The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Full ArchivesKevin Barrett Podcasts
The Saker on “Our Fundamental Disagreement About WWII, Hitler, Jews and Race”
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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
List of Bookmarks


Western views of Jews, Jewish identity politics, and Zionism are extremely polarized these days. The mainstream world seems enslaved to Zionist propaganda caricatures; while perhaps in reaction to the appalling lies and omissions of the MSM, increasing numbers of alt-right dissidents have gravitated toward severely anti-Jewish views.

The Saker—one of the anglophone world’s most important voices on Russia-related strategic issues—recently incited a constellation of controversies with his new article “Our Fundamental Disagreement About WWII, Hitler, Jews and Race.” He wrote me: “Do you know that I never got as much hate mail as for that article about Russia and Jews…I REALLY pissed a lot of people off.”

What are the Saker’s fundamental disagreements with the people sending him angry comments and emails? “First of all, there is my philosophical position: that Jews share common humanity with all of us. I don’t see them as a separate group that has some kind of unique, different quality.” He goes on to assert that Westerners who don’t like Jews “are actually the mirror image of what they accuse Jews of doing. They say Jews are supremacists, and then they say, at the same time, that Jews are somehow fundamentally different. Well, that’s denying our common humanity. And I don’t care who does it. If it’s done by a rabbi or if it’s done by a nazi, the message is the same: ‘There are some people who are better and more important and more valuable than others.’”

Among the many other points raised in this interview:

*The Russian monarchy wasn’t overthrown by Jews or (80% Jewish) Bolsheviks, it was overthrown by freemasonic Russian elites.

*19th century Russian radical movements were not dominated by Jews the way Bolshevism was.

*Historically, Poland and Polish-occupied Ukraine witnessed a much more intense and fraught relationship between Jews and non-Jews than Russia did.

*Many of the nations that fought in World War II committed horrific atrocities; but however we evaluate them, one thing the Nuremburg Tribunals got right was to establish forever the fact that aggression is the worst war crime, the ultimate war crime, the one that includes and entails all of the others.

*Putin’s attendance at the World Holocaust Forum in Occupied Jerusalem was about mourning victims of World War II, not endorsing Zionist ideology.

*But yes, Russia does unfortunately tilt toward Israel more than Palestine, because Russia has a significant and powerful Jewish population but no Palestinian/Arab population.

*Russia perceives NATO, not Israel, as its biggest threat: “Russia has been preparing for a full-scale conventional and/or nuclear war with the West for at least five years now. They hope to avoid it. They will do their utmost to not give (NATO) a pretext (to attack). But they know that this is the ultimate danger. And they’ve bought enough time. Now Russia is basically non-attackable by the United States…so the next level is, what about a local conflict? Iran is the clear example now, with the murder of Gen. Soleimani. The Russians do see that Israel has a hand in that. But I don’t think they think that Israel always is the single explanation for everything the Empire does.”

*”I’m absolutely convinced that everyone in Russia knows that 9/11 was an inside job. But they also realized that saying that openly was absolutely suicidal for them, because they could never prevail, no matter what kind of proof they present, and it would just be dismissed.”

(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History • Tags: Hitler, Jews, Russia, World War II 
Hide 82 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Saggy says: • Website

    The fundamental problem as I see it with both Saker and Barrett is that both promote the holohoax, but will not defend it.

    So, here’s the chance for both Saker and Barrett to explain why they believe the Nazis attempted to exterminate the Jews, built gas chambers disguised as shower rooms to exterminate the Jews, and murdered on the order of six million Jews.

    Predition: neither will attempt to justify their promotion of the holohoax.

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  2. one thing the Nuremburg Tribunals got right was to establish forever the fact that aggression is the worst war crime,

    Pure hypocrisy. If aggression is a war crime:
    – why weren’t the Polish and Czech governments held accountable for their documented ethnic cleansing of Germans?
    – why wasn’t France held accountable for its invasion of Germany on September 3, 1939?
    – why wasn’t Britain held accountable for mining Norwegian harbours and its invasion of Iceland?
    – why wasn’t the USSR held accountable for invading Finland and Romania?

    The reason is quite simple. The Nuremberg Tribunals made shit up as they went along. Many of the “war crimes” were crimes only because the Kangaroo Kourt said they were. In past, they weren’t.

    • Agree: Saggy
  3. @Saggy

    Obviously you didn’t read the Saker’s article or listen to the interview. The dispute between revisionists and orthodox historians concerns the “holy trinity” of Holocaust orthodoxy: the six million figure, mass-execution gas chambers, and an official bureaucratic program aimed at killing all Jews within reach of the Reich. The Saker explicitly said he doubts the first two pillars of orthodoxy, and I suspect he’s a bit wobbly on the third as well. Based on the mere handful of books I’ve read on the subject, I would tend to agree with him.

    But that doesn’t mean that the Germans didn’t kill a whole lot of Jews, whether 500,000 as many revisionists estimate, or the two or three million David Cole hypothesizes, or the 5.1 million of Raul Hilberg, or whatever the number may have been. Nobody doubts that large numbers of Jews and others were forced into camps and that a great many died. Likewise nobody doubts that the scorched-earth counterinsurgency on the Eastern Front led to huge numbers of Jewish and other civilians getting machine-gunned.

    The Saker and I both object to the racism, supremacism, and militarism of Nazi ideology, which was a major factor in unleashing the horrific war, and was responsible for many of the war’s atrocities. Just because this factor has been greatly exaggerated and demonized in orthodox Western historiography doesn’t mean there wasn’t something there to exaggerate.

  4. Saggy says: • Website

    Obviously you didn’t read the Saker’s article or listen to the interview.

    I’ve read articles by both you and Saker and my statement that both of you promote the holohoax is correct. I won’t bother looking up Saker, let’s take your article … https://www.unz.com/kbarrett/the-holocaust-is-a-myth-that-conceals-our-shame/
    There is all sorts of pure drivel in the article like …

    Defenders of orthodox Holocaust history claim that holocaust revisionists conceal their shameful sympathy with Nazis who killed six million Jews.

    and

    By focusing so relentlessly on the metaphysical evil of the big-H Holocaust, our cultural custodians conceal the at least equally shameful behavior of World War II’s victors.

    Nowhere do you say that the ‘Holocaust’ is a preposterous hoax that has resulted in the deaths of millions of people in the middle east and an ongoing deconstruction of western society. Your wishy-washy article in fact promotes the holohoax by writing about as if it happened.

    The Saker explicitly said he doubts the first two pillars of orthodoxy, and I suspect he’s a bit wobbly on the third as well. Based on the mere handful of books I’ve read on the subject, I would tend to agree with him.

    This is exactly the type of idiocy I”m complaining about. Suppose I admit that I doubt that Superman existed. Does that make any sense. No, it is absurd. The fact that you and Saker doubt this or that means that you think it might have happened. If I say that I doubt that Superman existed I’m promoting the idea that he might have existed and I could be wrong.

    Here is the bottom line, the ‘holocaust’ is a preposterous hoax** and that is readily apparent to any rational person who gives the matter any serious thought whatever. So ignoring it, or writing about it incessantly as if it might have happened but you’re not too sure, is in effect promoting it.

    ** I could spell out the reasons right here if you want, but, you could just check

    http://www.holohoax101.org

    http://www.bitchute.com/rumpelstiltskin/

    Or, if you want to defend your absurd position that it ‘might’ have happened, please do, right now, right here.

    • Replies: @walkhumbly
    , @Saggy
  5. @Saggy

    Get real! He clearly is aware of the true nature of the so-called holocaust. You are attacking him because he doesn’t agree with you 100%, which is an absurd standard you have.

    By the way, Kevin should actually be called-out for denying the world’s biggest hoax: the globe earth theory.

  6. Saggy says: • Website
    @Saggy

    I want to sharpen my analogy …. when you say you doubt the Nazis used gas chambers it’s not analogous to me saying I doubt that Superman existed, it’s analogous to me saying that I doubt that Superman really leaped over a tall buildings in a single bound.

  7. Having read Saker’s article only once; and having browsed but not followed assiduously the comments; but listening closely to this interview after having read Barrett’s overview:

    a. Saker is talking about Russia, Jews and Hitler. United States of America, Jews and Hitler is of course closely related but also a far different perspective and a different set of historical facts and relationships.
    Benjamin Ginsberg wrote in “How the Jews Defeated Hitler” that zionist Jews partnered with Stalinist Russia in a war that those same Jews worked to foment from very shortly after Hitler was appointed to the chancellorship.

    Communist spies were active in the most critical seats of power in FDR’s administration: Harry Dexter White was Henry Morgenthau, Jr.’s right-hand man (some said he was Morgenthau’s brain), and Morgenthau held daily lunches or phone calls or similar, personal, unhindered access to FDR.

    Bendersky’s book is important: American military leaders were very wary of Jewish – zionist influence in USA; their reasons were not trivial, and were not only their right to hold, they were their obligation and responsibility to protest American systems and institutions: Bendersky’s viewpoint that US “antisemitism” is outrageous behavior is fatuous: Americans have no obligation to grant Jews or any other group special consideration.

