The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Foreign Propaganda Interference Done Right: Brits in 1940s U.S.
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

From the Washington Post:

Bernie Sanders briefed by U.S. officials that Russia is trying to help his presidential campaign

By Shane Harris, Ellen Nakashima, Michael Scherer and Sean Sullivan
Feb. 21, 2020 at 1:16 p.m. PST

U.S. officials have told Sen. Bernie Sanders that Russia is attempting to help his presidential campaign as part of an effort to interfere with the Democratic contest, according to people familiar with the matter.

President Trump and lawmakers on Capitol Hill also have been informed about the Russian assistance to the Vermont senator, those people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence.

It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken.

So … that clears that up!

Let me guess, though: I bet some Russian … trolls … are posting … memes!

For example, here’s a high quality 2016 Russian interference effort:

On the other hand, if you want an example of Foreign Interference done right, consider the 1941 Hollywood movie That Hamilton Woman starring Vivien Leigh as Emma Hamilton and Laurence Olivier as Admiral Horatio Nelson, victor over Napoleon’s navy at Trafalgar. From Wikipedia:

The film was a critical and financial success, and while on the surface the plot is both a war story and a romance set in Napoleonic times, it was also intended to function as a deliberately pro-British film that would portray Britain positively within the context of World War II which was being fought at that time. At the time the film was released France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Denmark had all surrendered to the Nazis and the Soviet Union was still officially allied to them, correspondingly the British were fighting against the Nazis alone and felt the need to produce films that would both boost their own morale, and also portray them sympathetically to the foreign world, and in particular, to the United States. …

Shot in the United States during September and October 1940,[10] That Hamilton Woman defines Britain’s struggle against Napoleon in terms of resistance to a dictator who seeks to dominate the world.[11] The film was intended to parallel the current situation in Europe and was intended as propaganda at a time before the attack on Pearl Harbor when the United States was still formally neutral. … Stars Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier were newlyweds at the time of filming and were considered a “dream couple.” …

While That Hamilton Woman was marketed as historical romance, its subtext falls into the “war propaganda” category.[16] In July 1941, the isolationist group America First Committee (AFC) targeted That Hamilton Woman and three other major Hollywood feature films (The Great Dictator, Chaplin/United Artists, 1940; Foreign Correspondent, Wanger/United Artists, 1940; The Mortal Storm, MGM, 1940) as productions that “seemed to be preparing Americans for war.” …

Critical sources usually point out that That Hamilton Woman was Winston Churchill’s favorite film.[19][Note 1] In her research on the subject, film historian Professor Stacey Olster reveals that at the time the film was made, Alexander Korda’s New York offices were “supplying cover to MI-5 agents gathering intelligence on both German activities in the United States and isolationist sentiments among makers of American foreign policy.”[20] According to Anthony Holden, Olivier’s biographer, That Hamilton Woman “became Exhibit A in a case brought against Korda by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Committee had accused him of operating an espionage and propaganda center for Britain in the United States—a charge Korda only escaped by virtue of the fact that his scheduled appearance before the committee on December 12, 1941 was preempted by the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor five days earlier”.

From HistoryNet:

In one scene, whose significance was lost on no one who saw the film, Nelson declares, “You cannot make peace with dictators. You have to destroy them.” Korda always claimed that Churchill had written that line. More pro-British films poured out of Hollywood that year, among them A Yank in the R.A.F., starring Tyrone Power as an American flier who fights in the Battle of Britain, and a raft of melodramatic spy movies depicting sinister Nazi agents at work to undermine America.

The level of talent of British propagandists operating in America in the 1940s — e.g., besides movie stars like Olivier, Leigh, and Cary Grant, there were also Isaiah Berlin, C.S. Forester, Roald Dahl, Alfred Duff Cooper, Ian Fleming, and ad man David Ogilvy — was substantially higher than whatever Russia, Saudi Arabia, or China can muster today. For example, from Wikipedia:

In late March 1942, while in London, [fighter pilot Roald Dahl] met the Under-Secretary of State for Air, Major Harold Balfour, at his club. Impressed by Dahl’s war record and conversational abilities, Balfour appointed the young man as assistant air attaché at the British Embassy in Washington, D.C.

… As part of his duties as assistant air attaché, Dahl was to help neutralise the isolationist views still held by many Americans by giving pro-British speeches and discussing his war service; the United States had entered the war only the previous December, following the attack on Pearl Harbor.[58]

At this time [Roald] Dahl met the noted British novelist C. S. Forester [Horatio Hornblower, The African Queen], who was also working to aid the British war effort. Forester worked for the British Ministry of Information and was writing propaganda for the Allied cause, mainly for American consumption. The Saturday Evening Post had asked Forester to write a story based on Dahl’s flying experiences; Forester asked Dahl to write down some RAF anecdotes so that he could shape them into a story. After Forester read what Dahl had given him, he decided to publish the story exactly as Dahl had written it.

.. Later he worked with such other well-known British officers as Ian Fleming (who later published the popular James Bond series) and David Ogilvy [future author of Confessions of an Advertising Man], promoting Britain’s interests and message in the US and combating the “America First” movement.

 
Hide 124 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. • Replies: @Paul Jolliffe
    Please add Theodore Geisel to the list of paid pro-interventionist/propagandists to this list. Although he was not British, before he became “Dr. Seuss” Geisel was paid to smear decent Americans. Americans who rightly worried about the probability of being dragged into another unnecessary European war were unfairly portrayed as stupid bumpkins or fools for Hitler in hundreds of Geisel’s cartoons in 1940 and 1941.
    When his contract ran out six months before Pearl Harbor, Geisel stopped drawing his simple-minded cartoons. He was strictly a mercenary, quite willing to smear his fellow Americans, as long as he was paid for it.
    He never apologized, even after he became world famous.

    To hell with him.
  2. Then there’s this nonsense with Burgess “Penguin” Meredith quacking about how Americans need to mind their manners while saving the British Empire.

    Because it’s not enough to send your men to die in French forests, you also need to know how to behave like perfect guests while doing so. Something about crying out in pain as they strike you comes to mind…

    Lindbergh was right about who was pushing us into war.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Then there’s this nonsense with Burgess “Penguin” Meredith quacking about how Americans need to mind their manners while saving the British Empire.
     
    I want to be fair minded about the Brits. Spreading the English language and English law has benefited several nations.

    But if the Brits had simply acquiesced in the inevitable end of empire in favor of people running their own nations 50 years earlier, a whole bunch of completely unnecessary 20th century bloodshed would simply not have happened.

    And it's a knock on the United States--poor leadership--that we weren't forthrightly on the nationalist bandwagon wholesale--our traditional heritage--but took this detour into bush league imperialism with the Philippines (and Puerto Rico).
    , @Bard of Bumperstickers
    https://mises.org/library/desperate-deception-british-covert-operations-united-states-thomas-mahl

    The first casualty of war is the truth. ~ Aeschylus

    All warfare is based on deception. ~ Sun Tzu

    And the Nazis hired (and admired) Edward Bernays:

    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” ~ Edward Bernays, "Propaganda"
    , @Hibernian
    Irony alert: Pub founded about the time our country was founded [in rebellion against them.] The last part is left out, of course.

    The propaganda line that they are ultra-civilized and we are hooligans is as subtle as a freight train colliding with a brick wall. Apparently the British working class was just like the upper class, but with plainer clothes.

  3. anonymous[145] • Disclaimer says:

    The fact that we’re encouraged to discuss and oppose white privilege means it doesn’t exist.

    Overt anti-white animosity is acceptable and rewarded in our public square. If white people actually had power and privilege, we would use it to stop discussion and opposition to it.

    Criticism of nonwhite, non-Christian groups is not rewarded in the public square, and indeed brings serious social and legal consequences. That’s actual power and privilege.

    What is the actual white privilege? Open borders, ‘diversity’, ‘anti racism’.
    Borders, homogeneity, self determination (‘racism’) is normal in the other 90% of the world.

    Time to protect ourselves and our children first. Support Unz and Nick Fuentes.

  4. Before That Hamilton Woman there were endless Elizabeth 1 and handsome English pirates bravely looting Spanish ships. Spain stood in for Germany attacking brave little England. Spain as the enemy of brave little England was associated with the eeevvviiiillll Isabela banishing Jews and Muslims and more recent Spain defeating the soviet invasion and sending them running back to Russia.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    The Sea-Hawk (1940).....Philip II is basically Hitler:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jThdMyGifqU
    , @Mr. Anon
    The whole England-good-Spain-bad meme assiduously propagated by the British, and bought into by Americans, is BS.
    , @John Gruskos
    There is nothing unnatural about Americans cheering for Elizabeth I and Drake.

    Before the American nation could come into existence, the Catholic monopoly on sea power, exploration and colonization had to be broken.

    I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the average American had more sea-dog ancestry than the average Englishman.

    The Puritans who sailed with Drake left England in disgust when the Stuarts began to corrupt the purity of Reformed Christianity and Anglo-Saxon constitutionalism.

  5. In 2016 state-funded BBC, PressTV, and Al Jazeera English spent millions producing and broadcasting anti-Trump content.

    That’s OK with the MSM, foreign election interference is great if it involves hiring American “journalists.”

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Troll: James Forrestal
  6. “Russian propaganda interference” = Opinions at variance with the DNC

    Telling you “Russia is trying to help you” = You have been slated for destruction by Deep State

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
    The normiecux that still believe this MSM bullshit must have IQs that are close to their shoe sizes.
    , @El Dato
    Yep, it's that scene from "Star Wars. Rogue One" where Director Krennic of Death Star Management is suddenly called to Darth Vader's lair. As he stands around sweating profusely Vader appears and says "You are being helped by Russia ... Director!" This is followed by some light force chocking. The Director then leaves, well informed about levels of goodwill in the Imperial decision structure.

    One also wonders what the deal is with announcing the "helping" news to all and sundry as a matter of public service just before the Nevada showdown?

    Bernie graciously accepting his new role:

    “I don’t care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president,” Sanders said in a statement to the Post, reinforcing it with a generic DNC talking point. “My message to Putin is clear: Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do.”
     
    Bernie vs Putin: FIGHT
  7. @t
    Speaking of foreign involvement in US politics:

    https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigration/2020/02/21/mexican-official-jesus-seade-kuri-arizona-sanctuary-city-measure-gov-doug-ducey/4833279002/

    Please add Theodore Geisel to the list of paid pro-interventionist/propagandists to this list. Although he was not British, before he became “Dr. Seuss” Geisel was paid to smear decent Americans. Americans who rightly worried about the probability of being dragged into another unnecessary European war were unfairly portrayed as stupid bumpkins or fools for Hitler in hundreds of Geisel’s cartoons in 1940 and 1941.
    When his contract ran out six months before Pearl Harbor, Geisel stopped drawing his simple-minded cartoons. He was strictly a mercenary, quite willing to smear his fellow Americans, as long as he was paid for it.
    He never apologized, even after he became world famous.

    To hell with him.

    • Agree: Dutch Boy
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Please add Theodore Geisel to the list of paid pro-interventionist/propagandists to this list.
     
    You mean he wasn't in the Deutscher-Amerikanischer Bund?

    Or maybe he was. A quadruple agent, spying for each side on the other.

    , @Cloudswrest
    Re. Geisel,

    Here's a postwar propaganda flick for occupying G.I.s about how evil the German people are. Screenplay by Geisel.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v5QCGqDYGo
  8. @Almost Missouri
    "Russian propaganda interference" = Opinions at variance with the DNC

    Telling you "Russia is trying to help you" = You have been slated for destruction by Deep State

    The normiecux that still believe this MSM bullshit must have IQs that are close to their shoe sizes.

  9. So the Russians are trying to help both Trump and Sanders, plus Huawei is building the world’s 5G structure with stolen technology that no one else has so that they can spy on top secret military intelligence that secret agents are transmitting via ordinary phones and emails?

    Meanwhile Trump is using an unsecured cell phone to communicate internationally with his top advisors like Giuliani and Sondland in places like Ukraine, and Facebook is spying on every American who is silly enough to have a Facebook page, and the US government is unable to get information out of dead men’s Apple i-Phones due to encryption. Perhaps the FBI ought to ask Huawei for help.

    The solution, however, might be the for the US and UK governments to use Whatsapp to communicate their secrets, since messages are encrypted from end to end, and ordinary diplomatic cables, such as the one in which the UK ambassador to Washington sent a few comments about the erratic behavior of Trump are routinely leaked or intercepted.

    Meanwhile in the US, the medical profession, which is obsessed with patient confidentiality and HIPAA laws mostly uses faxes to communicate confidential information.

    It is pretty obvious that the US intelligence services do not have a clue about anything. That is all I can conclude.

    • Replies: @Hibernian

    so that they can spy on top secret military intelligence that secret agents are transmitting via ordinary phones and emails?
     
    Sometimes military and paramilitary people are careless. Loose lips sink ships. Also, lower level less sensitive communications and "who is linked with who" information can be valuable.
    , @Joe Stalin
    "The solution, however, might be the for the US and UK governments to use Whatsapp to communicate their secrets, since messages are encrypted from end to end, and ordinary diplomatic cables, such as the one in which the UK ambassador to Washington sent a few comments about the erratic behavior of Trump are routinely leaked or intercepted."

    Sorry, POTUS wants your secure end-to-end encryption compromised so "Whatsapp" users can be monitored as easily as your cellphone by LE.

    https://www.npr.org/2020/02/21/805032627/trump-administration-targets-your-warrant-proof-encrypted-messages
  10. By Shane Harris, Ellen Nakashima, Michael Scherer and Sean Sullivan

    Two micks, a kraut, and a nip, i.e., two neutrals, two enemies.

    Like this is going to be the most balanced team to cover the story.

    • LOL: Redneck farmer
  11. Was this the same press conference where a reporter asked about proofs and got nothing? It looks safe to say that although the Wurlitzer groans on, the truth got through. People, even some journalists, understand that there’s nothing here.
    It’s also bizarre that Russian interference happens to target only legitimately popular anti-establishment candidates, the ones who do not need any outside help. It’s almost like anyone the DLC doesn’t like, Republican or Democrat, is accused of being a Russian.

