The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
Churchill’s War: the Real History of 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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

All truth-tellers are denounced, and most end up destroyed. Truth seldom serves the agendas of powerful interests.

The one historian from whom you can get the unvarnished truth of World War II is David Irving.

On the bookjackets of Irving’s books, the question is asked: What is real history?

The answer is that real history is history that travels straight from history-maker to the history-maker’s documents and from the document archives to the historian’s book without political input and free of academic and patriotic prejudice. It is history that cannot be bought.

Irving’s Hitler’s War was published in 1977. Irving was an archaeologist digging in history who located and dug up previously unknown documents and archives. He lets the factual record tell the history. He is exact and scrupulous and does not curry favor. The Board of Deputies of British Jews wrote: “The book was thoroughly researched . . . It confirmed Irving’s reputation as one of the world’s most thorough researchers and an exciting and readable historian.”

ORDER IT NOW

The first volume of Irving’s Churchill’s War was published in 1987. The second volume in 2001. The third and final volume is awaited.

These works far surpass all previous histories of the war and all accounts of the agendas and events that produced the war. Irving is not motivated to curry favor with the ruling establishment, to make us feel self-righteous in our victory by demonizing the opponent or to grind any personal, ideological, or political axe. He lets the history-makers speak for themselves in their own words, and it is seldom a pretty picture.

Irving’s books sold millions of copies, and he was well-to-do. But he fell foul of Zionists, oddly enough because he documented actual atrocities against Jews. The problem was the attrocities he found differed from the official holocaust story. He documented a holocaust of a sort, but it is a different one than the Zionists prefer. If I understand correctly, infuriated Zionists with plentiful funds used unethical tactics and brought lawsuits, the defense against which eventually bankrupted him. Little wonder most historians choose to suck up to powerful interests by validating their claims and explanations. The fake history they write is a self-protective device like a bullet-proof vest.

I previously reported on Hitler’s War and the first volume of Churchill’s War in my most widely read article— https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05/13/the-lies-about-world-war-ii/ . As I quoted Irving’s account that Jews were killed, but in a more ad hoc than organized way, Zionists rushed to my already defective Wikipedia biography to attribute Irving’s words to me, thereby labeling me a “holocaust denier.” When I complained of the misrepresentation, I was fobbed off with the reply that I would not have quoted Irving if I had not agreed with him. In other words, if you report in a book review what a writer says, it means you agree with him. I am not qualified to agree or to disagree with Irving. Indeed, few people are.

People in the Western world have been indoctrinated for 75 years into a white hat/black hat story of World War II that exonerates the “allies” and demonizes Hitler and Germany. To tell people, especially elderly ones whose memory of the war was formed by war propaganda, that the “allies” were as bad or worse war criminals than the Germans brings fire and brimstone down on one’s head. It nevertheless needs to be done, because our view of ourselves reflects the make-believe story of the war with which we are inculcated. In the false history comes strength for the opinion that we Americans and our country are exceptional and indispensable and that these traits justify Washington’s hegemony over the world. Our destruction in whole or part of seven countries in the 21st century, our withdrawal from arms limitation agreements, our dangerous demonization of militarily powerful countries such as Russia and China all rest in our self-righteous view of ourselves. Of course, not all Americans share these self-righteous views, but the views are the basis for both Republican and Democrat foreign policy. Even the left-wing, or whatever remains of it, believes in war in order to overthrow dictators and “bring democracy and human rights.”

In what follows I am not going to attempt a review of Irving’s second volume on Churchill. Instead, I will report some of the findings that documents reveal, findings that will be new information for most readers. But first a preface.

Hitler did not start World War II. England and France launched World War II with a declaration of war against Germany. Hitler did not want a war with Britain and France and tried to avoid it and then end it with a peace agreement very favorable to Britain and France. Hitler regarded the British Empire as essential to the survival of European dominance. He promised Churchill in exchange for an end of hostilities that Germany would defend the British Empire with the German military anywhere in the world that it was in jeopardy. Hitler left a large part of France and French North Africa unoccupied. He left the French fleet in French hands.

Hitler’s aim was to restore the integrity of the German nation which had been torn apart and distributed to Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, and France by the Versailles Treaty which had been forced on Germany after World War I by a policy of starvation. Germans in the territories turned over to Czechoslovakia and Poland were being persecuted and murdered. Hitler had no choice but to do something about it. He recovered German territory from France, Czechoslovakia, and Denmark without war.

The same outcome was likely in Poland except the British interfered. The British gave the Polish military dictatorship a “guarantee” to come to Poland’s aid if Poland refused Hitler’s demands. Consequently, the Polish dictatorship broke off negotiations with Germany. Germany and the Soviet Union then split Poland between them.

The guarantee compelled “British honor” to declare war on Germany—but not on the Soviet Union—and the hapless French were pulled along.

ORDER IT NOW

The British relied on the “powerful French military” and sent an expeditionary force which was promptly trapped at Dunkirk where Hitler let them go, thinking that an act of magnanimity and his refusal to humiliate the British would bring an end to the conflict. However, Churchill kept Hitler’s overly generous peace terms from the British people and from Parliament. Churchill had wanted war and had worked hard for one and now that he had power and a chance to repeat the military leadership of his great ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, he was determined to keep his war.

With Hitler in control of Europe, Churchill began working harder to get the US into the war. All along the way President Roosevelt had given Churchill war encouragement but without promising any definite course of action from America. Roosevelt wanted Britain at war. He knew it would bankrupt the British and place them economically in Washington’s hands, which would permit the US to break up the British system of trade preferences that allowed Britain to control world trade, destroy the British Empire, dethrone the British pound and replace it with the dollar. Roosevelt was an enemy of empire except America’s own. From FDR’s standpoint, World War II was an attack by the US on British trade preferences that were the backbone of the British Empire.

So Churchill got his war which cost Britain her empire, and Roosevelt replaced the British Empire with an American one. FDR paid a cheap price—about 300,000 US combat deaths. In her defeat of Germany, Russia lost about 9,000,000 soldiers in combat deaths and 26 million people altogether,

After the Russians stopped the German offensive, the war could have ended, but FDR and Churchill had established a policy of unconditional surrender, which shackled allied wartime foreign policy to two more years of death and destruction.

As Pat Buchanan said, it was The Unnecessary War. The war served Churchill’s path to power and Washington’s empire. https://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War/dp/B001FVJH84/

Volume 2 begins in 1941. Irving has tracked down and unearthed many documents that permit a better understanding of the war. Many official papers are still under lock and key and many have been destroyed. The effort to suppress truth from coming out continues 75 years after the war.

Secrecy is used to hide crimes. It is reputations that are protected, not national security.

Churchill used secrecy to protect his war crime of ordering the bombing of civilian residential areas of German cities with his emphasis on bombing the homes of the working class as they were closer together which helped the conflagation to spread. Churchill would first have the civilian areas firebombed, and then when firemen and rescue workers were engaged the British would drop high explosives. Churchill ignored military targets, preferring instead to break the morale of the German population by bombing civilian areas. He tried to get the British Air Force to include poison gas when dropping incendiary and high explosive bombs on civilian residential areas.

As the British people did not know Churchill was bombing civilians, Churchill hoped Hitler would be provoked into replying in kind. Hitler refused for three months to take the bait, but finally his military insisted that unless he bombed the British they would keep on bombing German civilian areas. Hitler gave in but initially insisted that only British industrial targets be bombed. Once a few bombs went astray, Churchill had his rallying cry that the Nazi barbarians were bombing civilians. He got away with this, but officials in the know worried that the British Air Force, especially “Butcher” Harris, would face war crimes trials when the war was over. British generals and admirals disagreed with Churchill’s bombing policy. They regarded it as unprofessional and unprincipled. They complained that it harmed the war effort by denying the army and navy needed air support.

In November 1942 British Air Chief Portal compared the German bombing of Britain with the British bombing of Germany. The Germans had dropped 55,000 tons of bombs, killing 41,000 British and destroying 350,000 homes. The British had dropped 1,250,000 tons of bombs, killing 900,000 German civilians, maiming one million more, and destroying 6,000,000 German homes. The UK/US firebombing of Dresden at the end of the war stands as one of the worst war crimes in history. It killed as many or more civilians as the atomic bombs Washington dropped on the two Japanese cities, also at war end.

Churchill was determined to bomb Rome, but was resisted by the British Air Force. In contrast, Hitler ordered the German military not to risk the destruction of Rome by defending it.

Churchill ordered the bombing of the French fleet, which Hitler had left in the hands of Vichy France, killing around 3,000 French sailors. Churchill together with FDR and Eisenhower invaded French Northwest Africa which was in the hands of Vichy France. Vichy France Admiral Darlan used his influence to persuade the French not to resist the invasion, thus minimizing British and American casualties. Darlan cooperated in every way. His reward was to be assassinated in a plot organized by Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, later one of Britain’s disastrous prime ministers. The assassin protested that he was promised immunity by the British, but was quickly executed to silence him. Eden, whose ambition was larger than his intelligence, was in DeGaulle’s pocket, and DeGaulle wanted Darlan out of his way to power.

The military schemes that Churchill imposed on the British military, such as his invasion of neutral Norway, always came to a bad end, but he rescued himself with masterful speeches in Parliament.

The British had a poor opinion of Eisenhower, and FDR had a poor opinion of Eden. There was so much conflict between the British and the Americans that it is amazing they were able to agree to any plan of action. The American people disliked the British for drawing them into “their war.” The British disliked the Americans for the Negro troops sent to England where they were believed to be responsible for rapes and a crime wave. A lot of propaganda was necessary to focus the hate on the Germans.

The British did not want to sacrifice Arab interests to Zionists but usually did because Zionists had the money. Churchill himself was indebted to a multimillionaire Jew who bailed him out when he faced bankruptcy. Zionists attempted to use their leverage over Churchill to force his approval of both more Jewish immigration to Palestine and for the formation of a “Jewish fighting force,” allegedly to fight the Germans but in reality to drive Palestinians out of Palestine. Zionists promised Churchill that if he would agree to their demands, they would bring the US into the war against Germany. Such was their power.

The British saw Zionists interests as detrimental to their hold on their Arab colonies. When deportations of Jews and their mistreatment began leaking out, the British Foreign Office saw the reports as the work of the international Zionist campaign to create sympathy and to use the sympathy in behalf of their Palestinian purpose. When 700 Jews found incapable of work were shot in a work camp, the Foreign Office responded, “Information from Jewish refugees is generally coloured and frequently unreliable.” Eisenhower was pleased with Darlan and was unaware of Eden’s plot against him. An American newsman told Eisenhower’s staff that the agitation against Admiral Darlan came from “Jews of press and radio who wish to make certain we were fighting a war to make the world safe for Jews.” The Jews cried wolf so often that when he actually showed up they were not believed.

Much information emerges in the second volume about Churchill’s character, personal habits, excessive drinking—he was dependent on alcohol—and autocratic ways. He could turn people against him and then with a speech or by taking special notice of them put them back in his pocket. Churchill had flaws and the ability to survive them. Irving does not excoriate Churchill. He merely shows us what he was like. There are things to admire and things to disapprove.

Moreover, it is not only Churchill who was ambitious. All were. It is a mystery that organization survived ambition. Somehow officers were able to devote time to war against the Germans from the time they spent warring against one another for commands and promotions. The same with cabinet ministers. The same for the military services fighting one another for resources. And the same for the Germans. The Italian and German generals were so jealous of Rommel’s initial successes in North Africa that they worked to undermine him.

And German efficiency also bites the dust. German intelligence never caught on that the British were reading their codes and knew precisely every shipment to resupply Rommel which the British seldom failed to send to the bottom of the Mediterranean. One would think that after nothing gets through time and again that a light would come on.

Churchill was frustrated by his inability to come to Stalin’s aid. He tried to compensate by sending supply convoys. The convoys lost half of more of the ships along with escorting Royal Navy warships. British admirals resisted these death convoys, but Churchill, perhaps afraid that WW I would repeat with a Russian separate peace, leaving Britain to face Germany alone, insisted. He continually sent reassuring messages to Stalin, who was not reassured.

Stalin must have despaired of the fighting capability of his British and American allies. All the British could do was to sic an entire fleet on a single German warship and bomb French and German civilians. In North Africa the British failed to push out the outnumbered Germans and called in the Americans. Eisenhower was far from a good field commander. After Rommel smashed through the Kasserine Pass, delivering to the American army “one of the most resounding defeats ever inflicted on the Americans in war,” Rommel reported to Berlin that despite being outnumbered and without supplies, he could again take the offensive. He attributed success in part to “the low fighting value of the enemy.” Eisenhower’s aide Harry Butcher recorded, “We sent out some 120 tanks and 112 didn’t come back.” Churchill shared Rommel’s dismissal of the American fighting man. “After Kasserine Churchill made little attempt to conceal his contempt for the American forces and their fighting value.”

The Germans, of course, were vastly overextended. In addition to a 1,000 mile Russian front and being bombed at night by the cowardly British who attacked unprotected civilian residential areas, Hitler had to occupy Europe and to rescue his Italian ally by sending troops to Greece and North Africa. The Germans might have had the will, but they did not have the resources to fight most of the world in a war of attrition.

Germany lost 4 million soldiers on the Russian front. On the Western front, which did not materialize until the Soviets had the war won, Germany lost a few hundred thousand. The Americans and the British never faced an intact Germany army. They faced understaffed divisions of an army exhausted and worn down by three years of fighting the Red Army. Hitler had 80% of his remaining forces on the Russian front. To oppose the Normandy invasion in June 1944 Germany had divisions of less than full strength with no reserves and little fuel. Despite the weakness of German forces, it took the Americans six and one-half months to reach the Ardennes, where the invasion was halted for 6 weeks by a German counterattack.

Despite these facts, in recent celebrations of the Normandy Invasion the Americans in a show of extreme pettiness prevented the participation of Russia. The Americans and British persist in pretending that they all by themselves won the war.

Volume 2 has 200 pages of footnote references. It has a 35 page index. It is the kind of history that only gets written once in a century. Irving is clearly the master of historical documentation. When you disagree with Irving, most likely you are disagreeing with the documented historical record.

(Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 1151 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Consider the first two words of Germany’s National Socialist party name, and reflect on what is today placing the survival of life on this planet in jeopardy –international capitalism- and think about it for a while. And why the mortal enemies, western imperialism and Soviet communism, found common cause in erasing the existential threat to their exploitive systems that was the Third Reich.

    Wars are started by elites for no nobler reason than to obtain or extend economic advantage. The mendacious hoopla about god and country and duty and honor effectively seduces every new generation of naïve young men into doing the killing and the dying. The eternal delusion of all warmongers is that they are so powerful that they will be able to control the monster they set loose but the ‘dogs of war’ are beyond human control. Unintended consequences are the rule, not the exception, when they are released, as Churchill found to his nation’s everlasting regret.

  2. Saggy says: • Website

    I just read Roberts’ article on Irving and I’m surprised, it’s not bad. You will see this paragraph …

    No German plans, or orders from Hitler, or from Himmler or anyone else have ever been found for an organized holocaust by gas and cremation of Jews. This is extraordinary as such a massive use of resources and transportation would have required massive organization, budgets and resources. What documents do show is Hitler’s plan to relocate European Jews to Madagascar after the war’s end. With the early success of the Russian invasion, this plan was changed to sending the European Jews to the Jewish Bolsheviks in the eastern part of Russia that Hitler was going to leave to Stalin. There are documented orders given by Hitler preventing massacres of Jews. Hitler said over and over that “the Jewish problem” would be settled after the war.

    and this one …

    The “death camps” were in fact work camps. Auschwitz, for example, today a Holocaust museum, was the site of Germany’s essential artificial rubber factory. Germany was desperate for a work force. A significant percentage of German war production labor had been released to the Army to fill the holes in German lines on the Russian front. War production sites, such as Auschwitz, had as a work force refugees displaced from their homes by war, Jews to be deported after war’s end, and anyone else who could be forced into work. Germany desperately needed whatever work force it could get.

    as well as

    The horrific photos of masses of skeleton-like dead bodies that are said to be evidence of organized extermination of Jews are in fact camp inmates who died from typhus and starvation in the last days of the war when Germany was disorganized and devoid of medicines and food for labor camps. The great noble Western victors themselves bombed the labor camps and contributed to the deaths of inmates.

    So, Roberts is a full on holohoax denier, his protestations to he contrary notwithstanding. Bully, I’d say.

  3. Chris Moore says: • Website

    The British, American and Jewish elites were and are a nest of vipers. Not coincidentally they’re destroying the nations that sustain them in exchange for Globalist (empire) filthy lucre. It couldn’t be any other way given their low character.

    Marxist “Russian” elites (a lot of them corrupt Hebrews) of the Soviet empire did the same thing. Indeed, Marxist and Capitalist elites have conjoined around their empire of materialism, and have been and will continue to sell out the people and their nations for power, ambition and greed. They’re forming a kind of post-national Death Star, completely sovereign unto itself.

    This is why true America First nationalism (in contrast to Empire First “nationalism” of Trump and his corrupt Hebrew handlers) is crucial, and eventually inevitable (hopefully in our lifetimes).

    Let them form their Death Star, and then destroy it. Or maybe like the various corrupt and rotting international institutions (IMF, WTO, UN, WHO), it will destroy itself.

  4. Brilliant, Craig, thanks! And disgusting. Makes us disgusted with us. And you don’t even mention FDR’s trick of engineering the Pearl Harbor attack, sacrificing US sailors etc. Of course they are disposable, hence USS Liberty only 22 years after the war.

    • Agree: Moi, fatmanscoop
  5. lloyd says: • Website

    One possibility. Elements of the German high command did know or suspected the allies knew their codes. But they wanted Germany to be occupied by the Americans and British to save them from the Russians, and themselves integrated into the allied command. That after all happened. As far as I know, no German in the high command was executed for war crimes on the Western Front after the war. Roberts makes one surprising comment. He writes “American Negro troops sent to England were believed to be responsible for rapes and a crime wave.” Orwell wrote at the time, that everyone agrees the best behaved American troops are the Negros. In Europe, it was treated generally lightly, rapes of women by white American soldiers. The very few alleged rapes by black soldiers received the death penalty. The bad reputation of black soldiers were from the French African regiments in Italy.

  6. @Saggy

    But where’s the lie?

    • Agree: PeterMX
    • Replies: @Herald
  7. @Chris Moore

    Don’t call the Jews Hebrews. They are Europeans, the result of massive proselytizing between 200 BC and 200 AD and later mass conversions like the Khazars.

    Ask Benjamin Freedman about “so-called Jews”.

    • Replies: @Chris Moore
    , @Arnieus
  8. Saggy is stupid. He can’t tell the difference between a book review reporting the findings of an author and a book reviewer giving his own conclusions. I have never studied the holocaust and have no conclusions to report.

    • Agree: utu
  9. @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Don’t call the Jews Hebrews.

    A Jew follows the Ten Comandments of Judaism’s founder, Moses. Fake Jews don’t. A lot of Hebrews are fake Jews. In fact, there are very few, if any, real Jews left.
    http://www.judeofascism.com/2020/04/hebrew-fake-jews-root-of-great-evil.html?m=1

    • Replies: @Leon
    , @gay troll
  10. It’s revealing that through all of Churchill’s warmongering, racism, murder of civilians, starvation genocides, the thing that most angers the Brits about him as that he was a bit too heavy handed during a 1911 miners strike in Wales. A few people got some bumps and bruises. They still hold that against him. The other stuff is fine.

    • Agree: Seraphim, DaveE
  11. Roberts reports Volume 3 is awaited. The previous volume appeared almost twenty years ago and Irving is in his eighties. I read somewhere his notes for the book had been seized, but it was not clear by whom. If Irving has been prevented by his enemies from completing the book, his enemies are cultural vandals.

  12. Escher says:

    Hitler’s aim was to restore the integrity of the German nation which had been torn apart and distributed to Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, and France by the Versailles Treaty which had been forced on Germany after World War I by a policy of starvation.

    This paragraph portrays Hitler as a pure hearted nationalist who just wanted to correct historical wrongs. What about the lebensraum that he wanted in the East?

    • Troll: Fuerchtegott
  13. Jake says:
    @Chris Moore

    “The British, American and Jewish elites were and are a nest of vipers. Not coincidentally they’re destroying the nations that sustain them in exchange for Globalist (empire) filthy lucre.”

    Absolutely true. The history of the Brit Empire ‘at home’ is the vast majority 0f the natives being ground into generational poverty that could be relieved only by serving the Empire, making the Elites richer and richer. Once the Union won the Civil War, American WASP Elites began acting just like their Brit WASP counterparts.

    Jews, in the aggregate, will always act to harm anything that even has a remote history of Christendom. And in the Anglosphere, back t0 the early days 0f Reformation and becoming permanently central to the culture with archetypal WASP Oliver Cromwell, Jews have always found a very large number of rich and powerful people itching t9 make alliance with Jews against the ‘white trash.’

  14. gotmituns says:

    fdr and the jews wouldn’t let churchill make peace with Germany.

    • Replies: @pappagone
  15. vot tak says:

    Yup, poor hitler was a misunderstood soul, the nazis were really the good guys in ww2 Just ask the bush family…LOL.

    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @jsigur
  16. vot tak says:
    @lloyd

    “He writes “American Negro troops sent to England were believed to be responsible for rapes and a crime wave.”

    The “black man rapes white woman” is an institutionalized hate propaganda trope of pindo confederates. So is nazi alignment. Their allies, correction, masters, in likud heartily approve.

    • Troll: Pheasant
  17. @Observator

    Thank you, from the very bottom of my heart. One only needs to look at Europe today to know that the wrong side, the jews, won WW2. We Americans are still ruled by them, and they are ruining our country as they have Europe. They can’t help it, that’s just what they do. They know how to dupe Christians, it never fails, they never lose, we never win…

    • Replies: @Just another serf
  18. Anon[230] • Disclaimer says:

    The British did not want to sacrifice Arab interests to Zionists but usually did because Zionists had the money.

