials to do the bidding of foreigners on matters of war and peace in exchange for huge secret payments seems almost a textbook example of treason to me, and I think that Churchill’s timely execution would surely have saved tens of millions of lives.

My impression is that individuals of low personal character are those most likely to sell out the interests of their own country in exchange for large sums of foreign money, and as such usually constitute the natural targets of nefarious plotters and foreign spies. Churchill certainly seems to fall into this category, with rumors of massive personal corruption swirling around him from early in his political career. Later, he supplemented his income by engaging in widespread art-forgery, a fact that Roosevelt later discovered and probably used as a point of personal leverage against him. Also quite serious was Churchill’s constant state of drunkenness, with his inebriation being so widespread as to constitute clinical alcoholism. Indeed, Irving notes that in his private conversations FDR routinely referred to Churchill as “a drunken bum.”

 

During the late 1930s, Churchill and his clique of similarly bought-and-paid-for political allies had endlessly attacked and denounced Chamberlain’s government for its peace policy, and he regularly made the wildest sort of unsubstantiated accusations, claiming the Germans were undertaking a huge military build-up aimed against Britain. These roiling charges were often widely echoed by a media heavily influenced by Jewish interests and did much to poison the state of German-British relations. Eventually, these accumulated pressures forced Chamberlain into the extremely unwise act of providing an unconditional guarantee of military backing to Poland’s irresponsible dictatorship. As a result, the Poles then rather arrogantly refused any border negotiations with Germany, thereby lighting the fuse which eventually led to the German invasion six months later and the subsequent British declaration of war. The British media had widely promoted Churchill as the leading pro-war political figure, and once Chamberlain was forced to create a wartime government of national unity, his leading critic was brought into it and given the naval affairs portfolio.

Following his lightening six-week defeat of Poland, Hitler unsuccessfully sought to make peace with the Allies, and the war went into abeyance. Then in early 1940, Churchill persuaded his government to try strategically outflanking the Germans by preparing a large sea-borne invasion of neutral Norway; but Hitler discovered the plan and preempted the attack, with Churchill’s severe operational mistakes leading to a surprising defeat for the vastly superior British forces. During World War I, Churchill’s Gallipoli disaster had forced his resignation from the British Cabinet, but this time the friendly media helped ensure that all the blame for the somewhat similar debacle at Narvik was foisted upon Chamberlain, so it was the latter who was forced to resign, with Churchill then replacing him as prime minister. British naval officers were appalled that the primary architect of their humiliation had become its leading political beneficiary, but reality is what the media reports, and the British public never discovered this great irony.

This incident was merely the first of the long series of Churchill’s major military failures and outright betrayals that are persuasively recounted by Irving, nearly all of which were subsequently airbrushed out of our hagiographic histories of the conflict. We should recognize that wartime leaders who spend much of their time in a state of drunken stupor are far less likely to make optimal decisions, especially if they are as extremely prone to military micro-management as was the case with Churchill.

In the spring of 1940, the Germans launched their sudden armored thrust into France via Belgium, and as the attack began to succeed, Churchill ordered the commanding British general to immediately flee with his forces to the coast and to do so without informing his French or Belgium counterparts of the huge gap he was thereby opening in the Allied front-lines, thus ensuring the encirclement and destruction of their armies. Following France’s resulting defeat and occupation, the British prime minister then ordered a sudden, surprise attack on the disarmed French fleet, completely destroying it and killing some 2,000 of his erstwhile allies; the immediate cause was his mistranslation of a single French word, but this “Pearl Harbor-type” incident continued to rankle French leaders for decades.

Hitler had always wanted friendly relations with Britain and certainly had sought to avoid the war that had been forced upon him. With France now defeated and British forces driven from the Continent, he therefore offered very magnanimous peace terms and a new German alliance to Britain. The British government had been pressured into entering the war for no logical reason and against its own national interests, so Chamberlain and half the Cabinet naturally supported commencing peace negotiations, and the German proposal probably would have received overwhelming approval both from the British public and political elites if they had ever been informed of its terms.

But despite some occasional wavering, Churchill remained absolutely adamant that the war must continue, and Irving plausibly argues that his motive was an intensely personal one. Across his long career, Churchill had had a remarkable record of repeated failure, and for him to have finally achieved his lifelong ambition of becoming prime minister only to lose a major war just weeks after reaching Number 10 Downing Street would have ensured that his permanent place in history was an extremely humiliating one. On the other hand, if he managed to continue the war, perhaps the situation might somehow later improve, especially if the Americans could be persuaded to eventually enter the conflict on the British side.

Since ending the war with Germany was in his nation’s interest but not his own, Churchill undertook ruthless means to prevent peace sentiments from growing so strong that they overwhelmed his opposition. Along with most other major countries, Britain and Germany had signed international conventions prohibiting the aerial bombardment of civilian urban targets, and although the British leader had very much hoped the Germans would attack his cities, Hitler scrupulously followed these provisions. In desperation, Churchill therefore ordered a series of large-scale bombing raids against the German capital of Berlin, doing considerable damage, and after numerous severe warnings, Hitler finally began to retaliate with similar attacks against British cities. The population saw the heavy destruction inflicted by these German bombing raids and was never informed of the British attacks that had preceded and provoked them, so public sentiment greatly hardened against making peace with the seemingly diabolical German adversary.

In his memoirs published a half-century later, Prof. Revilo P. Oliver, who had held a senior wartime role in American Military Intelligence, described this sequence of events in very bitter terms:

Great Britain, in violation of all the ethics of civilized warfare that had theretofore been respected by our race, and in treacherous violation of solemnly assumed diplomatic covenants about “open cities”, had secretly carried out intensive bombing of such open cities in Germany for the express purpose of killing enough unarmed and defenceless men and women to force the German government reluctantly to retaliate and bomb British cities and thus kill enough helpless British men, women, and children to generate among Englishmen enthusiasm for the insane war to which their government had committed them.

It is impossible to imagine a governmental act more vile and more depraved than contriving death and suffering for its own people — for the very citizens whom it was exhorting to “loyalty” — and I suspect that an act of such infamous and savage treason would have nauseated even Genghis Khan or Hulagu or Tamerlane, Oriental barbarians universally reprobated for their insane blood-lust. History, so far as I recall, does not record that they ever butchered their own women and children to facilitate lying propaganda….In 1944 members of British Military Intelligence took it for granted that after the war Marshal Sir Arthur Harris would be hanged or shot for high treason against the British people…

Churchill’s ruthless violation of the laws of war regarding urban aerial bombardment directly led to the destruction of many of Europe’s finest and most ancient cities. But perhaps influenced by his chronic drunkenness, he later sought to carry out even more horrifying war crimes and was only prevented from doing so by the dogged opposition of all his military and political subordinates.

Along with the laws prohibiting the bombing of cities, all nations had similarly agreed to ban the first use of poison gas, while stockpiling quantities for necessary retaliation. Since Germany was the world-leader in chemistry, the Nazis had produced the most lethal forms of new nerve gases, such as Tabun and Sarin, whose use might have easily resulted in major military victories on both the Eastern and Western fronts, but Hitler had scrupulously obeyed the international protocols that his nation had signed. However, late in the war during 1944 the relentless Allied bombardment of German cities led to the devastating retaliatory attacks of the V-1 flying bombs against London, and an outraged Churchill became adamant that German cities should be attacked with poison gas in counter-retaliation. If Churchill had gotten his way, many millions of British might soon have perished from German nerve gas counter-strikes. Around the same time, Churchill was also blocked in his proposal to bombard Germany with hundreds of thousands of deadly anthrax bombs, an operation that might have rendered much of Central and Western Europe uninhabitable for generations.

I found Irving’s revelations on all these matters absolutely astonishing, and was deeply grateful that Deborah Lipstadt and her army of diligent researchers had carefully investigated and seemingly confirmed the accuracy of virtually every single item.

The two existing volumes of Irving’s Churchill masterwork total well over 700,000 words, and reading them would obviously consume weeks of dedicated effort. Fortunately, Irving is also a riveting speaker and several of his extended lectures on the topic are available for viewing on BitChute after having been recently purged from YouTube:

 

I very recently reread Pat Buchanan’s 2008 book harshly condemning Churchill for his role in the cataclysmic world war and made an interesting discovery. Irving is surely among the most authoritative Churchill biographers, with his exhaustive documentary research being the source of so many new discoveries and his books selling in the millions. Yet Irving’s name never once appears either in Buchanan’s text or in his bibliography, though we may suspect that much of Irving’s material has been “laundered” through other, secondary Buchanan sources. Buchanan extensively cites A.J.P. Taylor, but makes no mention of Barnes, Flynn, or various other leading American academics and journalists who were purged for expressing contemporaneous views not so dissimilar from those of the author himself.

During the 1990s, Buchanan had ranked as one of America’s most prominent political figures, having an enormous media footprint in both print and television, and with his remarkably strong insurgent runs for the Republican presidential nomination in 1992 and 1996 cementing his national stature. But his numerous ideological foes worked tirelessly to undermine him, and by 2008 his continued presence as a pundit on the MSNBC cable channel was one of his last remaining footholds of major public prominence. He probably recognized that publishing a revisionist history of World War II might endanger his position, and believed that any direct association with purged and vilified figures such as Irving or Barnes would surely lead to his permanent banishment from all electronic media.

A decade ago I had been quite impressed by Buchanan’s history, but I had subsequently done a great deal of reading on that era and I found myself somewhat disappointed the second time through. Aside from its often breezy, rhetorical, and unscholarly tone, my sharpest criticisms were not with the controversial positions that he took, but with the other controversial topics and questions that he so carefully avoided.

Perhaps the most obvious of these is the question of the true origins of the war, which laid waste to much of Europe, killed perhaps fifty or sixty million, and gave rise to the subsequent Cold War era in which Communist regimes controlled half of the entire Eurasian world-continent. Taylor, Irving, and numerous others have thoroughly debunked the ridiculous mythology that the cause lay in Hitler’s mad desire for world conquest, but if the German dictator clearly bore only minor responsibility, was there indeed any true culprit? Or did this massively-destructive world war come about in somewhat similar fashion to its predecessor, which our conventional histories treat as mostly due to a collection of blunders, misunderstandings, and thoughtless escalations.

During the 1930s, John T. Flynn was one of America’s most influential progressive journalists, and although he had begun as a strong supporter of Roosevelt and his New Deal, he gradually became a sharp critic, concluding that FDR’s various governmental schemes had failed to revive the American economy. Then in 1937 a new economic collapse spiked unemployment back to the same levels as when the president had first entered office, confirming Flynn in his harsh verdict. And as I wrote last year:

Indeed, Flynn alleges that by late 1937, FDR had turned towards an aggressive foreign policy aimed at involving the country in a major foreign war, primarily because he believed that this was the only route out of his desperate economic and political box, a stratagem not unknown among national leaders throughout history. In his January 5, 1938 New Republic column, he alerted his disbelieving readers to the looming prospect of a large naval military build-up and warfare on the horizon after a top Roosevelt adviser had privately boasted to him that a large bout of “military Keysianism” and a major war would cure the country’s seemingly insurmountable economic problems. At that time, war with Japan, possibly over Latin American interests, seemed the intended goal, but developing events in Europe soon persuaded FDR that fomenting a general war against Germany was the best course of action. Memoirs and other historical documents obtained by later researchers seem to generally support Flynn’s accusations by indicating that Roosevelt ordered his diplomats to exert enormous pressure upon both the British and Polish governments to avoid any negotiated settlement with Germany, thereby leading to the outbreak of World War II in 1939.

The last point is an important one since the confidential opinions of those closest to important historical events should be accorded considerable evidentiary weight. In a recent article John Wear mustered the numerous contemporaneous assessments that implicated FDR as a pivotal figure in orchestrating the world war by his constant pressure upon the British political leadership, a policy that he privately even admitted could mean his impeachment if revealed. Among other testimony, we have the statements of the Polish and British ambassadors to Washington and the American ambassador to London, who also passed along the concurring opinion of Prime Minister Chamberlain himself. Indeed, the German capture and publication of secret Polish diplomatic documents in 1939 had already revealed much of this information, and William Henry Chamberlin confirmed their authenticity in his 1950 book. But since the mainstream media never reported any of this information, these facts remain little known even today.

 

FDR seems to have played the crucial part in orchestrating the outbreak of World War II, greatly assisted by Churchill and his circle in Britain. But during 1939, the growing tensions over Danzig gave Stalin a tremendous strategic opening. Signing a pact with Hitler, the two of them soon jointly invaded Poland, but even as the Soviets seized half the territory, Britain and France declared war only upon Germany. And while Stalin then waited for the other European powers to exhaust each other, he began an offensive military build-up of unprecedented magnitude, soon having far more and better tanks than the rest of the world combined.

As I wrote earlier this year:

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.

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.

 

Although the primary focus of this discussion has been with regard to the European war, the circumstances of the Pacific conflict also seem to differ greatly from our official history. Japan had been fighting in China since 1937, but this is seldom regarded as the start of the world war. Instead, the December 7th, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor is usually considered the point at which the war became global.

From 1940 onward, FDR had been making a great political effort to directly involve America in the war against Germany, but public opinion was overwhelmingly on the other side, with polls showing that up to 80% of the population were opposed. All of this immediately changed once the Japanese bombs dropped on Hawaii, and suddenly the country was at war.

Given these facts, there were natural suspicions that Roosevelt had deliberately provoked the attack by his executive decisions to freeze Japanese assets, embargo all shipments of vital fuel oil supplies, and rebuff the repeated requests by Tokyo leaders for negotiations. In the 1953 volume edited by Barnes, noted diplomatic historian Charles Tansill summarized his very strong case that FDR sought to use a Japanese attack as his best “back door to war” against Germany, an argument he had made the previous year in a book of that same name. Over the decades, the information contained in private diaries and government documents seems to have almost conclusively established this interpretation, with Secretary of War Henry Stimson indicating that the plan was to “maneuver [Japan] into firing the first shot.” In his later memoirs, Prof. Oliver drew upon the intimate knowledge he had acquired during his wartime role in Military Intelligence to even claim that FDR had deliberately tricked the Japanese into believing he planned to launch a surprise attack against their forces, thereby persuading them to strike first in self-defense.

ORDER IT NOW

By 1941 the U.S. had broken all the Japanese diplomatic codes and was freely reading their secret communications. Therefore, there has also long existed the widespread if disputed belief that the president was well aware of the planned Japanese attack on our fleet and deliberately failed to warn his local commanders, thereby ensuring that the resulting heavy American losses would produce a vengeful nation united for war. Tansill and a former chief researcher for the Congressional investigating committee made this case in the same 1953 Barnes volume, and the following year a former US admiral published The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor, providing similar arguments at greater length. This book also included an introduction by one of America’s highest-ranking World War II naval commanders, who fully endorsed the controversial theory.

In 2000, journalist Robert M. Stinnett published a wealth of additional supporting evidence, based upon his eight years of archival research, which was discussed in a recent article. A telling point made by Stinnett is that if Washington had warned the Pearl Harbor commanders, their resulting defensive preparations would have been noticed by the local Japanese spies and relayed to the approaching task force; and with the element of surprise lost, the attack probably would have been aborted, thus frustrating all of FDR’s long-standing plans for war. Although various details may be disputed, I find the evidence for Roosevelt’s foreknowledge quite compelling.

 

Roosevelt’s economic problems had led him to seek a foreign war, but it was probably the overwhelming Jewish hostility to Nazi Germany that pointed him in that particular direction. The confidential report of the Polish ambassador to the U.S. as quoted by John Wear provides a striking description of the political situation in America at the beginning of 1939:

There is a feeling now prevalent in the United States marked by growing hatred of Fascism, and above all of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with National Socialism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100% [of the] radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible–above all religious persecution and concentration camps are exploited–this propaganda is nevertheless extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe.

At the present moment most Americans regard Chancellor Hitler and National Socialism as the greatest evil and greatest peril threatening the world. The situation here provides an excellent platform for public speakers of all kinds, for emigrants from Germany and Czechoslovakia who with a great many words and with most various calumnies incite the public. They praise American liberty which they contrast with the totalitarian states.

It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia is almost completely eliminated. Soviet Russia, if mentioned at all, is mentioned in a friendly manner and things are presented in such a way that it would seem that the Soviet Union were cooperating with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the clever propaganda the sympathies of the American public are completely on the side of Red Spain.

Given the heavy Jewish involvement in financing Churchill and his allies and also steering the American government and public in the direction of war against Germany, organized Jewish groups probably bore the central responsibility for provoking the world war, and this was surely recognized by most knowledgeable individuals at the time. Indeed, the Forrestal Diaries recorded the very telling statement by our ambassador in London: “Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the Jews had forced England into the war.”

The ongoing struggle between Hitler and international Jewry had been receiving considerable public attention for years. During his political rise, Hitler had hardly concealed his intent to dislodge Germany’s tiny 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 proposal that provoked the bitter hostility of Jews everywhere. Indeed, immediately after he came into office, a major London newspaper had carried a memorable 1933 headline announcing that the Jews of the world had declared war on Germany, and were organizing an international boycott to starve the Germans into submission.

In recent years, somewhat similar Jewish-organized efforts at international sanctions aimed at bringing recalcitrant nations to their knees have become a regular part of global politics. But these days the Jewish dominance of the U.S. political system has become so overwhelming that instead of private boycotts, such actions are directly enforced by the American government. To some extent, this had already been the case with Iraq during the 1990s, but became far more common after the turn of the new century.

Although our official government investigation concluded that the total financial cost of the 9/11 terrorist attacks had been an absolutely trivial sum, the Neocon-dominated Bush Administration nonetheless used this as an excuse to establish an important new Treasury Department position, the Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. That office soon began utilizing America’s control of the global banking system and dollar-denominated international trade to enforce financial sanctions and wage economic warfare, with these measures typically being directed against individuals, organizations, and nations considered unfriendly towards Israel, notably Iran, Hezbollah, and Syria.

Perhaps coincidentally, although Jews comprise merely 2% of the American population, all four individuals holding that very powerful post over the last 15 years since its inception—Stuart A. Levey, David S. Cohen, Adam Szubin, Sigal Mandelker—have been Jewish, with the most recent of these being an Israeli citizen. Levey, the first Under Secretary, began his work under President Bush, then continued without a break for years under President Obama, underscoring the entirely bipartisan nature of these activities.

Most foreign policy experts have certainly been aware that Jewish groups and activists played the central role in driving our country into its disastrous 2003 Iraq War, and that many of these same groups and individuals have spent the last dozen years or so working to foment a similar American attack on Iran, though as yet unsuccessfully. This seems quite reminiscent of the late 1930s political situation in Britain and America.

Individuals outraged by the misleading media coverage surrounding the Iraq War but who have always casually accepted the conventional narrative of World War II should consider a thought-experiment I suggested last year:

When we seek to understand the past, we must be careful to avoid drawing from a narrow selection of sources, especially if one side proved politically victorious in the end and completely dominated the later production of books and other commentary. Prior to the existence of the Internet, this was an especially difficult task, often requiring a considerable amount of scholarly effort, even if only to examine the bound volumes of once popular periodicals. Yet without such diligence, we can fall into very serious error.

The Iraq War and its aftermath was certainly one of the central events in American history during the 2000s. Yet suppose some readers in the distant future had only the collected archives of The Weekly Standard, National Review, the WSJ op-ed page, and FoxNews transcripts to furnish their understanding the history of that period, perhaps along with the books written by the contributors to those outlets. I doubt that more than a small fraction of what they would read could be categorized as outright lies. But the massively skewed coverage, the distortions, exaggerations, and especially the breathtaking omissions would surely provide them with an exceptionally unrealistic view of what had actually happened during that important period.

Another striking historical parallel has the fierce demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who provoked the great hostility of Jewish elements when he ousted the handful of Jewish Oligarchs who had seized control of Russian society under the drunken misrule of President Boris Yeltsin and totally impoverished the bulk of the population. This conflict intensified after Jewish investor William F. Browder arranged Congressional passage of the Magnitsky Act to punish Russian leaders for the legal actions they had taken against his huge financial empire in their country. Putin’s harshest Neocon critics have often condemned him as “a new Hitler” while some neutral observers have agreed that no foreign leader since the German Chancellor of the 1930s has been so fiercely vilified in the American media. Seen from a different angle, there may indeed be a close correspondence between Putin and Hitler, but not in the way usually suggested.

Knowledgeable individuals have certainly been aware of the crucial Jewish role in orchestrating our military or financial attacks against Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Russia, but it has been exceptionally rare for any prominent public figures or reputable journalists to mention these facts lest they be denounced and vilified by zealous Jewish activists and the media they dominate. For example, a couple of years ago a single suggestive Tweet by famed CIA anti-proliferation operative Valerie Plame provoked such an enormous wave of vituperation that she was forced to resign her position at a prominent non-profit. A close parallel involving a far more famous figure had occurred three generations earlier:

These facts, now firmly established by decades of scholarship, provide some necessary context to Lindbergh’s famously controversial speech at an America First rally in September 1941. At that event, he charged that three groups in particular were “pressing this country toward war[:] the British, the Jewish, and the Roosevelt Administration,” and thereby unleashed an enormous firestorm of media attacks and denunciations, including widespread accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazi sympathies. Given the realities of the political situation, Lindbergh’s statement constituted a perfect illustration of Michael Kinsley’s famous quip that “a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth – some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.” But as a consequence, Lindbergh’s once-heroic reputation suffered enormous and permanent damage, with the campaign of vilification echoing for the remaining three decades of his life, and even well beyond. Although he was not entirely purged from public life, his standing was certainly never even remotely the same.

 

With such examples in mind, we should hardly be surprised that for decades this huge Jewish involvement in orchestrating World War II was carefully omitted from nearly all subsequent historical narratives, even those that sharply challenged the mythology of the official account. The index of Taylor’s iconoclastic 1961 work contains absolutely no mention of Jews, and the same is true of the previous books by Chamberlin and Grenfell. In 1953, Harry Elmer Barnes, the dean of historical revisionists, edited his major volume aimed at demolishing the falsehoods of World War II, and once again any discussion of the Jewish role was almost entirely lacking, with only part of one single sentence and Chamberlain’s dangling short quote appearing across more than 200,000 words of text. Both Barnes and many of his contributors had already been purged and their book was only released by a tiny publisher in Idaho, but they still sought to avoid certain unmentionables.

Even the arch-revisionist David Hoggan seems to have carefully skirted the topic of Jewish influence. His 30 page index lacks any entry on Jews and his 700 pages of text contain only scattered references. Indeed, although he does quote the explicit private statements of both the Polish ambassador and the British Prime Minister emphasizing the enormous Jewish role in promoting the war, he then rather questionably asserts that these confidential statements of individuals with the best understanding of events should simply be disregarded.

In the popular Harry Potter series, Lord Voldemort, the great nemesis of the young magicians, is often identified as “He Who Must Not Be Named,” since the mere vocalization of those few particular syllables might bring doom upon the speaker. Jews have long enjoyed enormous power and influence over the media and political life, while fanatic Jewish activists demonstrate hair-trigger eagerness to denounce and vilify all those suspected of being insufficiently friendly towards their ethnic group. The combination of these two factors has therefore induced such a “Lord Voldemort Effect” regarding Jewish activities in most writers and public figures. Once we recognize this reality, we should become very cautious in analyzing controversial historical issues that might possibly contain a Jewish dimension, and also be particularly wary of arguments from silence.

Those writers willing to break this fearsome Jewish Taboo regarding World War II were quite rare, but one notable exception comes to mind. As I recently wrote:

Some years ago, I came across a totally obscure 1951 book entitled The Iron Curtain Over America by John Beaty, a well-regarded university professor. Beaty had spent his wartime years in Military Intelligence, being tasked with preparing the daily briefing reports distributed to all top American officials summarizing available intelligence information acquired during the previous 24 hours, which was obviously a position of considerable responsibility.

As a zealous anti-Communist, he regarded much of America’s Jewish population as deeply implicated in subversive activity, therefore constituting a serious threat to traditional American freedoms. In particular, the growing Jewish stranglehold over publishing and the media was making it increasingly difficult for discordant views to reach the American people, with this regime of censorship constituting the “Iron Curtain” described in his title. He blamed Jewish interests for the totally unnecessary war with Hitler’s Germany, which had long sought good relations with America, but instead had suffered total destruction for its strong opposition to Europe’s Jewish-backed Communist menace.

Then as now, a book taking such controversial positions stood little chance of finding a mainstream New York publisher, but it was soon released by a small Dallas firm, and then became enormously successful, going through some seventeen printings over the next few years. According to Scott McConnell, founding editor of The American Conservative, Beaty’s book became the second most popular conservative text of the 1950s, ranking only behind Russell Kirk’s iconic classic, The Conservative Mind.

Books by unknown authors that are released by tiny publishers rarely sell many copies, but the work came to the attention of George E. Stratemeyer, a retired general who had been one of Douglas MacArthur’s commanders, and he wrote Beaty a letter of endorsement. Beaty began including that letter in his promotional materials, drawing the ire of the ADL, whose national chairman contacted Stratemeyer, demanding that he repudiate the book, which was described as a “primer for lunatic fringe groups” all across America. Instead, Stratemeyer delivered a blistering reply to the ADL, denouncing it for making “veiled threats” against “free expression and thoughts” and trying to establish Soviet-style repression in the United States. He declared that every “loyal citizen” should read The Iron Curtain Over America, whose pages finally revealed the truth about our national predicament, and he began actively promoting the book around the country while attacking the Jewish attempt to silence him. Numerous other top American generals and admirals soon joined Statemeyer in publicly endorsing the work, as did a couple of influential members of the U.S. Senate, leading to its enormous national sales.

In contrast to nearly all the other World War II narratives discussed above, whether orthodox or revisionist, the index of Beaty’s volume is absolutely overflowing with references to Jews and Jewish activities, containing dozens of separate entries and with the topic mentioned on a substantial fraction of all the pages in his fairly short book. I therefore suspect that any casual modern reader who encountered Beaty’s volume would be stunned and dismayed by such extremely pervasive material, and probably dismiss the author as being delusional and “Jew-obsessed;” but I think that Beaty’s treatment is probably the far more honest and realistic one. As I noted last year on a related matter:

…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.”

Beaty’s wartime role at the absolute nexus of American Intelligence certainly gave him a great deal of insight into the pattern of events, and the glowing endorsement of his account by many of our highest-ranking military commanders supports that conclusion. More recently, a decade of of archival research by Prof. Joseph Bendersky, a prominent mainstream historian, revealed that Beaty’s views were privately shared by many of our Military Intelligence professionals and top generals of the era, being quite widespread in such circles.

 

During the late 1960s, historians once again began focusing upon the central role of Jews in the world war. Indeed, over the last few decades, the bitter conflict between Nazi Germany and world Jewry has become such an overwhelming theme of our popular media that this element may be almost the only aspect of the World War II era that is known to many younger Americans. But the true history is actually far more complex than the simple cartoon that Hitler was bad and he hated the Jews because they were good.

ORDER IT NOW

Among other matters, there exists the historical reality of the important Nazi-Zionist economic partnership of the 1930s, which played such a crucial role in establishing the State of Israel. Although these facts are thoroughly documented and even received some major media coverage during the 1980s, notably by the august Times of London, in recent decades the story has been so massively suppressed that a couple of years ago a prominent leftist politician was driven out of the British Labour Party merely for alluding to it. David Irving also uncovered the fascinating detail that the two largest German financial donors to the Nazis during their rise to power were both Jewish bankers, one of them being the country’s most prominent Zionist leader, though the motives involved were not entirely clear.

ORDER IT NOW

Another obscured fact is that some 150,000 half- and quarter-Jews served loyally in Hitler’s World War II armies, mostly as combat officers, and these included at least 15 half-Jewish generals and admirals, with another dozen quarter-Jews holding those same high ranks. The most notable example was Field Marshal Erhard Milch, Hermann Goering’s powerful second-in-command, who played such an important operational role in creating the Luftwaffe. Milch certainly had a Jewish father, and according to some much less substantiated claims, perhaps even a Jewish mother as well, while his sister was married to an SS general.

Meanwhile, although our heavily Jewish-dominated media regularly presents Hitler as the most evil man who ever lived, many of his prominent contemporaries seem to have held a very different opinion. As I recently wrote:

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.

I discovered a particular example of such missing perspectives earlier this year when I decided to read The Prize, Daniel Yergin’s magisterial and Pulitzer Prize-winning 1991 history of the world oil industry, and came across a few surprising paragraphs buried deep within the 900 pages of dense text. Yergin explained that during the mid-1930s the imperious chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, who had spent decades at the absolute summit of the British business world, became greatly enamored of Hitler and his Nazi government. He believed that an Anglo-German alliance was the best means of maintaining European peace and protecting the continent from the Soviet menace, and even retired to Germany in accordance with his new sympathies.

Since the actual history of this era has been so thoroughly replaced by extreme propaganda, academic specialists who closely investigate particular topics sometimes encounter puzzling anomalies. For example, a bit of very casual Googling brought to my attention an interesting article by a leading biographer of famed Jewish modernist writer Gertrude Stein, who seemed totally mystified why her feminist icon seemed to have been a major admirer of Hitler and an enthusiastic supporter of the pro-German Vichy government of France. The author also notes that Stein was hardly alone in her sentiments, which were generally shared by so many of the leading writers and philosophers of that period.

There is also the very interesting but far less well documented case of Lawrence of Arabia, one of the greatest British military heroes to come out of the First World War and who may have been moving in a rather similar direction just before his 1935 death in a possibly suspicious motorcycle accident. An alleged account of his evolving political views seems extremely detailed and perhaps worth investigating, with the original having been scrubbed from the Internet but still available at Archive.org.

A couple of years ago, the 1945 diary of a 28-year-old John F. Kennedy travelling in post-war Europe was sold at auction, and the contents revealed his rather favorable fascination with Hitler. The youthful JFK predicted that “Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived” and felt that “He had in him the stuff of which legends are made.” These sentiments are particularly notable for having been expressed just after the end of a brutal war against Germany and despite the tremendous volume of hostile propaganda that had accompanied it.

The political enthusiasms of literary intellectuals, young writers, or even elderly businessmen are hardly the most reliable sources by which to evaluate a particular regime. But earlier this year, I pointed to a fairly comprehensive appraisal of the origins and policies of National Socialist Germany by one of Britain’s most prominent historians:

Not long ago, I came across a very interesting book written by Sir Arthur Bryant, an influential historian whose Wikipedia page describes him as the personal favorite of Winston Churchill and two other British prime ministers. He had worked on Unfinished Victory during the late 1930s, then somewhat modified it for publication in early 1940, a few months after the outbreak of World War II had considerably altered the political landscape. But not long afterward, the war became much more bitter and there was a harsh crackdown on discordant voices in British society, so Bryant became alarmed over what he had written and attempted to remove all existing copies from circulation. Therefore the only ones available for sale on Amazon are exorbitantly priced, but fortunately the work is also freely available at Archive.org.

Writing before the “official version” of historical events had been rigidly determined, Bryant describes Germany’s very difficult domestic situation between the two world wars, its problematic relationship with its tiny Jewish minority, and the circumstances behind the rise of Hitler, providing a very different perspective on these important events than what we usually read in our standard textbooks.

Among other surprising facts, he notes that although Jews were just 1% of the total population, even five years after Hitler had come to power and implemented various anti-Semitic policies, they still apparently owned “something like a third of the real property” in that country, with the great bulk of these vast holdings having been acquired from desperate, starving Germans in the terrible years of the early 1920s. Thus, much of Germany’s 99% German population had recently been dispossessed of the assets they had built up over generations…

Bryant also candidly notes the enormous Jewish presence in the leadership of the Communist movements that had temporarily seized power after World War I, both in major portions of Germany and in nearby Hungary. This was an ominous parallel to the overwhelmingly Jewish Bolsheviks who had gained control of Russia and then butchered or expelled that country’s traditional Russian and German ruling elites, and therefore a major source of Nazi fears.

Unlike so many of the other historians previously discussed, after the political climate changed Bryant assiduously worked to expunge his suddenly unfashionable views from the written record, and as a consequence went on to enjoy a long and successful career, topped by the accolades of a grateful British establishment. But I suspect that his long-suppressed 1940 volume, presenting a reasonably favorable view of Hitler and Nazi Germany, is probably more accurate and realistic than the many thousands of propaganda-drenched works by others that soon followed. I have now incorporated it into my HTML Books system, so those so interested can read it and decide for themselves.

 

For most present-day Americans, the primary image associated with Hitler and his German regime is the horrendous scale of the war-crimes that they supposedly committed during the global conflict that they are alleged to have unleashed. But in one of his lectures, Irving made the rather telling observation that the relative scale of such World War II crimes and especially their evidentiary base might not necessarily point in the direction of implicating the Germans.

Although Hollywood and those in its thrall have endlessly cited the findings of the Nuremberg Tribunals as the final word on Nazi barbarism, even a cursory examination of those proceedings raises enormous skepticism. As time passed, historians gradually acknowledged that some of the most shocking and lurid pieces of evidence used to secure worldwide condemnation of the defendants—the human lampshades and bars of soap, the shrunken heads—were entirely fraudulent. The Soviets were determined to prosecute the Nazis for the Katyn Forest massacre of the captured Polish officer corps even though the Western Allies were convinced that Stalin had actually been responsible, a belief eventually confirmed by Gorbachev and the newly-opened Soviet archives. If the Germans had actually done so many horrible things, one wonders why the prosecution would have bothered including such fabricated and false charges.

And over the decades, considerable evidence has accumulated that the Gas Chambers and the Jewish Holocaust—the central elements of today’s Nazi “Black Legend”—were just as fictional as all those other items. The Germans were notoriously meticulous record-keepers, embracing orderly bureaucracy like no other people, and nearly all their archives were captured at the end of the war. Under these circumstances, it seems rather odd that there are virtually no traces of the plans or directives associated with the monstrous crimes that their leadership supposedly ordered committed in such massively industrial fashion. Instead, the entirety of the evidence seems to consist of a tiny quantity of rather doubtful documentary material, the dubious interpretations of certain phrases, and various German confessions, often obtained under brutal torture.

Given his crucial wartime role in Military Intelligence, Beaty was particularly harsh in his denunciation of the proceedings, and the numerous top American generals who endorsed his book add considerably to the weight of his verdict:

He was scathing toward the Nuremberg Trials, which he described as a “major indelible blot” upon America and “a travesty of justice.” According to him, the proceedings were dominated by vengeful German Jews, many of whom engaged in falsification of testimony or even had criminal backgrounds. As a result, this “foul fiasco” merely taught Germans that “our government had no sense of justice.” Sen. Robert Taft, the Republican leader of the immediate postwar era took a very similar position, which later won him the praise of John F. Kennedy in Profiles in Courage. The fact that the chief Soviet prosecutor at Nuremberg had played the same role during the notorious Stalinist show trials of the late 1930s, during which numerous Old Bolsheviks confessed to all sorts of absurd and ridiculous things, hardly enhanced the credibility of the proceedings to many outside observers.

By contrast, Irving notes that if the Allies had instead been in the dock at Nuremberg, the evidence of their guilt would have been absolutely overwhelming. After all, it was Churchill who began the illegal terror-bombing of cities, a strategy deliberately intended to provoke German retaliation and which eventually led to the death of a million or more European civilians. Late in the war, military reversals had even persuaded the British leader to order similarly illegal poison gas attacks against German cities, along with the initiation of even more horrific biological warfare involving anthrax bombs. Irving located these signed directives in the British archives, although Churchill was later persuaded to countermand them before they were carried out. By contrast, German archival material demonstrates that Hitler had repeatedly ruled out any first use of such illegal weapons under any circumstances, even though Germany’s far deadlier arsenal might have turned the tide of the war in its favor.

Although long forgotten today, Freda Utley was a mid-century journalist of some prominence. Born an Englishwoman, she had married a Jewish Communist and moved to Soviet Russia, then fled to America after her husband fell in one of Stalin’s purges. Although hardly sympathetic to the defeated Nazis, she strongly shared Beaty’s view of the monstrous perversion of justice at Nuremberg and her first-hand account of the months spent in Occupied Germany is eye-opening in its description of the horrific suffering imposed upon the prostrate population even years after the end of the war. Moreover:

Her book also gives substantial coverage to the organized expulsions of ethnic Germans from Silesia, the Sudatenland, East Prussia, and various other parts of Central and Eastern Europe where they had peacefully lived for many centuries, with the total number of such expellees generally estimated at 13 to 15 million. Families were sometimes given as little as ten minutes to leave the homes in which they had resided for a century or more, then forced to march off on foot, sometimes for hundreds of miles, towards a distant land they had never seen, with their only possessions being what they could carry in their own hands. In some cases, any surviving menfolk were separated out and shipped off to slave-labor camps, thereby producing an exodus consisting solely of women, children, and the very elderly. All estimates were that at least a couple million perished along the way, from hunger, illness, or exposure.

These days we endlessly read painful discussions of the notorious “Trail of Tears” suffered by the Cherokees in the distant past of the early 19th century, but this rather similar 20th Century event was nearly a thousand-fold larger in size. Despite this huge discrepancy in magnitude and far greater distance in time, I would guess that the former event may command a thousand times the public awareness among ordinary Americans. If so, this would demonstrate that overwhelming media control can easily shift perceived reality by a factor of a million or more.

The population movement certainly seems to have represented the largest ethnic-cleansing in the history of the world, and if the Germany had ever done anything even remotely similar during its years of European victories and conquests, the visually-gripping scenes of such an enormous flood of desperate, trudging refugees would surely have become a centerpiece of numerous World War II movies of the last seventy years. But since nothing like that ever happened, Hollywood screenwriters lost a tremendous opportunity.

I think perhaps the most plausible explanation for the widespread promotion of a multitude of largely fictional German war-crimes at Nuremberg was to the camouflage and obscure the very real ones actually committed by the Allies.

 

Other related indicators may be found in the extreme tone of some of the American publications of the period, even those produced well before our country even entered the war. For example:

But as early as 1940, an American Jew named Theodore Kaufman became so enraged at what he regarded as Hitler’s mistreatment of German Jewry that he published a short book evocatively entitled Germany Must Perish!, in which he explicitly proposed the total extermination of the German people. And that book apparently received favorable if perhaps not entirely serious discussion in many of our most prestigious media outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Time Magazine.

Surely any such similar book published in Hitler’s Germany that advocated the extermination of all Jews or Slavs would have been a centerpiece at Nuremberg, and any newspaper reviewers who had treated it favorably would probably have stood in the dock for “crimes against humanity.”

Natalie Nickerson, 20, gazes at a skull — reportedly of a Japanese soldier — sent to her from New Guinea by her boyfriend serving in the Pacific. (May 22, 1944 issues of LIFE, p. 35).
Natalie Nickerson, 20, gazes at a skull — reportedly of a Japanese soldier — sent to her from New Guinea by her boyfriend serving in the Pacific. (May 22, 1944 issues of LIFE, p. 35).

Meanwhile, the terrible nature of the Pacific War fought in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor is suggested by a 1944 issue of Life magazine that carried the photo of a young American woman with the skull of a Japanese soldier her boyfriend had sent her as a war souvenir. If any Nazi magazines ever featured similar images, I doubt the Allies would have had any need to fabricate ridiculous stories of human lampshades or soap.

And remarkably enough, that grotesque scene actually provides a reasonably accurate indication of the savage atrocities that were regularly committed during the brutal fighting of the Pacific Theater. These unpleasant facts were fully set forth in War Without Mercy, an award-winning 1986 volume by eminent American historian John W. Dower that received glowing accolades by leading scholars and public intellectuals.

ORDER IT NOW

The unfortunate truth is that Americans typically massacred Japanese who sought to surrender or who had even already been taken as prisoners, with the result that only a small slice—during some years merely a tiny sliver—of Japanese troops defeated in battle ever survived. The traditional excuse publicly offered for the virtual absence of any Japanese POWs was that their Bushido code made surrender unthinkable, yet when the Soviets defeated Japanese armies in 1945, they had no difficulty capturing over a million prisoners. Indeed, since interrogating prisoners was important for intelligence purposes, late in the war U.S. commanders began offering rewards such as ice cream to their troops for bringing some surrendering Japanese in alive rather than killing them in the field.

American GIs also regularly committed remarkably savage atrocities. Dead or wounded Japanese frequently had their gold teeth knocked out and taken as war-booty, and their ears were often cut-off and kept as souvenirs, as was also sometimes the case with their skulls. Meanwhile, Dower notes the absence of any evidence suggesting similar behavior on the other side. The American media generally portrayed the Japanese as vermin fit for eradication, and numerous public statements by high-ranking American military leaders explicitly claimed that the bulk of the entire Japanese population would probably need to be exterminated in order to bring the war to a successful conclusion. Comparing such thoroughly-documented facts with the rather tenuous accusations usually leveled against Nazi political or military leaders is quite revealing.

 

During the late 1980s evidence of other deep wartime secrets suddenly came to light.

ORDER IT NOW

While visiting France during 1986 in preparation for an unrelated book, a Canadian writer named James Bacque stumbled upon clues suggesting that one of the most terrible secrets of post-war Germany had long remained completely hidden, and he soon embarked upon extensive research into the subject, finally publishing Other Losses in 1989. Based upon very considerable evidence, including government records, personal interviews, and recorded eyewitness testimony, he argued that after the end of the war, the Americans had starved to death as many as a million German POWs, seemingly as a deliberate act of policy, a war crime that would surely rank among the greatest in history.

For decades, Western propagandists had relentlessly barraged the Soviets with claims that they were keeping back a million or more “missing” German POWs as slave-laborers in their Gulag, while the Soviets had endlessly denied these accusations. According to Bacque, the Soviets had been telling the truth all along, and the missing soldiers had been among the enormous numbers who had fled westward near the end of the war, seeking what they assumed would be far better treatment at the hands of the advancing Anglo-American armies. But instead, they were denied all normal legal protections, and confined under horrible conditions where they rapidly perished of hunger, illness, and exposure.

Without attempting to summarize Bacque’s extensive accumulation of supporting material, a few of his factual elements are worth mentioning. At the close of hostilities, the American government employed circuitous legal reasoning to argue that the many millions of German troops that they had captured should not be considered “prisoners of war” and therefore were not covered by the provisions of the Geneva Convention. Soon afterward, attempts by the International Red Cross to provide food shipments to the enormous Allied prison camps were repeatedly rejected, and notices were posted throughout the nearby German towns and villages that any civilian who attempted to smuggle food to the desperate POWs might be shot on sight. These undeniable historical facts do seem to suggest certain dark possibilities.

Although initially released by an obscure publisher, Bacque’s book soon became a sensation and an international best-seller. He paints Gen. Dwight Eisenhower as the central culprit behind the tragedy, noting the far lower POW losses in areas outside his control, and suggests that as a highly ambitious “political general” of German-American ancestry, he may have been under intense pressure to demonstrate his “harshness” toward the defeated Wehrmacht foe.

Furthermore, once the Cold War ended and the Soviet Archives were open to scholars, their contents seem to have strongly validated Bacque’s thesis. He notes that although the archives do contain explicit evidence of such long-denied atrocities as Stalin’s Katyn Forest massacre of Poland’s officer corps, they show absolutely no signs of any million missing German POWs, who instead had very likely ended their lives in the starvation and illness of Eisenhower’s death camps. Bacque points out that the German government has issued severe legal threats against anyone seeking to investigate the likely sites of the mass graves that might hold the remains of those long-dead POWs, and in an updated edition, he also mentions Germany’s enactment of harsh new laws meting out heavy prison sentences to anyone who merely questions the official narrative of World War II.

ORDER IT NOW

Bacque’s discussion of the new evidence of the Kremlin archives constitutes a relatively small portion of his 1997 sequel, Crimes and Mercies, which centered around an even more explosive analysis, and also became an international best-seller.

As described above, first-hand observers of post-war Germany in 1947 and 1948 such as Gollanz and Utley, had directly reported on the horrific conditions they discovered, and stated that for years official food rations for the entire population had been comparable to that of the inmates of Nazi concentration camps and sometimes far lower, leading to the widespread malnutrition and illness they witnessed all around them. They also noted the destruction of most of Germany’s pre-war housing stock and the severe overcrowding produced by the influx of so many millions of pitiful ethnic German refugees expelled from other parts of Central and Eastern Europe. But these visitors lacked any access to solid population statistics, and could only speculate upon the enormous human death toll that hunger and illness had already inflicted, and which would surely continue if policies were not quickly changed.

Years of archival research by Bacque attempt to answer this question, and the conclusion he provides is certainly not a pleasant one. Both the Allied military government and the later German civilian authorities seem to have made a concerted effort to hide or obscure the true scale of the calamity visited upon German civilians during the years 1945-1950, and the official mortality statistics found in government reports are simply too fantastical to possibly be correct, although they became the basis for the subsequent histories of that period. Bacque notes that these figures suggest that the death rate during the terrible conditions of 1947, long remembered as the “Hunger Year” (Hungerjahr) and vividly described in Gollancz’s account, was actually lower than that of the prosperous Germany of the late 1960s. Furthermore, private reports by American officials, mortality rates from individual localities, and other strong evidence demonstrate that these long-accepted aggregate numbers were essentially fictional.

Instead, Bacque attempts to provide more realistic estimates based upon an examination of the population totals of the various German censuses together with the recorded influx of the huge number of German refugees. Based upon this simple analysis, he makes a reasonably strong case that the excess German deaths during that period amounted to at least around 10 million, and possibly many millions more. Furthermore, he provides substantial evidence that the starvation was either deliberate or at least enormously worsened by American government resistance to overseas food relief efforts. Perhaps these numbers should not be so totally surprising given that the official Morgenthau Plan had envisioned the elimination of around 20 million Germans, and as Bacque demonstrates, top American leaders quietly agreed to continue that policy in practice even while they renounced it in theory.

Assuming these numbers are even remotely correct, the implications are quite remarkable. The toll of the human catastrophe experienced in post-war Germany would certainly rank among the greatest in modern peacetime history, far exceeding the deaths that occurred during the Ukrainian Famine of the early 1930s and possibly even approaching the wholly unintentional losses during Mao’s Great Leap Forward of 1959-61. Furthermore, the post-war German losses would vastly outrank either of these other unfortunate events in percentage terms and this would remain true even if the Bacque’s estimates are considerably reduced. Yet I doubt if even a small fraction of one percent of Americans are today aware of this enormous human calamity. Presumably memories are much stronger in Germany itself, but given the growing legal crackdown on discordant views in that unfortunate country, I suspect that anyone who discusses the topic too energetically risks immediate imprisonment.

To a considerable extent, this historical ignorance has been heavily fostered by our governments, often using underhanded or even nefarious means. Just like in the old decaying USSR, much of the current political legitimacy of today’s American government and its various European vassal-states is founded upon a particular narrative history of World War II, and challenging that narrative might produce dire political consequences. Bacque credibly relates some of the apparent efforts to dissuade any major newspaper or magazine from running articles discussing the startling findings of his first book, thereby imposing a “blackout” aimed at absolutely minimizing any media coverage. Such measures seem to have been quite effective, since until eight or nine years ago, I’m not sure I had ever heard a word of these shocking ideas, and I have certainly never seen them seriously discussed in any of the numerous newspapers or magazines that I have carefully read over the last three decades.

Even illegal means were employed to hinder the efforts of this solitary, determined scholar. At times, Bacque’s phone-lines were tapped, his mail intercepted, and his research materials surreptitiously copied, while his access to some official archives was blocked. Some of the elderly eyewitnesses who personally corroborated his analysis received threatening notes and had their property vandalized.

In his Foreword to this 1997 book, De Zayas, the eminent international human rights attorney, praised Bacque’s ground-breaking research, and hoped that it would soon lead to a major scholarly debate aimed at reassessing the true facts of these historical events that had taken place a half-century earlier. But in his update to the 2007 edition, he expressed some outrage that no such discussion ever occurred, and instead the German government merely passed a series of harsh laws mandating prison sentences for anyone who substantially disputed the settled narrative of World War II and its immediate aftermath, perhaps by overly focusing on the suffering of German civilians.

Although both of Bacque’s books became international best-sellers, the near-complete absence of any secondary media coverage ensured that they never entered public awareness with anything more than a pinprick. Another important factor is the tremendously disproportionate reach of print and electronic media. A best-seller may be read by many tens of thousands of people, but a successful film might reach tens of millions, and so long as Hollywood churns out endless movies denouncing Germany’s atrocities but not a single one on the other side, the true facts of that history are hardly likely to gain much traction. I strongly suspect that far more people today believe in the real-life existence of Batman and Spiderman than are even aware of the Bacque Hypothesis.

 

Many of the elements presented above were drawn from my previous articles published over the last year or so, but I believe there is some value in providing this same material in unified form rather than only separately, even if the total length necessarily becomes quite considerable.

World War II dominates our twentieth century landscape like a colossus, and still casts huge shadows across our modern world. That global conflict has probably been the subject of far more sustained coverage, whether in print or electronic media, than any other event in human history. So if we encounter a small handful of highly anomalous items that seem to directly contradict such an ocean of enormously detailed and long-accepted information, there is a natural tendency to dismiss these few outliers as implausible or even delusional. But once the total number of such discordant seemingly yet well-documented elements becomes sufficiently large, we must take them more seriously, and perhaps eventually concede that most of them are probably correct. As was suggested in a quote widely if doubtfully attributed to Stalin, “Quantity has a quality all of its own.”

ORDER IT NOW

I am hardly the first individual to gradually become aware of this sweeping and cohesive counter-narrative of the Second World War, and a few months ago I happened to read Germany’s War, published in 2014 by amateur historian John Wear. Drawing from sources that substantially overlap with the ones I have discussed, his conclusions are reasonably similar to my own, but presented in a book length form that includes some 1,200 exact source references. So those interested in a much more detailed exposition of these same issues can read it and decide for themselves.

When intellectual freedom is under attack, challenging an officially enshrined mythology may become legally perilous. I have seen claims that thousands of individuals who hold heterodox opinions about various aspects of the history of World War II are today imprisoned across Europe on the basis of those beliefs. If so, that total is probably far higher than the number of ideological dissidents who had suffered a similar fate in the decaying Soviet Bloc countries of the 1980s.

 

World War II ended nearly three generations ago, and few of its adult survivors still walk the earth. From one perspective the true facts of that conflict and whether or not they actually contradict our traditional beliefs might appear rather irrelevant. Tearing down the statues of some long-dead historical figures and replacing them with the statues of others hardly seems of much practical value.

But if we gradually conclude that the story that all of us have been told during our entire lifetimes is substantially false and perhaps largely inverted, the implications for our understanding of the world are enormous. Most of the surprising material presented here is hardly hidden or kept under lock-and-key. Nearly all the books are easily available at Amazon or even freely readable on the Internet, many of the authors have received critical and scholarly acclaim, and in some cases their works have sold in the millions. Yet this important material has been almost entirely ignored or dismissed by the popular media that shapes the common beliefs of our society. So we must necessarily begin to wonder what other massive falsehoods may have been similarly promoted by that media, perhaps involving incidents of the recent past or even the present day. And those latter events do have enormous practical significance. As I pointed out several years ago in my original American Pravda article:

Aside from the evidence of our own senses, almost everything we know about the past or the news of today comes from bits of ink on paper or colored pixels on a screen, and fortunately over the last decade or two the growth of the Internet has vastly widened the range of information available to us in that latter category. Even if the overwhelming majority of the unorthodox claims provided by such non-traditional web-based sources is incorrect, at least there now exists the possibility of extracting vital nuggets of truth from vast mountains of falsehood.

We must also recognize that many of the fundamental ideas that dominate our present-day world were founded upon a particular understanding of that wartime history, and if there seems good reason to believe that narrative is substantially false, perhaps we should begin questioning the framework of beliefs erected upon it.

ORDER IT NOW

George Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War during the 1930s and discovered that the true facts in Spain were radically different from what he had been led to believe by the British media of his day. In 1948 these past experiences together with the rapidly congealing “official history” of the Second World War may have been uppermost in his mind when he published his classic novel 1984, which famously declared that “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”

Indeed, as I noted last year this observation has never been more true than when we consider some of the historical assumptions that govern the politics of today’s world, and the likelihood that they are entirely misleading:

Back in those late Cold War days, the death toll of innocent civilians from the Bolshevik Revolution and the first two decades of the Soviet Regime was generally reckoned at running well into the tens of millions when we include the casualties of the Russian Civil War, the government-induced famines, the Gulag, and the executions. I’ve heard that these numbers have been substantially revised downwards to perhaps as little as twenty million or so, but no matter. Although determined Soviet apologists may dispute such very large figures, they have always been part of the standard narrative history taught within the West.

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.

Both of these simple facts have been widely accepted in America throughout my entire lifetime. But combine them together with the relatively tiny size of worldwide Jewry, around 16 million prior to World War II, and the inescapable conclusion is that in per capita terms Jews were the greatest mass-murderers of the twentieth century, holding that unfortunate distinction by an enormous margin and with no other nationality coming even remotely close. And yet, by the astonishing alchemy of Hollywood, the greatest killers of the last one hundred years have somehow been transmuted into being seen as the greatest victims, a transformation so seemingly implausible that future generations will surely be left gasping in awe.

Today’s American Neocons are just as heavily Jewish as were the Bolsheviks of a hundred years ago, and they have greatly benefited from the political immunity provided by this totally bizarre inversion of historical reality. Partly as a consequence of their media-fabricated victimhood status, they have managed to seize control over much of our political system, especially our foreign policy, and have spent the last few years doing their utmost to foment an absolutely insane war with nuclear-armed Russia. If they do manage to achieve that unfortunate goal, they will surely outdo the very impressive human body-count racked up by their ethnic ancestors, perhaps even by an order-of-magnitude or more.

Related Reading:

 
The American Pravda Series
Hide 1461 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Oh hell ya, come home from a long day to a new 20k+ word in depth essay about the most misrepresented conflict in history by none other than Mr. Unz himself. Time for some cozy reading.

  2. Great article, thank you. The WWII legend is sacrosanct because it is the founding myth of the empire that replaced our republic, just as the Founders predicted would be the result of choosing sides in foreign conflicts. Is seems credible to think that FDR enabled Churchill’s blood lust because encouraging the seriously weakened British empire to finish committing suicide by engaging in another ground war in Europe would clear the way for the US to finally replace the hated mother country as the world’s great power- just as another faction of the Founders dreamed. The motto on our National Seal “Novus Ordo Seclorum” is quoted from Virgil’s Eclogues, where it is the prophecy of the Cumaean Sybil that Rome was destined to rule the world.

    Historian Murray Rothbard best described the impact of the war in this obituary he wrote for fellow popular historian Harry Elmer Barnes, “Our entry into World War II was the crucial act in foisting a permanent militarization upon the economy and society, in bringing to the country a permanent garrison state, an overweening military-industrial complex, a permanent system of conscription. It was the crucial act in expanding the United States from a republic into an Empire, and in spreading that Empire throughout the world, replacing the sagging British Empire in the process. It was the crucial act in creating a Mixed Economy run by Big Government, a system of State-Monopoly-Capitalism run by the central government in collaboration with Big Business and Big Unionism. It was the crucial act in elevating Presidential power, particularly in foreign affairs, to the role of single most despotic person in the history of the world. And, finally, World War II is the last war-myth left, the myth that the Old Left clings to in pure desperation: the myth that here, at least, was a good war, here was a war in which America was in the right. World War II is the war thrown into our faces by the war-making Establishment, as it tries, in each war that we face, to wrap itself in the mantle of good and righteous World War II.”

    • Replies: @Wally
  3. For those who lack the time to read these books, or even this great essay, here is a 13-minute video summary. For those shocked by this information, return and read this entire essay, then the books if you still fail to understand that history has been distorted.

  4. Thomm says:

    Ahh….we finally see the results of the Very Important Software Work(tm).

    (Standing Ovation)

  5. Mulegino1 says:

    “The Origins of the Second World War” is the indispensable primer for the canon of revisionist literature, with “1939: The War That Had Many Fathers: The Long Run Up to The Second World War” by Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof being the final and decisive nail in the coffin of the establishment narrative.

    In the question of war guilt, Germany was far more sinned against than sinning with respect to both world wars.

    There will, no doubt, continue to be a sea of recriminations and calumnies against those who insist against sole or overwhelmingly preponderant German guilt for both world conflicts- especially the latter- but these must be based upon vague generalities and vacuous propaganda and never upon discrete facts or scrupulous and objective historical investigation.

    The fact remains that it was not the Germans who bore sole- or even preponderant- guilt for the Second World War. It was the British War party, international Jewry and the more radical elements of the FDR administration who were the intellectual authors of the conflict, and the stubborn and chauvinistic regime of the Polish colonels who provided the convenient tripwire and catalyst for this greatest of all European conflagrations.

    The Soviets were the great opportunists waiting like vultures over what they envisioned would be a European war of attrition.

    No more bullshit from the Hitler- I mean the History Channel- please.

  6. Mr Unz began with:

    “Although Saddam Hussein clearly had no connection to the attacks, his status as a possible regional rival to Israel had established him as their top target, and they soon began beating the drums for war, with America finally launching its disastrous invasion in February 2003.”

    I agree that replacing a progressive Arab leader with an Anglo-American puppet government was an important factor, but the return of Iraqi oil fields to Anglo-American control was the main objective. Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Total, and British Petroleum are now the biggest producers of Iraqi oil.:

  7. anon[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Hmmm…. So it’s all down to Churhill and FDR. What about those nasty Zionists the UR commentariat love to blame?

    • Replies: @Bill
  8. Anonymous[236] • Disclaimer says:

    Question for any of the Historians of the WWII period around here: where did the Jews who were deported by the German government during WWII, who were not fit for labor,(i.e., children, eldery, and disabled) go? If the Germans were such “notoriously meticulous record-keepers, embracing orderly bureaucracy like no other people, and nearly all their archives were captured at the end of the war,” it stands to reason that there should be an easy answer to this question.

    • Replies: @Alta
    , @Wally
    , @yallerdumb
    , @Saggy
    , @sally
  9. Charles says:

    To sum up: history is written by the victors. In 1945, the victors were Communists, people whom today we would refer to as “NeoCons”, and Zionist Jews. They won; they wrote the history. All others are purged.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  10. zogborg says:

    The Asian side to World War II is overlooked but its outcome affects us today. China sided with Zionists to bring down Imperial Japan. Later during the Cold War, China, under a fake communist regime, sided with Zionists yet again to bring down USSR. That’s why I laugh at China being under attack now by said Zionists. Suck it up chinks, you made your bed, now sleep in it!

    • Replies: @Che Guava
    , @stevecel
  11. Franz says:

    Thank You to Mr. Unz for mentioning the long-forgotten hero of the America First Committee, John T. Flynn.

    His biography, by Michele Stenehjem Gerber, is called An American First: John T. Flynn and the America First Committee and has not yet been banned on Amazon:

    https://www.amazon.com/American-first-Flynn-America-Committee/dp/0870003399

    Nonetheless I read it years ago, and it confirmed my suspicion that Lillian Gish, pioneering film actress, was on a blacklist of some sort, and indeed she was. And this was years before her name was removed from a college building here in Ohio. It is short, not hard to read, less a full biography of Flynn than an interesting look at that filthy period in US history when non-interventionists were slimed as “isolationists” and had their reputations ruined. Or at least dinged quite a bit.

    From an Amazon review:

    …This book inspires the broadening of the America First discussion, making references to Lillian Gish, who proved she was blacklisted, Charlie Chaplin, whose The Great Dictator was itself attacked as propaganda, and the charges of anti-Semitism from some names not already researched, like Brooklyn Dodgers’ president Larry MacPhail, S. H. Hauk, Laura Ingalls, and Wilhelm Kunze of the German-American Bund (but still no Walt Disney).

  12. Riveting. Eye-opening. Brilliantly formulated. Ron Unz has tossed another reality grenade into the matrix of fabricated historiography.

    On behalf of the millions of mangled, murdered and maligned victims who receive no pity and who have no voice- Thank you, Ron Unz.

  13. Wally says: • Website

    Thank you, Ron, for your courageous efforts.
    Only lies require censorship.

    Excellent discussion on all of these issues and much more:

    WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum: https://forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=20
    WWII Asia / Pacific Theater Revisionist Forum: https://forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=26
    ‘Holocaust’ Debate / Controversies / Comments / News: https://forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=2

  14. An issue so often overlooked, yet it is known in precisely the media and politics circus. It is the masonic hand in the two wars.
    As National Socialists rightfully called it, it was a jewish-masonic-bolshevik conspiracy. German holoyhoax references dub this a typical “anti-semitic” thought. “Oy veh, the truth is anti-semitic!”

    Communists fly masonic symbols on their flags, and communism is Judaism according to Rabbi Stephen Wise, and I agree with this assertion from my own experience with communists.

    What amazes me so much, you got in US TV series about US masonic history, such as “Sleepy Hollow”. In there, they proudly refer to the masons as founders of the masonic USA. In a typically masonic manner that makes one puke.

    How come, masons never get the spotlight, similar to Jews, if they have done something bad? You only hear about masons if they did something “good” like charity.
    They are portrayed as a noble choir boy club that would never do harm, but this is far removed from the truth.

    To connect to the World wars, Masons had the assassination ordered, to ignite the powder keg, US, Britsh and French leaders have usually been masons, the french Grand Orient is a powerful actor of which Lenin was a member. It’s like a necessity to get some office to be mason. If you count 1+1, this connects to Epstein type of stuff, blackmail.

    • Replies: @Flint Clint
    , @Jake
  15. 4891 says:

    This is certainly a seminal work, compiling all your major discussions on WWII into one. But I’m curious with regards to your blanket dismissal of the accusations against David Irving, specifically of accusations of twisting sources. A quick search on Infogalactic found a book in the 90s by a John Lukacs, “The Hitler of History”, that essentially accuses Mr. Irving of, at best, interpreting sources in a creative way, a critique of him that goes back to the 70s. That said, this is the same John Lukacs who apparently smeared Pat Buchanan’s book, as mentioned earlier in this article, so I’m not sure how much I can trust such a critique. Perhaps we could have a thorough analysis of the accusations against Mr. Irving, or as near as is possible for someone with limited time available to them. Because while Mr. Irving’s books do interest me, I don’t like to be second guessing every single claim made in a book I read.

  16. Higgins says:

    Great article — apart from the usual pro-German, hence anti-Polish (or should that be anti-Polack?) American bias. Anyway, you’re getting warmer!

    Any American who really wants to understand the phenomenon of Judeo-America should first learn something about the equally taboo subject of Judeo-Polonia and the even more taboo subject of “Polish” Jewish collaboration with the invading Soviet forces in 1939. Even Irving doesn’t say much about this, perhaps because he doesn’t know Polish and has no access to untranslated sources (including Jewish sources).

    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=191642#comment-934919

  17. axel says:

    You might also include Gerd-Schultze Rhonhof’s “The War That Had Many Fathers”. (The German original is “Der Krieg, der viele Väter hatte”) and also Herbert Hoover’s magnum opus “Freedom Betrayed” edited by George Nash and published posthumously.

  18. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    Buchanan was planning to release a new book supposedly glorifying Adolf Hitler

    Any one who says any kind of truth about Hitler is immediately labeled as some fawning neo-Nazi anti-Semite type.
    Can’t have no sunlight peeping in on the canned WWII history most of the West has had shoved down their throats.

    We must be good Goyim and each day, faithfully watch at least one holocaust movie and spit and cuss against those nasty Nazis for at least two minutes, unless we want the ADL and the SPLC recording our IPA in their various databases which they then use to show Congress all the alleged anti-Semitic activity, then demand and receive, another huge funding increase, which they use to extend their reach so they can record more alleged anti-Semitic activity, which is recorded…and the beat goes on.

  19. Tom Welsh says:

    I went to Cambridge University in 1966 to study history. Two things I recall very distinctly: the powerful impression Taylor’s books made on me; and the very subtle but unmistakable deprecation my tutors and lecturers applied to him and his work.

    Taylor was certainly very talented, they said, but prone to “bees in his bonnet”; over-enthusiastic; sometimes unreliable.

    Looking back, I can see how very effective this treatment was. As a rebellious and iconoclastic 18-year-old, if I had been told that Taylor was wicked and wrong and I must ignore his books, I would have hurried to study them deeply. But since I was cleverly informed that he was just mildly eccentric and prone to unjustified speculation, I neglected him in order to concentrate on the many other writers we had to read.

  20. Most of the surprising material presented here is hardly hidden or kept under lock-and-key. Nearly all the books are easily available at Amazon or even freely readable on the Internet, many of the authors have received critical and scholarly acclaim, and in some cases their works have sold in the millions. Yet this important material has been almost entirely ignored or dismissed by the popular media that shapes the common beliefs of our society. So we must necessarily begin to wonder what other massive falsehoods may have been similarly promoted by that media, perhaps involving incidents of the recent past or even the present day. And those latter events do have enormous practical significance.

    Coincidentally enough, today the Guardian has published its own lengthy, soul-searching essay entitled, “Why can’t we agree on what’s true any more?”

    Being the Guardian, of course, their prescription is that people should make a more sincere effort to support the Reporters of Truth, such as the Guardian. In their retrograde Left vs Right world, it’s still up to the ‘goodthinkers’ to preserve our liberties from the Boris Johnsons and Donald Trumps of the world. Never in a million years would they entertain the possibility that Johnsons and Trumps come about because the Establishment–most certainly including its MSM lackeys–is corrupt to its core.

    As the Washington Post has it, “Democracy Dies in Darkness” — neglecting to add, “We supply the Darkness.”

  21. Wonderful stuff, Mr Unz.
    For a short, easy to read account of this topic, see my How Britain Initiated both world wars.
    http://www.amazon.com/Britain-Initiated-both-World-Wars/dp/1530993180

    • Agree: Mulegino1
    • Replies: @Miggle
  22. Tom67 says:

    I have read most of the revisionist literature (regarding the holocaust) on your website and found most of it either beyond my ken or else rather poorly sourced. There is something though that I know for 100% sure and it mitigates against the revisionists: starting even before the war and then continuing the German government started to exterminate all Germans they considered not worthy of further sustenance. That is severly physically or mentally handicapped children and the insane. At least a 100 000 children and adults were killed. Usually by injection but some also by being gassed. Although it was a government secret as this happened in Germany and to ethnic Germans the news inadvertedly spread and the practise was (officially but not entirely) abandoned after the Catholic Archbishop of Münster had publicly protested against it. So if gas was used in Germany to exterminate Germans it seems rather logical that it would be also used against Jews.
    Having said that I do agree that there are things that are rather spurious regarding the Holocaust. Specifically the numbers don´t seem to add up.
    One book in your archive stood out: The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry by
    WALTER N. SANNING: a book revising downward the number of Jews killed in Poland. A meticilously researched piece of scholarship about the demographics of Eastern European Jewry.
    Everything else I find rather doubtful. I have personally talked to several people who have survived the Holocaust and there is no doubt in my mind that to be a Jew in German dominated Europe amounted to a death sentence. That is not to say that the numbers haven´t been exaggerated. Just as the numbers of German vistims after the war have been downplayed. Alas, that has been the way since antiquity: the victor writes what is later regarded as “history”….

  23. Antares says:

    Very interesting but I have a small note. Not that it matters politically how they entered France, but World War 2 was Blitzkrieg.

    “In desperation, Churchill therefore ordered a series of large-scale bombing raids against the German capital of Berlin, doing considerable damage, and after numerous severe warnings, Hitler finally began to retaliate with similar attacks against British cities.” (RU)

    This makes me wonder when this happened and how the bombing of Rotterdam (may 14 1940) by the Nazis fits into the story chronologically.

    • Replies: @Alta
    , @tagaruda
  24. World War II I think really started, when Adolf Hitler inexcusably rolled into Prague on 15 March 1939, Adolf Hitler beginning to rule over non-German-speakers against their will … there is no explaining this away

    In that fateful March 1939 decision, Hitler showed himself to be another crass, lawless imperialist, either stupidly or intentionally inflaming and frightening the countries around him. This undermined and blocked the much more reasonable demand for German-speaking Danzig. ‘If Hitler had only restricted himself to consolidating Germans …’

    Going deeper into some rabbit holes, it seems there is an argument for Hitler himself having been a tool of some higher manipulative powers, with Hitler’s 1930s ‘economic miracle’ apparently in part the result of huge funds provided by both Wall Street and City of London financial sources … fattening up the Germans to be able to carry out a war, which the global oligarchy (Rothschilds etc?) apparently wanted to have

    The hidden agenda of World War 2, was perhaps to decimate the bravest male Europeans so thoroughly, and so enervate European society, that European warriors would never be able to successfully rise against the current international cabal of oppressors

  25. szopen says:

    Hitler’s final demand, that 95% German Danzig be returned to Germany

    For Darwin’s sake, that was not the last Hitler’s demand. He also demanded plebiscite in Pomerania with outrageous conditions. Writing “last demand was Danzig to return to Germany and it was reasonable”, then this discredits him as a historian and reveals his bias.

    • Replies: @iffen
  26. Very interesting article.

    A few weeks ago a German television channel showed a program with a selection of parts of private films made during the Nazi time that may be related to some themes mentioned in the article. I remember particularly three of the films. Some showed images of German cities before their destruction which was practically complete. I was really astonished how beautiful they were. It’s difficult to believe that they are the same cities that exist today.

    A second film showed Hamburg after the destruction. Everything was burnt, there were people lying on the streets, I think that they were young people. This was quite impressive.

    The third film was made from a window opposite to a big house or rather a palace. It seemed to be a nice place. The film showed a group of French officers coming out of the door of the palace, laughing or smiling. They explained that a large number of French officers had been arrested, but that they were very well treated and were allowed to go outside when they wanted and withoug any surveillance. All they had to do was to say that they would come back.

  27. Aft says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    The David Irving videos at the other link are phenomenal.

  28. Simply magnificent. Simply infuriating.

    It’s bone chilling to read this.

    It must be an enormous burden for Mr Unz to possess this knowledge.

    It feels demoralising to simply be the recipient of it – knowing full well the price of telling the truth, even now, even today.

    It’s not even the facts in and of themselves but how wrenchingly viciously opposite they are to what we’re forced to regurgitate.

    All those men, slaughtered at the feet of world Jewry, and then their fate inverted.

    It’s as Miles Mathis says – World War 2 was just part of the stolen century. Jewish monopoly and domination of all nodes of culture leading to total fabrications of almost all culture, all history, in every medium, in every form, all manipulated, all synthetic, all superficial. All these wars, fomented by the Jews, for Jewish profit, and all that suffering for Jewish benefit.

    As Unz has hinted and Miles Mathis has proven, this fabrication of World War 2 can also be seen with the Napoleonic Wars, the religious wars of Europe like the 30 years war, the Norman invasion, the Bronze age collapse. Probably Atlantis itself was destroyed by the Jews.

    Not only was the prelude to WW2 a lie, it seems many of the events themselves were as well. Photo evidence of seminal events is all ridiculously faked.

    Supplement Unz with Miles Mathis and with Vox Popoli.

    And they’re so close now to achieving a new October Revolution across the entire West and dissolving the European nations just as they genocided the Ukrainains and the Russians, the Hittites, and the Minoans, and the Canaanites, and the Philistines, and possibly the Myceneans in the Bronze Age collapse.

    No more brother wars. No white men are ever going to raise arms against each other for Jews ever again. And white men who are socialists and communists are subhuman, and aren’t men, or truly white, so that designation doesn’t apply.

    It’s incredibly sad to see how prescient Hillaire Belloc truly is.

    The next 10 years are going to be critical. I just hope the Jews and the Governors and the reality weavers don’t continue down this path they are taking the world. Because they think they will be able to survive the conflagration and they are wrong.

  29. @Tom67

    Can you source your claim? I’m not saying you’re wrong, because Hitler absolutely did do much wrong and the Nazi’s weren’t the good guys. But can you source your claim?

    And how is that any different to euthanasia and abortion?

    In the Netherlands today Theo Boer who resigned from their Regional Euthanasia Committees has whistle blown that in many postal codes of the Netherlands, over 25% of the deaths are now induced killings. People are exactly as you say, injected with a needle, and in some cases they are gassed using Dr Phillip Nietschke’s ‘SARCO’ gas chamber for the disabled to commit suicide.

    Hitler promoted child birth. World Jewry has conducted the murder of literally millions of unborn white children as the result of Jewish ideology pertaining to feminism, and Jewish lies regarding the science of the status of the unborn child.

    Without question, the Jewish eugenicists have far exceeded in blood anything the Nazi’s committed.

    Hitler promoted the family. Jewish communists want it destroyed totally, so that the deracinated traumatised and disassociated moorless and disoriented victims can be easily manipulated and exploited and blinded.

    • Replies: @Tom67
  30. @Germanicus

    Henry Makow gives the Freemasonic movement their spotlight.

    But as Hilaire Belloc stated – the Freemasons are Jewish. It is a Jewish creation, and fundamentally Jewish to the core.

    Just like Israel is coterminous with international Jewry, Freemasonry itself is coterimouns with the Jews.

    All of these secret societies in the end answer to the Jewish families who constitute the ancient banking families, the ancient Phoenecian Jewish nobility, and the Jew dominated Intelligence Directorates that can assassinate or extract from our system people like Jeffrey Epstein with absolute impunity. The people who can crash planes and crash currencies. They’re above the media Jews and cultural Jews.

    Ultimately, we are going to have to take control of our own money supply. It is that action and sentiment which is ruthlessly crushed more then anything else.

    Because that’s the core of the modern day Jewish Question.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  31. Typical Unzian goulash. It is good that he exposed Churchill’s lunacy & Eisenhower’s culpability (although I’m not sure for how many victims Eisenhower is to blame).

    Though, I’m not convinced at all that Japanese soldiers would have surrendered en masse from 41. to 45. The situation with Soviets is simply not derivable from their previous behavior.

    As for Hitler- no, he was much more ambitious & ruthless:

    Ron Unz seems to write in the following manner: Nazi empire was not 100% guilty for the outbreak of WW 2 (true)- therefore Nazis were almost blameless (false); Churchill & his cronies have much to be blamed for (true) -therefore, they’re almost completely guilty (false); Jews have magnified numbers of their WW 2 victims & some influential American Jewish figures like Morgenthau are repulsive & perhaps war criminals (true) – therefore, Jews suck & are to be blamed for many, if not most of Germany’s miseries during 1940s (false).

    Readers & followers of this site think, I guess, that Jews are collectively guilty of __ (type in your favorite obsession). This is the inversion of another lunatic idea: Germans are collectively guilty for WW 2 in Europe.

    Of course, both claims are nonsensical. Collective guilt does not exist.

  32. gotmituns says:

    Here’s the scoop on ww2. that pos, fdr (he set up Pearl Harbor attack) got us into it even though he knew the vast majority of Americans were against going to war in Europe. We lost every encounter we had with the German infantry without our overwhelming air and arty support (Africa, Sicily, Italy, Normandy, Holland, Bulge, Hurtgen Forest, etc. Then we did unspeakable things to the German people and their leadership all for the jews. There you have it – simple.

  33. @Charles

    To sum up: history is written by the victors

    WRONG, and it is an insult to the courageous and diligent efforts of people like David Irving, Ernst Zundel, A J P Taylor, Harry Elmer Barnes, Ron Unz to keep repeating that Bernaysian drivel.

    What the victors wrote re the 20th century world wars is not history, it is a continuation of propaganda.

    Historian Thomas Fleming (RIP) has argued that at least 50 years must pass before cool, objective history can be written; before that, recountings of the events are emotion-laden and agenda-driven.

    It is intellectually lazy and extremely dangerous to “sum up” by miming the victor’s 2 minutes of hate: you do their work for them.

    • Agree: ChuckOrloski
  34. @Brabantian

    World War II I think really started, when Adolf Hitler inexcusably rolled into Prague on 15 March 1939

    Erm nope, have you ever read the Munich agreement?
    Where is your outrage about Soviet airbases in Czechia? Soviet rule over non russian speakers? British rule over Norwegians? You basically say, the 4 biggest colonial powers US,UK, France and Soviet Union were basically the good guys, just for WWII, having conquered 2/3 of the planet and ruled the colonies with iron fist, starved millions deliberately to death etc… truly ridiculous.

    WWII began with the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand. WWI and WWII are one big war, with an intermediate economic warfare period, just like they do with Iran currently.

  35. PJ London says:

    “Atrocity propaganda is how we won the war. And we’re only really beginning with it now! We will continue this atrocity propaganda, we will escalate it until nobody will accept even a good word from the Germans, until all the sympathy they may still have abroad will have been destroyed and they themselves will be so confused that they will no longer know what they are doing. Once that has been achieved, once they begin to run down their own country and their own people, not reluctantly but with eagerness to please the victors, only then will our victory be complete. It will never be final. Re-education needs careful tending, like an English lawn. Even one moment of negligence, and the weeds crop up again – those indestructible weeds of historical truth.”
    — Sefton Delmer, 1904-1979, former British Chief of Black propaganda, said after the German surrender, in 1945, in a conversation with the German professor of international law, Dr. Friedrich Grimm

  36. SamMiller says:

    A remarkable article.

    Just finished reading Irving’s masterpiece “Hitler’s War” and Swedish journalist Stig Dagerman’s “German Autumn”. Both provide a profound view of those years that is so different than the ‘Hollywood history’ we’ve all been subjected to. Looking forward to Taylor, more Irving and Buchanon’s book.

    Hats off to Ron Unz for his research/writing/insights, the numerous links, his archives and esp this Review. It is very much appreciated.

    • Agree: Hail
  37. Miggle says:

    Ron, huge thanks.

    To me, mind-boggling. I used to think Churchill was the great man who had saved England. Now I know he was a fiend, and Hitler, friendly towards England, was doing his best for his own failed state.

    Incidentally, even before Hitler became Chancellor there were the SA and (in schools) the Hitler Youth who were assaulting opposition groups in the streets and schools, but that was the norm. Weimar Germany was a failed state, anarchy. Rosa Luxemburg was murdered by Berlin Police in 1919. Murdered by the police. Anarchy. And Hitler had the SS kill all the SA for a political reason, but again, perhaps, not out of the ordinary in a failed, anarchic state with the man at the top very busy working economic miracles.

    Prior to TV all political campaigning consisted of physical meetings, crowds drawn to a speaker, and in Weimar Germany the disputes tended to be physical.

    The Jew-baiting in Hitler’s Germany was nasty at the personal level, but Hitler was not micro-managing, he was focused on the big issues. I still think he was wrong in insisting that the Jews were a race, so Christians with parents who had converted to Christianity were counted as Jews. That would have made Karl Popper a Jew, but he was clearly not one.

    I was absorbed in reading your article when I heard a roar of laughter. It was me. I had just read:

    a swarm of ideological fanatics drawn from a particular ethnic persuasion

    No mention of which particular persuasion, but you didn’t need to say. The frog-marchers, the ones who adhere to ritual at every step, while motivated by hate.

  38. @Flint Clint

    I am no fan of Jew Makow, he is in my view a gate keeper, his WWII views are ridiculous, and I have problems with his jewish views on women.

    Anyway, the really insane thing is, you hear an endless pile of horse crap from the US, “values”, “democracy”, “freedom” etc… but not one of these muppets asks how secret oaths and secret meetings in the masonic lodge fit together with an alleged public office?

    JFK asked something similar in his “secret societies” speech.

  39. “A.J.P. Taylor lost his Oxford post for publishing his honest analysis of the origins of World War II.”

    Ron,

    Thanks for this on A.J.P. Taylor.

    By coincidence I too re-read the book a few months ago, having been assigned to read it as a Sophomore in college in 1966. It was one of those great books that left a permanent impression. The re-read was even more powerful given the mind control in place now. But I had no idea that Taylor suffered professionally from the publication. If he’d written it today, no mainline publisher would likely touch it,

  40. @PJ London

    2000 years of denied self proclaimed chosenitism surface in the worst posible way.

  41. Miggle says:
    @Nick Kollerstrom

    Good to see you here, Nick. I have a copy of your Breaking the Spell, with the proud badge “Banned by Amazon” printed on the cover.

    Particularly striking to me is that the rate of Jewish deaths at Auschwitz dropped once the Zyklon deliveries started to arrive at the camps.

  42. @Bardon Kaldian

    Yes, this reversed black-and-white thinking irks me too. I have said before that WWII was not a war of “good guys against bad guys”, even if we reverse the roles. All parties (including the Jews) were guilty in this conflict. All lied and all committed atrocities.

    As for “collective guilt”, I think to a certain degree it does exist. Groups of course are led by their leaders, and “collective crimes” are instigated by their leaders, but still it is the groups that choose or tolerate their leaders, and thus share a responsibility in their criminal conduct.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  43. Alta says:
    @Antares

    Chronologically, I am not sure.
    Some use Rotterdam and Warsaw as examples of terror bombing being used by the Germans before the British ever but they also leave out why those cities were bombed. Firstly they were not declared “open cities” as Paris was, secondly Dutch and Polish troops had occupied their respective cities before any formal cease fire/peace treaty had been formalized. Also in the case of Warsaw the mayor, or whatever the equivalent, had refused multiple German demands for surrender.

    • Replies: @szopen
  44. Alta says:
    @Brabantian

    Czechoslovakia was being torn apart by all its neighbors, Austria, Hungary and Poland. Not just Germany. There was also ethnic tensions among the Czechs and Slovaks. The prime minister of Czechoslovakia met Hitler in Germany a few days before the countries complete annexation REQUESTING Germany occupy the entire country before an ethnic civil war or perhaps the Hungarians or Poles decided they wanted more.

    • Replies: @Sab
  45. @Bardon Kaldian

    Wrong. Here is a Jewish concept that explains so much of the modern world and their exquisite inversion of the victim complex.

    “Few are guilty but all are responsible” – Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel. That was the concept the Jews applied to George Zimmerman when they said he should be lynched for defending himself from Trayvon Martin – it is the call to Tikkun Olam the world, by holding everyone else responsible for Jewish crimes.

    Jews are unparalleled masters at attributing guilt to victims when they are the perpetrators.

    So until concepts like ‘white privilege’ are all renounced by Jews as a collective, they are collectivelly guilty for World War 2.

    Lets not forget that it was prominent Zionist Jews who funded both sides of both world wars, whilst they avoided fighting it, and then used it to obtain their wealth for their cirminal syndicates in California and Chicago even as they manipulated the draft system to send their enemies to the front lines.

    Kuhn Loeb with Jacob Schiff, Otto Kahn and Paul Warberg funded all sides of World War 2, whilst Jewish community organisers ensured their people wouldn’t be drafted or fight in the front lines for the United States.

    And Maxim was funded by Rothschild, and Maxims culled generations of the best men of all the European nations in World War 1 – which was deliberately fomented by conspirators in Britain in particular causing diplomatic break downs and communication lacunas to force events.

    “Is not war already a revolutionary function? War? Since [1870] every war was a giant step towards Communism.” – Christian Rakovskey, aka Chaim Rakover.

    You Gentiles, by Maurice Samuel outlines the Jewish involvement in those wars. As does a book by Joshua Trachtenberg – an apostate talking about the truth of Jewish conspriacy and betrayal of states down the ages – including collusion with the Huns.

    Basil Zaharoff (Manel Sahar) worked for Rothschild, who owned Nordenfelt, Maxim and Vickers. Their machine guns killed goyim men in both world wars.

    See Eustace Mullins – new history of the Jews:

    The Jews began to spew out of their Balkan ghettoes, entering England at the rate of 600,000 a year, and the United States at the rate of one million a year. They took over government offices so completely that the English Foreign Office was known as “the Too-Foreign Office”, in reference to the great number of Jews with thick accents who filled its ministries. Jews became ministers of finance and justice in many countries, so that they could control the nations through these positions. The Minister of Finance in France was Klots; in Italy, Luzzatti; in Germany, Dernberg; in England, Isaacs. Of 355 English salaried consular officials, 200 were foreign born, and 120 readily identified as Jews, although the total was undoubtedly higher.

    Every European Government was rocked by financial and espionage scandals as the Jews sold state secrets and patents to the highest bidder. When the Gentile, Marconi, invented radio, the Jewish Isaacs family obtained possession of it, and the American branch RCA , was headed by the Russian Jew, David Sarnoff. On March 7, 1912, the English Postmaster, Sir Herbert Samuel, of the Jewish family which owned Shell Oil, and Charles Isaacs, president of Marconi, Ltd., split 100,000 shares of stock as a gift to his brother, Rufus Isaacs, Minister of Finance, and Lloyd George, the Prime Minister. When the scandal broke in the press, not only did Lloyd George remain in office, but, with typical effrontery, the Rothschilds forced Lord Asquith to appoint Rufus Isaacs as Lord Chief Justice of England, with the title of Baron Reading of Erleigh. Rudyard Kipling commented on this appointment, “This was unthinkable 3 years ago”.

    These same men who owned the arms companies and the arms of government arranged for the mass slaughter of World War 1.

    It’s that simple. The history of the world is the history of trying and failing to survive Jewish emnity.

    Unz referred to John D Flynn – he wrote about Zaharoff and the Jewish conspiracy to provoke world war in ‘The Merchant of Death’.

    I’m sorry, but the truth is that the Jews fomented both world wars, and Hitler’s culpability was secondary. If he himself wasn’t in fact a Zionist agent.

  46. @Bardon Kaldian

    “Readers & followers of this site think, I guess …. Collective guilt does not exist.”

    I think you just contradicted yourself.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  47. Alta says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Generalplan Ost is complete bullshit

    • Replies: @szopen
  48. onebornfree says: • Website

    So now, instead of now [erroneously] believing, as we were all , er, “taught”, that the allies were the good guys of WW2, and that the Japs and Germans were the bad guys, we are now supposed to believe the exact opposite, right, Mr Unz ? Jap and German governments now”good”- WW2 allies governments now “bad”?

    Reality fact: before, during and after WW2 and all the way up to this present moment in time, the US, Soviet, French , Polish, Brit [etc. etc. ad infinitum] governments lied; the German government lied, the Jap government lied. They ALL lied [and lie]!

    Reality fact: It [lying] is what all governments everywhere all do – , all of the time!

    Reality fact: It’s what they _must_ do to maintain power over their slave populations [ see the Bernays quote below].

    Regarding the fundamental nature of all governments, past, present, or future – this “just” in :

    “Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [via central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”,”improved”, nor “limited” in scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature.” onebornfree

    ” The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.” Edward Bernays
    http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Bernays_Propaganda_in_english_.pdf

    “The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.” ~ Adolf Hitler

    “My first rule- I don’t believe anything the government tells me- nothing!- ZERO!” George Carlin

    Regards, onebornfree

  49. WWI and WWII and all the following wars that America was forced into were zionist banking kabal wars aka the FED and have been the single most destructive force to America and are on going in the mideast , see the book Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Anthony Sutton and Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution also by Anthony Sutton, they can be had on amazon.

    Zionism is the greatest enemy that America faces!

  50. anarchyst says:

    To see the hatred that jews had (and still have) for Germany, obtain and read the anti-German book “Germany Must Perish” by Theodore N. Kaufman.

    In his book, Kaufman advocates the complete destruction of EVERYTHING German.

    He advocated the total destruction and erasure of German history, culture, engineering, people, and land.

    Just as in the old testament, Kaufman advocated the complete erasure from history of EVERYTHING German.

    Sure sounds like an real “act of war” and “genocide” to me, unlike the fake jewish freak show–the holohoax.

  51. Tom67 says:
    @Flint Clint

    Hi Flint Clint
    That the Euthanasia program of the Nazis killed what was deemed “unworthy” life is so well known in Germany that nobody will dispute it.
    Here one link about the man who did m0re than anybody else to at least slow this program down: Graf von Galen. He was the Arch bishop of Münster and an indomitable fighter. Today he would be reviled by the left as he was also a German nationalist and a strict conservative. Look up him up here on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemens_August_Graf_von_Galen#Euthanasia
    You don´t know me and you don´t have to take my word. But the fact of the matter is that I am German and I can assure you that many familis were touched by this. Of course it wasn´t “official”. Just a letter that so and so died of “heart attack” a.s.o. Theere were though so many cases that people connected the dots. Especially tragic were the cases of children who were in special institutions to make the most of their limited mental abilities. They were transferred from these (usually church run) institutions to goverment institutions were they were very soon killed. In restrospect it is amazing that the Nazis thought they could get away with it.
    As a final note I might mention that the “Weltanschauung” of the Natis was in itself logical and coherent. There was “good” and “bad” inheritance and it was most important to constantly improve the “race”. Whatever was “bad” had to be radically exterminated to improve the general health of the population.
    Curiously the Stalinist rational for exterminating certain classes of people was the mirror opposite. Here the rational was that acquired traits were transmitted to the offspring. By exterminating the “exploiting” classes one was to create the “new” man. That was the background to the elevation of Lysenko to the guiding light of Soviet biology.
    Whatever having lived in both Russia and Germany and talked to people who survived Stalin and Hitler I have many times thought how lucky to be living now and not back then.
    As to whatever crimes the other side did: it doesn´t make whatever happened in Germany any better.

  52. The puzzle that never will be put together. But we have to respect people who at least trying.

  53. Paul says:

    What World War II in Europe was about: The British had the world, and the Germans wanted it (the Reich that would last a thousand years).

  54. To get the low-down on the two world wars, read Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof’s 1939 – The War That Had Many Fathers: The Long Run-Up to the Second World War…which I translated.
    https://www.amazon.com/1939-War-That-Many-Fathers/dp/144668623X
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11448682-1939—the-war-that-had-many-fathers

    • Replies: @George F. Held
  55. @Tom67

    Thank God we American’s were pillars morality. LOL

    Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. “I have studied with great interest,” he told a fellow Nazi, “the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”

    Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenic leader Madison Grant calling his race-based eugenics book, The Passing of the Great Race his “bible.”

    https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796

    • Replies: @Tom67
  56. @Stephen Paul Foster

    Collective guilt does not exist. However, a (self-selected) group’s stupidity- does.

  57. Nodwink says:

    Phil Donahue was thrown off TV because his opposition to the Iraq War, something which would be mocked by Western elites if it happened in Russia, or North Korea.

  58. @Franklin Ryckaert

    How can we measure it? Legally?

    For instance, most Germans did not vote for Hitler. And even if he was elected by 90% margin- what would it mean? He did many great things to heal German post-WW 1 humiliation & succeeded in spectacular economic recovery. When Europe (and world) descended into WW 2 – how could an average German, or any group of Germans, do anything to change the course of history?

    They were indoctrinated, but even if most of them had not been – no individual nor collective can change the inertia of events. Things just keep on happening. For instance, Waffen SS were denounced as a “criminal organization” & its members deprived of military honors (ca. 900,000 men, 500,000 out of them Germans). I call it baloney. You don’t have 900,000 “war criminals”. This is simply a nonsense.

    I am not saying that collectives do not share peculiar characteristics (for instance, you can’t have anything seriously done with Gypsies), but any political-social-historical movement is too complex to be reduced to moralistic sermonizing.

    • Replies: @Alden
  59. @Brabantian

    Yes, all wars are bankers war. That being said, once the first spark is struck, events rapidly spiral out of control. What I find with these older and even newer versions of revisionist history is Stalin and Soviet Russia very rarely ever assigned any blame in the starting of the whole mess which I find absurd. A great example of this is story of Rudolf Hess and how he was betrayed by everyone.

    [MORE]

    Was Hess aware at the time of the existence of a Secret Protocol, attached to the Hitler-Stalin “Non-Aggression” Pact of Aug. 23, 1939 and signed by Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and Soviet Foreign Minister Vyascheslav Molotov, which stated “in event of any war,” Russia would be assigned”spheres of influence” in eastern Poland (40% of the country); .the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia; a freehand in Finland; and that portion of Romania abutting Soviet territory. Soviet actions after Hitler’s invasion of Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, showed how precisely the Soviets adhered to the Protocol’s terms. On Sept. 17, Russia invaded Poland from the east; on Sept. 18 Russian and German troops shook hands in Poland. Then, Moscow invaded Finland. Next, it took the Baltic states.

    “Stalin was able, in conference with Britain and the United States (when they became his allies against Hitler), to present these actions as “defensive” against the Nazi threat. But the
    Secret Protocol would prove that, to the contrary, Russia had used the deal with Hitler to advance her ancient imperial designs on Europe.”

    “Obviously, if Stalin were shown to be guilty of plotting with Hitler-to wage aggressive war, then the question arose: What were the Soviets doing as judges with the French,
    British, and Americans on the Nuremberg tribunal? The tribunal would have to be reconstituted. Would not Molotov and Stalin have to be tried? They had stood at a map table with Ribbentrop in Moscow, while Ribbentrop consulted with Hitler on the phone from Germany, and the four of them had redrawn the map of Eastern Europe. Stalin and Molotov could be accused of having conspired with Hitler to wage war; shouldn’t they take their
    places in the Nuremberg dock?”

    Source information and a short three page article on The Hess defense at Nuremburg.
    https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1987/eirv14n36-19870911/eirv14n36-19870911_053-what_moscow_has_to_hide_rudolf_h.pdf

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
  60. @Bardon Kaldian

    As for Hitler- no, he was much more ambitious & ruthless:

    That video is pretty questionable imo, because as far as I know the Generalplan Ost plans of the SS don’t exist anymore, at least not in detail. What does exist, is a memorandum drawn up by Dr Wetzel from Rosenberg’s Ostministerium, whose text can be read here:
    https://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/1958_3_5_heiber.pdf

    The proposals in that document are undoubtedly extremely racist and would have amounted to massive ethnic cleansing programmes, at least against Poles and Czechs. They don’t quite amount to genocide though, in fact the author explicitly states that one can’t physically exterminate Poles like Jews (whose physical destruction is quite openly affirmed in the text), because Germany would then be generally hated by all neighbouring peoples…instead Poles who can’t be Germanized should emigrate to Siberia, or possibly to Brazil. Proposal for Russia is basically to split up the country in various republics and foster regional identities, with Siberia maybe becoming a pan-European economic zone.
    Much attention is devoted to “racially valuable” Slavs who should be sent to the Reich for Germanization (Dr Wetzel is concerned about foreign workers from Italy and the Balkans who could bring Near Eastern and negroid ancestry to Germany; he’d prefer to replace them with “Nordic” types from Belarus). Even the view of Russians isn’t entirely negative…while Wetzel regards most of them as a “dull primitive mass”, he thinks there still are Nordic types in the Russian peasantry and attributes Russia’s industrialization to people of such a background (which makes Russia especially dangerous). So this isn’t exactly the same view as of Jews.
    Of course even the ethnic cleansing schemes proposed in that document could easily have shaded into genocide (in 1940 even top Nazis still thought of just sending the Jews away to Madagascar, not killing them all, so there was a precedent for such radicalisation). And presumably the plans of the SS were more extreme than what Rosenberg’s Ostministerium proposed.
    Still, in any case a German victory in WW2 would certainly have been pretty bad for many of the peoples of Eastern Europe. As for revisionism of the kind demonstrated once again on Ron Unz’s article, imo it’s not worth bothering with, since it’s so far removed from reality.

  61. @Flint Clint

    I’m sorry, but the truth is that the Jews fomented both world wars, and Hitler’s culpability was secondary. If he himself wasn’t in fact a Zionist agent.

    • Agree: Andrei Martyanov
  62. Agent76 says:

    *All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars*

    I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.

    Bankers Hate Peace: All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars

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

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

    May 26, 2012 Federal Reserve Act – Remedy

    The 1913 Federal Reserve Act has remedy written into it; still in full force and effect today.

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
  63. Japanese soldiers on the Pacific islands had habits. One of those was sometimes setting off a grenade after ‘surrendering’.

    This lead to a lot fewer surrenders being accepted.

    • Replies: @John Regan
  64. @Ilyana_Rozumova

    The puzzle that never will be put together.

    In Anglo-American world–never. Agree with that.

  65. szopen says:
    @Alta

    And what would be excuse for bombing Frampol? Because for Wieluń Germans had at least excuse that before war there was cavalry unit stationed nearby, though indiscriminate bombing still was bad.

    Not to mention that Polish witnesses remember that all Red Cross flags soon had to be taken off the hospitals and other objects, because they became favourite target of Luftwaffe.

  66. Ron

    Your work concentrates on Jewish guilt. There is another side of it that should be considered: Jewish strategy has, at least since the end of the Napoleonic Wars, been good for the Jews.

    The current position of Jews worldwide is highly precarious. The only Jewish state is small and surrounded on all sides by either sea or states that range from hostile to at best neutral. States with nuclear weapons are among its fairly close adversaries. Stability of the area depends on the United States, a Christian power (even yet) that is severely weakened by two decades of war [1]. Jewish populations in the Middle East are gone, and Christian populations in the area have been severely diminished in number.
    Further, the population expansion that has been required to retain control of the Israeli government by equaling the Arab birth rate has resulted in a very large highly religious Jewish population that apparently is supported by welfare and believes so strongly in the power of God that it relies on divine intervention for physical security and won’t join the IDF.
    The only society that tolerates Judaism, Christianity, has been severely weakened worldwide. It is being replaced by societies that in some cases do not tolerate Judaism and in other cases treat Judaism as one of a number of competitors for foreign market dominant minority.
    Jewish casualties since AD 1900 have been appalling. If I remember correctly, worldwide Jewish population has just recovered to AD 1935 levels within the past decade (a bit after 2010). Jewish establishment strategic initiatives, such as replacing governments with socialist regimes (primarily Communism), taking over a Christian country and destroying Christianity (Communism again, USSR), transforming Jewish populations into non-Jewish populations that could survive as other nations do (Zionism), establishing Jewish moral superiority (propaganda effort in the West from WW II to c.a. 1970), replacing Western populations with non-Christian (and presumably more controllable) populations — all have been spectacular failures that have failed, some simply failing in their stated goals, some causing (or in danger of causing) severe mortality in the Jewish population, some merely creating a state of crippling fear in the Jewish population.

    There is some chance that global trade will fail, leading to a world wide population crash from 7.7 billion humans to a notably smaller number [2]. The Jewish population, world wide, is not well positioned for such an event, as it would be associated with several regional wars between opponents armed with nuclear weapons, and Israel is just too small to survive a nuclear war.

    From a highly abstract and disinterested vantage point, this posture of strategic weakness is astonishing for an establishment known for its tactical astuteness and its persistence in impelmenting long range large scale plans.

    I can’t offer advice as to remedial actions, but it would seem that some remedial actions are called for. The actual results of Jewish Establishment strategy is actually embarrassing. As a metaphorical first action, I’d suggest getting shoes without a target painted on their tops.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] Rounding to nearest decade and counting from the first Gulf War, AD 1991.

    2] If you listen to the “environmentalist” position, it is saying that globalism can’t continue because of physical limits. It then goes on to blame anybody who has money, and appears to be a simple racket. However, like all rackets, the environmentalist fundamental assertion is true. It would be too bad if something happened to the store, and the earth does have limits. These limits are showing up financially in sovereign state insolvency, and the current global trade system will fail at some point. It actually did fail during the AD 2008 financial panic.

  67. szopen says:
    @Alta

    Because you said so. And, of course, Poles from Zamojszczyzna left their homes voluntarily, and thousands or testimonies about Zamojszczyzna children being separated from families (and most of them never returned) are all propaganda, while you should believe without question all German stories.

  68. @Bardon Kaldian

    As for Hitler- no, he was much more ambitious & ruthless:

    That video is lying through its teeth, as anyone who can read German can check for himself, since the original Generalplan Ost documents have been published in toto. By an old Polish Communist historian, no less (one Dr. Czeslaw Madajczyk), so most likely he hasn’t falsified anything in them in favor of the Germans. His book is called “Vom Generalplan Ost zum Generalsiedlungsplan”.

    In this book, you can read the actual memos of the German planners rather than biased summaries by Ian Kershaw and friends. They say nothing about exterminating half of Russia; on the contrary, they expected the population to grow through natural increase under the German occupation once it was no longer oppressed by Communism. The idea that tens of millions were to be “physically eliminated” is literal Soviet Communist propaganda that “Western” liberals have taken up uncritically to demonize Nazi Germany.

    Of course, no one will ever translate these hundreds of documents into English, because then more people would be able to see through the falsehoods Bardon Kaldian’s video and similarly inclined interests routinely peddle.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  69. Anonymous[236] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alta

    The ghettos, with the exception of Theresienstadt, were all emptied during the war.

  70. Maybe Ron’s best article yet in the Pravda series (save for his unnecessary and out of context digression into American war atrocities against the Japanese; it’s poor form to justify Germany’s retaliatory strikes against British civilian targets and then condemn what was more likely retaliatory brutality by Americans after seeing what Japanese did to their comrades – live castration then stuffing the amputated genitals into the mouth of the still living prisoner and letting him bleed out – and 1945 may as well have been 200 years after 1944; I’ve seen the video footage of Japanese women at Saipan and Okinawa jumping to their deaths, babies in their arms, lest they be captured by American forces. But go ahead and point out all the wars won by the more polite combatant.)

    I would look forward to an Pravda article focusing specifically on the Nuremberg show trials.

  71. sally says:
    @Brabantian

    If I had been Hitler I would have rolled into Prague because over 60% of the people there, the ones being summarily executed were Germans.. He had no choice..

  72. sally says:

    maybe this will answer your concern.??

    Hoggan .. individuals within the British government had deliberately worked to provoke the conflict, thereby forcing the war upon Hitler’s Germany.. PM Neville Chamberlain, [failed] to have them arrested and prosecuted. <=how about the people in other nations funding and teaching and rewarding these deliberate provocateurs?

    Churchill and clique .. [Jewish media denies, isolates and decimates authors, BODs remove people from important position and wealthy clients change accountants, lawyers, and consultants (Bush destroyed the accounting firm Arthur Andersen and millions of local

    [MORE]

    Jews and Christian Zionist work to destroy local accountants, lawyers and realtors who don't measure up to the Jewish propaganda]. Jewish establishments often and endlessly attacked/denounced government leaders in important places <=ex. victim Chamberlain.. by advancing unsubstantiated accusations:<= [publishing as fact that which is false, fake and misleading] German.. military build-up <=aimed against Britain<= Jewish controlled media<=[targeted to disrupt and prevent normal German-British relations. <=an example of the use of containerization[the British People were containerised and their information environment controlled, regulated, and cinematised by propaganda engineers]<=a method often used by Economic Zionism to accomplish local, regional, national and worldwide goals.

    EZ is a pathology that is used to capture the government that is suppose to maintain a monopoly free economic environment for capitalism.. EZ prevents governments referee role and there by destroys capitalism. Capitalism can only exist when the government officiates the "economic space" and keeps that economic space clear and free of monopoly powers. The pathological threat in economic Zionism is in media-government partnership with a few very usually wealthy, very aggressive monopolist, and that partnership leads to anti competitive laws (copyright, patents, and enabling legislation to allow privatisation) and soon only a very few, limited in number, but giant monopolistic enterprises exist (the multi-national, global or whatever corporations and their wealthy owners) do all of the business in the area of their markets and employ all of the people who can do good work. When this conditions advances it denies small law firms, small accounting firms, real estate firms that fail the EZ propaganda adopted and internalized tests. and so on.
    if you analyze history from the viewpoint of monopoly power .. you quickly see how the philosophy and system of economics called economic zionism uses government and religion to rule the world, since before 1176.

  73. @Grandson of a 6th division member

    Japanese soldiers on the Pacific islands had habits. One of those was sometimes setting off a grenade after ‘surrendering’.

    This lead to a lot fewer surrenders being accepted.

    American soldiers on the Pacific islands also had habits. One of those was routinely torturing and murdering Japanese servicemen who tried to surrender, and mutilating and defiling their corpses.

    This lead to a lot fewer Japanese surrendering, and to some of them setting off a grenade after “surrendering”.

    In case I have to point it out, I’m not saying this to be anti-American. I think that’s more or less what you can expect to happen when you send these scared young men, forcefed for years on propaganda about the Japanese being subhuman monsters, out to fight them life or death in hellish climates thousands of miles from home. I blame the crooked politicians and the lying media more than the soldiers. But it’s astonishing how, even today, the propaganda narratives about noble Yanks and evil Japs still persist. Even among people who ought to know better.

    If anyone else feels inclined to nod and agree with knee-jerk posts like the one I’m responding to here, please make the effort to at least read the book about the Pacific War our host Mr. Unz is recommending. (I’ve read it. It’s good, and it’s not just mindless America-bashing like some people will no doubt want to think. Dower looks at how both the Americans and the Japanese dehumanized the enemy.) It’s one more tiny but important step along the difficult road toward the vitally necessary goal of attaining a more balanced view of our modern history.

    • Agree: Johnny Smoggins
    • Replies: @A.R.
    , @Wizard of Oz
  74. @Carlton Meyer

    Ah yes, nothing like a truck load of truth in a 13 minute video. David Irving was on fire. Thanks for sharing.

    The Churchill lies remind me of the vaunted saints we Americans worship, one Abe “Stinkin” Lincoln, who laid low America while destroying our most valued possession, states rights.

  75. tagaruda says:
    @Antares

    At Rotterdam, a single flight of tactical bombers, carrying a few hundred kilos of bombs each, were directed to attack a heavily defended barracks. A legitimate wartime target.
    After the flight was dispatched, it was reported the Dutch had initiated surrender negotiations, but the flight missed the recall-order as the lead bomber. the only one with a radio, had already retracted its aerial.
    Several stray bombs damaged housing and destroyed a school, where children were hiding under their desks, since apparently no-one had thought to evacuate them from the vicinity of the conflict.
    Germany immediately apologized and paid reparations.

    The Allies strategic bombing was generally inaccurate and thus indiscriminate by its nature and was directed at civilians by policy; war-crime terror-bombing in effect.
    The Ruhr attacks began days after Rotterdam, and were considered as an invitation for reprisal bombing by the Germans

    “As Churchill said to Ambassador Kennedy in June or July 1940: “You watch, when Adolf Hitler begins bombing London and bombing towns in Britain like Boston and Lincoln, towns with their counterparts in the United States, you Americans will have to come in, won’t you, you can’t just stand aside and watch our suffering.” But he knew from code-breaking, he knew from reading the German air force signals, which were broken on May 26, 1940, that Hitler had given orders that no British town was to be bombed. London was completely embargoed. The German air force was allowed to bomb ports and harbors and dockyards, but not towns as such. Churchill was greatly aggrieved by this. ”

    August 4th 1940. Charles DeGaulle finds Churchill shaking his fist at the sky asking; “why won’t you come” – meaning why would the Germans not begin bombing Britain. Churchill’s War ~ David Irving.

    August 9 1940: The Birmingham Blitz began and (along with Hull Blitz) became the basis for the RAF dehousing bombing policy in 1942. (Birmingham and Hull represented legitimate German targets, which focused on military-industry targets which was situated among housing.

    August 24th 1940. A single stick of bombs from a stray German bomber drops within London proper, causes little damage, but provides the pretext for Churchill to order retaliation bombing of Berlin by 100 aircraft. Churchill’s War ~ David Irving.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Antares
  76. Very comprehensive. James Bacque’s work on American atrocities in post-war Germany was new to me, but Unz seems to be unaware of Thomas Gallagher’s much more recent writing: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N9RDQ3E/ref=dbs_a_def_awm_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i0

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @John Regan
  77. @German_reader

    I am not saying that everything would go as if planned in some document. Those totalitarian regimes possess their own internal dynamic which is hard to stop when they’re set into motion.

    For instance, all atrocities which devoured perhaps 30+ million people (including those who perished in Russian civil war) were contained, in nuce, in Lenin’s works, ideas & positions (I am not talking about good things that came to pass as the result of his actions). Lenin did not write about extermination of whole classes, forced famine, new & more efficient Inquisition etc. But they were somehow logical result of his (and not only his) vision of the future society.

    Hitler’s (mostly) intra-white racism could also have predictable results. His world-view had, basically, two pillars: eastern expansion to somewhere along Urals- Caucasus axis & getting rid of Jews. Of course Jews get much rap because they suffered, percentage-wise, more than others (Gypsies excluded), but the real deal would be annihilation of Balto-Slavophone central & eastern European peoples (Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians & most Baltic peoples).

    He would, I guess, have chosen “racially” desirable children for assimilation & off with others. First, they would have worked as slaves; then, they would be simultaneously killed & deported (probably similar to Stalin’s deportation of Chechens & other potentially disloyal peoples. Out of 900,000 of them, perhaps 400,000-500,000 died in the process of deportation). If one tries to annihilate a people- and these are numerous peoples by European standards – you don’t have to shoot or gas them. Just relocate them somewhere in the east of Urals, most of them (you can’t keep so many of them within your sphere of authority because they will rebel, sooner or later). So, I guess tens of millions individuals, from Czechs to Russians, were slated to death from famine, disease & overwork.

    Generalplan Ost is more important as the document of the state of mind than as a master plan with all the details & nuances. And that state of mind would have resulted in tens of millions of unnatural deaths & Poles, Ukrainians, .. would be now just a footnote in history, similar to Indians in what is now Manhattan.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    , @Wally
  78. lysias says:

    Sigal Mandelker, the Zionist Under Secretary of the Treasury in charge of enforcing sanctions and boycotts, was one of the high-ranking Department of Justice officials who signed off on the nonprosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein in 2008. Was she the one who told Acosta to back off on Epstein, as he belonged to intelligence and was above Acosta’s pay grade?

    • Replies: @bjondo
  79. Che Guava says:
    @zogborg

    Be careful, God-Free Roberts will likely pop up to tell you that the CPC was absolutely correct, at every stage.

  80. @szopen

    And what would be excuse for bombing Frampol?

    It seems it was a mistaken identification. The Germans thought there were ground troops there, and so treated it as a military target. Or at least, that’s what Polish historian Marius Emmerling writes.

    Without having the entire context, I think that sounds reasonable. Mistakes happen even today (with vastly better C3I systems than 80 years ago), and of course the Poles did turn various urban habitats into fortresses, most famously Warsaw.

    Even so, it’s obviously still a tragedy, the people who were unnecessarily killed or injured (as well as the much larger number who weren’t hurt but still had their homes destroyed). But unlike the later British policy of deliberate terror bombing, it wasn’t malice aforethought, killing civilians for its own sake.

    Not to mention that Polish witnesses remember that all Red Cross flags soon had to be taken off the hospitals and other objects, because they became favourite target of Luftwaffe.

    This on the other hand sounds more like the standard wartime atrocity propaganda, and/or people in stressful situations jumping to false (but in the circumstances, perhaps understandable) conclusions. I know of instances where German bombs hit hospitals (during the Warsaw siege, for example), but there’s no apparent reason to think they aimed at them systematically. It’s sort of like how the US accidentally bombed a Chinese embassy in the last Balkans war: a tragic mistake (and also stupid, all the more so nowadays with radar, “smart bombs” and God knows what), yet not a deliberate war crime.

    • Replies: @szopen
  81. @John Regan

    They say nothing about exterminating half of Russia; on the contrary, they expected the population to grow through natural increase under the German occupation once it was no longer oppressed by Communism.

    Gee whizz, Hitler had the bright future for Russians somewhere in his heart. Just..he somehow failed to communicate his hidden sympathies to them.

    • Replies: @John Regan
  82. Wally says:
    @historicus

    said:
    “The WWII legend is sacrosanct because it is the founding myth of the empire that replaced our republic, just as the Founders predicted would be the result of choosing sides in foreign conflicts.”

    That’s only partially correct.
    The main reason is that it is the founding myth of the ridiculous & impossible “holocaust” narrative, aka: The Big Lie.
    While revisionist views on WWII generally will not result in imprisonment, free speech on the “holocaust” scam will.

    Below is where free speech on the truly impossible “holocaust” storyline is illegal, violators go to prison for Thought Crimes. In all western countries, persecution, harassment, violent attacks & threats are the order of the day against those who engage in free speech about the impossible claims within it.
    Those are obvious admissions that the storyline doesn’t stand up to scientific, logical, & rational scrutiny.

    .

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  83. iffen says:
    @szopen

    Matthew 7:6

    Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

  84. a truth very widely recognized in political and media circles but almost never publicly voiced

    .

    And who is the responsible for that? The 2% of American Jews who react in the way we know if that kind of truth is voiced publicly… or the other 98%, who react (or don’t react) in the way we know when that kind of truth is voiced publicly?

    Non-Jews know if they voice such things they will be the target of virtue-signaling, social status one-upping played by their coethnics. Whites are the masters at these games. A good, consummate White minds very little, if at all, what people of other races do in and with the nation, parliament, constitution, legal courts: what concerns him/her a lot is pointing their finger to coethnics with disgust, and saying or implying “I am not one like that”.
    This probably has some effect, when you multiply it by millions of people, and tens upon tens of subject issues, or hasn’t it?

  85. @szopen

    Polish witnesses remember

    Such a “testimony” carries no weight. It’s what the “holohoax” was created from. The Germans, beginning with the Polish-German war, had teams of respectable, experienced judges who took depositions under oath from soldiers and others about events and atrocities that were seen and personally experienced. These were gathered into files and covered pretty thoroughly by Alfred de Zayas in his book, “Wehrmacht War Crimes
    Bureau 1939-1945.” There is a chapter on Poland. You can listen to it read here: https://carolynyeager.net/wehrmacht-war-crimes-bureau-1939-1945-part-7

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Anon
  86. Truth3 says:

    As with all issues of our time… IT’S ALL ABOUT THE JEWS.

    Jews have attempted a complete take-over of the World, in a way that requires their coercion of a large part of the planet with the destruction of smaller pockets. First Major Target? Palestine.

    For example…

    The Palestinians were a small pocket and first target… easy to steal the land and destroy the people. But their unfair destruction obviously upsets John Q Public… so it must be propagandized into ‘self defense’… The Palestinians (They are just like the SS! in wanting to kill every Joo!) are Terrorist Jew Haters! Israel Must Defend Itself! (((Even as it steals, tortures, murders))).

    Every bit of Twentieth Century History must likewise be bent to the Joo Boo Hoo version. Jews are only victims, never victimizers.

    Twenty First Century as well… 9/11 Jew False Flag must become (((They Hate Us for Our Freedoms))) bullshit and stuffed down America’s throat.

    The ONLY way to stop the Lying Jew agenda… TRUTH. Massive Truth. Irrefutable Truth. Truth With a Capital T. Truth that stings when it lands. Truth that enrages the population against the Liars.

    Well done, Mr. Unz. The Palestinians should make a Statue of you and place it in East Jerusalem.

  87. tagaruda says:
    @Tom67

    I believe those numbers are grossly exaggerated, like anything that can used to slander Germans and detract from other, and more criminal. parties. My understanding is that Hitler agreed to euthanize a child after the mother wrote to him on behalf of her severely handicapped son, but that euthanasia never caught on in Germany quite as much as it did in America.

    The Model Eugenic Sterilization Law was published in 1922 by Harry Laughlin. The law led to the sterilization of over 20,000 Americans and served as the basis of the Nuremberg laws adopted by the Nazis. The USA applied Eugenics Laws, taught Germany to do it, and then blamed Hitler.

    In 1931, Precott Bush and George Walker hosted the Third International Congress of Eugenics. The purpose of the event was to call for the sterilization of fourteen million Americans.
    The same year, 27 American states had enacted sterilisation laws to allow the compulsory sterilisation of certain categories such as the feebleminded and morons. By 1941, almost 36,000 individuals in the US had been compulsorily sterilised under such laws. The trend spread: within a few years a number of European countries had followed suit with compulsory sterilisation. These included not only Nazi Germany, but also Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries.

    In 1932, “Plan for Peace” by American Birth Control League founder Margaret Sanger is published. She called for coercive sterilization, mandatory segregation, and rehabilitative concentration camps for all “dysgenic stocks,” including Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians and Catholics.
    [The American Birth Control League eventually becomes Planned Parenthood}

    From 1932 to 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service in Tuskegee, Ala. diagnoses 400 poor, black sharecroppers with syphilis but never tells them of their illness nor treats them; instead researchers use the men as human guinea pigs to follow the symptoms and progression of the disease. They all eventually die from syphilis and their families are never told that they could have been treated

    August 21-23, 1932, the The British-led Third International Congress on Eugenics elected as its president Dr. Ernst Rudin, a psychiatrist who directed the various branches of the Rockefeller-founded/funded Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Germany, and designated Rudin president of the worldwide Eugenics Federation. The movement called for the killing or sterilization of people whose HEREDITY made them a public burden. A year before Hitler and Roosevelt came to power

    King George V was murdered under the pretext of euthanasia by his own physician Lord Dawson of Penn in 1936.

    In 1942, the American Psychiatric Association held a debate about whether to sterilize or to murder low IQ ‘retarded’ children when they reached the age of five. Those were the only two alternatives in the debate: sterilization or death. “After the debate, the official journal of the American Psychiatric Association published an editorial in which it chose sides in favor of murder (“Euthanasia” in the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1942, volume 99, pp. 141-143). It said psychiatrists would have to muster their psychological skills to keep parents from feeling guilty about agreeing to have their children killed.”

    The Liverpool Care Pathway was a policy of enforced euthanasia practiced in free and democratic UK until recently, and 21 other countries
    Box-ticking NHS staff turned killing patients into an industry, says top doctor
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3179340/How-Mail-killed-death-pathway-Box-ticking-NHS-staff-turned-killing-patients-industry-says-doctor.html

    If, as you say, to be a Jew in Germany amounted to a death sentence, then how did so many survive to claim ‘holocaust’ reparations post war? Why were they not simply all shot with a cheap bullet in the head as Stalin would have done the job? Why did the Germans lavish such care on them as to provide theater, movie, football entertainments, and hospitals, doctors clinics, dentists and midwife facilities for their new-born? Why did Germany have workshops to train them for productive careers? Why did Germany even continue to feed them while German rations were cut?

    • Replies: @Tom67
    , @Tom67
  88. Wally says:
    @Anonymous

    – But your “Holocaust Industry” says they went to enormous mass graves and that the alleged human remains of millions upon millions are in known locations … except they are not there.
    Obviously they actually went where Jews are.
    Just one example:

    “After the war, many Jews stayed in Europe and many others scattered throughout the world, settling in nearly sixty countries. So it was that in the late 1990s the teams put in charge by Steven Spielberg of gathering survivors’ testimonies had to go to nearly sixty different countries to record the said testimonies on video
    https://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2009/03/alleged-holocaust-of-jews-is-proving.html

    much more:
    http://www.unz.com/article/babi-yar/?highlight=graf+canard#comment-3389543

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  89. siamdave says:

    another!! – ‘While Petain’s fully-legitimate French government was negotiating with Germany, a small number of diehards, including Col. Charles de Gaulle, deserted from the army and fled aboard, declaring that…’ – should be ‘fled abroad’. I suspect – if the moderator lets you read it … not quite clear why my comments ‘are awaiting moderation’ …

  90. @Bardon Kaldian

    Generalplan Ost is more important as the document of the state of mind

    One can see it like that, but to claim “50-60% of Russians to be physically eliminated” pretends a certainty which doesn’t exist. Such claims of plans for mega-genocide (which aren’t entirely invented, but often weakly substantiated, e.g. the so-called Hungerplan is actually doubted even by many mainstream historians) are bound to create doubts and will be grist to the mill of the “Hitler did nothing wrong” revisionists seen here.
    The reality is bad enough in any case.

    Of course Jews get much rap because they suffered, percentage-wise, more than others (Gypsies excluded)

    It’s not just that, Jews really did have a special place in Nazi ideology as an evil force that needed to be destroyed everywhere. As racist as Nazi views of Slavs certainly often were, there was a lot more ambivalence in that regard.
    I don’t believe the claims about a Europe-wide genocide of gypsies tbh. Nazis probably killed a lot of them, maybe even a majority, in some countries like Poland and parts of Yugoslavia. But many countries with large gypsy populations (Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria) weren’t under German occupation for most of the war. Given how many gypsies there are today in those countries, Nazi persecution can’t have had that much of an impact.

  91. Skeptikal says:

    I plan to read all of this amazing contribution when I have done my quota on my day job.

    Meanwhile, though, I want to mention (again) the amazing Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich , by Guido Preparata

    https://www.amazon.com/Conjuring-Hitler-Britain-America-Third/dp/074532181X

    Ron: Please read this book.

  92. Zumbuddi says:
    @Flint Clint

    Much to agree with.

    Re Was Hitler a Zionist agent?

    The intricasies of Hitler’s ascent remain to be fully explored.
    At very least Hitler fits Jeff Gate’s definition of an asset — FDR’S friend Putzi Hanfstaengel encouraged & financially supported his writing & publication of Mein Kampf; Alfred Balfour’s niece, Mrs Dugdale, arranged for its translation into English for publication/dissemination in USA, in collaboration with the Jewish Zionists led by US SC Justice [sic] Louis Brandeis.

  93. Jake says:

    Perhaps the most important assertion ever made by Ron Unz: “Ironically enough, German Intelligence learned of this massive bribery of British parliamentarians, and passed the information along to Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who was horrified to discover the corrupt motives of his fierce political opponents, but apparently remained too much of a gentlemen to have them arrested and prosecuted. I’m no expert in the British laws of that era, but for elected officials to do the bidding of foreigners on matters of war and peace in exchange for huge secret payments seems almost a textbook example of treason to me, and I think that Churchill’s timely execution would surely have saved tens of millions of lives.”

    Winston Churchill was evil, on a level playing field with Stalin and Hitler. FDR was bad enough. but he was a boy compared to Churchill. Even Hitler’s evil was naive compared to Churchill’s evil.

  94. @Bardon Kaldian

    No. He wanted Russia to be a subordinate, essentially colonial dependency for Germany to use as a captive market for its industries, so he would be able to compete with global American capitalism capitalism in economies of scale. He realized that you need a domestic market of hundreds of millions of people (like US, Russia, China) to be an economic superpower.

    Hitler personally used the figure of India a lot in his “Table Talk” conversations: Just like India was the market for Britain’s textile industries in the 19th century, Russia would be the market for Germany’s modern industries in the 20th. (In those, if you check them, he incidentally also used a lot of hyperbole about wanting the Russian rank and file to be illiterate, though in the official policy documents he wanted a compulsory elementary school for them. Which, of course, makes infinitely better economic sense.)

    Hitler did want meritocracy within his empire: Russians who were of good character and “good race” were to be given German work permits and citizenship if they applied for it, just like Dutchmen, poles and anyone else who was Aryan (that is, “White”). So kind of a H1B option, more like India is for America in the 21st century than it was for Britain in the 19th. I guess you could say he wanted a “bright future” for them. But the big mass of Russians he wanted to stay in Russia, and to be banned from moving to Germany (which he wanted to remain ethnically German, with only a relatively small leavening of bright foreigners).

    However, in order to be good consumers of German exports, the Russians in Russia still had to have their living standards raised over the squalor of Bolshevism. Hitler thought that was absolutely necessary. So in the end, they would benefit, even if they remained subordinate and disprivileged compared to the Germans.

    Of course, these were long-term plans, spanning over decades. Hitler and his planning staff still anticipated that many Russians would die in the war (which of course happened in real life, even though they won it), and weren’t extremely sad about that. But it wasn’t a specific aim of German policy to cause those deaths. In more modern lingo that wasn’t yet used at the time, they were collateral damage from destroying the Communist superstate and establishing a German economic and political sphere of influence.

    Of course, this makes the Nazis sound… well, not exactly nice, but far less evil than Stalin was comfortable with, given potential comparisons to his own record. Which is why he had his propaganda commissars bruit the nonsense that the Nazis wanted to murder all Russians (and/or all “Slavs” for good measure). And incidentally, such a demonic image also fit very well with how certain other powerful vested interests, these ones operating in the “Western” world’s media, academia and assorted institutions, wanted to portray a regime they hated for their own reasons. Though Stalin is long gone, these other ones are still going strong, and still keeping up his good work.

    I again recommend that you read the Madajczyk book I referred to, if you read German. It will add considerably to your understanding of World War II. If you don’t read German, there is another good book by one Dr. Rainer Zitelmann that has been translated and is called “Hitler: The Policies of Seduction” in English. That one is more about Hitler’s general ideology and policy, but touches on these issues also.

    History isn’t binary. You don’t have to think Hitler and the Germans were angels from Heaven, any more than you have to buy that they were demons from Hell. But in this day and age, with so much material available fairly easily (and often even free on the Internet), there are few excuses left for believing the recycled Soviet propaganda your video was promoting.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @PhucQ
  95. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wally

    The bodies, according to the standard history, were cremated, not buried. As for the question, I did not ask where they went after the war, I asked where they were during the war.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Bookish1
  96. @German_reader

    It’s not just that, Jews really did have a special place in Nazi ideology as an evil force that needed to be destroyed everywhere. As racist as Nazi views of Slavs certainly often were, there was a lot more ambivalence in that regard.

    True, Jews had in Nazi world-view almost mythological significance. But, to be more down to earth … typical Jews (Golda Meir, Kissinger,..) don’t look Euro-white :

    (while all Slavic peoples, from Czechs to Russians are whites).

    But many countries with large gypsy populations (Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria) weren’t under German occupation for most of the war. Given how many gypsies there are today in those countries, Nazi persecution can’t have had that much of an impact.

    Correct.

    • Replies: @Alden
  97. Wally says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    said:
    Generalplan Ost is more important as the document of the state of mind than as a master plan with all the details & nuances”

    LOL
    There was no “Generalplan Ost”, that easily debunked lie has shredded here:

    Myths about Generalplan Ost and Lebensraum: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12639
    alleged quote From Erhard Wetzel about the liquidation of Jews: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12254
    and:
    http://www.unz.com/?s=Generalplan+Ost+&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

    • Replies: @German_reader
  98. Jake says:
    @Germanicus

    Well, Freemasonry is Brit WASP invention. Its purpose was to use male bonding in a social circle, one demanding secrecy, to promote the goals and wealth and powers of the Brit WASP Elite.

    Obviously there were forbears, and analogues, but what the Brit WASPs created took the world by storm. And it always was allied with Jewish money. Its purpose was not merely to expand the Brit Empire, but to expand what the Brit WASP Empire meant and stood for: a global replacement of Christendom.

    You can’t talk about the many awful things done by Masons around the globe, because that will lead people to start asking about the role of WASP Elite culture in forging the hellhole of Modernist cultural polluting and murdering.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  99. @Anonymous

    You’re not going to get a very satisfactory answer from the Nazis dipshits at Unz.

    • Replies: @Achilles Wannabe
  100. So basically, Lindbergh was right about pretty much everything.

    And I agree, putting a bullet in Churchill’s fat head would have saved the world a great deal of heartache.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @Republic
  101. Saggy says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    where did the Jews who were deported by the German government during WWII, who were not fit for labor,(i.e., children, eldery, and disabled) go?

    The Nazis were meticulous record keepers, the allies captured the records and hid them. The Russians released the Auschwitz records in 1989, and the stone plaque at the gate to Auschwitz that stated the fantasy that 4 million had been murdered there was replaced by one stating the fantasy that 1.5 million had been murdered there. You can read about the records here … http://auschwitz.org/en/museum/about-the-available-data/death-records/sterbebucher
    Here’s what they look like …

    The records captured by the US/Brits where hidden until recently …. and are still hidden to all but the select in Bad Arolsen Germany, https://booksandideas.net/Opening-the-Nazi-archives-at-Bad.html, https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2007/winter/iwg.html
    One organization has access to all the records, the ITS, https://www.its-arolsen.org/en/, they have a staff of over 500 (I think) and have been researching the question you ask for 70 years. However, they won’t tell you where the Jews went, as it would invade their privacy.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Curmudgeon
  102. @Wally

    The main reason is that it is the founding myth of the ridiculous & impossible “holocaust” narrative, aka: The Big Lie.

    The simple truth is, the big lie serves as founding myth and justification for Israel, despite the Balfour declaration in 1917 and thousands of Jews moving to Palestine way before WWII. Rothschild have been active in Palestine since the 1850ies, the same time the 6 million lie started to appear regularly.

    Without holyhoax, Israel cannot survive, it has become the defacto religion of Jews and brainwashed non jews, just like Democracy, the Big Bang, Relativity and Evolution from apes. All lies serving as a religion. Doubters are treated as heretics burnt on the public media pyre.

    • Agree: Dennis Gannon
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  103. Saggy says: • Website

    A great article … I started with Buchanan’s book maybe a year ago …. and while I learned a lot from this article I think there are 3 references that were not mentioned that are important to understanding what brought Britain into the war, Carroll Quigley (The Anglo-American Establishment), a court historians account of the machinations of The Round Table group, Douglass Reed (‘The Zionist Controvery’) , a well known journalist before the war and a non-person after the war who traces the causes back to the Torah, and Wyndham Lewis, who wrote ‘Left Wings Over Europe, or How to Start a War About Nothing’ three years before the war began …. a few quotes ….

    [MORE]

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

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

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

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

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

  104. Bill says:
    @anon

    Was Churchill not a Zionist in your world?

  105. Saggy says: • Website

    The most popular high-school history text in the US is McGraw-Hills’ ‘Traditions and Encounters’, this is the full page pic of Hitler from the book …

    On the facing page the text, headed … ‘The Birth of a Monster’

  106. @Wally

    alleged quote From Erhard Wetzel about the liquidation of Jews:

    https://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/1958_3_5_heiber.pdf

    It’s on page 308 (page 28 in the pdf):

    Daß man die Polenfrage nicht in dem Sinne lösen kann, daß man die Polen, wie die Juden, liquidiert, dürfte auf der Hand liegen. Eine derartige Lösung der Polenfrage würde das deutsche Volk bis in die ferne Zukunft belasten und uns überall die Sympathien nehmen, zumal auch die anderen Nachbarvölker damit rechnen müßten, bei gegebener Zeit ähnlich behandelt zu werden.

    also on p. 317 (p. 37 in the pdf):

    Das, was von anderen gefährlichen Rassenbestandteilen in das russische Volk eingedrungen ist, ist zahlenmäßig nicht mehr so bedeutend, zumal die jüdischen Mischlinge ausgemerzt sein werden und die tatarischen Blutsanteile offensichtlich viel stärker in dem zugrundege-gangenen Adel und der zaristischen Intelligenz als im russischen Bauerntum vor-handen gewesen sein dürften.

    Mischlinge of part-Jewish ancestry will have been eliminated within Russia’s population.

    It’s pretty clear in the context of the document that this can only refer to physical destruction, that is mass murder, of Jews.
    But I suppose you’ll claim anyway that it’s just fake.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @Wally
    , @John Regan
  107. @Jake

    WASP as in Puritans? The Judaizers?
    No gate keeping please.
    E Michael Jones talks about this in length, but he does not obfuscate the issue with “Wasp”, it’s the Jews and their Sayanim helpers, who have been waging war against Europe and Christendom since 70 AD.

    • Replies: @Zumbuddi
  108. SafeNow says:

    It appears that possessing what I call “the talking gene” is enormously influential. Fluency, combined with a thesaurus located inside the brain, instantly accessible. Professors, pundits, journalists, lawyers, and, governmental advisors. Now, combine that listened-to skill with also possessing the profit gene, and what do you think you get?

  109. @Bardon Kaldian

    Ron Unz seems to write in the following manner: Nazi empire was not 100% guilty for the outbreak of WW 2 (true)- therefore Nazis were almost blameless (false); Churchill & his cronies have much to be blamed for (true) -therefore, they’re almost completely guilty (false); Jews have magnified numbers of their WW 2 victims & some influential American Jewish figures like Morgenthau are repulsive & perhaps war criminals (true) – therefore, Jews suck & are to be blamed for many, if not most of Germany’s miseries during 1940s (false).

    Indeed. The meticulous examination of forgotten facts is breathtaking, but then the analysis is made less persuasive by overstatement.

    In 1939, America persuaded Poland not to negotiate with Germany, and persuaded Britain and France to offer Poland a guarantee. It is true that these decisions turned Germany’s repeated expansions into what we now call World War II. But if American leaders believed that war against Germany was inevitable, it was surely in America’s interests to get other countries to do the fighting. In 1939 nobody anticipated that France, still a great military power, would be defeated so rapidly. It was the fall of France, as much as Churchill’s failures, that caused FDR’s plan to fail.

    Of course, war in 1939 would also have been avoided if Hitler had decided not to invade Poland – or at least not to invade Poland yet. It is not easy to cast Hitler as blameless.

    The Suvorov hypothesis is interesting and is very likely correct; but even if it is accepted, it does not mean that Hitler was not also preparing to invade the Soviet Union, and had to bring his plans forward.

    The bombing of cities began by accident. A German bomber returning from a raid on a military target in Britain dropped its unused bombs to lighten its load and shorten its journey time. The pilot believed he was flying over countryside, but in fact he was over London in blackout. Churchill retaliated with his raids on Berlin; Hitler retaliated with his blitz on British cites, and the cycle of retaliation and escalation ended with the terrible and unnecessary destruction of German cities.

  110. @SolontoCroesus

    The same blacklisting has happened to the honest historians who questioned Lincoln’s bloody tyranny in keeping the almighty Union together at the expense of 650,000+ deaths, civilian and military. Per the Constitution, the South had every legal right to peacefully secede from the “Voluntary Republic,” but no young students will ever read about that in our deplorable government schools. How could they when the socialist Pledge they recite at the beginning of every day tells them that the nation is “indivisible?”

    Sorry to digress from Mr. Unz’ excellent scholarship (I’m only part way thru it so far), but, from an American standpoint, I find the blacklisting parallels of dissident scholars of these two needless bloody wars to be worth pointing out.

  111. @German_reader

    It’s not just that, Jews really did have a special place in Nazi ideology as an evil force that needed to be destroyed everywhere.

    That is the Judeocentric narrative promoted by the ADL and friends. According to them, the evil Nazis were simply superstitious about anti-Semitism: they hated Jews simply for existing. Obviously, no one intelligent could ever support such unreasonable people.

    This is, of course, merely another ahistorical caricature. It has been demolished more times than anyone can hope to keep track of, including by our host Ron Unz in his article on Nazi-Zionist collaboration:

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

    Another very good article on the same topic is this one by Hugh Murray:

    http://www.anthonyflood.com/murrayaffirmativeaction.htm

    But since most people don’t want to read long essays, I’ll just state the obvious: If the Nazis had really believed Jews were “an evil force that needed to be destroyed everywhere” as the Judeocentric propaganda claims, they would hardly have spent every year from 1933 to 1940 encouraging hundreds of thousands of them to emigrate away from Germany to America and other places where they would obviously be out of reach from being destroyed.

    The truth of the matter is that the Nazis were anti-Semites, because (rightly or wrongly) they thought the Jews parasitized on their economy and corrupted their culture. They wanted the Jews gone from their country, and preferably from other countries near it also so they couldn’t sneak back in. But what happened to the Jews afterward didn’t matter to them, as long as they just went away and stayed gone.

    In 1940, it became impossible to “export” the Jews to America, since FDR didn’t want them. (Or to be more precise, he didn’t personally mind them, but he knew public opinion in the US didn’t want the country swamped with millions of Jews, so as a politician he kept out most of them.) The Nazis then studied other ideas for how to get rid of them. One that they took over from the old pre-war Polish government (which also felt it had a difficult Jewish problem) was to move them to Madagascar:

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

    Only after this, too, failed (the Royal Navy blocked transport of the Jews there) did the Nazis resort to more robust measures. If FDR (or Churchill) had been willing to take the Jews, Hitler would have been glad to let them have them. He said so himself more than once:

    [MORE]

    The peoples of the world will realize within a short time that National Socialist Germany does not desire to elicit the enmity of other peoples.

    Allegations of the aggressive designs entertained by our Volk on other peoples are the products of a deranged, hysterical mind or blatant lies by certain politicians struggling for survival. In certain states, businessmen void of any conscience try to save their financial interests by propagating these lies. Above all, it is international Jewry which seeks thereby to gratify its thirst for vengeance and its insatiable hunger for profit. And this constitutes the greatest libelous claim ever levied against a great and peace-loving Volk.

    After all, German soldiers have never fought on American soil other than for the cause of America’s independence and freedom. Yet American soldiers were shipped to Europe and contributed to the suppression of a great nation struggling to preserve its liberty. It was not Germany that attacked America; it was America that attacked Germany. And it did so, according to the findings of an investigative committee in the American House of Representatives, without any compelling reason, other than perhaps capitalist considerations.

    Nevertheless, let there be no doubt as to one point: all these attempts will not in the least sway Germany from its reckoning with Jewry. I would like to say the following on the Jewish question: it is truly a shameful display when we see today the entire democratic world filled with tears of pity at the plight of the poor, tortured Jewish people, while remaining hardhearted and obstinate in view of what is therefore its obvious duty: to help. All the arguments with which they seek to justify their non-intervention lend only further support to the stance of Germans and Italians in this matter.

    For this is what they say: “We”—that is the democracies—“cannot possibly admit the Jews!” And this those world powers claim who can boast no more than ten persons per square kilometer while we must accommodate and feed 135 persons per square kilometer.

    […]

    Do not reproach me on the grounds of your humanitarian concerns. The German Volk does not wish to be governed by another people; it does not wish others to determine its affairs in its place. France to the French; England to the English; America to the Americans, and Germany to the Germans! We are determined to undercut the efforts of a certain foreign people to nest here; a people whose members knew how to capture all leading positions. We will banish this people. We are willing to educate our own Volk to assume these leadership functions. We have hundreds of thousands of the most intelligent children of peasants and workers. We will have them educated, and we are already educating them. We are hoping that one day we can place them in all leading positions within the state along with others from our educated classes.

    No longer shall these be occupied by members of a people alien to us.

    […]

    It is possible that the necessity of resolving this problem sooner or later should bring about agreement in Europe, even between nations which otherwise might not have reconciled themselves as readily with one another. There is more than enough room for settlement on this earth. All we need to do is put an end to the prevailing assumption that the Dear Lord chose the Jewish people to be the beneficiaries of a certain percentage of the productive capacities of other peoples’ bodies and their labors. Either the Jews will have to adjust to constructive, respectable activities, such as other people are already engaged in, or, sooner or later, they will succumb to a crisis of yet inconceivable proportions.

    Source of quote:
    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_Address_to_the_Reichstag_(30_January_1939)

    • Replies: @German_reader
  112. During the 1990s, Buchanan had ranked as one of America’s most prominent political figures, having an enormous media footprint in both print and television, and with his remarkably strong insurgent runs for the Republican presidential nomination in 1992 and 1996 cementing his national stature.

    This doesn’t make Pat a good historian, much less good military historian. Irving is to military history what I am to Chinese Choreography. In general, there is no WW II history without Eastern Front and what happened there but this is the topic very few in Anglo-American historiography have good command of. Nor have they a good grasp of the military-economic scales involved, nor of the scales of atrocities committed there. In the end, History, especially “diplomatic”, “political” or any other history for that matter is not a precise science, in fact, I would argue it is not the science at all, hence a curse of “range of interpretations” which consistently produce low quality revisionism towards one or another ideological narrative. Exoneration of Nazism primarily in the Anglophone world will continue and it has very little to do with “new” or old “insights” into the nature of German National Socialism (there are none) but primarily tailored to a state modern West finds itself in–a constant and accelerating decline across the board, from economy to intellectual capacity. After all, there is always Frank Ellis to fall back to. Of course, few really make a connection that current decline of the West, to a very large degree, is precipitated, among many other factors, by complete inability to orient itself in historic reality of the XX and XXI centuries.

    • Replies: @refl
    , @L.K
  113. The patriotic work of America First was more successful than is realised.

    The Soviet Union had 20 million war dead, including 9 million combatants. By delaying America’s entry to WWII until after Operation Barbarossa, America First ensured that it was the Soviet Union and not the USA that fought to the death against Germany, and suffered these colossal casualties. America First saved many millions of American lives, and it is invidious that its proponents have now been unpersoned, and the movement itself stigmatised.

    It is also dangerous, because the “never again” crowd wants Americans to unlearn the lesson that early intervention in foreign wars is not always in their best interests. They think nothing of expending millions of American lives in pursuit of their own foreign goals: shouldn’t they be the ones who are unpersoned?

  114. @German_reader

    You take a text written in 1958 as fact? In occupied Germany, that just had experienced the terror of “denazification” and deliberate starvation dubbed “liberation”?

    You got to be joking, IFZ Munich, pfft.
    Isn’t this the “institute” where the Jew Wolfson writes his lies and drivel from?

    My radar has you detected as a IFZ shill or simply a typical BRD shill, who has no clue about anything, but about ideology only. Your comment history suggests it, always ideologically in line with the official narrative.

    • Replies: @Druid
  115. szopen says:
    @tagaruda

    And now defend raising Frampol to the ground. Or maybe subhuman Slavs does not count, as usual when you talk with Nazi apologists.

    • Replies: @tagaruda
    , @Wally
  116. Ron Unz says:
    @David Martin

    Very comprehensive. James Bacque’s work on American atrocities in post-war Germany was new to me, but Unz seems to be unaware of Thomas Gallagher’s much more recent writing:

    Sure, I read Hellstorm’s very gripping book several years ago, and indeed last year made arrangements to include it in my HTML Books section, though I’ve never gotten around to doing so.

    But it’s a secondary work, drawing from the ground-breaking material of Bacque and numerous others, and I chose to mention the John Wear book instead, since it covers a much wider range of issues surrounding World War II. Perhaps I should have mentioned it as well.

  117. Wally says:
    @German_reader

    Yawn.
    You dodged what I posted, pay attention:
    again:

    alleged quote From Erhard Wetzel about the liquidation of Jews: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12254

    And if your Jews were ‘exterminated”, then why don’t we see the alleged millions upon millions of alleged human remains that those like you claim exist?

    And why can’t you show us the original ‘Generalplan Ost’ documents?
    Becuase they do not exist, that’s why
    Your .pdf is not an original document, only unsubstantiated propaganda of the sort that Ron speaks on in the articlel under discussion.

  118. PeterMX says:

    An excellent article. There are many things I could write to show my agreement with everything Mr. Unz writes. When Mr. Unz comments on the complete lack of any mentioning of Jews being involved in starting the war, it makes me think of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s speech to a Jewish group (still on Youtube) in which he says Jews comprised 80 to 85% of the first USSR government. The National Socialist government agreed, calling the USSR Jewish-Bolshevik. It also reminds me of an excellent 5 part article Dr. Andrew Joyce wrote for The Occidental Observer in which he discusses constant Jewish activity against Germany immediately upon Hitler taking power, including economically boycotting Germany, organizing anti-German rallies around the world within two months of Hitler taking power, and at least two poitical assassinations of German and pro-German politicians in Europe prior to the beginning of the war.

    Despite Jews deep involvement in political activity against Germany prior to the war beginning and then during the war, Jews completely disappear from the history books once the war is over, except as victims. This, and their dominant position in the USSR demonstrates how completely fraudulent the mainstream history narratives are. If you consider Jews leading role in the USSR and Germany’s intense criticism of Jews and communism, you could interpret WW II as essentially a war between German led Europeans and Jewish led communist and capitalist countries (USSR, France and Great Britain and USA). Jews had very strong influence in all four of those countries (communist and capitalist), while volunteers from all over Europe joined the Waffen SS or sent their own volunteers to fight the USSR, as in Spain’s case.

    Jews are without question the most powerful nation in the world today and that is a result of their victory in WW II. I believe this is why Hitler framed the war as a war to defend German and European interests, with Jews and the USA being outsiders. If Germany had won the war, Jews influence in the world would be much, much less than it is today. There would be a lot less Jews in Europe, including many less in leading roles and they would have been relocated to Madagascar or perhaps somewhere else, but they would not be dictating to other world powers as Israel does today. You could say Stalin was wrong when he said the Vatican was powerless because it had no army. The immense power Jews have has nothing to do having a powerful miitary.

    • Replies: @bored of lies
  119. @James N. Kennett

    By delaying America’s entry to WWII until after Operation Barbarossa, America First ensured that it was the Soviet Union and not the USA that fought to the death against Germany, and suffered these colossal casualties. America First saved many millions of American lives, and it is invidious that its proponents have now been unpersoned, and the movement itself stigmatised.

    Oh, goody, and why am I doping this. First, Great Britain had a much larger role than any America First (starting from ABC consultations in March 1941) and further with Britons dominating Western Allied war planning till Tehran Conference in November 1943, making sure that at that time all available US resources would be utilized at the secondary, but important for Britain, theaters of operations. Secondly, American “uprising” against British dominance happened at Casablanca with General Stanley Embik’s memorandum circulated there for American delegation (including FDR) about “primrose path” of British military planning sought only to serve British imperial interests, not fighting Nazi Germany. USSR had 27 million dead.

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
  120. Malla says:

    James Perloff Hitler vs the Elite Cabal of International Bankers

  121. @PeterMX

    basically this
    one by one the countries of europe fell to the jewish power in the last two centuries and germany was the last stand to reverse the jewish dystopia where were heading.

    hitler was right nearly about everything but we need another tactics if we want to survive.

  122. Whether Hitler wanted a war with Britain or not, he didn’t mind having one. And whether Holocaust skepticism is warranted or not, Hitler and his Nazi cronies thought the Jews, along with the communists, were the key scapegoats to rail against.

    Buchanan, Irving, et. al, are the “woulda, coulda, shoulda” historians, purveyors of the counterfactuals. “Hey, Adolf, we’ll give you the Rhineland, Danzig,and the Sudetenland, and then you’ll just bid your time, leave the Poles alone, and then you can line up the Panzers, dash through Poland and take care of the smallpox ridden Georgian sitting in Kremlin.:”

    Yeah, THAT coulda happened.

    Churchill understood, through all his faults, that Hitler was a totalitarian, and totalitarisns do two things: (1) ashcan parliamentary systems of government, and (2) invade AND conquer other countries.. The first invariably leads to the second, as sure as night follows day

    • Troll: Druid
    • Replies: @Bookish1
    , @Druid
  123. Bookish1 says:
    @PJ London

    Much of what you say has already happened but now the reverse is starting to happen and the germans are starting to look good.

  124. Wally says:
    @James N. Kennett

    said:
    “A German bomber returning from a raid on a military target in Britain dropped its unused bombs to lighten its load and shorten its journey time. The pilot believed he was flying over countryside, but in fact he was over London in blackout.”

    LOL.
    – As if a Luftwaffe pilot would not know he was over London.
    – As if a Luftwaffe pilot would not have dropped his bombs on his intended target .

    said:
    “Of course, war in 1939 would also have been avoided if Hitler had decided not to invade Poland – or at least not to invade Poland yet.

    except:
    – Britain & France did not declare war on the communist USSR which invaded from the east and took 60% of Poland
    – Poland invaded and annexed parts of Czechoslovakia, held large parts of German territory, was engaged in atrocities against German civilians, Poland gave Lithuania an ultimatum upon threat of invasion.Yet the ‘Allies’ did nothing.

    – It is also important to remember that France had already invaded Germany, the Saar in 1939, and that throughout this entire period Hitler was begging Churchill to negotiate a return to the status quo.
    more:
    Who started bombing civilians first: Germany or Great Britain, Britain: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8172
    Why Germany Invaded Poland, by John Wear: http://inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391

  125. @German_reader

    Since you obviously read German quite well, surely you know that actually, you can indeed make the argument that neither “liquidieren” nor “ausmerzen” necessarily refers to physical extermination, even in the context of Wetzel’s memorandum. Though it’s easier to make that case with the second than the first, of course.

    Nonetheless, there is some ambiguity, since Wetzel only refers to the Jews in passing, never specifying what he means. For example, the “liquidation” in view may concern the Jews as a corporate entity, rather than as individuals. If the Jewish entity in question is deprived of all its supporting institutions and cultural constructs, it could be considered liquidated, depending on how one defines such things. This would still be a drastic degree of liquidation much in excess of what Wetzel speculates on for other peoples, and thus fit the context.

    I’m not saying that’s necessarily the correct interpretation, either. Just that it can be made. As those of us who read German can tell, the document in general certainly comes across as remarkably cold-blooded either way, given its topic. No worse than much similar fare on the “Allied” side, one might say, such as the Morgenthau Plan or the preliminary discussions on the Nurembergs Trials, but unpleasant even so. Perhaps, to be fair, we should bear in mind that this was only research and discussion, not policy to be implemented. Yet, as you correctly noted earlier, it’s illustrative of a certain mindset within the bureaucracy.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
  126. schrub says:

    General Dwight Eisenhower’s direct involvement in the deaths of the German prisoners of war in the postwar years of 1945-1946 brings up some other questions.

    Such as how did Eisenhower, who had no combat experience (he had sat out World War One in the USA) and who also had virtually no high level organizational experience much above brigade level (because of his meager rank as an officer in the late 1930s ) manage to to jump over almost 200 vastly more experienced and much higher ranked generals to end up commanding troops in
    Europe ?

    Was Eisenhower able to do this because he was the protege of the immensely powerful Bernard Baruch? Ike’s connection to Baruch might have gone as far back as far 1931 when the two apparently first met. The next time I personally came upon a connection was their joint appearance at a seemingly obscure 1935 military conference.

    Just how close were the pair? Plenty close. Follow this link:
    https://www.jta.org/1953/08/20/archive/eisenhower-lauds-baruch-at-dedication-ceremony-in-new-york

    This brings up another question. Just how influential was in fact the very mysterious Bernard Baruch? We just have to look at his influence in the earlier Woodrow Wilson administration for an early example.

    In 1916 Baruch had managed to get himself appointed chairman of the new War Industries Board despite his status as nothing more than a mere stock speculator having absolutely no experience in large scale heavy industrial organization whatsoever. One of Baruch’s major effort’s in this post was apparently to help set up a copper cartel headed by his friend Solomon Guggenheim in order to control the sale of vitally needed wartime copper to the US government. . This cartel then royally fleeced American taxpayers as a result of blatant war profiteering. This fleecing occurred not only with the sale of copper at artificially inflated copper prices before and during the war but afterwards as well when copper prices were artificially depressed in order to allow the cartel the ability to buy back surplus US government copper at significantly lower prices. Henry Ford was apparently well aware of what was going on and was appalled by what the cartel had done. .

    Attempts by the so called Nye Commission in the early 1920s to investigate the wartime copper cartel and its connection to Baruch were ineffective because of negative or outright hostile publicity in the media. The Democrats in congress were also particularly apathetic about the investigation. The investigation simply fizzled out leaving the enormous fraud virtually un-investigated and unknown to this day.

    Another question should be, was Baruch so influential that he could recommend his to “best pal” Franklin Roosevelt Eisenhower’s promotion to head American troops in Europe despite Ike’s meager qualifications .

    Short answer: you bet he was. FDR was so friendly with Baruch that FDR was to later spend a full month in 1944 living at Baruch’s enormous South Caroline estate, apparently gratis. How FDR was able to explain such a huge absence on his part from his duties in wartime Washington DC is still a mystery.

    Baruch, BTW, was an even closer friend of Winston Churchill, that most notorious of all freeloaders who was another key participant along with FDR in what became the Morgenthau Plan, the genocidal plan that it is claimed was never implemented but actually was as regards to German POWs and post war German refugees.

    In addition, both Ike and Churchill had foolishly made themselves blackmail-able and therefore controllable during and after World War Two. Ike as a result of with his wartime relationship with his mistress Kay Summersby and Churchill with his very close relationship with his red headed and much younger (and very good looking) Irish male “friend” Brendan Bracken. You can bet that some interesting photos of both these two men’s extra curricular activities are in the files of both the wartime OSS (and later it successor the CIA) and the Mossad.).

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3093439/Was-Winston-secretly-GAY.html

  127. szopen says:
    @John Regan

    The Germans thought there were ground troops there, and so treated it as a military target.

    Aand so they raised to the ground the whole city?!

    Emmerling lives in Germany, BTW, since 1982. Marius is German name, not Polish (Polish would be Mariusz). He speaks Polish, but I do not think you can say he is “Polish” historian. I haven’t read his book, but I’ve read the threads where he argues with Polish amateurs and half-professionals. Yes, there were Polish soldiers nearby; and in Luftwaffe documents it mentions hitting Polish transports. But the fact is Frampol was almost completely destroyed. In the most favourable case it was Luftwaffe hitting everything in the hope Polish units will be hit too, without caring at all about civilians. The same was about Wieluń: before war soldiers were garrisoned in the city, so the Luftwaffe hit the civilian buldings near the market, assuming that… Polish soldiers would be garrisoned inside. Wow. Ok, I can understand someone saying that this was valid military target, even if noe soldiers were killed and all victims were civilian; but I can’t understand when someone was saying that Luftwaffe behaved noble and tried to avoid civilian casualties, when it’s clear they were not.

    • Replies: @John Regan
  128. Wally says:
    @Anonymous

    Wise up.
    The “holocaust Industry”, not Revisionists claim that many millions of human remains exist in known locations, but in fact do not.
    Cremated corpses cannot, do not magically disappear.
    You are defending a narrative which you obviously do not know much about.

    “The mass graves were opened and the corpses were taken out, to be consumed by the flames of huge pyres (the ‘roasts’). The bones were crushed and, together with the ashes, were reburied in the same graves.”
    – Israel Gutman (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, 4 vols., Macmillan, New York 1990, vol. 4, p. 1481-87

    Please educate yourself before you try do debate.
    recommended:
    Babi Yar: The alleged Einsatzgruppen ‘Killings’: http://www.unz.com/article/babi-yar/
    And of course at alleged extermination sites we see claims of those huge mass graves / remains:
    Sobibor ‘monument’ supposedly over the remains of 250,000 Jew, actual remains of the alleged 250,000 cannot be shown.
    Alleged “ash pond” for an alleged 1.1M Jew remains at Auschwitz, however these alleged remains cannot be shown to exist.Alleged location of Treblinka mass graves / remains of 900,000 Jews according to Treblinka officials, no alleged remains exist.
    – photo from ‘Surviving Treblinka’, by Samuel Willenberg.It is captioned: “crane lifting corpses destined for cremation”.
    Does anyone see any “corpses”?

  129. szopen says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    You have to be kidding me. Polish testimonies are weightless, but German ones are reliable. That’s you whole attitude. As in the previous discussion, when the other guy asked “Why Germany attacked neutral Belgium?” and you answer was surprised more or less “Because it needed to defeat France”. I am no longer shocked by your double standards.

  130. Notice how “War” is being bandied about by the tribe? Somehow, this term will find its way into more articles, while documentaries will resurface to mark some ‘anniversary’ of a significant wartime event. Jews get what they want, and they want the U.S. to attack Iran. Naturally, they’ll be safely barricaded behind that big WALL in Israel.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  131. @John Regan

    If the Nazis had really believed Jews were “an evil force that needed to be destroyed everywhere” as the Judeocentric propaganda claims, they would hardly have spent every year from 1933 to 1940

    I mentioned the Madagascar plan in my first comment in this thread. But imo my assessment stands for the period from June 1941 onwards.

    • Replies: @John Regan
  132. Zionism is the greatest enemy that America faces!

    As far as I can see Zionism is the ONLY enemy the US people face.

  133. @Wally

    LOL.
    – As if a Luftwaffe pilot would not know he was over London.

    It was 1940. Pilots navigated by the stars. All British cities were under blackout. There was no streetlighting, and indoor lighting was prohibited unless the building had blackout curtains. Part of the job of air-raid wardens was to enforce these rules.

    – As if a Luftwaffe pilot would not have dropped his bombs on his intended target.

    There could be many reasons for this. Night-time precision bombing of a specific military target was not easy.

    • Replies: @Wally
  134. First of all, I am in broad agreement with this essay. In the last half decade or so, I made a point of revisiting my understanding of World War 2, and drew very largely the same conclusions. Certainly, all this stuff about Hitler being a madman who wanted to conquer the whole world is just a bunch of nonsense.

    But…. (everybody knew a “but” was coming”…) this essay does have one overarching problem. Let’s see…. well…. I see now way of saying this particularly diplomatically:

    Ron, the damned thing is basically unreadable.

    It’s 20,000 words long and, while making some good points, meanders here and there into all sorts of tangential things and… it really needs some serious editorial work, frankly.

    So, Ron, I have an idea for you. A “modest proposal” if you will. Why don’t you engage the services of Linh Dinh to edit this essay (and some others that suffer from the same basic problem) into shape?

    For one thing, Linh, just stylistically, is probably the best writer here. He certainly has the skill set to liven up your prose and, in particular, if he was given a relatively free hand, he could introduce bits of wit and humor that would make these essays far more amenable to readers.

    Also, judging from his recent posts, the man is not going through the best of times. I have no way of knowing for sure, but one would think he would be quite open to doing some paid editorial work. If you went for this idea, obviously, it would be up to you and Linh to come to some arrangement, but I have to think that if you paid him 2x (or heck, 3x) as much as he makes in the recycling business in Vietnam, it would be still quite little money by U.S. standards, especially considering the standard of editorial help he could provide.

    Well, just an idea…

    • Replies: @Zumbuddi
    , @Alden
    , @Dan Hayes
    , @Anon
  135. @David Martin

    Goodrich wrote an important and brave book. I have read both “Hellstorm” and the sequel that’s more about Japan, and don’t regret it, even if I disagree with some of his more controversial arguments. His bibliography also offers a good start for readers who want to dig even deeper.

    One of the best books on the occupation tyranny in Germany after World War II was written by a contemporary, Freda Utley, who visited the country and saw it firsthand. “The High Cost of Vengeance” perceptively and fearlessly engages with both the local issues and the bigger global fraud of imperialistic wars waged in the name of ostensible freedom and democracy. Naturally it could be published only by Regnery, and was given the silent treatment by the New York-based media. I believe it’s never been reprinted, but it’s available online in various places, for example here:

    https://archive.org/details/highcostofvengea009824mbp

    Another essential classic, which IIRC “Hellstorm” quotes from, is “The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh” by America’s most famous isolationist. This one is of interest for much more than just what he says on the occupation, in fact I’d say it’s objectively more interesting for giving an insider’s view of “America First” from close to the top. That said, Lindbergh’s calm observations on how the defeated Germans and Japanese were treated are both more illuminating and more infuriating than perhaps anything I’ve read from the Establishment outrage mills denouncing the crimes of the Axis Powers.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @John Regan
  136. @Wally

    – As if a Luftwaffe pilot would not know he was over London.
    – As if a Luftwaffe pilot would not have dropped his bombs on his intended target .

    In fact, it was the Brits who started the indiscrimiate bombing of German towns and cities, with the intend to create a firestorm in the wooden roofed worker quarters, as outlined by jewish Frederick Lindemann. The Brits bombed German towns a half year before Germany retaliated.

    But as you know, Germans were too stupid to commit a proper genocide by using flimsy cellars with wooden doors, while having industrial size gas chambers for trains.
    Apart from the fact, Germany had a considerable amount of nerve agents Sarin, Tabun and Soman in store, but they chose a delousing agent Cyclon B, in pellet form that needs heating to change aggregate state, in a time when energy and fuel was lacking.

  137. @szopen

    I was trying to relate similar sentiments to Mr. Irving, but he was very tired and dispirited after he drove a long way to his presentation locale, then learned his laptop was stolen in San Francisco. (Welcome to California…) 99.99% of everything published about WWII Europe is baloney. The propaganda machine that cranked out crap like Human Soap and Shrunken Heads conducted a relentless campaign that culminated with the so-called “Holocaust”. We are now inundated 24/7/365 with more baloney, as Israel campaigns to embroil our demoralized troops into more conflicts.

    There is a very pertinent factoid relating to war, and that is the first casualty of any conflict is the TRUTH.

  138. PeterMX says:
    @szopen

    That is the correct answer. The German army went thru Belgium because Germany had 3 world pwwers facing them and the only chance they had of winning was a fast strike in which France could be taken out first. They went great lengths to compensate Belgium for any costs and only went thru Belgium because it was the only way. Their tone towarsd Belgium was quite different than when Churchill told the smaller neutral countries he would not let them get in his way of attacking Germany. They would ally with Britain or be run over by Britain.

    As for Poland, is the Auschwitz lie a Poish lie or a Jewish lie, or both. Germany has all the countries saying the most outrageous lies about them, it’s hard to know who to address first. With legends of Jews turned into bars of soap and lampshades, Auschwitz reducing its supposed death toll by 3 million, British talk of Germany taking over the world and FDR saying they planned to take over South America, I think the supposed liar Goebbels and Germany look like angels compared to them, Poland’s allies.

    • Replies: @Wally
  139. Zumbuddi says:
    @Germanicus

    Agree until the last statement, “since 70 AD.”

    Gilad Atzmon chains zionism, which amounts to the insatiable quest for power, to Esther / Mordechai.

    That tale of genocide, celebrated to this very day and a hallmark of Bibi-think, had naught to do with return to sacred dirt — Yehud were not only free to return to “holy zion,” they were financially and politically supported in doing so by the very people that they murdered
    No, Esther’s goal was Power — financial & political control of the Persian people and their government.

    Truman said, “I am Cyrus.”
    Wrong.
    Like Wilson before him, he was more like Mordechai.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  140. The world is better for you being in it, Mr Unz.

  141. Greg Bacon says: • Website
    @Carlton Meyer

    I agree that replacing a progressive Arab leader with an Anglo-American puppet government was an important factor, but the return of Iraqi oil fields to Anglo-American control was the main objective. Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Total, and British Petroleum are now the biggest producers of Iraqi oil.:

    Didn’t realize that Israel was the principal stockholder in those oil companies named.

    Israel To U.S.: Don’t Delay Iraq Attack

    Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.

    Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin.

    “Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose,” Gissin said. “It will only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction.”

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to-us-dont-delay-iraq-attack/

    Israel wanted to maintain the momentum it had gotten after their 9/11 False Flag went so well. They wanted their American colony to invade Iraq first, then onto Syria/Iran.
    That we went into Afghanistan first caused much gnashing of teeth in Tel Aviv.

  142. @David Baker

    A war with Iran would be the end of Israel, and also the end of the US empire.
    Iran and Hezbollah would annihilate Israel, Saudi oil fields and US troops present in the middle east.
    Iraq would become a killing field for troops, along with Saudi Arabia. Houthis would move in from the south additionally. This time the Iraqi shia majority would fight US troops.

    The imperial hubris and myth of invincibility will likely ignite this war, and there will be the typical bug whining about those evil Iranians having the audacity to fight back.
    Iran is well armed for an asymmetric conflict with a giant on clay feet.
    US would lose at least one carrier group at sea if they come too close to Iranians shores.

    Hassan Nasrallah recently stated, that Hezbollah alone can wipe out the nerve and industrial center of Israel. The Israeli “iron dome” can’t defend against a saturation of tens of thousands of rockets.

    • Replies: @David Baker
  143. @szopen

    Ok, I can understand someone saying that this was valid military target, even if noe soldiers were killed and all victims were civilian; but I can’t understand when someone was saying that Luftwaffe behaved noble and tried to avoid civilian casualties, when it’s clear they were not.

    My understanding, from what I have read on the topic, is that various attempts were in fact made to limit damage to civilian lives and property throughout the early German air campaigns, including in Poland. For example, the Germans made several attempts to offer the Poles in Warsaw an honorable surrender before they launched the successive waves of air and artillery bombardments that later destroyed substantial parts of the (tenaciously defended) city. Yet, military necessity was considered more important, and judged more broadly then (according to the laws and customs of war at the time) than would be conscionable today.

    What is noble or despicable in these cases is subjective to a large extent, and something I don’t think everyone will agree on even where we have the complete facts. What can be said objectively is, I think, that the German air campaign, although it inflicted great suffering on the Polish people, didn’t break the laws of war as they stood at the time in any systematic way. That doesn’t rule out that individual war crimes were most likely still committed, such as the infamous strafing of civilian refugees, for example (something that was clearly illegal, but all the major powers in the war had many incidents where pilots did it anyway). Still, there’s a difference in kind between even the reckless and perhaps excessive use of force of a case like Frampol and the cold-blooded, systematic policy of deliberately bombing civilian housing to kill civilians as an end in and of itself that the Churchill regime initiated (and everyone else copied later, including the Germans themselves).

    Given that “revisionists” can sometimes be just as bigoted as “Establishment” apologists, if then often in different directions, I should perhaps emphasize that I don’t say any of this to demean the Polish people, or any other people that suffered during the war. I view World War II as an immense tragedy for all the peoples of Europe, and many others besides, who were all victims in one way or another (if not all in equal measure). One reason I believe it’s so important that we try to be as objective and factual as possible about these things is precisely to avoid stoking misguided feelings of petty national chauvinism of any flavor. These quarrels within the family have long since become a luxury that we (as in Europeans and European-descended peoples) can no longer afford, as World War II itself so graphically demonstrated.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @Zumbuddi
    , @A.R.
  144. Outis says:

    How does Taylor’s book compare with Victor Davis Hansons? I can get VDH’s in Kindle.

    • Replies: @David Martin
  145. Art says:

    Will history repeat itself? We have no end of questionable characters running governments these days.

    If Trump wins in 2020 – will he go Hitler? Can WWIII become a real possibility. He certainly has the egotistical personality, and the reactive shallow thinking that could lead to a major war.

    What goes around comes around. The negative Jew role in world politics, and in the history of WWI and WWII, has not been assuaged – it has not been mitigated. There is still hell to pay. The JQ grows by the day.

    Egypt may be in play by 2020 – this week protests started against the government dictator. If Egypt goes Islamic – Israel’s back door will be open to attack. It will be surrounded by hate. Could Trump manage to stay out of a Middle East conflagration?

    Hmm?

    Think Peace — Do No Harm — Art

    • Replies: @Art
  146. Has Ron been vilified by the ADL or the SPLC yet as a purveyor of hate speech?

    Oh wait. As far back as 2014:

    https://www.adl.org/news/article/ron-unz-controversial-writer-and-funder-of-anti-israel-activists

    and more recently in 2018:

    https://www.adl.org/blog/california-entrepreneur-ron-unz-launches-a-series-of-rhetorical-attacks-on-jews

    What he writes must be true then!

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  147. @Andrei Martyanov

    America’s delay was tough on the Soviets, and I don’t mean to make light of their losses.

    When Americans agitated for war before Operation Barbarossa, they were not trying to save the Soviet Union, which at that time had a treaty of non-aggression with Nazi Germany.

    With the benefit of hindsight, we know that that the military cost of defeating Germany included the lives of 9 million combatants; but it would have been obvious even in 1939 that the figure would have been very high. It is surprising that anyone would agitate to join such a war before having a casus belli.

    Can you recommend a book on the US-British cooperation between 1941 and D-Day? What British Imperial interests were given priority over fighting Nazi Germany?

  148. @John Regan

    would be conscionable today.

    I beg to differ, Fallujah totally destroyed by US military, Saigon, Pyongyang also destroyed, and the list goes on and eventually ends with the latest, Al Raqqah.
    Nothing has changed, the Brits, Israelis and Americans still cowardly bomb civilians.

  149. Wally says:
    @James N. Kennett

    No dumb ass, they did not pilot by the stars. It was 1940, not 1640 .LOL

    A city the size of London and the pilot would not know he’s over it in spite all the instruments he had and all the other planes in his group? More LOL

    And please gives us the verbatim pilot testimony on your laughable claim.

    • Replies: @JMcG
  150. @Germanicus

    I think what you’re saying is more baloney. The U.S. military can wipe Iran off the map with little effort, but we need to extract our presence from the Middle East, and stop subordinating our troops to the IDF. If the Israelis think it’s necessary to engage Iran in conflict, they should use THEIR troops, THEIR hardware, THEIR funds, and take responsibility for their actions.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @Wally
  151. Wally says:
    @PeterMX

    – “Neutral” Belgium actually aided & abetted France & Britain by allowing France to position 2 million of it’s soldiers in Belgium, and also allowed the British to add another half million troops within Belgium.
    – France and England were also allowed to use Belgian and Dutch airspace with impunity for their military aircraft.

    Auschwitz:
    Auschwitz – Forensically Examined, By Cyrus Cox : https://shop.codoh.com/book/494/508

    plus video clip:

    VIDEO: INSIDE AUSCHWITZ, Virtual Tour, What they DON’T tell you.: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12351

  152. @Zumbuddi

    Agree until the last statement, “since 70 AD.”

    What is wrong with it?

    The Jews regard European peoples as successors to the “anti-semitic” Romans, who destroyed their temple in 70 AD. It is the reason, why many Jews walk backwards through the Arc of Titus in Rome, symbolically negating this event. As the Jews say themselves in nauseating repetition “Never again”, you just need to comprehend what these lunatics say there.

    But yes, the Iranians are Aryans too, and yes, the Jews wage war on Amalek, which is nowadays basically all non Jews.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  153. Alfred says:

    I believe the archives of the German Foreign Ministry were confiscated by the victors after WW1 and that they were taken to California and have never been seen since. I think that strongly suggests that these archives would disprove the “German Aggression” story.

    I read about these archives in the book below:

    Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War. Hardcover – September 1, 2014
    by Gerry Docherty (Author), Jim MacGregor (Author)

    https://amzn.com/1780576307

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  154. @German_reader

    Very well, but I would still argue that’s off the mark. There was a transformation in Germany’s policy regarding the Jews at some point in the second half of 1941 or the first half of 1942 (historians differ on exactly when), and the result was what some bureaucrats called the Final Solution to the Jewish Problem (however we choose to interpret that). However, this still doesn’t imply the Manichean religious mindset your comment described.

    The Nazis wanted to be free of the Jews in their territory, that’s indisputably a fact. Most historians would say they were prepared to do this by killing them, once all other options were exhausted. But they didn’t see this as their sole, overriding or even anything close to their most important task. What they wanted was above all a safe, prosperous and powerful Germany (and by extension, Europe). Getting rid of the Jews was a means to that end, not the other way around. And that meant removing Jewish influence in public life, Jewish power and large concentrations of Jewish population from Europe. Not some pipedream religious crusade of hunting down every single individual with Jewish blood anywhere on the planet. (cf. the relatively “tolerant” treatment of the Mischlinge, which IIRC you’re familiar with.)

    As Albert Speer wrote (and the “Table Talk” seemingly confirms), even Hitler himself didn’t really talk all that much about the Jews privately. They weren’t the main issue on his mind. He spent much more time dreaming about the clean, beautiful cities he wanted to build for his people.

  155. Zumbuddi says:
    @John Regan

    I wish I shared your generous spirit.

    And in one sense I recognize that civilized society demands that some Hero, some Heroic People “take the hit” and refrain from retaliating, in order to break the cycle of act – revenge – revenge.

    Scholars interpret the Courtly epics of medieval literature as attempts to communicate just that ideal: that knightly courage consists in refraining from perpetuating the cycle of revenge..

    In my view, either by force or by virtue, Germany & the German people have upheld that ideal for 3 generations.

    Tragically for the rest of the world and to the irredeemable shame of the Jewish people & their confreres in the destruction of Europe (& Palestine, ME, and USA), Courtly humility has only emboldened its oppressors.

    All bets are off.

    Those who initiated & executed the destruction of Europe are enemies of civilized people.

    Knightly valor demands that they be brought to account and made to stop harming our families and communities.

    • Agree: Bookish1
  156. I’m no expert in the British laws of that era, but for elected officials to do the bidding of foreigners on matters of war and peace in exchange for huge secret payments seems almost a textbook example of treason to me, and I think that Churchill’s timely execution would surely have saved tens of millions of lives.

    Article is filled with quotable bits but this is the one I’m going with.

    I had never heard of Taylor’s book but it’s now on my To Read List.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    , @Wizard of Oz
  157. @James N. Kennett

    Can you recommend a book on the US-British cooperation between 1941 and D-Day? What British Imperial interests were given priority over fighting Nazi Germany?

    This series (famous green books by US Army) of a particular help:

    https://history.army.mil/books/wwii/sp1943-44/chapter13.htm

    And, of course, no better description of Allied deliberations leading to D-Day exists than David Eisenhower’s: Eisenhower at War 1943-1945.

    It is a thousand page treatise, riveting in its details of Anglo-American (and Soviet) relation. Even when somewhat biased (understandably) towards Western Allies it provides numerous key insights into what contradicts dramatically the “message” of this discussion. Or, rather, blows it out of the water.

    Obviously, Diplomatic correspondence between Big Three is of prime interest. Sadly, I cannot recommend Russian (immensely rich) archive documents, since they are in Russian.

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
  158. @David Baker

    Well, you are free to think whatever you want, but I notice, that the truth scares you.

    Good luck intercepting 100.000 rockets raining down on your little area where all the important stuff is located. More sophisticated Iranian missiles would follow.
    You simply don’t have the territorial depth to withstand such an attack.

    Your hubris does not let you see, that a war against Iran is impossible without taking heavy casualties and collapse of the Jewish finance system that runs with oil and intimidation.

    A war with Iran would likely involve Russia and China, dear imperial imp, they have already stated that they will defend their own national interests, and these are apparently in Iran as well.

    Yeah, the Jews eventually fight this war until they spilled the last drop of American blood.

    • Replies: @David Baker
  159. In regard to German atrocities during World War II, I suggest reading Alexander Werth’s “Russia At War: 1941-1945 – A History”. Werth was an English journalist born in St. Petersburg who followed the entire war living in the Soviet Union. He is a fluent Russian speaker, and his writing shows the value of his ability to communicate in Russian. He writes with eye-witness account of German atrocities particularly in the Soviet Union in territory controlled by the Germans. He writes about the official visits of British and American political and military leaders. Also, DeGaulle’s visit. He writes about the various conferences , such as, Yalta and Tehran. And, in strong contrast to what you wrote in regards the American treatment of German soldiers and civilians, he writes of the humanitarian treatment of the Berlin populace after the Soviet army entered Berlin. An excellent writer, Werth gives the perspective of what World War II looked like when viewed from the East. ‘

    t

  160. Wally says:
    @David Baker

    Iran would not just sit back and be wiped off the map.

    They have chemical, biological weapons aplenty and there certainly are a lot of US assets nearby they could target. Not to mention the dumb sitting duck, ‘Israel’.

    However I agree when you say:
    “we need to extract our presence from the Middle East, and stop subordinating our troops to the IDF. If the Israelis think it’s necessary to engage Iran in conflict, they should use THEIR troops, THEIR hardware, THEIR funds, and take responsibility for their actions.”

    Regards

  161. Ron Unz says:
    @John Regan

    One of the best books on the occupation tyranny in Germany after World War II was written by a contemporary, Freda Utley, who visited the country and saw it firsthand.

    Yes, I certainly agree, and I cited it to some extent in his article and much more extensively in a previous one:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-post-war-france-and-post-war-germany/

    Also, it’s conveniently available as one of my HTML Books:

    http://www.unz.com/book/freda_utley__the-high-cost-of-vengeance/

    • Replies: @John Regan
  162. @John Regan

    However, this still doesn’t imply the Manichean religious mindset your comment described.

    I don’t know, killing all Jews under German control does seem pretty Manichaean to me. Nazis had racist views about Slavs, but they still enlisted Belarussian villagers for militia duty against partisans… which would have been unthinkable for Soviet Jews (who mostly were killed in areas occupied by the Germans in 1941/42). Much of the Soviet population was seen as an inferior, primitive mass whose lives weren’t of much value. But Jews were regarded as an actively malicious element which was responsible for Bolshevism and therefore had to be exterminated completely.
    And imo for Hitler, Himmler and other SS leaders the destruction of as much of European Jewry as possible did actually become an important aim in itself, how else to explain something like the murder of the Hungarian Jews in 1944? At that point Hitler probably already knew that Germany was going to lose the war.

    • Replies: @David Baker
    , @John Regan
  163. Ron Unz says:
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    Has Ron been vilified by the ADL or the SPLC yet as a purveyor of hate speech?…and more recently in 2018:

    Actually, I was extremely disappointed that the anonymous 2018 ADL note was so short and rather milquetoast. And even that only came after I’d repeatedly baited and ridiculed them for having gone into hiding:

    http://www.unz.com/announcement/has-the-adl-gone-into-hiding/

    Unfortunately, after I strongly responded, they went back into hiding and have remained so for nearly the last year:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-adl-in-american-society/

    My guess is that they themselves suffer from their own severe “Lord Voldemort Effect” with regard to my own activities, and therefore consider me as “He Whose Name Must Not Be Mentioned”…

    • Replies: @Truth3
  164. Antares says:
    @tagaruda

    At Rotterdam, a single flight of tactical bombers, carrying a few hundred kilos of bombs each, were directed to attack a heavily defended barracks. A legitimate wartime target.
    After the flight was dispatched, it was reported the Dutch had initiated surrender negotiations, but the flight missed the recall-order as the lead bomber. the only one with a radio, had already retracted its aerial.
    Several stray bombs damaged housing and destroyed a school, where children were hiding under their desks, since apparently no-one had thought to evacuate them from the vicinity of the conflict.
    Germany immediately apologized and paid reparations.

    I had hoped for a more realistic reaction.

  165. Zumbuddi says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Agree that Dihn is a gifted writer, but strenuously disagree that Ron Unz should “Dihn” his wroting, and also disagree that this lengthy essay is “unreadable” and “meanders.”

    The logic of Ron’s essay could scarcely be more obvious: it lists, then explicates the works, arguments, and fate of historians who deviated from the Hollywood – propaganda narrative of the 20th c. wars, and in the process exposed lies & liars and revealed important truths.

    Linh’s style suits his purpose, which is different from Ron’s.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes, ChuckOrloski, Hail
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  166. Anonymous[233] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron, have you ever read Trevor-Roper’s critique of AJP Taylor’s WWII book, conveniently located in your Encounter archives?

    Taylor’s book has a lot of virtues, but it’s extraordinary that he probably didn’t read Mein Kampf prior to writing it. See his biographer here: https://books.google.com/books?id=z9RTpsIuQ58C&pg=PA455&dq=%22taylor%27s+failure+to+read+mein+kampf%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIg6qc3ufkAhWBZd8KHdDUDzYQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22taylor’s%20failure%20to%20read%20mein%20kampf%22&f=false

    The book seems to engage in a sleight of hand, in which Taylor, explaining merely the outbreak of war between Britain/France and Germany–specifically in September 1939–implies that the whole conflict, including Operation Barbarossa, was a great accident/improvisation.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  167. @German_reader

    Germans didn’t kill all Jews. Diseases were primarily the cause of death for Jews in Europe. Hitler’s heartless scheme to exploit his hapless war refugees as laborers created the horrible conditions for Concentration Camp inmates to endure as the allies decimated the German Transportation infrastructure. Many of those people were Jews, but you MUST remember that Jews worldwide declared war on Germany. Like our troops discovered, such aggression will not endear a warring nation’s people to your invaders.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    , @Wally
  168. @John Regan

    Rereading Ron Unz’s fine article more carefully, I now see that he already mentions Utley and links to another source for her book. Nonetheless, a repeated “plug” for such an important but largely forgotten (and largely deliberately forgotten) author is not the worst thing, so perhaps my initial error all for the best.

    Apropos Dr. Hoggan, I have something hopefully more original to contribute. Mr. Unz writes:

    Despite its long suppression, under many circumstances such an exhaustive work based upon many years of archival research might constitute the foundational research for subsequent historians, and indeed various recent revisionist authors have relied upon Hoggan in exactly that manner. But unfortunately there are some serious concerns. Just as we might expect, the overwhelming majority of the discussion of Hoggan found on the Internet is hostile and insulting, and for obvious reasons this might normally be dismissed. However, Gary North, himself a prominent revisionist who personally knew Hoggan, has been equally critical, portraying him as biased, factually unreliable, and even dishonest.

    My own sense is that the overwhelming majority of Hoggan’s material is likely correct and accurate, though we might dispute his interpretations. However, given such serious accusations, we should probably treat all his claims with some caution, especially since it would take considerable archival investigation to verify most of his specific research findings. Indeed, since so much of Hoggan’s overall framework of events matches that of Taylor, I think we are far better off generally relying upon the latter.

    Fortunately for us non-historians, with the trouble we might have in estimating Hoggan’s credibility on our own, he has also been subjected to a version of the “Irving Test” which Ron Unz has described elsewhere. Since his thesis was a controversial one, the whole Establishment naturally turned out in force to destroy him, with their historians in Germany as well as the US tearing into his book looking with microscopes for every error. What they managed to find was, in the end, exactly thirty points to quarrel with, compiled in a detailed and much-belabored list by leading German historian Hermann Graml. And not all of those were even errors of fact, some were matters of interpretation or even emphasis. Others were real but exceedingly petty, leading toward the conclusion that the fact-checkers were really scraping at the bottom of the barrel.

    To be fair to Graml and his cohorts, some of Hoggan’s errors were in fact substantial, giving some degree of justification for the criticism against him. Even so, less than thirty errors in an 800-page book doesn’t quite seem enough to throw the whole book on the garbage heap, especially when it covers rare and difficult topics. And thanks to the Graml team’s assiduous labors, we who read Hoggan can now also know exactly which his errors are, leaving us largely free to trust the rest of his facts. (We’re still free, of course, to disagree with his interpretations, if and where as we may want to.)

    The above is based largely on the book by American political scientist Kurt Glaser, another of our memory-holed intellectuals, which he (much like Hoggan himself) seemingly wrote in English but was able to publish only in German, then under the title “Der Zweite Weltkrieg und der Kriegsschuldfrage: Die Hoggan-Kontroverse” (World War II and the War Guilt Question: The Hoggan Controversy”). Glaser goes through the Graml team’s pettifoggery in great detail, noting which of their complaints about Hoggan hold water and which don’t. If there is interest, I can summarize some excerpts with more specifics at a later time.

    • Agree: Hail
    • Replies: @Steve Naidamast
    , @Ron Unz
  169. @Germanicus

    It is the reason, why many Jews walk backwards through the Arc of Titus in Rome, symbolically negating this event.

    ? They probably culturally appropriated from “Little Big Man”.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  170. @joekowalski9

    An excellent writer, Werth gives the perspective of what World War II looked like when viewed from the East

    Werth’s book is classic but don’t expect it to be read by most people who post in this thread. As correctly was noted, us, Slavs, we are untermensch, not capable of maintaining combat logs, archiving orders and secret communication, of documenting what was going on say in Voronezh, Salaspils, or Stalingrad. So, it is all nothing, just propaganda by subhumans whose tens of millions of Russians, Ukrainians, Poles or Belorussians all were killed in….ahem…Stalin’s GULAG, while SS was desperately trying to free them from communist oppression.

  171. @Germanicus

    Without holyhoax, Israel cannot survive, it has become the defacto religion of Jews and brainwashed non jews, just like Democracy, the Big Bang, Relativity and Evolution from apes. All lies serving as a religion.

    You forgot heliocentric system & DNA.

  172. @szopen

    This is not a meaningful, or even adequate, reply to what I wrote. It doesn’t show Polish reliability at all. I pointed to the Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau professional operation; what can you point to?

    Thanks to PeterMX for explaining the move through Belgium to you.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
    , @szopen
  173. Truth3 says:
    @Ron Unz

    Hello Sir,

    Your effectiveness in dishing out and facilitating Truth drives the ADL crazy.

    They hate you with a burning rage, yet, they want others not to know you exist, so they try to find a little no-man’s land of turf on which to satisfy their blood urges and still keep it dark.

    Good luck with that… ADL.

    Within a few years you will become the best known political and historical truth facilitator extent.

    My compliments.

  174. @Germanicus

    You forgot the Big Stick. Understand that the Iranians know what our military capability is, because they trained at our military bases (I was stationed at one of those bases.) They know we can easily defeat whatever forces they can muster against us. That’s not the point, though. We need to get the HELL OUT of that region. We need to forge our Energy Sovereignty and Independence. We can do this if we cease deploying our massively expensive forces to that region each time the Israelis snap their fingers. Middle East Conflicts will quickly diminish when Israeli leaders realize their own people will be in jeopardy if they start something.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  175. @Ron Unz

    I’m sorry, I read your article a little too quickly at first, and then I got caught up in the commentariat. I can only hope that perhaps my embarrassment may be worthwhile if it results in even slightly greater exposure for Utley’s “lost” works.

    As always, you have my appreciation, both for your own writings and the even greater service of making all of these hard-to-find writings, documents and primary sources new and old available to us amateurs. As well as for the lesser, yet invigorating favor of allowing us to add our own little parts, of such value as they may be, in the comments section.

    • Replies: @A.R.
  176. I have yet to finish this well written article by Ron Unz but I intend on doing so after printing it out in its entirety.

    I did get to the part that describes David Hoggan’s work, “The Forced War”, and was a bit disappointed by Ron’s reaction to this book.

    I read the book and though I found it very difficult and dry reading, it was nonetheless fascinating by the material it covers and its breadth of scope in terms of the diplomatic history of the inter-war period.

    Hoggan in no way places the blame on Halifax for starting WWII (as was suggested in Ron’s piece) but instead demonstrates the deceitful manipulations by this British foreign secretary to goad Poland into provoking a war with Germany. This is now well known and has been corroborated by other historians of the period.

    Relying on what appears to be only anecdotal evidence of Hoggan’s ability to contrive data in the article written by Gary North, it is a bit disingenuous given the enormous amount of detail that Hoggan provides in this book.

    Instead, much of what Hoggan describes in “The Forced War”, has pretty much been corroborated by other authors.

    Udo Walendy in his far easier read, “Who Started World War II”, provides a lot of corroboration to Hoggan’s major thesis as does John Wear’s, “Germany’s War”.

    However, though I enjoyed John Wear’s book very much I did find a discrepancy in his description of the Wehrmacht’s experience with the Soviet partisans on the Eastern Front. Where he describes very severe circumstances for the German soldiers another document written by a good writer (the name of whom I cannot remember) described a very different situation for the German soldiers whereby Soviet partisan warfare against the Germans was not as severe as Wear described.

    After corresponding successfully with John Wear with one question I had for him, I submitted a second asking him to clarify as to why there would be such a divergent point of view regarding the Wehrmacht’s experiences with Soviet partisans. Very surprisingly, he never answered and all I had asked was his point of view on this divergence of experiences.

    If you read enough of the diplomatic histories of the inter-war period as I have done, you come to find that the majority of Hoggan’s writing on this subject appears to bear out. And given that Hoggan was fluent in 6 languages allowing him to read the actual and original documentation from the various archives in their native languages, one would have to go to great lengths to discredit his work in this respect, which I doubt that such critics as Gary North have done.

    In addition, to my knowledge, there has been no book about the diplomatic histories of the inter-war period published that rises to the breadth, detail, and scope of Hoggan’s work on the subject that has refuted his findings.

    Most of David Hoggan’s work on WWII was published in German in Germany where they have all received very good receptions by the readership.

    Finally, Harry Elmer Barnes supported Hoggan’s thesis in his, “The Forced War”. I understand that there were some disagreements over some points that Barnes wanted Hoggan to change before publication but Hoggan refused to do so. To my understanding these disagreements were over somewhat minor points….

  177. @Bardon Kaldian

    If you trolls in the hasbara bunker only had some education. But there is none, zero.

    The Arc of Titus

    [MORE]

    We eventually build a new arc after the fall of Jerusalem.

  178. @Andrei Martyanov

    Communist terrorism it was, perpetrated by jewish commissars.
    How many of the 20 million casualties were actually murdered by your own commissars and apparatchiks, товарищ ?
    These mass graves they still find next to major Russian cities are not victims of German military, but bolshevik terror. No Russian researcher claims this.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    , @ValMond
  179. Dan Hayes says:
    @joekowalski9

    joekowalski9:

    Did Werth include rape as part of “the humanitarian treatment of the Berlin populace after the Soviet army entered Berlin?

    • Replies: @joekowalski9
  180. @Ron Unz

    I agree with Ron Unz about Hellstorm. Nothing original; when the book came out I had already read about everything elsewhere. But it was promoted as groundbreaking. I’m not a fan of Thomas Goodrich, and he treated me in a dishonest way. Just goes to show, you can’t get away with chutzpah forever.

  181. @John Regan

    Thank you for your comments on David Hoggan…

    I too wrote my own comments on Hoggan’s, “The Forced War”, here in defense of his research. And like you, I read the complete book in utter fascination.

    With only around 30 errors in this huge treatise, I doubt there are any serious ones to the point that this work should be discarded.

    And as I stated in my comments, most of what Hoggan did write has been corrobortaed by other writers.

    Finally, I have also read Taylor’s book noted in this piece and to me, Taylor’s book is in comparison to Hoggan’s work nothing but a pamphlet in comparison…

  182. Art says:
    @Art

    WWIII? As we review the past – should we be zeroing in on the future?

    The US, UK, and Israel are all led by the same type egotistical dolts that got the World Wars going.

    [MORE]

    Egypt may be in play by 2020 – this week protests started against the government dictator. If Egypt goes Islamic – Israel’s back door will be open to attack. It will be surrounded by hate.

    Egypt military calls for Sisi to be ousted

    Officers in Egypt’s military called on citizens to take to the streets and bring an end to President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi’s regime, Al-Khaleej Online reported yesterday.

    The Egypt Officers Front, which said it is loyal to former chief of staff of the Egyptian Armed Forces Lieutenant General Sami Anan, said it would protect the demonstrators.

    On Facebook, the group said the army would protect the demonstrators exactly as happened on 25 January 2011, when the regime of Hosni Mubarak was ousted.

    It named Dr Mahmoud Refaat as the official spokesman for Sami Anan and called for everyone to contact him for information.

    Refaat approved the reports and said he would release the names of the officers who would protect demonstrators, calling them “the honourable officers of the Egyptian army.”

    https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190923-egypt-military-calls-for-sisi-to-be-ousted/

    Is an all out war in the offering — US/UK/Israel vs. the rational world?

    Think Peace — Do No Harm — Art

  183. @James N. Kennett

    America’s delay was tough on the Soviets

    Not really, unless you haven’t heard of the Murmansk and Persian Corridors. Without U.S. help, Russia couldn’t have lasted 6 months.

    Can you recommend a book on the US-British cooperation between 1941 and D-Day? What British Imperial interests were given priority over fighting Nazi Germany?

    Why do you need a book? Just look at British behavior. After Dunkirk, they refused to fight Germany in Europe. They moved their operations to Africa, where they had a series of well-publicized but ultimately pointless battles with Rommel. Well, maybe not entirely pointless, since it allowed them to protect Egypt and grab Libya & Somalia from Italy. Expanding the empire. Killing Nazis was never Winston’s primary goal.

  184. @Germanicus

    No Russian researcher claims this.

    So, you are telling me that you know “Russian researchers”? I don’t think you do, but never mind, feel free to learn from them.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  185. Art says:

    Unz: At that time, war with Japan, possibly over Latin American interests…greatly from our official history. Japan had been fighting in China… plan was to “maneuver [Japan] into firing the first shot…

    Roosevelt put sanctions on Japan – it started WWII.

    Trump is putting sanctions on Iran — WWIII to follow??????????????????

    Think Peace — Art

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  186. lysias says:
    @joekowalski9

    If you think that the Red Army treated Berlin humanely, you need to read Marta Hillers’s “Eine Frau in Berlin”.

    • Replies: @lysias
    , @joekowalski9
  187. @James N. Kennett

    The story of an accidental bombing by a lost German pilot is exactly that, a story…

    Britain began bombing German civilian centers almost immediately. Adolph Hitler requested that Britain refrain from doing so for over 4 months while he disallowed Luftwaffe pilots from doing the same in Britain.

    Once understanding that Britain would not stand down in their continued bombing of German civilian centers, Hitler gave the order to return the favor to the British…

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  188. lysias says:
    @lysias

    Marta Hillers’s “A Woman in Berlin” (“Eine Frau in Berlin”).

  189. @David Baker

    Without nuclear weapons, you can’t defeat Iran. It would quickly escalate in a broader conflict.
    If you use nuclear weapons, the Russians and Chinese will not look the other way, and a nuclear device may find it way over the Caspian sea to Iran, apart form passive and likely active Russian support for Iran. The russians will not sit idly by and watch the Americans destroy their neighbor, knowing the Caspian sea would be militarized with US warships.

    [MORE]

    As said, the imperial hubris does not let you see the obvious. The US is a giant on clay feet, totally vulnerable due the many assets they have across the globe, and additionally, the US homeland is defenseless against advanced missile strikes. Your THAAD and stuff will not work reliably against hypersonic glide vehicles like Russia and China deploy already. It is an illusion peddled by your insane establishment to make the americans feel safe, a precondition to send them to a war and their doom.
    A war with Iran would lead to war and destruction on US soil this time.
    Do you get this?
    Sometimes I think the US urgently need a war they started coming to them. They narrowly escaped it in WWII.

    The 250000 troops Trump was gonna allegedly send would not be enough to invade Iran, you would at least need double the troops, at least. Iran has 80 million population, and numerous powerful allies, and by now is self sufficient producing advanced weaponry. They may have much more in store than many people would imagine.
    They have proven time and time again, they are capable to hack US infrastructure and land sophisticated US drones in Iran to reverse engineer.

  190. @Bragadocious

    Not really, unless you haven’t heard of the Murmansk and Persian Corridors. Without U.S. help, Russia couldn’t have lasted 6 months.

    You obviously haven’t heard of them either but that is expected from the consumers of this propaganda here. If you want to tell me that people in US Military Academy at West Point are Putin’s Agents and wrote this in the course of history taught there this:

    [MORE]

    I have to say, man, those pesky Russians are really good at infiltrating and brainwashing those US military academicians.

    • Agree: Cortes
  191. @Andrei Martyanov

    They [Iranians] have chemical, biological weapons aplenty

    Along with the laws prohibiting the bombing of cities, all nations had similarly agreed to ban the first use of poison gas, while stockpiling quantities for necessary retaliation. Since Germany was the world-leader in chemistry, the Nazis had produced the most lethal forms of new nerve gases, such as Tabun and Sarin, whose use might have easily resulted in major military victories on both the Eastern and Western fronts, but Hitler had scrupulously obeyed the international protocols that his nation had signed. [Pravda WWII / Unz]

    When Ahmadinejad was Iran’s leader, he was vilified as “Hitler.”
    Like “Hitler,” when, in the course of its war with Iraq Iran was attacked with chemical weapons (facilitated by USA), Iran’s military leaders urged government to retaliate in kind, using its stockpile of chemical weapons, but Ayatollah Khomeini sternly forbid the use of chemical weapons, even though tens of thousands of Iranian civilians as well as warriors were killed or permanently harmed by the gassing.
    Iran had protested to the United Nations that the use of chemical weapons was forbidden — had been since WWI, the use against Iran the first such action taken since that war that introduced chemical warfare to such devastating results. United Nations refused to acknowledge Iran’s protest and took no action to enforce restrictions on CBW.

    When the Ayatollah Said No to Nukes – Foreign Policy
    https://foreignpolicy.com › 2014/10/16 › when-the-ayatollah-said-no-to-n…

    On the other hand, by 1938 FDR had ordered that US military acquire land in the Utah desert to develop chemical weapons, and where, by 1942, US Air Force, Eric Mendelsohn “The Jewish Architect,” Hollywood set designers and Standard Oil planned and rehearsed the best methods of starting fires to incinerate German (and Japanese) civilians.

    Fancy that.
    The neocons were correct in comparing the Iranians to “Hitler.”

    • Replies: @ChuckOrloski
  192. @simple_pseudonymic_handle

    It’s important to remember that Churchill was a Dual Citizen

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  193. @Carolyn Yeager

    “…Polish witnesses remember

    Such a “testimony” carries no weight. It’s what the “holohoax” was created from. The Germans, beginning with the Polish-German war, had teams of respectable, experienced judges who took depositions under oath from soldiers and others about events and atrocities that were seen and personally experienced…”

    You suggest that Polish witnesses were unreliable because they had an interest to lie, as if the German witnesses (under “oath” or not) didn’t have an interest lie. You consider the German organization “respectable” because it was “official”. Well the Polish Government is also “official” but it tells a different story about the war, but I don’t think you trust that.

    What it boils down to is simple ethnic prejudice : Poles lie because they are Poles. Germans speak the truth because they are Germans.

    But you are not even consistent in your prejudices. I remember in your article about the Einsatzgruppen you said that the reports of the killing of civilians that they send back to the homefront were lies. They lied about it to impress their superiors. So suddenly the always honest Germans became consumate liars when that suits you. Talk about “adaptive prejudices”.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  194. @Andrei Martyanov

    I actually do, and I also speak and read Russian, red comrade.
    I also witnessed Soviet occupation, and how they treated their own soldiers in their garrisons, including executions and brutal beatings.

    It was the Soviets who refused to sign the Geneva convention, and fought outside this established norm that had been kept since the peace of Westphalia.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  195. @Andrei Martyanov

    You’re being sarcastic, of course, but the completely serious claim can be made that the Soviet Communist authorities were responsible for the greater portion of Soviet civilian deaths during World War II. The “scorched earth” policy of destroying industry, infrastructure and agriculture wholesale as the Red Army retreated while leaving tens of millions of helpless citizens behind in a wasteland and expecting the Germans to care for them was rather conducive to such a result, even if the Party’s primary aim was not killing them as such (that being rather to disrupt and sabotage the Germans as much as possible, using the ethnic Russians, Ukrainians and etc as human shields and cannon fodder while the Communist commissars fled). Naturally, under such conditions there was starvation, disease and unrest where the Germans set up their administration. But were they solely to blame for it?

    Here is an article on the topic by a far right revisionist who looks at primary sources in some depth. To stave off tangential discussions, I don’t necessarily endorse everything he writes, but he does offer considerably more substance than the snarkings of the usual suspects:

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p-91_Sanning.html

    To this, we should add the bands of terrorists known as the Communist partisans, who slaughtered untold thousands of ethnic Ukrainians, Belorussians and others in the most cruel manners imaginable for the crime of trying to live normal lives under German occupation. And then we aren’t even touching on what happened to the populations of the Baltic states, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe when the Communist Red Army invaded and conquered them in 1944-45 (an event known as “Liberation” in Communist Newspeak).

    Of course, outside of the strawmen peddled by interested parties (and perhaps a few trolls and hasbarists pretending to be on the other side), no serious revisionist or dissident historian today pretends the Germans were perfect saints and could do no wrong. Equally obviously, no one worth taking seriously calls the Eastern European peoples subhuman today, or blames all Russians (or Ukrainians, Belorussians or other Soviet peoples) collectively for the crimes of the Communist regime and its executioners. As noted by such an acute and sensitive observer as Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the first and greatest victim of Communism was the Russian people itself. Perhaps the greatest trick the real culprits ever pulled was convincing the American people during the Cold War that “Russians” as a collective were behind these evils, while almost entirely successfully passing themselves off as ever the innocent victims.

    Naturally, this in turn then makes it all the sadder to see when ethnic Russians occasionally become apologists for Communism out of ironically similar, misguided false nationalism that likewise equals Soviet with Russian and Communists with Russians. Or perhaps they are honest nationalists, honestly convinced that everyone hates them no matter what, and lashing out for that reason. God knows, given what you probably see of “our” media here in the West, it’s hard to blame you for that if so. Still, it’s something everyone on all sides must work harder to overcome. In this day and age, Russians who care about Russia and Westerners who care about the West have far too many more important enemies to spend their limited strength fighting each other.

    • Agree: A.R.
  196. @David Baker

    “Germans didn’t kill all Jews.”
    No Shit, Sherlock.

    The countries of the West were full of millions of screeching “Holocaust Survivors” for decades.

    • Replies: @Wally
  197. iffen says:
    @szopen

    Keep casting.

    • Replies: @szopen
  198. Ron Unz says:
    @John Regan

    Fortunately for us non-historians, with the trouble we might have in estimating Hoggan’s credibility on our own, he has also been subjected to a version of the “Irving Test” which Ron Unz has described elsewhere. Since his thesis was a controversial one, the whole Establishment naturally turned out in force to destroy him, with their historians in Germany as well as the US tearing into his book looking with microscopes for every error. What they managed to find was, in the end, exactly thirty points to quarrel with, compiled in a detailed and much-belabored list by leading German historian Hermann Graml….The above is based largely on the book by American political scientist Kurt Glaser, another of our memory-holed intellectuals, which he (much like Hoggan himself) seemingly wrote in English but was able to publish only in German

    Thanks, that’s very useful information. Unfortunately, it supports my impression that virtually all of the serious discussion of Hoggan’s book was in German, a language I don’t read, making it very difficult to evaluate Hoggan’s reliability. My own guess is that 99+% of his facts are correct, but under the circumstances I just can’t be sure enough to rely upon them.

    However, I have made the gigantic work (ex. footnotes) available in convenient HTML form, so people can read it and decide for themselves:

    http://www.unz.com/book/david_l_hoggan__the-forced-war/

  199. Alden says:
    @Miggle

    The Berlin police should have murdered the communist spy agitator and revolutionary years before they did what was necessary and killed her. If Luxemburg had her way, there would have been a communist revolution and takeover in Germany 1919-1920. Good thing the Berlin police killed her and spared the whole of Germany going Jew dominated communist after WW1.

    Police, Freicorps non communist militia, whoever killed Rosa Luxemburg are heroes in my opinion.

    • Replies: @Miggle
  200. Ron Unz says:
    @Anonymous

    Ron, have you ever read Trevor-Roper’s critique of AJP Taylor’s WWII book, conveniently located in your Encounter archives?

    Thanks for pointing me to it, and I probably should have done so, along with some of the other contemporaneous reviews. Meanwhile, someone else brought to my attention an exceptionally long and absolutely outstanding review by Murray Rothbard, perhaps the leading libertarian intellectual also having a great knowledge of history:

    https://mises.org/library/review-origins-second-world-war

    Running over 7,500 words, I think it may be the next best thing to reading the entire Taylor book itself.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Wizard of Oz
  201. Alden says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Hitler wasn’t elected to anything. Hindenburg was elected President. Sometime later Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor. Chancellor was an appointed not elective office at the time. .

    • Replies: @lysias
  202. Alden says:

    Another great post from Ron UNZ. Thanks for the article and the site.

  203. @Ron Unz

    If you would have use for it, I could perhaps write up a précis of what Glaser has to say at some future time, the better to let your readers make better use of Hoggan’s flawed, but still valuable mastodon of a book. I imagine it would be a boon for scholars to have at least some of this publicly available in English. On the other hand, it might be too technical for general audiences. I also can’t promise just when I’d be able to get to it, since my schedule is both busy and quite irregular, and likely to remain such in the foreseeable future.

    In any case, I’m glad I could be of any little bit of help to the endeavor that is the Unz Review. Keep up the good work.

    • Replies: @A.R.
  204. @Carlton Meyer

    Thank you Carlton Meyer that video is the best!

  205. @Germanicus

    I also witnessed Soviet occupation,

    How old are U?

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  206. Wally says:
    @John Regan

    said:
    “Hitler personally used the figure of India a lot in his “Table Talk” conversations … ”

    – Beware of that source. No doubt there were conversations at dinners, but what has been added, mistranslated, invented within them is the issue.
    recommended:
    The Faking of Hitler’s “Last Testament”: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/Testament/byGenoud.html
    Table Talk, Picker: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/Table_Talk/Picker.html
    Genoud, Heim & Picker’s Hitler’s “Table Talk”: A Study in Academic Fraud & Scandal:
    https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/3/4880
    Rauschning debunked: https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=Rauschning
    And then there’s the bogus Table Talk claims here:
    How Historian Rees Falsifies and Invents : https://codoh.com/library/document/4917/?lang=en
    and:
    http://carolynyeager.net/our-hitlers-table-talk-series-now-available-cds
    Our “Hitler’s Table Talk” series now available on CD’s
    A two-disc CD set containing all 56 of the newly-edited, discussing Hitler’s Table Talk, spanning 1941 to 1944.

    recommended:
    https://carolynyeager.net/

    • Agree: Germanicus
  207. @Ron Unz

    a language I don’t read

    This is very unfortunate, as it would help you tremendously in your quest for truth, if you were able to read the speeches given in their original language along with German documents such as the Foreign office whitebooks, without mistranslations and tampering.

    It is all too often, some ridiculous claim has been made in english, but there is no primary source to back it up, just “copies” ie the alleged Wannsee protocol. There is no original.

    • Replies: @Wally
  208. Skeptikal says:
    @Skeptikal

    Here is a brief description:

    “This book traces the history of Germany from before WWI, between WWI and WWII and WWII with an eye on the behind the scenes of the financing and re-armament of Germany. The treaty of Versailles and the Dawes plan are also covered. The author, Guido Giacomo Preparata does a skillful job at following the money trail to the Anglo-American oligarchy who use the worlds banking system (he calls it the ‘Grid’) to create wars and mold future events for their liking, basically “Perfidious Albion” using balance of power and divide & conquer to continue the ‘hidden’ British Empire.”

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  209. @Skeptikal

    I’ve not read Conjuring Hitler, but I have listened to Preparata speak about his work and about his assessment of the state of Italy since WWII — Italy is ‘owned’ by USA, it has no identity of its own.

    Also learned a bit from Andrew Buchanan’s research / writing on the Italian Campaign
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?322137-1/discussion-us-engagement-italy-world-war-ii# , which suggests Bernard Baruch’s (tangential) involvement in FDR’s goal of displacing the British and gaining control of the Mediterranean and its trade routes to both the Levant and North Africa, by occupying Rome / Italy and pissing off Churchill by shutting the British out of any influence on the succeeding government of Italy;
    as well as a (very few) essays on the influence of Margharita Sarfati, Mussolini’s Jewish Mistress (the one who was not hanged with Il Duce, having fortuitously fled to South America for the duration and returned to Italy to finish out her career) https://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/uncategorized/2014/11/debating-mussolinis-jewish-mistress/ ,

    But overall, there is really not that much information about what Fascism really meant to Italians / Italy in Mussolini’s time, for all that “fascism” is used as an all-purpose but largely meaningless epithet.

    If someone like Ron Unz were to do a Pravda: The Zionists and Italy, dirty little secrets like Vladimir Jabotinsky’s “Roman soul” and his great admiration for Mussolini’s “muscular militarism;” and FDR’s sinister agenda of acquiring control over Italian government, thereby, control of the Mediterranean, perhaps goaded by zionists; perhaps Sarfatti was an Esther who used Mussolini to achieve zionist purposes; perhaps OSS infiltrated or exploited Italian partisans to kill Mussolini; perhaps Churchill and Benito had financial dealings —
    Inquiring minds want to know.
    Not least because MY parents and grandparents were directly impacted by Mussolini and the war.

    Guido Preparata does not answer those questions: in interviews, he concedes that he has little knowledge or interest in zionism.
    In my view, no history of WWI or WWII is complete without thorough discussion of zionism, the instigator and winner of those conflicts.

  210. Wally says:
    @David Baker

    said:
    “Germans didn’t kill all Jews.”

    So which Jews do you think Hitler did “kill” and how?

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

    – so called “holocaust historian” Raul Hilberg

    • Replies: @David Baker
  211. Wally says:
    @Bill Jones

    said:
    “The countries of the West were full of millions of screeching “Holocaust Survivors” for decades.”

    And they still are ” full of millions of screeching “Holocaust $urvivors” ”

    Which simply debunks the claim by “The Holocaust Industry” that ‘the Germans tried to kill every Jew they could get their hands’.

  212. Alden says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Gilda Meir and Kissinger look very standard N West European.

    They are just a thousand times uglier than the average ugly N West European. It’s not so much that they are Jewish. It’s that half the Europeans are average attractive 25% pretty to beautiful 25% unattractive through average ugly to totally hideous as are Meir and Kissinger. They’re on the lowest section of the ugly side of the bell curve.

    Except E European women, not men . 100% are average pretty to drop dead beautiful.

  213. @Flint Clint

    Miles Mathis has also researched David Irving and found the usual common trait.

    http://mileswmathis.com/irving.pdf [First published December 3, 2015]

    Irving’s alleged “anti-semitism” and “holocaust denial” was a blackwash job.

    The 20th century was manufactured and managed by the usual Producers.

    Nothing has changed, as we moved into the 21st century with the Global War on Terror and Regime Change.

  214. anon[337] • Disclaimer says:

    @Tom Welsh if you read the comments here you’ll find a similar subtle undermining of Irving and Unz in the posts of @Tom67 and @4891 (and that’s from only reading a handful of comments).

    Notice how Tom67 makes a claim of the number of children and adults killed by the Nazi’s yet provides no sources?

    “That is severely physically or mentally handicapped children and the insane. At least a 100 000 children and adults were killed. Usually by injection but some also by being gassed.”

    Of course “gassings” is meant to point us to the myth of Zyklon_B being used as a means of mass executions. Typical jewish tricks.

  215. Skeptikal says:

    Re ” the index of Beaty’s volume is absolutely overflowing with references to Jews and Jewish activities, containing dozens of separate entries and with the topic mentioned on a substantial fraction of all the pages in his fairly short book. I therefore suspect that any casual modern reader who encountered Beaty’s volume would be stunned and dismayed by such extremely pervasive material, ”

    Where is teh index? I looked at the online edition provided, the ToC, and the last section is Acknowledgments, not (as would be normal) the index.
    Please do provide the index too.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  216. @Dan Hayes

    Werth discusses rape by Soviet soldiers. Suggest reading the book.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  217. @Andrei Martyanov

    Old enough to remember what I saw when peeking over the fence of the Soviet garrison, and my mom had to treat the officer wives, who usually paid in gold.

    Why so meek now?

    So back to my question, how many of the 20 million were actually victims of the jewish commissars? Wouldn’t be the first time the Soviets blamed atrocities on the Germans, eg Katyn. The Soviet occupation regime ruthlessly arrested anyone who doubted the German guilt of Katyn. Nowadays, it is an established fact, that about 20000 Poles were murdered in the Katyn forest and other places that haven’t gotten this Katyn attention.
    Why do you think the Poles hate the Soviets and Russians so much, that the US exploit it to advance their NATO towards you?

    And the other question would be, can you name one current Russian researcher who claims these mass graves they still find are victims of Germans. These people are identifed and matched against Soviet documentation of the Great Terror Stalin started. The Soviets meticulously documented how many people the deported, how many had been killed in quotas and so on, with order numbers, signed and commanded by the polit bureau and Communist party apparatchiks.
    Something German documentation lacks, because there were no kill quotas on the German side.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  218. @Ron Unz

    virtually all of the serious discussion of Hoggan’s book was in German, a language I don’t read,

    Out of curiosity, are there any languages, besides English, that you do read?

  219. lysias says:
    @Alden

    Hitler was elected, as a member of the Reichstag.

    When he succeeded Hindenburg as head of state, that was approved by a referendum.

    • Replies: @Alden
  220. Republic says:
    @Bragadocious

    Lindbergh’s September 11, 1941 speech in Des Moines, Iowa is available to watch on you tube.

    He said that FDR, the British and the Jews were trying to get the US into the war in Europe.

    He was speaking at an American First meeting

  221. @Andrei Martyanov

    I searched for Embick’s paper, and found the key passage from Eisenhower at War – on your own blog!

    https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2016/03/fulton-speech.html

    The blog post itself raises other interesting questions.

    It would be later that both Churchill’s daughter and his personal dentist Lord Moran would describe a heavy feeling of jealousy Churchill experienced towards relations FDR and Stalin had.

    Anyone who reads the Unz Review will have discovered that Churchill is overrated, if he did not know this already.

    Churchill said “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” He was not joking. His notion that Britain had “pivotal” importance both in WWII and afterwards is nowadays embarrassing.

    If Churchill felt jealous of the leaders of the US and USSR, he was not alone. One of the factors that led to the creation of the EEC was that European politicians would reach the top of the political hierarchy in their own country, only to find that they were not the equals of their US or Soviet counterparts. Creating a larger union was the only way to attempt to achieve personal parity with the leaders of the superpowers.

    In fact the founding myths of the EEC/EC/EU are almost entirely false. We are told that it keeps the peace by bringing together the countries that fought in WWII – but the principal conflict of WWII in Europe was obviously between Germany and the USSR, and the latter was never a member of the EEC. Now we have an EU with territorial ambitions towards Ukraine – just like Germany in both world wars.

    I find this particularly sad. Europeans are told that we are learning from history, and that our new political institutions have this learning built in, but the “learning” is simply an opportunity for another generation of self-aggrandising politicians to achieve their ambitions.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  222. @lysias

    Werth describes acts of revenge by Soviet soldiers. But, in Berlin, military discipline was held tightly. The Soviet military understood that a successful occupation cannot be realized without getting some semblance of German approval. Suggest reading the book.
    As Andrei Martyanov has commented, one has to read the war from the eastern prospective. All German military forces committed atrocities against military and civilians. Slavs and Jews. Read in the book about the German death camps in Soviet zones including gas chambers and crematoria. The bestiality of the German troops is likely;y the worst in military history. Genghis Khan was a saint compared to the German army. In addition, whenever the Germans retreated, as they did after Stalingrad, they left everything as a desert. Buildings were blown up including churches. Farms were destroyed. Factories were destroyed. Livestock was sent to Germany.
    Another point, during the German offensives, as they entered a city, town, or village, the young people were rounded up and sent to Germany as slave labor and in Germany they were treated inhumanely.
    A common statement that was voiced by the German army was that they’re invoking the Untermenschen policy. The Slavs and the Jews were, in their opinion, sub-human. As a Slav, I have strong emotions against the use of that term. As a Slav, I see the German behavior as sub-human.This was the umbrella which the Germans used to justify their atrocities.
    Please notice that I use the term “Germans” and not “Nazis”. This is for a particular reason: All Germans were committing these atrocities.
    Germans are condemned by history for their bestiality. Germans are not (and never were) a civilized ethnic group.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Wally
  223. @Zumbuddi

    strenuously disagree that Ron Unz should “Dihn” his wroting

    Well, it’s not a question of adopting Linh Dinh’s rather unique personal style. It’s simply that, if Ron is too busy to write a shorter article, then he could get somebody like Linh to help him tighten up the writing.

    [MORE]

    Actually, I had significant editing help from Linh on my second-last piece that appeared here. I took most (but not all) of his editorial suggestions and the piece is better for it. However, I think based on writing style anybody would see it was written by me, not by him.

    Actually, just before I sent the final version of that article to Unz, Linh told me that the piece could be edited down quite a bit further. As I recall, he reckoned that we could cut it down by 3 or even 4%. Well, that gives one an idea of how perfectionist Linh is on writing. I figured he was probably right but I was just tired and sent it in the state it was in.

    Now, by that point, that essay had already been through quite a bit of revision and IMHO was (and is) fairly polished. I have to think that this 20,000 word piece here could be cut down by quite a lot more than 3 or 4%!

    disagree that this lengthy essay is “unreadable” and “meanders.”

    (Shrug.)

    Well, okay, it is “readable” in the absolutely literal sense that it “can be read”. As for it not meandering, well… you mean that Ron just gets straight to the point. Well, whatever…

    • Troll: utu
    • Replies: @ChuckOrloski
  224. @Germanicus

    Old enough to remember what I saw when peeking over the fence of the Soviet garrison, and my mom had to treat the officer wives, who usually paid in gold.

    Ok, I see. Because both me and you know that you are full’o..t. Because your age would establish immediately that you have no idea about what documents regulated ГСВГ and what would it entail, f.e. to have “beating” in garrison. Just FYI, you are talking to former Soviet officer, and among my friends were many officers who served in ГСВГ who have, as do I, very good idea about personnel policies for service in Warsaw Pact countries.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  225. Saggy says: • Website
    @Tom67

    there is no doubt in my mind that to be a Jew in German dominated Europe amounted to a death sentence.

    Watch this vid of Dina Babbitt, who taught kindergarten at Auschwitz ……


  226. Skeptikal says:

    Re ” the index of Beaty’s volume is absolutely overflowing with references to Jews and Jewish activities, containing dozens of separate entries and with the topic mentioned on a substantial fraction of all the pages in his fairly short book. I therefore suspect that any casual modern reader who encountered Beaty’s volume would be stunned and dismayed by such extremely pervasive material, ”

    Where is the index? I looked at the online edition provided, the ToC, and the last section is Acknowledgments, not (as would be normal) the index.
    Please do provide the index too.

  227. @Andrei Martyanov

    And you are talking to a German who experienced first hand Soviet occupation, and whose family member had to medically treat Soviet officer wives, you red brick head fool, and these wives talked, but were pretty fearful of repercussions. The hospital was directly adjacent to the massive Soviet garrison in neighboring town, and from the upper floor, one could have a look over the fence and walls. Executions and beatings took place in the garrison yard.
    GSVG? Haha, you sound like a political commissar they had embedded, who kept your troops in line with your ideology, if necessary with violence. Putin was also in dresden, but he actually learned to speak a quite good German, and has drawn the lessons from the Anschluß in regard to Crimea, he simply did wahat Hitler did as well, a plebiscite.

    I wonder why many Soviets cried when they had to leave, and sold tons of equipment on the blackmarket to have a new start in Soviet land? They had a paradise in GDR compared to the Soviet shithole.

    But go on and attempt to amuse me.

  228. @SolontoCroesus

    Haha. If any Neoconservative monitoring-specialists are assigned to track comments to Ron’s article, SolontoCroesus spun some heads by saying: “The neocons were correct in comparing the Iranians to “Hitler.”

    Great job, S2C! Ideally, your comment got to the deposed John Bolton’s new desk and he buckled when seeing such strange & unwanted truth here. 👍!

    At any rate, the Jerusalem Post reported how President James Carter knew about Israel’s nuke test during 1970’s, but as he was running for a 2nd term, he clammed up. Haha. Little did Jimmy know how the Reagan campaign was dealing with Iran on coordianting a hostage release-delay until after the 1980 election. 😈Haha, (Zigh).

    Full disclosure: As a young man, I figured the Carter administration was unique and not quite Zionized. Now I know better, SolontoCroesus. Please refer to Jerusalem Post article, linked below?

    https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Carter-administration-knew-of-Israeli-nuclear-test-turned-a-blind-eye-602485

    P.S.: To perhaps > 98% fact, the last American president, uncontrolled by Zionists, was JFK. Thanks, and uh, “Fancy that.”

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  229. Alden says:
    @lysias

    Hitler wasn’t elected to anything. The referendum came a year after Hitler was appointed, not elected chancellor Hitler’s chancellor office soon took over everything No one elected Hitler. He didn’t become chancellor because of an election or referendum. He became chancellor because one man, President Hindenburg appointed him

    You’re just repeating Jewish propaganda that the evil anti semite Germans elected Hitler to kill all the Jews.

    • Replies: @Theodore
  230. Alden says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I started to read the article this morning, got halfway through and stopped. Hours later when I had the time and inclination to read a long intense article full of scholarly information I finally read it.

    It’s not one of Linh’s or Isteve’s entertaining articles. It takes concentration.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  231. @Germanicus

    And you are talking to a German who experienced first hand Soviet occupation, and whose family member had to medically treat Soviet officer wives, you red brick head fool, and these wives talked, but were pretty fearful of repercussions. The hospital was directly adjacent to the massive Soviet garrison in neighboring town, and from the upper floor, one could have a look over the fence and walls. Executions and beatings took place in the garrison yard.

    Wow. It is clear that you are some German middle-aged (maybe teenage) cuck who makes shit up as he goes, most of it based on some urban legends and outright BS. Are you typing from your mama’s basement? Again, you lie so crudely that basically there is nothing to talk about. You have no idea about personnel requirements for ГСВГ nor you a have a clue about Soviet Armed Forces. Have a nice life.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @ploni almoni
  232. Theodore says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Generalplan Ost is debunked propaganda

    Myths about Generalplan Ost and Lebensraum
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12639

  233. Theodore says:
    @Alden

    His NSDAP party won much of the vote:

    How did Hitler come to power // The rise of the NSDAP
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12669

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Alden
  234. Theodore says:
    @Ron Unz

    Keep in mind the English translation from the IHR is flawed. Many parts missing, apparently, and rewritten a bit. This is discussed here:

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7265&start=15

  235. @Jonathan Revusky

    Hi Jon!

    Am disappointed but not surprised.

    In the past, you were headhunting for Linh Dinh’s scalp, and now you are serving as a headhunter for him to get hired by Ron Unz.🙄

    Cordially, will give you odds that Ron Unz and Linh Dinh are not “tightening” up to your approach.😏

    Thank you, J.R.!

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  236. Anon[187] • Disclaimer says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    This is the one who, when she isn’t able to follow what the other person is saying/is proven wrong in a debate will come out of it with something like “You complicated things for no reason and said things beside the point, but that’s men for you”.

    If there was a “virtue” the comments sections here lacked representatives for, that was misandry. But that was in the past. Now all “virtues” are represented worthily.

    As for the fact that when people don’t understand a point made (or they understand that it proves their claims wrong) they will say it’s beside the point/means nothing, that was already much too well-represented in the comments here, as well as anywhere else in the Internet.

  237. @James N. Kennett

    In fact the founding myths of the EEC/EC/EU are almost entirely false. We are told that it keeps the peace by bringing together the countries that fought in WWII – but the principal conflict of WWII in Europe was obviously between Germany and the USSR, and the latter was never a member of the EEC. Now we have an EU with territorial ambitions towards Ukraine – just like Germany in both world war

    Correct. Russians have a proverb–every century combined West goes to Russia to have its ass handed to it. US, whose emergence to superpowerdom was primarily a result of it seeing WW II from the sidelines (it is the term Molly Panter Downess uses in her London War Notes when describing British feelings during Battle of Kursk) and getting into the big time only in 1944 when, for all intents and purposes, the issue was settled. It takes nothing from US heroism in Pacific or in Europe, but it was destroyed (utterly) Europe which served as basis for US tremendous recovery from Great Depression and effectively taking the position of hegemon, with the rest of the world in ruins. This fact doesn’t sit well with US and its European vassals “elites”. Some dirty, filthy Slavs, and not them only, beating the greatest military force in history–that hurts, still. As this thread demonstrates so well. The more time passes, the more history will be rewritten in the West. There is the reason they love Solzhenitsyn. As for Germany, it is basically is done being, as well as whole of Europe and US, run by degenerate political and pseudo-intellectual class who don’t know shit from shinola. It is sad, really, but it is what it is. Here is Embik:

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @Miro23
    , @James N. Kennett
  238. Incitatus says:

    One can easily make a case against egregious errors (all sides) 1914-18, 1933-45. Many have done it.

    Wait a second. Author/Host RU never confronts crimes against the German people 1922-33, or 1933-39. It’s RU’s ‘Twilight Zone’.

    Why should I post contrary evidence (once again), when my research becomes the property of a nutty web site?

    Sorry. Believe whatever you please.

    It would be wonderful if author RU included summaries proving the points (Wilhelm II and Hitler were blameless, etc.) for which pet historians were martyred. Is that too much to ask? How about testimony (right or wrong) of those that deposed those sages? How about principle quotes (Hitler et.al)?.

    Don’t hold your breath.

    Instead, it’s ‘well, after tending to my software, I just read (re-read)-so-in-so, victim of conspiracy, make no mistake-(no proof offered)’.

    Speech-writer/Op-Ed writer/Failed presidential candidate/Celebrity Buchanan never mentions the 5 Nov 1937 Hoßburg Memorandum in his (‘If only England sucked-up to Nazi Germany they’d still have an Empire’) ‘Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War’. He never acknowledges German imperial designs (clearly on record).

    Why?

    Buchanan is not history. Liked his book (bought it cloth-bound). It’s an op-ed, not history. Not even close. He sells books, no doubt! Wakes the somnolent and fuels fringe bigots. Vacuum up those royalties, Pat!. Life (900 words/week) is sweet!

    Celebrity is not history.

    As it is, author/site owner RU, evokes hearsay and unsubstantiated conspiracy against long deposed sources; never discusses/summarizes/champions their salient points; appears willfully ignorant of more recent historians (who, these days write histories with abundant supporting principal quotes and chronology: Beevor, Childers, Longerich, Burleigh, Ulrich, Fest, Kershaw, etc.).

    Why its that?

    Please pass the matzahs and sauerkraut!!

  239. Wally says:
    @Tom67

    said:
    ” I have personally talked to several people who have survived the Holocaust and there is no doubt in my mind that to be a Jew in German dominated Europe amounted to a death sentence.”

    – You contradicted yourself and the very narrative you curiously try to defend.

    – If ‘being a Jew in Europe was a death sentence’ then why are there countless “survivors”?

    – And where are the claimed immense human remains of many millions that are said to exist in known locations, but in fact are not there?

    I have personally talked to several people who have witnessed witchcraft & sorcery and there is no doubt in my mind that witchcraft and sorcery are real.

    – And why do people like you want lot’s of Jews to be dead? You should be elated to find out that they were not murdered.

    – And why have Jews been claiming 6,000,000 dead Jews since at least 1823?

  240. Richard B says:
    @Wolfgang Otto

    Agreed. Though I often disagree with Mr. Unz I enjoy reading his articles.

    Including what I’ve read of this one so far.

    I look forward to reading the rest. But this caught my eye and inspired a quick response.

    denouncing as “unpatriotic”—and perhaps “anti-Semitic”—a very long list of conservative, liberal, and libertarian war critics

    Putting those two words together like that says a lot. If not everything.

  241. @Incitatus

    Beevor

    Ahh, Bevor–great graduate of Sandhurst with mathematical abilities of a middle school C student is “historian”? The “student” of late Sir Keegan, who left us a “rich” heritage of “military history” which is entirely useless.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  242. skopros says:

    Another big, fat shining gold bar of precious historical revisionism deposited in the vault of truth-to-power. You have tirelessly set more records straight by your inspired compiling and cross-referencing than any scholar I have read in 80 years (and I’ve read a lot of Irving, etc.).

    Mountains of work, mountains of words–Everests towering over the molehills of contemporary academia, journalism, “mainstream” history. I shed a tear for my misspent, brainwashed youth and student days and early newspapering. We owe you a lot, Unz. One hell of a repository of history, archived & preserved from wipe-out, I trust. I hope it’s active when my grand-kids hit real reading age !

  243. The “Greatest Generation”…

    1.) Forced to attack their ancestral homeland and kill people that did not want a war with them (Germans)
    2.) Returned home and sexually mutilated their sons in the Jewish style (at birth), becoming the first generation in American history to practice widespread cock cutting.
    3.) Ushered in the tattoo degeneracy by getting some ink overseas. Thus, many years later, every hipster dummy validates his/her tattoo because war heroes used to get them.

    It was a complete and total Jewish victory, and the “greatest generation” were the donkeys that did the heavy lifting.

    • Replies: @Truth3
    , @Anon
    , @Bookish1
  244. @Wolfgang Otto

    Try some real reading. Oh, OK, Hitler in Ami Propaganda “has a micro-penis” – er, look at the loads of photos and videos which show he was hung like a horse (! look at the photos!). Hitler “shunned being touched” when he in fact shook thousands of hands and gave hugs and kisses. Hitler had a long list of girlfriends who were crazy about him. @ Wolfgang Otto – please dump the post-war propaganda already. We are 75 years beyond that.

  245. aandrews says:

    How Jewish Terrorists Fire-Bombed the Institute for Historical Review

    Institute for Historical Review
    May 2013

    “As a physical entity, the Institute for Historical Review has virtually ceased to exist. Ninety percent of our book and tape inventory — the largest collection of revisionist historical literature to be found anywhere — has been wiped out. Every last piece of office equipment and machinery — including desks, chairs, files and shelves — lay in charred heaps of useless, twisted scrap. Manuscripts, documents, artwork, galleys and film negatives — products of more than six long years of a tough, dedicated effort to bring suppressed historical data to people the world over — no longer exist. Tens of thousands of books … estimated at over $300,000 in value, are gone … More than 2,500 square feet of space that was once the world’s most controversial publisher lies blackened in chaos and total ruin.”

    Later it was learned that the Torrance Police Department had determined after an investigation of the attack against the IHR that the Jewish Defense League was responsible for the crime. That was the conclusion of a ten-page 1984 report on the Department’s investigation. (A redacted copy of the report was obtained by the Institute in January 2003.)

  246. Dan Hayes says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Jonathan Revusky:

    I respectfully disagree with your friendly critique of Ron’s writing style. On the contrary, I’m a big fan of his “Look what I’ve discovered and let me share that with you!” format. I find that this narrative style makes for a very palatable and free-flowing 20 thousand word essay!

  247. @ChuckOrloski

    In the past, you were headhunting for Linh Dinh’s scalp

    Well, I have no idea what Linh might have told you. I was always quite generous with him… paid for his travels and stuff… Well, I thought I had a good relationship with Linh for a while, but then certain things happened and something dawned on me…

    The guy is a friggin’ whack job!

    [MORE]

    Okay, I said it, but note that I never said that the mofo can’t write! You’ll never hear me say that!

    And so… since Ron frankly can’t write for shit, and Linh is rather underemployed there in the trash recycling business, I figured it would make sense for Ron to avail himself of Linh’s services.

    Total win-win situation, no?

    Well, yeah…. but… you see, that kind of argument would tend to work better with rational people…

    • Replies: @ChuckOrloski
  248. @Incitatus

    Haha. From his whitewashed “research” tomb, thus went a shit piece of Zion property, InZitatus, to his contrary matzah self: “Why should I post contrary evidence (once again), when my research becomes the property of a nutty web site?”

    Uh…, for research protection, haha, keep your day vacuum salesman-job, kid. (Zigh) Hasbarity is cheap uptown celebrity!

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  249. @Alden

    …I finally read it.

    But how is that possible? It hasn’t been released in comic book format yet.

    It takes concentration masochism.

    • Replies: @Alden
  250. Anonymous[222] • Disclaimer says:
    @Saggy

    Destroying or hiding records would still leave plenty of Germans remembering where the Jews would sent. It seems they have all decided to keep quiet.

  251. Alden says:
    @Theodore

    Hitler’s nazi party won some reichstag members & provincial and city elections before 1932. But Hitler was not elected. He was appointed chancellor a year after Hindenburg was elected President. A year after that, 1934 there was a referendum that just approved the status quo of Hitler ruling as chancellor and President Hindenburg losing whatever power he had.

    As for elections after 1934, Germany was a dictatorship. As in all dictatorships the dictators party would win.

    And Hitler was appointed chancellor soon became dictator in 1933. Nothing to do with 1934-1938 elections supervised by the Nazi party.

    I know Hitler’s your hero, but you and the rest can’t deny Hitler was appointed not elected.

  252. Alden says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Just because you can’t read at an adult level

    • Replies: @Anon
  253. See this report on todays henrymakow.com; Insider Bared Bankers Conspiracy in KGB interrogation, [ 1938 ].

  254. tagaruda says:
    @szopen

    I seriously doubt if Frampol was raised to the ground, though I suppose it’s possible a few incendiary bombs landed there and destroyed the town, if the buildings were wooden and there was no fire brigade

    Certainly the details of the claim on the wikipage page are highly dubious.

    ” 125 bombers dropped 700 tons of explosives during bombing, which lasted for several hours. ”

    At that stage of the war, for Germany, for 125 planes to drop 700 tons, or 5.6 tons each, is preposterous. Germany had no heavy bombers, the heaviest, the Heinkel 111D with a payload of just 1600kg had only just gone into production. The more numerous Dornier 217 had a payload of just 1000kg at most.

    Germany had a critical shortage of both bombs and planes during the Polish campaign, so bad was the shortage of bombers that crews had to resort to kicking small bombs out of transporter planes doors, and besides, targets were strictly selected by Luftwaffe Command according to their military importance. so the reason given at wikipedia that, the Germans were practicing destroying towns using Frampol, a town with zero military importance, simply because there was no anti-aircraft guns there; is perfectly ridiculous.

    For 125 Dornier’s to each make 5 or 6 sorties, re-fuelling and re-arming, in order to drop 700 tons on some obscure Polish hovels “because the layout of the streets looked like a bullseye” is so absurd that only an utter fool could believe it.

    • Replies: @Flint Clint
    , @Anon
  255. Skeptikal says:

    Well, Irving was right about the Soviet Union.

    But I wonder how far into the future he was able to imagine developments in the successor state.

    He does point out the the Russians think in terms of centuries, not the next election cycle.

    At any rate it is interesting to hear an opposite, basically racists, p.o.v. concerning what would be the best political development for SA and its people.

  256. Skeptikal says:
    @Ron Unz

    Well, Irving was right about the Soviet Union.

    But I wonder how far into the future he was able to imagine developments in the successor state.

    He does point out the the Russians think in terms of centuries, not the next election cycle.

    At any rate it is interesting to hear an opposite, basically racists, p.o.v. concerning what would be the best political development for SA and its people.

  257. @Counterinsurgency

    The failure of the Jewish establishment to reach its strategic goals, and the high casualties consequent to that failure (and largely caused by the failure) strongly suggest that the strategic goals of the Jewish community cannot be achieved. The fairly obvious corner into which the Jewish establishment has painted itself supports this conclusion.

    The Jewish Establishment appears to be trying to immanentize its eschaton, which seems no more likely that the Christian or Islamic or even Buddhist establishments immanentizing their eschaton. Eschatons are great for the end of time; I’d propose that we all just wait for it and let the eschatons grow of themselves.

    Won’t happen, though.

    Counterinsurgency

  258. Ron Unz says:
    @Skeptikal

    the index of Beaty’s volume…Where is teh index? I looked at the online edition provided, the ToC, and the last section is Acknowledgments, not (as would be normal) the index.
    Please do provide the index too.

    Since my HTML Books are fully text-searchable, there’s no need for including an Index, which anyway would be irrelevant since there aren’t any numbered pages.

    However, you can just look at the PDF version at Archive.org:

    https://archive.org/details/BeatyJohnTheIronCurtainOverAmerica1.o/page/n133

    However, you might want to look quickly. The previous PDF at Archive.org mysteriously disappeared, and presumably this new one will eventually suffer the same fate.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  259. Skeptikal says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron, Learn German.

    To realize your American Pravda ambitions, in particular WW2 and the role of Jews as central factors, you gotta be able to read German.

    I have spent some time on this blog excoriating commenters who bloviate about German history without even being able to read the German version of Wikipedia. They don’t the depth of their ignorance. There is simply too much that is not available in English. Or if it is, it is unreliable.

    Of course you are not a bloviator! But, I will say that to be taken seriously as an analyst in this area of revisionism I think you do need to read German. To understand what happened to German civilians in WW2 you have to understand the survivors’ stories. I am not aware of many translations. the few I have seen were poorly translated, e.g., Frauen: Women in the Third Reich.

    • Agree: Germanicus
    • Replies: @JoeFour
    , @aandrews
  260. @Wolfgang Otto

    Good article and the 20,000 words well stated. However, the main theme of this article should be this: If the Jews want War…the Jews get War. They will lie, bribe, manipulate, control the dialogue, and destroy anyone who disagrees with them with charges of antisemitism. They then destroy the history of what they did with the same techniques.

    And what are they doing today? History of the Jews just continues to repeat itself and if you say anything like Buchanan has they try to destroy how you make a living.

    • Replies: @Garliv
  261. @Jonathan Revusky

    Hey Jon!

    Will share a short Linh Dinh parable with you.

    Upon Linh’s visiting my family’s humble Taylor Borough apartment, a very wealthy friend, of my ex wife😒, her name is Sylvia met him. Immediately, chemistry, and Sylvia became charmed by Linh Dinh’s distinctness including affable personality.

    Enthusiastic, Sylvia began to insistingly offer Linh (& me!) to stay at her beautiful lakeside cottage, located in northern Pocono Mountains. As said in the NBA, a full-court press 💃 was upon the Postcard Man!

    A gentleman, Linh offered sincere appreciation, but we had lesser but more adventurous things-to-do. Afterward, we walked the streets of my hometown, shared a lot about one another until 3 am or so. No wonderful lakefront in Taylor Borough,🤔 but Linh told me all about how he and Linky settled down in the Italian Market, concrete jungle.

    Parable meaning: Linh Dinh ain’t ready for a “normal” (comfortable?) lifestyle as affluent Ron’s editor.

    Thanks for not getting abusive toward me, Jon, especially because I remember how Linh treated me to a meal, on your generous money. And such was appreciated!

    P.S.: Trust I won’t get the Moderator’s off-topic gong? Haha.

    • Replies: @Willem
  262. Incitatus says:
    @ChuckOrloski

    “thus went a shit piece of Zion property, InZitatus, to his contrary matzah self”

    Getting lonely in CIA-maven Phil Giraldi’s weekly Jews are ultimate evil epistle?

    Don’t blame you, Chuckles. Ask Milt Kapner (Brother Nat, bless all God). Maybe he has answers?

    Sent him (and Phil Giraldi) more money. 501c3s need encouragement. The more the better.

    All the best, Chuckles.

  263. Wally says:
    @Germanicus

    said:
    “It is all too often, some ridiculous claim has been made in english, but there is no primary source to back it up, just “copies” ie the alleged Wannsee protocol. There is no original.

    Precisely.

    ex.: On the Nuremberg Show Trials “documents” we see English translations of Russian translations of Polish copies of an alleged German original which cannot be found.

    recommended:
    NOT GUILTY AT NUREMBERG, The German Defense Case: http://www.cwporter.com/innocent.htm

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  264. @ChuckOrloski

    Made me smile.
    Thanks, ChuckOrloski.
    I needed that smile, because thinking about what was done to the Germans, and what is the fevered wet-dream of neocons against Iran, makes me wanna holler.

    • Replies: @Bookish1
  265. Truth3 says:
    @Major Styles

    Wow… somebody finally brought up the Brainwashing of the Parents of & Benevolent Bris-ing (performed for a few $ rapidly converted into shekels) of the Boomers.

    A German Panzer Commander told me long ago, that after WW2 the Jews made sure to get the Christian boys in USA to get ‘clipped’ before they left the birthing hospital, so that NEVER AGAIN could a male be positively ID’d as a Jew by the foreskin being… ahem… absent.

  266. Incitatus says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    “Ahh, Bevor–great graduate of Sandhurst with mathematical abilities of a middle school C student is “historian”? The “student” of late Sir Keegan, who left us a “rich” heritage of “military history” which is entirely useless.’

    Wow. Don’t pretend to know any of that (if true).

    If an ‘A’ student, would his work be more true? Please tell us more.

    Be specific. Tell us what history Beevor’s written that is “entirely useless” and please explain why.

    Not holding my breath.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  267. Tusk says:
    @Tom67

    Lothrop Stoddard writes in “Into the Darkness” that:

    It was estimated that at least 400,000 persons in Germany were known to be subjects for sterilization. But the law specifically forbids sterilization for any non-hereditary cause. Even mentally diseased persons, habitual criminals, and ordinary alcoholics cannot be sterilized. Each case up for sterilization must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before special district courts, and appeals from their verdict can be taken, first to a regional court of appeals, and ultimately to the High Appellate Court sitting in Berlin.

    So in his first hand experience the methods for simple sterilization of genetic failures was rigorous and strictly descendent within legal hierachy. It would be bizarre if the execution of ‘children’ as you state (a far harsher thing than sterilization) was carried out with a lesser degree of legality as was displayed within the Eugenics court. Further:

    There were other cases that day, all conducted in the same painstaking, methodical fashion. I came away convinced that the law was being administered with strict regard for its provisions and that, if anything, judgments were almost too conservative

    We see that in Stoddard’s opinion the Eugenics court was too lax, acting strictly in regards to the law and the legal process. So once again it seems bizarre that executions of children would go ahead without the strictest application of fairness. You state in another comment (#54) that ‘Of course it wasn´t “official”. Just a letter that so and so died of “heart attack”’. So we can see that even evidence of this fact by your admission is conjecture.

    You also state ‘ I have personally talked to several people who have survived the Holocaust and there is no doubt in my mind that to be a Jew in German dominated Europe amounted to a death sentence.’ which makes no logical or coherent sense. To be a Jew was a ‘death sentence’ according to all the Jews who survived such a death sentence, I suppose the martyr Anne Frank who died of typhus shortly before the end of the war was surprised herself that she managed to make it so long and only die of natural diseases, not German actions. Indeed, all the survivors who collected pensions while living in Israel, who were interviewed by Spielberg as another commentator mention, or who profited from their survivor literature are the TRUE testiment to the deadly death sentence forced on the Jews.

    I do not enjoy writing such statements but it seems to me that you are the typical German cuck, who alienated from his own history, who grovels at the feet of his masters while they debase and destroy his people’s heroes, and falls into the typical stockholm syndrome that all those entrapped by masters must to survive.

    Both quotes from Stoddard can be found in Chapter XVI, and the book conviniently located locally at Unz: http://www.unz.com/book/lothrop_stoddard__into-the-darkness/

  268. Agent76 says:

    April 26th, 2019 Review of The Coming of the American Behemoth: The Origins of Fascism in the United States, 1920–1940 by Michael Joseph Roberto

    Fascism is usually thought of as a quintessentially and almost exclusively European phenomenon, as having begun with Mussolini, culminated with Hitler, and been eradicated in World War II.

    https://dissidentvoice.org/2019/04/the-coming-of-american-fascism-1920-1940/#more-91631

    November 21st, 2015 Fascists Running America Endorse Nazism

    America didn’t eliminate the scourge of fascism in WW II. It shifted its headquarters from Berlin and Tokyo to Washington.

    http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2015/11/21/fascists-running-america-endorse-nazism#more40892

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  269. JoeFour says:
    @Skeptikal

    “Ron, Learn German.”

    Perhaps much easier said than done if there is any truth to Mark Twain’s observation on that language:

    “If it is to remain as it is, it ought to be gently and reverently set aside among the dead languages, for only the dead have time to learn it. Whenever the literary German dives into a sentence, that is the last you are going to see of him till he emerges on the other side of his Atlantic with his verb in his mouth.”

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  270. @tagaruda

    You are correct.

    Probably most of the descriptions on Wikipedia of events in World War 2 are fakes.

    Have a look at this: http://mileswmathis.com/hitler2.pdf

    Wikipedia’s descriptions of the Battle of Britain are preposterous. And the chronology is also presposterous.

    57 days of bombing and none of Britain’s major infrastructure was majorly damaged. The bombing only started after Britain had completed it’s network of creating bunkers in the underground.

    It’s also apparent that much of Churchill’s biography is fake.

    It’s also unclear how a man how inherited the Jewish Jenneate Jerome fortune, equal to the Vanderbilt fortune, ever could have got into financial difficulties. Except if it was done to turn native preference into mere financial expediency. So instead of saying Churchill behaved as he did because he was Jewish and a Freemason you say he did it purely on quid pro quo. How does a man whose family own a mansion with a 600 person theatre ever get into financial difficulty? A man related to George Washington?

    You must read that piece. It’s extraordinary.

    The degree of deception cannot possibly be underestimated. Unz is a great man because he takes it this far. But there is still further to go.

    • Replies: @Alden
  271. Tusk says:

    To everyone I also recommend those who haven’t done so, or simply do not know of, to read Joel Hayward’s ‘The Fate of Jews in German Hands” which is accessible right here on Unz. It is a remarkably concise text and I believe it offers a unique perspective in that the author is not a ‘nazi’, nor even a historical revisionist, but instead simply a historian who wanted truth.

  272. Seraphim says:
    @Germanicus

    “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” i.e. Soviet archives (and Soviet fiction writers) that only ‘me’ is privy to, or your lying eyes (because it goes without saying that you are a liar, full of Solzhenitsyn s..t and everybody knows that Solzh. was a damned liar and VIP-KGB agent).

  273. Alden says:
    @Flint Clint

    There was no Jerome fortune to inherit.

  274. @Ron

    Can we have the “Next Unread Comment” at the bottom of comments?

    When there is a long comment, I have to scroll back up to click the Next Unread Comment link.

    • Agree: byrresheim
  275. @Wally

    Hitler endeavored to send Jews packing, preferably toward Israel. Some Jews were executed, and many Jews were regarded and treated by the Third Reich as Enemies of the State. As I described, many of those enemies were rounded up and forced into labor camps to supply the German Military with materiel. As the war neared its end, allied bombing and tactical strikes destroyed key transportation systems Germans needed to supply those camps. With rampant disease outbreaks, lack of food and other staples, those hapless people died horribly. This was not a deliberate effort to kill Jews, it was poor planning and an example (Among many..) of Hitler’s megalomania.

  276. Alden says:
    @Theodore

    According to your chart, the Nazis didn’t start winning elections until 10 months after Hitler was appointed chancellor, became dictator and was in a position to coerce the voters and entire electoral process.

    As Alden wrote, Hitler was not elected. He was appointed.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Theodore
  277. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    As usual, reams of verbiage about Ron’s personal voyage of historical discovery, without much enlightenment, but with a great deal of muddy water. For example, Buchanan is said to have assigned to Churchill:

    a good share of the blame for Britain’s involvement in both World Wars

    An assignment we are presumably supposed to accept without question. But in fact, such an assignment of blame, if Buchanan actually made it, is simply silly.

    The Triple Entente with Russia and France that required Britain to declare war on Germany following Germany’s 1914 invasion of Belgium was negotiated by Sir Edward Grey, who persuaded the Cabinet of the necessity of war. Churchill was in full support, but his enthusiasm for war repelled the Liberals in cabinet who opposed war.

    As for Churchill’s responsibility for WWII, he was out of government throughout all the years leading up to Neville Chamberlain’s declaration of war. Churchill returned to the Cabinet as First Lord of the Admiralty on September 3, 1939, the same day that Britain, under PM Neville Chamberlain, declared war on Germany.

    Then there’s this:

    Until recently, my familiarity with Churchill had been rather cursory, and Irving’s revelations were absolutely eye-opening. Perhaps the most striking single discovery was the remarkable venality and corruption of the man, with Churchill being a huge spendthrift who lived lavishly and often far beyond his financial means, employing an army of dozens of personal servants at his large country estate despite frequently lacking any regular and assured sources of income to maintain them.

    The meaning of the expression “huge spendthrift” is open to interpretation. When, during the entire year of 1935, Winston Churchill spent 515 pounds on booze for consumption at his country residence, Chartwell, and at his London flat, some might call that extravagant, but really it was a triviality relative to the life style of America’s present-day elite.

    Moreover, although it is true that Churchill on several occasions faced financial disaster, he earned by dint of enormous industry a large literary income. He published over 10 million words, won the Nobel Prize for literature, and during the interwar years wrote prolifically for national newspapers.

    As for the “dozens” of personal servants that Churchill employed, a significant number of these were literary aides whose task it was to undertake research for Churchill’s major literary endeavors such as The History of the English Speaking Peoples, a multi-volume work that was serialized in magazines both in Britain and the US.

    Then this:

    during the years leading up to the Second World War, both Churchill and numerous other fellow British MPs were regularly receiving sizable financial stipends—cash bribes—from Jewish and Czech sources in exchange for promoting a policy of extreme hostility toward the German government and actually advocating war.

    This is clearly bullshit. Yes Churchill received financial assistance from various people at various times of his life. That he received money as a “cash bribe” is a completely unsubstantiated and totally absurd contention.

    And so on and on and on. Complete balderdash.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Bragadocious
  278. @yallerdumb

    Tick, tick, tick. Time is running out on Holocaustianity. What are you going to do when the world
    finds out the Jews have spoofed again?

  279. dfordoom says: • Website
    @German_reader

    As for revisionism of the kind demonstrated once again on Ron Unz’s article, imo it’s not worth bothering with, since it’s so far removed from reality.

    The problem with historical revisionism is that it starts with moderate fair-minded revisionists (like A.J.P. Taylor) making perfectly valid points. Yes, the Czechs and the Poles were not quite innocent victims. They did behave cynically and foolishly. Yes, it’s undoubtedly true that Hitler did not want war with Britain and France in 1939. Yes, Churchill was a cynical bungler.

    Taylor was not just a trained historian but a brilliant one. He based his arguments on actual evidence and on his sound understanding of historical methods.

    But then the Tin Foil Hat Brigade and the Hitler fanboys and the crazies who see Jewish conspiracies everywhere arrive on the scene. And the people with political axes to grind (like Suvorov). They take those perfectly valid arguments much much further and they don’t have the sound historical training to evaluate actual evidence and they’re not interested in evidence anyway. They base their arguments on their own hobby-horses and their own obsessions.

    Within a short time they have departed completely from reality and have constructed bizarre fantasy scenarios in which Hitler Did Nothing Wrong and it was All The Fault of the Jews (or the Freemasons). They ignore any evidence that conflicts with their fantasy scenarios because it was all a gigantic conspiracy so you can’t trust the evidence so you just go with your prejudices. And they’re not capable of evaluating the evidence anyway. And they go down the rabbit hole and once they do that they can never get out again. They swallow every revisionist theory that comes along no matter how far-fetched it might be as long as it’s consistent with their conspiracy theories.

    So you end up with historical reasoning that goes like this. Hitler attacked the Soviet Union in 1941. But Hitler Did Nothing Wrong. Therefore it could not have been Hitler’s fault. So even though the Soviets were the ones who got invaded it must have been their fault. Or the fault of the Jews. Or the bankers. Or the Freemasons. It must have been anyone but Hitler’s fault.

  280. Ron Unz says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron, have you ever read Trevor-Roper’s critique of AJP Taylor’s WWII book, conveniently located in your Encounter archives?

    Well, I read the dozen or so reviews in my content-archiving system, and the overwhelming majority were quite brief, sometimes just a paragraph or two. For obvious reasons, these didn’t make much impression on me one way or the other, though one of them remarkably on the absolutely uniform praise that Taylor’s book had received in the high-end British press, including The Observer and The Guardian in addition to The New Statesman and The Times Literary Supplement.

    However, quite substantial was the 8,000 word attack by Trevor-Roper in Encounter, though much of it seemed overly rhetorical and emotional to me. We must remember that Encounter was co-founded by Irving Kristol and was the premier “Neocon” publication of that era, much more so than e.g. Commentary (which was still leftist). Barnes points out that Trevor-Roper was actually a specialist in English Stuart history, while Taylor’s expertise was Germany. Frankly, I didn’t find Trevor-Roper very persuasive, but I’ve extracted the PDF, so people can read it for themselves:

    http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/WWII-Encounter.pdf

    For more interesting and persuasive to me was an even longer review by Harry Elmer Barnes, which places the Taylor book in the broader context of the dishonest state of historiography:

    http://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/WWII-Barnes.pdf

    And once again, I’d strongly recommend the 7,500 word very favorable review by Murray Rothbard:

    https://mises.org/library/review-origins-second-world-war

    All of these works were written nearly 60 years ago, and obviously enormous quantities of new material has come to light, allowing us to better evaluate them.

    I think by far the most important addition is Irving’s books, which are very comprehensive, and (inadvertently!) proven to be 99.9% accurate by Lipstadt and her $13M research team.

    And if we start by assuming Irving’s material, it all fits very well with Taylor, Barnes, and Rothbard, while it makes Trevor-Roper look rather ridiculous.

    Keep in mind that the “official narrative” of FDR around 1940/41 was that Hitler had already formulated plans to invade and conquer South America and the US, which was why we needed to fight him. Presumably, FDR got the idea from Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds broadcast.

    Anyway, read those three contrasting major reviews and decide for yourselves.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  281. Leo says:

    “…book … Germany Must Perish!, in which he explicitly proposed the total extermination of the German people”

    the author of that book did NOT propose “extermination” of anyone.

    • Replies: @Fox
  282. Old fogey says:

    Thank God for Ron Unz.

  283. As I am in recovery from Jewish historiography and Jewish social science, I am very grateful for this essay. Thank you Mr. UNz

  284. Miro23 says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    It takes nothing from US heroism in Pacific or in Europe, but it was destroyed (utterly) Europe which served as basis for US tremendous recovery from Great Depression and effectively taking the position of hegemon, with the rest of the world in ruins.

    That’s true enough, and the US dominated world finance, manufacturing and commerce in the 1950’s.

    OT, but The ROW (Rest Of the World) was going to come back – with the big surprise being the way the US/Europe handled the 1970’s+ digital/internet revolution. Corporate globalists outsourced everything – destroying their national skills and manufacturing – and we’re feeling the full impact of that now as our “rich country” welfare systems fail apart along with the rest of society.

    It’s the victory of a frontierless, globalist, financialized elite over the people of the US and Europe.

  285. Druid says:
    @Germanicus

    Maybe German Reader is secretly a zio

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  286. Wally says:
    @szopen

    “And now defend raising Frampol to the ground. Or maybe subhuman Slavs does not count, as usual when you talk with Nazi apologists.”

    – Frampol would have been a legit military target. And you cannot show us the alleged remains of the alleged thousands of civilians said to have been killed there.

    – The Nazis never claimed the Slavs were “subhuman”.*

    “Apologizing’ for what?

    There were the ‘Nazis’ with the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, gas chambers’ and there were the ‘Nazis’ without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    * The “sub-human” lie is used as a ‘holocaust’ narrative gateway.
    It’s a crude form of vote buying by “The Holocaust Industry”.
    It helps the naive to accept the fake claim of “6,000,000 Jews and 5,000,000 others” while it encourages eastern Europeans to make false claims which allows them to grab hold of the cherished ‘woe is us’ victim status.
    recommended:
    Did Hitler consider Slavs / Eastern Europeans to be “Subhuman” or racially inferior?: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12690

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  287. Wally says:
    @dfordoom

    Except that you cannot refute what Revisionist research has proven.
    Here’s your chance, but all we get is your laughable Zionist whining & dodging.
    Simple stuff really.

    “Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish “holocaust” and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the “survivors”? Because it “dishonors the dead”? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble.”
    – Gerard Menuhin / Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist

  288. Ron Unz says:
    @CanSpeccy

    For example, Buchanan is said to have assigned to Churchill…a good share of the blame for Britain’s involvement in both World Wars…An assignment we are presumably supposed to accept without question. But in fact, such an assignment of blame, if Buchanan actually made it, is simply silly…The Triple Entente with Russia and France that required Britain to declare war

    Well, it sounds like you’ve been too lazy to actually read the Buchanan book. According to the author, the British Cabinet was very narrowly divided about declaring war, and Churchill was one of the strongest pro-war voices. Whether or not Buchanan’s analysis is correct, that’s what he says.

    The meaning of the expression “huge spendthrift” is open to interpretation…Yes Churchill received financial assistance from various people at various times of his life. That he received money as a “cash bribe” is a completely unsubstantiated and totally absurd contention.

    However, on this point I think you’re absolutely dead-flat wrong, and you obviously haven’t bothered reading Irving’s books or just even watching his lectures that I linked in my article. Irving’s evidence seems absolutely overwhelming.

    Based on current income-levels, a pound back then was roughly the equivalent of $250 today, and based upon that rough conversion, Jewish activists and the Czechs spent many tens of millions of dollars to pay off Churchill, lots of other British politicians, publishers, and journalists. A whole group of MPs were apparently each getting $500K per year in secret payments from these sources. When Churchill lost all his money playing the American stockmarket in 1938 and was on the verge of bankruptcy, an Austrian Jew eager for war with Germany stepped in and immediately paid off his $4.5M in margin-debts and saved him from total financial ruin.

    Can we believe Irving? Well, as I emphasized, Deborah Lipstadt and her huge team of researchers spent $13M(!!) going through all of Irving’s books line-by-line and footnote-by-footnote looking for errors, and found virtually none. If any of the above claims about these large cash payments were incorrect, why didn’t she mention them in her 2006 book, History on Trial?

    You’ve always struck me as a totally ignorant buffoon, and you’ve certainly reinforced that impression with this silly comment.

  289. @Alden

    According to Theodore’s chart, in July 31, 1932, Hitler’s party, led by him, won over 32% of the vote, the largest number of any party. On Nov. 6, 1932 he won 33%, also the largest amount by far, among the 7 parties running, plus a bunch of “other” smaller parties. To say he didn’t win is clearly wrong. You are just sore losers.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Alden
  290. ValMond says:
    @Germanicus

    Oh, the 20 million communist victims! Russophobes Without Borders have trademarked the number back in the 70s. But where does it come from? No doubt, you haven’t counted them personally, have you? But you know someone who has, right? Or at least someone who knows someone who has read Soljenitsyne. The question is how did he come with that number?

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    , @Germanicus
  291. @Carolyn Yeager

    I should add, before I hear back from you, that I’m not saying he was elected as chancellor. I know he was appointed by Hindenberg, but it was because, in large part anyway, his party was so strong in parliament. He did have the support of a very large segment of the people.

  292. @Franklin Ryckaert

    You’re trying real hard, Franklin, but it’s a lost cause. That you’re reduced to defending Szopen in order to support the Poles does not speak well of you. And that you have to “interpret my words” as simply amounting to “ethnic prejudice” puts your flaming dishonesty and your lack of substance on display.

    Are you familiar with the book I named? You show me something equivalent from the “official Polish Government.” Oh, you can’t? Instead you drag this in:

    I remember in your article about the Einsatzgruppen you said that the reports of the killing of civilians that they send back to the homefront were lies. They lied about it to impress their superiors. So suddenly the always honest Germans became consumate liars when that suits you.

    LOL. It was a book review and it was said by Carlo Mattogno, not me. But in any case, it hardly applies here, since I am commenting to Szopen that his saying “Polish witnesses remember …” does not prove a thing! And you know that as well as I do.

    By the way, I’m sure you’re having a hard time commenting on this Unz article since he pretty much explodes all your favorite anti-Hitler themes. If things keep going the way they are, you will have fewer and fewer online allies on this topic. Your favorite Wikipedia pages might even have to be revised!!

    • Replies: @szopen
  293. szopen says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    I’ve already told you: I see no point in serious discussion with you because I do not consider you are serious person.

    For German crimes I’ve already pointed to the thread on forum.axis, where I showed documents gathered by Polish prosecutor about Bydgoszcz, which I carefully translated and typed (I got no scanner at those times). I got no reply. There are also reports about German crimes gathered during the war by Polish AK Military Intelligence; AFAIK they are all dismissed as propaganda, especially when they allude to the Holocaust and deliberate murdering of Polish Jews (and other Poles). Why I should waste my time by searching the librarierm providing you with links or to translate from Polish, only to get the predictable answer that “well, Pilecki was a hoax; Bartosiewicz was liar; IPN institute is a propaganda institution” (BTW, quite recently we had a scandal in POland where it was revelead that Polish institutions sent 63 000 original documents about Nazi crimes in Poland to Germany to aid German prosecutors; they were never returned). I know that after I will spent few hours on research, you will dismiss everything by saying “Oh, he is not reliable because reasons”.

    About German courts, it’s enough to read https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sondergericht_Bromberg (in Polish) to get an idea about how fair were courts in Bydgoszcz (some German lawyers supposedly defending Polish clients were asking for just punishment, and in one case a lawyer asked for a death penalty! – and death penalties were given, for example, for pushing a German from a bicycle, or punishing a women for telling Polish soldiers where a German bakery was). Or killing 50 random PoWs from a unit which was not even near Bydgoszcz, because one (!) German witness testified that this unit participated in “Bloody Sunday”.

    The problem with Peter MX answer is that the Belgium was still keeping neutrality, even though friendly to France; it allowed French troops to defend Belgium, but French rushed into the country only AFTER German invasion. As usual with you Nazi apologists, you think that it’s perfectly OK to invade a country because after invasion French moved into the country. Double standards, hypocrisy and “we dindu noffin wrong” mentality, which I encounter so many times that it’s not even amusing anymore.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @Alden
  294. szopen says:
    @iffen

    You are right. Time after time I promise myself I won’t deign anymore to talk to those creatures, but then my temperament kicks in.

    At least I no longer waste time going to public libraries searching for books, or buying document collections. I still have quite a few historic books I bought just for discussions with revisionists. All for nothing. I quoted one document after another, and I was always either ignored, or dismissed with “this is fake” or “this is propaganda”.

    But when you see those people, so eager to find some minor errors in stories about Nazi crimes, while absolutely believing everything from crimes against Germans; when they are ready to accept one Polish document which confirm their biases, while refusing to accept another which does not; you just have to have nerves of steel not to scream at them.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    , @iffen
  295. Fox says:
    @Leo

    Indeed, he proposes that with the employment of 20000 surgeons to sterilize German men up to the age of 60 the problem of Germany will resolve itself within about a generation. (Quoting from memory). Did Kaufman not use the word “exterminate”? What do you think he might have intended with his proposal to sterilize all German men in the age of procreation?
    This was a demonic, an immensely evil idea, and worthy to be remembered. The evil man lived until the 1980s and seems to never have been held to account or shown any remorse.
    Incidentally, Arthur Topham of Canada altered the evil book by changing “German” to “Israel” and boy, did he get in trouble. Why would that be if the evil Kaufman were just making a harmless jest?

    • Replies: @Leo
    , @Bookish1
  296. @SolontoCroesus

    ‘…Historian Thomas Fleming (RIP) has argued that at least 50 years must pass before cool, objective history can be written; before that, recountings of the events are emotion-laden and agenda-driven.’

    But what we have seen is the reverse.

    It is perhaps a misconception that ‘objective’ history can ever be written, or that there will ever be a perfect, freely agreed accord on what that objective truth is. However, in the first forty or so years after World War Two, a great deal of interesting, perceptive history appeared on the war. Views varied widely, and if the various partisans freely denounced each other, they rarely succeeded in completely repressing views they disapproved of.

    Since then, though, things have gotten worse, not better. Most of the more recent books I have read on the Second World War seem to regard it as incumbent to simply recount the standard narrative of the Holocaust at the expense of everything else; the most impressive example of this compulsion would be the third volume of Evans’ trilogy on Hitler’s Germany; The Third Reich at War.

    At the same time, more radically dissident views are determinedly and effectively marginalized. More and more, what we get is a careful orthodoxy.

    You look forward to ‘cool, objective history.’ As time passes, where we’re actually heading seems to be the opposite; a kind of dreary Stalinism, where what matters is not truth or perception, but conformity.

    • Agree: SolontoCroesus
  297. anon[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Well, duh. That’s what “history is written by the victors” means.

  298. @Andrei Martyanov

    Rant all you want, your damage control is pathetic, and I simply ask my question again.

    How many of the 20 million were killed by your jewish commissars and apparatchiks?

  299. Anonymous[233] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    From the Rothbard:

    Taylor is very good in deprecating the importance of Hitler’s — shifting — “dreams,” as in Mein Kampf, dreams, even then, which had nothing to do with “world conquest,” or even conquest of Britain.

    Well, that’s a neat trick considering that Taylor hadn’t read Mein Kampf when he wrote the book.

    Relevant point from the Trevor-Roper review:

    I may add (since Mr. Taylor includes me among those who have ascribed to Hitler “preconceived plans” which he never pursued) that I myself read Mein Kamp in the original in 1938, and that I read it under the impact of Munich and of the remarkable prophecies of Sir Robert Ensor, who had read it and who insisted that Hitler meant what he said. By absolutely refusing to face this evidence, and contemptuously dismissing those who have faced it, Mr. Taylor contrives to reach the preposterous conclusion that men like Ensor, who correctly forecast Hitler’s future programme from the evidence, were really wrong, and that men like Chamberlain, who did not read the evidence and were proved totally wrong by events, were really right. His sole justification of this paradox is that he has accepted as an axiom a characterization of Hider as a “traditional” statesman pursuing limited aims. Mr. Taylor’s Hitler cannot have held such views, and therefore the inconvenient fact that the real Hitler uttered such views with remarkable consistency for twenty years and actually put them into practice, is simply puffed aside. When Hitler, in 1941, finally launched that conquest of Russia which, as he himself said, was “the be-all and end-all of Nazism,” Mr. Taylor easily explains it away. “By 1941,’’ he says, “Hitler had lost his old gift of patience”: he “gratuitously” deviated from his former course; and at the mere thought of such an unaccountable fall from grace, Mr. Taylor promptly ends his book.

    People assumed that Trevor-Roper and Taylor were personal enemies, but they actually got along quite well. Unlike Irving, Taylor didn’t like Hitler or even care about him one way or the other; his contrarian take on WWII was a characteristic exercise in scholarly mischief-making.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  300. @Druid

    Whatever it is, it is a lie peddler, or simply a “reeducated” German Sefton Delmer talked about.
    My bet is on, it is not even German, but just a German reader with poor command of the German language, like almost all of these shills and narrative enforcers.
    This tiresome mistranslation game is something the Jews usually peddle, like claiming “ausmerzen” means extermination. Noting new here, heard it so many times, hence I think it is a professional lie peddler, and his target are the naive and uneducated ignorant mass.

  301. @Carlton Meyer

    In 2000 Iraq changed from selling its oil in petrodollars to euros. The American attack followed as soon as it could. Similarly Libya proposed shifting from petrodollars to gold dinars. With the same result. Iran and Venezuela are both notable for having nationalized their oil resources previously seized by international corporations, mostly British and American. So they too are enemies. Is there a pattern here?

    • Replies: @Miro23
  302. Anonymous[233] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    It’s interesting that the problem Trevor-Roper anticipates in the first couple of paragraphs (later generations will be cut from “the emotional content” of the rise of fascism and of the whole interwar period) never became a problem. The conventional wisdom of British hawks (Hitler was bent on conquest, an incorrigible maniac) became the conventional wisdom of the future. This is what every schoolchild now thinks. Fascism is “radical evil,” and is therefore incomprehensible. It can’t be reasoned with. It can only be carpet bombed.

    So, although I think Taylor’s book was misconceived and his otherwise delightful urge to troll got the better of him, an instructor who took a coolheaded, Taylor-like approach to the period would benefit undergraduates more than the Trevor-Roper or Timothy Snyder approaches, which go into compelling detail to reach conclusions that students today already believe.

    That said, Taylor’s Hitler isn’t convincing. He was an ordinary German: “Everything which Hitler did against the Jews followed logically from the racial doctrines in which most Germans vaguely believed.” Or, saying a similar thing differently: “in principle and doctrine, Hitler was no more wicked and unscrupulous than many other contemporary statesmen. In wicked acts he outdid them all.” The reason for this disjunction between principles and actions, we are told, is that the driving force in Hitler was a “terrifying literalism.” Yet Taylor also says that historians who have “seen in Hitler a system-maker, deliberately preparing…a great war which would destroy existing civilization” have created such “systems” themselves. Or to the extent that any such preconceived plans existed – such as the ambitious program of Eastern conquest and colonization laid out in Mein Kampf– they are dismissed as mere “day-dreams”: “Hitler always saw himself, in these day-dreams, as master of the world.” In Taylor’s jumbled interpretation, Hitler emerges as a terrifyingly literal-minded statesmen who did not take his abundant discourse on Eastern conquest literally.

    “My only mistake,” Taylor wrote in a preface entitled “Second Thoughts,” added to a later edition, “was not to emphasize more clearly that I was writing about the origins of the minor European conflict which broke out in 1939, not about the origins of the real Second World War.” This gives the game away and concedes defeat to Trevor-Roper, in my view.

  303. @Wally

    Once I found out there are iirc 4 english translations of “Mein Kampf”, with only one being the accurate translation, it opened the door to researching the translation trickery. I have an original Eher Verlag “Mein Kampf” and simply compared the translation to the original. The result was so revealing, sentences had been inserted that were not present in the German original, or sentences had been deliberately mistranslated.

    If I invade some country and capture typesets and stamps etc, I could produce any document I wanted, granted I have proper command of the foreign language.

    The Jews and forgers obviously did not have proper command of German language. The alleged Wannsee protocol is riddled with absolutely improper German. No German bureaucrat writes like this, at no time, it is poor German.

    That said, I miss also un UR a reference to primary sources such as speeches given by the German leadership. I have my suspicion why this does not happen… these speeches crush the official narrative without tertiary sources.

    • Replies: @turtle
  304. Tom67 says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Oh sure Hitler or Germany weren´t alone in that. And it is very doubtful that Germany had started this program of killing “unworthy lives” if the war hadn´t begun.

  305. gregor says:

    Irving’s claims about Churchill are quite explosive. I’ve been trying to verify some of it in other sources. I picked up David Lough’s No More Champagne (a biography specifically focused on Churchill’s finances) and Martin Gilbert’s Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship.

    *As noted here, Irving claims that Churchill was part of an informal pressure group called “The Focus in Defence of Freedom and Peace.” This was during his “wilderness” period. There is no doubt whatsoever that the group in fact existed since one of the members, Eugen Spier (a wealthy German Jew who’d fled to Britain), actually published a brief history of the group. I read it last week.

    https://archive.org/details/SpierEugenFOCUSAFootnoteToTheHistoryOfTheThirties/page/n1

    1) Spier states in the foreword that he had wanted to publish earlier but that Churchill requested that it be delayed until after his death. He did not seem to want his involvement with it to be known. Hmm. Spier ended up waiting until 1963.

    2) Spier does not address finances aside for the following interesting bit.

    The secretary’ agreed, but asked where the money to defray expenses was to come from. His bald request came like the explosion of a bomb. Expressions of embarrassment appeared on every side, and Churchill himself looked displeased, even angry. For a moment it looked as if the whole effort was about to come to grief. To avert catastrophe I took Richards aside and asked him to announce that all our requirements had been taken care of. The tension was immediately eased. Churchill seemed greatly relieved and the other guests were clearly delighted.

    Irving says that one of the members, Sir Robert Waley-Cohen, a very wealthy Jew had raised 50,000 pounds to fund the group (this is sourced from Waley-Cohen’s biography). According to Gilbert, Spier also contributed 9,600 pounds to the group over several years. Lough concedes that the group was funded by Jews but he disputes any direct payments to Churchill, saying “there is no evidence in Churchill’s banks statements of 1936 or 1937 to support any suggestion by historian David Irving that Focus or its leaders may have made undisclosed payments to Churchill.”

    3) Lough corroborates Irving’s claim that Churchill nearly had to sell his Chartwell estate in 1938 to cover his stock market losses before Sir Henry Strakosch bailed him out with a “loan” of 20,000 pounds (over a million dollars today). This one is even on Wikipedia.

    4) Churchill wrote to his son saying that the basis of the group (which he referred to as the “Anti-Nazi League”) “is of course Jewish resentment at their abominable persecution. But we are now taking broader ground rather on the lines of my Paris speech.”

    Churchill is essentially a proto-neocon. As I read through the Spier book, the warmongering rhetoric was eerily reminiscent of more recent neocon. There is repeated, Orwellian references of “freedom and peace,” the need to spread “democracy,” even as they call for war. There’s the imperative to remove “dictators,” etc. Ideologically, the group seemed to condemn both Nazism/Fascism and Communism, but they (including Churchill) had immeasurably greater interest in fighting Nazism. When Lindbergh said the British, the Jews, and Roosevelt were trying to push the USA into the war, he was, if anything, strongly understating the Jewish role, given that the “British” push for war itself was so Jewish.

    *Re: the claim Churchill and Roosevelt were conspiring to get the US into the war. This claim has been around for a while. One wrinkle that Irving adds is that he says this occurred even before Churchill became Prime Minister, behind Chamberlain’s back. Apparently, this was commonly assumed among isolationists, especially during the so-called Tyler Kent affair. Kent was an American cipher clerk who was stealing documents which he intended to use as evidence of collusion. There definitely was correspondence, although it doesn’t seem like Kent actually had anything nearly as explosive as he claimed. Whether they explicitly plotted or not, it’s quite clear they both wanted war and this may have been so obvious that collusion was scarcely necessary.

    *Another point Irving hammers is that Hitler had no desire for war with Britain and was desperate to make a peace offer (and that he concealed these peace offers). It seems clear to me, and this would probably be admitted even by mainstream historians, that Churchill would never have agreed to any sort of peace with Hitler. He was determined to defeat Hitler and put an end to national socialism in Germany, no matter the cost. But I doubt very much if the British public would have shared this priority. Irving attributes this to Churchill being bought and also his personal ego. That is to say, no one gets a big bronze statue in Parliament Square for ending the war in 1940. Personally, I wouldn’t rule out Churchill being a true believer to some extent, again, not unlike the Gentile neocons we have today.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Alden
  306. Tom67 says:
    @tagaruda

    Oh sure Hitler or Germany weren´t alone in that. And it is very doubtful that Germany had started this program of killing “unworthy lives” if the war hadn´t begun.

  307. @Ron Unz

    There seems to have been serious disagreement about the number of victims of the criminal Dresden air raid.
    Wikipedia says, Prof. Lipstadt’s experts were able to show that Mr Irving had inflated the nunbers tenfold by using only one source, claimed to be dubious.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Anon
    , @Ron Unz
  308. @Agent76

    You know, your comment sounds sort of fascist. Strident, authoritarian, stories about vast evil conspiracies, secret tendencies, inborn evil. Fascist.

    Funny thing about that.

    As I’ve commented earlier, Italy and Germany won the war of ideas. Their methods of government and conducting politics have become universal, imitated by a Left without ideas of its own. As in your post. You’ve become your enemy.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Agree: Alden
  309. Tom67 says:
    @tagaruda

    Hi Taracuda
    Thanks for the reply. You do indeed know a lot about the American Euthanasia program. As to Germany the numbers killed in Euthanasia are among the best attested of the period. The numbers were relatively small and the records of the insane asylums, church insitutions from were the patients were taken a.s.o and so forth are all well preserved. Even the names of the chief perpetrators are all known. As well as entries in the diary of Goebbels and much more evidence. In fact as you have mentioned euthanasia was in the air in the Thirties and it seemed a no brainer to a large part of the ruling segment of the population that one had to indeed enact it.
    As to survivors of the Holocaust: really only the numbers of western European Jews killed are more or less certain. That is because there are intact archives and population registers. East of todays border between Germany and Poland any number cited is mainly based on the last Polish census of 1931 and estimates of the number of survivors. And indeed there were survivors. I have spent an evening talking with an elderly Jewish lady in Wilnius who recounted how she hid during the war in Ukraine , another one told me how she and her female relatives (the men were all taken as they were circumcized) survived on the scraps of a Wehrmacht kitchen in Minsk and a third returned to Modavia and all her relatives were dead. These were all people I got to know under completely different circumstances and they told me their stories as an elderly person would relate a formating experience to a younger person. (Just as my mother many times told me the horrors of being German in Czechoslavakia after the end of the war)
    And of course there were survivors of Stalins camps as well. I even got to know a man who as a boy had first survived a German camp in Estonia and then a Russian camp near the Arctic ocean. He had a rather interesting explanation of the camps on both sides: if there are to many people – so he told me – and not enough food people will find a reason to exterminate each other. As good an explanation as I could find.
    Finally let me say that I very much appreciate the efforts of Ron Unz to revisit all the supposed certainties of the war and the Holocaust. Even if I don´t agree with all his conclutions.

  310. @4891

    But I’m curious with regards to your blanket dismissal of the accusations against David Irving, specifically of accusations of twisting sources.

    I recently Lying About Hitler by Richard Evans, a historian employed by the defence in the Lipstadt case. Evans describes a number of cases of Irving’s distortion of source material, which I felt were quite damning. However, these cases essentially amounted to attempts to exculpate Hitler personally for various anti-Jewish excesses, and it’s unclear to me that they do any serious damage to the overall thrust of Irving’s position regarding the progression of events which led to war.

  311. Sam says:

    Hoggan was brought up Unz. Here is what Gary North writes about him in another article. He gets right into Hoggan’s unreliability. Hoggan had lied about one of the core contentions of his of his thesis i.e. Halifax

    [MORE]

    HARD-CORE WAR REVISIONISM

    Then there is the other form of revisionist history of World War II, the suggestion that the German government did not kill six million Jews. The historian whose name is quietly associated with this theory is David L Hoggan. He wrote an anonymous book, The Myth of the Six Million. He did not put his name on it. It still is published in the holocaust denial movement. I know that he wrote it because he showed me the original manuscript. My office was next door to his in the summer of 1963. I read it. Years later, I read a printed version of it. It was the same book. It is online here.

    Hoggan was the author of a history of the coming of the war in Europe in September 1939, when Germany invaded Poland. The German language edition was published in 1961. In this book, he maintained that Hitler was only attempting to enforce what the Riverside treaty had guaranteed to Germany, namely, access to the North Sea through Poland. Germany was supposed to have access to the free city of Danzig. Poland would not allow this. Hoggan maintained that Hitler made a legitimate demand. The Polish government had no legal case.

    The English language version of the book had a different title: The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed. It was published in 1989 by the Holocaust Institute for Historical Review, which is known as the most hard-core of the hard-core World War II revisionist organizations. it is available as a PDF download here.

    Hoggan had written his doctoral dissertation on this topic when he was at Harvard University. He wrote it under William L. Langer, who soon became the dean of the establishment historians on the issue of the war in Europe and America’s entry into it. He had actually been one of the policymakers at the State Department. It was a two-volume defense of what he and his colleagues had engineered to take the United States into the war.

    Langer always maintained that Hoggan revised his Ph.D. thesis in order to make it look as though Hitler was not primarily to blame. He said that in his original dissertation, Hoggan placed blame on the English, the Poles, France, and Hitler. Hoggan denied that this was the case. We spoke about it in the summer of 1963. I took his word for it. That was a mistake.

    In 1971, I went to Boston in order to do research on my Ph.D. dissertation on Puritan colonial history. I went to Harvard and read his dissertation. Harvard has a rule that the only way you can read a Harvard Ph.D. dissertation is with written permission of the author unless you go to Harvard and read the dissertation. I did not get permission. I sat in Harvard’s library and read the dissertation. It was obvious that Langer was telling the truth. It was equally obvious that Hoggan either had lied to me about not making any change in the thesis of his dissertation, or else his nearly photographic memory had failed him on the most important issue of his career. We read this:

    Nothing that the British did in 1939 can give them a primary responsibility for the war that broke out between Germany and Poland. British responsibility here enters only indirectly with the Versailles settlement, and in this instance the British were the least to blame of all the great powers for the Versailles solution of the German-Polish question (p. 398).
    In Hoggan’s 1961 book, the number-one promoter of Polish resistance was Lord Halifax. In chapter after chapter, Hoggan devoted pages to Lord Halifax. For virtually all other modern European historians, Halifax supported Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement. Halifax was Foreign Secretary from 1938 until the fall of the Chamberlain government in May 1940. If ever there was a piece of revisionist history, it is Hoggan’s assessment of the role of Lord Halifax. It is completely opposed to what virtually all specialized diplomatic historians of late 1930’s Europe have concluded.

    On August 23, 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union entered into a non-aggression pact, called the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty. The two of them agreed to carve up Poland for their respective empires. A week later, Germany invaded Poland. Two weeks later, the Soviet Union invaded eastern Poland. There was no declaration of war on the part of the Soviet Union. If this was peaceful revision, I wonder what warlike revision is like.

    Mr. King is taking seriously Prof. Hoggan’s theory of Hitler as a man who sought peace in 1939 over the Polish question. I do not take this thesis seriously. For a long time, I was willing to give Hoggan the benefit of the doubt. I did want his book to be published in English. I corresponded with Harry Elmer Barnes on this issue in the late 1960’s. Barnes also hoped to see it published in English. But my reading of Hoggan’s Ph.D. dissertation in 1970, and then 19 years later, the publication of his book in English, persuaded me that he had switched his assessment of responsibility for the outbreak of the war away from Hitler in the direction of Lord Halifax. Halifax received no comparable degree of attention in the dissertation.

    Elsewhere on this site, I have discussed my brief relationship with Hoggan in 1963. You can read it here: https://www.garynorth.com/public/17455.cfm

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/17454.cfm

  312. JackOH says:

    Amazing tour de force, Ron.

    Is responsible historical revisionism necessary to rectify bad policies of today that seem to be set in stone?

    Probably. My feeling is the over-blackening of Hitler’s Germany, and, to a lesser extent, Wilhelmine Germany, has created a post-1945 safe space for the non-German West to engage in military interventions and domestic policies that are deeply odious, but resist meaningful examination.

    The “we’re-not-Hitler” exculpatory card carried by non-German Western politicians is, in my opinion, something pretty powerful. It’s allowed America to adopt government enforced racist anti-White policies, as but one example, to deal with the occasional “retail” excesses of some Whites directed against Blacks.

  313. Miggle says:
    @Alden

    The Berlin police should have murdered the communist spy agitator and revolutionary years before […]

    That’s not how it works in other than a failed state, which is just what I was saying. Rosa Luxemburg or Maria Butina should be indicted and tried, before a jury or three or more judges, and sentenced. There should be a written judgment sentencing Rosa to death, with right of appeal.

    Good thing the Berlin police killed her and spared the whole of Germany going Jew dominated communist after WW1.

    There is a lot of deluded, prejudiced nonsense on this topic. Yes, she was a Jewess, and a revolutionary Marxist. Yes, the Russian Revolution was driven by Jews, typically ultra-murderous. That doesn’t mean they are the same thing. Learn the difference between Marxism and Bolshevism.

    Marx is forever called a Jew, but he was brought up a Christian and became an atheist in his mid-teens. He was never a Jew. His parents were Jews who converted to Christianity. Rosa was a Marxist Jewess, I think also an atheist, believing, probably correctly, that there is no alternative to revolution.

    But she was not a Bolshevist. She was in prison in Germany when Lenin came to power but is on record as being broken-hearted that Lenin did not immediately call an election. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which she believed in, means the proletariat must vote. Marx was a democrat. So was she. But of the anti-plutocratic kind that wouldn’t have allowed the Jew, Sheldon Adelson, to vote, would only have allowed his workers to vote.

    Police, Freicorps non communist militia, whoever killed Rosa Luxemburg are heroes in my opinion.

    Fiends in my opinion.

  314. @JoeFour

    “Ron, Learn German.”

    Perhaps much easier said than done

    Well, the point of the exercise would not be so much for Ron to actually learn German, but rather, for him to learn humility.

  315. I have read many of the books Ron Unz mentions here, and went to Cincinnati once to hear David Irving on a weekend lecture tour. Mr. Unz has provided us with a real (i.e. revisionist) education, and he is an American treasure. But many people, I have found, do not only not take the opportunity to educate themselves, they actually resist it. I know a Jewish guy who when I offered evidence that there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz, and asked him if he wasn’t glad to know that the Germans were not the monsters we had been taught to believe,…no, he wanted to believe that the Germans were monsters who had gassed millions of Jews.

    • Replies: @Anon
  316. PeterMX says:

    As the son of Germans, I am considering adding Ron Unz to my list of righteous Jews, which currently has Gilad Atzmon, Paul Eisen, Benjamin Freedman (converted to Christianity, now passed) and Gerard Menuhin on it. But to be clear, Gilad is no longer Jewish, as he has stated. I hope I won’t be arrested for stating this.

  317. FatR says:

    Among other things, he persuasively argued that the German war-guilt was somewhat less than that of most of the other participants, also noting that despite the endless propaganda of “Prussian militarism,” Germany had not fought a major war in 43 years, an unbroken record of peace considerably better than that of most of its adversaries. Moreover, a secret military agreement between Britain and France had been a crucial factor in the unintended escalation, and even so, nearly half the British Cabinet had come close to resigning in opposition to the declaration of war against Germany, a possibility that which would have probably led to a short and limited conflict confined to the Continent.

    As soon as I’ve read this piece of utter nonsense, I’ve realized that the rest of the article has nothing of value, because the author is too ignorant to tell the truth from bullshit on the issues he dares to talk about.

    The issue of origins of WWI has been in fact settled before WWII, by Albertini, to whose foundational work the subsequent authors added relatively little. The basic facts are as follows:

    (1) Shooting war was decided on July 6-7 in Berlin, after that only the question how many countries will get involved remained.

    (2) By the most generous possible interpretation of German government’s motives, they hoped to achieve a diplomatic coup by making Russia back off with naked threats, in full understanding that this can quite probably cause a war, which, thanks to their war plan, to which they had no alternatives, will automatically involve not only Russia, but France and neutral Belgium.

    (3)They did so based on firm conviction that England will remain neutral, therefore all arguments about their “fear of encirclement” by a hostile coaltion are nothing more than post-factum wartime propaganda.

    (4)Nothing that English politicians could realistically have said or done might have prevented the war, particularly as German and Austro-Hungarian governments operated in bad faith, pretending to listen to English proposals for meditation between Austro-Hungary and Serbia, while the war was already decided. They only choice was to indeed keep neutrality, and be left to face the undisputed European hegemon, the situation preventing which was the consistent idea behind English foreign policy since 17th century (the fact that Germany was clearly and unyieldingly intent on challenging English naval dominance did not help), or to join the war.

    • Agree: szopen
    • Replies: @Fox
  318. Theodore says:
    @Alden

    I know Hitler’s your hero, but you and the rest can’t deny Hitler was appointed not elected.

    I don’t consider him my hero, but you also can not deny that Hitler’s NSDAP party most certainly obtained the plurality of votes. You think that if they did not get very many votes, he still would have been appointed chancellor?

    I think it’s odd that you focus on elections after 1934, when quite obviously it can be seen from the image posted (which I assume you do not dispute) that his NSDAP party won the plurality in 1933. Indeed, in the last election from before he was appointed chancellor, his NSDAP party won an entire third of the votes.

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  319. Theodore says:
    @Alden

    According to your chart, the Nazis didn’t start winning elections until 10 months after Hitler was appointed chancellor

    In a multi party democracy, you only need a plurality to “win” – I know that may be difficult to understand if you are used to the USA system of 2 parties. But when you get the most votes of any party out of eight, it can be said that you “won” the election. That’s not really a stretch, I believe.

    and was in a position to coerce the voters and entire electoral process.

    Do you have any actual evidence that it was in fact coercion or some other underhanded method he used to acquire these votes, and that if he “played fair” his party wouldn’t have won the majority?

    It would be nice to see that. And do you think the over 99% support of the Anschluss referendum was also similarly ill-gotten? What do you think the actual results should have been in such a case?

    • Replies: @Alden
  320. aandrews says:
    @Skeptikal

    My philological studies have satisfied me that a gifted person ought to learn English (barring spelling and pronouncing) in thirty hours, French in thirty days, and German in thirty years. It seems manifest, then, that the latter tongue ought to be trimmed down and repaired. If it is to remain as it is, it ought to be gently and reverently set aside among the dead languages, for only the dead have time to learn it.
    – “That Awful German Language,” Appendix D of A Tramp Abroad

  321. @Incitatus

    Not holding my breath.

    Beevor is behind spreading this BS of “two million German women raped by the Red Army”. Obviously, Beevor makes “the case” on linear extrapolation (even high school kids know why this is pseudo-mathematics) of the numbers of those “victims”. Obviously, this dude failed to get to archives of Soviet/Russian MoD to at least have a go at it, nor did he read reports of Soviet military administrations precisely regarding rape and other felonies (burglary, robbery etc.) by soldiers of the Red Army. Nor did he, as any self-respecting military historian (Beevor is not historian–he is propagandist and ideologue) would, acquaint himself with the works by late Professor Rzhezhevsky specifically dedicated to this issue, where he explains with data why 4100 servicemen of the Red Army were court-martialed for specifically rape, around 800 of them were executed, including at the spot. As for Beevor’s tedious re-narration of the Eastern Front–there are way better and more thorough military historians than him, who did it on the order of magnitude better and, in general, his writings are of little contribution to the field. It shouldn’t be forgotten that it is precisely contemporary British “historiography” of WW II which gave us illiterate hacks such as Conquest and not least Mr. Rezun (aka Suvorov) who complete a long list of British propagandists who, under the circumstances of different ideological demand, wrote and continue to write all kind of crap they present as a “history”.

  322. FatR says:

    Also.

    Hitler’s final demand, that 95% German Danzig be returned to Germany just as its inhabitants desired, was an absolutely reasonable one, and only a dreadful diplomatic blunder by the British had led the Poles to refuse the request, thereby provoking the war. The widespread later claim that Hitler sought to conquer the world was totally absurd, and the German leader had actually made every effort to avoid war with Britain or France.

    (1)Why then, as early as autumn of 1938 German economy had effectively shifted to the war footing (as documented most recently in “The Wages of Destruction” by Adam Tooze) with up to 40% of raw resources like steel channeled into military production, which left Germany with the options of actually starting a major war within the next 1-2 years, or facing a massive economic crisis without a war on hnad to justify inevitable curtailing of civilian consumption?

    (2)Why would anyone who is neither completely braindead, nor a disingenious lying shill would talk about “final demand” bullshit either whether or now, given that the entire reason why Britain and France switched from appeasing Germany to firm opposition and refusing any sort of further “reasonable” demands was the fact that Hitler simply could not be trusted any agreement he made, as was proven to the world by annexation of the rest of Czechoslovakia.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @John Regan
  323. @Wally

    No, Hitler did not consider Slavs and Eastern Europeans to be “sub-human.” That is a Jewish belief. Read your Talmud.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  324. @dfordoom

    Did you read the article?

    The Soviet Union had amassed a mechanized offensive force superior in kind and number then the rest of the world’s combined.

    Thar force had been dispersed for an offensive onto Europe. Vast numbers of forward airbases for bombers not fighters. And vast staging zones for heavy armour. That’s based on exhaustive evidence from the primary sources.

    Hitler attacked preemptively to avoid annihilation that would have extended through the whole of Europe, not just Germany.

    That completely destroys the argument that Hitler was just engaged in imperialist Lebensraum.

    I’ve read all of Anthony Beevor like Stalingrad and Berlin. He never mentioned Russian dispositions even once.

    I despise people like you who afford to be ‘moderate’. If you weren’t an ingrate, you would understand this. Despite A J P Taylor’s moderation he was still memory holed. Because the ‘conspiracy’ you refer to is real. That’s the entire point.

    The rabbit hole ‘is’ the memory hole. Unz is the most significant intellectual of the day because he is rescuing truth from the memory hole.

    Neither Unz or anyone on this website is taking things too far, at all.

    How dare you degrade the magnificence of what Unz has achieved.

    You are clearly not capable of evaluating evidence. Because like any midwit you don’t understand, clearly, the significance of the existence and suppression of existence in the first place.

    In all courts the admission of evidence is the most important phase.

    You have made no argument. None. Other then to say if a thesis offends your sensibilities it must be wrong.

    There is overwhelming evidence implicating the Jews and the bankers and the Freemasons.

    Who funded the Nazis you absolute moron. Did they obtain credit magically? Arms magically? Raw materials magically?

    Before you comment read the actual articles ingrate.

    You must be a Boomer.

  325. @dfordoom

    While I agree with you in general, this needs to be singled out:

    his sound understanding of historical methods

    In military history, before any methodology can be discussed, what is needed is what could be broadly defined as strong background in military science–this, however, unless “trained” historian has a serious military academic background, is not provided for the “training” of the historians. They simply do not teach them things crucial for military history, among which, apart from fairly easy comparative study of doctrines and strategic views, issues of Operational Research, strategic and operational planning, logistics and other things, requiring at least what would be defined in US the level of Service War College or, in Russia, a much higher level of Academy of General Staff. Just to illustrate–here is an example of a real military history:

    http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/ASW-51/ASW-13.html

    It is not enough to speak in general tactical and operational banalities of the warfare of the XIX century, WW II and after completely redefined how military (and military-political) history should be approached. West in general, including through some of it (not all) allegedly leading minds failed to do so and we all observed this failure from the end of XX through XXI centuries. On other points, I totally agree with you–what we have in this thread is a demonstrable rape of not only actual history but of reality, including whitewashing of Nazism–sad.

  326. Dammit. Clumsy wipeout. But I’ll try to recover after expessing my hope of making a modest contribution to your accuracy as I trail far behind in the fascinating course of reading that you began, for me, with putting me on to David Irving’s work. I wondered whether you were entirely fair to CanSpeccy and started yherefore by checking the relatively simple matter of what the 1938 pound was worth in today’s currency. I had done that a few hours ago when reading Irving on the Czech payments to General Edward Spears. Then I had found a surprising figure of £37 but now I find it to be, less surprisingly, £63. That is more like $US 78 than $250.

    My interim conclusion just reading Irving was that, on the crucial wuestion of what motivated Churchill to take his anti Nazi stance (after early flirting with the idea of a common front with Germany against the Soviet Union, outrage over the signs that India was being given up, and with an absurd diversion over Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson) was that the money he needed and got had absolutely nothing to do with the line he took in attempting to get back into power, preferably as PM. He had been consistent for many years when his friend Bernard Baruch’s bad advice and Roosevelt’s 1938 recession and mini crash of the stock market caused him to put Chartwell up for sale and for the Jewish South African mining magnate to pay off his debts. Sure, you can imagine him noting his good fortune that rich Jews liked what he had to say and not at that stage emphasising the dominance of Jews in pre Stalin Bolshevism as he had in 1920.

    Trivial item, but part of my notes… There was no way that Japan was a “crucial” ally of the UK in WW1. That it might have made all the difference if it had been an enemy is a completely different matter.

    Having been at Oxbridge in the days when indeed Taylor’s lecturing at 8.30am so as to keep the numbers down was completely understandable I am also conscious that those were the days when no lectures were compulsory for undergraduates to attend and one’s tutor might well say that he couldn’t really recommend any lectures that term. I am far from convinced from what I have read in your article or Wikipedia that Taylor was “purged” in 1964 for something published in early 1961 and still on your Harvard reading list in 1981 despite the vigorous condemnation by most American historians who commented on his book. I would want to know more about who hired lecturers and what their processes were. As he was regarded as a bit of a media whore (enviously no doubt) I wouldn’t be surprised if there were arguments about what he was to lecture on – “not just advertising your latest book Alan and recruiting unpaid researchers”. As he remained a Fellow of Magdalen College till 1976 I hope I may find my Oxbridge friend and contemporary who was President of Magdalen for 10 years well enough to give me the inside story on Taylor and the university. So…. that’s so far a not-enough-evidence-to-prosecute case unless you know more than you have disclosed.

    You are aware I suppose that Taylor is said not to have read Mein Kampf till after his controversial reappraisal of the origins of WW2 was published. That seems to me significant.

    More quibble, but serious. You rightly said that claims that Hitler was out to conquer the world were absurd (though I don’t remember them being made!) but, with respect, doesn’t it seem absurd for you to say, not for the first time, that Hitler had “made every effort” to avoid war with France and Britain when, even if you ignore his actual invasion of Poland after the guarantee given to it by Britain and France, he had already broken his word to Chamberlain at Munich by invading Czechslovakia. Now that last is indeed “crucial” is it not?

    I am trying to get an electonic copy to post, or send you, of a paper give last November at a centenary conference titled “Known Unto God” by a conservative retired judge of great distinction because he was quite realistic about Churchill, desribing him as semi-alcoholic though I am not sure that it will advance this thread’s conversation much. After all I have known alcoholics who were never drunk and remarkable capable. Also, just on that issue we have always known – not least from Lord Alanbrooke’s diaries – of that big negative about Churchill. It seems that there were indeed times when he had drunk too much and it did matter and cause error though it seems certain thar he was much more manageable than the drugged up Hitler.

    Returning to WW1 would you care to explain how, on top of the open Entente Cordiale there was a secret military agreement between the British and French which was “a crucial factor” in the unintended escalation? Did it cause that massive Russian mobilisation which i habmve always been somewhat bemused to read made everything that followed in August 1914 inevitable?

    Finally, for now, you bring up Churchill’s decision not to rely on the French Admiral Darlan’s assurance about the Germans never getting their hands on the French navy’s ships but to sink those at Mers-el-Kébir if conditions weren’t met and you say, tendentiously (why else?) “not entirely dissimilar to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor” which couldn’t help but draw attention to the fact that it was scarcely possible for it to be more dissimilar. Also it was not true that the French ships were disarmed and moored helplessly in port. The Strasbourg and several smaller ships escaped to Toulon and the Dunkerque fired about 40 shells. (I acknowledge your word “mostly”l.

    1. British fleet, with just one aircraft carrier (co. Japanese 6) arrives about 5.30 am and gives French Admiral 4 choices. A British officer is received on the French flagship and allows a lot of time consuming negotiation while French commander sends for reinforcements.

    2. British only open fire after about 12 hours.

    3. Admiral Somerville ceases fire to spare unnecessary killing and several French ships escape to Toulon.

    Not much similarity to Pearl Harbor you may agree on reflection.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @CanSpeccy
  327. @ValMond

    Not Russo-phobes but Judeo-phobes. The Communists who murdered millions were Jews, such as, for example, Bela Kun. You know that. What’s the matter with you?

    • Replies: @ValMond
  328. @Theodore

    George Bush wasn’t elected either.

  329. @Ron Unz

    It is probably the footnotes that are the more important. His would not be the first apparently well footnoted work which doesn’t measure up when the footnotes are followed through. Thatbiscespecially so when a colleague who had worked with him described him as unreliable andcgiven to making things up.

  330. @szopen

    They can’t really be reasoned with. I wouldn’t necessarily call them neo-nazis, in the sense that they desire to enact similar policies today (although some, perhaps most, of them surely are), but the righteousness of the nazi cause is something like a religion to them, which means we are in the realm of emotion, not reason.

    I’m glad you post though. It is a tremendous service to people who really are interested in facts and evidence.

  331. @Andrei Martyanov

    So you are, in fact, an insidious troll. Have a nice life.

  332. ww1 and 2 are proof white people are the most cruel barbarians. unfortunately they deem their techno slaughtering as progress and being civilized. now they are sitting on nukes and devising new drones and always thinking how to become more efficient killers. a shame on all humanity.
    hitler wanted to create a german empire in envy of his cousins’ british one. but they would not allow it. poland is mere pretext.
    man is a wolf to man.

  333. @gregor

    You seem to have found something in Irving that I have missed or haven’t yet got to but I don’t detect that you havecfound any reason to believe that the Churchill who, after his India campaigning got nowhere was vigorously anti Nazi and pro rearmament, was induced by Jews to hold those views from 1933 to 1938 when he did need a big bailout to be able to kerp Chartwell because his friend Bernard Baruch’s bad advice and made Roosevelt’s 1938 stock market crash disastrous for him.

  334. szopen says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    There was Centrum Badania Zbrodni Hitlerowskich, which investigated and documented german crimes (and punished Nazi murderers when possible). It is now superseded by IPN, Instytut Pamięci Narodowej, which investigated both nazi and communist crimes. Their documents are usually not available in digital forms, and though they publish sometimes the books, they are prohibitively expansive. There are also projects like https://ofiary.ipn.gov.pl/ofi/ofiary-represji-niemiec/6142,Ofiary-represji-niemieckich.html, which gathers information about individual victims: deaths, expulsions, arrests etc, but it started only recently, some three years ago. For example, it has no information about my family, neither about my grandfather (kidnapped from street for a slave labour in the Reich, though to tell the truth he then was allocated to some Bavarian bauer who treat him as a member of the family, in contrast to many his friends who got to northern Germany, many of whom never returned), nor about other family members who I know were expelled to Siberia by Russians, or arrested by Gestapo.

    But, of course, it’s all propaganda. The books summarizing the findings? Propaganda. The trials after the war, which investigated the crimes, heard the witnesses? All propaganda.

  335. szopen says:
    @byrresheim

    If bombing of Wieluń was legitimate because Luftwaffe thought it had Polish army stationed in private buildings near the city centre (including non-existing units, which were only in planning), while in fact Polish cavalry unit was in city, but AFAIK nowhere near the centre – and AFAIK left the city before the bombing – and despite the fact the Luftwaffe made no efforts to limit the civilian losses; then why bombing Dresden was illegitimate?

    • Replies: @German_reader
  336. Tom Walsh says:
    @Miggle

    “the Hitler Youth who were assaulting opposition groups in the streets and schools, but that was the norm”
    Bryant’s book mentioned in the article explains the background to your comment above

  337. @CanSpeccy

    The Triple Entente with Russia and France that required Britain to declare war on Germany following Germany’s 1914 invasion of Belgium was negotiated by Sir Edward Grey, who persuaded the Cabinet of the necessity of war

    I love stuff like this. This is a British schoolboy’s interpretation of WW1.

    The Brits had a signed agreement to go to war if such and such a thing happened. Their hands were tied! It was right there, ON PAPER! Signatures!

    Clearly, you have no idea how people behave in the real world. Some “entente” contract forced Britain to move a million troops into France and Belgium? No, I don’t think so. Britain got into it because it saw opportunity to steal lots of land. Which is precisely what it did.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  338. Unless you can comprehend that Hitler and ALL the nazis were Jews in the employ of the (Crypto)-Jewish Ruling Class families of the ‘West’ (as were ALL the other leaders throughout) and that this is as much a ‘Class’ issue as it is an ‘Ethnic’ issue, then you will understand nothing of what was happening and you will simply repeat one just-so story after another. As you can see from the list of comments here, stepping away from the thick security blanket of deception is harder than most people imagine.
    Let me just remind you that the ‘official’ tale told of those times and the mythical-religious category of ‘Holocaust’ are considered essential for justifying Zionist prophesy.

    Adolf Jacob Hitler’s genealogy:
    http://mileswmathis.com/hiller.pdf

    http://mileswmathis.com/putsch.pdf

  339. @Flint Clint

    Your comment about the manipulation of the draft system during WWII is spot on. I can still remember as a youngster, my dad and uncles(WWII vets) talking about: “THE JEWISH NAVY” – the USCG, and how so many of (((those people))) were able to get in when the goyim were being sucked into the Army during Frank the Cripple’s “peacetime draft” of 1940. I fell in line in 1969 with the: “kill a commie for mommie” meme and almost got my ass shot off during the Vietnamese “Police Action.”
    Fortunately, Tricky Dick was winding things down and I ended up a MP at Fort Hood, TX.
    The sad thing about all of this information which Mr. Unz has compiled and documented; and which is being discussed and debated here is that the great Amerikan unwashed could care less. Amerikan society and culture has been dumbed down and corrupted into a morass of shambling, texting, slack-jawed, brain-dead, mouth-breathing, gimme-my-freebies Mall Zombies.
    Maybe one hundred years from now if there are any scholars left, objective and dispassionate men and women will expose and document the truth which can be shared with educated younglings who will pass it on. I will not hold my breath. My focus, at age 72, is going Galt as much as I can in anticipation of the more immediate and horrific events which will be unfolding during the upcoming Roaring Twenties. Bleib ubrig.

    • Replies: @Cleburne
    , @Flint Clint
  340. @Alfred

    As Allied troops got nowhere near Berlin in or at the end of WW1 I find it impossible to see how the archives of the German Foreign Ministry could be “confiscated”. Have you perhaps got your wars muddled?

  341. @Outis

    I read that AJP Taylor classic on the side when I was a graduate student in economics more than a half century ago. I was greatly impressed with it in that it completely changed my thinking about the origins of WW II. But I had a living to make and basically no one to talk to about the book, so it has just been gathering dust on my bookshelf ever since. I’m very gratified now that I have company, and with this plug of the book by Unz, potentially a lot more company in the future. Everyone should read it.

  342. @ValMond

    That’s a pretty funny question, considering the Soviet shill in here came up with 20 million war dead. I simply asked, how many of these were actually killed by the Great Terror and purges that went on in the Soviet empire.

    But since you asked this stupid question, here is an article of a Jew, and he is right, just the numbers are too low.

    Stalin’s Jews
    We mustn’t forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish

    We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags.

    20 million here, and a monument was built in Israel to honor the terrorist Red Army.

    Even if we deny it, we cannot escape the Jewishness of “our hangmen,” who served the Red Terror with loyalty and dedication from its establishment. After all, others will always remind us of their origin.

    https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

    Spot on here, Mr Plocker, we will do that until you finally own up to your evil deeds.

    You see, I like to spank you people with your own sources.

    • Replies: @ValMond
  343. @Bragadocious

    Can you cite a single document to show that British policymakers in 1914 had a war aim or motive of stealing lots of land? To utter such confisent crap you should have your sources at your fingertips and not have to spend hours finding a plausible source.

    • Replies: @Bragadocious
    , @CanSpeccy
    , @anon
  344. Cleburne says:
    @DWEEZIL THE WEASEL

    Dweezil, there’s a decent-sized growing body of young men and even some women who see through all of the Empire’s lies, from Lincoln’s war of conquest against the South to its current status as globohomo security guard for Our Greatest Ally. Don’t write off the younger folks yet. And while I’m here, let me also thank Mr Unz for the brilliant American Pravda series, and also to frequent commentators like Wally, Chuck Orloski, Desert Fox and so many others for the thoughts, links, insights and observations.

    Truth will triumph eventually, gentlemen. As General Robert E Lee wrote near the end of his life, “It is history that teaches us to hope.” God bless you all,

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
  345. @Wolfgang Otto

    Great article for sure with a lot of great info. I first learned many things stated here, and of the many authors listed here from Jackie Patru’s great website “SWEET LIBERTY”. I recommend her section titled “How Wars Are Made” for a start.
    http://www.sweetliberty.org/index.shtml

  346. @ploni almoni

    Wally didn’t say that, he pointed out what you said.

    I can add some substance to it.

    Here is a snippet of a Goebbels speech…

    Terrorist Jewry had 200 million people to serve it in Russia. It cynically used its methods on to create out of the stolid toughness of the Russian people a grave danger for the civilized nations of Europe.

    https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb36.htm

    What Goebbels said there goes counter the jewish myth peddled of “Slavic subhumans”.
    It is in fact an acknowledgement of “stolid tough Russian people”, which is true.

    Could one say the same about the Americans? I have my doubts tbh, considering the Americans still whine like little girls about 3000 dead on 911, which is nothing compared to the misery, death and destruction US troops create where ever they bomb, invade and occupy a country.

    • Replies: @Patricus
  347. iffen says:
    @szopen

    You are right. Time after time I promise myself I won’t deign anymore to talk to those creatures, but then my temperament kicks in.

    No! You are right!

    My comment is more whimsy than anything else.

    I double ditto the following comment from silviosilver.

    I’m glad you post though. It is a tremendous service to people who really are interested in facts and evidence.

    There are more people than me that have an absolute admiration for your efforts.

  348. Anon[178] • Disclaimer says:

    In 1976 I was asked by a graduate student to accompany her to a private party that her thesis advisor was having for her students, staff and co-workers at her home in Warsaw.. Towards the end of the evening when most of the people left the party the topic of conversation turned to the Jews in Poland. I remember she stated that starting with Boleslaw Bierut – Rotenschwanz that between 1944 to 1969 over 2.6 Million Polish Jews changed their names and ethnicty to Polish, The files that were stored in the Polish State Archives that she personally came across while working at the Polish State Records Archives and Statistics. She went on to state that the Jews that changed their names relocated to western part of Poland vacated by the Germans. In the beginning I sort of thought that what she was some what inflating the total figure until now and upon reading the released CIA files from 1954 stating that Jews can not leave Poland as there would be no one to run the country. Also the CIA documents affirm that most of the Jews settled in Wroclaw and the western part of Poland.
    She remarked at the end of the discussion with” just imagine as to what would happen to me if the authorities learned that I am telling to you. I would be tried, shot on the spot or imprisoned or sent to Siberia. That is why to date all of Poland’s Presidents and Prime Ministers just happen to be ethnic Jews. Lech Walesa – Lejba Kohne “BOLEK”, Tadeusz Mazowiecki – Icek Dikman, Aleksander Kwasniewski – Izaak Stoltzman, Jaroslaw i Lech Kaczynski – Kalkstein and etc. Unofficially it is estimated that there over Four Million Jews are presently living in Poland.

    [MORE]

    – –

    – –

    The following is a post by a Polish commentator at a discussion group. We at JTR cannot verify the accuracy of this list, nor the Polish source book for this. But, from our own research, the names we recognize on this list from our own research (Bronislaw Geremek, Jerzy Kosinski, Stanislaw Krajewski, Adam Michnik, Jerzy Urban, Dawid Warshawski) are indeed Jewish. But Lech Walesa?!). ]

    LIST OF NAME CHANGES FOR POLAND’S MOST POWERFUl/INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE IN OUR MODERN ERA. This was a recent post to Polonian groups … We read:

    Lista osób o zmienionych nazwiskach (Or, “List of persons with name changes”). It continues: Nazwiska autentyczne nizej wymienionych osób zostaly ustalone w oparciu o… (Or, Authentic names of the folks listed below are based upon: (A) Secret catalog data of the people of Poland, according to the Central Bureau’s MSW addresses [Archival numbers are as listed in the Pol. Language]; and (B) Data given by historians in their many publications. ————————————————————————–

    A) Dane tajne kartoteki ludnosci Polski przy Centralnym Biurze. Adresów MSW (nr arch. 1/6526/1 – data archiwacji 9.07.1984, nr rejestracyjny 14750-99 – data rejestracji Wydz. III-2, SUSW Warszawa).

    (B) Dane ujawnione przez historyków w ich licznych publikacjach.

    1. Jerzy Albrecht – Finkelstein

    2. Amsterdamski – Saul Henrykowski

    3. Stanislaw Arski – Apfelbaum

    4. Stefan Arski – Artur Salman

    5. Bronislaw Baczko – Gideon

    6. Leszek Balcerowicz – Aaron Bucholtz

    7. Ryszard Bender – Fajwisch Berenstein

    8. Jan K. Bielecki – Izaak Blumenfeld

    9. Boleslaw Bierut – Rotenschwanz

    10. Alef Bolkowiak – Alef Gutman

    11. Michal Boni – Jakub Bauer

    12. Jerzy Borejsza – Beniamin Goldberg

    13. Wiktor Borowicki – Aaron Berman

    14. Marek Borowski – Szymon Berman

    15. Stefan Bratkowski – Blumstejn

    16. Stanislaw Brodzki – Bronstejn

    17. Jan Brzechwa – Jan Worobiec

    18. Ryszard Bugaj – Izaak Blumfeld

    19. Zbigniew Bujak – lewy syn rabina Malachowskiego

    20. August Chelkowski – Dawid Cnajbaum

    21. red. Kamila Chilinska – Halpern

    22. Wieslaw Chrzanowski – Szymon Knopfstejn

    23. Adam Cichocki – Aaron Zigenbaum

    24. Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz – Dawid Goldstein

    25. Bernard Cukier – Kolski

    26. Józef Cyrankiewicz – Izaak Cukerman

    27. Marek Czekalski (prezydent Lodzi) – Wachter

    28. Tadeusz Daniszewski – Dawid Kirschbaum

    29. Ostap Dluski – Adolf Langer

    30. Jan Dobraczynski (pisarz) – Gutmacher

    31. Ludwik Dorn – Dornbaum

    32. Andrzej Drzycimski – Abraham Engel

    33. Lech Falandysz – Aaron Fleischman

    34. Arkady Fidler – Efroim Trusker

    35. Pawel Finder – Pinkus

    36. Aleksander Ford – Liwczyc

    37. Wladyslaw Frasyniuk – Rotenschwanz

    38. Jerzy Frydberg – Izrael Frydberg

    39. Bronislaw Geremek – Berele Lewartow

    40. Zofia Gomulkowa – Liwa Szoken

    41. Henryk Goryszewski – Jakub Glikman

    42. Jan Górecki – Muhlrad, dyr. gen. Min. Finansów

    43. Wiktor Górecki – Muhlrad, “komandos” z 1968

    44. Maria Górowska (sedzia) – Sand lub Berger

    45. Halina Górska – Sara Kugelschwanz

    46. Alina Grabowska – Sara Rotenfisch

    47. Hanna Gronkiewicz-Waltz – Hajka Grundbaum

    48. Ryszard Marek Gronski – Goldberger

    49. Wiktor Grosz – Izaak Medres

    50. Jacek Groszkowski – Hersz Herszkowicz

    51. Leon Halban – Blumenstok, prof. KUL-u

    52. Aleksander Hall – Miron Hurman

    53. Marian Hemar – jan Marian Herscheles

    54. Józefa Hennelowa – Zyta Goldmond

    55. Szymon Hirszowski – Szymon Hirsz

    56. Józef Hubner – Dawid Szwarc

    57. Piotr Ikonowicz – Dawid Goldsmith

    58. Henryk Jablonski – Apfelbaum

    59. Jerzy Jakubowski – Miszkatenblit

    60. Ludwika Jankowska – Luba Kowienska

    61. Andrzej Jaroszewicz – Aron Samet

    62. Piotr Jasienica – Lech Benar

    63. Jerzy Jaskiernia – Aaron Aksman

    64. Mieczyslaw Jastrun – Agatstein

    65. Tomasz Jastrun s. Mieczyslawa – Agatstein

    66. Kalina Jedrusik – Makusfeld

    67. Roman Jurys – Chaim Szacht

    68. Jaroslaw i Lech Kaczynscy – Kalkstein

    69. Ida Kaminska – Rachel, dyr. Teatru Zyd. w W-wie

    70. Jan Karski (kurier AK) – J. Kozielewski-?

    71. Andrzej Kern – Dawid Ginsberg

    72. Jan Kobuszewski – Weisleder

    73. adm. Piotr Kolodziejczyk – Robert Cajmer

    74. Grzegorz Kolodko – Samuel Hanerman

    75. Maria Komar (generalowa) – Riwa Zukerman

    76. Janusz Korczak – Henryk Goldszmit

    77. Janusz Korwin-Mikke – Ozjasz Goldberg

    78. Jerzy Kosinski – Josek Lewinkopf

    79. Janina Kotarbinska – Dina Steinberg, z. prof. Kotarbinskiego

    80. Mikolaj Kozakiewicz – Jakub Kleinman

    81. Helena Kozlowska – Bela Frisch

    82. Stanislaw Krajewski – Abel Kaimer

    83. Hanna Krall – Hajka Rejchgold

    84. Krzysztof Król – Aaron Rosenbaum

    85. Marian Krzaklewski – Dawid Zimmerman

    86. Lucyna Krzemieniecka – Wiera Zeidenberg

    87. Edward Krzemien (dziennikarz GW) – Wolf

    88. Kunicki – Goldfinger

    89. Kazimierz Kuratowski – Kuratow

    90. Zofia Kuratowska-Jaszunska – Goldman

    91. Jacek Kuron – Icek Kordblum

    92. Aleksander Kwasniewski – Izaak Stoltzman

    93. Jolanta Kwasniewska -Konty – Kohn

    94. Stanislaw Jerzy Lec – Letz de Tusch

    95. Janusz Lewandowski – Aaron Langman

    96. Olga Lipinska – Fajga Lippman

    97. Teresa Liszcz – Sara Lankamer

    98. Jan Litynski – Jakub Leman

    99. Lubiejski – Zygielman

    100. Lozowski – Salomon Abramowicz

    101. Aleksander Luczak – Dawid Lachman

    102. Helena Luczywo – Chaber (ojciec), Guter (matka)

    103. Antoni Macierewicz – Izaak Singer

    104. Aleksander Malachowski – Jakub Goldsmith

    105. Marek Markiewicz – Samuel Moritz

    106. Tadeusz Mazowiecki – Icek Dikman

    107. Jacek Merkel – Samuel Nelken

    108. Adam Michnik – Aaron Szechter

    109. Andrzej Milczanowski – Aaron Edelman

    110. Jerzy Milewski – Dawid Machonbaum

    111. Leszek Moczulski – Robert Berman

    112. Karol Modzelewski – Samuel Mendel

    113. Zygmunt Modzelewski – Fischer

    114. Jerzy Morawski – Izaak Szloma

    115. Stanislaw Nadzin – Gutman

    116. Stefan Niesiolowski – Aaron Nusselbaum

    117. Jerzy Robert Nowak (prof.) – Moritz Neuman

    118. Piotr Nowina-Konopka – Haim Kromer

    119. Róza Ochabowa – Grunbaum

    120. Andrzej Olechowski – Mosze Brandwein

    121. Józef Oleksy – Szymon Buchwio (Lemek)

    122. Jan Olszewski – Izaak Oksner

    123. Janusz Onyszkiewicz – Jojne Grynberg

    124. Jerzy Osiatynski – Szymon Weinbach

    125. Janina Paradowska – Rachela Busch

    126. Jan Parys – Haim Pufahl

    127. Aleksander Paszynski – Finkelstein

    128. Miroslawa Pazynska – Srula Kundelman

    129. Leslaw Podkanski – Izaak Freinkel

    130. Ezdra Podlaski – Rotenschwanz

    131. Kazimierz Pomian – Furman lub Rotenschwanz

    132. Radkiewiczowa, zona min. – Ruta Teitsch

    133. Helena Radlinska, prof.- Rajchman, Akad.Organ.Sl. Spol.

    134. Mieczyslaw Rakowski – Mojzesz Rak

    135. Jan Regula – Josek Mützenmacher

    136. Jan Maria Rokita – Izaak Goldwicht

    137. Andrzej Rosiewicz – A. Jarosiewicz

    138. Adolf Rudnicki (pisarz) – Schneider

    139. Jan Rulewski – Fikelman

    140. Rutkowski – Botwin

    141. Hanka Sawicka – Szapiro

    142. Ryszard Setnik – Szymon Bauman

    143. Izabela Sierakowska – Rebeka Sommer

    144. Janusz Sitynski – Jakub Leman

    145. Ernest Skalski – Wilker lub Nimen

    146. Skrzeszewski – Fokenman

    147. Krzysztof Skubiszewski – Szymon Schimel

    148. Wladyslaw Slawny – Rosenberg

    149. Antoni Slonimski – Stomma

    150. Zenon Smolarek – Izaak Zimmerman

    151. Ewa Spychalska – Salome Stein

    152. Marian Starownik – Symeon Steinman

    153. Stefan Starzewski – Gustaw Szusterman

    154. Stanislaw Stomma – Szaja Sommer

    155. Michal Strak – Baruch Steinberg

    156. Julian Stryjkowski (pisarz) – Pesah Stark

    157. Jerzy Stuhr (aktor) – Josek Feingold

    158. Hanna Suchocka – Hajka Silberstein

    159. Boleslaw Sulik – Jakub Steinberg

    160. Kalman Sultanik – Chaim Studniberg

    161. Irena Szewinska (sportowiec) – I. Kirszenstein

    162. Stefan Szwedowicz (brat Michnika) – Szechter

    163. Roman Szydlowski – Szancer

    164. Wieslawa Szymborska – Rottermund

    165. Pawel Spiewak – Stinger

    166. Boleslaw Tejkowski – Benio Tejkower

    167. Jerzy Turowicz – Jakow Turnau

    168. Stanislaw Tuszewski – Salomon Hardnik

    169. Magda Umer (piosenkarka) – Humer

    (córka zbrodniarza UB)

    170. Jerzy Urban – Josek Urbach

    171. Mieczyslaw Wachowski – Jakub Windman

    172. Henryk Walczak – Zukerman

    173. Lech Walesa – Lejba Kohne

    174. Dawid Warszawski – Konstanty Gebert

    175. Adam Wazyk (poeta) – Wagman

    176. Andrzej Werblan – Aaron Werblicht

    177. Andrzej Wieczorkiewicz – Hirsz Gelpern

    178. Aleksander Wirpsza – Leszek Szaruga

    179. Dariusz Wójcik – Dawid Wisental

    180. Andrzej Wróblewski – Andrzej Ibislauer

    181. Ludmila Wujec – Okrent

    182. Jan Wyka – Leopold Wessman

    183. Roman Zambrowski – Rubin Nusbaum

    184. Janusz Zaorski – Jakub Bauman

    185. Andrzej Zoll – Rojeschwanz, b. prezes Tryb. Konst.

    186. Janusz Ziólkowski – Izaak Zemler Wojskowi (Army)

    187. gen. Edward Braniewski – Brandsteter

    188. gen. Jan Drzewiecki – Holzer

    189. gen. Marian Graniewski – Gutaker

    190. gen. Wiktor Grosz – Izaak Medres

    191. gen. Artur Jastrzebski – Artur Ritter (Niemiec)

    192. gen. Grzegorz Korczynski – Kalinowski

    193. gen. Leszek Krzemien – Maksymilian Wolf

    194. gen. Matejewski – Kugelschwanz

    195. gen. Marian Naszkowski – Wasser

    196. gen. St. Poplawski – Siergiej Grochow (Rosjanin)

    197. gen. Karol Swierczewski – Walter Goltz lub Tenenbaum

    198. gen. Leon Turski – Tennenbaum

    199. gen. Mieczyslaw Wagrowski – Izaak Pustelman

    200. gen. Tadeusz Wilecki – Wallach

    201. gen. Zarako-Zarakowski – Zarako, Nacz. Prok. WP

    202. gen. Janusz Zarzycki – Neugebauer

    203. plk Michal Bron – Bronstein, prac. MSZ

    204. plk dr Charbicz – Marek Heberman, kom.Szpit.Woj.,Warszawa

    205. plk Otto Finski – Finkenstein, szef sztabu “Sluzba Polsce”

    206. plk Garbowski – Caber lub Gruber, d-ca dyw.

    207. plk Gradlewski – Goldberg, GZP WP

    208. plk Mieczyslaw Kowalski – Kohn

    209. plk Anatol Liniewski – Liberman, prac. ASG

    210. plk Rosinski – Rosenberg, DOW

    211. plk Rotowski – Rotholtz, szef Zarz. Sl. Techn. WP

    212. plk St. Sokolowski – Szabat, prac. WAP

    213. plk Pawel Solski – Pinkus, szef Sl. Samoch. WP

    214. plk Szulczynski – Szulcynger, d-ca pulku

    215. plk Wl. Tykocinski – Tikotiner, attache wojsk.

    216. plk Wadlewski – Waldman, dyr. Dep. Wojsk. w Min. Zdrowia

    217. plk Zarski – Silberstein, prac. WAP

    218. pplk Jerzy Bryn – Izrael Alter, prac. MSZ

    219. pplk Jan Dolanowski – Dollinger, DOW

    220. pplk Adam Laski – Gutbrot, prac. ASG

    221. pplk Henryk Zieman – Zysman, DOW

    222. mjr Roman Domanski – Rosenstand, DOW

    223. mjr Marcel Kot – Abram Sterenzys

    224. mjr Józef Sliwinski – Flaumenbaum, szef Wyd. “Sluzba Polsce”

    225. mjr Henryk Uminski – Keff

    226. Filip Berski – Badner, prokurator wojskowy

    227. Kazimierz Golczewski – Bauman, Nacz. Prok. Wojsk.

    228. sedzia Franciszek Kapczuk – Natanel Frau, Sad Wojsk. Wroclaw

    229. Maksymilian Litinski – Lifszyc, Nacz. Prok. Wojsk.

    230. Lubiejski – Zygielman, II Zarzad

    231. Jakub Lubowski – Chase Smen, prok. Dep. Sl. Spraw.

    232. Jan Orlinski – Unterweiser, Prok. Wojsk.

    233. Henryk Podlaski – Fink, Nacz. Prok. Wojsk.

    234. Rajski – Rajgrodzki, II Zarzad

    235. Roman Rawicz – Vogel, Najw. Sad Wojsk.

    236. Henryk Trojan – Adler, II Zarzad

    237. Henryk Walczak – Zukerman

    238. Zagórski – Winter, II Zarzad

    239. Arnold Zaleski – Zalkind, prac. Prok. Wojsk. Pracownicy MSW

    240. gen. Józef Hübner – Dawid Szwarc

    241. gen. Matejewski – Kugelschwanc

    242. gen. Miecz. Moczar – Mykola Demko (Ukrainiec)

    243. Gen. Julian Polan – Harasim, morderca sadowy

    244. gen. Roman Romkowski – Natan Grinspan-Kikiel

    245. gen. Józef Maria Rózanski – Rosenzweig

    246. plk Leon Andrzejewski – Ajzen Lejb-Wolff, dyr. Gabin. Ministra

    247. plk Bielecki – Moniek Buchman, szef WUBP Kraków

    248. plk Julia Brystiger – Prajs

    249. plk Górecki – Goldberg, dyr. Depart. IX

    250. plk Mieczyslaw Mietkowski – Mojzesz Borowicki, doradca MSW

    251. plk Orlowski – Kugelschwanz

    252. plk Marian Reniak – Marian Struzynski

    253. plk Józef Rózanski – Josek Goldberg, dyr. dep. MBP

    254. plk Sienkiewicz – Lewi, dyr. depart.

    255. plk Szerynski – Szhnkman, prac. MBP

    256. plk Józef Swiatlo – Izaak Fleischfarb, z-ca dyr. depart. X

    257. pplk Helena Wolinska-Brus – Ochsmann

    258. mjr Adam Kornecki – Dawid Kornhendler, szef WUBP Kielce

    259. Antoni Alster – Nauman, v-ce szef MBP

    260. Barbara Giller – Basze Lea, prac. MBP Duchowni (Religion)

    261. kard. Franciszek Macharski – Finkelstein

    262. ks. prof. Józef Tischner – Blumstein

    263. ks. prof. Romuald Weksler-Waszkinel – Jakub Weksler

    bp Jan Chrapek, bp Bronislaw Dembowski,bp S. Gadecki,bp gen. Slawoj L. Glódz, abp Henryk Muszynski, bp Tadeusz Pieronek, bp Tadeusz Rakoczy, abp Ziólek, abp Józef Zycinski, ks. Adam Bijak, ks. Adam Boniecki, ks. Michal Czajkowski, o.

  349. Fox says:
    @FatR

    For heavens sake, now you are pulling out the Crown Council meeting again. Not only was it never held, it was invented by the American ambassador to Turkey, Morgenthau.
    If, instead of Albertini, an Italian, you read accounts of Morel or Nielson (two Englishmen who were opposing the war and its proponents in England – one of them the indefatigable Churchill, by the way), then you not call the dissension within the English government “nonsense”.
    In reality, it was the German government which waited until the very end to proclaim Mobilization while everywhere else millions of men had been called to arms already. Mobilization was considered the imminence and intent of war. Kaiser Wilhelm made two appeals at the very end of July to Czar Nicholas to recall the Mobilization order, prior to German mobilization.
    The only substantial criticism of Germany that can be maintained is the unconditional declaration of loyalty to Austria after the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, and its belated attempts of constraining Austria’s course of action towards a punitive action against Serbia. In Germany the overall danger that had arisen through the secret system of ententes and alliances was recognized.
    Germany had no war aims in case of a conflict, other than defense, while England, Franc and Russia were all expansionist and intent of breaking German power in Europe. That Germany is the largest, most populous, industrious and productive country in Europe has not been accepted then, and it is not being accepted now, and wholesale destruction of everything is and was preferred to a positive cooperation with Germany and accepting the reality of a big German presence in Europe and the world.
    There is a large volume of literature from the Entente countries after War, the appalling results of the conflict for narrow-minded goals (such as France’s “recovery” of the German provinces Elsaß and Lothringen) needed justification by the war proponents. Hence, Poincare and Grey were suddenly “overwhelmed” by the events, they somehow “happened”, and were not prepared and worked for by these men and their followers. Albertini as an Italian has likewise a motivation to make it all Germany’s fault, as Italy was promised in a secret pact in 1915 the German provinces to the South-primarily Südtirol- for its change of sides from the Triple Alliance to the Entente. I am using the German names of these provinces I mentioned to not leave the impression that the consequent naming of them in Allied countries with their French or Italian appellations.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Seraphim
  350. @Wizard of Oz

    LOL, I don’t need a document. I have something better: Winston Churchill and Kitchener.

    Britain was in a near-constant state of war in the 15 years before WW1. All of it involving invasion, conquest and land theft.

    I mean, are you daft enough to think the Brits would produce a document admitting their real aims?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  351. Patricus says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova

    The “truth” about WW II might never become widely known. Our American Civil War narrative is a caricature. As for more ancient history, who knows what really happenned.

    Thanks Mr. Unz for this comprehensive summary. I might have died of old age without learning about the fraud of accepted WW II history if I hadn’t accidentally picked up a few revisionist books and read web pages like the Unz Review. As it is I have lived most of my adult life as a historically ignorant person.

  352. Emslander says:

    Be forrewarned: Germany will rise again!

  353. Patricus says:
    @Germanicus

    If you think Americans are reluctant to shed blood read about the Civil War.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  354. @szopen

    The problem with Peter MX answer is that the Belgium was still keeping neutrality, even though friendly to France; it allowed French troops to defend Belgium, but French rushed into the country only AFTER German invasion.

    You clearly have only half knowledge, and you even proudly show your miseducation and fanaticism.

    The reason why German troops went through Belgium was the heavily fortified Maginot line along the German-French border, where the french had amassed 80 infantry divisions in August 1939. So, the Wehrmacht tried the WWI Schlieffen Plan again, and this time with success, the french fortifications were circumvented, and the french aggressor was destroyed without taking too many casualties.

    Simple military considerations and planning, no big harm was done to the Belgian,Dutch or French civilians. The french even enjoyed taking a bath in the Atlantic with German troops, who behaved excellently, as opposed to the drunk Americans who raped french women.

    Btw, where is your outrage of British invasion of Norway, the British bombing of french towns and sinking of the french fleet by the Brits? Or British plans to use chemical weapons in Italy? Your selective hypocritical artificial outrage is pathetic and ideologically driven.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @szopen
  355. @Patricus

    I don’t doubt Americans shed foreign blood, but they cry like babies if they lose their own, in wars and conflicts they instigated.
    Yeah, I know Israel did 911, the point is, the American population only support one war after the other because they haven’t had a real war on their soil, I mean real war, like aerial carpet bombing of US cities, where every town above 50000 pop was destroyed by firestorms, and where the firefighters are bombed and strafed with cannons as well, followed by foreign occupation, starvation and terror. People cooking a soup from leaves and chew a piece of leather to fight the hunger for almost 5 years.

  356. Sparkon says:
    @FatR

    (1)Why then, as early as autumn of 1938 German economy had effectively shifted to the war footing… or facing a massive economic crisis without a war on hnad to justify inevitable curtailing of civilian consumption?

    Why then in 1929 did Stalin initiate his first Five Year Plan, fully four years before Hitler was appointed Chancellor?

    You’re alarmed about German militarization in 1938, but what about Stalin’s cruel and rapid industrialization and militarization in 1929, a plan that resulted in the deaths of millions of Soviet citizens? Stalin’s second Five Year Plan followed in 1934.

    Hitler was not appointed Chancellor until 1933, and Germany did not go to full war footing until 1943, which was the first instance where German civilian consumer goods were impacted by the war.

    But by 1929, if not earlier, Stalin was preparing for war at great cost to millions of Soviet citizens, but against whom, and for what reasons?

  357. bjondo says:
    @lysias

    Was she the one who told Acosta to back off on Epstein, as he belonged to intelligence and was above Acosta’s pay grade?

    Good question. Good discovery.

    Her parents holocaust survivors per jewpedia.
    Could account for her hate-filled, revenge-seeking brain.

    So many survived.
    Who died?

  358. @FatR

    (1)Why then, as early as autumn of 1938 German economy had effectively shifted to the war footing (as documented most recently in “The Wages of Destruction” by Adam Tooze) with up to 40% of raw resources like steel channeled into military production, which left Germany with the options of actually starting a major war within the next 1-2 years, or facing a massive economic crisis without a war on hnad to justify inevitable curtailing of civilian consumption?

    Tooze didn’t prove that crisis was coming so much as he asserted it. At 1939 level armaments spending, Britain would go broke long before Germany did. Here is what economic historian Richard Overy (Tooze’s old master) wrote on that matter, summarizing his conclusions:

    It was in the western powers that the problems of rearmament, fiancne and domestic politics were most acute. Fears of financial crisis and political unrest held Britain and France back from a substantial effort of rearmament until 1938, and encouraged both governments to explore the possibility of a settlement rather than run the risks of a collapse at home. […] By 1938-39 economic crisis appeared a very real possibility and the political dangers greater than ever. The high levels of arms spending could be sustained for only a short time, while the last unemployed resources were used up and before the balance of payments became critical. This fact pushed both governments towards the conclusion that it would be better to take decisive action, even war, sooner rather than later. German preparations pointed to a war in the mid-1940s. For Britain and France the decisive year was 1939.

    Source of quote: Richard Overy, “The Origins of the Second World War”

    In fact, Britain had more economic reason for war in 1939 than Germany. Hitler meant for Germany’s war preparations to be ready only by 1943.

    About that time was also when Stalin’s war economy would be in full swing and the Red Army fully modernized with modern tanks, self-propelled artillery and etc. A coincidence? In any case, it was well known that the Soviet Union had by far the largest army in Europe, and was a hostile neighbor planning world revolution. Under those circumstances, the fact that Hitler was beefing up Germany’s defenses at breakneck speed didn’t by itself mean he was planning a war with Britain and France.

    (2)Why would anyone who is neither completely braindead, nor a disingenious lying shill would talk about “final demand” bullshit either whether or now, given that the entire reason why Britain and France switched from appeasing Germany to firm opposition and refusing any sort of further “reasonable” demands was the fact that Hitler simply could not be trusted any agreement he made, as was proven to the world by annexation of the rest of Czechoslovakia.

    Nonsense. Or rather, globalist propaganda. Chamberlain didn’t care about Czechoslovakia. In his very first comments after the proclamation of the German protectorate, he acknowledged that Germany had not broken the Munich Agreement (since Czechoslovakia had not been attacked, but rather collapsed internally). He wanted further cooperation with Germany for peace in Europe and against Soviet Communism. Conclusion to his speech in Parliament, March 15 1939 on this topic:

    But do not let us on that account be deflected from our course. Let us remember that the desire of all the peoples of the world still remains concentrated on the hopes of peace and a return to the atmosphere of understanding and good will which has so often been disturbed. The aim of this Government is now, as it has always been, to promote that desire and to substitute the method of discussion for the method of force in the settlement of differences. Though we may have to suffer checks and disappointments, from time to time, the object that we have in mind is of too great significance to the happiness of mankind for us lightly to give it up or set it on one side.

    Source of quote: UK Parliamentary protocols, easily available online with a search.

    So what actually happened? As has been explained in earlier articles here at the Unz Review, FDR and other powers in the US put pressure on Chamberlain to cancel his policy of conciliation and cooperation, because they wanted to start a World War to destroy Nazi Germany (seemingly because they considered it anti-Semitic, a capital crime in these circles then as now). Due to this pressure, he did so. According to US Ambassador in London Joseph Kennedy,

    ….Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England […] neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington. […] Chamberlain, he said, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war.

    Source of quote: “The Forrestal Diaries”, edited by Walter Millis

    Link to article by Unz Review writer John Wear, with further references:
    http://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/

    If you had read our host Ron Unz’s article that you’re commenting on, and checked his links, you would know this and not call other people “completely braindead” or “disingenuous lying shills” for exposing your rather ham-fisted efforts at Establishment apologism and propaganda. For surely you realize that ridicule used as a weapon works only from a position of superior authority.

  359. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    You’ve always struck me as a totally ignorant buffoon, and you’ve certainly reinforced that impression with this silly comment.

    LOL. I must have hit a nerve. Good, if it prompts you to the realization that broad statements unsupported by logic or evidence are no basis for useful historical analysis.

    Well, it sounds like you’ve been too lazy to actually read the Buchanan book. According to the author, the British Cabinet was very narrowly divided about declaring war, and Churchill was one of the strongest pro-war voices. Whether or not Buchanan’s analysis is correct, that’s what he says.

    Certainly there are many relevant books I could cite that you have been “too lazy” to read, “actually” or otherwise. Such books including at least a dozen by Churchill. Indeed your ignorance of Churchill’s work is remarkable, since he was at the center of affairs of one of the great powers — at the beginning of the 20th Century, the world’s greatest power — for over 50 years. 

    As for Churchill arguing for war in 1914, how could a rational member of the government reasonably argue otherwise? Britain was bound to go to war both under the terms of  the Triple Entente with France and Russia (1907), and by the Treaty of London(1839) to preserve Belgian neutrality, which was signed by all the European powers including Germany.

    Those in Asquith’s cabinet who argued for war were simply dealing with the reality of the situation. Had Britain opted out of her treaty obligations, allowing France to fall to the German invasion, her own position in the world would have been totally undermined. The German Navy would have been moored on the opposite bank of the Channel and there would have been a German Empire dominating the whole of Europe, thus defeating Britain’s 500-year old balance-of-power policy and destroying Britain’s great power standing in the world. Abandonment of Britain’s treaty obligations in 1914 would have meant imperial suicide. And Churchill was an imperialist as was everyone else in the British government of the day.

    To say that in arguing these points Churchill was responsible for the war, or that he was a warmonger, is simply silly. These were the geopolitical realities and the entire British cabinet ultimately agreed.

    Your notion that Churchill was a warmonger is simple-minded. Churchill was an enthusiast for war, which is a different thing. War was Churchill’s business. He was a graduate of Britain’s officers training school, Sandhurst. Churchill participated in war in the Caribbean, on India’s North-West frontier, in South Africa where he became a prisoner of war and a prison camp escapee, and during WW1, as the commander of British force sent to aid in the defense of Antwerp, and for six months in the trenches on the Western Front. For Churchill, war provided a stage upon which he must have hoped to emulate the greatness of his remote ancestor, John Churchill, the first Duke of Malborough, who defeated the armies of the Sun King, Louis 14th, never losing an engagement. But Churchill understood war as an instrument of policy and, as an advocate of war, was guided by considerations of statecraft.

    As for my being “absolutely dead-flat wrong” in denying that Churchill was a huge spendthrift by virtue of his expenditure on liquor, how do you think he should have entertained Parliamentary colleagues and foreign dignitaries, for example Hitler’s foreign minister, Joachim Ribbentrop, when they visited Chartwell — the country estate he bought with his literary income? As the grandson of a Duke on his father’s side, and the grandson of a big-time Wall-Streeter and owner of the New York Times on his mother’s side, was he to offer them brown ale and cheap plonk. Get real.

    But what demonstrates your complete lack of journalistic integrity is in asserting, without the slightest evidence, that Churchill was a bribe-taker.

    Yes, Churchill accepted money from people with political interests to promote. But has it never occurred to you that they supported Churchill not so that he would corruptly adopt policies that served their interest, but to aid him in the policies that he had for some years been openly pursuing.

    • Replies: @Emslander
  360. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    To utter such confisent crap you should have your sources at your fingertips and not have to spend hours finding a plausible source.

    Crap, certainly, confisent or otherwise. But uttering crap without anything to back it is a feature of the Unz school of history.

    But it is true that the Brits had long been in the business of stealing land. But that was not their aim at the outbreak of WW1. Their objective on that occasion was to uphold the 500-year-old British policy of maintaining a balance of power in Europe, leaving Britain a free hand to pursue its imperial ambitions elsewhere.

    And it is also true that the Brits did acquire land during WW1. Quite a lot of it, in fact. Over a million square miles in the ME, which just happened to be the location of the world’s greatest energy reserves.

  361. @Ron Unz

    David Irving also uncovered the fascinating detail that the two largest German financial donors to the Nazis during their rise to power were both Jewish bankers, one of them being the country’s most prominent Zionist leader, though the motives involved were not entirely clear.

    Why don’t you supply the names of these two German donors? I don’t want to have to search through David Irving’s writings to find them.

    The most notable example was Field Marshal Erhard Milch, Hermann Goering’s powerful second-in-command, who played such an important operational role in creating the Luftwaffe. Milch certainly had a Jewish father, and according to some much less substantiated claims, perhaps even a Jewish mother as well, while his sister was married to an SS general.

    You’re such a David Irving fan, it’s hard to believe you haven’t read his revelations on Milch [found on his website]: that his real father was his white German mother’s uncle, meaning he wasn’t Jewish at all. I found Irving’s evidence more convincing than not – you didn’t? Milch also doesn’t look even the least little bit Jewish. Von Manstein, on the other hand, who was 1/2 Jewish did show a resemblance, especially the nose.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  362. Jews get populations into wars, civil strife, economic debacles and international entanglements. I posted in an earlier thread that something “9/11-ish” would occur to compel Trump to attack Iran. Our country needs to cease dealing with any entity in the Middle East, particularly Israel. These wars are not in our interest. Instead, we’re further creating enmity against our country. We are fortunate to have everything we need to sustain our economy within our borders (What’s left of them…) That should be the focus of our elected officials.

  363. @szopen

    then why bombing Dresden was illegitimate?

    British bombing policy from 1942 onwards aimed at the destruction of entire cities; one can argue whether that strategy was justified or not, but in any case it was different in quality from the Luftwaffe’s mostly tactical bombing. And that’s not even a “revisionist” assessment, just read a mainstream historian like Richard Overy (The bombing war) about it. Luftwaffe was never declared a criminal organization by the allies, because it was clear to anybody in 1945 that Britain’s conduct of the air war had been more extreme.
    I don’t know why you and other Poles go on so much about Luftwaffe bombing in September 1939 where your case is pretty weak, the actual conduct of military operations by German armed forces in 1939 wasn’t especially criminal (Wehrmacht units committed some mass shootings and other atrocities, but it wasn’t a general policy and there even were some prosecutions about it before military courts, in marked contrast to what happened later in the war against the Soviet Union). What was undoubtedly criminal were the systematic mass killings by SS Einsatzgruppen, police, Selbstschutz etc. in parallel to and after the hostilities. That’s what really set the German attack apart from a “normal” war.

    • Agree: iffen, utu
    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Anatoly Karlin
  364. DrDog says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Yes, true. But you fail to mention an important fact. Who is the largest holder of oil contracts from the producers??? Would you not think that important? It happens to be the Chinese.

    Blood for oil? That should actually be chumps for oil if one is an American.

  365. What was undoubtedly criminal were the systematic mass killings by SS Einsatzgruppen, police, Selbstschutz etc. in parallel to and after the hostilities. That’s what really set the German attack apart from a “normal” war.

    Here he goes again, after basically telling some truth, and resembling indeed reason, the last paragraph is just like in the jewish Press, it contains the main message to be propagated, the fall back to the official narrative.

    You will not get away with this, and your dirt throwing on the German people.

    Einsatzgruppen, Wally, please rip this nonsense apart.

    • Replies: @Wally
  366. Ron Unz says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Why don’t you supply the names of these two German donors? I don’t want to have to search through David Irving’s writings to find them.

    Unfortunately, the names of the donors aren’t known. Irving found a letter written by former Chancellor Bruning mentioning that fact and Churchill wanted to publish it in one of his books, but was persuaded not to. It’s covered in one of the fascinating Irving lectures I’d linked in my article. You really should watch them.

    You’re such a David Irving fan, it’s hard to believe you haven’t read his revelations on Milch [found on his website]: that his real father was his white German mother’s uncle, meaning he wasn’t Jewish at all

    As I emphasized, until very recently I’d only read a couple of Irving’s shorter books, now joined by Churchill Vol. One. Given his gigantic output, I’d guess that only amounts to something like 15% of the total. The 2002 Rigg book I referenced discussed the matter at some length, and I found it pretty persuasive. But it’s perfectly possible that Irving has uncovered as good or better evidence on the other side.

  367. c matt says:

    for elected officials to do the bidding of foreigners on matters of war and peace in exchange for huge secret payments seems almost a textbook example of treason to me

    Unless your name is Clinton.

  368. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    doesn’t it seem absurd for you to say, not for the first time, that Hitler had “made every effort” to avoid war with France and Britain

    WWII resulted from the fact that the two most powerful nations in Europe sought expansion:

    The Soviet Union was openly committed to, and actively pursuing, world revolution, i.e., a global Communist empire.

    The Germans, stabbed in the back after WW1 and subjected to grotesquely unreasonable terms by the Treaty of Versailles were intent on Eastward expansion. Naturally, therefore, Hitler would have sought peace at his back, i.e., with France and Britain – for the time being.

    For the Western block, the UK, France and the US, the best outcome was for Russia and Germany to bleed one another to death, which with the encouragement of Neville Chamberlain, Britain’s architect of appeasement policy, they obligingly did.

    The only problem for the Western block was that the victor of the Russo-German struggle would, once the struggle in the East had been decided, surely roll Westward to the Atlantic coast.

    What to do? The Allied invasion of Europe in time to Bring the Russians or the Germans as the case might be to a standstill before they passed Germany’s Western border.

    Thus, until the D-day landings, Churchill the warmonger in Unz’s fevered mind, mostly just buggered about on the periphery of Europe keeping Britain’s Indian, African and ME empire intact.

    Thus, far from being a warmonger, Churchill’s greatest service to his country was to keep Britain’s WWII sacrifice to a minimum.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @ploni almoni
  369. @Mulegino1

    No more bullshit from the Hitler- I mean the History Channel- please.

    I think you mean the anti-Hitler/Bullshit Channel.

    On another note, it is ironic that A.J.P. Taylor’s career was deep-sixed. He was decidedly anti-Hitler.

    • Replies: @David Baker
  370. Anon[209] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tom67

    there is no doubt in my mind that to be a Jew in German dominated Europe amounted to a death sentence

    .

    What do you make of the many thousand Jews who fought in the German troops (usually holding non-low hierarchical positions)?

    Are you sure it was handicapped people, and not irrecoverable bottom-level outlaws who were eliminated? (It would still be highly objectionable, yet a different order of thing)?

    • Replies: @Tom67
  371. szopen says:
    @Germanicus

    How that changes anything? Belgium was still neutral country which was invaded, just because Germany “needed” to defeat France.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  372. Anon[209] • Disclaimer says:
    @byrresheim

    Wikipedia.

    L-O-L.

  373. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    just reading Irving … on the crucial question of what motivated Churchill to take his anti Nazi stance (after early flirting with the idea of a common front with Germany against the Soviet Union..) was that the money he needed and got had absolutely nothing to do with the line he took in attempting to get back into power, preferably as PM. He had been consistent for many years when … Roosevelt’s 1938 recession and mini crash of the stock market caused him to put Chartwell up for sale and for the Jewish South African mining magnate to pay off his debts.

    Glad that someone not “too lazy” to read Irving concludes as I have, that Churchill’s financial backers backed him so that he would continue to do what he was doing of his own accord, not to corruptly do what he did not chose of his own free will.

    The idea that Churchill was blackmailable is also highly questionable. As he wrote somewhere, I forget now where, had he been open to charges of adultery (or presumably other forms of sexual impropriety) his political opponents would have simply destroyed him. That’s to say that every aspect of Churchill’s private life was open to public view, merely that evidence of sexual impropriety was not available to his opponents.

  374. szopen says:
    @Germanicus

    BTW, I am not outraged by invasion of Belgium. I am outraged by mindset of nazi apologists, who think that whatever is done to Germany, is bad, and whatever is dne by Germany, is justified. So, for example, when allies created (not really true; allies jsut recognised the reality and adjusted borders) states, that was BAD THING. But Germany wanted to created vassal states in territories acquired from Russia; hard to say what were exactly their plans (probably they didn’t know themselves) but Hindenburg in his own books mention independent Baltic state, where German veterans would be settled and would receive free land. Annexing land from Germany: bad! But plans for annexing “border belt” (and remember, at least one government planner proposed expelling all Poles and Jews from there) would be good, because that would ensure safety of German borders. Germans living under Poles: tyranny! But other solution would be Poles living under Germans, and we all know (or at least, we should know) how bad and continously worse was becoming situation of Poles in Germany (or maybe you don’t know. I other thread one guy was surprised to find out that Polish children were deprived of right to even one lesson in Polish).

    In short, this is the attitude I am disgusted with. “Ze Germans dindu noffin. It’s all Jews, Poles and freemasons fault”.

  375. @Curmudgeon

    They (Jewish Media) do dwell unceasingly on Nazis and WWII, particularly when they desire to embroil the U.S. in another conflict.

  376. @Saggy

    In Ernst Zundel’s “Holocaust denial” trial in the 1980s. He subpoenaed the Red Cross reports of visits to the “concentration camps”. This included private interviews with inmates. Their records show an estimate of 275, 000 dead, and there were no reports of homicidal gas chambers.

    The minutes of the Wannasee Conference are on-line in English.
    http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/Wannsee/wanseeminutes.html
    I cannot vouch for the veracity of the translation, but offer the following observations:
    – the estimated number of Jews is broken down into areas of German control, and areas not in control; – the number in control is approximately 4.25 million;
    – there is a continual reference to emigration and evacuation to the East;
    – there is reference to the “danger” of transporting emigrants in war time;

    While there are undoubtedly drastic actions proposed, none involve death. Why propose sterilization if you plan to kill someone?

    The German government claims 4.8 million Jews applied for reparations post war. As I understand it, Jews in the Eastern Bloc (Soviet occupied) did not claim reparations. Assuming the 4.8 million were actually all Russians, and assuming the magic 6 is true, that would mean every Jew in Europe outside the USSR was killed, including the ones in Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, Ireland, and Spain.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  377. @szopen

    Wars, despite the notion that some miraculous elements of civility and restraint are imposed upon the combatants, degenerate into conquests, pogroms and wholesale despotism. Trying to ‘apologize’ for or rationalize the actions of some nabob whose thirst for power and other population’s real estate and resources is fruitless. Remember the phrase: “All is fair in love and war”. Of course, what’s “Fair” will be defined by the victors.

  378. @Andrei Martyanov

    every century combined West goes to Russia to have its ass handed to it

    True in the 19th and 20th centuries. We’d better not fight in this century or it will be the end of the world.

    US, whose emergence to superpowerdom was primarily a result of it seeing WW II from the sidelines … getting into the big time only in 1944 when, for all intents and purposes, the issue was settled.

    The question of whether Operation Overlord was intended to defeat Hitler, or to prevent Stalin from conquering the entire European continent, is an obvious one.

    Some dirty, filthy Slavs, and not them only, beating the greatest military force in history–that hurts, still.

    Your attempts to read the Western mind are off-target. Anyone who has read a little history will know that it was chiefly the USSR that beat Nazi Germany. However, postwar films tended to continue wartime propaganda. The Americans think they were the victors. The British think they played the decisive role. Even the French insisted on being treated as victors. But I have yet to meet anyone who was hurt by learning the historical truth.

    The issue Westerners had was not a belief in poor hygiene of Slavs, but a well-justified fear of Stalin. The man was a tyrant who had killed many millions of his own people.

    Stalin had made peace with Hitler and cynically divided the independent countries of Eastern Europe between Germany and the USSR. Now, if the Suvorov Hypothesis is correct, and if Stalin had successfully launched an invasion before Hitler did, then the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty would have been forgiven and Stalin would have earned a lot more respect in the West. Events did not unfold that way, and Stalin’s crimes leave Westerners thinking that he was nearly as bad a monster as Hitler himself.

    In 1939 the Americans manoeuvred the Poles, British and French so that the latter two would declare war on Hitler. They hoped that, by doing so, America itself would not have to fight. They also hoped to end the British Empire as a geopolitical rival to the USA. This is how countries behave towards each other when they are friendly rivals – they pursue their own interests, or as Henry Kissinger put it, “The USA has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.”

    The USSR under Stalin was not a friendly rival but a country that, rightly or wrongly, other countries feared. If the USA was keen that the war should cut the UK down to size, would it not be even more likely to do the same to the USSR? I realise it is awful, but the British and Americans had no responsibility to share in the battlefield casualties. It is no comfort that Stalin’s attitude towards rival countries was even more callous and disgusting than that of the British and Americans. Consider the Katyn massacre of Polish officers, or the halting of the advance of the Red Army so that the Germans could crush the Warsaw Uprising. Polish fear of Russia continues to this day, with adverse consequences for relations in Europe.

    Nevertheless, the British and Americans were not as cynical as they might have been. They did help the USSR with supplies to win the war.

    There is the reason they love Solzhenitsyn.

    Solzhenitsyn was popular in the West during the Cold War because of his anti-communism; but he was also a Russian patriot, and he lost favour in the USA as long ago as 1978 when his speech at Harvard made his Russian patriotism clear. His final work, “200 Years Together” has never been published in English.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  379. @Ron Unz

    In 1935 rumours began to circulate that his father was a Jew. The Gestapo began an investigation which was halted by Göring who produced an affidavit by Milch’s mother that his true father was her uncle Karl Brauer. Milch was then issued with a German Blood Certificate[2]. This would mean that his mother Clara admitted not only to adultery but also incest. David Irving in his book The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe. The Life of Field Marshal Erhard Milch, says that Milch asked him not to reveal the real truth about his parentage, so although Irving states that it was not Anton Milch and concentrates on his wealthy great-uncle Karl Brauer who died in 1906, he does not actually name him as his father.[3] However, Irving, who had access to the Field Marshal’s private diary and papers, says the rumours began in the autumn of 1933, and that Erhard personally obtained a signed statement by Anton Milch that he was not the father of Clara’s children. Furthermore, Irving says that Clara Milch had already written to her son in law Fritz Herrmann in March 1933 explaining the circumstances of her marriage and that Göring had initiated his own investigation that identified his real father. Milch was again questioned about his alleged Jewish father and Göring’s role in this matter by Robert H. Jackson at Nuremberg in 1946.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erhard_Milch

    The search/navigation at Irving’s website seems to have been disabled. I don’t trust David Irving, or think him very honorable if there’s a conflict with his own prestige, reputation or $income$. However I do believe what he told about Milch (because it fits what you can see with your own eyes and know about Germans), the complete story of which is not in his book about him. You should incorporate this information into your historical account.

    I’m not very impressed with Rigg’s book, which it seems never underwent much scrutiny.

  380. Ron: Many thanks for this seminal essay. Substantively it was intriguing, and the style format was engaging too.

    In the Fog of War, Robert McNamara openly admits that had the US lost the war, he and Curtis LeMay would have justifiably faced war crimes charges over their intentional destruction of Japanese cities.

    McNamara responds to a squadron leader who lost his wing man over Tokyo (mostly timber-based housing), in a low flight raid , that his own (US-centric) cost/benefit analysis justified it:” you lost a wing-man , but we burned half of Tokyo….”

    Imagine how it would sound if a German said that…..

  381. @James N. Kennett

    You ignore that Poland declared jurisdiction over, and had sent occupation troops to, the Free State of Danzig, which was under international control, had voted to join Germany.
    The German offer of settlement on the Danzig Corridor, was virtually identical to the one preferred by Marshal Piłsudski, with whom Germany had signed a non-aggression pact in 1934. While Piłsudski did not completely trust Hitler (Poles have never trusted Germans) he had advised his successor, Rydz-Śmigły of the necessity of peace with Germany, as the Soviets were a greater threat. Rydz-Śmigły’s response to German offers of settlement was mobilization of their armed forces.

    All wars are economic wars. Germany had thumbed its nose at the bankers by issuing Labour Certificates to fund its reconstruction projects, which provided employment, and by trading commodity for commodity avoiding currency exchanges. In short, bankers were being shut out of their “traditional” money-making scams. That could not be allowed to continue.

    Churchill and Roosevelt were banker’s agents. Both should have been hanged for treason.

  382. jsigur says:
    @Mulegino1

    It seems like Germany has always been in the cross-eyes- Germany lost 1/3rd of its ppl during the Protestant Reformation (or what was to be Germany)

  383. @Ron Unz

    Irving found a letter written by former Chancellor Bruning mentioning that fact and Churchill wanted to publish it in one of his books, but was persuaded not to. It’s covered in one of the fascinating Irving lectures I’d linked in my article.

    Very likely Churchill “was persuaded not to” publish it in his book because it was Bruning bullshit. Why do you believe everything David Irving says? Granted he’s done some impressive work, but his ego is the size of a football stadium–much larger than his sense of integrity. It was exactly in his lectures that he went over the line so often. Just a friendly warning.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  384. @szopen

    Many of us now subscribe to the theory Hitler was just another Jewish agent. So everything he did was by extension the fault of the Jews and the Freemasons. That’s the thesis of Miles Mathis. And it’s very convincing. He examined the geneologies if the major Nazis and looked at the Beer Hall Putsch so called. It was a false flag event.

    But no one here says Hitler did nothing wrong.

    Nazi victory would have led to a different set of pathologies.

    But we have the ones we have, and they’re pretty bad, and many stem from the year zero team falsifying history to inculcate false guilts.

    And Vichy France looked a lot nicer then Afro France.

    • LOL: James N. Kennett
    • Replies: @Germanicus
  385. @szopen

    Your ridiculous moralization of war is, well, ridiculous, war is war, you try to minimize your own casualties, unless your are the Soviets, who sent unarmed infantry towards a machine gun position.

    So what do you say to the British invasion of neutral Norway? No outrage here?
    The Soviet invasion of Finland? No outrage?
    The Polish ridiculous invasion plans to take Berlin, toally overestimating the polish strength?
    I could go on and on with invasions, but your selective fanaticism will simply dodge these.

    • Replies: @szopen
  386. chris says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Great video, except for the whopper about Iran having used chemical weapons against the Kurds in Iraq! This is patently wrong, especially as Iraq is known to have used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, something Iran never did!

    I mean, if Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, why would Iran not respond with chemical weapons on the battle field, where it would do them the most good, but use them against a third party in the war that could be a potential ally.

    This slight of hand in this presentation is very indicative of someone passing off a big lie wrapped in lots of secondary truths. And quoting an “ex-“CIA agent as saying this, is not exactly a stellar argument.

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

    • Replies: @Carlton Meyer
  387. @Flint Clint

    That’s the thesis of Miles Mathis

    This BS is not the thesis of an unknown Miles Mathis, but the lies of the German Social Democrats of the 1920ies rehashed.

    Werner Maser has long put these jewish lie to rest in his Hitler biography, which includes his family tree. He also is biographer of Hindenburg and Kohl(Kohn).

    Hitler was not jewish, the National Socialists shut down Rothschild operations, and had effectively remove interest and usury from currency.

    Howdoes this fit your ridiculous claim? Trying to square the circle like the masons?

    • Replies: @Chmmr
  388. Today’s American Neocons are just as heavily Jewish as were the Bolsheviks of a hundred years ago, and they have greatly benefited from the political immunity provided by this totally bizarre inversion of historical reality. Partly as a consequence of their media-fabricated victimhood status, they have managed to seize control over much of our political system, especially our foreign policy, and have spent the last few years doing their utmost to foment an absolutely insane war with nuclear-armed Russia. If they do manage to achieve that unfortunate goal, they will surely outdo the very impressive human body-count racked up by their ethnic ancestors, perhaps even by an order-of-magnitude or more.

    A lot more. Africa and India and China will starve, as will most major urban areas. I can see why Ron Unz is worried. Neocons don’t really need to go to war with Russia to cause the casualties mentioned by R. Unz above. Simply paralyzing US response to such things as the emergence of drone air forces (which they have done for about a decade now) will reduce global trade through regional wars, bringing about the starvation mentioned above.

    And, of course, Neocons aren’t the only members of the Democratic coalition. The coalition is supported by urban populations who rely on tax money and on intellectual elites (or thugs, hard to say which describes better) who depend on detecting sins (such as not supporting monetary support of urban areas and their populations) and destroying sinners for their power. Take away the Neocons, and the remnant would still be formidable.

    The thing is, _massive_ damage has been incurred. The Federal bureaucracies really are staffed by low cognitive ability people who are adept only at protecting their jobs. Representative Branch, Judicial Branch, and the Executive Agencies have all been diverted from their formal missions [1] to supplying /protecting income and patronage jobs to urban areas. They have all lost their core competence, and are _unable_ to perform their formal duties.

    Countries like that need a thorough reorganization to restore function. While doing that, they are usually unable to do much else. In other words, reorganization paralyzes the US as global peace enforcer.

    Best case is that Trump defeats the Neocons and the NYC/Yankee coalition, emerges as a kind of second Augustus, with the power and organization to conduct a massive and very unpleasant reorganization, and restores some barely adequate US functionality, enough to keep the US Navy protecting freedom of trade on the high seas.
    Second best case is that Trump disorganizes the opposition (as did C. J. Caesar) and somebody in the next generation (Ocatvian analog) manages to stop the slide. That might be just barely possible, and that only because Octavian/Augustus did something very similar, as did Diocletian and even Hadrian.
    Both cases would likely lead to long term decline of the US and the world, but that might be considered better than the chaos and mass casualties of the available alternatives.

    Point: Hey, guys, you’re living through a pivotal point in history! Trump is probably everybody’s last chance (or close to it) of preserving a world wide industrial civilization / trade network. This next stretch of history looks like it will be messy, try not to get hit by the splatter.

    And next time you hear the environmentalists say that we have only 12 years or so to “save the earth”, think of the situation described above, and remember that environmentalists believe that ending world trade and greatly reducing world polpulation would be considered as “saving the earth”. They aren’t really on the side of stability.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] Representative Branch: making laws,
    Judicial Branch carrying out the laws in cooperation with law enforcement,
    Executive Agencies: executing Congressionally assigned missions under guidance from the President).

  389. chris says:
    @Ron Unz

    Thank you, Ron!

    This article is a fantastic summary of many of the salient facts about the onset and prosecution of WWII. It not only matches all the information I’ve picked up over the years from my own historical studies and those passed on through family stories, but it ties all the loose ends of this tragic history together.

    It also manifests a logical consistency which none of the popular histories can contain. This, for the obvious reason that the popular histories set out to tell a morality tale making great efforts to obfuscate the actual historical contexts of most of the events they cover.

    For once, I have to say that I know of no other important facts or angles which are not covered in this summary.

  390. Emslander says:
    @CanSpeccy

    This particular comment grossly exaggerates Churchill’s virtues, which are derived primarily from his own prolific career as a writer. Not many government figures get to publish multi-volume histories of the periods in which they serve.

    Your assumption that WWI was inevitable because of the alliances that had formed is incorrrect. Any assertion by any one of the eventual participants that the Sarajevo terror was an insufficient reason for war would have headed it off. Once it was stopped, there would have been significant adjustments in the manner of mobilization. WWI was not only avoidable, it began as the result of summer inattention, especially in the British Foreign Office.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  391. The putrid stench of tribe is behind most of the evil for at least the past 100 years!

  392. iffen says:
    @szopen

    “Ze Germans dindu noffin.

    LOL

  393. iffen says:

    Ron: Many thanks for this seminal essay.

    All this talk (and thinking) about Unz’s seminal work has caused me to end up with a wet spot in my panties.

    • Replies: @chris
  394. Sab says:
    @Alta

    Hungary was torn apart by Czechs and Romanians and Serbians in the first place. Migrants that should never have been let in the country.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  395. Ron Unz says:
    @byrresheim

    There seems to have been serious disagreement about the number of victims of the criminal Dresden air raid.
    Wikipedia says, Prof. Lipstadt’s experts were able to show that Mr Irving had inflated the nunbers tenfold by using only one source, claimed to be dubious.

    Sure. After Lipstadt and her $13 million army went over Irving’s massive writings line-by-line and footnote-by-footnote, Dresden was (as I recall) just about the only major dispute she could point to in her book denouncing Irving. However, I didn’t find her arguments particularly compelling, and here’s a recent John Wear article making a pretty strong case on the other side:

    http://www.unz.com/article/how-many-germans-died-under-raf-bombs-at-dresden-in-1945/

    The point is that by her silence, Lipstadt is tacitly admitting that 99.9% of Irving’s material was not subject to reasonable challenge, and that includes all the “astonishing” things I mentioned in my article above.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  396. Ron Unz says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Very likely Churchill “was persuaded not to” publish it in his book because it was Bruning bullshit.

    That’s silly. How in the world would Churchill know who was funding the early Nazis during their rise? By contrast, Bruning was running Germany at the time and since the Nazis were a threat, his political police were certainly spying on them. So he surely would have known, and Irving says the suppressed Bruning document is genuine.

    Now it’s certainly possible that Bruning was lying for some unknown reason. But unless there’s strong reason to believe that or solid contradictory evidence, I think the reasonable position is to accept that Bruning’s secret document is correct.

    Personally, I can think of all sorts of perfectly plausible reasons why leading Jewish bankers would have been donating to the Nazis. These include (1) hedging their political bets/gaining protection and (2) fears that otherwise the Communists might take over and expropriate them.

    If a legitimate document says something that’s reasonably plausible, we should accept it unless there’s some powerful reason not to do so.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @refl
  397. Wally says:
    @German_reader

    said:
    “What was undoubtedly criminal were the systematic mass killings by SS Einsatzgruppen, police, Selbstschutz etc. in parallel to and after the hostilities.”

    Really? And what supposed “mass killings by SS Einsatzgruppen” are you referring to?

    The fraudulent ‘holocau$t’ Industry claims that ca. 2,000,000 Jews were shot by the Einsatzgruppen into huge pits, the enormous mass graves & human remains are claimed to exist in specifically known places.
    So, is that:
    100 graves of 20,000?
    200 graves of 10,000?
    400 graves of 5,000?
    500 graves of 4,000?
    1000 graves of 2000?
    2000 graves of 1000?

    recomended:
    Babi Yar: The [alleged] Einsatzgruppen ‘Killings’: http://www.unz.com/article/babi-yar/
    ‘The Einsatzgruppen Trial’ / from the journal, Inconvenient History: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11791
    The Einsatzgruppen in the Occupied Eastern Territories, Genesis, Missions and Actions: https://codoh.com/news/3424/Jewish Virtual Library’s laughable Babi Yar “aftermath” photo is ‘proof’: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12147

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

    Except that Belgium was not “neutral” at all.

    Your laughably “neutral” Belgium actually aided & abetted France & Britain by allowing France to position 2 million if it’s soldiers in Belgium, and also allowed the British to add another half million troops within Belgium.

    Facts matter.

    • Replies: @szopen
  399. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Emslander

    This particular comment grossly exaggerates Churchill’s virtues, which are derived primarily from his own prolific career as a writer.

    I wonder what that even means. How can a virtue derive from a prolific career as anything? And anyway, I did not speak of anyone’s virtues. So how can I have exaggerated them? If there is a specific point that you disagree with, why not state it and the reason for your opinion. Then we would know whether you are capable of a useful contribution to the discussion.

    Not many government figures get to publish multi-volume histories of the periods in which they serve.

    Why is that do you suppose? Is there a law against it? Or are you simply acknowledging what is a fact; namely, that Churchill is among the few Western political figures with the mental energy and literary talent not only to write a multi-volume history of the period during which he served in government (actually, he wrote two: The World Crisis, an account of WW1, and the Second World War, an account, obviously, of WW2), but to write it so well that the royalties made him a wealthy man.

    Your assumption that WWI was inevitable because of the alliances that had formed is incorrrect.

    Great powers that fail to live by their international agreements generally run into trouble. For example, Germany, which failed to live up to its commitment to the London Treaty guaranteeing Belgian neutrality immediately faced war with France, Britain and Russia who were committed to the treaty.

    Any assertion by any one of the eventual participants that the Sarajevo terror was an insufficient reason for war would have headed it off.

    But Austria did not agree and mobilized for war against Serbia. Russia, promptly mobilized for war against Austria, the Tsar having the previous winter promised the King of Serbia that “Russia will do everything for Serbia.” At that point, Germany had no alternative but to mobilize, Germany’s battle plan depending on Germany’s ability to mobilize faster than either France or Russia, thereby gaining the chance of knocking one or both out of the war before they were organized to fight. Britain, as I’ve explained pursued its centuries-old balance of power policy.

    WWI was not only avoidable, it began as the result of summer inattention, especially in the British Foreign Office.

    Oh yeah, blame the Brits. But why not all the others. There was no particular reason why the Kaiser or the Tsar or the King of Serbia should not have embarked on a shuttle diplomacy mission. Fact is, though, it never occurred to anyone to do that. Moreover, no one at the time understood that the war that everyone was expecting would bog down into a process of industrial scale slaughter. There had never been such a war, although the American war of independence gave a clue as to what would happen when millions of defenders dug in and brought to bear on the attacker a wall of lead.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @lysias
  400. Wally says:
    @Germanicus

    “Einsatzgruppen, Wally, please rip this nonsense apart.”

    My pleasure, done.

  401. ValMond says:
    @Germanicus

    There is a such thing as quantitative evidence in historiography. Are you familiar with the concept? The “at least 20 million” is an ideological drivel. As meaningless as the imaginary, undying “6 million” holocaust deaths, we are incessantly bullied with. But all of you excitable russophobes can’t help yourselves throwing these “millions” around, as if they were some Parti confetti. In fact, you shower in them, since your resentment needs sustenance.

    A quantified account of Stalin era repressions do exist. The “gulag census” (if you wish to call it that) took an enormous amount of work, data mining and number crunching over several decades. Someone as Victor Zemskov (one of the historians who delved into the actual numbers) and his team spent years and years buried in the archives of the Soviet penitentiary system. In order to get a realistic idea, they plunged into the judicial registries and scrutinized thoroughly the ministry of interior records and the NKVD/KGB’s statistics – broke down by year, camp, prison, type of reported crime etc. Many of those sources were unclassified only recently.
    A summary of their research was published in: “К вопросу о масштабах репрессий в СССР” (В. Н. Земсков in Социологические исследования-1995. № 9. С. 118-127). The numbers Zemsky came with, will be a huge disappointment to you.
    But you are unable to process them for at least 2 reasons:
    1) language – the research is in Russian
    2) you sanity depends on the die-hard stereotypes you’ve been fen your entire life and around which you’ve built you empty, hateful existence. And BTW, I’m not jewish.

  402. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Daniel Ellsberg offers what seems a plausible rationale for bombing cities. The clash of mass armies during WW1 had resulted in the unproductive mass slaughter of soldiers. Why not then, instead of attacking the enemy’s army, attack the civilian population that keeps the army in the field by supplying it with boots, bayonets and all the rest. Civilians, in other words, because they supported the army in the field, we deemed legitimate targets and hence were slaughtered en mass during WW2. The Brits and Americans were more successful at it that their enemies. But the Germans did their best, and might have made a real impact had they been able to manufacture enough (V2) ballistic missiles. The Japs didn’t accomplish too much in the way of mass civilian slaughter, although they targeted economic assets, sending incendiary devices carried by balloon to set the forests of Western Canada alight.

    • Replies: @lysias
    , @Wizard of Oz
  403. lysias says:

    “Hidden History” by Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor in my opinion demonstrates that the primary blame for World War One belongs to a secret elite cabal in Britain which very much included Churchill.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  404. ValMond says:
    @ploni almoni

    My problem is the propagandist fantasy of 20 million victims (at least) of communism. It’s a persistent lie spread by ideologues. Jews did play a major role in Stalin’s repressions apparatus but that’s OT. How many people have died as a result of those repressions is a different subject from that of the identity of their executioners.

  405. @Bragadocious

    Kindly expose your memory to testing by others by specifying those (near constant) wars of 1899-1914 after the Boer War ended in 1902.

    As to your last paragraph please cease childish evasion and acknowledge that there are vast troves of diaries, letters, minutes of Cabinet discussions etc. which would provide the materials to test your hyperbole.

    • Replies: @Bragadocious
    , @Anonymous
  406. Anonymous[199] • Disclaimer says:
    @lysias

    Very honest of you, and thanks for keeping your profound thoughts short, but it does raise the question whether you have read any other books.

    Perhaps an extension to the thesis underlying the neex for Ron’s American Pravda series should be one which emphasises the influence of the very few books most people read.

    • Replies: @lysias
  407. @Mulegino1

    A very interesting article that does do its best to try and vindicate Hitler, rightly or wrong. But you can’t deny the atrocities that Hitler provoked especially in the outlying EU nations that Germany managed to take.
    He enabled alt-right groups to go after minorities. It happened in Italy and especially in and around Balkic regions where far-right groups united with the invading germans to murder and torture minorities.
    I don’t deny the speculation around those who should not be named and their centuries of scheming. Its amazing how well organized they are despite being in fewer numbers than the rest, an amazing feat in and of itself still.
    But lets not try to cancel out some of the portraits we have of De Fuhrer. He was responsible for a lot of war crimes in and around the EU.
    If minorities had been accommodated during the invasions of surrounding EU nations and far/alt-right groups hasn’t been allowed to run riot had been curtailed, then maybe the author of the article would have a point. But as it stands Hitler and his entourage were no better than Churchill, FDR and elite Jewry.

    • Replies: @Wally
  408. lysias says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Chinese civilian deaths in the war with Japan amounted to some 18 million, and many of those occurred in what one can only call mass slaughters.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  409. @Ron Unz

    Now it’s certainly possible that Bruning was lying for some unknown reason.

    Unknown? Bruning had been chancellor and his party was ousted by the National Socialists. Adolf Hitler was already and for a long time being attacked with gutter-level claims by people just like Bruning – that was and is politics. Since Hitler was a known antisemite, this was just the thing that his enemies would like. Why did Bruning withhold their names?

    I don’t know how well-versed you are on the Austrian chancellor’s attempts to blacken Hitler (for political reasons) with lies about his family origins and his participation in trying to overthrow the Austrian government in the July Putsch of 1934. Hitler got this treatment from the very beginning of his political career.

    You say the names of the donors aren’t known.

    Irving found a letter written by former Chancellor Bruning mentioning that fact and Churchill wanted to publish it in one of his books, but was persuaded not to. It’s covered in one of the fascinating Irving lectures I’d linked in my article.

    If Bruning was such a plausible witness, why was Churchill persuaded not to pass on the information? You’re not curious to know why? Because these people all hold high-level positions in their governments they should therefore be believed?

    The reasons you give for these Jewish bankers to donate to Hitler are the very same reasons all wealthy businessmen had for donating to Hitler. So why is it “fascinating” that Irving said it? Why are the names withheld? Please tell me which video of the two has this story in it because I want to see for myself what he says. I’ve watched a lot of Irving videos already and don’t want to have to watch both of them. I’ll look into it as well as I can. Thanks.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  410. lysias says:
    @ValMond

    For those of us who have trouble reading Russian and have no idea how to access Zemskov’s summary, can you please give us his numbers.

    • Replies: @ValMond
  411. @CanSpeccy

    You draw my attention to a couple of points I had meant to make, prompted in part by the nonsense that Hitler wouldn’t have started bombing British cities deliberately if he hadn’t been provoked by the raid on Berlin after some bombs had accidentally landed on London. Total war started in the 20th century not later than the German shellung of Scarborough in November 1914, plus Zeppelins bombing London in 1917. Guernica had made clear what principles Hitler was likely to feel bound by. Starving people by blockades was tried by both sides in both wars. The mostly inaccurate bombing of city targets in WW2 was almost entirely consistent with the aim of discouraging civilians from supporting the war effort by manufacture of munitions etc and not incompatible with their moving out of industrial cities (as many did in Britain) to avoid the danger. Even the bombin