  12. @Paul Jolliffe
    Please add Theodore Geisel to the list of paid pro-interventionist/propagandists to this list. Although he was not British, before he became “Dr. Seuss” Geisel was paid to smear decent Americans. Americans who rightly worried about the probability of being dragged into another unnecessary European war were unfairly portrayed as stupid bumpkins or fools for Hitler in hundreds of Geisel’s cartoons in 1940 and 1941.
    When his contract ran out six months before Pearl Harbor, Geisel stopped drawing his simple-minded cartoons. He was strictly a mercenary, quite willing to smear his fellow Americans, as long as he was paid for it.
    He never apologized, even after he became world famous.

    To hell with him.

    Please add Theodore Geisel to the list of paid pro-interventionist/propagandists to this list.

    You mean he wasn’t in the Deutscher-Amerikanischer Bund?

    Or maybe he was. A quadruple agent, spying for each side on the other.

  13. • Replies: @James Forrestal

    U.S. officials have told Sen. Bernie Sanders that Russia
     
    is colluding with his campaign to meddlesomely hack the 2020 election and blablabla.

    "U.S. officials." That's pretty vague. Exactly what kind of officials are engaged in this desperate, flailing, pathetic attempt to resurrect the long-debunked Russia conspiracy theory in a slightly different form? Looks like they mean intelligence officials...

    "...according to people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence."
    "Also this week, a senior U.S. intelligence official said Russia had “developed a preference” "

    [for colluding with Sanders to meddlesomely hack the election on behalf of Trump as well.]

    Or perhaps, as Sanders suggested earlier, diabolical Russian hacker groups like Teddy Bear or Cozy Bear or Grizzly Bear are colluding to meddle in Bernie's campaign... to make Bernie look bad?

    Sanders’s opponents have blamed some of his most vocal online supporters for injecting toxic rhetoric into the primaries. At a Democratic candidates debate Wednesday in Las Vegas, Sanders indirectly blamed Russia, saying it was possible that malign actors were trying to manipulate social media to inflame divisions among Democrats.
     
    Apparently not:

    "After Sanders’s remarks at the debate, some social media analysts were skeptical of the notion that Russians already were masquerading as the candidate’s supporters."

    "Social media analysts." Sounds like some very serious, hardworking, reliable people. Right up there with anonymous "intelligence officials" in terms of trustworthiness. S0 who do these "social media analysts" work for, anyway?

    “We have seen no evidence in open sources during this election cycle that an online community of Sanders supporters, known as Bernie bros, were catalyzed by what Sanders suggested could be ‘Russian interference,’ ” said Graham Brookie, director of the Digital Forensic Research Lab at the Atlantic Council..
     
    The Atlantic Council? Well that settles it! If there's anyone I trust more than Crowdstrike, it's the Atlantic Council. They are the acknowledged experts in deciding which narratives are serious threats to human rights democracy, and which ones the g̶o̶y̶i̶i̶m̶ electorate may be safely exposed to. As a matter of fact, I trust the Atlantic Council more than WaPo, unnamed "intelligence officials", Crowdstrike, and the FBI -- combined.

    However, I fear that even the ever-vigilant (and eminently trustworthy) folks at the Atlantic Council, WaPo, and the security services may be underestimating the extent of this ever-present threat. I urge everyone to read this prescient, in-depth analysis from NCSC director Bill Evanina (as told to NBC), which notes that not only Russians, but Chinese and all kinds of foreigners, are constantly trying to hack our brains with a̶l̶t̶e̶r̶n̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶n̶a̶r̶r̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶s̶ espionage influence campaigns. Fortunately, these stalwart defenders of the One True Narrative are there to protect us at all times from this sort of deadly hacking operation.
  14. @Alden
    Before That Hamilton Woman there were endless Elizabeth 1 and handsome English pirates bravely looting Spanish ships. Spain stood in for Germany attacking brave little England. Spain as the enemy of brave little England was associated with the eeevvviiiillll Isabela banishing Jews and Muslims and more recent Spain defeating the soviet invasion and sending them running back to Russia.

    The Sea-Hawk (1940)…..Philip II is basically Hitler:

  15. Three atrocious Sherlock Holmes films starring Basil Rathbone were made where Nazis were the villains, but they were made after the US entered the war.

    I encourage everyone to watch at least one low-brow movie made as war propaganda. It really helps open your eyes to the hidden messages in modern stuff and the contempt the elite have for the general population.

    • Replies: @anon
    I encourage everyone to watch at least one low-brow movie made as war propaganda

    This one was made by Sam Goldwyn. Script by Lillian Hellman. Strictly high brow.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_2_JQhR1xc
  16. I seem to recall hearing that the British were especially focused on either the Senate or House race in Ohio in 1940. I don’t know who was running, but it was certainly some pro-war candidate. The nationwide interference of Britain in America’s elections that year was the biggest news story that wasn’t at the time, and the possibly the most important forgotten event in 20th century US history.

    • Replies: @Neo-Socratic
    Sounds like Robert Taft. Fiercely anti-war senator from Ohio.
    , @Dutch Boy
    The British assured the 1940 Republican candidate (Wendell Wilkie), that as long as he continued to be an interventionist, there would be no public revelation that had had a mistress. With his nomination , the American people (who were solidly non-interventionist) were deprived of a candidate who reflected their views.
  17. The great thing about Russian interference is how effective it is – for the Russians.

    All they have to do is spend a few thousand dollars on advertising that is designed to help the winning candidate, and will eventually be traceable to Russia. The election losers will do the Russians’ work for them by paralysing the US political process for four years.

    If the Russians cannot guess which candidate is going to win, they can run separate advertising campaigns to support more than one, and then after the election leak some of the details of the campaign that “helped” the winning candidate.

    It’s a winning strategy for the Russians because it causes so much disruption for so little outlay.

    • Agree: Rob
    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    I've never heard any satisfactory explanation as to how or why the Deep State supposedly knows that the fingers on the keyboards posting evil memes were Russian, much less part of an official Kremlin plot.

    It's all based on the say-so of people who work for the DNC and/or hate Trump. The New York Times in particular seems to be the epicenter of all Russian-related disinformation.

    Btw, If you were a foreign spy the perfect place to infiltrate would be the New York Times or Washington Post. No one there has any security clearances or vetting, and yet they are privy to all manner of illegally leaked secret information. Plus, most of the people who work there are anti-American to begin with.

    And of course no one is allowed to investigate them because they are sacred MSM. It's such low hanging fruit that those places must be crawling with operatives from Israel, China, Russia, etc.

  18. @songbird
    Three atrocious Sherlock Holmes films starring Basil Rathbone were made where Nazis were the villains, but they were made after the US entered the war.

    I encourage everyone to watch at least one low-brow movie made as war propaganda. It really helps open your eyes to the hidden messages in modern stuff and the contempt the elite have for the general population.

    I encourage everyone to watch at least one low-brow movie made as war propaganda

    This one was made by Sam Goldwyn. Script by Lillian Hellman. Strictly high brow.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    This movie's script proves Mary McCarthy's dictum that every word Hellman wrote was a lie, including "and" and "the".
  19. Goebbels was quite impressed by Hitchcock’s Foreign Correspondent(1940), calling it “a masterpiece of propaganda, a first-class production which no doubt will make a certain impression upon the broad masses of the people in enemy countries.”

    • Replies: @anon
    A key scene from Casablanca, powerful propaganda from 1942. Many of the extras are Europeans who escaped the occupation. Sexual dynamics at work as the character of Viktor Lazlo is reasserted over Rick - Alpha in 30 seconds.

    Plus Capitain Reynauds immortal line.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOeFhSzoTuc
    , @Anonymous
    I recently saw Hitchcock's "The Secret Agent" from 1936. It's interesting for a couple of reasons, firstly because it gives an early glimpse of some 'British spy' tropes that later became very well known due to the James Bond stories. Secondly, because it has an American villain. British movies with American villains are extremely rare, and none seem to have been made after the mid-1930s.
  20. @anon
    I encourage everyone to watch at least one low-brow movie made as war propaganda

    This one was made by Sam Goldwyn. Script by Lillian Hellman. Strictly high brow.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_2_JQhR1xc

    This movie’s script proves Mary McCarthy’s dictum that every word Hellman wrote was a lie, including “and” and “the”.

  21. @syonredux
    Goebbels was quite impressed by Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent(1940), calling it "a masterpiece of propaganda, a first-class production which no doubt will make a certain impression upon the broad masses of the people in enemy countries."



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXbQ7CRaAao

    A key scene from Casablanca, powerful propaganda from 1942. Many of the extras are Europeans who escaped the occupation. Sexual dynamics at work as the character of Viktor Lazlo is reasserted over Rick – Alpha in 30 seconds.

    Plus Capitain Reynauds immortal line.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    . Sexual dynamics at work as the character of Viktor Lazlo is reasserted over Rick – Alpha in 30 seconds.
     
    Yeah, but Rick regains Alpha status by the end , as Ilsa is willing to leave Lazlo but Rick tells her to stay:



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEWaqUVac3M
    , @kihowi
    Maybe I'm slow, but I think I'm finally getting why our betters keep telling us we should consider that movie the greatest masterpiece of all time. It's the anti-nazi propaganda! I was confused because it doesn't feel like the best Bogart movie, war movie, or even Bogart war movie.

    I personally like "to have and have not" waaaay better, but that starred Walter Brannen who was about the only guy together with John Wayne who was on the side of McCarthy, so no chance.
    , @Alden
    There’s a few sentences here and there in Casablanca revealing Rick can’t go back to the US because of federal weapons Warrants . He ran weaponry “ liberated” from US army bases to the Russians fighting the Spanish Civil War against the eeeevvvviiiillll anti communist army of General Franco.
  22. @Paul Jolliffe
    Please add Theodore Geisel to the list of paid pro-interventionist/propagandists to this list. Although he was not British, before he became “Dr. Seuss” Geisel was paid to smear decent Americans. Americans who rightly worried about the probability of being dragged into another unnecessary European war were unfairly portrayed as stupid bumpkins or fools for Hitler in hundreds of Geisel’s cartoons in 1940 and 1941.
    When his contract ran out six months before Pearl Harbor, Geisel stopped drawing his simple-minded cartoons. He was strictly a mercenary, quite willing to smear his fellow Americans, as long as he was paid for it.
    He never apologized, even after he became world famous.

    To hell with him.

    Re. Geisel,

    Here’s a postwar propaganda flick for occupying G.I.s about how evil the German people are. Screenplay by Geisel.

    • Thanks: John Regan
    • Replies: @El Dato
    This is how Antifa actually sees the world when they leave their conapt in the morning.

    "These are the most dangerous -- German youth!"

    [Henry Morgenthau Jr. handrubbing]
    , @Paul Jolliffe
    Thanks for sharing that short film. I was shocked (or not) to read that "Your Job In Germany" won the 1946 Oscar for Documentary Short Subject.

    A better reaction?

    From Wikipedia:

    "The basic theme that the German people could not be trusted derived from the peace policy that emerged from the Second Quebec Conference.[3]

    The movie was first screened to the top US generals, including Dwight D. Eisenhower. George Patton reportedly walked out of the screening he attended, saying "Bullshit!".[3]
    , @Hibernian
    This film insults a large percentage of the GIs who were required to sit through it, and a very large part of one of the four major regions of the US.
  23. @Alden
    Before That Hamilton Woman there were endless Elizabeth 1 and handsome English pirates bravely looting Spanish ships. Spain stood in for Germany attacking brave little England. Spain as the enemy of brave little England was associated with the eeevvviiiillll Isabela banishing Jews and Muslims and more recent Spain defeating the soviet invasion and sending them running back to Russia.

    The whole England-good-Spain-bad meme assiduously propagated by the British, and bought into by Americans, is BS.

    • Agree: Hibernian
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The whole England-good-Spain-bad meme assiduously propagated by the British, and bought into by Americans, is BS.
     
    The England-good-Spain-bad thing had been well established in England for several hundred years, fuelled by anti-Catholic bigotry. So this was an interesting case of repurposing an existing propaganda theme.

    The English have been doing propaganda for centuries. Propaganda is very much an English speciality. Nasty people, the English. They played a key role in the development of the idea of war as a moral crusade against evil (evil being defined as anything not in England's interest). The Americans seem to have learnt the propaganda trade from the English.
  24. Speaking of War Propaganda, whenever people bleat on about the Blacklist, I tell them about this little gem:

    Mission to Moscow

    A paen to Joseph Stalin by commie screen-writer Howard Koch.

    • Replies: @anon
    Dude, don't hold the trailer back! It's got that great "open confession in the show trial" scene!


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fDsdfZu3Us
  25. @anon
    A key scene from Casablanca, powerful propaganda from 1942. Many of the extras are Europeans who escaped the occupation. Sexual dynamics at work as the character of Viktor Lazlo is reasserted over Rick - Alpha in 30 seconds.

    Plus Capitain Reynauds immortal line.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOeFhSzoTuc

    . Sexual dynamics at work as the character of Viktor Lazlo is reasserted over Rick – Alpha in 30 seconds.

    Yeah, but Rick regains Alpha status by the end , as Ilsa is willing to leave Lazlo but Rick tells her to stay:

  26. If Napoleon is Hitler, then is “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” Nazi hate speech?

    • LOL: Hibernian
  27. @Mr. Anon
    Speaking of War Propaganda, whenever people bleat on about the Blacklist, I tell them about this little gem:

    Mission to Moscow

    A paen to Joseph Stalin by commie screen-writer Howard Koch.

    Dude, don’t hold the trailer back! It’s got that great “open confession in the show trial” scene!

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Dude, don’t hold the trailer back! It’s got that great “open confession in the show trial” scene!
     
    Yes, that is kind of the "money shot" of the whole clip. The same pro-soviet flaks in Hollywood who white-washed the show trials (and bolshevik tyranny generally) would, just a few short years later, complain about the much milder treatment they received from HUAC.
  28. @anon
    A key scene from Casablanca, powerful propaganda from 1942. Many of the extras are Europeans who escaped the occupation. Sexual dynamics at work as the character of Viktor Lazlo is reasserted over Rick - Alpha in 30 seconds.