    In the years immediately post-war, Yale professor H. Bradford Westerfield, the instructor who had a life-long influence on Dick Cheney, wrote in Foreign Policy and Party Politics: Pearl Harbor to Korea, devoted most of a chapter to the energetic activities of zionists in gaining positions in influential US institutions and government agencies as well as media. Westerfield observed that zionists were as successful as they were, back in 1953, because they had great wealth to support them, and there was no similarly organized and energized group that counterbalanced their influence.
    Since 1952, zionist agents of influence have only gone from strength to strength.

    b. Saker’s criticism of those who argue for more attention to be paid to the German/Hitler/even Nazi POV — which I do — is misguided: every history needs balance, and the history of the wars of the 20th century have been ludicrously one-sided.
    The late Thomas Fleming, historian of those wars as well as other American historical topics, observed that cold, objective history-writing can take place only after a generation or two removed from the event has passed: before that, the “history” is emotion-laden and tendentious to defensive. Although more years have passed since WWII, we have not yet reached the point of writing and, more importantly, teaching and factoring into policy making, cold, hard, balanced, objective history, and the American train-wreck foreign policy shows the effects of that failure.

    c. Cycle back to point 1: Saker’s essay concerned Russian-Jewish-Hitler interrelationships; it does not adequately address the American – Jewish – Hitler/Nazi (and other) relationships, so Saker’s article makes only a very small contribution to that essential exercise of history-writing.

    d. I scanned the comments to Saker’s article but did not study them thoroughly. I did notice, however, that Saker did not engage with the commentariat (I may have missed such direct response from Saker; if so, please correct the error).
    Why is that, Saker? Why complain to Dr. Barrett instead of confronting your critics head-on? You have the forum, and a privileged position in it at that; don’t be shy.

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  8. @SolontoCroesus

    Great comment! I agree that victors’ history of WWII has been ludicrously one-sided. And I also agree that some people angered by the Saker’s article should keep in mind that his topic was the Russian perspective on Jews and WWII, not the more problematic American one. (More problematic in that American policy, unlike Russian policy, has been completely enslaved by Zionism.)

    • Thanks: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @Saggy
    , @Iva
  9. Mulegino1 says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    Understandably, the Saker is attached to the Great Patriotic War narrative, which, to the Russian identity, dwarfs by orders of magnitude the part played by D-Day and the Private Ryan/History Channel Hollywood legends in the American one.

    No one can dispute that the Soviets were quantitatively responsible for the defeat of the Axis powers. The American “second front” was a small relatively small anvil for the enormous Soviet sledgehammer. This is not to say that the Anglo-American participation was negligible, only that the Soviets made by far the greatest sacrifices on the battlefield.

    What those of us who consider the final outcome of the Second World War a world historical tragedy have in mind is that there is no question that the world- and Europe and East Asia- would have been immensely more better off if the Axis had prevailed or had there been a negotiated peace. This is based upon the following contentions:

    The Holocaust is not only a false legend but a calumny directed at virtually all Christians of European descent for the purpose of monetary extortion and to justify the military occupation by either the Soviet Union or what Saker terms the “Atlanticist-Zionist/NATO” satraps. It now turns out that the latter occupation has had far more pernicious effects than the former, i.e., the Soviet occupation was military and authoritarian whereas the latter was a spiritual and cultural one which has devastated the soul of Christian Europe.

    Germany did not bear primary guilt for the war, which was launched at the behest of international Jewry (Judea Declares War on Germany), the FDR administration and the British war party, headed up by the drunken pederast and deadbeat Winston Churchill, along with the French government. It was these entities which pushed the chauvinistic and bellicose regime of the Polish colonels to rebuff every single one of Germany’s rather reasonable demands with respect to Danzig, the Corridor and the treatment of ethnic Germans in Poland and to threaten imminent military action against the Reich.

    The Soviet Union under Stalin was objectively more aggressive than Hitler’s Germany during the period from 1939-1941: the invasions of Poland, Finland, the Baltic countries and Bessarabia attest to that. Up until 1940, Germany had only struck at Poland. France had tried to invade Germany in 1939, but its Saar Offensive was rebuffed. It was British plans to occupy Scandinavia that led to the invasion of Norway. Britain and France had no scruples about using the Low Countries for the passage of their own forces, and it is now quite evident that- by the spring of 1941- the USSR was preparing a westward invasion of its own.

  10. Saggy says: • Website
    @Kevin Barrett

    his topic was the Russian perspective on Jews and WWII, not the more problematic American one.

    The American ‘Jew problem’ is more problematic than the Soviet ‘Jew problem’? This is what I’m talking about, complete idiocy. The American government was influenced by Jews, the Soviets government was created by Jews. This blind spot pervades everything you and Saker write.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  11. Seraphim says:
    @Saggy

    You have to read very attentively the convoluted argumentation of Saker about Judaism, Zionism, Jews, Racism, Holocaust, to realize that it revolves around the obfuscation of the role and responsibility of Jews in the International Anarcho-Atheistic-Communist revolution (of which Russia was the major victim) and the denunciation of the ‘canard of a Jewish conspiracy’ (a punishable offense in some countries).

  12. Tsigantes says:
    @Curmudgeon

    If aggression is the ultimate crime what about Nazi take over of Czechoslovakia, Sudetenland, the Anschluss and Poland? Serbia and Greece? Operation Barbarossa?

    These are just small matters?

    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @Real History
    , @Fox
    , @NPleeze
  13. @Kevin Barrett

    Agree. The Jews were victims — to some, perhaps large, degree. So were others.
    But the “exaggeration” is the point.
    Its a large part of the current underpinning upon which much of “the racism, supremacism, and militarism of Nazi [Zionist] ideology….«

  14. @Mulegino1

    “What those of us who consider the final outcome of the Second World War a world historical tragedy have in mind is that there is no question that the world- and Europe and East Asia- would have been immensely more better off if the Axis had prevailed or had there been a negotiated peace. ”

    Do not agree with Axis victory as “better”. Do agree with “negotiated peace”.
    FDR was a fool to casually demand “unconditional surrender”. How many deaths were a consequence of that demand is unknowable, but i’d guess in the millions.
    It certainly advantaged the USSR.

  15. Tsigantes says:
    @Mulegino1

    The Soviet Union under Stalin was objectively more aggressive than Hitler’s Germany during the period from 1939-1941: the invasions of Poland, Finland, the Baltic countries and Bessarabia attest to that.

    This completely overlooks the Molotov-Von Ribbentrop pact and the circumstances (years!) leading to that pact on the Russian side. This should really provide a clue.
    I would also question the statement that

    Stalin was objectively more aggressive

    Today we are engaged in revisionism; so I ask what on earth do you think WW2 was ultimately about? i.e. what was the ultimate prize and “enemy”? And what do you think a coming WW3 would be about: who / what is the ultimate prize / “enemy”? From the Crimean and Russo-Japanese wars forward, including WW1 (one of four prizes / results) this goal-prize has not wavered.

    As to demonising various “players” the European countries that created both wars were all Great Powers doing what Great powers do :
    1) drum up war
    2) obfuscate targets
    3) destroy, murder, loot, occupy small countries in its path.

    • Replies: @Paw
  16. RafKor says:

    I am a big fan of the Saker and have been following his blog religiously for some time. I tend to agree with 90% of his analysis & views. The Saker coined AngloZionist Empire and I tend to agree with that, although I would put more weight on the Zionist element.

    With that said, here is where I disagree: “Russia perceives NATO, not Israel, as its biggest threat”. The US is in control of NATO, Zionists are in control of the US, Zionists are Israel’s Fifth column in the US, therefore Israel is indirectly in control of NATO.

    The same goes for the economic sanctions against Russia. Surely Putin and the “Eurasian Sovereignists” are aware that the leading figures behind the crippling sanctions against Russia & Iran (for that matter) are predominantly Jewish bankers & politicians who’s primary loyalty is to Israel. So once again I would suggest that it is really Israel that is behind the economic sanctions against Russia & Iran.

    I can’t quite make out the relationship between Putin & Israel, other than perhaps “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer”… The same can also be said of Netanyahu keeping Putin closer.

    Raf

  17. @Mulegino1

    (Judea Declares War on Germany)

    But Israel as a state did not yet exist to declare war on anybody.

    So, OK, this elusive Judea declared war on Germany in the headline of a London newspaper in March 1933. And how did Nazi Germany respond to this? In kind? No, it in fact signed the Haavara agreement with Zionists some five months later in August 1933 to cooperate with emigrating the Jews to Palestine. It seems like a strange response to a declaration of war. Obviously something broke down between the Nazis and Zionists for the Nazis to switch to extermination from resettlement in Palestine.

    But anyway, the Jews had long before declared war on the entire world in the pages of their Talmud and Torah so that declaration of war on Germany was nothing new or special. And I suppose they had already declared war on the Russian nation in the Russian revolution and countless other nations in a myriad of ways. You seem to make a big deal out of this one article in the Daily Express. Are not the present day sanctions on Russia, China, Syria or whoever ZOG/Israel wants to destroy also declarations of war by Judea, especially with Israel now working through its proxies, the US and EU?

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @Wally
    , @Theodore
  18. @Kevin Barrett

    The Saker and I both object to the racism, supremacism, and militarism of Nazi ideology, which was a major factor in unleashing the horrific war, and was responsible for many of the war’s atrocities.

    I think you’ve got more ‘splainin’ to do there, Lucy, on all counts.

    The Saker’s opening statement twisted him into a corner:

    “Jews share the common humanity of all of us . . . they are not a separate group that has some unique, different qualities,” although “the zionist worldview — that’s different. But in terms of people, my big disagreement with people who dislike Jews is that they actually mirror image . . .Jewish supremacism.”

    “The zionist worldview — that’s different.”

    Zionism IS racism; Elan Carr effectively verified this by declaring that stating that zionism is racism is “antisemitic” and will be punished.

    Zionists dominated Versailles and, according to Edwin Black in “The Transfer Agreement,” “emerged from Paris with dual victories: they achieved a homeland for the Jews in Palestine, and affirmation of the rights of Jews in other states where they dwelt.”

    To declare that “Jews share our common humanity” but neglect to expand on the causal agency of zionist Jews in Versailles in precipitating that “horrific war” is to say, Except for that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

    It is intellectually dishonest to even attempt to discuss the world wars without fully exploring zionism.
    (Seth Klarman is chair of the Board of Trustee of Facing History and Ourselves, which provides materials, texts and trainings for holocaust ‘education’ to middle- and high-school children. The word, zionism, does not appear in Facing History’s 700-page text, Holocaust and Human Behavior )

    Moreover, Louis Brandeis acted in his capacity as chief of world zionism when, on or about Valentine’s Day 1933 he directed Rabbi Stephen Wise that “all German Jews must leave Germany . . . all 587,000 German Jews.”

    That Wise made specific note of the number makes Brandeis’s statement fundamentally racist: there were far more than 587,000 Jews in Germany: Polish and Russian Jews had flooded into Germany for safety from Polish anti-Jewish oppression and from revolutionary instability in Russia (not to mention Romania), and as a transit-stop toward ultimate migration to Palestine.

    You will have to provide more evidence that National Socialism was “supremacist”, and in so doing you will have to probe the blatantl, overt, in-your-face eugenic pillar of the zionist culture that Arthur Ruppin established in Palestine. Etan Bloom offers eye-opening coverage of the topic in “Arthur Ruppin and the Production of Hebrew Culture in Palestine.”

    Similarly, further into the conversation, Saker avers, “well, Bolshevism was a problem . . .”
    Duh.

    Woodrow Wilson wanted to destroy Bolshevism; he sent an expeditionary force to Siberia in 1918 in an attempt to crush the movement; it failed.
    Herbert Hoover reported from his 1938 conversation with Hitler and Goring that crushing Bolshevism was one of Hitler’s three “idees fixes.”
    We know that American (and Jewish) financiers supported Hitler; it’s hardly a leap of logic to speculate that some Americans set up Hitler to fight Bolshevism, envisioning exactly what Herbert Hoover tried to get FDR to do: let the Germans and Russians fight it out to their mutual exhaustion, then there will be peace for a hundred years. (Churchill had his own agenda, which Churchill shared: destroy Germany’s overbearing industrial might. Later, FDR died and Stalin ‘stole a march’ on this scheme, if it was a scheme, and Churchill quickly traveled to USA to cover his arse with his Iron Curtain speech.)

    Did you really mean to say you “object to Nazi militarism”?
    Did you object to Churchill’s militarism? Or to FDR’s militarism?
    Both had invested far more heavily, and earlier, in production of war materiel, especially planes intended for bombing campaigns, than the Germans did. Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof offered a comparative analysis of war preparedness in “The War That Had Many Fathers”

  19. Mulegino1 says:
    @Commentator Mike

    But Israel as a state did not yet exist to declare war on anybody.

    Well that is obvious. Judea, i.e., most of international Jewry, declared an economic war against Germany. This was a very serious matter for a country just emerging from absolute economic prostration and general misery. There were obvious exceptions to this sentiment among many Zionists and patriotic German Jews, many of whom initially supported the National Socialists.

    It seems like a strange response to a declaration of war. Obviously something broke down between the Nazis and Zionists for the Nazis to switch to extermination from resettlement in Palestine.

    The “Final Solution” never involved anything other than the removal/resettlement of the Jews from the German sphere of influence- never the physical extermination of all of the Jews of Europe.

  20. Saggy says: • Website
    @SolontoCroesus

    Did you object to Churchill’s militarism? Or to FDR’s militarism?

    If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it 100 times …… (but don’t tell Saker or Barrettt) …
    British man of letters Wyndham Lewis writes ‘Left Wings Over Europe, or How to Make a War About Nothing’ in 1936 ….

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

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

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

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

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

  21. @Tsigantes

    If aggression is the ultimate crime, how about the wars of aggression, conquest and genocide fought by Great Britain, Russia and France? At the start of the 20th Century, Great Britain was the greatest empire in the history of the world, Russia the 3rd greatest and France the 6th largest empire of all time, greater than the Mongol and all the other empires in history. These empires were created and maintained by destroying nations through aggressive war. These three empires ruled most of the world outside of Western Europe. They set out to destroy a country that had been cobbled together by uniting 39 squabbling sovereign states in 1971, less than 50 years prior to the outbreak of World War One. Does anyone really believe that Germany was set to conquer and rule the world against 3 of the greatest empires in world history.

    • Replies: @Saggy
    , @Fox
  22. Saggy says: • Website
    @Real History

    Along those lines ….. HITLER SPEECH TO REICHTAG ON APRIL 28, 1939, MOCKING ROOSEVELT ….


    from the same speech ….

    In reply to this it must be said in the first place that this fear of war has undoubtedly existed among mankind from time immemorial, and justifiably so.

    For instance, after the Peace Treaty of Versailles, 14 wars were waged between 1919 and 1938 alone, in none of which Germany was concerned, but in which states of the “Western Hemisphere” in whose name President Roosevelt also speaks, were certainly concerned.

    In addition there were in the same period 26 violent interventions and sanctions carried through by means of bloodshed and force. Germany played no part whatever in these either.

    The United States alone has carried out military interventions in six cases since 1918. Since 1918 Soviet Russia has engaged in 10 wars and military actions involving force and bloodshed. Again, Germany was concerned in none of these, nor was she. responsible for any of these.

    It would therefore be a mistake in my eyes to assume that the fear of war inspiring European and non-European nations can at this present time be directly traced back to actual wars at all.”

    From the same speech:

    “If the cry of “Never another, Munich” is raised in the world today, this simply confirms the fact that the peaceful solution of the problem appeared to be the most awkward thing that ever happened in the eyes of those warmongers. They are sorry no blood was shed-not their ‘blood, to be sure-for these agitators are, of course, never to be found where shots are being fired, but only where money is being made. No, it is the blood of many nameless soldiers!

    Hitler publicized his offer to Poland in the same speech:

    I have had the following proposal submitted to the Polish Government:-
    (1) Danzig returns as a Free State into the framework of the German Reich.
    (2) Germany receives a route through the Corridor and a railway line at her own disposal possessing the same extraterritorial status for Germany as the Corridor itself has for Poland.
    In return, Germany is prepared:-
    (1) To recognize all Polish economic rights in Danzig.
    (2) To ensure for Poland a free harbour in Danzig of any size desired which would have completely free access to the sea.
    (3) To accept at the same time the present boundaries between Germany and Poland and to regard them as ultimate.
    (4) To conclude a twenty-five-year non-aggression treaty with Poland, a treaty therefore which would extend far beyond the duration of my own life.
    (5) To guarantee the independence of the Slovak State by Germany, Poland and Hungary jointly-which means in practice the renunciation of any unilateral German hegemony in this territory.

  23. Rurik says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Woodrow Wilson wanted to destroy Bolshevism; he sent an expeditionary force to Siberia in 1918 in an attempt to crush the movement; it failed.

    This is inconsistent with what I’ve read about Wilson

    Jacob Schiff was head of the New York
    investment firm Kuhn, Loeb and Co. He
    was one of the principal backers of the
    Bolshevik revolution and personally
    financed Trotsky’s trip from New York
    to Russia. He was a major contributor
    to Woodrow Wilson’s presidential
    campaign and an advocate for passage
    of the Federal Reserve Act. (p. 210)

    It would be a mistake to conclude, that Jacob Schiff and Germany were the only players in this drama. Trotsky could not have gone even as far as Halifax without having been granted an American passport and this was accomplished by the personal intervention of President Wilson. Professor Antony Sutton says:

    President Woodrow Wilson was the fairy godmother, who provided Trotsky with a passport to return to Russia to “carry forward” the revolution… At the same time careful State Department bureaucrats, concerned about such revolutionaries entering Russia, were unilaterally attempting to tighten up passport procedures. (Antony C. Sutton, Ph. D.: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, published by Arlington House in New Rochelle, NY, 1974, p. 25)

    http://www.wildboar.net/multilingual/easterneuropean/russian/literature/articles/whofinanced/whofinancedleninandtrotsky.html

    I’m no scholar on Wilson, that that webpage of from a 30 second Internet search, but I’ve read that stuff before. And everything I know about Wilson, was that he’d betray God Himself, if by doing so he could further endear himself to his Jewish master$.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  24. @Curmudgeon

    “‘one thing the Nuremburg Tribunals got right was to establish forever the fact that aggression is the worst war crime’

    Pure hypocrisy. If aggression is a war crime…”

    That’s beside the point. You’re conflating the moral legitimacy of the Nuremberg principles themselves with their illegitimate application.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    , @Fox
  25. Anonymous[145] • Disclaimer says:

    Let me guess: “The Saker” is still refusing to see that the white race – his race – is on a chopping block? He wants us to concentrate on “‘our’ shared humanity” with the Tribe that never ceased hating, and subverting, the white Amalek tribe and never considered the Goyim as real humans?

