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
Who Won, and Who Lost, World War II?
🔊 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
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL 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

Sunday, the 80th anniversary of the Nazi invasion of Poland, Vice President Mike Pence spoke in Warsaw’s Pilsudski Square of “five decades of untold suffering and death that followed” the invasion. Five decades!

What Pence was saying was that, for Poland, World War II did not end in victory but defeat and occupation by an evil empire ruled by one of the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century, Josef Stalin.

The “Liberation of Europe,” the 75th anniversary of which we celebrated at Omaha Beach on June 6, was a liberation that extended only to the Elbe River in the heart of Germany.

Beyond the Elbe, the Nazis were annihilated, but victory belonged to an equally evil ideology, for the “liberators” of Auschwitz had for decades run an archipelago of concentration camps as large as Himmler’s.

So, who really won, and who lost, the war?

Winston Churchill wanted to fight for Czechoslovakia at Munich in 1938, and Britain went to war for Poland in 1939. Yet if both nations ended up under Bolshevik rule for half a century, did Britain win their freedom? And if this was the predictable result of a war in a part of Europe where Nazis confronted Bolsheviks, why did Britain even go to war?

Why did Britain declare war for a cause and country it could not defend? Why did Britain turn a German-Polish war into a world war that would surely bankrupt her and bring down her empire, while she could not achieve her declared war goal — a liberated and independent Poland?

What vital British interest was imperiled by Hitler’s retrieval of a port city, Danzig, that had been severed from Germany against the will of its 300,000 people and handed to Poland at Versailles in 1919?

Danzigers never wanted to leave Germany, and 90% wanted to return. Even the British Cabinet thought Germany had a case and Danzig should be returned.

Why then did Britain declare war?

Because Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain had insanely given the Poles a blank check, a war guarantee on March 31, 1939: If Germany uses force to retrieve Danzig, and you resist, we will fight at your side.

Britain’s war guarantee guaranteed the war.

Given the cause for which their country went to war, British actions during the war seem inexplicable.

When Stalin’s army invaded Poland, Sept. 17, 1939, two weeks after Hitler, Britain did not declare war on the Soviet Union.

The Polish officer corps were executed on Moscow’s orders in 1940. When the bodies were unearthed in Katyn in 1943, Churchill, now an ally of Stalin, responded to the Free Poles’ request to investigate the atrocity: “There is no use prowling round the three year old graves of Smolensk.”

Rather than attack Hitler after he invaded Poland, Britain and France remained behind the Maginot Line and waited until Hitler’s armies stormed west on May 10, 1940, the day Churchill took power.

In three weeks, the British army had been defeated and thrown off the continent. In six weeks, France had surrendered.

After Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain in 1940, Britain refused all of Hitler’s offers to end the war, holding on till June 1941, when Hitler turned on his partner Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union.

Churchill is the “man of the century” for persuading Britain to stand alone against Nazi Germany in 1940, Britain’s “finest hour.”

But at war’s end, what was the balance sheet of Churchill?

ORDER IT NOW

The Poland for which Britain had gone to war was lost to Stalinism and would remain so for the entire Cold War. Churchill would be forced to accede to Stalin’s annexation of half of Poland and its incorporation into the Soviet Bloc. To appease Stalin, Churchill declared war on Finland.

Britain would end the war bombed, bled and bankrupt, with her empire in Asia, India, the Mideast and Africa disintegrating. In two decades it would all be gone.

France would end the war after living under Nazi occupation and Vichy rule for five years, lose her African and Asian empire and then sustain defeats and humiliation in Indochina in 1954 and Algeria in 1962.

Who really won the war?

Certainly, the Soviets who, after losses in the millions from the Nazi invasion, ended up occupying Berlin, having annexed the Baltic states and turned Eastern Europe into a Soviet base camp, though Stalin is said to have remarked of a 19th-century czar, “Yes, but Alexander I made it to Paris!”

The Americans, who stayed out longest, ended the war with the least losses of any great power. Yet, America is a part of the West, and the West was the loser of the world wars of the last century.

Indeed, the two wars between 1914 and 1945 may be seen as the Great Civil War of the West, the Thirty Years War of Western Civilization that culminated in the loss of all the Western empires and the ultimate conquest of the West by the liberated peoples of their former colonies.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2019 Creators.com.

 
• Category: History • Tags: Winston Churchill, World War II 
Hide 187 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Why then did Britain declare war?

    Because the Munich conference and Germany’s ensuing annexation of rump Czechoslovakia, demonstrated that Hitler could not be trusted, that he was a political gangster – something of which he was keenly aware himself.

    So Britain would have to fight Germany at one point or another.

  2. What Pence was saying was that, for Poland, World War II did not end in victory but defeat and occupation by an evil empire ruled by one of the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century, Josef Stalin.

    Well, no. Stalin died in 1953, and for most of the Cold War, Poland was hardly a hell hole. A depressing repressive communist state, yes, but not a hell hole. Given the state Poland was in after WWII, there was remarkable amount of rebuilding under communism.

    True, Stalin was a monster, and he coordinated with Hitler to invade and destroy Poland. But let’s keep in mind that UK and France had built their great empires on much invasion and bloodshed. And US was created through ‘genocide’ of natives and extensive slavery. And the treatment of Chinese railroad builders was hardly better than how workers were treated in the USSR.
    Also, Stalin would not have allied with Hitler if not for the fact that the Western Powers had been negligent in checking the rise of Nazi Germany. As far as Stalin was concerned, the West was letting Germany re-arm as counter-balance to the USSR, so he went one better by allying with Hitler. Stalin had good reason not to trust the UK and France.

    Anyway, Poland under communism was bad but not that bad, especially after the death of Stalin and easing of repression. Communism was harsh on all of Eastern Europe, but there was some economic development, living standards were acceptable, and the USSR allowed some degree of national pride. To say Poland under Soviet domination was just as bad as a hypothetical one under German occupation(had the Germans won) is a perverse statement. Soviet commies at least regarded Poles as fellow comrades whereas the utterly poisonous radical racist ideology of the Nazis not only treated Poles as dirt but saw them as such.

    As a national ideology, National Socialism was far preferable to Soviet Communism. NS restricted to Germany would have meant a blend of capitalism and socialism, national pride, respect for tradition and embrace of modernity. There would have been much to recommend it. But as an imperialist ideology, especially in lands of people regarded as ‘untermensch’ by the Germans, Nazism could be far more evil than communism that, at the very least, regarded other peoples as potential comrades IF they were to undergo ideological conversion. Poles as communists were acceptable to the Soviets. But even Poles as avid fascists were barely acceptable to Nazi Germans(though, to be sure, certain Nazis regarded Poles as fellow Aryans who shouldn’t be treated to shabbily).

    Finally, in our time, we really should ask, “Which side was worse in the long run? The communists or the capitalists?” Communists preserved much of national identity and culture, whereas the capitalists of late have opened Europe to mass invasion, globo-homo degeneracy, insidious Jewish supremacism, jungle fever, and the insane cult of Diversity.

    There was something to Zhou En-Lai’s response to the question as to the French Revolution was good or bad. He said, “Its’ too early to tell.” He probably gave that answer to avoid the subject(mainly out of fear of Mao), but the long-term consequences of history reveal themselves only much later.

    For most of the Cold War, one had to have been a fool to claim the Eastern Bloc and communism were preferable to the West, capitalism, and liberal democracy. It seemed for a time that the West learned its lesson from WWI and WWII and was sobered by threat of Soviet Communism. And in close cooperation with the US, it built a stable and prosperous social and economic order.
    But in that time, new demon seeds were planted on capitalist soil that proved to be very fertile to decadence, degeneracy, depravity, and dementia of all kinds. Freedom is good if used right. It is worse than tyranny if used badly. People would rather be free than be in prison, but life is prison is preferable(if you’re forced to act responsibly) to freedom where you destroy yourself. Why are Cuban blacks saner than American blacks? Less freedom to act like jungle jivers.

    In the past, the West was freer but freedom was checked and balanced by culture of shame, pride, dignity, spirituality, and manners. Even without state tyranny, people had inner moral brakes that reminded them not to act like morons and skanks. But consumer-capitalism with its mad hedonism and profit-motive — anything for a buck — has led to the West being dominated by finance capitalists, pop culture hustlers, homo narcissists, black thugs, pornmeisters, drug pushers, casino promoters, and etc. GOP, the so-called ‘conservative’ party, is now okay with ‘gay marriage’ and takes its marching orders from Sheldon Adelson whose fortune is based on mass theft of morons addicted to gambling.

  3. @Felix Krull

    So Britain would have to fight Germany at one point or another.

    Didn’t Britain rule like 1/4 of the world? Hadn’t it colonized Ireland for centuries and meddled in every part of Europe? And yet, it was morally fit to condemn the aggressive actions of another nation?

    • Replies: @Felix Krull
  4. Here is an article that looks at a recent accidental public release of the locations of the American nuclear weapons in Europe:

    https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2019/07/american-nuclear-weapons-in-europe.html

    Given that, during the Second World War, Russia lost approximately 9.75 million military personnel and 13.2 million civilians compared to the United States losses of 416,800 military personnel and 1700 civilians, is it any wonder that the Russians fear the presence of American nuclear weapons in Europe?

  5. Mulegino1 says:

    Who lost the Second World War:

    The nations of western and central Europe, who for the most part were (and still are) reduced to the state of NATO satraps and ultimately, lost their sovereignty and their spiritual, cultural and ethnic identities to globo-homo and massive third world immigration.

    The nations of eastern Europe who were forced under the boot heel of Soviet tyranny and rigid authoritarianism for nearly fifty years.

    The British Empire, which was liquidated in favor of the Pax Americana and the “American Century” and forced to forsake its better aspects such as colonial administration and order in favor of full blown economic and corporate inspired hegemony and internal chaos and civil wars by the new “Atlanticist-Zionist” oligarchs.

    The people of European Christian provenance in the US and Canada, who, while enjoying a brief period of post-war prosperity and influence, were ultimately submerged in a tidal wave of third world immigration and cultural Marxist destruction of their traditional culture.

    The people of the far east, including China, Indochina and the Koreas, which had to go bloody civil wars and brutal unprecedented oppression by the imposition of a new and frightful communist inspired despotism.

    The foregoing were the effects of “liberation.”

  6. Greg S. says:
    @Priss Factor

    Communists preserved much of national identity and culture

    I spit out my milk and quit reading at that point. Most ignorant thing I’ve read in a while. No, communism was “not that bad” for those who managed to survive it…

    Back to the article, if one could transport through time an allied soldier from the front lines of WWII to downtown London England today, and they took a look around and saw: gay pride parades, rainbow flags, half-dressed purple haired obese women waddling around scowling at everything, Africans and Middle Easterners everywhere forming the majority of the population, the only white men in sight skinny hipsters covered with tattoos, and the general state of things, they would certainly exclaim, “oh my God, we lost the war!!!”

  7. Hypatia says:

    I’d say communism and interventionism won the war. Commies got Eastern Europe, took over the US State Department and now have a firm grip on the Democratic Party. One can no longer question what really happened in WW2. We must believe the outrageous war propaganda used to start, perpetrate and justify this calamity or we’re deniers. And, any objection to rushing in to any conflict no matter how far removed from national interest is appeasement.

  8. Smith says:

    Jews win WW2, now they rule the world as West ZOG (US/Europe) shifts the blame to East ZOG (Russia/China) and vice versa.

    As always, the only way is Third positionism, no US and no China.

    • Replies: @Amerimutt Golems
  9. Wasps won WWII and then won the Cold War but lost the Gold War to the Jews. So, in the end, Jews got it all. So, in the end, it doesn’t matter how many enemies the Wasps beat. In beating the Wasps, Jews took possession of all the Wasp booty.

    Imagine if Bill beat Bob, Paul, John, and Jerry and took all their stuff. But then, support Kyle beat Bill. Then, Kyle will have own the stuff of Bill, Bob, Paul, John, and Jerry.

    We speak of WWI and WWII and the Cold War but we never speak of the Gold War, the hidden conflict in which Jews beat the Anglos and took control of all the achievements of Anglo empire.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  10. Hypatia says:
    @Felix Krull

    Why did Britan declare war?
    Because FDR, and Halifax wanted the war. Churchill always wanted war. After all, WW1 was supposed to remove Germany as a commercial competitor. But Germany refused to stay down despite its terrible inhuman treatment after the war. Hitler resurrected it.

    Yes we all know Hitler was an evil monster, not FDR and Churchilll. They just fire bombed the general population. Clearly a saintly act. Hitler at least had a good reason to be vicious, the Versaille Treaty made him that way. That and the Bolshevicks who rushed into every country to try and spread their diseased ideology. And so what if a large % were Jewish. That had nothing to do with his anti-sematism. Nor the big transfer of wealth during the Wiemar hyperinflation or the pornography and human explotaion, Jeffry Epstein sytle.

    • Replies: @Amerimutt Golems
  11. @Greg S.

    Life in communist Poland:

    https://www.quora.com/How-was-life-in-Poland-during-the-communist-regime#MoreAnswers

    Generally, communist Poland was repressive but not murderous(on mass scale). It wasn’t USSR in the 30s, China of the late 50s to late 60s, or Khmer Rouge Cambodia.
    Not all commie regimes were alike. All were repressive but not all carried out mass killings or has gulags all over.

    There wasn’t much in the way of individual freedom and ambition, but if you went along, life was usually bearable and had good times as well.

    Poland and Hungary also had lively cultural scenes despite communism. And films rather critical or skeptical of communism became popular: Siberiade in USSR, Man of Marble and Man of Iron in Poland, and When Father Was Away on Business.

    When Father and Hey Babu Riba were made in Yugoslavia when it was still under communist rule.

    Life could be worse than in Dita Saxova.

  12. It’s pretty simple, really; we continued to feed resources to the Soviets for far too long. The goal should have been to help them defend themselves, not build an army to occupy parts of Europe.

  13. nsa says:
    @Priss Factor

    “……..freedom to act like jungle jivers……”
    Hey Priss, You are preaching to the deaf. The season is upon us for the mass homoerotic hysteria of the National Fruity League, the NFL……….tens of millions of obese low T whites paying billions of dollars to go all screaming girlie and orgasm out on giant negroid muscle canaries in tights groping and fondling each other while playing with a ball……..complete with homo jungle dance celebrations. It doesn’t get any faggier………no hope for whitey.

  14. @Felix Krull

    You could note that Poland also joined Hitler by grabbing part of Czechoslovakia, and Poland was no democracy, but a dictatorship. Moreover, why was the British empire lost to defend Poland, which was of no significance to any Briton! And the fight was not about defending the Polish people, but defending Poland’s right to rule German areas somehow awarded to Poland after World War I.

    • Replies: @Felix Krull
    , @Corvinus
    , @Malla
  15. @Priss Factor

    And yet, it was morally fit to condemn the aggressive actions of another nation?

    What on earth gave you the notion that statecraft is about morality?

    It was hardly any secret that Germany (like the other great powers) had territorial expansion in mind; while Hitler’s plans to unite the German peoples were met with a certain sympathy across the world, rump Czechoslovakia was not German lands, and respecting their sovereignty was an explicit condition in the Munich Agreement. It was a Rubicon moment and the whole world knew it.

    Nor did it take a psychic to figure out the general layout of Germany’s territorial plans: they were pretty much a resurrection of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty imposed on Russia after they threw in the towel in 1916.

    • Agree: Matra
    • Replies: @silviosilver
  16. The proximate trigger for Britain’s 1939 declaration of war on Germany was Chamberlain’s gurantee to Poland of Polish territorial integrity. The deeper trigger was Britain’s centuries-long policy of intervening on the continent to prevent any one continental power from dominating the continent of Europe.

    At VE-Day and thereafter, Britain lacked the military power to prevent Stalin from taking Poland and other east European countries. The U.S. also lacked the popular support for a continuation of war to prevent Stalin’s occupation of those nations.

    I knew eastern Europeans who lived behind the post-WWII Iron Curtain. Not one of them liked being forced to live in those conditions. If anyone claims that life behind the Iron Curtain was tolerable or good enough if one just went-along-to-get-along, then he will have to explain why the Soviets and their satellites built formidable barriers to prevent their citizens from escaping to the Free World, why those governments shot people attempting to escape, and why they imprisoned or virtually unpersonned those whom they caught trying to escape.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @silviosilver
  17. anonymous[310] • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    checked and balanced by culture of shame, pride, dignity, spirituality, and manners

    Can you expand on this?

  18. Saul Paul says: • Website

    Who won the war ? The international cabal that destroyed Germany.

    If you want to know the truth of WWII you must go where (((they))) tell you not to go. Read the BOOKS by the WWII revisionists. Read the works of the “holocaust deniers”. But you better get it done as they are working night and day to chip away at your access and your freedom of speech.

    • Agree: Curmudgeon
  19. Because Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain had insanely given the Poles a blank check, a war guarantee on March 31, 1939: If Germany uses force to retrieve Danzig, and you resist, we will fight at your side.

    The blank cheque was a means to an end: Ask why Britain would issue and follow through on the blank cheque.

    Who got to Chamberlain and Halifax to turn them from “appeasers” to “warmongers” ?

    • Replies: @John Regan
  20. What on earth gave you the notion that statecraft is about morality?

    WWII narrative has been moralized. Noble Churchill standing up for freedom and democracy against forces of totalitarianism.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  21. @Carlton Meyer

    . Moreover, why was the British empire lost to defend Poland, which was of no significance to any Briton!

    Poland was just an excuse, a red line. Britain wasn’t trying to save Poland, it was trying to save the empire. Granted, that didn’t turn out so well in retrospect, but that was why they started the war.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @byrresheim
  22. Half-Jap says:

    Indeed. End of western imperialism and the coming of the commie and merican ones. I can’t fathom any brit possibly being able to support Churchill in light of the disastrous disintegration.
    Aside from a totally burned out isles of my Japan, that war was a partial victory in terms of achieving our strategic goal of annihilating colonies from our half of the world.. if only we didn’t have morons keeping us against and in china, including asahi news and PM prince konoe… asahi is still trash mainline news, like the NYT, to this day.
    The loss is that we now have the neo-liberal order centered around the mericans, although seems like the show’s heading towards a anti-/climax, and welcome the new boss. Same as the old? heh

  23. RouterAl says:

    I still do not think we fully understand the back story about WW2 and it’s causes and who was behind most of it. If you can be bothered to obtain a download of The Forced War by David L Hoggan you will get a wider view of the roll of FDR in fermenting war in both Europe and against Japan. If you have not heard of Tyler Kent he will back up most of what Hoggan says.

    There is now enough historical evidence from real historians about the roll of Churchill in getting Great Britain into and keeping us in WW2, on behalf of the Czechs and more importantly the Jews.

    Finally if you can get copies of Viktor Suvorov’s Icebreaker and The Chief Culprit you will get the Soviet angle and the fact that Stalin had amassed a huge military force on the Polish border ready to invade Western Europe and not to stop all the way to the Atlantic , including Great Britain after Germany and France and Great Britain had exhausted themselves militarily . He also details the roll Stalin played in arming and providing war materials to Hitler through the late 30’s.

    Only to late did Hitler realise what Stalin was about to unleash on him and launched a hasty ill conceived invasion himself Barbarossa. The stunning success initially of Barbarossa was due to the fact that Stalin had removed all his defences in order to facilitate an attack but Hitler got in first. So in fact far from being the villain maybe it’s time we started to see the German Wehrmacht as the saviours of western Europe as they themselves think. If you doubt this, look at the newsreel’s of the Germans and their Panzer Mk1 and Mk2 tanks and their army moving by horse power against Soviet T34’s and KV1 heavy tank’s.

    There is a wonderful paragraph in The Chief Culprit which rewrote my perceptions of Stalin completely , it is written about Stalin during the first 7 days of Barbarossa when his armies have been crushed , he is alone in his villa outside Moscow when the Politburo turns up.

    “The members of the Politburo hadn’t come to arrest Stalin. They needed Stalin as a symbol, a flag around which the remnants of a crushed division would rally in battle. They talked of saving the country, but Stalin did not listen to them. Without taking Europe, without expanding the Soviet Union’s borders, the USSR would sooner or later crumble. Stalin had lost the country founded by Lenin. In 1941, only Stalin could appreciate the full weight of the German invasion. In 1941, the members of the Politburo could not fully understand that Hitler’s invasion meant death for the Soviet Union. The Politburo forced Stalin to resume power, and Stalin, with a careless wave of the hand, returned, fully aware that the cause he had worked for his whole life was dead.”

    I think Stalin was a lot smarter than we in the west give him credit for being.

    The Jews merely regrouped abandoned the Soviet experiment and moved into Cultural Marxism which has been even more impressive in destroying Western Civilisation, both in Europe and the USA while we still do not understand what and who manoeuvred us into the disaster that was WW2.

  24. @Auntie Analogue

    If anyone claims that life behind the Iron Curtain was tolerable or good enough if one just went-along-to-get-along, then he will have to explain why the Soviets and their satellites built formidable barriers to prevent their citizens from escaping to the Free World

    Economic standards were no better in Yugoslavia, and political repression was only slightly milder. People, however, had the freedom to leave. Some left, but the vast majority remained. That’s obviously telling.

    • Replies: @voicum
  25. @Priss Factor

    It’s very easy to mock the ‘morality play’ narrative of WWII. Ultimately, though, freedom and democracy are, in effect, what Britain (and America) ended up fighting for. Even if the real motives for fighting weren’t as selflessly noble as ‘freedom and democracy,’ it’s no misreading of history to claim that these were the result (for western Europe), or that where totalitarianism couldn’t be defeated, it was at least resisted.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  26. KenH says:

    The Jewish people won WWII. Prior to WWII it was acceptable for white, Western peoples to act in their own interests and view Jews as parasitical and conspiratorial and as a danger to Western civilization. After WWII it became unspeakable to ever utter a word of criticism of Jews owing to their uncorroborated death toll in German concentration camps. And whites who still wish to act in their best interests are demonized as “Nazis” and lectured that doing so will mean the deaths of many Jews and racial minorities.

    Germany’s loss in WWII ushered in in state of racelessness and racial self loathing, liberalism and materialism throughout the U.K. and Europe and is proving to be its death knell.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
    , @Charon
  27. @Felix Krull

    It was hardly any secret that Germany (like the other great powers) had territorial expansion in mind; while Hitler’s plans to unite the German peoples were met with a certain sympathy across the world, rump Czechoslovakia was not German lands, and respecting their sovereignty was an explicit condition in the Munich Agreement. It was a Rubicon moment and the whole world knew it.

    Pat Buchanan seldom has a bad word to say about Nazi expansionism. WWII was solely Britain’s fault. In hindsight, I might well agree that, given the moral lessons Europeans eventually drew from the war – that they have an moral duty to deny racial reality and to urgently negrify and islamify their countries – it would have been better not to even bother fighting it. But that was hardly apparent in 1939.

    • Replies: @Hrw-500
    , @follyofwar
  28. The Jews won World War 2. They had two of their stooges, Churchill and Roosevelt, gang up on and ultimately destroy the nation and the man that were trying to defend the White race against them. The entire tale of “the holocaust” is just a (very effective) deflection from this.

    Seventy years after destroying first one great White nation (Russia), then another (Germany), the Jews are now almost finished destroying a third (the U.S.). Meanwhile drugged, tattooed Whites live in terror of being called “racist” or “antisemite”.

  29. Hrw-500 says:
    @silviosilver

    Also, a bit of France’s fault as well when they asked for reparations as well (returning Alsace-Lorraine to France at the end of WWI). The Versailles treaty was the main ingredient to prepare WWII.

    Speaking of France, there’s one French guy who published an uchronia/alternate history about what if Japan attacked the USSR instead of Pearl Harbour in 1941 titled “Les Oranges de Yalta” (The Oranges of Yalta) who unfortunately, wasn’t published in English. https://www.amazon.fr/oranges-Yalta-Nicolas-Saudray/dp/2715809123

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  30. Who really won the war?

    Certainly, the Soviets who, after losses in the millions from the Nazi invasion, ended up occupying Berlin, having annexed the Baltic states and turned Eastern Europe into a Soviet base camp, though Stalin is said to have remarked of a 19th-century czar, “Yes, but Alexander I made it to Paris!”

    The Soviets lost WW II also. They ended up with a vastly depleted manpower pool, a vast empire that was a drain on what was left of their economy, an economy that was only capable of producing WW II vintage military goods on a large scale, insufficient social capital / leadership to change the above situation, and perhaps above all a permanent “cold war” with the West led by a United States that suffered from none of the Soviet disadvantages. That’s why the Soviets achieved what had been thought impossible, the collapse of a major industrial state, and why the Russians found themselves in control of their own country again.

    It’s easy to have a major war in which nobody wins, and WW II is an example. One could think of contemporary examples of this without too much trouble.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  31. Paul says:

    Why did Winston Churchill go to war? Because he was not naïve and understood that the British had the world and that the Germans wanted it — “the Reich [empire] that would last a thousand years” according to Adolph Hitler. Poland was just a way station on Hitler’s march toward the hated Communists of the Soviet Union and the oil fields and resources that the Germans wanted.

    Post-war nationalism in the third world would cost Britain much of its empire. France and the United States ran into the same problem in their imperialist adventures in Vietnam.

  32. @Priss Factor

    Doesn’t it all go back to the Balfour Declaration of WWI? The Brits agreed to get the US into the war in exchange for the Zionists taking over Palestine. Thus the Lusitania had to be sunk, while Woodrow Wilson used an iron fist to stifle all anti-war protests. Without US entry, WWI would have ended in a draw, with both sides completely exhausted. There would have been no Versailles Treaty, and perhaps Hitler would have never risen to power. Hitler was just a big obstacle who needed to be destroyed in order for the Zionists centuries-old wish to be fulfilled.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  33. Tick Tock says:

    Mike Pence has ideas that even Pretzel Logic has a problem understanding. Yes, those nasty Russians. I guess when you are a $hit eating moron all your life, just because you are Vice President doesn’t change anything. My goodness, what happened to Pat? Must be off his meds to write such a piece…

  34. Tulip says:

    The point of the British security guarantee was to attempt to dissuade Germany from invading Poland.

    Everyone understood that another continental war would be the end of Europe as a global power and the emergence of Europe as the lap dog of America. None of the European conservatives wanted another continental war.

    Unfortunately, the threat was not sufficient to dissuade Germany, so Europe finished itself off in another war of self destruction.

    Why did Britain not threaten the Soviets in 1945? War weariness and less optimism that the threat would be heeded. Churchill wanted to invade the Soviet Union at the conclusion of the war, but FDR would have nothing to do with it. That was probably a mistake, although the Soviets had a formidable ground force at the time and it would have probably taken years to wipe Communism off the map, and who knows what the domestic political implications would have been.

    In any event, Britain would have still ended up an American satellite, and America would still have had no use for the British Empire.

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
  35. Tulip says:

    The bottom line is that Britain had no good options. If Germany won, Britain would lose the Empire. If America won, Britain would lose the Empire. They were playing to preserve the status quo in the 30’s, which is the only way they could hold onto their geopolitical interests. Unfortunately, they were surrounded by three big bad wolves (or maybe two and a bear), and they got shredded by forces beyond their control. They actually did very well for a long time as a pissant little island with a small population.

  36. Great Britain had the same vital interests to protect in 1939 as she did in 1914. The country actually had more territories to defend after being mandated the former Ottoman Empires lands in the Middle East. While Germany was not an immediate danger to the British maritime and commercial interests it represented a long-term challenge.
    All war is based upon power, furthering it or defending it. Power (manifested as interest) has been present in every conflict of the past – no exception. Interest cuts across all apparently unifying principles: family, kin, nation, religion, ideology, politics – everything. We unite with the enemies of our principles, because that is what serves our interest. That is why republican pluralist France allied with the autocratic monarchy in Russia, where to sing La Marseillaise was at of subversion. The common threat of Russia united them. Britain’s position was the same. World war two brought a similar alliance system, based on what served the national interest.
    History warns us all today:
    ‘Britain would end the war bombed, bled and bankrupt, with her empire in Asia, India, the Mideast and Africa disintegrating. In two decades it would all be gone.’
    https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/

  37. @silviosilver

    What are you talking about, silver? After war’s end, what “moral duty to deny racial reality and to urgently negrify and islamify their countries” did the nations of Europe have? Those nation-destroying developments did not even come about to any significant extent until the US started bombing Middle Eastern countries back into the Stone Age after the 9/11 hoax, thus creating millions of bombed-out refugees.

    I agree that it would have been better if WWII had never been fought. Buchanan covered this in great detail in “Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War.” Pat didn’t come out and say it, but I came away from that book convinced that war-loving Churchill was a greater monster than Hitler.

  38. Tulip says:

    Everyone knew that a continental war would end in American hegemony. Hitler in Mein Kampf predicted America would ally with Germany against the Brits, and Hitler would win. He threatened a holocaust against the Jews in public speeches (1940?) if International Jewry conspired to bring America in on the side of Britain. The Holocaust started after America entered the war on the British side in 1942.

    Perhaps Hitler was correct about the conspiracy, but it seems more likely he had a poor understanding of America and perceived American interests. He was a better mass politician than he was a geopolitical strategist or warlord (who sends an army into Russia without anti-freeze for your tanks or winter coats for your troops, not to mention reducing tank production as you start a major tank offensive). Granted, at least he didn’t execute his best tank engineers like the genius in Moscow.

  39. Saggy says: • Website

    The US and the Jews won WW II. Two books to read, in addition to Buchanan’s (who will not name the Jew) are Wyndham Lewis’s ‘Left Wings Over Europe, or How to Make a War About Nothing’, written in 1936, quotes below, and Douglas Reed’s ‘The Controversy of Zion’ which traces the Jews drive to dominate the world back to the Old Testament, thru the French Revolution, Russia, WW I, and WW II.

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

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

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

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

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

  40. Rurik says:

    Who really won the war?

  41. @Counterinsurgency

    How could you say that nobody won WWII? The USA was clearly the winner. But, due to our elected leaders insufferable hubris, and insane faith in American Exceptionalism, this country squandered its vastly superior resources, and thus, thru its overreach, lost the peace. The quick rise of the post-WWII world-wide US Empire wound up being just a pyrrhic victory.

  42. Rurik says:
    @Felix Krull

    So Britain would have to fight Germany at one point or another.

    …if the International world’s Zionists and ((central banksters)) were ever prevail over the planet and set about waging a campaign of genocide from Palestine to the streets of London.

    The people of Germany and England are one and the same, for all practical purposes. There’s no sane reason on earth why they had to destroy each other.

    Any more than Russians had to genocide Ukrainians in the 30s.

    All of that mindless slaughter was all orchestrated by external ((forces)), exactly like today, as the Middle East is reeling from the Eternal Zio-Wars. American bombs dropping on Libya and Iraq and Syria and elsewhere, all in the Satanic service of Zion.

    Just like England in its wars against the Boars, and against the Germans of the last century.

    Just like America today. ‘Go kill and die for Zion’. Duh.

  43. anastasia says:

    This is the most succinct and brilliant article on WWII I have ever read, and boy, is it ever true.

  44. @follyofwar

    Those nation-destroying developments did not even come about to any significant extent until the US started bombing Middle Eastern countries back into the Stone Age after the 9/11 hoax, thus creating millions of bombed-out refugees.

    Oh please. Western Europe started diversifying way back in the 1950’s. And it wasn’t much later than that elite attitudes became almost uniformly “anti-racist.” The existence of a solitary Enoch Powell type here or there hardly mattered.

    After war’s end, what “moral duty to deny racial reality and to urgently negrify and islamify their countries” did the nations of Europe have?

    I didn’t say they actually had any such duty. It’s just that they began acting like they did, and they used the experience of WWII to justify much of it.

    • Agree: byrresheim
  45. @Hrw-500

    Also, a bit of France’s fault as well when they asked for reparations as well (returning Alsace-Lorraine to France at the end of WWI). The Versailles treaty was the main ingredient to prepare WWII.

    If that were true, then the former Entente would have invaded Germany the minute it was clear she was trying to renege on her treaty obligations. But what actually happened was that Europe largely cooperated with Germany in revising Versailles. If Hitler hadn’t assumed the chancellorship in 1933, it’s hard to imagine a European war starting by 1939.

  46. @follyofwar

    Pat didn’t come out and say it, but I came away from that book convinced that war-loving Churchill was a greater monster than Hitler.

    If there was no Hitler, there would have been no war.

    If there was no Churchill, there would still have been a war.

    Regardless of who was really more monstrous, that’s about the size of it.

    • Replies: @byrresheim
  47. Tulip says:
    @follyofwar

    Even today, the sun never sets on U.S. overseas military bases.

  48. @Rurik

    The people of Germany and England are one and the same, for all practical purposes. There’s no sane reason on earth why they had to destroy each other.

    That’s the most American thing I’ve heard all week.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @Futurethirdworlder
  49. What vital British interest was imperiled by Hitler’s retrieval of a port city, Danzig, that had been severed from Germany against the will of its 300,000 people and handed to Poland at Versailles in 1919?

    Sorry, Pat, but that is not true. Danzig was a Free State under international control. It had voted to rejoin Germany, and had created its own militia to oppose Polish incursions into the territory. At issue was “the corridor”, the ethnically mixed area of Germans and Poles, in order to gain access to Danzig. The Poles, who were abusing ethnic Germans throughout former German territories, refused to accept peaceful offers of resolution, which included a referendum, guaranteed access to the Baltic by special rail and road links, for the “loser”.

    Rather than attack Hitler after he invaded Poland, Britain and France remained behind the Maginot Line

    Again, not true. France invaded the Saarland on September 7, 1939 with Forty divisions with 4,700 artillery and 2,400 tanks. A larger scale invasion was to follow. The Germans, who withdrew to the Siegfied Line, defended with 22 divisions and less than 100 artillery pieces of the German 1st Army, and drove the French out by the end of September.

    holding on till June 1941, when Hitler turned on his partner Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union.

    Yes, the “partner” that invaded Finland, Lithuania, part of Romania, despite saying it would not, and had amassed 160+ divisions at the Polish border while dismantling its defensive fortifications. As Leon DeGrelle stated, had it not been for Germany, Stalin would have been standing in Calais looking across the channel at Britain.

    That brings us down to “Why then did Britain declare war?” Well, let’s look at remarks and quotes attributed to Churchill:

    Germany’s most unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world’s trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit. (Churchill to Lord Robert Boothby, as quoted in: Sidney Rogerson, Propaganda in the Next War

    or

    “…it was not for light or sentimental reasons that Lord Balfour and the Government of 1917 made the promises to the Zionists which have been the cause of so much subsequent discussion. The influence of American Jewry was rated then as a factor of the highest importance, and we did not feel ourselves in such a strong position as to be able to treat it with indifference. Now, in the advent of [an American] Presidential election, and when the future is full of measureless uncertainties, I should have thought it was more necessary, even than in November, 1917, to conciliate American Jewry and enlist their aid in combating isolationist and indeed anti-British tendencies in the United States.” https://codoh.com/library/document/3136/

    or

    You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest. (Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill – His Career in War and Peace, p. 145; quoted as per: Adrian Preissinger, Von Sachsenhausen bis Buchenwald, p. 23.)

    Not mentioned in the article is the World Jewish Congress declaring war on Germany, six weeks after Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor
    https://www.nationalists.org/library/hitler/daily-express/judea-declares-war-on-germany.html

    There is an old saying; wars are the Jew’s harvest. I think we all know the real winners of WWII were the Zionists, to whom Churchill was a willing thrall.

  50. @Smith

    Jews win WW2, now they rule the world as West ZOG (US/Europe) shifts the blame to East ZOG (Russia/China) and vice versa.

    The war also enabled the creation of their ethnostate because of the so-called Holocaust which has proved an effective tool at controlling goyim through guilt.

    Thus, pointing out Zionists control U.S. foreign policy is ‘antisemitism’.

  51. @Hypatia

    Hitler at least had a good reason to be vicious, the Versaille Treaty made him that way.

    France humiliated Germany by using African troops to occupy the Rhineland which resulted in illegitimate mixed-race children.

    This is the reason Hitler ensured that the Franco-German Armistice of 1940 was signed in Ferdinand Foch’s rail car of 1918.

    • Replies: @Futurethirdworlder
  52. The banks foment, fund, and win all wars.

  53. @Rurik

    Bear in mind most Brits and Amerigringos have been conditioned by Zionist media especially movies where the villains are blond, blue-eyed Nazis as in Spielberg’s Raiders of the Lost Ark while the heroes are swarthy Rambo types.

    Hitler wasn’t really interested in war with Britain that had a German royal family. His own half-brother was married to a UK-based Irish woman. Britain didn’t have strategic resources.

    BTW

    The Second Anglo-Boer war was about Zionists controlling gold mines just like the British wars with China were about Jews like Sassoon selling opium.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  54. Rurik says:
    @Amerimutt Golems

    Hitler wasn’t really interested in war with Britain that had a German royal family.

    The Brits are people of the West. Like you point out, often blond-haired and blue-eyed. Hitler had no beef with them, or really the Poles or the Russian people, except insofar as they were persecuting ethnic Germans in places like Danzig, where they had no business reigning over oppressed Germans, or, in Russia, where genocidal Bolshevik Jewish supremacists had that country ‘by the hair of the head’, (exactly as I find my country menacing the world today).

    Yesterday it was the Russians who were under Jewish supremacist domination, and were murdering their neighbors in genocidal campaigns of terror and death.

    Today it’s the ZUSA and England and France that are under ((their)) thrall, and slaughtering innocent people all over the planet, and as you mention, just as the Brits were slaughtering Dutch families in order to steal the gold and diamonds for Jewish supremacists, so too my government is waging wars and helping Jewish supremacists steal resources where ever they find them. Like the Golan Heights, for instance.

    Both of the World Wars and the subsequent horrors, including 9/11 and the Eternal Wars for Israel, was all put into motion by a treasonous Woodrow Wilson, may he burn in Hell.

  55. Rurik says:
    @Felix Krull

    There’s no sane reason on earth why they had to destroy each other.

    That’s the most American thing I’ve heard all week.

    you’re welcome

  56. anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @follyofwar

    Hitler was just a big obstacle golem who needed to be destroyed created in order for the Zionists centuries-old wish to be fulfilled.

    fify

  57. anon[304] • Disclaimer says:
    @Felix Krull

    O my son Adolph H., my son, my son Adolph H! would God I had died for thee, O Adolph H., my son, my son!

  58. “If Germany uses force to retrieve Danzig, and you resist, we will fight at your side.

    “Britain’s war guarantee guaranteed the war.”

    Sounds almost verbatim like the bullshit bolton, et al., have said to bibi and the israelis … and, once again, We The People Of The United States will have our sons and daughters and taxes utilized for no good purpose.

    It’s time for US to let israel fail on its own … it’s been too costly in terms of the lives of US military personnel killed, injured and/or disabled. israel provides absolutely no benefit to the United States … there’s always some other nation that can suck our Treasury dry if we feel so inclined.

  59. IvyMike says:
    @Priss Factor

    Haha, start off sounding pretty danged smart, then barf up a stinking load of racism. Typical Unz Review commenter.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  60. Thirdeye says:

    Who won?

    The United States, of course! US economy dominant, in control of the world financial system that would project their power over the entire non-Communist world, British and French imperialism brought to heel under US financial dominance – all for a relatively small human cost. Far better deal than WWI, when the US essentially provided muscle for the British and French empires with no real benefit to themselves, not even influence at the Versailles conference. Oh…they avoided losing on their investments in Britain’s war effort.

    The Soviet Union gained a security buffer at the cost of 27 million lives and incalculable economic costs that were never fully recovered. Their clients states were more of a burden than an asset. Buying loyalty was extremely costly and ultimately couldn’t sustain the eastern bloc.

    • Replies: @Bookish1
  61. NewAnon says:

    I saw a pie chart once of WWII deaths. It includes 26m from Russia, 20m from China, 9m from Germany, but by far the largest slice, one that takes up 2/3 of the pie chart, was the 6m Jews.

    I thought it was the most accurate pie chart I’ve ever seen.

    80m people died in WWII, all we ever hear about are the 6m. It’s quite clear who came out the victors.

    JuSA! JuSA!

    • Replies: @Johnny Smoggins
  62. @Felix Krull

    This was Hitler’s opinion as well. He admired the Brits and felt that with a German army and Beitish Navy they could rule the world forever.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    , @Felix Krull
  63. @Amerimutt Golems

    The Americans did the same thing with black troops after WW2.

  64. SafeNow says:

    One loss aspect for the U.S. should not go unmentioned: Our internment of our Japanese-Americans, and the Supreme Court’s upholding of the internment in the Korematsu case. The Roberts court recently deplored Korematsu as gravely wrong, but unfortunately declined to expressly “overrule” it. Korematsu thus stands as the law of the land.

  65. Malla says:
    @Felix Krull

    Poland was just an excuse, a red line. Britain wasn’t trying to save Poland, it was trying to save the empire.

    This is the funniest bullshit I have ever read. Save the empire by allying with the Soviets and Roosevelt who were both anti-British Empire and opposing Hitler who wanted the British Empire to survive as a bulwark against Communism. Ya right.
    Of course the National Socialists never realised in the beginning how pro-commie the British Establishment was. It dawned upon them only too late. That is when they decided to support fire brand Indian Nationalist Subhash Chandra Bose against the British Empire.

    • Replies: @ken
  66. 1) Look around you: is there freedom of speech? No, not really because political correctness has taken over the place of official Fascist and Nazi ideology (and Stalinist ideology). One wonders why the US and England fought a war for freedom. Freedom of speech is one of FDR’s “Four Freedoms,” after all.

    2) Look at what the Climate mafia is doing and trying to achieve. By forbidding any kind of independent activity, by taking away fireplaces in the homes they want us to live like some kind of rural serfs. Walter Darré, Hitler’s agriculture minister, held comparable views. Green, vegetarian and vegan are all the rage nowadays. And both Hitler and Mussolini were dedicated vegetarians.

    3) Churchill (cigars), FDR (cigarettes) and Stalin (cigarettes, pipe) were all passionate smokers. The English, US and Soviet soldiers all smoked as well (as did the Wehrmacht and the SS, by the way). But look at the plight of smokers today. They are being treated almost like Jews were treated by the Nazis. Don’t forget that Hitler and Mussolini were fervently anti-smoking.

    Therefore, no freedom of speech, green is obligatory, and smoking is prohibited everywhere. There is thus only one conclusion: the war was won by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

  67. Malla says:

    Who won WW2: Why it is elementary, Watson.
    There are three smelly gutters which flow parallel to each other. They all look distinct from each other but when you take a weather balloon and you have a wider view, you observe something curious, all three gutters have the same source and the same destination.

    What does all these gutters means? I am describing three movements which have the same source and the same destinations. And the world wars gave a big advantage or push to these three movements. What are they? they are Globalism, Zionism and Communism.

    WW1-
    Zionism – Balfour Declaration with Lord Rothschild.
    Globalism – League of Nations.
    Communism – First Communist State, Soviet Russia.
    Other Objectives Achieved: German Empire, Habsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire, Ottoman Empire, Tsarist Russia etc.. destroyed.

    WW2-
    Zionism- State of Israel
    Globalism- United Nations
    Communism – Communism spreads to half of Eurasia from Vietnam to East Germany.
    Other Objectives Achieved: British, French, Dutch etc…empires destroyed

    Ww3/WW4 (final end game)-
    Zionism- Greater Israel, the sole superpower on Earth
    Globalism – One World Government
    Communism – Global Corporate Communism
    USA, Russia, China, Japan, European nations etc…all destroyed as powers.

    Who lost WW2: The lowly goyims.

    • Replies: @Malla
  68. @follyofwar

    Just one difference:
    “American Exceptionalism” originally referred to US domestic society. The US really was an exceptional nation in that, in theory and to a large extent in practice, the mass of the population was sovereign and in control of their daily lives. The rest of the world was empires, kingdoms, tribal, and so on. Alexis de Toqueville described the then unique US in his 1834 book _Democracy in America_ [1] . The usual counters to this say that the US didn’t manage itself very well by the author’s standards (or perhaps any standards). True of false, that was irrelevant to the basic fact: the US was (domestically) an exception to the general rule, even the English rule.
    When Alexis de Toquevilltalked of “the tyranny of the majority”, he did not give it the 2019 meaning of “the majority is oppressing the minorities”, but rather “In the United States, common opinion is supreme. Few are the Americans willing to defy public opinion, and that is because in a largely egalitarian society few Americans believe they have the unique experience or education or social status to contradict a public opinion which was, after all, formed by people much like themselves.”
    This began to fade with the massive immigration from c.a. AD 1840 to the AD 1920s, and the development of Progressivism and urban politics, because the new populations could not be governed under the American system, but it was real in the US for quite some time. I saw the last Post WW II vestiges.

    So, today “American Exceptionalism” is a propaganda term that means “The US is the sole superpower, the essential nation. Its political reality is the world’s physical reality”. That wasn’t the original meaning of the term, and the current reading part of fantastic world much like that of Edwardian England.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] Alexis de Toqueville.
    _Democracy in America_
    Originally published 1835
    vol 1: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/815
    vol 2: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/816

  69. @Felix Krull

    A good idea would have been to defend the empire against those who were actually attacking it.

    Instead they chose their fiercest competitor as their main ally.

    Decadence or sheer mean stupidity?

  70. @silviosilver

    It’s very easy to mock the ‘morality play’ narrative of WWII. Ultimately, though, freedom and democracy are, in effect, what Britain (and America) ended up fighting for. Even if the real motives for fighting weren’t as selflessly noble as ‘freedom and democracy,’ it’s no misreading of history to claim that these were the result (for western Europe), or that where totalitarianism couldn’t be defeated, it was at least resisted.

    Which is precisely the importance of Suvorov’s _The Chief culprit_ and Ron Unz “American Pravda” series. Both tend so show that WW II did _not_ resist totalitarianism, but rather spread it. Eastern Europe was taken and kept by totalitarian rule, and the contemporary Western countries are now about as totalitarian as you could ask, at least in the urban areas. They all have thought police (actually policing words and political action and lying to school children, but that’s all thought police have ever done), they all say “Populism is the leading threat to Our Democracy” by which they appear to mean that populism threatens their control of government.

    Surprisingly enough, this was widely realized back in AD 1978, when Herman Wouk finished his third WW II novel, _War and Remembrance_ [1]. As the book closes, the protagonist sums up the result by noting that, while National Socialist Germany lost the war, Nazi forms of government (a welfare state run by a unaccountable government, control of literature, increasing direct governmental control of previously independent institutions, and so on) were now universal in the West. That’s 4 decades ago.

    So: Yes, wartime propaganda said that totalitarianism was being resisted, but that’s not at all clear when you consider (a) that the USSR was on the Allied side and ended up with Eastern Europe and a good part of the Japanese mainland empire in East Asia, and (b) the wartime control of Western society was totalitarian, and remained in effect to a large extent after the war (called a “mixed economy”), eventually failing so badly that government actually says that it has to import foreigners to prevent system failure.

    That’s a serious change in Western core beliefs, and, if widely adopted, would make the current governments throughout the West illegitimate usurpers engaged in genocide against their base populations. Such wide adoption is possible — it is even less fantastic than foreigners brought here at US expense who believe that everybody here hates them and that they must conquer or die, and you need only read the _NY Times_ to see the writings of such foreigners.

    Counterinsurgency

    Counterinsurgency

    1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Winds_of_War
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_and_Remembrance

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  71. @KenH

    Yep. Changing now, though. It depended on keeping the West in a warm bath with mood music in the background (metaphorically, of course). Even the pretense of that ended in 2008, eleven years ago.

    Rota Fortunae [1] keeps on turning.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rota_Fortunae

  72. THE JEWS , especially the JEWISH OLIGARCHS and the ZIONISTS initiated and won WW 2 ..simultaneously securing the Destruction of EUROPE …in One fell swoop .
    FACTS and SIMPLE LOGIC attesting to this CAUSATION and OUTCOME are OVERWHELMING …

  73. @silviosilver

    This, sir, should be turned by 180°.

    Which sad fact does not, btw, diminish German criminality by one iot.

  74. @Futurethirdworlder

    If Hitler desired that as ardently as his defenders here claim, where was the all-out Nazi diplomatic effort to secure an alliance with Britain? If it was really the cornerstone of Hitler’s foreign policy, it’s surprising that such a desultory effort was put into realizing it.

  75. @Counterinsurgency

    and the contemporary Western countries are now about as totalitarian as you could ask, at least in the urban areas.

    And yet for all that, you still have the (widely recognized) right to openly criticize your government and openly demand its replacement. That is not a feature ever associated with the Nazi or Commie regimes.

    the protagonist sums up the result by noting that, while National Socialist Germany lost the war, Nazi forms of government (a welfare state run by a unaccountable government, control of literature, increasing direct governmental control of previously independent institutions, and so on) were now universal in the West.

    If those are the criteria, then almost every country on earth could be considered “Nazi.”

    In reality, the defining feature of the Nazi regime was its emphasis on palingenetic ultranationalism – a feature that exists nowhere in the west (or anywhere else, not even Israel) today.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  76. This is a type of article a pimple faced girl could have written for her 7th grade assignment. Definitely- not Pat’s “finest hour”.

    • Troll: Saggy
    • Replies: @Matra
  77. @Rurik

    Men dancing with men and all wearing the same costume? Is it a gay bar of some sort?

    • Replies: @Rurik
  78. @The Alarmist

    According to Neville Chamberlain himself, speaking off the record, it was pressure from the United States Government that forced him to go to war. Or at least, that was what he told Joseph Kennedy. The following comes from the published diary of James Forrestal, US Secretary of Defense (page 121):

    December 27 1945
    Played golf today with Joe Kennedy. I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler.

    Kennedy’s view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt’s urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington.

    Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn’t fight, Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he said, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war.

    The people mentioned here besides Chamberlain and FDR are Joseph P. Kennedy (US Ambassador to Great Britain from 1938 to 1940) and William C. Bullitt (US Ambassador to France from 1936 to 1940). The book “The Forrestal Diaries” reproduces excerpts of the diaries of James Forrestal, in this case notes on a conversation he had with Kennedy. It was published in 1951 by the mainstream publisher Viking Books, edited by mainstream historian Walter Millis, and is not (yet?) banned on Amazon. It seems that in the 1950s, public opinion was not yet quite as strictly controlled as it is now.

    Of course, one may evaluate this text in different ways. For example, in our enlightened times, we should surely consider Chamberlain’s words about “the world Jews” starting World War II an anti-Semitic canard. (Even so, however, it is interesting that such a senior and respected figure as the Prime Minister of Great Britain apparently believed this.) But that pressure from FDR was behind England’s guarantee to Poland and the later declaration of war is proved by the historical record.

    On the general topic, I recommend the book by Charles Tansill, “Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy 1933-1941” (also not (yet?) banned on Amazon). Tansill also wrote in the 1950s, a very different time than ours. See also “Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War” by George Morgenstern.

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @utu
    , @Charon
  79. Rurik says:
    @Kolya Krassotkin

    Is it a gay bar of some sort?

    Far more squalid and masturbatory than the raunchiest gay bar.

    Narcissistic, cruel, petty, clannish and mean-spirited, in every sense of that word.

    The sad and tragic thing about it is the little boys being indoctrinated into that sneering, grubby supremacist cult.

    Taught to despise the world’s people as enemy untermenschen put on this earth by their pig-god to serve these giddy, girly men. Normally such people would (and should) be a laughing stock, but due to their centuries-honed artifice, and the bovine, apathetic venality of their victims, they dance because of the supine mediocrity of those whom they intend to genocide, is so often as cow-like as these supremacist’s narratives make them out to be.

    How different are the American Christians today, suiting up their children to go kill and die for Zion, than the stupendously stupid and monumentally craven cowards who sent their little ones off to die (or worse) in The Children’s Crusade?

    At least those fools thought their children were going to ‘fight’ and die for Christ and Christendom, whereas these congenital shitheads..

    are fighting and dying on behalf of their deadliest enemy.

    America hasn’t fought an honorable war in over a hundred years. The closest they came was Vietnam, and that was an unjust travesty. But in no way a blemish on the poor and drafted men who had no choice in the matter.

    What excuse do these willing cannon fodder for Zion have?

    Is there anyone, anywhere on this planet that actually believes America is fighting in the Middle East for ‘freedom, justice and the American way’? Pat Tillman believed it, until he too figured it out, and so they put three bullet holes in his forehead.

    I remember a guy once telling me of an anecdote his father told him of some Jews during the march into WWII. And how he overheard these Jews looking at some young Americans suited up to go slaughter Germans. Anyways, as the story goes, these Jews sneered at the cannon fodder, and sang mockingly – ‘Onward Christian Soldiers..’.

    The American cannon fodder of those days could be forgiven. They had virtually no way of knowing just how treacherous and monstrous (and starkly evil), that war was.

    But Americans today all have access to the Internet. How many have stumbled upon discussions of the USS Liberty, or the avalanche of truth about things like 9/11, serial ((Wall Street)) perfidy, and the forces behind our ((media)) slog into the spiritual sewer?

    And yet they’re *still* willing to suit up and kill and die for Zion.

    As their children back home in the ((government schools)), and ((ubiquitous media)) will be taught to despise themselves for who they are, and encouraged to become gay as the solution to the eternal world’s scourge = ‘white supremacism’.

    It is because of all of that, that those costumed young men are dancing so enthusiastically.

    • Replies: @Kolya Krassotkin
    , @Anon
  80. Rurik says:
    @John Regan

    It seems that in the 1950s, public opinion was not yet quite as strictly controlled as it is now.

    I remember being at my parents when they were unpacking some old boxes from their attic, and in one of the old boxes there was an American newspaper that had been used as packing, and on the front page there was a headline about how some “Jewish terrorists’ had bombed some thing in Palestine, (I don’t remember if they called it Palestine or Israel or whatever), but I do remember being struck at the words “Jewish terrorists” in an American newspaper. It actually said those words verbatim, and I almost couldn’t believe there was that much honesty in an American newspaper, ever.

    It’s been so many lies, for so long, that I guess I assumed it was always lies.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  81. Yes, when the Soviets invaded and became bosom buddies with National Socialist Germany there was no corresponding declaration of war on them by the Allies.

    Since a world war was clearly not on behalf of the Poles, so it makes one ask what it was really over?

  82. @IvyMike

    load of racism

    But I’m a truly a race-ist. Ism means belief, and race + ism should mean belief in reality of race, racial differences, and need for racial consciousness.

    We cannot understand the world without considering history and sociology from a race-ist angle. But I see that you’ve been brainwashed to hunt for ‘racist’ bunnies to appease your PC masters.

  83. @Greg S.

    Don’t be quick to denounce the idea of the communist occupation as a net benefit.

    The countries of Eastern and central Europe were in a deep freeze for almost 50 years, and at the end seem to be exceptionally resistant to Cultural Marxism and the other degeneracies of Liberalism (at least as far European countries go).

    The West got better cars and less boring television – I sense the trade off was not equivalent when you think they may have kept the old European spirit ready, in-stasis instead.

  84. @NewAnon

    The International Red Cross, who were on the ground at the time, believed that around 200 000 Jews died in WW2.

    The “6 million” number was created out of whole cloth because the number 6 has some mystical properties for Jews.

  85. @Rurik

    Just as they doom themselves by embracing civic nationalism, by throwing their lives away by going off to fight wars not of benefit to themselves and their families, “good” whites doom themselves. “Bad” whites who are smart and who sit out being Israel’s foreign legion will survive. (Proud “bad” white here.)

    Imagine the frisson of satisfaction a hater must feel as he watches someone he despises throwing away his health, future and happiness on the hater’s behalf, and if the hater had any normal sense of proportion, he would at least respect the people whom he cannot inveigle and who posess the intelligence to hate him back.

  86. A purely fanciful interpretation of WWII and its aftermath:

    WWII led to the collapse of the nation-state system and its replacement by global dictatorship in partnership with corporations (banks, technology, defense, and energy companies). Score one for the world according to “Rollerball.”

    A catalyst like nuclear war is still needed to bring about global dictatorship. But it is coming, because banks and neocons cannot restrain their greed.

    This world “utopia” will be digital-personal. A monitoring system modeled after China and Google will assign privilege credits based on individuals’ social conformity. All business will be in crypto-currency sponsored by Facebook and Microsoft, and controlled by the World Central Treasury (a holdover from the Fed). One’s medical, financial, and social credit history and transactions will be conveniently etched in an implanted chip. No one may buy or sell without the chip. With one’s thought, speech, and behavior thus regulated and coerced, the world state will be in control.

    Naturally, such a paradisiacal arrangement must have a religion. I expect it to be some sort of Gaia worship; after all, who doesn’t love Mother Earth? Such an eco-religion may be outlined at the upcoming Pan-Amazon Synod in Rome. The system will have its own Green High Priest(ess) to warm people’s hearts to their global Chief. AOC, anyone?

    Of course, such things could never really come to pass.
    We are after all a democracy!

    https://www.infowars.com/trump-administration-considering-social-credit-score-system-to-determine-who-can-buy-a-gun/

  87. @Futurethirdworlder

    This was Hitler’s opinion as well. He admired the Brits and felt that with a German army and Beitish Navy they could rule the world forever.

    Hitler deluded himself, the Brits were a hundred years ahead of his empire-game and knew that if Hitler had his way, if they allowed Germany to rule the land while Britain ruled the seas, it would not take long before Germany would challenge the British Empire in India and, ultimately, at sea too.

  88. utu says:
    @John Regan

    On Ambassador Bullitt:

    https://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-invaded-poland/#comment-3418603

    Already in 1938 Ambassador Bullitt in conversation with Ambassador Potocki outlined the probably/desirable unfolding of the war which turned out to be pretty accurate. The following is form Potocki’s cable to Warsaw (21 November 1938):

    As the Soviet Union’s potential strength is not yet known, it might happen that Germany would have moved too far away from its base, and would be condemned to wage a long and weakening war. Only then would the democratic countries attack Germany, Bullitt declared, and force her to capitulate.

    In reply to my question whether the United States would take part in such a war, he said, ‘Undoubtedly yes, but only after Great Britain and France had let loose first!’

    How come Bullit was such a good prophet? Because the unfolding of the war was planned and engineered by FDR and people like Bullitt.. In 1945 Herbert Hoover talked with Joseph Kennedy.

    Hoover would document his conversations with the various people he met with. An example is provided of Hoover’s meeting with Kennedy on May 15, 1945. Kennedy indicated he had over 900 dispatches which he could not print without consent of the U.S. Government. He hoped one day to receive such permission as it was Kennedy’s intention to write a book that would:

    …put an entirely different color on the process of how America got into the war and would prove the betrayal of the American people by Franklin D, Roosevelt.

    …Roosevelt and Bullitt were the major factors in the British making their guarantees to Poland and becoming involved in the war. Kennedy said that Bullitt, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the Poles not to make terms with the Germans and that he Kennedy, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the British to make guarantees to the Poles.

    He said that after Chamberlain had given these guarantees, Chamberlain told him (Kennedy) that he hoped the Americans and the Jews would now be satisfied but that he (Chamberlain) felt that he had signed the doom of civilization.

    Kennedy said that if it had not been for Roosevelt the British would not have made this most gigantic blunder in history.

    Kennedy told me that he thought Roosevelt was in communication with Churchill, who was the leader of the opposition to Chamberlain, before Chamberlain was thrown out of office….

    James Forrestal, Under Secretary of the Navy, documented in his diaries a substantially similar conversation with Kennedy.

  89. @Felix Krull

    You mean challenge them over the Empire they, in the process, gave up any way.

    Perhaps things are not as they first appear.

    • Replies: @Felix Krull
  90. 1914-1945, BOTH wings of organized Jewry won bigly:

    Zionists, by trading off a couple million mostly non-Zionist East European diaspora Jews, glom’d onto Palestine.

    Universalist Tikkun Olas, i.e. Red Jews, got dominion over half the planet.

    Whites? Nations devastated, Empires collapsed, went from 30% of the world’s population to

    8%. And this remnant is now being liquidated

    by both wings of organized Jewry.

  91. Thirdeye says:
    @Tulip

    Everyone understood that another continental war would be the end of Europe as a global power and the emergence of Europe as the lap dog of America. None of the European conservatives wanted another continental war.

    Definitely with the war that happened but not with the war that Britain and France envisioned, i.e. Germany, deterred by the sea and land power of Britain and France, would turn its sights on the Soviet Union, become embroiled in a costly war, and leave its southern flank open for an Anglo-French expedition through the Balkans that would end up dominating eastern Europe after Germany and the Soviet Union were exhausted. Once France was out of the war and the US was in, Churchill modified that strategy only slightly with his insistence on the Mediterranean campaign to develop a platform for a drive into the Balkans. It was also the object of much diplomatic wrangling with Turkey to get them into the war on the Anglo-French, then the Anglo-American, side. Turkey’s continued neutrality and the Gustav Line put an end to it.

  92. @The Nine Tailed Fox

    You mean challenge them over the Empire they, in the process, gave up any way.

    But in 1939, they didn’t know they were going to lose their empire. They thought they were saving it.

    • Replies: @byrresheim
  93. Wally says:
    @Felix Krull

    LOL What an indoctrinated lemming you are.
    Just look at map of that time & see who the real “gangsters” were.

    facts:
    – Czechoslovakia asked Germany to make them a protectorate.
    – Recall the Britain & France declared war on Germany but not the USSR, who invaded Poland from the east.
    – USSR invaded Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, invaded & annexed parts of Romania, invaded Iran, invaded northern Norway and the Danish island of Bornholm, yet the ‘Allies’ did nothing.
    – Poland invaded and annexed parts of Czechoslovakia, held large parts of German territory, was engaged in atrocities against German civilians, Poland gave Lithuania an ultimatum upon threat of invasion. Yet the ‘Allies’ did nothing.
    – The “neutral” US had been attacking German U-boats & shipping, while supplying both Britain & the USSR long before Germany’s declaration of war on the US.
    – Brits invaded & were mining Norway at Narvik before Germany arrived & stopped it.
    – France had positioned 2 million soldiers on the Belgian border, and the BEF had almost another half million.
    – France and England were already violating Belgian and Dutch “neutrality” with impunity by flying aircraft over the lowlands.
    – It is important to remember that France had already invaded Germany, the Saar in 1939, and that throughout this entire period Hitler was begging Churchill to negotiate a return to the status quo.

    recommended:
    Why Germany Invaded Poland, by John Wear: http://inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391
    Roosevelt Conspired to Start World War II in Europe: http://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/

    • Replies: @Felix Krull
  94. voicum says:
    @Greg S.

    Can , you , please tell us what was your personal experiences of living under the “communist ” rule ?

    • Replies: @european born
  95. @Wally

    “Gangsterism” in politics, means not playing by the rules. Nobody plays by “international law”, that’s understood, but there are unwritten rules that you need to follow, if you’re to be able to interact normally, with other countries. Hitler shafted Chamberlain with an 88 at Munich, unequivocally telling the world that Germany wasn’t going to play their assigned role in the Anglo world order, that they were going all in with the Drang nach Osten-thing.

    • Replies: @Theodore
  96. Anon[348] • Disclaimer says:

    Who won WWII?

    The wrong side.

  97. voicum says:
    @silviosilver

    Oh , a lot of them left , mostly in West Germany , but also USA , Canada etc. Two things contributed to this. Yes the Yugoslav government gave them passports and those passports were universally ACCEPTED. Go figure ….. But in the end all those people , or most of them , came back and with the money they made set up small businesses .

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  98. @Rurik

    Oh, shit! The Lubavitch dancers won the war and they didn’t even fight in it. Don’t tell Pat. He’ll never get over it.

  99. Theodore says:
    @Felix Krull

    Yes but for some reason it was perfectly OK when the USSR invaded Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, etc… violating numerous treaties in the process.

    Aggressive Soviets violated numerous treaties with neighboring countries
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12434

    And of course after Britain declared war on Poland, they allowed Poland to be taken over by the mass murdering Soviets who orchestrated the Katyn massacre. So much for “protect the freedom of Poland” and “protect Poland’s territorial integrity” LOL.

    Czechoslovakia was a failed state, therefore none of the treaties applied at all. The British said as much after Germany established a protectorate.

    Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, March 15, 1939:
    ” In our opinion the situation has radically altered since the Slovak Diet declared the independence of Slovakia. The effect of this declaration put an end by internal disruption to the State whose frontiers we had proposed to guarantee and, accordingly, the condition of affairs described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions, which was always regarded by us as being only of a transitory nature has now ceased to exist, and His Majesty’s Government cannot accordingly hold themselves any longer bound by this obligation.

    The central tragic thing I would put in a sentence which I observed in, I believe, one of the evening papers, and which was reported to be included in a proclamation or pronouncement of some sort by Herr Goebbels, to whom was attributed the statement issued in Berlin: “The State of Czecho-Slovakia has ceased to exist.” That is the central tragic thing. It does not require any very technical or precise advice from anybody else for the Prime Minister to make the point—if I may say so, the obvious point—that in that situation it was indeed impossible to suppose that a guarantee to maintain the State of Czecho-Slovakia could have any meaning at all.”

    https://archive.is/AMR5j

    But yes, you’re right, the “Gangsterism” term really does apply to the warmongering British

    • Replies: @Felix Krull
  100. @Greg S.

    Well I hope you’re not drinking anything now because not only did Communism in Europe preserve national identity and do a better job of upholding high European culture – compared to the West (heck, they even did a better job of sustaining ‘conservative values’ in their populace – both accidentally and deliberately) – but also by far the greatest number of successful Nationalist movements of the 20th century worldwide had their roots in Communism.

    Read up about it sometime, I guess just make sure you’re not eating while you do, don’t want to upset that sensitive, blinkered disposition.

    • Agree: Counterinsurgency
    • Replies: @Greg S.
    , @anonymous
    , @Malla
  101. @Felix Krull

    Hitler deluded himself because he thought that Britain would act rationally in their own interest.

  102. White people lost.

    Jews won.

  103. @follyofwar

    you must be one of these alt-right newbies who got into this stuff via gaming and thinks all this stuff started 10 years ago to say something so ridiculous. Western Europe started importing large numbers of foreigners almost as soon as the war had ended, mostly from its former colonies (Africa for France, Carribean/India for Britain), (though not necessarily eg West Germany and its Turks), and denouncing/unpersoning anyone who spoke against it for just as long (eg Enoch Powell in the 1960s) because they stirred something close to the prewar spirit of Europeans too close to comfort for the new era.
    Many of France’s sports teams were nearly completely African almost a full decade before 9-11 as a result. The muslims you’re talking about taking over French and British towns are mostly already on their 3rd and 4th generations.

    Meanwhile Soviet block Europe also imported some ethnics for additional labour, but they were generally shunned and not sought to be integrated, so most went back home, nor was ‘multiculturalism’ a thing (these things are considered another evil of the soviet era when reviewed by certain modern western looking europeans – it’s ‘racism’. ha, ha.)

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    , @follyofwar
  104. Bookish1 says:
    @Thirdeye

    The u.s. won? Take a walk through Chicago or any American city and then compare it to how it was before the war. Many of our cities look like bombed out shells. Doesn’t look like a winner to me.

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    , @Hypnotoad666
  105. Matra says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    I doubt Buchanan writes many these articles at this point. This particular one just repeats tired talking points from one of his books. At least this one doesn’t compare Poland’s strategic, and victimless, occupation of a small part of Czechoslovakia to Germany’s invasion of Poland killing millions. Buchanan has embarrassed himself with that one several times now.

  106. @Priss Factor

    “Soviet commies at least regarded Poles as fellow comrades whereas the utterly poisonous radical racist ideology of the Nazis not only treated Poles as dirt but saw them as such. ”

    I don’t know how the Soviet Russians or Russians in general regarded (and continue to regard) the Poles, but I can tell you that it was pre-WW II Poles who treated ethnic Germans (many, if not most, stranded in Poland because of the forcible 1919 reconfiguration of German-Polish territories) as dirt and saw them as such.

  107. RJJCDA says:

    If Britain “won” WWII, then the same logic with MORE justification can be used to state that the U.S. WON the Vietnam War. After all, Saigon fell 2.5 years AFTER the last U.S. fighting units were pulled out.

    Britain went to war to preserve the integrity and independence of Poland; we warred in Vietnam to preserve and protect the integrity and independence of the RVN.

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
  108. Thirdeye says:
    @inselaffen

    There was a large amount of demographic churning between the Soviet republics, caused by the war and chronic labor shortages. Those migrations tended to result in permanent settlement. The largest mosque in Europe is in Moscow.

    I suspect that the much-vaunted ethnic purity of former Soviet satellites has to do with their generally slow economies that didn’t demand much imported labor during the Soviet era. The only ones with any economic dynamism were Czechoslovakia and East Germany. There is also the historical memory in eastern Europe of being on the front line in the struggle between Europe and the Ottoman Empire, which could affect attitudes.

  109. @inselaffen

    You’re being a little presumptuous, sir. I’m an old boomer and don’t know what gaming is, unless you’re referring to playing slots at the casino. And I don’t even own one of those new-fangled smart phones. I wouldn’t know how to use one if I did. But I have read a decent amount and know that Third World migration into Europe began well before 10 years ago. It is the sheer more recent nation-destroying numbers to which I was referring.

    When Enoch Powell gave his “Rivers of Blood” speech in 1968, he was appalled that 50,000 migrants were entering Great Britain annually. I’ll bet that today the native Brits wish they were getting so few.

    BTW, what’s an “alt-right newbie” anyway?

  110. Thirdeye says:
    @Bookish1

    The industrial midwest was poppin’ for about 30 years after the war ended.

  111. Thirdeye says:
    @RJJCDA

    Then the Vietnamese “Communists” reverted to capitalism about 15 years later. Maybe the thing to do was let them figure things out on their own.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  112. @silviosilver

    you still have the (widely recognized) right to openly criticize your government and openly demand its replacement. That is not a feature ever associated with the Nazi or Commie regimes.

    Emphasis on “still”. Those rights could be revoked at any time by “hate speech” laws. This has actually happened in Europe, where criticism of migrations and migrants is illegal and prosecuted.

    “(a welfare state run by a unaccountable government, control of literature, increasing direct governmental control of previously independent institutions, and so on)”
    If those are the criteria, then almost every country on earth could be considered “Nazi.”

    Which was my exact point: Nazi Germany lost WW II, but their form of government won.. Almost every country on Earth _can_ be considered “Nazi” — today, now. Pre-WW II that wasn’t the case; pre-WW I that definitely wasn’t the case.

    Counterinsurgency

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  113. Greg S. says:
    @inselaffen

    The ignorance, it burns. Soviet communism (as I’m not aware of any other variety in Europe) attempted to extinguish European nationalist identities wherever it encountered them, including in Russia itself I might add. The Baltic states were nearly liquidated entirely for god’s sake.

    Do not mistake insulation from western influences for protection of their own cultures. The communist ideal was to kill off culture, kill off history, kill off religion and replace them with the “ideals” of communism. It was (and is) some sick, evil shit and that’s why it failed. The act of occupying and suppressing these states acted also to retard their progress. It was a time-capsule effect where the cultures there were not exposed to the liberal “progressive” / corporatist values of the west and remained stuck in the 1950s. (Aside: this is not a defence of those western values, they are shit too, or more precisely, they are perversion of actual democratic values / classic liberalism that goes back Rome and Greece). So when communism collapsed, it revealed these place untouched by time: old cars, old buildings, old ways of doing things. That communism failed to kill off these peoples in their entirety, and that some rump of their identities and cultures re-emerged after communism, is not a statement on the virtues of communism, as you have twisted it to be.

  114. @Thirdeye

    Then the Vietnamese “Communists” reverted to capitalism about 15 years later.

    They reverted to capitalism because they didn’t have overseas Chinese as a market dominant minority. That was their only real gain from the Vietnam war. See Amy Chu, _Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations_, 2018/02/20. Scary book, BTW. She talks about US flyover country inhabitants / Trump supporters as roughly equivalent to Vietnam’s Montagnards.

    Counterinsurgency

  115. @voicum

    I have lived under communist regim for 25 years. Everthing was great as long as was not rocking the boat . I never became a member of the party because I did not care to pay the fees. The goverment took care for my medical & dental care plus I never have to pay for my education. I have to admit that the medical & dental care are much better over here when I have insurance, not so much the education. I like to say that when lived over there some of the news were lais, same as over here.

  116. @Felix Krull

    You are German, aren’t you?
    Britain had already lost the first round.

    Only a self-pitying German (Germany having lost even worse) would be unable to notice.

  117. @Felix Krull

    So Britain would have to fight Germany at one point or another.

    Hitler wanted to invade the Soviet Union, not France. If the Brits hadn’t declared war that’s exactly what he would have done.

    The UK could have allied with Russia against Hitler. Or let Hitler and Stalin fight it out amongst themselves.

    Instead, they decided to force Hitler to invade France. And let Stalin and Hitler divide Eastern Europe. Dumbest move possible.

    It’s all in Pat’s book.

  118. @Bookish1

    The world was our oyster until about 1965. If we f**ked it up after that, it’s not the war’s fault.

  119. @Theodore

    Yes but for some reason it was perfectly OK when the USSR invaded Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, etc… violating numerous treaties in the process.

    Did I somehow suggest that?

    • Replies: @byrresheim
    , @Dube
  120. @Counterinsurgency

    Which was my exact point: Nazi Germany lost WW II, but their form of government won.. Almost every country on Earth _can_ be considered “Nazi” — today, now. Pre-WW II that wasn’t the case; pre-WW I that definitely wasn’t the case.

    You evidently failed to understand my point about what the defining feature of a fascist/nazi regime was – all in order, apparently, to insist on the ludicrous point that somehow totalitarianism still triumphed.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  121. @voicum

    I know that a large number left, but even if the figure was as high as 10% (and I doubt it), that still means 90% remained = “the vast majority,” in my book.

    From all accounts, life there wasn’t too bad. It obviously wasn’t up to the standards of western Europe, but what seems to matter to a sense of economic well-being is not the actual level you are at, but the rate at which that level is improving. From this perspective, right up until the last decade of that country’s existence, the general population would have had good reason to think they’re on the right path.

  122. @Greg S.

    I’m interested in the effect of Communist/USSR domination of Eastern Europe for the same reason that a epidemiologist might be interested in childhood measles: it confers later immunity to later infection, which is far more serious in adults than children. Something about the occupation of Eastern Europe seems to have immunized it (metaphorically) against the pathological government forms of Western Europe.

    The 1950s idea is good: cultural preservation a byproduct of a stasis, a stalemated civil war in this case between government and governed.
    But there has to be more to it than that. 1950s Western Europe (and 1950s US) had 1950s societies also. They transmogrified into today. Will Eastern Europe do the same thing with a 40 year time lag (40 years lag from interval 1990-1950)? Or is there some larger result, some kind of lasting immunity?

    Counterinsurgency

  123. @follyofwar

    WW II at the least stunned the West, and might have killed it (we don’t know yet). Getting to the bare bone basics, after WW II the West abandoned and declared anathema pretty much everything that had made a successful society pre-WW II. Science, art, a belief that Western systems should prevail over those of all other human societies when there was a conflict, commercial aggressiveness, a respect for the individual Westerner, a belief that the people vs. government conflict was a legitimate part of society, the idea that _society_ was a legitimate part of society (as opposed to Mussolini’s ‘ll within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”), all was abjured “to prevent WW III” [1].
    That’s why to my mind everybody in the West lost WW II. Given the above, the post WW II decline of the US was unavoidable.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] And then, when the Cold War ended, it remained jettisoned, WW III had nothing to do with the original loss. There are many objections here to the Jewish Establishment, but to me it looks a lot more like an infection in a bad cut. The infection is a major problem, but it wouldn’t have happened without the cut.

  124. @Greg S.

    In very brief: Communism and liberalism are both horrible ideologies which have as their explicit aim the deracination of peoples, corruption of culture and replacement of sovereign nations with a globalist dystopia of the lowest common denominator (ruled by the Politburo under Communism, by the billionaires under liberalism). There are better and worse versions of both in different countries (e.g.: relatively sane GDR Communism versus Trotskyism or Maoism, or relatively sane 1950s style US liberalism versus the 2010s strain), but both are always profoundly anti-human at heart. In this, they are not very dissimilar.

    The big difference between them, of course, is that liberalism is much more efficient. Whether at organizing economies or corrupting cultures. It’s not that the old style Marxists didn’t want to destroy marriage and the family (this was part of Marx’s very own original program), they just couldn’t do it competently and had to give up in the end and make a compromise with reality (see: Stalin’s family policy versus what preceded it). The same Communist dysfunction that made people queue for bread (and eventually made the wall fall) also paradoxically preserved them from the transsexualization of children.

  125. szopen says:
    @Jim bob Lassiter

    Somehow everyone talking about how bad Germans had it in Poland, forgot about all the paradise Poles had in pre-WW1 Prussia.

    • Replies: @byrresheim
  126. Who won world War I ? International Jewry. Who lost World War I? Everyone else. Who won world War II ? International Jewry. Who lost World War II? Everyone else. Who wins World War III ? International Jewry. Who loses World War III? Everyone else.

    • Agree: Malla
    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Corvinus
  127. Observing the hysterical, neurotic Germans and their relentless demanding in their media that the US alter it’s constitutional gun laws so as to match their own totally restrictive codes, plus their ranting about the “unfair” US electoral college, and how it caused their liebling HC to lose to the most hated man in German history : DT , one could easily come to the conclusion that the bonkers Krauts think that they in fact won the war and they are now obligated to dictate US internal policy according to their beloved axiom : “Am deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen”.
    WC was most indeed indeed right with his “boots or throat” concept

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro Jazz artist.

  128. @Jim bob Lassiter

    Poles who treated ethnic Germans (many, if not most, stranded in Poland because of the forcible 1919 reconfiguration of German-Polish territories) as dirt and saw them as such

    It’s a sad story all around, those Ost-Germans had long ago colonized what had been Polish territory.

    • Replies: @Dube
  129. Thirdeye says:
    @Greg S.

    It’s not that simple. Soviet communism reflected recognition of nationalities in its power structure, both in the SSRs and in the central Soviet government. The “affirmative action empire” gave disproportionate representation to the outer republics at the top levels of Soviet power. The dogmatic internationalism of Trotskyism was rejected.

    Don’t confuse the political repression in the satellite states with a policy of suppressing national identity.

    Interestingly, North Korea places a much greater emphasis on traditional Korean culture than does South Korea. The North Korean system of hereditary power is right in line with that of the feudal Hermit Kingdom, under the ideology of Juche.

    Probably the best examples of Communist governments suppressing national identity and morality would be China under Mao and Cambodia under Pol Pot.

  130. @Felix Krull

    Yes.

    Sadly, yes.

    Of course, if you dare clarify these points, you risk ostracism in your country.

  131. @szopen

    You sir, are a troll.

    • Replies: @szopen
  132. Rurik says:
    @szopen

    reptilians.

    works for me I guess, but any comparison seems a little unfair to these guys

    • Replies: @Malla
  133. @Rurik

    Israel was conceived and came into existence as a terrorist state. Who except Zionist Jews would carry out terrorist attacks against the very people who arranged for their illegal occupation of Palestine, and spy on a sucker nation that annually doles out 3.5 billion to the conniving bastards?

    • Agree: Charon
    • Replies: @Rurik
  134. anaccount says:

    How did Russia’s culture withstand social marxism (rot) better than virtually every Western European country and the United States? It would seem that in 1945 they were starting off at a disadvantage.

    You would think there would have been a homo-trans movement in Russia by the 1970’s but nope, not at all.

    I look at Russia now and I see Russia. I look at my country (the US) and I don’t see a country at all. I see an economic zone where international rich make money. I see a society that bears little resemblance to the culture I grew up in and I’m in my mid thirties!

    I realize there aren’t any quick and easy explanations to this question but I’ll take whatever answer I can get. How did Russia stay Russia?

  135. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rurik

    Back in WWII some Jews fought and died for their American country– for instance Maurice Rose was the highest-ranking American officer killed in combat in Europe.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Rose

    • Replies: @Rurik
  136. Dube says:
    @Felix Krull

    [Theodore] Yes but for some reason it was perfectly OK when the USSR invaded Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, etc… violating numerous treaties in the process.

    The justification given, as I’ve heard it without confirmation in research, was “to protect ethnic minorities.”

  137. Dube says:
    @Priss Factor

    But that was long ago. Keep looking to long, long ago. In those parts it’s pretty current.

  138. szopen says:
    @byrresheim

    And why is that? Because I bring back the uncomfortable facts? For example, why it’s so enfuriating that Poland was closing some of German schools in the 1930s, when Polish children under Prussia had no right to speak Polish in school at all? Why it was OK for civilised, enligthened Prussians to have laws allowing to confiscate Polish estates (the law was passed in 1908, though it’s true that only four estates before WW1 were actually confiscated), or to arrest Polish priests, or to routinely deny Poles right to renovate their houses and to build new ones?

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  139. Thirdeye says:
    @anaccount

    The defining event in modern Russian identity was defending their homeland against an enemy bent on liquidating them as a nation and enslaving them, at the cost of 27 million lives. Recognizing those stakes and that level of sacrifice makes nationhood very meaningful. It was reinforced by the threat from the West during the cold war, followed by disillusion under the corruption and stagnation of the Brezhnev era that caused them to open to the West. That was followed by intense disillusionment with the West and their Russian allies following the plunder of the 1990s. It is entirely understandable that Russians would take a jaundiced view of cultural fads originating in the West that betrayed them so badly, and to demand that economic players should serve their national interest.

  140. @Rurik

    A real shame about England’s war against the boars – you can no longer find a decent boar sausage in the shops.

  141. Thirdeye says:
    @Jim bob Lassiter

    ….and the Ukrainians, who after being annexed into Poland were having their schools shut down, were being purged from academia and business, and were being driven off their land. A lot of them ended up in Canada. And of course the Jews. Pilsudski and Hitler would have understood each other quite well.

    • Replies: @ken
  142. Charon says:
    @John Regan

    Illuminating testimony. Thank you.

  143. Charon says:
    @Rurik

    Agreed. The more you study Wilson, the more convinced you become that much (if not most) modern evil traces back to him.

    • Agree: Kolya Krassotkin
  144. @anaccount

    “Cultural Marxism” – and associated, but not quite synonymous, “New Left” thought – was an innovation by western Marxists, which was largely (but not solely) intended to prime western electorates to demand (or accept) leftist economic prescriptions. The Soviet Union was already a communist state, so it clearly had no use for such cultural perversions.

  145. Charon says:
    @KenH

    The Jewish people won WWII.

    In a nutshell, yes. And the cruel irony is that they used Anglo/American boys as cannon fodder, and once victory was secured set about wrecking Anglo/American civilization.

  146. @anaccount

    It helped that Stalin was a Russian nationalist [1]. If his plan had worked, Russia would have been master of all Europe. Stalin also purged Russian government of the Bolsheviks, who were, let’s say, not Russian nationalists.

    1] Suverov.
    _The Chief Culprit_.

  147. @szopen

    Somehow I’m reminded of Pratchett’s Battle of Koom Valley (https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Battle(s)_of_Koom_Valley).

    Central Europe was a slaughterhouse between the World Wars. Everybody fought everybody, and very bad things happened. There really isn’t a lot more to say, except that we should try to do better now, and we _are_ doing better now.

    Counterinsurgency

  148. @Rurik

    was all put into motion by a treasonous Woodrow Wilson, may he burn in Hell.

    Rule of thumb: _Never_ give an academic political power.

    Counterinsurgency

  149. @silviosilver

    You evidently failed to understand my point about what the defining feature of a fascist/nazi regime was

    Defining National Socialism by “palingenetic ultranationalism” requires a bit of definition of terms.

    “palingenetic” originally meant:

    the development of an organism in which its form and structure pass through the changes undergone in the evolution of the species.

    and appears to be a one word shortcut for the once famous phrase: “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”.

    “palingenetic nationalism” apparently refers to Griffin’s work [1], and there appears to be a synonym for “reactionary”, as in “Metternich was a reactionary”. To quote Wikipedia:

    Roger Griffin argues that fascism uses the “palingenetic myth” to attract large masses of voters who have lost their faith in traditional politics and religion, by promising them a brighter future under fascist rule.

    1) This is obfuscation, just another way of saying that “populism is reactionary and a mental illness, an intent to return to the bad old days and a threat to Our Democracy”. I’ve interacted with enough academic con men to be unimpressed.
    2) If anything fits the above description of “palingenetic nationalism”, it is the current platform of the Democratic Party Presidential candidates (and the various Western European governments), which promises a return to a tribal past in which nothing cost its users money (as there was no money back then), with government provision substituting for the bounty of nature. Ironically, in your terms you’re confirming my statement that National Socialist forms are dominant.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palingenetic_ultranationalism

    • Replies: @inselaffen
  150. @Counterinsurgency

    the democrats are ‘ultranationalists’ eh? who’s the con-man now… are you really being serious? Well, you believe a skim of wikipedia gives you deep understanding so….

  151. Rurik says:
    @Carroll Price

    Who except Zionist Jews would carry out terrorist attacks against the very people who arranged for their illegal occupation of Palestine, and spy on a sucker nation that annually doles out 3.5 billion to the conniving bastards?

    Yes Carroll, but the flip side of that is what kind of people would tolerate being spied on, slaughtered in terrorist and false flag attacks, extorted of untold billions, and sit there chewing their cud as their borders were opened to a hostile foreign invasion army?

    Image the kind of people that would allow their worst enemies to mock them from the leadership positions of their own institutions, humiliate them in popular culture, and send their children off to die in wars that benefit their enemies. All while being taxed to fund their own genocide.

    I suppose it takes both the scorpion, and the frog who gives it a free-ride.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  152. Rurik says:
    @Anon

    Back in WWII some Jews fought and died for their American country

    I have nothing whatsoever against Jews, Anon[202].

    Many thousands of honorable Jews fought for the German army during WWII.

    But when it comes to Jewish supremacists (like the ones dancing there), then it’s a different story.

    If you believe that god put people on earth to be your slaves, then there is something very fucked up about your world view.

    If you believe it’s OK to murder people so you can steal their lands and homes; (Zionists), then there is something very fucked up about your world view.

    If you like the idea of African and Middle Eastern Muslims moving into Sweden and the West in transformational numbers, well then, I guess you’re probably just another Jewish supremacist.

    Jews = good, often exemplary people.

    Jewish supremacists = rats bringing the plague.

    • Replies: @Anon
  153. @Rurik

    All of this is granted, but I’m less inclined to blame our brothers and sisters who have been brainwashed, and more inclined to blame those who brainwashed them. Meanwhile, I certainly recognize that blaming isn’t enough. But we will not convert any of the brainwashed (if indeed we can) by disparaging them.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
    , @Rurik
  154. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rurik

    But when it comes to Jewish supremacists (like the ones dancing there), then it’s a different story.

    That’s true, I was just saying that most Jews back then weren’t like the ones your friend’s father was talking about.

  155. Corvinus says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    “Moreover, why was the British empire lost to defend Poland…”

    No, the empire was lost because it overexpanded, and nations who were under its control sought independence.

    Clearly, Hitler and Germany sought control of the European continent by hook or by crook. Great Britain and the United States were justified in taking it (as well as Japan) out.

    “but defending Poland’s right to rule German areas somehow awarded to Poland after World War I.”

    Those areas were historically under Polish domain.

  156. Corvinus says:
    @Rurik

    “Hitler had no beef with them, or really the Poles or the Russian people…”

    Actually, Hitler had quite the interest to demoralize the Brits, Poles, and Russians, as he was hungry for land and influence.

    “Both of the World Wars and the subsequent horrors, including 9/11 and the Eternal Wars for Israel, was all put into motion by a treasonous Woodrow Wilson, may he burn in Hell.”

    Actually, both world wars are the result of complex political and economic factors.

  157. Corvinus says:
    @Carroll Price

    International Jewry did not win World War I or World War II, nor the impending World War III.

    Are Jews under your bed and in your closet?

  158. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:

    This article and many of the commentators that follow seem unable to stop with the usual whining we always here from the left, about the evil Hitler, evil Nazis, Stalin was just as bad as the evil Nazis, horrible, evil Nazi racial policies. These people need to give their collective heads a shake. Here is just a list of atrocities that were the same as Hitler is always credited with that the allies did in WW2 or were already doing at the start of it.

    1) Eisenhower starved to death around 1 million German soldiers after the war.

    2) Britain incinerated 150,000 innocent civilians in Dresden after the war was effectivly over

    3) US and Canada arrested 142,000 persons of Japanese ancestry, permanently confiscated their property and locked them up in concentration camps during WW2.

    4) The Tuskeege experiment where the American goverment used American citizens (black) for guinea pigs so they could watch the progress of Syphilis from 1932 to 1972. These people were told they were being treated for “Bad Blood” and were not given any Penicillin even after it was known to cure Syphilis.

    5)Eugenics laws were on the books in almost every western country allowing for forced sterilization of the “feeble minded”.

    These are just 5 well-documented things that I could pick off the top of my head. Evil things were committed on both sides but I don’t think the allies could say that Hitler was evil if they don’t consider themselves evil too. This begs the question, if something is done by Germans is it automatically evil but if done by Americans, Brits or French is it somehow OK?

    • Replies: @JackOH
  159. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @inselaffen

    Communism preserved conservative values, religion, and nationalism not because it desired to, but because the people kept the old values as a way of fighting against communism. Communist propaganda was always very clumsy and people with even a minimal amount of sophistication saw through it. This can be contrasted to the sophisticated propaganda we are barraged with on a constant basis, it takes a person who is well-read and stubborn to resist it. Most people can’t resist the world of easy credit, easy sex, fast food and fast cars. The masses are mesmerized by it and act accordingly just the way the creators of the propaganda expect them to.

  160. @Mr McKenna

    All of this is granted, but I’m less inclined to blame our brothers and sisters who have been brainwashed, and more inclined to blame those who brainwashed them. Meanwhile, I certainly recognize that blaming isn’t enough. But we will not convert any of the brainwashed (if indeed we can) by disparaging them.

    Nor by ignoring what’s being done to them (not that you are suggesting such a course of action). maybe something along the lines of “This is what’s being done to you, it’s hurting you where you can’t afford to be hurt, you don’t have to put up with it, other people haven’t” would be effective.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Agree: Mr McKenna
  161. JackOH says:
    @anonymous

    a191, yes.

    My guess is that at the level of street psychology the painting of Hitler and the Nazis as a sort of undifferentiable, unexaminable black hole of evil has done something remarkable for a great many people and their governments and the actions of those governments.

    They enjoy a sort of permanent exculpatory card that works something like this: “I’m not Hitler. My great-grandpa fought Hitler. Therefore, the policy I’m about to propose, a military invasion or a domestic social engineering project, which differs from the Nazis only in details and degree and quality of motivation, is non-Hitler. I’m ‘good’.”

    It’s a scurvy racket, and deeply dishonest. One consequence, of course, is that the cure for de jure segregation in the Deep South was civil rights laws that tainted all Whites everywhere as gratuitously anti-Black. How do you injure a race–White folks–with the apparatus of government without being a bit like Hitler? (I’m for voluntary association, against de jure segregation.)

    Present your “permanent exculpatory” I’m-not-Hitler card, and the oppressiveness and excess of your proposal is unlikely to face the strongest criticism.

    Chamberlain offered that guarantee to Poland because Hitler proved to be unduly aggrandizing and untrustworthy in foreign policy.

    How would the United States government fare if undue aggrandizement and untrustworthiness were the standards by which to judge her domestic and foreign policies the past seventy years?

  162. Malla says:
    @Malla

    Our friend, Lenny the Mad Butcher, will (re?)educate us a bit about World Wars.

    • Replies: @Dani
    , @Dani
  163. Malla says:
    @Felix Krull

    Germany would challenge the British Empire in India

    Adolf Hitler with Indian firebrand Nationalist Subhash Chandra Bose.

  164. Malla says:
    @inselaffen

    That happened in the later years after Social Realism. Before that, Communism was in the forefront in attacking traditional culture and spreading degeneracy.

    Russian politician Zhirinovsky speech about Lenin in Duma (put on subtitles)
    Check out how much Lenin hated ethnic Russians and Russian culture.

    Check out from 3:15 minutes to …..
    President Putin admits that 85%+ of the Bolsheviks were Jews.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Counterinsurgency
  165. Malla says:
    @Malla

    Sorry wrong video

    Put on subtitles and start from 9:06 minutes

    Lenin the soft hearted, bankers…oops, people’s “revolutionary” sez
    “Russians are lazy”, “Russians are shit”, “Russia is ‘firewood’ for World Revolution” etc…

  166. Malla says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Moreover, why was the British empire lost to defend Poland, which was of no significance to any Briton!

    Jews and their interests. And Poland was sacrificed to the Soviets after WW2. So Britain and France started over Poland, lost their empires in the process only for Poland to end under the Soviets. Wow!!
    Crazy or what.

  167. Rurik says:
    @Mr McKenna

    All of this is granted, but I’m less inclined to blame our brothers and sisters who have been brainwashed, and more inclined to blame those who brainwashed them.

    Yes, that’s true with the sheople, but not with the Gentile Kapos like McCain and Tom Cotton and all the rest. Where it not for the throngs of Gentile traitors willing and eager to betray their countrymen and women to their worst enemy, we wouldn’t be in the dire straights we are now.

    Meanwhile, I certainly recognize that blaming isn’t enough. But we will not convert any of the brainwashed (if indeed we can) by disparaging them.

    Obviously I wasn’t intending to disparage Carroll Price, hardly. I hope that’s clear.

    But you have a point. I often become exasperated with what I consider to be a general bovine apathy exhibited by the cud-chewers, as I call them. PCR calls them the ‘insouciant’.

    I wonder if we’re both attempting to shame them out of their self-imposed catatonic state.

    Listening to my fellow American men talking about sports and entertainment, pains me on some level. ‘Did you see that game?! Wow, so and so, really did so and so.’ And I wince.

    ‘Check out this new app I just got, I can open my front door just by telling Alexa to open it from my smart phone!’

    What are we to make of these “men”?

  168. @Malla

    All I can say is that the Bolsheviks failed in quite a few of their projects. Breathing, for on example.

    Counterinsurgency

  169. @Rurik

    Rurik

    Every once in a while the US public can get quite motivated. Until then, they hide in the herd. Kind of like cattle stampeding without warning.

    To take a human analog, E. F. Schumacher wrote a book, _Small is Beautiful_, based on his residency among the gently smiling Burmese. The rule of thumb I was taught was that when you’re in a dispute with a SE Asian and the person starts smiling, it means you’re within arms reach of his assaulting you with serious intent. Sort of like a US Southerner who stops being polite.
    In any case, the subsequent history of Burma (which changed its name to Myanmar after a particularly disastrous interval) [1] showed that the peaceful smiles had been largely an attempt to avoid severe conflict, and avoid the fate of a cow separated from the herd by wolves.
    The US works pretty much the same way and, like quite a few countries, can stampede, even be led, when it sees some place it wants to go or (as now) some place it doesn’t want to be.
    So don’t despair. Your day will come. Just be sure you know where you want to go and where you want to lead them (or at least where they want to be led. Even stampeding, they remain a herd.).

    Counterinsurgency

    1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Myanmar

  170. Dani says:
    @Malla

    Malla, who is “Larry the Mad Butcher”? Seeing the verbiage taken from Douglas Reed’s “Controversy of Zion” is enough to have activated my curiosity. I finished reading this a month ago & it was excellent. I started “200 Years Together” afterwards but have had to take breaks because it’s been so troubling and upsetting to read. I need to toughen up. Maybe it is because I am half Polish and half Ukrainian.

    • Replies: @Malla
  171. ken says:
    @Thirdeye

    But why do you stop here? Poland was recreated after WW1 because of the two partitions during which Poles were treated like shit. We can’t all just stop at the most convenient point to suit our own position.

  172. ken says:
    @Jim bob Lassiter

    Treating ethnic minorities like dirt was hardly unique to Polish territories.

  173. ken says:
    @Priss Factor

    ” To say Poland under Soviet domination was just as bad as a hypothetical one under German occupation(had the Germans won) is a perverse statement.” Two argue that either was preferable to remaining an independent state is more perverse.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  174. ken says:
    @Malla

    Allying with the Soviets and Roosevelt against Germany wasn’t pre-determined in Sept. 1939.

    • Replies: @Malla
  175. Dani says:
    @Malla

    Lmao, my bad….Lenny = Lenin. Never heard him called that & did not make association, poor excuse nonetheless.

    • Replies: @Malla
  176. Dani says:
    @Rurik

    Rurik,

    “Where it not for the throngs of Gentile traitors willing and eager to betray their countrymen and women to their worst enemy, we wouldn’t be in the dire straights we are now.”

    I love this. This is where I have been ‘stuck’ for some time now. I hear many different things but still have yet to hear anything definitive as far as when was the damage done to the point of no turning back? In my earlier days of awareness I put it at Woodrow Wilson for quite some time. Now, I am more inclined to believing a death blow came around the time of the Civil War/Lincoln’s time.

    I don’t blame the ignorant sheople masses for the most part. I have a bigger problem with those who become angry & unreasonable when you even gingerly broach the subject in a way that should find them at least curios enough to listen.

    I get a little frustrated to read so much angry ranting – something PCR has been doing more of lately – it’s a bit harsh and considering those for whom his rant is really directed aren’t even going to be reading his material, he could perhaps tone it down because more often then not he is preaching to the choir.

    Dating has become all but impossible for me, as I’ve yet to come across a man in my radius who has even a clue. I know they are out there but I’m realizing this doesn’t appear to be in my neck of the woods and it’s insult to injury. On the other hand, I assume this works the same way for single men who haven’t given up hope on finding a woman to share their life with and they have my utmost sympathies. It’s probably even worse for men based on what I see out there.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  177. Incitatus says:
    @Rurik

    “Yes, that’s true with the sheople, but not with the Gentile Kapos like McCain and Tom Cotton and all the rest.”

    “Sheople”, “Kapos”? Ah, the infamy of shopworn clichés! Where will it end?

    What about Kapo Buchanan (press aid to a failed president who – contrary to promises – intensified/enlarged Viet Nam)? Comfortable with him penning 900-word-week nonsense designed to inflame viewers? Does he offer any solutions? Seems he just re-kindles the fire every week, for the same small group of faithful acolytes.

    “I often become exasperated with what I consider to be a general bovine apathy exhibited by the cud-chewers, as I call them. PCR calls them the ‘insouciant’.”

    Kudos to you, übermensch Rurik! What a god you are!

    Be merciful. We all don’t enjoy grandfather bankers and ‘VIP Templars’.

    Well, not exactly. My 26th generation grandfather Robert de Craon (1081-1149) was co-fondateur et 2° maître du Temple. My 27th generation grandfather Robert III seigneur de Sablé de La Suze et de Chypre (1150-1196) was 11th grand-maître du Temple.

    But neither was a banker, let alone a ‘VIP templar’! I’m so ashamed!

    Kudos to your hero PCR. Double-dip government economist responsible for helping Reagan triple the national debt ($900 billion – $2.7 trillion, 17%/Year, biggest percentage ever), junk-bond pirate William E. Simon chair at Georgetown 1993-96, consummate DC insider, author of sure-fire Area-51 level op-eds for the disaffected that ensure his celebrity.

    Corrupt celebrity is still celebrity! Stick with it, PCR! Beware Sandy Hook. Fellow celebrity Alex Jones is having problems. Pat was smart enough to avoid comment.

    “I wonder if we’re both attempting to shame them out of their self-imposed catatonic state.”

    Ah, yes, Rurik assumes the white man’s burden. How to intrude on the bovine/catatonic state of others when immersed in one own’s bovine/catatonic state.

    Good luck, übermensch!

  178. @Dani

    Men quite often wait until they can support a family before they consider themselves eligible for marriage. This can lead them to a blind alley when they finish a graduate degree after working outside of academia for a few years. This means that _some_ men about to finish an advanced degree program or freshly out of one would actively be looking for a wife. Same with _some_ men finishing a non-advanced degree would be doing much the same. I’d suggest a degree field that is hands on, to up the odds that the man has some contact with reality.
    The difficulty would be gaining access to the society. Usually such men are ‘way overworked, and have time only for conversation, not serious dating (seriously — a student can fail out of an intensive program by missing two weeks of homework). Students in an advanced program are also not terribly good at talking with women — if they were, they wouldn’t have lasted long enough to be getting and advanced degree. OTH, that means they have a very serious problem in family formation, and some of them realize this. Their usual criterion is whether the woman can conduct a conversation (not easy, they tend to have high cognitive abilities, an interest in abstractions, and conversation across a 20 point IQ can be difficult to impossible. These days, they might think that men and women are a lot more similar than, in fact, they really are. )

    So, that’s it. I can’t guess at gaining access to the society. You might try something related to completing a thesis. There is often a small economy in university towns in this area. It would be a second job, and remember that the thesis would actually have to be completed on your part. This (or any other specific suggestion) probably wouldn’t work, but it might suggest something that would.

    Basic concept is: _some_, maybe most, men tend to form a family as soon as they can support one. There are gateways for men into professions. Find a man _just about_ to go through the gateway, or perhaps just after, which would of necessity would be in some gatekeeper organization such as a university, trade school, training program, or the like. Preferably out of politics — that way leads to failed family formation.

    Not much, but all I can come up with.

    Counterinsurgency

  179. @ken

    Two argue that either was preferable to remaining an independent state is more perverse

    But is Poland really independent? It is now part of the Zio-Globo-Homo empire. It obeys the West on just about everything, even ‘gay pride’ parades.
    Also, Poles are suckass wanna-be losers. They are self-loathing Slavs who wanna prove to the world that they are better than Russian Slavs. They’ll tell you that they are CATHOLIC than Orthodox. They will tell you that they are hip with the latest Western trends.

    Soviet tyranny was bad, but Poles were allowed to keep Poland Polish.

    But under globo-homo occupation, Poland is urged to become Moland.

    Simon Mol the African went to Poland and humped 100s of women. THIS is what the Jewish-run West wants for Poland. For Polish men to become a bunch of wussies while the women turn Molish.

  180. Malla says:
    @Dani

    Lenny=Lenin, Yes.

    poor excuse nonetheless.

    No worries, I might have missed it too for a while if someone else wrote it.

  181. Malla says:
    @ken

    The British establishment were always pro-Soviet. Roosevelt gave land lease aid to Great Britain and the Soviet Union. Giving aid to Britain is understandable but a Capitalist nation like America giving Land Lease aid to the Soviets is so mind boggling, I am surprised no one else found this weird.
    Also the US navy was aggressively attacking German vessels even before Pearl Harbour.

  182. Malla says:
    @Rurik

    The “Rebe” looks more scary and evil than his reptilian overlord.

  183. Malla says:
    @Dani

    I started “200 Years Together” afterwards but have had to take breaks because it’s been so troubling and upsetting to read.

    Yes, it is disturbing. I was brought up believing Communism was good but leter I realised how wrong I was and how commie supporting Western mainstream media is.
    BTW, have you read this book?
    https://archive.org/details/TheAnti-humans-StudentRe-educationInRomanianPrisons
    The Anti-Humans – STUDENT RE-EDUCATION IN ROMANIAN PRISONS
    by Dumitru Bacu

    Freaking disgusting what happened there.

  184. Dani says:

    I have never even heard of this book! When I try to access the PDF with archive.org through your provided link, I get an error message. I do have an account with this site so I will either keep trying or try to find it elsewhere – it looks like something I would very much like to read, so thank you for the new (and disturbing) information. This stuff has become like the proverbial car wreck to me – I can’t bear to know yet can’t bear not to. There is no turning back once your journey to true history has begun.

  185. Dani says:

    As for communism, I am 10 days shy of turning 49 and was brought up by my Ukrainian/Yugoslavian (Croatian) father knowing communism was bad, but that this was an all Russian affair – no mention of the evil vampires behind Bolshevism. Also didn’t help hearing “only” of this being a Russian Revolution – with of course NO mention of the slaughter/execution/manufactured genocidal famine of millions upon millions until perhaps 7-8 years ago. Imagine my feelings learning of Holodomors of 1921-1923, 1932-1933, and 1946-1947 as a Ukrainian American, and at the ripe age of 41. Yet I recall first hearing of the “evil Nazis” and the 6 million killed in “gas chambers” as early as 2nd grade in Catholic school in 1978! I am only just now even learning of Armenian genocide and the Indians during WW2 on Churchill’s watch, the bastard.
    I get a little tired of hearing about Churchill’s February 8, 1920 full page spread in the London Tribune – clearly 2 decades later that mattered naught.

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