The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Dalton Trumbo Had It Coming
🔊 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

“Dalton Trumbo was a socialist, but he loved being rich.”

So says Bryan Cranston, who stars in “Trumbo,” out this week, and plays the screenwriter who went to prison with the Hollywood Ten in the time of Harry Truman.

Actually, Trumbo was not a socialist. Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Trumbo was a Stalinist, a hard-core Communist when the Communist Party USA was run from Moscow by the Comintern, agents of the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century.

Trumbo was not what Lenin called a “useful idiot,” a liberal simpleton. He was the real deal, a Bolshevik who followed every twist and turn in the Moscow party line.

When Hitler signed his infamous pact with Stalin, and Germany and Russia crucified Poland and Hitler overran France, Trumbo justified the Nazi brutality, “To the vanquished all conquerors are inhuman.”

As Churchill led his country in defying Hitler, Trumbo, in his 1941 novel, “The Remarkable Andrew,” trashed Britain as no democracy, as it had a king, and charged FDR with “black treason” for seeking to aid the Brits in their desperate fight to stave off defeat by the Nazis.

A talented screenwriter who wrote “Roman Holiday,” “Spartacus” and “Exodus,” Trumbo was attracted to revolutionary violence.

Invited to do a screenplay of William Styron’s “Confessions of Nat Turner,” about the Virginia slave who led a rampage of rape and murder in 1831, Trumbo wrote back:

“[I]n carrying through his rebellion Turner did nothing more than accept a principle of white Christian violence which had enslaved all of Africa, and used it for the first time in American history as a weapon against white Christians.”

Biographer Larry Ceplair quotes Trumbo as describing America as “fundamentally” racist, with racism “the keystone of national policy both domestic and foreign…

“How many gooks have we killed in Korea? How many slopes in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia? Millions, and we’re still killing more of them. Our thirst for the blood of dark-skinned sub-humans is insatiable.”

Why is Hollywood making a movie about Trumbo?

To whitewash the traitor and his comrades who were blacklisted for refusing to testify to the House Un-American Activities Committee about their Communist Party membership and affiliations.

In promoting “Trumbo,” Hollywood’s flacks write of the late 1940s as the “darkest days” in American history.

They were dark all right. But probably less dark for Tinseltown Bolsheviks than the hundreds of millions who fell under the rule of the revolutions and regimes they supported in those years.

Between 1946 and 1950, Stalin murdered the Russian POWs we sent back in Operation Keelhaul, imposed his barbarous rule on 10 Christian nations of Eastern Europe, blockaded Berlin, built an atom bomb with the aid of American traitors Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, helped Mao Zedong conquer China and begin a slaughter of Chinese that would exceed the millions attributed to Stalin himself.

In 1950, Stalin backed Kim Il-Sung’s invasion of South Korea that left millions dead, including 33,000 Americans. The film script, “An American Story,” found in Trumbo’s papers, reveals deep sympathy for North Korea during that war.

As Allan Ryskind, son of Hollywood writer Morrie Ryskind, writes in “Hollywood Traitors,” his definitive new book published by Regnery, “There appeared to be no corkscrew twist in the Soviet line [Trumbo] wouldn’t embrace.”

ORDER IT NOW

With all its attendant favorable publicity, “Trumbo,” is designed to accomplish several goals. No only to heroize the Hollywood Ten, but to demean John Wayne and the other patriots who, along with Ronald Reagan of the Screen Actors Guild, helped clean the treasonous vermin out of their town and industry.

The villainess of “Trumbo,” played by Helen Mirren, is Hedda Hopper, the anti-Communist columnist who had considerable clout in Hollywood and backed Ronald Reagan, Ryskind Sr. and John Wayne, who eventually drove the Communists from their midst.

Larger issues are raised by this film.

If one has been a Communist, or a Nazi, and supported that evil ideology and its aims, what is one’s moral obligation to one’s country?

Is it not to step forward, and tell the truth?

What was the duty of Congress, if not to expose ideological treason in the most powerful cultural force in the America of that day?

What was the duty of the leaders of a great industry that found a nest of traitors in their midst, whose deepest allegiance was to our mortal enemy?

For remaining mute, refusing to testify before the Congress, the Hollywood Ten are portrayed as martyrs to the First Amendment.

Yet, as Communists, they were providing aid and comfort to the greatest enemies free speech and freedom of the press ever had.

Had the Hollywood Ten supported a subversive party in Stalin’s Moscow, what would have happened to them might have been slightly worse than not getting screen credits for the movies they wrote.

By joining a criminal conspiracy dedicated to the overthrow of the government established to protect our freedoms, and the imposition of Communist tyranny, the Hollywood Ten got what they deserved.

