The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
WWII Leaders: Yeah, Hitler Is Once Again the Most Famous

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

Since about 2008, Hitler has returned to the top spot on Google Ngrams of mentions in English-language books over Roosevelt (two major American personalities), Churchill (three major English personalities since the 1600s), and Stalin, with Mussolini and the spectacular de Gaulle lagging sharply, while Tojo is utterly forgotten.

For my Taki’s Magazine column on the Dynamics of Repute , see here .

 
Hide 73 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I think we’re getting the wrong story, boss.

    • Agree: Bardon Kaldian
  2. Doug Pitt looks more like Zack Braff then he looks like Brad

  3. Steve, you’ve connected a previous article to this headline.

  4. East African Somalians possess both a different genotype and phenotype from the 3 West African derived populations. Should be easy enough rule out Somalians or focus search to just them.

  5. Duplicate post!

    … and weird title.

    DELETE

    • Replies: @Polistra
    @Almost Missouri

    Apparently steve doesn't exactly read all the posts before publication.

  6. Don’t let the union talking points fool you Steve—cops make way more than economists.

    Their trick is they only report “salary” and don’t include OT, which all of them take at high rates.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Blodgie

    Economists make good money these days, such as at Amazon.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @PiltdownMan

    , @guest007
    @Blodgie

    HOw many people with a criminal justice degree are working on Wall Street, for an investment bank, or for a hedge fund?

  7. @Blodgie
    Don’t let the union talking points fool you Steve—cops make way more than economists.

    Their trick is they only report “salary” and don’t include OT, which all of them take at high rates.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @guest007

    Economists make good money these days, such as at Amazon.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Steve Sailer

    What dies this repeated story have to do with Hitler?

    , @PiltdownMan
    @Steve Sailer

    My macroeconomics professor from 43 years ago, who is now at Berkeley and in his late sixties, gets paid $400,000 a year in gross pay.

    Eyeballing the University of California salary disclosure database, many professors who are not in the medical school make $250,000 or more annually, and several are paid more than $400,000.

    The UC system database used to list the department as well, until last year, but that information seems to have been removed. You have to know a person's name, and you have to them look them up individually.

    Even so, at Berkeley, more than 250 individuals made more than $300,000 in gross pay in 2019, many of them, but not all, associated with the medical school.

    At UCLA, no fewer than 1,450 individuals made that kind of money, if I'm interpreting the tables correctly.

    https://ucannualwage.ucop.edu/wage/

  8. @Blodgie
    Don’t let the union talking points fool you Steve—cops make way more than economists.

    Their trick is they only report “salary” and don’t include OT, which all of them take at high rates.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @guest007

    HOw many people with a criminal justice degree are working on Wall Street, for an investment bank, or for a hedge fund?

  9. @Steve Sailer
    @Blodgie

    Economists make good money these days, such as at Amazon.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @PiltdownMan

    What dies this repeated story have to do with Hitler?

  10. @Steve Sailer
    @Blodgie

    Economists make good money these days, such as at Amazon.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @PiltdownMan

    My macroeconomics professor from 43 years ago, who is now at Berkeley and in his late sixties, gets paid $400,000 a year in gross pay.

    Eyeballing the University of California salary disclosure database, many professors who are not in the medical school make $250,000 or more annually, and several are paid more than $400,000.

    The UC system database used to list the department as well, until last year, but that information seems to have been removed. You have to know a person’s name, and you have to them look them up individually.

    Even so, at Berkeley, more than 250 individuals made more than $300,000 in gross pay in 2019, many of them, but not all, associated with the medical school.

    At UCLA, no fewer than 1,450 individuals made that kind of money, if I’m interpreting the tables correctly.

    https://ucannualwage.ucop.edu/wage/

    • Thanks: Houston 1992
  11. Their showpiece is the Shanaqua Caldwell murder.

    Not bad, but can DNA really predict that the poor girl konked her hair?

    ***********

    Well, no, but they had more than just DNA. They had the girls body. And while the soft tissue had decayed, her hair most certainly had not.

    So, they had a badly decomposed body with long, straight (“conked”) hair.

    That was what led them to put long straight hair on the facial reconstruction, not the DNA.

    Best,

    EFG.

  12. I kept waiting for it to tie into Hitler.

    I guess he would approve?

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @JR Ewing

    Hitler Reacts to the Edmonton Oilers 2014-15 Season
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t79pQ-OMYpU

  13. Wow. 3.8/52 instead of 13/52.

    Is this a record?

    Edmonton really has dark winters.

  14. According to nGram James Dean finally surpassed Marlon Brando in “fame” in 1987 – 32 years after his own death. All it took was for Brando not to make a movie for 7 years. However nGram is more of a tool for measuring someone’s significance rather than fame. Otherwise Tom Selleck would not be trailing behind Rudolph Valentino for entirety of his career. Similar for Michael Bay and John Cassavetes.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldlan
    @Lex

    I,for one,find it hard to believe Dean holds a higher place in our collective psyche,than Brando.

  15. Shanaqua Caldwell’s facial reconstruction was possible because investigators had her skull.

    The Edmonton rapist phenotype looks very similar to the Caldwell image. Generic eyes, nose, mouth, slightly different jaw and cheeks.

  16. I made more money as a revenue agent than as a police officer and I had far greater leeway.

    The government, really wants its money or our money and doesn’t let little things get in its way.

    I was good at it but I couldn’t take it. I’m not ruthless and heartless enough. Same with the other leo in the office, he lasted just a month or so longer than I did.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @TWS


    I made more money as a revenue agent than as a police officer and I had far greater leeway.

    The government, really wants its money or our money and doesn’t let little things get in its way.
     
    How else would the United be able to fund Gentiles killing each other in the Ukraine?
  17. The greatness of SCTV: John Candy filmed his “Steeet Beef Christmas” outdoors in Edmonton when it was about 40 below. Total commitment!

    • Thanks: MEH 0910
    • Replies: @Hhsiii
    @Tom Scarlett

    It’s no Polynesian Town. Needs a crane shot.

    Replies: @MEH 0910

  18. “In general, cops tends to be pretty good at statistics on the street, while being pretty bad at statistics in writing.”

    As someone who studied math and does what is basically fancy statistics for work, this strikes me as exactly correct. Most people who are good at their jobs get extremely good over time at doing the specific math that is required by it, but their scope of statistical expertise generally doesn’t extend beyond that.

    This is the various Kahneman-and-Tversky-style demonstrations of statistical fallacies that people usually fall into are so much less compelling to me than to the Nobel(ish) committee. We evolved various heuristics for dealing with our environment, and you can find situations which violate them, but it turns out that when people actually need to re-wire their thinking on some specific one of these to succeed, they manage to do it. This is a higher-level heuristic leading to greater net success than trying to think like an economist in the “an economist goes to dinner,” “an economist goes to the movies,” etc sense.

    • Agree: J.Ross
  19. ‘Yeah, Hitler Is Once Again the Most Famous.

    Just to respond to the title, it really is reasonable that Hitler would be the winner.

    Leaving aside other considerations, he was the most original. Roosevelt, Churchill, Mussolini, Stalin: these are all recognizable types, for better or worse. Hitler strikes me as having been decidedly sui generis, if nothing else.

    Interestingly, Japan was the only major combatant without a ‘great man’ at the helm. The thirties and forties were definitely an era for ‘great men.’ Aside from those heading major states, I’d point to Trujillo and Cardenas — and various wannabes. Mussolini definitely started a trend.

    • Replies: @dearieme
    @Colin Wright

    Great men are almost always bad men…

    Lord Acton, 1887.

  20. No, Heinlein’s Tunnel in the Sky (1955) did not “reveale at the very end” that the protagonist, Rod, was Black.

    There is supposedly a letter, never released, in which Heinlein says that Rod is Black. But the Heinlein Society has an interest in saying nice things about Heinlein.

    Here is thorough rebuttal, with evidence Heinlein did not even imply that Rod was Black:

    http://hephaestusunbound.blogspot.com/2013/07/was-rod-walker-black-in-heinleins.html

  21. @Almost Missouri
    Duplicate post!

    ... and weird title.

    DELETE

    Replies: @Polistra

    Apparently steve doesn’t exactly read all the posts before publication.

  22. Edmonton is 3.8% black, which seems ridiculous because of how far north it is (53.5 degrees latitude) and it’s at 2,100 feet of elevation, so it’s really cold and dark in winter.

    Dark, yes. But of provincial capitals, only Winnipeg and Regina boast a colder January than St Paul does. Like a lot of other cities in or near the Rockies, Edmonton’s weather is constantly changing. None of that two-weeks-straight-below-zero stuff you see in the Dakotas.

  23. @JR Ewing
    I kept waiting for it to tie into Hitler.

    I guess he would approve?

    Replies: @MEH 0910

    Hitler Reacts to the Edmonton Oilers 2014-15 Season

  24. OK, it’s working, now.

  25. Hitler caused it, of course he’s the most famous.

    • Replies: @HdC
    @J.Ross

    Hitler caused what? The Autobahn to be built? Volkswagen to be built?