    Complete BS. When did the British do that? Ignoring Zionist pleadings, Churchill blocked all efforts by Hitler to send Jews to Palestine. Churchill also blocked all efforts by Hitler to send Jews to Madagascar. Churchill and Roosevelt bear a large responsibility for any holocaust. Churchill, by blocking all Jewish emigration from Germany. Roosevelt, by insisting on unconditional surrender. Israel was only established by Zionist terrorists forcing the British out. The British gave nothing freely and deserved all the terrorism the Zionists gave them.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  19. What mostly interests Americans is Irving’s revelation that Hitler wanted peace with Britain and offered to withdraw from France if Britain recognized its right to pre-World War I borders. Churchill rejected this due to ego and politics, which Irving says led to the destruction of Western Europe and the Holocaust. Irving explains in this short video:

    • Thanks: mark green, Alfred
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Saggy
    , @Sidney
  20. Biff says:
    @Escher

    This paragraph portrays Hitler as a pure hearted nationalist who just wanted to correct historical wrongs. What about the lebensraum that he wanted in the East?

    Lebensraum compared to manifest destiny or Monroe doctrine? Those evil Germans were engaging in kids play thinking they could out do America in the land/power grab department. Or were the evil Germans simply fighting communism as an excuse to exploit resources, subjugate populations, and monopolize markets? – you know; the way the free people of the West get things done. Well, can’t have Germans pretending to be liberators can we. They must be bombed, killed, and subjugated into the villains we need!

  21. @Escher

    I can’t find it. What about lebensraum, Escher?

    • Replies: @Greg S.
  22. Anonymous[417] • Disclaimer says:

    How exactly would the Russians get to D-Day launch point? Or even Normandy?

  23. Wally says:
    @Paul Craig Roberts

    Glad you’re here.
    you said:
    “I have never studied the holocaust and have no conclusions to report.”

    – A bit of scientific thinking, rational thought & logic is all that is required.

    – But you did say this, from:
    Morality, Truth, Facts Have Exited From The Dying West, by Paul Craig Roberts:
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/05/paul-craig-roberts/morality-truth-facts/
    exc.:

    “What was the Holocaust? According to zionists, the Holocaust was National Socialist Germany’s elimination of 6 million Jews by first gassing them and then cremating the bodies. It is unclear how Germany managed this feat when all of its limited and dwindling resources were employed, unsuccessfully as it turns out, on the Russian front.

    Photos demonstrating the Holocaust include dead skeletal-like bodies. But these are not people gased and cremated. These are deaths from typhus and starvation. The disintegrating German state had no food or medicines for Germans and often not for its own soldiers. Concentration camp inmates were on the bottom of the totem pole.

    You also wrote in the article under discussion, https://www.unz.com/proberts/churchills-war-the-real-history-of-world-war-ii/ :
    “As I quoted Irving’s account that Jews were killed, but in a more ad hoc than organized way”

    – Except there is no proof for even that other than the Einsatzgruppen shootings of some partisans, aka: terrorists, which did have Jew membership. While grossly exaggerated by The Usual Enemies of Free Speech, were quite legal per international law, non-uniformed combatants & all that.

    Thanks.

    recommended:
    Irving’s ‘holocaust’ lite / but what ‘2.4 million document’?: http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4548
    Irving attempts ‘rehabilitation’ via the Hoefle Telegram’: http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4558
    Grubach’s Open Letter to David Irving on his recent change of mind about the “holocaust”: http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4563

  24. DB Cooper says:

    “The Germans had dropped 55,000 tons of bombs, killing 41,000 British and destroying 350,000 homes. The British had dropped 1,250,000 tons of bombs, killing 900,000 German civilians, maiming one million more, and destroying 6,000,000 German homes. The UK/US firebombing of Dresden at the end of the war stands as one of the worst war crimes in history. ”

    This is one of the worst war crimes in history but definitely not the worst. Not to trivialize this history but at least the Germans and the British were dropping bombs on each other. A fight among equals. Between 1964 and 1973, the United States dropped around 2.5 million tons of bombs on Laos. The nearly 600,000 bombing runs delivered a staggering amount of explosives: The equivalent of a planeload of bombs every eight minutes for nine years, or a ton of bombs for every person in the country—more than what American planes unloaded on Germany and Japan combined during World War II. So what did Laos did to the US? Nothing except the poor country was used by its neighboring country Vietnam’s guerilla fighters as a sanctuary during the Vietnam war. For this inconvenience Laos remains, per capita, the most heavily bombed country on earth.

  25. truthman says:

    A couple of corrections. Germany hadn’t lost any territory to Czechoslovakia after WW1. It was the German speaking Sudetenland from the former Austria Hungarian empire that was given to Czechoslovakia. This German speaking part of Bohemian Moravia wasn’t in Germany yet. Also, Germany didn’t peacefully get Northern Schleswig back from Denmark prior to WW2, nor any of Alsace Lorraine prior to the outbreak of the war. They had succefully taken back Memel from Lithuania, and united Austria and the Sudetenland to Germany before the war.

    • Replies: @Herbert Norkus
  26. This is first rate. The discussion of FDR’s motives is ground-breaking and spot on.

    According to the Historical Statistics of the United States (a US government publication) total American Armed Forces deaths in World War Two numberd 405,399 — as cited by William Appleman Williams, Empire As A Way Of Life p. 176.

    In Churchill’s War, Triumph In Adversity, (vol. 2) p.76-77 Irving reports that on September 10, 1941 future President of Israel (then head of the Zionist agency in New York City) Chaim Weizmann wrote Churchill recalling “how the Jews of the United States had pulled their country into war before; he promised that they could do it again — provided that Britain toed the line over Palestine.”

    Earlier that month at an America First rally in Des Moines Charles Lindbergh stated that the primary elements trying to force America into the war in Europe were Wall Street, the British, and the Jews. To this day Lindbergh is vilified for making this statement, whose truth was flagrantly apparent to any open-eyed observer in America at that time.

    Lindbergh’s vilifiers are self vilified.

    British “Intelligence” raided Irving’s offices and seized his files years ago, probably preventing forever the publication of the third volume of his Churchill work. This is a crime against history of huge and grotesque proportions for which historiography will, in the long run, damn them to the same hell where Churchill, Hitler, and Roosevelt play ring-around-the-rosy.

  27. Leon says:
    @Chris Moore

    Jews do not follow the Ten Commandments those were written for all the Non Jews.

    The Jewish tradition that there are 613 commandments
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

    • Replies: @Chris Moore
  28. @Jake

    I have just been reading Henry George’s discussion (in Progress and Poverty) of the unspeakable pillage and destruction inflicted by the British Empire on India from the 18th century and on Ireland from the 13th century. There are no words obscene enough to describe it. Hitler was a softy, a beginner, in comparison.

    • Replies: @Jake
  29. Leon says:
    @Escher

    Wakie Wakie.

    A straw man (or strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.

    You are the only person that is saying Hitler was a pure hearted Nationalist. Nice try but fail you did.

    • Agree: Fuerchtegott
    • Replies: @Fuerchtegott
    , @Escher
    , @rogerx
  30. A point I rarely see made w/r/t Irving’s work is that he has, to an extreme extent, preferenced TRUTH over pecuniary gain and personal safety.

    Irving has suffered physical and emotional attacks, imprisonments, and loss of his once substantial and well-earned fortune.

    In law, we call that declarations (or statements) against (one’s own) interest + it is afforded high probative value.

    For example:

    Declarations against Interest. A declaration of a non-party, which is against the interest of the person making the statement, although introduced to prove the truth of its contents, is admissible.

    The theory behind this exception is that one would not speak falsely or mistakenly when saying something detrimental or prejudicial to himself.

    A declaration is against one’s interest if it is “so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far subjects him to the risk of civil and criminal liability, or so far tends to render invalid a claim by him against another, or creates such a risk of making him an object of hatred, ridicule, or social disgrace in the community, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true.”

    California Evidence Code §1230.

  31. @Paul Craig Roberts

    It is clear that the editing of wikipedia has been taken under the control of hidden and unaccountable elements intent on enforcing “official views”. Anywhere the phrases “conspiracy theory” or “holocaust denier” show up, for two examples, their activities (frequently slanderous) are apparent. It’s a shame this good idea is being poisoned by these self-evidently evil liars. Crimes against truth and history are fundamental crimes against humanity.

  32. rg says:

    I wonder if many, or for that matter any, readers understood the allusion to the USS Liberty? Maybe it is time to reprint: “Surviving Sailors Break Their Silence 40 Years After Israeli Attack on US Navy Ship”?

  33. Putin made “ The Gulag Archipelago “ of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn required reading at Russian schools.
    Will a worthy leader in the West rehabilitate David Erving by making his books about WWII required reading for the spellbound zombie generations to nudge them out of their ignorance? Until such a feat happens, history classes will be no more than a handy tool of the Ministry of Truth.
    Mr. Roberts is at his best, as usual, defending the cause of truth and integrity having chosen the winding and dangerous road of integrity rather than going the way of the presstitutes and the faux intellectuals who sold their soul to Mammon.
    As long as we are ignorant of true history, we have no hope stopping the tragic cycle of human self destruction from repeating itself.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  34. utu says:

    “If I understand correctly, infuriated Zionists with plentiful funds used unethical tactics and brought lawsuits, the defense against which eventually bankrupted him.” – Other way around. It was David Irving who went to court first. It was the greatest mistake in his life.

  35. Miro23 says:

    Volume 2 has 200 pages of footnote references. It has a 35 page index. It is the kind of history that only gets written once in a century. Irving is clearly the master of historical documentation. When you disagree with Irving, most likely you are disagreeing with the documented historical record.

    No doubt that Irving is an exceptional historian in using primary sources with all the related difficulties and investigative work.

    Hitler did not start World War II. England and France launched World War II with a declaration of war against Germany. Hitler did not want a war with Britain and France and tried to avoid it and then end it with a peace agreement very favorable to Britain and France.

    “Hitler did not start World War II” is a deceptive statement. WW2 included a gigantic premeditated war in the East.

    You can take Irving’s word for it. It’s a conclusion that he keeps repeating:

    “The focus of my research fell on his years of power; and from 3rd February 1933, when Hitler tells his generals in secret of his ambition to launch a war of imperial conquest in the east as soon as Germany is able, the detail thickens and the colour becomes enriched.”

    “But as Trevor -Roper has rightly observed, the central purpose of Hitler’s foreign policy remained constant throughout his career: a campaign of conquest in the east. And when all Hitler’s secret speeches are analyzed , using reliable source materials, this is quite clear: he stated this objective in his speech of 3rd February 1933 (pages 28-9), and on numerous subsequent occasions. I have located without much difficulty the records of many more secret “programme” speeches by Hitler, proving this consistency of aim: on 21st January 1938, on page 67 (One day, the entire world …”); on 28th May 1938 (page 101); on 15th August 1938 (pages 123-4); and of particular interest, several speeches delivered by Hitler in secret to senior officers during January, February and March 1939 – and recorded on discs – during which he made it quite plain that Nazi Germany was inevitably steering towards war (pages 173-6). These speeches of pivotal importance, have been neglected by Hitler’s biographers – either because they had not been identified and listed in convenient archive catalogues; or because the biographer did not set foot in foreign archives anyway; or because the speeches have not yet been translated into English. German writers have even lamented – e.g. in the annotations to Tagebücher eines Abwehroffiziers (Stuttgart 1970) – that no transcripts of the speeches exist: well they do, and I have quoted some of their more important lines.”

    “It was in Hitler’s 1928 manuscript that he set out his foreign policies most cogently. Of brutal simplicity, these involved enlarging Germany’s dominion from her present 216.000 square kilometers to over half a million, at Russia’s and Poland’s expense. His contemporaries were more modest, desiring only to restore Germany’s 1914 frontiers. For these men Hitler expressed nothing but contempt; this was the “dumbest foreign aim imaginable”, it was “inadequate from the patriotic, and unsatisfactory from the military point of view”. No, Germany must renounce her obsolete aspirations to overseas colonial markets, and revert instead to “a clear, unambiguous Raumpolitik”, grasping enough Lebensraum to last the next hundred years.” First Germany must “create a powerful land force”, so that foreigners took her seriously. Then, he wrote in 1928, there must be an alliance with Britain and her empire, so that “together we may dictate the rest of world history””.

    David Irving, “The War Path: Hitler’s Germany 1933-1939”

    • Thanks: FB
  36. slorter says:

    The EU Is Rewriting WWII History to Demonize Russia
    https://www.unz.com/article/the-eu-is-rewriting-wwii-history-to-demonize-russia/#comment-3519596

    Poland signed its own non-aggression pact with the Nazis back in 1934, some five years before the USSR did. In addition, Warsaw not only recognized the legitimacy of Czechoslovakia’s partitioning by the Nazis under the no-less-infamous 1938 Munich agreement, but also bit off a chunk of its territory under the same accord.

    The Poles (who rarely attack anybody unless their prospective victim is already agonizing or unless there is some “big guy” protecting them – Churchill was quite right with his “greedy hyena of Europe” comment!).

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  37. utu says:

    “Hitler did not start World War II. England and France launched World War II with a declaration of war against Germany. Hitler did not want a war with Britain and France and tried to avoid it and then end it with a peace agreement very favorable to Britain and France. Hitler regarded the British Empire as essential to the survival of European dominance. He promised Churchill in exchange for an end of hostilities that Germany would defend the British Empire with the German military anywhere in the world that it was in jeopardy. Hitler left a large part of France and French North Africa unoccupied. He left the French fleet in French hands.”

    Is that really what Irving is saying? That Hitler did not start WWII? Was Hitler a child who did understand the cause and effect sequence that by attacking Poland who had British and French guarantees he would start a war with France and Britain? Or is it Mr. Roberts who is a child here who ventured to a place that is above his ability to comprehend so he must resort to confabulations that fit his poor and simplistic model of reality?

  38. @Observator

    A system of capitalism that is destructive of human and industrial capital is just upside down capitalism. Same as a socialist system that is destructive to human and industrial capitalism is upside down socialism.

    Capitalism is fair competition, socialism is universal non-competition. The former for wants, the latter for needs.

    The fight is against policies that encourage equality within Epicurianism at the state level, or competition for needs with a sufficiently technologically advanced society.

    Elites acting against the interest of the people is just tyranny. Which is all we have, since there is no direct means for the Sovereign citizenry to affect the laws they are governed by.

  39. Nuncle says:

    ‘The one historian from whom you can get the unvarnished truth of World War II is David Irving.’

    I’m not so sure. He once described Goebbels as an evil demon or something, but I cannot find the least reason for denigrating him in this manner.

    I think Irving has an agenda of a kind which involves telling less than the unvarnished truth about a lot of things. My engagement with Irving’s works was some ten years ago, when I read nearly all of them, and the more I read the more suspicious I came about the selective nature of the truths he was telling. That said, he remains the least partisan historian of WW2 writing in English and the indispensable place for the newbie to start.

  40. I find the whole story that appeasing Germany was somehow wrong – that they were brutes demanding blood and the others had to acquiesce meekly – misinformed.

    Really, appeasement was more like the monetary ‘eye for an eye’ principle – Germany was raped and then falsely eviscerated prior to National Socialist Germany’s rise, and it asked for recompense for – or a reversal of – crimes forced on it.

    Even lebensraum makes sense if you consider how Germany lost so much ancient territory to the Poles, and had to house at least some of the not-murdered refugees that made it back to the newly shrunken state.

    There was anger and hate towards communism, but even that is not unreasonable – even if you disagree with Suvorov (and therefore implicitly accept that Stalin was also a National Socialist, perhaps of a different persuasion), the international spirit of socialism a-la Trotsky, and forceful element of Communism were enough to demand the defeat of that beast.

    Personally I am glad that both sides of the story, with respect to Germany and Western Europe are coming to light. I wish for the same to happen for Germany and Eastern Europe, but there the blinders are still on. Granted the masses in the East ended up being victim, so the desire to apply cold reason for the investigation of cause and effect is suppressed..

    • Agree: Curmudgeon
  41. Anonymous[595] • Disclaimer says:

    In her defeat of Germany, Russia lost about 9,000,000 soldiers in combat deaths and 26 million people altogether.

    Author himself is undermining his argumentation. How did those 17 million non-combat deaths happen? Yes, USSR was in terrible shape, low on food etc., but vast majority of these deaths took place in German-occupied territory. And this number of people does not die just like that by some kind of a mistake, it was systematic decisions, famine and deliberate extermination.

    • Replies: @Paul Craig Roberts
    , @Wally
  42. PG Roberts: “Germans in the territories turned over to Czechoslovakia and Poland were being persecuted and murdered.”

    You are either brainless beyond belief, should be re-admitted, kept under locked doors forever, or you’re a nasty liar, a deceiver with a purpose. My family has lived in the the Sudetenland, knows who was behaving appallingly, and it wasn’t the Government of Czechoslovakia, it was the thugs of Konrad Henlein’s Sudetendeutsche Heimatfront. I don’t have to have you or Irving telling me what was happening before my own eyes. If the rest of your narrative is as truthful as thes sentence, you can roll it up and stick it, you know where.

    • Replies: @Sokrates
    , @DaveE
  43. @Bragadocious

    What utter nonsense. 99.9% of Brits have never heard of the 1911 miners strike in Wales.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    , @Parfois1
  44. Anon[603] • Disclaimer says:
    @Escher

    Even if Hitler wanted ‘living space’ in the east, he was merely keeping up with what the English and Spanish and French had been doing for centuries. The simple fact is, the cartoon evil image of Hitler is just that…a cartoon. This perception has become a massive problem and it needs to be challenged.

  45. @lloyd

    Not quite.

    It is the numerous North African (Moroccan and Algerian) soldiers in the French Second Army fighting in Italy that committed the crimes against civilians: rape, plunder, torture, murder etc. Hence the Italian expression “marrocchinate”, crimes by Moroccans. (See Jean-Christophe NOTIN, La campagne d’Italie, Paris, 2002)

  46. Beckow says:

    There is a lot of true and interesting information in the review, but the following are basically untrue:

    Germans in the territories turned over to Czechoslovakia…were being persecuted and murdered.

    Not true. First of all Sudeten Germans were Austrians, a separate country. They had complete linguistic, political and cultural rights, they had the second largest party in the Parliament. There was some hostility, but it was mutual and understandable after 300-years of a much harsher Habsburg (=German?) oppression of Czechs. There were no ‘murders’. Why make up something so easily verifiable?

    Polish dictatorship broke off negotiations with Germany. Germany and the Soviet Union then split Poland between them.

    This feeds into the current politicised Anglo-Polish mythical geopolitics. Soviets didn’t participate in the attack on Poland, they waited until Poles were defeated, government left for exile, and then re-took the Ukrainian and Belorussians territories that Poland grabbed in 1920 when Russia collapsed during its revolution. Not a single square inch of that territory is in Poland today: it is all in Ukraine, Belorussia and Lithuania. Those were not ‘Polish’ territories, although Poles like to claim them.

    The strategic depth that Soviets gained by preventing Germany to move a few hundred kilometres closer to Moscow was the key to eventually defeating German invasion of Russia. Plus the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement completely pissed of Japan who were at that very time invading eastern Siberia and were clobbered as a result. This resulted in Japan not ever trusting Germany after that and they never opened a second front in the east as Germans asked for. If they did, the battle under Moscow could had gone differently. The M-R was a brilliant strategic victory for Russia and probably decided the WWII outcome. Too bad for the Poles who dreamt of their own imperium in he east and joined Hitler in Munich in dismembering Czechoslovakia in 1938. Their hatred for Russia always bears bitter fruit.

    If Irving got those two basic facts wrong, how is one to believe the other stuff?

    • Agree: Parfois1, Adûnâi
    • Thanks: FB, Godfree Roberts
    • Replies: @Alfred
    , @Parfois1
  47. GeeBee says:
    @Observator

    Very well said. It is a commonplace to state that ‘the truth will set you free’. In my own case I came to realise two things about this saying, at least so far as the Second World War is concerned. The first was that the truth was almost impossible to discover, until a few brilliant and brave men dared to publish it (and Irving is undoubtedly the greatest of these). The second was that while it might make you free, it would also make you as mad as hell. So much so that I – a former Officer in the British Army who had sworn to serve my country and even to lay down my life for it if necessary – came to regard Great Britain with feelings that at best can be stated as contempt. So much so that I found myself explaining to a British patriot, who asked me why I preferred not to support England in the football World Cup, that “I would not today cross the road to piss on Britain if it were on fire”. Sad, but that’s the way it is.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  48. @Saggy

    Revisionist is a better word to use than denier. Think about it.

    • Replies: @Saggy
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  49. GeeBee says:

    ‘officials in the know worried that the British Air Force, especially “Butcher” Harris, would face war crimes trials when the war was over.’

    When I was at Sandhurst in 1977-78, we cadets had the rare ‘privilege’ of attending a lecture by Sir Arhur Harris, appropriately enough at the Churchill Hall (the main lecture theatre at the Royal Military Academy). The then eighty-five year old Harris had been wheeled out to give his talk, which came as a surprise not only to us cadets but also to the War Studies staff at the academy. I well recall him boasting that his campaign of terror bombing had been “not only the greatest air victory of the war, but also the greatest victory of all our forces both on land and sea.” He attempted to back up this extraordinary claim by arguing that the bombing campaign had assisted the naval and land efforts by sapping Germany’s morale and by drawing in vital components of their military. He concluded by – so it seemed to us – bragging that “had the war gone the other way, I have no doubt at all that I would have found myself in court arraigned on war-crime charges.”

    After his lecture (which the whole Academy attended, not just us senior cadets at Old College), we made our way back to the War Studies Department, to discuss what we had heard with our War Studies tutor, Dr John Pimlott. He asked us what we thought of what we had just heard. Most of us had formed an adverse opinion, and regarded what he’d said as bluster and indeed as glorying his own bloody and criminal career. Dr Pimlott agreed, and indeed went further.

    In retrospect, I can identify this event as sowing in my mind the first seed of doubt regarding the ‘official’ history of WWII. One that lay dormant for many years, but one that has now grown into a firm and healthy tree of obloquy towards ‘the Allies’ and the despicable and unnecessary war that they were determined to prosecute.

    • Agree: fatmanscoop
    • Thanks: Alfred, dogbumbreath
  50. Adûnâi says:
    @Observator

    > “And why the mortal enemies, western imperialism and Soviet communism, found common cause in erasing the existential threat to their exploitive systems that was the Third Reich.”

    No. Hitler’s Germany started the war by attacking the USSR. Soviet Russia was merely defending the future of the Russian nation as a population. The West, however…

    > “Wars are started by elites for no nobler reason than to obtain or extend economic advantage.”

    The West attacked Germany not because Hitler was trying to rob the Western élites. The West attacked Germany because Hitler posed an existential threat to the Christian religion of universal brotherhood of man. The capitalist West lost its empires, China and Poland to Bolshevism – a cost that could have been avoided had they remained neutral. But they still went through with their madness – for the idea.

    (Of course, losing their empires can be considered a boon if the aim is self-mutilation – and Jew-worshippers do love self-mutilation.)

    • Replies: @commandor
    , @the shadow
  51. Adûnâi says:
    @Jake

    > “Jews, in the aggregate, will always act to harm anything that even has a remote history of Christendom.”

    A nation that worships Jew Jesus apparently has no natural defences against the Judaean Tribe. Imagine my shock!

  52. @lloyd

    True, I don’t know where he got that part from, the worst rapists were White American troops, especially in France where they viewed the locals with contempt as cowards.

  53. @Gordon Pratt

    According to his website, Irving is currently putting the finishing touches on a book about Himmler. I am not too sure of volume 3 of Churchill’s War will ever come out.

  54. Hibernian says:

    When frustrated right wingers join up with the Left, they repeat left wing mantras. In this case its the notion that the USSR won the war almost singlehandedly, which ignores the Pacific theater.

    • Replies: @Ilya G Poimandres
    , @Alfred
  55. @lloyd

    Roberts makes one surprising comment. He writes “American Negro troops sent to England were believed to be responsible for rapes and a crime wave.” Orwell wrote at the time, that everyone agrees the best behaved American troops are the Negros. In Europe, it was treated generally lightly, rapes of women by white American soldiers. The very few alleged rapes by black soldiers received the death penalty. The bad reputation of black soldiers were from the French African regiments in Italy.

    Rape wasn’t even necessary in Britain with its feeble-minded weaker vessels. The result was thousands of abandoned illegitimate offspring.

    This is what probably caused resentment after the war as some of these were born to married women whose husbands were abroad fighting the so-called ‘enemy’.

    The same happened in Germany after WWII where the authorities wisely sent the children to the United States for adoption.


    Born towards the end of World War Two, Carole, now 72, was the result of a relationship between her white mother and a married African-American or mixed-race soldier stationed in Poole, in Dorset.


    Carole Travers’s stepfather began divorce proceedings when he found out what his wife had done in his absence. However, when it appeared that he wouldn’t get custody of their daughter (Carole’s half-sister), he returned to the family home and Carole took his surname.

    The struggles of war babies fathered by black GIs
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39927255

    Germany’s ‘Brown Babies’
    http://afrogermans.us/german-brown-babies-2/

  56. Anonymous[661] • Disclaimer says:

    I read Irving’s “Hitler’s War” last year from the download on his own website, and it was quite a revelation. His research was extraordinary and his writing totally engaging. What was most striking was his clearly dispassionate approach to volatile material that invariably brings out the prejudice and knee-jerk value judgements of other s0-called historians. The Churchill series is next on my reading list.

    This is a timely article by Roberts, a sharp reminder of the hidden motivations that can exist behind the ‘fog of empire’ we live in today as the US, China, Russia, and Israel take their turns jostling for first place.

    • Replies: @Just Passing Through
  57. Kim says:
    @Observator

    Wars are started by elites for no nobler reason than to obtain or extend economic advantage.

    Of course. Any war – in whatever direction it is declared – is always first of all fought by the rulers “top-down” against what we so naively often refer to as “their own people”.

    “Excuse us, sir, madam, just going to have a spot of war here. I hope you don’t mind but we’re going to require the use of a million or so of your sons for the duration. No, there’s nothing in it for you nor for them, and you won’t get them all back, or not in one piece at least, but you know how it is. So just shut up and hand them over.”

    And the sheep go along with it. In a way, they deserve what they get.

    Just read a good (well written) book where this is made perfectly clear: “Napoleon in Egypt”. That dickhead just slaughtered people for his own glory. Did not give a shit. Same as Churchill.

  58. @Saggy

    Irving’s main motivation is to offer a German perspective.

    History is always subjective and the saying goes it is often written by the winners.

  59. @Leon

    At least he was – unterbewusst?, unbewusst? – honest enough to call himself Escher.

    • Replies: @Leon
  60. anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:

    One has to admit that British propaganda was always highly effective. People have heard endlessly about the Blitz and how London was relentlessly bombed. That the British were deliberately bombing civilians is not known by the vast majority of average citizens. The evacuation at Dunkirk is somehow seen as some sort of victory. A look at the history of Churchill shows what a blunderer he was throughout, going from one costly disaster to another. Yet he’s presented as a competent leader when in fact he appears to have been incompetent from his earliest days. Victors write history.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  61. @Hibernian

    Which was mostly won by the Chinese who fought Imperial Japan from 1937 onwards..

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  62. @Anonymous

    The interesting thing is that boom did not even ‘deny’ the Holocaust, it just didn’t put any emphasis on it and mentioned in passing that no written order exists that proves a systematic plan to exterminate the Jews. I recall reading that Irving was urged by his original publisher to include a boilerplate 15 or do pages on the Holocaust like a good got but he refused to do so as he wanted the book to be based on entirely wartime documentary evidence.

    He also jokes that he would likely have got away with it if his name was “Irving David” as opposed to “David Irving”, as the Jewish publishers usually are lenient on fellow tribesmen who engage in wrongthink.

    • Replies: @mocissepvis
  63. I have read his Hitler and Goebbels books. Both were highly readable through his letting of the primary sources speak without his opinions on contentious subjects get in the way. There seems a streak of innocence/naivete about him that charms but which led him to think that truth will always win out in a court of law. I once witnessed in an otherwise empty court room a gentleman looking very down on his luck being escorted in by some inland revenue heavy. They were trying to now impound his furniture to pay off what they claimed he owed. The man said that the only reason he was present that day was because he had exposed a £6 (or 8?) million pound fraud in the Crown Office. He began to read a quotation by Lord Denning warning about the fate of a country when its judiciary becomes corrupt. I will never forget the look of hatred that appeared on the face of the judge when he brutally cut him off. His furniture was impounded and it looked as if they were in the final phase of stripping him of everything he had.

    There is no way that Irving could possibly be described as a “holocaust denier” by an honest person based on these two major works – he simply sticks to primary sources for his subjects and if there is little about any holocaust in them then that will be reflected in his reportage. The only other significant reading I had done on the holocaust (I had no cause to doubt that it actually happened) was from the religious angle. Though they were written by scholars I now realise that they hugely distorted history by attributing dislike of Jews as being founded virtually exclusively on Christian Christ killer descriptions with maybe making only a passing reference to lending money at interest (but then blaming Christianity for that). I had not realised the fear that those scholars must work under through the Jewish lobby which will not tolerate truth tellers. They shouldn’t write at all unless they are willing to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

    Around 20 years after that court case mentioned above I am in a Church for the first time in a long time having been invited to a family friends grandchild’s ceremony taking place there. The celebrant interrupted the start of the service by announcing that somebody, presumably a notable in their community, had just died suddenly that morning. My friend, who knew what had happened in that court room 20 years earlier said to me “you were meant to be here today – his days of doing what he did are over”, i.e. it was the same judge who had brutally down the whistle-blower mentioned above.

    There is a well known court case dated to around 1000 bc described in the transcript of the trial which has survived from Ancient Egypt. There is so much about the rise and fall of Ancient Egypt that seems to repeat even in events happening today. If you believe in providence (as the subject of one of David Irving’s books did) then it will be no surprise to learn that this papyri describes corruption in the judiciary, in a society which had not only exalted but divinised truth for 2,000 years, coinciding with the long drawn out fall of Egypt that some scholars say marks this period.

    Wars and suchlike are not my normal reading material but I intend to buy some of Irvine’s books in the near future as a show of support for somebody who has suffered like the gentleman I saw being crucified that day in court for seemingly trying to tell the truth as he saw it.

  64. @Anon

    It is quite impossible to shake off wartime propaganda I am afraid, to this day you will find Americans believing that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy and this was during the internet age. Imagine living in the 30s and 40s with nothing to rely on except the controlled media.

    They also get ’em while they are young, almost all schools in the UK show the allied propaganda film “Death Mills” (directed by Hanus Burger, who I am pretty sure is a Jew, a member of the Allied Propaganda & Pyschological Warfare unit) while mentioning gas chambers, the children off course do not yet have the critical thinking skills to see that a pile of dead bodies being pushed into a ditch by a British soldier riding a bulldozer doesn’t mean that the dead bodies were gassed.

    I recall those images being shown when I was in primary school and they are usuat the first graphic depictions of historical death that are shown to people, a such there is a tendency to believe everything that is said as people are in shock. As one grows up, it is possible to know that history has always been full of deaths and that there are numerous photos of piles of dead bodies.

    • Replies: @Alfred
  65. A Happy Birthday to Uncle Adolph!

    We can criticize his strategies, but there’s no denying that he loved his people and recognized the Jewish menace for what it was, and is today.

    In time, he will be recognized as a hero.

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
  66. Sean says:

    Early on, Hitler thought in terms of generations rather than a decade to restore Germany to wellness; such a timeframe was indicated by his proposals for celibacy by the genetically unfit. It was only in power that he began thinking of conquest. Hitler actually discussed the peaceful commercial policy alternative in Mein Kampf, as ‘internal colonisation’, but dismissed it as leading to a low birthrate, and looking at the dearth of ethnoGerman babies in Germany today one must conclude he was prescient.

    As Cambridge historian Brendan Simms shows in his Hitler: Only the World Was Enough. For Hitler the peril was American power and capital, which had prevented Germany from winning WW1, and was sweating Germany to enable the the French and British to repay their debts to America. Hitler wanted to give his country a continental economy like the United States, which had been built up by German immigrants. For Germany itself to parlay its best people’s genetic superiority into national greatness, it had to keep them at home by making Germany a continental economy able to give its people the kind of lifestyle that Germans had been emigrating to the US to enjoy

    Simms notes that German historian Rolf-Dieter Müller says Hitler had tried to co opt Poland for his attack on the Soviet Union because that would have prevented the British and French entering the war, but Poland wasn’t interested. He was being supremely logical and realistic in fighting anyway. Mearsheimer summed it up in his 2001 book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics:

    Given the difficulty of determining how much power is enough for today and tomorrow, great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by another great power. Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to be the hegemon in the system because it thought it already had sufficient power to survive.

    Hitler said he would be known as the hardest man in history He didn’t think there was going to be a happy ending if Germany played by the Anglo American capitalist rules and went for ‘internal colonisation’. From Hitler’s point of view getting rid of the Jews was a worthwhile objective in its own right. And he did clear them out of Germany, where the ethnic Germans now live well.

    Hitler did not start World War II. England and France launched World War II with a declaration of war against Germany.

    Correct and it was Neville Chamberlain not Churchill who made that declaration. Chamberlain initially only gave a guarantee of Poland’s independence (he was trying to allow Hitler to get a bit of Poland ceded to Germany so Germany would have a border with the Soviet Union. Hitler and Stalin could then do all the fighting). Neville Chamberlain wanted to see the fighting done by the Germans and Bolshies, we know he thought that because as Irving notes Chamberlain said so to a meeting of important Tories.

    The same outcome was likely in Poland except the British interfered.

    http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/The_Anglo-American_Establishment.pdf
    Page 396 for the guarantee being worded to cover Poland’s independence not territorial integrity, and Chamberlain explicitly confirming and accepting the interpretation that it was a guarantee of independence during a debate in Parliament. Page 300 “Only after the German- Soviet Nonaggression Pact of August 21 1939 did Halifax [the British foreign minister] implement the unilateral guarantee with a more formal mutual assistance pact between Britain and Poland.”

    Stalin wanted to sit the war between the capitalists out and, and then reap the rewards. Hitler’s objective was to conquer rather than merely attack the Soviet Union. Hence he wanted to attack it in the way that gave him the best chance of conquering it. The way that all military experts advised him to proceed was to destroy Soviet forces before they could fall back, while making the swiftest possible advance to Stalin’s capital, which he would be forced to defend. The battle for Moscow would be a opportunity for a decisive result through destroying the bulk of the Soviet army. A surprise attack starting from the middle of Poland against a duped USSR offered the best chance of Hitler achieving his objective. He got Germany into that position, then kicked off. Unfortunately for him, Hitler ignored the advice of every military professional at the critical point (August 1941) and ordered a diversion from the drive on Moscow, halting it for two months. See Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny, (2011) and Hitler’s Panzers East (2014) both by R.H.S. Stolf

    By the way the air assets Rommel was given contemporaneously with the crucial first few months of Barbarossa were considerable, the Americans gave Stalin among other things 400,000 trucks, and vast resources of the very type that Germany was shortest of went into defence from British and American bombing. The Russians deserved no more than half the credit.

  67. Culpepper says:

    Britain’s post war scuttle can be seen as a masterstroke of tactical withdrawal

    • Replies: @Sean
  68. BuelahMan says:

    Gosh, I wonder what changed in PCR about this subject since I was banned from commenting at his site years ago when I tried to discuss it?

  69. commandor says:
    @Adûnâi

    Chechar once again calls Hitler the best man in western history (which he was) but doesn’t let reasonable comments pass. I’m fed up with this fanboy.

    Here’s what I’ve written to him:

    Failed to burn a single Church and failed to hang a single priest?

    Check.

    Started WW2 by foolishly attacking Poland when the only thing he had to do was to wait a century until the Christians degenerate into sodomite liberals?

    Check.

    Tried to make piece with Anglos and Jews in 1940?

    Check.

    Started total war two years after foolishly attacking Russia and after Stalingrad?

    Check.

    This is the best man in western history? No wonder the white race is finished.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  70. Effington says:
    @Saggy

    So, Roberts is a full on holohoax denier, his protestations to he contrary notwithstanding. Bully, I’d say.

    Not sure what you mean. But Irving is 100% correct. So is Roberts.

    In Eastern Europe / Western Russia there was a de facto war between Jews and Christians. Both sides lost people to it. But only the Jews are mourned. Does that sound right to you?

  71. Leon says:
    @Fuerchtegott

    I do not speak German or know what or who Escher is. Please explain.

    • Replies: @Neuday
  72. FB says: • Website

    Thank you…

    I notice that none of the Hitler fanboys here have bothered to attempt a rebuttal…

    Irving has indeed documented quite thoroughly the truth about Hitler’s aims…to invade and conquer Russia, taking her land and natural wealth…

    It’s also true that he didn’t want war with Britain…and did everything he could to keep Britain out of the way in his march to the east…

    This is in fact the core question about who started the war and why…

    Let’s draw an everyday analogy here…let’s say you see your neighbor going into another’s yard to steal stuff…you go and confront him, but he simply tells you to bug off…

    He doesn’t want a quarrel with you…you are just an inconvenience to his criminal intent…

    Do you now simply turn around and leave him be, as he desires…?

    Of course not, so how can anyone lionize Hitler as wanting peace, when his attitude to Britain was the the classic criminal’s ploy to sideline anyone that would hinder him…?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Culpepper
  73. Miro23 says:
    @utu

    Is that really what Irving is saying? That Hitler did not start WWII? Was Hitler a child who did understand the cause and effect sequence that by attacking Poland who had British and French guarantees he would start a war with France and Britain? Or is it Mr. Roberts who is a child here who ventured to a place that is above his ability to comprehend so he must resort to confabulations that fit his poor and simplistic model of reality?

    Irving is an exceptional historian/researcher and he says that he set out to tell the history of Hitler and WW2 from Hitler’s point of view – which he does brilliantly in my opinion.

    PCR is getting Irving very wrong. Irving makes it 100% clear that Hitler started the war in the East and was targeting Russia right from the start. Hitler saw Germany’s destiny in the creation of an Empire stretching to the Urals and the Black Sea (Ukraine).

    Hitler’s analogy was always with the British Empire. He saw the end result being a world comprising of two allied Empires – A Germanic land Empire and a British maritime Empire – and he made considerable efforts to get Great Britain to go along with his world plan.

    However, what Hitler had in mind for the Slav “untermenschen” was much worse than anything in the British Empire . The British were exploitative, but theirs was largely a trading Empire with a smallish number of resident administrators, often working in alliance with local leaders.

    What Hitler planned was entirely different. It involved permanent ethnic German settlement with extreme economic and social oppression of Slavs. In his transcribed Table Talk conversations (accepted as genuine by Irving) he lays it all out in horrible detail.

    • Thanks: Alfred
  74. @Wally

    Let’s see, I report what scientists, architects, and engineers conclude about 3 WTC buildings, and that makes me a “conspiracy theorist.” I report what people who have studied the holocaust say, and that makes me a “holocaust denier.” I also report what the zionist say. Does that make me a holocaust believer? If I report that mathematics concludes that 2 + 2 = 4, does that make me a mathematician?

    It seems that people have lost the ability to understand what they read.

    • Agree: fatmanscoop
    • Replies: @utu
    , @Anonymous
    , @jsigur
    , @Wally
  75. I remember being confused and shocked as a child when my grandfather – a v. high-ranking British officer during WWII and an extremely interesting/intelligent person – said that Jewry were the clear victors of the conflict, and that Hitler was “a truly great man”.

    It’s sickening to gain this clearer understanding of WWII as a Brit, imagine what it must be like for Germans. I hope they wake up.

  76. @Miro23

    Whatever Hitler wrote, WW II started when Britain and France declared war on Germany. It was a war that Hitler did not want. This is not someone’s opinion. It is historical fact.

    • LOL: Johnny Rico
  77. @Anonymous

    Ask the officials and historians who produced the official numbers.

    • Replies: @Wally
  78. @Saggy

    So where is the lie, there was no holocaust, and no more than 300 000 jews died during the war mostly from disease and starvation.

  79. Miro23 says:
    @anonymous

    A look at the history of Churchill shows what a blunderer he was throughout, going from one costly disaster to another. Yet he’s presented as a competent leader when in fact he appears to have been incompetent from his earliest days. Victors write history.

    Agree with this. Alanbrooke’s war diaries (War Diaries, 1939-1945 : Field Marshall Lord Alanbrooke) were a revelation, causing me to entirely revise my opinion of Churchill.

    Alanbrooke was the CIGS (Chief of the Imperial General Staff) and worked daily with Churchill through the war. Churchill was tremendous for building up British morale at the start of the war but he became a real military liability. Alanbrooke shows him pushing one madcap scheme after another in rambling alcoholic late night meetings. He was also exceptionally mean spirited, giving no credit whatsoever to his abused staff in his self serving histories.

    A typical story, was his great concern after the long awaited victory at El Alamein, that Montgomery should not receive a hero’s welcome in London that would steal his (Churchill’s) limelight.

    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  80. utu says:
    @Paul Craig Roberts

    “It seems that people have lost the ability to understand what they read.” – Wally haven’t lost anything. He never had it.

    • LOL: Wally
    • Replies: @Wally
  81. Anonymous[794] • Disclaimer says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Thanks for the short video—it’s excellent—, and how characteristic of the modern world it is that that two of the most willfully evil monsters known to history, such as Churchill and FDR, are worshipped as archetypes of the good.

  82. Sean says:
    @Culpepper

    Cornelli Barnett: Despite a $4 billion American loan in 1945, and then, from 1948 onwards, massive help from Marshall Aid, Britain suffered two desperate sterling crises, in 1947 and 1949, threatening the country with outright bankruptcy. If sterling had finally collapsed, we would have been unable to buy the overseas food and raw materials on which we depended. As it was, bread rationing had to be introduced in order not to waste precious dollars on importing American wheat, and rationing in general was not abolished until 1953. By 1950, the high hopes of 1945 for a new, sunlit Britain of happy people had turned to a dank reality of shortages of every kind, from housing to food and clothes.

    The US demanded Britain participate in a Cold War build up from the time of the Korean war onwards, and got menacing when the threadbare UK did not seem too keen. Enoch Powell said in retrospect it became apparent that in the aftermath of Suez the establishment had a crisis of confidence and began consciously proceeding by managed declension and deferring to America. Covid-19 is looking more and more like a Suez pastiche, with Boris as vainglorious-invalid Anthony Eden.

    Even before Johnson departs there is going to be a Suez-style fundamental reassessment within the civil service about what Britain should be trying to do independent of the country Alexander Boris Johnson was born in (the USA). Churchill was half American and rejected by the electorate in 1945 of course. I think once completely recovered from the COVID-19 infection in his Downing Street rest home, Johnson is going to have to return to the land of his birth for the good of his health, or have an armoured division guarding him forever after. There will be mobs clamant for his life.

  83. @Saggy

    Well over on the West side of the Pond, Bernie’s campaign insisted that the gulags “paid a living wage.”

    Guess what? So did Auschwitz. But it was far less efficient. Using their own numbers, merely six million instead of the fifty million that the tribe helped Lenin and Stalin murder in Russia and Eastern Europe!!!

  84. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    Hitler’s aim was to restore the integrity of the German nation which had been torn apart and distributed to Czechoslovakia

    Distributed to Czechoslovakia? That’s putting it mildly. Czechoslovakia was formed at the end of WWI by cutting off a large chunk of Germany and then calling it Czechoslovakia.

    I bought and read Irving’s “Churchill’s War.” Irving is a meticoulous researcher and a great writer, who puts you on the scene with his vivid descriptions.

    Churchill was a drunken buffoon, and a degenerate gambler, that lost a lot of money. When his wife asked him about their ability to withstand the loss of so many English pounds, he laughed it off as saying it was other people’s money.

    Indeed it was. OPM from powerful and rich English and in some cases, American Jews.

    Before WWII started, Churchill had stated that the English should form a pact with Hitler’s Germany to stave off the evils of Communism.
    After several years, and tens of thousands of English pounds later, Churchill flipped, saying England should form a pact with Stalin, to stave off the evils of Hitler.