    Plus Capitain Reynauds immortal line.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOeFhSzoTuc

    Maybe I’m slow, but I think I’m finally getting why our betters keep telling us we should consider that movie the greatest masterpiece of all time. It’s the anti-nazi propaganda! I was confused because it doesn’t feel like the best Bogart movie, war movie, or even Bogart war movie.

    I personally like “to have and have not” waaaay better, but that starred Walter Brannen who was about the only guy together with John Wayne who was on the side of McCarthy, so no chance.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The song makes "Casablanca." The first 45 minutes don't include "As Time Goes By," and they're a little ho-hum, then the song kicks in.
    , @Alden
    Absolute favorite Bogart movie is Key Largo. The script is absolutely perfect. Cheap to make too.
    , @Matra
    In most European countries Casablanca is seen as a good, even a very good, movie, but it is rarely considered an all-time classic as it is in the US.
    , @Hapalong Cassidy
    It’s definitely leftist propaganda as well. There’s a throwaway line about how Rick supported the Loyalists in the Spanish Civil War. You know, the side that burned churches and killed priests and nuns.
  29. @kihowi
    Maybe I'm slow, but I think I'm finally getting why our betters keep telling us we should consider that movie the greatest masterpiece of all time. It's the anti-nazi propaganda! I was confused because it doesn't feel like the best Bogart movie, war movie, or even Bogart war movie.

    I personally like "to have and have not" waaaay better, but that starred Walter Brannen who was about the only guy together with John Wayne who was on the side of McCarthy, so no chance.

    The song makes “Casablanca.” The first 45 minutes don’t include “As Time Goes By,” and they’re a little ho-hum, then the song kicks in.

    • Replies: @Hhsiii
    The dialogue is great. Lorre, Bogart, Rains, Greenstreet all have great lines, even the bit players like Dalio etc.
  30. @Bragadocious
    Then there's this nonsense with Burgess "Penguin" Meredith quacking about how Americans need to mind their manners while saving the British Empire.

    https://youtu.be/ltVtnCzg9xw

    Because it's not enough to send your men to die in French forests, you also need to know how to behave like perfect guests while doing so. Something about crying out in pain as they strike you comes to mind...

    Lindbergh was right about who was pushing us into war.

    Then there’s this nonsense with Burgess “Penguin” Meredith quacking about how Americans need to mind their manners while saving the British Empire.

    I want to be fair minded about the Brits. Spreading the English language and English law has benefited several nations.

    But if the Brits had simply acquiesced in the inevitable end of empire in favor of people running their own nations 50 years earlier, a whole bunch of completely unnecessary 20th century bloodshed would simply not have happened.

    And it’s a knock on the United States–poor leadership–that we weren’t forthrightly on the nationalist bandwagon wholesale–our traditional heritage–but took this detour into bush league imperialism with the Philippines (and Puerto Rico).

    • Agree: West Reanimator
    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    this detour into bush league imperialism with the Philippines (and Puerto Rico).
     
    We have been punished sufficiently by having to take care of the Puerto Ricans ever since.

    When we invaded Mexico in 1848, lots of Mexicans (mostly the local elites), lobbied for annexation. We rightly decided we wanted their land and not their people, however.
    , @SFG
    It's all about the money. Don't forget our mucking around in Latin America over the years.

    Overall, though, you are right. They even used the same humanitarian justifications back then, too. Not to mention the media manipulation.
    , @Matra
    But if the Brits had simply acquiesced in the inevitable end of empire in favor of people running their own nations 50 years earlier, a whole bunch of completely unnecessary 20th century bloodshed would simply not have happened.

    Ultimately, neither Britain nor France went to war for empire. They went to war because they had a choice between that and German domination of Europe. Now you can say that was not an American problem - and you'd probably be right - but it was most definitely a problem for Europeans.

    BTW the Russians, Czechs, and Poles will be glad to know Germany was "in favor people running their own nations".
    , @Louis Renault
    Yes the peaceful transition to modern India and Pakistan come immediately to mind.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India
    , @Desiderius
    That's a little simplistic.

    You'd have had a Mutti Merkel running France and environs fifty years earlier, not the French, and more seriously perhaps Moscow.
  31. @anon
    A key scene from Casablanca, powerful propaganda from 1942. Many of the extras are Europeans who escaped the occupation. Sexual dynamics at work as the character of Viktor Lazlo is reasserted over Rick - Alpha in 30 seconds.

    Plus Capitain Reynauds immortal line.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOeFhSzoTuc

    There’s a few sentences here and there in Casablanca revealing Rick can’t go back to the US because of federal weapons Warrants . He ran weaponry “ liberated” from US army bases to the Russians fighting the Spanish Civil War against the eeeevvvviiiillll anti communist army of General Franco.

  32. @kihowi
    Maybe I'm slow, but I think I'm finally getting why our betters keep telling us we should consider that movie the greatest masterpiece of all time. It's the anti-nazi propaganda! I was confused because it doesn't feel like the best Bogart movie, war movie, or even Bogart war movie.

    I personally like "to have and have not" waaaay better, but that starred Walter Brannen who was about the only guy together with John Wayne who was on the side of McCarthy, so no chance.

    Absolute favorite Bogart movie is Key Largo. The script is absolutely perfect. Cheap to make too.

  33. Given that the FDR administration was pulling Churchill’s strings to manoeuvre Britain into the war with Germany, I wouldn’t be surprised if this was not another US ruse to thatend merely using the better actors of that day. Then again, FDR’s strings were being pulled by Stalin, so you have, yet again, another fine example of Russian intereference in US elections and internal affairs.

  34. @Almost Missouri
    "Russian propaganda interference" = Opinions at variance with the DNC

    Telling you "Russia is trying to help you" = You have been slated for destruction by Deep State

    Yep, it’s that scene from “Star Wars. Rogue One” where Director Krennic of Death Star Management is suddenly called to Darth Vader’s lair. As he stands around sweating profusely Vader appears and says “You are being helped by Russia … Director!” This is followed by some light force chocking. The Director then leaves, well informed about levels of goodwill in the Imperial decision structure.

    One also wonders what the deal is with announcing the “helping” news to all and sundry as a matter of public service just before the Nevada showdown?

    Bernie graciously accepting his new role:

    “I don’t care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president,” Sanders said in a statement to the Post, reinforcing it with a generic DNC talking point. “My message to Putin is clear: Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do.”

    Bernie vs Putin: FIGHT

  35. I heard Updike, Halberstam and Caro were all on the same college newspaper staff. So it goes.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Updike was on the Harvard comedy magazine with Fred Gwynne of the Munsters.
    , @Anonymouse
    Halberstam was on the Harvard Crimson. We did basic training together in Ft. Jackson, S.C. in 1957.
  36. In the movie The Majestic, they oddly don’t have a scene with Jim Carey writing editorials that the US is being dragged into war by British agents. That’s because the blacklisted writers had been told to do so by Comintern.

  37. @Cloudswrest
    Re. Geisel,

    Here's a postwar propaganda flick for occupying G.I.s about how evil the German people are. Screenplay by Geisel.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v5QCGqDYGo

    This is how Antifa actually sees the world when they leave their conapt in the morning.

    “These are the most dangerous — German youth!”

    [Henry Morgenthau Jr. handrubbing]

  38. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    I heard Updike, Halberstam and Caro were all on the same college newspaper staff. So it goes.

    Updike was on the Harvard comedy magazine with Fred Gwynne of the Munsters.

  39. “supplying cover to MI-5 agents gathering intelligence on both German activities in the United States and isolationist sentiments among makers of American foreign policy.”

    Not at all likely: MI6, surely? And if she can’t get that right ….

  40. @James N. Kennett
    The great thing about Russian interference is how effective it is - for the Russians.

    All they have to do is spend a few thousand dollars on advertising that is designed to help the winning candidate, and will eventually be traceable to Russia. The election losers will do the Russians' work for them by paralysing the US political process for four years.

    If the Russians cannot guess which candidate is going to win, they can run separate advertising campaigns to support more than one, and then after the election leak some of the details of the campaign that "helped" the winning candidate.

    It's a winning strategy for the Russians because it causes so much disruption for so little outlay.

    I’ve never heard any satisfactory explanation as to how or why the Deep State supposedly knows that the fingers on the keyboards posting evil memes were Russian, much less part of an official Kremlin plot.

    It’s all based on the say-so of people who work for the DNC and/or hate Trump. The New York Times in particular seems to be the epicenter of all Russian-related disinformation.

    Btw, If you were a foreign spy the perfect place to infiltrate would be the New York Times or Washington Post. No one there has any security clearances or vetting, and yet they are privy to all manner of illegally leaked secret information. Plus, most of the people who work there are anti-American to begin with.

    And of course no one is allowed to investigate them because they are sacred MSM. It’s such low hanging fruit that those places must be crawling with operatives from Israel, China, Russia, etc.

    • Replies: @Peter D. Bredon
    "Makes sense," as Batman would hoarsely say. They wouldn't need to be anti-american anyway, you could just buy any journo for the price of a case of scotch, or whatever they abuse these days.
  41. @AnotherDad

    Then there’s this nonsense with Burgess “Penguin” Meredith quacking about how Americans need to mind their manners while saving the British Empire.
     
    I want to be fair minded about the Brits. Spreading the English language and English law has benefited several nations.

    But if the Brits had simply acquiesced in the inevitable end of empire in favor of people running their own nations 50 years earlier, a whole bunch of completely unnecessary 20th century bloodshed would simply not have happened.

    And it's a knock on the United States--poor leadership--that we weren't forthrightly on the nationalist bandwagon wholesale--our traditional heritage--but took this detour into bush league imperialism with the Philippines (and Puerto Rico).

    this detour into bush league imperialism with the Philippines (and Puerto Rico).

    We have been punished sufficiently by having to take care of the Puerto Ricans ever since.

    When we invaded Mexico in 1848, lots of Mexicans (mostly the local elites), lobbied for annexation. We rightly decided we wanted their land and not their people, however.

  42. @Cloudswrest
    Re. Geisel,

    Here's a postwar propaganda flick for occupying G.I.s about how evil the German people are. Screenplay by Geisel.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v5QCGqDYGo

    Thanks for sharing that short film. I was shocked (or not) to read that “Your Job In Germany” won the 1946 Oscar for Documentary Short Subject.

    A better reaction?

    From Wikipedia:

    The basic theme that the German people could not be trusted derived from the peace policy that emerged from the Second Quebec Conference.[3]

    The movie was first screened to the top US generals, including Dwight D. Eisenhower. George Patton reportedly walked out of the screening he attended, saying “Bullshit!”.[3]

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
    George Patton reportedly walked out of the screening he attended, saying “Bullshit!”


    ... thereby signing his own death warrant.
    , @Jack D
    Your Job in Germany has to be taken in context - it was written when the war was still ongoing and no one was in a forgiving mood yet. Once the war was over, the non-fraternization policy was quickly dropped, as were many a Fraulein's drawers.
  43. @J1234
    I seem to recall hearing that the British were especially focused on either the Senate or House race in Ohio in 1940. I don't know who was running, but it was certainly some pro-war candidate. The nationwide interference of Britain in America's elections that year was the biggest news story that wasn't at the time, and the possibly the most important forgotten event in 20th century US history.

    Sounds like Robert Taft. Fiercely anti-war senator from Ohio.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @J1234
    Robert Taft came to mind as I typed my comment, but wasn't he a presidential candidate in 1940? I'm going off of memory here, so I may be wrong. If he was, though, he lost in the primary to Wilke, so maybe he put together a congressional campaign after the presidential primaries.

    BTW, I was surprised to see a statue of Robert Taft among the monuments when I visited DC (for the first time) a few years ago.

  44. @Bragadocious
    Then there's this nonsense with Burgess "Penguin" Meredith quacking about how Americans need to mind their manners while saving the British Empire.

    https://youtu.be/ltVtnCzg9xw

    Because it's not enough to send your men to die in French forests, you also need to know how to behave like perfect guests while doing so. Something about crying out in pain as they strike you comes to mind...

    Lindbergh was right about who was pushing us into war.

    https://mises.org/library/desperate-deception-british-covert-operations-united-states-thomas-mahl

    The first casualty of war is the truth. ~ Aeschylus

    All warfare is based on deception. ~ Sun Tzu

    And the Nazis hired (and admired) Edward Bernays:

    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” ~ Edward Bernays, “Propaganda”

  45. The Brits always had an advantage, what with us speaking their language and our upper class imitating them back then.

    • Agree: Hibernian
    • Replies: @Inquiring Mind
    Did you know that the Fat Broad and the Horse-Faced Lesbian are Sarah Ferguson and Princess Anne?

    When since July 4, 1776 has goofing on the British Royal Family been a crime in this country? Mike Bloomberg's defense is the Truth. Take a look at any on-line photo of Princess Anne.
    , @Bardon Kaldian
    And then- ended up as US 51st state.....
    , @Peter D. Bredon
    One of many refutations of the absurd "if we all spoke one language there'd be no wars" line.
  46. @AnotherDad

    Then there’s this nonsense with Burgess “Penguin” Meredith quacking about how Americans need to mind their manners while saving the British Empire.
     
    I want to be fair minded about the Brits. Spreading the English language and English law has benefited several nations.

    But if the Brits had simply acquiesced in the inevitable end of empire in favor of people running their own nations 50 years earlier, a whole bunch of completely unnecessary 20th century bloodshed would simply not have happened.

    And it's a knock on the United States--poor leadership--that we weren't forthrightly on the nationalist bandwagon wholesale--our traditional heritage--but took this detour into bush league imperialism with the Philippines (and Puerto Rico).

    It’s all about the money. Don’t forget our mucking around in Latin America over the years.

    Overall, though, you are right. They even used the same humanitarian justifications back then, too. Not to mention the media manipulation.

  47. Anonymous[114] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux
    Goebbels was quite impressed by Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent(1940), calling it "a masterpiece of propaganda, a first-class production which no doubt will make a certain impression upon the broad masses of the people in enemy countries."