  26. @Colin Wright
    'Yeah, Hitler Is Once Again the Most Famous.

    Just to respond to the title, it really is reasonable that Hitler would be the winner.

    Leaving aside other considerations, he was the most original. Roosevelt, Churchill, Mussolini, Stalin: these are all recognizable types, for better or worse. Hitler strikes me as having been decidedly sui generis, if nothing else.

    Interestingly, Japan was the only major combatant without a 'great man' at the helm. The thirties and forties were definitely an era for 'great men.' Aside from those heading major states, I'd point to Trujillo and Cardenas -- and various wannabes. Mussolini definitely started a trend.

    Replies: @dearieme

    Great men are almost always bad men…

    Lord Acton, 1887.

  27. Hitler is by far the largest figure of those seven, and if he was a fictional character would count as one of the world’s great creations: villain and hero, victim and conqueror, a nonentity who stamped his personality on a great nation, an idealist and megalomaniac.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Joe S.Walker


    ...one of the world’s great creations: villain and hero, victim and conqueror, a nonentity who stamped his personality on a great nation, an idealist and megalomaniac.
     
    Sounds gay to me. Tom of Finland couldn't have drawn him any better.
    , @BosTex
    @Joe S.Walker

    It is terrible to say, because he is such awful person, but Hitler was a very interesting cat.

    I think the “came from nothing, out of nowhere, from the humblest front soldier, to serious world shaking leadership” in what, 15 years? It is just a staggering story.

    Sometimes it is the juxtaposition of very good with very evil that is interesting: Germany was the sole major country to recover from the Great Depression, that was largely Hitler’s doing.

    Yet, beside that powerful result: we have the final solution…doesn’t get much worse! Wow!

    Almost all the rest of the leaders mentioned had already been highly successful within the political sphere, some had been on the scene since before the turn of the 20th century (Churchill; can’t tell if his rep is going up or down. I used to greatly admire him, but have become more realistic as time has ground on.)

    Stalin was clearly Lenin’s favored lieutenant, even though Lenin appeared to realize (too late) the danger that Stalin posed to the Bolshevik party. (Stalin, hate to say it: was actually a pretty good war leader and a good picker of military subordinates: G Zhukov,etc)

    Surprised that deGaulle is mentioned here: he really was a great leader (and thinker), just not during the Second World War. France’s leadership (possibly with a small asterisk for Paul Reynaud) was abysmal during WW2.

    I think the Japanese: couldn’t support any kind of leadership: the military frequently changed the head of government, via assasination. So no great leaders present: unless you want to be killed for standing out too much.

    FDR: was a pretty decent war chief, in that he let the military experts alone (GC Marshall, etc) to drive forward the titanic American war machine.

    Mussolini: the worst of the worst. I often think think of a counter factual: what if he had stayed out of the war, like Franco? He probably would have become a powerful pro-American ally leading a much stronger Italian state during the 1950s and 1960s…we would be reading about the “Mussolini economic miracle”.

    Replies: @animalogic, @Houston 1992, @keypusher, @HdC, @J.Ross

  28. @Lex
    According to nGram James Dean finally surpassed Marlon Brando in "fame" in 1987 - 32 years after his own death. All it took was for Brando not to make a movie for 7 years. However nGram is more of a tool for measuring someone's significance rather than fame. Otherwise Tom Selleck would not be trailing behind Rudolph Valentino for entirety of his career. Similar for Michael Bay and John Cassavetes.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldlan

    I,for one,find it hard to believe Dean holds a higher place in our collective psyche,than Brando.

  29. @Joe S.Walker
    Hitler is by far the largest figure of those seven, and if he was a fictional character would count as one of the world's great creations: villain and hero, victim and conqueror, a nonentity who stamped his personality on a great nation, an idealist and megalomaniac.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @BosTex

    …one of the world’s great creations: villain and hero, victim and conqueror, a nonentity who stamped his personality on a great nation, an idealist and megalomaniac.

    Sounds gay to me. Tom of Finland couldn’t have drawn him any better.

  30. @Joe S.Walker
    Hitler is by far the largest figure of those seven, and if he was a fictional character would count as one of the world's great creations: villain and hero, victim and conqueror, a nonentity who stamped his personality on a great nation, an idealist and megalomaniac.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @BosTex

    It is terrible to say, because he is such awful person, but Hitler was a very interesting cat.

    I think the “came from nothing, out of nowhere, from the humblest front soldier, to serious world shaking leadership” in what, 15 years? It is just a staggering story.

    Sometimes it is the juxtaposition of very good with very evil that is interesting: Germany was the sole major country to recover from the Great Depression, that was largely Hitler’s doing.

    Yet, beside that powerful result: we have the final solution…doesn’t get much worse! Wow!

    Almost all the rest of the leaders mentioned had already been highly successful within the political sphere, some had been on the scene since before the turn of the 20th century (Churchill; can’t tell if his rep is going up or down. I used to greatly admire him, but have become more realistic as time has ground on.)

    Stalin was clearly Lenin’s favored lieutenant, even though Lenin appeared to realize (too late) the danger that Stalin posed to the Bolshevik party. (Stalin, hate to say it: was actually a pretty good war leader and a good picker of military subordinates: G Zhukov,etc)

    Surprised that deGaulle is mentioned here: he really was a great leader (and thinker), just not during the Second World War. France’s leadership (possibly with a small asterisk for Paul Reynaud) was abysmal during WW2.

    I think the Japanese: couldn’t support any kind of leadership: the military frequently changed the head of government, via assasination. So no great leaders present: unless you want to be killed for standing out too much.

    FDR: was a pretty decent war chief, in that he let the military experts alone (GC Marshall, etc) to drive forward the titanic American war machine.

    Mussolini: the worst of the worst. I often think think of a counter factual: what if he had stayed out of the war, like Franco? He probably would have become a powerful pro-American ally leading a much stronger Italian state during the 1950s and 1960s…we would be reading about the “Mussolini economic miracle”.

    • Replies: @animalogic
    @BosTex

    "Stalin, hate to say it: was actually a pretty good war leader and a good picker of military subordinates: G Zhukov,etc)"
    I'll allow for Stalin the picker of subordinates, just, but pretty good war leader, I'm not so sure. My understanding is the huge defeats the Soviets suffered in the early part of the war were in no modest way Stalin's fault for meddling in strategy.
    He's also in part responsible for the Polish victories in the early 20's.
    He's also responsible for liquidating most of the Soviet high command in the late 30's.
    Finland was also a debacle for a long time.

    Replies: @BosTex

    , @Houston 1992
    @BosTex

    FDR -- a decent war chief?

    unlimited aid for USSR with no conditions. thru the summer 1945. As Russians advance westwards Polish, Estonian etc deported lest they oppose USSR hegemony. US mil aid helped cement suppression of those peoples

    Should the mass rapes by the Red Army be considered?

    was it necessary to insist on unconditional surrender?

    Replies: @BosTex

    , @keypusher
    @BosTex


    Mussolini: the worst of the worst. I often think think of a counter factual: what if he had stayed out of the war, like Franco? He probably would have become a powerful pro-American ally leading a much stronger Italian state during the 1950s and 1960s…we would be reading about the “Mussolini economic miracle”.

     

    Re Mussolini, by the time Italy entered WWII he had been in power for nearly two decades. But Italian units were terribly underequipped, and the weapons they did have were mostly obsolete. I assume that was his fault, though I really know very little about his rule. Maybe if he'd remained in charge Italy wouldn't have developed after WWII the way it did.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @HdC
    @BosTex

    "...It is terrible to say, because he is such awful person, but Hitler was a very interesting cat..."

    Everybody that met Hitler, including British politicians and even Churchill, liked him.

    According to Churchill, Britain was coerced into a war by Roosevelt of USA fame. Not until then did Churchill change his tune and demonized all Germans. This demonization is still going on today.

    Replies: @BosTex, @J.Ross

    , @J.Ross
    @BosTex

    Stalin knew the Germans would eventually come his way but ignored the best intelligence any leader had at the time (and had the agents "converted to camp dust" for their trouble), allowed himself to be caught totally off guard, and fled expecting to be executed.

    Replies: @HdC

  31. @Tom Scarlett
    The greatness of SCTV: John Candy filmed his "Steeet Beef Christmas" outdoors in Edmonton when it was about 40 below. Total commitment!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvyFX9GE7F4

    Replies: @Hhsiii

    It’s no Polynesian Town. Needs a crane shot.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @Hhsiii


    It’s no Polynesian Town. Needs a crane shot.
     
    It has a crane shot and Santa Claus!

    https://twitter.com/benstiller/status/812934041338974208

  32. Basically the strategy of the Globalist Left is to blame all white Christians for the crimes of Hitler – including all the whites (and their descendants) who fought against Hitler. When your strategy relies on white guilt you can’t be giving whites credit for anything.

    A more obnoxious and bizarre turn was when the Left decided that all the soldiers fighting the Nazi fascists were suddenly just like the good folks at Antifa, despite the fact that 80-90% of the men who landed at Normandy were well to the right of your average modern Republican – especially on the issue of race.

    • Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    @Wilkey


    despite the fact that 80-90% of the men who landed at Normandy were well to the right of your average modern Republican – especially on the issue of race.
     
    That is true. And they were fighting in a segregated army. In no way, did they think they were fighting "racism". If you had told them that they were fighting for the right of Black men to date their daughters, they would have punched you.
    , @Hans
    @Wilkey

    Hitler's "crimes" in the pre-Hollywood nutshell:

    On February 29, 1944 the British Ministry of Information sent the following note to the higher British clergy and to the BBC.

    Sir, I am directed by the Ministry to send you the following circular letter: It is often the duty of the good citizens and of the pious Christians to turn a blind eye on the peculiarities of those associated with us.

    But the time comes when such peculiarities, while still denied in public, must be taken into account when action by us is called for.

    We know the methods of rule employed by the Bolshevik dictator in Russia itself from, for example, the writing and speeches of the Prime Minister himself during the last twenty years. We know how the Red Army behaved in Poland in 192ls0 and in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Galicia, and Bessarabia only recently.

    We must, therefore, take into account how the Red Army will certainly behave when it overruns Central Europe. Unless precautions are taken, the obviously inevitable horrors which will result will throw an undue strain on public opinion in this country
    .

    We cannot reform the Bolsheviks but we can do our best to save them - and ourselves- from the consequences of their acts. The disclosures of the past quarter of a century will render mere denials unconvincing. The only alternative to denial is to distract public attention from the whole subject.

    Experience has shown that the best distraction is atrocity propaganda directed against the enemy
    . Unfortunately the public is no longer so susceptible as in the days of the "Corpse Factory," the "Mutilated Belgian Babies," and the "Crucified Canadians."

    Your cooperation is therefore earnestly sought to distract public attention from the doings of the Red Army by your wholehearted support of various charges against the Germans and Japanese which have been and will be put into circulation by the Ministry.

    Your expression of belief in such may convince others. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant,
    (Signed) H. HEWET, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

    The Ministry can enter into no correspondence of any kind with regard to this communication which should only be disclosed to responsible persons.
     

    (Rozek, Edward, Allied Wartime Diplomacy: A Pattern in Poland, John Wiley & Sons, NY. pp. 209-210)
  33. @Wilkey
    Basically the strategy of the Globalist Left is to blame all white Christians for the crimes of Hitler - including all the whites (and their descendants) who fought against Hitler. When your strategy relies on white guilt you can’t be giving whites credit for anything.

    A more obnoxious and bizarre turn was when the Left decided that all the soldiers fighting the Nazi fascists were suddenly just like the good folks at Antifa, despite the fact that 80-90% of the men who landed at Normandy were well to the right of your average modern Republican - especially on the issue of race.

    Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @Hans

    despite the fact that 80-90% of the men who landed at Normandy were well to the right of your average modern Republican – especially on the issue of race.

    That is true. And they were fighting in a segregated army. In no way, did they think they were fighting “racism”. If you had told them that they were fighting for the right of Black men to date their daughters, they would have punched you.

  34. Anonymous[989] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s all a show, the “spectacular de Gaulle” started messing up his part. That’s all, the rest follows (including his disappearance in print). Good work, Steve, I never would’ve checked that, though I would’ve hypothesized correctly. Next, Russia will surrender —that’s the October surprise! — stocks will rally on the news. That sets up things perfectly for … alright let me not give it all away.
    PS Kobe is still alive.

  35. Maybe in 2022 Hitler isn’t quite the bad guy he used to be. After all, he helped killed lots of evil Russians and Ukrainian school textbooks don’t have too much bad to say about him.

    In fact it may actually be okay to be white now, as long as you satisfy the following criteria:

    you hate Russians, and moderate nationalist types who want peace between white countries

    you come from a “underdog” white country characterized by low economic achievement and high corruption

    you have naïve, child-like views of things like global geopolitics and triumph idealism over realism.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Alt Right Moderate

    'In fact it may actually be okay to be white now, as long as you satisfy the following criteria'

    It's never okay to be white. The people promoting the Ukraine War are the same people who tell you that.

  36. @BosTex
    @Joe S.Walker

    It is terrible to say, because he is such awful person, but Hitler was a very interesting cat.

    I think the “came from nothing, out of nowhere, from the humblest front soldier, to serious world shaking leadership” in what, 15 years? It is just a staggering story.

    Sometimes it is the juxtaposition of very good with very evil that is interesting: Germany was the sole major country to recover from the Great Depression, that was largely Hitler’s doing.

    Yet, beside that powerful result: we have the final solution…doesn’t get much worse! Wow!

    Almost all the rest of the leaders mentioned had already been highly successful within the political sphere, some had been on the scene since before the turn of the 20th century (Churchill; can’t tell if his rep is going up or down. I used to greatly admire him, but have become more realistic as time has ground on.)

    Stalin was clearly Lenin’s favored lieutenant, even though Lenin appeared to realize (too late) the danger that Stalin posed to the Bolshevik party. (Stalin, hate to say it: was actually a pretty good war leader and a good picker of military subordinates: G Zhukov,etc)

    Surprised that deGaulle is mentioned here: he really was a great leader (and thinker), just not during the Second World War. France’s leadership (possibly with a small asterisk for Paul Reynaud) was abysmal during WW2.

    I think the Japanese: couldn’t support any kind of leadership: the military frequently changed the head of government, via assasination. So no great leaders present: unless you want to be killed for standing out too much.

    FDR: was a pretty decent war chief, in that he let the military experts alone (GC Marshall, etc) to drive forward the titanic American war machine.

    Mussolini: the worst of the worst. I often think think of a counter factual: what if he had stayed out of the war, like Franco? He probably would have become a powerful pro-American ally leading a much stronger Italian state during the 1950s and 1960s…we would be reading about the “Mussolini economic miracle”.

    Replies: @animalogic, @Houston 1992, @keypusher, @HdC, @J.Ross

    “Stalin, hate to say it: was actually a pretty good war leader and a good picker of military subordinates: G Zhukov,etc)”
    I’ll allow for Stalin the picker of subordinates, just, but pretty good war leader, I’m not so sure. My understanding is the huge defeats the Soviets suffered in the early part of the war were in no modest way Stalin’s fault for meddling in strategy.
    He’s also in part responsible for the Polish victories in the early 20’s.
    He’s also responsible for liquidating most of the Soviet high command in the late 30’s.
    Finland was also a debacle for a long time.

    • Replies: @BosTex
    @animalogic

    I’ll agree with you: the early defeats for the Soviet Union rest on him, kind of: he was as surprised and shocked by Barbarossa as anyone else.

    Clearly a huge fail.

    But you have to admit: he didn’t quit fighting and rallied his forces strongly and found very good senior military men to lead those forces: Zhukov, Konev, Rokossovsky, etc. these were all very strong, capable leaders.

    As far as Finland is concerned: the Finns are clearly very tough fighters and they were exceptionally well led: CGE Mannerheim is clearly the best (and least known) political/military leader of WW2. One tough SOB.

    Replies: @animalogic

  37. I mean, it kind of makes sense that Tojo was mostly forgotten. He wasn’t the kind of dominating political figure that Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Churchill, or Roosevelt were. He was appointed PM in late 1941 almost as a compromise candidate — part of the anti-US/UK faction in the army but not so radical that he would try to undermine the Emperor. And he and his cabinet resigned in July 1944, well before the end of war, after the debacle at Saipan. He did try to consolidate power in his own hands, managing to occupy the posts of Prime Minister, Minister of War, and Chief of the Imperial Army General Staff for about six months in 1944, but he was more like a Khrushchev or Brezhnev than a Stalin. He wasn’t particularly charismatic as a leader and speaker either, as far as I can tell. E.g. I’ve watched his speech to the students being mobilised in late 1943, and he’s . . not a great orator (contrast with Hitler, Churchill, Mussolini, or even Roosevelt).

    We portrayed him like another Hitler during the war, but it was always a stretch. Makes sense that interest in him dropped precipitously. Does anyone remember Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe, whose rejection of Hitler’s attempt to mediate peace between Japan and China and refusal to recognise Chiang Kai-Shek’s government worsened the Sino-Japanese war in 1938? Or Kuniaki Koiso or Kantaro Suzuki, who succeeded Tojo as PM?

    Honestly, there’s no man behind the curtain who pushed Japan towards totalitarianism and war, but I think the best candidate among senior leadership would probably have been Field Marshal Prince Kotohito Kan’in, who was chief of the IJA general staff in the 1930s during the Sino-Japanese war, and the most influential anti-US/UK / pro-Axis voice in backroom politics. He engineered the collapse of the comparatively pro-US/UK Yonai ministry in 1940. But who’s ever heard of him?

    • Thanks: BosTex
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Gimeiyo

    In the post-WW2 years, the Lord Russell of Liverpool, a Nuremburg "jurist", wrote two books.

    One about Nazi atrocities, still in print

    https://www.amazon.com/Scourge-Swastika-Greenhill-Military-Paperback/dp/1853676500

    And one about Japanese atrocities

    https://www.amazon.com/Knights-Bushido-History-Japanese-Crimes/dp/1853674990

    "This is the classic, standard account of Japanese war crimes; a best seller in its time, but out of print for many years. "

    , @BosTex
    @Gimeiyo

    There should be an “interesting” button. Thanks for sharing these details.

  38. @BosTex
    @Joe S.Walker

    It is terrible to say, because he is such awful person, but Hitler was a very interesting cat.

    I think the “came from nothing, out of nowhere, from the humblest front soldier, to serious world shaking leadership” in what, 15 years? It is just a staggering story.

    Sometimes it is the juxtaposition of very good with very evil that is interesting: Germany was the sole major country to recover from the Great Depression, that was largely Hitler’s doing.

    Yet, beside that powerful result: we have the final solution…doesn’t get much worse! Wow!

    Almost all the rest of the leaders mentioned had already been highly successful within the political sphere, some had been on the scene since before the turn of the 20th century (Churchill; can’t tell if his rep is going up or down. I used to greatly admire him, but have become more realistic as time has ground on.)

    Stalin was clearly Lenin’s favored lieutenant, even though Lenin appeared to realize (too late) the danger that Stalin posed to the Bolshevik party. (Stalin, hate to say it: was actually a pretty good war leader and a good picker of military subordinates: G Zhukov,etc)

    Surprised that deGaulle is mentioned here: he really was a great leader (and thinker), just not during the Second World War. France’s leadership (possibly with a small asterisk for Paul Reynaud) was abysmal during WW2.

    I think the Japanese: couldn’t support any kind of leadership: the military frequently changed the head of government, via assasination. So no great leaders present: unless you want to be killed for standing out too much.

    FDR: was a pretty decent war chief, in that he let the military experts alone (GC Marshall, etc) to drive forward the titanic American war machine.

    Mussolini: the worst of the worst. I often think think of a counter factual: what if he had stayed out of the war, like Franco? He probably would have become a powerful pro-American ally leading a much stronger Italian state during the 1950s and 1960s…we would be reading about the “Mussolini economic miracle”.

    Replies: @animalogic, @Houston 1992, @keypusher, @HdC, @J.Ross

    FDR — a decent war chief?

    unlimited aid for USSR with no conditions. thru the summer 1945. As Russians advance westwards Polish, Estonian etc deported lest they oppose USSR hegemony. US mil aid helped cement suppression of those peoples

    Should the mass rapes by the Red Army be considered?

    was it necessary to insist on unconditional surrender?

    • Replies: @BosTex
    @Houston 1992

    Houston- thanks for the kind note.

    I think these things have to be viewed in aggregate. Did FDR lift the morale of the American and allied publics? Yes.

    His very positive, determined and cheerful attitude helped sustain allied unity, especially in the early part of the war, when it was defeat after defeat.

    The reality is: the Soviet Union was our ally during the war. We wanted to keep them in the fight. Another reality: the Soviets were the ones during the heaviest of heavy lifting: there was no Donnybrook like Stalingrad in the west.

  39. @Hhsiii
    @Tom Scarlett

    It’s no Polynesian Town. Needs a crane shot.

    Replies: @MEH 0910

    It’s no Polynesian Town. Needs a crane shot.

    It has a crane shot and Santa Claus!

  40. @Wilkey
    Basically the strategy of the Globalist Left is to blame all white Christians for the crimes of Hitler - including all the whites (and their descendants) who fought against Hitler. When your strategy relies on white guilt you can’t be giving whites credit for anything.

    A more obnoxious and bizarre turn was when the Left decided that all the soldiers fighting the Nazi fascists were suddenly just like the good folks at Antifa, despite the fact that 80-90% of the men who landed at Normandy were well to the right of your average modern Republican - especially on the issue of race.

    Replies: @Loyalty Over IQ Worship, @Hans

    Hitler’s “crimes” in the pre-Hollywood nutshell:

    On February 29, 1944 the British Ministry of Information sent the following note to the higher British clergy and to the BBC.

    Sir, I am directed by the Ministry to send you the following circular letter: It is often the duty of the good citizens and of the pious Christians to turn a blind eye on the peculiarities of those associated with us.

    But the time comes when such peculiarities, while still denied in public, must be taken into account when action by us is called for.

    We know the methods of rule employed by the Bolshevik dictator in Russia itself from, for example, the writing and speeches of the Prime Minister himself during the last twenty years. We know how the Red Army behaved in Poland in 192ls0 and in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Galicia, and Bessarabia only recently.

    We must, therefore, take into account how the Red Army will certainly behave when it overruns Central Europe. Unless precautions are taken, the obviously inevitable horrors which will result will throw an undue strain on public opinion in this country
    .

    We cannot reform the Bolsheviks but we can do our best to save them – and ourselves- from the consequences of their acts. The disclosures of the past quarter of a century will render mere denials unconvincing. The only alternative to denial is to distract public attention from the whole subject.

    Experience has shown that the best distraction is atrocity propaganda directed against the enemy
    . Unfortunately the public is no longer so susceptible as in the days of the “Corpse Factory,” the “Mutilated Belgian Babies,” and the “Crucified Canadians.”

    Your cooperation is therefore earnestly sought to distract public attention from the doings of the Red Army by your wholehearted support of various charges against the Germans and Japanese which have been and will be put into circulation by the Ministry.

    Your expression of belief in such may convince others. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant,
    (Signed) H. HEWET, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

    The Ministry can enter into no correspondence of any kind with regard to this communication which should only be disclosed to responsible persons.

    (Rozek, Edward, Allied Wartime Diplomacy: A Pattern in Poland, John Wiley & Sons, NY. pp. 209-210)

    • Thanks: HdC, Malla
  41. That comports with my impression that Roosevelt was much more famous and popular during WWII than Churchill, due to a) America’s power, and b) the fact that Roosevelt was a much more likeable man than Churchill. But Churchill matched him in the long game of reputation because he wrote the books and gave the speeches that lasted long after the war.

  42. @BosTex
    @Joe S.Walker

    It is terrible to say, because he is such awful person, but Hitler was a very interesting cat.

    I think the “came from nothing, out of nowhere, from the humblest front soldier, to serious world shaking leadership” in what, 15 years? It is just a staggering story.

    Sometimes it is the juxtaposition of very good with very evil that is interesting: Germany was the sole major country to recover from the Great Depression, that was largely Hitler’s doing.

    Yet, beside that powerful result: we have the final solution…doesn’t get much worse! Wow!

    Almost all the rest of the leaders mentioned had already been highly successful within the political sphere, some had been on the scene since before the turn of the 20th century (Churchill; can’t tell if his rep is going up or down. I used to greatly admire him, but have become more realistic as time has ground on.)

    Stalin was clearly Lenin’s favored lieutenant, even though Lenin appeared to realize (too late) the danger that Stalin posed to the Bolshevik party. (Stalin, hate to say it: was actually a pretty good war leader and a good picker of military subordinates: G Zhukov,etc)

    Surprised that deGaulle is mentioned here: he really was a great leader (and thinker), just not during the Second World War. France’s leadership (possibly with a small asterisk for Paul Reynaud) was abysmal during WW2.

    I think the Japanese: couldn’t support any kind of leadership: the military frequently changed the head of government, via assasination. So no great leaders present: unless you want to be killed for standing out too much.

    FDR: was a pretty decent war chief, in that he let the military experts alone (GC Marshall, etc) to drive forward the titanic American war machine.

    Mussolini: the worst of the worst. I often think think of a counter factual: what if he had stayed out of the war, like Franco? He probably would have become a powerful pro-American ally leading a much stronger Italian state during the 1950s and 1960s…we would be reading about the “Mussolini economic miracle”.

    Replies: @animalogic, @Houston 1992, @keypusher, @HdC, @J.Ross

    Mussolini: the worst of the worst. I often think think of a counter factual: what if he had stayed out of the war, like Franco? He probably would have become a powerful pro-American ally leading a much stronger Italian state during the 1950s and 1960s…we would be reading about the “Mussolini economic miracle”.

    Re Mussolini, by the time Italy entered WWII he had been in power for nearly two decades. But Italian units were terribly underequipped, and the weapons they did have were mostly obsolete. I assume that was his fault, though I really know very little about his rule. Maybe if he’d remained in charge Italy wouldn’t have developed after WWII the way it did.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @keypusher

    https://www.loc.gov/rr/print//swann/herblock/dove.html

    (Last cartoon on the page)

  43. I wonder what percentage of recent invocations of Hitler are comparisons with Putin.

  44. @Gimeiyo
    I mean, it kind of makes sense that Tojo was mostly forgotten. He wasn't the kind of dominating political figure that Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Churchill, or Roosevelt were. He was appointed PM in late 1941 almost as a compromise candidate -- part of the anti-US/UK faction in the army but not so radical that he would try to undermine the Emperor. And he and his cabinet resigned in July 1944, well before the end of war, after the debacle at Saipan. He did try to consolidate power in his own hands, managing to occupy the posts of Prime Minister, Minister of War, and Chief of the Imperial Army General Staff for about six months in 1944, but he was more like a Khrushchev or Brezhnev than a Stalin. He wasn't particularly charismatic as a leader and speaker either, as far as I can tell. E.g. I've watched his speech to the students being mobilised in late 1943, and he's . . not a great orator (contrast with Hitler, Churchill, Mussolini, or even Roosevelt).

    We portrayed him like another Hitler during the war, but it was always a stretch. Makes sense that interest in him dropped precipitously. Does anyone remember Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe, whose rejection of Hitler's attempt to mediate peace between Japan and China and refusal to recognise Chiang Kai-Shek's government worsened the Sino-Japanese war in 1938? Or Kuniaki Koiso or Kantaro Suzuki, who succeeded Tojo as PM?

    Honestly, there's no man behind the curtain who pushed Japan towards totalitarianism and war, but I think the best candidate among senior leadership would probably have been Field Marshal Prince Kotohito Kan'in, who was chief of the IJA general staff in the 1930s during the Sino-Japanese war, and the most influential anti-US/UK / pro-Axis voice in backroom politics. He engineered the collapse of the comparatively pro-US/UK Yonai ministry in 1940. But who's ever heard of him?

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @BosTex

    In the post-WW2 years, the Lord Russell of Liverpool, a Nuremburg “jurist”, wrote two books.

    One about Nazi atrocities, still in print

    And one about Japanese atrocities

    “This is the classic, standard account of Japanese war crimes; a best seller in its time, but out of print for many years. ”

  45. @Gimeiyo
    I mean, it kind of makes sense that Tojo was mostly forgotten. He wasn't the kind of dominating political figure that Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Churchill, or Roosevelt were. He was appointed PM in late 1941 almost as a compromise candidate -- part of the anti-US/UK faction in the army but not so radical that he would try to undermine the Emperor. And he and his cabinet resigned in July 1944, well before the end of war, after the debacle at Saipan. He did try to consolidate power in his own hands, managing to occupy the posts of Prime Minister, Minister of War, and Chief of the Imperial Army General Staff for about six months in 1944, but he was more like a Khrushchev or Brezhnev than a Stalin. He wasn't particularly charismatic as a leader and speaker either, as far as I can tell. E.g. I've watched his speech to the students being mobilised in late 1943, and he's . . not a great orator (contrast with Hitler, Churchill, Mussolini, or even Roosevelt).

    We portrayed him like another Hitler during the war, but it was always a stretch. Makes sense that interest in him dropped precipitously. Does anyone remember Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe, whose rejection of Hitler's attempt to mediate peace between Japan and China and refusal to recognise Chiang Kai-Shek's government worsened the Sino-Japanese war in 1938? Or Kuniaki Koiso or Kantaro Suzuki, who succeeded Tojo as PM?

    Honestly, there's no man behind the curtain who pushed Japan towards totalitarianism and war, but I think the best candidate among senior leadership would probably have been Field Marshal Prince Kotohito Kan'in, who was chief of the IJA general staff in the 1930s during the Sino-Japanese war, and the most influential anti-US/UK / pro-Axis voice in backroom politics. He engineered the collapse of the comparatively pro-US/UK Yonai ministry in 1940. But who's ever heard of him?

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @BosTex

    There should be an “interesting” button. Thanks for sharing these details.

  46. @animalogic
    @BosTex

    "Stalin, hate to say it: was actually a pretty good war leader and a good picker of military subordinates: G Zhukov,etc)"
    I'll allow for Stalin the picker of subordinates, just, but pretty good war leader, I'm not so sure. My understanding is the huge defeats the Soviets suffered in the early part of the war were in no modest way Stalin's fault for meddling in strategy.
    He's also in part responsible for the Polish victories in the early 20's.
    He's also responsible for liquidating most of the Soviet high command in the late 30's.
    Finland was also a debacle for a long time.

    Replies: @BosTex

    I’ll agree with you: the early defeats for the Soviet Union rest on him, kind of: he was as surprised and shocked by Barbarossa as anyone else.

    Clearly a huge fail.

    But you have to admit: he didn’t quit fighting and rallied his forces strongly and found very good senior military men to lead those forces: Zhukov, Konev, Rokossovsky, etc. these were all very strong, capable leaders.

    As far as Finland is concerned: the Finns are clearly very tough fighters and they were exceptionally well led: CGE Mannerheim is clearly the best (and least known) political/military leader of WW2. One tough SOB.

    • Replies: @animalogic
    @BosTex

    "he didn’t quit fighting and rallied his forces strongly and found very good senior military men to lead those forces: Zhukov, Konev, Rokossovsky, etc."
    You're quite right.
    (didn't Rokossovsky barely survive the purges? Pragmatism over political paranoia...)

    Replies: @BosTex, @J.Ross

  47. @Houston 1992
    @BosTex

    FDR -- a decent war chief?

    unlimited aid for USSR with no conditions. thru the summer 1945. As Russians advance westwards Polish, Estonian etc deported lest they oppose USSR hegemony. US mil aid helped cement suppression of those peoples

    Should the mass rapes by the Red Army be considered?

    was it necessary to insist on unconditional surrender?

    Replies: @BosTex

    Houston- thanks for the kind note.

    I think these things have to be viewed in aggregate. Did FDR lift the morale of the American and allied publics? Yes.

    His very positive, determined and cheerful attitude helped sustain allied unity, especially in the early part of the war, when it was defeat after defeat.

    The reality is: the Soviet Union was our ally during the war. We wanted to keep them in the fight. Another reality: the Soviets were the ones during the heaviest of heavy lifting: there was no Donnybrook like Stalingrad in the west.

  48. @J.Ross
    Hitler caused it, of course he's the most famous.

    Replies: @HdC

    Hitler caused what? The Autobahn to be built? Volkswagen to be built?

  49. @BosTex
    @Joe S.Walker

    It is terrible to say, because he is such awful person, but Hitler was a very interesting cat.

    I think the “came from nothing, out of nowhere, from the humblest front soldier, to serious world shaking leadership” in what, 15 years? It is just a staggering story.

    Sometimes it is the juxtaposition of very good with very evil that is interesting: Germany was the sole major country to recover from the Great Depression, that was largely Hitler’s doing.

    Yet, beside that powerful result: we have the final solution…doesn’t get much worse! Wow!

    Almost all the rest of the leaders mentioned had already been highly successful within the political sphere, some had been on the scene since before the turn of the 20th century (Churchill; can’t tell if his rep is going up or down. I used to greatly admire him, but have become more realistic as time has ground on.)

    Stalin was clearly Lenin’s favored lieutenant, even though Lenin appeared to realize (too late) the danger that Stalin posed to the Bolshevik party. (Stalin, hate to say it: was actually a pretty good war leader and a good picker of military subordinates: G Zhukov,etc)

    Surprised that deGaulle is mentioned here: he really was a great leader (and thinker), just not during the Second World War. France’s leadership (possibly with a small asterisk for Paul Reynaud) was abysmal during WW2.

    I think the Japanese: couldn’t support any kind of leadership: the military frequently changed the head of government, via assasination. So no great leaders present: unless you want to be killed for standing out too much.

    FDR: was a pretty decent war chief, in that he let the military experts alone (GC Marshall, etc) to drive forward the titanic American war machine.

    Mussolini: the worst of the worst. I often think think of a counter factual: what if he had stayed out of the war, like Franco? He probably would have become a powerful pro-American ally leading a much stronger Italian state during the 1950s and 1960s…we would be reading about the “Mussolini economic miracle”.

    Replies: @animalogic, @Houston 1992, @keypusher, @HdC, @J.Ross

    “…It is terrible to say, because he is such awful person, but Hitler was a very interesting cat…”

    Everybody that met Hitler, including British politicians and even Churchill, liked him.

    According to Churchill, Britain was coerced into a war by Roosevelt of USA fame. Not until then did Churchill change his tune and demonized all Germans. This demonization is still going on today.

    • Replies: @BosTex
    @HdC

    HdC- thanks for the comments. I think “like” is a stretch to apply to Hitler regarding foreigners that met him.

    More like: “those who met him came away impressed by him”.

    Part of this was: he came across as a “ranter and raver” from his public speeches, yet in private meetings: he was a basically a very business like politician. Normal voiced, fairly intelligent, etc.

    I don’t think Churchill and Hitler ever met. That would have been one hell of an interesting meeting though.

    Replies: @HdC

    , @J.Ross
    @HdC

    Churchill "liked" Hitler when "the real enemy" was Stalin and Churchill hoped they would kill each other.

  50. @Alt Right Moderate
    Maybe in 2022 Hitler isn't quite the bad guy he used to be. After all, he helped killed lots of evil Russians and Ukrainian school textbooks don't have too much bad to say about him.

    In fact it may actually be okay to be white now, as long as you satisfy the following criteria:

    you hate Russians, and moderate nationalist types who want peace between white countries

    you come from a "underdog" white country characterized by low economic achievement and high corruption

    you have naïve, child-like views of things like global geopolitics and triumph idealism over realism.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘In fact it may actually be okay to be white now, as long as you satisfy the following criteria’

    It’s never okay to be white. The people promoting the Ukraine War are the same people who tell you that.

  51. The “Hitler” surge in mentions is likely due to the Orange Man.

    You know, the “new Hitler.”

    Yes lame and laughable, but the TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) isn’t dead yet.

    As others note Tojo wasn’t in the same league as the others. A fake “leader” picked by the military cabal to “lead” for a while.

    A “general” later who had zero military experience. A recent documentary (on what wife and I deem “the Hitler Channel” since much of their programming is about him, and Germany) Tojo famously decided that in late 1943 the key to victory was to march to India and defeat the British.

    This made almost zero sense and certainly wasn’t a factor for Japan.

    So Gen. Tojo had a huge Japanese army march into (and thru) Thailand (not a combatant) and into Burma and to parts of what is now Bangladesh. A terrible idea with no logistics support and surprise, no real medical corps for the troops.

    A small force of Brits, a few American rangers and a large number of pretty effective Indian troops fought them off. Eventually slaughtered most of them, who straggled back to Vietnam. More died from disease, starvation and wounds than were killed outright. Tojo destroyed a large army.

    “Gen. Tojo” makes Custer seem like a brilliant strategist. He was quickly sacked and retired when the Americans finally showed up. After a botched suicide attempt he was eventually hanged by the Allies (Americans).

    Even the Japanese despised him.

    De Gaulle remains fairly popular in France though his later career, like Churchill’s, in politics dimmed that luster. He saved France’s reputation but commanded no real army. Did serve as a rallying force and was personally courageous.

    My own hunch is that Biden is now edging out poor Andrew Johnson on lists of America’s worst presidents. In less than two years! Mentions for him in history will include a lot of “sad” and excuses for his corruption and mental decline.

    The history we are forced to now live in…

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Muggles

    An excellent point I totally missed: the history-devouring abandoned suitcase cult has finally passed to generations who don't know any history to begin with, ensuring that Hitler will live forever.

    , @Polistra
    @Muggles


    My own hunch is that Biden is now edging out poor Andrew Johnson on lists of America’s worst presidents.
     
    Thet definitely won't be happening. These lists are inevitably run by woke/jewish/anti-white people (but I repeat myself) and the primary measure appears to be the president's stance on the civil war or ww2.

    This is why the "worst" presidents are those who tried to delay or waylay the civil war and the "best" ones are those who fought the civil war and ww2.

    Also, Obama won the Nobel Prize for replacing (and not being) George W Bush. Biden won't be winning any Nobel but he's celebrated by these same people for replacing (and not being) Donald Trump.

  52. @HdC
    @BosTex

    "...It is terrible to say, because he is such awful person, but Hitler was a very interesting cat..."

    Everybody that met Hitler, including British politicians and even Churchill, liked him.

    According to Churchill, Britain was coerced into a war by Roosevelt of USA fame. Not until then did Churchill change his tune and demonized all Germans. This demonization is still going on today.

    Replies: @BosTex, @J.Ross

    HdC- thanks for the comments. I think “like” is a stretch to apply to Hitler regarding foreigners that met him.

    More like: “those who met him came away impressed by him”.

    Part of this was: he came across as a “ranter and raver” from his public speeches, yet in private meetings: he was a basically a very business like politician. Normal voiced, fairly intelligent, etc.

    I don’t think Churchill and Hitler ever met. That would have been one hell of an interesting meeting though.

    • Replies: @HdC
    @BosTex

    "...he came across as a “ranter and raver” from his public speeches..."

    In high school history classes we were fed a continuous stream of Hitler's "ranting and ravings". Certainly to individuals that couldn't understand German it appeared so.

    In university I took a minor in German, because I wanted to understand what Hitler was so animated about.

    What a surprise!

    I'm sure many recall those dramatic scenes where Hitler raises his hands with their backs to the crowds, and "rants" forcefully? I certainly saw this often enough.

    Was Hitler promising the moon and the sun to those who would follow him? Did he promise free stuff and gold-paved streets for those who voted for him? No, that would be western politicians who did that, and Hitler did nothing of that sort.

    Hitler was saying to his people that, if you wish to improve your lot in life, you "have to work for it with your own two hands"! It was during this phrase in quotes that he waived his hands.

    Pretty effective if you ask me. The Germans toiled like Trojans and improved their standard of living tremendously in a very short time.

    The increased foreign trade, without any bank intervention, was the last straw for Churchill because his banking friends were no longer able to profit from this trade.

    Thus Churchill and Roosevelt made common cause with the most murderous regime the world had seen to that time, the USSR, to demolish a small European country that had the brains and the guts to try a third way to organize its economy, and this with spectacular success.

    The NSDAP was a deadly ECONOMIC foe to the capitalist and communist regimes, one that had to be destroyed at any cost, to the detriment of all humanity.

    And the cost of that destruction we see all around us.

    Replies: @Hans

  53. @HdC
    @BosTex

    "...It is terrible to say, because he is such awful person, but Hitler was a very interesting cat..."

    Everybody that met Hitler, including British politicians and even Churchill, liked him.

    According to Churchill, Britain was coerced into a war by Roosevelt of USA fame. Not until then did Churchill change his tune and demonized all Germans. This demonization is still going on today.

    Replies: @BosTex, @J.Ross

    Churchill “liked” Hitler when “the real enemy” was Stalin and Churchill hoped they would kill each other.

  54. @Muggles
    The "Hitler" surge in mentions is likely due to the Orange Man.

    You know, the "new Hitler."

    Yes lame and laughable, but the TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) isn't dead yet.

    As others note Tojo wasn't in the same league as the others. A fake "leader" picked by the military cabal to "lead" for a while.

    A "general" later who had zero military experience. A recent documentary (on what wife and I deem "the Hitler Channel" since much of their programming is about him, and Germany) Tojo famously decided that in late 1943 the key to victory was to march to India and defeat the British.

    This made almost zero sense and certainly wasn't a factor for Japan.

    So Gen. Tojo had a huge Japanese army march into (and thru) Thailand (not a combatant) and into Burma and to parts of what is now Bangladesh. A terrible idea with no logistics support and surprise, no real medical corps for the troops.

    A small force of Brits, a few American rangers and a large number of pretty effective Indian troops fought them off. Eventually slaughtered most of them, who straggled back to Vietnam. More died from disease, starvation and wounds than were killed outright. Tojo destroyed a large army.

    "Gen. Tojo" makes Custer seem like a brilliant strategist. He was quickly sacked and retired when the Americans finally showed up. After a botched suicide attempt he was eventually hanged by the Allies (Americans).

    Even the Japanese despised him.

    De Gaulle remains fairly popular in France though his later career, like Churchill's, in politics dimmed that luster. He saved France's reputation but commanded no real army. Did serve as a rallying force and was personally courageous.

    My own hunch is that Biden is now edging out poor Andrew Johnson on lists of America's worst presidents. In less than two years! Mentions for him in history will include a lot of "sad" and excuses for his corruption and mental decline.

    The history we are forced to now live in...

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Polistra

    An excellent point I totally missed: the history-devouring abandoned suitcase cult has finally passed to generations who don’t know any history to begin with, ensuring that Hitler will live forever.

  55. @BosTex
    @Joe S.Walker

    It is terrible to say, because he is such awful person, but Hitler was a very interesting cat.

    I think the “came from nothing, out of nowhere, from the humblest front soldier, to serious world shaking leadership” in what, 15 years? It is just a staggering story.

    Sometimes it is the juxtaposition of very good with very evil that is interesting: Germany was the sole major country to recover from the Great Depression, that was largely Hitler’s doing.

    Yet, beside that powerful result: we have the final solution…doesn’t get much worse! Wow!

    Almost all the rest of the leaders mentioned had already been highly successful within the political sphere, some had been on the scene since before the turn of the 20th century (Churchill; can’t tell if his rep is going up or down. I used to greatly admire him, but have become more realistic as time has ground on.)

    Stalin was clearly Lenin’s favored lieutenant, even though Lenin appeared to realize (too late) the danger that Stalin posed to the Bolshevik party. (Stalin, hate to say it: was actually a pretty good war leader and a good picker of military subordinates: G Zhukov,etc)

    Surprised that deGaulle is mentioned here: he really was a great leader (and thinker), just not during the Second World War. France’s leadership (possibly with a small asterisk for Paul Reynaud) was abysmal during WW2.

    I think the Japanese: couldn’t support any kind of leadership: the military frequently changed the head of government, via assasination. So no great leaders present: unless you want to be killed for standing out too much.

    FDR: was a pretty decent war chief, in that he let the military experts alone (GC Marshall, etc) to drive forward the titanic American war machine.

    Mussolini: the worst of the worst. I often think think of a counter factual: what if he had stayed out of the war, like Franco? He probably would have become a powerful pro-American ally leading a much stronger Italian state during the 1950s and 1960s…we would be reading about the “Mussolini economic miracle”.

    Replies: @animalogic, @Houston 1992, @keypusher, @HdC, @J.Ross

    Stalin knew the Germans would eventually come his way but ignored the best intelligence any leader had at the time (and had the agents “converted to camp dust” for their trouble), allowed himself to be caught totally off guard, and fled expecting to be executed.

    • Replies: @HdC
    @J.Ross

    Rubbish!

    The USSR was poised to invade Germany and western Europe, having amassed millions of troops and weaponry on the USSR's western borders.

    Germany struck preemptively to stop this.

    Without USA help of millions of tons of food, fuel, trucks, and weaponry, the Germans would likely have succeeded in stopping this scourge of humanity. Stalin certainly admitted this in his speech.

    The book "Icebreaker" by Viktor Suvorov is about this topic.

    Replies: @animalogic

  56. Anonymous[228] • Disclaimer says:
    @TWS
    I made more money as a revenue agent than as a police officer and I had far greater leeway.

    The government, really wants its money or our money and doesn't let little things get in its way.

    I was good at it but I couldn't take it. I'm not ruthless and heartless enough. Same with the other leo in the office, he lasted just a month or so longer than I did.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    I made more money as a revenue agent than as a police officer and I had far greater leeway.

    The government, really wants its money or our money and doesn’t let little things get in its way.

    How else would the United be able to fund Gentiles killing each other in the Ukraine?

  57. @BosTex
    @HdC

    HdC- thanks for the comments. I think “like” is a stretch to apply to Hitler regarding foreigners that met him.

    More like: “those who met him came away impressed by him”.

    Part of this was: he came across as a “ranter and raver” from his public speeches, yet in private meetings: he was a basically a very business like politician. Normal voiced, fairly intelligent, etc.

    I don’t think Churchill and Hitler ever met. That would have been one hell of an interesting meeting though.

    Replies: @HdC

    “…he came across as a “ranter and raver” from his public speeches…”

    In high school history classes we were fed a continuous stream of Hitler’s “ranting and ravings”. Certainly to individuals that couldn’t understand German it appeared so.

    In university I took a minor in German, because I wanted to understand what Hitler was so animated about.

    What a surprise!

    I’m sure many recall those dramatic scenes where Hitler raises his hands with their backs to the crowds, and “rants” forcefully? I certainly saw this often enough.

    Was Hitler promising the moon and the sun to those who would follow him? Did he promise free stuff and gold-paved streets for those who voted for him? No, that would be western politicians who did that, and Hitler did nothing of that sort.

    Hitler was saying to his people that, if you wish to improve your lot in life, you “have to work for it with your own two hands”! It was during this phrase in quotes that he waived his hands.

    Pretty effective if you ask me. The Germans toiled like Trojans and improved their standard of living tremendously in a very short time.

    The increased foreign trade, without any bank intervention, was the last straw for Churchill because his banking friends were no longer able to profit from this trade.

    Thus Churchill and Roosevelt made common cause with the most murderous regime the world had seen to that time, the USSR, to demolish a small European country that had the brains and the guts to try a third way to organize its economy, and this with spectacular success.

    The NSDAP was a deadly ECONOMIC foe to the capitalist and communist regimes, one that had to be destroyed at any cost, to the detriment of all humanity.

    And the cost of that destruction we see all around us.

    • Replies: @Hans
    @HdC

    Thanks.

  58. @J.Ross
    @BosTex

    Stalin knew the Germans would eventually come his way but ignored the best intelligence any leader had at the time (and had the agents "converted to camp dust" for their trouble), allowed himself to be caught totally off guard, and fled expecting to be executed.

    Replies: @HdC

    Rubbish!

    The USSR was poised to invade Germany and western Europe, having amassed millions of troops and weaponry on the USSR’s western borders.

    Germany struck preemptively to stop this.

    Without USA help of millions of tons of food, fuel, trucks, and weaponry, the Germans would likely have succeeded in stopping this scourge of humanity. Stalin certainly admitted this in his speech.

    The book “Icebreaker” by Viktor Suvorov is about this topic.

    • Replies: @animalogic
    @HdC

    Without USA help of millions of tons of food, fuel, trucks, and weaponry, the Germans would likely have succeeded in stopping this scourge of humanity."
    This is such a topical question - re how important were US supplies to the USSR in its victory over Germany.
    Unarguably it helped.
    But absent the supplies would the USSR have lost ?
    I'm not sure. Certainly a lot of industry had been moved beyond the Urals. Had Stalin had to evacuate Moscow would the regime have collapsed ? On balance, I'd say no.
    But unarguably, without US supplies the USSR would have lost more people, land & time. US supplies were a huge advantage.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  59. It was Germany against the rest of the (jew-influenced) world.
    One can marvel at how long Germany lasted despite having the rest of the world against it. If anything, we should have assisted Germany in rolling eastward in its effort to destroy jewish communist bolshevism. The world would be a better place today…
    It is interesting to note that the demonization of Germany exists to this day, led by jewish interests who still promote their phony self-serving, money-making “holocaust™” which has been proven to be a fraud on many different levels.
    An American cable channel, the “American History Channel” should be renamed the “American Hitler Channel” for the amount of anti-German jewish propaganda programs that it broadcasts. If one watches the anti-German propaganda that this channel espouses, one would have to wonder how Germany could have lost WW2.
    On this channel, Hitler is portrayed as leading research into German technology from atomic power and synthetic fuels to jet powered aircraft and other high technologies (anti-gravity technology) while at the same time, falsely promoting the impossibilities of exterminating “six-million jews”, using “bug spray” as an execution agent (ha ha) in “gas chambers” with no ventilation systems or gas-tight doors, and other “holocaust™” absurdities.
    This channel also portrays Hitler as a drug-user, and a mentally unstable individual with many faults. Hitler is never seen speaking softly, only his bombastic, high energy speeches at his rallies are ever shown.
    I would hope that more and more people would see through the BS that has been foisted upon the world for the last 75 years.
    The jews and the rest of the world should be apologizing for the continued demonization of Germany.
    It is interesting to note that Asian countries do not have the same biased attitudes towards Germany and Hitler as does the western world today.

  60. @keypusher
    @BosTex


    Mussolini: the worst of the worst. I often think think of a counter factual: what if he had stayed out of the war, like Franco? He probably would have become a powerful pro-American ally leading a much stronger Italian state during the 1950s and 1960s…we would be reading about the “Mussolini economic miracle”.

     

    Re Mussolini, by the time Italy entered WWII he had been in power for nearly two decades. But Italian units were terribly underequipped, and the weapons they did have were mostly obsolete. I assume that was his fault, though I really know very little about his rule. Maybe if he'd remained in charge Italy wouldn't have developed after WWII the way it did.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  61. @BosTex
    @animalogic

    I’ll agree with you: the early defeats for the Soviet Union rest on him, kind of: he was as surprised and shocked by Barbarossa as anyone else.

    Clearly a huge fail.

    But you have to admit: he didn’t quit fighting and rallied his forces strongly and found very good senior military men to lead those forces: Zhukov, Konev, Rokossovsky, etc. these were all very strong, capable leaders.

    As far as Finland is concerned: the Finns are clearly very tough fighters and they were exceptionally well led: CGE Mannerheim is clearly the best (and least known) political/military leader of WW2. One tough SOB.

    Replies: @animalogic

    “he didn’t quit fighting and rallied his forces strongly and found very good senior military men to lead those forces: Zhukov, Konev, Rokossovsky, etc.”
    You’re quite right.
    (didn’t Rokossovsky barely survive the purges? Pragmatism over political paranoia…)

    • Replies: @BosTex
    @animalogic

    Rokossovsky was a very interesting cat. Polish nobility by background, I think. Great fighter and leader. He did survive, barely, the purges.

    Had to have been really strange to fight for a regime that came close to killing you.

    I think a lot of Russians rediscovered (including Stalin) that patriotism and defense of the motherland was a strong meal. By comparison, communism was thin gruel.

    Replies: @animalogic, @J.Ross

    , @J.Ross
    @animalogic

    Rokossovsky "survived" the purges in the sense that he lived. When he met Stalin, Stalin asked, "where've you been?"
    "Siberia."
    "Gosh, that's a funny place for you to be."

    Replies: @animalogic

  62. @HdC
    @BosTex

    "...he came across as a “ranter and raver” from his public speeches..."

    In high school history classes we were fed a continuous stream of Hitler's "ranting and ravings". Certainly to individuals that couldn't understand German it appeared so.

    In university I took a minor in German, because I wanted to understand what Hitler was so animated about.

    What a surprise!

    I'm sure many recall those dramatic scenes where Hitler raises his hands with their backs to the crowds, and "rants" forcefully? I certainly saw this often enough.

    Was Hitler promising the moon and the sun to those who would follow him? Did he promise free stuff and gold-paved streets for those who voted for him? No, that would be western politicians who did that, and Hitler did nothing of that sort.

    Hitler was saying to his people that, if you wish to improve your lot in life, you "have to work for it with your own two hands"! It was during this phrase in quotes that he waived his hands.

    Pretty effective if you ask me. The Germans toiled like Trojans and improved their standard of living tremendously in a very short time.

    The increased foreign trade, without any bank intervention, was the last straw for Churchill because his banking friends were no longer able to profit from this trade.

    Thus Churchill and Roosevelt made common cause with the most murderous regime the world had seen to that time, the USSR, to demolish a small European country that had the brains and the guts to try a third way to organize its economy, and this with spectacular success.

    The NSDAP was a deadly ECONOMIC foe to the capitalist and communist regimes, one that had to be destroyed at any cost, to the detriment of all humanity.

    And the cost of that destruction we see all around us.

    Replies: @Hans

    Thanks.

  63. @animalogic
    @BosTex

    "he didn’t quit fighting and rallied his forces strongly and found very good senior military men to lead those forces: Zhukov, Konev, Rokossovsky, etc."
    You're quite right.
    (didn't Rokossovsky barely survive the purges? Pragmatism over political paranoia...)

    Replies: @BosTex, @J.Ross

    Rokossovsky was a very interesting cat. Polish nobility by background, I think. Great fighter and leader. He did survive, barely, the purges.

    Had to have been really strange to fight for a regime that came close to killing you.

    I think a lot of Russians rediscovered (including Stalin) that patriotism and defense of the motherland was a strong meal. By comparison, communism was thin gruel.

    • Replies: @animalogic
    @BosTex

    I think a lot of Russians rediscovered (including Stalin) that patriotism and defense of the motherland was a strong meal. By comparison, communism was thin gruel."
    I think that's true.
    As the war went on there was an increasing emphasis on "motherland" etc.

    , @J.Ross
    @BosTex

    >fight for a regime that almost killed you
    Consider the alternative.

  64. @animalogic
    @BosTex

    "he didn’t quit fighting and rallied his forces strongly and found very good senior military men to lead those forces: Zhukov, Konev, Rokossovsky, etc."
    You're quite right.
    (didn't Rokossovsky barely survive the purges? Pragmatism over political paranoia...)

    Replies: @BosTex, @J.Ross

    Rokossovsky “survived” the purges in the sense that he lived. When he met Stalin, Stalin asked, “where’ve you been?”
    “Siberia.”
    “Gosh, that’s a funny place for you to be.”

    • Replies: @animalogic
    @J.Ross

    LOL.

  65. @Muggles
    The "Hitler" surge in mentions is likely due to the Orange Man.

    You know, the "new Hitler."

    Yes lame and laughable, but the TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) isn't dead yet.

    As others note Tojo wasn't in the same league as the others. A fake "leader" picked by the military cabal to "lead" for a while.

    A "general" later who had zero military experience. A recent documentary (on what wife and I deem "the Hitler Channel" since much of their programming is about him, and Germany) Tojo famously decided that in late 1943 the key to victory was to march to India and defeat the British.

    This made almost zero sense and certainly wasn't a factor for Japan.

    So Gen. Tojo had a huge Japanese army march into (and thru) Thailand (not a combatant) and into Burma and to parts of what is now Bangladesh. A terrible idea with no logistics support and surprise, no real medical corps for the troops.

    A small force of Brits, a few American rangers and a large number of pretty effective Indian troops fought them off. Eventually slaughtered most of them, who straggled back to Vietnam. More died from disease, starvation and wounds than were killed outright. Tojo destroyed a large army.

    "Gen. Tojo" makes Custer seem like a brilliant strategist. He was quickly sacked and retired when the Americans finally showed up. After a botched suicide attempt he was eventually hanged by the Allies (Americans).

    Even the Japanese despised him.

    De Gaulle remains fairly popular in France though his later career, like Churchill's, in politics dimmed that luster. He saved France's reputation but commanded no real army. Did serve as a rallying force and was personally courageous.

    My own hunch is that Biden is now edging out poor Andrew Johnson on lists of America's worst presidents. In less than two years! Mentions for him in history will include a lot of "sad" and excuses for his corruption and mental decline.

    The history we are forced to now live in...

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Polistra

    My own hunch is that Biden is now edging out poor Andrew Johnson on lists of America’s worst presidents.

    Thet definitely won’t be happening. These lists are inevitably run by woke/jewish/anti-white people (but I repeat myself) and the primary measure appears to be the president’s stance on the civil war or ww2.

    This is why the “worst” presidents are those who tried to delay or waylay the civil war and the “best” ones are those who fought the civil war and ww2.

    Also, Obama won the Nobel Prize for replacing (and not being) George W Bush. Biden won’t be winning any Nobel but he’s celebrated by these same people for replacing (and not being) Donald Trump.

  66. @BosTex
    @animalogic

    Rokossovsky was a very interesting cat. Polish nobility by background, I think. Great fighter and leader. He did survive, barely, the purges.

    Had to have been really strange to fight for a regime that came close to killing you.

    I think a lot of Russians rediscovered (including Stalin) that patriotism and defense of the motherland was a strong meal. By comparison, communism was thin gruel.

    Replies: @animalogic, @J.Ross

    I think a lot of Russians rediscovered (including Stalin) that patriotism and defense of the motherland was a strong meal. By comparison, communism was thin gruel.”
    I think that’s true.
    As the war went on there was an increasing emphasis on “motherland” etc.

  67. @J.Ross
    @animalogic

    Rokossovsky "survived" the purges in the sense that he lived. When he met Stalin, Stalin asked, "where've you been?"
    "Siberia."
    "Gosh, that's a funny place for you to be."

    Replies: @animalogic

    LOL.

  68. @HdC
    @J.Ross

    Rubbish!

    The USSR was poised to invade Germany and western Europe, having amassed millions of troops and weaponry on the USSR's western borders.

    Germany struck preemptively to stop this.

    Without USA help of millions of tons of food, fuel, trucks, and weaponry, the Germans would likely have succeeded in stopping this scourge of humanity. Stalin certainly admitted this in his speech.

    The book "Icebreaker" by Viktor Suvorov is about this topic.

    Replies: @animalogic

    Without USA help of millions of tons of food, fuel, trucks, and weaponry, the Germans would likely have succeeded in stopping this scourge of humanity.”
    This is such a topical question – re how important were US supplies to the USSR in its victory over Germany.
    Unarguably it helped.
    But absent the supplies would the USSR have lost ?
    I’m not sure. Certainly a lot of industry had been moved beyond the Urals. Had Stalin had to evacuate Moscow would the regime have collapsed ? On balance, I’d say no.
    But unarguably, without US supplies the USSR would have lost more people, land & time. US supplies were a huge advantage.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @animalogic

    The Soviets up and moving their factories a thousand or more miles to the east in 1941-42 was an insane accomplishment. Apparently, one positive side effect of Stalin murdering a lot of 50 year olds in the 1930s is that it put a lot of 30 year olds in high positions in the early 1940s.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  69. @animalogic
    @HdC

    Without USA help of millions of tons of food, fuel, trucks, and weaponry, the Germans would likely have succeeded in stopping this scourge of humanity."
    This is such a topical question - re how important were US supplies to the USSR in its victory over Germany.
    Unarguably it helped.
    But absent the supplies would the USSR have lost ?
    I'm not sure. Certainly a lot of industry had been moved beyond the Urals. Had Stalin had to evacuate Moscow would the regime have collapsed ? On balance, I'd say no.
    But unarguably, without US supplies the USSR would have lost more people, land & time. US supplies were a huge advantage.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    The Soviets up and moving their factories a thousand or more miles to the east in 1941-42 was an insane accomplishment. Apparently, one positive side effect of Stalin murdering a lot of 50 year olds in the 1930s is that it put a lot of 30 year olds in high positions in the early 1940s.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Steve Sailer

    steeeeve ... [falls asleep] ... steeeve .... the hairy legs, steve ... the hairy legs ... want to know about white rage ... steve ... have to pass the legislation to find out what's in it ... steve ... old people have ... older people have ... look, the point os that older people have ... something ... and that's illustrative of something ...

  70. @Steve Sailer
    @animalogic

    The Soviets up and moving their factories a thousand or more miles to the east in 1941-42 was an insane accomplishment. Apparently, one positive side effect of Stalin murdering a lot of 50 year olds in the 1930s is that it put a lot of 30 year olds in high positions in the early 1940s.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    steeeeve … [falls asleep] … steeeve …. the hairy legs, steve … the hairy legs … want to know about white rage … steve … have to pass the legislation to find out what’s in it … steve … old people have … older people have … look, the point os that older people have … something … and that’s illustrative of something …

  71. @BosTex
    @animalogic

    Rokossovsky was a very interesting cat. Polish nobility by background, I think. Great fighter and leader. He did survive, barely, the purges.

    Had to have been really strange to fight for a regime that came close to killing you.

    I think a lot of Russians rediscovered (including Stalin) that patriotism and defense of the motherland was a strong meal. By comparison, communism was thin gruel.

    Replies: @animalogic, @J.Ross

    >fight for a regime that almost killed you
    Consider the alternative.

  72. Lee Zeldin, candidate for NY Gov, just had criminals go all shooty crackers right outside his front door. Did he just win?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World