By their treason, they blacklisted themselves.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

Copyright 2015 Creators.com.

 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Communism, Dalton Trumbo, Hollywood 
Hide 34 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Jim says:

    What accounts for the extraordinary bloodlust of the left?

    • Replies: @another fred
  2. “Trumbo was not a socialist. Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Trumbo was a Stalinist, a hard-core Communist”

    Union of Soviet Socialist Republics – Communists are Socialist. Not all Socialists are Communist.

    (Otherwise I strongly agree with the article!)

    • Replies: @D. K.
  3. schmenz says:

    Trumbo was also one other thing: a very average writer. His work was nothing special and his efforts puny. Even “Roman Holiday” was not entirely his work; he wrote a single draft which was re-worked by better writers.

    Billy Wilder once said something to the effect that the “Unfriendly Ten” were not “unfriendly”, but untalented.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  4. The communists always play the “name game”. Sometimes, they call themselves communists, other times socialists, sometimes “Social Democrats”.

    Trying to call Trumbo a “Socialist” is a lie and another way to whitewash Trumbo. Call him a socialist and people will think was like Norman Thomas.

    The thing about Trumbo is he wasn’t really a martyr. During his so-called “blacklist” – he kept on writing scripts and getting paid tons of money. Trumbo just got no screen credit and received a below market rate. IOW, he had make do with 2 servants instead of 4.

  5. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Trumbo may have been a full-fledged commie, but if he didn’t break any law by spying for the USSR, he was just a man of radical creed, not treasonous crime.

    Of course, Hollywood is bogus because it was never against blacklist per se. It was against the blacklist after WWII because the suspects/targets were often leftist and Jewish.

    I don’t think Trumbo was Jewish but many who came under suspicion were Jewish.
    So, this issue of blacklist isn’t just about ideology or civil liberties but about ethnicity.

    Indeed, Hollywood has always been about blacklisting people. It blacklists today. Suppose a talented film-maker were outed as a KKK member, Neo-Nazi member. He would be blacklisted. Mel Gibson has been effectively blacklisted because he has problems with Jews. Indeed, Hollywood will now effectively blacklist anyone who says, “you know, I think fecal penetration is so ewwwww.” Even that is a career-destroyer. And during WWII, Hollywood was all for blacklisting those with German sympathies. And Jews are now saying ‘hate speech isn’t free speech’, but of course, Jews get to decide what is and isn’t ‘hate’. In California, Senator Feinstein wants to ban anti-Zionist speech as ‘hateful’. But couldn’t one argue that Zionism is hateful for being an ideology of ethnic cleansing and exclusion of Palestinians?

    I find this whole issue hilarious. Libs say the anti-communist red-baiters were full of paranoia and hysteria.
    But during WWII, Hollywood and Liberal Media were full of hysteria and extreme paranoia. Even though they knew Germany had no plans to invade US and Japan attacked Pearl Harbor only to defend Japanese interests in Asia, the media and Hollywood made it seem like the Krauts and Japs were encircling to invade all of America and rape farmer’s daughters. And the blacklist of McCarthy yrs was nothing compared to what FDR did to Japper-Americans. (Granted, what happened to Japper-Americans wasn’t that bad when compared to horrors of 20th century. And other nations also interned entire peoples.) And Hollywood was fully supportive of FDR’s policies. And it made tons of documentaries and propaganda that made Germans and Japanese out to be subhuman monsters. These films weren’t all that much different from anti-Jewish docs by Germans. (To be sure, Americans never had genocidal intention against Germans and Japanese, and Japanese and Germans came up with similar propaganda against Americans and allies.)

    Anyway, suppose WWII had ended differently. Suppose Germany had defeated the USSR. Suppose a Cold War set in between US and German-dominated Europe. Cold War would have been Liberal Democracy versus National Socialist Empire.

    Suppose Hollywood was dominated by gentile German-Americans, many of whom sympathized with National Socialists. Suppose Charles Lindbergh had been president during WWII and his administration was filled with Nazi sympathizers and spies, and some of them even slipped US atomic secrets to Germany. Suppose German-Americans had been instrumental in making the atomic bomb, and these scientists wanted to share the secrets with Germany.

    Suppose an anti-Nazi HUAC(huac was anti-German during WWII) a man named McCarthowicz came to prominence and called for purging all these Nazi sympathizers, and suppose such people were flushed out of culture and government. Would Jewish-Americans be lionizing the ‘victims’ of McCarthowicz? No, they would be saying US was saved because a heroic man named McCarthowicz used any means necessary to prevent US from turning into a quasi-fascist anti-Jewish nation.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  6. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website
    @schmenz

    “Trumbo was also one other thing: a very average writer. His work was nothing special and his efforts puny.”

    How much did Trumbo contribute to Spartacus?