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXbQ7CRaAao

    I recently saw Hitchcock’s “The Secret Agent” from 1936. It’s interesting for a couple of reasons, firstly because it gives an early glimpse of some ‘British spy’ tropes that later became very well known due to the James Bond stories. Secondly, because it has an American villain. British movies with American villains are extremely rare, and none seem to have been made after the mid-1930s.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    British movies with American villains are extremely rare, and none seem to have been made after the mid-1930s.
     
    How about Die Another Day? A Bond movie with the Cubans and the Chinese as the good guys. And the loathing for the Americans in that film is quite extraordinary.
  48. Russians today are like Nazis and are enemies of the Jews… so it’s ok.

  49. @SFG
    The Brits always had an advantage, what with us speaking their language and our upper class imitating them back then.

    Did you know that the Fat Broad and the Horse-Faced Lesbian are Sarah Ferguson and Princess Anne?

    When since July 4, 1776 has goofing on the British Royal Family been a crime in this country? Mike Bloomberg’s defense is the Truth. Take a look at any on-line photo of Princess Anne.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    I don't think Princess Anne is a lesbian. Seems fond enough of the chaps.

    Decades ago (1971) she did a piece from Africa for the BBC children's programme Blue Peter, during which she strode along a tropical beach wearing not very much and revealing a quite impressive figure. What we in the UK called a BOBFOC - "Body off Baywatch, face off Crimewatch".

    (Crimewatch is a British real crime programme which shows pictures of the criminals and asks the public to help find the villains.)

    As they say over at Uncouth Reflections, couldn't do this now. On the BBC flagship music programme, too. This got to #16 in 1979.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf44LWY7cdQ

  50. @Bragadocious
    Then there's this nonsense with Burgess "Penguin" Meredith quacking about how Americans need to mind their manners while saving the British Empire.

    https://youtu.be/ltVtnCzg9xw

    Because it's not enough to send your men to die in French forests, you also need to know how to behave like perfect guests while doing so. Something about crying out in pain as they strike you comes to mind...

    Lindbergh was right about who was pushing us into war.

    Irony alert: Pub founded about the time our country was founded [in rebellion against them.] The last part is left out, of course.

    The propaganda line that they are ultra-civilized and we are hooligans is as subtle as a freight train colliding with a brick wall. Apparently the British working class was just like the upper class, but with plainer clothes.

  51. I guess Johnny Horton’s Battle of New Orleans was too little ,too late ……the gator lost his mind for nothing.

  52. Unz has been writing something about it (some ramblings included): https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-our-great-purge-of-the-1940s/

    American Pravda: Our Great Purge of the 1940s

    https://www.unz.com/article/collusion-franklin-roosevelt-british-intelligence-and-the-secret-campaign-to-push-the-us-into-war/

    Collusion: Franklin Roosevelt, British Intelligence, and the Secret Campaign to Push the US Into War

  53. @SFG
    The Brits always had an advantage, what with us speaking their language and our upper class imitating them back then.

    And then- ended up as US 51st state…..

  54. @Jonathan Mason
    So the Russians are trying to help both Trump and Sanders, plus Huawei is building the world's 5G structure with stolen technology that no one else has so that they can spy on top secret military intelligence that secret agents are transmitting via ordinary phones and emails?

    Meanwhile Trump is using an unsecured cell phone to communicate internationally with his top advisors like Giuliani and Sondland in places like Ukraine, and Facebook is spying on every American who is silly enough to have a Facebook page, and the US government is unable to get information out of dead men's Apple i-Phones due to encryption. Perhaps the FBI ought to ask Huawei for help.

    The solution, however, might be the for the US and UK governments to use Whatsapp to communicate their secrets, since messages are encrypted from end to end, and ordinary diplomatic cables, such as the one in which the UK ambassador to Washington sent a few comments about the erratic behavior of Trump are routinely leaked or intercepted.

    Meanwhile in the US, the medical profession, which is obsessed with patient confidentiality and HIPAA laws mostly uses faxes to communicate confidential information.

    It is pretty obvious that the US intelligence services do not have a clue about anything. That is all I can conclude.

    so that they can spy on top secret military intelligence that secret agents are transmitting via ordinary phones and emails?

    Sometimes military and paramilitary people are careless. Loose lips sink ships. Also, lower level less sensitive communications and “who is linked with who” information can be valuable.

  55. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    I heard Updike, Halberstam and Caro were all on the same college newspaper staff. So it goes.

    Halberstam was on the Harvard Crimson. We did basic training together in Ft. Jackson, S.C. in 1957.

  56. @Cloudswrest
    Re. Geisel,

    Here's a postwar propaganda flick for occupying G.I.s about how evil the German people are. Screenplay by Geisel.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v5QCGqDYGo

    This film insults a large percentage of the GIs who were required to sit through it, and a very large part of one of the four major regions of the US.

  57. @AnotherDad

    Then there’s this nonsense with Burgess “Penguin” Meredith quacking about how Americans need to mind their manners while saving the British Empire.
     
    I want to be fair minded about the Brits. Spreading the English language and English law has benefited several nations.

    But if the Brits had simply acquiesced in the inevitable end of empire in favor of people running their own nations 50 years earlier, a whole bunch of completely unnecessary 20th century bloodshed would simply not have happened.

    And it's a knock on the United States--poor leadership--that we weren't forthrightly on the nationalist bandwagon wholesale--our traditional heritage--but took this detour into bush league imperialism with the Philippines (and Puerto Rico).

    But if the Brits had simply acquiesced in the inevitable end of empire in favor of people running their own nations 50 years earlier, a whole bunch of completely unnecessary 20th century bloodshed would simply not have happened.

    Ultimately, neither Britain nor France went to war for empire. They went to war because they had a choice between that and German domination of Europe. Now you can say that was not an American problem – and you’d probably be right – but it was most definitely a problem for Europeans.

    BTW the Russians, Czechs, and Poles will be glad to know Germany was “in favor people running their own nations”.

  58. @kihowi
    Maybe I'm slow, but I think I'm finally getting why our betters keep telling us we should consider that movie the greatest masterpiece of all time. It's the anti-nazi propaganda! I was confused because it doesn't feel like the best Bogart movie, war movie, or even Bogart war movie.

    I personally like "to have and have not" waaaay better, but that starred Walter Brannen who was about the only guy together with John Wayne who was on the side of McCarthy, so no chance.

    In most European countries Casablanca is seen as a good, even a very good, movie, but it is rarely considered an all-time classic as it is in the US.

  59. Perfidious Albion good at propaganda to protect its financial interests.

    But please always remember that Perfidious Albion is only a group within the UK, and one which hates the British working class.

  60. “The level of talent of British propagandists operating in America in the 1940s —…was substantially higher than whatever Russia, Saudi Arabia, or China can muster today.”

    But what about the level of (( )) propagandists operating in the US in 2020, at virtually every level of influence on US government policy? Wouldn’t that level today more than equal the level of Brit prop operating in the early 1940’s? Especially as it continues without abatement?

    Or am I wrong about that?

  61. @kihowi
    Maybe I'm slow, but I think I'm finally getting why our betters keep telling us we should consider that movie the greatest masterpiece of all time. It's the anti-nazi propaganda! I was confused because it doesn't feel like the best Bogart movie, war movie, or even Bogart war movie.

    I personally like "to have and have not" waaaay better, but that starred Walter Brannen who was about the only guy together with John Wayne who was on the side of McCarthy, so no chance.

    It’s definitely leftist propaganda as well. There’s a throwaway line about how Rick supported the Loyalists in the Spanish Civil War. You know, the side that burned churches and killed priests and nuns.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    By the thousands in fact.
  62. @AnotherDad

    Then there’s this nonsense with Burgess “Penguin” Meredith quacking about how Americans need to mind their manners while saving the British Empire.
     
    I want to be fair minded about the Brits. Spreading the English language and English law has benefited several nations.

    But if the Brits had simply acquiesced in the inevitable end of empire in favor of people running their own nations 50 years earlier, a whole bunch of completely unnecessary 20th century bloodshed would simply not have happened.

    And it's a knock on the United States--poor leadership--that we weren't forthrightly on the nationalist bandwagon wholesale--our traditional heritage--but took this detour into bush league imperialism with the Philippines (and Puerto Rico).

    Yes the peaceful transition to modern India and Pakistan come immediately to mind.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

  63. 1. I am amazed that so many of the commenters here actually seem to be pro-Nazi. How dare those Brits speak against the Fuhrer!

    2. The difference between propaganda and art is like the difference between pornography and art – you know it when you see it. The British did not send over propagandists, they sent over artists. Skilled artists who would know what would resonate with the American public. The problem with Russian propaganda is that it is like other Russian products – crudely made, behind the times and not in tune with American culture. As soon as the Russians are able to send over people with the skill level of (and who are as comfortable with American language and culture as) Forester, Dahl, Fleming, Olgivy, etc. then they will have the same success but their third rate current efforts won’t sell any better than Russian cars. (If anything, the situation in Russia has gotten worse – during Soviet times the Russians actually produced a few export worthy products – nowadays they export hardly anything to the West except for oil and other raw materials).

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Though I know y'all (your class, not your ethnicity which often still slavishly follows the whims of that class) believe to your bones that there isn't a scintilla of difference most are anti-anti-Nazi and not because the Nazis were great - they were far from it - but because of the extreme havoc over the top anti-Nazism has had on the West, to the point of endangering the idea of a West at all.

    Likewise Russia already exported the world's finest literature.

    , @Hibernian
    As to #1. WRT some commenters you may be right, but, WRT others, there's a difference between Bismarck and Kaiser Bill on the one hand, and Hitler on the other. Also there's a difference between simply having a Faustian alliance with the USSR against Hitler and glorifyng the USSR. And also between allying with the UK when necessary, and glorifying historic WASPdom.

    As to #2, some of the British art/propaganda wasn't all that subtle.
    , @Mr. Anon

    1. I am amazed that so many of the commenters here actually seem to be pro-Nazi. How dare those Brits speak against the Fuhrer!
     
    They aren't. You just perceive any questioning of historical narratives as being so.

    It's an old trick - and it's wearing thin.

    The problem with Russian propaganda is that it is like other Russian products – crudely made, behind the times and not in tune with American culture. As soon as the Russians are able to send over people with the skill level of (and who are as comfortable with American language and culture as) Forester, Dahl, Fleming, Olgivy, etc.............
     
    The Soviets didn't have to send over their own people. They had so many of your people to make their propaganda for them.
    , @Bragadocious

    How dare those Brits speak against the Fuhrer!

     

    Pah. Maybe you should visit the WW2 cemeteries in France sometime. Way more U.S. gravesites than British, even accounting for population. Churchill's goal was never to kill Nazis, it was to hire other people to kill Nazis while he preserved the empire. And the Brits exported a lot more than "artists." In 1940 the U.S. was crawling with British spies. They did fun things like forge documents claiming that Germany was going to invade Latin America, knowing that would trigger the Monroe Doctrine and get America involved. They got friendly newspapers to run stories about these claims.

    A lot like the Brits are still doing with piss dossiers and Yahoo.

  64. @AnotherDad

    Then there’s this nonsense with Burgess “Penguin” Meredith quacking about how Americans need to mind their manners while saving the British Empire.
     
    I want to be fair minded about the Brits. Spreading the English language and English law has benefited several nations.

    But if the Brits had simply acquiesced in the inevitable end of empire in favor of people running their own nations 50 years earlier, a whole bunch of completely unnecessary 20th century bloodshed would simply not have happened.

    And it's a knock on the United States--poor leadership--that we weren't forthrightly on the nationalist bandwagon wholesale--our traditional heritage--but took this detour into bush league imperialism with the Philippines (and Puerto Rico).

    That’s a little simplistic.

    You’d have had a Mutti Merkel running France and environs fifty years earlier, not the French, and more seriously perhaps Moscow.

  65. @Jack D
    1. I am amazed that so many of the commenters here actually seem to be pro-Nazi. How dare those Brits speak against the Fuhrer!

    2. The difference between propaganda and art is like the difference between pornography and art - you know it when you see it. The British did not send over propagandists, they sent over artists. Skilled artists who would know what would resonate with the American public. The problem with Russian propaganda is that it is like other Russian products - crudely made, behind the times and not in tune with American culture. As soon as the Russians are able to send over people with the skill level of (and who are as comfortable with American language and culture as) Forester, Dahl, Fleming, Olgivy, etc. then they will have the same success but their third rate current efforts won't sell any better than Russian cars. (If anything, the situation in Russia has gotten worse - during Soviet times the Russians actually produced a few export worthy products - nowadays they export hardly anything to the West except for oil and other raw materials).

    Though I know y’all (your class, not your ethnicity which often still slavishly follows the whims of that class) believe to your bones that there isn’t a scintilla of difference most are anti-anti-Nazi and not because the Nazis were great – they were far from it – but because of the extreme havoc over the top anti-Nazism has had on the West, to the point of endangering the idea of a West at all.

    Likewise Russia already exported the world’s finest literature.

    • Agree: Mr McKenna
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Sure this is the tragedy of Hitler - Hitler discredited not only Nazism but the right in general. Anything that is not radical left progressive is labeled as fascist. Eugenics - might as well crank up the gas chambers. Turning away Guatemalan Indios trying to get in on free American goodies is the same as sending German Jews to their doom.

    But when the right could have fought Hitler and strangled him in his cradle, they failed to do so. They failed to disown him. The American right said, "Brits and Jews, Hitler is your problem, not ours. No Nazi ever called me a n---er" So this is the right's own tragedy.
  66. high quality 2016 Russian interference effort

    All that’s missing is the Over the Top hat on Jesus and that bad boy could swing five states.

  67. @Desiderius
    Though I know y'all (your class, not your ethnicity which often still slavishly follows the whims of that class) believe to your bones that there isn't a scintilla of difference most are anti-anti-Nazi and not because the Nazis were great - they were far from it - but because of the extreme havoc over the top anti-Nazism has had on the West, to the point of endangering the idea of a West at all.

    Likewise Russia already exported the world's finest literature.

    Sure this is the tragedy of Hitler – Hitler discredited not only Nazism but the right in general. Anything that is not radical left progressive is labeled as fascist. Eugenics – might as well crank up the gas chambers. Turning away Guatemalan Indios trying to get in on free American goodies is the same as sending German Jews to their doom.

    But when the right could have fought Hitler and strangled him in his cradle, they failed to do so. They failed to disown him. The American right said, “Brits and Jews, Hitler is your problem, not ours. No Nazi ever called me a n—er” So this is the right’s own tragedy.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Sure this is the tragedy of Hitler – Hitler discredited not only Nazism but the right in general.
     
    Hitler didn't discredit anything. The people who controlled the historical narrative "discredited" the right in general. The fact that Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin didn't "discredit" anything should be enough to let you know that you're wrong.
    , @Johann Ricke

    But when the right could have fought Hitler and strangled him in his cradle, they failed to do so. They failed to disown him. The American right said, “Brits and Jews, Hitler is your problem, not ours. No Nazi ever called me a n—er” So this is the right’s own tragedy.
     
    That's just preposterous. The US had a skeleton army at that point in time, and the Brits and the French were certainly not arming up for the coming conflict. It's not for lack of resources either - both had globe-spanning empires that dwarfed what was available to the Germans, whose territories outside of Europe had been taken from them at the end of WWI. What Germany's European opponents lacked was will. They were literally decadent.

    To blame America for not fighting in someone else's wars is 10x more preposterous than blaming the US for pulling out of Afghanistan or Iraq, where losses have been nugatory relative to WWI. The US had to impose draconian measures to fight in WWI, mostly as an auxiliary force (although this proved to be the straw that broke the Kaiser's back) and that short 2-year engagement killed 100K Americans.

    Just how many Israelis have been killed in American wars, that the US should automatically marshal its forces to defend European Jewry? Even relative to the nation states of Europe, American sacrifices have been one-sided. The US lost 400K dead in Europe fighting in two large-scale European wars. How many Europeans have been lost fighting in American wars? Not even 1/10 of American losses, and that is inclusive of the Revolutionary War.
    , @Hibernian
    America First originally had liberal Northeastern WASP supporters, mainly young idealists in college. Fighting other nation's battles was a recent development, and it worked out badly in WW1. We suffered massive casualties during a mere 1 1/2 years of American involvement, in return for an aftermath that included the birth of the USSR and an unstable dictated peace settlement, complete with massive debts for reparations payments.
    , @Desiderius
    That's nice.

    It's not the Right whose brains are being eaten alive as we speak by maniacal anti-Nazism. Unless one means the Right in DeMaistre's sense, which would make the anti-Nazis the Right, not MAGA.
  68. @Jonathan Mason
    So the Russians are trying to help both Trump and Sanders, plus Huawei is building the world's 5G structure with stolen technology that no one else has so that they can spy on top secret military intelligence that secret agents are transmitting via ordinary phones and emails?

    Meanwhile Trump is using an unsecured cell phone to communicate internationally with his top advisors like Giuliani and Sondland in places like Ukraine, and Facebook is spying on every American who is silly enough to have a Facebook page, and the US government is unable to get information out of dead men's Apple i-Phones due to encryption. Perhaps the FBI ought to ask Huawei for help.

    The solution, however, might be the for the US and UK governments to use Whatsapp to communicate their secrets, since messages are encrypted from end to end, and ordinary diplomatic cables, such as the one in which the UK ambassador to Washington sent a few comments about the erratic behavior of Trump are routinely leaked or intercepted.

    Meanwhile in the US, the medical profession, which is obsessed with patient confidentiality and HIPAA laws mostly uses faxes to communicate confidential information.

    It is pretty obvious that the US intelligence services do not have a clue about anything. That is all I can conclude.

    “The solution, however, might be the for the US and UK governments to use Whatsapp to communicate their secrets, since messages are encrypted from end to end, and ordinary diplomatic cables, such as the one in which the UK ambassador to Washington sent a few comments about the erratic behavior of Trump are routinely leaked or intercepted.”

    Sorry, POTUS wants your secure end-to-end encryption compromised so “Whatsapp” users can be monitored as easily as your cellphone by LE.

    https://www.npr.org/2020/02/21/805032627/trump-administration-targets-your-warrant-proof-encrypted-messages

  69. Of course, there was also The 49th Parallel, which was even more heavy-handed, but the real interference was from genuine espionage that prevented FDR from having to face a pro-American candidate in the 1940 election.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Of course, there was also The 49th Parallel, which was even more heavy-handed,

     

    Indeed:

    49th Parallel is a 1941 British war drama film; it was the third film made by the British writer-director team of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger. It was released in the United States as The Invaders.[4] The British Ministry of Information approached Michael Powell to make a propaganda film for them, suggesting he make "a film about mine-sweeping". Instead, Powell decided to make a different film to help sway opinion in the then neutral United States. Said Powell, "I hoped it might scare the pants off the Americans [and thus bring them into the war]".[5] Screenwriter Emeric Pressburger remarked, "Goebbels considered himself an expert on propaganda, but I thought I'd show him a thing or two".
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/49th_Parallel_(film)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-7gczSfDNc
  70. @Jack D
    Sure this is the tragedy of Hitler - Hitler discredited not only Nazism but the right in general. Anything that is not radical left progressive is labeled as fascist. Eugenics - might as well crank up the gas chambers. Turning away Guatemalan Indios trying to get in on free American goodies is the same as sending German Jews to their doom.

    But when the right could have fought Hitler and strangled him in his cradle, they failed to do so. They failed to disown him. The American right said, "Brits and Jews, Hitler is your problem, not ours. No Nazi ever called me a n---er" So this is the right's own tragedy.

    Sure this is the tragedy of Hitler – Hitler discredited not only Nazism but the right in general.

    Hitler didn’t discredit anything. The people who controlled the historical narrative “discredited” the right in general. The fact that Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin didn’t “discredit” anything should be enough to let you know that you’re wrong.

    • Agree: Mr McKenna, Desiderius
    • Replies: @Hibernian

    Hitler didn’t discredit anything.
     
    Disagree. He and his supporters gave any kind of eugenics a very bad name, by taking eugenics to the extreme.
  71. There was a movie I saw recently called “The Commandos Strike at Dawn” made in the early 40s about the occupation of Norway which was fairly heavy handed with regard to German cruelty there (the actors included Lillian Gish and the guy who played Lt. Tragg on Perry Mason). I don’t doubt that the Germans treated the Norwegians harshly or even brutally or that the Norwegians rightly resented it, but I have to contrast the film with one made more recently about the same subject called “The King’s Choice”, which showed the valiant Norwegian defense of their nation, but portrayed the German ambassador in a sympathetic light. Propaganda made when tensions are high will lack any subtlety and more complex characters make for more enjoyable entertainment, even regarding historical subjects.

  72. @Jack D
    Sure this is the tragedy of Hitler - Hitler discredited not only Nazism but the right in general. Anything that is not radical left progressive is labeled as fascist. Eugenics - might as well crank up the gas chambers. Turning away Guatemalan Indios trying to get in on free American goodies is the same as sending German Jews to their doom.

    But when the right could have fought Hitler and strangled him in his cradle, they failed to do so. They failed to disown him. The American right said, "Brits and Jews, Hitler is your problem, not ours. No Nazi ever called me a n---er" So this is the right's own tragedy.

    But when the right could have fought Hitler and strangled him in his cradle, they failed to do so. They failed to disown him. The American right said, “Brits and Jews, Hitler is your problem, not ours. No Nazi ever called me a n—er” So this is the right’s own tragedy.

    That’s just preposterous. The US had a skeleton army at that point in time, and the Brits and the French were certainly not arming up for the coming conflict. It’s not for lack of resources either – both had globe-spanning empires that dwarfed what was available to the Germans, whose territories outside of Europe had been taken from them at the end of WWI. What Germany’s European opponents lacked was will. They were literally decadent.

    To blame America for not fighting in someone else’s wars is 10x more preposterous than blaming the US for pulling out of Afghanistan or Iraq, where losses have been nugatory relative to WWI. The US had to impose draconian measures to fight in WWI, mostly as an auxiliary force (although this proved to be the straw that broke the Kaiser’s back) and that short 2-year engagement killed 100K Americans.

    Just how many Israelis have been killed in American wars, that the US should automatically marshal its forces to defend European Jewry? Even relative to the nation states of Europe, American sacrifices have been one-sided. The US lost 400K dead in Europe fighting in two large-scale European wars. How many Europeans have been lost fighting in American wars? Not even 1/10 of American losses, and that is inclusive of the Revolutionary War.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    The anti-war movement in the West was not just in the US - as I mentioned in my other comment, the Oxford Oath (which BTW, 3,000 Columbia University students took in 1935) started in the UK. But the US was complicit too. Hitler took note of the Oxford Oath and to him it meant that the West was weak and decadent.

    WWII needs to be seen as the continuation of WWI. People say that too much was done to weaken Germany after WWI but in fact it was not enough. The Germans need to have militarism permanently beaten out of them. Militarism is appealing because when it works it is spectacularly successful - as Conan says, the best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women. It is diplomacy by other means. It's BETTER than diplomacy because diplomacy requires compromises.

    You don't get your enemy to give up militarism by taking an oath not to fight them - duh! WWI ended with Germany defeated but physically untouched. All the fighting had been on other people's territories. Sure many men were dead but in 1 generation they grew new ones. Only by making the Germans feel the true cost of war was the West finally able to burn the desire for it out of them.

    You are right that the primary responsibility for the failure to stem Hitler's rise lies with the Europeans but the US was one of the WWI Allies and it shares responsibility. One a war is over, Americans tend to lose all interest in a place. We defeated the Russians in Afghanistan and then we let the place go to hell. After WWII in Europe we realized that you have to not only win the war but win the peace. The fact that the Soviets were breathing down our neck helped but for whatever reason we did the right thing that time.

  73. @Jack D
    1. I am amazed that so many of the commenters here actually seem to be pro-Nazi. How dare those Brits speak against the Fuhrer!

    2. The difference between propaganda and art is like the difference between pornography and art - you know it when you see it. The British did not send over propagandists, they sent over artists. Skilled artists who would know what would resonate with the American public. The problem with Russian propaganda is that it is like other Russian products - crudely made, behind the times and not in tune with American culture. As soon as the Russians are able to send over people with the skill level of (and who are as comfortable with American language and culture as) Forester, Dahl, Fleming, Olgivy, etc. then they will have the same success but their third rate current efforts won't sell any better than Russian cars. (If anything, the situation in Russia has gotten worse - during Soviet times the Russians actually produced a few export worthy products - nowadays they export hardly anything to the West except for oil and other raw materials).

    As to #1. WRT some commenters you may be right, but, WRT others, there’s a difference between Bismarck and Kaiser Bill on the one hand, and Hitler on the other. Also there’s a difference between simply having a Faustian alliance with the USSR against Hitler and glorifyng the USSR. And also between allying with the UK when necessary, and glorifying historic WASPdom.

    As to #2, some of the British art/propaganda wasn’t all that subtle.

  74. @Jack D
    Sure this is the tragedy of Hitler - Hitler discredited not only Nazism but the right in general. Anything that is not radical left progressive is labeled as fascist. Eugenics - might as well crank up the gas chambers. Turning away Guatemalan Indios trying to get in on free American goodies is the same as sending German Jews to their doom.

    But when the right could have fought Hitler and strangled him in his cradle, they failed to do so. They failed to disown him. The American right said, "Brits and Jews, Hitler is your problem, not ours. No Nazi ever called me a n---er" So this is the right's own tragedy.

    America First originally had liberal Northeastern WASP supporters, mainly young idealists in college. Fighting other nation’s battles was a recent development, and it worked out badly in WW1. We suffered massive casualties during a mere 1 1/2 years of American involvement, in return for an aftermath that included the birth of the USSR and an unstable dictated peace settlement, complete with massive debts for reparations payments.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    There were two currents in America First. One was the anti-war one you mention, not unlike the later anti-war movement during Vietnam. We are young men with our full life ahead of us and we don't want to be sent to die in some foreign forest/jungle to satisfy a bunch of old men. Been there, done that and we're not doing it again. This movement was found in Britain also. See the Oxford Oath: "This House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country", passed (not coincidentally) only days after Hitler came to power. Unfortunately, Hitler drew the exact wrong inference from the Oxford Oath, so maybe it wasn't such a hot idea to begin with.

    But the 2nd was pro-German/ anti-British / anti-Jewish. “The British and the Jewish races,” said Lindbergh at a rally in September 1941, “for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.” The US had (especially in the Midwest) a traditional base of people who were of German or Lutheran descent and had pro-German (and often anti-Semitic) views.
    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    America First originally had liberal Northeastern WASP supporters, mainly young idealists in college.
     
    America First started in the Midwest, among Midwestern business classes. Its greatest stronghold was in Chicago, and its greatest media outlet was McCormick's Chicago Tribune. But it did attract many young idealists later, including John F. Kennedy.

    It was a perfectly mainstream organization now branded as kooky by the peddlers of the MAH GOOD WAR mythos.

    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0742507858/ 'Storm on the Horizon: The Challenge to American Intervention, 1939-1941' by Justus D. Doenecke is a good book

    As is anything by Bill Kauffman, such as 'America First' https://www.amazon.com/America-First-History-Culture-Politics/dp/1633883094/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=bill+kauffman+america+first&qid=1582399569&s=books&sr=1-1

  75. @ben tillman

    Sure this is the tragedy of Hitler – Hitler discredited not only Nazism but the right in general.
     
    Hitler didn't discredit anything. The people who controlled the historical narrative "discredited" the right in general. The fact that Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin didn't "discredit" anything should be enough to let you know that you're wrong.

    Hitler didn’t discredit anything.

    Disagree. He and his supporters gave any kind of eugenics a very bad name, by taking eugenics to the extreme.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Malgenics can't discredit eugenics. Eugenics was never discredited, the corruption of the TPTB led them to lose interest in pursuing it for any but their own, and the worst to discourage it outright out of either spiteful malevolence or cowardly naivete.
  76. @Hibernian
    America First originally had liberal Northeastern WASP supporters, mainly young idealists in college. Fighting other nation's battles was a recent development, and it worked out badly in WW1. We suffered massive casualties during a mere 1 1/2 years of American involvement, in return for an aftermath that included the birth of the USSR and an unstable dictated peace settlement, complete with massive debts for reparations payments.

    There were two currents in America First. One was the anti-war one you mention, not unlike the later anti-war movement during Vietnam. We are young men with our full life ahead of us and we don’t want to be sent to die in some foreign forest/jungle to satisfy a bunch of old men. Been there, done that and we’re not doing it again. This movement was found in Britain also. See the Oxford Oath: “This House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country”, passed (not coincidentally) only days after Hitler came to power. Unfortunately, Hitler drew the exact wrong inference from the Oxford Oath, so maybe it wasn’t such a hot idea to begin with.

    But the 2nd was pro-German/ anti-British / anti-Jewish. “The British and the Jewish races,” said Lindbergh at a rally in September 1941, “for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.” The US had (especially in the Midwest) a traditional base of people who were of German or Lutheran descent and had pro-German (and often anti-Semitic) views.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    But the 2nd was pro-German/ anti-British / anti-Jewish. “The British and the Jewish races,” said Lindbergh at a rally in September 1941, “for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.” The US had (especially in the Midwest) a traditional base of people who were of German or Lutheran descent and had pro-German (and often anti-Semitic) views.
     
    How is this anti-Semitic? Are you seriously prepared to argue against the fact that the British and Jews wished to involve us in the war for their own selfish interests?

    Lindbergh got in trouble for speaking the obvious.

    The two "currents" you describe are false distinctions that you have created. In reality, there were people, like Lindbergh, willing to say who wanted the war, and people who were not so willing. But most people with any sense at all knew that the British and Jews were working together with the Roosevelt administration to subvert the will of the American people, among whom anti-war sentiment was measured as high as 90% by Gallup.

    , @Mr. Anon

    There were two currents in America First.
     
    And American citizens have every right to have belonged to either of the two currents. Or do you maintain they did not? Imagine - Americans being anti-British - how could that ever be allowed? Why on Earth should that ever be? Certainly, that should have been shut down back in 1775.

    And you seem to find it odd that Americans of german ancestry might have a tendency to be pro-German. And yet you see nothing wrong in Jews being pro-Israel.
  77. A fun bit of trivia about David Ogilvy is he took an IQ test as an adult and scored 95.
    This triggered him so he took another one, and again scored 95…

  78. @ben tillman
    Of course, there was also The 49th Parallel, which was even more heavy-handed, but the real interference was from genuine espionage that prevented FDR from having to face a pro-American candidate in the 1940 election.

    Of course, there was also The 49th Parallel, which was even more heavy-handed,

    Indeed:

    49th Parallel is a 1941 British war drama film; it was the third film made by the British writer-director team of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger. It was released in the United States as The Invaders.[4] The British Ministry of Information approached Michael Powell to make a propaganda film for them, suggesting he make “a film about mine-sweeping”. Instead, Powell decided to make a different film to help sway opinion in the then neutral United States. Said Powell, “I hoped it might scare the pants off the Americans [and thus bring them into the war]”.[5] Screenwriter Emeric Pressburger remarked, “Goebbels considered himself an expert on propaganda, but I thought I’d show him a thing or two”.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/49th_Parallel_(film)

  79. @Hypnotoad666
    I've never heard any satisfactory explanation as to how or why the Deep State supposedly knows that the fingers on the keyboards posting evil memes were Russian, much less part of an official Kremlin plot.

    It's all based on the say-so of people who work for the DNC and/or hate Trump. The New York Times in particular seems to be the epicenter of all Russian-related disinformation.

    Btw, If you were a foreign spy the perfect place to infiltrate would be the New York Times or Washington Post. No one there has any security clearances or vetting, and yet they are privy to all manner of illegally leaked secret information. Plus, most of the people who work there are anti-American to begin with.

    And of course no one is allowed to investigate them because they are sacred MSM. It's such low hanging fruit that those places must be crawling with operatives from Israel, China, Russia, etc.

    “Makes sense,” as Batman would hoarsely say. They wouldn’t need to be anti-american anyway, you could just buy any journo for the price of a case of scotch, or whatever they abuse these days.

  80. @SFG
    The Brits always had an advantage, what with us speaking their language and our upper class imitating them back then.

    One of many refutations of the absurd “if we all spoke one language there’d be no wars” line.

  81. My gosh, some of you people in this comment section don’t seem 1) To be aware of the book, ‘Desperate Deception’, or 2) To have never read any of Ron Unz’s Our American Pravda series.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-understanding-world-war-ii/

    The British establishment didn’t just have pro-war art in this country. They had pro-war SPIES in this country, and they used various sundry tactics to subvert the anti-war feeling and intent of the American people.

    I can tell that a lot of iSteve readers still think World War Two was MAH GOOD WAR. Presumably some of you are even fine with FDR’s unconstitutional use of the United States Navy, with which he committed unlawful acts of war against German subs for over two years.

    After all, the basic premise of MAH GOOD WAR is that two wrongs can make a right.

    In reality, World War Two is the post-modern foundation or origin myth. But because this myth’s basis is in death rather than life, it is a poisonous root. And that is why our form of reality is so awful.

  82. @Paul Jolliffe
    Thanks for sharing that short film. I was shocked (or not) to read that "Your Job In Germany" won the 1946 Oscar for Documentary Short Subject.

    A better reaction?

    From Wikipedia:

    "The basic theme that the German people could not be trusted derived from the peace policy that emerged from the Second Quebec Conference.[3]

    The movie was first screened to the top US generals, including Dwight D. Eisenhower. George Patton reportedly walked out of the screening he attended, saying "Bullshit!".[3]

    George Patton reportedly walked out of the screening he attended, saying “Bullshit!”

    … thereby signing his own death warrant.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    If Patton was murdered, it was poorly done. Everyone else in the car with him was only slightly injured and it was only by (bad) luck that Patton hit his head on the glass partition between the front and back seat (needless to say no such thing as seatbelts in those days).
  83. @Jack D
    There were two currents in America First. One was the anti-war one you mention, not unlike the later anti-war movement during Vietnam. We are young men with our full life ahead of us and we don't want to be sent to die in some foreign forest/jungle to satisfy a bunch of old men. Been there, done that and we're not doing it again. This movement was found in Britain also. See the Oxford Oath: "This House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country", passed (not coincidentally) only days after Hitler came to power. Unfortunately, Hitler drew the exact wrong inference from the Oxford Oath, so maybe it wasn't such a hot idea to begin with.

    But the 2nd was pro-German/ anti-British / anti-Jewish. “The British and the Jewish races,” said Lindbergh at a rally in September 1941, “for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.” The US had (especially in the Midwest) a traditional base of people who were of German or Lutheran descent and had pro-German (and often anti-Semitic) views.

    But the 2nd was pro-German/ anti-British / anti-Jewish. “The British and the Jewish races,” said Lindbergh at a rally in September 1941, “for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.” The US had (especially in the Midwest) a traditional base of people who were of German or Lutheran descent and had pro-German (and often anti-Semitic) views.

    How is this anti-Semitic? Are you seriously prepared to argue against the fact that the British and Jews wished to involve us in the war for their own selfish interests?

    Lindbergh got in trouble for speaking the obvious.

    The two “currents” you describe are false distinctions that you have created. In reality, there were people, like Lindbergh, willing to say who wanted the war, and people who were not so willing. But most people with any sense at all knew that the British and Jews were working together with the Roosevelt administration to subvert the will of the American people, among whom anti-war sentiment was measured as high as 90% by Gallup.

    • Agree: John Regan, JMcG
  84. @Hibernian
    America First originally had liberal Northeastern WASP supporters, mainly young idealists in college. Fighting other nation's battles was a recent development, and it worked out badly in WW1. We suffered massive casualties during a mere 1 1/2 years of American involvement, in return for an aftermath that included the birth of the USSR and an unstable dictated peace settlement, complete with massive debts for reparations payments.

    America First originally had liberal Northeastern WASP supporters, mainly young idealists in college.

    America First started in the Midwest, among Midwestern business classes. Its greatest stronghold was in Chicago, and its greatest media outlet was McCormick’s Chicago Tribune. But it did attract many young idealists later, including John F. Kennedy.

    It was a perfectly mainstream organization now branded as kooky by the peddlers of the MAH GOOD WAR mythos.

    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0742507858/ ‘Storm on the Horizon: The Challenge to American Intervention, 1939-1941’ by Justus D. Doenecke is a good book

    As is anything by Bill Kauffman, such as ‘America First’ https://www.amazon.com/America-First-History-Culture-Politics/dp/1633883094/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=bill+kauffman+america+first&qid=1582399569&s=books&sr=1-1

  85. @anon
    Dude, don't hold the trailer back! It's got that great "open confession in the show trial" scene!


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fDsdfZu3Us

    Dude, don’t hold the trailer back! It’s got that great “open confession in the show trial” scene!

    Yes, that is kind of the “money shot” of the whole clip. The same pro-soviet flaks in Hollywood who white-washed the show trials (and bolshevik tyranny generally) would, just a few short years later, complain about the much milder treatment they received from HUAC.

  86. @Johann Ricke

    But when the right could have fought Hitler and strangled him in his cradle, they failed to do so. They failed to disown him. The American right said, “Brits and Jews, Hitler is your problem, not ours. No Nazi ever called me a n—er” So this is the right’s own tragedy.
     
    That's just preposterous. The US had a skeleton army at that point in time, and the Brits and the French were certainly not arming up for the coming conflict. It's not for lack of resources either - both had globe-spanning empires that dwarfed what was available to the Germans, whose territories outside of Europe had been taken from them at the end of WWI. What Germany's European opponents lacked was will. They were literally decadent.

    To blame America for not fighting in someone else's wars is 10x more preposterous than blaming the US for pulling out of Afghanistan or Iraq, where losses have been nugatory relative to WWI. The US had to impose draconian measures to fight in WWI, mostly as an auxiliary force (although this proved to be the straw that broke the Kaiser's back) and that short 2-year engagement killed 100K Americans.

    Just how many Israelis have been killed in American wars, that the US should automatically marshal its forces to defend European Jewry? Even relative to the nation states of Europe, American sacrifices have been one-sided. The US lost 400K dead in Europe fighting in two large-scale European wars. How many Europeans have been lost fighting in American wars? Not even 1/10 of American losses, and that is inclusive of the Revolutionary War.

    The anti-war movement in the West was not just in the US – as I mentioned in my other comment, the Oxford Oath (which BTW, 3,000 Columbia University students took in 1935) started in the UK. But the US was complicit too. Hitler took note of the Oxford Oath and to him it meant that the West was weak and decadent.

    WWII needs to be seen as the continuation of WWI. People say that too much was done to weaken Germany after WWI but in fact it was not enough. The Germans need to have militarism permanently beaten out of them. Militarism is appealing because when it works it is spectacularly successful – as Conan says, the best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women. It is diplomacy by other means. It’s BETTER than diplomacy because diplomacy requires compromises.

    You don’t get your enemy to give up militarism by taking an oath not to fight them – duh! WWI ended with Germany defeated but physically untouched. All the fighting had been on other people’s territories. Sure many men were dead but in 1 generation they grew new ones. Only by making the Germans feel the true cost of war was the West finally able to burn the desire for it out of them.

    You are right that the primary responsibility for the failure to stem Hitler’s rise lies with the Europeans but the US was one of the WWI Allies and it shares responsibility. One a war is over, Americans tend to lose all interest in a place. We defeated the Russians in Afghanistan and then we let the place go to hell. After WWII in Europe we realized that you have to not only win the war but win the peace. The fact that the Soviets were breathing down our neck helped but for whatever reason we did the right thing that time.

  87. @Steve Sailer
    The song makes "Casablanca." The first 45 minutes don't include "As Time Goes By," and they're a little ho-hum, then the song kicks in.

    The dialogue is great. Lorre, Bogart, Rains, Greenstreet all have great lines, even the bit players like Dalio etc.

  88. @Jack D
    There were two currents in America First. One was the anti-war one you mention, not unlike the later anti-war movement during Vietnam. We are young men with our full life ahead of us and we don't want to be sent to die in some foreign forest/jungle to satisfy a bunch of old men. Been there, done that and we're not doing it again. This movement was found in Britain also. See the Oxford Oath: "This House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country", passed (not coincidentally) only days after Hitler came to power. Unfortunately, Hitler drew the exact wrong inference from the Oxford Oath, so maybe it wasn't such a hot idea to begin with.

    But the 2nd was pro-German/ anti-British / anti-Jewish. “The British and the Jewish races,” said Lindbergh at a rally in September 1941, “for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.” The US had (especially in the Midwest) a traditional base of people who were of German or Lutheran descent and had pro-German (and often anti-Semitic) views.

    There were two currents in America First.

    And American citizens have every right to have belonged to either of the two currents. Or do you maintain they did not? Imagine – Americans being anti-British – how could that ever be allowed? Why on Earth should that ever be? Certainly, that should have been shut down back in 1775.

    And you seem to find it odd that Americans of german ancestry might have a tendency to be pro-German. And yet you see nothing wrong in Jews being pro-Israel.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Pro-German is one thing and pro-Nazi is another.

    And yes at the time Americans had the Constitutional right to be anti-British, pro-German, even anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi. But they also had the right to be judged wrong by history. Lindbergh destroyed his reputation over this.

  89. @Paul Jolliffe
    Thanks for sharing that short film. I was shocked (or not) to read that "Your Job In Germany" won the 1946 Oscar for Documentary Short Subject.

    A better reaction?

    From Wikipedia:

    "The basic theme that the German people could not be trusted derived from the peace policy that emerged from the Second Quebec Conference.[3]

    The movie was first screened to the top US generals, including Dwight D. Eisenhower. George Patton reportedly walked out of the screening he attended, saying "Bullshit!".[3]

    Your Job in Germany has to be taken in context – it was written when the war was still ongoing and no one was in a forgiving mood yet. Once the war was over, the non-fraternization policy was quickly dropped, as were many a Fraulein’s drawers.

  90. @Jack D
    1. I am amazed that so many of the commenters here actually seem to be pro-Nazi. How dare those Brits speak against the Fuhrer!

    2. The difference between propaganda and art is like the difference between pornography and art - you know it when you see it. The British did not send over propagandists, they sent over artists. Skilled artists who would know what would resonate with the American public. The problem with Russian propaganda is that it is like other Russian products - crudely made, behind the times and not in tune with American culture. As soon as the Russians are able to send over people with the skill level of (and who are as comfortable with American language and culture as) Forester, Dahl, Fleming, Olgivy, etc. then they will have the same success but their third rate current efforts won't sell any better than Russian cars. (If anything, the situation in Russia has gotten worse - during Soviet times the Russians actually produced a few export worthy products - nowadays they export hardly anything to the West except for oil and other raw materials).

    1. I am amazed that so many of the commenters here actually seem to be pro-Nazi. How dare those Brits speak against the Fuhrer!

    They aren’t. You just perceive any questioning of historical narratives as being so.

    It’s an old trick – and it’s wearing thin.

    The problem with Russian propaganda is that it is like other Russian products – crudely made, behind the times and not in tune with American culture. As soon as the Russians are able to send over people with the skill level of (and who are as comfortable with American language and culture as) Forester, Dahl, Fleming, Olgivy, etc………….

    The Soviets didn’t have to send over their own people. They had so many of your people to make their propaganda for them.

  91. @Old Palo Altan
    George Patton reportedly walked out of the screening he attended, saying “Bullshit!”


    ... thereby signing his own death warrant.

    If Patton was murdered, it was poorly done. Everyone else in the car with him was only slightly injured and it was only by (bad) luck that Patton hit his head on the glass partition between the front and back seat (needless to say no such thing as seatbelts in those days).

  92. @Alden
    Before That Hamilton Woman there were endless Elizabeth 1 and handsome English pirates bravely looting Spanish ships. Spain stood in for Germany attacking brave little England. Spain as the enemy of brave little England was associated with the eeevvviiiillll Isabela banishing Jews and Muslims and more recent Spain defeating the soviet invasion and sending them running back to Russia.

    There is nothing unnatural about Americans cheering for Elizabeth I and Drake.

    Before the American nation could come into existence, the Catholic monopoly on sea power, exploration and colonization had to be broken.

    I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the average American had more sea-dog ancestry than the average Englishman.

    The Puritans who sailed with Drake left England in disgust when the Stuarts began to corrupt the purity of Reformed Christianity and Anglo-Saxon constitutionalism.

  93. @Inquiring Mind
    Did you know that the Fat Broad and the Horse-Faced Lesbian are Sarah Ferguson and Princess Anne?

    When since July 4, 1776 has goofing on the British Royal Family been a crime in this country? Mike Bloomberg's defense is the Truth. Take a look at any on-line photo of Princess Anne.

    I don’t think Princess Anne is a lesbian. Seems fond enough of the chaps.

    Decades ago (1971) she did a piece from Africa for the BBC children’s programme Blue Peter, during which she strode along a tropical beach wearing not very much and revealing a quite impressive figure. What we in the UK called a BOBFOC – “Body off Baywatch, face off Crimewatch”.

    (Crimewatch is a British real crime programme which shows pictures of the criminals and asks the public to help find the villains.)

    As they say over at Uncouth Reflections, couldn’t do this now. On the BBC flagship music programme, too. This got to #16 in 1979.

  94. @MEH 0910
    https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1230968110745866240
    https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1230973046896373762

    U.S. officials have told Sen. Bernie Sanders that Russia

    is colluding with his campaign to meddlesomely hack the 2020 election and blablabla.

    “U.S. officials.” That’s pretty vague. Exactly what kind of officials are engaged in this desperate, flailing, pathetic attempt to resurrect the long-debunked Russia conspiracy theory in a slightly different form? Looks like they mean intelligence officials…

    “…according to people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence.”
    “Also this week, a senior U.S. intelligence official said Russia had “developed a preference” ”

    [for colluding with Sanders to meddlesomely hack the election on behalf of Trump as well.]

    Or perhaps, as Sanders suggested earlier, diabolical Russian hacker groups like Teddy Bear or Cozy Bear or Grizzly Bear are colluding to meddle in Bernie’s campaign… to make Bernie look bad?

    Sanders’s opponents have blamed some of his most vocal online supporters for injecting toxic rhetoric into the primaries. At a Democratic candidates debate Wednesday in Las Vegas, Sanders indirectly blamed Russia, saying it was possible that malign actors were trying to manipulate social media to inflame divisions among Democrats.

    Apparently not:

    “After Sanders’s remarks at the debate, some social media analysts were skeptical of the notion that Russians already were masquerading as the candidate’s supporters.”

    “Social media analysts.” Sounds like some very serious, hardworking, reliable people. Right up there with anonymous “intelligence officials” in terms of trustworthiness. S0 who do these “social media analysts” work for, anyway?

    “We have seen no evidence in open sources during this election cycle that an online community of Sanders supporters, known as Bernie bros, were catalyzed by what Sanders suggested could be ‘Russian interference,’ ” said Graham Brookie, director of the Digital Forensic Research Lab at the Atlantic Council..

    The Atlantic Council? Well that settles it! If there’s anyone I trust more than Crowdstrike, it’s the Atlantic Council. They are the acknowledged experts in deciding which narratives are serious threats to human rights democracy, and which ones the g̶o̶y̶i̶i̶m̶ electorate may be safely exposed to. As a matter of fact, I trust the Atlantic Council more than WaPo, unnamed “intelligence officials”, Crowdstrike, and the FBIcombined.

    However, I fear that even the ever-vigilant (and eminently trustworthy) folks at the Atlantic Council, WaPo, and the security services may be underestimating the extent of this ever-present threat. I urge everyone to read this prescient, in-depth analysis from NCSC director Bill Evanina (as told to NBC), which notes that not only Russians, but Chinese and all kinds of foreigners, are constantly trying to hack our brains with a̶l̶t̶e̶r̶n̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶n̶a̶r̶r̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶s̶ espionage influence campaigns. Fortunately, these stalwart defenders of the One True Narrative are there to protect us at all times from this sort of deadly hacking operation.

  95. On the other hand, if you want an example of Foreign Interference done right, consider the 1941 Hollywood movie That Hamilton Woman

    It helps when the foreigners involved in the propaganda campaign have strong ethnic ties to the target country’s existing propaganda apparatus:

    Alexander Korda was born Sándor László Kellner into a Jewish family in Pusztatúrpásztó, Austria-Hungary.

    Wait — who did Lindbergh say was trying to draw the US into the war? The Brits, the Jews, and the FDR administration, right? Clearly he was mistaken about that. Just another anti-Albionic canard, I guess…

    And of course, the conspiracy to draw the US into WW2 was an actual propaganda campaign undertaken by foreign nations — while the long-discredited Russia Conspiracy Theory was merely a forced meme promoted endlessly by the “news” media.

    • Agree: Dutch Boy
    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
    One of the nice things about being non-Anglo-Saxon is that I don't get all sentimental about our former mother country but consider it just another foreign country looking to take advantage of Uncle Sugar.
  96. according to people familiar with the matter.

    The source here is presumably CIA or FBI who reports to Trump. .99 probability this is a smear job. If you ask me, there are about one million free votes laying on the sidewalk for the president to pick up if he calls the guy a lying sack of camel dung and fires him. The DNC is going to make sure Sanders is not the nominee. There are one million people who have no better reason to vote for anybody than Trump if he defends Sanders here.

    My opinion. Please tell me if there is something obviously wrong with it that I haven’t considered.

  97. @J1234
    I seem to recall hearing that the British were especially focused on either the Senate or House race in Ohio in 1940. I don't know who was running, but it was certainly some pro-war candidate. The nationwide interference of Britain in America's elections that year was the biggest news story that wasn't at the time, and the possibly the most important forgotten event in 20th century US history.

    The British assured the 1940 Republican candidate (Wendell Wilkie), that as long as he continued to be an interventionist, there would be no public revelation that had had a mistress. With his nomination , the American people (who were solidly non-interventionist) were deprived of a candidate who reflected their views.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    It's kind of late now to be rehashing the 1940 election, but the Republicans could have chosen an isolationist like Dewey and they didn't. Willkie was kind of a Trumpian figure in that he had once been a Democrat and had never run for any office.
    , @J1234

    With his [Wilke's] nomination , the American people (who were solidly non-interventionist) were deprived of a candidate who reflected their views
     
    The nomination of Wilke would qualify as another forgotten, or at least under-examined, curious event of 20th century US history. BTW, I found out in the last few years from my dad that his father - my grandfather - was very anti-war prior to WW2 because of his experiences in WW1 (he was severely wounded and lost a brother.) My dad never mentioned this to me when I was growing up in the 1960's and '70's because (I presume) being anti-war meant you were like Jane Fonda.
  98. @James Forrestal

    On the other hand, if you want an example of Foreign Interference done right, consider the 1941 Hollywood movie That Hamilton Woman
     
    It helps when the foreigners involved in the propaganda campaign have strong ethnic ties to the target country's existing propaganda apparatus:

    Alexander Korda was born Sándor László Kellner into a Jewish family in Pusztatúrpásztó, Austria-Hungary.
     
    Wait -- who did Lindbergh say was trying to draw the US into the war? The Brits, the Jews, and the FDR administration, right? Clearly he was mistaken about that. Just another anti-Albionic canard, I guess...

    And of course, the conspiracy to draw the US into WW2 was an actual propaganda campaign undertaken by foreign nations -- while the long-discredited Russia Conspiracy Theory was merely a forced meme promoted endlessly by the "news" media.

    One of the nice things about being non-Anglo-Saxon is that I don’t get all sentimental about our former mother country but consider it just another foreign country looking to take advantage of Uncle Sugar.

  99. @Mr. Anon

    There were two currents in America First.
     
    And American citizens have every right to have belonged to either of the two currents. Or do you maintain they did not? Imagine - Americans being anti-British - how could that ever be allowed? Why on Earth should that ever be? Certainly, that should have been shut down back in 1775.

    And you seem to find it odd that Americans of german ancestry might have a tendency to be pro-German. And yet you see nothing wrong in Jews being pro-Israel.

    Pro-German is one thing and pro-Nazi is another.

    And yes at the time Americans had the Constitutional right to be anti-British, pro-German, even anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi. But they also had the right to be judged wrong by history. Lindbergh destroyed his reputation over this.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    But they also had the right to be judged wrong by history.
     
    Judged by history? How very SJW. History has no agency. History doesn't judge; people do.

    Or, if you prefer, history may revise it's judgement. As it probably will about WWII. I don't imagine too many people in the future will view the Germans as good guys. And yet I don't imagine too many people will view the allies as necessarily good guys either. It will be viewed as a great-power struggle between more-or-less equally ruthless foes. Who were the good guys? Romans, or Carthaginians?


    Lindbergh destroyed his reputation over this.
     
    No, certain people deemed his reputation destroyed over that - mostly the people who tried to destroy it. A lot of Americans - a lot - never lost respect for him.
    , @Anonymous
    To whom? Many still feel Lindbergh was right. Had Hitler racistly not declared war on the US and made a few other ruthless enough moves, he might have won. He could then have broken the international bankers and, oddly enough, probably have been fine with the creation of a new Jewish State. At least until amphetamines and perhaps tertiary syphilis drove him completely nuts, exterminating world Jewry was never his aim for the simple reason that even he would never have thought it possible.

    Getting them out of Germany was enough. In that regard the European fascists and the authentic Zionists had common ground.
    , @JMcG
    Not with me, he didn’t.
  100. @Jack D
    1. I am amazed that so many of the commenters here actually seem to be pro-Nazi. How dare those Brits speak against the Fuhrer!

    2. The difference between propaganda and art is like the difference between pornography and art - you know it when you see it. The British did not send over propagandists, they sent over artists. Skilled artists who would know what would resonate with the American public. The problem with Russian propaganda is that it is like other Russian products - crudely made, behind the times and not in tune with American culture. As soon as the Russians are able to send over people with the skill level of (and who are as comfortable with American language and culture as) Forester, Dahl, Fleming, Olgivy, etc. then they will have the same success but their third rate current efforts won't sell any better than Russian cars. (If anything, the situation in Russia has gotten worse - during Soviet times the Russians actually produced a few export worthy products - nowadays they export hardly anything to the West except for oil and other raw materials).

    How dare those Brits speak against the Fuhrer!

    Pah. Maybe you should visit the WW2 cemeteries in France sometime. Way more U.S. gravesites than British, even accounting for population. Churchill’s goal was never to kill Nazis, it was to hire other people to kill Nazis while he preserved the empire. And the Brits exported a lot more than “artists.” In 1940 the U.S. was crawling with British spies. They did fun things like forge documents claiming that Germany was going to invade Latin America, knowing that would trigger the Monroe Doctrine and get America involved. They got friendly newspapers to run stories about these claims.

    A lot like the Brits are still doing with piss dossiers and Yahoo.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    US and UK losses in WWII were about even but the US had almost 3x the population. The Germans declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor so we didn't have much choice.
  101. @Jack D
    Pro-German is one thing and pro-Nazi is another.

    And yes at the time Americans had the Constitutional right to be anti-British, pro-German, even anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi. But they also had the right to be judged wrong by history. Lindbergh destroyed his reputation over this.

    But they also had the right to be judged wrong by history.

    Judged by history? How very SJW. History has no agency. History doesn’t judge; people do.

    Or, if you prefer, history may revise it’s judgement. As it probably will about WWII. I don’t imagine too many people in the future will view the Germans as good guys. And yet I don’t imagine too many people will view the allies as necessarily good guys either. It will be viewed as a great-power struggle between more-or-less equally ruthless foes. Who were the good guys? Romans, or Carthaginians?

    Lindbergh destroyed his reputation over this.

    No, certain people deemed his reputation destroyed over that – mostly the people who tried to destroy it. A lot of Americans – a lot – never lost respect for him.

    • Replies: @Jack D

    It will be viewed as a great-power struggle between more-or-less equally ruthless foes.
     
    For as long as Western Civilization exists, Hitler's name will be infamous.
  102. @Dutch Boy
    The British assured the 1940 Republican candidate (Wendell Wilkie), that as long as he continued to be an interventionist, there would be no public revelation that had had a mistress. With his nomination , the American people (who were solidly non-interventionist) were deprived of a candidate who reflected their views.

    It’s kind of late now to be rehashing the 1940 election, but the Republicans could have chosen an isolationist like Dewey and they didn’t. Willkie was kind of a Trumpian figure in that he had once been a Democrat and had never run for any office.

  103. @Bragadocious

    How dare those Brits speak against the Fuhrer!

     

    Pah. Maybe you should visit the WW2 cemeteries in France sometime. Way more U.S. gravesites than British, even accounting for population. Churchill's goal was never to kill Nazis, it was to hire other people to kill Nazis while he preserved the empire. And the Brits exported a lot more than "artists." In 1940 the U.S. was crawling with British spies. They did fun things like forge documents claiming that Germany was going to invade Latin America, knowing that would trigger the Monroe Doctrine and get America involved. They got friendly newspapers to run stories about these claims.

    A lot like the Brits are still doing with piss dossiers and Yahoo.

    US and UK losses in WWII were about even but the US had almost 3x the population. The Germans declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor so we didn’t have much choice.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    The die had been cast. The mistake was made in the decades leading up to the Great War by the UK, and on the spur of the moment by Wilson.
    , @Bragadocious
    Nope. I assume you rushed to Wikipedia to get your facts? Read closer. The UK casualty figure includes India, Australia, NZ, Canada and probably 10 other colonies. This is an old tactic the Brits use to magnify their actual losses in the war.
  104. @Jack D
    Sure this is the tragedy of Hitler - Hitler discredited not only Nazism but the right in general. Anything that is not radical left progressive is labeled as fascist. Eugenics - might as well crank up the gas chambers. Turning away Guatemalan Indios trying to get in on free American goodies is the same as sending German Jews to their doom.

    But when the right could have fought Hitler and strangled him in his cradle, they failed to do so. They failed to disown him. The American right said, "Brits and Jews, Hitler is your problem, not ours. No Nazi ever called me a n---er" So this is the right's own tragedy.

    That’s nice.

    It’s not the Right whose brains are being eaten alive as we speak by maniacal anti-Nazism. Unless one means the Right in DeMaistre’s sense, which would make the anti-Nazis the Right, not MAGA.

  105. @Mr. Anon

    But they also had the right to be judged wrong by history.
     
    Judged by history? How very SJW. History has no agency. History doesn't judge; people do.

    Or, if you prefer, history may revise it's judgement. As it probably will about WWII. I don't imagine too many people in the future will view the Germans as good guys. And yet I don't imagine too many people will view the allies as necessarily good guys either. It will be viewed as a great-power struggle between more-or-less equally ruthless foes. Who were the good guys? Romans, or Carthaginians?


    Lindbergh destroyed his reputation over this.
     
    No, certain people deemed his reputation destroyed over that - mostly the people who tried to destroy it. A lot of Americans - a lot - never lost respect for him.

    It will be viewed as a great-power struggle between more-or-less equally ruthless foes.

    For as long as Western Civilization exists, Hitler’s name will be infamous.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    No, its survival requires the opposite.

    Replacing the Imitation of Christ as the basis of the Western ethos with the Avoidance of the Anti-Christ has done immeasurable damage to the civilization grounded in that ethos. The Bible was written by and through the Holy Spirit for the glorification of the Almighty God, not lowly satan.

    Banal stories don't long hold the interest of the reader. Western Civ is about heroes, not villains.

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1770106.The_Banality_of_Evil
    , @Mr. Anon
    Your assertion and mine are not mutually exclusive.

    For your people it will always be all about you. It always is.
  106. @Jack D
    US and UK losses in WWII were about even but the US had almost 3x the population. The Germans declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor so we didn't have much choice.

    The die had been cast. The mistake was made in the decades leading up to the Great War by the UK, and on the spur of the moment by Wilson.

  107. @Hibernian

    Hitler didn’t discredit anything.
     
    Disagree. He and his supporters gave any kind of eugenics a very bad name, by taking eugenics to the extreme.

    Malgenics can’t discredit eugenics. Eugenics was never discredited, the corruption of the TPTB led them to lose interest in pursuing it for any but their own, and the worst to discourage it outright out of either spiteful malevolence or cowardly naivete.

  108. @Jack D

    It will be viewed as a great-power struggle between more-or-less equally ruthless foes.
     
    For as long as Western Civilization exists, Hitler's name will be infamous.

    No, its survival requires the opposite.

    Replacing the Imitation of Christ as the basis of the Western ethos with the Avoidance of the Anti-Christ has done immeasurable damage to the civilization grounded in that ethos. The Bible was written by and through the Holy Spirit for the glorification of the Almighty God, not lowly satan.

    Banal stories don’t long hold the interest of the reader. Western Civ is about heroes, not villains.

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1770106.The_Banality_of_Evil

    • Replies: @Jack D
    The Bible has both its heroes and its villains - Cain, Pharoah, Judas, etc. Hitler will be eternally inscribed next to Haman.
  109. Anonymous[296] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    Pro-German is one thing and pro-Nazi is another.

    And yes at the time Americans had the Constitutional right to be anti-British, pro-German, even anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi. But they also had the right to be judged wrong by history. Lindbergh destroyed his reputation over this.

    To whom? Many still feel Lindbergh was right. Had Hitler racistly not declared war on the US and made a few other ruthless enough moves, he might have won. He could then have broken the international bankers and, oddly enough, probably have been fine with the creation of a new Jewish State. At least until amphetamines and perhaps tertiary syphilis drove him completely nuts, exterminating world Jewry was never his aim for the simple reason that even he would never have thought it possible.

    Getting them out of Germany was enough. In that regard the European fascists and the authentic Zionists had common ground.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    That's a great alternative history view but has nothing to do with reality. Had Hitler won, his plan was to extinct the Jews, followed by the Slavs so that the Germans would have Lebensraum.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
  110. @Jack D
    US and UK losses in WWII were about even but the US had almost 3x the population. The Germans declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor so we didn't have much choice.

    Nope. I assume you rushed to Wikipedia to get your facts? Read closer. The UK casualty figure includes India, Australia, NZ, Canada and probably 10 other colonies. This is an old tactic the Brits use to magnify their actual losses in the war.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    The UK figure (383,700 dead vs. 407,300 for the US) includes only the "Crown Colonies" and not the Commonwealth countries such as Canada and Australia (about another 40,000 each) nor India.

    These losses pale in comparison to Soviet and German losses which were an order of magnitude greater. Evil dictators don't put a high price on human lives, even those of their own people.
  111. @Jack D

    It will be viewed as a great-power struggle between more-or-less equally ruthless foes.
     
    For as long as Western Civilization exists, Hitler's name will be infamous.

    Your assertion and mine are not mutually exclusive.

    For your people it will always be all about you. It always is.

  112. @Bragadocious
    Nope. I assume you rushed to Wikipedia to get your facts? Read closer. The UK casualty figure includes India, Australia, NZ, Canada and probably 10 other colonies. This is an old tactic the Brits use to magnify their actual losses in the war.

    The UK figure (383,700 dead vs. 407,300 for the US) includes only the “Crown Colonies” and not the Commonwealth countries such as Canada and Australia (about another 40,000 each) nor India.

    These losses pale in comparison to Soviet and German losses which were an order of magnitude greater. Evil dictators don’t put a high price on human lives, even those of their own people.

  113. @Anonymous
    To whom? Many still feel Lindbergh was right. Had Hitler racistly not declared war on the US and made a few other ruthless enough moves, he might have won. He could then have broken the international bankers and, oddly enough, probably have been fine with the creation of a new Jewish State. At least until amphetamines and perhaps tertiary syphilis drove him completely nuts, exterminating world Jewry was never his aim for the simple reason that even he would never have thought it possible.

    Getting them out of Germany was enough. In that regard the European fascists and the authentic Zionists had common ground.

    That’s a great alternative history view but has nothing to do with reality. Had Hitler won, his plan was to extinct the Jews, followed by the Slavs so that the Germans would have Lebensraum.

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

  114. @Desiderius
    No, its survival requires the opposite.

    Replacing the Imitation of Christ as the basis of the Western ethos with the Avoidance of the Anti-Christ has done immeasurable damage to the civilization grounded in that ethos. The Bible was written by and through the Holy Spirit for the glorification of the Almighty God, not lowly satan.

    Banal stories don't long hold the interest of the reader. Western Civ is about heroes, not villains.

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1770106.The_Banality_of_Evil

    The Bible has both its heroes and its villains – Cain, Pharoah, Judas, etc. Hitler will be eternally inscribed next to Haman.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Name of the book is Esther, not Haman. Not one Christian is a hundred even knows who Haman is. Cain is emblematic of the fallenness of man, not some inhuman monster. Pharoah doesn't even have a name. Judas is a sad loser buried in a potter's field, not some all-powerful boogeyman one has to be constantly vigilant against.

    Y'all maybe should try it.
    , @JMcG
    Who was responsible for the Armenian genocide? Who for the Rwandan? In a hundred years as many people will know the name of Hitler as know the name of Slobodan Milosevic.
    There will only ever be one man to be the first to fly solo across the Atlantic, the glorious Lone Eagle, Charles Lindbergh!
  115. @Neo-Socratic
    Sounds like Robert Taft. Fiercely anti-war senator from Ohio.

    Robert Taft came to mind as I typed my comment, but wasn’t he a presidential candidate in 1940? I’m going off of memory here, so I may be wrong. If he was, though, he lost in the primary to Wilke, so maybe he put together a congressional campaign after the presidential primaries.

    BTW, I was surprised to see a statue of Robert Taft among the monuments when I visited DC (for the first time) a few years ago.

  116. @Dutch Boy
    The British assured the 1940 Republican candidate (Wendell Wilkie), that as long as he continued to be an interventionist, there would be no public revelation that had had a mistress. With his nomination , the American people (who were solidly non-interventionist) were deprived of a candidate who reflected their views.

    With his [Wilke’s] nomination , the American people (who were solidly non-interventionist) were deprived of a candidate who reflected their views

    The nomination of Wilke would qualify as another forgotten, or at least under-examined, curious event of 20th century US history. BTW, I found out in the last few years from my dad that his father – my grandfather – was very anti-war prior to WW2 because of his experiences in WW1 (he was severely wounded and lost a brother.) My dad never mentioned this to me when I was growing up in the 1960’s and ’70’s because (I presume) being anti-war meant you were like Jane Fonda.

  117. @Jack D
    The Bible has both its heroes and its villains - Cain, Pharoah, Judas, etc. Hitler will be eternally inscribed next to Haman.

    Name of the book is Esther, not Haman. Not one Christian is a hundred even knows who Haman is. Cain is emblematic of the fallenness of man, not some inhuman monster. Pharoah doesn’t even have a name. Judas is a sad loser buried in a potter’s field, not some all-powerful boogeyman one has to be constantly vigilant against.

    Y’all maybe should try it.

  118. @Hapalong Cassidy
    It’s definitely leftist propaganda as well. There’s a throwaway line about how Rick supported the Loyalists in the Spanish Civil War. You know, the side that burned churches and killed priests and nuns.

    By the thousands in fact.

  119. @Jack D
    Pro-German is one thing and pro-Nazi is another.

    And yes at the time Americans had the Constitutional right to be anti-British, pro-German, even anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi. But they also had the right to be judged wrong by history. Lindbergh destroyed his reputation over this.

    Not with me, he didn’t.

  120. @Jack D
    The Bible has both its heroes and its villains - Cain, Pharoah, Judas, etc. Hitler will be eternally inscribed next to Haman.

    Who was responsible for the Armenian genocide? Who for the Rwandan? In a hundred years as many people will know the name of Hitler as know the name of Slobodan Milosevic.
    There will only ever be one man to be the first to fly solo across the Atlantic, the glorious Lone Eagle, Charles Lindbergh!

  121. @Mr. Anon
    The whole England-good-Spain-bad meme assiduously propagated by the British, and bought into by Americans, is BS.

    The whole England-good-Spain-bad meme assiduously propagated by the British, and bought into by Americans, is BS.

    The England-good-Spain-bad thing had been well established in England for several hundred years, fuelled by anti-Catholic bigotry. So this was an interesting case of repurposing an existing propaganda theme.

    The English have been doing propaganda for centuries. Propaganda is very much an English speciality. Nasty people, the English. They played a key role in the development of the idea of war as a moral crusade against evil (evil being defined as anything not in England’s interest). The Americans seem to have learnt the propaganda trade from the English.

  122. @Anonymous
    I recently saw Hitchcock's "The Secret Agent" from 1936. It's interesting for a couple of reasons, firstly because it gives an early glimpse of some 'British spy' tropes that later became very well known due to the James Bond stories. Secondly, because it has an American villain. British movies with American villains are extremely rare, and none seem to have been made after the mid-1930s.

    British movies with American villains are extremely rare, and none seem to have been made after the mid-1930s.

    How about Die Another Day? A Bond movie with the Cubans and the Chinese as the good guys. And the loathing for the Americans in that film is quite extraordinary.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    How about Die Another Day? A Bond movie with the Cubans and the Chinese as the good guys. And the loathing for the Americans in that film is quite extraordinary.
     
    I didn't notice much loathing for Halle Berry's CIA operative character....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdbIINpktOs

    And the bad guy was a North Korean posing (courtesy of super plastic surgery) as a vulgar Brit billionaire :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNxA27iQkGw&list=PLZbXA4lyCtqp7NlU8pJpSeTsTgCPCl8zh&index=4

    If you want nasty Yanks in a Bond film, I would go for the corrupt CIA section chief for South American in Quantum of Solace:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0pPc53SOgU
  123. @dfordoom

    British movies with American villains are extremely rare, and none seem to have been made after the mid-1930s.
     
    How about Die Another Day? A Bond movie with the Cubans and the Chinese as the good guys. And the loathing for the Americans in that film is quite extraordinary.

    How about Die Another Day? A Bond movie with the Cubans and the Chinese as the good guys. And the loathing for the Americans in that film is quite extraordinary.

    I didn’t notice much loathing for Halle Berry’s CIA operative character….

    And the bad guy was a North Korean posing (courtesy of super plastic surgery) as a vulgar Brit billionaire :

    If you want nasty Yanks in a Bond film, I would go for the corrupt CIA section chief for South American in Quantum of Solace:

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS