The problem with Talha’s comment is very simple: it’s simplistic.

For one thing, Hitler didn’t try to start the world war.

Read Harry Elmer Barnes and David L. Hoggan.

If Britain hadn’t been shackled to a crazy old diplomatic goal of destroying whoever was strongest on the continent, then the Polish-German dispute of 1939 would have been ended peacefully and there would have been no world war.

I can’t exaggerate the malfeasance and evil of FDR, as I posted about today here:

Simply prattling on about the failure of Hitler is as stupid as prattling on about the exclusive genius of Hitler. It’s just more of a continuation of dishonest history and. Either way, the haven of weak minds.

Please also see here, my comment on the bombing of Hiroshima, for an example of the effectiveness of evil, like the evil of FDR and his Jewish administration, when it is wedded to overwhelming industrial power: https://www.unz.com/isteve/nantes-cathedral-on-fire/#comment-4044785

We, the Americans, nuked two cities for no other reason than to prove the “effectiveness” of nukes.

As a Catholic, I mistrust Hitler for his secular tendencies. But he, objectively, did not monger WW2 into existence; that was the fault of the western capitalists, and especially FDR. As Hitler said, the war had destroyed his chosen mission, which required peacetime. It is very difficult to judge Hitler without accounting for the surprisingly fair offers Germany gave Britain and the Poles; it is impossible to say what Germany may have become without a “forced war.”

My point is very simple: Talha’s comment, and those who agree with it, all reeks of a lack of deeper knowledge of the period. Do I see Hitler as the answer to all our problems? No. Was he a “loser”? Well, I don’t know, but I do know that the average German soldiers considered the saddest day of the war to be when they thought traitors had successfully killed a man who had fought very hard to make their daily lot better. And before 1939, he had, in fact, made their daily lot better.

An ironic, important observation, thank you, AE. But, because I am old, it is not “grandfather.” Rather, for me, it is “Father.” The U.S. Army Air Corps. Rest in Peace, Dad.

Hermann Göring once boasted, “If a single bomb ever falls on Berlin, you can call me ‘Meyer’.”
When the bombs came, people quietly muttered to one another, “Where’s Meyer”?

Many readers here will have had grandfathers who fought and defeated the nazis and yet will today be called nazis for believing the same things their grandfathers believed.

Indeed. The great evil is wanting White people to go on existing. That is the essence of what it means to be a “nazi.”

The second World War was the most civilizationally catastrophic civil war in human history, one we continue to pay a heavy toll for today. Many readers here will have had grandfathers who fought and defeated the nazis and yet will today be called nazis for believing the same things their grandfathers believed.

I can’t imagine the kind of suffering you have to go through!

I don’t get the Hitler worship among white nationalists. The measure of a leader, when it comes down to it, is pretty simple – did he leave the country better off than he found it?

In that regard, Franco was far superior to Hitler and Mussolini, but is rarely, if ever, invoked by hard rightists.

Was he a “loser”?

I never said he was. Other people used that word, but I did not. In fact, I specifically stated:

Note that dfordoom used the word “loser” in describing the man. I personally stick to “failure” due to the reasons I outlined; as measured by yardstick based on stated goals and initial starting point vs end results.

I also stated some other points:

4. Lost significant amounts of initial pre-war territory
5. His nation is now on the hook giving out handouts perpetually to only Jewish state until Judgment Day
“The German government plans to sign a deal on Monday on three submarines for Israel, agreeing not only to the sale of the vessels but also to provide financial support for the purchase as in previous deals…”
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-approves-deal-on-three-submarines-for-israel/a-41075804
7. Runs historic German name of Adolf into the ground in flames
“Adolf was a common name before World War II…The majority of Adolfs still living in Germany are elderly and named before the end of World War II. The name has become rare since then.”
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/will-it-ever-be-ok-to-call-your-child-adolf-37164083.html

I’m completely ignoring any and all moral qualms in the matter. I’m trying to look at the subject from a detached analysis on things like:
1. What were starting resources? (including people, wealth, territory, etc.)
2. What were stated goals/purpose?
3. Did goals change? (OK, then re-evaluate based on new goals/purpose)
4. What was accomplished out of said goals?
5. Was end result better or worse than starting point at #1 vis-a-vis stated goals?

I will readily admit the man was able to galvanize the German people and was a gifted orator.

However, I simply don’t know how one can judge the final results to be anything other than an utter failure and a disaster for Europe in general.

Either the man misjudged himself, his people, his country’s capability, his enemy’s capability, capability of his allies or the era in which he lived. Either way, go down Sun Tzu’s checklist, the scorecard is pretty bad.

One can say “bad, bad Britain” this and “evil Uncle Sam” that…whatever – doesn’t matter. They knew what they were doing, knew their capabilities, knew their limitations, executed a plan and brought it to fruition over the bodies of millions of Germans.

Peace.

The dude…
1. Never had a family or any kids.

As opposed to the childless George Washington? He married the wealthy widow Martha Custis and treated her more as a business partner than as a wife.

yet will today be called nazis for believing the same things their grandfathers believed.

Or perhaps for what they believed a few years ago:
https://twitter.com/mandysharper/status/1284713720434905088

Peace.

He was a revolutionary and a political and military leader, not a family man. I don’t see why his not having a family and children is relevant or any sort of knock against him.

Ho Chi Minh was also a revolutionary and political/military leader who did not have a family and children. These men were regarded as father figures devoted to their nations rather than their personal families.

Neither did Newton. That is only one of a few metrics. If you are successful at others, then perhaps your overall score isn’t that bad.

Peace.

Incidentally, the comment thread that Talha was responding to was initiated by the following comment by “Not Only Wrathful”:

https://www.unz.com/anepigone/welcoming-the-second-wave-of-shutdowns/#comment-4024584

People would benefit from reading and understanding him far more than the genuinely cartoonish and villainous Hitler.

The commenter “Not Only Wrathful” is Jewish and naturally very biased on this issue. He wants to elevate and promote Mussolini over Hitler among the right wing types who congregate here and who’d typically be more inclined towards an interest in Hitler because Hitler was a more consequential figure for the far right and in general.

White women can’t help trying to spread female rights though!

The problem with your reasoning here, Talha, is that such a calculus can always be used to counsel surrender. Indeed, I sometimes suspect American coercion was behind the phenomenon Sailer calls “Merkel’s blunder.” I rather doubt it was either Merkel’s or a blunder. I rather suspect it was forced on her, i.e. “This is a nice country you have here, it’d be a shame if something were to happen to it.”

Suppose she had done otherwise. Would Germany have gotten the Serbia treatment? Would it then be right to call her a “failure”? You could call it that, I suppose, but it would be a characterization that leaves something out, at the very least.

If you actually sit and read “Mein Kampf,” you discover certain things….

1. Hitler was not a first-rate intellect. He wasn’t an imbecile, but he was a second-rater, who did not seem to realize or understand that he was NOT a first-rater. Total Dunning-Kruger problem: a guy like Hitler did not and could not understand that he was not as smart as the actual smart people. They used to have a role for this sort of person, and it was “consul,” not “imperator.”

2. Hitler was, surprisingly, of a decidedly 19th century mind. He didn’t really understand the nature of the 20th century, or Modernism, despite his central role in forming both. He didnt understand what Germany’s role was, geopolitically, in the creation of the Machine Age. His whole fixation on “Germanism” is straight out of some weird misreading of Goethe and Schopenhauer. Nietzsche would have considered him a retard.

3. Hitler was a rube, diplomatically speaking. He had no understanding of the bizarre intellectual and cultural catacombs of the British Empire, what that meant for Germany, and his understanding of the American Empire, the international diasporic undercover Jewish Empire, and the nascent would-be Japanese Empire was all close to zero. The guy was just in over his head, he didn’t know what he was doing, he had no business on the global stage.

4. Hitler had absolutely no idea of the extent and breadth to which he was being manipulated into a suicidal war by organized international Jewry. I mean, he knew it on some level, but he only understood Jew Levels One Through Four, he couldn’t see Level Nineteen-Thousand Thirty-Six.

5. Hitler made so many bad diplomatic decisions that it’s just silly.

I Ching Hexagram Judgement: I. Can’t. Even.

Oh look, another perilous Audacious Epigone post. Just pure negativity and darkness. Somebody remind me the purpose of this catastrophically downcast blogger again? Is anybody else noticing the trend with this guy?

Indeed, I sometimes suspect American coercion was behind the phenomenon Sailer calls “Merkel’s blunder.”

Evidence?

I rather doubt it was either Merkel’s or a blunder. I rather suspect it was forced on her, i.e. “This is a nice country you have here, it’d be a shame if something were to happen to it.”

What incentive would America have on forcing this on her?

Her motives for opening the gates is simple. She thought she would get applause and admiration for leading the parade. But then of course she looked back and saw no-one was following.

that such a calculus can always be used to counsel surrender.

If surrender actually leads to less death and destruction on your people AND you being able to walk away with preferable negotiated terms rather than an unconditional surrender and terms being forced upon you – yes, HELL YES.

Suppose she had done otherwise. Would Germany have gotten the Serbia treatment?

That is exactly part of the calculus; knowing your enemies, their capabilities and what they are willing to do. Hitler failed massively with regards to Russia and Germany paid for it dearly.

Peace.

Hitler was led by the German people, which has an admirable side to it. It is part of what makes a relational leader.

His problem, though, was two-fold. In emptying himself out, he became cruel and inhuman, a fact his personal life is an obvious testament to. Furthermore, he was only the receptacle for the storm and the hatred of the traumatised Germans, thus he led them to their Ragnarok.

A true relational leader is able to give, as well as to receive, and to hold the emotions of his followers in time and space, so that they may be properly understood.

What first appears to the slighted individual as their own anger may, with awareness, become their sense of being unrecognised, which further transmutes into shame, and then, finally, into a loving longing to no longer be disconnected and distant. It is a recognition of ourself in the other. It is truth and harmony, and agape – unconditional love, and everything Hitler could not bare to look upon.

This means that he received the German people’s anger and snapped into reaction; which is what you would expect from a man attempting to be a relational leader, when he can’t even relate properly in his personal life.

This is why he seems so much like the contemporary social justice warrior in complaint and occasional affect. He was all about how how his followers’ feelings most superficially appeared. It is also why he saw his most hated archetype of the reptilian scheming Jew everywhere.

To the person who can’t pierce the outer storm of his own feelings and, instead, immediately turns away in reaction, the shadowy figures of the coldly plotting, the hidden omnipresent and the seemingly ignobled souled, will haunt him.

This is why as Hitler saw Jews, so too does Robin D’Angelo see whites.

German anger over their lot, was the German sense of powerlessness, which was German shame, underlying which, at its root, was the German love for the rest of humanity, and their terrible sense of disconnection from it.

Hitler received this and kept it in his stunted awareness as solely anger. The ensuing storm destroyed Europe, left millions dead and disgraced the human spirit.

This latter part is the key to understanding our time. We live in an era where the spirit is disgraced and we all suffer for it.

Cheers Hitler, the man who killed himself on his honeymoon, the artist who could breach no further than the most superficial, the lover who was sexually bereft.

1) Easy to believe this, but not supported by his behavior around credentialed people as well as his desperate educational catch-up efforts extending even into the war. He seemed quite aware of how distinctly unimpressive his intellectual background was. But-this is highly significant if you fast forward 20 years-he was simply unable to change his approach to learning, even if he expanded the material.

(I’d recommend Percy Schramm’s take on this. Essentially, if we take intellectual development as akin to building a house, Hitler in his 20s was a guy who tried to build his own without any guidance from someone who knew what they were doing, and with crappy material mainly because he couldn’t afford anything better. As a result, you had an impressive looking edifice due to Hitler’s memory and quickness, but with very leaky, shaky foundations. Creaks he filled in with a stray brick or piece of wood when he absolutely had to, but otherwise, he insisted it was just fine. When Hitler was older and had access to better resources and teachers, he didn’t change his approach: and if I and Kubizek are correct, he probably couldn’t have changed his approach barring massive intervention that society doesn’t tend to give people beyond their formative years.)

My own theory about Hitler’s IQ aligns with Karlin’s: mid-120s sounds accurate. Unz.com can distort your perspective. That’s not unintelligent at all: top 5% of the populace in today’s America. Germany at the time might have been brighter, but that still probably would have landed Hitler within the top 10% of his country. But genius, of course, absolutely not. Unfortunately, Hitler’s IQ strengths were probably very loaded toward the verbal end of the spectrum, and he was also an unusually quick thinker with a photographic memory. People like that can easily dupe others, even people far more intelligent than them, into thinking they are intellectually deeper and profound than they really are, especially if the smarter person is lacking in the verbal/charisma department themselves.

More importantly, they can dupe themselves if they aren’t careful. One thing that makes Hitler unique amongst modern dictators is that he was a victim of his own propaganda. Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, the Kims, they were all deeply cynical about their propaganda cults. Hitler wasn’t.

2) Could not agree more. You don’t understand how Hitler was an ossified product of turn-of-the-century Vienna mixed with WWI, you don’t get Hitler. Albert Speer had it nailed on the head: Hitler’s fundamental development stopped sometime around 1910, 1911-ish. What supercharged that world view and gave Hitler the boot in the ass he needed was the war.

3) His diplomatic and acting skills were the best in Europe until the demands of his own nature overrode that.

Suppose she had done otherwise. Would Germany have gotten the Serbia treatment?

Germany is one of the most successful countries in the world. It sits on the co-driving seat at the heart of the EU. US threats would mean very little to the German government. This is why Germany laughs off US swamp denunciations of their use of Russian gas. The idea that Merkel took in over a million Middle Easterners because she was scared of US bombs is absurd. It is a bizarre narcissism of you Americans that you take responsibility for errors over which you had zero influence.

You don’t understand how Hitler was an ossified product of turn-of-the-century Vienna

Peace.

Of all the complaints against Hitler, this one seems to be the dumbest. He didn’t have children. So what? Having children was important in hereditary monarchies, less so in that type of regime. Also I’m sure he would eventually have children if Germany had won the war. A few other leaders also didn’t have children, at least legitimate.

Now I am not a fan of Hitler, but one thing is pretty clear is that, for all his defects and mistakes, and whether he hated Jews ans Slavs — he loved Germany. He loved his people. Of how many current leaders can you say that?

Having or not having children has little to do with that.

The reality that Hitler was intent on exterminating or enslaving most white people west of Posen has to be smoothed over.

Above: typo, east.

He loved his mental image of Germany. When that failed to ultimately comport to reality, he was eager to see everything go up in flames, cities and men alike. Shouldn’t the future belong the strongest, according to the tenets of the finest turn-of-the-century Viennese Social Darwinism, of the late bourgeois age who he simultaneously embodied and destroyed? As he said toward the end, the stronger clearly was the eastern race, and the Germans, being weaker, should perish…

Never again 1918. In that sense, he got his wish.

Hitler very clearly stated that he was married to the state, which is needed for any great leader, other senior party officials had sufficient number of children (Goebbels notorious womanizing more than balanced out Hitlers choice). It also needs to be mentioned that the national birth rates once Hitler took power kept going up.

So many like to blame Hitler for everything, but the reality is that if he did nothing then the same forces that are committing white genocide today would still be doing what they are doing. At least Hitler decided to fight to the end, that is better than those that argue that letting the jew rule unhindered is the rational thing to do.

This was not suicide, it was murder, murder by the jew.

What of it, whites have been killing whites for a long time, those that were against Hitler were the ones that were determined to eliminate all whites and they have now got their wish. The Slavs will be overwhelmed by the non white hordes, it is only a matter of time, at least with a Hitler victory some whites would still have survived.

The problem with your reasoning here, Talha, is that such a calculus can always be used to counsel surrender.

Hitler didn’t have to “surrender” in 1939. Germany had already absorbed Czechoslovakia and Austria. Had Hitler been content to consolidate Germany’s position Germany could have looked forward to a future as the paramount power in western/central Europe. Their economy was going fine.

And Hitler threw it all away with his reckless invasion of Poland. Knowing full well it was likely to lead to a general European war. And nobody forced Hitler to invade Poland. That one incredibly stupid decision on its own is enough to qualify him as one of history’s greatest losers.

Hitler was like a gambler who convinces himself that the cards are running his way and that he just can’t lose.

I repeat, nobody forced Hitler to invade Poland. Nobody forced Hitler to start the war. Nobody forced Hitler to invade the Soviet Union either, yet another dumbass loser move.

As Talha said, even if you leave aside moral judgments the man was a spectacular failure. And his failures were all his own work.

Hitler appeals to those on the far right because he shares their terrifying disconnectedness from reality. Just as the Confederacy (history’s second biggest losers) appeals to the far right because the Confederates lived in a fantasy world in which Southern Gentlemen could not possibly lose a war against people they regarded as their social inferiors.

The modern far right has no interest in Franco because Franco was a hard-headed realist, he was competent and he was a winner.

Look at Spain today, it is a fanatical hard left regime and society with collapsing fertility rates. Spain is just another ZOG regime, and this was inevitable because the international jew got total control over it. You fail to see the bigger picture (more likely that you are happy with the ZOG world order), if Germany did not expand the jews would have destroyed it eventually, the need for lebensraum and autarky was non negiotable, without it Germany would die.

So many like to blame Hitler for everything, but the reality is that if he did nothing then the same forces that are committing white genocide today would still be doing what they are doing.

At the time Hitler came to power nobody was committing white genocide.

What of it, whites have been killing whites for a long time, those that were against Hitler were the ones that were determined to eliminate all whites and they have now got their wish.

I’ve seen some crazy comments on UR but that may be the craziest. You’re seriously arguing that those who opposed Hitler were planning white genocide? Dear God.

Franco spent the last 15 years of his peacefully ended life overseeing the Spanish Miracle. Why would anyone want to learn from that when they could emulate the man who brought Ragnarok onto Germany and killed himself?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_miracle

>So many like to blame Hitler for everything, but the reality is that if he did nothing then the same forces that are committing white genocide today would still be doing what they are doing.

That’s insane. Multiculturalism (your “white genocide”) as we think of it today in the West would have been impossible without WWII’s effect on everybody’s collective psyche.

“White fragility” and other such ideas were not invented this year. The communist movements, the Marxist schools of thought were already festering before even WW1. The school of thought that rules now is the natural evolution of those earlier ideas, those ideas accepted racial equality as a given.

Both Roosevelt and Churchill were already beholding to international jewish finance and ideologies, both made it very clear that they were fighting not for white interests but against whites and to impose their liberal ideologies, an ideology where racial equality is a dogma. Both were happy to firebomb white population centers to impose their racial equality ideologies, both were instrumental in leading the world to white genocide, they were fighting for white genocide in every meaningful way. To deny that these monstrous architects of white genocide had nothing to do with how the world is today is the crazy thing.

Unfortunately, Hitler’s IQ strengths were probably very loaded toward the verbal end of the spectrum

Perhaps or perhaps not. Hitler was said to be a very quick learner of the technical details and engineering nuances of weaponry and industrial production, which suggests that perhaps the quantitative and visuospatial components of his intelligence were above average.

It seems to me that Hitler’s main problem wasn’t so much lack of intelligence as poor temperament. He was impatient and had an attraction to the mystical and the grandiose, so despite his relatively good understanding of weaponry (for example), he would often rush new models into production and put them to inappropriate use. Likewise, even as the war turned badly, he kept believing in some sort of a Deus Ex Machina that would save him and lead to a triumph, as occurred with Frederick the Great in the Seven Years’ War.

The history of his diplomatic maneuvers and grand strategic decisions shows a mind that is intelligent, but not flexible – like a fighter who learns a new technique and is successful with it in his first few tries who then becomes addicted to that same move, he kept “going back to the same well” too many times and expected his opponents to learn nothing.

It is of note, I believe, that Franco, perhaps informed by his Catholic upbringing, had a fine sense of the limitations of life and man’s capacity to achieve, whereas irreligious Hitler seemed to have taken to a limitless “will to power.” So one was more restrained in his goals and left his country far better off than he found it while the other achieved stunning successes early on and and then drove himself and his country to utter catastrophe.

Spain culturally turned to shit about 30 seconds after Franco died. He never came up up with a Plan B after the RCC started self-destructing with the advent of Vatican II. The Falange was never important.

Because Franco restored the Catholic Church to a semblance of its proper role in Spain, and if there one thing a “white nationalist” is these days, especially an American one — it’s an ardent anti-Papist. Factor in the additional fact that Franco’s military backbone was not in fact the spattering of German volunteers and in actuality a Corps of half-savage Berber Ibadi mounted infantry, and you get a few uncomfortable truths that white nationalists need to grapple with.

It’s true that Francoism didn’t outlast Franco and Spain went in 30 years from a country with a high TFR (2.8 in 1974) to a catastrophic decline in birthrates (1.1 by early 2000s).

But it was probably pretty good while it lasted.

Possible. My grasp of IQ isn’t good: it has never interested me in the way that it does many here beyond what is necessary for understanding effective policy. Where I really agree is your take on the man’s mind: powerful but rigid. Hitler’s decisions in life make a lot more sense if you consider the possibility that from a neurological standpoint, he couldn’t bend as easily as most. The endless tactical flexibility makes it occasionally hard to detect that during his “political” phase, but you can see the unchanged thoughts borrowed from Viennese pseudo-scientific racialist pamphlets lurking unchanged. When he read great books later, it was to find ways of making them support ideas he already had.

>Likewise, even as the war turned badly, he kept believing in some sort of a Deus Ex Machina that would save him and lead to a triumph, as occurred with Frederick the Great in the Seven Years’ War.

That was indeed his strategy after November 1941. But I deeply suspect he knew that wasn’t likely to happen by late 1943. Even at the very end, at the same time he was ranting about giving the Red Army its deathblow before the gates of Berlin to his cronies, privately he was speculating about what the world would like after him, in a very dispassionate, detached manner. Even as he sent 10 year olds to the slaughter.

Again: I believe Hitler was rigid to the point that even when he intellectually knew something, he couldn’t act logically on it, at least not by that stage of the war. In 1942, during his conversation with Mannerheim (monologue, really), Hitler appears fully attached to the reality of how grossly he underestimated the USSR. This showed temporarily in his decisions… but not for long, and the ossification back to the person he always had been deep down just accelerated after Stalingrad.

>It is of note, I believe, that Franco, perhaps informed by his Catholic upbringing, had a fine sense of the limitations of life and man’s capacity to achieve, whereas irreligious Hitler seemed to have taken to a limitless “will to power.”

I think that had some role to play in it, but you could say the same thing about most 20th Century totalitarian nightmares: men perceiving themselves as akin to deities who can change anything translates in practice to men acting like demons. More prosaically, though, Hitler’s life was largely empty outside of politics, and his ability to relate to mankind beyond abstractions was permanently damaged by continuous years of social isolation followed by a very significant respite from that isolation: the war. It’s worth remembering that the decision to enter politics in 1919 was a Hobson’s option if there ever was one. Once in politics, he rapidly emerged as his own man. But politics came to him, not the other way around.

I don’t exactly view Hitler as the “unperson” of the Fest/Kershaw tradition: he had a personal life, if a boring one, and Hitler himself wanted to be thought of as a man who came from nowhere and would disappear into nowhere-this in stark contrast to the rooted, earthy stability of a Franco rooted in his traditions, you could well add. There are very few instances where Hitler is being genuine when interacting with people around him, no matter trusted: always important to keep that in mind. But his life was nevertheless strangely abstract, artificial… strained is the best word that comes to mind.

Evidence?

This is a good question, and the answer is I don’t have any. It’s pure speculation on my part. The reason I suspect some sort of coercion is because of the remarkable coincidence of all of the nations of Western Europe deciding to self-destruct at one time. I mean, you’d think that at least one country would have said no, but none did. Of course, it couldn’t have been otherwise. If all did not do it, none could have gotten away with it, which brings me to your next question.

What incentive would America have on forcing this on her?

If you can get a hold of him, you might consider asking General Wesley Clark.

During the bombing of Serbia, he boasted:

There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.

Since General Clark didn’t elaborate, we’re left to speculate. My surmise is that the swamp cannot tolerate the existence of states doing things it says cannot be done.

Her motives for opening the gates is simple. She thought she would get applause and admiration for leading the parade.

I’ll ask you, in good faith, the same question you asked me.

Evidence?

White women can’t help trying to spread female rights though!

Horrors!

I grow weary of historical revisionists decrying the use of atomic weapons. The US had just fought a bloodbath for the island of Okinawa. Right before that we fought another bloodbath for Iwo Jima. We had kamikazi pilots raining down on the US ( and UK) fleets.

The Japanese were of no mind to surrender so we were facing having to invade Kyushu that fall in the biggest amphibious assault yet. We knew the Japanese tactics. Make the US suffer as many casualties as possible and they’d use the civilian population to achieve that as they had on Okinawa. A quarter of the civilian population of Okinawa had been killed in the fighting.

The US Navy, Marines and Army knew what they were facing. So did Truman. He warned the Japanese they were about to face ‘a rain of ruin’ if they didn’t surrender. Had Truman not used those A-bombs and lost 100,000 American lives taking Kyushu he would have been impeached once it was learned those bombs were available and he didn’t use them to force a Japanese surrender

Hitler didn’t have to “surrender” in 1939. Germany had already absorbed Czechoslovakia and Austria. Had Hitler been content to consolidate Germany’s position Germany could have looked forward to a future as the paramount power in western/central Europe. Their economy was going fine.

I don’t know if this is true or not. I will leave it to history buffs to debate the facts. My only point is that I think Talha’s criteria is incomplete. There may be circumstances where a good leader not only might, but must, fight a losing battle.

You mistake propaganda talking points as historical facts. Of course they are going to have to come up with some excuse to use the bombs, saying it is to save lives is the usual go to for most propaganda. To say that they were sincerely concerned about saving lives is laughable, they were more than willing to send soldiers to their death. They used the bomb because they had them and Japan did not, any other arguments are blatant lies and anyone who wants to argue otherwise is a liar.

Another option, besides invasion and unconditional surrender would’ve been a negotiated surrender. Japan was defeated long before Okinawa, a simple naval blockade would have eventually led to the war ending. Just as a negotiated peace with Germany could have been reached any time after the Battle of Britain. The cry of “Unconditional Surrender” is what led to so much death and destruction.

Even if this is the case, then one can say something like; within his life, historical figure X was quite successful on multiple fronts based on stated goals and purposes, BUT failed to come up with a game plan to perpetuate that success for the long term after his death.

Perhaps Alexander fits into such a category; hugely successful in life based on goals and purposes, starting point and end results – with his empire fracturing immediately after his death.

Peace.

This is a good question, and the answer is I don’t have any. It’s pure speculation on my part. The reason I suspect some sort of coercion is because of the remarkable coincidence of all of the nations of Western Europe deciding to self-destruct at one time

It is not called “coincidence”, it is called the “European Union”. It has an ideology, which has plenty of popular, if diminishing, support, and it conforms to that ideology.

You may not agree with that ideology, but it is held in good faith by a very large number of white Europeans.

Of also, no coincidence, is the fact that this ideology contains no sense of spirit. How could it?

After Hitler so disgraced the European sense of spirit with his fraudulent attempt to capture it, European peoples have found it almost impossible to rekindle a European authenticity.

Worse, in their state of spiritual disgrace, they now try to experience it by proxy via movements like #BLM domestically, and both sides of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and more and increasingly bizarre methods, like seeking transcendence through transsexualism.

You, as an highly intelligent and spirited young woman, would always either end up outsourcing your sense of spirit to something like #BLM and making do with the methadone of virtue signalling, or trying to piece something true from the broken historical record of something like Nazism.

In the latter case, the more you are rejected for it, the more you will mistake that rejection for truth.

Regardless, I’ll concede that perhaps Hitler was as much a symptom of the Kali Yuga for Europeans as he was the last straw, but you’re not going to get anything redeeming in othering and conspiracy theory.

If you can get a hold of him, you might consider asking General Wesley Clark.

A latter failed politician spouting politically correct bromides as wartime propaganda is not evidence of a conspiracy, nor really of anything at all, except his vacuousness.

Evidence?

Everything she said. Her tremendous success in German election results since. The millions of young white Germans who marched in support of her etc etc etc.

It is an interesting, if idle, pursuit to speculate what would have happened were Alexander to live to a reasonable age.

One way to look at the whole Hitler thing is to consider the aesthetic break that Wagner made against Mozart. Instead of ingeniously sculpted clever pieces of adept and fluent Mozartian language, Wagner just supplied giant oceans of emotive sound — some made perfect sense (Act One of Die Walkure), others were just exasperating and tedious (all of Siegfried and Götterdämmerung). It was just a different theory, a different way of proceeding. I’m sure that Wagner actually liked Cosi Fan Tutte and Die Zauberflote, and I bet he could have written close approximations if he’d wanted to (Die Walkure is, after all, his homage to Don Giovanni), but he got caught up in his own historical times and wacky theoretical considerations.

Hitler’s problem was not his IQ or his education, it was his cultural position and his inability to process where precisely he and Germany really stood in the world of the 1930s, with respect to the British, American, and Jewish empires. Maybe Thomas Pynchon or Noel Coward could have explained it to him, it might have saved us all a lot of heartache.

James Joyce, bless his pointed little head, once said at the advent of the Second World War, as he was dying, that the whole trouble was caused by the fact that people didn’t really understand Finnegans Wake. I actually kind of know what he meant by that.

It is not called “coincidence”, it is called the “European Union”. It has an ideology, which has plenty of popular, if diminishing, support, and it conforms to that ideology.

Yes, if you demoralize and demonize people for long enough, they will come to hate themselves and acquiesce in their own destruction.

You, as an highly intelligent and spirited young woman

Thanks, but I’m not young anymore.

A latter failed politician spouting politically correct bromides as wartime propaganda is not evidence of a conspiracy, nor really of anything at all, except his vacuousness.

It certainly is evidence, though not proof, of a conspiracy. In any event, why the bombing of Serbia?

It certainly is evidence, though not proof, of a conspiracy. In any event, why the bombing of Serbia?

https://www.spiked-online.com/2006/03/14/after-milosevic/

Also, Syria:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2013/08/29/bombing-syria-war-as-therapy/

From your first link:

This justice dispensed by the Tribunal represents a new type of power in international affairs, one that derives its authority from a disembodied sphere of international human rights law, detached from any political and national context, and exercised by a new, unelected caste of judges, itinerant prosecutors and human rights lawyers, over the heads of the representatives of sovereign states. Both politics and law have suffered from this attempt to redefine the exercise of power.

Sounds rather like a “conspiracy” of a sort to me.

I don’t see a clear pattern in WW2. A lot of other leaders seem to have had children and done rather reckless or ruinous things. Britain was not helped by its war dead. Italy arguably could have prevented the war in Europe, and it declared war on the US. The Soviet Union did a lot to foment war. Japan was insane to declare war on the US. The U.S. had a lot of poor leadership – it was probably more of a coincidence that it had the capacity for war, rather than its leaders were wise.

I think it’s a mistake to think of things too much on an individual level. We are dealing with systems – the interactions between the elite in each country. So, I think, per Talha, the question should really be how many of the elite were childless, compared to today. Presumably this rate has risen, and is it a bad thing that it has? I think the answer is yes, putting aside people like Pelosi, who have children and grandchildren.

On a related note, there appears to be a discussion in Germany about instituting sex quotas. One topic that is being floated is political parties – that the leadership of parties should be half women. It is just on the edge of the conversation and I think it is too extreme to happen right away, but it is interesting to think about the implications, if it became law. It seems to me that the power of lesbians would increase significantly, and the less leftward parties would become more leftward.

The difference is that the people doing it really believed they were doing it for the reasons they gave.

Much of morality is like Father Christmas. Fine for children. It gives them a structure for them to hold onto. But when the adults start believing in Santa, Christmas is going to be ruined.

Yes, if you demoralize and demonize people for long enough, they will come to hate themselves and acquiesce in their own destruction.

Are you talking about black Americans?

The difference is that the people doing it really believed they were doing it for the reasons they gave.

I really doubt that, at least for some of them, but it doesn’t matter either way. The results will be the same.

Both Roosevelt and Churchill were already beholding to international jewish finance and ideologies, both made it very clear that they were fighting not for white interests but against whites and to impose their liberal ideologies, an ideology where racial equality is a dogma.

Totally ridiculous.

Churchhill was not a racial egalitarian and in fact it is only a matter of time before the left starts digging up his quotes and begins tearing down any statues of him. Roosevelt didn’t want a war with Germany even when he knew what was happening to the Jews. Really amusing that you think Roosevelt and Churchhill were locked into Jewish interests when neither would take Germany’s Jews. Probably should read some history outside Unz University.

Britain was working behind the scenes with Poland to try and appease Hitler. They were trying to get him a Danzig corridor but Hitler didn’t think Poland should exist.

Hitler’s greed is what ruined everything and possibly put the entire West on a path of destruction.

Hitler the anti-Communist signed a pact with the worst Communist and then invaded Poland, a Christian nation that had fought the Soviets.

It’s such a great thing that Hitler’s Luftwaffe bombed all those Polish women and children. They really had it coming. Nothing shows how much you hate Communism by splitting a Christian nation with a psychopathic Communist leader. When those anti-Communist Poles were sent to Gulags I’m sure they understood that it was needed to defeat Communism.

Hitler may have permanently wrecked the West. The fact that so many here try to defend him is pathetic. All he had to do was stay in his borders or carve out an empire in Africa or Asia. No one would have cared. But he thought Germans were masters of the universe and he wanted revenge over WW1. Once he lost the battle of Britain he should have been content with most of Europe but he then made the biggest military mistake in history which was opening the second front.

Rather than debating Hitler, I’d suggest that focus be on the First World War, rather than the Second. A civilization at the heighth of its powers, largely governed by monarchs, influenced by representative bodies, plunged into a four year bloodbath that resulted in the killing of its most promising manhood and future leaders. In retrospect, any if the belligerants would have been better off accepting whatever terms their opponents were offering in 1915 rather than continuing with the war. The Second World War was mostly a continuation of the First, albeit with some rearrangement of the alliances and the addition of the Pacific and Asian war against Japan. Some historians even consider the European conflicts from 1914 to 1945 as a 20th Century Thirty Years War, with similar consequences to its 17th Century predecessor.

Roosevelt didn’t want a war with Germany

That is ridiculous, it is hardly a secret that he was a very belligerent man, the majority of Americans did not want war but he did everything he could to stoke one. From providing military aid to Britain before the US entered the war, to embargos on Japan, to his openly hostile statements against Germany, these were all war like acts.

As for Churchill, he was more of your typical corrupt politician that sold out to the highest bidders (basically jews). That does not change the fact that he was very happy to kill millions in the name of liberalism, sure he may have said things about Indians that got him cancelled in 2020, but when it really mattered he took the anti white side and thus can definitely be called one of the chief white genocide enablers.

As for the Poland thing, the USSR also occupied Poland, so any argument that Britain was forced to go to war against Germany is pure bullshit.

Just as a negotiated peace with Germany could have been reached any time after the Battle of Britain. The cry of “Unconditional Surrender” is what led to so much death and destruction.

The problem is that Hitler didn’t have any credibility at that point.

Let’s say the British decided to abandon Western Europe in exchange for a peace deal.

Hitler then goes East and defeats the Soviet Union.

Churchhill would then have to trust that Hitler wouldn’t invade them 10 years later after his military is refreshed.

Is Churchill supposed to believe that Hitler would be satisfied with his territories? Well that is what Hitler convinced Chamberlain in 1938.

Keep in mind that everyone thought the Soviets would fall to Hitler. So Germany was expected to become a massive empire. Churchhill didn’t think that Hitler would ever stop invading. So the risk with a peace deal is that you would end up fighting him later, possibly under more difficult conditions.

That is ridiculous, it is hardly a secret that he was a very belligerent man, the majority of Americans did not want war but he did everything he could to stoke one.

You left out a minor detail which is that Germany declared war on the US after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. It was not Roosevelt that declared war even though Churchhill had begged him numerous times to enter. Hitler should have cut ties with Japan (especially since they never told him their plans) but Hitler as always was arrogant and thought they would still somehow win.

The overwhelming majority of Americans supported war at that point. The polls are public record.
https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/us-public-opinion-world-war-II-1939-1941

As for Churchill, he was more of your typical corrupt politician that sold out to the highest bidders (basically jews).

So why didn’t he take Germany’s Jews? Why didn’t he authorize special teams to liberate camps as British Jews were asking? Why didn’t he rush in to save the Jews after Normandy? The Jews of Britain were frustrated with him. In fact so were Polish exiles that had been to the camps.

“1. Never had a family or any kids.”

False.

This came out around 2006 or so. There’s this farmer in northeastern France, the son of a man who was the son of a single mother. She – the grandmother – had never talked about the grandfather much, just that he was a German soldier in the first world war – while that part of France was under occupation – and that he’d always been very kind with her. So farmer grandson (who has several siblings) decides, hey, we’ve never known who our grandpa is, let’s try and find out with this genetic testing stuff. Might get some vague hints or something.

So he does the test, sends it in, gets results back. “Um, your relative is well known. VERY well known.”

I remember it was all over the Daily Mail for a couple days, until farmer guy requested that the media keep it quiet and protect his anonymity because he didn’t want his farm getting turned into a neo-Nazi shrine. The media, for once seeing a privacy cause in complete alignment with their ideological objectives, fully complied. All further reporting of the story stopped.

But yeah: the descendants of Adolf Hitler are alive and well today, with families of their own.

This also, incidentally, torpedoes a whole class of lies about Hitler being homosexual, impotent, or anything else along those lines. They HAD to shut it down, and fast. The fact that it even got out in the first place was an indication it hit too suddenly for them to think through the implications.

Merkel is more radical than you credit her with being. Her father went East during the Cold War. One of the other Germans who went East, Rust later became a murderer. Merkel is an anti-nationalist. Someone once handed her a little German flag, and she treated it like it was a burning, dirty diaper.

Of course, I’m not suggesting she was wholly responsible. The German political system is not a natural system. In many ways, it is more like a continuation of an occupation government.

Merkel is more radical than you credit her with being.

That may be. I don’t know much about her. I just used her as an example because of her notoriety in these parts. Substitute any Western imperial marionette you like. I don’t think these decisions are being made at the national level.

Your doubt is your problem.

The result being the result doesn’t change that.

Wagner really should have made the Tarnhelm provide Alberich with the ability to be many places at once as well as presenting either invisibly or as various disguises.

Rank ordering, according to urgency, these many facets of our ancient enemy is a necessary step toward defeating it. At the top, at present, are the network effect monopolies that, for example, block unz.com links from appearing in social media. Who really controls them? What are their names and on what streets do they live?

Franco was a Catholic reactionary, in some sense more of a 16th century figure than anything truly modern (whereas Nazism could be seen as an alternative modernity). Very Spanish too, there’s little of the pan-Germanic appeal of Nazism, or of the universal pretensions of the Italian fascists. And while Franco did have somewhat nationalist views (he wrote a novel called Raza after all), the racial views of Spanish right-wingers don’t fit that easily with those of Nordicists…one justification for Spanish imperialism in North Africa was the idea that the populations on both sides of the straits were basically identical anyway.
It’s not surprising that extreme right-wingers of Northern European background (where there’s also some residual anti-Catholicism and a negative view of Spain dating back to the early modern age) don’t regard him as a relevant figure for their own movements.

Tahla’s comment begs a question: Was Hitler ur-Incel?

Many readers here will have had grandfathers who fought and defeated the nazis and yet will today be called nazis for believing the same things their grandfathers believed.

My father, two uncles and a grandfather. I was the product of a May-December marriage.

They’d all be ashamed if they were alive to see what’s happening today.

Bah. What is good in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women. That is good.

Multiculturalism (your “white genocide”) as we think of it today in the West would have been impossible without WWII’s effect on everybody’s collective psyche.

That may sound superficially plausible, but it’s far from certain imo. If Hitler would never have come to power, there would still have been independence movements against the European colonial empires, and they probably would have been aided by Soviet subversion or the Japanese with their appeal to pan-Asian solidarity against the white man. Liberal opinion in western states had already turned against overt racial discrimination by the 1930s; the first African-born deputies were elected to the French parliament already in the early 20th century. It’s entirely possible that faced with accusations of racism from the Soviets and the Japanese there would have been just the same liberalization in racial and cultural attitudes as actually happened, plus mass immigration from the colonies to the metropole.
And in the US radical antiracism as promoted by people like Thaddeus Stevens (who was a proponent of a racially integrated school system already in the 1860s) and the whole “nation of immigrants” ideology (and the enthusiasm of capitalists for mass immigration) were already clearly discernible by the mid-19th century.
Hitler’s significance can easily be overstated. He may have advanced certain long-term trends in a futile rebellion against them, and of course his project was incredibly destructive, but his impact on the fundamental outlines of today’s world may have been much less than is often supposed.

Hitler was politically and militarily retarded, the generals should have been left to run the war, Army Group Center should not have been diverted to Kiev after the capture of Smolensk, the Waffen SS was a waste of resources and should have been absorbed into the Wehrmacht at the start of the war, they should also have followed Rosenberg’s plan of supporting anti-Communist Slavs and their attempts to form anti-Soviet resistance forces and supporting the creation of self governing puppet states Manchukuo style in German occupied Russia.

The cry of “Unconditional Surrender” is what led to so much death and destruction.

And it is always the “True Believers” that demand unconditional surrender. We just can’t seem to stand very much realism, especially when it comes to examining our own hearts and motives.

On that topic:

But wait, there’s more. Just a week before the outbreak of hostilities, Chamberlain’s closest advisor, Sir Horace Wilson, went to Ambassador Joseph Kennedy with an urgent appeal to President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally obligated itself in March to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now turned in despair to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. He wanted the American President to “put pressure on the Poles” to change course and reopen negotiations with Germany. By telephone Kennedy told the State Department that the British “felt that they could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that we could.” Presented with this extraordinary opportunity to possibly save the peace of Europe, FDR declined to use his influence with the Polish regime. At that, Kennedy reported, the Prime Minister lost all hope. “The futility of it all,” Chamberlain had told Kennedy, “is the thing that is frightful….[W]e cannot save the Poles. We can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of all Europe.”

In April 1941, Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota predicted that one day the Second World War would be remembered as Roosevelt’s war. “If we are ever involved in this war, it will be called by future historians by only one title, ‘the President’s War,’ because every step of his since his Chicago quarantine speech [of 5 October 1937] has been toward war.”

Suggested reading:

Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War 1941: A Study in Appearances and Realities (Yale University Press, 1948)

William Henry Chamberlin, America’s Second Crusade (Henry Regnery, 1950)

A. J. P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, (Atheneum, 1962).

Nicholson Baker, Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization (Simon & Schuster, 2008) (A compilation of hundreds of newspaper articles published 1930-42 mostly countering pro-war propaganda)

Charles Callan Tansill, Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy 1933—1941 (Henry Regnery, 1952)

My own theory about Hitler’s IQ aligns with Karlin’s: mid-120s sounds accurate.

Guessing IQs is a fool’s errand.

Your doubt is your problem.

The result being the result doesn’t change that.

You are, IMO, charitable to a fault. I see no particular reason to give the benefit of the doubt to traitors, especially when they are, if nothing else, complicit in the repression of native dissent.

…and:

The reason I suspect some sort of coercion is because of the remarkable coincidence of all of the nations of Western Europe deciding to self-destruct at one time. I mean, you’d think that at least one country would have said no, but none did.

Ever heard of lemmings?

I’ll ask you, in good faith, the same question you asked me.

Evidence?

Likewise, even as the war turned badly, he kept believing in some sort of a Deus Ex Machina that would save him and lead to a triumph

He probably knew by mid- to late-1943 that the war was lost for Germany, he just wanted it to continue to the end to achieve a kind of “moral victory”, and possibly also to kill as many Jews as possible.
There’s an interesting article by Bernd Wegner about this subject in vol. VIII of Germany and the Second world war (“Orchestrating the end”), where the influence of some writings of Clausewitz on Hitler’s views in this regard is emphasized.

2.8 TFR isn’t “high fertility.” That was the norm in western countries in the mid 20th century, and well below the norms of the 1800s. Again, some you guys need to re-evaluate your priorities in life becsuse it seems you aren’t truly conservative, but a bunch of liberals. If you think 2.8 is “high fertility”, you sound like a hapless blue pilled cuck. That’s a 20th century TV sitcom family size. Actually, it might be less than that. There’s nothing remotely impressive about a 2.8 TFR. America had a higher fertility rate in 1970. Up your standards and at least try to think like a man, goddamnit.

The second World War was the most civilizationally catastrophic civil war in human history, one we continue to pay a heavy toll for today. Many readers here will have had grandfathers who fought and defeated the nazis and yet will today be called nazis for believing the same things their grandfathers believed.

My father was in the US Army during and after WW II, and he was 17 when he got in, and thanks to the US Senator Chase Smith woman from Maine, who didn’t want 17 year olds meat grinded in the infantry — (but screw those grey beard 18 year old geezers), and his performance on certain tests, he wasn’t immediately sent into the infantry meat grinder but got his wings and ended up a radio operator on transport ships. The US Air Force should be abolished immediately and the remnants should be folded back into the US Army.

WW I was the civilizationally destructive industrialized war that started the nonsense that started WW II.

Thankfully, nuclear weapons have ended the inter-White wars and Whites globally are just starting to realize that they are under attack as Whites and they must fight back as Whites. 1998 Balkan nonsense notwithstanding, and the American Empire’s attack on European Christians during the Balkan BS, nukes have clarified thinking on inter-White wars.

The most important thing that Whites in the USA can do is to work very hard to politically destroy the evil and treasonous Republican Party.

DO NOT VOTE for the Republican Party.

Vote Charles Pewitt as a write-in candidate for president and vote WHITE CORE AMERICA PARTY for all other offices on the ballot. Write in any other candidate for other offices, of course, but write in White Core America for offices you don’t have a candidate for.

For instance, in Alabama, do not vote for Tommy of the T’Ubervilles but by all means write in and vote for WHITE CORE AMERICA.

That fresh faced young man got my vote!

Actually his IQ was really able to get a noble in physics.

http://comicism.tripod.com/iq.html

You are just plain wrong. Japan wanted to surrender anyway, the only sticking point was that the Japanese wanted to keep their emperor. So the US nuked them twice and let them keep their emperor anyway.

The nukes were a demonstration of power mainly aimed at Stalin.

Hitler’s demands actually weren’t unreasonable. He only wanted territory lost under the Versailles treaty returned. He actually wanted the Brits as an ally in his war against the communists, not as an enemy. Churchill was a glory seeker operating under the old British policy of containing the strongest nation on the continent. They underestimated the Soviets, and lost their empire. If he’d chosen Germany as an ally millions would have escaped the brutality of communism and Rhodesia would still be the breadbasket of Africa.

And it is always the “True Believers” that demand unconditional surrender. We just can’t seem to stand very much realism

The reality of the situation is that the Soviets planned on steamrolling over all of Europe. Stalin and other Communists didn’t think that there would be anymore violent revolutions in the West after seeing the unspoken failure of Marxism.

Even if Hitler had talked the allies into conditional surrender (which he didn’t want) that doesn’t mean that Stalin would have gone along with it.

The Soviets had suffered huge losses and were not going to let Hitler just return to his 1939 borders.

The Allies had to open a front to prevent the Soviets from taking Western Europe.

Note that the assassination attempts on Hitler were an attempt to remove him and then surrender conditionally to the Allies in an effort to prevent a Soviet takeover. Everyone knew the war was over in 1943 but Hitler held out to the very end even knowing that Germans would become victims of not just Communism but Russian revenge.

So he was clearly willing to destroy Germany rather than surrender conditionally. Even without Hitler it is unlikely the Allies would have accepted a conditional surrender. Interestingly Patton wanted this and then wanted to continue on to Moscow. In hindsight that was probably a better option than the cold war. It’s not like the US would have turned Russia into a territory.

Hitler’s demands actually weren’t unreasonable. He only wanted territory lost under the Versailles treaty returned.

They gave him the Czech Republic and let him annex Austria. The Versailles payments were dropped.

His demands were unreasonable. Hitler wanted Poland to only exist as a German vassal. He wasn’t demanding specific territory. Poland would lose its autonomy and democracy. Hitler’s racial views were well known and Poles were rightly skeptical after seeing what happened to the Czech Republic.

Anyways the Allies were working with Poland on a Danzig corridor. Poland simply wasn’t ready to give it up without a compromise and it is unlikely to have changed anything since Hitler was willing to risk a world war for all of Poland.

He actually wanted the Brits as an ally in his war against the communists, not as an enemy

Yes he said this and then killed over a million Western Europeans after allying with Stalin. His first war against Poland included rounding up veterans of the Polish-Soviet war and executing them. Some anti-Communist.

Hitler said all kinds of things and then would just go to war anyways and kill people that had nothing to do with Communism or even fought against it.

Nothing stopped him from attacking the Soviets first. It undoubtedly would have worked without a Western front and Germany would be the world power today. But Hitler was a greedy ego-maniac that didn’t listen to his generals. Millions of Europeans needlessly died and the war is key source of White guilt that leftists continue to exploit to this day. Thanks a bunch Hitler.

I believed the conventional narrative regarding Hitler until David Irving was arrested for questioning it. Now I assume that most of the narrative is false.

While you grow weary of historical revisionism, I grow weary of War Time Propaganda™ being mindlessly regurgitated as historical fact.

The war was won before Hiroshima, and the generals who dropped the bomb knew it.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were evil, unnecessary and one of the greatest crimes ever perpetrated in the history of the world.

☮

I am not a pacifist. I just try to stay in my center and trust that will serve me well. I feel I have no choice anyway. The alterative path is a one to a personalised hell.

By all means, your anger at the political situation is valid. It is a fact. As would be your sadness and your hurt. But don’t fall into the ego trap of rationalising your seeming adversaries into demons. They don’t know what they don’t know, and the first victim of ignorance and confusion is always the person themselves. They deserve compassion, even if compassion, for some of them, would be 4 prison walls and 3 meals a day.

FYI, “Not Only Wrathful” is Jewish. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but he has an insurmountable personal bias on these matters.

Hitler was gay.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/07/books.booksnews

https://www.irishexaminer.com/arid-20391500.html

In a way, Western Suicide is about White Privilege.

The so-called Left yammers on and on about ‘white privilege’ while many on the ‘right’ deny it exists. It’s more accurate to say White Privilege does exist but as a function of White Submission than of White Supremacism. After all, if indeed the entirety of white race had a solid supremacist position over all other races, there would be no need for White Privilege. Who needs privilege when you got supremacist power over others? Even though White Supremacism is racially defined, it is at least universalist within the white race, i.e. all whites, smart or dumb, rich or poor, share in their superiority & supremacy over or security & safety from other peoples, groups, and races. So, even though some whites would be socially and/or economically privileged over other whites, ALL whites would be universal in their superiority over or security from other races. There would be no White Privilege because ALL whites would share in the dominance. It would be universalist within the particularity of the white race.

The term ‘privilege’ connotes something more than domination or shared power/position. It implies ‘exceptionality’ limited to a few. Thus, if something is broadly shared by the entire population, it doesn’t qualify as privilege EVEN IF another group is broadly kept in a subservient position. So, if society is made up 50/50 of People A and People B and if ALL members of People A have superiority over all members of People B, it can be called Power but not Privilege. Power unites, Privilege divides. Power for People A would unite all of them, from rich to poor. In contrast, Privilege for People A would mean only select members of the group would enjoy special advantages or exemptions from burdens shared by the rest. If indeed People A had Power over People B, privilege would matter more among People B as some of them would seek favors that would advantage them over most of their kind who must keep within the subservient position.
In the American South, a white man, no matter how poor, could not be enslaved. This fact united him with other whites. Rich or poor, whites could not be slaves. This was not a privilege but the power of rights that applied to all whites. In contrast, privilege mattered a great deal to blacks because any black could be enslaved. So, for a black man to be a free man, that was a matter of privilege. Without such privilege, he was like all the other ‘ni**ers’. And there was a privilege system even among the black slaves: the House Negroes and the Field Ni**ers. While both groups were slaves, the former got access to the massuh’s house, ate better, enjoyed more petty freedoms, and got more access to good stuff. Because, by and large, blacks had a subservient position to whites in the American South, privilege was a very important thing for blacks as individuals. Since they could not gain power, freedom(as a right), and full spectrum of rights as a People, they could only hope to gain advantages as individuals of privilege. Such privileges exempted them from the lot faced by most of their kind.

Fast Forward to today, and we can argue that White Privilege is indeed a real phenomenon but not in the way that ‘left'(as controlled by Jewish Supremacists) would have us believe. According to the Official Narrative, ALL whites enjoy this thing called ‘white privilege’. But if something is universal among whites, it’s not a privilege but a power. But where do you see any such? Whites are divided as ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’. Denied the identity of race/heritage/culture, whites seek meaning only through ideology of ‘libertarian individualist conservatism’ vs ‘radical collectivist progressivism’ OR idolatry(or ‘idology’ as fusion of ideology and idolatry) for the Holy Three of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. White elites disdain the white hoi polloi, and increasingly the white masses hate the white elites.
Also, the Official Dogma of New Jewish-ruled America says that Whiteness is at best problematic and at worst downright evil. Whiteness is the Mark of Cain, a human stain, and the original sin of creation(not unlike Nation of Islam’s theory about how whites were grafted from the black race). Whites must feel guilt, whites must atone, whites must feel shame, whites must surrender their lands, whites must surrender their jobs & wealth, whites must kneel & sob, white wombs must be sexually colonized by blacks, white soldiers must fight, kill, and die for Jewish Supremacist crusades, and etc. In other words, whites must live for the Other, not for their own kind. White Power is evil. White Unity is cursed. White Identity is wicked. White Anything is suspect.
Then, there is nothing to unite whites together. There is no intra-universality among whites that binds them together against the Other. Indeed, whites must especially cuck and apologize because they still happen to be the richest people in the world, mostly the result of past White Evil, Greed, Rottenness, and Wickedness. And of course, White ‘liberals’ and progs are onboard with such worldview, not least because they were raised by the 2 PC’s: Pop Culture and Political Correctness dominated by Jews — over the years, Pop Culture and Advertising have become overly politicized by capitalist elites trained by ‘cultural marxists’ in colleges who spread the notion of ‘cultural hegemony’; as these elites no longer believe in communism, they use the capitalist means of marketing to spread the ‘idology’ of Jew-worship, homo-worship, Negro-worship, and Diversity Cult. (Some radicals and blacks say ‘white liberalism’ is also a form of white supremacism, and there is a kernel of truth in the claim in that ‘white liberalism’ could only arise from a state of white supremacism. It was the supremacist position of whites that made some whites drop their guard, grow more generous & conscientious, be less tribal & warlike, and be more critical of their own kind. They could risk such magnanimity because they took white power, security, wealth, and well-being for granted, even as a permanent state of being. Indeed, is it any wonder that some of the biggest virtue-signaling ‘white liberal’ types tend to live in nice areas with plenty of money and security? If a whole bunch of black savages were coming to rape and pillage them, they would change their tune sooner than later. So, even as ‘white liberalism’ denounces white supremacism, it exists only as a product of white domination over other races. Whites gained such power and success that a large portion of them could drop their natural guard, ignore their tribal instincts, and put on do-goody airs toward the Other that was seen as helpless children. It’s like humans in a state of nature do not feel generous toward animals that are seen as rivals; it was only when modern man gained absolute supremacist dominion over the natural world that humans began to wax poetic about fauna and flora as something that needs protection. Environmentalism is the product of human supremacism over nature. Living in the state of nature, mankind’s main worry would be to survive other animals than to help them survive the impact of humans.)

Because whiteness is now so degraded and demeaned, there is no advantage to white identity, white unity, and white continuity as building blocks for white power. In the American West, all whites united to fight the Indians and conquer/settle the lands. In 19th century South Africa, whites of all kinds banded together against blacks. (Back then, whites easily made up 50% of the sparsely populated region.) It was about White Power, not white privilege. All whites of different stripes and backgrounds were united in their identity and purpose. Even though they created social orders in which whites had advantages and rights over others, the rules applied universally to all whites. Whites didn’t need privilege because they insisted on the unity of power. It’s much the same among Jews in Israel and West Bank. Jews don’t need special privileges because they got the power. ALL Jews are favored over ALL Arabs. If anything, it is the Arabs who rely on special privileges(granted by Jewish Supremacists) if they are to avoid the fate of most Palestinians. It’s like some Chinese and Hindus collaborated with the British Imperialists for special privileges. Whereas all whites belonged to the dominant race and had their rights secured under the Imperial Law, Hindus and Chinese needed special privileges to enjoy better positions in the Order.

Given the current reality where whiteness is as reviled as Jewishness was in National Socialist Germany, whites better rely on privileges to have it so good. Whereas blackness, Jewishness, and homo-ness are innately holy according to the New Order, whiteness is fake, vile, venal, ugly, hideous, and evil. As whiteness sucks so bad, it can hardly be used as an organizing principle, unifying force, matter of dignity, or point of pride. In other words, ‘white’ is the ‘new ni**er’. Since being white is a great moral, historical, political, social, and spiritual disadvantage, it makes no sense to aspire toward White Power that might unite all whites as one race with shared destiny. In other words, there can be no intra-universal truth to whiteness. The ONLY THING all whites must share is guilt and shame about whiteness. When it comes to celebration, it must be about homos; when it comes to awe & fever, it must be for blacks; when it comes to reverence & obedience, it must be for Jews.
In such an Order where whiteness is just a ticket to hell, white individuals need privileges more than ever as exemptions from collective punishment. White Privilege is like buying indulgences, once a common practice in the Catholic Church. So, in that sense, we do live in a world of White Privilege. This privilege doesn’t apply to all whites as privilege can never be universal, not even intra-universal. Privilege always applies to select individuals or a small inner-group, not to an entire population, even if it is generally advantaged over another population. For example, there were dirt-poor white farmers in the American South who were materially worse off than House Negroes on big plantations. The advantage they had over blacks was not a matter of privilege but power.

Back then, white power mattered. Today, nothing is excoriated more than the notion of whiteness + power or whiteness + identity. It’s NOT okay to be white. When power is disallowed, privilege is the only game in town. If your people have been condemned as a whole, then forget about Power. Just seek privilege as a white individual, or as an individual virtue-signaler who is eager to secure one’s privilege by ho-de-do-ing that you are working oh-so-very-hard to expunge yourself of the evils of ‘racism’ and ‘white supremacism’.
Then, it’s no surprise that today’s white elites are all about privilege, not power. When it comes to power, they recognize Jewishness, blackness, and homo-ness as the only identities/qualities deserving of it. Whiteness deserves no power, and white lands and white wombs must surrender to the Other. Still, white individuals want success and money, and since they can no longer rely on White Power, they must go for White Privilege, an advantage that, far from applying to all whites, applies ONLY TO those whites who can afford to pay indulgences to the ‘woke’ extortion industries. So, all those multi-national corporations, including Chick-Fil-A(now more like Dic*-Fill-Ass), go out of their way to appease the Wokextortionists or Woktortionists to gain favor as good House Honkeys or Corpo-Cucks. Jeff Bezos and Jack Dorsey are super-duper-rich, but they don’t have white power. Just white privilege. Of course, they don’t care as long as they got theirs and the approval of their ‘moral superiors’ made up of Jews, blacks, and homos. They are happy honkucks.
Still, the crucial point is what they got is privilege, not power. They got privilege by cuck-collaborating with the real power of Jews, blacks, and homos. This state of affairs illustrates how power isn’t just about money but about prestige. A House Negro could be far better off than some Po’ White Trash, but the latter was a free man who could take his freedom for granted. No matter how poor and ‘trashy’ he may be, he couldn’t be enslaved by the richest white plantation owner. But even the fanciest House Negro eating well and living in the Massuh’s Mansion could lose his privileges overnight and be sent to pick cotton. So, even when the House Negro is materially well-off, he wasn’t free and actually had less power than even the lowest Po’ White Trash. In a way, the likes of Tim Cook and Bill Gates understand this. They are mega-rich and got more money than they could ever hope to spend, but they got no power because they are white. They can pour tons of money into various ventures and causes but never for the power of their race. If anything, to keep their privileges, they must pour vast sums into causes that do harm to whites while expanding the power of Jews, Negroes, and Homos.

So, we are indeed living in the Age of White Privilege. When Power is banned, all you can strive for is privilege.

white bauty and black athletics

Is everyone who disagrees with whomever you are “Jewish”?

That seems to be a general charge around UNZ for some odd reason. I’ve also been accused of being a Jew. Go figure.

Peace.

They don’t know what they don’t know,

That’s just it. I think they know a lot. If nothing else, an awful lot of them trawl these websites. They know the demographic projections; they know about the evidence for race realism; they know about the immigration-driven impossible housing prices and low wages for young natives looking to start a family, etc. From the fact that they still think they’re doing “good” despite knowing these things, I can only conclude that they are convinced we are a menace to be put down (collectively) like a rabid dog, despite all of our attempts at remedy and reconciliation.

In any event, thanks for your kind words.

No. It’s apparent in your comment history.

It’s nothing to be ashamed of, so I don’t know why you’re so defensive about it. It’s just that you have a significant amount of personal bias on these matters.

That seems to be a general charge around UNZ for some odd reason. I’ve also been accused of being a Jew. Go figure.

Funny thing is that I was accused here of being a Jew on a day when I was talking to my wife about the McRib being back.

It was also around the time I was writing about racial medical differences that liberals don’t want the public to know about.

Talking about McRibs and posting about biological racial differences is definite Jewish behavior.

Oh and I was accused of posting from Israel. My wife thought it was hilarious.

Oh and I was accused of posting from Israel. My wife thought it was hilarious.

Best to laugh it off, I mean really – what else can you do? It’s not worth the time arguing with someone if they simply want to box you into a specific category so that it makes things black and white in a complex world.

Peace.

They are mega-rich and got more money than they could ever hope to spend, but they got no power because they are white. They can pour tons of money into various ventures and causes but never for the power of their race.

(sheds tear)

Oh those poor, poor rich White people. What ever can they do?

Bill Gates doesn’t want to support Whites because he is a globalist.

That is the guy that spent a few hundred million trying to close the race gap in education. He disparaged school teachers with the implication that they weren’t trying hard enough.

Then he quietly went back to funding a cure to malaria.

Hmmm funny that.

“Multiculturalism”

The link between Nazism and Merkel opening the gates to the Arab and African migrants is indisputable. Hitler destroyed white identity.

Spain culturally turned to shit about 30 seconds after Franco died. He never came up up with a Plan B after the RCC started self-destructing with the advent of Vatican II. The Falange was never important.

This is correct. Their revolution collapsed with him.

He never had a plan to outsmart the left in the long run. He restored the monarchy and the new king handed it right back. The largest party there today is globalist left.

Still gotta give the guy credit for sticking it to the commies in his country.

There is something to be learned from all leaders of that period. None of them should be glorified or worshipped.

Here at Unz I’ve been called a “Hasbara troll” a couple of times because I said not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews.

It’s a mistake to think that any old dictator will suffice as a cultural touch point. If that were the case, then white nationalists could very well celebrate Pinochet from Chile too. But I think a lot of the smears about white nationalism that come from the mainstream media especially are designed to pair any mention of these ideas with the worst possible version of them so that people are turned off without giving them further consideration. So… suppose you are willing to break the taboo of being associated with that particular Austrian Water Colorist. The point is that we are talking about a certain type of culture that is historically, and some might say genetically, particular to our way of living. We have certain attributes that make our societies cohesive and successful. Things like the “yeoman farmer” who has a sort of primitive Christian spirituality (i.e. not Catholic peasants) and who also has a semi-pagan love of nature, hunting, and the land. These are all germanic-nordic-anglo-saxon ways of living that worked well for our ancestors. We would like to continue to live like that. Spanish culture is completely different so generally speaking we are not all that attracted to its historical leaders.

That’s how I see it anyway. Because these ideas are so terrifyingly taboo, the mainstream media tries to simply invalidate all of them by yoking them specifically to German politics in 1930s.

failed to come up with a game plan to perpetuate that success for the long term after his death.

It’s impossible for a mere mortal to “perpetuate for the long term after his death,” for all can be undone by his successors. All we can do to judge a man is how he left things at his death.

Total Black Pill.

This is true and very reasonable. It is good to have institutions built in to perpetuate your success at least for the “near” future. But maybe one can’t really judge Alexander too hard in this regard, he was quite young when he died rather unexpectedly.

Peace.

I tend to agree: Anti-racism is primarily a result of de-colonization, rather than WW2. De-colonization itself was a process that began before WW2, and was probably inevitable. If anything it was probably related more to Anti-communism/communism than Nazism, but not essentially so.

What happened was a new colonization of the West.

Europeans are unfortunately at a great disadvantage today, when compared to non-Europeans who lived in their colonies in the past. I don’t say “natives” because I want to encompass more people, such as Chinese-educated Chinese in Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia.

There weren’t many Europeans in many colonies. The climate didn’t appeal to them. The level of development didn’t appeal to them, and tropical diseases were terrible. Relatively very few whites worked menial jobs. It was very easy for nonwhites to organize disruptions. Now, whites are not even the majority in London. And they have a lot less control over schools, and they don’t have the same linguistic barriers to protect group identity.

The climate didn’t appeal to them.

I have a hunch that a full collapse of central heating would send thousands of Somalis and others out of Sweden and back South to where winters are a distant memory.

Peace.

The West is not suiciding. Its being attacked.

By you know who. I don’t need to point them out here.

They did WWI, and WWII. They did slavery.

They are the guilty ones that wish now to censor.

Censorship is against their contract. They are in breach.

They will now start losing. Every day. Every thing.

The Germans regained the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, a land overwhelmingly German, not the whole Czech Republic. They were asking only for a corridor to Danzig, not even all of Upper Silesia, taken from them by the treaty. I don’t see anything unreasonable in that. The propagandists fed the populace a fiction about German ambitions because those in power feared a strong Germany. Hitler had no intention of invading France or fighting Britain, his enemy was the communists. When the British forced his hand, he made a deal with Stalin. If not for the British guarentee to the Poles, the Germans and Soviets would probably have faced off, one on one. Instead, the entire world was dragged into an unnecessary, tragic war. Hitler was no saint, but he was far from the monster propagandists and Hollywood writers made him out to be.

Oh, definitely. I think people don’t want to chop wood or cut peat, and what’s more most houses now don’t have fireplaces or chimneys. Anything amateur would involve a lot of smoke. I was at a relative’s house one of these past holidays and they lit a decorative fire, and I really felt it in my throat. And I have often have fires outdoors – so it wasn’t something psychological.

I think light would be pretty big problem too, if electricity was shut off. I’m actually kind of in awe of my ancestors for living through the darkness in wintertime. No idea how they managed it.

When Ciano asked if there was anything Italy could do to broker a Polish-German settlement that would avert a war, he was told by Ribbentrop, “We want war!”

If Hitler hadn’t occupied Prague a few months later, appeasement would have likely gone on.

Furthermore, the Polish government was itself an authoritarian right-wing regime inclined to anti-Communism, anti-Russian sentiment, and to some extent, anti-Semitism. They’d narrowly fought off the Red Army shortly after WWI, don’t forget. It had, along with Hungary, gone along with German ambitions in Czechoslovkia to reclaim disputed territories of its own, and after initial tensions in 1933, had managed to peacefully coexist with the Nazi regime. Hitler himself was an Austrian, traditionally far more inclined to anti-Czech than anti-Polish sentiment (ironic given how the Nazi occupation of Poland was far more brutal than Czechoslovakia’s, but you have to ditch historical hindsight), and therefore was looked at by the Polish leadership as somewhat easier to deal with than the Junker class. Hitler even attended Piłsudski’s funeral in 1937.

Had Hitler not occupied Prague, Warsaw’s attitude would have been different, not just London’s. By occupying Prague and discarding the political mask that served him so well, Hitler shot himself in the foot. But that was Nazi ideology for you. No matter how useful dozens of hardened, very motivated legions of Poles and Ukrainians would have been in crushing Bolshevism like a bug, Slavs were Untermenschen to be exploited and killed, and that was that.

>Hitler was no saint, but he was far from the monster propagandists and Hollywood writers made him out to be.

The dude wanted to reduce the peoples of Poland and the USSR to helotry at best. His bureaucrats created plans intentionally delinated how they would eliminate surplus mouths in the USSR through starvation. And yes: there was an attempt from Berlin to exterminate European Jewry during WWII wholesale. The Einsatzgruppen and the death camps were very real.

Hitler was monstrous. His regime was, too. You don’t have to buy into the way the Holocaust has been turned into a pseudo-religion to deny that.

The communist movements, the Marxist schools of thought were already festering before even WW1. The school of thought that rules now is the natural evolution of those earlier ideas

In fact the school of thought that rules now is the complete antithesis of the Marxism of that earlier era.

In the early days of the Nazi party, Hitler often compared his planned thrust to the East to the Anglo world’s conquest of America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Later, after he took power and as grew increasingly hostile to Britain and America, the regime changed its tune and instead portrayed the natives sympathetically.

Why American wignats idealize Hitler’s failed colonial project in Eastern Europe, rather than the successful colonial project in their own country is probably down to the influence of contemporary American culture. Hitler was a loser and in our era losers have a curious appeal. If the American colonists had had Hitler’s mentality, they would have tried to conquer the whole continent in 1650 and wound up pushed into the sea. And the wignats would write apologetic literature about how noble the colonists were and how, no, they didn’t start that war.

I do find Franco (and Pinochet) admired by the neoreactionary movement and by some ultra-trad Catholics.

Although we fault both those men for not leaving behind a legacy beyond “peace and prosperity”.

There may be circumstances where a good leader not only might, but must, fight a losing battle.

If he chooses to fight a losing battle then he is not a good leader. He’s just a butcher.

Spain culturally turned to shit about 30 seconds after Franco died. He never came up up with a Plan B after the RCC started self-destructing with the advent of Vatican II.

Realistically, what options did he have?

And in the mid-70s nobody could have predicted the cultural rot that was about to infest the West. You can’t blame Franco for not being gifted with the power of foretelling the future.

I’m actually kind of in awe of my ancestors for living through the darkness in wintertime. No idea how they managed it.

Yeah – pretty impressive. Or how they managed to have like 5 kids after 2 of them died in birth. Tough-as-nails people.

Peace.

Slavs were Untermenschen to be exploited and killed, and that was that.

It wasn’t really quite that simple even for the most extreme Nazis, there were serious attempts by the SS after all to find “racially valuable” Slavs suitable for Germanization. Anti-Slavic (especially anti-Polish and anti-Russian) racism certainly was an important feature of Nazism, and there were quite sinister plans for large-scale ethnic cleansing operations after a German victory in areas intended for German settlement (and some attempts at such projects were made even during WW2, e. g. Aktion Zamość in Poland, or preparations for expelling most of the inhabitants of the Crimea, which was seen as ancient Gothic territory), but there still were certain ambiguities which didn’t exist in the Nazi view of Jews.
I’ve never seen it demonstrated that the phrase “Slavic Untermenschen” (or just Untermenschen when referring to Slavic populations) was common in Nazi documents, so I can only assume it’s a post-war construct (even if one founded partially on reality). If you have any information to the contrary about the use of this specific (!) phrase in authentic Nazi documents, I’d be interested in it.

And in the mid-70s nobody could have predicted the cultural rot that was about to infest the West

1970s Western countries were already quite decadent, certainly from the perspective of a traditionalist Catholic like Franco.

Yes, so? I heard someone describe an exchange between Mrs Roosevelt and someone who asked her about the use of the bombs. Apparently the asker expected the Leftist Mrs Roosevelt to say something critical about the use of the bombs. What she got was a rather icy, “My husband had the bombs built in order to use them”, with an emphasis on “use”. We had them, they didn’t. We used them. If they’d had them, they’d have used them on us. What’s the problem?

Hitler may have permanently wrecked the West.

Yep. Pretty much everything bad that has happened since 1945 is at least indirectly a consequence of Hitler’s follies (and the follies of the Nazis in general).

He permanently discredited nationalism, he turned internationalism (and its successor, globalism) into a ruling ideology of the West. He made US global hegemony possible. He ensured that any discussion at all of the consequences of racial, ethnic and cultural differences would be permanently out of bounds. He made any kind of European racial, ethnic or cultural pride impossible. His hostility to modernist art (which he correctly viewed as decadent and degenerate) made the triumph of the ugly anti-civilisational doctrine of modernism inevitable.

The Nazi enthusiasm for an idealised (and rather incoherent) vision of a traditionalist past permanently discredited traditionalism. Hitler made any genuine alliance between socialism and nationalism permanently impossible, with disastrous consequences for the Left. The Nazi hostility to sexual deviance made the triumph of the LGBT insanity inevitable. The idealised Nazi vision of family life made the destruction of the family a certainty.

Hitler made it inevitable that the Political Right would abandon any attempt to defend morality or tradition values and turn instead to the worship of greed, with disastrous consequences for the Right.

The fact that so many here try to defend him is pathetic.

Yep.

All he had to do was stay in his borders or carve out an empire in Africa or Asia. No one would have cared.

Agreed.

But he thought Germans were masters of the universe and he wanted revenge over WW1. Once he lost the battle of Britain he should have been content with most of Europe but he then made the biggest military mistake in history which was opening the second front.

The invasion of France was arguably an even bigger mistake. Britain and France had felt obligated to go to war but they weren’t particularly enthusiastic about actually prosecuting the war. After a few token battles in secondary theatres and a few pointless naval battles they might well have been willing to agree to a negotiated peace. It’s not as if they actually wanted to destroy themselves for the sake of Poland. After the Fall of France the British believed they were in an existential struggle for survival and they weren’t going to make peace.

The Germans had to be settled with once for all. The Japs weren’t showing much inclination to surrender, even after Hiroshima.

As always with Imperial Japan, reality and appearance diverged. After Saipan at the latest, the leadership knew they couldn’t win the war. Iwo Jima and Okinawa were meant to convince the Americans to abandon the unconditional surrender policy more than any realistic attempt to push them back. So the cabinet in 1945 was divided between people who’d agree to unconditional surrender provided the kokutai was preserved (aka, the emperor is left alone) and those who’d only agree to peace if, among other things, Japan could disarm itself, no occupation of the home islands, Japan handled war crimes trials itself… unrealistic stuff. Only after the atomic bombings plus the Soviet invasion did the emperor intervene on behalf of the former party.

We have no access to the imperial archives, so what motivated Hirohito to what degree is up for your speculation: though I will say that if the lives of his people were the real motivator, Operation Meetinghouse, which killed more people than Hiroshima yet nobody seems to remember, would have probably done the trick. My own personal take is that the Soviet invasion and the atomic bombs happened nearly simultaneously, and no one thing did the trick. I’m not claiming that’s the only take, let alone the right one. And it is entirely worth mentioning that there was an abortive coup attempt even after the decision to surrender.

(On the American side of things, I don’t think there’s much Truman could have done to have altered FDR’s policies, given his stark lack of political legitimacy in comparison to his massive predecessor. What FDR would have done is much more intriguing. On one hand, his relative lack of interest in Japan compared to Europe and his overweening pragmatism might have meant he’d have be willing to adjust the unconditional surrender policy into something that would let the doves in Tokyo prevail… if he knew they existed. But that’s the other thing: FDR was not a details oriented man interested in the nuts and bolts of policy. So it’s highly unlikely he would have done anything but taken Japanese propaganda at face value.

In any case, the argument about the atomic bomb always goes back to what you think of unconditional surrender in the first place. Was it worth it? I’m not going to open that can of worms. I will say that an invasion of Japan would have been horrifically ugly, and Truman, as the only modern President to experienced ground muck warfare personally, would have been fully aware of that.)

My comment wasn’t just about Alexander, but any “great man.” No matter how sound of an institution a man can build in his lifetime, an unworthy successor can destroy it in short order. The longevity of the legacy of certain men is in the realm of Providence or luck rather than any great genius.

So, again, you judge a leader by comparing what the society as he found it and how he left it. And by that metric, Franco was far ahead of his contemporaries.

Ever heard of lemmings?

I’m not sure what your point is here.

The picture is something, I’ll grant you, but not much. All prostitutes are expected to pretend they’re enjoying it, which is, I would imagine, the most humiliating part of it.

Yep. Pretty much everything bad that has happened since 1945 is at least indirectly a consequence of Hitler’s follies (and the follies of the Nazis in general).

Not true. It is a consequence of who decides what lessons are to be learned from history. Otherwise, it would be the left that was demonized. Communism has a much higher body count, but nobody cares.

I’m not sure what your point is here.

Humans are not immune to herd behavior. We tend to take cues from our peers.

What is the ‘Lemming effect’ in psycology?
This refers to a phenomenon wherein crowds of people, across various fields of life, exhibit a certain kind of behaviour for no reason other than the fact that a majority of their peers do so. Many psychologists even argue that human beings are conditioned by nature to follow the larger group instead of undertaking the risk of independent thought and action. It is named after the popular myth of rodents called lemmings found in the Arctic regions that are supposed to exhibit herd behaviour, so much so that they follow each other even when it leads them into some obviously dangerous situations that could cost them their lives.

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/what-is-the-lemming-effect-in-psycology/article22545146.ece#:~:text=This%20refers%20to%20a%20phenomenon,of%20their%20peers%20do%20so.

Europeans are jumping off the cliff together.

The picture is something, I’ll grant you, but not much. All prostitutes are expected to pretend they’re enjoying it, which is, I would imagine, the most humiliating part of it.

Jeesh.

Europeans are jumping off the cliff together.

Are humans known to follow each other off cliffs? I mean, literal ones? If not, I don’t see any reason why that should be the default hypothesis.

The Germans regained the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, a land overwhelmingly German, not the whole Czech Republic.

Yes that was the first deal they made with him. Why don’t you tell us what happened to the rest of Czechoslovakia?

They were asking only for a corridor to Danzig, not even all of Upper Silesia, taken from them by the treaty. I don’t see anything unreasonable in that.

Yes the Danzig corridor was a reasonable request and Chamberlain thought so as well. I already mentioned that the British were in talks with Poland over it. But it was Hitler that decided to break the existing deal and invade Poland. There is no reason to believe that a corridor would have appeased Hitler. He didn’t believe that Poland should exist as a country. The Nazis talked about turning Warsaw into a lake. They were drawing up colonization plans well before 1939.

Hitler had no intention of invading France or fighting Britain, his enemy was the communists.

He gambled that the British wouldn’t declare war over Poland. The fact that he was willing to gamble showed that he was fine with starting the war in the West. His reaction was basically a shrug.

If his enemy was the communists then why did he bomb so many women and children?

If the communists were his main enemy then why didn’t he attack the Soviets first? Have a look at a map of Germany’s borders in 1939. He had plenty of access points.

Not a single Hitler defender has answered this question.

I get it. You read some posts I made. They felt true, so you quickly spun up this excuse to dismiss them and maintain your teetering worldview.

There’s nothing remotely impressive about a 2.8 TFR.

A 2.8 TFR may have been low a couple of centuries ago. With modern high life expectancies and low infant mortality rates a 2.8 TFR in any western country would be disastrously high. It would cause just as many problems, if not more, than the current very low TFR of the West.

Hitler’s demands actually weren’t unreasonable. He only wanted territory lost under the Versailles treaty returned.

So how do you explain his invasions of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Denmark, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Soviet Union?

Hitler’s initial demands seemed reasonable but they just kept on increasing and increasing.

More of this blame the victim nonsense. It was already evident that the jews were pushing for this hard left world long before Hitler came along. It was they that created the Weimar Germany society, the proto SJW state, Hitler correctly saw where the world was going. There is no alternative history (no Hitler exists, no WW1 happened, etc) where the world would not end up as it is now if the jews continue to rule.

All prostitutes are expected to pretend they’re enjoying it

Clearly you don’t understand men.

Not true. It is a consequence of who decides what lessons are to be learned from history. Otherwise, it would be the left that was demonized. Communism has a much higher body count, but nobody cares.

Clearly you don’t know the basic history of Europe. Communists were half of the winners.

Actually Spain retains considerable continuity with Franco. The Catalans found this out to their cost when they tried to push for independence.
The sexual raciness of say, Almodovar films is not like in the time of the Caudillo, but serves as a rather superficial cover for elements of the system in Spain that have remained the same. So did that comic opera coup attempt by Colonel Tejero.

1. Hitler wanted the return of the Sudetenland, overwhelmingly German.
2. The Poles, emboldened by the British war guarentee, refused to negotiate in good faith.
3. Hitler learned of British plans to invade Norway and moved to prevent it.
4. Denmark could have been used by the invading allies in attacks on Germany.
5. France declared war on Germany because of their foolish alliance with the British.
6,7 Were strategic invasions due to the ever expanding war.
8. Barbarosa was supposedly undertaken because German intelligence believed the Soviets were preparing to attack Germany.

How hard would it have been for the Nazis to have killed every Jew under their control? If they’d wanted to murder all of them what need was there for a special group. An old lady could have lined up every prisoner and shot them dead. If the purpose of the camps was to kill all the prisoners, they all would have been dead. There wouldn’t be any survivors.

And in the mid-70s nobody could have predicted the cultural rot that was about to infest the West

1970s Western countries were already quite decadent, certainly from the perspective of a traditionalist Catholic like Franco.

Yeah, but at that time nobody could have predicted how far things were going to go, and at that time it seemed quite possible that it was just a temporary aberration. And in the 70s the decadence was confined to the young, and to certain segments of the youthful population.

It must have seemed quite possible that the 70s decadence was like the 1890s decadence and the 1920s decadence – essentially a passing fad that only affected a small minority of the population. There must have seemed a high probability that there would be a successful backlash by the Silent Majorities. It was also not yet evident that the decline of Christianity in western Europe was going to be permanent.

And 1970s decadence was very mild compared to what was to come a few decades later.

1. Hitler wanted the return of the Sudetenland, overwhelmingly German.

As later events conclusively proved, he wanted all of Czechoslovakia as soon as he thought he could get away with it.

5. France declared war on Germany because of their foolish alliance with the British

France and Britain declared war on Germany because Germany invaded Poland. Nobody forced Hitler to invade Poland.

8. Barbarosa was supposedly undertaken because German intelligence believed the Soviets were preparing to attack Germany.

Except that there’s no convincing evidence for that speculation.

1. Hitler wanted the return of the Sudetenland, overwhelmingly German.
2. The Poles, emboldened by the British war guarantee, refused to negotiate in good faith.

Hitler was given Sudentenland as part of a deal that he then broke by taking the rest BEFORE the invasion of Poland.

It was Hitler that was not acting in good faith and ruined his credibility early on with Chamberlain.

Why wouldn’t the Poles be skeptical of handing him territory?

Hitler’s offers to the Poles were also unreasonable. A Danzig corridor was a reasonable request but Hitler’s last offer demanded that Poland become a vassal state of Germany. By that time he had already agreed to split the country with the Soviets.

Hitler wrote very early on about taking lands for Germany from the east. The idea of him being pushed into war is a joke.

The picture is something, I’ll grant you, but not much. All prostitutes are expected to pretend they’re enjoying it, which is, I would imagine, the most humiliating part of it.

It’s an egalitarian myth that prostitutes are all innocent women that are forced into the business by circumstance.

Modern society is in denial that some women simply prefer to have sex with random men than work a boring job.

Of course this denial goes in hand with the delusion that all women should have satisfying careers. Liberals especially seem unable to conceive that there are only so many skilled labor positions to go around. Liberals are fuzzy headed egalitarians that really don’t understand the economy.

Yep. Hitler did for German nationalism what Jeff Davis and his gang did for slavery and Trump is in the process of doing for immigration restriction and the GOP. Full frontal assaults from a position of weakness generally fail, even if it feels pure and good to be fighting for the cause. If you actually want to win you need to play the long game and compromise now and then.

Trump was a last gasp effort after endless compromise. He himself represents further compromise. He has lowered immigration from record levels. That is all. He would have been considered at least an immigration moderate in any other decade.

Putting him in with Davis and Hitler is absurd. Putting in Davis with Hitler is absurd itself. You might as well put everyone to the right of open borders there while you’re at it.

If his enemy was the communists then why did he bomb so many women and children?

I assume that by “he” you mean Churchill?

For the most part, you and I stand on opposite sides of this particular debate. However, …

As later events conclusively proved, he wanted all of Czechoslovakia as soon as he thought he could get away with it.

… as far as I know, this is a fair point.

Adjective-Americans and hyphenated Americans are not-Americans.

If the communists were his main enemy then why didn’t he attack the Soviets first? Have a look at a map of Germany’s borders in 1939. He had plenty of access points.

Not a single Hitler defender has answered this question.

To answer your question to the extent to which I can:

It’s an egalitarian myth that prostitutes are all innocent women that are forced into the business by circumstance.

Did I ever say that?

I figure it’s around 90%.

Surprisingly difficult. German industrial interests wanted to preserve exterminnation through labor on the continent, and though the SS was on the ascendancy, they had not achieved the kind of power they would have in the last year of the war yet, with the exception of the occupied USSR. Poland, home to the next biggest share of Jews, was somewhat in between the USSR and the rest of Europe.

Furthermore, 5 million of Europe’s Jews lived in the USSR, which meant they could flee east or join partisan bands, ans the official decision for wholesale extermination was not taken until late 1941. German policy in the east already betrayed genocidal overtones, to be sure, but that first summer was a haphazard affair with each commander having a degree of leeway, in finest Aufstragtaktik fashion, in how far they wished to go.

It is worth mentioning that the kill ratio for Soviet POWs, a group the Nazis could control far more effectively, was higher than it was for Jews for the first six months of that campaign. The Germans just left them to starve in open enclosures until they failed to capture Moscow and Hitler approved their use as labor. Again: you do not have to buy into The Narrative to accept just how evil the Nazi regime really was.

If Hitler’s main goal was just destroying the Soviet Union, the Poles probably would have been quite happy to get on board and help with that on any terms short of becoming a satellite. Unfortunately, Hitler was also interested in colonizing the East with Germans and eliminating the natives, thus acheiving the impressive record of turning Stalin into a lesser evil.

1. To seize from Poland lands Germans regarded as German was a more immediate priority.

It was always Hitler’s intention to seize from Poland lands which were in fact Polish.

3. In August 1939, Stalin was willing to deal with Hitler whereas Chamberlain was not. (I do not blame Chamberlain. I merely note the fact.)

Subsequent events clearly demonstrated that Chamberlain was correct in his assessment that negotiating with Hitler was futile.

4. Hitler disbelieved that Chamberlain would really go to war over Poland

.

A fine example of Hitler’s foolishness and recklessness and his reliance on wishful thinking. The British declaration of war in 1914, to defend the neutrality of Belgium, should have alerted him to the fact that British threats of war should have been taken very seriously indeed.

It was also a fine example of Hitler’s poor judgment of people – he fatally misjudged Chamberlain.

6. Nevertheless, war in the west had been declared. The western allies had mobilized. Hitler calculated that the forthcoming Operation Barbarossa could ill tolerate mobilized, hostile western powers on Germany’s rear flank.

Which is in fact an admission that Hitler intended to launch a war of aggression against the Soviet Union.

It’s an egalitarian myth that prostitutes are all innocent women that are forced into the business by circumstance.

Did I ever say that?

I figure it’s around 90%.

Do you have any actual evidence for that? I’m not saying you’re wrong but I’d like to see some actual evidence. Anyone can pluck a figure like 90% out of thin air.

Prostitution is a difficult subject to debate since almost everything ever written on the subject has been written by people with very definite axes to grind.

It is always a pleasure to spar with you, sir! I enjoy it every time. I doubt that you and I are likely to agree in this particular matter, but that’s all right.

Someday, when you have time, consider reading ’s point again. I am not entirely sure that you took the meaning from it that it meant to convey.

It seems ideology is now secondary to psychology, much of it abnormal.

What we are witnessing is so much lunacy with no relation to reality.

At least when communism was a major movement in the late 19th century and 20th century, there were workers trapped in terrible conditions. There was violent class repression. So, even if communism ultimately proved not to be the answer, its promises had something to do with reality.

And the same could be said of Civil Rights Movement. Whatever one thinks of MLK and the demands, blacks were second-class citizens in the US without full guarantee of rights.

And even though, in retrospect, anti-communist rhetoric was exaggerated — Soviet Union never had more missiles than the US and had huge economic problems, and communist victory in Vietnam wasn’t going to lead to all the dominoes falling — , there really was a Cold War and the Soviet Empire to rival US empire.

But today, there is MORE hysteria, paranoia, rage, and hatred but with no relation to reality. BLM is based on total falsehood. Russia wants peace and trade, not a Cold War. But the anti-Russian hatred is beyond belief. Border security is what national stability and Rule of Law are about, but ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’ claim that detaining illegals is like the Holocaust all over again. Trump is a fool, clown, and charlatan, but is he ‘literally Hitler’? Russia Collusion stuff was a total hoax, but half the nation from elites to masses were totally enthralled with it. A free press is supposed to about clarifying the truth, not using smoke-and-mirrors in collusion with Deep State. Covid is a problem, and precautions should be taken, but is it really End of the World scenario where entire economies must be sanctioned for ‘recovery’?

When ideology is based on mindless idolatry of Jews, blacks, homos, & ‘muh diversity’ and when it has no relation to actual reality, it’s no longer about clash of visions or values. It’s about dealing with mass psychosis created by PC indoctrination and Pop Culture degeneracy, along with fading of true faith, heritage, tradition, family, and things that really matter.

In the past, dealing with leftists was to wrestle with wrong ideas. Though leftist or radical solutions were misguided, they were still addressing some real problems and serious issues. Today, we are not dealing with wrong ideas but CRAZY notions. Some of it is surely ‘larping’ as a whole bunch of Antifa kids seem to be bored with life and seeking some kind of ‘authenticity’ by taking some kind of action, especially as globalism has hollowed out the middle class, which means that many young ones don’t have much of a future. But others really believe in the nonsense.

In a sane and mature society, the craziness is balanced by critical mindset championed by liberals and caution & culture of respect urged by conservatives. But liberal culture of free thought & free speech centered on critical thinking is dead. And conservatism just became cravenism and opportunism. Cowards too afraid to displease their Jewish masters or greedy little shills of big money. When GOP’s main funding base is Koch Brothers and Las Vegas — and when John Boehner is now a salesman for Weed — , where is the culture of adulthood?

Without liberal criticality and conservative sobriety to push back against the nuttery, the lunacy just grows worse. Antifa is Peter-Pan-ism with clubs. BLM is like a horror movie: All these brave black souls battling evil white cop zombies and KKK everywhere. It’s all based on fantasy.
In a way, young people today probably feel cheated because all the great causes were in the 20th century. So, just like the music industry and movie industry, all they have is to rejigger past causes and events so that they too could feel part of a great movement.
So, cops are the KKK, and Trump is ‘hitler’, and Putin is the ‘other hitler’. (As Jews control media and academia, they taught young ones to see Evil in terms of ‘racist’, ‘nazi’, or ‘anti-semite’. Or ‘homophobe’.) And Conservatism Inc seem to be nostalgic for the Cold War and must seek out the New Evil Empire. John Bolton is a psychotic on the ‘right’.
Speaking of mental illness, what bigger proof is there than homo-mania? What sane person believes in ‘gay marriage’? And yet, in mass psychotic US, 80% support it. And it seems majorities in many nations now believe a tranny is really a ‘woman’. And even though Jews rule the US, if you notice Jewish Power, you are ‘delusional’.

Maybe it’s time to stop calling them the ‘left’, ‘liberal’, or ‘progressive’ and start calling them out on their psychological states. They should be called hysterics, paranoids, psychotics, delusionals, schizos. We need Schizology to understand what is really going on. (And these terms also apply to ‘conservatives’, as most of them are bimbo idiots or cuck shills. Alt Right held some promise, but the mental states of Richard Spencer, Chris Cantwell, and Matt Heimbach suggests they are looney in their own ways.) Given the current mass mental state of the US, it’s no wonder we had presidents like Obama and Trump. Obama the narcissist hustler and Trump the snake-oil salesman. And who’s the candidate now? Biden the mentally-gone nominee. And why not? In a crazy nation, having a working mind is actually a handicap.

There is medical craziness and mass craziness. Tiny percentage of people are genuinely schizo or delusional. They see and hear things that are obviously not there. Most people are not mentally abnormal. They are not medically crazy. And yet, how come so many people can become mass-crazy? How did so many Chinese become lunatic Red Guards? How did Germans, the most educated people, become minions of pathological Hitler? How did Jews, the most cerebral people, become such diehard fanatics of communism?

In a way, we are already partly trans-human. We don’t yet have machines and man merged into one, which is still sci-fi stuff in the future. And yet, especially in our electronic age, the various devices such as radio, TV, smartphones, and internet function as extensions of our eyes and ears. So, even if we are not medically crazy, we can be fed with lots of crazy, false, stupid, ridiculous, degrading, and hysterical notions. Even non-crazy people can be made mass-crazy with endless streams of nonsense about stuff like Russia Collusion Hoax or “Muslims are taking over America!!”(a favorite on the ‘right’). Insofar as electronic media serve as extensions of the eyes, ears, senses, and even brains(as most people go along ‘mass opinion’ than form their own) of the masses, entire peoples can be driven mass-crazy by lots of false info, hysteric fear-mongering, delirium, paranoia, rapturous hatred, and etc. Also, the kind of people who tend to gain the most money and power tend to be sociopaths, and as such, they use the instruments of media, academia, and etc. to spread anything that furthers their agenda. Think of Soros.

Most Chinese were not medically crazy but were made mass-crazy because Mao and his flunkies controlled mass propaganda in China. Most Germans were not medically crazy but fell under the sway of Hitler and his pathological henchmen like Joseph Goebbels who gained control of media and education.

The erosion of liberal critical thinking and conservative sobriety has led to a culture dominated by PC lunacy and Pop Culture fantasies. When the control of American Liberalism went from Wasps to Jews, Jewish Liberals had a choice between choosing liberalism or tribalism, and they chose the latter, and liberalism got worse and worse as the result. Alan Dershowitz, once the face of ACLU and free speech, is now a cretin who will pull any gangster trick for Israel and Jewish Power. Cass Sunstein is no better. As ‘good liberals’, they warn of ‘fascism’ but support Jewish gangster-fascism of the worst kind.
As for conservatism, it is useless without a backbone. It needs strong sense of roots and a sense of structure. But what is American Conservatism now? It’s David French sucking up to Jewish Power and singing along with ‘money rules everything’.

Can mass craziness be stopped? Not when it spreads like a forest fire. Then, the ONLY way it can end is to burn itself out. This is why we should not oppose the Chaz-ization of blue cities. Let the lunatics run the asylum. Those who can’t learn through the mind will learn the hard way, through the body.

Welcome to Schizopolis.

“Evil”? Compared to whom? Bolsheviks? Maoists? Khmer Rouge? Aztecs? I don’t know. Were the Brits “evil” for what they did to the Irish or the Boers? Did the Spanish mistreat those they fought? “Evil” is decided by whoever writes the history and sometimes those who were considered great, say a George Washington, suddenly become evil depending on your viewpoint.

That being said, did the Nazis send the Jews east to kill them or use them for labor? How logistically hard would it have been to use one bullet per? Slave owners rarely work their laborers to death. I’m not saying the camps were paradise, I’m saying that there are a lot easier ways to “exterminate” a people than sending them closer to your enemy, housing, clothing and feeding them. Only to kill them. Doesn’t make sense. And if the Narrative really did happen, there would be absolutely no reason for nations to pass laws making it illegal to question, or even research the incident. No laws prevent research of the 30 years war, or the first world war. We can argue all day about how many Chinese died at Nanking, but not this, Very questionable.

And finally, if you do a little research on the treatment of Axis prisoners by the Soviets, you’ll find mass shootings, starvation and deprivation. ‘War is hell’ as they say, I guess.

Do you have any actual evidence for that?

Nope. I certainly don’t expect to take my word for it. I didn’t even mean it literally. I just mean to say that the overwhelming majority are probably forced into it by circumstances, albeit circumstances of their own making.

The reason I think that is because it is such a taboo to take money for sex. I would say it makes women feel as ashamed as, say, if they had a racist thought. Even drug addicts who have sex for drugs will attempt to characterize the transaction as something other than what it was.

At least among street prostitutes, drug addiction is very prevalent. Sometimes the drug addiction develops after the prostitution begins, presumably as a coping mechanism.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7143150/

Of course, higher class prostitutes may be another matter, but it’s hard knowing how many of those there are.

Maybe it’s time to stop calling them the ‘left’, ‘liberal’, or ‘progressive’ and start calling them out on their psychological states. They should be called hysterics, paranoids, psychotics, delusionals, schizos.

True. But there’s just as much craziness and evil on the Right. There’s just as much paranoia. There’s just as much hypocrisy. There’s just as much hysteria.

It’s not that the Left has become crazy and deluded and paranoid. Craziness, delusion thinking and paranoia are society-wide problems.

Being crazy, deluded and paranoid is the New Normal.

Generalplan Ost was going to be intentional genocide on a scale the world has never seen. That’s the thing about the Nazis: we basically saw the worst the Russians and Turks and Japanese and Chinese could do in real life. We didn’t even get close to seeing the worst the Germans could do.

I’d say the only regime that matches the Nazis for “pure evil” is the Khmer Rouge, and they-thankfully-controlled a third world agrarian backwater rather than the single best military in the world supported by an industrialized economy.

>And finally, if you do a little research on the treatment of Axis prisoners by the Soviets, you’ll find mass shootings, starvation and deprivation.

Over half of the Soviet prisoners taken by Nazi Germany didn’t live to see the tale, and if you focus on 1941 before Barbarossa failed and when German policy toward them was almost genocidal, the number goes up. Nobody else matches that. Not even American prisoners taken by the supposedly non-prisoner taking Imperial Japanese Army: 60% of Americans taken into their custody survived.

It’s true that the overwhelming majority of rank-and-file German prisoners taken at Stalingrad did not live to see Germany again, and I don’t doubt that Moscow didn’t care too much about that. Not going to defend Josef Stalin’s moral character, of all people, for Chrissakes. But there’s no indication that there was ever an analogue to the deliberate extermination policy pursued by Berlin: many Stalingrad prisoners were already deeply weakened by disease and frostbite. German POW survival rates skyrocketed in 1943 as the USSR’s internal situation improved.

(It’s also worth mentioning that as horrible as “normal” concentration camps like Dachau, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen etc were, death rates there were generally in control until the final months of the war when the logistical system of the Reich collapsed. For most of their existence, they were more like the gulags than the death camps: if prisoners died, it was just one of those things, but they were there to work, and they were mainly there for political or social reasons. It was a different function from the extermination camps, whose main goal was to kill people because they were Jews or Romani, and nothing more. The reason we know so much about Auschwitz is because it doubled as a concentration camp to a degree unparalleled by the others, because of its location in economically vital Upper Silesia.)

>I’m not saying the camps were paradise, I’m saying that there are a lot easier ways to “exterminate” a people than sending them closer to your enemy, housing, clothing and feeding them. Only to kill them. Doesn’t make sense.

Does Nazism or Nazi Germany make sense? It was the most irrational, inefficient form of government and ideology you can imagine, with constantly competing, conflicting interests and bureaucratic inertia. Nazis that actually wanted to get stuff done like Goebbels were exasperated that Hitler refused to reform the system… but they didn’t understand the system wasn’t reformable.

It says a lot about the innate skill level the German populace as a whole had that it lasted as long as it did.

As always in life, social class determines much of your experience. A high level escort doing it for tuition and a drug addicted street hooker doing it for her next hit are going to tell you very different things about how they feel about their profession, and what their clients tend to be like.

I think it speaks volumes that one of the things the Empress Theodora-a product of Constantinople’s slums-did in power was to set up a convent where prostitutes wishing to escape the life could take refuge, and enacted harsh laws against pimps and sex traffickers. She was very good at what she did when she was young, but she was not proud of it. The regime made much propaganda on her cleaning up her life: they didn’t hide it at all.

>The reason I think that is because it is such a taboo to take money for sex.

Whereas it is not taboo, of course, to do so for dinner, drinks, and attention from a high-status guy. Social realities are like laws: like sausages, best not to dig deeper.

“Evil”? Compared to whom? Bolsheviks? Maoists? Khmer Rouge? Aztecs? I don’t know.

There have been plenty of very nasty brutal regimes but the Nazis really were in a class of their own. They redefined our whole concept of evil. This was industrial-level evil. They also redefined our whole concept of crazy.

The only people who even approach the Nazis in craziness are the modern day Hitler apologists. No, it isn’t cool to idolise Hitler. It doesn’t make you special. It’s not like getting a tattoo or some other similar loser move. It just makes you sad and pathetic. And women are definitely not going to go out with you. You won’t ever get laid. Idolising Hitler is like wearing an Incel Pride T-shirt.

The reason I think that is because it is such a taboo to take money for sex. I would say it makes women feel as ashamed as, say, if they had a racist thought.

I’m not trying to pick a fight with you on this because I don’t know the answer either. I’d have thought the men would feel more ashamed about paying for sex, but I might be wrong.

It’s surprising how little is actually known about prostitution. For example oceans of ink have been spilled on the subject of prostitution in Victorian England but nobody has the slightest idea how many prostitutes there were. Estimates at the time and since often differed by an order of magnitude.

As for the experience of being a prostitute, the problem with asking prostitutes is that they’ll often give the answers that they think the interviewer wants to hear. And I suspect that prostitutes who actually enjoy the sex are often very reluctant to admit it, except perhaps to other prostitutes. I do remember one prostitute being interviewed on TV saying that what she liked most about her job was having half a dozen orgasms a day. Was she being truthful? Who knows? If she was being truthful was her experience typical? Who knows?

And yes, there’s likely to be a world of difference between whores who give blow jobs in cars and whores that charge a couple of grand for half an hour. Or courtesans (yes they apparently still exist) who offer the Gilfriend Experience although it will cost you as much as a good compact car. If she’s any good it might cost you as much as a good luxury car.

Or courtesans (yes they apparently still exist) who offer the Gilfriend Experience although it will cost you as much as a good compact car. If she’s any good it might cost you as much as a good luxury car.

The price is a major clue. There are lots of pretty girls, but very few who are capable of this. Every time you see a pretty waitress, consider that she could be a call girl, but here she is doing this exhausting, dirty job instead.

People are very, very different when it comes to their approach to sex.

Sex with feeling can be the biggest deal of all, but sex with little feeling can be an inconsequential act, like playing a bit of tennis.

This may not be your experience and it probably isn’t the majority experience, but it is the experience of many men and women.

There have been plenty of very nasty brutal regimes but the Nazis really were in a class of their own. They redefined our whole concept of evil. This was industrial-level evil. They also redefined our whole concept of crazy.

Okay.

Is David Irving wrong? Pat Buchanan? A. J. P. Taylor? Germar Rudolf?

Are the source documents and materials on which they rely in error?

When you read the William L. Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, are you not struck simultaneously by (a) how well sourced almost the entire book is and (b) how thinly sourced the book’s chapter on Nazi evil is?

If you weren’t, Shirer was.

Maybe the Nazis were crazy. Maybe I am too. But maybe, when the aforementioned David Irving is arrested in Austria for no crime other than questioning (during a sober invited talk at a conference venue) the received narrative of World War II, some of us will begin to wonder what the promoters of that narrative have to hide.

Personally, I find Taylor, Buchanan and Rudolf convincing, and largely Irving, too. I think that the received understanding of World War II is a load of propaganda and nonsense. You can disagree, but your appeal to ridicule (against ) that attends the disagreement is ineffective in my opinion.

People are very, very different when it comes to their approach to sex.

Sex with feeling can be the biggest deal of all, but sex with little feeling can be an inconsequential act, like playing a bit of tennis.

This is a very typically male take on prostitution, and I don’t mean that in a harsh way. After all, it makes a certain degree of logical sense. If a woman is not ashamed to have casual sex for pleasure, why would she be ashamed to have casual sex for profit?

First of all, prostitution often involves sex with married men, and this is a source of haunting shame for prostitutes who have turned their lives around.

But more fundamentally, it is humiliating to sell oneself as a an object of sexual pleasure.

Maybe the Nazis were crazy. Maybe I am too. But maybe, when the aforementioned David Irving is arrested in Austria for no crime other than questioning (during a sober invited talk at a conference venue) the received narrative of World War II, some of us will begin to wonder what the promoters of that narrative have to hide.

This is the crux of the matter. I’ve never had much of a head for names and dates, but this state of affairs is very suspicious indeed.

I’m an old married man with children and grandchildren, I’m not looking for a date. And I’m not “idolizing” anyone. My research indicates that the Germans were actually no worse than any of the other participants in the War. Most of what you parrot is just the hardcore propaganda used to keep the Germans down and to justify some of the really horrible actions of the allies. The Nazi party doesn’t appeal to me, I’m an old fashioned American conservative of the Goldwater wing, and oppose too much government control, which was a big part of National Socialism. I’m also not feeble enough to believe that laws need to be passed to prevent research into events that actually happened.

First of all, prostitution often involves sex with married men, and this is a source of haunting shame for prostitutes who have turned their lives around.

I don’t think I get it.

The prostitutes did not create the problem that resulted in the men choosing to pay money to have sex with them.

How long can that shame last – if welcomed?

Then again, if unwelcomed, I can imagine that such shame, and such an ego exaggeration of their own sexual power and responsibility, could last forever.

But more fundamentally, it is humiliating to sell oneself as a an object of sexual pleasure.

I feel that there is something missing in your equation.

Perhaps it is humiliating to have to sell oneself as an object of sexual pleasure if the reason is that no one will consider that you have any other economic value?

To be seen as worth no more than your body?

In which case, the problem is much deeper than the prostitution. But then the problem is always deeper than the surface so this is a slightly banal observation!

By the way, I suspect that some readers are thinking of a certain, well-known, black-and-white photograph of a British soldier on a bulldozer in 1945, piling up a small mountain of corpses, putatively victims of an SS extermination camp. Actually, two or three such photographs are in circulation. You have probably seen one or another of them.

Sex with feeling can be the biggest deal of all, but sex with little feeling can be an inconsequential act, like playing a bit of tennis.

“Sex without love is an empty experience. But as empty experiences go, it’s pretty good.” – Woody Allen

You can disagree, but your appeal to ridicule (against ) that attends the disagreement is ineffective in my opinion.

The fact remains that trying to defend Hitler is the ultimate loser move. No-one but a handful of convinced and zealous Hitler fanboys is going to take you seriously. As far as everyone else, 99.9% of the population, is concerned once you’ve revealed yourself as a Hitler apologist they are not going to take anything you say on any subject seriously. All you can do is to totally and permanently marginalise yourself, and discredit any worthwhile opinions you might hold on other subjects.

It’s like telling people that you’re in contact with space aliens. People will simply back slowly away while avoiding eye contact.

Hanging around on Unz Review might give some people the impression that rehabilitating Hitler is a viable project, but it’s an erroneous impression.

If you really are attracted to ultra-far right politics and/or fascism then pick another hero. You might get people to listen if you’re trying to rehabilitate Franco or Mussolini, or Pinochet, they might think you’re amusingly contrarian, but trying to rehabilitate Hitler is a fool’s errand. It’s a waste of effort. Honestly, there is nothing to be gained by it.

All the Hitler fanboys are achieving is to discredit the dissident right.

Fighting battles that can never be won isn’t cool or romantic. Sometimes lost causes are lost causes for a reason. It’s important to pick battles that might conceivably be won. The fact that 99.99% of the population disagrees with you is not proof that you’re on the right track. It’s proof that you’ve become hopelessly lost. There’s nothing romantic or cool about setting yourself up to lose.

And picking a man who brought about the futile senseless deaths of millions of white people as a champion of the white race is a loser move. It would be like a communist using Pol Pot as an example of the virtues of communism.

The prostitutes did not create the problem that resulted in the men choosing to pay money to have sex with them.

If there’s nothing shameful about having sex I don’t see why having sex for money should be shameful. We do all sorts of things for various reasons. Sometimes because we enjoy doing them, sometimes because we get paid to do them. If you do any kind of activity (from writing to playing tennis) for money you’re not actually doing anything significantly different from what prostitutes do.

The idea that prostitution is shameful is intimately connected with the idea that sex is shameful. It’s one of the unfortunate legacies of Christianity that we see sex as something that is peculiarly dirty and shameful.

I’m not advocating for prostitution or suggesting that all women should consider it as a career choice but I don’t see it as shameful.

Whether Irving deserves to be disliked or not, it doesn’t matter. But the fact that he is obviously very disliked, is more than cause enough for these legal moves.

People are treated badly just as often because they are disliked or hated, as because they are a threat.

The thing about a sadistic bureaucrat picking on someone whom they can paint as a Nazi sympathiser, is that Nazi sympathisers are so disliked, that the bureaucrat can easily get away with it.

I don’t see it as shameful either. A reasonable case may be made for the argument that I once prostituted myself, and I was pleased to have the money.

On the other hand, it is clear that many others do feel ashamed.

I therefore would encourage them to explore that sense more fully, to find out what it means to them.

My instinct is that the shame attached is a distraction from something that, if left unexplored, will inevitably haunt them. It is a part of them that they can’t accept, so it will follow them around, while they continually look away.

I would also not encourage prostitution, as my experience is quite idiosyncratic, and therefore I’ll not pretend to have a sure understanding!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Shirts_(United_States)

The fact remains that trying to defend Hitler is the ultimate loser move. No-one but a handful of convinced and zealous Hitler fanboys is going to take you seriously. As far as everyone else, 99.9% of the population, is concerned once you’ve revealed yourself as a Hitler apologist they are not going to take anything you say on any subject seriously. All you can do is to totally and permanently marginalise yourself, and discredit any worthwhile opinions you might hold on other subjects.

Maybe you’re overthinking this.

The received history of World War II appears to be significantly false. The falsehood benefits someone. The enforcers of the falsehood are craven bullies who, one way or another, are likely to meet their comeuppance.

You can appeal to the social status of various false opinions if you wish, but The Unz Review is where we resort when we do not wish to bother about that.

It’s like telling people that you’re in contact with space aliens.

Not really.

But the fact that he is obviously very disliked, is more than cause enough for these legal moves.

Protection of unpopular people is precisely the point of free speech protections, which certain people relied upon heavily in their constant assaults on majority sensibilities last century. Who? Whom? Indeed.

In any event, the point stands. There is no need to suppress scholarship when there is nothing to hide.

The prostitutes did not create the problem that resulted in the men choosing to pay money to have sex with them.

This is not relevant. The existence of a problem in a marriage, even grave ones, does not excuse sleeping with someone else’s spouse.

I’m not advocating for prostitution or suggesting that all women should consider it as a career choice

Why not?

Should unemployment benefits be denied to women who turn down a job at a brothel? (In the Netherlands, this is a real question.) How about a man who has a wife he could send to work in a brothel to make ends meet while he’s between jobs?

Why or why not?