    The dialogues of Laughton and Olivier are wonderful.

    But Douglas has boring do-goody lines.

    • Replies: @schmenz
  7. So many Whys.

    agents of the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century.
    . . . He was the real deal, a Bolshevik who followed every twist and turn in the Moscow party line.

    Zbigniew Brzezinski agrees: Stalin was the greatest mass murder of the 20th century.

    According to Martin Amis, “By 1933 he had murdered 7-, 8-, 9-million Ukrainian and Russian peasants.”

    According to Herbert Hoover, who had a tête-à-tête with Hitler in 1938, one of the three three idée fixes that motivated Hitler was to vanquish Bolshevik Communism. Woodrow Wilson shared that concern and in 1918-1919 deployed US troops to Syberia in a scheme to achieve that goal. (The plan failed — backfired, actually.)

    Churchill later named Bolshevik Communism as the world’s greatest threat, and for fifty years people in Eastern Europe suffered, as did people in the Middle East as other parts of Asia as the victorious west sought to contain the scourge that they prevented Hitler from destroying in 1941.

    Buchanan himself has called the British pact with Poland a step that made the “unnecessary war” a reality.

    So I’m confused.

    Why did the USA ally with Stalin?
    Why did Henry Morgenthau, Jr. and his sidekick/brain, Harry Dexter White, a spy for Moscow, use Morgenthau’s office to finance Stalin, provide war materiel to Stalin; secretly insert aid to Stalin in the Lend-Lease bill they maneuvered through a reluctant US Congress?

    Why did FDR and Churchill enable Stalin to not merely beat back the Wehrmacht but to destroy Germany, the Christian heart of Europe?
    Does Buchanan not believe Viktor Suvarov’s argument that Stalin was massing troops on Germany’s border so that Barbarossa turned into a defensive action that saved more of Central Germany from the sort of havoc that Stalin wreaked on Germany (and Poland).

    Churchill said he was acting to “save Christianity,” but he enabled its destruction; it turns out that Hitler, not Churchill, was the defender of Christianity, if Viktor Suvarov, and Unz’s own Eric Margolis are to be believed — Time to Face the Truth About World War II

    As Churchill led his country in defying Hitler, Trumbo, in his 1941 novel, “The Remarkable Andrew,” trashed Britain as no democracy, as it had a king, and charged FDR with “black treason” for seeking to aid the Brits in their desperate fight to stave off defeat by the Nazis.

    The Nazis did not seek to “defeat” the British; numerous times, Hitler spoke of Germany as an ally of the British empire. Had that been the aim, it could have been accomplished at Dunkirk. Germany offered peace to the British on numerous occasions; Churchill refused.

    und so weiter

    All these questions and disorthagonalities point to an answer to Pat’s question,

    “Why is Hollywood making a movie about Trumbo?”

    It’s for the same reason Jewish dominated publishers and movie makers produce tons of books, fiction as well as faux-history, and miles of film promoting the religion of holocaustism: to ensure that the liar’s narrative remains firmly embedded in the public mind and Jews remain the world’s perpetual victims so that financial support continues to flow to Israel, and the superpower’s political clout continues to enable the relentless dispossession of Palestinians and Israeli expansionism.

    Pat wrote:

    If one has been a Communist, or a Nazi, and supported that evil ideology and its aims, what is one’s moral obligation to one’s country?
    Is it not to step forward, and tell the truth?
    What was the duty of Congress, if not to expose ideological treason in the most powerful cultural force in the America of that day?

    Perhaps Pat’s been asleep; supporters of the “evil ideology of Nazism” have been, um, treated in a less-than-friendly manner.

    Bolshevik Communism? Not so much.

    Henry Morgenthau, Jr. is lionized; Harry Dexter White — same thing.
    Martin Amis rakes in royalties while assuring an audience at the Jewish Heritage Museum that “Stalin had no choice; he had to kill those millions of peasants to keep the Communist ideology alive.”
    C Span provides air time to Amis, his host Ron Rosenbaum and the Jewish Heritage Museum audience to advance this exculpation of the “greatest mass murderer of all time.”

    Stalin as hero.

    —-

    Citing his friend Michael Kammen, Thomas Fleming has said and written that it takes fifty years or more to move from the “Mystic Chords of Memory” that characterize the immediate ‘history’ of events such as World War II, to emotionally neutralized, evidence-based history.

    Hollywood’s stock in trade is emotion-laden verisimilitude — the distortion of veracity to engage an audience on a sub-intellectual level.

    A film about Trumbo is one more contribution to the Mt. Everest-sized hay stack of verisimilitudinous attempts to conceal truths about the roles played by FDR, Churchill, and Jews, just as Lindbergh said, in the destruction of Germany and of Christianity in Europe, in favor of an Exodus-replicating Jewish migration to the new Canaan, the land of Palestine.

    It is time to give equal exposure to zionism and its role in drawing USA into WWI and WWII, and to rehabilitate Germany, Hitler and NSDAP.

    What is one’s moral obligation to one’s country?

    Is it not to step forward, and tell the truth?

    What is the duty of Congress, if not to expose ideological treason in the most powerful cultural force in the America of our day?

    • Replies: @Marais
  8. Sean says:

    An example of late Trumbo screen writing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDGbYo5sxdc

    I think Pat is rather underestimating the anti-communist forces in Hollywood, which included Hearst.

  9. OutWest says:

    Socialist is a very broad generic term. Much of the socialist agenda involved finding a benevolent system to take care of those not able to fend for themselves when the feudal system no longer did so. It’s particularly attractive to those who envision themselves as the newly empowered, ennobled caretaker/ruler. Of course initial brutality was required to eliminate/reeducate the mistaken souls who thought they could make decisions for themselves.

    The bourgeoisie were commoners who became well educated and capable beyond their place. Their self-sufficiency was/is a threat to those who would rule for the common good. Socialist are those who deign to rule for the common good.

    If a socialist society has government wealth such as oil or such the system can be quite gentle. But in poor societies it’s often necessary to eradicate the Kulaks and such.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
  10. Why the bother?

    Socialism is the forced collectivization of society by way of the hunter-gatherer mindset, while fascism is the forced collectivization of society by way of the sedentary mindset.

    Both are based on similar morals, but with differing applications, and have a similar history of mass murder, destruction, slavery, and theft – all for the simple reason that the settlement culture is the offspring of the forager culture.

    Both are antithetical to freedom and voluntary interaction, the most recent of man’s social systems.

    • Replies: @OutWest
  11. Its funny how the Hollywood leftists NEVER stop trying to whitewash their communist heroes. With all the great stories to be told, what interests them? Whitewashing Trumbo and making him out to be a martyr! He was just a mediocre commie scriptwriter whose great works were “Hawaii” and “The Last sunset”.

    Man, the Left *never* gives up. Even when their HERO has been shown to be a Gulag supporting Stalinist, they never stop quibbling, obfuscating, misleading, and downright lying in their desire to defend him.

  12. @Priss Factor

    Trumbo may have been a full-fledged commie, but if he didn’t break any law by spying for the USSR, he was just a man of radical creed, not treasonous crime.

    Exactly right.

    Buchanan is a fool. Rightists can be blacklisted too.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  13. OutWest says:
    @Drapetomaniac

    Perhaps just semantics but I see socialism as the genus and fascism and communism as somewhat differing species thereof. Fascism leaves property title with owner but control thereof is taken by the government with the property being the sticks and the government aligning them for grater effectiveness or strength in the bundle. Communism involves the ownership and control of all productive property by the government –there being little personal property to worry about.

    Thus the U.S. is a fascist state while China is largely becoming fascist with a substantial communist residue relating to military-owned industries.

    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
  14. @OutWest

    To me the political isms are just variations on a theme with two major antagonistic types: socialism, derived from the hunter-gatherer culture, and fascism (pharaonicism?), derived from the sedentary culture, which itself developed from the hunter-gatherer culture.

    There is a smaller third culture, the freedom culture, which is playing the role that the sedentary culture played in relation to the hunter-gatherers 10,000+ years ago: always under attack.

    As for property, the hunter-gatherers were not very propertied, the settlement people were more propertied but not really – like now, the ruler owned the realm – and the freedom people by far the most propertied.

    So freedom people are a subspecies of the settlement people, and the settlement people would be a subspecies of the hunter-gatherers, all by way of their cultures.

  15. @OutWest

    The bourgeoisie were commoners who became well educated and capable beyond their place. Their self-sufficiency was/is a threat to those who would rule for the common good.

    I wish more people understood that.

  16. Svigor says:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-margolis/time-to-face-the-truth-ab_b_282379.html

    I didn’t know Margolis was that far out there. I certainly wouldn’t have expected a Jewish guy to go with Suvarov’s “Soviet invasion of Germany was imminent” theory (I’m going to have to start reading his articles).

    Even odder, I have to disagree with them. Very few historians buy this theory. That’s not exactly persuasive, but I’ll put it this way; I don’t see much reason to buy Suvarov’s narrative. The Soviets got their asses kicked for the first 6 months of the Nazi-Soviet war because the Red Army was shit – a bunch of untrained peasants led by political hacks appointed by the Moscow Mafia, who had just murdered the entire Red Army brass. The Soviet military was in the middle of crapping their pants and hastily undoing a military restructuring after watching German mobile units steamroll France.

    At the very least, we can’t reconcile Stalin’s supposed genius with these supposed Soviet invasion plans. It’s hard to see how both could be true.

    For obvious reasons, Russians will tend to be at least tempted to downplay the Red Army’s sorry state at the beginning of Barbarossa – to blame the ass-kicking it got on “wrong-footedness,” bad position, rather than admit that the Red Army was a hot mess. But the idea of the Soviet Union being the initial aggressor in the Nazi-Soviet war, that doesn’t seem like a dish most Russians want to savor.

    All of that said, I do see Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as sharing the responsibility for WWII relatively equally. Or at least, more equally than the current narrative would countenance. Stalin was no more justified invading Poland than Hitler was.

    • Replies: @Wally
  17. Mr. Anon says:

    Trumbo was a loathsome creep. During WWII, some isolationists had written to him praising his own book “Johnny Got His Gun”, which he had only recently written in 1938, and he denounced them to the FBI. So Trumbo was cool with denouncing people to the authorities, as long as it served the interests of the Soviet Union.

  18. Mr. Anon says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    “Exactly right.

    Buchanan is a fool. Rightists can be blacklisted too.”

    Such moral posturing will win you nothing from the left. They don’t care about fairness. They see no contradiction in bemoaning the black-listing of lefties while at the same time happily black-listing you. Revealing the Hollywood 10 for the rotten commie traitors that they were is a necessary corrective.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  19. @Mr. Anon

    They see no contradiction in bemoaning the black-listing of lefties while at the same time happily black-listing you.

    Judging by your comment and others, seems the same can be said of “righties” (unfortunately on both sides).

    For the record, I’m a hard far leftist, and I defend rightists against the the state and the blacklisters. (See, for example, http://kanbaroo.blogspot.com/2013/10/state-bars-assault-first-amendment-paul.html ) Measures that will be used against one will in the end be used against the other. Besides, shouldn’t democracy and liberty, to the little extent they exist, be defended?

  20. schmenz says:
    @Priss Factor

    Good question which, alas, I cannot answer for certain. There were numerous writers involved in that script, which is typical of Hollywood, so it could have been Trumbo or one of the others. Often writers who do work on scripts are unable to get a writing credit due to arbitration by the Writer’s Guild.

    Then, too, Laughton and Olivier would make the reading of a weather report sound compelling.

    Examples of uncredited writers abound. If you ever read, as I have, George Lucas’ first draft script of STAR WARS (1977) you would have found it puerile…. frankly, awful. Yet what eventually became the much-improved Final Draft was clearly the work of uncredited writers. Many suspect that the superb writer Leigh Brackett was the “script doctor” on that one but we don’t know for certain.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  21. Mr. Anon says:

    “For the record, I’m a hard far leftist, and I defend rightists against the the state and the blacklisters.”

    Who cares? If what you say is true, then you are an aberration. We (meaning, not you) shouldn’t base our actions on such statistically rare entities as hard leftists who act in good faith. Most don’t.

    Leftists have been lying about the Hollywood blacklist for seventy years. It wasn’t that bad. It wasn’t nearly as bad as the blacklisting that lefties engaged in, and still engage in. And of course it certainly wasn’t as bad as what was dealt out (i.e., murder and imprisonment) by the sort of people for whom people like Dalton Trumbo made propaganda.

  22. Mr. Anon says:
    @schmenz

    “Examples of uncredited writers abound. If you ever read, as I have, George Lucas’ first draft script of STAR WARS (1977) you would have found it puerile…. frankly, awful. Yet what eventually became the much-improved Final Draft was clearly the work of uncredited writers. Many suspect that the superb writer Leigh Brackett was the “script doctor” on that one but we don’t know for certain.”

    That would explain why it was as good as it was. I have heard that his then wife, who was also his film editor, also markedly improved the final product.

    • Replies: @rod1963
  23. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website
    @Svigor

    I don’t see much reason to buy Suvarov’s narrative. The Soviets got their asses kicked for the first 6 months of the Nazi-Soviet war because the Red Army was shit – a bunch of untrained peasants led by political hacks appointed by the Moscow Mafia, who had just murdered the entire Red Army brass. The Soviet military was in the middle of crapping their pants and hastily undoing a military restructuring after watching German mobile units steamroll France.

    It wasn’t just Suvarov’s narrative, but others too. And there’s Stalin’s speech concerning his planned attack on Germany.

    The Soviets we’re initially rolled up because they were in an offensive position, vulnerable to Germany’s pre-emptive strike. With so many Red Army troops and Soviet war materials near the border it was easy pickings for the Wehrmacht.

    Come and debate here:
    ‘Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack’
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999

    That is if you think you know what you’re talking about.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  24. rod1963 says:
    @Mr. Anon

    That would explain why when left to his devices he puts out garbage and why he sold the rights to SW to Disney.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  25. @Wally

    Your beloved Nazis never did nothing wrong never, did they?

  26. Marais says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    ”…Hitler, not Churchill, was the defender of Christianity…”

    Invasions were, no doubt, necessary for evangelizing Austria, Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Romania, Greece, Yugoslavia, etc. Who knew they were so impious?

    What did Hitler secretly say about Christianity?

    “The British Empire and the Roman Empire could not be compared in respect of permanence; the latter was not confronted by any powerful political rival of a serious order after the Punic Wars. It was only the disintegrating effect of Christianity, and the symptoms of age which appear in every country, which caused ancient Rome to succumb to the onslaught of the Germans.”*

    Equating ‘disintegration’ and Christianity seems unlikely for a defender of the faith.

    Did Hitler have imperial designs?

    “The Führer then continued: The aim of German policy was to make secure and to preserve the racial community (Volksmasse) and to enlarge it. It was therefore a question of space.”

    “The German racial community comprised over 85 million people and, because of their number and the narrow limits of habitable space in Europe, constituted a tightly packed racial core such as was not to be met in any other country, and such as implied the right to a greater living space than in the case of other peoples…Germany’s future was therefore wholly conditional upon the solving of the need for space, and such a solution could be sought, of course, only for a foreseeable future about one to three generations.”

    The only remedy, and one which might appear to us as visionary, lay in the acquisition of greater living space – a quest which has at all times been the origin of the formation of states and of the migration of peoples. That this quest met with no interest at Geneva or among the satiated nations was understandable…”*

    And how did Hitler propose to solve the “space” problem?

    Germany’s problem could only be solved by means of force and this was never without attendant risk…If one accepts as the basis of the following disposition the resort to force with its attendant risks, then there remain still to be answered the questions “when” and “how”. *

    *Adolf Hitler, Notes taken by Colonel Friedrich Hoßbach 5 Nov 1937 during a 4-hour meeting with his service chiefs in Berlin (emphasis added).

    http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~mkinnear/Hossbach%20memorandum.pdf

    “It is time to give equal exposure to zionism and its role in drawing USA into WWI and WWII, and to rehabilitate Germany, Hitler and NSDAP.”

    It’s ironic you lament zionist land theft, but seek to absolve Nazi Germany of the same crime. Intentional?

  27. @Jim

    What accounts for the extraordinary bloodlust of the left?

    The “left” is not a monolith, but as far as concerns that substantial portion that bears the “bloodlust” you observe, I believe it is rooted in unhappiness and pain – a sense of being threatened by the world, and an inability to meet the hard competition of life on its own terms. Starting from their own unhappiness, they fall prey to utopian visions of what they imagine the world could or should be. Once convinced of the morality of their ideas it is a short step to the immorality of the rest of the world.

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.” C.S. Lewis

    The “left” has no exclusive claim to that kind of tyranny, but they have raised its modern practice to a high art.

  28. @Marais

    Thank you, Marais, for pointing to one repository of documents which the Allies removed from Germany.

    As Kathy Peiss reported, spy networks of the Allied powers and Jewish persons including Peiss’s uncle pilfered many, many documents from Germany during the war. William Shirer reported much the same information in the opening of his “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” — in a situation unprecedented in all of history, Allies removed from Germany “tons of German documents” of both historical import i.e. from centuries before the world wars, as well as the those of more immediate pertinence.

    Peiss emphasized that the Jewish and Allied agents who gained custody of those documents “destroyed those that discussed Nazi race ideas”. http://www.c-span.org/video/?323922-1/libraries-world-war-ii

    I find that curious: Why would American and Jewish agents destroy proof of the malign nature of Nazi racism? Wouldn’t such documents serve as damning evidence of the essential malignity of Nazism? Anybody who has watched more than two episodes of Perry Mason or Law and Order understands that the prosecutor carefully gathers damning evidence and seeks to hide, or even — gasp — destroy exculpatory evidence.

    Since, as Peiss repeated, “documents about Nazi racial ideology were destroyed, we can never know with certainty what that “racial ideology” was about; we can only know what Peiss’s Jewish uncle and his fellow travelers, and Allies, and the members of the American Historical Society who filtered the cache of documents that Shirer used; as well as the victorious jurists at the Nuremberg trials who cherry-picked German documents; and as well as Churchill’s own memoirs and histories of the war which, as Churchill himself said, would exculpate the British and other Allies because Churchill would write the history himself.

    Regarding the document you referenced:
    Firstly, Could it be that what is translated with the pejorative term “race” really has a broader meaning, like “national culture,” or “our cultural values,” — something like that?

    Second, while you deserve kudos for posting a link to the full document, the portions quoted did not give a full sense of the context of the conversation. It appeared to me that several variables were under discussion:
    – Germany’s ability to feed its population,
    – which it hoped to grow,
    – in view of rapid industrialization that would consume agricultural lands
    -which were, in any event, exhausted.

    Unmentioned in this report of that discussion was an overriding concern that was a prime motivator of German leaders and of Hitler; namely, the irrefutable fact that in World War I 800,000 German civilians had been starved to death as a result of the Allied blockade, and that that deliberate tactic against German civilians was considered one of the important reasons for the breakdown in the military’s morale that caused Germany to lose the war.*

    German leaders were determined that such a thing would never happen again; they considered defensive strategies to prevent that occurrence.
    It seems to me such a strategy is the first obligation of any government.

    Moreover, as noted, this discussion took place in 1937-38, a period during which “International Jewry” was carrying out the deliberate, sustained attempt to “cripple” Germany; to “bring Germany to its knees,” to “destroy the economic factors on which Germany’s existence depends” — that is, organized International Jewry was carrying out an existential threat to the German people.

    (The same tactic was carried out, by the same parties, against Iraq, causing the deaths of a million people, half of them children.
    Similar tactics are being carried out by the same parties against Iran.
    As well, Jews in Israel are carrying out a slow-motion process of “nutritional control’ over the people of Gaza.
    If anybody with eyes to see can observe that the Jewish and Anglo- people are doing this, in real time, today; and given that we have evidence that the same parties did the same thing in WWI and WWII, what is it reasonable to conclude about fundamental characteristics and
    moral values of the people who are imposing these death-dealing schemes on other people’s children?)

    Today, Jews in Israel are going ape-shit over BDS, a pathetic movement that is a fart in a windstorm. Netanyahu will appear at the White House to demand that the USA provide Israel with $5 billion worth of Febreze to make that stink disappear. The US Congress, and the Obama administration, will comply, so concerned are they with “mending bridges” between the US and Israel. This is particularly disturbing in view of the fact that last week the US Congress failed to come up with a plan that would fund the desperately-needed repair of bridges in USA.

    In 1937-38, the NSDAP — arrogant Germans that they were — were too proud to whine and beg and instead considered their options for providing for their people in the face of the Jewish threat to their economic existence, and they realistically assessed that it was not likely that their neighbors would make them a gift of the land they needed to feed their people — it would have to be taken by force, as the document mentions. After all, Poland’s leaders rejected the NSDAP’s very favorable terms that would allow transit of coal that the German people and German industry required for their survival. Why should they expect that Poles would voluntarily dispossess themselves of newly-acquired German lands that Versailles gifted them with?

    So thanks again, Marais, for supporting my case that NSDAP acted rationally and even conservatively against the Jewish and Allied threat to the well-being and continued sovereignty of the German people, and that because of actual book-burning, self-serving falsification of history, and de facto censorship carried out by Jewish and Anglo- people, it is not possible to give credence to most of the history of the world wars, especially those histories produced by Jewish and Anglo people.

    * regarding the devastation of famine and starvation — in his conversation with Ron Rosenbaum at the Museum of Jewish Heritage in NYC, Martin Amis waxed lyrical about the suffering endured by Ukrainian peasants who were starved to death by Stalin and the Bolsheviks —

    “Imagine a mother watching her child starve to death . . . Some parents abandoned their children; some ate their children . . .” http://www.c-span.org/video/?322861-1/book-discussion-explaining-hitler-zone-interest

    Nonetheless, Amis excused Stalin for those acts of mass murder that cost the lives of “7-, 8-, 9-million people” in 1932: “Stalin had no choice: he had to protect the Bolshevik project.”

    In contrast, NSDAP acted to fend off the threat of starvation.

    • Replies: @OutWest
    , @Marais
  29. @Marais

    You fact you give quotes from the fraudulent Hossbach memorandum doesn’t do much for your argument.

    For the truth about Colonel Count Friedrich Hossbach, see here:

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p372_Weber.html

  30. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website
    @rod1963

    “That would explain why when left to his devices he puts out garbage and why he sold the rights to SW to Disney.”

    Actually, Lucas’ one truly great work of art is THX 1138. Lucas had a great eye and sense for design and patterns.

    And he did remarkable work with AMERICAN GRAFFITI that was the best movie about American teenagers until DAZED AND CONFUSED came along.

    Lucas wasn’t a great writer, but he was good with visuals and movement. AMERICAN GRAFFITI is very entertaining with cars and roads.

    STAR WARS universe required more formal writing skills, and Lucas just didn’t have it.

    But the main problem isn’t so much the dialogue as all the silly stuff thrown in to win over the kids.
    Ewoks were silly, Jar Jar Binks was sillier.
    Also, Lucas made terrible choices in getting his main actors for the roles of young Luke and young Annakin.

  31. The Scalpel says: • Website

    So now, Russia, the successor state to the “godless commies” has (re)embraced Christianity while the west has made gay marriage and heterosexual marriage equivalent. Yet, Russia is still seen as the “enemy”. What does that tell us? The real issue is one of economics and greed and lust for power hiding behind the façade of morality. The plebes are duped by Hollywood and slick politicians to die for the greed of the rich and powerful. War (and politics) is a racket. It always has been. It’s a dog eat dog world and survival of the fittest.

  32. OutWest says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Just a point of fact; after WWI Poland in initiated hostilities against German post-Versailles and in contravention thereto. Poland prevailed and gained German population along with the land. To add to the mix, they also had a dustup with the Soviets who attacked and were beaten.

    These two events came home to roost in 1939.

  33. Marais says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    “800,000 German civilians had been starved to death as a result of the Allied blockade…German leaders were determined that such a thing would never happen again; they considered defensive strategies to prevent that occurrence. It seems to me such a strategy is the first obligation of any government.”

    German leaders understandably strove to provide civic security. But they considered offensive rather than “defensive” strategies. War was clearly preferred: no WWI battlefield scarred German soil. Their case for solving the “problem of space” thoughtfully anticipated weapons obsolescence, compromised arms secrecy, demographics, reduced living standards, inadequate foreign exchange, food crisis, diminishing domestic economic rearmament stimulus, growing rival armories, etc. Diplomacy and negotiation weren’t contemplated.

    “Our relative strength would decrease in relation to the rearmament which would by then have been carried out by the rest of the world…Besides, the world was expecting our attack, and was increasing its countermeasures from year to year. It was while the rest of the world was still preparing its defenses (sich abriegele) that we were obliged to take the offensive.”
    -Adolf Hiltler, Notes taken by Colonel Friedrich Hoßbach 5 Nov 1937

    Hitler’s fear of a “waning point of the régime” or “the aging of the movement and its leaders” beyond which war would be impossible is most revealing. Without doubt, self-interest factored as high as any pragmatic concern for civic health. He allowed force involved risk and embraced both. As war progressed, his concern for the citizenry (if it ever existed) evaporated and a ruined Germany joined his numerous other victims. Gambling on such a scale does not support your case for rational, conservative leadership.

    Heavy as was the civilian price Germany paid in WWI (763,720 = 1.18%), Belgium lost about the same percentage (85,700 = 1.16%). Italy suffered more (592,400 = 1.66%), and Greece still more (150,000 = 3.12%). The prize goes to tiny Serbia (800,000 = 17.78%). The UK escaped lightly (123,829 = 0.27%), but not due to German benevolence: U-Boats tried their best in both wars. One would think such loss would promote pacifism, rather than (in Italy and Germany) an appetite for aggression.

    “1937-38, a period during which “International Jewry” was carrying out the deliberate, sustained attempt to “cripple” Germany…that is, organized International Jewry was carrying out an existential threat to the German people.”

    Retaliation for the 1935 Nüremberg Laws? Are there reliable statistics on the potency of the campaign? Wasn’t Germany envied as an economic powerhouse in the late depression? Didn’t the NSDAP routinely use Jews, Gypsies and others as reliable scapegoats to secure dominion, just as some régimes use “terrorists” today?

    “The same tactic was carried out, by the same parties, against Iraq, causing the deaths of a million people, half of them children.”

    The half million deaths under Iraqi sanctions and Albright’s “we think the price is worth it” were disgustingly criminal. As was ‘Iraqi Freedom’ in 2003. As are current calls for war on Iran.

    “Could it be that what is translated with the pejorative term “race” really has a broader meaning, like “national culture,” or “our cultural values,” — something like that?”

    I’m no expert in Nazi racial theory: what little I’ve read is mind-numbing rubbish. I assume “racial community” in the memo refers to shared distinctions (language, origins, culture, etc) intended to define ‘us’ versus ‘them’ (rivals/enemies).

    “…BDS, a pathetic movement that is a fart in a windstorm. Netanyahu will appear at the White House to demand that the USA provide Israel with $5 billion worth of Febreze to make that stink disappear. The US Congress, and the Obama administration, will comply, so concerned are they with “mending bridges” between the US and Israel. This is particularly disturbing in view of the fact that last week the US Congress failed to come up with a plan that would fund the desperately-needed repair of bridges in USA.”

    I couldn’t agree more. Given Ran Baratz, perhaps Jimmy Carter should be appointed peace envoy?

Current Commenter
says:

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


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
How America was neoconned into World War IV
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings