The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Laurent Guyénot Archive
Joseph P. Kennedy, the Cursed Peacemaker
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

There can be no complete understanding of John Kennedy without some understanding of his father, Joseph Patrick Kennedy, for this is where he came from, not only in his own eyes and those of his friends, but in the eyes of his enemies too. The same is true for his brother Robert, of course.

I have emphasized before that, although very different in character, John and Robert Kennedy may be seen, from the point of view of their historical significance, as one person killed twice. But it should be stressed that their unity was grounded in their filial piety. I learned from David Nasaw’s biography, The Patriarch: The Remarkable Life and Turbulent Times of Joseph P. Kennedy (2012), that it was their father Joe who insisted that Jack name Bobby Attorney General, because “Jack needed someone in the cabinet in whom he had complete and absolute trust.” Robert didn’t like the idea, arguing that “nepotism was a problem,” and John was reluctant to pressure Bobby.

He decided to offer Bobby the number two position at the Defense Department and asked Clark Clifford, who was running his transition team, to go to New York to explain to [Joe] Kennedy, who had flown there after visiting Jackie and his new grandson in the hospital, why Bobby should not be named attorney general. Clifford agreed, though he thought it rather odd that the president-elect had asked “a third party to try to talk to his father about his brother.” Clifford met Kennedy at Kennedy’s apartment and presented his carefully rehearsed case against the appointment. “I was pleased with my presentation; it was, I thought, persuasive. When I had finished, Kennedy said, ‘Thank you very much, Clark. I am so glad to have heard your views.’ Then, pausing a moment, he said, ‘I do want to leave you with one thought, however — one firm thought.’ He paused again, and looked me straight in the eye. ‘Bobby is going to be Attorney General. All of us have worked our tails off for Jack, and now that we have succeeded I am going to see to it that Bobby gets the same chance that we gave to Jack.’ I would always,” Clifford recalled years later, “remember the intense but matter-of-fact tone with which he had spoken — there was no rancor, no anger, no challenge.” The father had spoken, and his sons, on this issue at least, were expected to obey.[1]David Nasaw, The Patriarch: The Remarkable Life and Turbulent Times of Joseph P. Kennedy, Penguin Books, 2012, pp. 818-819.

Although there is no recorded statement to that effect, Joe probably envisioned that Robert could succeed Jack as president in 1968. And it is easy to imagine that, had John survived and been reelected in 1964, Robert, with John’s support and under his watch, could have inherited the White House. We may ponder what the world would be like today had there been Kennedys in the White House until 1976.

John and Robert shared a common horror of modern war, and that, too, was their father’s legacy. John was a genuine war hero decorated with the Navy and Marine Medal for “extremely heroic conduct.” Yet on Victory in Europe Day, May 8, 1945, as a young journalist covering the founding conference of the United Nations in San Francisco, he wrote in the Herald-American: “Any man who had risked his life for his country and seen his friends killed around him must inevitably wonder why this has happened to him and most important what good will it do. . . . it is not surprising that they should question the worth of their sacrifice and feel somewhat betrayed.”[2]Christ Matthews, Jack Kennedy, Elusive Hero, Simon & Schuster, 2011, pp. 71-72. When announcing his candidacy for Congress on April 22, 1946, JFK declared: “Above all, day and night, with every ounce of ingenuity and industry we possess, we must work for peace. We must not have another war.”[3]James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Touchstone, 2008, p. 5. Hugh Sidey, one of his journalist friends, wrote about him: “If I had to single out one element in Kennedy’s life that more than anything else influenced his later leadership it would be a horror of war, a total revulsion over the terrible toll that modern war had taken on individuals, nations, and societies, and the even worse prospects in the nuclear age. . . . It ran even deeper than his considerable public rhetoric on the issue.”[4]Quoted in Robert Kennedy, Jr., American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family, HarperCollins, 2018, p. 101. John once said to his friend Ben Bradlee that he believed that “the primary function of the president of the United States [was] to keep the country out of war.”[5]Quoted in Robert Kennedy, Jr., American Values, p. 101.

That was the conviction that had guided his father throughout his political life in Franklin Roosevelt’s government, until his resignation in December 1940. As U.S. ambassador to London, Joe Kennedy wholeheartedly supported Neville Chamberlain’s policy of “appeasement” in 1938-39. He wanted peace as passionately as Churchill wanted war. “I am pro-peace, I pray, hope, and work for peace,” Joe declared on his first return from London to the U.S. in December 1938.[6]Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt: The Uneasy Alliance, Open Road, 1979, p.187. For this, he ended in the wrong side of history, which Churchill took care to write himself.

The Stain of Appeasement

Like his father, President Kennedy was a determined peacemaker, and those in the Pentagon who wanted to push the U.S. into a third world war tried to destabilize him with insinuations that he was an appeaser like his father. On October 19, 1962, in the heat of the Cuban Missile Crisis, as Kennedy resolved to blockade Soviet shipments rather than bomb and invade Cuba, General Curtis LeMay scornfully told him, “This is almost as bad as the appeasement at Munich . . . I just don’t see any other solution except direct military intervention right now.”[7]Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 21.

The stain of his father’s record as a Hitler-appeaser had followed John like a shadow. Although the press had not published it, it was no secret in the Pentagon and the CIA that the U.S. army had discovered in 1946, in Berlin’s Foreign Office, reports about Joe’s meetings with German ambassador von Ribbentrop and his successor von Dirksen, that said that Joe was Germany’s “best friend” in London and “understood our Jewish policy completely.”[8]Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 349.

Ambassadors Joseph P. Kennedy and Joachim von Ribbentrop
Ambassadors Joseph P. Kennedy and Joachim von Ribbentrop

In a joint debate during the 1960 Democratic convention, Johnson had attacked John as being the son of a “Chamberlain umbrella man” who “thought Hitler was right.”[9]Robert Caro, The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol. IV: The Passage of Power, Alfred Knopf, 2012, p. 104. Also in Arthur Krock, Memoirs: Sixty Years on the Firing Line, Funk & Wagnalls, 1968, p. 362. During Kennedy’s presidential campaign, the Israeli press worried that Kennedy’s father “never loved the Jews and therefore there is a question about whether the father did not inject some poisonous drops of anti-Semitism in the minds of his children, including his son John’s.”[10]In the journal of the Herut, Menachem Begin’s political party, quoted in Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2013, p. 252. Abraham Feinberg recalls that when he invited Kennedy to his apartment to discuss his campaign funding with “all the leading Jews,” one of them set the tone with this remark: “Jack, everybody knows the reputation of your father concerning Jews and Hitler. And everybody knows that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.” Kennedy came back outraged from that meeting (but with the promise of $500,000).[11]Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, Random House, 1991, p. 96. When meeting the new president on May 30, 1961 in New York, Ben-Gurion could not help but see in him the son of a Hitler-appeaser. Feinberg (who arranged the meeting) recalls that “Ben-Gurion could be vicious, and he had such a hatred of the old man [Joe Kennedy].”[12]Hersh, The Samson Option, p. 103.

Is Joe’s bad reputation among Jews relevant to the assassination of his two sons? Many Jewish authors think it is. In his book The Kennedy Curse, purporting to explain “why tragedy has haunted America’s first family for 150 years”, Edward Klein links the “Kennedy curse” to Joe’s anti-Semitism, citing a story “told in mystical Jewish circles” (perhaps made up by Klein) according to which, in “retaliation” to some remark Joe made to “Israel Jacobson, a poor Lubavitcher rabbi and six of his yeshiva students, who were fleeing the Nazis,” “Rabbi Jacobson put a curse on Kennedy, damning him and all his male offspring to tragic fates.”[13]Edward Klein, The Kennedy Curse: Why Tragedy Has Haunted America’s First Family for 150 Years, Saint Martin’s Press, 2004. Ronald Kessler, for his part, wrote a book titled, The Sins of the Father — a not so subtle allusion to Exodus 20:5: “I, Yahweh, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.” Naturally, for Kessler, Joe Kennedy’s worst sin was that “he was a documented anti-Semite and an appeaser of Adolf Hitler” who “admired the Nazis.”[14]Ronald Kessler, The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded, Coronet Books, 1997, quotes from the publisher’s presentation and the back cover.

ORDER IT NOW

The “Kennedy curse” did run into the third generation and possibly the fourth, when John’s only son died in a suspicious plane accident on July 16, 1999, with his wife, possibly pregnant. Five days later, John Podhoretz, son of neoconservative luminary Norman Podhoretz, published in the New York Post an opinion piece titled “A Conversation in Hell” in which he imagined Satan speaking to Joe Kennedy in Hell. The devil rejoices at the idea of eternally torturing Joe for “saying all those nice things about Hitler,” and brags of having caused the death of his grandson because, he says: “When I make a deal for a soul like yours, I need to season it before I’m ready to put it in the infernal oven.” This hateful fantasy, which is reminding of the Talmud’s depiction of Jesus in Hell, illustrates the devouring hatred of some Jewish intellectuals toward the Kennedys, and the root of that hatred in Joe Kennedy’s effort to prevent the Second World War.[15]John Podhoretz, “A Conversation in Hell,” New York Post, July 21, 1999, on nypost.com

Interestingly, Podhoretz’s devil (or is it Yahweh?) accuses Kennedy of having done “everything you could to prevent Jewish emigration from Nazi Germany. Thousands of Jews died because of you.” The truth is exactly the opposite. In 1938, the “Kennedy Plan”, as the press called it, was to rescue German Jews. Since the U.S. government refused to open its borders to Jewish refugees, and since Great Britain strictly limited Jewish immigration to Palestine, Joe was urging the British government to open up its African colonies for temporary resettlement. “To facilitate the resettlement process,” Nasaw writes, “Kennedy volunteered to Halifax that he ‘thought that private sources in America might well contribute $100 or $200 million if any large scheme of land settlement could be proposed.’”[16]Nasaw, The Patriarch, pp. 403-406. The plan was presented to Chamberlain just days after Kristallnacht (9-10 November 1938), and was supported by Jewish financier Bernard Baruch. But it angered the Zionists, who didn’t want to hear about any Jewish emigration except to Palestine, because, Ben-Gurion said, it “will endanger the existence of Zionism.”[17]Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 1: The False Messiah, Clarity Press, 2009, p. 164. Therefore, today, the “Kennedy Plan” is reviled as a kind of “final solution to the Jewish question,” and further proof that Joe was Israel’s mortal enemy.[18]Clive Irving, “Joe Kennedy’s answer to the Jewish question: ship them to Africa,” Apr. 14, 2017, on www.thedailybeast.com

If Jewish hatred of Joe Kennedy could still inspire Podhoretz’s nasty column in 1999, imagine how deep it ran in the 1960s. At the height of his showdown with JFK over Dimona, 25 April 1963, Ben-Gurion wrote him a seven-page letter explaining that his people was threatened with extermination by a newly formed Arab Federation, just like when “six million Jews in all the countries under Nazi occupations (except Bulgaria), men and women, old and young, infants and babies, were burnt, strangled, buried alive.” “Imbued with the lessons of the Holocaust,” Avner Cohen comments, “Ben Gurion was consumed by fears for Israel’s security.”[19]Avner Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, Columbia UP, 1998, pp. 10, 119. He was enraged by what he saw as Kennedy’s obvious lack of concern for his people’s security, and at this point, he must have decided that Kennedy was indeed his father’s son, a modern-day Haman.

Before we get to the main piece of evidence of a direct relationship between Joe Kennedy’s appeasement policy and John Kennedy’s assassination, let us get an overview of Joe’s public career, using mainly David Nasaw’s biography and on Michael Beschloss’s Kennedy and Roosevelt: The Uneasy Alliance (1979).

The Ambassador

Joe Kennedy entered national politics as a supporter of Roosevelt in his first presidential campaign in 1932. In July 1934, Roosevelt asked him to chair the newly created Securities and Exchange Commission, charged with bringing the New Deal to Wall Street by regulating and disciplining the Stock Exchange market. Kennedy announced: “the days of stock manipulation are over. Things that seemed all right a few years ago find no place in our present-day philosophy.” According to Beschloss, Kennedy “won almost universal praise for his salesmanship, political acumen, and ability to moderate conflicting sides that encouraged capital investment and economic recovery.” “Few were more impressed by Kennedy’s accomplishment than the man who hired him,” and “Joseph Kennedy increasingly became a familiar figure at the White House.”[20]Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, pp. 105-109.

In 1936, Joe supported Roosevelt’s second campaign with a book titled I’m for Roosevelt (mostly ghost-written by Arthur Krock). He was hoping to be named Secretary of the Treasury, but Henry Morgenthau Jr. also wanted the job, and got it. Instead, Roosevelt named Joe chairman of the Maritime Commission, and one year later made him ambassador to London. As war was brooding in Europe, this was an important position, and Joe made it more important by often overstepping his Secretary of State Cordell Hull’s instructions.

He supported Chamberlain’s position that the territorial integrity of Czechoslovakia was not worth a war, declaring in September 2, 1938, “for the life of me I cannot see anything involved which could be remotely considered worth shedding blood for,” a statement for which he was reprimanded by Hull and Roosevelt.[21]Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 373; also Beschloff, Kennedy and Roosevelt, p. 180. On October 19, Joe began another speech by jokingly listing the topics he had decided not to talk about, including “a theory of mine that it is unproductive for both democratic and dictator countries to widen the division now existing between them by emphasizing their differences, which are self-apparent.”[22]Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 396. Hull held a press conference the next morning to clarify that Kennedy had been speaking for himself, not the government, and Roosevelt delivered his own display of belligerence: “There can be no peace if national policy adopts as a deliberate instrument the threat of war.”[23]Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, pp. 185-186.

In the meantime, without informing Hull, Kennedy had summoned Charles Lindbergh to London and asked him to write a letter, to be forwarded to Washington and to Whitehall, summarizing his view regarding the strength of the Luftwaffe. Lindbergh had just visited German airfields (and been presented the Service Cross of the German Eagle by Goering), and concluded that the Luftwaffe would be unassailable in a war of the skies. Kennedy then arranged a meeting between Lindbergh and an official of the British air ministry.[24]Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, p. 182. His diplomatic strategy consisted in trying to convince the British that Germany was unbeatable and that the U.S. wouldn’t join the fight, so that the British had better come to terms with Germany, whose territorial claims were justified anyway.

In the same period, Joe made plans to meet in Paris with Dr. Helmuth Wohlthat, Goering’s chief economic adviser, with whom he had made contact through James Mooney, the president of General Motors Overseas. As Nasaw explains, “Kennedy was in effect laying the groundwork for a new appeasement strategy, one that would buy Hitler off by providing him with the means to convert his war economy to a peace economy.”[25]Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 425. Hull forbade him to go to Paris, so Joe met Wohlthat in London without informing Hull.

In August 23, 1939, a week before Hitler invaded Poland, Kennedy urged Roosevelt, in vain, to pressure the Polish government to cede territory to Germany.[26]Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 445. After Hitler’s invasion, Kennedy, like Chamberlain, was heartbroken: “It’s the end of the world . . . the end of everything,” he told Roosevelt on the phone.[27]Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, p. 199. But a week later, he was still urging him to save peace, writing him: “It seems to me that this situation may crystallize to a point where the President can be the savior of the world. The British government as such certainly cannot accept any agreement with Hitler, but there may be a point when the President himself may work out plans for world peace.”[28]Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, p. 201. He got his response from Hull: “The people of the United States would not support any move for peace initiated by this Government that would consolidate or make possible a survival of a regime of force and of aggression.”

Simultaneously, Roosevelt was initiating direct contact with Churchill, now First Lord of the Admiralty and soon to be Prime Minister. From Roosevelt’s letters, Churchill got enough confidence that the U.S. would ultimately join the war if it broke out, and he bet everything on it. Joe was infuriated when learning about this most irregular channel of communication, at a time when the President was bound by neutrality laws and the American people overwhelmingly opposed to U.S. engagement. Joe was particularly distressed by Roosevelt’s trust in Churchill, whom Joe considered “an actor and a politician. He always impressed me that he’d blow up the American Embassy and say it was the Germans if it would get the U.S. in.”[29]Nasaw, The Patriarch, pp. 460-461. The quote is from Joe Kennedy’s diary, according to David Irving, who renders it slightly differently in Churchill’s war, vol. 1: The Struggle for Power, Focal Point, 2003, p. 207. In early December 1939, Kennedy confided to Jay Pierrepont Moffat of the State Department that Churchill “is ruthless and scheming. He is also in touch with groups in America which have the same idea, notably, certain strong Jewish leaders.”[30]Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 476.

ORDER IT NOW

After the defeat of France, Kennedy saw a new opportunity for peace. He cabled Washington on May 27, 1940, recommending that the President push Britain and France to negotiate an end to the crisis, as Lord Halifax, still Foreign Secretary, was actually proposing. “I suspect that the Germans would be willing to make peace with both the French and British now — of course on their own terms, but on terms that would be a great deal better than they would be if the war continues.”[31]Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 496.

Although aware that Roosevelt was now ignoring him, Joe remained at his post until October 1940. Before leaving, he wrote a note to Chamberlain, then a broken and dying man: “For me to have been any service to you in your struggle is the real worthwhile epoch in my career. You have retired but mark my words the world will yet see that your struggle was never in vain. My job from now on is to tell the world of your hopes. Now and forever, Your devoted friend, Joe Kennedy.”[32]Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 534. Joe Kennedy was still a convinced appeaser, determined to give peace every chance.

David Irving mentions that, before boarding a ship from Lisbon to New York, Kennedy “pleaded with the State Department to announce that, even if this vessel mysteriously blew up in mid-Atlantic with an American ambassador on board, Washington would not consider it a cause for war. ‘I thought,’ wrote Kennedy in his scurrilous unpublished memoirs, ‘that would give me some protection against Churchill’s placing a bomb on the ship.’”[33]David Irving, Churchill’s war, vol. 1: The Struggle for Power, Focal Point, 2003, p. 207.

Kennedy arrived in New York October 27, a week before election day. He knew enough of Roosevelt’s secret contacts with Churchill to endanger his reelection. He was seriously considering speaking out to the press. In a wire to his lover and admirer Clare Booth Luce, he promised a bombshell that would “put twenty-five million Catholic voters behind [Republican candidate] Wendell Willkie to throw Roosevelt out.”[34]Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, pp. 15-16.

But Joe had a strong sense of loyalty, and his wife reminded him of a political truth instinctive to them both: “The President sent you, a Roman Catholic, as Ambassador to London, which probably no other President would have done. . . . You would write yourself down as an ingrate in the view of many people if you resign now.”[35]Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, pp. 43 and 230. After a long conversation with Roosevelt on the day of his arrival, of which nothing has transpired, Kennedy gave a radio address over CBS on October 29 to endorse Roosevelt, but not without reasserting his “conviction that this country must and will stay out of war.” A few days later, with Joe Kennedy by his side, Roosevelt made his own pledge: “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars!”[36]Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, pp. 235-237. Roosevelt was elected. On December 1, 1940, Kennedy delivered his resignation letter, and told reporters: “My plan is . . . to devote my efforts to what seems to me to be the greatest cause in the world today . . . That cause is to help the President keep the United States out of war.”[37]Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, p. 247.

On December 17, Roosevelt revealed at a press conference his plans to provide billions of dollars in war supplies to Great Britain in the form of Lend-Lease (eventually, the U.S. would supply England with $13 billion). Joe expressed privately his feeling of having been exploited by the President. But he stayed in relatively good terms with Roosevelt, although he refused to support his nomination for a fourth term, when he visited him on October 26, 1944 in the White House. Kennedy recorded in his notes telling the President — a very sick man — that the Catholic voters were hesitant to vote for him because “they felt that Roosevelt was Jew controlled.” He added that he agreed “with the group who felt that the Hopkins, Rosenmans, and Frankfurters, and the rest of the incompetents would rob Roosevelt of the place in history that he hoped, I am sure, to have. . . . Roosevelt went on to say ‘Why, I don’t see Frankfurter twice a year.’ And I said to him, ‘You see him twenty times a day but you don’t know it because he works through all these other groups of people without your knowing it.’”[38]Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 625; Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, p. 279.

After his resignation in 1941, Joe had envisioned writing a memoir of his London years, and told his friend and former president Herbert Hoover that the book would “put an entirely different color on the process of how America got into the war and would prove the betrayal of the American people by Franklin D. Roosevelt.” But, Beschloss comments, “the necessities of wartime unity and, later, his sons’ political careers kept Joseph Kennedy’s diplomatic memoir out of print, where it remained.”[39]Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, p. 273.

Here, there is an interesting parallel with James Forrestal, another American patriot of Irish Catholic stock and a friend of Joe Kennedy. As David Martin shows in his book The Assassination of James Forrestal (summarized here), when Forrestal was pushed out of the Defense Department by Truman in March 1949, he planned to write a book and to start a magazine. As Navy Secretary, he had gained inside knowledge of Roosevelt’s scheme to provoke the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor. In 1945, he had worked behind the scene to achieve a negotiated surrender from the Japanese, and was very bitter about Roosevelt’s demand for “unconditional surrender” and the unnecessary suffering imposed on the Japanese. Forrestal had also much to say about the way the Zionists obtained the Partition Plan at the U.N. General Assembly, or about the way Truman was bought into supporting the recognition of Israel. On April 2, 1949, Forrestal was interned against his will and forcibly confined in the 16th floor of the Navy hospital of Bethesda, and on May 22 was declared to have fallen from a window while trying to hang himself from it with a dressing-gown sash. No criminal investigation was conducted, but the evidence obtained by David Martin through a Freedom of Information Act leaves no doubt that he was assassinated by the Zionist mafia.

ORDER IT NOW

It is easy to imagine that, had Joe Kennedy decided to expose Roosevelt’s betrayal of the American people and the Jewish intrigues to push him into the war, he might have suffered the same fate as Forrestal. Instead, he retired from public life and devoted his remaining influence to his sons’ political future. Despite the death of his eldest son Joe Jr. in a high-risk mission in 1944, he achieved his presidential ambition through his second son. The “Kennedy curse,” however, would ultimately catch up with his lineage.

John Kennedy’s Intellectual Filiation

John has always been loyal to his father’s memory, and there is enough evidence that he shared his most fundamental principles and his views of World War II. In 1956, in his book Profiles in Courage, John praised Senator Robert Taft for having, at tremendous personal cost, denounced in 1946 the hanging of eleven Nazi officials as “a blot on the American record which we shall long regret.”[40]Robert Taft, October 6, 1946, quoted in John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, 1956, Harper Perennial, 2003 , p. 199. One symbolic hint of President Kennedy’s intellectual and political filiation with his father was his invitation of Charles Lindbergh on May 11, 1962, for a grand reception at the White House. Lindbergh and his wife caused a sensation when they dined at the presidential table and stayed overnight at the White House.[41]“Visit of Charles A. Lindbergh”, on www.jfklibrary.org Let’s recall that, in September 1940, Lindbergh had been a founding member of the America First Committee and the staunchest critic of Roosevelt’s ploys to drag the U.S. into the war.[42]Lynne Olson, Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941, Random House, 2013. His reputation had suffered tremendously from his criticism of Jewish influence, and he had been living as a recluse ever since.

Kennedy had nothing to gain politically from inviting Lindbergh very publicly to the White House. The significance of this gesture should not be underestimated. It probably demonstrates a wish to vindicate the vilified appeasers of 1938-40. Lindbergh at the White House may have been a sign that the wheel was turning, and that history would soon be written in a more balanced way. John’s assassination halted and reversed this movement. Half a decade later, along with the expansion of Israel, the dark cult of the Holocaust would start swamping over the U.S. and the world. Arguably, if Kennedy had lived, there would be no compulsory Holocaust religion today.

For those like David Ben-Gurion whose self-image and worldview revolved around the Holocaust, the Kennedy brothers were essentially sons of a Hitler-appeaser and Nazi-supporter, and their leadership of the United-States was an existential threat as well as an intolerable insult. Although, for obvious reasons, this murderous hatred is seldom expressed publicly (John Podhoretz’s “A Conversation in Hell” is a remarkable exception), it is a critical fact to take into account in our quest to solve the mystery of the “Kennedy curse.” And it sheds a bright light on one of the most bizarre aspects of JFK’s assassination.

In his 1967 book titled Six Seconds in Dallas: a micro-study of the Kennedy assassination proving that three gunmen murdered the President, Josiah Thompson first drew attention to a character who can be seen on the Zapruder film and on other photographs taken in Dealey Plaza at the moment of JFK’s assassination. Here is how Thompson presents him in a short video recorded by Errol Morris for the New York Times in 2011:

On November 22nd, it rained the night before. But everything cleared by about 9 or 9:30 in the morning. So if you were looking at various photographs of the motorcade route, in the crowd gathered there, you will have noticed: nobody is wearing a raincoat, nobody has an open umbrella. Why? Because it’s a beautiful day. And then I noticed: in all of Dallas, there appears to be exactly one person standing under and open black umbrella. And that person is standing where the shots began to rain into the limousine. Let us call him “the umbrella man”. . . . You can see him in certain frames from the Zapruder film, standing right there by the Stemmons Freeway sign. There are other still photographs taken from other locations in Dealey Plaza, which shows the whole man standing under an open black umbrella — the only person under any umbrella in all of Dallas, standing right at the location where all the shots come into the limousine. Can any one come up with a non-sinister explanation for this? So I published this in Six Seconds, but didn’t speculate about what it meant . . . Well, I asked that the Umbrella Man to come forward and explain this. So he did. He came forward and he went to Washington with his umbrella, and he testified in 1978 before the House Select Committee on Assassinations. He explained then why he had opened the umbrella and was standing there that day. The open umbrella was a kind of protest, a visual protest. It wasn’t a protest of any of John Kennedy’s policies as president. It was a protest at the appeasement policy of Joseph P. Kennedy, John Kennedy’s father when he was ambassador to the court of Saint James in 1938 and 39. It was a reference to Neville Chamberlain’s umbrella.[43]“The Umbrella Man”, on Vimeo.com or YouTube

The black umbrella had been Chamberlain’s iconic trademark, and, after his return from Munich, a symbol of “appeasement”, both for those who supported it (some old ladies “suggested that Chamberlain’s umbrella be broken up and pieces sold as sacred relics”)[44]Patrick J. Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, Crown Forum, 2008, p. 208. and for those who opposed it (“Wherever Chamberlain traveled, the opposition party in Britain protested his appeasement at Munich by displaying umbrellas,” according to Edward Miller).

The Umbrella Man was Louie Steven Witt, and had been identified by local newsmen before he came forward to the HSCA. Josiah Thompson assumes that his “visual protest” and JFK’s assassination are unrelated, and that they happened at the exact same time and place by some kind of quantum-physics coincidence. He cannot bring himself to see the connection, even though the Umbrella Man himself made it clear to the HSCA that he wanted to “heckle” JFK about his father’s appeasement of Hitler in 1938. Knowing what we know about Jewish perception of the “Kennedy curse” as linked to the “sins of the father”, we cannot but find Thompson’s refusal to see anything conspiratorial as very typical of Gentile self-induced blindness.

Was Louie Steven Witt a Zionist agent, a sayan? Not necessarily. He might have been instructed to do what he did without knowing that Kennedy would be killed right in front of him. On the other hand, the explanation he gave for his “bad joke” sounds disingenuous: “In a coffee break conversation,” he said, “someone had mentioned that the umbrella was a sore spot with the Kennedy family. . . . I was just going to kind of do a little heckling.” Witt carefully avoided mentioning why the umbrella was “a sore spot with the Kennedy family.” He also avoided naming Joe Kennedy when he said that he had heard that “some members of the Kennedy family” had once been offended in an airport by people brandishing umbrellas. The “airport” sounds like an allusive reference to Chamberlain’s widely publicized return at the Heston Aerodrome on 30 September 1938. There is clearly a cryptic undertone in Witt’s explanation. For those Unz Review readers who have ears to hear and eyes to see, executing JFK while “heckling” him about his father’s appeasement policy should be an unmistakable signature. Chamberlain’s umbrella is Kennedy’s cross.

Laurent Guyénot, Ph.D., is the author of The Unspoken Kennedy Truth(2021), Essays on Jewish Power(2020), and From Yahweh to Zion (2018).

Notes

[1] David Nasaw, The Patriarch: The Remarkable Life and Turbulent Times of Joseph P. Kennedy, Penguin Books, 2012, pp. 818-819.

[2] Christ Matthews, Jack Kennedy, Elusive Hero, Simon & Schuster, 2011, pp. 71-72.

[3] James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Touchstone, 2008, p. 5.

[4] Quoted in Robert Kennedy, Jr., American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family, HarperCollins, 2018, p. 101.

[5] Quoted in Robert Kennedy, Jr., American Values, p. 101.

[6] Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt: The Uneasy Alliance, Open Road, 1979, p.187.

[7] Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 21.

[8] Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 349.

[9] Robert Caro, The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol. IV: The Passage of Power, Alfred Knopf, 2012, p. 104. Also in Arthur Krock, Memoirs: Sixty Years on the Firing Line, Funk & Wagnalls, 1968, p. 362.

[10] In the journal of the Herut, Menachem Begin’s political party, quoted in Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2013, p. 252.

[11] Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, Random House, 1991, p. 96.

[12] Hersh, The Samson Option, p. 103.

[13] Edward Klein, The Kennedy Curse: Why Tragedy Has Haunted America’s First Family for 150 Years, Saint Martin’s Press, 2004.

[14] Ronald Kessler, The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded, Coronet Books, 1997, quotes from the publisher’s presentation and the back cover.

[15] John Podhoretz, “A Conversation in Hell,” New York Post, July 21, 1999, on nypost.com

[16] Nasaw, The Patriarch, pp. 403-406.

[17] Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 1: The False Messiah, Clarity Press, 2009, p. 164.

[18] Clive Irving, “Joe Kennedy’s answer to the Jewish question: ship them to Africa,” Apr. 14, 2017, on www.thedailybeast.com

[19] Avner Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, Columbia UP, 1998, pp. 10, 119.

[20] Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, pp. 105-109.

[21] Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 373; also Beschloff, Kennedy and Roosevelt, p. 180.

[22] Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 396.

[23] Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, pp. 185-186.

[24] Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, p. 182.

[25] Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 425.

[26] Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 445.

[27] Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, p. 199.

[28] Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, p. 201.

[29] Nasaw, The Patriarch, pp. 460-461. The quote is from Joe Kennedy’s diary, according to David Irving, who renders it slightly differently in Churchill’s war, vol. 1: The Struggle for Power, Focal Point, 2003, p. 207.

[30] Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 476.

[31] Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 496.

[32] Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 534.

[33] David Irving, Churchill’s war, vol. 1: The Struggle for Power, Focal Point, 2003, p. 207.

[34] Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, pp. 15-16.

[35] Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, pp. 43 and 230.

[36] Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, pp. 235-237.

[37] Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, p. 247.

[38] Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 625; Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, p. 279.

[39] Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, p. 273.

[40] Robert Taft, October 6, 1946, quoted in John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, 1956, Harper Perennial, 2003 , p. 199.

[41] “Visit of Charles A. Lindbergh”, on www.jfklibrary.org

[42] Lynne Olson, Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941, Random House, 2013.

[43] “The Umbrella Man”, on Vimeo.com or YouTube

[44] Patrick J. Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, Crown Forum, 2008, p. 208.

 
Hide 318 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Laurent, many thanks for dragging this up out of the memory hole. Thanks!

    • Agree: Robin Hood, Montefrío
  2. Right_On says:

    Fascinating stuff.

    Kennedy “pleaded with the State Department to announce that, even if this vessel mysteriously blew up in mid-Atlantic with an American ambassador on board, Washington would not consider it a cause for war. ‘I thought,’ wrote Kennedy in his scurrilous unpublished memoirs, ‘that would give me some protection against Churchill’s placing a bomb on the ship.’”
    Smart man. During WWI, a week before the sinking of Lusitania, Winston Churchill [then First Lord of the Admiralty] wrote to Walter Runciman, the President of the Board of Trade, stating that it is “most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany.”

  3. anon[306] • Disclaimer says:

    “In July 1957, following a failed coup in Syria by the CIA, my uncle, Sen. John F. Kennedy, infuriated the Eisenhower White House, the leaders of both political parties and our European allies with a milestone speech endorsing the right of self-governance in the Arab world and an end to America’s imperialist meddling in Arab countries.

    In 1957, my grandfather, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, sat on a secret committee charged with investigating the CIA’s clandestine mischief in the Mideast. The so called “Bruce-Lovett Report,” to which he was a signatory, described CIA coup plots in Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Egypt, all common knowledge on the Arab street, ..’

    BY ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR. https://www.politico.eu/article/why-the-arabs-dont-want-us-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/

    Without war coup and meddling s from USA-Europe …… .

    Kennedys were thorns in the sides .

    • Replies: @anon
    , @S
    , @Mulga Mumblebrain
  4. After the defeat of France, Kennedy saw a new opportunity for peace. He cabled Washington on May 27, 1940, recommending that the President push Britain and France to negotiate an end to the crisis, as Lord Halifax, still Foreign Secretary, was actually proposing. “I suspect that the Germans would be willing to make peace with both the French and British now — of course on their own terms, but on terms that would be a great deal better than they would be if the war continues.”

    He was correct. Hitler wanted no war with the west, and offered to withdraw to 1919 German borders several times in 1940. He even sent Hess to deliver this offer directly.

    • Replies: @JM
    , @Joe Levantine
  5. I just turned 10 when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Our fifth grade teacher, a big gentle, ruddy face man, was called to the office. The usual mayhem ensued when a teacher leaves a room of fifth graders alone— paper planes thrown at everyone, spit balls, girls teased by boys, etc. When however, the teacher return to class a few minutes later, his face was white as snow. He simply uttered in a low voice, students, the president of the U.S. has been assassinated. One could hear a pin drop. Class is dismissed. Go home. Later on, I saw Lee Harvey Oswald on TV, in police custody, speak into microphones that were pointed at him and say, “I’m just a patsy.” My ten year old mind, totally believed him and It still does to this day. I marked that period as the beginning of a radical change in the U.S. leadership. I think most people who have thought a little about it, did..

    • Agree: Druid
    • Replies: @Hyper Bole
  6. Excellent article. The quote about Taft that John Kennedy made, as well as the Lindbergh invitation to the White House, are very revealing. They’re the sort of thing the MSM would either ignore or gloss over.
    A question to Laurent Guyenot. Obviously, the Umbrella Man has been mentioned by Thompson and some other authors. But are you the first to draw the connection between him, Joseph P Kennedy and the Jews ? If you are, it’s a remarkable piece of detective work. Even if you’re not, many thanks for drawing attention to this remarkable “coincidence”.

  7. I read the link that Robert Kennedy appended to his comment.

    In the third from last paragraph:
    “Other than humanitarian assistance and guaranteeing the security of Israel’s borders, the U.S. has no legitimate role in this conflict. ”

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  8. I’m glad that no attempt is made here to claim that Witt either signaling a 2nd shot or firing a dart the way that some conspiracy-scenarios have tried to claim. I agree that once I became convinced that JFK was in fact assassinated by more than just a lone nut, and that the assassination conspiracy had links with intelligence agencies, then the clear association of the Umbrella Man with “anti-appeasement” stood out as a hint as to motives. But the claims made in some corners that Witt was either firing a dart of his own or else at least signaling a 2nd shot by some hidden shooter have always seemed overstretched.

    As long as one doesn’t get into claims that Witt was himself actively a part of the assassination, then the thesis that Witt was placed there as a type of signature makes a lot of sense. It would have an overt and covert meaning. The overt message which many took from it was “John Kennedy is an appeaser in the Cold War, just like Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser of Hitler!” But the covert message is that “John Kennedy failed to support Jews, just like his father Joseph Kennedy!” Nevertheless, I doubt that Witt actually fired any shots or darts or whatever. The evidence of a conspiracy behind the assassination itself lies elsewhere.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Skeptikal
  9. fnn says:

    “In 1957, my grandfather, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, sat on a secret committee charged with investigating the CIA’s clandestine mischief in the Mideast. ”

    Surprising that Joe Kennedy would be named to such a committee in light of his reputation as an anti-Semite.

  10. djm says:

    So

    No mention of Joes liquor connections during Prohibition, dealings with individuals linked to US organised crime & stock market manipulation & insider trading ?

    • Agree: Druid
  11. Thanks for this excellent article. As an Irish-American, Joe Kennedy had no sympathy for British imperialism and thought it proper that Germany should teach the decrepit empire a good lesson about starting another devastating European war for no good reason. Churchill and FDR both despised him and kept him out of the diplomatic loop.

    There was a whistleblower not unlike Chelsea Manning who exposed the secret and illegal correspondence between FDR and Churchill. His name was Tyler Kent, a young code clerk stationed at the U.S. embassy in London, through which diplomatic dispatches from American missions across Europe were sent to Washington. Kent quickly learned that Roosevelt was doing everything in his power to subvert the law and deceive the people in order to get America into war. Kent decided to make copies or summaries of diplomatic dispatches documenting Roosevelt’s secret policies and somehow bring them to the attention of sympathetic congressmen and senators. Kent was arrested at his post in May 1940, charged with having violated the British Official Secrets Act. He was sentenced to seven years in prison, but was released and returned to the United States after serving five. FDR’s regime implied that he was a spy for Germany, rather than an American hero.

    Both JFK and his brother Joe Jr. were members of the America First Committee. So were Gerald Ford, future SCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart and a host of others, including future CBS reporter Eric Sevareid who summed up the feeling among young Americans about the war FDR was plotting, “We began to detest the very word ‘patriotism’, which we considered to be debased, a cheap medallion with which to decorate and justify a corpse.”

    Charles Lindbergh spoke for the majority of Americans when he demanded FDR end his back room scheming. He sealed his fate in his powerful Des Moines speech of Sept. 11, 1941, in which he courageously stated this inconvenient truth, “The three most-important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish, and the Roosevelt administration. Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals, who believe that their future, and the future of mankind, depend upon the domination of the British Empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.” After this he became persona non grata. FDR went as far as ordering the IRS to audit and harass him, as he did to the Chicago Tribune’s Col. McCormack and other newspaper editors critical of his policies.

    The American historian Harry Elmer Barnes believed that war could probably have been prevented in 1939 if it had not been for Roosevelt’s meddling. He wrote, “Indeed, there is fairly conclusive evidence that, but for Mr. Roosevelt’s pressure on Britain, France and Poland, and his commitments to them before September 1939, especially to Britain, and the irresponsible antics of his agent provocateur, William C. Bullitt, there would probably have been no world war in 1939, or, perhaps, for many years thereafter.”

    I also vividly remember the day JFK was killed. Future histories will recognize him as the last president of the American republic. He was followed by a succession of clowns and criminals in a pretend-democracy that replaced the real one, that tried and failed, to be truly of, by, and for, the people.

  12. anon[187] • Disclaimer says:
    @djm

    Did that hurt America ? Did his dealings destroy American future ,?Did it lead to rise of another nation at a cost to America?

    Your circling back to old tidbits of infamy looks like an attempt at gaslighting . It is like trying to undermine the achievment of Newton with stories sbout his faith in alchemy or preoccupation with anti – Christ Pope .

    • Replies: @Anon
  13. Anon[146] • Disclaimer says:

    Here we have classic CIA disinfo sheep-dipped as objective foreign opinion.

    Joe Kennedy pissed off the Izzies. Of course he did, any decent human being will piss off that psychotic genocidal death cult. GHW Bush helped the Third Reich too, but they didn’t kill his kid, they didn’t even detour his kid into the drink on Martha’s Vineyard. Not even after Poppy pissed the Izzies off again as POTUS. Why not?

    Look at the difference. Kennedy was a peacenik. Bush was financing war. And who is it that tops up their slush funds with war? CIA.

    Guyenot has one trick and he tries it over and over. There is no daylight between Mossad and CIA, they are Chang-and-Eng Siamese twins. So Guyenot fixates on Israel and ignores CIA. No objective researcher does this.

    This is not Langley, Laurent, there are smart people here.

    • Troll: Emblematic
  14. Anonymous[901] • Disclaimer says:
    @djm

    What group of people from those alleged activities would Joe have angered to such an extent for his sons to reap their wraith for four generations?

  15. Chris Moore says: • Website

    Superstitious ((Jews)) and their self-fulfilling curses — all predictive programming by the Judeofascist rabbis and totalitarian neocon gurus in control of the corrupt left.

    These Judefascists were born to infiltrate and betray humanity for their own reptillian self-advancement.

    They’ve done it over and over. So far no one has been able to stop the Serpent, only temporarily slow it down. JFK was barely a speed bump. Hitler was maybe a roadblock.

    • Agree: Druid
  16. Wyatt says:

    John and Robert Kennedy may be seen, from the point of view of their historical significance, as one person killed twice.

    If only the same had been true of Ted. About the only thing they did right was wanting to inspect the Israeli nukes at Dimona. That’s what got them merc’d.

    Good riddance to the Irish rubbish. We can only guess at how things would have turned out if Nixon was in charge during the strike on the USS Liberty, but methinks that Tricky Dick would have had more to say than that greasy bastard LBJ (selected to win the South for the son of the gangster) on the foreskinning child touchers attacking a marked American vessel.

    https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/nixon-the-jews-are-born-spies

    14 shots (13 from a gun with an 8 round capacity), 2 kills. Not as good as Lincoln, but better than Garfield.

    • Replies: @S
    , @Montefrío
  17. anon[260] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    A Kennedy still a thorn in the side of monsters:

    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/

    RFK, Jr. fights Covid BS, vaxxines, Gates, Fauxi, harm to children.

    5ds

    • Agree: Getaclue, InnerCynic, Nancy
  18. Neuday says:
    @Verymuchalive

    But are you the first to draw the connection between him, Joseph P Kennedy and the Jews ? If you are, it’s a remarkable piece of detective work. Even if you’re not, many thanks for drawing attention to this remarkable “coincidence”.

    A couple years ago I read “A Man Called Intrepid”, published in 1976, I think. William Stephenson and “Wild Bill” Donovan and the then-infant OSS worked directly between Roosevelt, Churchill, and other pro-war Brits, and around the State Department and Joe Kennedy. The book, while not explicitly naming the Jew, included enough Jewish names that it became quite clear that dual-citizenship (((Americans))) and Jewish interests were playing Roosevelt. The will of the American people was subverted by their President with the goal of getting the U.S. involved in WWII.

    This book was a bestseller back in the 1970’s, before the Chosen had become so brazen. Reading it was quite an eye-opener. It was all right there, but apparently nobody in the 70’s connected the dots.

    • Thanks: Verymuchalive, Bubba
  19. Anonymous[410] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    GHW Bush helped the Third Reich too, but they didn’t kill his kid, they didn’t even as POTUS. Why not?

    Jesus Christ on a bicycle, read a book once in a while, won’t you? And yes, in your case comic books count. He somehow helped the Nazis by flying in the Pacific Theater?

    Say it with me:

    Prescott Bush
    Prescott Bush
    Prescott Bush
    Prescott Bush
    Prescott Bush

    Learn it. Know it. Live it.

    This is not Langley, Laurent, there are smart people here.

    Not going to ask you who they are, that’s for sure.

    “The truth is exactly the opposite.” This I think is the key sentence and the key concept in this article.

    • LOL: Montefrío
  20. anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    Apple did not fall far . Did it ?

    .

    “The Case for Bombing Iran
    If the ayatollahs acquire nuclear weapons, it will be too late—and too costly—to act.”
    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/norman-podhoretz/the-case-for-bombing-iran/

  21. anonymous[139] • Disclaimer says:

    Chamberlain has been the victim of a long running vilification campaign regarding his supposed appeasement. He was trying to point Germany eastward against the USSR by placating them in the west, giving up concessions for areas Britain didn’t own anyway. He was doing what was good for his own country. Yet all the critics keep harping that they and others didn’t fight and die hard enough. The critics have never fought anyone themselves but want others to do so.

  22. @john cronk

    The problem is, of course, that Israel has no declared borders.

    • Replies: @john cronk
  23. S says:
    @Wyatt

    We can only guess at how things would have turned out if Nixon was in charge during the strike on the USS Liberty…

    Might not have been much different with Nixon.

    Thirty four intelligence collecting sailors died on the Liberty in 1967.

    In April, 1969, under Nixon’s watch, the North Koreans without provocation murdered 31 US servicemen in a single incident, when they shot down one of our planes over international waters.

    As with the Liberty, most of these were sailors collecting intelligence.

    Nixon did…nothing.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_EC-121_shootdown_incident

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  24. dearieme says:

    “Great Britain strictly limited Jewish immigration to Palestine”: true, but she issued more visas than were ever taken up. In other words, the limits were notional: they never applied.

    Civilised, urban German Jews presumably didn’t want to live on the distant desert’s edge among people who were likely to come to hate them. Only hindsight says they were wrong.

    • LOL: Pheasant
  25. Anon[311] • Disclaimer says:

    Anonymous 19, GHW was a valued colleague of Nazis. He hid them from all war crimes tribunals. I recited Prescott Bush’s name five times. Now you recite Reinhard Gehlen’s name. Read a book, for fuck’s sake. The Devil’s Chessboard, frinstance.

    Just like JFK, GHW was a chip off the old block. Both patriarchs sought friendly relations with the German nation – one for peace, and one for war. One got his kids killed. One got his kids elected.

    Say it with me – (I’m using my extra comprehensible sing-song voice!)

    CIA and Mossad work together
    CIA and Mossad work together
    CIA and Mossad work together
    CIA and Mossad work together
    CIA and Mossad work together

  26. Franz says:

    Arguably, if Kennedy had lived, there would be no compulsory Holocaust religion today.

    This does square with pop cult history of his era.

    In films, stage and novels, a process of “normalization” that usually follows war was in motion, having started in the mid-50s. Being pop, we have to include relics such as James Michener’s Sayonara and the horrific Teahouse of the August Moon as regards the Japanese.

    A German film from the fifties played on prime time television with no protest during JFK’s years. It was called The Bridge and sees the last days of the war as tragedy, with old men and kids trying to keep a strategic bridge intact as Americans advance on the town. It was a bit of a shock seeing American GIs portrayed in a very negative light, but it was understood they were the movie Bad Guys. An interesting Post War film.

    By the 70s the Japanese relations were fully normalized. But Germans regressed to being the comically bad “Nazis” they had been in wartime propaganda films. There were some inadvertently funny ones (The Boys from Brazil) but it was clear that Germans had been elevated to eternal villain, With ordinary whites not especially far behind.

    I had never considered the JFK angle in Holocaust theurgy but it makes sense. M. Guyenot seems to know this territory like a seasoned explorer.

    • Thanks: Bubba
  27. Franz says:
    @Anon

    here is no daylight between Mossad and CIA, they are Chang-and-Eng Siamese twins. So Guyenot fixates on Israel and ignores CIA.

    He “fixates” on the boss and ignores the flunky, sure. Why do you think JFK hated the CIA so much? He might not have known they were Mossad West but he sure knew they weren’t working for him.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  28. SafeNow says:

    In the superb movie “Night Moves,” Gene Hackman is asked “Where were you when Kennedy was killed? He replies, “Which one?”

    I was in high school when John was assassinated. In the H.S. basement, at rifle practice. (I was on the rifle team.) We finished practice, came upstairs, and were told an assassin had shot JFK with a rifle.

    JFK’s assassination was probably the turning-point event in recent U.S. history. If he had not been killed, one can imagine the cascade that might have followed. No Vietnam War, no loss of faith in government, no “con style” as the emergent leadership style.

    • Agree: Skeptikal
  29. Anonymous[901] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franz

    here is no daylight between Mossad and CIA

    You can’t even properly quote the statement you’re debunking. How do you expect to be taken seriously?

    • Replies: @Franz
  30. S says:
    @anon

    Kennedys were thorns in the sides.

    Speaking of which, I wonder if the famous movie linked below was a jab, perhaps a bit unconsciously, at the Kennedy family.

    The movie tells the story of a rich and powerful Catholic family dynasty and its patriarch, who having been appointed US ambassador to the UK, has finally ‘arrived’. The ambassador and his beautiful wife have a son (adopted) with aspirations for the presidency of the United States.

    In the movie the son is in reality the spawn of Satan.

    Dark forces are shown to be at work, and one by one the members of this powerful family dynasty, including the family patriarch, and anyone who gets close to this cursed family besides, die prematurely and unnaturally in freak accidents, pre-mature heart attacks, and ‘suicides’, etc.

    Ultimately, the family dynasty is utterly destroyed, and the aspirations for the US presidency come to naught.

    The Thorns, as ‘Thorn’ is indeed the family sirname in this series of movies, are removed with extreme prejudice.

    It’s a good thing nothing like this ever happens in real life.

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

  31. Franz says:
    @Anonymous

    You can’t even properly quote the statement you’re debunking.

    The “t” went missing. Apart from, it was a comment of its own not debunk. The CIA, Mossad, etc, all comprise a club and we ain’t in it, not much to debunk.

  32. “Ship them to Africa”.

    Why would Jews regard that as a bad thing?

    After all, Jews say whites suck and blacks are wonderful. So, why not remove Jews from whites and place them with blacks?

    Also, Jews say Immigration Is Great. Well, then Jews should keep immigrating. They immigrated to America, so why not immigrate once again to Africa?

    Don’t Jews love blacks? Don’t Jews want to be around blacks? Aren’t blacks the most wonderful people, the kind you want as your neighbors and fellow countrymen?
    Jews push blackness as redemption for whites. Apparently, blackness has magical qualities that can heal the sickness of whiteness.
    Well, lowlife whites don’t deserve such magic and wonder. They are unworthy. Because Jews are so wonderful themselves, they deserve the full dose of magical blackness. Jewish magic and black magic together.

    People like Tim Wise who always rags on evil whitey should prepare to move away from white nations. Go to Africa and be with wonderful blacks.

    Funny that Jews say blackness is so wonderful but take umbrage at the idea of being separated from whiteness and united with blackness.

  33. The father-son photo hit me like a brick, bringing to mind a surge of horrible memories beginning with IKE’s warning about the MICC (a deletion of “congressional”) this rewording suggested by his advisors. A devastating reminder to me, as if I’m watching a movie running wild on the reel. The murder of RFK, then came Chappaquiddick, Ted Kennedy , the third and last hope to steer our nation away from global domination via the machinery of war. The Kennedy murders were in fact, the proverbial fork in the road; Will the future be global democracy or a corporate fascist oligarchy running our world? Well, we all know what happened-the devil won. JFK proposed a Marshal Plan for third world countries without any strings attached, in the hope that people everywhere would willingly follow the example of a City on the Hill, reaching out for the USA vision, attaching themselves to “the tail of our kite” JFK’s (1959) speech. After the Kennedy murders, the U.S. headed towards global domination via a continuous expansion of the machinery of war. This devilry continued with GLADIO in Europe and South America, the assassination of a popular German Banker, Alfred Herrhausen. His murder coincided with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Herrhausen announced his intention to give a speech in NYC titled: The New Horizon’s of Europe, the first eleven pages of this speech were stolen by the same element that killed our leaders. An educated guess would be, that those pages contained a proclamation, announcing the gradual economic integration with what was then the USSR. In effect Germany’s Belt and Road Initiative… This concept was in direct opposition to The World Bank, IMF and various Western Occident Intel agency plans, for manipulating currencies and restricting loans to third world peoples. A stratagem consistently used over many years plying the black arts of murder, corruption, bribery, union busting and election fraud. A fixated ideology aimed at domination and control of everything, from raw commodities to cultures, labor law and the economic enslavement of third world countries. Remember folks, this entire global oppression began with the Kennedy murders…..Never forget this, I won’t !!

    • Thanks: St-Germain
    • Replies: @MarkinPNW
  34. @Curmudgeon

    That’s certainly one – of many.

  35. Ron, any chance of using an algorithm to place replies directly beneath the comment they’re responding to? It would be extremely helpful for comprehension and impact.

    • Disagree: Abdul Alhazred
    • Replies: @Ann Nonny Mouse
  36. An old attempt to reference Jewish Journals almost bragging about Johnson’s Jewish ancestry to wiki resulted in the articles being pulled. Now you can only read though wayback.org. Here is one of two articles. Kennedy and USS Liberty are better understood if Johnson’s lineage is better understood.

  37. Here is a second article that was sent directly to the memory hole (lucky for the way back machine) when trying to use to update wiki about Johnson’s Jewish lineage and benofactors

  38. Schuetze says:

    Reading about “The Umbrella Man” at Dealy Plaza, I was reminded of the Antifa protests over George Floyd’s fatal overdose of Fenatyl. In a few of these “protests”, right before the rioters go berserk, there is some kind of a provocateur who is carrying a black umbrella who initiates the vandalism and looting. Here is one example, but there were multiple instances:

    At the time, I recall reading about the umbrella having to do with Masonic Rituals. Here is all that I can find now:

    The Monarch Mind Control Symbols: The Umbrella, Rainbow, Birdcage, and Butterfly

    In a full Monarch Mind Control (MMC) method, a combination of occult rituals, psychology and neuroscience are used to create an alter ego in the desired subject. The subject is termed as ‘slave’, and the one controlling is termed as the ‘handler’. It is believed that these ‘slaves’ are used by the Illuminati elite to deliver messages, rituals, performances etc.

    So it is possible that the umbrella was there to trigger some kind of manchurian candidate, or candidates, or perhaps Kennedy’s secret service guards, or even Kennedy himself.

    In the book Mary’s Mosaic, about the murder of Mary Meyer, wife of high level CIA official Cord Meyer, there are allegations that Meyer had taken LSD with JFK, and the claim is made that that turned JFK onto hippy style “peace and love”. There can be no doubt but that LSD was already being used as the CIA MKUltra mind control drug of choice.

    [MORE]

  39. @anon

    All enough to earn the Zionazis undying enmity ‘..down to the third generation’.

    • Replies: @Schuetze
  40. @SafeNow

    The JFK hit was the beginning of a great civil war in the US and Western secret states, one that rolls on to today. Now vastly more complicated by the rise of Zionazi control of the West, the rise of China, Russia’s rebirth and the ecological collapse. Oops-I forgot economic implosion that began in 1971 with the ‘temporary’ abrogation of a gold standard.

  41. @S

    Less than two decades before the USA had murdered four million Koreans. Tiny little tit for gargantuan tat.

  42. gotmituns says:

    In the 1930’s, Joe Kennedy knew Hitler was a good man. Afterwards, his son, John/Jack knew it too. The reason JFK was killed was he said he wasn’t going to allow us to get involved in Vietnam and was going to pull all our advisers out. Plus, JFK also knew Hitler was a good man.

  43. Mevashir says:

    Apart from a handful of grammatical errors, this article is fantastically informative and well written. Thank you for helping to pry open the mystery of the Kennedy curse.

    His diplomatic strategy consisted in to convince the British that Germany was unbeatable and that the U.S. wouldn’t join the fight, so that the British had better come to terms with Germany, whose territorial claims were justified anyway.

    This paragraph demonstrates the flaw in Joseph Kennedy’s reasoning. He wasn’t truly pro peace but rather he was intimidated and even impressed by German military might.

    It is interesting to note that three of the people in the 20th century most hated by Jews were all named Joseph: Joseph Kennedy Joseph Goebbels and Joseph Stalin. I once speculated that this is connected to the biblical Joseph who was hated by his brothers. In Christian theology Joseph symbolizes non-Jewish believers in Yahweh who often surpass the Judeans in worldly success and provoke their envy.

    Joseph also is a symbol of Jesus who was betrayed by his brothers to the Romans. I have hoped that the election of Joseph Biden augers a change for the better in terms of Jewish attitudes to Jesus, the Savior of so many people including even the Nazis, the ultimate Jewish antagonists.

    I also thought it remarkable that Joseph Kennedy was constantly worrying that Winston Churchill would stage a false flag type of attack to provoke the US to enter the war on behalf of Great Britain.

    • Replies: @Minnesota Mary
  44. anon[294] • Disclaimer says:

    The murder of Forrestal, JFK, Robert K., and perhaps others might explain why our christian leaders are loath to restrain the only-democracy-in-the-middle-east

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  45. Schuetze says:
    @Mulga Mumblebrain

    The Jewish Kommisars would haul entire families off to the gulag for simple crimes like being “Bourgeoisie” or “Intelligensia” during the period of the “workers paradise” in the USSR. Somewhere I read that if someone was caught in possession of the Protocols of Zion, they and the 10 closest members of the family would be executed, usually after horrible tortures.

    earn the Zionazis undying enmity

    The cognitive dissonance is very strong in this one. It was the Nazi’s who tried to free all of Europe from this scourge, and ended up on the receiving end of eternal Jewish lust for revenge. Clearly you are as unable to wrap your pea-brain around that concept as you are unable to wrap your pea-brain around that reality that any Talmudist group of people who are so depraved would not think twice about using Weather Modification technology to frighten useful idiots into believing that the planet was about to melt.

    • Agree: Arthur MacBride
    • Troll: Mulga Mumblebrain
    • Replies: @Malla
  46. @Dr. Charles Fhandrich

    “Me and Lee” by Judyth Vary Baker is a book that might appeal to that ten year old.

    • Replies: @Dr. Charles Fhandrich
  47. Anonymous[317] • Disclaimer says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Not darts, not a “signature.” Kennedy was killed by gunshots, not darts, from four or more positions in the Dal-Tex building and the Grassy Knoll. The black umbrella suddenly opening above the heads was a visual signal to synchronize the sets of assassins (shooter, spotter) to shoot at the same time. The Hispanic “Walky Talky Man” was a radio coordinater. Both “Umbrella Man” and “Walky Talky Man” sat together and talked afterwards, leaving in different directions slowly at the same time. The Zapruder Film, with the road sign blocking the view of the actual shooting, was a deliberate, controllable, disinformation tool.

    • Agree: Bert
    • Thanks: Arthur MacBride
  48. … he promised a bombshell that would “put twenty-five million Catholic voters behind [Republican candidate] Wendell Willkie to throw Roosevelt out.”

    Yes (sigh), what a pity he didn’t follow through on that.

    Thank you for this history, LG.
    I didn’t know about Umbrella Man, possibly just a bonehead dupe who thinks that “having his say” in matters involving the murders of hundreds of millions of innocents is more important than those lives … maybe something a lot more sinister.

    Thank you for details of JK’s letter of friendship to Joseph Chamberlain, an unsung hero who did his best swimming against the Hyena-inspired/paid-for tide, today a figure of contempt and derision thanks to the same Hyena and its paid lackeys.

    Americans may wish to reflect that once they had patriots like the Kennedeys, Charles Lindbergh, James Forrestal and today they have Joe Biden …
    And the zio-freemason Hyena.

    • Replies: @Arthur MacBride
  49. Cking says:

    Always a big hole in these historical narratives. There is no sense to describe all the Western/Nazi political and warmongering machinations without putting the FED/Wall St./FDR supported Soviet Russian power into our perspective. France feared the Bolshevik driven Red Army of ‘Liberation’, already in Poland, putting priests and bishops on trial wherever they went, more than the Nazis, and allowed the German Army to walk into and defend France to face the Bolshevik Red Army of World Domination. WWII is still a gigantic PsyOp, yet to be discovered. Churchill, British Imperialism, FDR, Communists, and the members of the Federal Reserve Bank are in the thick of it.

  50. “And it is easy to imagine that, had John survived and been reelected in 1964, Robert, with John’s support and under his watch, could have inherited the White House. We may ponder what the world would be like today had there been Kennedys in the White House until 1976.”

    Why stop at 1976? We could imagine Teddy taking over from Bobby all the way to 1984 thus eliminating cowboy Reagan and the country boy Carter. Indeed, the world might have been different.

  51. @Observator

    “ Charles Lindbergh spoke for the majority of Americans when he demanded FDR end his back room scheming. He sealed his fate in his powerful Des Moines speech of Sept. 11, 1941, in which he courageously stated this inconvenient truth”

    It is no coincidence that Lindbergh’s baby son was kidnapped and killed only to have the deep state FBI pin the crime on a German immigrant by the name of Hauptmann, who by the end of his trial vehemently rejected in his native German any involvement with the issue. This is the fate of anyone who defies the politics of the WASP/ Jewish establishment. Many Catholics were thorns in the side of the deep state which tamed most would be Catholic opposition to its criminal enterprise after making of the Kennedys and of James Forestall a prime example to the gory fate that awaits them.

    • Agree: Cking, Bert
    • Replies: @Steve Naidamast
  52. @djm

    If you compare the way Joseph Kennedy made his fortune to most American dynastic families, Joseph Kennedy would appear like a Boy Scout.

  53. Those that ordered JFK’s and RFK’s deaths, including LBJ, never fought in war nor did their children nor will any of their descendants ever fight in war. JFK was anti war and anti Federal Reserve. According to these powers he had to go. I’d bet Eisenhower even quietly rejoiced on Nov 22, 1963.

  54. Emslander says:
    @Observator

    I was a junior in a Christian Brothers high school, a Catholic school, on the day of Kennedy’s assassination. It was a moment of unique reflection. Our teacher, a Christian Brother and a dignified intellectual scientist, looked out at us, when the news was broadcast over the intercom, like the world had returned sadly to its normal horrors.

    My father and JFK were the same age. They’d both served in the Pacific and had both been permanently disabled in the war. My father had died in 1962, almost exactly a year prior, of the effects of his wartime disability. I had grown familiar with the grim reality of human vulnerability.

    In Guyenot’s excellent article, you have to notice the consistent intellectual approach of the father and son Kennedys and their acute awareness of their places in history. If Roosevelt and Churchill had been so aware, they would have acted much differently, I believe. I suppose it ought to be noted that the most important of Adolph Hitler’s qualities was his acute awareness of his place in history.

    Joseph Biden is the second Roman Catholic in the office of the Presidency. I won’t say he was elected, because it is clear that he wasn’t. Questions surround the close election of JFK, exactly 60 years earlier, but they revolve around the effect on California voters of JFK’s apparent wins in Illinois and Texas before those West Coast polls closed. The assertion of the fraudulent election of Kennedy is pretty tenuous. It’s assertion in relation to Biden is much less so. This is just an aside.

    My point is that our country has become a screaming madhouse in comparison to 1960. Kennedy followed Eisenhower in the presidency. Biden followed Trump. The latter pair have got to be two of the strangest men ever to have held high office anywhere on earth. I’d judge them both to be blithering idiots. The former pair have to be two of the most accomplished men of their time or of any time, anywhere.

    Thank you for this article. I don’t know whether the Jews have the capacity to shape history as effectively as you imply, but the forces of evil certainly found plenty of people to cooperate in the corruption of what was a pretty decent country in 1960.

  55. Bookish1 says:
    @SafeNow

    What do you mean no Vietnam? JFK had already gotten us into that war at the time he was assacinated.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  56. LondonBob says:

    Umbrella man was Roy Hargraves, his brother in arms on the radio was Felipe Vidal Santiago. Jack Ruby was the only link Mossad had to the actual mechanics of the assassination, and even there you could pin it on the mafia, no way they put some out there like that. Colonel John Hughes-Wilson says assassinations often require a close in spotter team, which is what Santiago and Hargraves were.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
    , @Sparkon
  57. @Carlton Meyer

    In as much as I loathe Roosevelt, can we give the man the credit for trying to finish off the European Imperial system in favour of a world based on international law?

    There is no denying that the prime instigator of WWII was Roosevelt who made good use of Churchill’s megalomania in order to pit European powers into a self destructive process. However, the death of FDR right after the end of the war puts a question mark on his next move had he lived. According to Matthew Ehret, FDR was the sworn enemy of the City of London bankers and foiled their plan for world hegemony in the thirties the same way that he introduced the Glass Steagall Act that split investment banking from commercial banking. Then, the Rhode Scholar Bill Clinton abrogated the Glass Steagall act only to give us the Too Big To Fail Banks. Would the United States have acted under FDR’s fourth term as China is acting today through the BRI initiative, by seeking worldwide developmental growth among the nations of the world under a system of equal nations under international law. There is no denying that Truman was the Zionist Bankers’ man who wasted all of the sacrifices of WWII by putting the bankers back in the driver’s seat.

    JFK got assassinated before he could rekindle what Lincoln sought to achieve, basically cooperation and peace among nations rather than unrestrained confrontation and exploitation of the weak by the mighty.

  58. Jett Rucker says: • Website

    (((They))) own us, and have for a long time. Keep it in mind.

    • Agree: Pierre de Craon
  59. @Arthur MacBride

    letter of friendship to Joseph Chamberlain,

    ** Neville Chamberlain**

    Sorry, Mr Chamberlain, and Respects to you.

    “More Haste, Less Speed”.

  60. Emslander says:
    @Joe Levantine

    In as much as I loathe Roosevelt, can we give the man the credit for trying to finish off the European Imperial system in favour of a world based on international law?

    No, that was Wilson in WWI and it was not a good thing. I’d pick Monarchy over mayhem any day of the week.

    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
  61. @Franz

    A German film from the fifties played on prime time television with no protest during JFK’s years. It was called The Bridge …

    Here it is (98 minutes) with English subtitles, although I don’t think it will work in the US:

    A German-subtitle version that should work in the US:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-z0-dFst4c&ab_channel=theoboks

    • Replies: @Arthur MacBride
  62. Kennedy hated both England and Israel – the perfect ambassador to London. Bravo !!

    He also pioneered the elevation of a Catholic President thru the Holy miracle of voter fraud. Bravo !!

    With most of the SCOTUS being Roman, plus most of the FBI, CIA and Washington’s Praetorian Guard – when Angela Merkel is replaced by Armin Laschet – 6 of the G7 leaders will be Roman – plus von der Leyen and Charles Michel ….

    Setting the stage nicely for Armageddon. Bravo !!

    • Thanks: Mevashir
    • Replies: @Mevashir
    , @Hibernian
  63. @Emslander

    The late Benjamin Freedman can help explain to you the power of the Jews. Yes they often shape and rewrite history for their purposes. They play the victims all the time. Took me many years to understand and Mr Freedman helped me learn.

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Benjamin+Freedman+1961+Speech&&view=detail&mid=84E87367BBF3E76F980E84E87367BBF3E76F980E&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DBenjamin%2BFreedman%2B1961%2BSpeech%26FORM%3DVDMHRS

  64. Soon America will be a Holy Land like Paraguay where the middle class, honest money, schools, hospitals, hygiene and law enforcement are unnecessary.

    It is good that Washington DC has so many key players loyal to the One Holy Apostolic Church – that made Bolivia and Paraguay into those ‘shining cities on a hill’ and inspired the youthful morality of Dr. Tony Fauci, Rodrigo Borgia, Jim Comey, Dr Josef Mengele, John Brennan, Carlos The Jackal, Samantha Power, Hugo Chavez, Joe Biden, Al Capone, Nancy Pelosi, Adolf Hitler, John Roberts and Che Guevara.

    Washington isn’t suddenly guarded by Praetorians or Swiss Guards. No, this isn’t 1930s Spain, Croatia, Germany, Austria, Italy or Ireland. No – John Kerry and Sam Power aren’t facilitating a ‘final solution’ with nuclear Iran and an invasion of Russia isn’t imminent.
    Bravo !!

  65. I have started to pray to the Holy preserved Tongue & Jaw Of Saint Anthony Of Padua and Saint Clare of Montefalco’s Fingernails And Hair Clippings – two of the most powerful relics in the Catholic treasury of credit. My prayers are being greatly boosted by their efficacious intercession !! Good times await, I’m sure.

    • Replies: @Montefrío
  66. @for-the-record

    Here it is (98 minutes) with English subtitles, although I don’t think it will work in the US:

    If not, this (deutsch/eng subtitel) might work better —

    https://www.veoh.com/watch/v19797614cX3pYcwH

  67. @Emslander

    Sorry the entire link didn’t make it on my reply. Just Google or Bing or any server “Benjamin Freedman’s speech at the Willard hotel in 1961.” Keep trying as many have been removed.

    • Replies: @Mevashir
  68. @LondonBob

    You wrote:

    ‘Jack Ruby was the only link Mossad had to the actual mechanics of the assassination’.

    Well ….. NO …. actually.

    The links between the Apartheid Israeli state/Mossad/Zio complicity are too numerous to itemise.
    I suggest you read ‘Final Judgement’ by Michael Collins Piper and that will fill you in.

    For the sake of brevity, I’ll mention just two.

    The CIA has, since its inception, worked in lockstep with the Mossad. In fact the CIA is controlled and accountable to the same Zio-Usury Banking Cartel puppet masters that control the entirety of the western financial system.

    And CIA Chief of CounterIntelligence in 1963 (James Angleton), has two statues honouring him in Israel for a reason.
    Because he was instrumental in JFK’s demise.

    Meanwhile, to the extent that the Mafia was involved in the assassination, one has to appreciate who was the head man.
    NO, Italians and Sicilians were no more than upper middle management.

    The head of the snake was the rabid Zionist Meyer Lansky. As such, the Mob, the Mafia or whatever it was previously mislabelled as, was really the Meyer Lansky Crime Syndicate.
    Calling it the Kosher Nostra is equally appropriate.

    And Meyer Lansky had a long history of working closely with the Mossad and the Israelis and even before that, going back as far as the era of the British Palestinian mandate.

    • Thanks: Peripatetic Itch
    • Replies: @Mevashir
  69. Charles says:

    This is a fine essay. The Unz Review, with Ron’s American Pravda series and its links to books and articles, teaches that almost nothing we learned in school and Protestant church in the ’70s and ’80s was true; worse, much of it was not just demonstrably false, but designed to kill the Republic.

  70. Sparkon says:
    @Bookish1

    No. It was Pres. Eisenhower who first got the U.S. involved in Vietnam by refusing to support the nationwide elections called for by the Geneva Accords after the defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, but some blame must also fall on Pres. Truman, who ignored Ho Chi Minh’s appeals for help from the United States in the late ’40s, and instead decided to support the French, financially and militarily, as that nation attempted to re-establish its colonial empire in SE Asia.

    By early Oct. 1963, Pres. Kennedy issued NSAM 263, which called for the withdrawal of virtually all U.S. forces from Vietnam by the end of 1965, with the first 1,000 pulling out by the end of 1963. In issuing NSAM 263, JFK was following the recommendations of his Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, and his Chairman, JCS Maxwell Taylor, who’d been on a fact finding mission to Vietnam earlier in 1963.

    The planned Democratic party campaign slogan for 1964 was “Peace and Prosperity,” so I believe JFK was planning on using the first 1,000 man pullout from ‘Nam to underscore that theme during his campaign. By then, LBJ probably would have been in jail because of his close association with swindlers Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes.

    After Pres. Kennedy’s assassination, Pres. Johnson issued NSAM 273, which reversed Kennedy’s planned withdrawal. In the event, the first U.S. combat troops went ashore at Da Nang in March 1965.

    You should at least try to adhere to the spirit of your handle, and refer to a history book and dictionary before posting.

    • Thanks: Mevashir, Joe Levantine
    • Replies: @Carlton Meyer
    , @gotmituns
  71. @Sparkon

    Good point. It was Eisenhower who created South Vietnam, as he openly stated that everyone knew Ho Chi Minh would easily win a national election. As the French departed Vietnam, the CIA took control and expanded its colonial army, flew in Diem from New Jersey and anointed him as President of what became known as South Vietnam, and refused to withdraw in 1956 as Ho Chi Minh was elected as leader of all of Vietnam. The CIA created the DMZ and had it’s media puppets complain whenever the Vietnamese Army (who they called “North Vietnam”) moved across its fictitious DMZ border to repel foreign invaders.

  72. gotmituns says:
    @Sparkon

    Well said sir. If there is such a place as hell, I hope the piece of feces, LBJ is burning there.

  73. Randolph says:
    @Verymuchalive

    This is the first time I had heard of the Umbrella Man.
    What struck me as I read this and saw the pictures of him – he was right next to JFK when he was shot – was that he was placed there to act as a focus point to coordinate the timing of the shooters…..
    So John would see the umbrella the moment he was murdered.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  74. Mevashir says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    The head of the snake was the rabid Zionist Meyer Lansky. As such, the Mob, the Mafia or whatever it was previously mislabelled as, was really the Meyer Lansky Crime Syndicate.
    Calling it the Kosher Nostra is equally appropriate.

    And Meyer Lansky had a long history of working closely with the Mossad and the Israelis and even before that, going back as far as the era of the British Palestinian mandate.

    In this book Lansky all but admits his role in executing JFK:

    The most disappointing thing in his life was when Golda Meyer acceded to President Nixon’s demand to extradite Lansky from his Tel Aviv hideaway to face an IRS investigation back in Florida.

    And CIA Chief of CounterIntelligence in 1963 (James Angleton), has two statues honouring him in Israel for a reason. Because he was instrumental in JFK’s demise.

    That’s James JESUS Angleton.

    • Thanks: Truth Vigilante
    • Replies: @bayviking
  75. Mevashir says:
    @Dodge City Pete

    With most of the SCOTUS being Roman, plus most of the FBI, CIA and Washington’s Praetorian Guard – when Angela Merkel is replaced by Armin Laschet – 6 of the G7 leaders will be Roman – plus von der Leyen and Charles Michel ….

    Wow. I knew SCrOTUS is 7/9 Roman but didn’t know about Europe. That’s just the way the VatyCan wants it: an EU under Pontifical control. Sort of a redone Holy Roman Empire!

  76. @Joe Levantine

    Very interesting stuff. Thanks sir.

    • Thanks: Joe Levantine
  77. MarkinPNW says:
    @elmerfudzie

    I wonder if it actually started with the McKinley murder, as it put the the pro British Empire faction of the US in charge. It was after that that the Russian-Japanese war, the Federal Reserve, and WW1 happened, all projects to strengthen the British Empire.

    • Agree: Cking
    • Replies: @elmerfudzie
  78. The Murder of JFK Jr., and his wife Carolyn Bessette and sister-in-law Lauren Bessette on 16 July 1999.

    … punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me …

    … links the “Kennedy curse” to Joe’s anti-Semitism …

    LG :

    “The “Kennedy curse” did run into the third generation and possibly the fourth, when John’s only son died in a suspicious plane accident on July 16, 1999, with his wife, possibly pregnant. “

    The murder of John F Kennedy Jr and the Jewish Holocaust narrative : Anne Frank
    https://www.whataboutthewhen.com/murder_jfk_jr_anne_frank.html

    = 666 months, 666 weeks, 666 days

    MG

  79. Just a couple of historical points I’d like to make which have no bearing on the veracity of the article.

    1) JFK, if he was a ordinary skipper of a PT boat would certainly have had a court martial for being derelict in duty and care of his men and his vessel. His super high speed PT 109 was cut in half by a Japanese destroyer while sitting still in foggy circumstances.

    No matter how you interpret this, this was a severe cock-up. That he helped pull some of the crewmen to safety given his own physical limitations in no way mitigates this. That he would receive serious awards and even eventually use PT109 tie clips in subsequent electioneering speaks to a cynical reality that he was party to. (As well as having Sorenson write his Nobel book).

    2) Charles Lindbergh was not shunned and cast aside after his efforts in trying to keep America out of a European war. After Pearl Harbour, he offered his flying services to the nation and had a very active role in the Pacific Theater for the duration of the conflict. He also had a very bizarre marital situation well after the war but that is another story.

    Added to which Old Joe was very far from being a stand up human being. I recall reading in what seemed like a credible book that LBJ, when still in Congress had come by to see Joe privately with a senator (Rayburn?) and because Joe wasn’t there at the moment they were sitting in the ante room drinking tea with Rose when Joe shows up, into his cups with a super young girl under his arm. They stumbled by all of them without so much as a ‘hello’ and went upstairs presumably for some other form of congress. I always loved this snippet because it shows the chasm between the truly moneyed and the whores that people elect.

    Of course the accumulation of such indignities would explain why Rose didn’t call an ambulance when Joe stroked out for those crucial hours when proper help might have helped minimize or even cure his disability. She went swimming instead I think.

    Cheers-

  80. Agent76 says:

    September 19th, 2019 RFK JR. NAMES RFK’S KILLER

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Claims to Know Who Really Killed His Father and is Out to Prove It.


    Nov 24, 2013 Dark Legacy: George Bush And The Murder Of John Kennedy

    A thorough, documented, criminal indictment of George Herbert Walker Bush, establishing beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt as a supervisor in the conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy.

  81. @Mevashir

    Another interesting aside regarding the name “Joseph.” —Pope Francis has declared this to be the year of St. Joseph.

    • Thanks: Mevashir
    • Replies: @Mevashir
  82. Of course if the Dem-Daley-Chicago machine didn’t commit massive vote fraud in Chicago in the 1960 presidential election, JFK would have ended his political career just like his younger brother Teddy, a Senator who was an elderly dissipated roue.

    • Disagree: Cking
    • Replies: @Cking
  83. The Anglo-Saxon ruling class of this great country was exploited by the Jew because he understood their great religious divide, i.e. Protestant vs. Catholic and used to his own benefit to the hilt. But now it doesn’t matter since both groups are sycophants to the Jewish supremacy.

    • Agree: Mevashir
    • Replies: @Mevashir
  84. @Franz

    Relations with Japanese normalized with films such as Sayonara and Teahouse of the August Moon.
    Meanwhile the Germans devolved into the eternal and perennial villains.
    Do you think that had something to do with who owns and runs Hollywood?

    • Replies: @Franz
    , @S
  85. @Anon

    There is no daylight between Mossad and CIA

    True statement.

  86. @djm

    Smear smear smear.

    No connection at all with the matter under discussion — rather, a diversion from it.

    What does this suggest about the motives of the smearer?

    What does it tell us about his ethics?

  87. @Observator

    Herbert Hoover was another member of America First — and (I’m not positive but) I think he was also a member, with JPK, of that committee investigating CIA activities in the Middle East

  88. Jimmy1969 says:

    This article is complete rubbish. It is typical of many on here; a few interesting facts spun out with childlike generalizations and false conclusions. Joe Kennedy had no influence at all on the Presidency of JFK., and certainly not on RFK’s campaign. The father’s money helped in the beginning after WW2 to get JFK established but that is it. This Jewish stuff quoted here is total lunacy. Kennedy was a liberal Democrat and Jews voted for him in masse. JFK’s assassin was a lone disgruntled nut. RFK ironically was killed because he was out stumping for the Jewish vote and Sirhan’s relatives were previously wiped out in an Israeli bombing raid paid for by the US. Everything in this article is the work of an ignorant amateur silly little fool. Conspiracy nuts are a joke.

  89. @john cronk

    Already there for the comment being replied to. Okay, not for a phone with no separate mouse, but already excellent. More would be unneeded complication.

  90. Joseph P. Kennedy is a fascinating and compelling character and a pivotal figure in 20th century American history and the transformation of the American republic into a planetary empire.

    There have been at least four biographies of Joseph P. Kennedy published. The latest and far the best is David Nasaw, The Patriarch: The Remarkable Life and Turbulent Times of Joseph P. Kennedy (New York, Penguin, 2012).

    In 2001 an edition of Joseph Kennedy’s letters and related documents was published edited by his (adoptive) grand-daughter Amanda Smith: Joseph P. Kennedy, Hostage To Fortune: The Letters of Joseph P. Kennedy, ed. Amanda Smith (New York, Viking, 2001). Besides copious selections from JPK’s letters and a few from his non-family correspondents, this includes a good number of letters to him from his wife Rose and many of his children, notably and at greater length, Joe, Jr., Kathleen (Kick), and JFK — also RFK.

    Smith also prints fairly extensive passages from his diary (also Rose’s) and excerpts from the “Diplomatic Memoir” — the memoir that Guyenot here calls “scurrilous” — on what basis is not clear. About this memoir, Smith writes (page numbers in brackets):

    Joseph P. Kennedy “documented his ambassadorship initially with an eye to his legacy for posterity, but eventually, as his relations with the administration deteriorated, his writings became an effort to detail what he felt was its dishonesty regarding the intervention abroad and misuse of its ambassador for his anticipated self-vindication.” [xxxv]

    “More than a decade after Ambassador Kennedy’s angry return from London, after his relationship with the president had ended in mutual recrimination, and after his eldest son had been lost in a war that he had devoted all of his energies to preventing the United States from entering, he would rework his account of the farewell meeting in Hyde Park for a third and final time. Between 1949 and 1955, under his supervision, his old friend and former SEC associate James Landis would refashion the ambassadorial diaries, diplomatic dispatches and correspondence into the memoir that the former ambassador had long intended to write [herein called the “Diplomatic Memoir”]. [225]

    “The manuscript would also chronicle the president’s quiet movement away from neutrality while the American public remained uninformed. Although never published, the completed ‘Diplomatic Memoir’ would highlight in particular the ideological rift that was to develop between the ambassador and the president over the issue of intervention. ‘Peace above all,’ the ambassador’s stand and the source, he felt, of much of the eventual public outcry against him, had not only been his unwavering conviction from the outset of his tenure in London, but also, he woud insist, his presidential mandate as well.” [226]

    “The ambassador was aware of the secret correspondence between the president and the first lord of the Admiralty that had begun in 1939, long before Churchill’s ascendancy to the post of prime minister, largely because it had fallen to him, as ambassador, to deliver and retrieve the exchanges.” [229]

    Regarding the Tyler Kent case, “Suspecting the American ambassador’s possible involvement in the passage of classified embassy documents (including the president’s and prime minister’s now-famous secret correspondence) to fifth columnists [sic] in London, M15 and Scotland Yard would delay for some months the arrest of the code clerk responsible in order to keep the American Embassy and its ambassador under surveillance.” [232]

    “By 1955 Landis had finished ghostwriting the diplomatic memoir that had been in the works in one form or another since 1938. The result chronicled not only the ambassadorship, but also presented an account of the president’s duplicity both to his ambassador and to the American people on the issue of neutrality.” [521]

    THIS MEMOIR MOST CERTAINLY SHOULD BE PUBLISHED AS A FUNDAMENTAL DOCUMENT OF AMERICAN HISTORY.

    Smith writes that there is no evidence to support the legend of his bootlegging [xx]. Claims otherwise in other books, when tracked to their putative sources, turn out to be “based” on claims made by unreliable interested parties.

    The three other biographies of Joseph P. Kennnedy are:

    Richard J. Whalen, The Founding Father: The Story of Joseph P. Kennedy (New York, New American Library, 1964). This was written while JFK was president and meant to be published during is administration. It is respectful, comparatively discrete and not bad under the circumstances. Page 388 prints a long discussion by JPK of Jews and Anti-semitism which JFK insisted be cut from another book which it was originally included in, slated for publication during the campaign. The statement is cogent, clear, unflinching. It scores activist Jews for using anti-semitism as a weapon and to force others to fight zionist battles instead of their own.

    David E. Koskoff, Joseph P. Kennedy, A Life and Times (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1974): This is a hostile biography (the hostility veiled but plainly visible, like its philo-semitism) but it is dense with details, many intended by the author as damning (but only from his point of view). It’s “history” (sic) of WWII is the Shirer kind — philo-zionist pseudo-history.

    Ted Schwartz, Joseph P. Kennedy, The Mogul, The Mob, The Statesman, And The Making of an American Myth (Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons, 2003): This is a gross smear job by a Zio-Kennedy-hater. It contains lots of tabloid dirt not mentioned by Richard Whalen, not all of it mentioned by David Koskoff, and some of it possibly with a basis in fact.

    In any case David Nasaw’s biography supersedes all three of these — deeply researched and remarkably even-handed given the extreme propaganda of political opprobrium with which the ruling American Establishment targets its subject, his views, and the history in which he figures.

    • Thanks: Arthur MacBride
  91. @Joe Levantine

    Hauptmann was an innocent victim of his business partner’s crime. The police knew this but would not release the evidence they had that would have cleared Hauptmann’s name.

    The partner fled the US and went to Europe, leaving Hauptmann to hold a wrapped package for him, saying that he would pick it up on his return. That package held the ransom money that the partner had picked up at the drop spot.

    • Thanks: Joe Levantine
  92. A great article…

    I just wish the author had not speculated about the “Umbrella Man” at Dealy Plaza. There is no evidence of anything but sheer coincidence no matter the implications…

  93. lydia says:

    I never knew this about Joseph Kennedy. thank you Please remember the Palestinians

    𝑯𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒂𝒎 𝑩𝒆𝒛𝒊𝒏𝒋𝒐ツ
    @MeerHassam6

    Jul 9
    Save Pale-stine 🥀 Stop Avoiding This Hashtag #SavePalestine

    The destruction of silwan 45 seconds powerful vid

  94. @Wyatt

    “Good riddance to the Irish rubbish”, eh? What sort of trash might you be?

    Nixon, a president I supported, was no enemy of the Jews. As for LBJ, etc., ever since Oliver Cromwell sold England to the Jews, well the WASPs haven’t compiled a sterling record of staving off the looting of the country by themselves and their “allies”, shall we say.

    All the ethnic stuff becomes tiresome and no one will be persuaded to drop their pet prejudices.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  95. @anon

    Also, Gen. George Patton.

    • Replies: @Ktulu
  96. lydia says:

    Zionist Persecution of Christians in the Holy Land
    DECEMBER 29, 2019 / A CITIZEN
    banksyx-mas

    [MORE]

    O little town of Bethlehem
    How still we see thee lie
    Above thy deep and dreamless sleep
    The silent stars go by
    Yet in thy dark streets shineth
    The everlasting Light
    The hopes and fears of all the years
    Are met in thee tonight

    The modern day little town of Bethlehem, the place where Christ was born, is now Zionist Israeli occupied territory with a wall, guard towers, and machine gun and sniper nests along the perimeter. The mainstream media almost never talks about the fact that Israel heavily persecutes the Christian population in occupied Palestine like they do with the Muslims. To most American Christians, the Zionist State of Israel is sacred and is fighting a “righteous” war in “defense” of the Holy Land against Muslim terrorists and extremists.

    It is a little known fact that Palestine had a once sprawling Christian population that is now on the brink of total extermination under the Israeli occupation. Most Christian churches in America ignore these facts and their Zionist pastors have turned their backs on their Christian brethren in the Holy Land by actively supporting the Israeli military occupation. In fact, Robert Jeffress, megachurch pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, TX, recently stated, “If they [Palestinian Christians] do not want to continue to live under that arrangement [Israeli occupation and persecution], perhaps some need to go someplace else.” Robert Jeffress’ statement conveys the general attitude of most American Christians and their pastors regarding the Israeli occupation and persecution. They have rejected their Christian brethren in order to prop up and idolize the State of Israel.

    https://minutestomidnight.blog/2019/12/29/zionist-persecution-of-christians-in-the-holy-land/

    • Agree: Ann Nonny Mouse
    • Replies: @Mevashir
  97. @Dodge City Pete

    Just wait for the Rapture and all will be well! My guess is that your knowledge of Latin America would fit in the thimble you use for a condom.

  98. Franz says:
    @TroothSeeker

    Relations with Japanese normalized with films such as Sayonara and Teahouse of the August Moon.
    Meanwhile the Germans devolved into the eternal and perennial villains.
    Do you think that had something to do with who owns and runs Hollywood?

    Lots. There was a great deal of Nippophilia going in in the fifties. Especially among the entertainment sector. By Kennedy’s term, a cartoon beatnik called “Suzuki Bean” made the rounds and the Zen going around various places was always the Japanese version.

    Were they getting ready to clobber the American worker with Japanese goods? No one can say for sure. But everyone knew that Japanese corporations got loans from the American banks at cheaper interest than any American company got.

    Germany rebuilt with trade credits too, but the idea was to make it the Golden Goose for the tribute Israel is pulling out of the Germans now. It looks like they don’t care if the goose dies anymore.

  99. Ktulu says:

    The remaining question is: how did Irishmen in politics go from John and Robert Kennedy to Joe Biden and strung out anarchists? C’mon Micks, you know you’re better. We know you’re better.

    • Replies: @Dingo bay rum
    , @Hibernian
  100. Ktulu says:
    @Carroll Price

    Let’s make a list of the Americans who were killed trying to right this ship of fools:
    John Kennedy
    Robert Kennedy
    George Patton
    Admiral Forrestal
    George Rockwell
    Huey Long

    Keep it going.

    • Agree: JamesinNM
  101. Thompson apparently has a new (2021) book, Last Seconds in Dallas. I haven’t read it but searched the Amazon listing for “umbrella”. He talks about it in the preface; apparently it impressed a lot of people, like John Updike in the New Yorker. No reference to Chamberlain found, so I guess he still hasn’t made the connection.

    Thompson at the time of Six Seconds was a professor of philosophy. and had published a book on Kierkegaard. In 1976, he spoke at the Canadian Studies in Kierkegaard conference at my college. At a cocktail party afterward, he refused to discuss his paper, or anything on K. and only wanted to discuss the JFK assassination. People were not happy. According to Amazon, “in 1976 resigned his tenured professorship in philosophy to become a private investigator in San Francisco, developing a national reputation.” I guess he agreed to speak at the conference shortly before or after deciding on that, and wasn’t willing to talk about Kierkegaard again.

  102. About that picture…. was our first Catholic president a hair-sniffer, like our second? Is it a Catholic thing? In Jack’s case at least the feeling was mutual… I recall the old Irish women in my neighborhood all voted for JFK because “he had such nice hair.” No doubt that’s why he refused to wear a hat on that chilly inauguration day, setting the hatless style for men until the very present day.

  103. @Right_On

    It worked the first time around.

  104. anon[143] • Disclaimer says:

    Am I the only person who couldn’t care less about the Kennedy’s?
    The Catholics have always hated the other break-away Christians who just don’t want to eat soylent-green from the manna machine to sustain themselves while they hike for 40 years in the desert in the desert to find Israel right next to Egypt. The Catholics are always leftist and according to them it was knowledge that got Adam and Eve expelled from the garden, yet knowledge is exactly what everyone desires and craves, the same knowledge that forced the woman to suffer in child birth and the man to toil forever on the land.
    I think the South Americans had one of the manna machines too, most people just think he was seated in a space ship. It always begs the question why all the texts were erased, but there is one where the Indians tell of the tall whites who they let rule for awhile then kill them, talk about a land of blood suckers.
    So the Catholics just eating that bread and drinking that stale juice-worshipping all things un-American.

    • Disagree: JamesinNM
    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  105. Skeptikal says:

    I must say I am very surprised to see this very interesting speculation at the Unz Review!

    With its assumption that Kennedy really did want world peace.
    That idea and those expressing it have been roundly ridiculed here.

  106. Cking says:
    @Wade Hampton

    The Dem-Daley-Chicago machine accusation is plausible, yet dubious, why hit it all the time, it doesn’t uncover the cabal who killed President Kennedy. As for Ted Kennedy, he was never in the Chappaquiddick Pond with Mary Jo Kopechne. The car in question went off road and into the ice cold, fast current, unswimmable, ‘pond’ water, turned upside down before settling. Doors would not be able to open, the front windshield would collapse, and shards of broken glass would have rushed into the driver and passenger compartment, by vacuum forces. Notice before and after the ‘accident’, Senator Kennedy is constantly photographed and does not have a scratch on his face. No, after 11 am, the following morning, after a walk through the hotel lobby, accepting the greetings of his supporters and constituency, Senator Kennedy went back to his room, where handlers met him with the tragic news, the narrative, and a neck brace; Ted knew what was happening and being said; he took the neck brace, put it on, and went back to Washington to work for the men who killed his brothers.

  107. Skeptikal says:
    @Patrick McNally

    “As long as one doesn’t get into claims that Witt was himself actively a part of the assassination, then the thesis that Witt was placed there as a type of signature makes a lot of sense. ”

    Well, I don’t see any justification for setting a limit as to what Witt’s role might have been.
    Who “placed” him there?
    Did he place himself?
    Or was he a useful idiot (like Oswald himself and doubtless many others who were used)—“placed there” to help indicate the time to loose the shots: when Kennedy drew alongside him.

  108. JamesinNM says:

    Biblical truths:
    Romans 2:28-29
    Revelation 2:9 and 3:9
    Satan has deceived the church, and lies have deceived the world’s people.
    However, God is not deceived. At the final judgement the truth will be shouted from the rooftops, and all evil will suffer the second death and burn for eternity. Life is a mere breath, but eternity is infinite. Fear not those that can destroy the body, but rather fear the one that can destroy both body and soul in hell. After Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection born again Christians with changed hearts, regardless of ethnic background, are the real Jews and God’s chosen people.

    • Thanks: Ann Nonny Mouse
  109. @Emslander

    Fair enough. Maybe time elides major differences, but there was no love lost between the Kennedy and Eisenhower parties. JFK’s charge that Nixon/Ike had presided over a “missile gap” with the Russkies was an absurd and deliberate lie. That line in his inaugural address, about passing the torch to “a new generation, born in this century” was a slap at Ike, sitting there on the podium, who was born in 1895. 50 years on I guess they both look like mandarins compared to today’s crop of mutants.

    • Agree: houston 1992
    • Replies: @houston 1992
  110. @James J O'Meara

    1. Eisenhower (like DeGaulle) was born in 1890.

    2.The Eisenhower admin had been cautious about foreign entanglements e.g. not bombing the hills around Dien Ben Phu, ordering the Brits French and our soon-to-be-closest ever ally out of Suez in 1956, not intervening in Hungary in 1956.

    I suppose to the GI’s generation Eisenhower and his Lost generation were too cautious for the cocky GI’s –that is the position from Strauss/Howe 1991 book,. Generations, …..but I agree that JFK campaign lied about the missile gap.

  111. @Jimmy1969

    Anyone who actually believes that Sirhan was anything bit the patsy is an ignorant imbecile, or a disinformer. Or both. Take your pick.

  112. bayviking says:
    @Mevashir

    There is no doubt, because of numerous leaks and good reporting, that the relationship between JFK and Ben-Gurion, was hostile. Eventually this will be proven when our “Government of the People”, decides we have the right to see the letters they wrote each other. Why the hostility? Because Ben-Gurion was determined to develop the bomb and JFK was determined to prevent them from acquiring that technology. To this day, those letters are secret. Outrageous.

    There is no doubt Angleton was a a powerful friend of Israel, like most CIA agents he was a raving right wing maniac, ready to kill and steal in the name of Capitalism, as much as the Israeli cause. His role is memorialized in several monuments to his person in Israel, a powerful measure of his influence. But to link him therefore to the assassination of JFK is over the top nonsense. As far as I can tell Piper has a suspicions, but proved nothing.

    Helms at the CIA and Hoover at the FBI deliberately botched the JFK assassination to save their own careers. But that fact does not implicate them in the JFK assassination either. Bobby was also active in the coverup because of the danger of exposing Castro assassination plots which included an important Cuban general, who could not be exposed as a traitor to Castro, if the plot were to succeed.

    Mob bosses Marcello, Rosselli and Trafficante are tied to the assassination of JFK, by prison wire taps and confessions to their attorneys, revealed after their death. Lansky and Trafficante worked closely together with the CIA smuggling heroin, the CIA, Mertz and Lansky globally, Trafficante nationally with support from Marcello, Rosselli, Ruby and Hoffa. The three national bosses worked for Lansky and must have gotten his permission to act, but Marcello had more independence than the other two. Fosselli worked for Giancana, who was under constant surveillance. All four were under tremendous pressure from the Kennedy brothers who were aggressively prosecuting them.

    • Replies: @Mark Gobell
  113. Dare2Lead says:
    @Jimmy1969

    “The lady doth protest too much.”

  114. S says:
    @TroothSeeker

    Meanwhile the Germans devolved into the eternal and perennial villains.

    For decades after WWII, if they wanted to emphasize a TV or movie character was particularly evil, almost invariably they would have him using not just any pistol or machine gun, but a German Luger or MP-40.

    The first 1968 episode of Hawaii 5-0 has this ship captain using a Luger when he gets in a fight with McGarrets police.

    The first Dirty Harry (1971) has the serial killer Scorpio whip out an MP-40 which he uses to shoot Eastwood’s partner with.

    Don’t see this so much nowadays.

  115. @MarkinPNW

    To MarkinPNW from Elmerfudzie: Yes I concur with your conclusion that the City of London banksters had everything to do with promoting division in the USA probably dating as far back as the Civil War using their infamous divide and conquer strategy. There were rumors circulating that British agents lurking within the White House were in Cahoots with Stalin to slowly poison FDR (with Thallium, I think). Frankly, I wouldn’t put anything past their bankster scheming (s) and skulduggery…

    The London 7/7 bombing on the same day, and places too, that Mr Powers scheduled mock terror attacks in subway areas and double-decker bus, stunk to high heaven-couldn’t believe that he got away with that ludicrous story! The clincher, bus security cameras weren’t working either on 7/7…what absolute tripe! God save us all from these Intel creeps!

  116. @Emslander

    “ No, that was Wilson in WWI and it was not a good thing. I’d pick Monarchy over mayhem any day of the week.“

    I very much agree with you, and I have often argued on UR, that monarchs claimed to be ruling by divine law which made them liable to the moral law and hence the monarchy was counterbalanced, in theory, by the clergy who put a check on the moral behaviour of monarchs such as when the Pope excommunicated Frederick II for failing to honour his crusading pledge. In practice, the power of monarchs was pretty much influenced by the financial power of the usual usurers except some kings, like Richard Lion Heart, knew how to fight back against them by simply cutting their heads. So the monarchic rule has its de facto system of checks and balances with power flowing among the nobility, the clergy and the financiers. Today, under the so called representative democracy, the people get the illusion of having a say in the ruling system when the power resides mainly in the hands of the bankers and the corporate elites.

    As for Wilson compared to FDR, it is pretty much trying to sort out tweedledum from tweedledee. Wilson was a smokescreen President when the real power was in the hands of colonel Edward Mandell House ( Wilson’s alter ego as stated by Wilson) and the life long “ advisor” to presidents the Jewish financier Bernard Baruch. Wilson’s legacy were the Federal Reserve, the income tax ( which was supposed to stay at 1%), the US entry in WWI ( when he campaigned for anti war involvement) and the infamous Fourteen Points that tricked the Germans into the deadly web of the Treaty of Versailles promising the Germans no restitutions nor land concessions in return for a ceasefire.

    FDR whose grand father made his fortune in the opium trade was as morally corrupt as most US presidents save for a few like President William Taft and President William McKinley. FDR conspired unconstitutionally to push America into war taking by his Secretary of War Stimson’ advice “to manoeuvre the Japanese into war” and gave Britain military aid and financing without the approval of congress. To make a long story short, JFK would have been the one president that could have pulled America from the brink of continual warring and ultimate bankruptcy while keeping the highly favourable international cultural standing of the US. Unfortunately he embarked on mission impossible and paid for his temerity in blood and tears.

    • Thanks: Emslander
  117. @J. Alfred Powell

    Thanks for this very informative comment.
    I just want to clarify that it is not me who calls Joe’s memoir “scurrilous”: it is included in David Irving’s quote.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  118. @Jimmy1969

    “ JFK’s assassin was a lone disgruntled nut. RFK ironically was killed because he was out stumping for the Jewish vote and Sirhan’s relatives were previously wiped out in an Israeli bombing raid paid for by the US. ”

    Are you sure you are at the right address. I thought most residents of cloud cuckoo land avoid sites like UR because of the abundance of “ conspiracy theorists” as opposed to the “ coincidence theorists” that usually tune to the MSM while enjoying a laid back posture on the couch with some brain stimulating easy to prepare food and making sure they do not skip the next ball game. Well, no grudge whatsoever from myself as a committed conspiracy theorist; everyone has the full right of freedom of thought provided it is coupled with a modicum of humbleness and respect to the opposing view.

    • Agree: Mevashir
  119. @bayviking

    Re: The JFK / Ben-Guiron letters on Dimona.

    The Battle of the Letters, 1963: John F. Kennedy, David Ben-Gurion, Levi Eshkol, and the U.S. Inspections of Dimona
    https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2019-05-02/battle-letters-1963-john-f-kennedy-david-ben-gurion-levi-eshkol-us-inspections-dimona

    *

    While the JFK Jr murder is imprinted with the quintessential kabbalistic signature from the birth of Saint Anne Frank The Martyr of Jewish Holocaust fame …
    https://www.unz.com/article/joseph-p-kennedy-the-cursed-peacemaker/#comment-4775072

    JFK’s assassination, unsurprisingly, carries similar, kabbalistic fingerprints from the birth of Levi Eshkol …

    MG

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  120. @Montefrío

    You wrote:

    ‘Nixon, a president I supported, was no enemy of the Jews’.

    Nixon was a shrewd political operator and he played the Zio-lobby early on and appeased them with a few more morsels here and there.

    That said, there’s a TON of evidence to demonstrate that he turned on them later in his first term and thereafter (especially in ordering that satellite and other Intel be withheld from the Zio-genociders in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War that saw the criminal Zio-occupiers come within a whisker of defeat).

    For that, he had to pay dearly.

    In the words of Michael Collins Piper:

    ‘Nixon, like JFK, had begun to run afoul of the Israelis and like JFK, was targeted for destruction’.

  121. @anon

    You wrote:

    ‘Am I the only person who couldn’t care less about the Kennedy’s?’

    No, of course not.

    There are numerous people like you who worshipped David Ben Gurion, were lifelong supporters of the Zionist Dominated Usury Banking Cartel (that owns/controls the Federal Reserve, the ECB and the Bank of England), and its extortionate parasitism directed at the goys.
    You get off on seeing patriotic Gentiles sacrifice their lives fighting wars on behalf of Israel and you’re also a card carrying members of AIPAC and rabid Talmudist to boot.

    So …. NO, you’re not alone. There are other low-lifes like you in this world.

    • Agree: Druid55
  122. anastasia says:

    Really great article.

  123. @Ktulu

    First lets get it right Biden is more english then irish. He plays the irish card but his roots go back hundreds of years in england.

    • Replies: @GeneralRipper
  124. Sparkon says:
    @LondonBob

    Jack Ruby was the only link Mossad had to the actual mechanics of the assassination, and even there you could pin it on the mafia.

    From at least the occasion of Pres. Kennedy’s birthday party in 1962, which was hosted by Arthur and Mathilde Krim at their mansion following Marilyn Monroe’s cringeworthy Happy Birthday serenade of JFK at Madison Square Garden, VP Lyndon B. Johnson enjoyed a close personal relationship with Mathilde Krim, converted Jewess, avowed Zionist, and former member of the Irgun terrorist organization.

    White House photo by Yoichi Okamoto

    https://mondoweiss.net/2018/01/secret-life-mathilde/

    Whatever connection Jack Ruby or the Mafia had to the assassination, it is doubtful they could have been responsible for the Secret Service’s abject failures to protect Pres. Kennedy along the presidential motorcade’s route through Dallas, when the normal motorcycle guard was stripped away, military security units told to stand down, agents left behind at the airport, agents out all night drinking, or the Secret Service’s failures to clear and secure high rise buildings along the motorcade route, including the TSBD, their failure to clear and secure the grassy knoll areas either side of the triple underpass, with the hijacking of Pres. Kennedy’s corpse from the lawful authorities in Dallas to top it all off.

    Of all the usual suspects in Pres. Kennedy’s assassination, only VP Lyndon Johnson had direct access to and influence over the Secret Service.

  125. @Hyper Bole

    The Warren Report and every other “official U.S. government” narrative are better in appealing to a ten year old mind.

  126. @Randolph

    he was placed there to act as a focus point to coordinate the timing of the shooters

    LOL! What kind of sniper need someone with a conspicuous umbrella to stand next to their target? And why an umbrella on a sunny day? A big Mexican hat would have been my preferred choice. Or perhaps a big sign saying: “Shoot here now!”

    • Replies: @Mevashir
    , @Bert
  127. @Verymuchalive

    are you the first to draw the connection between [the Umbrella Man], Joseph P Kennedy and the Jews?

    Surely not. I must have read it somewhere. But since I can’t figure out where, it could also be a “Yesterday” (referring to McCartney waking up one morning with the tune of Yesterday in his head, asking his friends what song it is, until he finally accepted it as his own creation and wrote the lyrics for it). More seriously, I first paid attention to the Umbrella Man when I heard Josiah Thompson’s short video. The Umbrella Man himself made the connection. I decided that the “conspiracy theory” makes more sense than Thompson’s “quantum coincidence theory”. I kind of wonder, actually, if Thompson was not being ironic, rather than idiotic.
    Thanks for your appreciation

  128. @Mark Gobell

    Thanks for the National Security Archive link. Interesting.
    On the Anna Frank connection, I don’t get it.

  129. Mevashir says:
    @J. Alfred Powell


    In this book, Lansky discusses the rival bootlegging operations of his Italian boys vs the Kennedys. So why do you dismiss this charge as a fabrication?

    Remember too how JPK authorized the cruel lobotomizing of his own eldest daughter Rosemary. That was an act of eugenics the Nazis would be proud of (although in truth the Nazis were kind and loving to their own, not so JPK).

    JPK was a notorious womanizer who broke his wife Rosemary’s heart repeatedly. Who knows how many secrets were compromised by him in London when he wined and dined German officials:

    This is a comment on the Nasaw biography on Amazon:

    [MORE]

    https://www.amazon.com/review/R7CHEN2L0ENBZ/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0143124072

    1.0 out of 5 stars
    Nasaw falsifies history. Denies Joe Kennedy’s career-long ties to the Mob.
    Reviewed in the United States on April 8, 2013
    Verified Purchase
    The Patriarch has received glowing reviews in the New York Times and elsewhere. It’s been praised for humanizing Joe Kennedy as a driven, up-from-nowhere Irish American and as a devoted father, brilliant investor, and peerless political kingmaker.

    This 868-page book is thoroughly documented and has a huge bibliography and index. But for all of its scholarly trappings, the book is more the work of a hagiographer than a biographer. Why? Because Nasaw’s deeper intent, I think, is not to humanize Kennedy, but to sanitize him: to launder parts of the historical record that reflect poorly on Joe.

    Several months ago I chanced upon a Chicago Public Television interview in which Nasaw glibly dismisses “the myth” of Joe Kennedy’s bootlegging. (at 2:40 of the video at […] )

    His dismissal annoyed me, for I’d just finished Burton Hersh’s Bobby and J Edgar (2007), a sobering 600-page book that is shot through with evidence of Joe Kennedy’s pathological womanizing and his constant dealings, both social and professional, with Mob leaders from coast to coast who supplied him with – among other things – women.

    Burton Hersh is a historian whom David Nasaw should not ignore. Harvard educated and himself a Kennedy family intimate, Hersh is regarded as the biographer of record of Ted Kennedy. I had turned to Bobby and J Edgar after reading Hersh’s The Old Boys, an exquisitely detailed history of the origins of the CIA. Historians Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Doris Kearns Goodwin, both close to the Kennedy family, have praised it highly.

    Like Nasaw, Hersh had full access to Joe Kennedy’s papers and to the voluminous FBI files on the Kennedys maintained by J. Edger Hoover: materials to which Nasaw claims – erroneously – that he had sole access.

    After 150 pages centered mostly on Joe Kennedy, Bobby and J. Edgar zeroes in on the intense hostility that developed between its two title figures. This hostility was rooted in Hoover’s self-servingly soft approach to organized crime and in Bobby’s ferociously single-minded campaign as Attorney General to destroy organized crime in America: a mission fueled and frustrated by his gradual and horrific discovery of the depth of his father’s Mob ties. Joe used these ties to advance Jack’s and Bobby’s political fortunes even as Bobby was working feverishly to do away with the Mob.

    Curious about Nasaw’s sanitized account of Joe Kennedy on Chicago Public TV, I got a copy of The Patriarch. I wanted to see how it responds to the findings of Hersh and the other writers who have documented Joe Kennedy’s Mob ties, including Gus Russo, Ron Kessler, Gore Vidal and James Douglass.

    Nasaw mentions none of them in his text, his index or his bibliography.

    How, then, does Nasaw deal with these ties? Speaking like a fastidious academic, he describes a research strategy that involved his meticulous review of all primary and secondary sources on Joe Kennedy, “taking nothing for granted, dissecting every tale and rumor and discarding anecdotal second-and thirdhand observations that I could not substantiate” (xxiv).

    This entitles him to claim that “most of the stories about bootlegging originated in unsubstantiated, usually off the cuff remarks made by Meyer Lansky, Frank Costello, Joe Bonanno and other Mob figures not particularly known for their truth telling” (80).

    Academics, like magicians, know sleight of hand. With this one sentence, Nasaw conceals the elaborate, nationwide network of organized crime ties that J. Edgar Hoover’s Joe Kennedy file, in Hersh’s account, confirms enabled Joe to realize his soaring ambitions for himself and his sons.

    Will the American people have access to that file?

    In Bobby and J Edgar, Hersh goes further. He advances evidence to show that the JFK and RFK assassinations were likely triggered by Mob outrage – Santo Trafficante, Carlos Marcello, Sam Giancana, the Los Angeles Mob – at Bobby’s drive to root out organized crime. In this theory, other government agencies, the FBI and CIA included, were likely involved as well.

    The Patriarch, by contrast, mentions JFK’s assassination only in passing, as the source of Joe Kennedy’s grief shortly before his death.

    Nasaw writes that he was approached by the Kennedy family to write about Joe. Hersh, himself a Kennedy family intimate, says of Bobby and J. Edgar in the book’s Foreword that “if honestly done, it was likely to scorch out sources and friends whom I have cherished since the middle sixties”.

    Where Hersh took a conscious risk, Nasaw plays it safe, and his Patriarch suffers for that reason.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  130. Mevashir says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    LOL! What kind of sniper need someone with a conspicuous umbrella to stand next to their target? And why an umbrella on a sunny day? A big Mexican hat would have been my preferred choice. Or perhaps a big sign saying: “Shoot here now!”

    In Africa people do use umbrellas on hot days.

    Also it makes a very dramatic statement. Remember that the Zionists aren’t content to maim kill and destroy. They also want to make a moralistic statement: You brought this on yourself by your depraved behavior etc…

    Remember Golda Meir’s patronizing comment: “We can forgive the Arabs for attacking us, but we cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill them.” This is a breathtaking example of Zionist chutzpah!

    • Agree: Laurent Guyénot
  131. @Laurent Guyénot

    Sorry for the sloppy misattribution of “scurrilous” — which your piece makes clear is Irving’s. Does he indicate whether, where or how he got access to the memoir? I’ve read the magnificent 2 published volumes of his Churchill but don’t own them — and they are difficult to access, and the concluding volume has apparently been conclusively suppressed by British authorities in a vile blow to the Calliope, Muse of History.

  132. @Mevashir

    I wrote “Smith writes that there is no evidence to support the legend of his bootlegging [xx]. Claims otherwise in other books, when tracked to their putative sources, turn out to be “based” on claims made by unreliable interested parties.”

    As you can see, this does not, as you mistakenly write, “dismiss this charge as a fabrication.” It doesn’t even mention Lansky, but Lansky is the only putative “source” I’ve seen sited in support of this claim. If you regard Lansky’s evidence as trustworthy, that reflects on your judgment. I certainly don’t.

    You ostensible critique of Nasaw’s sentence quoted from p. 80 does not address his comment. This kind of non sequitur vituperation, also, is discreditable.

    • Replies: @mevashir
  133. Bert says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    Your reply to Randolph implies that you are assuming only one sniper. Given that synchronization of watches is difficult and the snipers needed to be aiming not looking at a watch, more than a single sniper would need to have a highly visible marker next to the street to coordinate their shots. And if the shots were not coordinated, then there would have been a greater likelihood that the limousine would have sped away before all shooters could engage.

    By focusing on the well-known Jewish desire to humiliate goys, you appear to have missed the tactical significance of your story and its implication regarding the identity of the regime behind the assassination.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @Laurent Guyénot
  134. mevashir says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    I don’t know what you refer to about Nasaw’s book page 80.

    As you can see, this does not, as you mistakenly write, “dismiss this charge as a fabrication.” It doesn’t even mention Lansky, but Lansky is the only putative “source” I’ve seen sited in support of this claim. If you regard Lansky’s evidence as trustworthy, that reflects on your judgment. I certainly don’t.

    I read the Lansky book many years ago when I was in college. But I recall much of it pretty clearly. He seemed to revel in boasting about his criminal exploits especially against rival groups like Kennedy. I had a church friend back East who was raised in Rhode island. He was a retired professor and no fool. He told me that Rhode Island has an extremely intricate coastline that the Kennedys used to smuggle their booze in from Scotland and Ireland. He said the standing joke was that cranberry fields that are marshy and swampy cover many bodies of people who crossed JPK.

    (Rhode Island never passed prohibition and it was understood that any prohibition agent who would wander into Rhode Island likely would not emerge alive. Rhode Island had the highest percentage Catholic population in the country at that time at ~ 80%. And Catholics were extremely anti-prohibition, not only because they like to drink but because of the need for Sacramental wine in their church services which could occur on a daily or thrice daily basis.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MBTzoyrVI3zaLaFRYA419ot24OyT2VBL/view?usp=drivesdk
    This link has a scan of a chapter about a famous prohibition agent named Izzy Einstein. He used all sorts of theatrical tricks to catch people drinking. He was arrested in Providence Rhode Island and in this chapter scan my great-grandfather shows up on the scene to bail him out of jail!)

    You can split hairs all you want. Whether or not Kennedy was a bootlegger, I consider him a scoundrel. I’m not impressed with his appeasement of the germans. He apparently would bow and scrape to anyone with a powerful enough military to coerce his compromise.

    A flagrantly promiscuous person is considered to be a security risk in intelligence services. Kennedy’s role is ambassador to London was as much intelligence as it was diplomatic and he simply could not be trusted. Any pretty Freud line could get him to open his mouth and blabs state secret simply by spreading her legs.

    You probably know that JFK was dogged by the same suspicions. In fact he even had a mini affair with an East German spy. Hoover was constantly agitating that he was a security risk.

  135. Sparkon says:
    @Bert

    more than a single sniper would need to have a highly visible marker next to the street to coordinate their shots

    The Stemmons freeway sign would have served that purpose well.


    Photo by Philip Willis

    Far from speeding away, the presidential limousine seemed to slow down in the killing zone as shots rang out.

  136. GeneralRipper [AKA "ICan\'tTellUY"] says:
    @Dingo bay rum

    Thank you, sir.

  137. Anonymous[153] • Disclaimer says:
    @Observator

    Charles Lindbergh spoke for the majority of Americans when he demanded FDR end his back room scheming. He sealed his fate in his powerful Des Moines speech of Sept. 11, 1941, in which he courageously stated this inconvenient truth, “The three most-important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish, and the Roosevelt administration. Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals, who believe that their future, and the future of mankind, depend upon the domination of the British Empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.”

    On the very same day…exactly sixty years later.

    • Replies: @Dr. Charles Fhandrich
  138. ivan says:
    @mevashir

    Catholics loved their sacramental wine but so did the Jews. Given their rivalry and sometimes antipathy, Jewish accounts of prominent Catholics should be taken with salt. The Bronfmans of Seagrams whose scion later went on to bilk the Swiss over the alleged Gold of the Jews: made their money running Prohibition.

    Prohibition in any case is the product of the sick Puritanical mind that lays awake at night wondering if “someone somewhere waa enjoying himself.”

    • Replies: @Mevashir
  139. @Right_On

    America takes the bait every time.

  140. @mevashir

    You wrote:

    ‘I am not impressed with his [Joseph Kennedy’s] appeasement of the Germans’.

    What complete nonsense !! There was no ‘appeasement’.

    Joe Kennedy just wanted to prevent a World War and keep both the U.S and Britain out of it.
    Let’s face it, NO Anglo country had a dog in this race.
    The sacrifice of their blood and treasure was ALL FOR NOTHING and could have been avoided if FDR took Joseph Kennedy’s advice rather than that of Zionists like Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr and Bernard Baruch.

    Anyone with even a scintilla of objectivity knows that the Treaty of Versailles was crushingly unjust to the Germans, who were stripped of territory (Sudetenland to the Czechs) and vast sections of Prussia/Danzig to the Poles, not to mention the reparations payments and other indignities.

    The Germans quite rightfully just wanted what was theirs.

    Many people have been brainwashed and indoctrinated by Zio-funded books and historical texts that smear Britain’s Neville Chamberlain as an ‘appeaser’ but he was anything but.

    He was a PeaceMaker and any impartial viewing of the facts will back that up.
    History will judge Chamberlain as the great man that he actually was while poodles of the Zionists like Winston Churchill will get the condemnation that they so richly deserve.

    • Replies: @Mevashir
  141. Bert says:

    Rebuttal: Two reference points would be better than one, particularly if the umbrella was primary and its position could be adjusted as circumstances required. For being a protester, the umbrella man oddly did not place himself in the most forward position allowed by DPD personnel. Staying out of the line of fire?

  142. @Bert

    Let’s assume that the Umbrella Man was there to signal to the snipers when and where to shoot. Let’s assume his black umbrella had nothing to do with “heckling” JFK about his father’s support of Chamberlain’s appeasement policy. Why then would Witt come forward to the HSCA and say he was “heckling” JFK about his father’s support of Chamberlain’s appeasement policy? Isn’t that testimony, in itself, a signature? Now, if you believe that the Umbrella Man was part of the plot (whether he was Witt or someone else), how can you explain (away) Witt’s explanation? Another kind of “quantum physics coincidence”? Either the Umbrella Man himself, or Witt’s testimony to the HSCA, or both, are a signature, regardless of whether the umbrella served another purpose (which I doubt very much, agreeing with Sparkon)

  143. Ron Unz says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    In 2001 an edition of Joseph Kennedy’s letters and related documents was published edited by his (adoptive) grand-daughter Amanda Smith: Joseph P. Kennedy, Hostage To Fortune: The Letters of Joseph P. Kennedy, ed. Amanda Smith (New York, Viking, 2001). …Smith writes that there is no evidence to support the legend of his bootlegging [xx]. Claims otherwise in other books, when tracked to their putative sources, turn out to be “based” on claims made by unreliable interested parties.

    I’m very skeptical of that. I assume you’ve read Seymour Hersh’s Dark Side of Camelot, and I refreshed my memory by taking a look at pp. 46-56, where Hersh seems to gather together what seems to be absolutely overwhelming evidence that Joseph Kennedy had heavily been involved in bootlegging during the 1920s. Dozens of interviews with former FBI agents and other law enforcement officials as well as members of organized crime seem to confirm this, including numerous mentions in various memoirs. Perhaps all these people were lying, but I tend to doubt it.

    Also, Kennedy became a leading figure in the legal liquor business after the end of Prohibition, which is exactly what many of the other former bootleggers tried to do. And there also seems overwhelming evidence that he had longstanding tiesy terms with many of the leading figures in organized crime, whose help he enlisted during the 1960 presidential election.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  144. @Ron Unz

    I don’t regard Hersh as trustworthy. Two examples of why: In Dark Side of Camelot he avidly catalogs JFK’s philandering — with the quite remarkable exception of Mary Pinchot Meyer. And Hersh’s account of the Tyler Kent case in the same book (1997) does not jibe with the evidence presented in John Costello, Ten Days To Destiny (1991).

    I’m not much concerned whether JPK was or wasn’t a bootlegger. I only say that I haven’t seen convincing evidence of it (whereas — for instance — it’s admitted on all sides that FDR’s grandparents imported opium to China). I don’t regard Lansky as a reliable witness and I do regard it as silly that some present him as such — not to speak of the evident biases of his Zionist biographers. Your comment, Ron, offers no evidence — only guilt-by-putatitve-association arguments. (And for that matter JPK could have made his putative mob acquaintances as easily in Hollywood.) What gives me pause about the bootlegger story is that JPK appears to have been making good money in “business” during the 20s — he didn’t need to get involved in bootlegging. And his Scotch liquor franchise appears to be accountable otherwise.

    Also, note that Daniel Okrent, Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition (2010) debunks the JPK bootlegger story at some length p. 366-371.

    None of this, in any case, is nearly so important to the concerns of American history as the story of the railroading of America into the Second World War, in which JPK played a significantly telling role. In this regard I repeat that his “Diplomatic Memoir” should be published. It’s withholding represents a signal disservice to American historiography.

    And Hersh, I think, on further grounds than those mentioned here, is NOT to be trusted. He consistently gives me the impression of someone who is serving an agenda other than pursuit of the all pertinent facts for truth’s sake.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
    , @Ron Unz
  145. @J. Alfred Powell

    A little more on Hersh. Seymour Hersh made his national name (so to speak) as a journalist by his “exposure” of the “My Lai Massacre.” It seems clear, however, that the net effect of Hersh’s reporting of this matter was to deflect blame for the incident onto the military and to depict it as an aberration, whereas in fact it was a (perhaps excessive) result of widely employed tactics and strategy which did not originate with the military. Ralph W. McGehee, Deadly Secrets: My 25 Years in the CIA (Sheridan Square, 1983), especially pages 129-134, and Col. L. Fletcher Prouty (ret.), The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies (Prentice Hall, 1973) support this view of the tactical and strategic situation in Vietnam, and Fletcher’s account of the similar character of the compilation and release of the Pentagon Papers is also suggestive.

    At the very least, Hersh’s ignorance of Costello’s fundamental and extremely revealing research on the Tyler Kent case, and of the very interesting case of JFK lover Mary Pinchot Meyer (which Ben Bradlee mentions in his 1995 memoir — since then three books have been published) discredits his abilities as a researcher. But in my view the tend to suggest something else.

  146. Mevashir says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    Anyone with even a scintilla of objectivity knows that the Treaty of Versailles was crushingly unjust to the Germans, who were stripped of territory (Sudetenland to the Czechs) and vast sections of Prussia/Danzig to the Poles, not to mention the reparations payments and other indignities.

    The Germans quite rightfully just wanted what was theirs.

    That may be so, but they projected a far more pugnacious image than just getting theirs. Perhaps they had a PR problem.

    By the way, I’ve read that Hitler spent some time in England. Did he speak any English?

    I think we can only say it was Providential that the forces lined up to defeat him. His three main protagonists were all part Jewish with severe character defects. And yet they stopped him.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  147. Mevashir says:
    @ivan

    Prohibition in any case is the product of the sick Puritanical mind that lays awake at night wondering if “someone somewhere was enjoying himself.”

    Very funny. But as someone who takes buses and interacts with the large homeless population in my city in Colorado, liquor is a scourge. You can tell from the many bottles of spirits littering the sidewalks and streets.

    On the other hand I think all drugs should be decriminalized like the Amsterdam model. Did you know that in the early 20th century you could buy heroin (laudanum) and cocaine in American drug stores? The war on drugs is a terrible failure that simply enriches the guvmint agencies and especially the cartels.

  148. Hibernian says:
    @Dodge City Pete

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

    She is Lutheran. Family roots are in NW Germany and the US South, so it is hardly surprising that she is Protestant.

  149. Hibernian says:
    @Ktulu

    Good. Let them claim him.

  150. Ron Unz says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    I don’t regard Hersh as trustworthy…I’m not much concerned whether JPK was or wasn’t a bootlegger. I only say that I haven’t seen convincing evidence of it

    I don’t think you’re being fair to Hersh, who has spent a half-century as one of America’s most renowned investigative journalists. I’m not saying he’s necessarily always correct, but his material should be taken extremely seriously.

    He begins his discussion:

    The difficulty in attempting to evaluate the many reports of Joe Kennedy’s participation in bootlegging is the remarkable lack of documentation in government files…Yet, in scores of interviews for this book over four years, former high-level government officials of the 1950s and 1960s, including Justice Department prosecutors, CIA operatives, and FBI agents, insisted that they knew that Joe Kennedy had been a prominent bootlegger during Prohibition.

    Over the next dozen pages, Hersh catalogs the names and specific claims of some of these individuals, along with the various public statements by prominent gangsters of that era, including in their memoirs. Maybe all these people were just lying for some reason. Maybe Hersh was lying about what they told him. But I tend to doubt that.

    So Hersh never explicitly concludes that Kennedy was a bootlegger, but provided enough evidence to convince me.

    As to the complete lack of government records, by 1950 Kennedy was one of the wealthiest men in America and also a personal friend of J. Edgar Hoover. I suspect that explains why there aren’t any FBI records.

  151. Mevashir says:
    @A Half Naked Fakir

    The church has been increasingly Judaized from the time of Martin Luther. Each successive wave of reformation introduced more Jewish elements into Christianity and further weakened traditional Catholicism.

    The rise of groups like Seventh-Day Adventists Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses in 19th century America represented the near total Judaization of Christianity.

    And fundamentalist groups like the Evangelicals have insured that even what is not Judaized will still be rendered submissive to the Jewish lobby.

    • Agree: A Half Naked Fakir
  152. Mevashir says:
    @Ron Unz

    As to the complete lack of government records, by 1950 Kennedy was one of the wealthiest men in America and also a personal friend of J. Edgar Hoover. I suspect that explains why there aren’t any FBI records.

    Are you certain they were friends? I thought J Edgar Hoover was a moral crusader. Why would he be friends with a promiscuous reprobate like JPK?

  153. Mevashir says:
    @lydia

    Robert Jeffress’ statement conveys the general attitude of most American Christians and their pastors regarding the Israeli occupation and persecution. They have rejected their Christian brethren in order to prop up and idolize the State of Israel.

    There is an additional factor here. Most Palestinian Christians are Catholic Maronite or Greek Orthodox. The American Christian zionists are almost entirely Protestant evangelical. Quite frankly they could care less about the plight of Catholics or Orthodox Christians anywhere in the world and particularly inside their pet project israel.

  154. @Mevashir

    You wrote:

    ‘I think we can only say it was Providential that the forces lined up to defeat him [Hitler]’.

    Providential ? I think you made a typo there. The word I would’ve used is ‘Unfortunate’.

    For all Hitler’s faults, most objective analysis would demonstrate that the world would be a far better and peaceful place if the Germans had won the war and the Zionist Dominated Usury Banking Cartel that controls the entirety of the western financial system had gotten its comeuppance.

    There would have been no creation of the Apartheid Israeli State, no Murder of JFK, RFK, JFK Jr, James Forrestal, no USS Liberty incident, No Vietnam war, No Gentile Blood and Treasure expended in all those wars for Israel, no 9/11 ….. etc.

    The world would have been a DEMONSTRABLY better place.

    • Replies: @Mevashir
  155. @Ron Unz

    I don’t mean to dismiss all (italicized) Hersh’s assertions out of hand, but as I said, I do not trust him. I sense that his accounts are shaped by other motives besides, and in some cases superseding, pursuit of facts for truth’s sake. In this respect his omissions are perhaps more telling than his inclusions — I mentioned his ignorance or suppression of Costello’s strong and revealing evidence on the Tyler Kent case, his suppression of mention of Mary Pinchot Meyer, and his in one crucial matter diversionary account of My Lai. These aren’t the only matters in Hersh that arouse my distrust of him, but they are salient cases easy to pin down.

    For these and other reasons I distrust Hersh categorically, his large media presence notwithstanding. Chomsky presents a similar case on an airier plane. Whether Hersh is right or not about the Kennedys’ mob connections or their extent, doesn’t concern me that much.

    More, there are such strong motives for smearing the Kennedys, father and sons, on the part of various strongly biased powers, that all smears require extra-sceptical evaluation. Obviously these interested parties include Hersh’s sources. And, refresh my memory, does he cite any of them by name?

    And it is also important — much more important, in fact — to recognize, and take into account, the obvious case that all smears are inherently diversionary. What elicits hostility to the Kennedys on the part of their attackers, isn’t the mob associations or philandering or the sources of their wealth and power, but how they employed it — in particular, Joseph Kennedy’s “isolationism” (to employ the smear term coining by British Intelligence for the purpose of manipulating American public opinion in their interest), JFK’s turn toward peace and resistance to Wall Street plunder abroad and at home, his advocacy of social welfare and civil rights initiatives, his opposition to Israeli bomb-making and Zionist aggression, and his understanding, informed by what he and RFK saw and learned on their world tour of 1954, that wars of national liberation were (are) often exactly that, and waged on much the same basis as our own country’s, and RKF’s assumption of his assassinated brother’s goals. The much suppressed evidence is nevertheless now clear that JFK was in the process of trying to bring an end to the Cold War and the Atomic Weapons Race — that is, to modify the predacious course of Wall Street World Empire. This tells us both why and who.

  156. Mevashir says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    For all Hitler’s faults, most objective analysis would demonstrate that the world would be a far better and peaceful place if the Germans had won the war and the Zionist Dominated Usury Banking Cartel that controls the entirety of the western financial system had gotten its comeuppance.

    I think you are a naive romanticizing fool. Hitler was fundamentally a pagan. Although he used the church to help pacify the German public, his comment about the Pope as “the Jew-God’s deputy in Rome” tells us everything we need to know. The Vatican released an encyclical in 1937 condemning many aspects of the Nazi regime. This encyclical was written by Cardinal Pacelli who became Pope Pius XII shortly thereafter:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_brennender_Sorge

    The Catholic experience in Poland was particularly unhappy under Nazi occupation. They murdered countless Polish Catholic priests monks and nuns. What do you think would be the fate of the Russian Orthodox church if the Germans had succeeded in conquering Moscow?

    Also you conveniently forget Hitler’s Japanese ally. Would they have been benevolent conquerors had they won World War II? I think it’s significant that of all Asian countries Japan to this day is the most resistant to Christianity, with only about 5% of the population Christian. Compare that to South Korea which is about 40% Christian. Even in China Christianity is spreading rapidly compared with Japan.

    There would have been no creation of the Apartheid Israeli State, no Murder of JFK, RFK, JFK Jr, James Forrestal, no USS Liberty incident, No Vietnam war, No Gentile Blood and Treasure expended in all those wars for Israel, no 9/11 ….. etc.

    This statement is across the board foolish. Hitler himself was a Zionist. Books about the Transfer Agreement explain that Zionists were the only Jewish group tolerated in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. The Zionists ran camps to train Jewish youth to work on kibbutzim. The Nazis cooperated with this as the best way to expedite the removal of Jews from Europe.

    Ho Chi Minh was our ally against Japan in World War II. Had the Japanese won the war do you think they would have granted Vietnam independence? Or would they have been Imperial colonizers like the French?

    In your list of martyr victims I see you omit Martin Luther King Jr. Interesting, especially since he was killed when he started to speak out against the Vietnam war that you also claim to oppose.

    The Kennedys were a family of low class hedonists. I shed no tears for them. As I have written here many times, their father was wildly promiscuous and a security threat. Any Fräulein could just spread her legs and get JPK to spread his lips and start blabbing state secrets. They are a despicable family.

    I think we all should be very grateful for the enormous human sacrifices made by the Allies to win World War II. And hold our collective noses at the stench of seditious sentiments you are expressing here.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  157. Malla says:
    @Schuetze

    Hey Schuetze,
    What do ya think of this?
    There is this Indian ultra-Nationalist guy, Abhijit Chavda, who speaks a lot of gibberish about ancient India but even he can give some gems of wisdom. He explains Marxism in 10 seconds when asked by one of his listeners.

    Marxism Explained in 10 Seconds | #AskAbhijit E12 | Abhijit Chavda

    • Replies: @Schuetze
  158. @Mevashir

    You wrote:

    ‘And hold our collective noses at the stench of seditious sentiments you are expressing here.’

    Actually, the stench was distinctly coming from your direction – no doubt the overwhelming bulk of UR readers would agree with me on that.

    Any objective person that didn’t have a Zionist dog in the race would rate JFK as a great President. Younger brother Bobby, in the eyes of many, would’ve been better still.

    In the case of the former, how could you not like someone who said of the CIA: ‘I’d like to splinter them into a 1000 pieces and scatter them to the wind’.

    Of course, from your vantage point, the CIA, (which like Britain’s MI6 and the Apartheid Israeli state’s Mossad is accountable and controlled by the Zio cabal), is an institution to be honoured.

    [MORE]

    Well, people with a conscience don’t think like you.

    You claim Hitler was a pagan. I don’t know if that’s true, but even if it was, who gives a rat’s arse ?

    If he could have rid the world of the Zionist Usury Banking Cartel parasite, which he surely would’ve done had Germany been the victor, the world would have been an infinitely better place.

    Now, in relation to Japan, to the extent that they harshly treated those Asiatic nations they conquered during the war, one has to understand that within the context of their chronic shortage of raw materials and logistical shortcomings, they did what they had to do because they viewed it as an existential fight for their survival.

    The only reason the Japanese attacked the U.S fleet at Pearl Harbour was because FDR had cut off their oil supplies and backed them into a corner. It was either fight or meekly surrender and let their economy come to a shuddering halt.

    FDR knew the consequences of his actions and purposely pursued this course of action – because his Zio advisers decreed that the U.S should enter the war.

    Absent FDR’s ‘act of war’ in cutting off the oil, there would have been no Pacific War.

    So YES, I would much rather have taken my chances with the Japanese, a noble and honourable people than having to negotiate with the treacherous and exploitative Zionists.

    My list of martyrs featured just some of the major players that immediately came to mind in my hurried commentary – it was never meant to be limited to just those.

    Yes of course, throw in MLK Jr and Malcolm X – both of whom were murdered during the tenure of the first Jewish President Lyndon Baines Johnson, a man who may not have done the actual planning and orchestration of these assassinations but would certainly have been approached to green light them before being undertaken.

    Make no mistake, the ADL, SPLC and countless other Jewish groups wanted MLK Jr and Malcolm X dead – and so it came to pass.

    Lastly, in relation to this statement of yours ….

    ‘I think we all should be very grateful for the enormous human sacrifices made by the Allies to win World War II’.

    … you certainly do not speak for me and a hell of a lot of Americans/Brits/Aussies etc.

    Said sacrifice was all for NOUGHT. Hitler should have been left to his own devices in pursuit of his quest to rid the world of Jewish Bolshevism.
    If anything Lend Lease should’ve been utilised to aAID him in this endeavour.

    I know it’s hard for you to fathom these things that I speak of – YOU, who get off on reading about the civilians who were incinerated by the fire bombing of Dresden and countless Japanese cities, on the orders dictated to FDR by his Zionist controllers.

    You no doubt enjoyed watching those people jumping to their deaths from the Nth Tower on 9/11 with a smirk on your face thinking, (like Bibi Netanyahu), hmmm … this is good for Israel.

    Well, decent people don’t think like you.

    We’ve all seen the heinous consequence of Zionist malfeasance and, as more and more people wake up from their slumber to acknowledge the Zio-orchestration of JFK’s death, 9/11, the Climate Change fraud, the Holohoax, the Covid Deception (and much more), a critical threshold will see to it that the yoke of Zionist tyranny is discarded.
    Then, and only then, will there be a long lasting peace on Earth.

    • Agree: Cking, Emblematic
    • Replies: @Mevashir
    , @Mevashir
  159. Mevashir says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    In the case of the former, how could you not like someone who said of the CIA: ‘I’d like to splinter them into a 1000 pieces and scatter them to the wind’.

    Of course, from your vantage point, the CIA, (which like Britain’s MI6 and the Apartheid Israeli state’s Mossad is accountable and controlled by the Zio cabal), is an institution to be honoured.

    It may surprise you but I am a 9/11 Truther and have endured much scorn from the Zionists and from my own Jewish relatives about this. I don’t admire the CIA at all.

    Apparently the Japanese have a long running tradition of singing Beethoven’s Ninth every New Year’s. It appears that the two cultures are quite compatible. I once speculated that Hitler would have happily divided the world into spheres of influence with the Japanese:

    I can see the logic in what you write. But I believe you are being naive. What do you think the world would look like today had Germany and Japan won WWII? I rather shudder to think about it. One way to look at it is your perspective. Another way is this: Hitler was so odious that even someone as horrible as Stalin was more acceptable.

    I remind you that Putin, who is a devout Russian Orthodox Christian, considers the stand of the USSR vs Hitler to be one of the great moments of Russian history.

    Climate Change “fraud” discredits you in my eyes. Climate Change is all too real. I live in the American West and every summer our air quality dives due to smoke from forest fires.

    Why would the ADL want MLK dead?

    I see you ignored this inconvenient truth:

    This statement is across the board foolish. Hitler himself was a Zionist. Books about the Transfer Agreement explain that Zionists were the only Jewish group tolerated in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. The Zionists ran camps to train Jewish youth to work on kibbutzim. The Nazis cooperated with this as the best way to expedite the removal of Jews from Europe.

    See these:

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?289751-1/the-transfer-agreement

    You’re like a person who vomits up after eating a good meal. Some of the vomit contains edible chunks of chow but the rest is digested ooze.

    Finally I would like to invite you to walk through Arlington National Cemetery speaking to the spirits there about the futility of their WWII sacrifices. Hopefully the ground will open up and swallow you alive.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Truth Vigilante
  160. Mevashir says:

    http://www.acjna.org/acjna/articles_detail.aspx?id=2748
    This is a very exciting article by an Israeli who advocates for a single binational state for Jews and Palestinians.

    • Replies: @ivan
  161. Mevashir says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    Finally I would like to invite you to walk through Arlington National Cemetery speaking to the spirits there about the futility of their WWII sacrifices. Hopefully the ground will open up and swallow you alive.

    I apologize for this hostile comment. I’m trying to put myself in your shoes and thinking about a world in which Germany and Japan won WWII. I come up with these questions:

    1. Germany is not an adept Imperial power. If England had accepted Hitler’s terms for peace, whereby the British Empire would remain intact while Germany would control Continental Europe, that might be feasible. But recognize that the City of London bankers would then still remain in control of the global financial system, something you oppose.

    2. What would Germany have done with Russia? No doubt they would try to keep Ukraine for their own Lebensraum, but that would be very awkward with Poland sandwiched in the middle. Would they have tried to restore the Tsar to Moscow?

    3. I’m not sure why you are cheering on Nazism which is socialism. We have German national socialism vs Soviet international socialism and how do we choose sides?

    4. What about Japan in the Pacific? What would they have done with all the Indochina countries yearning for freedom? What would they have done to Australia?

    5. What would be the fate of the American Jewish community, which is large and prosperous, in the face of a German victory? I don’t believe Germany or Japan could attack the American homeland so what terms would they seek to impose? It’s possible that following a German victory pressure would mount in America for the Jews to leave for Palestine or some other Jewish refuge.

    6. What would the Middle East look like after a German victory? Most of the countries are artificial creations of England and France carving up the Ottoman Empire. Would Germany have sought to redraw the borders? To control Middle Eastern oil?

    7. Finally, since the EU is said to be controlled by the Bundesbank, the EU is de facto German and thus Hitler’s dream of controlling continental Europe has come to pass.

    These are the kinds of questions that you need to ask rather than simply pine for a German-Japanese victory.

  162. ivan says:
    @Mevashir

    On the other hand I think all drugs should be decriminalized like the Amsterdam model. Did you know that in the early 20th century you could buy heroin (laudanum) and cocaine in American drug stores? The war on drugs is a terrible failure that simply enriches the guvmint agencies and especially the cartels.

    I agree completely. The monies are so great, the perversions of the course of justice so blatant, and the ignorance or indifference of the general public so complete that the class of criminals in control of this trade among the most ruthless and cruel anywhere.

    One should not create such perverse incentives, it attracts the worst elements of societies, who then prey on the weakest members of those societies.

  163. ivan says:
    @Mevashir

    I think the Israeli Jews if they see that the Palestinians are not out for revenge for real or imagined grievances might sign up for it. But I don’t hold out much prospect for it, as the “Arab street” is given to volatile emotions and like all crowds love mayhem and looting.

    In Durban, SA the last of the illusions have come crumbling down in just a couple of days :

    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/its-war-zone-south-africa-deploy-25000-troops-country-brink-civil-war

    That is the city where the Indians largely stay and 40,000 businesses have said to have been looted. I am certain many are looking to finally leave.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Mevashir
    , @Mevashir
  164. Malla says:
    @Mevashir

    Hitler had no desire to conquer the World. This is all typical WW2 propaganda, stop spewing this bullshit. Nobody in Germany believed that they wanted to conquer the World. Nor did the Japanese want to conquer the World.

    • Replies: @Mevashir
    , @Patrick McNally
  165. Malla says:
    @ivan

    Indians are being targeted there. This is not new, black rioters attacking Indian shopkeepers has a long history in Durban.

  166. Mevashir says:
    @ivan

    From what I understand these riots are purely the responsibility of former president Zuma who after receiving a mild prison sentence for incredible charges of corruption and graft urged his Zulu followers to Riot and rampage and destroy the South African economy. This is the behavior of a single selfish megalomaniacal black leader. Left to their own, the South African black population would not have behave this way.

    Zuma seems to be behaving like Trump who tried to enlist his own private militia of malcontents to storm the Capital.

    As for the Palestinians, I don’t think Arabs riot and loot the way Africans do. I’m not sure why you would think otherwise. Islam has strong injunctions against stealing.

    Unfortunately Israel’s military and security apparatus depends on ongoing strife and lack of resolution with the Palestinians. You can count on them to do everything in their power to perpetuate division and conflict. And to pay Abbas and the Hamas chief a lot of money to lead the Palestinians on to ruination.

  167. Mevashir says:
    @Malla

    Ok. Let’s say the Germans conquered Europe and Russia. That gives them half of the Eurasian land mass. Japan would conquer China Indochina possibly Australia and maybe even India. That would complete the conquest of Eurasia leaving only Africa and North and South America free. That looks a lot like conquering the world to me.

    • Replies: @Malla
  168. Mevashir says:
    @ivan

    [Too many totally off-topic comments, which will be much less likely to be published. There’s currently a South Africa article for this sort of discussion.]

    My daughter sent me a video clip of a crowd that broke into the Durban Zoo released the animals and then laughed and cheered as the tigers killed a zookeeper. These people deserve another Blood River confrontation:

  169. Malla says:
    @Mevashir

    OK, I understand what you mean.
    What I meant, that they had no intention to conquer the world. James Perloff’s video I had posted earlier discusses American POWs caught by German soldiers. In some farm in France they sit down for some booze and one English speaking German asks the Americans, some thing like, “so tell me, why are you Yanks in Europe?” and the Americans answer, “to stop you Germans from conquering the World.” And the Germans burst out laughing, they had never heard that they wanted to conquer the World. It was news to them. Basically all this was propaganda on the US and British commonwealth peoples to rile them up.
    Hitler did tell Indian revolutionary leader Subhash Chandra Bose that had his troops been close to India he would have marched into India with Bose to kick out the British. One German military leader was baffled at the advanced ideas Bose had for India. That is why Hitler suggested Bose go to Japan. Bose went to Tokyo and met Hideki Tojo. Bose even raised an Indian army for the German SS Waffen.

  170. ivan says:

    Sorry I cannot go on about SA. There is a warning up there about it.

  171. Malla says:
    @Mevashir

    Germany is not an adept Imperial power.

    This is a myth pushed around. Strict law abiding “humourless” “cold” (ya rite, LOL) Germans did not know how to deal with law breaking, “warm” darkies. Sure, atleast in Asia and Africa, the British were the best Empire builders and Empire runners in human history. No doubt about that, but the Germans were pretty good too.

    In Defense of German Colonialism by Prof Bruce Gilley

    Sir Alan Burns, a British Colonial Official was involved in fighting the Germans during WW1 in the clash in between the German and British Empires in Africa. He wrote a letter after a battle to his wife where he states he was surprised how the Black Africans of the German Empire fought hard for Kaiser and Empire and the high popularity the Germans had in their African Empire. The high support and legitimacy the Germans enjoyed among the native Black populations.
    German East Africa was actually quite successful and thus are ignored by the elite Marxist dominated academia and media.
    In Cameroon, when the German Empire were defeated by the British Empire in 1918, 18000 native Cameroonians as well as 117 Cameroonian tribal chiefs with their entourages, fled with the Germans to neutral Spanish territory.

    Germans (and Russians) were quite popular in China during Imperial days as compared to the other Europeans, Americans and the Japanese, who were in general disliked by the populace. Actually Germany and Germans is very popular among Indians, Arabs etc…
    Even the Japanese were good Empire runners.

  172. @Malla

    Hitler had the clearly stated aim of conquering eastern Europe for living space and dispossessing it of its Slavic population through mass-starvation. It’s true enough that Hitler did not talk about conquering the world. That was a claim floated in the West. Of course building the kind of empire in eastern Europe which Hitler aimed to do would have created a long term rival for the West with much greater potential ambitions than the USSR ever had. It was for this reason that Western leaders resolved to treat Hitler as an enemy before he could get that far.

    • Agree: Cking
    • Replies: @Malla
  173. Anon[441] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Did WWII hurt America? Are you off your head? Ignoring the ONE MILLION combat casualties, it created the Military Industrial Complex, or American Empire, which has spent the last 75 years causing mayhem and death all around the world, mainly to Third World peasants, but quite a few Americans have been chewed-up in the meat-grinders initiated by the Empire as well. Plus this Beast that was birthed in Washington to fight WWII, has now come full circle and is now the sworn enemy of the original American people. It destroyed your Republic, and is now transforming your nation into a worldwide tyrannical embarrassment, as it gobbles up billions and billions as more and more Americans live under bridges and in homeless camps. America today more resembles Germany in 1946. America & Britain didn’t win anything in WWII, but at least Britain’s obvious defeat was quickly apparent, America’s death has been a long, gruesome, drawn-out affair.

    • Agree: Truth Vigilante
    • Replies: @Nancy
  174. @Mevashir

    You asked:

    ‘What do you think the world would look like today had Germany and Japan won WWII? I rather shudder to think about it.’

    My Answer: The world would be a much, MUCH better place.

    Any objective assessment would yield that conclusion.

    Of course, you shudder at the thought of a world that isn’t controlled by the Zionist Dominated Usury Banking Cartel. That’s understandable in view of the Talmudic indoctrination you’ve received in those yeshivas you attended.

    These are the same places that drummed all that nonsense about the Holohoax into your critical-thinking-deficient little brain.
    There is a plethora of unimpeachable evidence that shows there was NO sytematic extermination programme for the Jews in WWII, that there were NO gas chambers and that, to the extent that it is documented that a few hundred thousand Jews died in work camps during that conflict, the bulk of those died from the typhus epidemics of 1942/43 and in the final months of the war from malnutrition – caused by the complete breakdown of the food transportation/logistics system as everything that moved was bombed/strafed into oblivion due to Allied air superiority (German civilians were themselves starving in early 1945).

    There are countless texts that you can read for a REAL education about the Holohoax.
    A good one to start with is Nick Kollerstrom’s ‘ Breaking the Spell – The Holocaust: Myth and Reality’.

    (Kollerstrom’s book is reviewed right here on the Unz Review in an article in recent weeks. I strongly recommend you read it).

    • Agree: Malla
  175. @Mevashir

    You mentioned that I ignored your remark about ‘Hitler being a Zionist’.

    I tend to ignore inconsequential tidbits of rubbish that have no bearing in the final anlaysis – particularly when it’s prefaced with a remark [directed at me] that my statement was ‘across the board foolish’.

    Can you see the irony there ? YOU, a man who is certifiably across the board IGNORANT, telling others that their statement is foolish.

    For those that hadn’t been following our discourse, Meva’s ‘across the board foolish’ remark was directed at my statement that, had Hitler’s Germany won WWII then ….

    …. There would have been no creation of the Apartheid Israeli State, no Murder of JFK, RFK, JFK Jr, James Forrestal, no USS Liberty incident, No Vietnam war, No Gentile Blood and Treasure expended in all those wars for Israel, no 9/11 ….. etc.

    How you can dispute that ANY of the above would have occurred, had the Zionist stranglehold on the western world’s financial system been broken, is beyond me.

    ALL of the above events are documented cases of ZIO-MALFEASANCE and a victorious Hitler, along with a concomitant prosperous German post war economy (made infinitely more prosperous from not being within the orbit of the Zionist Usury Cartel of Bankers, would have been a template for the rest of the world to follow).
    It would’ve created a CONTAGION and the Zionist bankers would’ve been discarded from one country after another, domino style, and as each country reaped the fruits of unimaginable prosperity, it would’ve further inspired the remaining holdout countries that harboured the exploitative Zionists to unshackle themselves from this parasite.

    I was chuffed to hear you say ‘my position on Climate Change discredited me in your eyes’.

    [MORE]

    Whenever I hear card carrying members of the Climate Cult say that, I am flattered.
    You ignorant clowns have not studied the ACTUAL SCIENCE, as espoused by the likes of the greatest climate scientist that ever lived – none other than MIT Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen, or Princeton’s Prof Wlliam Happer, Univ of Winnipeg’s Emeritus Prof Tim Ball or Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore Phd.

    Mevashir, you’re one of these people that’s lapped up the propaganda from the Zio owned MSM about this alleged Anthropogenic Global Warming. I suppose you’re that stupid that you also believe the ‘97% of scientists believe that man made CO2 is warming the planet’ B.S ?

    The truth is the EXACT OPPOSITE:

    That video was from 7 years ago. Today there are a hell of a lot more REAL OBJECTIVE scientists on that petition that exposed the FRAUDULENT claim that man-made CO2 emissions are responsible for global warming.

    Meanwhile, I have been active here on the Unz Review eviscerating Climate Cultists by the dozen over recent months. One example that I recall was the humiliation I inflicted on yet another fool who, like you Mevashir, has been too lazy to put in the hard yards and pursue the ACTUAL science.
    Have a look at the following link, scroll down to the bottom and refer to my comments # 131 and 135 (making sure to watch the videos and read the attachments to articles):

    https://www.unz.com/article/terror-on-the-tube-behind-the-veil-of-7-7-review-of-the-book-by-nick-kollerstrom/

    Anyway, backtracking to the ‘Hitler being the Zionist’ bit, seeing as one aspect of Zionism is the securing of a homeland for the Jews, to the extent that Hitler wanted to rid Germany (and Europe) of Jewry, and to the extent that the option of sending them to Madagascar was seriously considered, then ….YES …. Hitler contributed to that aspect of Zionism.

    But of course the leading Jewish organisations opposed this plan that would’ve seen Germany’s (and the rest of Europe’s Jews) resettled safely.

    No, that didn’t fit into their plan, whereby some sort if TRAGEDY was going to be engineered to make the world believe Jews were exterminated during the war. This tragedy, this ‘Holocaust’ that foretold at the BEGINNING of the 20th century that it was going to be the magical SIX (6) million number, this was what had to happen.

    Lastly, no need to apologise about the ‘Arlington National Cemetery swallowing me up’ comment.

    It’s water off a duck’s back. I have nothing to be ashamed of in relation to my conduct and my remarks pinpointing who were the REAL HEROES that tried to prevent war between Germany and the Anglo countries.

    It is evident that Neville Chamberlain and Joseph Kennedy (acting in his capacity as U.S Ambassador to Great Britain), moved heaven and Earth in trying to stop a conflict between Hitler and the Anglo network of countries.
    It is well documented that Hitler DESPERATELY tried to avoid engaging in war (and/or impinging on their territorial/resource claims), with said aforementioned countries.

    It is WAR MONGERS like you Mevashir that would be swallowed up by Arlington National Cemetery, because the restless souls of all those countless hundreds of thousands whose lives were forfeited for nothing, would rise as one and cast you, and your ilk that act as apologists for all these wars created for the enrichment of Zionist bankers, into the abyss.

    I can’t help but LAUGH at the IRONY of all this.

    Your hypocrisy is breath-taking.

    Then again, it’s a Talmudic sort of thing that comes naturally to you, that you’ve been indoctrinated with since birth.

    ie: blame others for crimes that YOU (and your Zio brethren), are the absolute worst offenders of.

    Mevashir, you have much to learn.

    WAKE UP to who you really are and acknowledge your twisted and Orwellian take on historical and geopolitical matters.
    You’ll be a better person for it.

    • Thanks: Arthur MacBride
    • Replies: @Mevashir
    , @Malla
  176. Mevashir says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    Well you certainly are eloquent and verbose. Too bad you’re mostly wrong.

    If Hitler wanted the Jews to go to Madagascar, why was the Transfer Agreement specifically for German Jews who had relocated to Palestine?

    If global warming is a hoax why is so much ice in the Arctic and Antarctic melting? Why are sea levels rising around the world? I don’t have time or the ability to Crunch the numbers and do the science as you put it. I think I have every right to trust scientific experts in the field who overwhelmingly support the fact that the planet’s climate is warming.

    I am not a Zionist and I am not a warmonger. But in the face of someone like Hitler who seems to me was a warmonger, military effort might well be justified.

    Check out this comment I posted on Haaretz. Maybe you will think twice before calling me a Zionist dupe. It concerns a high level Mexican official who is not even Jewish who is seeking asylum in the state of Israel to avoid a commission of inquiry in Mexico about his behavior as advocating torture murder and mass embezzlement of government funds:

    Light to the Nations or Gaslighting the Nations???:
    https://www.nytimes.com/es/2021/07/15/espanol/tomas-zeron-israel.html
    https://digismak.com/ayotzinapa-case-israel-refuses-to-extradite-tomas-zeron/

    Is this Mexican criminal even a Jew? Way to go Israel: making more people hate Jews every day! Or as the saying goes “Anti-Semitism is a disease. You catch it from Israelis.”

  177. Mevashir says:

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-allegedly-delaying-extradition-case-of-mexican-ex-official-over-un-votes/
    My comment was posted to this Times of Israel article. I just checked and they deleted the comment as they often do with critical comments about Israel.

    These are some other comments I posted to The Times of Israel tonight. Most of them have been deleted:

    Here’s how I would educate American Jewish kids about Zionism. A group of thugs break into a home, kill half the residents, throw the other half out onto the street, and then complain that people in the neighborhood won’t adopt these homeless folks.

    We don’t want to support an occupying power that brutalizes the occupied population. The Israeli GDP is almost as high as the American. We want the American government to cut you loose and let you find your own way in the Middle Eastern neighborhood. We have no obligation to support you at all. You don’t even recognize liberal forms of Judaism but allow the Orthodox rabbis to rule like a bunch of Jewish jihadist mullahs. While 80% of the Israeli population is completely secular. You are a stinking self-righteous hypocritical country and we American Jews wash our hands of you. Shalom and good luck.

    Why are you concerned about reform Jews? The Israeli government already has made clear that Evangelical Christians are its main base. So satisfy yourselves with these right wing fundamentalists and leave American Jews alone. You can have your Jewish Sparta and we will enjoy our Jewish Athens.

    We can only hope that American parents will be smart enough to protect their children from the onslaught of the Israeli hasbara paid professional Liars. It’s outrageous that Israel a foreign country is allowed access to the education of these Americans! Imagine if Beijing ran cultural education programs for Chinese Americans! Every one of these organizations that lobbies on behalf of Israel should be registered as a foreign entity with all of their generous American privileges stripped away.

    [MORE]

    Sara Greentree
    Liberal Jews are liberals first, Jews and Americans last.
    Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 1 · 1h

    Menachem Mevashir
    And Zionists are Nazis first and Jews last

    Barak Hullman
    How beautiful to see that the Reform movement does have influence. It taught young people to fight for justice, Tikkun Olam, and all of that other Jewish stuff was irrelevant. It worked and this is what you get.
    Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 3 · 1h

    Menachem Mevashir
    Big words considering 80% of Israelis are secular. American reform Jews have more of a Jewish identity than the average Israeli does. Unless killing Amalek is the entirety of the Israeli Jewish perspective. You can keep your Israeli Jewish Sparta and we will enjoy our American Jewish Athens.

    May the day come soon when all American Jewish Zionists will pack their bags and move to their Zionist Homeland in the Middle East. And stop polluting America with their dual loyalties
    Reply · Delete · 21m

    Menachem Mevashir
    Remember after the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting when the Israeli government Minister stated that evangelicals are Israel’s base. So why are you even worrying about American Reform Jews? Reform Judaism isn’t even legally recognized in the state of Israel. Why would you expect American reform Jews to support a country that walks on them like a doormat? Be satisfied with your Ultra Orthodox Jews and your fundamentalist Evangelical Christians. And leave reform Jews alone!

  178. Malla says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Not really, Hitler’s invasion of the USSR was to pre-emtively strike a very likely Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Hungary and Romania took part in the invasion for the same reason, threat of Soviet Communist invasion not lebesraum.

    It was for this reason that Western leaders resolved to treat Hitler as an enemy before he could get that far.

    What rubbish!

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  179. Malla says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    Hew bud check out this book.

    https://archive.org/download/WhatTheWorldRejectedHitlersPeaceOffers1933-1939/WhatTheWorldRejectedHitlersPeaceOffers1933-1939ByDr.FriedrichStieve.pdf

    What the World Rejected: Hitler’s Peace Offers 1933-1940
    by Friedrich Stieve
    Sandycroft Publications, 25-Oct-2016 – History – 94 pages

    Written by Germany’s foremost diplomatic historian of the early twentieth century, this work maps out all the numerous times that Adolf Hitler made unconditional offers of peace to all the nations of Europe–and how the major anti-German belligerents, France and Britain, turned down these offers each and every time.

    The author lists all of Hitler’s offers in detail, complete with quotes, starting with his first offer of May 17, 1933, his second offer of December 18, 1933, his third offer of May 21, 1935, his fourth offer of March 31, 1936, his fifth offer of September 30, 1938, his sixth offer of December 6, 1938, his seventh offer of late 1939 to Poland to settle the Danzig Corridor issue peacefully, and finally, his offer of world peace on October 6, 1939, just over a month after Britain and France had declared war on Germany for invading Poland on September 1 (but not on the Soviet Union, which also invaded Poland on September 17).

    A new edition benefits from four new sections which did not appear in the original publication (am not sure if the above linked pdf is the new one or the old one). These are:

    – The full text of Hitler’s “Appeal for Peace and Sanity” speech, made before the Reichstag on July 19, 1940, following the fall of France. Although nearly half the British cabinet wanted to take up his offer, Churchill’s warmongering put an end to this final offer of peace;

    – Hitler’s Political Testament, dictated just hours before his death on April 29, 1945, wherein he spelled out once again how he had tried to avoid the war, and blamed Jewish agitators for the refusal of other nations to accept his peace offers;

    Hermann Göring’s final letter–from this death cell in Nuremberg–to Winston Churchill, in which he blamed the latter’s warmongering on behalf of “Jewish Bolsheviks” for the conflict; and

    An extract from The Forrestal Diaries, in which the US Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal quotes British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain as complaining that “the world Jews” have forced England into the war.

    As early as 1933 (and to this very day) Germany’s enemies have maintained that Adolf Hitler was the greatest disturber of peace known to history. But Hitler’s repeated attempts to induce the governments of other states to collaborate with him in a reconstruction of Europe are an ever-recurring pattern in his conduct. These attempts were wrecked every time because nowhere was there any willingness to give them due consideration. This synopsis from 1940 gives a brief overview of Hitler’s various peace plans from the early days of the Third Reich until after WW2 had already broken out – and it also shows how these efforts at preserving peace were thwarted by those who… simply did not want peace.

    • Agree: Arthur MacBride
    • Thanks: Mevashir, Truth Vigilante
    • Replies: @Mevashir
  180. Malla says:
    @Mevashir

    But recognize that the City of London bankers would then still remain in control of the global financial system, something you oppose.

    Good point.

    What would Germany have done with Russia?

    Leave it alone. German (along with 5 other nations) invaded to preemptively strike before the Soviets attacked Central and Western Europe. If however Russia was liberated in war (Operation Barbarossa) from the Communists, leave Russia to a German friendly regime run by Andrey Vlasov Vlasov of the Russian Liberation Army. Could have taken some land concessions for Germany in return for liberating Russia from Communism. Russians would be reminded that it was with German help that they could liberate themselves from Communism.

    What would be the fate of the American Jewish community, which is large and prosperous, in the face of a German victory?

    Maybe a “Don’t interfere in Europe and we don’t interfere with you in Murica” a live and let live approach.

    What would the Middle East look like after a German victory?

    Germany had to go into North Africa only because of Italy, Mussolini’s ambitions. Many Arabs and Iranians were pro-German, could have come up with a good deal with the Third Reich.

    Finally, since the EU is said to be controlled by the Bundesbank, the EU is de facto German and thus Hitler’s dream of controlling continental Europe has come to pass.

    Hitler had no interest in controlling Europe . And today’s Globalist Corporation controlled European World combined with globo-homo, Cultural Marxism and Cultural degradation with loads of non European infiltrators is nothing like the Third Reich.

    I’m not sure why you are cheering on Nazism which is socialism. We have German national socialism vs Soviet international socialism and how do we choose sides?

    The Philosopher Otto Weininger, who was himself Jewish, wrote:
    Communism must be distinguished clearly from socialism, the former being based on a community of goods, an absence of individual property, the latter meaning, in the first place a co-operation of individual with individual, of worker with worker, and a recognition of human individuality in every one. Socialism is Aryan (Owen, Carlyle, Ruskin, Fichte). Communism is Jewish (Marx). Modern social democracy has moved far apart from the earlier socialism, precisely because Jews have taken so large a share in developing it. In spite of the associative element in it, the Marxian doctrine does not lead in any way towards the State as a union of all the separate individual aims, as the higher unit combining the purposes of the lower units. Such a conception is as foreign to the Jew as it is to the woman.”

    • Thanks: Mevashir
  181. Mevashir says:
    @Malla

    As early as 1933 (and to this very day) Germany’s enemies have maintained that Adolf Hitler was the greatest disturber of peace known to history. But Hitler’s repeated attempts to induce the governments of other states to collaborate with him in a reconstruction of Europe are an ever-recurring pattern in his conduct. These attempts were wrecked every time because nowhere was there any willingness to give them due consideration. This synopsis from 1940 gives a brief overview of Hitler’s various peace plans from the early days of the Third Reich until after WW2 had already broken out – and it also shows how these efforts at preserving peace were thwarted by those who… simply did not want peace.

    Fascinating. I suggest that the Germans had a serious PR problem. Their ideology (even if you want to admire it) was for Germany only. It offered nothing to the rest of the world. Contrast that with British Imperialism and Bolshevik internationalism.

    But I am considering this perspective of you and Truth Vigilante more.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  182. Mevashir says:
    @Malla

    The Philosopher Otto Weininger, who was himself Jewish, wrote

    Do you have a source for this?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Weininger
    Jewishness vs. Christianity
    In a separate chapter, Weininger, himself a Jew who had converted to Christianity in 1902, analyzes the archetypal Jew as feminine, and thus profoundly irreligious, without true individuality (soul), and without a sense of good and evil. Christianity is described as “the highest expression of the highest faith”, while Judaism is called “the extreme of cowardliness”. Weininger decries the decay of modern times, and attributes much of it to feminine (or identically, “Jewish”) character. By Weininger’s reckoning everyone shows some femininity, and what he calls “Jewishness”.[15]

    Considering that he committed suicide at the age of 23, do you think he’s a credible source?

    Here are some more ruminations.

    1. The Germans overran the French very quickly. So at the very least they had contingency plans to conquer Western Europe.

    2. What would have been the fate of Poland?

    3. I’ve seen a famous photo of the swastika flying over the Parthenon in Greece:

    Again this suggests to me a broad conquest. Incidentally, I knew a Greek Jew in Israel from Salonika. He told me that the Germans deported almost the entire Jewish community who all perished. Why did they do this? The Jews of Salonika represented no threat to the Germans.

    4. A BBC book about Auschwitz claims that the persecution of Jews greatly intensified after 1942, when Hitler saw that the allies were determined to save Stalin at all costs. The book speculates that Hitler viewed the Jews of Europe as akin to hostages to force his enemies to negotiate. But that failed because the Allies insisted on unconditional surrender. So I thought that if the Germans had succeeded in overrunning the USSR quickly, the war might have ended early and the bulk of Jewish deaths also would have been avoided.

    5. Would you expect Japan to invade Australia or simply to install a Vichy like government?

    6. Would Japan try to retake Hawaii? How would they have dealt with China?

    7. Was India neutral in WWII?

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  183. Malla says:
    @Mevashir

    What would they have done with all the Indochina countries yearning for freedom? What would they have done to Australia?

    Give them Independence after some time maybe. If there would have been no sanctions on Japan by the USA nor would there be a war with the Chinese Nationalists (and thus the need to cut out their supply routes in South East Asia), Japan might have never gone there. Anyways if the Pan Asianism ideology would have taken sway, after a short period of occupation (in case of a end of hostilities), give them freedom and put Japan friendly regimes in place. Actually the Japanese supported Indonesian Independence and were preparing the Javans for eventual independence from the Dutch Empire. Actually seeing the Asian Japanese defeat Europeans gave South East Asians confidence for their independence later on. They would be reminded that it was with Japan’s help they could leave the European Empires. Subhash Chandra Bose would be put into power in India by the Japanese Empire with the blessings of both Hitler and Tojo. He was the most popular leader in India anyways and would have been far better for the country. He would have been best for India.
    To understand Bose check out this historical conversation in between Indian revolutionary leader Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and Fuhrer of the Third Reich, Adolf Hitler. it was Hitler who advised him to go to Japan and furnished Bose a U-boat for the purpose. Germany has a very old tradition of helping Indian revolutionaries against the British Empire. During WW1, we had the famous or infamous German-Hindu conspiracy against the British Raj. The Kaiserite Germans had also instigated Irish and Egyptian separatists.

    Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose meets Führer Adolf Hitler

    The Indian National Anthem Jana Gana Mana, written by Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore was first played in an official position in NS Third Reich Germany!!

    Indian revolutionary leader, Bose giving a speech in Germany in German wishing an Axis victory and liberty for India. Later we see a German official in the video, an official who knew him, speaking about how advanced Bose’s ideas were about India.
    Even Mahatma Gandhi’s Personal Assistant would later remark (age 96 in 2018) that separation from the British Empire was a disaster for India except had it been Subhash Chandra Bose in power instead of the other corrupt lootar politicians.

    https://archive.is/aIscY#selection-2191.9-2201.396
    British rule was better than today’s government: Gandhi’s PA 2018
    “The British Raj was much better than present-day rulers and I would prefer a British rule to the present one,” said V Kalyanam, who was the personal assistant to Mahatma Gandhi, in Madurai on Tuesday.
    Kalyanam, now 96, said he felt the present-day rulers in the country had failed to provide the governance that Gandhiji had envisioned. “There was no corruption during the British rule and Gandhiji himself had commended their administrative excellence many times,” he said, adding that governance might have been better had the government established under Netaji’s leadership after Independence.

    • Replies: @Malla
  184. Malla says:
    @Malla

    Regarding your question about Japanese Empire and other Asian countries as well as a continuation on Bose on advice on Hitler going to Tokyo to meet Hideki Tojo. Japan too had a long history of supporting Indian revolutionaries against British Empire under its “Asia of Asians”, Pan Asianism movement starting way back from the Japanese Black Dragon societies.

    Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in Japan for the Greater East Asian Conference held in Tokyo from 5 to 6 November 1943
    You see representatives from most Asian countries including Burma.
    Netaji sought alliance with Hitler’s Third Reich. They even established the SS Waffen Free Indian Legion out of former British Indian POWs and they were ready to march to India en route Afghanistan. But Germany was far away until the USSR was taken Thus on Hitler’s advice, Bose took a German U-boat, got transferred into a Japanese submarine in the Indian Ocean and went to Tokyo for an alliance with the Empire of Japan who were more than willing to help.

    Bose giving a speech at 5:01 minutes in the conference with Hideki Tojo

    • Replies: @Mevashir
  185. Malla says:
    @Mevashir

    Considering that he committed suicide at the age of 23, do you think he’s a credible source?

    Yes very much. I do not think he can be judged on his mode of death but on his works which are brilliant. I suspect he was full of despair for the state of the World, but that could only come to a person of deep and profound thoughts. Idiots commit suicide for stupid reasons.

    So at the very least they had contingency plans to conquer Western Europe.

    One cannot jump to that conclusion, France declared war on Germany and lost. Germany was building up for it found itself in a hostile environment, Hitler had proposed many peace deals but he needed the security of Germany.

    What would have been the fate of Poland?

    The only question was Danzig and ethnic Germans in Poland.

    swastika flying over the Parthenon in Greece:

    Germany got involved in the Balkans, Greece and North Africa only in support of Italy. Mussolini’s ambitions was great (Roman Empire 2.0) but Italian armed forces could not live up. Indeed Hitler later considered Italy a big liability because of its adventurism for which Germany had to divert forces.

    Fuhrer of the Third Reich, Adolf Hitler talking in his everyday voice to Finnish military commander Mannerheim in 1942.
    Thor Damen, an engineer for the Finnish broadcasting company Yle, recorded the first 11 minutes of Hitler and Mannerheim’s private conversation.
    Hitler
    “First the occupation of – then we had the task in Norway – at the same time we faced – I can frankly say it today – a grave misfortune, namely the weakness of, Italy. Because of – first, the situation in North Africa, then second, because of the situation in Albania and Greece – a very big misfortune. We had to help. This meant for us, with one small stoke, first – the splitting of our air force, splitting of our tank force, while at the same time we were preparing, the, tank arm in the east.
    We had to hand over – with one stroke, two divisions, two whole divisions and a third was added – and we had to replace continuous, very severe, losses there. It was – bloody fighting in the desert.”

  186. Mevashir says:
    @Malla

    Thank you for all this information. You are a walking encyclopedia!

    Did Gandhi really say he wished to return to the British Empire?

    Actually the Japanese supported Indonesian Independence and were preparing the Javans for eventual independence from the Dutch Empire. Actually seeing the Asian Japanese defeat Europeans gave South East Asians confidence for their independence later on. They would be reminded that it was with Japan’s help they could leave the European Empires.

    If this is true, how did the US get Ho Chi Minh to fight against the Japanese?

    The information you and TV provide is like falling into an alternative universe. It’s simply mind boggling.

  187. Mevashir says:
    @Malla

    I read that Weininger admired Beethoven. A couple years back when I was disillusioned with the American churches, I sat down and pondered who I would like to meet in Heaven and I decided on Beethoven! So I guess I share that in common with Weininger.

    The Ode to Joy chorus speaks of Alle Menschen Werden Brueder [All Men will Become Brothers]. I suppose this is the antithesis of Judaism that sees all men becoming slaves to Judea. Did you know that Beethoven was a devout Catholic?

    This is a good movie about him:

    The Ode to Joy scene is classic:

    The movie posits that Beethoven’s deafness was due to an injury stemming from a childhood beating by his drunk father.

    • Thanks: Malla
  188. @Malla

    Many Arabs and Iranians were pro-German, could have come up with a good deal with the Third Reich.

    No question that they as well as the rest of the world would have prospered with an Axis win, Malla. Meaning “the rest of the world” to be more or less everybody minus the zionist-freemason clique and paid stooges. Today the appalling state of Palestine, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen thanks to unprovoked merciless savagery by said clique/stooges. A 3R win would have restrained such savagery and allowed normal development.

    However, looking into the crystal ball by extrapolating current events/trends, I’d say that the time grows closer for “What Goes Around, Comes Around.”
    ZUKUS/NATO et al., also known as the Axis of Evil is collapsing, the countries internally and their colonies. ZUSA emptied out of Afghan (Iraq may be next), their global drug dealing has been damaged, leaders are laughable men of straw … etc.

    The “pandemic” is their latest ploy, war against the world rather than enter the world of trade and diplomacy, normal relations of mutual respect, exchange of art, literature, culture (maybe b/c they have none to exchange lol), sport, philosophy etc.
    Such things are unknown to the zionist-freemason Hyena and Parasite.
    It may try to burrow into China as ZUKUS disintegrates, but the Chinese are far too wise to allow that in my humble opinion. Its time of closure may be nearer than its western media would wish to say … Nobody will weep … billions will rejoice.

    • Agree: Malla
    • Replies: @Arthur MacBride
  189. @Arthur MacBride

    PS. Thank you for your words about Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.
    That man was a hero, a powerful intellect, a true patriot.
    Definitely the best leader for an independent India.

    I’m hoping that his name will be revived and followed in India today.

    Jai Hind.

    • Replies: @Malla
  190. Sparkon says:

    Since this discussion has now gone pretty much off topic, I will make an effort to get it back on track by sharing a few articles I’ve found recently about Joseph P. Kennedy’s alleged bootlegging, mob connections, and other misadventures, but largely excluding the periiod of his WWII ambassadorship, which was FDR’s reward to JPK for his help silencing Father Coughlin.

    One story is that Joseph P. Kennedy had gone to mobster Sam Giancana on two separate occasions to ask for his protection after JPK was marked for death by other gangsters. The linked article by Ronald Goldfarb covers a lot of territory with respect to JPK, JFK, RFK and the mob.

    In the early 1920s, JPK fell afoul of the ultra-violent Purple Gang of Detroit, allegedly for smuggling booze through its territory without their permission. The linked source says JPK went to Chicago mobster Joseph “Diamond Joe” Esposito, who was able to have the contract on JPK’s life lifted.

    Still other accounts argue that JPK was not at all involved in smuggling or bootlegging.

    Setting aside the booze, there is no doubt JPK was involved in both Hollywood and the Stock Market, where he made a bundle during the Roaring ’20s when he had an affair with diminutive Hollywood sexpot Gloria Swanson, not that she was the end of JPK’s extra-marital dalliances.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  191. @Sparkon

    JPK played an important role in swinging the 1932 Democratic nomination to FDR, particularly as liaison with Hearst. So FDR ‘owed’ him. JPK was looking for a cabinet post. FDR fobbed him off with Chair of the Maritime Commission (BFD) and then of the new Securities & Exchange Commission (a bigger slice). His help with the 1936 election added weight to the scale.

    Of Coughlin Nasaw writes (230) “the Detroit radio priest … advocated higher taxes on the wealthy, a guaranteed annual wage, the nationalization of public utilities, protection of organized labor … [but] Roosevelt’s most dangerous rival in 1932 was … Sen. Huey Long, … with mailing list of 7.5 million Americans and a profound understanding of how elections were fought and won.”

    He also writes that “Morgenthau noted in his diary [that] the president had agreed with him that Kennedy was ‘a very dangerous man.’” (275). Given the thoroughgoing treacherousness of Morgenthau and FDR’s habit of ingratiating interlocutors with meaningless agreement, this could mean anything.

  192. Malla says:
    @Mevashir

    About WW2, I suggest you check this video out. By James Perloff who is of Jewish ancestry too. Covers both Germany and Japan.

    Would you expect Japan to invade Australia or simply to install a Vichy like government?

    Japan went to South East Asia first to cut supplies to Chinese nationalist troops and later to get oil from Dutch East Indies because of the American embargo. So I do not think initially they intended to conquer Australia.

    Would Japan try to retake Hawaii?

    Hawaii never was Japan’s to retake I think.
    As far as the second question.
    https://www.unz.com/avltchek/why-are-anti-migrant-arguments-in-the-e-u-u-s-pure-hypocrisy/#comment-3340948
    https://www.unz.com/avltchek/why-are-anti-migrant-arguments-in-the-e-u-u-s-pure-hypocrisy/#comment-3340959
    https://www.unz.com/avltchek/why-are-anti-migrant-arguments-in-the-e-u-u-s-pure-hypocrisy/#comment-3340967
    https://www.unz.com/avltchek/why-are-anti-migrant-arguments-in-the-e-u-u-s-pure-hypocrisy/#comment-3340970

    Was India neutral in WWII?

    India being part of the British Empire was on the side of the Allies.

    As far as Hitler’s anti-Jewish attitudes, that would take a series of more different posts.

  193. @Malla

    Hitler’s goal of achieving the conquest of living space in eastern Europe was the primary motive in all of his thinking from the time he wrote Mein Kampf up to the launching of Operation Barbarossa. If Hitler had merely been concerned about possible Soviet expansionism then all he ever needed to do was respect the Munich treaty, don’t occupy Czechoslovakia, and state his concern about seeking a better tie between Germany and Danzig. Chamberlain would have fulsomely supported him on this, there would have been no British guarantee to Poland, and once the Danzig Corridor was settled in the style of Munich then Hitler could have easily built a broad NATO-type alliance with eastern European countries against the USSR that would have maintained a Cold War in eastern Europe until the mid-1950s when Stalin would have passed away and been succeeded by Khrushchev.

    The reason things did not follow this course was because Hitler was determined to conquer the territory of eastern Europe for living space and therefore he willfully violated the Munich treaty, occupied Czechoslovakia, and proceeded to make demands on Poland which clearly followed the template which he had just used with Czechoslovakia. As a result the Poles logically dug in their heels and refused to deal over Danzig while Chamberlain declared British support for Poland. Everything which Stalin did in preparation for a future German invasion was done in this context. Even so, all evidence points to the fact that Stalin was watching to see what move Hitler would make and did not intend to strike first.

    Of course even when Zhukov did recommend to Stalin, around mid-May 1941, that the USSR should preemptively strike before Hitler launched his own attack this was very different from Hitler’s drive to the east to conquer living space from the subhuman Slavs. Zhukov had no interest in a general conquest of Europe but was merely observing the Hitler’s preparations for an invasion of the USSR. Stalin rejected Zhukov’s advice because Stalin still believed that the British were trying to trick the USSR into entering the war and so Stalin held back.

    Hitler’s Second Book does contain a number of airy ruminations about the future of Germany as a world power and the likelihood of rivalry with the United States. Of course this still falls far short of the comic book fantasies which used to portray Hitler as obsessed with conquering the US. But the longer term likelihood of rivalry between a future victorious Third Reich was certainly real, much more real than any of the nonsense spouted during the Cold War which alleged in 1947-8 that Stalin was preparing an imminent invasion of western Europe. That hoax was spread by the Truman administration in order to push through policies of economic aid for western Europe against the opposition of isolationists like Robert Taft.

    The real point which has been buried in this board’s commentary is that it was a great shame that the West won the Cold War. Although there’s no point in mourning too much over alternate histories which could have been, but it really would have been better for the world in Khrushchev could have succeeded in pushing through his own gradual reform efforts. Khrushchev was turned out of office in 1964 and the Brezhnev clique which succeeded him were really just lazy bureaucrats who spent the next 18 years keeping things running in repeat motion without shaking things up. When Brezhnev died there were a couple years when Andropov did start trying to get things revitalized but he died 2 years later and it was obvious that a younger generation would need to come in.

    The Gorbachev generation had already absorbed the idea that they should sell out to the West and they proceeded to do so. But in the process they also unleashed the most degenerate forces which had always existed in the West. Once it became obvious that the new generation of Soviet bureaucrats was simply throwing everything overboard in order to pander to the West this set off the worst type of hubris among Western elites. Not surprisingly, at the time conservatives were all enraptured with this as a sign Reagan’s great triumph. Subsequently it turned out to have very different consequences from what was anticipated.

    • Thanks: Truth Vigilante
    • Replies: @Mevashir
    , @Malla
  194. @Mevashir

    While Hitler was clumsy with regards to foreign public relations, the stuff about his alleged peace offers is just rubbish. Hitler stated very clearly in his own memos that the issue with Poland was one of living space and that Danzig was not important. The formal offer made to Poland over Danzig was not a serious peace offer. Hitler had been given the Munich treaty by Chamberlain on September 29, 1938, and on March 15, 1939, he proceeded to occupy Czechoslovakia. Then in April Hitler began pressing claims on a Danzig Corridor, while privately stating in his own memos that the issue with Poland was living space and not Danzig.

    The Poles quite rightly realized that if they caved over the Danzig Corridor then Hitler could just do as he had in Czechoslovakia: wait 5 or 6 months and then occupy their whole country. So of course the Poles were obligated to reject Hitler’s “offer” over Danzig. If Hitler had been concerned about any of the things which his apologists here like to claim then he had a very easy path to follow. All that he needed to was respect the Munich treaty, don’t occupy Czechoslovakia, and raise the issue of a Danzig Corridor. In such a case Chamberlain would have enthusiastically supported his claims on Danzig, Poland would have been forced to yield, and once this was done Hitler could have begun forming his own NATO-alliance out of the east European states which would have resulted in about 15 years of Cold War in eastern Europe, ending with the death of Stalin in 1953.

    Things did not work this way because Hitler’s own ambitions were very different. Hitler aimed at conquering the vast territories of Russia and other Slavic regions such as Poland and using this as place for the mass-expansion of German settlements. In order to do this Hitler intended to allow significant portions of eastern Europe to starve to death and those Slavs who didn’t would serve as uneducated labor for the German settlers. The reason why nothing was done to recruit someone like Vlasov until 1944 was because as long as Hitler and Himmler were confident of an easy German victory they simply did not care about recruiting Slavic allies. It was only when it became obvious that the Soviet population had (sometimes reluctantly) rallied around Stalin and was going to drive into Berlin that suddenly Vlasov became Kosher enough for Himmler.

    • Thanks: Mevashir
    • Replies: @Mevashir
  195. Mevashir says:

    Thank you for this comment. I appreciate your trying to restore sanity to this discussion thread.

    Concerning the onslaught of apologists here trying to portray Hitler in a favorable light, their arguments make some sense but in my gut I can’t accept that Hitler was this great all-around decent guy. His picture looks ugly to me. He’s always angry and shouting. I don’t see him as someone I could ever admire

  196. Mevashir says:
    @Patrick McNally

    A couple of questions:

    1. When you say that Hitler intended Mass starvation and slave labor for Slavic people, do you mean in a facility like Auschwitz?

    2. Was Hitler’s plan for lebensraum to the East significantly different from the American Plan of Manifest Destiny to the West? As for mass starvation and subjugation of the Slavs, it seems to me this is a pretty good description of the fate of the Indian tribes at the hands of the Americans as they expanded to the Pacific Ocean. So perhaps morally speaking we’re all pretty much living in glass houses.

    3. I don’t understand Malla. On the one hand he openly admits and praises the role of the British in India. But on the other hand he’s eager to jump onto the Hitler bandwagon.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  197. Mevashir says:

    Something for all the Hitler fanclub members here to ponder.

    When I was an undergraduate at Harvard, I took a class in International Relations. Our section leader was a graduate student named Elliot Cohen, who went on to become a prominent Neocon under Bush 43 and a major promoter of the US invasions of the ME:

    https://sais.jhu.edu/about-us/office-dean
    https://sais.jhu.edu/users/ecohen1
    [email protected]
    http://www.eliotacohen.com/Home/Welcome.html
    http://www.eliotacohen.com/Home/Biography.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_A._Cohen

    Elliot’s wife Judy was director of the campus Hillel. He had a very strong Jewish identity, and he seemed to relish the chance to fuse his Jewish Supermacism with American Exceptionalism. He advocated forceful American interventions throughout the globe.

    In one class he shocked us by stating If Hitler had not been an anti-Semite he would have been an ideal American ally. I just offer this as a warning to the people on this thread infatuated with Uncle Adolf: you are in bed with the Neocons you so despise.

    My photo for anyone who is curious:
    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSGof1hpN_yvVFcuWpKnAV-oN-MmEs0rtGEXwiFZczaj19FDIUhg1auizx4FWvdYPORPJ4&usqp=CAU

  198. Mevashir says:
    @Patrick McNally

    but it really would have been better for the world in Khrushchev could have succeeded in pushing through his own gradual reform efforts. Khrushchev was turned out of office in 1964 and the Brezhnev clique which succeeded him were really just lazy bureaucrats who spent the next 18 years keeping things running in repeat motion without shaking things up.

    Wasn’t Khrushchev “turned out” as a consequence of his humiliation in the Cuban Missile Crisis? Didn’t he in fact die suspiciously a short time later?

    Is there any reason to think his reform efforts could have succeeded? His successors had 25 years in which they reformed nothing.

    As for those “degenerate forces”, I assume you mean the oligarchs. Welcome to capitalism: the only world philosophy that teaches greed is good. Amazingly idealized and lauded by American Christianity, whose Founder taught that greed is not good and that one cannot serve God and mammon. [Hence proving the utter irrelevance of American Christianity.]

    PS My previous comment should read “Jewish Supremacism”

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  199. @Mevashir

    No, Auschwitz was a labor camp. I agree with revisionists like Robert Faurisson that something like the Vrba-Wetzler Report is a bogus report which doesn’t even give an accurate description of how the cremation muffles at Auschwitz were arranged and hence is not reliable for any of its claims about gas chambers. The mass-starvation I’m speaking of is what is elaborated on in Alex Kay, Exploitation, Resettlement, Mass-Murder: Political and Economic Planning for German Occupation Policy in the Soviet Union, 1940-1941. These were plans made in the German government whereby an easy swift victory over the Soviet Union (to be accomplished militarily within 6 weeks to 3 months) would be followed by a policy of confiscating the food supplies of eastern Europe and was expected to lead to a drop in the population back to its 1914 levels, falling by about 30 million. This isn’t as colorful of an accusation as claims about alleged gassings in a camp, but the general policy aim here is much more easily documented.

    It certainly is true that many American Indians died out from European viruses which they had no immunity to. Despite some claims made occasionally (e.g. Ward Churchill) it’s generally accepted by historians that this was not a deliberately calculated policy made by the European settlers in North America, though it was a de facto result. Hitler had had an early interest in stories of the Western Frontier and this definitely influenced his ideas of a German conquest of eastern Europe. Except that things were a bit more calculated now since Hitler had seen how many American Indian tribes were de facto wiped out and envisioned something similar happening with a German resettlement in eastern Europe at the expense of the Slavs.

    If you are interested in reading Hitler’s own words it can be worth getting the 4-volume series assembled by Max Domarus which includes of course all of the statements where Hitler claims to be making a peace offer over Danzig, but also includes other internal memos which shed a different light on things. Only by reading across the entire span of such documents can one form a coherent sense of Hitler’s aims. If one simply going to select the occasional speech where Hitler seems to throw out an offer of peace then that doesn’t reveal as much as one might think.

    I still stand by A.J.P. Taylor’s basic point, although it is often misrepresented. It comes down to the difference between the “gambler” versus “conspirator” model. The favorite image of a villain is that of the conspirator who has planned everything nicely out and hatches a criminal plot. Although such events do periodically occur, and can sometimes make a significant difference on historic outcomes, there is a limit to how far this applies. When it comes to something like the outbreak of a giant war like 1914 or 1939 (as opposed to Panama or Grenada) it is usually the case that the outcome is bigger than any conspiracy. Such wars are more often set off when someone plays a gamble that they can achieve some significant victory on the cheap, while accepting a risk that something bigger may blow up.

    When the Allies held their own staged trials in 1946 they made it a point to present things in very conspiratorial terms. Nazi Conspiracy & Aggression was even a title for a set of volumes published after the trials. Taylor reviewed the evidence and arrived at the conclusion that Hitler had never had a coherent conspiracy to start a Second World War. Instead Taylor viewed Hitler as an ambitious man who was willing to play his cards in an aggressive way, but who nonetheless was caught by surprise when his actions set off a major war. At the time Taylor wrote this it was considered shocking because so many people were accustomed to assuming that Hitler meant to start a Second World War. By the time Ian Kershaw wrote his biography of Hitler it was normal for him title the chapter WWII breaks out as “Miscalculation” with the clear meaning that the outbreak of general war was not planned.

    There are some small sects which sort of exist on blowing this all up. They’re not willing to just accept that Hitler’s aggressive gambles led to the outbreak of a war which turned out to be a bigger contest than had been planned on. Instead they shift to the idea that Hitler himself must have been the victim of a conspiracy planned by various world powers. Now there’s no question that lots of Jewish groups all around the world looked forward to the overthrow of Hitler from the moment he gained the Chancellorship. It’s also true that after the fiascos in Gallipoli and other places in the First World War, Winston Churchill was looking forward to a new “war to make the world safe for democracy” where this time he would write the books and cast his role in the proper form. There were actually lots of different people with agendas ready to be pursued once war broke out. But Hitler’s own actions were the most decisive factor in bringing everything to the boiling point.

    • Thanks: Mevashir
    • Replies: @Mevashir
    , @Mevashir
  200. @Mevashir

    Khrushchev passed away in 1971 after being deposed in 1964, so I wouldn’t say that he died “a short time later.” The Cuban Missile Crisis was certainly pivotal to his downfall. Jonathan Steele and Eric Abraham, Andropov in Power, describe some of the efforts to get things moving which Andropov started. But he passed away in 1984 and things went pretty flat again. A quick look at China and Russia in the period 1990-2000 should persuade anyone that Russia took the wrong path. Instead of methodically making allowances for managerial initiatives they simply abandoned any semblance of central planning all at once and suddenly factory managers were required to deduce from a market what the priority should be. Such a drastic dumping of official responsibility after decades of heavy government planning meant disaster. I’m sure that many Chinese who watched things unfold under Yeltsin were glad that they didn’t go that route.

    Well, yes, oligarchs, but oligarchs who were suddenly filled with a sense of superiority. The USA had oligarchs in the 1950s. But they were aware that there was potentially a source of competition in other corners of the world. One didn’t have to buy the “workers paradise” claptrap in order to see rival systems being built in the USSR and the PRC meant that the western oligarchs had to be prepared to demonstrate their superiority with results. No leader in the West today has much awareness of that anymore.

    • Replies: @Mevashir
  201. Mevashir says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Thank you for your clarifications. I was under the impression that Krushchev was actually executed as a traitor because of Cuba.

    Your point about the Chinese learning from the collapse of the USSR is very interesting. I have often wondered about the fact that China is the factory to the world while Russia produces virtually nothing that is sold internationally apart from caviar vodka and weapons.

    How do you explain the adeptness of China as a global industrial force compared to Russia’s feebleeness and incompetence?

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  202. @mevashir

    … Catholics were extremely anti-prohibition, not only because they like to drink but because of the need for Sacramental wine in their church services which could occur on a daily or thrice daily basis.

    I reserve opinion about the bulk of your comment (indeed about everything else in the article and the other comments upon it), but the hint of cattiness in the quoted sentence prompts a reply.

    Whether Catholics supported or opposed Prohibition is not germane. The fact is that there was nothing in the Volstead Act, however misguided and puritanical its authors and enforcers were, that banned the production and use of wines and spirits for medical and religious purposes. Those two areas were specifically exempted from the otherwise universal despotism of Prohibition, although society’s rulers, being little better then than they are now, did of course require those affected by the exemption to negotiate a minefield of registrations, licenses, and outright payoffs as a condition of being allowed to exercise the few rights that the state still had not usurped.

    Nor should it be forgotten, as someone else remarked, that the Jews liked their wine, too. Anyone who thinks they were powerless victims in 1919 needs to think again.

  203. Mevashir says:
    @Patrick McNally

    There are some small sects which sort of exist on blowing this all up. They’re not willing to just accept that Hitler’s aggressive gambles led to the outbreak of a war which turned out to be a bigger contest than had been planned on. Instead they shift to the idea…

    Thank you for this long explanation. You have a very nuanced understanding of this history. Nuance is a sign of a mature and subtle thinker. Most people want a black and white perspective.


    This is a very fascinating book that patiently explains the buildup to World War II on all sides. It starts about 1920 and shows how all of the major actors were already re-arming and preparing for war as soon as World War I ended. For instance it explains that the president of Harvard James Conant, who was a Nobel prize winner in chemistry, was appointed by FDR to head up America’s unconventional weaponry program specifically to design chemical biological and nuclear weapons. Conant was actually the person who oversaw the Manhattan project.

    One of the most interesting things I learned from this book was Winston Churchill’s pathological hatred for Germany. I don’t know if it was just his attitude toward the Nazi regime or towards German culture in general. But the book claims that immediately after the German invasion of Poland Churchill ordered night time bombing runs of civilian cities along the Rhine River to terrorize the German population into rising up and overthrowing Hitler. Apparently this campaign continued for 6 months before the Germans decided to retaliate with what is portrayed in the West as the Battle of Britain as an unprovoked German attack on innocent England.

    The book also quotes the Prime Minister of Australia who had traveled to London for consultations at the outbreak of the war who remarked about his shock to see the vehemence of Churchill’s animosity towards Germany. I believe he described Churchill as a person with maniacal hatred.

  204. @Anonymous

    True. All of it. Lindbergh went from world famous hero to bum, at least in his home nation. An amazing phenomenon and a lesson to the truly “woke”.

  205. @Mevashir

    One thing which may have influenced outcomes in China versus Russia was the way that Cold War alliances shifted. China began inviting Western investments in 1978. At this time the split between China and the USSR was well known and so the Reagan administration readily pursued an alliance with the one against the other. That gave China an opportunity to slowly learn how to accommodate and regulate foreign investors. The corporations of the West went along with a lot of restrictions as part of this policy of playing the 2 major Asian powers off. There was no similar incentive for any Western investors to adopt a patient attitude towards eastern Europe. Since the USSR had always been the principal rival of the West through the Cold War the main desire was just to see eastern Europe opened for investment as a pure victory unto itself. To top it off, the worst aspects of such thinking seem to have been willingly adopted by Yeltsin himself. Chinese officials never succumbed to such vulgarity but simply accepted the argument that they could use some Western investment as a tool for further development of China.

  206. @Mevashir

    Thank you!! I have not heard that attitude in ages, ………”the sick Puritanical mind that lays awake at night wondering if “someone somewhere was enjoying himself.” Contrasted to someone like Luther, playing cards in the church rectory and drinking beer with the faithful, all the while teaching that God is O.K with his creation on just about everything but their not having faith in his love.

    • Replies: @Mevashir
  207. @Mevashir

    Churchill was in most ways a product of those who benefitted most from the British Empire. He was an elitist, he liked learning things and was closed minded to the good traits that other European nations had, this being a time when the same could be said of the other nations as well. Europeans became so in love with the particular country they belonged to, that the common way of referring to their nation was as a lover talks about his love interest, my Italy, or my France or my Germany,etc.

    When the young Winston saw the new and modern battleships coming out of German factories, he was extremely alarmed and jealous. At the time the Germans were the worlds number one producers of steel. He carried this jealousy with him right up to the beginning of and during WW 2. It was strange that he more than any other Brit, was responsible for the loss of the Empire to the U.S. Of course this is an extremely abridged view of Mr. Churchill’s attitude towards Germany but is, I believe, correct in its essence.

  208. Mevashir says:
    @Patrick McNally

    If I could draw upon your erudition a bit more:

    1. About Indian deaths in starvation I was not referring to the spread of viruses and infections. I was referring to the deliberate extermination of their food source the buffalo. Whenever the Indians were corralled into reservations and they forfeited their prime hunting grounds. These hunting areas would come in conflict with metal prospectors and especially the expanding railroad system. Buffalo were seen as a danger to the tracks and this is one reason why the Buffalo were exterminated. It turns out that Abraham Lincoln the so-called great emancipator was particularly hostile to the Indians because in the midst of the civil war he authorized an aggressive program of building the transcontinental railroad. I believe that the railroad was one of the main instigators of policies detrimental to the Indian tribes.

    [MORE]

    2. American commentator Patrick Buchanan wrote a book claiming the US should have stayed out of world war II entirely and allowed Germany and Russia to fight it out to the death. Do you think this was a feasible option? Once Britain entered the war could the United States truly have sat on the sidelines as Buchanan advocates?

    3. I read that the tiny military of Finland was able to repulse the Red Army very quickly. So I would assume that the German military would have had no problem at all overcoming the Soviet military were it not for the Allied effort to rearm stalin. Do you think it is feasible that the Germans would have succeeded in their Operation Barbarossa had the West not rearmed stalin?

    4. I read this book some years back. I recall that it claims that initially Auschwitz housed mainly Russian POWs following the German invasion of the USSR. It was only after 1942 that Jewish deportations accelerated and Jews began to fill Auschwitz. The book suggests that the longer the war lasted the more enraged Hitler was with his Western opposition and that he deported Jews almost as a revenge tactic:

    So I speculated that had the Germans won a quick victory over the Soviet Union perhaps most of the Jewish misery of world war II would never have happened. What do you think the Germans would have done about the Jews of Europe had they quickly consolidated their victories in the east and the west?

    5. Incidentally this book on Auschwitz claims that there were two gas chambers that the Germans charmingly referred to as the little red and the little green rooms. The book is based on a documentary series that is on YouTube:
    https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdp5o5V2suK3PIXaE7Cwe0MoA75VJJTc6

    This final episode includes interviews with Germans who worked at Auschwitz who admit that there were homicidal gas Chambers:

    See Höß at 21:00 and Gröning at

    • Replies: @Mevashir
    , @Patrick McNally
  209. Mevashir says:
    @Dr. Charles Fhandrich

    The sick Puritanical mind comment is from someone named Ivan:
    https://www.unz.com/article/joseph-p-kennedy-the-cursed-peacemaker/#comment-4778082

    Anti drinking Christian groups are far more than Puritans. They include Baptists Seventh-Day Adventists and Mormons.

    • Replies: @Dr. Charles Fhandrich
  210. Mevashir says:

    NOTE TO RON UNZ:

    I am sitting in Whole Foods having something to drink and their store Wi-Fi is blocking your website.

  211. @Mevashir

    Churchill was famous for zig zags as David Carlton, Churchill and the Soviet Union, illustrates. I wouldn’t say that Churchill was fanatically anti-German in any prolonged way but that when he was fixated on a task which treated Germany as the enemy he threw himself into it with fervor. But when 1945 rolled around Churchill was advocating that German armies should be armed to aid in the launch of a war against the USSR in July. Operation Unthinkable was rejected by his own officers, but he later tried to urge Truman to make a nuclear attack on the USSR before a Soviet bomb was developed. All in the same vein as his earlier anti-German gusto.

  212. Mevashir says:
    @Mevashir

    At 17:00 the narrator says that 70% of all Jews deported to Auschwitz were murdered immediately upon arrival.

    At 30:00 discusses Treblinka as the main Nazi extermination center:

    “99% of Jews were dead within two hours of arriving at the camp poisoned by exhaust fumes in Treblinka’s gas chambers.”

    34:00 mass incineration of bodies at Auschwitz

    36:00 Höß decision to make killing more efficient.

    42:00 installation of enormous gas chamber at Treblinka

    • Replies: @Mevashir
    , @Truth Vigilante
  213. Mevashir says:
    @Mevashir

    28:00 discusses the original use of Zyklon-B to kill Russian POWs and the sick.

    40:00 discusses the two gas Chambers built by Höß at Birkenau, two miles from Auschwitz, called the Little Red House and the Little White House.

  214. @Mevashir

    I have no reason take issue with your statement that metal prospectors and railroads would have interfered with the life of the native tribes. I mentioned the bit about viruses because this involved the most blatant instances of mass-deaths being triggered among the American Indian populace by the European settlers. But there was certainly longer term trend to push native tribes out of the regions which they had lived in. Obviously Hitler’s own envisioned drive for living space would have entailed gradually pushing many Slavs out of their traditional territory in order to make room for an expanding Aryan race. None of this would have involved gas chambers however.

    I don’t generally spend my time arguing about what was really a necessary war for the US. But it certainly is true that the US gained more economic prosperity off of WWII than from any other war since. It’s obviously absurd for anyone to suggest that Hitler’s brand of national socialism offered any alternative since Hitler’s plans for Germany were premised on a major conquest of eastern Europe. Hitler was simply surprised that the invasion of the USSR resulted in a big war rather than a swift campaign with an easy victory on the cheap. So both Hitler and Roosevelt ultimately depended on war for the economic recovery which they wanted. But I don’t generally try to figure out whether such was really “necessary” in an absolute sense.

    There’s a huge difference between the Finns fighting to defend their own country and the Soviets invading versus Hitler launching an attack with the aim of conquering living space in Russia. The only chance which Hitler ever had of winning a war like that was to bury all of the stuff about “living space” which he had stated in Mein Kampf and instead declare this to be a war for the liberation of Russia. Some people like Ribbentrop, Rosenberg and even Goebbels would have favored this approach, but not Hitler or Himmler. Adam Tooze noted that:

    “The Soviet miracle was not due to Western assistance. Lend-lease did not begin to affect the balance on the Eastern Front until 1943. The best single explanation for this remarkable triumph was the extraordinary concentration of Soviet production on a limited number of weapons in a handful of giant factories, permitting the fullest possible realization of economics of mass-production.”
    — Wages of Destruction, p. 589.

    It’s way off base for anyone to imagine that the USSR was simply helplessly dependent on Western industry.

    In the early stages of Barbarossa it was assumed that there would be a swift deportation of Jews to the east following a rapid victory. Camps such as Treblinka were set up at junctures where the rail-tracks changed and were meant to be transit camps for deporting Jews to the east. By 1943 it had become clear that a swift German victory was not in the cards and so the Auschwitz camp was expanded as a labor camp, as part of a broader expansion of the whole system of forced labor. But the aim of deporting Jews to the east was a fundamental goal, not something that was suddenly adopted because the war took too long.

    Of course there is a smattering of various confessions about gas chambers that were obtained by the Allies. This shouldn’t be more surprising than confessions obtained in the Moscow Show Trials of the 1930s. This goes beyond just the matter of physical threats to prisoners, although Rudolf Hoess was beaten very badly by the British to extract a confession from him. But along with the stick there were carrots. Albert Speer led a charmed life where he always maintained that though he never knew anything about gas chambers yet he should have known and he was therefore guilty. After serving his sentence from Nuremberg he was made into a respectable man again until the time of his death.

    If one really wants to get down to specific confessional statements by particular individuals then that would call for more time than I’m giving it here. But I will say that thus far every such alleged confession around the gas chamber story runs into major problems when it is viewed critically in context. Context means both being aware of the Allied motivation for demanding confessions as well as comparing with known facts about the camps. I mentioned the Vrba-Wetzler report because this is a famous example of a document which gives a completely wrong description of how crematoria were laid out at Auschwitz. But lots of smaller examples of such false stories exist in circulation.

    • Replies: @Mevashir
  215. Mevashir says:
    @Patrick McNally

    But the aim of deporting Jews to the east was a fundamental goal, not something that was suddenly adopted because the war took too long.

    Again thank you for your explanation. When you say to the east how far east are you talking about? To the Urals? To Birobidzhan?

    When Holocaust revisionists or deniers talk about the wonderful amenities at Auschwitz, such as a theater a soccer field a swimming pool a library and a brothel, I am quite certain that these were for the Camp staff and not for the prisoners.

    Albert Speer led a charmed life where he always maintained that though he never knew anything about gas chambers yet he should have known and he was therefore guilty.

    Is there any reason to think Speer would have known about gas chambers? Since he was the chief economic planner for the Nazi regime, why were the Allies so lenient to him?

    Why were the British so keen on extracting a confession from Höss? Do you consider it significant that in his wartime writings Churchill makes no mention of a Holocaust?

    I didn’t know that Churchill wished to continue the war against the Soviet Union. Did he basically have the same view as General Patton?

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  216. @Mevashir

    Churchill became pissed off over Soviet encroachments on Poland and tried advocating for a new war. Jonathan Walker, Operation Unthinkable, The Third World War: British Plans to Attack the Soviet Empire, 1945. Because of the victory over Hitler, Churchill was careful about trying to win over support from crucial people. When his staff rejected the idea he was forced to accept. But it should be a reminder of what would have happened if Stalin had indulged in the reckless lunacy suggested by some like Rezun. A hypothetical Soviet invasion of Europe carried out with the intent (according to the Rezun model) of Sovietizing the whole continent would have quickly brought Churchill into war against Stalin. There simply would be no other way for Churchill to save his reputation. But in 1945 he already had a reputation based upon one victory, and hence a reason for being cautious about arguing too much against people who rejected his idea of an anti-Soviet campaign.

    The failure of Churchill to say much about certain things in his official history is certainly noteworthy. I wouldn’t make an automatic conclusion from that alone but it deserves to be recognized. Also the fact that Eisenhower and de Gaulle didn’t have much to say. This may not be enough to make one conclude that certain stories were necessarily fake, but it still stands out in some way.

    The fact that Speer was involved with war production which used concentration camp labor makes it very dubious that he would not know anything about alleged gas chambers operating in some regular way. While he was alive it was publicly accepted that he probably did not know. Since he passed away it is now more common for people to presume that of course he knew. But Speer played an important role in propagating the Allied view of certain things while he was alive. It could be pointed out that Speer admitted to everything and regretted that he had participated in the Third Reich. Lacking any documentation of gas chambers this was an important tool in giving credibility to a conclusion.

    It’s not really possible to determine “how far to the east” in any technical sense. First of all, the original plans would have been altered once it became clear that the Soviet Army was not going to crumble quickly as anticipated. Secondly, with the Allied victory the official story was that “evacuation to the east” was merely a euphemism for “exterminate in gas chambers.” Any evidence of evacuations (of which there still is some) would have been played down. Not just in the sense of possibly destroying some documents which could shed light on the matter of deportations, how far and to where, but also just a failure to follow investigative leads while the trail was hot. There is evidence of substantive movements of people, some portion of whom were undoubtedly Jewish, in the last stages of the war and early postwar years. If no one was specifically investigating things then for evidence of Jews having been deported into eastern Europe then much of the evidence will have been lost, even without a specific cover-up.

    • Replies: @Malla
  217. @Mevashir

    You’re still peddling your nonsense about the Holohoax I see.

    There is NO proof that any systematic extermination programme was undertaken at Treblinka, or Sobibor or ….. anywhere for that matter.

    Just because you’ve seen a Zio-cabal / Steven Spielberg elaborately produced fantasy documentary about it, does not make it so.

    Mevashir, your whining about others being ‘Hitler apologists’ is getting tiresome.

    No one is saying that Hitler was squeaky clean. Both sides committed war crimes and atrocities during that conflict – as indeed occurs in all major conflicts.

    However, an objective assessment of who did what will show that the Allies (the Anglo-Zionist Empire in particular), perpetrated BY FAR the more egregious of the WWII crimes.
    (For example: Fire bombing of German and Japanese cities – notably Dresden, the dropping of the two A-bombs on Japan, the needless starvation and mistreatment of German P.O.W’s after cessation of hostilities, resulting in the deaths of countless hundreds of thousands).

    So, in RELATIVE terms, Hitler was by far the lesser of two evils.

    I know you can’t grasp that Mevashir because you’ve been indoctrinated with Hitler-hatred in those yeshivas you attended since birth.

  218. @Observator

    Observator, could we get a specific citation for the Harry Elmer Barnes quotation please?

  219. It interests me that the topic of this article, Joseph P. Kennedy, whose story bears considerable import as a witness and participant in a truly fateful passage of American history, one that is still very much with us and very much hanging in the balance, has been entirely lost most of the ensuing discussion, buried under an avalanche of obsessive niggling over matters that pertain hardly even tangentially to the (very serious) subject of the article, though apparently quite dear to their several obsessive exponents. The net result is diversion, confusion, obfuscation, obstruction. Is that also the motive? Or merely an inadvertent consequence of ranters ranting? Does it make any difference?

    One difference it makes is that when, for instance, someone like Observator offers his quotation from Harry Elmer Barnes (that saint of American historiography), a quotation that bear in hard on the crux of the matter — it gets lost entirely in the barrage of bullshit. Is this also an inadvertent consequence? Or something else?

    • Agree: Arthur MacBride
    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  220. @J. Alfred Powell

    I could go looking for the exact quote, but I haven’t bothered because it is fundamental BS. Barnes was an intriguing figure who went off the rails slowly. Barnes has a lot of resemblance to some people who were periodically given trips through the Gulag by the Soviet government and subsequently refused to believe that there was anything wrong with what they had been shown. In Barnes’ case he was first played by the German government in the 1920s, and he never got over this.

    As a result of the Russian Revolution there was a huge release of documents showing deals which Russian governments had discussed with the Allies. This led to demands for more information by academics in the Allied states and so by the 1920s there was a lot of scrutiny of everything which the Allies had contemplated during the war. But there was no comparable release of German documents. Some Social Democrats like Karl Kautsky and Eduard Bernstein argued that the German records should be publicly released like in the Allied states. But the German military promoted the lie that such demands were a “stab in the back” and refused to make such releases. It wasn’t until 1961 that Fritz Fischer finally produced Germany’s Aims in the First World War as the first historical work which actually took an unhindered look at German documents.

    What happened with Barnes in the 1920s was that the German government officially invited him to conduct a study of German aims in the war. Yet they fed him a pilfered chain of documents which left out any real indication of Germany’s expansionist aims in the war. Instead Barnes was given only the most benign documents which made German aims sound like a mere reaction to sinister Allied machinations. Having been fed this, Barnes subsequently refused to admit that he had been played by the German military. He became invested in an illusion.

    Regarding the quote by Barnes which (quite wrongly) blames Roosevelt for the outbreak of war in 1939, Barnes was simply swallowing the (false) assurance made by Hitler that he was concerned about Danzig. On May 23 Lieutenant Colonel Schmundt recorded a protocol dictated by Hitler where he stated:

    “It is not Danzig that is at stake. For us it is a matter of expanding our living space in the east.”

    Hitler had invoked Danzig as a fig leaf for pressing territorial demands on Poland just as at Munich he had invoked the Sudetenland as a way of pressing demands on Czechoslovakia. But on both occasions he was interested in a lot more and could not be satisfied with a simple territorial concession. Hitler had occupied Czechoslovakia on March 15-6 because he never wanted the Munich treaty. Now he was making demands very similar on Poland over Danzig, and the Poles saw that he could not be trusted.

    In the back and forth diplomatic exchanges which occurred while the Danzig crisis was building to a showdown, Roosevelt was made to answer queries from Chamberlain about what the US would do in different scenarios. Roosevelt’s responses are the basis for the false claim circulated by Barnes, Tansill and a few others to the effect that somehow Roosevelt caused war to break out. Roosevelt made it clear to Chamberlain that is the Allies refused to back Poland in its resistance to Hitler’s demands that were being made right in the aftermath of the occupation of Czechoslovakia, then it could become very difficult for him to subsequently persuade the US public to join an alliance against Germany in any future war that might break out.

    This was not a lie by Roosevelt. Isolationist sentiment was very strong and one of the most common arguments had been that as long as the Allies in Europe decided that it wasn’t worth fighting over then the US shouldn’t want to fight either. This had been the stance even of Chamberlain himself up to the Munich treaty. But Hitler’s occupation of Czechoslovakia had forced Chamberlain to concede that Hitler was gaming for more than just some little border adjustments. Even when a specific demand made over the Sudetenland or Danzig might sound reasonable, Hitler showed that he was ready to go beyond that as soon as an opportunity to occupy Czechoslovakia (and likely Poland in the future) arose. So now Chamberlain was faced with the choice of whether to pretend that Hitler was just honestly trying to negotiate over Danzig or whether to call the bluff and back Poland.

    The only way that Roosevelt could have offered Chamberlain any alternative to what happened would be if he could have given a guarantee of US support in the event that Hitler reneged on an agreement over Danzig the way that he had in Czechoslovakia. But Roosevelt could not do this and he said so. Instead Roosevelt made clear that if a war were to break out over the Danzig-confrontation then the US public could very likely be won over to the Allied cause eventually, but that if the Allies abandoned Poland then the US public would not rush to aid the Allies. This is all that Roosevelt did and it was not the cause of the outbreak of war.

    • Troll: Malla
  221. By the way, for those who want a 80-minute presentation of the “Israel killed the Kennedys” thesis:

    • Thanks: Truth Vigilante
  222. Mevashir says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    I know you can’t grasp that Mevashir because you’ve been indoctrinated with Hitler-hatred in those yeshivas you attended since birth.

    I can grasp it TV and in fact I have written many things denouncing the atrocities of the allies in world war ii. A number of years back I flirted with Holocaust revisionism and I corresponded with a number of prominent revisionists.

    [Incidentally I did not attend yeshivas from birth. I was raised as a secular Jew and only went to yeshiva after graduating from college.]

    I’m even willing to concede that the Germans who worked at Auschwitz were probably decent people model citizens and family men apart from their pathological hatred of Jews. I don’t understand by what right they thought they could round up all the civilian Jews of Europe and incarcerate them in slave labor or death camps. Truly it’s mind-boggling that they would devote so many resources to annihilating a bunch of middle class non-combatant people.

    I once met a man in Israel who showed me his tattoo and told me he worked in the Sonderkommando at Auschwitz pulling bodies out of the gas Chambers and wheelbarrowing them to the crematory ovens. I had no reason to think he was lying. He didn’t know me I wasn’t offering him a book or film contract. He was just speaking the simple truth of what he experienced. Why should I assume he was lying?

    As for camps like Treblinka Belzac Majdenik and Sobibor, they were not slave labor camps so what else were they for if not extermination? Even David Irving recently admitted that the so-called Reinhard camps murdered 2 million Jews:
    https://www.jpost.com/not-just-news/q-and-a-with-holocaust-denier-david-irving-im-not-an-anti-semite-yet-415004
    https://www.panmacmillan.com/blogs/literary/my-holocaust-holiday-with-david-irving

    Victor Frankl wrote his famous book MAN’S SEARCH FOR MEANING, about his experiences at Auschwitz, in 1946. Even back then, long before the Holocaust became a cause celebre, he wrote clearly about the mass executions and the gas chambers. He claimed that upon arrival at the camp there was an immediate selection in which 2/3 of all the arrivals were executed. He claimed that of the total number of people incarcerated at Auschwitz, there was only about a 3% survival rate. Why should I disbelieve him? He wrote this book 20 years before the Holocaust became a hot topic in the West. And he writes about gas Chambers and Mass executions:
    https://antilogicalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/mans-search-for-meaning.pdf

    If you want to argue that Christians are not responsible for what happened to these Jews; that the Jews are an alien culture in European society; that the Jews brought this down upon their own heads; that Germany has no obligation to pay perpetual reparations: I could agree with all of that. But don’t deny the historical reality. It simply discredits your witness about so many other important issues. Holocaust Denial is the fly in the ointment that ruins the testimony of otherwise perceptive and intelligent people.

    • Replies: @Mevashir
    , @Truth Vigilante
  223. Nancy says:
    @Anon

    No wonder the Termites were so ‘helpful’ in getting us into WWII…. they play the short, and the long, game.

  224. Nancy says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    Frankl’s stay at Auschwitz was for a couple of days (documented, admitted). Also, there is such a thing as, during wartime, internment/concentration camps for safeguarding the larger population for potentially dangerous subversive groups, i.e., originated in Boer War by Great Britain, Japanese camps in US in WWII. There is a reason that Jews were expelled from ‘adopted’ (‘infiltrated’ ?) countries/states etc. over 100 times in the past, even preceding the Christian era – it was their behavior that made them untrustworthy, and hadn’t changed by the time they were dominant in pre-WWII Germany (their Talmud teaches Dual Morality – doesn’t foster trust.) Today? you judge – 70% of Biden’s cabinet are Dual Citizens, including the spouses of his 3 children.

    • Thanks: Truth Vigilante
    • Replies: @Mevashir
    , @Mevashir
    , @Mevashir
  225. Mevashir says:
    @Patrick McNally

    This is all that Roosevelt did and it was not the cause of the outbreak of war.

    It sounds like it was the cause of Britain declaring war on Germany in support of Poland. Without Roosevelt’s statement, presumably Britain would have remained neutral no?

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  226. Malla says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Hitler’s goal of achieving the conquest of living space in eastern Europe was the primary motive in all of his thinking from the time he wrote Mein Kampf up to the launching of Operation Barbarossa.

    This is idiotic beyond belief. Some utterances in the Main Kaumpf does not justify Operation Barabrossa. Hungary as awell As Romania took part in Operation Barbarossa. Did they want Lebensraum too? Do not be ridiculous. Not at all. The Truth is Communism wanted to spread and Stlain unlike Trotsky preferred the Red Army way of conquest.

    You completely ignore the actions the Soviets took against Germany even after the Germans were friendly to the USSR

    You ignore, Motolov’s four demands made to Hitler.

    You ignore Hitler telling Finnish military commander Mannerheim that his army was made for the West not the East. If Hitler wanted lebensraum , why build an army suited for Western Europe and not Eastern Europe?
    The truth is Hitler foolishly trusted the Soviets who always wanted to conquer and enforce Communism across al of Europe. Remember the central theme of Communism is “Workers of the World, Unite’ It is a globalist mental disease. It wants to see the whole wold under Communist tyranny. It may have taken Nationalist routes later on but at its core it is expansive. I think this “lebensraum” theory is being blown out of proportions to hide the ulterior motives of the Soviets and Communism.
    Stalin also invaded the Japanese Empire inspite of the Japanese not making any moves against the USSR and having a friendship treaty which the Soviets discontinued the moment Germany was defeated. If Japan jad known this, they would have pre-emptively striked too.
    Not only Germany but even Romania and Hungary were seeing Soviet military buildup on its Western front. The six nation invasion of USSR was a pre-emptive strike. Simple as that.

  227. Malla says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Churchill became pissed off over Soviet encroachments on Poland and tried advocating for a new war.

    Pure utter lies and bullshit as usual.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  228. Malla says:
    @Arthur MacBride

    I’m hoping that his name will be revived and followed in India today.

    He is the most respected National Hero in India right now. Bose was very impressed by National Socialism, he looked at Communism first bring an intelligent guy realized that it was bullshit and not a real opposition but fake opposition. He was later impressed by Italian style Fascism but when he went to Germany and saw Germany’s achievement, it was National Socialism for him as the best solution to human problems. The genius of Hitler.

    That man was a hero, a powerful intellect, a true patriot.

    Bose’s extraordinary ability and intelligence was spoken of in the British Parliament.
    https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1936/dec/01/mr-subhas-bose
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND) said in the House of Lords on 01 December 1936 :
    “Unhappily, Mr. Bose, a man of great ability, a man possibly of genius, is a man who, whether by his own fault or by misfortune, has directed almost all his ability to destructive rather than constructive purposes. As a young man he became a member of the Indian Civil service, but while a probationer in that service he came to the conclusion that he could not serve what he described as two masters—namely, the Government of the country and the public of the country, and he therefore resigned.”

    Is it surprising that such a man of genius would realize the brilliance of Hitler’s National Socialism?

    Anyways Thanks and Rule Britannia.
    Britons shall never be slaves!!

    • Thanks: Arthur MacBride
  229. @Mevashir

    That’s a ridiculous misreading of the facts. The fact that Hitler had torn up the Munich treaty and occupied Czechoslovakia meant that Britain’s credibility now depended upon supporting Poland. The issue is not that Britain would have allowed Hitler to invade Poland if Roosevelt had done something different. The issue is that if Roosevelt had been able to publicly commit the US to an open alliance which guaranteed Poland’s security then maybe Chamberlain might have tried to encourage the Poles to reach some agreement over Danzig while trusting in the promise that if Hitler repeated with Poland what he had done in Czechoslovakia in March 1939 then Roosevelt would declare war on Hitler. Roosevelt was just being honest when said that he did not have the authority to commit the US to such a course of action.

    In real practice, if Roosevelt had tried to make such a commitment to an alliance in support of Polish independence, then he would probably have lost the 1940 election. His successor would then likely have refused to support Poland if Hitler had occupied the country on January 20, 1941. This is not evidence of a conspiracy by Roosevelt to create the war which Hitler started. This is just a rational assessment of how much could Roosevelt actually promise to Chamberlain and Poland in public.

    Again, all that Hitler needed to do avoid this problem was to not occupy Czechoslovakia in March 1939. He would then have been enthusiastically supported by Chamberlain in his demands for a Danzig Corridor, he could have reached peaceful settlement with Poland, and if he felt like forming alliances in an anti-Soviet coalition similar to NATO he could have done that. But his aims were much more than that and this why WWII broke out.

  230. @Malla

    No, you are falsifying the record by picking things in mid to late 1940. It was in March 1939 with the occupation of Czechoslovakia that Hitler began the march towards war in Europe. If Hitler had desired not necessarily a “friendship” with Stalin but just a simple “containment” in the Cold War fashion then all Hitler had to do was stay out of Czechoslovakia, negotiate with Danzig with the backing of Chamberlain, and from their proceed to organize an alliance among east European states with the declared aim of containing the USSR. The result would have been a shortened version of the Cold War that would have ended in the 1950s with Stalin’s passing.

    With the march across Czechoslovakia Hitler showed how ready he was to tear up a favorable treaty in order to make greater territorial gains. With the demands on Poland over Danzig Hitler was clearly duplicating an act which had just ended in the occupation of Czechoslovakia. Even if we didn’t have Hitler’s protocols where he dismisses the matter of Danzig as irrelevant and declares that living space is the goal in moving against Poland it was obvious to anyone watching events in real time that Hitler could not be trusted to adhere an agreement over Danzig. Instead Poland quite rationally refused to concede on the matter and war broke out. By July 1940 when Hitler gave the first order to his generals to prepare plans for an attack on the USSR the entire stage of Europe was rearranged. From that point on any agreements reached between Moscow and Berlin would be a no-nonsense arrangement of power in Europe and Stalin certainly did not hesitate to place demands on Rumania. But this situation only came about because of Hitler’s earlier moves.

    • Replies: @Malla
  231. @Malla

    “You ignore …” the fact shown in the documentary record that Hitler said nothing about his army being made for the west until months after Barbarossa had bogged down. It’s irrelevant that Hitler told Mannerheim after-the-fact that his army was not made for the east. That was a retroactive explanation after failure. But the pre-invasion statements show that Hitler expected a swift rout of the USSR.

  232. Mevashir says:
    @Nancy

    What the British did in the Boer war is widely considered a war crime incarcerating women and children as hostages. Approximately 50,000 people died in their concentration camps. The United States has apologized for what it did to the Japanese. Nobody accepts these things as a legitimate president.

    Furthermore Germany incarcerated Jews all across Europe in countries that they invaded and conquered. These people had absolutely no influence on the German government or German society. They were not the elite Jewish Bankers or Jewish Bolsheviks that Hitler hated. He poured out his wrath on purely innocent people.

    Biden has two surviving children and yes they are both married to Jews. Not to dual nationals but American citizen Jews. Would you classify Ron Unz as a dual national?

    Furthermore Biden’s wife’s maiden name is Jacobs which is very likely a Jewish name too. So horror of Horrors Biden is surrounded by Jews. Maybe you should try to blow up the White House and eliminate him and all of his subversive family members. Please make sure you inform the Secret Service while you’re on the way so they can give you a 21-gun salute right into your evil heart.

    Your comments are frighteningly ignorant and callous. RIP

    And Victor Frankl would like to thank you for his wonderful experiences at the lovely Resort Kamp Auschwitz:
    https://www.univie.ac.at/logotherapy/biography.html

    1944
    Viktor and Tilly, and shortly later his 65 year old mother, are transported to the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. His mother is immediately murdered in the gas chamber, and Tilly is moved to the Bergen-Belsen camp. After a few days Frankl is selected for transfer to a labor camp. He is brought to Kaufering and later Tuerkheim, subsidiary camps of Dachau in Bavaria.

    1945
    On April 27 the camp is liberated by U.S. troops. Frankl is made chief doctor of a military hospital for displaced persons. Anxious to find out about the fate of his wife he embarks on the arduous journey to Vienna. Within a span of a few days, he learns about the death of his wife, his mother and his brother who has been murdered in Auschwitz together with his wife.

  233. Malla says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Falsifying records? not you are the one picking bullshit to support your idiotic in illogical claims. And lying away like a slimeball as I have just proven and sticking to your idiotic pet theory of Lebensraum and Roosevelt the peace maker.

    Read what Hitler exactly said to Mannerheim. From his own mouth.
    Adolf Hitler: “Our whole armament – you know, was – is a pure good weather armament. It is very capable, very good, but it is unfortunately just a good-weather armament. We have seen this in the war. Our weapons naturally were made for the West, and we all thought, and this was true’till that time, uh, it was the opinion from the earliest times; you cannot wage war in winter.
    And we too, have, the German tanks, they weren’t tested, for example, to prepare them for winter war. Instead we conducted trials to prove it was impossible to wage war in winter.”
    …snip….

    “This all was inevitable, you see. I had a conversation with Motolov [Soviet Minister] at that time, and it was absolutely certain at that time, and it was absolutely certain that Motolov departed with the decision to begin a war, and I dismissed the decision to have a war, and I dismissed him with the decision to – impossible, to forestall him. There was – this was the only – because the demands that man brought up was clearly aimed to rule Europe in the end. (Practically whispering here.) Then I have him – not publicly… (fades out).
    Already in the fall of 1940 we continuously faced the question, uh: shall we, consider a break up [in relations with the USSR]? At that time, I advised the Finnish government, to negotiate and, to gain time and, to act dilatory in this matter – because I always feared – that Russia suddenly would attack Romania in the late fall – and occupy the petroleum wells, and we would have not been ready in the late fall of 1940. If Russia indeed had taken Romanian petroleum wells, then Germany would have been lost. It would have required – just 60 Russian divisions to handle that matter.”

    This explains more about why six nations preemptively striked the USSR intead of some Lebensraum bullshit.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Patrick McNally
  234. Malla says:
    @Malla

    Hitler’s speech at Berlin again reinforces the threat of the USSR as the reason for the pre-emptive strike which matches a lot with his private conversation with Mannerheim.
    Hitler:

    [MORE]

    I took a decision only when I saw that Russia had reached the hour to advance against us at a moment when we had only a bare three divisions in East Prussia when twenty-two Soviet divisions were assembled there. We gradually received proof that on our frontiers one airdrome after another was set up and one division after another from the gigantic Soviet Army was being assembled there.
    I was then obliged to become anxious for there is no excuse in history for negligence like claiming afterwords that I didn’t think it was possible, or that I didn’t believe it.
    I now stand at the top of the Reich, and thus I am responsible for the present German people and its future.
    (APPLAUSE)
    I was therefore compelled slowly to take defensive measures. But in August and September of last year one thing was becoming clear. A decision in the West with England which would have contained the whole German Luftwaffe was no longer possible, for in my rear there stood a State which was getting ready to proceed against me at such a moment but it is only now that we realize how far the preparation had advanced.
    I wanted once again to clarify the whole problem and therefore I invited Molotov to Berlin.
    He put to me the four well-known conditions.
    1] Germany should finally agree that, as Russia felt herself again endangered by Finland, Russia should be able to liquidate Finland.

    I could not help but refuse such consent.
    (HUGE APPLAUSE FROM CROWD)

    The second question concerning Romania…
    2] A question whether German guarantee would protect Romania against Russia.
    Here, too, I stand by my word. I do not regret it,….

    (HUGE APPLAUSE FROM CROWD)
    ….for I have found in General Antonescu a man of honour who at the time blindly stood by his word.
    (HUGE APPLAUSE FROM CROWD)

    The third question referred to Bulgaria.
    3] Molotov demanded that Russia should retain the right to send garrisons to Bulgaria and thus to give a Russian guarantee to Bulgaria. What this means we know from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

    The fourth question referred to the Dardenelles.
    4] Russia demanded bases on the Dardenelles. If Molotov is now trying to deny this, that is not surprising. If tomorrow or the day after tomorrow he will be no longer in Moscow, he will deny that he is no longer in Moscow.
    (HUGE APPLAUSE AND LAUGHTER FROM CROWD)
    He made this demand and I rejected it. I had to reject it. This made things clear to me and further talks were without result. My precautions were called for.”
    …snip….
    “When I see the enemy levering his rifle at me I am not going to wait till he presses the trigger. I would rather be the first to press the trigger.”

    In Hitler’s private talk with Mannerheim completely back this up
    “I had a conversation with Motolov [Soviet Minister] at that time, and it was absolutely certain at that time, and it was absolutely certain that Motolov departed with the decision to begin a war, and I dismissed the decision to have a war, and I dismissed him with the decision to – impossible, to forestall him. There was – this was the only – because the demands that man brought up was clearly aimed to rule Europe in the end. (Practically whispering here.) Then I have him – not publicly… (fades out).”
    …snip….
    “Therefore I aspired to, bridge the period of negotiations’till we would be strong enough to, counter those extortive demands [from Moscow] because – those demands were simply naked extortion’s. They were extortion’s. The Russians knew we were tied up in the west.
    They could really extort everything from us. Only when Molotov visited – then I told him frankly that the demands, their numerous demands, weren’t acceptable to us. With that the negotiations came to an abrupt end that same morning.
    There were four topics. The one topic that, involved Finland was, the freedom to protect themselves from the Finnish threat, he said.[I said] You do not want to tell me Finland threatens you! But he said: “In Finland it is – they who take action against the, friends, of the Soviet Union. They would [take action] against [our] society, against us – they would continuously, persecute us and, a great power cannot be threatened by a minor country.”
    I said:”Your, existence isn’t threatened by Finland! That is, you don’t mean to tell me….”
    Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim: (Interrupting) Laughable!
    Adolf Hitler: “…that your existence is threatened by Finland?” Well [he said] there was a moral – threat being made against a great power, and what Finland was doing, that was a moral – a threat to their moral existence.
    Then I told him we would not accept a further war in the Baltic area as passive spectators. In reply he asked me how we viewed our position, in Romania.
    You know, we had given them a guarantee. [He wanted to know] if that guarantee was directed against Russia as well? And that time I told him: “I don’t think it is directed at you, because I don’t think you have the intention of attacking Romania.
    You have already stated that Bessarabia is yours, but that you have – never stated that you want to attack Romania!”

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  235. Malla says:

    The Soviet Union was already acting like a big bully way before Barbarossa and had turned into a big threat to many Eastern European countries.
    While the German army was still fighting in the west against France and Britain, the Soviet Union advanced against the Balkans. Although the Soviet government had declared during the Moscow negotiations that it would never make the first move toward settling the Bessarabia question, the German government was informed on June 24, 1940, by the Soviet government that it was now resolved to settle the Bessarabia question by force. At the same time it was stated that Soviet claims also extended to Bukovina, that is, to a territory that had been an ancient Austrian crown land, had never belonged to Russia, and, moreover, had never been mentioned at the time of the Moscow negotiations.

    The German ambassador to Moscow declared to the Soviet government that its decision had come as a complete surprise to the German government, and that it would have a seriously adverse impact on German economic interests in Romania, and would also lead to disruption in the life of the large [ethnic] German settlement there, as well as for the [ethnic] German presence in Bukovina. Molotov replied that the matter was one of extreme urgency, and that the Soviet Union expected to be apprised of the German government’s attitude with regard to this question within 24 hours. In spite of this brusque action against Romania, the German government once again intervened in favor of the Soviet Union in order to preserve peace and maintain its friendship with that country. It advised the Romanian government, which had appealed to Germany for help, to yield, and recommended that it surrender Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to Soviet Russia. The affirmative answer of the Romanian government was communicated to the Soviet government by Germany, together with the Romanian government’s request to be granted sufficient time for evacuation of these large areas and the safeguarding of lives and property of the inhabitants there.
    Once again, however, the Soviet government presented an ultimatum to Romania, and, before its expiration, began on June 28 to occupy parts of Bukovina, and immediately afterward the whole of Bessarabia as far as the Danube. These territories were also immediately annexed by the Soviet Union, bolshevized, and thus literally reduced to ruin.

    [MORE]

    By occupying and bolshevizing the entire sphere of interests in Eastern Europe and in the Balkans accorded to the USSR by the Reich government during the Moscow negotiations, the Soviet government clearly and plainly acted contrary to the Moscow agreements. As a result of Russia’s advance toward the Balkans, territorial problems in that region came up for discussion. In the Summer of 1940, Romania and Hungary appealed to Germany for help in arranging a settlement of their territorial disputes, after these divergences, stirred up by British agents, had resulted in a serious crisis at the end of August. War was imminent between Romania and Hungary. Germany, which had repeatedly been requested by Hungary and Romania to mediate in their dispute, desired to maintain peace in the Balkans and, together with Italy, invited the two states to confer at Vienna, where, at their request, it proclaimed the Vienna Arbitration Award of August 30, 1940. This established the new frontier between Hungary and Romania. In order to help enable the Romanian government to justify before its people the territorial sacrifice they were making and to eliminate any dispute in this area for the future, Germany and Italy undertook to guarantee the remaining Romanian state. Given that Russian aspirations in this area had already been satisfied, this guarantee could not in any way be taken as directed against Russia. Nevertheless the Soviet Union lodged a complaint and stated that, contrary to earlier declarations according to which its aspirations in the Balkans had been satisfied by the taking of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, it had further interests in Balkan questions, though for the time being those were not further defined.

    From that time Soviet Union’s anti-German policy became steadily more apparent. The Reich government continued to receive ever more concrete reports, according to which negotiations that had been carried on for some time in Moscow by British ambassador [Sir Stafford] Cripps were developing favorably. At the same time the Reich government came into possession of evidence of the Soviet Union’s intensive military preparations in every sphere.

    This evidence was confirmed by, among other things, a report of Dec. 17, 1940, recently found in Belgrade, by the Yugoslav military attaché in Moscow, which reads: “According to information received from Soviet sources, the arming of the air force, tank corps and artillery in accordance with experiences of the present war are in full progress and will, substantially, have been completed by August 1941. This probably also constitutes the [time] limit before which no appreciable changes in Soviet foreign policy can be expected.”

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Patrick McNally
  236. Malla says:
    @Malla

    The anti-German policy of the Soviet government was accompanied in the military sphere with a steadily increasing concentration of all available Soviet armed forces along a broad front extending from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Already at a time when Germany was deeply engaged in the west in the French campaign, and when only a very few German detachments were stationed in the east, the Soviet High Command began systematically to transfer large contingents of troops to the eastern Reich frontiers, with especially large deployments being identified on the borders with East Prussia and the Government General [Poland], as well as in Bukovina and Bessarabia, opposite Romania.

    [MORE]

    Soviet garrisons facing Finland were also steadily being strengthened. Transfers of ever more new Soviet divisions from the Far East and the Caucasus to western Russia were additional measures in that regard. After the Soviet government had declared that the Baltic area, for instance, would only be occupied by very small numbers of troops, it proceeded to concentrate in that area, after the occupation had been completed, steadily increasing masses of troops, their number today being estimated at 22 divisions. It became clear that Soviet troops were being moved ever closer to the German frontier, even though the German side had adopted no military measures that might have justified such Soviet action. It is this Soviet behavior that first compelled the German armed forces to adopt counter-measures. Moreover, various units of the Soviet army and air force moved up, and strong air force detachments were posted on air fields along the German border. Since early April ever more frontier violations and a steadily increasing number of incursions over German Reich territory by Russian aircraft have also been observed. The Romanian government had reported similar developments on the Romanian frontier areas of Bukovina, Moldavia and the Danube.

    Since the beginning of that year the German Armed Forces High Command has repeatedly notified the [German] foreign policy leadership of the steadily increasing menace posed against Reich territory by the Soviet army, emphasizing in that regard that only aggressive intentions could account for these deployments. These Armed Forces High Command reports were made public, with all the details.

    If there was even the slightest doubt about the aggressive nature of this Soviet deployment, they have been completely dispelled by the news that reached the German High Command in a few days. Now that the Soviet general mobilization was complete, no less than 160 divisions are deployed against Germany and other European nations. The results of reconnaissance carried out in a few days had shown that the deployment of Soviet troops, and especially of motorized and armored units, has been carried out in such a way that the Soviet High Command was ready at any moment to take aggressive action at various points against the German frontier. Reports of increased reconnaissance and patrol activity as well as reports coming in daily of incidents on the frontier and outpost skirmishes between the two armies completed the picture of an extremely strained military situation, which could erupt at any moment.

    News received from England about negotiations by British ambassador Cripps to establish even closer collaboration between the political and military leaders of Britain and Soviet Russia, together with the appeal by [Britain’s] Lord Beaverbrook, who at one time was anti-Soviet, to support Soviet Russia in the coming conflict by every available means, and his call for the United States to do the same, showed unambiguously what kind of a fate is being prepared for the German nation.

  237. @Malla

    What a dishonest liar you are. I was describing Churchill’s efforts in early 1945 to rally his staff for a campaign against the USSR which he wished to launch in July, and you suddenly being citing stuff from 1939. No one disputes the fact that Churchill attached a strong priority to Hitler’s overthrow and was willing to cooperate with Stalin for that. But in fact once the Winter War began in Finland Churchill was won over by those who advocated Operation Pike, an attack on the USSR that was meant to take place in 1940. Hitler’s strike against France put the kibosh on this however. In early 1945 the world was looking completely different again and this when Churchill advocated for a new campaign against the USSR. There’s no contradiction with any of the documents that you were throwing around there.

    • Replies: @Mevashir
    , @Mevashir
  238. @Malla

    This is another example of how you falsify records. What Hitler said to Mannerheim long after Barbarossa had ground to a halt has no bearing here. The thing to do is look at Hitler’s actual orders at the time were given before Barbarossa. In the Directive of December 18, 1940, Hitler lays the game plan for Barbarossa and has nothing to say about his forces being ready for west but not east. It was only after he had been surprised by the strength of Soviet forces that he introduced this as a theme with Mannerheim. His whole talk with Mannerheim shows that he is willing to invent claims to cover over his failure. He even tells Mannerheim that:

    “We have destroyed right now more than 34,000 tanks.”

    Hogwash. The USSR had across it’s whole territory on June 1, 1941, a total of 23,106 tanks is some sort of shape. Out of these 12,782 were in the Western Defense Districts and out of those 10,540 were listed as combat-ready. Taking into account the effect of retreat the actual portion captured or destroyed by German forces would be about one-third of the full total, so around 3,400. This is just like the way that Hitler invented the story about “58,000” ethnic Germans being killed in Poland when there was violence (set off after Hitler invaded Poland) that led to the killings of at most 5,800 (some estimates are lower, but it’s hard to be sure). That easy way of stretching numbers was a common trick played by Hitler even to the point where at the time of the Battle of the Bulge he tried claiming to his officers that the US had suffered 800,000 casualties. You can’t derive any reliable information from something where Hitler is trying to retroactively justify himself by spouting inflated numbers. Just read the directive where Hitler ordered Barbarossa.

  239. @Malla

    That Berlin speech is from October 3, 1941, and is completely worthless for assessing Hitler’s decisions prior to June 22. By October it was clear that the war in the east was going very differently from what Hitler had expected. The statements which he made from then on were aimed at justifying a situation which he had not expected. As a result Hitler sounds very differently from how he did before Barbarossa began.

  240. @Malla

    It was Hitler’s bullying with the occupation of Czechoslovakia which started the path towards WWII. No one needs to be persuaded that Stalin was quite capable of bullying when he thought it would pay off. But Rezun’s claim that Stalin was going to recklessly invade western and central Europe with the expectation that he could Sovietize the whole continent and get away with it is absurd.

  241. Mevashir says:
    @Nancy

    Also, there is such a thing as, during wartime, internment/concentration camps for safeguarding the larger population for potentially dangerous subversive groups, i.e., originated in Boer War by Great Britain, Japanese camps in US in WWII.

    Nancy, If you or a family member were incarcerated without due cause, imprisoned under horrific conditions, starved down to 80 lbs, and finally released to find that your home was occupied by strangers, I imagine you would scream bloody hell. Yet when Hitler did this to millions of Jewish civilians across Europe, you not only are silent but you approve his cruel actions with feeble apologetics. [The Japanese camps in the US did not experience 90%+ mortality rates. ]

    Ask yourself if you believe in human rights? Perhaps you’d be happier living in North Korea. If you’re lucky you will be sent to one of their reeducation camps to relive the experiences of the Jews of Europe.

    If you are not subject to reason then we can only pray for your soul.

    A final point: traditional Catholic theology stated that Jews should be limited but protected and never subject to abuse and mass murder. I believe Hitler ultimately failed because of coalition of Jews Catholics and Orthodox Christians repudiated all that he represented.

    Consider that Germany lost nine million people in WWII. That looks like measure for measure to Jewish suffering, no?

    • Replies: @Nancy
  242. Mevashir says:
    @Nancy

    What the British did in the Boer war is widely considered a war crime incarcerating women and children as hostages. Approximately 50,000 people died in their concentration camps. The United States has apologized for what it did to the Japanese. Nobody accepts these things as a legitimate precedent:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdmZDHVYRoA

  243. Mevashir says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    However, an objective assessment of who did what will show that the Allies (the Anglo-Zionist Empire in particular), perpetrated BY FAR the more egregious of the WWII crimes.
    (For example: Fire bombing of German and Japanese cities – notably Dresden, the dropping of the two A-bombs on Japan, the needless starvation and mistreatment of German P.O.W’s after cessation of hostilities, resulting in the deaths of countless hundreds of thousands).

    So, in RELATIVE terms, Hitler was by far the lesser of two evils.

    That’s only true if you see a moral equivalence between the two sides. But under the calculus of good vs evil, proportionality does not apply. The Germans applied this very logic to assault the civilian Jewish population of Europe. The Allies applied the same logic against the Germans. All in all it was an enormous global tragedy. But surely you can appreciate the Divine Justice that Germans were punished collectively (eg Dresden) for the sins of the Nazi leadership EXACTLY as Germans had sought to punish Jews collectively for the sins of the handful of Jewish bankers and Bolsheviks Hitler so hated.

    GOD’S JUSTICE IS PERFECT!

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  244. Mevashir says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    GOD’S JUSTICE IS PERFECT!

    I hasten to add that while this is true it is much better to live under God’s mercy. Under God’s awesome terrifying Justice we all suffer. Jews and Germans, Russians and Americans, Japanese and Chinese, ad nauseam.

    I think what most disturbs me about the Nazis is their almost total lack of mercy. In their earnestness to rehabilitate Germany they projected a tough Macho Warrior image and they diminished and denigrated the quality of mercy. This was seen in their darwinian policies of euthanizing the disabled the elderly and the infirm and persecuting and killing Jews gypsies and homosexuals. The Nazis are the total antithesis of mercy. I would say SS stands for Servants of Satan because in the end that’s what they are.

    Today is Tisha B’Av the Jewish National Day of mourning for the destruction of Jerusalem and countless other tragedies in Jewish history including the Spanish Inquisition and Expulsion and the outbreak of world war I. And on this day I wish to publicly thank righteous gentiles like Winston Churchill General Eisenhower and so many members of the American and Russian militaries who liberated the concentration camps and saved the Jewish remnant from certain destruction. I’m also grateful that Global political institutions have sought to ensure that something like the Holocaust is never repeated. Thank you to all of these compassionate and merciful leaders. Amen

  245. Mevashir says:
    @Patrick McNally

    But in fact once the Winter War began in Finland Churchill was won over by those who advocated Operation Pike, an attack on the USSR that was meant to take place in 1940. Hitler’s strike against France put the kibosh on this however.

    So why couldn’t Churchill join forces with Hitler in operation Barbarossa to overthrow the Soviet government?

  246. Mevashir says:
    @Patrick McNally

    But in fact once the Winter War began in Finland Churchill was won over by those who advocated Operation Pike, an attack on the USSR that was meant to take place in 1940. Hitler’s strike against France put the kibosh on this however.

    The obvious question is why Churchill would not join forces with Hitler in operation Barbarossa to overthrow the Soviet government? It seems like Churchill couldn’t decide who his true enemy was. Something described in the Bible as wavering between two opinions.

    It also seems incredibly ruthless to utilize the incredible Sacrifice of the Red Army to defeat the Nazis only to then stab them in the back and attack them just when victory has been attained. Churchill was a very conniving person it would seem.

    You never explained why the British military was so keen to extract a confession from Höß, especially given that Churchill never mentions the Holocaust in his memoirs. What was really going on?

    PS I just recommended your comments on this thread to Kevin Barrett as a more balanced perspective about world war II than that offered by RU.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  247. @Mevashir

    Churchill obviously was a ruthless SOB. Of course so was Dear Old Uncle Joe Stalin and a lot of others besides. But Churchill could be ruthless, that’s true. Overall Churchill regarded Hitler as the more important enemy if only because he saw Germany as a more advanced state that would be capable of more in the wrong hands. But Churchill did try to persuade Truman to use the atomic bomb in a strike against the USSR before a Soviet atom bomb was developed. Pretty ruthless.

    In the first few years after the war there was a fanatical drive to force confessions out from German officials such as Hoess. As the world settled into a new Cold War this declined and people were quietly laying things to rest. That accounts for why Churchill, Eisenhower and De Gaulle had nothing to say about certain matters which are today regarded as virtually the center of any discussion about WWII. Of course this by itself doesn’t tell us what exactly was true or untrue about charges made in the postwar trials. The confession extracted from Rudolf Hoess was part of the public trials which the British and other Allies were determined to hold in front on the German populace.

    One thing which certainly influenced many Allied decisions about the trials held after WWII was the way that WWI had been followed by a long cover-up. I mentioned above how the German government in the 1920s had refused to declassify the really important documents about Germany’s Aims in the First World War. That was a title written in 1961 by Fritz Fischer where he finally went through the now-declassified stuff. Most of the histories of WWI written in the 1920s completely lacked such documentation about German aims but had a lot of dirt on the Allies because of the wat the Bolshevik Revolution had brought about the publication of Russian documents from WWI.

    In 1945 the Allies were determined that this time they would dictate a history which force their view on the German populace. For a few years they were fervent about this, then it started to recede in the face of the Cold War. As the Cold War itself started coming apart in the 1960s and thereafter this started to enable the rise of groups which now pushed for things like the prosecution of Erndt Zundel and the Fabius-Gayssot Law (aka the Faurisson Law). But the writings of statesmen such as Churchill, Eisenhower and De Gaulle were written at a time when the original postwar trials were receding and certain things were being suddenly played down.

    That raises the issue of how much was determined by these authors not believing in certain stories that had been widely promoted at the time of the trials and how much was just a form realpolitik whereby they decided that it wasn’t worth mentioning in the context of the Cold War? Most people will explain the matter in the latter fashion. But it still is odd that Churchill, Eisenhower and De Gaulle had really nothing to say on what is retroactively claimed to be a crucial issue. Even granting that the Cold War set new priorities for statesmen, it is a bit strange to have the alleged gas chambers left out of such memoirs. Still, a general verdict has to be based upon a more detailed analysis of purported historic evidence.

    • Replies: @Mevashir
    , @Mevashir
  248. Mevashir says:
    @Patrick McNally

    But it still is odd that Churchill, Eisenhower and De Gaulle had really nothing to say on what is retroactively claimed to be a crucial issue. Even granting that the Cold War set new priorities for statesmen, it is a bit strange to have the alleged gas chambers left out of such memoirs. Still, a general verdict has to be based upon a more detailed analysis of purported historic evidence.

    Another very nuanced response from you. You would make a superb diplomat!

    But what I still don’t understand is what did the British know about Auschwitz that compelled them to desperately seek a confession from Höß? Do you see what I am asking? They must have heard of terrible atrocities to have made such an effort to hunt him down and to torture a confession out of him. According to the BBC documentary, they left him alone in his jail room to compose his memoirs. And he expressed zero remorse for what happened at Auschwitz. I don’t think he recorded anything about gas Chambers in his memoirs either.

    PS Could I ask if you are a professional historian or a diplomat? You seem to have a phenomenal knowledge of European history. I for one appreciate the efforts you are making to educate the rest of us.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  249. Mevashir says:
    @Patrick McNally

    According to the BBC documentary, the two gas Chambers were built at Birkenau two miles from Auschwitz. But I think the crematorium ovens were at Auschwitz. So how did the Sonderkommando transport bodies from the gas chambers two miles away in wheelbarrows to the crematoria? That doesn’t make very much sense.

    Also the documentary claims that prior to this Russian POWs and others were gassed in Auschwitz itself. I can understand why revisionists are skeptical because the story keeps shifting around.

    https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdp5o5V2suK3PIXaE7Cwe0MoA75VJJTc6

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  250. @Mevashir

    You wrote:

    ‘I once met a man in Israel who showed me his tattoo and told me he worked in the Sonderkommando at Auschwitz pulling bodies out of the gas Chambers and wheelbarrowing them to the crematory ovens.
    Why should I assume he was lying?’

    Answer: Because he’s a LIAR.

    You said:

    ‘ He [Victor Frankl] claimed that of the total number of people incarcerated at Auschwitz, there was only about a 3% survival rate. Why should I disbelieve him?’

    Answer: Because he’s a craven coward and serial liar that will peddle any nonsense if the price is right.

    The Holohoax is an elaborate NO-EXPENSE-SPARED fraud that’s been perpetrated on humanity.

    Rather than us having to hear you keep bleating about such and such a ‘survivor’ (yes, there were a hell of a lot of SURVIVORS who just happened to be one of the 2 or 3% that miraculously avoided the mythical gas chambers), why don’t you actually sit down and READ some truth about the Holohoax ?

    There are many books you can peruse but why don’t you start with Nick Kollerstrom’s book (Breaking the Spell) that I have repeatedly referenced in my comments on UR.

    In it you will see the PROOF that answers all your questions as to why you should discard all of the so-called PAID-TO-LIE witness testimony.

    As for David Irving, after decades spent in defiance speaking the truth, the Zio-cabal, with the unlimited resources at their disposal ( $13 million was expended at the kangaroo court Lipstadt trial which saw Irving lose his home and his fortune), the miscreants finally succeeded in ‘breaking him’.

    Every man has a threshold of endurance and anything Irving said about the Reinhard camps would’ve been said under enormous sustained pressure. ie: Irving instructed to say such and such and in exchange they’ll stop hounding him and his family.

    Let’s get some context here of the goings on in Irving’s life.

    Irving’s daughter Josephine committed suicide by throwing herself out of the upper floors of her apartment in the lead up to the Lipstadt trial.

    There was a lot going on behind the scenes that you’re not aware of Mevashir so the first step for you in pursuit of the truth is STOP BELIEVING everything you hear from the Zio miscreants publicity machine.

    They haven’t said a single thing that’s truthful and they’re not about to start.

  251. @Mevashir

    If we had ‘Divine Justice’, the malevolent Zionists that orchestrated both World Wars (not to mention JFK/RFK/JFK Jr’s demise, 9/11 etc), would be hanging from the scaffolds (along with those gentiles who prostrated themselves for a few shekels of silver – notably the ‘Butcher of Bengal’, none other than Winston Churchill).

    Any OBJECTIVE bystander would come to the conclusion that justice was not forthcoming and the criminals got away.

    I’ve already suggested you read Nick Kollerstrom’s brilliant book eviscerating the Holohoax myth to get you up to speed on what really happened to the Jews in WWII, but while you’re looking into that, I suggest you read this article from John Wear (someone who Ron Unz himself has featured in the Unz Review, such is his respect for the man’s depth of research):

    https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/02/11/germanys-war-by-john-wear-chapter-8-the-alleged-genocide-of-european-jewry/

    It’s a long article (it’s actually an entire chapter from his book), but with over 120 footnotes testifying to the exhaustive input of this man, it’s well worth reading.

    In fact, I suspect you’ll learn more truth in that one article than the sum total of all you’ve absorbed to date from your biased sources that have an axe to grind.

    • Thanks: Mevashir
    • Replies: @Mevashir
  252. @Mevashir

    I spent a number of years teaching math, but my knowledge of history is based upon private reading.

    “At 5 pm on 11 March 1946, Frau Hoess opened her front door to the intelligence specialists in British uniform, most of them tall and menacing and all of them practised in the more sophisticated techniques of sustained and merciless investigation…

    “Then all at once his manner had changed and he was shouting: ‘If you don’t tell us we’ll turn you over to the Russians and they’ll put you before a firing squad. Your son will go to Siberia.’

    “Eventually, a broken Frau Hoess betrayed the whereabouts of the former Auschwitz Kommandant…

    “Hoess screamed in terror at the mere sight of British uniforms. Clarke yelled: ‘What is your name?’ With each answer of ‘Fritz Lang’, Clarke’s hand crashed into the face of his prisoner. The fourth time that happened Hoess broke and admitted who he was. The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of all the Jewish sergeants in the arresting party…

    “The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from his body. He was then dragged naked yo one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless. Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: ‘Call them off, unless you want to take back a corpse.’

    “It took three days to get a coherent statement out of him. But once he started talking there was no holding him.”
    — Rupert Butler, Legions of Death, pp. 235-7.

    The stuff about him being left alone in a room to compose memoirs most likely refers (I’m assuming without having watched the BBC episode) to the time when Hoess had been turned over to the Poles in Soviet-occupied territory. This is an argument one runs across occasionally. Sure, the British roughed him up some, but once he was delivered to the Poles he was allowed to write peacefully. It’s similar to the way that an author Grover Furr has maintained that “Nikolai Bukharin was not under pressure when he confessed to the Soviet court!” There are different forms of pressure on prisoners. Not everyone who confessed to the Inquisition was being tortured at that moment prior to confession. By the time he was in Polish captivity Hoess was subdued and just wrote a confessional document without needing any further pressure.

    But the memoirs which he did write contain clearly false statements. He describes gassings where the gas chamber is quickly opened up a minute or so after prisoners have died and the camp staff simply waltz in while munching on food while working to clear the bodies away. That would undoubtedly have resulted in prison guards poisoning themselves to death on the spot as gas vapors continued leaking out of the pile of bodies. The statements which he made on this clearly fit the form of a coerced confession which a prisoner makes because they realize it is pointless to refuse to confess.

    Whatever final conclusion one wishes to draw about the alleged gassing stories, the confessions of Rudolf Hoess are not a good starting piece of evidence. They simply fit too well a classic pattern of forced confessions where the prisoner agrees to all of the primary charges but inserts bits of nonsense into the confession. Actually, many of the confessions given in the Moscow Show Trials of the 1930s are more plausible (though still unsubstantiated) simply because they don’t involve technical matters like the operation of a gas chamber. Filling a chamber up with cyanide gas and a large mass of prisoners sets up a complicated situation. One can’t just blow the gas out quickly. Prisoners will fall on each other and poison gas will be left sitting between the bodies in a pile. Simply having a hypothetical ceiling fan blow around for a couple minutes is not going to get that gas out of there. Any camp staff which were going to go into such a chamber shortly after the gassing would have to be wearing chemical-protection uniforms and would not be able to munch on food while working. But no one bothered about these details when taking the Hoess confession.

    • Thanks: Mevashir
    • Replies: @Mevashir
    , @Mevashir
    , @Mevashir
  253. Mevashir says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Not to be annoying, I still don’t understand why the British were so Keen to arrest Hoess. They must have heard stories about Auschwitz. Even at that early date of 1945 or ’46 Auschwitz had an Infamous reputation apparently. How did they come by these stories?

    [It seems eerie to me that his name sounds like Hearse!?]

    Your point about the gas Chambers is well taken. John Grisham wrote a novel called The Chamber about the gas chamber execution room in an American prison. He describes the elaborate process of removing the deceased prisoner after the gassing is over. When I read it I immediately wondered about the gas chamber claims in the Holocaust since these Sonderkommando people didn’t have any protective clothing gloves or masks. Here’s my review of the book where I quote the relevant Passage:

    [MORE]

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/review/044024594X/R33VNUAIZ5JFXU/ref=cm_cr_getr_mb_rvw_tr?ie=UTF8
    Extraordinarily Moving Book
    Reviewed in the United States on April 15, 2013
    Lately I have grown disenchanted with Grisham books, but when I happened across this one I read it with delight.

    It is a very powerful story that frequently had me in tears. The plot is good, characterizations convincing and moral dilemmas explained without sentimentality.

    There is one passage in the book that describes the complex procedure used to to execute an inmate by cyanide gas that has very disturbing implications about Holocaust Revisionism.

    I wonder if Grisham put this in deliberately to indicate his support for their inquiries?

    The novel is about a former KKK member named Sam, who waits on death row for his part in bombing the office of a Jewish attorney who campaigned for civil rights in Mississippi. The state still used the gas chamber at that time. His attorney, Adam, is his own grandson who struggles to understand Sam’s violent past even as he battles to delay the execution.

    And while Grisham in no way discusses, or even alludes to, the Nazi Holocaust in this book, this passage contains disturbing implications about the alleged Nazi gas chambers and seems to validate some of the claims of Holocaust revisionists and deniers, who argue that it is not possible to gas large numbers of people in relatively unsealed rooms and then immediately remove the corpses ignoring all precautionary measures without endangering the entire camp, including other prisoners and personnel.

    “Sam had an audience, and Adam was captivated. “How many men have died in Mississippi’s [gas] chamber?” he asked.

    “It was first used here in 1954, or thereabouts. Between then and 1970, they killed thirty-five men. No women. After Furman is 1972, it sat idle until Teddy Doyle Meeks in 1982. They’ve used it three times since then, so that’s a total of thirty-nine. I’ll be number forty.”

    He began pacing again, now much slower. “It’s a terribly inefficient way to kill people,” he said, much like a professor in front of a classroom. “And it’s dangerous. Dangerous of course to the poor guy strapped in the chair, but also to those outside the chamber. These damned things are old and they all leak to some degree. The seals and gaskets rot and crumble, and the cost of building a chamber that will not leak is prohibitive. A small leak could be deadly to the executioner or anyone standing nearby. There are always a handful of people — Naifeh, Lucas Mann, maybe a minister, the doctor, a guard or two — standing in the little room just outside the chamber. There are two doors to this little room, and they are closed during an execution. If any of the gas leaked from the chamber into the room, it would probably hit Naifeh or Lucas Mann and they’d croak right there on the floor. Not a bad idea, come to think of it.

    “The witnesses are also in a great deal of danger, and they don’t have a clue. There’s nothing between them and the chamber except for a row of windows, which are old and equally subject to leakage. They’re also in a small room, and if there’s a gas leak of any size these gawking fools get gassed too.

    “But the real danger comes afterward. There’s a wire they stick to your ribs and it runs through a hole in the chamber to outside where a doctor monitors the heartbeat. Once the doctor says the guy is dead, they open a valve on top of the chamber and the gas is supposed to evaporate. Most of it does. They’ll wait fifteen minutes or so, then open the door. The cooler air from the outside that’s used to evacuate the chamber causes a problem because it mixes with the remaining gas and condenses on everything inside. It creates a death trap for anyone going in. It’s extremely dangerous, and most of these clowns don’t realize how serious it is. There’s a residue of prussic acid on everything — walls, windows, floor, ceiling, door, and, of course, the dead guy.

    “They spray the chamber and the corpse with ammonia to neutralize the remaining gas, then the removal team or whatever it’s called goes in with oxygen masks. They’ll wash the inmate a second time with ammonia or chlorine bleach because the poison oozes through the pores in the skin. While he’s strapped in the chair, they cut his clothes off, put them in a bag, and burn them….

    “What happens to the body?” Adam asked, somewhat ashamed to read on such sensitive matters but nonetheless anxious to complete the story….

    “Well, once it’s sufficiently washed and disinfected, they dress it in prison garb, pull it out of the chair, then put it in a body bag. They place it on a stretcher that goes into an ambulance, which takes it to a funeral home somewhere. The family takes over at that point. Most families.” [pages 253-256]

  254. Mevashir says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Why did they go out of their way to capture Hoess but not the Kommandants of other concentration camps like Treblinka Dachau Belzec Teresienstadt etc?

    And why were the British tasked with this Manhunt and not the Americans or the Russians?

    None of this really makes sense to me.

  255. utu says:
    @Mevashir

    “Churchill ordered night time bombing runs of civilian cities along the Rhine River to terrorize the German population into rising up and overthrowing Hitler. Apparently this campaign continued for 6 months…”

    Never heard of it. That Churchil ordered bombings of German cities during the Battle of Britain which provoked Germany to switch from successful so far strategy of destroying British air force to reprisal bombing of cities that resulted in the loss of the Battle fo Britain. It was RAF that began to attack civilian targets first but not until late August 1940.

  256. Mevashir says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    I’ve already suggested you read Nick Kollerstrom’s brilliant book eviscerating the Holohoax myth to get you up to speed on what really happened to the Jews in WWII, but while you’re looking into that, I suggest you read this article from John Wear (someone who Ron Unz himself has featured in the Unz Review, such is his respect for the man’s depth of research):

    https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/02/11/germanys-war-by-john-wear-chapter-8-the-alleged-genocide-of-european-jewry/

    It’s a long article (it’s actually an entire chapter from his book), but with over 120 footnotes testifying to the exhaustive input of this man, it’s well worth reading.

    A truly devastating article. So how did the Jews come to a consensus about lying about gas chambers? For example Frankl’s book was published in 1946. Were they already conspiring to promote a big lie even back then?

    I thought the Holocaust became a cause celebre in the 1960s. Even if these eyewitnesses are lying, why did they all cite the example of homicidal gas chambers? Why did they focus on that? How did they even conceive of such a slanderous accusation against the Germans? Do you follow my train of thought?

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Truth Vigilante
  257. utu says:
    @Mevashir

    “Why did they go out of their way to capture Hoess” – He was captured in March 1946. Auschwitz was found by Red Army pretty much intact in Jan 1945. Before it SS was sending huge transports of prisoners West. There were many escapes. For example Seweryna Szmaglewska escaped in Jan 1945 and in Summer 1945 she already finished her book “Smoke Over Birkenau” which was published the same year. It was probably the first Auschwitz memoir. In 1946 two more were published by Krystyna Zywulska (who was actually Jewish though it was kept secret during war) and by Zofia Kossak who was a famous Catholic Polish writer. All three of them were in Birkeanu and all three give very similar description of gassing operation which were second hand stories from other inmates who told them about it. The extermination part constitute a very small fraction of their books. They write of what they know which was life and survival in the camp which was much different how it functions now in the collective memory constructed decades after it. In 1947 Jewish Italian ex inmate also wrote a book Il fumo di Birkenau (Smoke over Birkenau). BTW, personally I have known several people, including from my family, who survived Auschwitz. Strangely I have never asked them about gas chambers because at that time (1960s) the issue was not controversial.

    The narrative of gassing in Auschwitz camps was well established when Hoess was captured. Is it possible that as some revisionists claim that there was no gassings in Auschwitz and that it was just an “urban legend” functioning among the inmates of Auschwitz and Birkenau? Otoh, there were many inmates in Auschwitz who were serving limited term sentences and they were released back home after finishing them. Also some inmates were released after their families successfully intervened with authorities what often involved bribes. Mostly they lived in Silesia and as far as I know the rumor of gassing did not function among the local population. But perhaps I am wrong.

    Then there are two reports of Witold Pilecki (Polish intelligent officer sent to Auschwitz in 1940 to investigate and create a unit of underground resistance) which have not been published until very recently. He mentions gassing several times but does not go into details. He escaped from Auschwitz just after the two large crematoria/morgues that suppose to function as gas chambers according to official narratives were built in Birkenau. The reports (one from 1943 and one from 1945) were kept in London archives of Polish gov in exile. Is it possible that the reports were altered before their first publication? I recommend reading his 1945 report because it can give a better sense what Auschwitz was and how it operated and how prisoners coexisted with their captors, how conditions have been changing (for the better) and so on because from reading your comments I can see you are totally in the dark like most people who were exposed to the narrative created for mass consumption since 1970s.

    BTW, Pilecki was executed by Poland’s communist government after war. In one meeting with his wife when he was kept in jail after going through interrogation and tortures before his execution he said that Auschwitz was a joke comparing to what he went through in the jail in Warsaw.

    Why Pilecki is a good source? He was a professional officer who was sent on the mission to Auschwitz. His reports are dry, they are not personal memoirs, they do not have personal grievances that often are in memoirs of inmates.

    • Replies: @Mevashir
  258. Schuetze says:
    @Malla

    He forgot to mention that Marxists can purchase this path to power tool kit in exchange for their soul at their local synogogue.

  259. Mevashir says:
    @utu

    Thank you for this information. It all remains a mystery to me.

    Apparently the Allies cared little about Auschwitz during the war, when they refused to bomb the tracks leading to it. So why their sudden zealousness to prosecute Hoess?

    So do you believe the gas chambers are just an elaborate urban legend? Why not propose a different tall tale: that the Germans herded people into the swimming pool and then electrocuted them? That would be a much more efficient and less dangerous way to kill large numbers of people compared to cyanide gas.

    I don’t see how so many survivors were able to coordinate their “tall tale” about gas chambers. Was someone orchestrating it? Hard to imagine.

    I offer this view as well. Even if no Jews were deliberately murdered, and all the deaths were due to wartime privations, the mass incarceration of European Jewry still would be a crime against humanity. Consider the cattle cars they were transported in: full of filth vermin and also corpses from the arduous journey without food or water.

    Consider the starvation and harsh labor.

    Consider that when they were liberated, often their homes had been taken over by strangers.

    Incidentally do you claim that the selektion of Mengele upon arrival at Auschwitz, that allegedly claimed the lives of 2/3 of the arrivals off the bat, also is a fabrication?

    • Replies: @utu
  260. Mevashir says:
    @Patrick McNally

    https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/02/11/germanys-war-by-john-wear-chapter-8-the-alleged-genocide-of-european-jewry/
    While I know that Germany did not have a program of genocide against European Jewry, I am equally certain that the inmates in the camps suffered tremendous hardships. This point was driven home to me in 1999 when I met a Jewish lady who had spent her early childhood years in four different German camps during the war. She barely survived Bergen-Belsen, where she contracted typhoid and was very close to death when the British army took control of the camp. Her experiences in the camps had been so traumatic that she still had major psychological damage from her internment 54 years after the war was over. However, if Germany had conducted a program of genocide against European Jewry, she would have been executed since as a little Jewish girl she was too young to contribute to the German work effort. She was living proof both that Germany did not have a program of genocide against European Jewry, and that living conditions in the German concentration camps were extraordinarily harsh.

    Revisionist historians agree that Germany persecuted Jews during World War II. National Socialist Germany saw Jews as being an influential force behind international communism, and therefore considered Jews to be a potential danger to the war effort. Consequently, Jews were sent to concentration camps, forced to live in ghettos, conscripted for labor, stripped of their rights, and suffered extreme hardships. Unfortunately, many Jews died in the German concentration camps during World War II.

    However, Germany did not conduct a program of genocide against European Jewry during the war. As we have seen, the existence of homicidal gas chambers in the German concentration camps has been disproven with scientific evidence. Tons of German wartime documents were captured by the Allies, and not a single one of them refers to a policy or program of extermination. Likewise, the British broke the ultra-secret Enigma code used by the Germans to transmit secret communi- cations. During 1942 and 1943 British intelligence intercepted daily coded messages from Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau, and seven other camps. None of these secret transmissions refer to homicidal gas chambers or a German program of genocide.

    So based on this paragraph, how should Jews respond? With gratitude for the privilege of being incarcerated in fine German work camps? Are you surprised that Jewry has sought reparations from Germany over this brutal policy? What do revisionists really want? Do they think that once gas chambers are disproven, then we can embrace Hitler as a good guy? Patrick McNally seems to avoid that step, but others seem to veer in that direction.

    Also regarding Leuchter’s tests for Prussian Blue, I thought the alleged gas chamber he was testing was a mock up built after the war??!! So obviously there would be no trace of cyanide, correct??

    While it would be impossible for anyone to give an exact number of Jews who died in the German camps during World War II, The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry proves that not anywhere close to 6 million Jews died during the war. Sanning calculates that the worldwide losses suffered by Jews during the Second World War are in the neighborhood of 1.25 million.122 He estimates that 15,967,000 Jews were alive in 1941 before the German invasion of the Soviet Union, and that the Jewish population was reduced to approximately 14,730,000 after the war.123
    https://ia803209.us.archive.org/21/items/Holocaust_Handbooks/29_The_Dissolution_of_Eastern_European_Jewry.pdf

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  261. @Mevashir

    You asked:

    ‘Even if these eyewitnesses are lying, why did they all cite the example of homicidal gas chambers?’

    Of course they didn’t. These liars came up with a wide variety of fables stating they witnessed Jews ‘being boiled alive until they turned red like a lobster’ and all manner of other implausible extermination stories.

    Needless to say, the wack-job stories had to be purged and a coherent singular narrative had to be established. Obviously this was dictated from up above – from some committee established within the bowels of the Zio cabal hierarchy.

    After imposing crushing reparations payments on the Germans in the Treaty of Versailles after WWI, the Zionists planned a ‘two-for’ in the aftermath of WWII. ie: ….

    1) They’d make Germany pay reparations to so-called Holocaust survivors and their progeny – which the German taxpayer still funds to the present day AND …
    2) They’d set their publicity machine into overdrive (via control of the Hollywood movie industry and the western media – not to mention their ownership of the major book publishing houses), to promote the conjured up story that Jewry had gone through a mass genocide.

    This sympathy that would be generated among the goyim would enable them to force through the next stage of their plan. ie: the confiscation of Palestinian land.

    A narrative was then spun to make those within the western countries think:

    ‘Well, we normally wouldn’t condone the dispossession of someone’s homeland.
    But the poor Jews have gone through such a horrific tragedy that we’ll excuse them just this once and allow them a homeland of their own – even if it’s at the expense of GENUINE Semites (the Palestinians) which DNA analysis has PROVEN are actual descendants of the peoples that lived in the region in biblical times (as opposed to Ashkenazi Jews who are a Turkic tribe that has NO bloodline relationship to the Israelites of 2000 years ago.’

    Meanwhile Mevashir, since you have much to learn (and a good deal to ‘unlearn’ in the way of Zio propaganda that you’ve been indoctrinated with your entire life), about what really transpired at the work camps which have erroneously been labelled as ‘death camps’, this under 7 min video will greatly enlighten you:


    • Replies: @Mevashir
    , @Mevashir
    , @Mevashir
  262. Mevashir says:

    This book describes among other things the great role of Jewish Bankers keeping the Vatican afloat in the 19th and 20th centuries. I think one of Hitler’s great mistakes was underestimating the importance of Jews in the Catholic church. I think Catholic dependency on Jewish bankers attenuated their support for the Nazis whose anti Bolshevik policies were otherwise extremely amenable to the Catholic Church.

  263. Mevashir says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    Meanwhile Mevashir, since you have much to learn (and a good deal to ‘unlearn’ in the way of Zio propaganda that you’ve been indoctrinated with your entire life), about what really transpired at the work camps which have erroneously been labelled as ‘death camps’, this under 7 min video will greatly enlighten you:

    It’s a powerful video. Can you provide a URL for it?

    I don’t know what to think. It’s very hard for me to believe that the concentration camps were such almost attractive facilities. Babysitting Services nurses for newborns swimming pools for the inmates. Honestly the mind reels at the suggestion and the trivialization of the suffering of people who were forcibly incarcerated against their will without due process.

    I think Brother Nathaniel is extremely callous in his depiction of these places. I would like to see his sorry parasitical monastic ass dragged off and shoved into a chain gang sort of Labor camp. I doubt he would last too long. But at least it would get him to shut up.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  264. @Mevashir

    There was originally a crematoria with 6 muffles built at Auschwitz. Then in early 1943 new crematoria were built at Birkenau. 4 crematoria were built there with 2 of them having 5 ovens with 3 muffles each and the other 2 having 4 ovens with 2 muffles each, making for a capacity of 46 muffles at Birkenau. I mentioned the Vrba/Wetzler report above. This gave a completely wrong description of the Birkenau crematoria with muffles arranged in a circle around a furnace, rather than the 3-muffles-per-oven and 2-muffles-per-oven arrangement which existed. It’s one of the simple details to look at and see that the Vrba/Wetzler report is a fraud without even wondering if gas chambers may have existed.

  265. Mevashir says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    1) They’d make Germany pay reparations to so-called Holocaust survivors and their progeny – which the German taxpayer still funds to the present day AND …
    2) They’d set their publicity machine into overdrive (via control of the Hollywood movie industry and the western media – not to mention their ownership of the major book publishing houses), to promote the conjured up story that Jewry had gone through a mass genocide.

    This sympathy that would be generated among the goyim would enable them to force through the next stage of their plan. ie: the confiscation of Palestinian land.

    This looks to me totally false. The UN Partition Plan was passed in 1947, long before Hollywood started popularizing the Holocaust. The main reason was because of the urgent refugee crisis of some 500,000 Jews in DP camps across Europe. No one wanted them so Palestine was authorized as a place of Jewish refuge.

    I don’t know where the photos BroNat displays with such glee come from. I have no reason to believe they are legitimate portraits of life inside the Konzentrationslager.

    Have you heard of Corrie ten Boom. She was a Dutch Christian evangelist whose family was arrested in 1944 for the crime of harboring Jews. She and her sister Betsy were sent to Ravensbruck, a notorious Kamp fur Frauen. Betsy died soon after due to the appalling conditions. Corrie was scheduled for execution but was released due to a clerical error. She then spent the rest of her life as a global evangelist. She reports that the very first place she went to was Germany. At a meeting a German man introduced himself and said he had worked as a guard at Ravensbruck and asked her forgiveness for his brutality. Corrie paused and struggled to forgive him but felt God prompting her in that direction. When she shook his hand her life changed forever after:

    [MORE]

    Corrie ten Boom is considered a totally credible person. She testifies that life inside Ravensbruck was hell. I believe her over you or Brother Hate!

    https://youtu.be/l4gnZt1fXEQ

    https://youtu.be/mHMpMnp1WsE
    https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/it-happened-today/12/30
    https://www.corrietenboom.com/en/information/the-history-of-the-museum

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/18/if-this-is-a-woman-review-inside-ravensbruck-camp-women-sarah-helm-profoundly-moving

    If This Is a Woman: Inside Ravensbrück, Hitler’s Concentration Camp for Women review – profoundly moving
    Sarah Helm’s exhaustive chronicle reveals the full horror of the Ravensbrück Nazi camp, ‘the capital of the crime against women’LIBERATION DU CAMP DE CONCENTRATION DE RAVENSBRUCK 1945
    Women await liberation from Ravensbrück in March 1945. Photograph: Keystone-France/Getty Images
    Yvonne Roberts
    Sun 18 Jan 2015 07.00 EST

    It’s difficult to know why the history of Ravensbrück, a concentration camp 50 miles north of Berlin, in an idyllic setting on the Baltic coast, should remain “on the margins of the story” of Nazi genocide. Even more so given that Heinrich Himmler, prime architect of the annihilation, took a special interest in its creation, not least because his mistress, Hedwig “Häschen” (Bunny) Potthast, mother of his two children, lived a normal, uneventful life close to this configuration of inhumanity, as did the citizens of nearby Fürstenberg.

    In If This Is a Woman – the title powerfully echoes If This Is a Man, Primo Levi’s 1947 account of his time in Auschwitz – Sarah Helm offers a profoundly moving chronicle of the six years Ravensbrück existed. “Just as Auschwitz was the capital of the crime against Jews, so Ravensbrück was the capital of the crime against women,” she writes. So why has its history been shunted to the footnotes, its use of gas chambers denied by historians such as Robert Faurrison?

    Helm speculates that the camp was smaller than many; it was hidden for years behind the Iron Curtain; survivors remained silent, thinking they’d be disbelieved. And, of course, the inmates were “only women” – but what women. Only a tiny proportion were Jewish. Most were “inferior beings” – social outcasts, Gypsies, resistance fighters, Jehovah’s Witnesses, political enemies, prostitutes, the sick, disabled and “mad”. They came from more than 20 countries including Hungary, France, Holland, the Soviet Union and 20 or so from Britain.

    Amid the atrocities, despair and degradation, inspirational leadership, inordinate courage and the bonds of loyalty and friendship resulted in “heroism, superhuman tenacity and exceptional willpower to survive”. Women who had been housewives, doctors, opera singers, academics and petty thieves not only survived, they ensured that what was being done to them was documented and smuggled out to the wider world. Ethnologist Germaine Tillion, formerly an observer of African tribes, kept a daily diary, at huge risk, of “the most essential facts; the ones that horrified the most, that were too important to commit to memory”. She later gave evidence at war crime trials. When she died, aged 100, in 2008, her best friend, Anise Girard, with whom she had twice managed to escape the Ravensbrück gas chamber, was by her side.

    The only Nazi concentration camp built for women opened in May 1939, designed to hold 3,000. It had salvias and an aviary and later a hair salon for the guards. Prisoners slept 150 to a block. At its peak, in February 1945, it held 46,473 women. Babies were delivered and left to starve to death. In eight months, almost 600 died. Children were sterilised. Up to 50,000 women were exterminated – gassed, shot, worked to death as slave labour (Siemens used slave labour in its factory on site). Standing in cotton dresses for hours in winter for roll call reduced the population further, as did beatings and dog bites. Local women were recruited as guards; some became monsters equipped with alsatians and truncheons. Minor misdemeanours – curling hair – could result in 25 lashes and solitary confinement in the bunker with no bed and little food for weeks.

    How did some women survive? To discover the answer Helm travelled to Poland, France, Holland, Israel and other parts of the globe to interview the few remaining survivors and their children, filling the gaps from the scant autobiographies, letters and documents. Jeannie Rousseau, a Frenchwoman, refused to make German arms. “You can refuse what is happening,” she tells Helm. “Or go along with it. I was in the refusal camp.”

    That camp included many extraordinary women: women’s rights activists Rosa Jochmann and Käthe Leichter (the latter wrote a Jewish play that resulted in six weeks in the bunker); Elsa Krug, an S&M prostitute from Dusseldorf who refused to beat her fellow prisoners; and the inspirational “humble” Yevgenia Lazarevna Klemm, unofficial leader of 500 uniformed women from the Red Army. She mothered the teenagers, maintained discipline, told “her” women to learn German to survive, and fought off spies with the instruction “don’t break the circle”.

    The “Red Army girls” along with other women ensured that the equipment they were forced to make for the German army was sabotaged. In 1953, in Odessa, Klemm was banned from teaching and hanged herself because nobody told her why she had been banned. As you read this 768-page book, it never feels too long. You will the women of Ravensbrück to live.

    The story of the 77 “rabbits” encapsulates the best and worst of Ravensbrück. From 1942, the prisoners were used as guinea pigs. In “special operations”, leg muscles were cut and glass, wood and dirt inserted into wounds, which were either left untreated or treated with different types of drugs; bones were smashed and splintered. The experiments were repeated. But when it was time to remove the evidence and kill the “rabbits”, the whole camp conspired to keep them hidden. “The experiments had proved nothing for science,” Helm writes. “But they had proved something for humanity.” The “rabbits” smuggled news of this barbarity to the outside world. In May 1944 it was broadcast on underground radio, from a village in Buckinghamshire, and still the International Committee of the Red Cross did nothing.

    In Ravensbrück, snitches were rife. Prisoners were promoted and became as savage as the guards, including a former Manchester Guardian journalist, Carmen Mory from Switzerland. She cut her wrists before she could be executed; few guards were ultimately punished. Even in the first days after the liberation of Ravensbrück in 1945, prisoners driven to safety on “the road to freedom” by the Red Cross were wounded and killed by allied gunfire, and, covered in sores and emaciated, raped by the liberating Russian troops, who asked the women: “Have you come from the grave?” But still a striking number of the 120,000 who had entered Ravensbrück survived. Dr Loulou Le Porz had her “family” in block 10. After she came out, she tells Helm, “One didn’t believe in the goodness of human nature any more. I had to learn it again. And I did.” She paused. “But it took a long time.”

    If This Is a Woman is published by Little, Brown (£25). Click here to buy it for £20

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  266. @Mevashir

    Keep in mind that a lot of $h!t which was going down at the time didn’t make sense to the people who were most caught up in it. It would be wrong to think that there was any crafty conspiratorial committee managing everything behind the scenes. In the immediate days after WWII the Allies had a priority to not only punish a defeated enemy but to avoid what happened after WWI. That war was followed by the German military keeping their own documents tightly sealed while historians in the Allied states tore through every piece of documentation showing suspect motives on the part of the Allies. It really wasn’t until Fritz Fischer published in 1961 that there started to appear an actual examination of Germany’s Aims in the First World War (Fischer’s title).

    The Allied governments were determined that this time the trials of German officials would be so sweeping that it would not possible for scoundrels like Hindenburg and Ludendorff to craft a stab-in-the-hoax once more. Meanwhile, as Rupert Butler mentions in the text which I quoted from him, there were Jews working within the Allied staff who had a special bone to pick. Some of these Jews who worked within the Allied command later became distinguished in fighting with the Israel army in the 1947-8 period.

    But it wasn’t only some Jews who moved on. As the Cold War set in everyone started shifting the old conflict into the background. Many people actually recalled how the Great Depression had followed WWI and had bred a great degree of skepticism about the “war to make the world safe for democracy.” Priorities seemed to now dictate putting old debates about WWII away and just concentrating on making an economic boom while going along with the Cold War. The fascination with “all things Holocaust” really only started to grow in the 1970s. By this time the economic prosperity which had followed WWII was now turning into stagflation and suddenly it felt natural to reminisce about the war and the period which followed it. This proved to be a breeding for Holocaustomania. But not everything was being tightly planned from the start and if some things just seem erratic it may be because they really were.

    • Thanks: Mevashir
    • Replies: @S
  267. Mevashir says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    This statement gives the lie to Brother Hatethaniel’s pathetic lying video about “Klub Med”-Auschwitz:

    https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/02/11/germanys-war-by-john-wear-chapter-8-the-alleged-genocide-of-european-jewry/
    Belsen was in the beginning bearable and we had bunks to sleep on, and a small ration of soup and bread. But as the camp got fuller, our group and many others were given a barracks to hold about seven hundred lying on the floor without blankets and without food or anything. It was a pitiful scene as the camp was attacked by lice and most of the people had typhus and cholera.
    . . . Many people talk about Auschwitz—it was a horrible camp. But Belsen, no words can describe it. . . . From my experience and suffering, Belsen was the worst.

  268. @Mevashir

    Regarding the issue of which gas chambers have been admitted as post hoc constructions, there was the Auschwitz camp and then Birkenau. The admission of post hoc construction applies to Auschwitz, but not Birkenau. Fred Leuchter, and later Germar Rudolf, carried out tests at multiple locations.

    It’s pointless to speak of “revisionists” as a coherent group with a singular aim. When I first heard of Robert Faurisson it was in a context where some people were expressing outrage over the fact that Noam Chomsky had made a very flat lame statement declaring that Faurisson’s right to publish research as he wished should be accepted. I simply agreed with Chomsky in a routine way and otherwise stopped thinking about for a good while after that.

    In light of Hitler’s aims of conquering Russia for living space and allowing tens of millions of Slavs to perish from famine (cf. Alex Kay, Exploitation, Resettlement, Mass Murder) I’m not really surprised that there was vengeful rush among the victors after the war. But the Cold War buried a lot of things which should have been dug up. Khrushchev’s speech of 1956 should theoretically have led to a reexamination of many things. But the continuance of the Cold War continued to create a political charge which couldn’t be easily stepped around.

  269. utu says:
    @Mevashir

    I strongly suggest you read Pilecki’s report; it will help you realize that the image of Auschwitz and Auschwitz I in particular that you have in your mind is very distorted.

    Bombing of Auschwitz was never seriously considered. The story about it was created to guilt trip Americans and shift the focus from Eichmann proposal to save 1 million of Jews for trucks and other supplies which British and Zionists ignored. Million of Jews could have been saved if America and American Jews offered Germany money to cover food rations for Jews. Germans were obsessed with food shortages. This is one of chief reasons behind killing of Soviet POWs and Jews. German administration was busy counting calories.

    “Why not propose a different tall tale” – Many different tales have been floated during WWII including the one with the electrocution.

    “I don’t see how so many survivors were able to coordinate their “tall tale” about gas chambers.” – This is actually very easy to explains how confabulated stories coalesce. There were people after war who were tattooing numbers on their fore arms because the status of concentration inmate was very desirable and particularly important for those who collaborated with Germans.

    “Even if no Jews were deliberately murdered…” – It was against all conventions so it was a war crime.

    the cattle cars – Jews from France, Austria or Netherlands travelled in regular passenger cars in relative comfort. They were made believe they were going to relocation and new settlements places and they took with themselves food, clothing and valuables.

    the selektion of Mengele – Mengele was looking for specimens for his research so his selection was minor. More important was who goes to work and what kind work and where and this was not done by Mengele. Then imagine that every transport was somewhat different and different officers were supervising it. But in the mandatory narrative we have always Mengele.

    The most important story about Auschwitz is that about the Hungarian Jews. It was in 1944 when camps in Eastern Poland (Treblinka, Belize or Majdanek) were already shut down or liberated by the Red Army. How many of Hungarian Jews who were sent to Auschwitz ended up in labor camps in Germany? There was a special subcompact in Birkenau were several thousand of Hungarian women were kept. Why?

    Personally I believe that some gassing was carried out in Auschwitz in several places. But I am very skeptical about the claims that 500k or 1 million of people were gassed there. As you know the total toll for Auschwitz was already once reduced from 4 million to 1.3 million and I suspect sometimes in the future further reduction will be accepted. Perhaps we may end up with 300,000 or so.

    Auschwitz was not a central point of the Holocaust. Jews were killed first by shooting in the East after June 22, 1941. By the time of Wannsee Conference already 1 million Jews were killed. But they were not really being killed as Jews, as a plan to exterminate all Jews, became there was no such a plan, but rather as a part of Soviet elite as Hitler believed that the USSR would collapse once the elite is decapitated and that only Jewish communists were holding the USSR together. It was no different plans than for Poland in 1393 when Germans began killing Polish intelligentsia and then also some Jews were killed because they were part of that intelligentsia like lawyers and doctors. But overall between Sept 1939 and Jun 1941 Jews were not target in occupied Poland. Instead Jews were placed in Ghettos and moved form smaller towns to bigger towns. It was harsh for many but also they hoped to have autonomy and some future resettlement. Food was always problem and them came diseases like typhoid. At that time Germans really believed that the Final Solution will be settling Jews to Palestine, Uganda or Madagascar. When Germans entered Paris in 1940 one of the first thing was to find records of Polish-Frecnh negotiations about Madagascar for a colony for Polish Jews. In 1939 in Nisko area in Poland Eishmann tried to create a settlement, reservation for Jews from Silesia but in Spring 1940 they wre released and let go back to their homes. Other Nazis had different ideas.

    In 1942 Germans realized that killing Jews is possible by what was going in Belarus, Ukraine and Baltic states and also by finding they could recruit auxiliary forces from local populations. They also realized that resettlement of Jews is unrealistic after the US entering war and UK remaining unconquered. So at that time somehow the decision was made to kill Polish Jews and build extermination camps in Poland like Treblinka which were peopled by Ukrainians, Russian, Belorusians, Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians auxiliary forces. So the Holocaust was moving from East to West and its last and least important link was Auschwitz.

    • Replies: @Mevashir
  270. Mevashir says:
    @utu

    Fascinating. Thanks for this detailed explanation.

    So at that time somehow the decision was made to kill Polish Jews and build extermination camps in Poland like Treblinka which were peopled by Ukrainians, Russian, Belorusians, Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians auxiliary forces. So the Holocaust was moving from East to West and its last and least important link was Auschwitz.

    Does this conform to what David Irving calls the Reinhard Camps?

    So you seem to be arguing that Auschwitz is almost irrelevant to the actual Holocaust. Why can’t organized Jewry admit that?

    • Replies: @utu
  271. utu says:
    @Mevashir

    Obviously Auschwitz is not irrelevant but it should be put in some perspective that it was mostly a labor and detention camp or rather archipelago of camps and it played a role in the last phase of Holocaust.

    I would suggest reading Timothy Snyder books: “Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin ” and “Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning”. The first one shows Holocaust as a part of much greater scale of killings and massacres taking place in the space between Nazi Germany and the USSR. And the second book gives a sense of timeline of Holocaust, more nuanced take on the causes and most interesting about which Jews were the most vulnerable. Countries in which Jews retained citizenship and which were allied with Hitler offered the best protection to Jews (except for Slovakia). It is possible that if Poland did not go to war with Germany and accepted German demands Polish Jews would have survived or survived much longer. If Hungary did not try to bail out from the alliance with Germany in 1944 Hungarian Jews would not be killed. And so on.

    History of WWII and Holocaust is really fascinating however one must go away from dogmatic, schematic and stereotypical narratives that are Jew-centric and stay away form the extreme revisionists and Holocaust deniers which are a mirror inverted image of the Jewish narrative. They feed on each other and make more graduated and nuanced research and understanding of what really happened and how much more difficult. When Snyder wrote his books it was a breakthrough which was not welcomed by mainstream Holocaust scholars. The second book is still considered controversial. But I think his scholarship is so good that nothing could stop him, He and his wife who is Jewish (both at Yale) know many languages (German, French, Yiddish, Polish, Russian) and he went through many sources.

    • Replies: @Mevashir
  272. @Patrick McNally

    A smear is not a reply. It’s just a smear, and, as such, reflects only the behavior and ethics (sic) of the smearer.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  273. @Mevashir

    By the way, Franz Stangl was tried in Germany in 1967-70. Martin Gottfried Weiss was tried and executed in 1946 for having been a commandant at Dachau and Majdanek. But Dachau was one of those camps where it ended up being admitted that no gassings had taken place, despite the claims made about mass-gassings having taken place at Dachau. So Rudolf Hoess was far from being the only commandant to be put on trial, but critical voices were already noticing some funny business going on with these trials. The Cold War provided an excuse for shelving a lot of this without ever clarifying anything.

  274. @J. Alfred Powell

    I didn’t smear anyone. It’s just a fact that Roosevelt had nothing to with setting off the crisis which led to WWII and Barnes was indeed very badly duped by the German government in the 1920s.

  275. Mevashir says:
    @utu

    Thank you for the references. From an Amazon review of Snyder’s book The Black Earth:

    [MORE]

    Two important themes run through this book. First, that most victims of the Holocaust had already been murdered, over open pits by “ordinary men,” before Auschwitz began systematically gassing Jews:


    “Auschwitz has also become the standard shorthand of the Holocaust because, when treated in a certain mythical and reductive way, it seems to separate the mass murder of Jews from human choices and actions…. When the mass murder of Jews is limited to an exceptional place and treated as the result of impersonal procedures, then we need not confront the fact that people not very different from us murdered other people not very different from us at close quarters.”

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  276. @Mevashir

    Snyder reflects very much the Faurisson effect which had first appeared with Daniel Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Wiling Executioners. Goldhagen was the first notable author to shift away from the “gas chambers” view over to a Rwanda-style event. But does the evidence allow us to save the Orthodox Holocaust by this method? It is certainly more complex to analyze something where the claim is about killings scattered across a wide geographical area, as opposed to concentrated in a specific camp site. But consider the case of Jedwabne.

    This was a Polish town where a pogrom was carried out with the participation of Poles. Jan Gross wrote a book about this event where he claimed that 1600 Jews had been killed in the pogrom. Because Gross was indicting Poles and not just Germans, and Poles are still allowed to defend themselves on occasion, this resulted in a controversy in which the number was downgraded to 400 or less. The thing is that many of the more fantastic stories about Einsatzgruppen killings involve problems that are similar to the arguments over Jedwabne

    In particular the Babi Yar site has had claims of upwards of 33,000 victims being killed there (some books claim 300,000) and then all being burned away without any crematoria. Aerial photos of the site make it difficult to believe that such a huge volume of bodies were temporarily buried, exhumed, and then burned on logs or such without any further forensic evidence being provided. Undoubtedly there was some kind of reprisal killing carried out there. The story is that some type of explosion was set off by Soviet partisans and this led to the killing of upwards of 33,000 Jews. The number is probably greatly inflated just like with Jedwabne, but it makes sense that some level of brutal massacre occurred there.

    Way back in the 1988 Zundel trial when Mark Weber was called to give a presentation the revisionist view for the court he was asked what he thought the number of Einsatzgruppen killings was. He answered with a range of 200,000 to 800,000. The author Raul Hilberg who was then very prominent had given the claim of 1.3 million in his books. This is the place where Holocaust revisionism comes the closest to orthodoxy. The higher estimate given by Weber is about 62% of Hilberg’s number. I don’t have any exact estimate myself but I do expect that a careful research of evidence will reveal more holes that are similar to what happened with Jedwabne. It’s just that it is more protracted to go through lots of small examples and build up a revisionist case.

    • Replies: @utu
  277. utu says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Jedwabne was a part of larger program to instigate and orchestrate pogroms against Soviet power as Jews were considered to be active supporters and collaborators of Soviets which obviously was not entirely true. According to Timothy Snyder the plan did not work as people did not show enthusiasms for such a thing and it only worked when some German units were present prodding and threatening local population to act against Jews. That’s why the job was left to Einsatzgruppen and auxiliary units.

    AFAIK the exhumation in Jedwabne was stopped on the request of rabbis just when estimates for low number of bodies (circa 200) were made and when bullets were found. According to Gross there were no Germans there and thus there were no guns.

  278. Nancy says:
    @Mevashir

    Traditional Catholic position was “no one is allowed to harm the Jews and the Jews are not allowed to subvert Christian culture.” Their ’emancipation’ by Napoleon quickly led to infiltration and subversion. (i.e., see Louis-Matthieu Mole) History shows how this played out. (Need I mention Freud? Trotsky? Magnus Hirschfeld? Franfurt School? et al) However, even pre-Christian cultures distrusted Jews.

    • Thanks: Mevashir
  279. @Patrick McNally

    No, you are mistaken and misled. Barnes’ scholarship on the origins of the First World War is solid documentary historiography, evidence based, with plenty of concurrent witnesses and analysts — Harvard Prof. Sidney B. Fay, Origins of the World War, Charles Tansill, America Goes To War, John Kenneth Turner, Shall It Be Again, C. Harley Grattan, Why We Fought, M.H. Cochran, Germany Not Guilty in 1914 are five examples of a wide range of evidence based studies in French, German and Italian as well as English, and British as well as American. What’s scandalous is the effort of exponents of official history’s falsified version of these events to ignore very solidly established facts and attack and suppress historians who respect them and state them. These people do not respect facts, they respect power. See Julian Benda’s Treason of the Intellectuals on the character and consequences of their proceedings.

    I am acquainted with the attack on Barnes as ostensibly “in the pay of” and “parroting” the German view, but this narrative runs counter to the chronology attested in his scholarly publications. Barnes evidence-based proof that the “German guilt” theory of the “cause” of WWI, on which the Versailles Treaty is based, is totally falacious, was established and published in his scholarship, and in others’ (e.g. Fay above), several years before it came to the attention of German historians, which happened in 1924 ff. But Barnes published scholarship on the subject dates back to 1919, as does Fays’, and others. (The discussion of these emergent facts was international.) The Germans of course welcomed his evidence, and publicized it. But they did not pay for it or shape it, as Barnes’ attackers claim. His thesis was already shaped, by facts, when it was first heard of in Germany. The people who twist these basic facts in order to attack Barnes for exposing important matters they want suppressed, are either ignorant of the historiography they slander, and of the facts it establishes, or traitors to historiography, betraying both facts and truth to motives of authority and power. On this, see Benda.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  280. @Patrick McNally

    The assertion that “Roosevelt had nothing to with setting off the crisis which led to WWII” is a key matter that is at issue in the J.P. Kennedy story, and in his Diplomatic Memoir, such was we can surmise it, and also in the Tyler Kent case. Herbert Hoover’s Freedom Betrayed is another text where this matter is at issue. You effort to dismiss the whole subject as if long settled is not supported by an informed acquaintance with the subject and its evidences.

    • Agree: Arthur MacBride, utu
    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  281. @Mevashir

    The URL you seek for the Brother Nathanael video I posted is:


    Now, in case what I’ve written above in URL format shows up in the UR comments as a video, I will write it ‘spaced out’ below:

    https://www.bitchute.com/ video /a9PjidCBGnyl/

    (Just remove the blank spaces either side of the word ‘video’ and you’re good to go).

    Meanwhile, why the harsh words about Brother Nathanael ?

    After all, if what he is saying about the Holohoax is true (and if one objectively studies the primary source documents like revisionists John Wear, Nick Kollerstrom etc, one will see that it is indeed irrefutably true), then shouldn’t we be giving Brother Nathanael a medal or something, perhaps even building the equivalent of the Lincoln Memorial to honour him for being a truthteller ?

    • Replies: @Mevashir
  282. @Mevashir

    You wrote (in response to my remark about the plans of the Zio-cabal post WWII):

    ‘This looks to me totally false. The UN Partition Plan was passed in 1947, long before Hollywood started popularising the Holocaust. ‘

    In fact it’s totally true.

    Mevashir, after your whole life of complete indoctrination about the Holohoax fable, I didn’t expect that you’d wake up and have an epiphany.
    More than likely, you’re a lost cause. You know, ‘Can’t teach an old dog … ‘ and all that.

    I posted it here on UR for the enlightenment of others, those with critical thinking capacity intact.

    And, you’re wrong about 1947 being long before Hollywood/the Zio media apparatus beginning to popularise the Holohoax.

    Even during WWII, they’d already started.

    I suggest you watch the following movie (made in 1944), if you haven’t already:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Skeffington

    The description in Wikipedia of the plot is enough to convince you that Hollywood had already begun with the propaganda.

    • Replies: @Mevashir
  283. @Mevashir

    What you’ve quoted (in your comment # 272) was taken out of context.

    Yes, at ‘then end’, as John Wear correctly states, Belsen was horrific.

    But what was ‘the end’ ? This represented the last 6-7 months of the war.

    The Allies had attained overwhelming air superiority at this point and every train, every vehicle on the roads, everything that moved was strafed and bombed into oblivion.
    Watch this actual footage in Germany from WWII filmed in the concluding stages of the war:

    The strafing of ‘anything that moved’ statement was not hyperbole. See for yourself:

    Bottom Line: In the final months of the war the German transport and logistics network had been decimated and food was not even reaching German civilians – who were starving.

    Prisoners and refugees that were formerly in Poland and the eastern extremities of the Reich (numbering in the millions), were evacuated and brought back west (hence the shocking overcrowding at places like Belsen etc).

    One such prisoner who was evacuated was Anne Frank’s father Otto – who chose to go west and as a result was alive at war’s end – he went on to live to the age of 91 (dying in 1980).
    Anne Frank was also given this choice (yes, it was a CHOICE), but she decided to stay put, thinking she’d be better off with the invading Soviet hordes.

    Anne Frank chose unwisely. She would’ve survived if she’d evacuated westwards with the Germans who took every precaution to minimise needless loss of life.

  284. Mevashir says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    I appreciate your efforts to ((re))educate me. I am not dismissing what you’ve been writing along with others outright. I’m pondering it all. But as you know it’s a very long road back from the brink.

    After all, if what he is saying about the Holohoax is true (and if one objectively studies the primary source documents like revisionists John Wear, Nick Kollerstrom etc, one will see that it is indeed irrefutably true), then shouldn’t we be giving Brother Nathanael a medal or something, perhaps even building the equivalent of the Lincoln Memorial to honour him for being a truthteller ?

    If what he says is true yes he does deserve a medal. I don’t like his mocking tone. He likes to stick it in the eye of all Jews and I don’t think his attitude is correct. I also don’t trust the provenance of all the photographs. I have no idea where these photos were taken and what they are depicting and until I can see verifiable sources I choose not to believe them.

    No matter how “humane” the conditions were in the concentration camps, the people incarcerated there were rounded up against their Wills forcibly transported to slave labor camps and generally returned home to find all of their property confiscated. No one in his right mind would dare to make a mockery of that process.

  285. Mevashir says:

    QUESTION FOR RON UNZ:

    Would you consider creating an Unz Review app?

  286. Mevashir says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    I suggest you watch the following movie (made in 1944), if you haven’t already:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Skeffington

    The description in Wikipedia of the plot is enough to convince you that Hollywood had already begun with the propaganda.

    I perused the plot summary. It looks like a long-winded boring movie. I don’t see how you can think this is part of Zionist propaganda. It doesn’t even mention Zionism the state of Israel or anything like that.

    My reform Rabbi (when I was a child in California) came from Pittsburgh and told me that almost all the Hollywood studio heads were Pittsburgh Jews who had moved out West. Do you actually expect Jews not to try to express themselves culturally?

    I was referring to blatantly Zionistic type films like Exodus with Paul Newman. Those kinds of movies did not come out until the 1960s. Similarly with literature like Mila-18 and other books by Leon Uris glorifying Zionism. Also the famous book by James Michener The Source.

    If you are an American, you might want to consider the following. America has afforded Jews their greatest opportunities for status and success in all of their history. America is a uniquely open society, especially as compared to Europe. The problem with America is that it was founded under twin principalities of Violence and Rebellion against the King God had placed over us, that the Bible tells us we should submit to. I’m not at all sure you can justify the American Revolution on biblical grounds, even though evangelicals try to make the American Founding Fathers out to be Christian Saints worthy of veneration.

    Jews have always been important in American history and have generally been welcomed here, have contributed greatly to the society, and have reaped tremendous rewards. Probably nobody would be too concerned about this except for the effort of Jews to harness America to the fate of Israel.

    But even that is rooted in early American identity. The writings of Matthew Henry and other Puritan Bible scholars show that they believed in an end times restoration of a Jewish State and they looked forward to it. Even Christopher Columbus dedicated the gold he expected to discover on his voyage West to a new crusade to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims. So deeply entwined with American identity is an obsession about the Holy Land and Jews.

    I accept the claim that Jewish power may be excessive and the pendulum has swung too far, but I object to efforts by people commenting here to completely stifle and annihilate all Jewish identity. Your paranoid mindset fully Unleashed would end up victimizing even someone like Ron Unz, exactly as the Nazis did rounding up all the middle class civilian Jews of Europe and turning them into slave laborers for the Reich.

    Even if there were no deliberate Jewish murders in the concentration camps, what the Nazis did is still a crime against humanity. Jews have a long and Noble tradition of greatly exaggerating National traumas. The Talmud make some outrageous claims about the number of Jewish dead in the Roman war against Bar-Kochba. Jews tend to be a emotional histrionic people.

    But there’s something ghoulish about the way you and others want to comb through the historical record and death ledgers, compiling an accountant’s volume of statistics about the Holocaust, all the while mocking the suffering of people who worked as slaves in appalling conditions and ended up having all of their pre-war property confiscated back home.

    You’re like people arguing over the cause of death for somebody who gets run over by a bus. One person says it was from internal bleeding. Another says it was from cerebral shock. Another says it was from heart failure. Another says the broken bones punctured his lungs and that caused his death. Meanwhile the person driving the bus gets away Scott free while you’re playing your coroner games.

    You don’t see the forest for the trees. And I will never accept that approach.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  287. @Mevashir

    You write:

    ‘But there’s something ghoulish about the way you and others want to comb through the historical record and death ledgers, compiling an accountant’s volume of statistics about the Holocaust, all the while mocking the suffering of people …’.

    I mock no one and there’s nothing ghoulish about putting up facts and figures for the UR readership to peruse that some* of them may not be aware of.
    Because they, like you, have only heard what the Zio-controlled MSM and manipulated historical accounts have told them.

    (* I wrote ‘some’ because the UR readership are a seriously well informed bunch and a significant proportion of them already know the truth about the Holohoax so I’m not adding to the discourse as far as they’re concerned).

    All I seek is to put out the info, reference the very best historians and researchers, like the greatest WWII historian that ever lived – none other than David Irving, a man whose ability to obtain the facts from primary sources, both in quantitative and qualitative terms, is second to none.

    The whole point of exposing the fraud of the Holohoax, like exposing Zio-orchestration of the JFK assassination and 9/11, is not to mock and create racial tension directed at ordinary Jews, because they are pawns in this great geopolitical game like the rest of us.

    The point has ALWAYS BEEN to expose the facts to the general public and, when a critical threshold has been made aware, we can rise up and apprehend and prosecute that TINY SUBSET OF ZIO MISCREANTS that have tyrannised the world with all these False Flags, wars on behalf of Israeli hegemony, wars for the enrichment of the Zionist Usury Bankers.

    This is my wish Mevashir and what countless others seek also I believe.

    It just peeves me that, for every Gilad Atzmon, Henry Makow, Gideon Levy or even a Ron Unz, who are genuinely trying to speak truth to power, there are countless more among Jewry that defend the Zio-miscreants and make no effort to get to the truth.

    The fanatical tribalism of Jewry and the way they pull out the race card and shout ‘anti-semitism’ every time someone points the finger at one of the KNOWN Zio-miscreants (like a Michael Chertoff, a Philip Zelikow or a Richard ‘The Prince of Darkness’ Perle), is absolutely disgusting.

    Let’s hope Mevashir, you can convince a few of your brethren to come over from the dark side.

    • Replies: @Mevashir
  288. Mevashir says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    Thanks for the clarification.

    It just peeves me that, for every Gilad Atzmon, Henry Makow, Gideon Levy or even a Ron Unz, who are genuinely trying to speak truth to power, there are countless more among Jewry that defend the Zio-miscreants and make no effort to get to the truth.

    This is an article of mine Makow published many years ago:
    https://www.henrymakow.com/messianic_jew_renounces_israel.html

    When I went to the Israeli consulate in San Francisco to formally renounce my citizenship, they wouldn’t let me because I had children under 18 yoa at that time…

    They also charge $150 to renounce your citizenship.

    Maybe I will actually get around to it some day soon. Although with the rapid deterioration of society it just doesn’t seem like so much of a priority.

    Let’s hope Mevashir, you can convince a few of your brethren to come over from the dark side

    Unfortunately I have no voice with any of them. My father disinherited me and my brothers consider me a lunatic. My mother loves me as all mothers tend to do with their kids but she has no comprehension of these issues. She did say once that following her divorce from my father she would never again marry a Jewish man!

  289. @J. Alfred Powell

    The German managers gave Barnes only a very select sampling of documents. Fritz Fischer, Germany’s Aims in the First World War, was the first authoritative historical work which actually started going to the core documents. All of those other authors (Sydney Fay, Charles Tansill et al) wrote a time when the German Foreign Office had released only a very select sampling of the real German documentary record. To go by them is tantamount to insisting on never reading any books written about the Soviet Union since 1989.

    Of course there can still be some utility in looking back at older books written before the release of documents at a later stage. But it’s at best naive to simply be fixated on that. It’s particularly bad in the case of Imperial Germany because anyone who has read some of the older Right-wing nationalist literature produced during the Weimar Republic will know that German conservatives rabidly denounced attempts by Social Democrats like Karl Kautsky and Eduard Bernstein to urge that German documents illustrating the war aims of Imperial Germany should be published. Those attacks on the Social Democrats are akin to the Communist Party USA denouncing a call for the publication of documents on Katyn while promoting the story that Germans were behind it.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  290. @J. Alfred Powell

    I’ve read through many attempts by authors to produce documentation over what they mean and it’s clear that all they have to offer is misdirection. The real issues come down to just a few points.

    First and most central of all to anything relating to the outbreak of war in 1939 is Hitler’s occupation of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. This determined just about everything else which followed. It had long been acknowledged in British foreign policy circles that territorial arrangements made out of the Versailles Treaty were artificial and likely unsustainable. John Maynard Keynes was one of the most prominent early advocates of this view. By the mid-30s almost the whole staff of British foreign policy makers had been over to this idea. Hence why there was no attempt to stop Hitler from occupying the Rhineland or even going into Austria. Everyone directing British foreign policy had come to accept that this was inevitable and it would be foolish to start over it.

    But when Hitler made his demands on Czechoslovakia he went beyond simply demanding the Sudetenland (which was bona fide Germanic region). Instead he demanded that Germany should simply occupy the whole of Czechoslovakia and the Allies should acquiesce in this. Chamberlain put his foot down hard and made it clear that if Hitler did this then it would mean war. Instead Chamberlain readily offered Hitler the Sudetenland as a German-inhabited region. Hitler was furious over this, but he realized that if he allowed war to break out now over this then it would look very bad before the public. So he nominally accepted Chamberlain’s terms, but then on March 15 he set about to roll across Czechoslovakia in a way which Chamberlain off guard.

    This was what discredited the fabled appeasement policy. Until now critics had pointed to Mein Kampf and a long smattering of speeches given by Hitler over the years to claim that he was after something bigger than just a peaceful rearrangement of borders in line with demographics. But the occupation of Czechoslovakia was now a concrete measure of this. Shortly after doing this Hitler began raising the issue of a Danzig Corridor.

    Many people in Britain had recognized that there were issues over Danzig somewhat similar to the Sudetenland. If Hitler had never occupied Czechoslovakia then he would have easily found a sympathetic ear for demands over Danzig. But now the new issue which faced not only British foreign policy makers but also the Poles was were Hitler’s real aims. Hitler actually states his own aims in the protocol which he dictated to Schmundt on May 23, 1939:

    “It is not Danzig that is at stake. For us it is a matter of expanding our living space in the East…”

    While no one in Poland or Britain could have read such documents at the time, the fact that Hitler had discarded the Munich Agreement made this unnecessary. The Poles saw that if they acquiesced over Danzig in the spring they could be setting themselves up to have their country occupied in the fall. The British likewise saw that if they attempted to pressure Poland to yield over Danzig the same way they had pressured Benes to yield over the Sudetenland then their last shred of credibility in foreign policy would be gone. This was the situation which led to the declaration by Britain of unconditional support for Poland. None of this has anything at all to do with Roosevelt.

    But somehow the story had been put into circulation claiming that it was a scheme by Roosevelt which caused Chamberlain to declare his support for Poland. Joseph Kennedy certainly did help to put this story into circulation. The question is whether or not this any factual basis at all for such a claim. Attempts to nail down the origins of this rumor provide a few interesting tidbits which upon examination turn out to mean something else than what is implied.

    The comes back to relations between Chamberlain and Roosevelt and what may have been unrecorded communications between them. I haven’t found much in the way of real diplomatic records on this point, but there are some plausible claims in circulation. The story is that Chamberlain wanted to seek aid from Roosevelt, and Roosevelt stated that he could not give it. The real query at issue is what type of aid was Chamberlain expecting? Without saying so much, there seems to a tendency for people passing around as a 2nd story to imply (without saying so much outright, because it’s ridiculous) that Chamberlain thought that Roosevelt could somehow pressure Poland into relenting over Danzig. Then, so the yarn goes, Roosevelt refused to make Poland yield over Danzig (some really bizarre commentators even imply that Roosevelt prevented the Poles from relenting over Danzig when they really wanted to all along). In this Roosevelt is alleged to have started the war.

    That is obviously preposterous hokum, but what really went on? It’s easy to believe that Chamberlain would have consulted with Roosevelt while contemplating a declaration of support for Poland. It also makes sense to say that if Roosevelt had been a dictator like Hitler or Stalin then he could have made things happen a bit differently. Poland would certainly not have relented over Danzig (after watching Hitler occupy Czechoslovakia despite the Munich Agreement) without an exceptionally strong assurance that they would backed in any subsequent conflict which might break out when Hitler eventually decided to move further east in violation of his own agreements. But if Roosevelt had been a Fuehrer or Vozhd then he could have given a guarantee over this and ignored public opinion.

    Roosevelt was not any kind of dictator (even if he sometimes wished he were) and he offer no such backing. What is testified to is that, in communications with Chamberlain, Roosevelt elaborated on the domestic political situation in the US. The politics of 1939 were such that if Roosevelt had tried to position himself as an ally of Britain, France and Poland while Danzig was negotiated then he likely would have lost the 1940 election. This would have nullified any backing which Roosevelt had tried to offer Chamberlain. Roosevelt made this clear to Chamberlain to stress why he could no nothing at the moment.

    At the same time Roosevelt brought up the point that if Chamberlain relented now, and if Hitler subsequently occupied all of Poland the way he had done in Czechoslovakia, then it would be very difficult for him to persuade the US public that they subsequently go to war over Poland. These statements which Roosevelt made to Chamberlain were perfectly factual. If there was any question about Chamberlain not declaring his support for Poland these tidbits from Roosevelt ended it.

    But again, the way that Hitler-apologists run this makes it sound as if Chamberlain did not regard the central problem as Hitler’s overrunning of Munich and then coming with demands on Poland very similar to what he gone through with Czechoslovakia. They even make it sound as if only got the idea to support because Roosevelt put it into his head. That is simply ridiculous. Chamberlain merely sought to find out if Roosevelt could help him pressure Hitler further before declaring unconditional support for Poland. Roosevelt honestly clarified that he couldn’t.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  291. S says:
    @Patrick McNally

    In the immediate days after WWII the Allies had a priority to not only punish a defeated enemy but to avoid what happened after WWI.

    And similarly, for the US specifically, to avoid what happened after the Civil War, where a defeated Southern foe was only partly ‘de-Confederatized’. [There are a great many parallels between the Southern Confederacy’s war with the United States and NS Germany’s war with the Soviet Union.]

    That war was followed by the German military keeping their own documents tightly sealed while historians in the Allied states tore through every piece of documentation showing suspect motives on the part of the Allies.

    Sure, within the micro-cosm of Europe and both world wars, Germany had geo-political aims of becoming continental Europe’s hegemon, and acquiring ‘living space’, particularly at Slavic Russia’s expense, ie Ukraine for example. [And people should certainly readily understand why Slavs might not like that.]

    As for the big picture though, the macro-cosm, the world had for practical purposes already largely been conquered about a generation before the start of WWI, when the US and UK formed the ‘special relationship’ circa 1900, a relationship only just short of an outright political union. Since then, the two nations have done just about everything together, especially wars.

    [MORE]

    W T Stead, a close associate of Cecil Rhodes, and a person certainly ‘in the know’ about these things, on pgs 10, 11, and 12, of his 1902 book The Americanization of the World, calculated the US/UK together had three times the wealth and economic resources of the combined French, Russian, and German empires. He thus deemed the US/UK to be the Earth’s ‘supreme power’, and the ‘world conquerors’.

    On the net can be found multiple late 19th and early 20th century British articles specifically identifying the rise in power of an upstart Germany as a future potential problem for the British Empire that something must be done about.

    Before that, in 1853, there was a widely distributed and widely reviewed US book entitled The New Rome (linked below) which outlined how a future US/UK united front in it’s drive for total world power would unleash a ‘world’s war’ upon the Earth (pg 105) when it first made its move to conquer Germany, continental Europe’s center of power. After Germany’s defeat and conquest had been consolidated by the US/UK, Russia would be next in line to receive the very same treatment.

    Within that context I suppose I see the two world wars, and a likely coming third world war, as the US/UK shaping the world to fit its geo-political aims, consolidating its hegemon

    Stalin, Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini, etc, as wiley as each may have been, were mere ‘babes in the woods’ in comparison to the forces and characters they were dealing with.

    https://archive.org/details/newrome00poes/page/n7/mode/2up

    https://archive.org/details/politicalprophec00goeb/page/n3/mode/2up

  292. @Patrick McNally

    You are either ignorant of Barnes’ actual work (and that of dozens of others), or misunderstand it, or misrepresent it. It was not remotely dependent on “German managers”. The documentation on which it was founded was published and discussed and analyzed by numerous historians in several countries from 1919 forward. Your comments are either based on incomprehension or intend to mislead by indirection. They are based on ignoring evidence or pretending to. Either way, enough.

    The same kind of problems vitiate your discussion of the run-up to WWII and Roosevelt’s role in it. One-sided reading doesn’t serve or lead to legitimate historiography, it serves propaganda and delusion. Starting out from the conclusions one wishes to endorse is not research. It’s delusion, of self and/or of others. There’s no purpose served in pointing you to evidence or informative sources, since your comments indicate that you don’t respect evidence and only read the “side” of the subject you wish to. That’s not intellectually or morally respectable, in my opinion.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  293. @Mevashir

    It’s worth citing Raul Hilberg on the matter of Bergen-Belsen:

    “The old established camps did not have enough room for the influx of new inmates, and hence one camp was greatly expanded to take in the overflow. This was Bergen-Belsen, at Celle, near Hannover in the north-western part of Germany. Bergen-Belsen was originally a Wehrmacht camp for wounded prisoners of war. In the fall of 1943, Pohl acquired half the grounds in order to set up an internment camp there. He needed a place from which foreign nationals could be repatriated — in the words of a Foreign Office official, a camp that would not give rise to “atrocity propaganda” (Greuelpropaganda). While Bergen-Belsen thus started out as a model camp, it could not afford inspection by a foreign government even in its early days…

    “By February and March the front lines began to disintegrate. More and more soldiers surrendered, most major cities were given up, labor camps and concentration camps had to be evacuated. From east to west, transports with forced laborers and camp inmates were rolling inward. Some of the railway cars were shunned to side rails and abandoned to Allied bombers.

    “In Bergen-Belsen the camp administration broke down. As tens of thousands of new inmates were dumped into the camp (in the single week of April 4-13, 1945, the number was 28,000), the food supply was shut off, role calls were stopped, and the starving inmates were left to their own devices. Typhus and diarrhea raged unchecked, corpses rotted in barracks and on dung heaps. Rats attacked living inmates, and bodies of the dead were eaten by starving prisoners.”
    — Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, 3rd edition, pp. 1053-4.

    Although I agree with a lot of Robert Faurisson’s criticisms of Raul Hilberg his book can be worth plowing through. Hilberg makes it clear that Bergen-Belsen was not designed as a “death camp” per se but that it became one in the later stages of the war, as often happens in wars. The scenes of Bergen-Belsen are a lot like Andersonville in the American Civil War.

    • Thanks: Mevashir
  294. @J. Alfred Powell

    The problem with anything written by Barnes is that it did not have access to the documents which Fritz Fischer did. It was based on just a partial reading of the record and so misinterpreted what was going on. As far as the situation in 1939, no one ever has been able to offer any actual counter-point to the simple sequence of events which I laid out. To the extent that an attempt is made to do so it amounts to insinuating either one or both of the following:

    A) Either the claim that Chamberlain would have allowed Hitler to overrun Poland if Roosevelt hadn’t somehow pushed him into taking a stand in support of Poland.

    Or else:

    B) The claim that Poland could somehow have been persuaded to accept an agreement over Danzig similar to Munich if Roosevelt hadn’t persuaded the Poles to reject it.

    Both of these are false. The violation of the Munich Agreement in March 1939 (which the Poles themselves had acquiesced in) meant that the Poles were not willing to trust a Munich Agreement made over them and would not have consented to any agreement over Danzig. Likewise Chamberlain knew that he would have no credibility if he had tried to push the Poles to adopt such. The only thing which can be rationally said is that if Roosevelt had had the dictatorial powers of Hitler then he could have ignored US public opinion and attempted to join Chamberlain in a stronger alliance, with the aim of then negotiating Danzig the way that was done with the Sudetenland. But Roosevelt did not have such power and could not have done this.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  295. Ron Unz says:
    @Patrick McNally

    I’ve never read Fischer’s book, nor investigated the origins of the First World War, but I’m very suspicious of the German Blame Hypothesis, given that right around the same time A.J.P. Taylor, perhaps Britain’s leading historian, was purged from Oxford for publishing his classic book on the origins of the Second World War. I’d assume that a widespread political/media effort to re-demonize Germany for the First World War may have become a likely project around the same time.

    But somehow the story had been put into circulation claiming that it was a scheme by Roosevelt which caused Chamberlain to declare his support for Poland.

    However, I have looked into the issues surrounding World War II, and I find your extremely conventional narrative very unpersuasive. Here are a few relevant paragraphs from my own long article on that topic:

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

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

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

    So we have a very solid source reporting that in late 1937 top FDR aides were privately boasting of their plans to involve American in a major world war in order to solve their seemingly intractable domestic economic problems. And then a year or two later, we have extremely knowledgeable sources claiming that FDR had played an absolutely crucial role in fomenting the outbreak of World War II in Europe.

    Against that sort of very first-hand evidence, I really don’t think those general “standard narrative” claims of yours are worth very much.

    If you haven’t already done so, you really should read my long article on the subject:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-understanding-world-war-ii/

  296. @Ron Unz

    Apples and oranges. There’s no question that FDR was on the lookout for a war that could help him. That, however, has no direct relevance to the crisis which broke out in Europe after the occupation of Czechoslovakia. It’s very common in politics that people will jump on things which start elsewhere and take advantage of it to milk the issue, without having started it themselves. This is what makes the whole CV-19 debate so convoluted. There should be no doubt that China wanted Trump replaced and used CV-19 for this purpose. But does that mean that the Chinese government deliberately unleashed the virus on its populace with confidence that it would eventually meander its way over to the US? That seems doubtful. Perhaps some neocons in the MIC did try to infect China as you’ve hypothesized? If so, it seems like unintended consequences (especially with the virus creating havoc in Israel and taking down Netanyahu) were unleashed.

    So while there’s no reason to doubt that Roosevelt (as well as Churchill and Stalin for that matter) saw a way that a war could benefit him, he mainly just attached himself to opportunities as they arose. This is a point which is easily recognized by Hitler-apologists when the shoe is on the other foot. For example, it is generally recognized today by most historians that Hitler did not set the Reichstag on fire. It really was a lone nut, the Dutch anarchist Marinus van der Lubbe, who set the fire hoping to ignite a revolution. Hitler had always meant to enact something like the Enabling Act (which had been drifted by others before Hitler gained the Chancellorship) but he was simply acting opportunistically when he latched onto the Reichstag fire.

    The same applies with Roosevelt and his expectation that a war would be a boon for the New Deal. If Hitler had simply left Czechoslovakia alone and sought a settlement over the Danzig Corridor with Poland then there would have been nothing which Roosevelt or anyone else could have done to start a war. Hitler’s decision to grab Czechoslovakia before pressing demands on Poland reflected his long-standing of driving to the east for living space.

    As for a seeming coincidence of dates between Fischer and Taylor, that simply reflects that more documentation was coming to light around this period. In the case of WWI this was particularly noteworthy because anyone who looks at some of the old German Right-wing pamphlets of the 1920s will see that they were very hostile to efforts by Social Democrats to propose the release of documents from the archives. When Harry Elmer Barnes was feted in Germany during the 1920s he was fed a very select sampling of documents which did not reflect actual German aims in the war.

    But for the record it should be stressed that Fritz Fischer did not claim that Wilhelm II deliberately meant to start a war in 1914. He was attempting a sort of power play by backing Austria in a war against Serbia, but all evidence suggests that he underestimated how this would trigger a Russian mobilization which then forced the German mobilization and dictated war. Much of what Fischer went through is like the equivalent of a vast mass of PNAC/JINSA documents showing post-911 how there was an agenda in play. But it still conforms to the view that Wilhelm II did not intentionally start the war, but instead tried to achieve a smaller power coup with the humiliation of Czarist Russia over Serbia that then unleashed an unintended war.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  297. Ron Unz says:
    @Patrick McNally

    I cited numerous specific statements by very knowledgeable contemporaneous observers, many of whom were at the absolute center of the events that led to the outbreak of World War II, and some of them appearing in secret diplomatic communications. Virtually all of these have been ignored or suppressed by mainstream historians, probably fearful of sharing the fate of A.J.P. Taylor and the many, many other leading scholars and journalists I discussed in my long article.

    In response you merely provided a long list of assertions, which could have been taken from any standard history book.

    I’m afraid you seem to have a very inflated view of your own expertise and credibility, which was hardly strengthened when you repeatedly claimed elsewhere that the gigantic death toll of Mao’s Great Leap Forward was essentially a hoax concocted by the West.

    Have you ever published any books or articles on these historical matters? If not, why should anyone take your views seriously?

    • Agree: Pierre de Craon
  298. The actual data from which the assessment of Chinese mortality is given was simply copied out of the books by me and I noted how some authors cross-pollinate different sources of data while cutting it off from the early years. Like I said there, the book Tombstone does in certain places produce exactly the data given in the Statistical Yearbook of China 1986 for 1957, but then gives figures from a different source when asserting a mortality rate for 1960. The first figure is more likely the underestimate and the 2nd figure closer to the truth, but cross-matching them falsifies the implications. You don’t have to be dependent on anything I say about that. Just pick up the Yearbook and then Judith Banister, China’s Changing Population and verify that the stats which I had taken out of these books were accurately relayed.

    With the outbreak of WWII it will always come back to the matter of the occupation of Czechoslovakia causing Poland to tighten its hand over Danzig while Chamberlain was compelled to support the Poles. Everything else is really just noise. One can point to instances of Jewish groups around Roosevelt hoping for an eventual overthrow of the Third Reich. But none of this has anything at all to do with why Chamberlain felt he had to give his support to Poland or why Poland decided not to deal over Danzig. That is where the issue is, and that is where Hitler’s occupation of Czechoslovakia is decisive.

    Well if I had been born 20 years earlier then I quite possibly have turned the time I spent teaching math into more of an academic career with a publications resume. The economy changes and people learn different styles of getting by. There’s no reason for me to worry about that. But anyone who is committing themselves to a thesis which claims that Chamberlain’s declaration of support for Poland and Poland’s refusal to deal over Danzig (the two decisive elements in causing war in 1939) was engineered by Roosevelt will be wasting their time. Some things just are not true.

  299. @Patrick McNally

    This is all just bosh. Barnes’ case in The Genesis of the World War is based on indubitably established facts. It’s settled beyond refutation. Stuff such as P.M. posts here either represents unfamiliarity with these facts, incapacity to grasp them, or refusal to confront them. The effort to substitute blather that does not address these facts, but rather ignores and evades them and blots out their consideration and discussion with blizzards of diversionary blather — speaks for itself and disgraces the author in the eyes of anyone familiar with the facts of the case — which is what the blizzard of blather aims to prevent. This is disreputable on the face of it. And reflects on its author exactly that. Disrepute.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  300. @Ron Unz

    If you get around to looking into the origins of the First World War you will find the distortion and falsification of historical facts in the contemporary “official version” at least as grossly and egregiously fraudulent as the “official version” of the Second World War. If you do look into it (I did, at length, 20 years ago — it was my big eye opener into the Orwellian realities of the Lie Factory) I would suggest you start with these:

    J.T. Walton Newbold, How Europe Armed For War (1871-1914) (London, Blackfriars, 1916)

    Harry Elmer Barnes, The Genesis Of The World War (1929, new & rev. ed.)

    Sidney B. Fay, The Origins of the World War (1928 — this originally appeared as a series of three articles in American Historical Review 1920-21))

    Charles Callan Tansill, America Goes To War (1938)

    Matthew Ware Coulter, The Senate Munitions Inquiry of the 1930s: Beyond The Merchants of Death (1997)

    Colin Simpson, The Lusitania (Boston, 1972)

    Patrick Beesly, Room 40, British Naval Intelligence 1914-18 (London, 1982)

    Patrick O’Sullivan, The Lusitania: Unraveling The Mysteries (Cork, 1998)

    This literature is large and utterly conclusive; I mentioned several other works above. Tansill had the advantage of writing late in the game and after the revelations of the Senate Munitions Investigation chaired by Gerald Nye (which Coulter discusses) — it’s evidence and findings are published in 12 big volumes of the Congressional Record — so Tansill serves (well) as a summa of the discussion as it bears on America and American entry.

    Another important book, for the American side of this story is H.C. Peterson, Propaganda For War : The Campaign Against American Neutrality (1939). Stewart Halsey Ross, Propaganda For War: How the United States Was Conditioned to Fight the Great War of 1914-1918 (Jefferson, N.C., 1996) is also useful on this subject. Peterson’s later book, Opponents of War 1917-1918 (Madison, U Wisconsin, 1957) focuses on the vast apparatus of repression deployed by the Wilson administration, which imprisoned on the order of 20,000 Americans.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  301. Ron Unz says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    If you do look into it (I did, at length, 20 years ago — it was my big eye opener into the Orwellian realities of the Lie Factory) I would suggest you start with these

    Since you’ve clearly done a great deal of reading in that area, I wonder if you’ve also read the Fischer book, and what you thought of it.

  302. @J. Alfred Powell

    Actually Barnes and some others like Tansill misuse select facts in a way which sometimes distorts their implications beyond recognition. They ignore the documents where Hitler clearly states that Danzig is not important since the issue in Poland is about living space, and they regurgitate the claim that a settlement of Danzig was to be Hitler’s final demand. That’s totally absurd, especially since Hitler said in 1938 that Czechoslovakia was his final demand. Then they try to imply that the Poles could somehow have been gotten to accept an agreement over Danzig if Roosevelt had done something or other different, even though the record shows that Hitler’s occupation of Czechoslovakia had persuaded the Poles not to budge an inch over Danzig.

    It gets worse when you look at documents which they cite in the background. Jerzy Potocki was a Polish ambassador in Washington until 1940 and between the time of September 29, 1938, and March 15, 1939, he made many caustic remarks to the effect that Roosevelt was a puppet of Jews who wanted a war. While this is cited as if it were evidence that Roosevelt was responsible for the war, it actually proves the opposite. With Polish officials holding this attitude one might wonder why they never reached an agreement with Hitler over Danzig. The implication sometimes cast is that somehow Roosevelt kept them from such an agreement. but that is silly. It was the occupation of Czechoslovakia which made the Poles draw down hard around Danzig. The actual documents from Potocki only show how lacking in influence Roosevelt was with the Polish government.

  303. Replying to Ron Unz in #306:

    “Germany’s War Aims”, in Fischer’s terms, means German war plans. The “documents” McNally refers to derive from general staff strategic planning. This has no bearing on the issue Barnes investigates in Genesis of the World War, which focuses on the chronology of the conflict events and the underlying diplomatic arrangements, mostly secret, which were exposed when the Bolsheviks published the Czar’s diplomatic archives in 1919, to the scandal of all concerned. This is what precipitated the so-called “revisionist history” of which, in America, Barnes and Fay. This history is “revisionist” insofar as it revises the propaganda versions of events concocted by (mostly) British publicists — by debunking them with the indubitably evidenced facts. The kind of discourse people like McNally pursue is essentially diversionary and evasive of these facts. (McNally, incidentally, gives no sign of having read Barnes, let along grasped his argument.)

    To understand the actual bearing of “war plans,” start with Newbold (above) who discusses the military and industrial-economic planning that HAD TO take place on ALL sides for the WWI to have happened at all, and which on his showing was already evident to all participants five years and more before August 1914. Knowledgeable observers, five years before the event, expected the war to start that summer. And it did. If this were purely Germany’s doing, it could not have happened. Patty-cake requires at least two to play.

    All countries in this kind of game make war plans. The US Navy made the plans they eventually executed to seize Manila five years before the declaration of the Spanish American War. The US Marines practiced amphibious landings in the Caribbean against Japanese targets in 1924. The pre World War One war plans of BOTH England and France (as well as Germany) anticipated violating Belgian territory to move troops in the opening stages of conflict. It’s just that, as things turned out, Germany beat them to it, and then the propagandists of Great Britain and France (and later in America, picking up their tune) jumped up and down and screamed and shouted and pointed “Off sides!! Off sides!!! Penalty! Bad Germans”! (and circulated manufactured atrocity stories) — as if that one “misstep” somehow explained and accounted for and set the terms of evaluation of — the entire war and its industrial mobilization ON ALL SIDES over nearly the previous decade — not to mention the decade of secret diplomacy revealed by the exposure of Czar’s diplomatic archive. (These documents were discussed internationally by scholars and historians intensely on all sides and published on in several languages. Barnes and Fay are distinguished as being among the first American historians who had the sense of a duty to fact and reason and truth and the courage to act — to write history rather than jingoist propaganda.

    As Barnes demonstrates, as a matter of indubitable evidence, what did, in fact, precipitate the actual conflict as a “world war,” — that is, a multi-national conflict (as distinguished from the local two-party conflict between the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and its refractory client state Serbia) — was the mobilization of the Russian Army on Germany’s eastern frontier. Conditions of industrial warfare are such that it takes several days to get an army actually rolling into invasion (as well as years of preparation) — so that seeing this Russian mobilization in progress confronted Germany with a simple choice: roll over and get plowed under, or put your counter move in motion. Which Germany did, and in the process executed its war plan, which was, if confronted with a two front war, to attack first on the other front. So they did.

    The terms of the Treaty of Versailles claimed to be based on the exclusive war guilt of Germany — “they started it.” Barnes ironclad evidence-based analysis shows that, in fact, in those terms, the Czar, the “ally” (with many secret codicils) of Britain and France, “started it.” Further evidence shows that he did so at the urging and prompting especially of the French, both diplomatically and through the great power French investors and banks exercised over the Czar’s finances — holding huge swaths of his national bonds and with major investments in Russian industry and involvement in Russian finance, etc. Lotsa pull.

    Fischer’s subject, Germany’s war plans and war aims, as written up before August 1914, reflect their background in a military-minded officer-diplomatic corp prompted by industrial and financial interests eager for power and a glory-addled Kaiser. And exactly the same can be said about the war plans of Britain and of France. And behind all three, the less visible international networks of industry, trade, and finance — and the weapons trade (“The Merchants of Death”) — without the close and diligent cooperation of which no five-year mobilizations are possible.

    It’s at this point that we are starting to talk about actual historical processes and realities — as contrasted with the purely hypothetical realm of “war plans” and “war guilt” — discussed, moreover, as if Germany was the only country that had them.

    The KEY analysis of the Treaty of Versailles — and a good place to begin a reality-based consideration of the facts of the Great War — is Thorstein Veblen’s review of Keynes’ 1920 book, “The Economic Consequences of the Peace,” — which appeared first in the Political Science Quarterly, vol. 35 (Sept. 1920), and is reprinted in a posthumous selection of Veblen’s journal publications edited by Leon Ardzrooni, Essays In Our Changing Order (1934 rpr 1964) p. 462-470.

    • Agree: Truth Vigilante
    • Thanks: Yevardian
  304. Ron Unz says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    Thanks. Although I wasn’t familiar with some of the details, your general overview is pretty close to the impression I’d had of the origins of WWI.

    The KEY analysis of the Treaty of Versailles — and a good place to begin a reality-based consideration of the facts of the Great War — is Thorstein Veblen’s review of Keynes’ 1920 book, “The Economic Consequences of the Peace,” — which appeared first in the Political Science Quarterly, vol. 35 (Sept. 1920)

    It’s conveniently available in my content-archiving system, so I read it:

    https://www.unz.com/print/PoliticalScienceQ-1920sep-00467/

    However, I didn’t find it particularly useful since the main focus seemed to be on the containment of Bolshevism.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  305. @Ron Unz

    It’s who’s doing the containing and why and how that is revealing, and for whose benefit the terms of the Treaty were written, and how they conceived benefit and envisioned its operations, etc. The use of Veblen’s essay — his typical use — is to strip the object of analysis bare of delusive paraphernalia. It’s not his fault if the naked truth of “our” socio-economic political arrangements look like a plucked duck.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  306. @J. Alfred Powell

    I should have mentioned that the French wanted to go to war with Germany seeking revenge for their defeat by German 40 years earlier in the Franco-Prussian War (1870) — which France started and promptly lost. And Britain wanted to go to war with Germany both to thwart Germany as the fastest rising rival of her world commercial empire and in pursuit of her “Balance of Power” foreign policy, invented by Thomas Cromwell for Henry VIII in the early 1500s, which dictates that the proper foreign policy for England vis-a-vis the European continent is to form coalitions with other nations to gang up on the biggest — to keep the biggest from getting bigger.

    There is, however, another aspect of this subject that is quite distinct from the issue of the causes and conduct of the war in Europe — and one of greater moment for Americans — namely, how Americans were dragooned into participation in it, and by what means, and by whom, and why.

    For this, look first to Tansill’s book and the two by Peterson, and Ross’s, and Coulter’s discussion of the Nye Committee’s evidence. Coulter’s presentation of the Committee’s findings is understated but faithful. He states the facts plainly enough, but he doesn’t probe into or dwell much on their significance and implications. The 12-volume of the Committee’s report are included in libraries that hold copies of The Congressional Record and are a treasure trove of scandal and grief. To genuine patriots. Those extinct creatures.

    In 1966 CBS decided, instead of running live overage of Sen. Fulbright’s Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Vietnam, to run I Love Lucy re-runs instead. Fred Friendly, head CBS News, resigned.

    And we’ve come a long way since then baby.

  307. The animus against Harry Elmer Barnes results from more than his revelation of the actual sequence of causes of the First World War in Genesis of the World War. Around 1947 Charles Beard, at the time by general acclamation the pre-eminent American historian of America, wrote a letter which The Saturday Evening Post published, pointing out and objecting to the way in which the military establishment and the Truman Administration, their backers and their academic servitors were conspiring to limit scholarly access to the government’s documentary record of the just concluded war to a very small number of academic historians carefully selected for their adherence to the official view (itself the creation largely of FDR’s Office Of War Information). Prominent among these select official historians was (CIA, later) Harvard Prof William Langer, who went on to write the most touted summary official history and become a key enforcer of its orthodoxy.

    Alerted by Beard, American historians made enough of a fuss that the powers involved agreed to grant access to a few select other historians who were not publicly associated with the Administration’s official line. Charles Tansill, eminent in his field, was one, Frederic Rockwell Sanborn another — and both produced important books — that were obscurely published and consigned to official oblivion by American academic institutional historiography.

    This happened because persons in a position to do it reached the conclusion that it would be unwise to let the same thing happen in America after the Second World War as happened after the First — that is, the factual exposure of the realities of the war brought about by the so-called “Revisionist Historians” — whose work during the 20s and 30s was widely read, well-circulated, well-received, widely accepted, respected and praised, appearing in dozens of books and mainstream periodicals — magazines like Readers Digest and the American Mercury as well as the likes of Nation and scholarly journals. Its books sold well; some became best sellers. The Merchants of Death is an especially prominent example. The net result of the publication of this history was the strong conviction of the overwhelming majority of Americans in the 20s and 30s in favor of neutrality, non-intervention, arms limitation and disarmament, international arbitration, peace.

    Accordingly, to prevent the reformation among the people of such sentiments tending to impede the metropolitan imperial project, promptly at the end of the Second World War, with the Rockefeller Foundation prominent in the enterprise (along with others less visible), funds and influence were applied in the colleges, publishing, and the press to encourage the production, publication and publicity for accounts voicing official views, and to discourage others, firmly. The result was that, although truthful factual accounts did emerge, they tended to be obscurely published, little reviewed and discountenanced by academic institutional authority in the colleges and by publishers and editors and publishers in the press This campaign was very effective on the whole.

    In the early 50s, Harry Elmer Barnes, like Charles Beard and Charles Tansill, a highly respected senior figure among historians, one who knew many of his colleagues among historians who were struggling to provide a factual account and one who understood from decades’ experience the obstacles they were facing, published a series of pamphlets and booklets adressing this emergent historiography and the campaign to suppress it. Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace and The Struggle Against The Historical Blackout are the two best known titles. (They also include important reviews of A.J.P. Taylor, of William Langer, of David Hoggan, and others.) These writings were collected and republished in 1972 by Arno Press as Seleted Revisionist Phamplets.

    And this is why Harry Elmer Barnes — who in 1940 was highly esteemed in his field (like Charles Beard) — is now reckoned a very very bad man — among people who do not share the values his work manifests.

  308. The literature of American “Revisionist Historians” of the First World War spans 20 years (1919-1939) and comprises many dozens of books and hundreds of journal articles. It was extensively published, popular, widely accepted and influential among the American people at large. Important publications by these historians include:

    Harvard Prof Sidney B. Fay, “New Light on the Origins of The World War (I, II & III), American Historical Review (July & Oct. 1920, Jan, 1921) — seven years later collected, developed and expanded as:

    Sidney B. Fay, The Origins of the World War (NY, 1928):

    John Kenneth Turner, Shall It Be Again (B.W. Huebsch, NY 1922). A forceful early presentation of the unvarnished facts.

    Harry E. Barnes, Genesis Of The World War (New York, London, Knopf, 1927, new & rev. ed. 1929)

    C. Hartley Grattan, Why We Fought (New York, Vanguard Press, 1929)..

    M.H. Cochran, Germany Not Guilty in 1914 (1931)

    H.C. Englebrecht & F.C. Hanighen, Merchants Of Death, A Study of the International Armament Industry (New York, Dodd, Mead & Co., 1934).

    Walter Millis, Road to War, America 1914-1917 (Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1935).

    Charles Callan Tansill, America Goes To War (Boston, Little, Brown and company, 1938)

    Matthew Ware Coulter, The Senate Munitions Inquiry of the 1930s: Beyond the Merchants of Death (Greenwood Press, Contributions in American History, No. 177, Westport, Connecticut, 1997).

    H[orace].C[ornelius]. Peterson, Propaganda For War: The Campaign against American Neutrality, 1914-1917 (U Oklahoma, Norman, 1939)

    H.C. Peterson, Opponents of War 1917-1918 (Madison, U Wisconsin, 1957).

    These later books usefully confirm and extend Peterson’s discussion:

    Stewart Halsey Ross, Propaganda for War: How The United States Was Conditioned to Fight the Great War of 1914-1918 (Jefferson, N.C., McFarland & Co, 1996);

    William H. Thomas, Jr., Unsafe for Democracy: World War I and the U.S. Justice Department’s covert campaign to suppress dissent (Madison, University of Wisconsin, 2008).

    *

    The Revisionsit History of the Second World War has been much more constricted and slow to emerge and vilified when it does. Three key texts, concerned with the manner of America’s entry, were published early:

    Charles Beard, President Roosevelt and the coming of the war, 1941; a study in appearances and realities. (New Haven, Yale Univ. Press, 1948.)

    Frederic Rockwell Sanborn, Design For War: a study of secret power politics, 1937-1941 (New York, Devin-Adair, 1951).

    Charles Tansill, Back Door To War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy 1933-1941 (Regnery, Chicago, 1952)

    The arrival of most has been slower. Four watershed books of major importance are:

    A.J.P. Taylor, Origins of the Second World War (London, Hamilton Hamish, 1961)

    David L. Hoggan, The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed (Costa Mesa, Institute for Historical Review, 1989) — published in German in 1961 but blocked in English for 18 years — quite a testimonial. (Despite the flatulent vituperations of the usual vituperators there is not a word of “anti-semitism” in it.)

    Robert B. Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (New York, Free Press, 2000). “Conspiracy theory,” according to official sources — 70 pages of documentary evidence in reproduction notwithstanding (ignored).

    Viktor Suvorov, The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II (Anapolis, MY, Naval Institute Press, 2008). Just starting to get traction with the academic rank and file.

    *

  309. @J. Alfred Powell

    It certainly has never been an issue that the mobilization of the Russian army on August 31, 1914, dictated that war would now break out. But the Russian army only mobilized because Serbia had been attacked by Austria, with the explicit backing of Germany. It was the Kaiser’s decision to give Austria the go-ahead for war on Serbia which dictated the eventual outcome of the war. Fischer runs through all of this without any claim that Wilhelm II meant to start the war itself. The issue of German aims in the more general sense arises since simply because German-apologists sought to play down the significance of the Kaiser’s backing of Austria’s war on Serbia and make the latter sound as mere defensive measure by Wilhelm II. It clearly wasn’t, although the eventual outbreak of the war was much bigger than what the Kaiser had planned on.

    But certainly no one among the Allies had planned on initiating a war in early 1914. Despite the theatrical attempts by Barnes to suggest that France and Russia had been planning a war on Germany all along there is zero evidence of them contemplating such a war in 1914 until after the Austrian attack on Serbia had begun. It was Wilhelm II who let this loose by backing Austria.

  310. @J. Alfred Powell

    By the way, it’s worth bringing up the book German Atrocities 1914: A History of Denial by John Horne and Alan Kramer. This reaffirms that the Kaiser’s forces massacred several thousands of Belgians during their march through the country. This was not a counter-insurgency campaign but was simply a deliberate wave of terror which it was believed would facilitate victory. During the war itself the true reports of German atrocities could easily become intermingled with propaganda inflations. But an important criticism of Barnes has to be his complete failure to want to determine the honest estimate of German atrocities.

    I also notice a typo of “August 31” in the above when clearly I meant “July 31” followed by “August 1” when war began. The funny thing about the way that Kaiser-apologists dismiss what Fischer unearthed is that we know that if someone found a document from October 1939 where Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin were signing onto a plan to partition Germany in the way that eventually occurred then this would be shouted about from the rooftops by people claiming that Hitler had no choice but invade first Czechoslovakia and then Poland. But when Fischer shows the analogous thing for Germany in 1914 then the whole matter is quietly buried.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  311. @Patrick McNally

    You write:

    ‘… the Kaiser’s forces massacred several thousands of Belgians during their march through the country’.

    Yeah right. Like the thoroughly debunked British propaganda that German soldiers were cutting the hands off Belgian children.

    The fact is, in the year leading up to WWI, Kaiser Wilhelm II was universally known as ‘The Peacemaker’. Wilhelm sought out every opportunity to reduce tensions between the major powers.

    Responsibility for WWI lays firmly in the hands of Britain and France (the former in particular, whose Zionist Banking Cartel was the chief orchestrater and stood to gain the most from it).

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  312. @Truth Vigilante

    Some media versions may have overdone the theatrics in reporting, but it is generally agreed among historians that the Germans massacred about 6.500 Belgian civilians in the march across the country. That was why I referenced the Horne and Kramer book, German Atrocities 1914: A History of Denial. These are not gas chamber stories but just the more simple classic kind of terrorizing of civilians.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  313. @Patrick McNally

    And what were the number of German casualties on the Eastern Front in 1914? And cite your source.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Laurent Guyénot Comments via RSS