    I really don’t care if he’s too stupid, naive or corrupt. He’s worse than useless either way.

    Leaked memo shows how George Soros planned to overthrow Vladimir Putin and destabilise Russia

    Most Americans view Russia as U.S. enemy, unfriendly, shows new NBC News poll

    George Soros: China Is a ‘Mortal Enemy’ of the West

    FBI, DOJ Say China Is America’s Greatest Threat

  26. Iva says:

    “First of all, there is my philosophical position: that Jews share common humanity with all of us. I don’t see them as a separate group that has some kind of unique, different quality.” ………. But Jews do not think this way. People who were in Auschwitz this year said that the boards that use to list all nationalities of German concentration camp were changed to plates “Here died Jews and non-Jews” , Doesn’t this indicate that they do not believe in “common humanity”. Polish Jew, Barbra Engelking-Boni in one of her interview said that only Jews holocaust is a tragedy. She said that the death of 3 millions ethnic Poles is not tragedy because “it is just biological death, equal to death of an animal, creature without the soul. Contrary to this, when a Jew dies it is tragedy and metaphysical process of meeting the Highest”. 

  27. Iva says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    I wonder why we cannot buy in the US, English version of the Solzenicyn’s book “200 years together”? 

  28. Iva says:
    @Mulegino1

    “The Holocaust is not only a false legend but a calumny directed at virtually all Christians of European descent for the purpose of monetary extortion and to justify the military occupation by either the Soviet Union or what Saker terms the “Atlanticist-Zionist/NATO”………. US Congress in 2018 passed the law JUST #447 trying to impose on Poland payment to world jewish organizations $300 billions for the properties left without heirs. Those who can prove that they are hairs to property can get what is their in a legal process. Eerywhere in the world, even in the US, heirless propertie go to the countries treasury department. Poland, like all countries in the world doesn’t even have the law that would allowed this type of payments. Why, Jewish organizations are calling this “stolen properties” if those Jews were polish citizens. So, in February of last year , when Pampeo and Pence were in Polnad they said that “Poland has to start working on the new laws that will allowed this payments”. There was a conference in Terezin, Czech, were Jews were discussing this issues. Poland newer signed the agreement. So Americans changed the wordinfg of the law from “signatories” to “participants” . Since when participation in conference obligate country to payments? I do not recoll that the USA gave all the Poles payments from Pulaski properties on which Chicago stands now. Is US going to give all Native Americans payment for their land? In 1960 Poland payed $40 M to US government to satisfay all claims of American Jews. Some experts say that the NEW Jewish organizations claims would cost Poland financial devastation equal financial loss of WW2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR217I6kQPk

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
  29. @Rurik

    When the US Invaded Russia by Jeff Klein, in Commentary magazine July 2018
    https://masspeaceaction.org/when-the-us-invaded-russia/

    The U.S. invasion . . . took place a century ago, after the October Revolution and during the civil war that followed between Bolshevik and anti-Bolshevik forces, the Red Army against White Russians. While the Germans and Austrians were occupying parts of Western and Southern Russia, the Allies launched their own armed interventions in the Russian North and the Far East in 1918.

    The Allied nations, including Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the U.S., cited various justifications for sending their troops into Russia: to “rescue” the Czech Legion that had been recruited to fight against the Central Powers; to protect allied military stores and keep them out of the hands of the Germans; to preserve communications via the Trans-Siberian Railway; and possibly to re-open an Eastern Front in the war. But the real goal – rarely admitted publicly at first—was to reverse the events of October and install a more “acceptable” Russian government. As Winston Churchill later put it, the aim was to “strangle the Bolshevik infant in its cradle.”

    In addition to Siberia, the U.S. joined British and French troops to invade at Archangel, in the north of Russia, on September 4, 1918.

    In July 1918, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson had personally typed the “Aide Memoire” on American military action in Russia that was hand-delivered by the Secretary of War at the beginning of August to General William Graves, the designated commander of the U.S. troops en route to Siberia. Wilson’s document was curiously ambivalent and contradictory. It began by asserting that foreign interference in Russia’s internal affairs was “impermissible,” and eventually concluded that the dispatch of U.S. troops to Siberia was not to be considered a “military intervention.”

    But the American intervention began when U.S. soldiers disembarked at Vladivostok on August 16, 1918. These were the 27th and 31st infantry regiments, regular army units that had been involved in pacification of U.S.-occupied Philippines. Eventually there were to be about 8,000 U.S. troops in Siberia.

    Prof. Carl Richard argues that not only did the US expedition fail to realize its objective — to strangle Bolshevism — it had the contrary effect of unifying and strengthening Russian Bolshevism.

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?314455-9/when-united-states-invaded-russia

    • Replies: @Rurik
  30. Mulegino1 says:
    @Iva

    There is no physical evidence that the Germans murdered three million Polish or three million Poles. None. The only mass graves that have been found commensurate with murder on a massive scale are of victims of the NKVD.

    On the other hand, the Poles are absolutely right to reject any reparations to the Jews. They ought to demand counter-reparations for the atrocities inflicted by Jewish commissars on their population during and after the war.

    Unfortunately, it was Polish intransigence and chauvinism that put them into this situation in the first place. Had the Polish “regime of colonels” followed the self-serving, but wise policy of Pilsudski vis a vis the Third Reich, the Poles would not have been placed in the unfortunate position they were by the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, which was essentially a combination of German desperation to avoid a two front war and Soviet opportunism.

    • Thanks: Fox
  31. @Harold Smith

    https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/teaching-holocaust/#comment-3347185
    From the Letters of Rabbi Stephen Wise:

    writing to his daughter, from London, 1945 [probably sometime shortly after Germany surrendered; between May and July 1945]
    “. . . talk and lunch . . . with Justice [Robert] Jackson. He’s a real person, I don’t wonder that Roosevelt began thinking of him as a possible successor. He . . .has grand and spacious ideas on the Nuremberg trials in mid-October, with Weizmann, Goldmann or S.S.W. [Stephen S. Wise] as Jewish witnesses to present the Jewish Case –not permitted as Amicus Curiae!

    In itself it becomes the greatest trial in history, with what Jackson calls its broad departure from Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. Retroactively “aggressive war-making” becomes criminally punishable–with membership in the Gestapo prima facie proof of criminal participation. He seems to think very well of Felix Frankfurter and glorifies Ben Cardozo and Brandeis.”

    Recall the criticisms of Mitch McConnell who declared he would not vote against Trump, even before a trial in Senate and hearing evidence?

    According to Rabbi Wise, who appears to have influenced the judicial approach, Nuremberg chief judge Jackson had made up his mind before evidence was presented and the first defendant named that he was guilty of a crime that had not previously existed, and that the age-old rules of jurisprudence did not apply.

    Under such circumstances, what validity is there to the “Nuremberg tradition?”

    nb. Also recall that Wise was one of the first and boldest in spreading the tale of “soap and lampshades,” having related the story to Henry Morgenthau, Jr. in Henry’s office in DC in 1940, according to Peter Moreira who biographies Morganthau from the latter’s million-pages diaries.

    • Replies: @Harold Smith
  32. Rurik says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Prof. Carl Richard argues that not only did the US expedition fail to realize its objective — to strangle Bolshevism — it had the contrary effect of unifying and strengthening Russian Bolshevism.

    That is consistent with everything I know about Wilson, Boshevism, and the New York Jewish banksters, who funded the Bolsheviks, and used Wilson as their cum rag.

    Thanks.

    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
  33. Racial supremacism originates with the jews. No other group on earth can compete with the jews’ form of hyper-ethnocentrism.

    Bolshevism was most certainly a jewish movement.

    Communism itself is jewish internationalism.

    The constant harping on the fact that jews perished in WWII gives me a headache. It was a WORLD WAR for God’s sake!

    55 MILLION non-jews were slaughtered in that stupid war. Lets talk about Dresden and the Holomodor.

    At this point I have zero sympathy for the jews, as they are not victims; they are predators. They are wrecking the entire western world to make the world “user friendly” for jews. If you think that’s okay, you are sicker than they are.

    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
  34. Boomers being boomers. Does anyone under the age of 50 even take The Saker seriously?

    • Replies: @teotoon
    , @Vaterland
  35. Wally says:
    @Commentator Mike

    said:
    “Obviously something broke down between the Nazis and Zionists for the Nazis to switch to extermination from resettlement in Palestine.”

    – Clearly you mean the laughable “extermination” propaganda for which there is no proof, as I and others here have shown. In fact you have been spanked numerous times here on that very issue.

    recent:
    Holocaust Handbooks, Volume 36:
    Auschwitz: Eyewitness Reports and Perpetrator Confessions of the Holocaust—30 Gas-Chamber Witnesses Scrutinized, by Jürgen Graf:
    https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1&page_id=36

  36. @SolontoCroesus

    “Aggressive war is a war crime.” Yes it is. What morally competent person can disagree? The corrupt and hypocritical legal proceedings against Germany is a separate issue.

  37. teotoon says:

    If it’s done by a rabbi or if it’s done by a nazi…

    That is some really fine binary thinking: one is either a Jew= The Chosen ones or Nazi= the Goyim: the bones throne over God’s shoulder to the Devil. Nice thinking there Saker.

  38. teotoon says:
    @Char Aznable

    You’re not mature enough to be at the adult table. Now go have your GenX mommy change your diaper and play quietly with your rattle.

    • Agree: NoseytheDuke
  39. L.K says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    Likewise nobody doubts that the scorched-earth counterinsurgency on the Eastern Front led to huge numbers of Jewish and other civilians getting machine-gunned.

    There is a large body of literature by Russian historians, some of whom even of pro-Soviet inclinations, that has documented the Stalinist regime’s responsibility in WW2. There is also much literature in German.
    As far as I know the Saker is fluent in both languages, being part Russian and born in Switzerland. This growing body of work has been available now since the 90s. How can the Saker simply ignore it all? Is this person minimally objective when “The Great Patriotic War” is the topic at hand? One has only to read his lame screed to understand how hopelessly biased the individual is.

    Please do tell us about the Stalin’s regime well documented but little discussed Scorched-Earth policies which caused so much death and suffering upon civilians… and since his regime was heavily responsible for making war with NS Germany inevitable, the responsibility for all the Soviet military and civilian deaths are, at least to a considerable degree, the responsibility of the Stalinist regime.

  40. L.K says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    The Saker and I both object to the racism, supremacism, and militarism of Nazi ideology, which was a major factor in unleashing the horrific war, and was responsible for many of the war’s atrocities. Just because this factor has been greatly exaggerated and demonized in orthodox Western historiography doesn’t mean there wasn’t something there to exaggerate.

    It wasn’t Nazi racism or alleged militarism that caused WW2, clearly you ( and the Saker) have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you would benefit from reading Unz’s and Wears articles about WW2, the holocaust included.

    Two points about Nazi racism;
    1. heavily exaggerated by propaganda, some of which the Saker merely regurgitates in his article without a second thought.
    2. It was a product of their era. How was it so different from all the racism that existed in, say, the British Empire or the US? It wasn’t.

    As for militarism, it is a fact that Germany was involved in less wars during its supposed militaristic years, i.e., unification through the end of WW2, than any other major allied power, including Russia.
    Please explain to us “Nazis” how the Brits created the largest empire of all times, reaching its maximum size post WWI, and the Russians the third largest, at maximum size ranging from central Europe to North America.
    Do you condemn their militarism or is a double-standard being deployed here? What about this man-child , the Saker, does he recognize the FACT of Russian/Soviet imperialism and militarism, or does he employ a flagrant double standard?
    It is not merely Western “historiography” that has completely distorted and propagandized WW2, the same is true of Soviet “historiography” of the period, most of which has just been adopted by the Russian Federation.
    In fact, holocaust atrocity propaganda, aka, holocaust “history” was largely manufactured by Soviet propagandists… and that is a FACT.

  41. Theodore says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Obviously something broke down between the Nazis and Zionists for the Nazis to switch to extermination from resettlement in Palestine.

    No such thing ever happened though, there was no extermination.
    Jews who perished during WWII were not “Holocausted” they are simply “Victims of the Second World War” just like everyone else who died in war-torn Europe.

    Jews had long before declared war on the entire world in the pages of their Talmud and Torah so that declaration of war on Germany was nothing new or special

    Well whatever the “Judea declares war” really meant is besides the point. It was well understood that in World War II, despite Jews having no national existence in the ordinary sense of the term (with geographical borders) they were solidly against Germany. Third Reich officials made it quite clear that they interpreted the war as one of “the Aryan race” (which they called themselves) and “international Jewry”

    Goebbels, in his infamous 27 March 1942 diary entry, called the war:
    “a life-and-death struggle between the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus… Jewry’s representatives in England and America are today organizing and sponsoring the war against Germany.”

    The very last thing Hitler ever wrote/said was that the war was:
    “wanted and provoked solely by international statesmen either of Jewish origin or working for Jewish interests.”
    Look also at Hitler’s 30 Jan 1939 Reichstag prophecy on “international Jewish financiers” starting another war, coupled with the subsequent statements by various German officials accusing “international Jewish financiers” of doing exactly that.

  42. Theodore says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    But that doesn’t mean that the Germans didn’t kill a whole lot of Jews

    It would be very confusing if they didn’t.

    On the Eastern front, a Bolshevik-organized guerrilla warfare campaign against the German armed forces claimed many lives and played a large role in their eventual defeat. By 1944, the number of partisans reached half a million (Schulz, Gerhard, “Partisanen und Volkskrieg: Zur Revolutionierung des Krieges im 20. Jahrhundert “, 1985, pp. 99-101)

    Jews were naturally over-represented here. Do you really think all the adult male Jews just went into ghettos didn’t think to do anything about it? In a book critically discussed by the renowned German historians Andreas Hillgruber and Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, Boris Semionovich Telpuchowsky writes:
    “Within three years of the war, the Byelorussian partisans eliminated approximately 500,000 German soldiers and officers, 47 Generals, blew up 17,000 enemy military transports and 32 armored trains, destroyed 300,000 railway tracks, 16,804 vehicles and a great number of other material supplies of all kinds.” (Die Geschichte des Grossen Vaterländischen Krieges 1941-1945, Bernard & Graefe Verlag für Wehrwesen, Frankfurt/Main 1961, p. 284)

    The Saker and I both object to the racism, supremacism, and militarism of Nazi ideology, which was a major factor in unleashing the horrific war, and was responsible for many of the war’s atrocities.

    I don’t think that had all so much to do with it.

    Mark Mazower in his book ‘Hitler’s Empire’ noted that partisan warfare and the brutality of it was not a specifically Nazi invention, but rather a traditional method of European warfare, stating (p. 353):
    “The uncomfortable truth is that the counter-insurgency war was more the product of a certain European way of fighting than of Nazism itself.”

    Unlike the Germans, the USSR did not sign the 1929 Geneva Convention. But the convention even then only prohibited killings of POWs in reprisal actions, not civilians. So, technically that was legal — even if morally reprehensible & tactically questionable.

    The horrific war was unleashed because of Britain and France’s insistence on war. The USSR was inevitably going to try and steamroll through Europe, Hitler attacked them preemptively.

    Perhaps it was someone else’s “racism” and “supremacism” that led to the war. Even the USA was a “White supremacist” country at the time.

    American citizens, asked to name the greatest threat to the United States in a series of polls taken by the Opinion Research Corporation between 1939 and 1946, consistently chose “the Jews” over the Japanese or the Germans, with fear peaking in June of 1944.
    During the war as well, White Americans were polled and it was found that: “90 percent of the American people state that they would rather loose [sic] the war than give full equality to the American Negroes.”

    War was unfortunately inevitable, and there were atrocities on each side. Just because Jews didn’t have their own country doesn’t mean they weren’t quite obviously on the side of the “Allies”. Why do all Jewish deaths from WWII happen to be “Holocaust deaths” but no other group’s deaths (many of them greatly exceeding Jewish deaths) are treated in that way?

    • Replies: @Zumbuddi
    , @L.K
  43. Mairon says:

    It’s frightening to witness to what lengths some people are willing to go to whitewash the Nazi regime of its numerous crimes. While most of them claim to be opponents of supremacism (in its Jewish incarnation) they seem to have no problem, or outright ignore, the glaring inhumanity of Hitler’s regime. Even if, for the sake of argument, we assume that the Holocaust in its mainstream history proportions, is indeed a fabrication of the victorious Allies and their Jewish masters and backers, we still have to deal with other facts which clearly demonstrate the criminality of the NSDAP.

    – Hitler’s Social Darwinism. The belief in the eternal struggle of the races and that the strong must triumph over the weak. Applied in practice, Social Darwinist principles meant the justification of mass use of violence towards undesirable groups internally, and towards undesirable elements abroad.
    – Extreme nationalism of Hitler and his henchmen. Revisionism.
    – Willingness to wage aggressive war.
    – Mass use of propaganda to bend reality according to NSDAP’s liking.
    – Pseudo-scientific theories used to justify and rationalize discrimination against other peoples and races and socially undesirable elements.
    – A penchant for XIX century-inspired colonization and exploitation of countries deemed culturally and/or racially inferior.

    Hitler did not seek war against Britain or France. His foreign policy adventurism and gamble paid off in the case of Chechoslovakia which convinced Hitler the spineless Western powers would allow him to do the same to Poland and then march off to conquer the East. He did indeed have cause to believe that the Germanophile elements in Britain, as well as the British public’s opposition to war with Germany, would work in his favor. The Nazi regime was also a recipient of generous credit for Wall Street and the City of London, and his economy minister Hjalmar Schacht was connected to Wall Street Banks, the Rockefellers and the Bank of England. These gentlemen greatly contributed to financing the German rearmament program and were also the benefactors of I.G Farben, a chemical giant that backed the Nazi regime during the course of the whole war.

    People who attempt to whitewash the Nazi regime of its guilt should wake up to reality. Hitler was a useful idiot of the Anglo-American elites and the international financial and banking oligarchy which wanted him to unleash death and destruction upon Europe and Russia in particular. Hitler and Nazism were children of Western enlightenment, just like Communists, and today’s so-called ‘Liberal Democracies’ with whom they share the same materialistic essence.

    People here who advocate Soviet guilt for WW2 are on the same page as Neocons in West’s campaign to pin down the war on Russians.

    • Agree: Kevin Barrett
    • Disagree: Zumbuddi
    • Replies: @Vaterland
  44. Paw says:
    @Curmudgeon

    To Curmudgeon. Why not provide any documents about your ethnic cleansing done by Czechs.
    Why not to ask any “cleansed” Germans /with families/ ,still living in Czech republic many of them my friends.. Why not curfuck cleanse yourself..

    • Replies: @Anne Lid
  45. Paw says:
    @Tsigantes

    Hitler established the Axis Pact ,with Japan , Italy /and Spain, Finland etc. close behind./.
    And Stalin was aggresive..

  46. Athena says:

    Russia perceives NATO, not Israel, as its biggest threat

    That’s normal as the West, mainly Canada, the UK and the US support the illegal declaration of independence of NAZI FAKE states like Kosovo.

    Also,

    – Canada’s Chrystia Freeland supports Ukrainian SS and weapon shipments to neo-nazi Ukrainians to provoke Russia. (The Ukrainian lobby is quite strong in Canada, a British colony ruled by the Chatham House, Oxford (NATO-UK and MI6 friends) See chathamhouse.org and their orgy of propaganda.

    – Canada’s PM Trudeau welcomed war criminal and KLA SS supporter Hashim Tachi to provoke Serbia and Russia.

    – According to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, after WWII ”Canada had become the home of as many as 3,000 war criminals, half of whom were still alive in the late 1990s.’

    WHY IS CANADA DEFENDING NAZI SS ATROCITIES? GOVERNMENTS CAN RE-VISIT HISTORY, NOT REVISE IT

    By David Pugliese

    http://espritdecorps.ca/in-the-news/why-is-canada-defending-nazi-ss-atrocities-governments-can-re-visit-history-not-revise-it

  47. Zumbuddi says:
    @Theodore

    Informative comment, thanks, especially for mention of partisan warfare – insurgency.

    Are there other books on that topic, in English, that you can recommend?

    • Replies: @L.K
  48. @Rurik

    There was an attempt to defeat the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War with a small American force with allies and lots of supplies. If I remember correctly many of the trucks supplied were made by Ford, so I wonder if Henry Ford was involved. If so, then the U.S. elites were already divided and fighting a proxy war in Russia prior to WWII. Looks like the Banksters won out.

    Jacob Schiff backed the Japanese against the Imperial Russians in the 1905 Russo-Japanese War, so the meddling had been going on prior to the Revolution.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @Mikhail
    , @Rurik
  49. @Kevin Barrett

    It’s obvious that the official holocaust story is based on some outright lies (lampshades and soap) and that many confessions of wrongdoing were obtained through torture. It also seems as though the official story was cobbled together without too much thought, and that the claim that Jews were the main victims of the Germans rests on combining Jews from all nations into one group, while dividing non-Jewish victims by ethnicity or nationality. Without looking up the official claims, it seems very likely that more European Christians died by the official count, if they are counted as one group, as Jews from different nations are.

    The whole official account of the holocaust is flimsy, and is designed to make Jews look like the main victim group, while also making them look like a passive and innocent group of victims, which is not the case, either for big or little Jews.

  50. Anne Lid says:
    @Paw

    Not all were killed/chased away. About Slovakia: half of Bratislava’s population was Hungarian before 1045, now what, 4 percent? Two months after the war was finished, a group, perhaps 90, of teen aged Hungarian soldiers – so young, they were conscripted as a last resort and had not actually participated in any fights – were returning and were murdered at the village Ligetfalu, very close to home. Also German and some Hungarian families with children, the exact number is not known, 500 at least, but could be double or more. It was a series of mass murders. I have only heard about it a few years ago and the bodies have not all been exhumed. The main culprit escaped to Israel and lived a long, healthy life, as a teacher. I am sorry, I have no links in English, but quite a few in Hungarian.

  51. L.K says:
    @Theodore

    Good points.

    One thing, though; the figure given by this Soviet propagandist, Boris Semionovich Telpuchowsky, of 500.000 German troops killed by insurgents is typical of crude Soviet propaganda exaggeration.

    Real German military KIA due to the partisan activities did not reach more than 15.000-20.000.
    To the Germans must be added their allies, including local militiamen… and civilians.
    This was still pretty serious as one can see by comparing with, say, the Soviet-Afghan insurgency warfare, where in over 9 years, the Soviets lost about 15.000 dead. But the Soviets were fighting only an insurgency campaign whereas the Germans fought insurgents in their rear and the immensely powerful Red Army to its front lines.
    In Afghanistan, 100s of thousands of civilians seem to have perished due to Soviet counter-insurgency measures, and this in the 1980s.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  52. L.K says:
    @Zumbuddi

    Zumbuddi asks @Theodore

    Are there other books on that topic, in English, that you can recommend?

    Hello Zumbuddi. Personally, I’m yet to come across a book in English that explores the topic of the guerrilla warfare on the Eastern Front that is truly objective. All of the ones I’ve read are laced with propaganda, to a degree or another. Nonetheless, one can find bits here and there that are useful.

    Two good books are “Sowjetische Partisanen 1941-1944: Mythos und Wirklichkeit”, a 2009 tome by Bogdan Musial & “Die Wehrmacht im Partisanenkrieg: Militärische und völkerrechtliche Darlegungen zur Kriegführung im Osten” by Franz Wilhelm Seidler, pub. in 1999.
    Neither is available in English.

    But as I said, the accounts in English, though often terribly marred by bias and propaganda, do reveal certain unsavory aspects of the partisan war in the East.
    For ex, in “War on the Eastern Front”, James Lucas states:

    The nature of insurgent operations makes it impossible for either side to fight a ‘clean’ war. To force a hostile reaction from the occupying forces partisans often carried out attacks in the area of villages whose inhabitants were friendly to the Germans and would then leave the mutilated bodies of German soldiers, whom they had taken prisoner and then murdered, to be found by the counterattacking German troops. Reprisals would then follow against the villagers and that German reaction would normally prove sufficient incentive to ensure that the locals supported the guerrillas. Those who still did not were subjected to threats and those who actively collaborated with the Germans (as, for example, men who had been elected mayor of a village) would be murdered, quite frequently, together with their entire family. It was indeed a dirty war, for the partisans were absolutely ruthless. There was, of course, no Geneva Convention for civilians and those unfortunates were put under severe pressure from native partisan groups as well as from the occupying forces. The lot of the peasants was a desperate one.

  53. Vaterland says:
    @Char Aznable

    Looks like you triggered the boomers. 🙂 People who think wearing a Che Guevara shirt is cool, edgy and #theresistance

  54. Seraphim says:
    @OilcanFloyd

    That the American intervention in the Russian Civil war was ‘an attempt to defeat the Bolsheviks’ is largely a myth.

    “Unlike his Allied counterparts, General Graves believed their mission in Siberia was to provide protection for American-supplied property and to help the Czechoslovak Legion evacuate Russia, and that it did not include fighting against the Bolsheviks. Repeatedly calling for restraint, Graves often clashed with commanders of British, French, and Japanese forces, who also had troops in the region and who wanted him to take a more active part in the military intervention in Siberia”.
    The policy of ‘concessions’ to ‘imperialist powers’ (primarily American) which made the NEP started almost immediately after the withdrawal of all Allied troops.

    • Agree: Mikhail
  55. Vaterland says:
    @Mairon

    Your perspective is somewhat similar to mine regarding the criticism of the materialistic worldview and Social Darwinism of NS. However there are a few objections I have.

    Firstly, the “Hitler as a British agent angle”. This rumor seems to be grounded in the fact that Hitler apparently got into far right circles after WW 1 as a spy into the Thulean society but appointed by the then German government. I am not overly familiar with the details, because frankly I don’t care at all. Since the premise itself is ludicrous: The UK lost its entire Empire, bankrupted and outplayed and declassed by the USA , after having lost hundreds of thousands of British soldiers in WW 2 to which you may add Canadian and Australian casualties. What kind of British spy plot is that supposed to be…?

    It would rather make sense that Herr Schickelgruber was a US plant, but that is also extremely unlikely, because he was an Austrian-German nationalist with a romantic view of war for the common fatherland, bound by blood. And when was he recruited? By whom? Where were his contacts? Didn’t the entire inner circle notice his double-agent status the least bit? Or were they all in on the conspiracy? Himmler, Speer, Goering, Goebbels? All British agents?

    Also US investments in the Soviet Union were tremendous, not just into Germany.

    Secondly, having witnessed the absolute uselessness, corruptibility and push-over character of the “bourgeoisie” in our time and the fact that its liberal, cosmopolitan elite has adopted many of the far left’s basic ideological principles and thus has been made ready for take-over, I can now fully appreciate how Germans at the time may have felt the need to turn towards ‘extremism’ to counter the Bolshevik threat to Europe. And the threat from within which we can now case study in the USA again.

    Thirdly, the materialistic and militaristic world view is of course inherent in all these systems: Communism, National Socialism and our current new totalitarianism which has grown out of liberalism and commerce.

    • Replies: @Franz
  56. Mikhail says: • Website
    @OilcanFloyd

    There was an attempt to defeat the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War with a small American force with allies and lots of supplies. If I remember correctly many of the trucks supplied were made by Ford, so I wonder if Henry Ford was involved. If so, then the U.S. elites were already divided and fighting a proxy war in Russia prior to WWII. Looks like the Banksters won out.

    Jacob Schiff backed the Japanese against the Imperial Russians in the 1905 Russo-Japanese War, so the meddling had been going on prior to the Revolution.

    Right on Schiff. The rest isn’t so. US forces in Russia were minimal and were there to protect US nationals and biz interests in a civil war zone. In addition, they were there to keep tabs on other foreign forces, notably Japan. The limited fighting the US forces did was typically in situations when they came under attack.

    Sovok influenced history downplays the foreign support for the Reds, while over-hyping such support for the Whites.

    • Replies: @OilcanFloyd
  57. After auditioning several candidates, western support was provided to those who would follow western orders. In the south, after co-opting and neutralizing authentic leaders like Ataman Krasnov (Don Army Krug) who might have exercised independent (and competent) judgement, the drive to Moscow ordered by Denikin’s western advisors in 1919 was, predictably, militarily suicidal (as Wrangel and others on his staff protested) and catastrophic for the White cause. But it DID succeed in its actual objective, which was to exert pressure on the Reds while some negotiations with western interests were in progress. Once these were concluded, all western support stopped ; even the aircraft at the front to survey the Red battle lines and warn the Whites where attacks were immanent were withdrawn. The tragic result was a foregone conclusion.

    Having served its real purpose, the Special Conference Army was left to its fate without a second thought.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  58. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Talks-to-Cats

    Denikin was hoping for a White-Polish alliance which might very well have led to a victory over the Bolshes. See:

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/08042016-fuzzy-history-how-poland-saved-the-world-from-russia-analysis/

    • Replies: @Talks-to-Cats
  59. Rurik says:
    @OilcanFloyd

    Jacob Schiff backed the Japanese against the Imperial Russians in the 1905 Russo-Japanese War

    And he, (and Wilson) backed Trotsky and therefor the Bolsheviks.

    Wilson was pretending to be anti-Bolshevik, but as with everything done during his beyond-treasonous regime, he was supporting America’s enemies in everyway possible.

    I just wish they taught about things like Wilson’s facilitation of Trotsky into Russia, in our school’s history classes and text books. Can you even imagine such a thing?

    Instead they treat America’s foremost traitor, like he was some kind of statesman.

  60. Fox says:
    @Tsigantes

    You need to read up on the things you are commenting. It is quite obvious that you don’t know much about them.
    The name Tsigantes makes me think of Gypsy. Are you a Gypsy and therefore belonging to the privileged, although third tier victims of the war?

  61. Fox says:
    @Harold Smith

    There is, nor was, any moral legitimacy to the War Crimes Trials”. It was Evil at work, and the reason why we are witnessing the decline of our world is to be found right there, in waht has been conceived for, and executed at the “War Crimes Trials” at Nuremberg.
    At the time, highly intelligent, upright and highly informed opinions were published about this evil assault on decency, morality, justice, jurisprudence, intelligence and of all of our future.
    I have recently read Montgomery Belgions booklets, Victor’s Justice and Epitaph to Nuremberg, written in 1946 and 1947, respectively. Consider doing likewise.

  62. Fox says:
    @Real History

    More than ten years ago, I read an article on this spook of world conquest by Germany from someone in Australia: It pointed out the real size of Germany on the globe, and the size of the empires that conquest would need to overcome, and how close their mother countries were to Germany in Central Europe. For purposes of illustration, Germany was in red. There was the British Empire, the French Colonial Empire, there was the Soviet Union stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific Ocean, the United States, South America, Africa, China, and all of that with a population of about 70 million people.
    It was quite illustrative to see warmongers’ talk in the propaganda head quarters balanced against an objective comparison, finishing off with the question: Does this make any sense?

  63. Franz says:
    @Vaterland

    The UK lost its entire Empire, bankrupted and outplayed and declassed by the USA , after having lost hundreds of thousands of British soldiers in WW 2 to which you may add Canadian and Australian casualties. What kind of British spy plot is that supposed to be…?

    The one Charles Lindbergh mentioned at Des Moines, Iowa. That was when FDR put him on his Eternal Shit List. Not to mention the entire region he spoke for.

    Chicago and what’s now the Rust Belt was the homeland, megaphone and amplifier of the true American position in the prewar years, labelled “isolationism” by its enemies. It’s no accident the region is being inundated, financially crushed, and host to the “opioid” and meth epidemics now.

    Roughly this is the “unlabled” section of the USA that looks, on a map, like an upside-down pyramid that’s roofed by the Great Lakes and bordered by the rivers that become the Mississippi after it drips south of the imaginary pyramid. They called it America First and it annoyed the warmongers no end.

    As these people tried to say, as a “British” plot it makes no sense, as you note. But as a London Bankster plot it makes perfect sense. Plunking America into a European war made no sense to these America Firsters, but it made huge financial sense to the “world federalists” who were already plotting the Global Economy even then. Teddy Roosevelt’s daughter, Alice Roosevelt Longworth, called it “globalony” at about that time, giving a hint at how far back it goes.

    World War II has to be seen as a process, a set of events that allowed what came after to be installed. The Rockefellers would never have gotten their “United Nations” without it. The Banksters would never have had US troops all over the world without the hoax of the “permanent enemy” the confusion of the Post War years provided.

    For the Brits the war was a disaster, but so was their empire in the years leading up to it. Working class English were paying for the privilege of their troops being in “colonies” just like American working class workers are paying through the nose (and destroying their future) for the privilege of bringing “democracy” to the Middle East, etc.

    Makes no sense to thee or me. But if we owned a global bank…

    The cover story didn’t matter. War is the ultimate revolution, and revolutions always serve rich criminals. World War II made a big revolution possible. Think of all they couldn’t have done without it.

  64. @Kevin Barrett

    “Nobody doubts that large numbers of Jews and others were forced into camps and that a great many died.”

    You avoid saying “and that a great many were slaughtered by Hitler’s forces and in his concentration camps,” and instead you use the passive “died,” as if actual extermination of all Jews was not Hitler’s intention. Here are three articles I have done documenting that extermination — and never merely expelling — 0f all Jews was Hitler’s intention:
    http://archive.is/TiInJ
    http://archive.is/3lWEZ
    http://archive.is/fRR2w

    Hitler was to blame for the Holocaust, the German people were not; and much of the actual extermination-work was carried out by his sympathizers in the lands that he conquered or even just invaded. But the Holocaust was real, and to deny its reality is contemptible reality-denial and an insult to the millions of very real victims. Furthermore the nazi (i.e., racist-fascist) Jew Netanyahu lies to blame the Holocaust on the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem instead of on Hitler. See:
    http://archive.is/E3pdc
    And Israel today is an apartheid and basically racist-fascist (or nazi) nation:
    http://archive.is/E3pdc
    But none of that denies Hitler’s having been responsible for the Holocaust and the Holocaust having been a reality and not a myth (such as many neo-Nazis today assert).

    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @NPleeze
    , @Kevin Barrett
  65. @Mikhail

    Right on Schiff. The rest isn’t so. US forces in Russia were minimal and were there to protect US nationals and biz interests in a civil war zone. In addition, they were there to keep tabs on other foreign forces, notably Japan. The limited fighting the US forces did was typically in situations when they came under attack.

    Sovok influenced history downplays the foreign support for the Reds, while over-hyping such support for the Whites.

    Weapons and supplies were given, and a small force was sent, but nothing much was done. You could read the intent several different ways, but you are right. There was no serious attempt to engage or defeat the Bolsheviks on the part of the U.S.

  66. @Mikhail

    No one in his right mind adopts a military strategy which risks everything based on on a hope.

    Denikin was taken good care of in the aftermath of the catastrophe that ensued. SOP.

    His state papers are in the Hoover Institute, which tells you everything you need to know.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  67. @L.K

    However many German invaders of countries to the east were killed they deserved it. And to call resistance partisans bandits and criminals is libel; they were all patriots doing what anyone under an invasion should do. The Germans had already genocided their own Sorb Slav minority down to some 60-80,000 over the centuries so what could the other Slavs expect from Germanic supremacism and expansionism into their own territories? And even in 1960 there were still some 65,000 Germans in Poland, 165,790 Germans in Czechoslovakia and 1.5 million Germans in the Soviet Union.

    Comparing the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan is disingenuous: the Soviets were invited by the then Afghan government to assist with the social development and progress of their country while the US backed, armed and promoted backward fundamentalist Muslim terrorists to drag the country down into a long gone past. No government in Eastern Europe invited the Germans to intervene on their behalf.

    • Replies: @Anne Lid
    , @Wally
  68. Smith says:

    Yet another bluepilled article. Do we really need another article to echo Saker?

    As long as the germans and racialism ideology are continued to be demonized, it matters not whether USA or Russia wins, both are the same sides of the cucked coin.

  69. NPleeze says:
    @Tsigantes

    Let’s see about war crimes and aggression. Looking solely at WW II itself:

    * Why was USSR not punished for invading Poland, Finland, Mongolia, or Iran?
    * Why were France/UK/Australia/New Zealand/Nepal/Morocco/Tunisia/South Africa/Bahrain/Canada/Oman/Transjordan not punished for declaring war against Germany, when Germany had done nothing to them?
    * Why was Japan not punished for invading China, etc.?

    Of course, we need only look at the last 20 years to see the most egregious cases of unbridled, unjustified, murderous aggression, mainly by the US, UK, France and Israel – the Axis of Evil – against countless innocents. The murderous scum who should be swinging by the neck are instead award Nobel Peace Prizes.

    Nuremberg is not a principle of law, it is rather the principle of organized crime.

  70. NPleeze says:
    @Eric Zuesse

    But the Holocaust was real, and to deny its reality is contemptible reality-denial and an insult to the millions of very real victims.

    Nope, the Holohoax is a fabrication, and to fabricate its truth is contemptible reality-denial, and of course is also race libel/blood libel against Germans.

    The Holohoax is the Big Lie on Steroids.

  71. @Eric Zuesse

    Eric, I just read the first article you linked “Conclusive Proof…” http://archive.is/TiInJ and noticed it does not offer any evidence whatsoever of Hitler’s alleged intention to kill all Jews everywhere, much less any proof, much less any conclusive proof. Your claims about what the document says, and what it actually says, are shockingly out of whack. All of the highlighted quotes in the document are consistent with Germany’s (and Palestine’s) attempt to defeat their national enemies during wartime. None of those quotes can possibly be read as evidence of anyone’s intention to murder every member of enemy nations, whether the British, French, or Jewish nations. Defeating an enemy requires subjugating him and taking away his power. Obviously Hitler wanted to subjugate the (extremely powerful) Jewish nation and completely remove it from power. But if you really think this document offers evidence that Hitler (or the Mufti) planned to murder every member of the Jewish nation, rather than simply defeat it, there is something seriously wrong with your judgment.

    The document offers an unremarkable example of the way almost all belligerents talk about their enemies during wartime.

    • Replies: @Eric Zuesse
    , @Anonymous
  72. @Kevin Barrett

    Kevin, so much is there that contradicts what you assert, but here is just some of it, from the only personal meeting between the Mufti and Hitler, as recorded by Hitler’s scribes:

    1. He (the Fuehrer) would carry on the battle to the total destruction of the Judeo-Communist empire in Europe.
    2. At some moment which was impossible to set exactly today but which in any event was not distant, the German armies would in the course of this struggle reach the southern exit from Caucasia.
    3. As soon as this had happened, the Fuehrer would on his own give the Arab world the assurance that its hour of liberation had arrived. Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power. In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. It would then be his task to set off the Arab operations which he had secretly prepared.

    I must call to your attention that Palestine was one of only two places (the other being Madagascar) where ‘moderate’ Nazis advocated relocating Jews to; so, where “the total destruction of the Judeo – Communist empire in Europe” is referred to, Hitler was telling the Mufti that THERE WOULD BE NO RELOCATION OF JEWS TO PALESTINE.

    Furthermore: Hitler’s point #2 instructs the Mufti to await instruction from Hitler as to when the Mufti would be empowered to exterminate all Jews in Palestine.

    Elsewhere in the document, Hitler said that “The aid to the Arabs would have to be material aid.” In other words: Germany would supply the Mufti’s people with weapons to do the job.

    PLUS: In the context of the other two documents that I provided links to along with the one you particularly chose to cite, there can be no question at all as to that Hitler intended total extermination.

    • Replies: @NPleeze
  73. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    Your claims about what the document says, and what it actually says, are shockingly out of whack.

    Which 100% outs him as a naked shill.

    Personally, I’d ban people like that. There’s a huge difference between being wrong (for whatever reason) and knowingly misrepresenting your own links.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  74. Anne Lid says:
    @Commentator Mike

    The German soldiers did not rape and pillage like the Soviets did in Hungary. And I am a Russophile. (I remember some stories from old people, when they talked among themselves about a young woman from the village, how she was gang raped while her husband was held down and had to watch. In school, in the media one could only hear about the heroic Red Army and the fiendish Nazis.) The Polish would not have been able to resist the Soviet army, they would have been flattened anyway.

  75. @Anonymous

    Why ban him? What of freedom of speech? Zeusse undermines his own reputation and credibility well enough when left alone to write so there’s no need for a ban to be even contemplated.

  76. NPleeze says:
    @Eric Zuesse

    LOL, are you really so irrational as to believe any of these statements proves the Holohoax?

    First of all, the context of the conversation:

    [Hitler explained that] Germany was at the present time engaged in a life and death struggle with two citadels of Jewish power: Great Britain and Soviet Russia.

    Now, let’s analyze the three statements you selectively quoted:

    1. He (the Fuehrer) would carry on the battle to the total destruction of the Judeo-Communist empire in Europe.

    Note the use of the word “EMPIRE”. He did not say “the Jewish people”. Yes, liars and deceives always take these quotes deliberately out of context, in order to advance their agenda of supporting and empowering the true “Nazis” and “Communists” of our world – the ZioNazis.

    2. At some moment which was impossible to set exactly today but which in any event was not distant, the German armies would in the course of this struggle reach the southern exit from Caucasia.

    Well obviously this has nothing to do with the Holohoax.

    3. As soon as this had happened, the Fuehrer would on his own give the Arab world the assurance that its hour of liberation had arrived. Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power. In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. It would then be his task to set off the Arab operations which he had secretly prepared.

    So Hitler intended to liberate Palestine from the Jewish invaders. OH! MY! GOD!

    But, you distorter, look carefully at the operative language: “Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power.” This is a clear reference to the terrorist Jews who had illegally invaded Palestine under the auspices of the British occupying savages. As they were illegal armed invaders, their destruction (or expulsion) was the obvious remedy. No doubt you would agree if 300,000 armed ISIS supporters invaded the US or UK, and most certainly Israel, to declare a Caliphate, but ZioNazis always excuse and support Jews in their massive crimes against humanity and accuse their victims of “anti-Semitism”. Such is the mark of a ZioNazi.

    Now, as to the rest of your post:

    I must call to your attention that Palestine was one of only two places (the other being Madagascar) where ‘moderate’ Nazis advocated relocating Jews to

    I suppose if Hitler was a “moderate Nazi”, this is true. He supported the Haavara Agreement and the transfer of Polish Jews to Madagascar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan); the latter was also supported by the “moderate Nazis” such as Julius Streicher and Hermann Göring.

    Furthermore: Hitler’s point #2 instructs the Mufti to await instruction from Hitler as to when the Mufti would be empowered to exterminate all Jews in Palestine.

    You must mean point #3, as point number 2 doesn’t even mention Jews. Point Number 3 has to do with expelling the illegal invaders (not just the occupying British savages, but the invading Jewish ZioNazis), and that much is 100% obvious from the language. It takes true ZioNazi deception and lies to convert that into “extermination of all Jews in Palestine”.

    In other words: Germany would supply the Mufti’s people with weapons to do the job.

    Indeed, all of history had shown that kindly asking the British savages to leave a place they had conquered is pointless. There is (and was) only one way to force the invading Brits and Jews out: by force. Again, if someone promised the US “weapons” to fight off 300,000 ISIS invaders, you would have no problem with that – but as you are a ZioNazi and an Imperialist, you do not grant the Palestinians the right to self-defense.

    And that is the true hate – the profound, extreme hatred of ZioNazis, like you, for Palestinians or anyone else opposed to the Evil Empire.

  77. Replying to #80 from NPleeze:

    You think that I am a Zionist?:

    http://archive.is/FeSep

    http://archive.is/7KXMU

    http://archive.is/Sfwp8

    Are you crazy?

  78. Wally says:
    @Commentator Mike

    – Mike gets it wrong yet again.
    – Non-uniformed combatants “partisans” under international law were considered terrorists whose execution was perfectly legal. Such executions occurred on both sides during the war.
    – Mike has no proof for his laughable claim that “the Germans had already genocided their own Sorb Slav minority”, none. He just makes it up.

    Mike ignores the real ‘invaders”:
    – Before the German attack on war mongering Poland, Poland threatened force against Lithuania with an ultimatum, Poland had seized German land and was brutalizing Germans within their false boundaries.
    – Poland invaded and annexed parts of Czechoslovakia.
    – Czech President Hacha asked Germany for help, hence the Czech ‘Protectorate’ status
    – The USSR had their long planned attack on Germany and Europe stopped by Germany’s preventive attack, Barbarossa.
    Why Germany Invaded Poland, by John Wear: http://inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391
    Why Germany Attacked the Soviet Union, Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the USSR – Two Historic Documents, by Mark Weber: https://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-attacked-the-soviet-union/

    • Agree: NPleeze
Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS