The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewGuillaume Durocher Archive
Hitler vs. Kalergi
The Nazi Leader’s Critique of the European Union
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Austrian stamp commemorating Coudenhove-Kalergi.

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

In his unpublished Second Book on foreign policy, Adolf Hitler offers the following critique of Count Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi’s Pan-European Movement, which argued for the peaceful unification of Europe. Kalergi is very much a precursor to the post-1945 effort to integrate the Old Continent, culminating in the European Union.

Hitler raises essentially two objections:

  1. The idea that Europe could peacefully unite into a powerful state is completely unrealistic and, instead, such attempts would lead only to a feeble and flaccid entity.
  2. Europeans themselves are of uneven racial quality, whereas the United States of America was made up overwhelmingly of northwest European stock, and so would still be able to dominate Europe.

On the idea of peaceful confederation, Hitler wrote:

The attempt to realize the pan-European idea through a purely formal union of European peoples, without being brought about by force in centuries-long battles by a European supreme power, will lead to an entity whose entire strength and energy will be absorbed by internal rivalries and conflicts. This happened before in the German Confederation. Not until the internal German question was ultimately solved by Prussian superiority could the nation exert its united strength outwards. . . .

[A]s the American people progressively fulfill the internal colonization task, the natural activist drive, which is inherent particularly in young peoples, will turn outward. The surprise, however, . . . would least of all be countered with serious resistance by a pacifist, democratic, pan-European muddled state. This pan-Europe, in the view of the biggest bastard in the world, Coudenhove, would play the same role opposite the American Union or a nationally-awakened China as the old Austrian state played opposite Germany or Russia.[1]Adolf Hitler (trans. Kristina Smith), Hitler’s Second Book (New York: Enigma Books, 2003), p. 116-17.

Indeed, the German Confederation was a Nineteenth Century association of German-speaking principalities, including Austria and Prussia, which was largely impotent. The Confederation, like the European Union, had some success in abolishing tariff barriers, establishing a customs union, and forming a currency area. The Confederation was replaced by the second German Reich, a true nation-state, following Otto von Bismarck’s victories in several wars through “blood and iron.”

For Hitler, European unification could only occur as “the result of a centuries-long struggle”:[2]Ibid., p. 115.
(Adolf Hitler (trans. Kristina Smith), Hitler’s Second Book (New York: Enigma Books, 2003), p. 116-17.)

We know from past experience that lasting unions can only take place when the peoples in question are of equal racial quality and related, and second, when their union takes place in the shape of the slow process of a struggle for hegemony. That was how Rome once conquered the Latin states . . .[3]Ibid., p. 114.
(Adolf Hitler (trans. Kristina Smith), Hitler’s Second Book (New York: Enigma Books, 2003), p. 116-17.)

I would add that the United States of America only became a truly united great power not through the elevated debates and Constitution of those fine and philosophical men of 1787, but through Abraham Lincoln’s armies, who triumphed according to law of force.

Hitler would probably not be surprised to learn that the European Union has been wracked by periodic gridlock and crisis for decades, and, outside the economic sphere, is not taken seriously by the world’s great powers, above all the United States[4]I will spare you the colorful language U.S. and European officials have been known to use in private to qualify their relationship. and China.

Hitler has this to say about American immigration policy and Europe’s racial heterogeneity:

The American Union was . . . unable to merge foreign people with a pronounced national feeling or racial instinct. . . . The fact that the American Union feels itself to be a Nordic-Germanic state and not at all an international mishmash of peoples can be seen in the way in which the immigration quotas for the European peoples are allotted. Scandinavians, Englishmen, and finally Germans are allocated the largest contingents. . . . It is a utopia to want to oppose this . . . predominantly Nordic state with a European coalition or pan-Europe consisting of Mongols, Slavs, Germans, Romanians, and so on, in which anything but Germans would dominate, as a factor capable of resistance. Indeed, a very dangerous utopia when one considers that many countless Germans see a rosy future again without having to make the most serious sacrifices for it. The fact that this utopia originates in Austria of all places does not lack a certain comic element. This state and its fate [the fall of Austria-Hungary] are the clearest example of the enormous strength inherent in such artificially glued together but intrinsically unnatural entities.[5]Ibid., 117-18.
(I will spare you the colorful language U.S. and European officials have been known to use in private to qualify their relationship.)

Hitler’s last sarcastic comment shows again how much his views were shaped by the failures of the multicultural Austro-Hungarian Empire. We again see his penchant for hyperbole (“Mongols”!).

Hitler would perhaps not be surprised to learn that southern Europe has continued to economically underperform relative to northern Europe and to have a perennial inability to eliminate “corruption.” Americans may counter that Irish, Italians, and Poles make up a substantial assimilated contingent of White America who have contributed to national greatness.

One wonders what Hitler would make of the fact that, maddeningly, northern Europe has principally used its prosperity and social organization in order to import and baby-sit Third World immigrants, whereas it is the Italians, Poles, and Hungarians today who are fighting the most to preserve Europe.

Finally, Hitler has an extremely forceful comment on the psychology of big business and globalism. The latter appears natural if we think of all humans as equal and individual atoms, but natural differences mean ethnic hierarchies must inevitably form:

The pan-European movement rests from the beginning on the fundamental basic mistake that quality of population can be made up for with quantity of population. This completely mechanical view completely avoids the forces that shape life. . . . This view fits as well with the pointlessness of our Western democracy as with the cowardly pacifism of our big business circles. It is obvious that this is the ideal of all inferior or half-breed bastards. Likewise, the Jew particularly welcomes such a concept: in its consistent observance it leads to racial chaos and confusion, to a bastardizaton and niggerization of civilized humanity, and finally to such a deterioration in its racial value that the Hebrew who keeps himself free from it can gradually rise to be master of the world. At least, he imagines that he can one day ascend to become the brain of this humanity that has been made worthless.[6]Ibid., p. 114.
(I will spare you the colorful language U.S. and European officials have been known to use in private to qualify their relationship.)

Notes

[1] Adolf Hitler (trans. Kristina Smith), Hitler’s Second Book (New York: Enigma Books, 2003), p. 116-17.

[2] Ibid., p. 115.

[3] Ibid., p. 114.

[4] I will spare you the colorful language U.S. and European officials have been known to use in private to qualify their relationship.

[5] Ibid., 117-18.

[6] Ibid., p. 114.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Foreign Policy • Tags: EU, Hitler 
Hide 98 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Nice post. I’d recommend you do a post on Nixon and the lessons from his career and downfall.

  2. utu says:

    Hitler talked a lot about race when he really meant the spirit which is something much less tangible because it is nurture not nature, it is the other part of the HBD equation, i.e., whatever is left when one removes heritability accounting for nature, when one looks beyond the hardware and deals with software. For instance in his 2nd book he talks about Germans vs. Dutch and Swiss.

    If in the future our people continues living with the same political thoughtlessness as in the past, it will ultimately have to renounce the claim to international significance. It will become more and more stunted racially, until it finally deteriorates into degenerate, brutish gluttons who will not even remember the past greatness. In the context of the future international state hierarchy, it will be at most what Switzerland and Holland were in the previous Europe.

    Clearly he is not talking about hardware here but he is talking about software. He saw himself as a chief programmer who would (instill) install a software in German people to bring them to greatness and dominance and prevent Germans from sharing the fate of mediocrity of the Dutch and the Swiss who while sharing the same hardware with Germans operated on the second rate software. So later when he talks about the Jews that

    “[Jews] imagine[] that [they] can one day ascend to become the brain of this humanity”

    he talks about the Jewish software that he would like to emulate and install on German hardware.

    Anyway it did not work out as Hitler hoped and Germans have to resign themselves to the fate of the Dutch and Swiss which after all is not a bad thing.

  3. German_reader says:
    @utu

    Germans have to resign themselves to the fate of the Dutch and Swiss which after all is not a bad thing.

    If you had written that in the 1950s, it might have seemed plausible, but today it’s pretty clear Dutch, Swiss, Germans…we’re all headed to oblivion as nations. Which is a pretty bad thing imo.
    And the basic question for all Europeans remains: how can we create a form of European cooperation which prevents the domination of the continent by outside powers? Obviously Hitler’s solution can’t be condoned, and was quite counter-productive, to put it mildly. But being at the mercy of Russians, Americans or Chinese isn’t all that great either.

  4. Mitleser says:

    The attempt to realize the pan-European idea through a purely formal union of European peoples, without being brought about by force in centuries-long battles by a European supreme power, will lead to an entity whose entire strength and energy will be absorbed by internal rivalries and conflicts. This happened before in the German Confederation. Not until the internal German question was ultimately solved by Prussian superiority could the nation exert its united strength outwards. . . .

    Considering how badly this exerting “its united strength outwards…” turned out for Germany, I don’t think that the alternative, the more civil internal rivalries and conflicts was bad.
    After all, the German Confederation did not lose German territory, the later German nation state did, and plenty it lose.

    The European project does not have the dualism of the German Confederation.
    There is one dominant Carolingian core (the founding six members), and no one within the project is an equal to this group.
    What does keep the European project in-check is the transatlanticism of the European elites which prevents them from turning the European project a proper great power.

    • Agree: Catiline
    • Replies: @Catiline
    , @Fox
  5. Bookish1 says:
    @utu

    You are looking at things in the short term. In the long term Hitler won. I know that because I know that Hitler was right. The world the ‘Allies’ gave us is a rotten world, the whole world being affected. Hitlers world would have been very very much better. When that becomes common knowledge Hitlerism will be back. That is why jews are trying to destroy Germany as fast as they can.

  6. @German_reader

    Hitler’s solution can’t be condoned, and was quite counter-productive, to put it mildly.

    To what “solution” are you referring? Up until Poland took the Anglo-French bait to start a war, things were going fairly smoothly.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  7. Tom Bacco says:

    @German_reader
    What it takes to prevent a foreign domination is just the determination to be free or die. No sort of european cooperation can make up for the lack of it. Quite the contrary, “external cooperation” is the soft way to get progressively enslaved by some invisible puppeteers.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
  8. German_reader says:
    @Curmudgeon

    Up until Poland took the Anglo-French bait to start a war

    It was Hitler’s decision to start a war; even if he didn’t want a war with Britain and France (at least at that time), he certainly was willing to risk it by attacking Poland. Danzig should have been part of Germany again, but it’s not like the Germans there were oppressed (iirc the city was actually already dominated by the NSDAP), and the issue wasn’t important enough to start a war over. The rest of Hitler’s demands about the corridor were unreasonable, and all the lurid stuff about Poles murdering their ethnic German minority was fiction or at least absurd exaggeration.

  9. @German_reader

    The rest of Hitler’s demands about the corridor were unreasonable

    Can you please be more specific, in my ignorance I had always thought them not entirely unreasonable.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @German_reader
  10. @Bookish1

    Much as I appreciate your enthusiasm, Sen. Bilbo was right:
    We can rebuild well-nigh everything (to paraphrase Rappaport, “we are not the least bit afraid of ruins” 😛 ), but not the blood of our people.
    Ergo, the Kalergi Plan (“[]the Eurasian-Negroid mixed race of the future, with the Jews as their new intellectual nobility”) is their logical avenue of approach (as the nukes were not ready in time, much to their chagrin).

    Hitler´s world would probably have been better (though I have my own views on the Strasserite purges of 1931) but was nipped in the bud; but all of this is a bit moot 😉

  11. Mitleser says:
    @Tom Bacco

    But at what costs?
    The Norks are free from foreign domination, but they are also quite poor compared to other East Asians. Being free from foreign domination alone is not enough for most people.

  12. German_reader says:
    @for-the-record

    I don’t have time to look into the issue in detail (don’t care tbh, the “revisionism” on Unz review is a total dead-end imo), and one can certainly dispute whether the demand for an extraterritorial Autobahn was entirely unreasonable or not (but still, was Poland’s refusal to grant it a sufficient reason for war? I don’t think so). But the final ultimatum just before the war
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor#Ultimatum_of_1939
    included a demand for a plebiscite about the corridor, on terms unfavourable to Poland. The problem with this imo was that the area had been ethnically mixed before 1918 (though probably more Polish than German), but clearly was predominantly Polish by 1939, so such a demand had to be rejected by any self-respecting Polish government. One doesn’t make such impossible demands, when one genuinely wants to avoid war.
    More generally, there just was no reason to trust Hitler after the dissolution of rump Czechoslavakia and the annexation of its Czech part in March 1939, his ambitions clearly went beyond bringing back just majority German areas into the Reich.

    • Thanks: for-the-record
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  13. @utu

    “[Jews] imagine[] that [they] can one day ascend to become the brain of this humanity”

    he talks about the Jewish software that he would like to emulate and install on German hardware.

    Emulate??
    I think you have it inside out and backward.

    Read the passage in its full context-

    . . . in its consistent observance it leads to racial chaos and confusion, to a bastardizaton and niggerization of civilized humanity, and finally to such a deterioration in its racial value that the Hebrew who keeps himself free from it can gradually rise to be master of the world. At least, he imagines that he can one day ascend to become the brain of this humanity that has been made worthless.

    Hitler condemned the project of “bastardizing” and bringing about a “deterioration” of “civilized humanity” of all but “the Hebrew” who “keeps himself free” of this chaos and deterioration, until all are deteriorated except for Jews, who “become the brain” of this humanity reduced to “worthlessness.”

    Hitler sought to avoid the “bastardization” of human civilization by avoiding chaotic ‘race mixing’ and neglect of nurture of Germanic culture, rather than seeking to emulate the Hebrew scheme.

    The subtler, antisemitic interpretation is that Jews could exert superior “brainsmanship” only if and when the rest of humanity was rendered worthless through bastardization.

    • Replies: @romar
    , @utu
  14. Matty says:

    Kerry Bolton on Oswald Mosley’s concept of a united Europe:

    “Europe-a-Nation is not a prelude to a ‘new world order’, it is the only manner by which globalism can be resisted; with the geographic space, the population, and the resources to form a sovereign bloc, where regional and ethnic differences would be encouraged, not obliterated, because Europe-a-Nation would be an organic development, resuming the growth that was stunted and aborted centuries ago; not an artificial construct planned in boardrooms and Lodges as a part of globalism.

    The initial post-war moves from limited economic agreements between European nations, to the E.E.C. and finally to the present European Union were part of a gradual process. From these manoeuvrings by plutocrats and members of secret societies, the present counterfeit ‘Europe’ was formed. How can this Antieurope be mistaken for the Europe that is our legacy? Europe is not, and need not be, the creation of oligarchs, bureaucrats, and shadowy Lodge initiates. To reject Europe because she has been made into a diseased whore by culture-pathogens in the service of outer enemies and inner traitors, is to deny what Europe could be again. Is it not surely the duty of those who resist the decay of the modern era to work for the restoration of Europe’s health, rather than to maintain her division with petty-statism?”

    https://www.oswaldmosley.com/the-idea-of-europe/

    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
  15. Matty says:

    Oswald Mosley, ‘European Declaration / Europe A Nation’

    [MORE]

    “That Europe a Nation shall forthwith be made a fact. This means that Europe shall have a common government for purposes of foreign policy, defence, economic policy, finance and scientific development. It does not mean Americanisation by a complete mixture of the European peoples, which is neither desirable nor possible.

    That European government shall be elected by free vote of the whole people of Europe every four years at elections which all parties may enter. This vote shall be expressed in the election of a parliament which will have power to select the government and at any time to dismiss it by vote of censure carried by a two-thirds majority. Subject to this power of dismissal, government shall have full authority to act during its period of office in order to meet the fast-moving events of the new age of science and to carry out the will of the people as expressed by their majority vote.

    That national parliaments in each member country of Europe a Nation shall have full power over all social and cultural problems, subject only to the overriding power of European Government in finance and its other defined spheres, in particular the duty of economic leadership.

    That the economic leadership of government shall be exercised by means of the wage-price mechanism, first to secure similar conditions of fair competition in similar industries by payment of the same wages, salaries, pensions and fair profits as science increases the means of production for an assured market, thus securing continual equilibrium between production and consumption, eliminating slump and unemployment and progressively raising the standard of life. Capital and credit shall be made available to the underdeveloped regions of Europe from the surplus at present expatriated from our continent.

    That intervention by government at the three key points of wages, prices, where monopoly conditions prevail, and the long-term purchase of agricultural and other primary products alone is necessary to create the third system of a producers’ state in conditions of a free society which will be superior both to rule by finance under American capitalism and to rule by bureaucracy under communist tyranny. It is at all times our duty in the solidarity of the European community to assist each other to combat the destruction of European life and values from without and from within by the overt and covert attack of communism.

    That industries already nationalised will be better conducted by workers’ ownership or syndicalism than by state bureaucracy, but the system of the wage-price mechanism will, in full development, make irrelevant the question of the ownership of industry by reason of the decisive economic leadership of elected government, and will bring such prosperity that workers will have no interest in controversies which belong to the nineteenth century.

    With the creation of Europe a Nation as a third power strong enough to maintain peace, a primary object of the European government will be to secure the immediate and simultaneous withdrawal of both Russian and American forces from the occupied territories and military bases of Europe. Europe must be as strongly armed as America or Russia until mutual disarmament can be secured by the initiative of an European leadership which will have no reason to fear economic problems caused by disarmament, as has capitalist America, nor to desire the force of arms for purposes of imperialist aggression as does communist Russia.

    The emergence of Europe as a third great power will bring to an end the political and military power of UNO, because these three great powers will then be able to deal directly and effectively with each other. The peace of the world can best be maintained by direct and continuous contact between these three great powers which represent reality instead of illusion and hypocrisy. The production of nuclear weapons will be confined to these three great powers until mutual disarmament can be secured.

    Colonialism shall be brought to an end. A way will be found to maintain or to create in Africa states under government of non-European but African origin amounting to about two-thirds of the continent, and other states under government by peoples of European and Afrikaaner origin amounting to about one-third. In non-European territory, any European who chose to remain should stay without a vote or political rights. He would be in the same position as any resident in another country, subject to the maintenance of basic human rights within their own communities, by reciprocal arrangement between European and non-European territories. Conversely, any non-European remaining in European territory would have neither vote nor political rights, subject to the maintenance of the same basic human rights. Multi-racial government breaks down everywhere in face of the non-European demand for one man one vote which they learnt from the West, and becomes a squalid swindle of loaded franchises to postpone the day of surrender rather than to solve the problem. Better by far is the clean settlement of clear division. Europe must everywhere decide what it will hold and what it will relinquish. The Europeans in union will have the power of decision. Today they lack only the will. We will hold what is vital to the life of Europe, and we will in all circumstances be true to our fellow-Europeans, particularly where they are now threatened in African territory.

    The space of a fully united Europe including the lands to be liberated by American and Russian withdrawal, the British Dominions and other European overseas territories, and approximately one-third of Africa is a just requirement for the full life of the Europeans in a producer and consumer system which shall be free of usury and capitalism, of anarchy and communism. Within the wide region of our nation the genius of modern science shall join with the culture of three millennia to attain ever higher forms of European life which shall continue to be the inspiration of mankind.’”

    https://www.oswaldmosley.com/european-declaration/

  16. @German_reader

    ‘…the “revisionism” on Unz review is a total dead-end imo…’

    Yeah. On the other hand, as an objective proposition, we can all recognize that right and wrong is rarely entirely on one side or the other in the real world.

    Perhaps you’re simply somewhat skittish about admitting that there might have been something to be said for Hitler’s position? After all, it was hardly natural that East Prussia should have been physically divided from the rest of the German state — and if the corridor was partly Polish, it was also partly German.

    This isn’t to say that Hitler was right to start the war — nor is it to agree with the still more dubious proposition that giving into his demands would have appeased him (it really had been demonstrated that that approach wasn’t going to work). However, it doesn’t follow that therefore one should go all the way over to the other side of the issue and insist that Hitler was completely in the wrong.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  17. S says:

    Britain, and now the US of course, has long pushed for Europe to construct a continental super-state of itself modeled upon the United States.

    A person might make much of the EU being called a ‘union’, and not a ‘USE’, but forget the United States is also known as the [North] American Union. As for whether Europe has a bicameral legislature just as the US does, or a parliament, I don’t think it’s promoters particularly care about.

    I see Kalergi’s efforts (by and large) to be continuation of what the US/UK had already been pushing.

    Below is a link to a London Times editorial published in March, 1848 exhorting revolutionary Europe to construct a super state of themselves modeled upon the United States. [Interestingly, the US publication which had republished this, added the commentary that someday a future USE and the USA may join together in ‘peace and free trade’.]

    W T Stead, a close associate of Cecil Rhodes, published a book in 1899 excerpted and linked below also lauding a USE.

    Stead in his writing specifically references Germany’s unification experience and concludes it should therefore be possible for Europe to do the same.

    The brief quote here included in the book was from a British general election ‘elector’s catechism’ Stead had published in 1880.

    The United States of Europe (1899)

    Question: “What is England’s mission abroad?”

    Answer: “To maintain the European Concert – that germ of the United States of Europe – against isolated action; to establish a Roman peace among the dark-skinned races of Asia, Polynesia, and Africa; to unite all branches of the English-speaking race in an Anglo-Saxon Bond, and to spread Liberty, Civilization and Christianity throughout the world.” (“The elector’s Catechism.” General Election of 1880)

    https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924079579292&view=1up&seq=328

    https://attackingthedevil.co.uk/steadworks/europa.php

  18. German_reader says:
    @Colin Wright

    and if the corridor was partly Polish, it was also partly German.

    But by 1939 it wasn’t anymore, it had become predominantly Polish. Of course one might argue that there were grounds for resentment on the German side about that, it was certainly partly a result of a lot of petty discrimination after 1918 (but then Poles could argue that this was a reaction to their previous oppression under Prussian rule). Resentment and a desire for revenge aren’t a good basis for sincere negotiations though.

    However, it doesn’t follow that therefore one should go all the way over to the other side of the issue and insist that Hitler was completely in the wrong.

    I actually think Hitler was at least partially correct about many issues, imo there is a lot to be said in favour of Ernst Nolte’s view about him and his movement (National Socialism as an extreme particularist reaction to the universalist threat of Bolshevism, and maybe early globalism as well, as manifested in Kalergi and his creepy visions of a racially mixed future). I will also admit that I probably would have believed in him myself at the time. But I don’t see how with all the knowledge available today one can defend his actions in the way all those “revisionists” on Unz review do. The man was incapable of self-reflection or even a little bit of moderation, instead always taking the most extreme and violent choices. Even if one thinks he was justified in starting a war over Danzig and the corridor, why wasn’t he content with restoring the borders of 1914 and letting a Polish rump state exist as a German satellite (something which Britain and France maybe could have eventually accepted)? Instead he tried to abolish Poland and had his murder squads kill tens of thousands of Poles by the end of 1939. Not only was this amoral, it also made any political settlement impossible.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Bookish1
    , @Colin Wright
  19. Bookish1 says:
    @German_reader

    There is an entire other side to what you saying that follows logic as you are trying to do.

  20. @German_reader

    ‘… The man was incapable of self-reflection or even a little bit of moderation, instead always taking the most extreme and violent choices…’

    Thinking about that, I’m not sure that’s justified. He was entirely willing to write off Alsace and Lorraine if it would preserve peace with France, and he did write off the South Tyrol for the sake of an Italian alliance.

    On the domestic front, whatever one may say about his compromises with capitalism, I doubt if they conformed with his ideological preferences. Ditto for his church policy, and his willingness to at least publicly abandon the euthanasia campaign.

    Then there was his willingness to accept an army with the traditional hierarchy in preference to the SA.

    I don’t think you can reasonably say Hitler was unwilling to compromise. Perhaps he didn’t make the compromises you and I would have preferred — but that’s a different matter.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  21. Truth3 says:

    Oh my God… Hitler’s Truths unleashed.

    Lock the door. Bolt the windows. Get into the storm cellar.

    Gonna be a strong wind blowing now… precursor of a tornado.

  22. Truth3 says:

    Likewise, the Jew particularly welcomes such a concept: in its consistent observance it leads to racial chaos and confusion, to a bastardizaton and niggerization of civilized humanity, and finally to such a deterioration in its racial value that the Hebrew who keeps himself free from it can gradually rise to be master of the world. At least, he imagines that he can one day ascend to become the brain of this humanity that has been made worthless.

    Wow. Just take a look at the USA today.

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
  23. German_reader says:
    @Colin Wright

    He was capable of tactical concessions, but imo that’s different from real compromise where you try to achieve a sincere understanding with the other side. Alsace-Lorraine was still annexed, euthanasia was still practiced (just not as overtly), and after the war he intended to break the power of the churches. He even increasingly resented his dependence on the traditional army elite, the growth of the Waffen-SS must at least in part be seen as an attempt to create a parallel force. Hitler just wasn’t agreement-capable, and that was an important reason for his eventual failure.

  24. Sam Spade says: • Website

    I see nothing wrong with Hitler trying to unite German speaking peoples with similar cultural values. The problem was that France and Britain were afraid of that realization.

    • Replies: @Catiline
  25. @German_reader

    ‘He was capable of tactical concessions, but imo that’s different from real compromise where you try to achieve a sincere understanding with the other side…’

    Perhaps. On the other hand, he was a messianic and revolutionary figure. You can’t expect him to behave like Bill Clinton.

  26. neutral says:

    As usual Hitler is correct on this issue.

  27. @German_reader

    The world of Europe, as a racial group is at an empasse. Sir Charlie Bean, former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England has just come out with an enormous statement of failure regarding the position of at least UK. Given his former lofty title and all of the gobbledeegook that he’s now proliferating, one can see why he merely in charge of cupcakes and other assortments during meetings at The Old Lady.
    Certainly Jacob Rothschild’s little foot warmer bed puppy and current Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, a Jew, Mossad’s favourite UK agent ‘Not So’ Priti Patel, who was banned from office when she was caught in secret meetings with Mossad and other high officials of the crime outfit, Israel. And Sajid ‘David’ Javid, they throw the J on to put goyim off the scent. They’re all Jews, at least by virtue of the fruits of their labours: John 7:1 “After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.” KJV.

    [MORE]

    As the obvious notion that Hitler was an agent for the Jews has fell by the wayside, and rightly so due to zero substantial evidence. So, the book ‘A Case For Germany’ shows a much truer version of a Germany that it seems the world pines for right now, as the substantial evidence mounts that Jews have indeed been happy merchants of death for a long, long time.Indeed they’re often referred to as the World’s Largest Death Cult, or The Well Poisoners, or Communists, Bolsheviks, Capitalists, certainly the concept of conscience is foreign to their ideology.
    Just harking back to Sir Charlie Bean’s article, Forget Brexit – the UK productivity crisis is a threat to capitalism, so the cupcake adminstrator larps on about how his indiscretions have caused utter chaos stemming from his time now at the Bank of England, and that they’re hell bent, pun intended on driving England, a Germanic Nation, into the ground. These cries are very definitely not new cries and reverberate on a much grander historical and geographical scale. From the time of Qin, to Hammurabbi, from Moses to Lenin, from Sabazios, aka Zeus to Bacchus, aka Dionysus, the culprits of chaos have a sport going with everyone else’s lives. Unanswerable to anyone with real power, as they drown them out by cutting off their credit at the banking institutions, then disgrace them publicly by tarnishing their reputations so that no one can do business with them. It’s far from new, it’s a model for murder, intrigue and continuous causing of chaos as the smoke screens to hide behind.
    The problem for anti-Hitlerites is quite a massive one, as it’s only been Hitler to forge anything of a complete resistance, while encouraging inventions like the binary computer to be invented and thus change the whole face of Jewish hegemony, in that there is now an avenue to undermine their court antics by targeting the root of their many faced sociopathic doctrines. Without a racially based political doctrine Jews can always simply pin a different badge on, and now they’re not religious, political or social Jews, but there’s the big giveaway, as they are murderous mischief makers, they will always biologically Jewy. Obviously there’s an endless ton of stuff that can be written from top to bottom about the world could prosper and thrive without their Shetar system sitting on top and oppressing every world body by despotism, but is there any need? Hitler, and his group, fashioned National Socialism for a basis of a template to be, as was, used successfully,and hugely so, in Vichy France, Holland, Belgium, Norway for a short spell, and Denmark, among others. Without the ‘six million’ counter punch, the Jews have got a lot of ground to make up, and most of the potency of the ‘six million’ is all but gone, barring a few residual token smegs, Bill Esterson is A Liar and such like, they are buckled to a degree.
    Now, Putin has been larping on his Betsi channel, where nearly every video is about how Hitler kicks him in the nether regions everyday when he wakes up in the Kremlin and his Perestroika Deception is being foiled. Which way now Jew?

  28. @German_reader

    “but it’s not like the Germans there were oppressed”
    Germans were oppressed all through Poland at this time. Germany complained to the LON repeatedly about German deaths etc.
    Poland was able to act so high handedly on issues such as Danzig because they received endless encouragement to do so from Britain, France & the US. And then came Britain’s “blank cheque” to Poland….
    http://www.jrbooksonline.com/polish_atrocities.htm

  29. Catiline says:
    @Mitleser

    Well stated. But I’m afraid it’s a bit to complicated for Willie “Arthur de Gobineau” Durocher and his little band of Anglo/Jewish followers and German/Nazi dupes.

  30. Catiline says:
    @Sam Spade

    Correct, and a similar fear motivates Britain and America (and Russia) with respect to the EU.

  31. @Matty

    Francis Parker Yockey had some similar ideas on forming a European ‘Imperium’ to save Western civilzation:

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Francis_Parker_Yockey#The_impact_of_Yockey.27s_ideas

  32. romar says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Isn’t “bastardization” as a prelude to the Jews exercising “brainsmanship” the path that the West is now taking?
    Just asking…

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  33. Big Daddy says:

    Hitler read, led, struggled and finally triumphed after 20 years of strenuous effort. Give him credit.

    The world would be much better off if GB and USA had let him finish off Bolshevism.

    If you read real history the bad guys since Henry VIII are the Brits.

    • Replies: @Just passing through
  34. @Big Daddy

    The world would be much better off if GB and USA had let him finish off Bolshevism.

    More accurately, the world would be a better place if Stalin had let him finish off the Anglo-Zionists

    Which countries have undergone more cultural degeneration since the end of the war, the Western European and North American countries, or the Eastern Bloc countries where Bolshevism had taken hold?

  35. Excellent article by Guillaume Durocher. The theme of Hitler vs. Kalergi is spot on the mark today because the Kalergi plan is now being blamed or celebrated on the Old Continent for the accelerating destruction of the traditional nations of Europe. Too bad the political philosophy of Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi filters only obliquely through the writer’s quoted critique from the count’s demonized contemporary.

    Hitler and Kalergi came of age in the dying polyglot Austro-Hungarian Empire. Both experienced a Europe at its global peak and then in its abrupt downfall. Seeing the problem clearly, they simultaneously drew up their competing blueprints for a glorious pan-European rebirth from the senseless catastrophe of World War I. Propaganda aside, their separate visions were very pan-European, probably why both Merkel and Macron were recent recipients of the Kalergi prize and Coudenhove-Kalergi himself had been the first recipient of the vaunted Karl’s prize, named in honor of Charlemagne.

    But the ideas of Kalergi and Hitler had a lot more in common than pan-European vision. Neither one could dispense with the bedrock notion of culture-bearers imbued with a visionary sense of history, culture, knowledge and noblesse oblige. This was the sine qua non for any new ruling cast endowed with a higher sense of responsibility for all Europeans. Both Hitler and Kalergi had only contempt for the souless plutocrats who rushed to fill the postwar power vacuum by buying off the office holders of the newly formed and ineffectual “democracies”, although this abberation has proven to be no temporary phenomenon.

    Both regarded the core idea of democracy as an impossible farce. For Kalergi, no progress, and therefore no viable future beyond stagnation, had ever come forth from the ignorant masses without an able and resolute leadership, both intellectual and ethical, near the top of the social pyramid. Both Hitler and Kalergi were convinced that the transmission of such higher values of a successful society was closely tied to genetic endowment.

    Kalergi idealized two indispensable leadership classes of the great European past: hereditary landed aristocracy (Blutadel) that was finally corrupted into indolent courtiers (Hofadel) by absolutism, and the intellectual aristocracy (Geistesadel), where he identified the potential of the Jews in place of the fading Christian clergy. The poles of Kalergi nobility were already on display in two contrasting professions: the military officer cast and the urban professional journalists, including many Jews.

    He assumed the masses of Europeans could only stagnate without leadership drawn from a responsible elite of strong character and iron will as well from as an urban intellectual elite, which the Jews may be destined to lead. “Incest creates characteristic types; mixture creates original personalities,” he wrote in his 1925 German manifesto Praktischer Idealismus, arguing that the vaunted Jewish intellect derives the former and that the struggle of the Jews to survive apart under adverse conditions selected for useful character traits such as will, vitality and action.

    “What mainly distinguishes the Jews from the average urban dwellers is that they are products of incest. Strength of character combined with intellectual acumen predestines the Jews to their outsized role in the leadership of urban humanity, to be the false as well as the authentic aristocracy of the intellect, to be the proponents of capitalism or of revolution.”

    The most striking difference remaining today between the pro-Semitic Kalergi and anti-Semitic Hitler seems nested in Europe’s perennial Jewish question: Will it be a future with them or without them. Hitler’s plan for Nordic political leadership of a new Europe was smashed, not for lack of popularity in Europe, but by a formidable alignment of largely external rivals, namely Eurasian Bolshevism and Anglo-Americans together. Kalergi’s plan for a dilution of Europe’s competing national identities in a docile multicultural melting pot guided by a new breed of philosopher kings hasn’t fared much better. Unable to put forth a truly inspiring and unifying myth, the feckless EU is now falling apart slowly as borderless immigration feeds alienation while reviving nationalism and populism. Spengler was right; greatness has a shelf-life.

    Europe’s decent toward global mediocracy and insignificant certainly isn’t occuring for lack of Jews. Even without them, European media propagandists never miss an opportunity to score points for their unresponsive political hierarchy without invoking the dimming memory of mistreated Jews. Yet the imperial United States, which birthed post-WWII Europe and encouraged the EU, now also seems to be following a similar downward trajectory, even though its many Jews, noble or otherwise, have rarely even been so prominent and empowered anywhere else.

    (Incidentally, Guillaume Durocher, Hitler’s “Mongols” remark may not have been sarcastic. Kalergi also used that term as well as Chassars in his description of Jews.)

    • Agree: AltSerrice
    • Thanks: SeekerofthePresence
    • Replies: @AltSerrice
  36. utu says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    You and probably Hitler overplay the role of nurture in nature+nurture equation. When he talks about ‘bastardization’ it is a result of wrong attribution. Possibly on purpose. Just like a mediocre computer technician who when confronted with particularly strong virus that he can’t remove decides that destroying the computer is his only choice so he must misattribute the cause. Destroy hardware because it is hardware’s fault while in actuality it was software problem.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  37. @utu

    – – – you probably overplay the role of the “superiority” of the “software.”

    To the extent German Jews were viewed as “superior,” Arthur Ruppin believed this was so because German Jews (Ashkenazi) were not Semites, they were “Indo-Germanic.”

    Etan Bloom writes of Ruppin:

    The assertion of Jewish inferiority vis-à-vis the European and particularly the Germanic, peoples rested in large part on the conviction – well established in racial discourse since the 1870s – that the Jews were Semites and on the image of Semites as barbaric or uncivilized.
    The Zionist discourse before Ruppin generally accepted as self-evident the assertion that the Jews were Semites (racially, culturally or both). Indeed, in their discourse, this category was charged with new meanings, mainly of transvaluation rhetoric, which attached to the Semites new positive attributes and stressed its mutability and ability for racial regeneration (Rogoff, 1997, 195-230).

    Ruppin’s new argument that the [Ashkenazi] Jews were not Semites, which will be discussed further on, was not entirely exceptional. Other writers and researchers also expressed this view, among them the American Reform Rabbi Emil Hirsch, who wrote under the explicit influence of Chamberlain that the modern Jew (as well as the Jews in ancient times) did not have Semitic blood (Silver 2005, 55). The Russian- Jewish-American anthropologist Maurice Fishberg (1872-1934) wrote that “the Jews in Russia are not Semites at all […] and actually belong to an entirely different race” (Fishberg 1905, 9).142

    Ruppin was fully on-board with the eugenic theories of Chamberlain and others of that school of thought, going one step further to argue that multiple races were represented in “Jewry:”

    Nevertheless, Ruppin’s new approach to the Semitism of the Jews, as he explained it, was based on the researches of one of his teachers, Felix von Luschan, who argued that the Jews were actually a combination of races. In Luschan’s view, the assertion that linguistic unity indicated racial origin and affinity was mistaken. One could argue plausibly, as did many over the course of the nineteenth century, for a common Indo- Germanic family of languages; it was foolish to move from there, as so many had, to the assertion that all of the “Indo-Germanic nations” were united anthropologically (Luschan 1892, 94-96; 97-100; see: Hart 2000, 175). This theory, which eventually led Luschan to claim that it was impossible to define the Jews as a race (and hence to reject Zionism), functioned in Ruppin’s theory as the basis for the differentiation and hierarchization of the Jewish racial types. Luschan’s theory was presented in Ruppin’s writings as a liberating breakthrough. . .

    Thus, Ruppin could comfortably apply his theoretical understandings to categorize Ashkenazi Jews as superior to “semitic” Jews, which he also sub-divided into “Arabian Jews” and “Bedouin Jews,” whom Ruppin attempted to link to Sephardim, even as he “persisted” in trying to link Ashkenazi Jews to Hittites, an Indo-Germanic group:

    Ruppin’s persistence in trying to produce a link between the Sephardim and the Bedouins was parallel to his persistence in trying to find similarities between the Ashkenazi Jews and the Hittites, who belonged, in the anthropological and linguistic discourse, to the Indo-Germanic family (Doron 1977, 218).146 He wanted to find proof and establish a connection between the Ashkenazi Jew, whom he saw as the true Urjude (original Jew, i.e. the dominant or positive type in the Jewish race), and the European Indo-Germanic races, and to emphasize the weak connection of this type of Jew to the Semitic race.

    Arthur Ruppin, who “produced Hebrew culture in Palestine,” was a hard-core, Aryan supremacist anti-semite! He even dabbled in canards such as Jewish avariciousness, concluding that, If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and has a huge bank account, it must be a duck, but unlike a zebra, a duck could change its stripes:

    “It was not the Jews who were avaricious, it was the Semites. For him [Ruppin], the healthy original Jews, who were responsible for the good qualities of Jewish culture, belonged to the Ashkenazi Indo-Germanic race. Though some Ashkenazi Jews preserved some Semitic elements (responsible for example for their uncontrollable greed), “modern race research” proved that the Semitic element in the Jewish Volk was slowly diminishing. In the same manner, the Ashkenazi Zionist national revival demonstrated how the natural eugenic process of Mother Nature herself gradually weeded out the racial and cultural Semitic elements.”

    https://www.unz.com/article/sighing-at-the-secrets-of-jewish-genius/#comment-3700939

    Applying Ruppin’s theories to your software analogy, Jews in Germany could aspire to become the “brains” of (a mongrelized) humanity to the extent that they completely shed vestiges of Semitism and became more fully Indo-Germanic. But since shedding Semitism and becoming more fully Indo-Germanic would only put Jews on the same plane as Europeans/Germans, those peoples had to be “slowly diminished.”

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
  38. @German_reader

    Roosevelt encouraged Britain to give Poland the security guarantee because Roosevelt wanted war.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  39. @St-Germain

    Nice to see someone else who has actually read Kalergi’s Practical Idealism. If it weren’t for Kalergi’s fondness for Jews (most likely due to his own social circle and life as a mixed-race man) and his belief than non-European ethnicities could positively contribute to a European melting pot, his ideas were quite workable and ‘based’ for lack of a better term.

    The Europe of the future should take the best from both Hitler and Kalergi should it wish to succeed.

  40. @German_reader

    He was capable of tactical concessions, but imo that’s different from real compromise where you try to achieve a sincere understanding with the other side.

    This is absurd. Hitler was so willing to compromise with England that he was almost more of an imperial boot-licker than the Kaiser had been.

    And what sincere understanding could Hitler have reached with people – Churchill and Roosevelt – who were willing to strategically bomb tens of thousands of German civilians? Someday the history will tell the truth about the Allied commanders: they were not interested in peace. They were interested in destroying Germany. The only Germany they’re interested in seeing alive is a hobbled Germany, ala Weimar and today. This is the historical record. Read David Irving.

  41. Truth3 says:

    The early Americans (Europeans, mostly English) conquered the native Americans with an entire array of tactics… deception, treaty, disease (intentional or not), and war.

    In this way… Lebensraum… was acquired for these ‘Heroes’ of the USA. But… the original native Americans were not Jews, were they? So Jews say nothing about this… even as they were the ones that brought slaves to the continents of North and South America.

    In 1938, Germany had been partially restored economically and militarily, though not territorially.

    Hitler attempted to restore the Reich to it’s previous boundaries. Austria, Sudetenland, West and East Prussia, militarization of the Rhineland, were his first priorities… Where German is spoken is our Soil.

    But… and this is the main problem… Communism had attempted to subjugate Spain and Germany. So Germany, after fighting back the Reds in Germany, helped Franco defeat Communism in Spain.

    Hitler wanted no war in the West. He admired the British Empire. To assure that the USSR would not object to his goal of retrieveing Prussian lands, he made a Pact with Stalin. They divided Poland between them.

    Meanwhile, Hitler wanted the Jews out of Germany. They declared War on Germany in 1933.

    The fatal moment came when the USSR Red Army moved into attack position in former Polish and Baltic States territories.

    Hitler was faced with the most impossible dilemma. Attempt to invade Britain (which refused his pleas for peace) before the Americans (pushed by Jews) intervened… and have the Russians walk in the back door to savage Germany and conquer Europe…

    Or…

    Turn East, and destroy the Jewish-Bolshevik menace for once and for all.

    The Man wanted to save Germany. He faced Germany’s greatest threat.

    The rest is History.

    If he had really wanted to kill all the Jews (the Jewish lie of Shoah), it would have been done far differently than is alleged.

    Take the case of Auschwitz and Zyklon B, a heat released insecticide… far better would be to use Producer Gas (CO, carbon monoxide). Auschwitz was a work camp, with swimming pool, theatres, brothel, and hospital for inmates. The limited crematoria had no way of dealing with but a fraction of the claimed deaths.

    Take the case of Treblinka, Sobibor, and Maidanek. Why use Diesel engines to gas suffocate, when Producer Gas (CO) would be far more effective? Then, the absurd stories of burial, exhumation and outdoor cremation… absolute nonsensical.

    Germans (and I know them well) are an inherently logical people.

    People died at Auschwitz. Jews had a patholigical fear of showers and cleansing. They got sick (typhus! other duseases) and the Germans tried to stop it by using Zyklon to regulary disinfect clothing and bedding. The morgue and crematoria were set up to accommodate the 30 to 150 people that would die of all causes daily.

    If the facts elsewhere are not enough… you would never be convinced. So what? Believe the lies… and try to keep using it as cover for Israeli crimes.

    But when you die, you will know the Truth.

  42. anarchyst says:

    /Jews had a pathological fear of showers and cleansing. They got sick (typhus! other diseases) and the Germans tried to stop it by using Zyklon to regularly disinfect clothing and bedding./
    Even after the summation of WW2, the jews had to be forced to use toilets instead of defecating on the floor…
    Patton quote on the disgusting nature of jews:
    “where, although room existed, the Jews were crowded together to an appalling extent, and in practically every room there was a pile of garbage in one corner which was also used as a latrine. The Jews were only forced to desist from their nastiness and clean up the mess by the threat of the butt ends of rifles. Of course, I know the expression “lost tribes of Israel” applied to the tribes which disappeared – not to the tribe of Judah from which the current sons of bitches are descended. However, it is my personal opinion that this too is a lost tribe – lost to all decency.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  43. German_reader says:
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Roosevelt encouraged Britain to give Poland the security guarantee because Roosevelt wanted war.

    That sounds illogical to me, if anything the British security guarantee should have established deterrence and made a war less likely. The problem just was that Hitler couldn’t be deterred and was determined to get his war of expansion, no matter the risks. But he didn’t have to start a war with Poland, that was his choice alone.

    • Disagree: Vaterland
  44. Fox says:
    @Mitleser

    That’s really backwards. I recommend you to look at a map of Germany say, 700 years, 500 years ago, 200 years ago and now and then you can see how Germany continuously shrank through pressure from all sides. In addition, it was not Hitler who wanted or instigated the pan-European war, or had any hand in the world war, that was all willed and set in motion outside of Germany. That Germany fought back is only natural. Had Germany been victorious, a pan-European state would have been established, probably closely modeled on the fabulously successful First Reich, but without its endless backstabbers from all directions the wind blows. The First Reich was not unlike de Gaulle’s suggestion of a Europe of federated independent nations. (I.e, retain your national characteristics, your sense of right and wrong, your customs, language, but cooperate in defense, industry, production, and important aspects of foreign relations).

  45. Fox says:
    @German_reader

    Which part of his suggestions about the Korridor were unreasonable?

  46. Fox says:
    @German_reader

    How did you feel about the attack of NATO on Serbia in 1999?

    • Replies: @German_reader
  47. @German_reader

    ‘That sounds illogical to me, if anything the British security guarantee should have established deterrence and made a war less likely. The problem just was that Hitler couldn’t be deterred and was determined to get his war of expansion, no matter the risks…’

    Actually, the available evidence suggests that Hitler thought Britain and France would back down, and he would be able to destroy Poland without starting a larger war.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    , @Fox
  48. @Fox

    ‘…That Germany fought back is only natural. Had Germany been victorious, a pan-European state would have been established, probably closely modeled on the fabulously successful First Reich, but without its endless backstabbers from all directions the wind blows. The First Reich was not unlike de Gaulle’s suggestion of a Europe of federated independent nations. (I.e, retain your national characteristics, your sense of right and wrong, your customs, language, but cooperate in defense, industry, production, and important aspects of foreign relations).’

    Meh. The Holy Roman Empire had a decidedly bumpy ride throughout. It was more a matter of occasional successful emperors punctuated by long periods of decline, intramural strife, conflicts with the Papacy, etc than the reverse.

    It certainly had its points, but I wouldn’t describe it as ‘fabulously successful’ for any era extending beyond one reign.

    • Replies: @Truth3
  49. German_reader says:
    @Colin Wright

    Actually, the available evidence suggests that Hitler thought Britain and France would back down

    I know (he thought the Western democracies were weak and averse to fighting anyway), but he clearly was willing to take the risk of a war with Britain and France. A less reckless politician however might have been deterred by Britain’s security guarantee, and imo that calculation was the intention behind it, not some hidden plot to lure Germany into a war.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @utu
    , @Dube
  50. German_reader says:
    @Fox

    I supported it at the time, but then I was only a teenager. I’ve since come to regard it as wrong and illegitimate.

    • Replies: @Tsigantes
  51. @German_reader

    ‘I know (he thought the Western democracies were weak and averse to fighting anyway), but he clearly was willing to take the risk of a war with Britain and France. A less reckless politician however might have been deterred by Britain’s security guarantee, and imo that calculation was the intention behind it, not some hidden plot to lure Germany into a war.’

    I agree. The notion that Britain and France, in particular, had any desire to ‘lure’ Germany into a war is absurd, taken in context.

    They’d been utterly traumatized by World War One, and basically, what they wanted was to be allowed to keep what they had, in peace.

    Hitler’s great trump card — which he played successfully over and over — was that he was more willing to risk war than anyone else was.

    Poland was more of the same — except Britain had finally realized this was never going to end, and France was willing to follow Britain’s lead. My point is merely that Hitler was placing the same bet he always had — it’s just that this time he turned out to have miscalculated.

    • Agree: German_reader
  52. Hitler wanted war alright — but a small, brief war, that would incrementally improve his position.

    He’d wanted a war with Czechoslovakia as well — but again, in isolation.

    It’s actually interesting to realize that this tendency was a defect — or turned out to be a defect. He kept thinking in terms of making a small gain rather than striking the single winning blow.

    Incredibly, after he broke through at Sedan the next Spring, and decisive victory was right there, he wanted to halt, and then to turn southeast and snap up the Longwy iron fields or something. He practically had to be dragged kicking and screaming to advance to the Channel and secure victory in one stroke.

    The same thing happened next year in Russia after he reached Smolensk — fatally. If you’ve got a bear by the jugular, you cut its throat while you’ve the chance. But instead of driving immediately for Moscow — and in my opinion, precipitating the collapse of the Soviet Union — he opted to turn south, capture Kiev, take still more prisoners, and secure the Ukraine. All very nice, but not fatal for the Soviet Union.

    Again, he chose the incremental over the decisive — and lost his one decent chance of winning the war thereby.

    This tendency wouldn’t have been fatal if he’d been in a position of material superiority — such criticisms and far worse can be made of Allied strategy — but Hitler wasn’t in a position of material superiority.

    Once general war broke out, his only hope was to strike the most decisive blows possible whenever opportunity afforded. This he failed to do.

  53. utu says:
    @German_reader

    “…and imo that calculation was the intention behind it, not some hidden plot to lure Germany into a war….”

    Whose intention? Is it possible that the entity you attribute intentions to had a multiple personalities? Is it possible that the “the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing” could be by design? Is it possible that on some other channels Hitler was getting opposite signals form England? What about Rudolf Hess mission to Scotland? Could it indicate that in Hitler’s circle the belief in others side of the entity was very strong?

  54. neutral says:
    @German_reader

    No yours is the faulty logic, if Britain did not want war with Germany it would not declare that it will go to war for Polands sake. It wanted war and it knew that defending stolen German lands in Poland was a good way to start it

    • Replies: @German_reader
  55. Dube says:
    @German_reader

    From The Polish Review, Vol. 21, no. 1/2, 1976, published by the University of Illinois Press; Table of Contents including The Anglo-Polish Agreement of August 25, 1939, by Wladyslaw W. Kulski.

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/i25777363

    The author co-wrote the Treaty document with his UK counterpart, Gerald Fitzmaurice, with the former reporting to Beck, the latter to Halifax. The negotiations and development of the agreement are described in this 17-page article. (There is a registration wall; one’s institutional library may offer access.)

    Kulski writes (p. 34):

    The [Molotov Ribbentrop] neutrality treaty [August 23, 1939] dispelled the last British hopes that the Soviet Union would join an anti-German coalition. The bad news depressed all of us present on that day at the Polish Embassy. We wondered whether the British government would sign the [Anglo-Polish] alliance under circumstances so dramatically changed. As a matter of fact, Lord Halifax appeared hesitant and perplexed in the conversation which he had with the Polish Ambassador on the same day. However, I was informed by Fitzmaurice on August 24, that the Foreign Secretary was ready to sign the treaty. We know now from postwar British publications that the problem of Polish alliance was, however, re-examined on August 25 by the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the British Cabinet which finally authorized Lord Halifax to sign the treaty on the same day.

    (P. 26) It was not the Polish Government, but the British which transmitted on June 24, through the Polish Embassy in London, the proposed text of the Anglo-Polish Treaty. This British project consisted of the following provisions: (…)

    6. The two parties would consult each other in any situation which might call into operation the undertaking of mutual assistance and would fully inform each other of of any developments threatening the independence of either party. [What London wanted was to preserve its freedom of exerting a restraining influence on Warsaw, and to prevent any rash Polish action which might precipitate the war with Germany.]

    Those are the words of Wladyslaw Kulski. Some who see this agreement as awarding Poland a “blank check” are reading the Treaty document very carelessly, and falsely, as I have shown elsewhere at UR. The terms of the understanding require that the activating circumstances be “clear,” which means clear to all. There is no obligation without an acknowledged clarity.

    Call this instrument not a “blank check” but rather a curbstone. Of course Hitler decided, fatefully, to jump the curb.

    (P. 37) The signature of the Anglo-Polish Treaty took Hitler by surprise. He believed that his treaty with the Soviet Union would dissuade Britain from signing the alliance. He delayed the date of the German attack to September 1 (it had been originally ordered for August 26). He still hoped that Britain would have second thoughts and abandon Poland to its fate. He was to be disappointed.

  56. Sean says:

    Europeans themselves are of uneven racial quality, whereas the United States of America was made up overwhelmingly of northwest European stock, and so would still be able to dominate Europe.

    Hitler actually thought American had taken the best blood from northern Europe especially Germany. He was preoccupied with German emigration to America, and hoped to tempt German Americans back to the new enlarged Reich where they could have an American style standard of living. .

  57. Rahan says:

    At the time when Hitler wrote those things Europe still controlled much of the world through direct colonies. It, and the US, also had a hefty population percentage of the world, and all of the industry, except Imperial Japan and the barely functional early USSR.

    Today Bangladesh has more people than Russia. Today Pakistan has nukes. Today Turkey and Brazil have a higher industrial capacity than most *white* countries. Today is not yesterday. Today Europe can only survive united. Even Sir Oswald Mosley saw that. https://www.counter-currents.com/2010/11/europe-a-nation/ Today’s EU is no more dysfunctional due to being a voluntary union, than is the USA. The question is for healthy forces to take enough power within the institutions to stop the union’s necrosis.

    Plus, the Anglosphericals, being a sea race, can never *really* imagine what it’s like to be always surrounded by land competitors who can crush you. It’s easy to babble, for example, about patchwork anarcho-capitalist counties, when you’re not on the same landmass as China, Russia, the Arab world, and so on. When world war didn’t mean thousands of tanks rolling across your border and bombers flattening your entire infrastructure, but rather it meant shipping soldiers elsewhere and buying govt bonds.

    But if you’re actually on such a boiling and lethal landmass–either unite or disappear.

    Just because GloboHomo takes over cities, counties, states, unions, schools, ministries, newspapers, television, and churches, doesn’t mean we should therefore ditch cities, counties, states, unions, schools, ministries, newspapers, television, and churches as concepts.

    It means we have to take them back.

    • Agree: Catiline
  58. German_reader says:
    @neutral

    defending stolen German lands in Poland

    The lands ceded to Poland after WW1 mostly weren’t unambigously German (unlike the territories annexed to Poland after WW2) and had been part of the Polish commonwealth before the partitions in the 18th century. Posen province was clearly predominantly Polish, and the corridor was at the very least ethnically mixed. And by 1939 the situation had again changed in favour of Polish demographics. So I don’t think one can say Hitler’s war on Poland was based on a just cause, even if there was a lot to criticize about interwar Poland.
    I agree with Colin Wright’s assessment, it’s absurd to pretend Britain and France actively wanted war, Britain in fact tried to accomodate Germany to a considerable extent. But Hitler went too far and had clearly shown that he wasn’t agreement-capable by the dissolution of Czechoslovakia.

    • Disagree: Vaterland
  59. Truth3 says:
    @Colin Wright

    Colin… you do know that using ‘meh’ as an expression outs you as a Yiddish nudnik, don’t you?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  60. @Truth3

    ‘Colin… you do know that using ‘meh’ as an expression outs you as a Yiddish nudnik, don’t you?’

    Curses. I’ve been found out.

  61. Mitleser says:
    @Fox

    From all sides?
    No, only one, the western side where a powerful French state conquered more and more German lands during the early modern age.
    One of the main purposes of the German Confederation was to keep French expansionism in-check, and it did that successfully.

    Federal fortress Ulm, one of five federal fortresses (Landau, Luxembourg, Mainz, Ulm and Rastatt) in south-west Germany whose purpose was to defend the western border of the German Confederation against the French.

  62. @SolontoCroesus

    The assertion of Jewish inferiority vis-à-vis the European and particularly the Germanic, peoples rested in large part on the…

    …fact that in their ‘native habitat’ they exhibited a culture that was a complete failure – that showed little or no development between the 8th century and the 19th. While Western Europe emerged from the Dark Ages, and then had its Renaissance, and its Enlightenment… the hovels of the shtetls remained lice-infested, backward and full of the most ignorant people this side of Darkest Africa.

    FIFYA.

    Western European Jews are fundamentally different from Eastern European Jews – and it’s the latter about whom the societies in Western Europe got agitated from time to time.

    The tsunami of ignorant primitive fuckwits that swept into what later became Germany in the mid-1800s, is the relevant sub-demographic that motivated a lot of ranting by that shouty man with the red armband and little mustache (I forget his name).

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  63. @German_reader

    if anything the British security guarantee should have established deterrence and made a war less likely

    The formal British (and French) guarantee was secret.

    When the Polish leadership was being particularly intransigent during the negotiations over reintegrating Germanophone parts of Poland into the Reich, Von Ribbentrop and Hitler both specifically asked UK and French diplomats whether there was an Anglo-French pact with Poland that would oblige the UK and France to come to Poland’s defence.

    They were both told – repeatedly – that no firm guarantee existed… but it did, as a secret codicil to the “Agreement of Mutual Assistance”. The Agreement itself was wishy-washy, and spoke of ‘assistance’ to Poland if they were attacked by a ‘European coutnry’. The codicil obliged the UK to go beyond ‘military assistance’ if the attacker was, specifically, Germany.

    That Agreement was what caused Hitler to postpone the invasion: he wanted to find out whether the UK and France viewed themselves as obliged to declare war on a ‘European third nation’ that invaded Poland.

    He was told – unambiguously – that there was no such requirement.

    (In the same way: the Arabs were told that the UK would honour its WWI promises of Arab self-determination… when in fact the UK and France – in secret – had made the Sykes-Picot Agreement, carving the territory up between themselves).

    Anyone who ever negotiates with the English and/or French is a fucking idiot if they start from the premise that the Poms and Frogs are acting in good faith. They never have – even with each other – and they never will.

    • Replies: @libertate
    , @Fox
    , @Dube
  64. @German_reader

    “But being at the mercy of Russians, Americans or Chinese isn’t all that great either.”

    It seems to me that Germans are more endangered by being at the mercy of African and middle eastern “immigrants”. The particular problem can be laid at the feet of a European: George Soros, and his lapdog, Angela Merkel.

  65. libertate says:
    @Kratoklastes

    @Kratoklastes

    Anyone who ever negotiates with the English and/or French is a fucking idiot if they start from the premise that the Poms and Frogs are acting in good faith.

    Just so.

    Perfidious Albion

  66. Nothing about Kalergi’s other notables:

    1. He predicted the European union’s capital would be in Brussels.
    2. He said “the man of the future will be a mongrel. The whites races of Europe will be replaced by Afro-Eurasian hybrids”
    3. He designed the EU flag and helped select the Anthem.
    4. He was a friend of Einstein and Ludwig von Mises, the founder of the Libertarians and “Austrian” Economics. (Einstein hated Europeans, and said the Chinese were better and should rule Europe. But when he visited China he started hating the Chinese too!)
    5. The Jews would be the aristocratic “quality” Master Race ruling over the “quantity” people.
    6. Africa would be merged into Europe.
    7. In a 1925 radio interview, he said “We will make Europe into a Mixed race.”
    8. We said the white populations of Europe would be replaced by a brown hybrid race “similar to the ancient Egyptians in appearance.”

    • Replies: @Fox
  67. @German_reader

    Oswald Spengler predicted the Third Reich would last about 15 years maximum, because it was “too extreme”.

    Not a bad prediction IMO.

    • Replies: @Fox
  68. Fox says:
    @Alfred the Great

    Let’s hope that the active predictions of this gnome will be thwarted and all that has been accomplished along the path of reaching their realization will be annulled and voided.

  69. Fox says:
    @Colin Wright

    Remember that Hitler made reasonable suggestions for negotiations with Poland about the status of the Korridor and what privileges the Poles would be granted in Danzig when German.
    As far as I know, the Czechs enjoy certain privileges to this day in the port of Hamburg stemming from the time of the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. So, instead of insisting upon that the German city of Danzig was Polish, and that the 99 % of Germans in the city constituted a minority (Beck), a mutually beneficial resolution of the constant crisis along the German-Polish border, as created by the ignorant assembly at Versailles -not by Germany, not by Hitler- the Poles followed British advice and didn’t even give a reply.
    That the persecution of Germans in Poland increased strongly in summer of 1939, is attested to by the about 70000 German refugees from Poland in Germany, as well as the fact that this was discussed in the British press at the time.
    Interestingly, the war against Serbia in 1999 was brought about (without declaration of war) because of a widespread an relentless campaign in the media against Serbia, but, of course directed from the seats of the power responsible for forcing war in 1939- never mind the asinine contribution by the FRG on account of preventing another “Au-schwitz”-, on account of a mass of refugees from Kosovo and cruelties committed by the Serbs.
    If the stories of the Serbian outrages in Kosovo are true, then the response of Germany in September of 1939 against Polish outrages have to be acknowledged as morally right.
    So, what happens? Germany still has “caused the war on Sept. 1, 1939 without provocation”, while Serbia is being bombed with the pedigree of humanitarianism.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  70. Fox says:
    @Alfred the Great

    What was the basis for Spengler’s prediction?

    • Replies: @Alfred the Great
  71. Fox says:
    @Kratoklastes

    I did not know that this guarantee to Poland by England and France was secret. That casts yet an even more sinister light on the intent of the leadership of these countries. Again and again, I am shocked by the inner workings of ‘”democracy” in the Western style. And that “Democracy” was, and is, an export hit, brought to foreign lands with bombs if needs must in case of unwillingness of the chosen victims of liberation by the “Democracies”.

  72. Dube says:
    @Kratoklastes

    …Von Ribbentrop and Hitler both specifically asked UK and French diplomats whether there was an Anglo-French pact with Poland that would oblige the UK and France to come to Poland’s defence.

    An Anglo-French pact with Poland? A three-party pact? If that was their question, the answer of course would be, No.

    You then proceed, apparently referring to the Anglo-Polish Agreement of August 25, 1939:

    That Agreement [August 25] was what caused Hitler to postpone the invasion [postponed from August 26 to September 1]: he wanted to find out whether the UK and France viewed themselves as obliged to declare war on a ‘European third nation’ that invaded Poland.

    He was told – unambiguously – that there was no such requirement.

    Thank you for your comment. Would you please provide date and text of that exchange, or exchanges.

    • Replies: @Dube
  73. @Fox

    ‘… That the persecution of Germans in Poland increased strongly in summer of 1939, is attested to by the about 70000 German refugees from Poland in Germany…’

    What’s the source for that figure?

  74. @Fox

    I don’t know the basis for his prediction. The ever-trustworthy Wikipedia has this:

    How much envy of the capability of other people in view of one’s lack of it lies hidden in anti-Semitism! […] when one would rather destroy business and scholarship than see Jews in them, one is an ideologue, i.e., a danger for the nation. Idiotic.

    — Oswald Spengler.[104]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Revolution

    Another link has:
    In “The Hour of Decision” (1933), he struck directly at the Nazis: “Those who talk too much about race no longer have it in them. What is needed is not a pure race, but a strong one, which has a nation within it.”

    https://www.vqronline.org/essay/spengler-and-third-reich

    He warned the NSDAP that they might be stopped, but apparently they did not listen:
    A more general piece of counsel, which fell on barren soil, was addressed to National Socialists who believe that “they can ignore the world or oppose it, and build their castles-in-the-air without creating a possibly silent, but very palpable, reaction from abroad.” Spengler’s denunciation of autarchy, which he defined as “the attitude of the dying animal,” was similarly ignored.

    Perhaps this is why he thought the Nazis were going overboard:
    We know that in Germany and Austria the Nazis’ anti-Semitic agitation appealed to shopkeepers and professional men because it promised to eliminate Jewish rivals, but that these same shopkeepers were appalled when the Storm Troopers not only closed up the store of the dirty Jew down the block, but ruined the good Jews—that is, their own customers.

    Bobby Fisher would disagree I guess.

    I’ve heard it said that the nazis failed because they were emulating jews, and goyim just aren’t good at that.

    • Replies: @Fox
  75. All of history comes down to one question: Who is getting paid off by whom?

  76. Dube says:
    @Dube

    Sorry, I should have italicized Kratoklastes’ point to show that it is his observation, not mine.

    He was told – unambiguously – that there was no such requirement..

    Thank you for your comment. Would you please provide date and text of that exchange, or exchanges.

  77. @German_reader

    Winstone Churchill said the purpose of WW2 was to destroy Germany economically and spiritually once and for all.

    The top Polish general said Germany would have war whether it wanted it or not.

    I don’t think Germany could have done much. Being at the heart of Europe made it target #1.

  78. Tsigantes says:
    @utu

    What ‘past greatness’ was Hitler referring to regarding Germany / German Empire ?
    I am mystified.
    A serious question requiring a serious answer.

  79. Tsigantes says:
    @Bookish1

    Hitlers world would have been very very much better.

    …as Hitler’s war across continental Europe presumably proved ?
    Funny how those from Great Powers former or present take such a sanguine view of conquering-by-force. Could it be that magical pure NW European blood running in their veins, their all-goodness… as the Americans , Germans and Israelis historically claim?

    • Replies: @Fox
  80. Tsigantes says:
    @German_reader

    Sorry, but it’s truly unbelievable that anyone could support that war. On what grounds? Over what?
    What was Serbia to you? what God given right had you to “support” it?

  81. Fox says:
    @Tsigantes

    The Second War was for Germany purely defensive. It is really unbelievable that England, France and a third, prodding Power (I let you think about this) , would start a war over a German-Polish border conflict. Instead of seeking and brokering a solution to a problem that was willfully created by the ignorant fools at Versailles, a problem which even the otherwise obtuse Churchill predicted to need a resolution (that was before he pocketed the Focus money and promises of future career opportunities), they opted for war.
    And England (but not France) even rejected the intervention of Mussolini on Sept. 2 to halt the war. Germany agreed. What would have been the hurt of that? Maybe the beloved and longed-for war would have not come about? Again, Hitler opted for a solution at the negotiation table of a grievously serious problem that was not caused by him of Germany.
    It was England and France who extended the war from country to country. You will find that Germany responded either to an English-French provocation (starting with their declaration of war, their attempted invasion of Norway, the English initiation of the bombing war of cities far behind the front lines), or by the need to stabilize the Italian front (as in Greece, North Africa), or to counter the coup in Yugoslavia that brought down a German-friendly government with English help, or the American belligerency against Germany, while claiming neutral status. And if you bring up the attack on the SU, there is so much evidence for a Soviet attack on Germany, and in general, Western Europe, in the near future (i.e, the near future of spring of 1941) that one has at the very least to acknowledge that Hitler had very reason to draw the conclusion of an imminent mortal danger to all of Europe to the West of the SU.
    In short: You can’t bridle the horse from the tail if you want to do it right, and you can’t give a meaningful account of something if you start with the responses your own initial actions caused.
    But that’s in a nutshell how establishment “historiography” of the Second War works.

    • Replies: @Tsigantes
  82. Fox says:
    @Alfred the Great

    These quotes by Spengler sound tired, depressed. Spengler died in 1936 of a heart attack, perhaps he sensed his early death, a mood that surely is communicated to one’s view of the world.
    As to achieving change: How can you ever change anything if you don’t want change? That seems to have been Spengler’s attitude (in these quotes). I suppose the Weimar Republic had nothing more to offer than the end, death, ruination, slavery in the Versailles system – it is well to remember that the (supposedly) last payment on the reparations blackmail racket was made by the FRG in 2011. When Hitler acceded to the office of the Chancellor, there were nearly 7 million people out of work (that’s about 30 % unemployment), with rising numbers. The blackmailers of Versailles were not relenting and insisted on their pound of flesh.
    Perhaps another few rounds of failed governments would have led to chaos in an unrulable central Europe.
    So, a radically different program by a radically different politician seems to have been a reasonable alternative to the endless string of failed governments.
    And then there were the scandals involving Jews, such as Barmat, Kutisker, the perception that they in particular were living well in a miserable country, living of of that misery, the way they spoke of German war veterans, of German women, etc. It was certainly not wise for them to behave like that, not reckoning with a response from a Germany that was suffering under the Weimar Republic.
    Perhaps the West needs to pass into a crisis that is like the one Germany had after the First War, then we can tell whether the German response was normal, or extreme, or moderate.

  83. Tsigantes says:
    @Fox

    Well I see that you’ve successfully thrown off the anglo-american propaganda of your youth to adopt the Innocent Victim revisionism of today. In a word, you’ve switched the Hats of Perfection…Hollywood always needs hats….even, the hat of exceptionalism.

    The Second War was for Germany purely defensive.

    Not a statement that continental Europeans will rush to agree with, lol. But neither do we subscribe to Cowboy Hat Theory. What about some nuance? All 4 were thuggish Great Powers, doing what thuggish Great Powers do: destroying, murdering and looting for power & territory. And the 5th thuggish power joined in (late as usual) & walked off with the prize.

  84. Fox says:
    @Tsigantes

    I am sorry that you cannot see that Hitler’s goal was to undo the destructive provisions of the dictated (at gun point) Treaty of Versailles. These provisions entailed massive exploitation of Germany and arbitrary distribution of German populations among the neighboring, in several cases newly-created countries, which were conceived of and run as potential military threats to any Germany of the future. That the restoration which was attempting to turn back the clock in 1919 to the eighteenth century didn’t like that should be clear to you.
    If you want to understand the development of the War, then you have to be informed in detail about how the crisis of Danzig developed and how it was responded to by whom and how.
    Have you done anything like that?
    It was not Germany that expanded the war step by step, it was England, and France with their declaration of war, it was by pulling in the United States (quite willingly followed by Roosevelt), it was England and France planning the attack on Norway even in September of 1939.
    Your opinion rests solely on the self-serving statement of Churchill and his followers: “we couldn’t trust Hitler”, hence we chose war.
    Germany was not to be trifled with, as they thought, and in any future war the destructions would be massive as well. In your opinion, the party responsible for the war, its cause and prosecution would be the one ending up losing. Oh wait, haven’t we had this seelf-serving topos already, generating a vast literature and self-congratulatory moralizing school of opinion?

  85. @Kratoklastes

    The tsunami of ignorant primitive fuckwits that swept into what later became Germany in the mid-1800s, is the relevant sub-demographic that motivated a lot of ranting by that shouty man with the red armband and little mustache (I forget his name).

    Absofrickinglutely.

    The Jewish demographic bomb was one of the most significant facts of the late-19th – early-20th centuries. The story of the wars in Europe cannot be told without taking it into account.

    Jabotinsky and Nordau found them just as repulsive as did what’s-his-name w/ the mustache.


    re #74: Hershel Grynszpan’s case — the match that lit the Kristallnacht powder keg and was, so the tale goes, “the start of the holocaust,” was one of those however-many-thousand Polish Jews who sought entry into Germany.
    Dorothy Thompson played Samantha Power on behalf of Grynszpan, setting up a legal defense fund for him.
    Thompson later traveled to Palestine & saw how zionists mistreated Palestinians. She changed the tenor of her formerly pro-zionist writing and consequently all but disappeared from media prominence.

  86. Tsigantes says:
    @Tsigantes

    I have no truck with Churchill and only a Eur. history Pure Neophyte like yourself from a Great Power country would automatically make that assumption – I said Thuggish Great Powers, remember?

    I write from Greece, which at the time had a fascism lite dictatorship under Metaxas and good relations with everyone, including and especially Hitler. Greece was neutral and had no intention of being dragged into another Great Power stitch up….we’d learned the important lesson of WW1, as had all countries that lay between London and the Mesopotamia. You obviously have not since you still subscribe to Good vs Bad Great Powers from your armchair on another continent. I’m sure you also believe that WW1 was between the anglo-Americans & Germany and stopped in 1918 – LOL LOL LOL.

    Neophytes like yourself have accused Greece (75 years later) of betraying Hitler because Greece betrayed Hitler’s wonderful ideology by joining the allies. Sorry, but wars do not take place on a basis of ideology – but you wouldn’t know that from your cosy ‘Woke” armchair somewhere in war-free Hollywood-addled USA.

    For your information an Axis Power invaded Greece and Greece fought back and won, and this happened to be the first victory of WW2 on either side discounting Hitler’s victories (but you will say these were not ‘victories’ i.e. NOT war, but the mere recovery of unjustly lost territories, done with sublime care and tact( (- and what about everyone else’s lost territories, hmm?). The bloody Allies leapt to the occasion and declared Greece an ‘Ally” without asking Greece. Your Roosevelt burdened Greece with an unwanted submarine on Lend-Lease ($$$$ for the US treasury) as a sign of his when we had all the submarines we needed. And then Germany marched in to ‘clean up’ Italy’s mess, bombing Crete to shreds (why? because Crete in Kissinger’s words is ‘Nature’s aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean’), occupying the country, stealing the gold, stealing ALL the harvest in 1941 causing a deathly famine and committing continuous other war crimes. Yes, wonderful saintly Germany committed war crimes…it can’t be true, right? And when the Wehrmacht finally withdrew in Sept. ’44, they ‘scorched’ the earth behind them.

    Yet somehow – in your Nazi dupe eyes – you will no doubt declare that this is all Greece’s fault and Hitler had no desire to be there – though Crete should give a lie to that. Just a ‘side show’.

    For you in your armchair a side show is ‘Nada’.

    And that is one small country (NOT a Great Power). There are 38-53 countries in Europe depending which 20c year you pick and each has a different perspective and horrendous experience of that war. The European mosaic is far to complicated for you to bother with so you don’t – or maybe you aren’t even aware of it, (more likely). So, no, now you are ‘woke’ to your own country’s lies and in pure Cowboy Movie style that means its fake enemy Germany is All Good. (Which only shows that you must have believed USA was All Good before – LOL).

    We know what that war was about: you haven’t a clue. And the next war (WW3) will be over the same prize. And there is something particularly unedifying about the spoiled citizens of a murderous Great Power crying tears over another murderous Great Power….ignoring all else, ignoring war itself. The great American Smedley Butler said loud & clear that war is a racket, and you don’t SEE that.

  87. Tsigantes says:
    @Tsigantes

    I have no truck with Churchill and only a Eur. history Pure Neophyte like yourself from a Great Power country would automatically make that assumption – I said Thuggish Great Powers, remember?

    I write from Greece, which at the time had a fascism lite dictatorship under Metaxas and good relations with everyone, including and especially Hitler. Greece was neutral and had no intention of being dragged into another Great Power stitch up….we’d learned the important lesson of WW1, as had all countries that lay between London and the Mesopotamia. You obviously have not since you still subscribe to Good vs Bad Great Powers from your armchair on another continent. I’m sure you also believe that WW1 was between the anglo-Americans & Germany and stopped in 1918 – LOL LOL LOL.

    Neophytes like yourself have accused Greece (75 years later) of betraying Hitler because Greece betrayed Hitler’s wonderful ideology by joining the allies. Sorry, but wars do not take place on a basis of ideology – but you wouldn’t know that from your cosy ‘Woke” armchair somewhere in war-free Hollywood-addled USA.

    For your information an Axis Power invaded Greece and Greece fought back and won, and this happened to be the first victory of WW2 on either side discounting Hitler’s victories (but you will say these were not ‘victories’ i.e. NOT war, but the mere recovery of unjustly lost territories, done with sublime care and tact( (- and what about everyone else’s lost territories, hmm?). The bloody Allies leapt to the occasion and declared Greece an ‘Ally” without asking Greece. People like you do not see that if an ‘Ally’ had invaded Greece, the ‘Axis’ would have declared Greece theirs. In fact we had no sympathy with either side. It was not our quarrel. But was made our quarrel – concerning our own country.

    In ‘reward’, your Roosevelt burdened Greece with an unwanted submarine on Lend-Lease ($$$$ for the US treasury) as a sign of his when we had all the submarines we needed. And then Germany marched in to ‘clean up’ Italy’s mess, bombing Crete to shreds (why? because Crete in Kissinger’s words is ‘Nature’s aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean’), occupying the country, stealing the gold, stealing ALL the harvest in 1941 causing a deathly famine and committing continuous war crimes. Yes, wonderful saintly Germany committed war crimes…it can’t be true, right? Or rather it was all OUR fault. And when the Wehrmacht finally withdrew in Sept. ’44, they ‘scorched’ the earth behind them.

    Yet somehow – in your Nazi dupe eyes – you will no doubt declare that this is all Greece’s fault and Hitler had no desire to be there – though Crete should give a lie to that. Just a ‘side show’.

    For you in your armchair a side show is ‘Nada’. The whole rest of Europe was a ‘side show’, so many countries ‘in the way’

    And that is one small country (NOT a Great Power). There are 38-53 countries in Europe depending which 20c year you pick and each has a different perspective and horrendous experience of that war. The European mosaic is far to complicated for you to bother with so you don’t – or maybe you aren’t even aware of it (more likely). So, no, now you are ‘woke’ to your own country’s lies, in pure Cowboy Movie style that means its fake enemy Germany is All Good. (Which only shows that you must have believed USA was All Good before – LOL).

    We know what that war was about: you haven’t a clue. And the next war (WW3) will be over the same prize. Meanwhile there is something particularly unedifying about the spoiled comfy citizens of a murderous and rogue Great Power crying tears over another murderous Great Power….ignoring all else, ignoring war itself. The great American Smedley Butler said loud & clear that war is a racket, and you don’t SEE that.

    So please, dream on. Dream your pretty dreams of magnified study of one murderous Great Power player at the expense of the whole picture. Be my guest and blindly misunderstand everything that followed from that war and now the coming (i hope not) third go-round / attempt.

    • Replies: @Dube
  88. Tsigantes says:
    @Tsigantes

    I have no truck with Churchill and only a Eur. history Pure Neophyte like yourself from a Great Power country would automatically make that assumption – I said Thuggish Great Powers, remember?

    I write from Greece, which at the time had a fascism lite dictatorship under Metaxas and good relations with everyone, including and especially Hitler. Greece was neutral and had no intention of being dragged into another Great Power stitch up….we’d learned the important lesson of WW1, as had all countries that lay between London and the Mesopotamia. You obviously have not since you still subscribe to Good vs Bad Great Powers from your armchair on another continent. I’m sure you also believe that WW1 was between the anglo-Americans & Germany and stopped in 1918 – LOL LOL LOL.

    Neophytes like yourself have accused Greece (75 years later) of betraying Hitler because Greece betrayed Hitler’s wonderful ideology by joining the allies. Sorry, but wars do not take place on a basis of ideology – but you wouldn’t know that from your cosy ‘Woke” armchair somewhere in war-free Hollywood-addled USA.

    For your information an Axis Power invaded Greece and Greece fought back and won, and this happened to be the first victory of WW2 on either side discounting Hitler’s victories (but you will say these were not ‘victories’ i.e. NOT war, but the mere recovery of unjustly lost territories, done with sublime care and tact( (- and what about everyone else’s lost territories, hmm?). The bloody Allies leapt to the occasion and declared Greece an ‘Ally” without asking Greece. People like you do not see that if an ‘Ally’ had invaded Greece, the ‘Axis’ would have declared Greece theirs. In fact we had no sympathy with either side. It was not our quarrel. But was made our quarrel – concerning our own country.

    In ‘reward’, your Roosevelt burdened Greece with an unwanted submarine on Lend-Lease ($$$$ for the US treasury) as a sign of his when we had all the submarines we needed. And then Germany marched in to ‘clean up’ Italy’s mess, bombing Crete to shreds (why? because Crete in Kissinger’s words is ‘Nature’s aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean’), occupying the country, stealing the gold, stealing ALL the harvest in 1941 causing a deathly famine and committing continuous war crimes. Yes, wonderful saintly Germany committed war crimes…it can’t be true, right? Or rather it was all OUR fault. And when the Wehrmacht finally withdrew in Sept. ’44, they ‘scorched’ the earth behind them.

    Yet somehow – in your Nazi dupe eyes – you will no doubt declare that this is all Greece’s fault and Hitler had no desire to be there – though Crete should give a lie to that. Just a ‘side show’.

    For you in your armchair a side show is ‘Nada’. The whole rest of Europe was a ‘side show’, so many countries ‘in the way’

    And that is one small country (NOT a Great Power). There are 38-53 countries in Europe depending which 20c year you pick and each has a different perspective and horrendous experience of that war. The European mosaic is far to complicated for you to bother with so you don’t – or maybe you aren’t even aware of it (more likely). So, no, now you are ‘woke’ to your own country’s lies, in pure Cowboy Movie style that means its fake enemy Germany is All Good. (Which only shows that you must have believed USA was All Good before – LOL).

    We know what that war was about: you haven’t a clue. And the next war (WW3) will be over the same prize. Meanwhile there is something particularly unedifying about the spoiled comfy citizens of a murderous and rogue Great Power crying tears over another murderous Great Power….ignoring all else, ignoring war itself. The great American Smedley Butler said loud & clear that war is a racket, and you don’t SEE that.

    So please, dream on. Dream your pretty dreams of magnified study of one murderous Great Power player at the expense of the whole picture. Be my guest and blindly misunderstand everything that followed from that war and now the coming (i hope not) third go-round / attempt.

  89. Fox says:

    Tsigantes:
    Do you have suddenly commenter’s flood?
    Some have the so-called writer’s block, but in your case, something seems to have become “unblocked”.

    I add that the Greek gold reserves were “evacuated” by the British when they left Greece. (How did they get there? Remind me, would you?)

  90. Dube says:
    @Tsigantes

    And that is one small country (NOT a Great Power). There are 38-53 countries in Europe depending which 20c year you pick and each has a different perspective and horrendous experience of that war. The European mosaic is far to complicated for you to bother with so you don’t – or maybe you aren’t even aware of it (more likely).

    Thanks, Tsigantes. So there is more than one revisionist perspective to consider? That is instructive.

    Lots of work ahead.

  91. Anonymous[257] • Disclaimer says:

    I had no idea that Ireland and Poland are in S Europe till I read this article.

  92. Anonymous[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @anarchyst

    I have a friend whose father loathed jews as a group. He was southern from a small town in N Carolina. He joined the navy in WW2 He became a career officer. For about 3 years 46 to 1949 he was on a navy ship that transported European refugees to America.

    Some of the refugees were Jews. As an officer, he had to deal with their endless complaining and kvetching, theft conniving manipulation and general awfulness. He and the rest of the crews quickly learned to despise them.

    The other European refugees on the ships comported themselves as normal people. The Jewish misbehavior really stood out in comparison to the rest of the passengers.

    I wonder if Supreme hater of the goyim Abe Foxman was on one of those ships.

    Both Hitler and Kalergi seemed to despise the Austrian Empire. I don’t see why. It began around 900 and lasted in various forms till 1918. That’s a pretty long run. And it’s accomplishments were too numerous to go into here.

    My real objection to Kalergi is that; at a time when there were virtually no Africans Arabs Indians Asians Turks etc in Europe he advocated Europeans breeding with black Africans to form a mixed quadroon octoroon race.

    It would be reasonable for some utopian American to advocate extensive black White mixing to end our racial problems. But we’ve got a big African black population that causes endless problems. Getting rid of them by extensive breeding is a reasonable idea. But in America where they arrived with the first Europeans. Not in Europe where they were non existent.

    There were no Africans in Europe at the time other than colonial troops who went back home. Some Arabs in France Indians in England remained but as far as I know no Africans.

    More and more I believe Kalergi was a Rothschild agent from day one. Europe already had thriving business industrial research and development art and intellectual goyim classes. No need to destroy them and replace them with Jews.

    As for the old aristocracy, Kalergi assumed would be over the Jewish upper classes; WW1 finished them. Does anyone know if the Taxis und Thurn Hollenzollerns, Frescobaldis , Bourbons and the rest had anything to do with Kalergi?

    Just my opinion Kalergi was a Rothschild agent all along. Kalergi’s idea of Jews rising way way above the goyim to run finance, business wholesale, retail , media, academia and everything has come to pass in the USA. It hasn’t yet in S Europe. But the Jewsish Kalergi ideas of extermination of the natives in favor of Africans and Muslims is happening right now in N Europe.

  93. Anonymous[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Fox

    The nation of Germany didn’t exist till 1871. Before that, the major Germanic Power was the Austrian Empire. But it wasn’t Germany. There certainly was a German linguistic ethnic group. But there were dozens of German linguistic ethnic countries.

    There was no nation of Germany 700 500 even 200 years ago.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    , @Fox
  94. @Anonymous

    The nation of Germany didn’t exist till 1871.

    The state of Germany didn’t exist until then but a German civilization of a certain people over certain territory(roughly speaking) goes back a long ways. It’s like even when Poland was wiped off the map by Russia and German empire, there existed Polish territories with Polish polks.

  95. Fox says:
    @Anonymous

    This is not correct. The Holy Roman Empire of German Nation existed from 962 to 1806 when the last German Emperor, residing in Vienna, and of the House of Habsburg, resigned. Only after this time the monarchy of Austria was separated from the monarchies in the other German provinces, such as Bavaria, Saxony, etc. Germany was just not a centralized nation, and the Kaiser had only limited privleges, but was nonetheless the highest ruler of all Germans, be they Bavarians, Swabians, Saxons, Hessians, Lothringians, and until the 14th century German Swiss, Dutch, Burgundians, etc.
    All of these peoples were Germans by nation, and something more by their regional separatedness going back to the Germanic tribes settling there in the past. The house of Habsburg is originally Swiss.
    Germany outside of Austria was strongly splintered after 1806, but nonetheless there was the desire for unity. The text (1. strophe) of the German national anthem, Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, über alles in der Welt, wenn es stes zum Schutz und Trutze brüderlich zusammenhält. Von der Maas bis an die Memel, von der Etsch bis an den Belt. This text was written in 1841 by Hofmann von Fallersleben Professor nd subject to the so-called patriot persecution, i.e., people clamoring for German unification were persecuted by various rulers and potentates as subversives. Whether Austria would be again part of a future German state was a big question then discussed. A customs union within the German subdivisions did exist at that time.
    In 1871, after the declaration of war by France on Prussia, and the call of the Prussian king for support by the other German kings, France was defeated by a unified German force (but without Austria) and the assembly of German potentates elevated the king of Prussia at Versailles to the German Emperor. The 2nd empire was thus established as an assembly of German provinces, but at that time without Austria.
    After the First War, Austria, now shrunk to its German core, wanted to join the rest of Germany, as Austrians felt as Germans. The Versailles assembly forbade it, and Germany or Austria, deprived of their arms through the betrayal by the false promise of Wilson’s 14 Points, were powerless to bring about their national will.
    Germans, whether they live in South Tyrol, Lower Austria, Thuringia, Bavaria or Swabia, or anywhere else, do have their own view-the view that should be the decisive one- of what constitutes German; they do not adhere to whatever a Crown Council in London, the President of the United States or the French President, or any of their predecessors, think “Germany” or “Austria” or “German” or Austrian mean.

  96. @Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg

    The Slavic race was created by mixing expelled “Germans” with invading and migrating Asiatics. Not that the Germans or the Brits or anybody else are pure raced anymore, but the drop in quality is clearly significant when you pass the Oder. The Italians with their African and Semitic elements have managed to maintain a higher culture. Even Spain. All Europe ever received from Russia is threats.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Guillaume Durocher Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings
Becker update V1.3.2
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.