    If not for the corrupt, traitorous and rancid Churchill, England might of signed a non-aggression pact with Germany, preventing WWII in Europe.
    But that was something that absolutely horrified Zionist Jews, who wanted–and got–WWII and the biggest hoax of the 20th Century, the holocaust.

    • Agree: Mefobills, Truth3, GeeBee, Alfred
  85. @truthman

    Hultschin region of Silesia was detached from Germany and given to Czechoslovakia in 1922.

    Hitler renounced claims to Alsace-Lorraine and Northern Schleswig before the war

  86. Truth3 says:

    All truth-tellers are denounced, and most end up destroyed. Truth seldom serves the agendas of powerful interests.

    Ain’t that the Truth.

    Jesus of Nazareth and St. Stephen can testify to that.

    So can David Irving.

  87. Big question…. Why does our host and moderator allow PCR to take u his and our time with off-the-top-of-his-head waffling when he is surely alerted early on by
    “If I understand correctly infuriated Zionists with plentiful funds used unethical tactics aand brought law suits the defense against which eventually bankrupted him.” !!!!?
    Clearly PCR doesn’t read what Ron Unz writes or is suffering the early stages of dementia. It is almost as depressing for anyone resorting to UR for occasional products of discriminating intelligence that a search in the already long Comment thread brings up no use of “Lipstadt”.

  88. Saggy says: • Website
    @NoseytheDuke

    Revisionist is a better word to use than denier. Think about it.

    I’ve thought about it. One does not revise a hoax, one denies or exposes a hoax. Think about it :).

    • Replies: @Alexandros
    , @NoseytheDuke
  89. Anonymous[794] • Disclaimer says:
    @Paul Craig Roberts

    Speaking of Holocaust math, Nick Kollerstrom’s overview of the Holocaust myth and reality, Breaking the Spell, footnotes this quip from Rense, “In all of German-occupied Europe, there were 2.4 million Jews. After the war, 3.8 million Jews applied for Holocaust reparations. Tragically, the remaining 6 million were lost.”

    Fortunately, the scientific and logistic impossibility of the Holocaust fraud is becoming an unstoppable, self-evident meme as people everywhere on this planet learn what an outrageous blood libel against the Germans the Auschwitz story has been. In fact, the Holocaust racket should be catalogued along with the the Lavon Affair, USS Liberty, and 9/11.

    • Agree: Wally
    • Replies: @Miro23
    , @Usura
  90. I believe Irving sued Deborah Libstadt for libel in a highly publicized trial and lost and that was what financially ruined him. I’m not sure whether there had been prior lawsuits against Irving, but I think he was the legal aggressor in the big one. A full and balanced account would be welcome.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Amber Dekstris
    , @TGD
  91. Saggy says: • Website
    @Carlton Meyer

    I am a big fan of your vids …. but – “Everyone lost in WW II except the bankers” … Please, what utter garbage ! ….Here is a hint: the people who won big are the same people who sponsored the war. For a clue read …British man of letters Wyndham Lewis’s ‘Left Wings Over Europe, or How to Make a War About Nothing’ written in 1936

    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!

    As for CHurchill, watch …
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/KsMa65DjBuUp/

    • Agree: Alfred
    • Thanks: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @S
    , @SolontoCroesus
  92. The British like to think that they were inheritors of the Roman Empire but they didn’t have a single mensch to slit open the fat pig for his war crimes … where were the Brutuses when you needed them?

  93. Manqueman says:

    A few random points:
    1. So why did Germany invade the USSR if the sole military goal was getting back the parts of Germany lost per the Treaty of Versailles and there was a non-aggression pact between Germany and the USSR?
    2. Can’t think of a single war in which the US military had a true success. Then again, maybe the military-industrial complex is less about national security than just enriching special interests.
    3. As a general rule, way too much history is reliant on contemporary journalism which, in turn, is overly assumed to be accurate as opposed to chock full of biases.

    • Replies: @Cleburne
  94. Miro23 says:
    @Paul Craig Roberts

    Whatever Hitler wrote, WW II started when Britain and France declared war on Germany. It was a war that Hitler did not want. This is not someone’s opinion. It is historical fact.

    Well, just looking at the technicality of dates, Germany invaded (declared war) on Czechoslovakia (all of it) on the 15th March 1939. It invaded (declared war) on Poland on the 1st September 1939 and Great Britain declared war on Germany on the 3rd September 1939.

  95. jsigur says:
    @Saggy

    I agree, what you have here is a white elitist who has exposed himself as disloyal to the Jewish propaganda machine. As we all should know, white elitists, to stay that way, must go along with the Jewish agenda, and parrot Jewish myths (lies).

    After years as a “respected” part of the elitist upper class, Roberts is holding on to some personal myth that he can be the exception to the rule and tell the truth while maintaining his elitist, goyim privilege.

    Sadly for him, he’s sure to find out that he is, now, one of “them” (us) where anything he now says can be relegated to the evil delusions of a white racist, holocaust denier.

    Only controlled ops can keep their position when spouting some real truths about those that wear funny hats and that is so in order that their disinformation and advocacy can have the desired effect on those they pretend to represent (protocol 12-11) – 3rd tier op

  96. jsigur says:
    @vot tak

    Do you believe the Jewish propaganda about Bush being a Nazi?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  97. @Saggy

    Denial carries bad connotations. An “exposer” doesn’t sound very good either. Just go with “historian”. No reason to allow the enemy to label you. Instead give them labels. Attack is always the best defense.

    • Disagree: Carolyn Yeager
  98. Miro23 says:
    @Anonymous

    Speaking of Holocaust math, Nick Kollerstrom’s overview of the Holocaust myth and reality, Breaking the Spell, footnotes this quip from Rense, “In all of German-occupied Europe, there were 2.4 million Jews. After the war, 3.8 million Jews applied for Holocaust reparations. Tragically, the remaining 6 million were lost.”

    Fortunately, the scientific and logistic impossibility of the Holocaust fraud is becoming an unstoppable, self-evident meme as people everywhere on this planet learn what an outrageous blood libel against the Germans the Auschwitz story has been. In fact, the Holocaust racket should be catalogued along with the the Lavon Affair, USS Liberty, and 9/11.

    Agreed. Just taking the BritishUltra/Enigma decodes of secret WW2 German communications concerning the concentration camps makes this clear.

    2.4 – 3.8 ≠ 6,0

  99. Saggy says: • Website

    I am a big fan of Irving, but once I tried reading one of his books and was surprised by what I’ll call its narrow scope, in that Irving wrote primarily about what was written during the war, not so much what happened. That is, he sought out, studied, and reported on the original documents, and this seemed to lack something to me, let’s call it theme and context.

    On the other hand I read Buchanan’s ‘….. the Unnecessary War’ which was revelatory for me.

    Can anyone compare and contrast the two books?

  100. “What is real history?”
    People can legitimately disagree on the answer. It has to be the objective and unbiased examination of primary sources if the truth is to found. It has also has to identify historic pattern: revealing our true motive in how we interpret the past. The pattern of history is clear. Power (manifested as interest) has been present in every conflict of the past – no exception. It is the underlying motivation for war. Other cultural factors might change, but not power. 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. It is power, not any of the above concepts, that is the cause of war. And it has eventually brought every empire/civilization to its own destruction. We stand on such a precipice now.
    https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/

  101. Trinity says:

    Yes indeed, today is the birthday of the most LIED about man in the history of the world. German’s were astonished by how weak and inept the average British and American soldier were, a captured German officer compared the Americans to the Italians. Not only was the holohoax pure bullshit for the most part, Jews were imprisoned and like all POW, I doubt they had the best of treatment, but certainly no worse than American POW captured by Japan for example, but nearly everything we have been taught about WWII is bullshit. Hell, IF anyone suffered after being captured by the enemy it was the German soldiers captured by the Americans and held in Eisenhower’s Death Camps. How many German POWs died at the hands of the Americans? Cowardly Brits and Americans firebombing German civilians weren’t the heroes they have been portrayed to be, and while most of the rapes of German women, some very old and some merely children were committed by the Soviets, particularly the Mongolian troops, Americans, Brits, and French did their share of the raping of German women and children as well. We always hear or read about how evil the Germans and Nazis were and how Nazi propagandist Goebbels was a sick little man. Well, from what I gather, Goebbels never encouraged or called for Germans to rape and kill every Jew, on the other hand, Bolshevik Jew propagandist Ilyha Ehrenburg called for the Russian soldier to rape and kill everything German, to break the German spirit, that a day spent not killing as many Germans as possible was a wasted day. Best thing to do concerning WWII is learn how you have been duped and bury it as ancient history, and know that much of what we have been taught is the total opposite of the truth. Forgive, but never forget. And it is high time that Germans stop hanging their heads and being ashamed of being German.

    • Replies: @lavoisier
  102. jsigur says:
    @Paul Craig Roberts

    You are grasping at straws and in so doing, believing the American myths about honesty and truth that actually are cons perpetuated against the ruled. You can’t challenge ‘accepted” holocaust programming or you will become ” a denier”.

    Jews don’t care about historic honesty except when grandstanding for public consumption. Real rule occurs behind the curtain and since Jews consider themselves at war with any country they are subverting, any rules governing behavior are null and void

    Protocol 1-9
    “If every State has two foes
    and if in regard to the external foe
    it is allowed and not considered immoral
    to use every manner and art of conflict,
    as for example to keep the enemy in ignorance
    of plans of attack and defense,
    to attack him by night or in superior numbers,
    then in what way
    can the same means in regard to a worse foe,
    the destroyer of the structure of society
    and the commonwealth,
    be called immoral and not permissible?”

  103. The Zionists have repressed Irving’s books by making them available on Amazon, but not in Kindle format, which I need. The exception is The War Path, about which Amazon says:

    From February 1933, when he told his generals in secret of his ambition to conquer the East, to September 3, 1939, when he left the Berlin Chancellery for the Polish front, Adolf Hitler had one obsessive goal – to wage war and achieve German revenge and hegemony.

    If anyone knows where Irving’s book can be found in electronic format, I would be grateful to know where.

    • Agree: Alfred
    • Replies: @Alfred
    , @Republic
    , @Anon
  104. Chris Moore says: • Website
    @Leon

    Jews do not follow the Ten Commandments those were written for all the Non Jews.

    Jews DO follow the Ten Commandments or they are contravening the will of Judaism’s founder, Moses. Just as he did with the Egyptians, Moses was leading the Hebrew parasites into a trap.

    The Jewish tradition that there are 613 commandments

    That’s Talmudism, the open and crypto Hebrew supremacist doctrine behind Zionism, Marxism, and other anti-nationalist doctrine. The only “nation” the Hebrew supremacists and their sick stooges on left and right truly believe in is Hebrew imperialism, with fake-Jew Israel as its lodestar.

    That’s why so many billionaires, MSM/Hollywood propagandists, DNC Dems and banksters are “liberal” Hebrews — liberal being defined as open borders and “tolerance” for anti-goyim Hebrew racism and rackets.

    Trumps handlers are Talmudist, but so are Pelosi’s. Schumer, Schiff and Feinstein ARE Talmudists and Hebrew supremacists.

  105. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:

    Hitler was not a nice or benevolent person. I’ve read enough about Churchill to doubt he was either, but I find this revisionism that is popular nowadays that the Germans “dindu nuffin” and were really peace-loving pacifists and that it’s all the Anglos fault a bit ridiculous.

    People constantly bring up the destruction of Dresden as an example of how the British are the real war criminals, yet no one seems to spare any thought for the deaths and destruction the Germans caused by the bombing of many British towns and cities.

    • Replies: @Herbert Norkus
    , @bolteric
  106. @Saggy

    With the early success of the Russian invasion, this plan was changed to sending the European Jews to the Jewish Bolsheviks in the eastern part of Russia that Hitler was going to leave to Stalin.

    Any proof for this preposterous postulate that Hitler was planning to handover hundreds of thousands if not a couple of million enraged Jews to the Red Army where they could easily become soldiers and exact murderous vengeance on the Wehrmacht or is the new way of accounting for the missing Jews sent to the AR camp. Well he sent those Jews to Stalin so it’s up to the Bolshies to account for the missing Jews. So mindbogglingly absurd.

    • Replies: @Marcali
    , @Robjil
  107. Sokrates says:
    @Sudetenlander

    Run to the cashier.
    You may qualified for reparations as a holocash survivor.

  108. Anonymous[794] • Disclaimer says:
    @jsigur

    It’s not clear what vot tank means, but this Jewish stratagem of discrediting evidence against them by infecting the evidence with false material so inflammatory it discredits the whole, or “poisoning the well,” goes back at least to the Leo Frank trial and its aftermath in 1913 or so. In that case, the Jews insinuated material too demonic to repeat here in the expectation it would discredit the conclusive evidence that Frank, president of B’nai B’rith of Atlanta, had brutally murdered a 13-year-old girl while raping her, who was one of the child slaves working in his pencil factory. Frank’s star defense team argued in court for the record that the black janitor surely did it because blacks are, in so many words, inherently sex-crazed, violent subhumans.

    • Replies: @jsigur
  109. Agent76 says:

    Mar 15, 2018 WW2 – Over Simplified (Part 1)

    Jan 12, 2016 Winston Churchill left a legacy of global conflict and crimes against humanity

    January 24th 2016 marks the anniversary of the death of one of the most lionized leaders in the Western world

    Sir Winston Churchill. The current British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has called Churchill “the greatest ever Prime Minister”, and Britons have recently voted him as the greatest Briton to have ever lived.

    http://www.sott.net/article/310859-Winston-Churchill-left-a-legacy-of-global-conflict-and-crimes-against-humanity

    • Replies: @Trinity
  110. SafeNow says:

    Lloyd George on Churchill: “Poor Winston. His steering gear is too weak for his horsepower.”

    This assessment came to mind for me regarding the politicians waging the war against today’s plague.

  111. Usura says:
    @Anonymous

    David Irving’s speeches have been scrubbed from Youtube, but many can be found on bitchute:



    https://www.bitchute.com/video/2GNf2jV8Jkgv/

    • Thanks: mark green
    • Replies: @PeterMX
  112. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Hitler did not start World War II. England and France launched World War II with a declaration of war against Germany. Hitler did not want a war with Britain and France and tried to avoid it and then end it with a peace agreement very favorable to Britain and France. Hitler regarded the British Empire as essential to the survival of European dominance. He promised Churchill in exchange for an end of hostilities that Germany would defend the British Empire with the German military anywhere in the world that it was in jeopardy. Hitler left a large part of France and French North Africa unoccupied. He left the French fleet in French hands.

    What a splendid example of futility in historical debate. The logic is absolutely stunning in its vacuity.

    England and France were responsible for World War II, apparently, because they declared war on Germany. The fact that Germany had launched a war on, Poland, a country that England (Britain, or the United Kingdom, actually) was pledged by treaty to defend is a detail not to be taken into account, apparently.

    The fact that prior to invading Poland, Germany had occupied Czechoslovakia, contrary to its understanding with Britain is also a detail not to be taken into account.

    That people like Hitler make statements such as his expression of high regard for the British empire, etc. that they may not actually mean, that they in fact, use words for propaganda purposes as a matter of course, is another detail not to be taken into account.

    That the Japanese had invaded and occupied a third of China and later launched a direct attack on the United States, are further facts that can be blithely ignored. Ignored that is if you are a political propagandist like Roberts or an innocent like the mass of Unz Review readers who know little or nothing about history and take what they read on this website as gospel truth.

    The origins of the World wars are complex. Anyone who thinks they can come to a clear understanding of the subject by reading the Unz Review or by accepting the judgement of a single author recommended by Ron Unz and Paul Craig Roberts is simple minded in the extreme.

  113. @utu

    Was Hitler a child who did understand the cause and effect sequence that by attacking Poland who had British and French guarantees he would start a war with France and Britain?

    Worse than that – not just a child but a really stupid one, the entire post WW1 German military doctrine hinged on avoiding war on 2 fronts at all costs but then he went and attacked the biggest land empire in the World Russia and to make a trifecta out of that he declared war on the US the greatest industrial power in the world after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in the vain stupid hope that they would attack Russia.

    Or is it Mr. Roberts who is a child here who ventured to a place that is above his ability to comprehend so he must resort to confabulations that fit his poor and simplistic model of reality?

    That would be most of the posters on this thread wouldn’t it be those who try to canonize the world’s biggest loser. What a catastrophe he was for Germany after Hitler they forever lost their seat on the high table never mind their economic strength.

  114. @NoseytheDuke

    Sorry Nosey, you can’t make that stick. Roberts is DENYING that these several necessary mainstays of the ‘Holocaust’ narrative are true. That’s denial, not just ‘revising’ the narrative, such as lowering the death number would be.

    Good for Saggy. I haven’t read the article yet, but I support him 100%. However, I still don’t like Paul Craig Roberts. He’s resisted the truth for years and years in order to keep his position. When people like him finally ‘come out’ on the ‘Holocaust’, they don’t do it with any strong outrage, or any apologies — only with a sense they they themselves are exposing something for the first time. I find that disgusting, but all the same I’m glad Roberts has.

  115. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Paul Craig Roberts

    Whatever Hitler wrote, WW II started when Britain and France declared war on Germany. It was a war that Hitler did not want. This is not someone’s opinion. It is historical fact.

    Of course Hitler did not want a war on two fronts. His initial goal was an East European empire extending to the Urals Mountains, as his foreign minister, von Ribbentrop had made clear to the British in 1937.

    So naturally, at the beginning of the war, Hitler flattered and reassured the the British hoping, as he prepared for the war in the East, to keep the Brits passive and unarmed.

    But only a fool would fail to see that having conquered Russia, thereby gaining control of vast resources both material and human, Hitler would surely have turned West and taken the rest of Europe.

    Britain declared war on Germany in accordance with longstanding British policy of maintaining a balance of power in Europe, a balance achieved when the Iron Curtain came down across Europe in 1945.

  116. Wally says:
    @Paul Craig Roberts

    Come on, get a grip and stop the strawmen.

    I never said you were a “denier”, but I did point out what YOU said in another article and corrected what YOU said in this article. Why is that a problem?

    Speaking of math, it’s not advanced physics to realize that the alleged & laughable ‘gas chambers’ were impossible, as you actually inferred, and that the claimed millions upon millions of claimed human remains said to exist in KNOWN locations in fact do not exist, as you also inferred

    ‘You protest too much’.

  117. @Joe Levantine

    Putin made “ The Gulag Archipelago “ of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn required reading at Russian schools.

    Putin still blathers on about The Great Patriotic War and the Hollowco$t, despite the overwhelming evidence that Stalin planned to invade Germany and liberate Europe from the capitalists.
    Irving was the first from the West to study the Soviet archives when they were opened. Clearly, that was not supposed to happen, as if verified much of what the Germans were saying.

    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
  118. Wally says:
    @utu

    Ah yes, utu, the laughable “holocaust” True Believer dim bulb who I have shredded repeatedly at unz.com

    Go ahead, see for yourself:
    https://www.unz.com/?s=utu&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

  119. Herald says:
    @Herbert Norkus

    But where’s the lie?

    First tell us, why you are looking for a lie.

  120. @Miro23

    You are being every bit as deceptive, as was Irving.
    The facts in context are that when Hitler became Chancellor, Germany had already met its obligations under Versailles, to disarm. None of the other signatories had even started. Hitler complained and was essentially told to piss off. He proposed several disarmament plans to the League of Nations, all were rejected by Britain and France. Hitler understood that war was inevitable, thus the decision to re-arm partly. By 1935, Stalin had industrialized the USSR, but the virtually all industrialization was focused on military production. In 1937, Britain began ramping up production of the long range Lancaster bombers. Undoubtedly, they did that to bomb Norway, Iceland, Spain, and Portugal.
    Robert Faurisson noted that Irving, on the Hollowco$t, often left out important information that provided context to the facts.

    • Replies: @Amber Dekstris
  121. krotz says:

    The white hat black hat in interpretation of World War II can be attributed to William Shirer who was a paid for propagandist. Shirer was hired and paid by William S. Paley, the founder of CBS and the son of a Jewish cigar manufacturer from the Ukraine. (To understand the propaganda and the winds of war one needs only to look at who controlled the media like Sarnoff and NBC, ABC was part of NBC until 1943). Look into the who snubbed Jessie Owens story. In the words of Owens it was not Hitler but FDR.

    While it is true that Hitler as a Social Darwinist looked down at other races in the world in terms of economic and cultural development. He also noted that they adapted physically to their environments and had different capabilities. However, Hitler never claimed he was creating a master race seeking to conquer the world.

    Otto Wagener’s Memoirs of a Confidant is revealing in regard to Hitler’s mind. The discussion about Great Britain is important. Clearly stated in Wagener’s book, Hitler never wanted war with Britain. However, Britain’s goal was to make sure that Germany did not unite with another country because Britain’s position on the continent would be diminished. Britain did not want to see the formation of a European union led by Germany. A strong Germany then would be seen as a threat to its continental hegemony and empire. Britain did not act out of any noble action when it went to war. Instead, it electively went to war to try to be the hegemon of Europe.

    According Ralph Liggio’s discussion on the Cold War in why the futile Crusade he writes: “For conservatives, like Churchill, World War II was the means to restore the status quo of exploitation by the traditional imperialist states.”

    If one reads Ernst Nolte’s book on the Three Faces of Fascism you get a view of pre-war France that is in accordance with Irving but much different from the West’s state apologies of the war. France was reluctantly dragged into war by Britain in 1939 after their positions reversed following Czechoslovakia in 1938. The communist/socialist popular front government in France allied with Russia in 1935 and maintained the its cordon sanitaire until 1938. After the Winter War in Finland half of France wanted war with Russia. Failure to aid Finland is why Daladier fell. Reynaud came to power by one vote and was obligated by an agreement signed by Daladier with Britain known as the 1939 Anglo-French Supreme War Council not to sign a separate peace agreement. This led to the disastrous invasion of Norway directed by Churchill who at the time was plotting with FDR behind Chamberlain’s back. This information was proven by Tyler Kent.

    A book titled the F. William Engdahl God’s of Money makes the case that FDR intentionally encouraged Britain to go to war to drain it of its gold and make N.Y./Washington the financial capital of the world. Irving also makes this quite clear.

    Great Britain’s greatest export was communism. Britain was threatened by a powerful economic Germany. Allying with the Russians and helping them colonize Central Europe through the Percentages Agreement and Yalta the British halted and delayed Central Europe and Germany’s economic advancement after the war especially if one considers the German Wirtschaftswunder of 1948. Communism bought time for London to become the financial capital of Europe. This argument begs the question of who controlled London’s finances and who was responsible for financing WW I and WW II. When the Morgan-Rothschild network becomes clear, then one can understand Hitler’s opposition to Jewish-American speculative debt-interest capitalism. Again, I refer to Hitler’s discussions in Otto Wagener’s book. Irving’s discussion on Churchill’s ties to the Focus (pro-war, pro-Zionist Jewish interests) makes it quite clear that Churchill’s debts put him under the influence of a pro-war faction.

    As William Henry Chamberlain writes in America’s Second Crusade: “Was it really worthwhile to fight a destructive war so that Poland might be the victim not of Hitler but of Stalin, so that there might be a Soviet empire, not a German empire, in Eastern Europe, so that we should face not Japan but Stalin’s henchman, Mao Tse-tung, in the Orient?”

    By insisting on war the British and American Jews may have condemned European Jewry. If the war is justified in being fought for Jewish human rights, then the counterpoint is that the insistence on war and the rejection of peace offers between 1939-1940 cut off the Jews ability to leave Europe, while ending German Zionist plans which the documentary evidence shows the Nazi’s believed could still be achieved well into 1940 (See: Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of Dictators). Moreover, if the war was being conducted for Jewish human rights why did the USA and Britain limit Jewish immigration prior to, during, and after the war as witnessed by the Evian Conference of 1938?

    Until Czechoslovakia 1939 Britain supported a revision of Versailles. On the other hand, France allied with Russia in 1935 and maintained the its cordon sanitaire until 1938. Schuschnigg, Benes and Hacha created their own crises. Mościcki and Beck were eager for war and persecuted German minorities. Poland was more anti-Semitic than Germany until Kristalnacht.

    Britain’s insistence on war over the Polish Corridor bankrupted Britain, lost it the empire and brought Asia to the Elbe. Moreover, Britain’s war that could not win the war without dragging the U.S. into the conflict – a war which 80% of the USA opposed to Dec 7, 1941.

    The war destroyed the balance of power in Europe and gave all of Central Europe to Russia. What is the difference between Stalin and Hitler? Not much. By 1945, Britain and France were spent countries, they required the USA to fill the balance of power. The Second World War and Cold War permanently transformed the United States economically and socially. The aftermath of the war made a mockery of the Atlantic Charter and put the U.S. in the position defending the last vestiges of European imperialism by opposing nationalist movements in the Third World.

    U.S. Post War assistance allowed the western Europeans to socialize their economies while they criticized the U.S. for being imperialist as it was forced to fill the void they created owing to the fact that in 1945 the very same European countries that went to war against Germany were bankrupt, could no longer defend themselves, but wanted to maintain their colonial empire. Corporatist interests in both parties adopted the New Deal and its militarist foreign interventionism which they dressed-up as democratic liberalism. The problem was that military intervention (Vietnam, Indonesia, Algeria (etc.), Britain: Malaysia, India, Kenya, (etc.) everywhere) supported by American aid, caused revolutionary movements to seek the diplomatic guidance and material aid of the Soviet Union.

    “If it were not for the throttling effect of imperialism, the nationalist revolutions of twentieth century might very well have been completed in the nineteenth century.” However, “in place of the thwarted revolutions of the nineteenth century and the return of European imperialism after World War II, the Soviet Revolution provided the model and support for successful nationalist revolutions.”

    Irving’s discussion of Iran is a perfect example. Iran’s problems stem from the Anglo-Russian invasion of 1941. The British hypocritically condemned Germany for invading Poland but then violated the neutrality of multiple countries like Iran, Norway and Iceland in the name of prosecuting the war they declared to preserve the empire.

    Irving dares to point out the hypocrisy and the damage done by Churchill’s government to his beloved Britain. He challenged the myth of Churchill and is crucified for telling the truth.

    My writing here is a book in itself and there are many caveats and additions I could add, but this is eating up too much time.

  122. Trinity says:
    @Agent76

    IF you believe in an afterlife you have to wonder where people like “Sir Winston,” FDR, Bush Sr., John McCain, Eisenhower and company end up. IF you believe all those priests, pastors, rabbis or whatever they call themselves, the only two people in Hell right now are Hitler and Charles Manson. Didn’t we all learn how “saintly” pappy Bush and John McCain were after they died. Good gawd, how many funerals did ole pappy Bush and McCain have? Death is the great equalizer. Whether you are a king or a street sweeper, we all have a date with the Grim Reaper.

    • Replies: @Kolya Krassotkin
  123. onebornfree says: • Website

    Summary: yet another example of the seemingly never-ending supply of “who started it” WW2 articles. Roberts could just as easily write the same type of article about WW1, or the Vietnam War, or the War of the Roses, for that matter.

    All such articles always studiously ignore [“forget”?] 3 important facts about all governments, everywhere.

    These 3 facts are:

    1] “Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt  criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”or “improved”,simply because of their innate criminal nature.”   onebornfree http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/

    2] ” War is the health of the state” Randolph Bourne. https://mises.org/library/brilliance-randolph-bourne

    3] For any war, the victors always get to [re]write the history.

    Reality fact: if you want governments , you must have wars- its as inevitable as night following day – and, following the “winning ” of any war by any particular criminal government, that same criminal government will then re-write that wars history, again, as surely as night follows day.

    And so it goes….
    Regards, onebornfree

  124. @slorter

    Poland signed its own non-aggression pact with the Nazis back in 1934

    Indeed. They also had one with the USSR. Marshal Pilsudski, the Polish leader at the time, had beat back the Soviet invasion a dozen years earlier. While it is said he did not trust Hitler (Poles have hated Germans for centuries) he understood peace with Germany was essential. After the pact was signed, Germany helped extend the Soviet Polish pact to 1945. Pilsudski advised his successor Rydz-Smigly to resolve the territorial issues with Germany. With Pilsudski out of the way, perfidious Albion was able to turn Rydz-Smigly to intransigence.
    The irony is that both Pilsudski and Hitler were playing for time. Both saw the Soviets as a threat, but an alliance with Germany – the long hated enemy – would be out of the question for Poles

  125. @Anonymous

    Silly straw man analogies. Define “nice and benevolent”. The kids and dogs sure loved his company.

    And Re: destruction of British cities, important to understand it was the British who declared war on Germany. It was the British who initiated “area bombing” of civilian targets on Germany, it was the British who rejected multiple peace offerings from Germany.

    And finally, proportionality is important. Exponentially more civilians were murdered in Dresden alone than all the German bombing victims in England.

  126. ” If I understand correctly, infuriated Zionists with plentiful funds used unethical tactics and brought lawsuits, the defense against which eventually bankrupted him. Little wonder most historians choose to suck up to powerful interests by validating their claims and explanations. The fake history they write is a self-protective device like a bullet-proof vest.”

    Which is another reason I use fiction to expose the truth. Only the truth I expose deals with the entertainment industry, specifically music, more specifically 80s-2000s rock music. Also, celebrity hypocrisy, using their wealth to fund the destroyers of humanity (that stupid all in this together “concert” crapola featuring the ugliest man on planet Earth, Mick ” I let our roadies murder a fan at Altamont” Jagger. While he was performing, Hell’s Angels roadies–right in front of him–murdered a fan, who happened to be black. As told in Rolling Stone’s History of Rock and Roll Volume 1)

    • Replies: @Trinity
  127. @Miro23

    Apparently you can’t discern what event made it a “world war”. Japan invaded China in 1931. The pacific war didn’t become a “world war” until 1941, when the British and American empires became involved.

    Germany didn’t “declare war” on rump Czechia, it entered as part of a (albeit heavy handed) treaty.

    The German-Polish war involved 2 countries, Germany and Poland (at least until the Soviets invaded).

    The Soviet Unions attack on Finland, and Ruthenia, and Bessarabia didn’t trigger a “world war” either.

    The declarations of war by the British and French empires made a contained Eastern European war into a global one

    • Agree: Curmudgeon
  128. And another thing…it was even worse for Japan. The Emperor Hirohito offered complete surrender weeks before Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked, but Truman would not accept it…because after all, those nukes had to tested on someone, right?

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  129. Alfred says:
    @Frederick V. Reed

    If anyone knows where Irving’s book can be found in electronic format, I would be grateful to know where.

    I had the same problem. I am traveling and I cannot carry books around with me.

    I suspect the Zionists have also removed it from all libraries. It is a common tactic.

    On Amazon.com, the first volume is priced at $125 hardcover and $662 paperback. Strange.

    Churchill’s War, Volume One : The Struggle for Power (1987)

    Irving went to Imperial College to study physics. Luckily for us, he was unable to remain as he could not afford it. He was obliged to leave without qualifying. So different from that Ferguson scumbag. A different generation with a different set of values.

    • Replies: @Jack McArthur
  130. @Saggy

    In theory that does make a lot of sense however, after decades of propaganda and the relentless repetition of “death camp” films and stories, most people cannot or will not see through the hoax and perception has indeed become reality. In this instance denier has become a label with a swastika attached and is more easily disparaged whereas revision implies that further investigation has resulted in a different conclusion after reappraisal of the evidence. It’s a monumental undertaking either way.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  131. @Anonymous

    They have airplanes. And there are airports near the celebration sites.

  132. @Carolyn Yeager

    Technically correct but as Alexandros pointed out upthread, the word denial used in this context has connotations that cause the point to mainly fall on deaf ears and be rejected.

  133. Mefobills says:
    @Anon

    The British were being manipulated by Zionist Jewry out of London then, and now. Money power pulls strings, pays for compromat, or assassinates whoever gets in the way. It is well known by now that Churchill was in thrall to his Jewish creditors. Putting Goy into debts is part of the Jewish control matrix.

    The Balfour document didn’t just happen in a vacuum. Money from Havarra funneled through Anglo-Palestein bank. England had long been infected by Jewry usury method by the time of WW1,2. Once could even argue that WW1 could have been avoided, absent Zionist/Jewish intrigue.

    The exact time of England infection by Jewish method was 1694 with the advent of Bank of England, the worlds first stock owned debt spreading bank.

    A lot of complaints about WASP behavior being in alignment with Jewry, is a function of rank materialism, and making a god of money. Zionist world government is also heavily British, and directed by London finance capital. Even the queen cannot enter into the “City” without asking permission first.

    ZOG was also maneuvering in Washington by that time, and FDR was being influenced. Financial interests in America wanted their “assets” protected.

    Any blocking of Jewish emigration by Churchill is expedient war maneuvering, and not part of the larger historical sweep of Jewish hidden control methods.

    “If whole branches of Jews must be destroyed, it is worth it, as long as a Jewish state in Palestine is created.” ~ Theodor Herzl

    In other words, top Zionist leadership were OK with and allowed large numbers of their own “flock” to be killed.

    There were no pure “white hats” in the WW1, 2 conflict. However, I find usury and sneaky underhanded techniques used by ZOG to be weighed on on a balance scale, and coming up lacking.

    The “international” was yesterday’s problem, and today’s problem.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Wizard of Oz
  134. DaveE says:

    Capitalism is fair competition, socialism is universal non-competition.

    It’s important to differentiate between industrial capitalism – competition of ideas and efficient manufacturing, from finance capitalism. “Finance capitalism” (the kind that defines the USA these days) is:

    1.) Competition of the most ruthless banksters to steal the profits generated by honest labor.
    2.) Endless speculation and control of companies by degenerate third party gamblers, eh, I mean “the market”.

    Socialism is much easier to understand. It is:

    1.) Government in control of every aspect of your life.
    2.) Jews in control of every aspect of the government.

    The only solution is to abolish speculation, the stock market, rampant usury and the western banking system. In other words, a company’s success or failure should ONLY be determined by the strength of the products it makes, as demonstrated through “sales” of those products. And only people who do honest labor should be paid for the products they make.

    Abolish usury (no interest paid, ever, only principle), “intellectual property” (only God can own an idea), speculation and overpaid do-nothing “management” (really a mask for the banksters) and you will see the world start to fix itself in a matter of months.

  135. truthman says:

    I read somewhere that Chamberlain, at the start of 1939, in the months before the guarantee to Poland, was thinking about removing Conservative Party backing for Churchill in his Epping Forest district, and that the Tories even had a new candidate possibly ready to take over at the next general election, Colin Thornton Kemsley, had such an election been held in 1939 with a Europe still at peace. As it turned out Kemsley won a seat in Scotland in a byelection in March of 1939. I do often wonder how things might have shaken out had Hitler held off any invasion before the early 1940’s, whether FDR would still have tried for a third term, and had Chamberlain died in office with Europe still at peace who would have taken over for him.

  136. Alfred says:
    @lloyd

    It is my understanding that American Negroes were not allowed to be combat soldiers. They built airdromes and things like that.

    My mother said that there were some American Negroes in Northern Ireland working on some construction projects. Enterprising Irish businessmen organized bus tours from places like Dublin for the Irish to see them. They had never seen black people before. 🙂

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
  137. Saggy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    I think every sentence in what you quoted can be documented and is documented in Buchanan’s book. For example (not from the book) …

    Hitler did not want a war with Britain and France and tried to avoid it and then end it with a peace agreement very favorable to Britain and France.

    This is one of many efforts that Hitler made very early in the war to end it, all summarily rebuffed by Britain. In this instance he went so far as to leaflet London ….

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  138. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Trinity

    And it is high time that Germans stop hanging their heads and being ashamed of being German.

    NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

    Germany is the most cucked up nation on the planet. They imprison 90 year olds who doubt the holocaust.

    It is terrible what the Jews did to Germany. Merkel is an abomination and a traitor to her own people and she remains in power.

    And what crime did the Germans commit? They responded to the hostile Jewish takeover of their society and tried to stop it.

    • Agree: dogbumbreath
  139. Hibernian says:
    @Ilya G Poimandres

    The Chinese held out against the Japanese. The US pushed the Japanese back.

  140. Mefobills says:
    @GeeBee

    I – a former Officer in the British Army who had sworn to serve my country and even to lay down my life for it if necessary – came to regard Great Britain with feelings that at best can be stated as contempt.

    I – a former officer of USAF, who had sworn to serve my country….. contempt.

    Ditto and similar trajectory.

    I would not today cross the road to piss on Britain if it were on fire”. Sad, but that’s the way it is.

    I would not today cross the road to piss on America if it were on fire. I would be fine with America breaking up into pieces.

    Just remember, that both of our countries got infected by a parasite. England operated just fine under the Talley Stick system of King Edward. It is ok to have sympathy with the regular and duped British subject.

    America operated just fine under the American System of Economy of John Walthrop, Cotton Mather, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Quincy Adams, Henry Carey, Abraham Lincoln. This system was also overturned by the same crowd that infected England in 1694.

    There is a tug of war for the heart of man, and the usury/Malthusian (Jewish) crowd sunk their tenterhooks into England, and now America.

    • Replies: @GeeBee
    , @J. Alfred Powell
  141. Marcali says:
    @Grahamsno(G64)

    Havo you heard about Stalin’s plan for the settlement of the Jews called Birobidjan?

  142. Truth3 says:

    Churchill quote from Irving’s book…

    Take your own United States, he said casting a mischievous hand around the tuxedo’d table. Suppose by some mischance that in this marvellous country three of four millions of people emerged as a self-appointed, highly disciplined elite with all the political and economic controls in their possession. Suppose they had all the privileges, the firstclass railroad carriages, the best food, the best food for their children. You would have quite a time, I dare say, trying to shake them loose.

    Well, it happened.

    And the American people were asleep.

    Wake the Hell Up America.

    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Thanks: Alfred
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  143. Wally says:
    @Anonymous

    said:
    ” How did those 17 million non-combat deaths happen?
    And this number of people does not die just like that by some kind of a mistake, it was systematic decisions, famine and deliberate extermination.”

    Oh yawn.

    – There was no “17 million non-combat deaths”, and you have no proof there was.
    – That’s laughable Zionist propaganda that has been easily debunked.
    Simple as that.

    one quick example:
    Babi Yar: The alleged Einsatzgruppen ‘Killings’: https://www.unz.com/article/babi-yar/
    Excavation Result: No Enormous Human Remains as Alleged at Babi Yar … of course: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11314

  144. Mefobills says:

    Roberts main thesis needs to be emphasized:

    People in the Western world have been indoctrinated for 75 years into a white hat/black hat story of World War II that exonerates the “allies” and demonizes Hitler and Germany. To tell people, especially elderly ones whose memory of the war was formed by war propaganda, that the “allies” were as bad or worse war criminals than the Germans brings fire and brimstone down on one’s head. It nevertheless needs to be done, because our view of ourselves reflects the make-believe story of the war with which we are inculcated. In the false history comes strength for the opinion that we Americans and our country are exceptional and indispensable

    If the average person has bad narrative in their brain, then they malfunction. Humans can be programmed with propaganda and narrative.

    People don’t want to look in the mirror, and say to themselves, I was duped. It is too hard, especially if you are elderly… who then emit fire and brimstone as a defense mechansim. Those who have over a long life time, adhered to a certain pattern of thought, do not want to let go. It un-moors them, they become adrift with no anchor, and they would rather lash out and go into denial. Other types, who are self serving, benefit from the lies. Holocaust industry comes to mind.

    • Agree: anarchyst
  145. Geowhizz says:
    @Chris Moore

    My view as well. Nicely said.

  146. Wally says:
    @Paul Craig Roberts

    said:
    “Ask the officials and historians who produced the official numbers.”

    – Good luck with that, those “officials” and “historians” have no proof of such absurdities.

    – But you will be demonized, sought out, and persecuted, and / or arrested for even asking.

    – The ‘holocaust’ narrative is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted.Only lies require censorship.

    recommended:
    Official list of Revisionist scholars persecuted / imprisoned for questioning the “Holocaust”:
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12642

  147. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Omegabooks

    “…because after all, those nukes had to tested on someone, right?”

    That’s assuming nuclear weapons ever even actually exist[ed].

    See:”THE NUKE HOAX”:
    https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=452&sid=bda8e6e90ba409dd3a0be20e970fa210

    Regards, onebornfree

  148. Truth3 says:

    Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.

    The Lie? Jews are only and forever innocent victims.

    The Damn Lie? Christians, German, and other White People are the Evil persecutors of the Innocent Jews.

    The Statistic?

    6 Million Holocaust victims. Add 5 Million more non-Jews if the gentiles squeak, to get them to go along.

    These are what the Joo uses to subjugate others.

  149. Geowhizz says:
    @DaveE

    Hitler seems to have recognized this. It’s the Jewish problem. They’ve a radically different operating system. Often very tribal and instinctive. Of course humans are all that way. Jews more organized and cohesive than other whites. A bit of divide and conquer strategy going on. The PTB strongly discourage non Hebrew whites organizing. Puzzling, no?

  150. @Curmudgeon

    There is Putin the statesman and Putin the politician. The statesmanship clearly exhibited itself in the way Putin steered Russia from the brink of the Yeltsin Zionist stooge oligarchic abyss, the response to the Anglo Zionist machinations in Ukraine and Syria and his taking all the Western abuse without overreacting. Putin the politician pays lip service to the Holohoax and uses the victory parades to bolster his electoral chances keeping in mind the big influence of Jews in Russia.

    If Putin was not subject to the rules of the game in the so called democratic modus operandi, may he could dispense of the superfluous blathering you mentioned.

    • Agree: Alfred
  151. Trinity says:
    @Omegabooks

    Oh wow, the poor black guy. What the hell does this have to do with WWII? Meredith Hunter was pointing a gun and probably would have shot innocent people or even Mick Jagger. Oh yeah, I see the connection now. Mick Jagger was British and so was Winston Cuckhill. And the same people that were giving us FAKE NEWS back in the Sixties, like Meredith Hunter dindu nuffin, were the same people who LIED about WWII and are giving us FAKE NEWS in 2020. Call it the six degrees of Winston Cuckhill.

    • Replies: @Yusef
  152. Cardinal Bertram was the the most senior R.C cleric in Germany still regarded Hitler as a Catholic for he had prepared an instruction for a requiem mass to be said when he heard Hitler had died and that could only be done for a non excommunicated believer. It was cancelled but that could have been because he found out suicide was the cause which in that era would certainly have been a no no. Its seems inconceivable that Bertram would have ordered a mass for anyone he knew was involved in genocide. Equally it seems inconceivable that he was unable to know of any mass murder taking place regularly because of the large number of military chaplins who had to hear confessions (Catholics were approx 20% camp guards). Hitler paid his Church tax till the day he died. Catholic scholar Hubert Wolf said he died a Catholic.

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

  153. Republic says:
    @Frederick V. Reed

    You can download Irving’s books at
    Library Genesis
    Libgen.is

    Then you can convert the PDF’s using
    Calibre to kindle format

    • Thanks: Grahamsno(G64)
  154. GeeBee says:
    @Mefobills

    I am gratified to know that you – a man of rare insights and understanding regarding economic matters – find common cause with me, a man who frequently alarms those to whom I speak regarding political and historical affairs. I like to think that we, in our different ways, are privy to a special understanding, that comes near to that most elusive quality which we call ‘the truth’.

  155. “The British disliked the Americans for the Negro troops sent to England where they were believed to be responsible for rapes and a crime wave” – Once again, blacks always behaving according to their nature and strong criminal proclivities.

  156. Sparkon says:
    @CanSpeccy

    The origins of the World wars are complex. Anyone who thinks they can come to a clear understanding of the subject by reading the Unz Review or by accepting the judgement of a single author recommended by Ron Unz and Paul Craig Roberts is simple minded in the extreme.

    Perhaps, but we’ve all been inundated with so much propaganda about WWII that a few glaring but inconvenient facts go largely unremarked and unappreciated.

    The most significant of course is the frantic industrialization undertaken by the Bolsheviks as soon as they had consolidated power after the Russian Civil War. Note that the Allies had intervened on behalf of the Whites in that conflict, officially in part to rescue the Czecholslovak Legion, which had control of much of the Trans-Siberian Railway and eventually was trying to escape to Vladivostok with a load of Russian gold from an imperial state gold reserve, gold the Reds would need to help finance their program of massive industrialization during the 1920s, and gold they got.

    By 1928, industrialization in the Soviet Union had reached a level of development that allowed Stalin to promulgate his 5-year plans well before Herr Hitler had risen to power in Germany, as the man with the little mustache was not appointed Chancellor until 1933.

    Just who was this future enemy that required such a massive and very costly arms build-up by the Red Army long before Adolf Hitler ever came to power in Germany? What was the plan?

    We’ve heard a lot here at UR about Suvorov’s theory that Stalin was getting ready to sweep across Europe with his menacing formations of, you know, T-26s and I-15s that the Red Army had massed along its western frontier, and was only forestalled in his evil designs by the valiant attack of the Wehrmacht in Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941.

    But try a different perspective.

    In the same way Roosevelt was to lure the Japanese into their foolish attack on Pearl Harbor by deploying some old battleships in a forward position where they were irresistible ducks sitting in a row for the battleship admirals in the IJN, so too had Stalin set a trap for Hitler by provoking, goading, and intimidating the German dictator into making a preemptive attack against the Red Army’s massed formations of obsolete weapons, equipment the Soviet dictator could easily afford to lose, as he knew that much better tanks and aircraft were already beginning to pour off the Soviet assembly lines in numbers the Germans would never be able to match.

    Stalin and his fellow Reds spent uncountable millions of rubles and uncountable millions of lives in their 20-year race to prepare for a “big new war.”

    Stalin and Roosevelt and their fellow Reds did everything they could to maneuver militarists in both Germany and Japan into making their foolish attacks to ensure that the Allies would have the moral high ground from the outset.

    When viewed from this perspective and seen in this light, it should become apparent that both Roosevelt and Stalin employed similar tactics to lure their opponents into making foolish attacks because both men were reading from the same Jewish playbook.

    • Agree: Malla
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  157. Alfred says:
    @Beckow

    Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement completely pissed off Japan who were at that very time invading eastern Siberia and were clobbered as a result

    The Japanese never invaded the USSR. For some years before 1940, the Japanese military was divided into two factions – “Go north” and “Go south”. They even assassinated one another in Japan.

    The “Go north” faction wanted to attack the USSR. The “Go south” faction wanted to head for the oil of what is today Indonesia (“Dutch East Indies”). Eventually, the “Go south” faction won. Japan eventually lost because the oil was cut off by submarines. The atomic bombs were dropped on Japan to warn off the USSR. Japan had already lost.

    Nevertheless, the presence of large Japanese forces in Manchuria forced the Soviets, who had long anticipated an attack from that direction, to keep considerable military resources on standby for the duration of World War II.

    Kantokuen (Japanese plan to invade eastern Siberia)

    • Replies: @S
    , @Simpleguest
    , @Beckow
  158. jsigur says:
    @Anonymous

    What you aren’t allowed to point out here is the MO the Jews use to protect the cult and anything implying such will be ridiculed and demonized by their shabuz goy bought offs or the “rich race” who is only loyal to the entity that allows them to stay rich (Jews). In fact, the inability to discuss the topic has been deliberately censored since there is no good defense to be made in an aware, uncensored environment and what is important to Jews in the end is not that they are”right” but that they “win”

  159. Neuday says:
    @Leon

    I do not speak German or know what or who Escher is. Please explain.

    Do you know what a Search Engine is? MC Escher was not a rapper.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
  160. Gast says:

    It is very naive to declare that one individual has the “TRUTH” about such a complex and highly important event like WW2, as the author of this article does with Mr. Irving. If this is the honest opinion of Mr. Roberts, you have to question his intelligence.

    The epistemological situation towards past events, where you were not present, is generally a nightmare. You have to rely on sources. And you have to realize that jews control all media and have a history of shaping the historical narrative for thousands of years by bringing contaminated “sources” into being. If you take the “sources” at face value you are a fool, but even when you believe you have found an immaculate method to evaluate the “sources” you are still a fool.

    To give only one example: Are Hitler’s “Table Talks” pure fiction or a very important source about his thinking? Mr. Irving argues for the former but his arguments are not very convincing for me and he leaves out many important details concerning this “source”. So I honestly don’t know. And there are so many “memoirs” and faked “documents” in circulation, that the claim that some individual could overcome this complex falsification machinery is so naive, assertions to the contrary simply baffle me.

    One thing is clear though, the official narrative about WW2 is completely false, lie upon lie, woven together with complete dishonesty. Most here should know it, and if you don’t know it after nearly 20 years of mass internet, then nobody can help you .

    Does this make Mr. Irving a truth-teller because he contradicts the official narrative in important aspects? Of course not. I found so many of his claims wrong that for me the question only remains, whether Mr. Irving is dishonest or stupid. I came to the conclusion, that it must be deliberate dishonesty.

    Mr. Irving is a jew since his mother was jewish (still the official definition of a jew). And I think one time he admitted that most of his readers were jews (this might have changed in the last decades a bit).

    Mr. Irving was a gate-keeper for the jewish power-structure from the very beginning. No honest historian could be published by “highly respected” (jewspeak for “completely dishonest and controlled by jews”) newspapers like “DER SPIEGEL” in Germany. But this was the case with Mr. Irving during the first decades of his existence as historian. His books about the bombing of Dresden and the civil war in Hungary were serialized by “DER SPIEGEL” as you can verify by a look into the archive of this despicable publication.

    With the publication of “Hitler’s War” Irving’s official reputation suffered, but I suspect this conflict was largely staged to solidify the official narrative. Even his short period as Holocaust denier was probably staged since Irving damaged the revisionist movement more than any other individual by initiating a highly publicized judicial process in London (compare this to the silence in the big international media concerning the judicial processes in Canada Ernst Zündel was involved in). In this process Mr. Irving mustered a very weak and frankly inane defense of his claims, so that the general public concluded there was not much substance in Holocaust-denial.

    I won’t got into details why I am not a big fan of the WW2 books of Mr. Irving. One general remark should suffice: Mr. Irving gives a completely wrong picture of jewish power in that period. He treats jewry largely as an influential lobby group in the various countries of the Allies. In reality jews were the puppet masters of the politicians who were allegedly the leaders of countries. I think it makes very little sense to treat countries as independent if they are controlled by jews (Iknow most authors here at Unz do that, but I find this either dishonest or stupid). But Irving treats the Allies as independent countries and their politicians as their “leaders”. With such a bad start, one cannot expect much from the details. And so it turns out…

    • Thanks: gay troll
  161. Alfred says:
    @Hibernian

    In this case its the notion that the USSR won the war almost single-handedly, which ignores the Pacific theater.

    The Americans waged war against Japan largely by blockading oil. All the battles to take the various Pacific islands from Japan were carried out to be able to bring their bombers closer to mainland Japan. There was never a proper large scale land war between armies in the Pacific. Certainly nothing on the scale of what took place on the Asian mainland.

    Here is a piece of history that they will never tell American kids at school. The Soviet Union defeated Japan on Mainland Asia. Each army had over one million soldiers.

    Soviet–Japanese War

    Captured Japanese Prisoners

    • Replies: @DB Cooper
  162. anarchyst says:
    @DaveE

    It’s the JEWS. Its ALWAYS the JEWS.

    “Vulture capitalism”, a totally jewish concept, can be defined as the owners of businesses and industries that collude with each other, also in collusion with the “money types” (banksters) and governments, depressing wages solely to increase their stockholder “profits” at the top while impoverishing those who actually WORK, producing their products.

    Jewish-owned and run Wall street sees “labor” as being a necessary evil, its worth and true value to be minimized at all cost while valuing the CEOs and “stockholders” above and beyond their true worth.

    This even applies to CEOs, that run their corporations into the ground while still receiving massive “rewards” for their “expertise”.

    Let’s not forget the corporate vultures (a la Mitt Romney) that specialize in parting out viable businesses in order to maximize their “profits”

    Henry Ford “got it right” when he CREATED a market for his cars by making them inexpensive while paying his workforce a decent wage. He realized that a well-paid workforce would be able to buy his products, among other things. It could be safely argued that Ford, CREATED the middle class. Automobiles, once “playthings for the rich” were made affordable for the “ordinary common man”.

    Henry Ford KNEW who the jewish banksters and vulture capitalists were and made no bones about calling them out and naming them, Father Charles Coughlin did the same thing and was ostracized by the Catholic Church for pointing out the TRUTH about our vulture capitalist society. What did the jews have on the Catholic Church?

    All one has to do is look at today’s CEOs, even in failing companies, being paid exorbitant salaries, along with stock options and other “perks” while pleading poverty, pushing down wages for their employees.

    Today’s capitalist “mantra” is that labor costs must be as cheap as possible while the “value” (profit) to the stockholder must be as great as possible. Sacrificing labor on the altar of “maximum profits” NEVER works in the long term.

    Of course, in the short term, with cheap Chinese goods flooding the market, the economy looks, good, but without CONSUMERS who hold jobs that pay reasonably well, all bets are off. There needs to be a balance between profits and labor.

    Presently, labor is looked upon as a “necessary evil” to be minimized at all costs. The problem arises-without labor there are no consumers. As I previously stated, a “balance” must be maintained. Labor is not evil, but a necessary component of capitalism.

    Pre-WW2 Germany’s economic successes and the rapid rise of the German economy was predicated on labor being assigned “value”and monetized-something that is (and has been) missing in capitalist societies today. Hitler KNEW that monetization of labor would be opposed by the jewish banksters, and yes, even most “capitalists” of the day.

    If labor costs need to be trimmed to assure maximum “profit” at the top, something is seriously wrong. In fact, in the well-paid American automobile industry, labor costs account only for approximately 10% of total costs.

    Offshoring production results in consumers (customers) being “lost”.
    As to “tariffs”, the American country ran on tariffs from its inception until 1913, when the “income tax” and “federal reserve” was established.

    The American economy is being propped up by the “social safety net” which obscures the TRUE economic situation in the U S .

    • Agree: Yusef, Truth3
    • Replies: @Miro23
  163. Greg S. says:
    @Badger Down

    According to “Hitler’s War” by David Irving, Hitler talked repeatedly and at length about pushing all of the “undesirables” -Jews, cripples, Russians,etc- beyond the Urals and out of Europe. He talked about keeping the “Asiatic hordes” at bay and viewed those territories as an essential resource to be exploited in a colonial fashion – just like Japan viewed China in WWII. He cared not one bit about the people living there and is repeatedly quoted in “Hitler’s war” saying “send them all east.” Being “sent East” usually amounted to being killed in one way or another. This is what Roberts alludes to when he says that “Hitler’s War” describes atrocities, just not the right kind of atrocities, as Irving apparently found no discussion at all among the Nazi brass of gas chambers, etc. This alone doesn’t mean that it never happened, but Irving found no evidence so didn’t include it.

    Hitler and the Nazis really did view people living in Russia as subhuman and treated them as such. This was a major contributor to the Nazi’s losing the war, as their horrific treatment of the populations living in captured Eastern territories ensured continuous underground warfare against supply lines, etc. The irony being that most of these people hated communism and would have gladly supported Germany if only Germany had treated them better.

    • Agree: Yusef, Escher
    • Replies: @Wally
  164. @lloyd

    Emmett Till’s father was hanged for murder and rape in Italy, 1945 [wiki].

  165. @Bragadocious

    Churchill took some flak over the failed Gallipoli adventure which went pear-shaped.

  166. Ace says:
    @Observator

    It’s not “international capitalism” or “western imperialism” but monopolistic, lawless, mongrelized, psychopathic putocracy.

    International capitalism is no more capitalism than a body with terminal cancer is its earlier healthier self.

    • Replies: @c matt
  167. S says:
    @Alfred

    It’s interesting too, if the hypothesis is correct, that Roosevelt baited the Japanese successfully with Pearl Harbor just as the Battle for Moscow was entering a critical phase.

    The Japanese built up Manchuria militarily considerably through 1941 in case it were to act on the plan to invade the Soviet Union. As WWII progressed those forces were cannibalized, so much so that by 1945 when the Soviets invaded, they were merely a shell of what they had been.

    • Replies: @Alfred
    , @Malla
  168. @Miro23

    By your reasoning, WWII started when Poland demanded Vilnius from Lithuania, then invaded, in March, 1938 and followed with Tesin from Czechoslovakia in September 27, 1939, before Germany had entered Czechoslovakia. Let’s not talk about Hungary invading Czechoslovakia in October 1938, the Slovaks themselves demanding more autonomy, or the Soviet intrigue around the Benes government.
    You fail to take into account that it was Poland, post the November 11, 1918 Armistice that invaded Germany, Lithuania, and other territories, before the Treaty of Versailles, which recognized the territorial gains despite the violations of the Armistice. An Armistice is an agreement to stop shooting, not a surrender. The Armistice was signed on the understanding that Wilson’s 14 Points would be the basis of the peace treaty, none of which were followed.
    Perhaps you can point me to another time, in the history of England, Britain, or the UK when the government, whether Parliament or absolute monarch, let another country decide whether it would declare war. When the Polish Ambassador complained about the Soviet invasion and the non-declaration of war against the Soviets, he was told to piss off.
    All wars are economic wars. WWII actually started March 24, 1933.

    “The Israeli people around the world declare economic and financial war against Germany. Fourteen million Jews stand together as one man, to declare war against Germany. The Jewish wholesaler will forsake his firm, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his commerce and the pauper his pitiful shed in order to join together in a holy war against Hitler’s people.”…”

    https://archive.org/stream/JewsDeclareWarOnGermany1933/JewsDeclareWarOnGermany1933_djvu.txt

    • Agree: Mefobills
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    , @Yusef
  169. @Alfred

    The Japanese never invaded the USSR.

    True for USSR proper.
    But USSR and Japan were already in a state of military confrontation, albeit a frozen one and on a scale of “border conflicts” – see Battles of Khalkhin Gol.

    The Battles of Khalkhin Gol were the decisive engagements of the undeclared Soviet–Japanese border conflicts fought among the Soviet Union, Mongolia, Japan and Manchukuo in 1939. The conflict was named after the river Khalkhin Gol, which passes through the battlefield. In Japan, the decisive battle of the conflict is known as the Nomonhan Incident (ノモンハン事件, Nomonhan jiken) after Nomonhan, a nearby village on the border between Mongolia and Manchuria. The battles resulted in the defeat of the Japanese Sixth Army.

    • Replies: @Alfred
  170. Beckow says:
    @Alfred

    … Japanese never invaded the USSR

    ‘Never’. Really?

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

    It is amusing how completely Anglo WWII propaganda works on even smart people. Buried in the Western presentation of history is a defeat of Japan by Russia in July-September 1939. General Zhukov led the Russian army. Japan never tried again.

    The size of the battle is about the same as the glorious Normandy invasion by Anglos a few months before the end of WWII when Germany was already defeated. Enjoy your made up myths, but it is sad living in a false image of history.

    • Replies: @Alfred
  171. Leon says:

    Hey Neuday, do you know know that it means to say it in your own words? I don’t want what fn Google says. Copy and Paste are for morons.

  172. Truth be told, there is no black and white story or history of WW2 … there never will be.

  173. @DaveE

    Socialism is much easier to understand. It is:

    1.) Government in control of every aspect of your life.
    2.) Jews in control of every aspect of the government.

    Not so. Marx’s version of socialism is what you describe. There were many competing versions of socialism, but they all wanted the removal of finance capital ownership. Marx, to whom some of his contemporaries referred as the tapeworm in socialism, was the best funded of the “socialists” and his version, by virtue of the Bolshevik Revolution, became the one used by the finance capitalists to defame the others.
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/First-International

  174. S says:

    Roosevelt was an enemy of empire except America’s own….So Churchill got his war which cost Britain her empire, and Roosevelt replaced the British Empire with an American one. FDR paid a cheap price—about 300,000 US combat deaths.

    As a microcosm, Roosevelt’s interactions with Churchill may seem to have been something of a haphazard power play, and indeed, certain aspects of them may well have been, but, as part of a larger picture, they don’t seem that way at all, at least according to The New Rome published in 1853.

    [MORE]

    For according to that intriguing mid-19th century geopolitical book, excerpted and linked to below, the 1776 Revolution from the very beginning was a planned false split between the US and UK. In the future, the US and UK are to reunite, and the center of power of the British Empire will then move from England to the United States.

    After the false split is ended, the first thing a newly reunited US/UK will do is make war upon Germany, the center of power upon continental Europe, to gain control of it, thereby simultaneously unleashing a ‘world’s war’ upon the Earth.

    Following this, the United States and Russia will engage in a worldwide struggle for global supremacy. The United States, the planned direct continuation of the British Empire, prevails against Russia, and ushers in a world state/empire called the ‘New Rome’, or, the ‘United States of the World’, and hence the title for Theodore Poesche and Charles Goepp’s little known 1853 book.

    The New Rome (1853) – pg 87, 88

    The stupendous greatness of England is factitious, and will only become natural when that empire shall have found its real centre. That centre is in the United States. The Anglican empire is essentially oceanic. Its dominions extend along the coasts of the Atlantic and the Pacific, the lesser and the greater ocean. America, lying in the midst of the ocean, is therefore its natural point of gravitation…

    ..The realization of an idea higher than could be developed in the mother island, that of the republican democracy, required a temporary segregation of the centre; that task accomplished, it is time to call for a reunion; but the former adjunct [the United States] being now no longer merely the geographical centre, but the political and social focus, must take the lead…

    The outstanding Belcher Foundation website has an article linked to below which entirely concurs with this premise of Poesche and Goepp, though not mentioning either of the two, or the ‘New Rome’.

    According to it’s author, powerful elements and hangers on of the British Board of Trade and the British Whig party had indeed been developing plans in the years and decades prior to 1776 of moving the center of power of the British Empire from England to British North America. Though not outright declaring 1776 to have been a planned false split, the article strongly hints that it was. [The Belcher Foundation is dedicated to the preservation of the memory and life work of Jonathan Belcher, a prominant British colonial royal governor, founder of Princeton, and first North American born British freemason.]

    The below from a now defunct website broadly outlines what the historical New Rome ideology (referenced in the aforementioned book title) was about.

    Both in Britain and in the USA in the 18th and 19th centuries, aristocratic, oligarchical and anti-democratic forces working within the hierarchical structure of Freemasonry ensconced themselves within the political establishments of those countries – to what end? Study of the ideas of the leaders of these forces within Freemasonry reveals that their dream, intention and plan was to create out of Britain and America a New Rome, a new World Empire, a new uniformity of thought and lifestyle that would embrace the whole world.

    Reading the 1853 New Rome is highly recommended. The Belcher Foundation article fills in the details it doesn’t provide.

    A Political Prophecy, linked to below and published in 1912, provides the biographical background of Poesche and Goepp, as well as some analysis of their book.

    Poesche’s participation in Germany’s failed 1848 revolution, his fleeing to London in 1850 where it is believed he likely met with the Italian revolutionary Giuseppe Mazzinni, his later career with the US government in Washington DC, and, at the German ambassador’s request, Poesche’s traveling to Europe to personally meet the German Chancellor Bismark in Berlin, are all described.

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_new_rome_or_the_united_states_of_the_world_1853

    http://www.belcherfoundation.org/camerica.htm

    https://archive.org/details/politicalprophec00goeb/page/n3/mode/2up

    • Thanks: gay troll, NoseytheDuke
  175. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Sparkon

    both Roosevelt and Stalin employed similar tactics to lure their opponents into making foolish attacks

    At least in your theorizing you rely on a plausible sense of the forces at work, which is more than most at the Unz Review seem capable of.

    What were the actual motives of most of the parties involved is impossible with any certainty to assess.

    It would have been interesting, for example, to have had a post-war account of events leading to the war by Neville Chamberlain, the architect of Britain’s despised appeasement policy, who nevertheless was the man to (a) declare war on Germany, and (b) bring Winston Churchill back into cabinet as First Lord of the Admiralty, the position he held at the start of WW1.

    But unfortunately Chamberlain died within months of resigning the premiership, and wrote nothing for the benefit of posterity about his decisions leading up to the declaration of war other than some letters to his sister. Of his negotiations with Hitler, he did say, that things were moving in the direction he desired. What is unclear is what direction that was. But if his expectation of movement in the direction he desired was fulfilled, then war between the two great tyrannies, Nazism versus Communism, was evidently his goal.

    And why not? The Soviets were actively engaged in efforts to undermine capitalism, funding bolshy union leaders, Britain’s Communist newspaper, the Daily Worker and various members of the Labour Party. Russia, in other words, sought Communist world domination and, by spreading Communism to China, Vietnam and elsewhere, nearly got it.

    As for Germany, it was clearly, from the British perspective, a renegade power bent on overthrowing the ancient usage of Europe, the balance of power that Britain had worked to maintain for five hundred years and more.

    In any case, the idea that Winston Churchill was personally responsible for both world wars is so childish as to create serious doubt as to the sincerity or sanity of those pushing it. In that connection, it should be noted that Britain’s WW1 declaration of war on Germany followed Germany’s breach of the 1839 Treaty of London by which all the European powers guaranteed Belgium’s independence, which breach was clearly a prelude to an attack on Britain’s chief ally, France.

    The declaration of war was a cabinet decision supported by the Prime Minister, Asquith, and resulting in not a single cabinet resignation. Moreover, the decision of the Liberal government received the “unhesitating support” of Lord Lansdowne and Bonar Law, the leaders of the opposition Conservative Party.

    Something it is essential to understand about the Unz Review is that its historical perspective, as in much else, it is totally crackpot.

    • Replies: @Saggy
    , @Alfred
  176. DB Cooper says:
    @Alfred

    “The Soviet Union defeated Japan on Mainland Asia. ”

    The Soviet Union has a mutual neutrality pact signed with Japan during the whole of WWII and was sitting on the sideline doing nothing. The Soviet Union only unilaterally abrogated the treaty and declared war on Japan two days AFTER Japan was nuked when the defeat of Japan was all but ensured. This is an opportunistic move on behalf of the Russians because it makes the Soviet Union a party to the war victory power in the pacific theater without sacrificing a single soldier. Stalin was obviously looking to get some war booty. Immediately the Soviet Union poured its army into China’s northeast to grab more land from China, not to defeat Japan. The capture of Japanese soliders was just a formality.

    • Replies: @Alfred
    , @refl
  177. Anon[359] • Disclaimer says:
    @Frederick V. Reed

    The Internet Archive has all of Irving’s book in PDF format. You can download all of them here:

    https://archive.org/details/DavidIrvingHistorianAndPoliticalPrisonerBorn19381/mode/2up

  178. Saggy says: • Website
    @Gast

    The epistemological situation towards past events, where you were not present, is generally a nightmare. You have to rely on sources.

    Nonsense. There is physical evidence, documentary evidence, and photographic evidence. There is plenty of physical evidence and documentary evidence to demolish the holohoax. I’ll give you two examples …. #1 – the # of prisoners that died – the best documentary evidence for what went on at Auschwitz is the Nazi records, which were captured by the Russians and disappeared for 45 years, so that their existence was unknown to the world. They were revealed following glasnost. Now, you can buy the Auschwitz ‘Death Books’ on Amazon …#2 – the use of Zyklon and the ‘gas chambers’ – From the book “Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present” by holocaust scholars D. Dwork and R. Jan Van Pelt, we read

    A violent typhus epidemic erupted in the summer of 1942 and the whole lice infested camps – barracks, offices, and workshops – had to fumigated with tons of Zyklon-B

    Later that year Schacter developed primitive gas chambers in block 26 … to fumigate prisoners clothing ….. Degesch engineers … recommended the installation of many small heatable gas chambers to be used with tins of Zyklon-B

    Nineteen fumigation rooms were installed in the prisoner reception building to fumigate clothing, as shown in the drawing :*

    You can see the drawing atThe building is still standing.

    • Agree: Miro23
    • LOL: Alfred
  179. @Gast

    Irving is a Jew? That’s ridiculous to the point of being offensive.

    • LOL: the grand wazoo
    • Replies: @Gast
  180. Anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mefobills

    It is well known by now that Churchill was in thrall to his Jewish creditors. Putting Goy into debts is part of the Jewish control matrix.

    If what you say is true, that Churchill was under control of the Zionists, you need to explain the following:

    Why would the Zionists want Churchill to block Hitler’s attempt send Jews to Palestine?

    Why would the Zionists want Churchill to block Hitler’s attempt send Jews to Madagascar?

    If you claim that there was a secret deal with Churchill to givr Palestine to the Zionists, you need to explain why Zionist terror against the British was required in order to wrest control of Palestine from the British?

    I look forward to your response.

    • Replies: @Saggy
    , @Mefobills
    , @Mefobills
  181. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Saggy

    This is one of many efforts that Hitler made very early in the war to end it, all summarily rebuffed by Britain. In this instance he went so far as to leaflet London ….

    You want to negotiate with the government so you “leaflet London.” LOL.

    Has it ever occurred to you that things are a bit deeper than you may at first suppose?

    Of course Hitler did not want war with Britain while preparing an invasion of Russia.

    One of the basic rules of war is “don’t fight a war on two fronts.”

    When Hitler made his “Final Appeal” speech to the Reichstag on July 19, 1941 he was already at war with Britain, seeking to bomb England into submission (And yes, the destruction of Dresden may have been a war crime, but the war crime of attacking populated civilian targets during WW2 was first perpetrated by the Nazi’s against England and other countries).

    The problem for Hitler was that the Luftwaffe wasn’t up to the job. It failed to wring Britain’s neck like the neck of a chicken — “some chicken, some neck,” as Churchill observed to Parliament.

    Hitler pressed on with the invasion of Russia nonetheless, assuming he’d finish the job before the Brits had got their boots on, let alone their boots on the borders of Germany (at the time it was open to question whether Britain could raise even four divisions of ground troops, versus Germany’s forty plus).

    Hitler assumed he’d finish Russia in months and then turn the his full force against Britain. But in that Hitler miscalculated.

    The war with Russia took years not months to resolve — eventually being lost. And by that time, the Americans were ready to launch a massive allied Western front. Thus were German forces doomed to be crushed between the Red Army moving West and the US Army under George Patton moving East.

  182. Hitler did not start World War II.

    Jesus fracking Christ. Just how gullible are you.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @W.W.H.D.
    , @Wally
  183. KenH says:

    I’ll have to finish reading Dr. Robert’s review of Churchills War but I can say that David Irving’s books are in a class by themselves since he’s only interested in facts instead of agenda driven history and relies on primary sources as much as possible. Hitler’s War was a classic.

    I’ve also noticed that Irving’s books are almost impossible to obtain and in some cases have been marked up to several hundred dollars on Amazon and other book selling sites.

  184. Arnieus says:
    @Ann Nonny Mouse

    I was well into my sixties before I figured this out. It has been a phenominal propaganda device hiding behind the myth of Jewish victimhood.

  185. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Stebbing Heuer

    Just how gullible are you.

    Very. It comes with being a regular Unzite.

    These are sheep being led to the slaughter, or at least to fulfill a role in the perpetuation of memes upon which the ADL can profitably feed.

  186. @CanSpeccy

    Actually the bombing of targets which would involve civilians who didn’t evacuate goes back, via Guernica to the German way of war in WW1 including the Zepellin raids on London and, before that the shelling by German cruisers of Hartlepool, Scarsborough and Whitby.

    • Agree: CanSpeccy
    • Replies: @Alden
  187. Saggy says: • Website
    @Anon

    If what you say is true, that Churchill was under control of the Zionists,

    David Irving describes Churchill’s careers as a newspaper writer and an art forger, and how a group of Jews known as The Focus rescued Churchill financially between the wars.

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/KsMa65DjBuUp/

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Bookish1
  188. @Truth3

    Corona
    A new color
    (((Invented))) just for USA
    Because USA does not have American embassies from which to stage a color revolution on USA

  189. W.W.H.D. says:
    @Escher

    Easy, Hitler established his lebensraum policy after watching the British blockade during WW1 (Churchill responsible again as navy secretary) starve millions of Germans including children to death. That’s when he learned the true lesson that a great power must have the ability to feed itself. In this case with extra Russian farmland

    • Agree: Alfred
    • Replies: @Escher
    , @FB
    , @profnasty
    , @Wally
  190. @Mefobills

    It is indeed well known that a Jewish South African bailed out Churchill when he had lost money on the New York stock market and was preparing to sell Chartwell. But who were those “Jewish creditors” Churchill was “in thrall” to?
    95 per cent of what you have written is BS that you have no chance of substantiating.

    • LOL: Mefobills
  191. Saggy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    And yes, the destruction of Dresden may have been a war crime, but the war crime of attacking populated civilian targets during WW2 was first perpetrated by the Nazi’s against England and other countries

    You seem to be wrong about everything.
    Irving gives the day by day details – DAVID IRVING AT THE LONDON FORUM – ‘SATURATION BOMBING IN WORLD WAR II – WHO IS TO BLAME?’




    Hitler made speeches on this subject – I’ll see if I can find one …. 9/4/40 …

    It is a wonderful thing to see our nation at war, in its fully disciplined state. This is exactly what we are experiencing at this time, as Mr Churchill is demonstrating to us the aerial night attacks he has concocted. He is not doing this because these air raids might be particularly effective, but because his Air Force cannot fly over German territory in daylight.

    Whereas German aviators and German planes fly over English soil daily, there is hardly a single Englishman who comes across the North Sea in daytime. They therefore come during the night – and as you know, release their bombs indiscriminately and without any plan on to residential areas, farmhouses and villages. Wherever they see a sign of light, a bomb is dropped on it.

    For three months past, I have not ordered any answer to be given; thinking that they would stop this nonsensical behaviour. Mr Churchill has taken this to be a sign of our weakness.

    You will understand that we shall now give a reply, night for night, and with increasing force. And if the British Air Force drops two, three or four thousand kilos of bombs, then we will drop 150,000, 180,000, 230,000, 300,000 or 400,000 kilos, or more, in one night. If they declare that they will attack our cities on a large scale, we will erase theirs! We will put a stop to the game of these night-pirates, as God is our witness.

    The hour will come when one or the other will crumble, and that one will not be National Socialist Germany. I have already carried through such a struggle once in my life, up to the final consequences, and this then led to the collapse of the enemy who is now sitting these in England on Europe’s last island.

  192. W.W.H.D. says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    Yeah that’s totally not what the history channel told me.

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  193. @CanSpeccy

    You want to negotiate with the government so you “leaflet London.” LOL.

    Roberts mentions only the British campaign of firebombing German cities.

    USAirForce engaged in equally devastating attacks not merely deliberately but exquisitely planned and rehearsed to destroy the housing of working-class German civilians in order to destroy their morale. The design team was headed by “the Jewish architect,” Erich Mendelsohn.

    The planning and rehearsal of the USAirForce terror bombing campaign is documented by, among others, the United States Department of the Interior.

    http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ut/ut0500/ut0568/data/ut0568data.pdf

    The firebombing campaign is proudly celebrated by the folks who run the National Museum of the Mighty Eighth Air Force, in Pooler, Georgia.
    https://www.mightyeighth.org
    When I visited that memorial to American war crimes, I talked with a number of staffers, including a volunteer manning the bookstore. We talked about the firebombing, and she acknowledged that it was a war crime. “But,” she added, “I really like working here. It gives me something to do every day.” The man selling tickets at the door told me that most of the volunteers “meet on the golf course” when they are not on duty showing visitors the many ways the USAF killed civilians.

    According to Jörg Friedrich and his book, The Fire: The Bombing of Germany, 1940 – 1945, https://www.c-span.org/video/?196223-1/the-fire-bombing-germany-1940-1945, Allied planes leafletted German towns and cities in advance of bombing them. They leaflets told the German people that the choice was theirs: overthrow their government or die under Allied bombs.

    tried resisting adding this parting shot; but I can’t:

    f&ck off CanSpeccy

    • Thanks: Alfred
  194. Heymrguda says:
    @CanSpeccy

    It’s true this piece was written from the viewpoint and perspective of Hitler and nazi Germany. But isn’t it just as true that the narratives we typically read are all from the allied side? Events are not nearly as one sided and black and white as we are led to believe, either in the European war or against japan and PCR’s piece, whether you agree with it or not, illustrates this.
    One thing is certain — in Europe we exchanged Hitler for Stalin. If you regard this as a positive result from the deaths and destruction needed to bring it about I have nothing more to say.

  195. Culpepper says:
    @FB

    When Palmerston said:

    “The Schleswig-Holstein question is so complicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead. The second was a German professor who became mad. I am the third and I have forgotten all about it.”

    I think he meant it wasn’t for HMG to meddle in German border disputes.

  196. PeterMX says:
    @Usura

    Congratulations to Mr. Roberts for writing an important article on a great book by the greatest historan of the 20th century. This is another speech by David Irving promoting this book. It will give you a good idea what the book says. It’s very intereting. Mr. Irving is also a great speaker.

    David Irving presents his book Churchill´s War

    This is a very interesting speech by Michael Hoffman, another great writer and speaker. This is a very interesting speech on how the pseudo-historian Deborah Lipstadt threatened David Irving’s life by making references to someone that most gentiles never heard of and other important facts about the Irving-Lipstadt trial, such as the loaded gun in the courtroom when the judge read the verdict.

    Deborah Lipstadt, Amalek and David Irving

  197. @Phil the Fluter

    Agreed. Fifty years back was when lefties would throw Tonypandy at Churchill.

  198. Anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Saggy

    David Irving describes Churchill’s careers as a newspaper writer and an art forger, and how a group of Jews known as The Focus rescued Churchill financially between the wars.


    Thanks for your response but you didn’t answer any of my questions.. Again, If what you say is true, that Churchill was under control of the Zionists, you need to explain the following:

    Why would the Zionists want Churchill to block Hitler’s attempt send Jews to Palestine?

    Why would the Zionists want Churchill to block Hitler’s attempt send Jews to Madagascar?

    If you claim that there was a secret deal with Churchill to givr Palestine to the Zionists, you need to explain why Zionist terror against the British was required in order to wrest control of Palestine from the British?

    I look forward to your response.

  199. I think you mean Irving, not Roberts. And it is a biography of Churchill, not a history of US war crimes.

  200. Arnieus says:

    Good article up to a point
    The part of the story left out is the most important part. If Hitler thought he could make peace with England he had to be unaware of the financial and political control the Jewish banking clans had over the British dating back to the creation of the the Bank of England and probably before. The wars to defeat Napoleon could not have been fought without endless credit from the English version of the Federal Reserve. The Opium Wars could not have been fought against China on behalf of the Jewish Sassoon drug mafia. There was no British Empire before that. It was a Jewish empire hidden behind the dead hulk of what had been England. In the US, the Federal Reserve, also owned by a Jewish banking cartel, after 27 years was well entrenched into FDR’s administration. Germany was a threat to their dominance as soon as it was organized into a country and defeated France in a war in 1870. Defeating and controlling Germany was the reason for WWI. The US could not have fought WWI without the unlimited credit provided by the Federal Reserve.

    The rise of the anti-communist, and therefore anti-Jewish national socialists under Hitler made Germany a threat once again. German people were all to aware of the real history of WWI and the millions of middle class Russians exterminated by Jewish Bolsheviks in Russia. They purged communists out of every nook and cranny in Germany resulting in the “German Economic Miracle”. They knew Stalin was an enemy and actively prepared. Hitler believed rightly that historically England and France were cousins to the German people and logical allies against Russia. He didn’t want to fight them.

    The Jewish Elites famously declared war on Germany in 1933. But oy-vey, how are we going to get the English and Americans to fight another war with Germany after only 20 years. The propaganda machine in England and US went into action. As Hitler reclaimed territory populated by Germans he was portrayed as a new Napoleon which he kind of was, that is a nationalist leader out of Jewish control. When Joseph Goebbels spoke of the “big lie” he wasn’t advocating it. He was describing how Germany was vilified by it in the west. FDR and other war mongers actively promoted the idea of Poland being the line in the sand that would justify the war. Then they set about provoking just that conflict.

    The notion that Germany only a few years from surviving starvation and with the smallest military of any in Europe, including Poland, set out to conquer the world is absurd. However it is what people believe still today. The Department of Education Prevention has done its job. That belief was cemented in the minds of the West when France and England were seemingly so easily defeated. Actually no one was more surprised than Hitler who immediately tried to make peace. There was no chance of that however. The dynastic inbred banker clans wanted Germany destroyed as a power in Europe and Jewish communists in Russia wanted all of Europe.

  201. Jake says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    On the English in India, I think it extremely important, essential, to stress that until ‘Disraeli made a gift of India to Queen Victoria,’ that English rule of India was by corporation: the British East India Company owned India, and owned a private army that had anywhere from 150,00 to nearly 300,000 full time soldiers.

    Now that is Globalism.

    Also essential to keep front and center is that the Brits acted to stop dead in its tracks the growth of Catholicism in India while doing next to nothing to convert Indians to Anglicanism, and also while favoring Moslems over Hindus in all areas and eras.

    That also fits with Globalism and its preference for all things Semitic.

    • Replies: @Cleburne
  202. Fox says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Without Britain’s (and behind Britain: Roosevelt’s) push for war, there would have been a treaty with Poland putting at rest the problems created by the dictate of Versailles (a treaty needs two parties to negotiate, not one formulating a document and then presenting it to the other to sign at gunpoint). There would have been no German-Soviet line of demarcation as was created by the Red Army’s invasion of Eastern Poland. The Bolsheviks could just have left Eastern Poland in peace. Why didn’t they? They created the border with Germany themselves. How would Hitler have attacked the Soviet Union without having a common border? Perhaps it was the Soviets who were thinking in a long-term strategy to attack the West, for which they needed a common border with Germany. It would make Stalin’s remark made towards Molotov later in the war that Roosevelt and Churchill were idiots quite understandable. It is altogether my opinion that Stalin was to a very considerable degree more intelligent, crafty and driven by a concrete goal than either Roosevelt or Churchill, hence he could well have this opinion of these two “”leaders””. He outwitted them with ease, and they didn’t realise, even notice it until the meeting in February of 1945 at Yalta, when one can see on their faces, when sitting next to Stalin, that the caviar suddenly didn’t taste so triumphally good anymore.

    You must say good bye to this obsession that “Hitler wanted to attack the Soviet Union” for whatever reason, as you must realise that Germany’s moves were in each case a response to actions of the anti-German forces. That includes France, Norway, Greece, Yugoslavia, Russia, and even North Africa when Italy asked for German help in a faltering campaign against Britain.
    And the Polish radio broadcast in the night of August 31, 1939, that Polish troops are on their victorious march on Berlin.
    Adolf Hitler on the morning of September 1, 1939: “Since 4:45 this morning we are returning fire.”

    Had the Poles agreed to a settlement with Germany, they would have had to let go of the German city of Danzig, and they would have had to agree to a plebiscite under international supervision of the population in the strip of land that separated the western part of Germany from East Prussia. What is so inhuman to you humanitarians and preachers of international law in actually having the people concerned a voice in their fate, rather some people far away who think of the world as a huge chessboard they can play on? Hitler did not create the system of Versailles, but he wanted to abolish it in such a way as to unite as many Germans as possible in their own state without making undue demands on any other country. That was a noble intent. During the time of the Weimar Republic, the countries gaining from the Versailles blackmail made no concession to Germany, only when they saw that with Adolf Hitler there was no more blackmailing, stealing, confiscating, stepping on, and that no more interference in inner-German affairs was tolerated, did they make any.

    As a cursory remark: In his book Bombing Vindicated (reprint available from e.g., Ostara publications), Spaight, an official in the Air Ministry quite proudly pronounces it as a British invention, pronounced on May 11, 1940, in Downing Street 10 by the newly appointed Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  203. Cleburne says:
    @Manqueman

    2. Can’t think of a single war in which the US military had a true success.

    Maybe the War of Northern Aggression? A success once Lincoln found sociopaths who would fling farm boys into the Confederate lines (Grant, Cold Harbor etc) or all out war against women and children (Sherman in Georgia, Sheridan in the Shenandoah, etc)

    Then of course that same lot went on to exterminate the Plains Indians (who were not exactly the peaceful hippies of myth, but you get my point).

    Grenada?

    Outside that, yeah, not a lot of brag about for the USA.

    • Replies: @Milesglorious
    , @Pecosbill
  204. Wally says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    In response to:
    “Hitler did not start World War II”.
    You said:
    “Jesus fracking Christ. Just how gullible are you.”

    – No, it’s ‘How indoctrinated are you?’
    – Pay attention: France & Great Britain declared war on Germany first.
    GB & France started WWII.

    – Here you go, https://www.unz.com guest Paul Craig Roberts also wrote about that:

    Germany Did Not Start World War II, by Paul Craig Roberts:
    https://www.unz.com/proberts/germany-did-not-start-world-war-ii/
    in addition:
    The Soviet Union Conspired [with FDR] to Foment World War II and Infiltrate the U.S. Government, By John Wear https://codoh.com/library/document/6807/?lang=en
    Responsibility for WW2: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7544

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  205. @George F. Held

    One only needs to look at Europe today to know that the wrong side, the jews, won WW2. We Americans are still ruled by them, and they are ruining our country as they have Europe. They can’t help it, that’s just what they do. They know how to dupe Christians, it never fails, they never lose, we never win…

    As the mildly benevolent WASP elite were supplanted by the Jews, it’s been one continuous social, cultural and economic holocaust after another for the average American.

  206. Cleburne says:
    @Jake

    Also essential to keep front and center is that the Brits acted to stop dead in its tracks the growth of Catholicism in India

    So that’s one good thing the Brits did.

    Jake, happy new year and just a gentle reminder that with regards to Cromwell, you honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. Take off the Fenian blinders for an hour or two. All your noise about him is a distraction from WASPism which was probably as much Dutch as it was “English.” Yeah, I know Mr Saker says “Anglo Zionist” but I think the Florida sunshine has roasted his brain.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @Hibernian
  207. @krotz

    If you do expand this comment into an article you might consider submitting it to Ron Unz for publication, it would be well worth reading. Thanks.

    • Agree: Patagonia Man
  208. Yusef says:
    @Miro23

    These are important points you raise. Hitler didn’t want a war with two fronts and would certainly lie in order to keep the western front from forming if that would do it. Once he’d defeated the eastern forces and subjugated and consolidated his gains, would be the time to turn his attentions on France and Britain. Hitler may have realistically estimated the eastern side to be the weaker of the two, and easier to take out. He’d have a seasoned and well-tuned military when he turned it the other direction, but France and Britain would not. (The British working class was in bad shape health-wise at the start of the war and that’s part of what reduced British fighting effectiveness anyway.)

    Churchill might have been credited for not being naive and gullible about the man he was dealing with. The world was dealing with a lying snake and quite a large number of British aristocrats were taken in.

    By the way, what’s being forgotten as far as I can tell is the non-aggression treaty between Stalin and Hitler and the effect of that on these calculations of who did and didn’t start the war. Hitler entered that pact with no intention of honoring it, but the west may have believed he did. With this pact Hitler had his one front war, and could have appeared suddenly much more dangerous. I also don’t understand why Hitler’s 1936 invasion of the Rhineland couldn’t be interpreted as an initiating act of war. Hitler was rearming and militarizing Germany again, contrary to Versailles peace treaties. Breaking a treaty is in itself an act of war, is it not? Isn’t there a misplaced emphasis on who actually declared the war as the one who started the war. Yet there is no reason for powers to wage wars without declaring anything, as the US has done time and time again since WWII.

    I’m 100% in favor of a more balanced, informed and less cartoonishly demonized understanding of Hitler, but hey, let’s not be stupid about it. So much of what he wrote and said cannot be taken at face value. Hitler was remarkably adept at saying one thing and doing another and this ability allowed him to buy time and delay what might arguably have been a deserved harsh rebuke and retaliation from the west right at the get go, “nipping it in the bud,” as Barney Fife used to say.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  209. I just ordered “Hitler’s War” from David Irving’s web site. No trust in Amazon. “Churchill’s War” will be ordered next month.

    • Replies: @Bookish1
  210. @GeeBee

    Well said and thank you, Geebee. Theodora (of Z) directed me to this Unz re-posting of PCRs’ fine essay particularly for your comments. Julius.

    • Replies: @GeeBee
  211. Saggy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    In any case, the idea that Winston Churchill was personally responsible for both world wars is so childish as to create serious doubt as to the sincerity or sanity of those pushing it.

    No one believes Chuchill was solely responsible for the war, but he was one of the unquestioned champions of the war. However the push for war was widespread in Britain as early as 1936 as is well documented in ‘Left Wings Over Europe, or How to Make a War About Nothing’ by British man of letters Wyndham Lewis –

    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!

    The history of WW I and WW II are addressed at antisemitism101.com, with a number of references. Both were driven by the Rothschild influenced British establishment.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Anon
  212. @Curmudgeon

    French Field Marshal Foch stated in June of 1919 after attending Versailles, that “nothing is settled and war will break out again in 20 years” suggesting that WWI and WWII were actually the same war all along.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  213. Yusef says:
    @Trinity

    I don’t know what this has to do with WWII either, but no one ever said Meredith Hunter didn’t do anything. In the documentary of the Altamont travesty Gimme Shelter you can clearly see what happened: Meredith had a gun drawn and appeared to be pointing it at the biker who stabbed him. The truth is that this biker was acquitted of the murder charge on that very basis. (He was later murdered himself, but that’s another story.)

    Hunter had to have been crazy or stupid or high to be messing around with the bikers the way he was, but what kind of stupidity to use those lawless violent thugs to provide “security.” To the extent this was Jagger’s decision, he deserves condemnation and in my mind some level of culpability in what happened. (I doubt that’s the way the legal system would ever see it, and correctly so, but still.) The bikers had been pummeling and beating people, including knocking out Marty Belon, the Jefferson Airplane lead singer, earlier in the afternoon.

    They were out of control and needed to be stopped before the Rolling Stones got on stage. Jagger claims he had no choice but to go on because he thought there would be much outrage if the group declined at the last minute. I sort of bought that until I found out the Rolling Stones had previously used the Angels at a concert in Hyde Park and had troubles with them. In any event, there’s usually so much going on that’s wrong in these incidents blame is hard to fix, and definitely shouldn’t be based on who is what color or what ethnic or other groups received or didn’t receive special treatment in the past, or now.

    • Replies: @Trinity
    , @Alden
  214. Bookish1 says:
    @the grand wazoo

    Understand when you read the book that the author and publisher spared over how many good things Irving could write about Hitler. If he made Hitler look too good the book would be considered neo nazi material and they wouldn’t publish it so Irving had to make Hiltler look not too good. It is the way things work when you want to write about Hitler or anyone asociated with him. I think if Irving would have been free to write objectively about Hitler he would have looked much better than he was allowed to be seen in the book.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  215. Bookish1 says:
    @Saggy

    Not only that but they might have other stuff on him like his homosexuality that I have heard of.

  216. Tony M says:

    Irving’s biography of Goebbels: ‘Goebbels. Mastermind of the Third Reich’ (released in a free internet version available from the author’s website) is an important work too, perhaps more so than ‘Hitler’s War’ for understanding what was going on near the top, but outside of Hitler’s bubble. In grim detail using amongst many sources, Goebbels’ diaries -dishonest and vain in parts. It exonerates Irving of any whitewashing of darker aspects. Opening with “WRITING THIS BIOGRAPHY, I have lived in the evil shadow of Dr Joseph Goebbels for over six years.” I’ve read the disjointed parts of ‘Churchill’s War’ that the author had made available to the public a few years ago and hope some day to read the whole sequentially in its entirety. Irving’s works are essential reading matter that get inside you, remain with you long after.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  217. Rocha says:

    Nobody has mentioned Anthony Sutton’s books showing how it was Wall St and American corporations that financed the Bolshevik revolution, the Ascension of Hitler ( Prescott Bush and Harriman) and the election of FDR
    The Haavra pact where Hitler financed the emigration of Jews to Palestine which to celebrate they minted a medal with a swastika one side and the Star of David on the other.
    That Hitler’s biggest mistake was nationalizing the emission of the currency which resulted in Germany coming out of the world depression and having full employment before anyone else. Analogous to Saddam Hussein wanting euros for his oil and Gadaffi wanting to create his own currency based on gold, the dinar. That after 9/11 the only two countries in the Middle East with central banks not controlled by private interests are Iran and Syria.

  218. @NoseytheDuke

    But you promote the belief in “death camps” and the hoax. Who do you think you’re fooling? I believe you’re afraid the “denier” label, which was dreamed up by the hoax-pushers themselves to hurt revisionists, has become powerful in itself, more powerful than revisionism, so now you want to talk us out of it. Too late – we deny the whole damn thing. Your propaganda isn’t working anymore. We’re deniers and proud of it.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  219. @Chris Moore

    CHURCHILL’S WAR was a magnificent read, the documentation superb.

  220. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Fox

    Without Britain’s (and behind Britain: Roosevelt’s) push for war, there would have been a treaty with Poland putting at rest the problems created by the dictate of Versailles.

    Wow. What can one say in the face of someone gifted with the knowledge of what would have happened if what happened had not happened?

    • Replies: @Fox
  221. @Saggy

    This is not compare and contrast, but after reading Roberts’ essay, there is very little to it and what there is was already covered by Pat Buchanan’s “The Unnecessary War.” Roberts seems just to need to catch up for his reputation’s sake and does it safely with a big fat kiss on the cheek of David Irving. Not impressive.

    • Agree: lavoisier
  222. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Saggy

    No one believes Chuchill was solely responsible for the war, but he was one of the unquestioned champions of the war.

    So you say, without evidence. Yet this is what Churchill wrote in the Evening Standard in 1937. From it, Unz readers may form a slightly different opinion to yours:

    [MORE]

    I FIND myself pilloried by Dr. Goebbels’s Press as an enemy of Germany. That description is quite untrue. Before the war I proposed to Von Tirpitz a naval holiday. If this had been ac­cepted, it would enormously have eased the European tension, and possibly have averted the catastrophe. At the moment of the Armistice, as is well known, I proposed filling a dozen great liners with food, and rushing them into Hamburg as a gesture of humanity. As Secretary of State for War in 1919, I pressed upon the Supreme Council the need of lifting the blockade, and laid before them the reports from our generals on the Rhine which eventually procured that step. I took a great deal of personal re­sponsibility in sending home, months before they would other­wise have been liberated, about one hundred thousand German prisoners, who were caged up in the Pas de Calais. I was vehe­mently opposed to the French invasion of the Ruhr. In order to prevent a repetition of it, I exerted myself in Mr. Baldwin’s Cabinet to have the Treaty of Locarno made to cut both ways, so that Germany as well as France had British protection against aggression. Therefore no one has a right to describe me as the enemy of Germany except in wartime.

    But my duty lies to my own country. As an independent Con­servative member I felt bound to give the alarm when, five years ago, the vast secret process of German re-armament, contrary to Treaty, began to be apparent. I also felt bound to point out to the Government in 1934 that Germany had already created a powerful military air force which would soon be stronger than the British Air Force. My only regret is that I was not believed. I can quite understand that this action of mine would not be popular in Germany. Indeed, it was not popular anywhere. I was told I was making ill will between the two countries. I am sure that if Herr Hitler had been in my position, and had be­lieved what I believed, he would have acted in the same way. In times like these the safety of one’s own country must count for more than saying smooth things about other countries. At any rate, I did not feel at all penitent when, six months later, I heard Mr. Baldwin admit that the Government had been wrong in their figures and information. And ever since ministers have been bewailing “the years that the locusts have eaten.”

    Similarly, for the last few months, in Parliament and in these letters, I drew attention to a serious danger to Anglo-German rela­tions which arises out of the organization of German residents in Britain into a closely knit, strictly disciplined body. I wonder what Dr. Goebbels would think if we had fifteen or twenty thousand Englishmen in Berlin, all strong anti-Nazis, who, while they kept within the law, were none the less all bound together, attending meetings at frequent intervals, and putting pressure on any British refugees, if such there were, to toe the line of some British party or other. Moreover, this process of Nazi organization abroad is un­doubtedly becoming an obstacle in the way of British and German cordiality. Sir Walter Citrine, at the Trade Union Congress, has protested in the name of British Labor against the persecution of German refugees in England by other German visitors to our shores.

    We have always been an asylum for refugees. It was only the other day that I was reading how in 1709 we gave refuge and shelter to a very large number of Germans from the Palatinate, which had been overrun by Marshal Villars with fire and sword. We could never allow foreign visitors to pursue their national feuds in the bosom of our country, still less to be organized in such a way as to affect our military security. The Germans would not tolerate it for a moment in their country, nor should they take it amiss that we do not like it in ours. I see Herr Bohle has expressed a wish to talk this over with me. I should be delighted to do so in the most friendly manner, and do anything in the power of a private member to remove this new embarrassment to Anglo- German goodwill.*

    * He visited me a few weeks later.

    I have had from time to time conversations with eminent Ger­man supporters of the present regime. When they say, as they so often do, “Will not England grasp the extended friendly hand of Germany?” nearly everyone in England will reply, “Certainly, yes. We cannot pretend to like your new institutions, and we have long freed ourselves from racial and religious intolerance. We cannot say that we admire your treatment of the Jews or of the Protestants and Catholics of Germany. We even think our methods of dealing with Communism are better than yours. But after all, these matters, so long as they are confined inside Ger­many, are not our business. It is our duty and our sincere desire to live in a good and neighborly fashion with so great a nation united to us by many ties of history and of race. Indeed, we will grasp the outstretched German hand.”

    “But,” we must ask, “what happens next? Are we expected to do anything special to prove our friendship, and if so, what?” We cannot be expected to help Germany financially while she is spending nearly a thousand millions sterling a year upon her tremendous rearmament. That would be unfair to our own peo­ple. We cannot hand over colonies irrespective of the wishes of their inhabitants and of a great many other considerations. We should be very wrong if we were to give Germany a guarantee that so long as she left Britain and France alone in the West, she could do what she liked to the peoples of the center and south­east of Europe. To give such an assurance at other people’s ex­pense would not only be callous and cynical, but it might actually lead to a war the end of which no man can foresee.

    To hold these opinions is not to be hostile to the German Government, and still less to the Germans as a nation. To feel deep concern about the armed power of Germany is in no way derogatory to Germany. On the contrary, it is a tribute to the wonderful and terrible strength which Germany exerted in the Great War, when almost single-handed she fought nearly all the world and nearly beat them. Naturally, when a people who have shown such magnificent military qualities are arming night and day, its neighbors, who bear the scars of previous conflicts, must be anxious and ought to be vigilant. One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.

    I have on more than one occasion made my appeal in public that the Führer of Germany should now become the Hitler of peace. When a man is fighting in a desperate conflict he may have to grind his teeth and flash his eyes. Anger and hatred nerve the arm of strife. But success should bring a mellow, genial air and, by altering the mood to suit the new circumstances, preserve and consolidate in tolerance and goodwill what has been gained by conflict.

    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
  223. Anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @Saggy

    No one believes Chuchill was solely responsible for the war

    No, it was Neville Chamberlain who was responsible for the war. Not by appeasing Hitler which is the common myth. But rather by giving Poland security guarantees which Britain could never live up to which nevertheless gave the stubborn regime in Poland unwarranted confidence to not accede to Hitler demands. This caused Hitler to invade Poland and consequently Britain declared war in Germany.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  224. Mefobills says:
    @Anon

    I look forward to your response.

    Have you not read Irving and learned about the Focus group? There is no way that Churchill could afford his estates, and he was given outside money… hence Churchill was under control.

    Creditors are over debtors … this is a first principle in life.

    Putting people into hidden debts is exactly the modus operandi of Zion, which in turn is an adjunct of finance capital.

    Zion did align with Rothschild at the first Zionist conference, did it not?

    Who do you think bought up land in Palestine initially to get Eretz Israel started?

    Zion is also willing to take losses …. as long as the trunk remains.

  225. PeterMX says:
    @Saggy

    “Holocaust Denier” is an insult by Jewish liars and ignoramuses indoctrinated with lies about Jews made into lampshades and soap and 4 million gassed or burned alive at Auschwitz and then after 45 years admitting they lied when they changed the death toll to 1 million murdered, still without a shred of evidence. Not one person was ever found to have died of gassing by the Germans in WW II. Not one. The liars did no autopsies and never recovered the bodies and didn’t try until 60 yewrs after the war ended.. They constantly change their story every time they are exposed as liars.

    The definition of deny is to “reduse to admit te truth”. How does someone “know” the truth, expecially when the holocaust propagandists are continuously exposed as liars. Hopefully some day the Jewsish liars will be thrown in jail for spreading racial hatred with their lies instead of researchers that expose their lies.

  226. Mefobills says:
    @Cleburne

    All your noise about him is a distraction from WASPism which was probably as much Dutch as it was “English.” Yeah, I know Mr Saker says “Anglo Zionist” but I think the Florida sunshine has roasted his brain

    The antecedents are Dutch Jews. They moved en masse to Holland and Amsterdam after queen Isabella kicked them out of Spain in 1492/1493.

    Our Jewish friends lost their secret usury method of taking gains on Silver/Gold on overland caravan routes in 1498 when Vasco De-Gama discovered the Southern Route.

    In other words, the secret method of Jewish usury and taking rents on money fell to the Portuguese, and Jews as a family crime business was in crises.

    It was in Amsterdam where 700 unlicensed Sephardi Jews invented gets/puts and the bundling of stock capital into companies. The first company formed in this way was Dutch East India company.

    This construct jumped to London, on the backs of Dutch Jews, who then infiltrated into England.

    Half of the stock in the first bank of the U.S. was also related to Dutch Jewry with a $500 million dollar loan.

    The parasite jumped in the 200 years between 1492 and 1694 when BOE came into existence. Our current world is informed by that event.

    Monetary history is real history, and it is not taught in skool.

    You are right in that the (((Dutch))) were involved … heavily. Once a parasite takes over the brain, then the body malfunctions.

    • Thanks: DaveE
  227. Mefobills says:
    @NoseytheDuke

    Corbett report did a good job on the behind the scenes maneuvering that led to WW1 and 2.

    And surprise! it was hidden financiers along with propaganda (newspapers) that were the leading agents.

    The world war 1 conspiracy. WW2 was a continuation of WW1.

    • Thanks: S
    • Replies: @Ondra Hada
    , @S
  228. G Graham says:

    Who is this wanker. Non other than David Dimbily a war correspondent at the time and latter of BBC fame was one of the first to enter a Nazi concentration camp. Go listen to his commentry. How many Jews survived the war. Were do you think Poland’s pre war Jewish population disappeared to, or for that matter Germany’s. Asswipe, what about the list of people to be eliminated in the UK after a German victory.

  229. @Wally

    Yes, they did.

    I can’t imagine why. Hitler was probably sitting at home watching a western and patting Blondie when the declarations came through. It’s not like he was invading Poland or anything.

    • Replies: @Wally
  230. @W.W.H.D.

    Did Hitler or did he not invade Poland?

    • Replies: @GeeBee
    , @Wally
    , @John Wear
  231. S says:
    @Saggy

    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.

    Wyndham Lewis, unlike most people, understood what was going on. I have to imagine he took note of H G Well’s 1936 movie Things to Come which spoke of a war of ‘extermination to be fought against a barely disguised Germany in a world war which was to commence 1940.

    Nothing new, however, in Well’s ‘prophecy’.

    Some eighty-three years before that (1853) the New Rome linked to below describes a future ‘world’s war’ being unleashed when a yet to be formed US/UK united front (the ‘Anglo-Saxon empire’) makes it move to obtain total world power by first conquering and gobbling up the great prize of Germany, the center of power upon continental Europe. The target immediately after that conquest is Russia.

    The widely reviewed book was published by the then US establishment book publisher G P Putnan (now Penguin) with it’s offices at the time located in New York and London. I see it’s contents as ‘a suggestion’ being placed in the US public’s mind of what was to be expected from the United States in the future.

    A world war against Germany by the Anglosphere seems to have been long planned.

    The New Rome (1853) – pg 105

    That great uprising of all peoples, that world’s war which is for ever seen to hang, like the sword of Damocles, over the passing joys and troubles of the hour, will fall when the Anglo-Saxon empire shall lay its slow but unyielding grasp upon the countries of the Germanic confederation. Then will the mastery of Europe be the prize of the death-struggle between the Union [the United States] and the Czar [Russia].

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_new_rome_or_the_united_states_of_the_world_1853

  232. Fox says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Well, after Poland’s fortune foundered within days, Moscicki and Beck both said that they should have come to an understanding with Germany, rather listened to Britain’s promises. Until Beck’s visit in early January 1939 in London, von Ribbentrop was optimistic that an understanding regarding the outstanding questions between Poland and Germany could be reached, and in October of 1938, such a meeting was initiated by Poland.
    But I would like you to think about how Hitler would have invaded the Soviet Union if there had been no common border, which was only established after the Soviet Union invaded Eastern Poland. The SU could very well have not done that. Any theories on that, or the attack on Finland, Bessarabia, the occupation of the Baltic States?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  233. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Anon

    No, it was Neville Chamberlain who was responsible for the war.

    Your claim has psychological plausibility, although it provides no basis for the view that either Britain or, single-handedly, Winston Churchill was responsible for the war, or that events made any war inevitable. Rather, Germany and Russia entered into a secret agreement to commit the ultimate war crime: the initiation of a war of aggression, a war that resulted in the occupation and partition of the sovereign state of Poland.

    • Agree: Miro23
    • Replies: @RationalRabbit
  234. Hibernian says:
    @Cleburne

    You’re ignoring the point that they didn’t do anything to promote Anglicanism in India either. As for Cromwell, he was a disaster for both Britain and Ireland.

    • Replies: @Cleburne
  235. @Bookish1

    Another reason that Roberts statement at the beginning of his article is wrong:

    The one historian from whom you can get the unvarnished truth of World War II is David Irving.

    One doesn’t get the unvarnished truth from Irving at all, but has to be very careful not to believe everything he says just because it has a footnote. They can be wrong too.

  236. @Tony M

    Irving’s biography of Goebbels is a bad book, maybe his worst. It is anti-Goebbels. Who knows, maybe he thought he would use Goebbels as a shield to counter being called way too pro-Hitler … or maybe Irving was jealous of Goebbels tight friendship with Hitler and so wrote a nasty book about him.

    You mention “Hitler’s bubble.” Irving pushes that idea too. He is no friend of the Nazis.

  237. Parfois1 says:
    @Phil the Fluter

    What utter nonsense. 99.9% of Brits have never heard of the 1911 miners strike in Wales.

    Agree completely – an exorbitant and bombastic exaggeration by the commenter BragadocioUS. Exactly what one would expect from anyone who’d chosen such moniker: arrogant pretension and empty boasting.

  238. @Mefobills

    The operative who first saddled the United States with private “national” banking was Alexander Hamilton, and he was not Jewish. Confusing usury finance with Jews and Jewish financiers with Jews hinders solving the worldwide and world-devastating problem of elite capital control of exchange, commerce, industry, etc.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  239. Janusz says:

    Paul Roberts shows again ignorance and complete lack of knowledge of the subject he is writing about, in this case the European history by writing that “Germans in the territories turned over to Czechoslovakia and Poland were being persecuted and murdered”. Where is the proof of such a malicious statement? Those lands were historically Polish and were initially colonized and than later taken from Poland over the years through wars and conquest. Germans in Poland were not murdered but quite contrary they enjoyed high social status and every freedom that every other citizen enjoyed. Try reading Norman Davies about this subject and not pathetic Pat Buchanan or germanophilic Irving. Poles should have surrender and focused on the survival of their nation when the war broke down when Poland was attacked by germans and soviet Russia together in September of 1939. The phony guarantees from France and British were responsible for millions of deaths. The sad irony is that in September of 1939 when Germany and soviets invaded Poland the whole western border of Germany was unprotected and an attack at that time by the French and British forces would have destroyed the nazism already then in 1939.

    • Replies: @tac
    , @Fox
  240. Alfred says:
    @Just Passing Through

    As one grows up, it is possible to know that history has always been full of deaths and that there are numerous photos of piles of dead bodies.

    People never grow up. That is why they keep on showing piles of coffins being buried in a mass grave near New York. It works every time. People are not supposed to ever die.

  241. @Mefobills

    I dont trust this Corbett guy. He spreads baseless rumors like Hitler was a Rothschild bastard ( no proof ). And never says anything good about National Socialism or Hitler.

    Carolyn Yeager’s Article on these lies: https://www.carolynyeager.net/fake-legends-adolf-hitler%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cjewish-grandfather%E2%80%9D

    The WW1 video may be perfectly fine, but I wont make time for him.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  242. Trinity says:
    @Yusef

    Not a fan of the Hells Angels or the 1960s hippies, but if you really think about it, these hippies were the predecessors of ANTIFA, so IF I have to choose sides, I’m rooting for the tatted bikers. We all know the origins of ANTIFA and how they operate. Good to hear the biker was acquitted, I had heard about the incident like everyone else, ( I was only 8 at the time, so this was a tad before my time), but even though I am a HUGE Stones fan, I never cared enough about the story to find out what happened in the end to the biker(s.) Yes, I agree, hiring a bunch of drunk, doped up, violent Hells Angels to work security over a concert filled with hippies is trouble waiting to happen. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. Can you imagine a bunch of ANTIFA dweebs of today or a mob of “urban teens” attacking a large group of Hells Angels instead of a diminutive Asian reporter or pot bellied, regular old good ole boys who haven’t been in a scuffle since the 9th grade? Funny, predators never attack people like the Hells Angels.

  243. Miro23 says:
    @anarchyst

    Today’s capitalist “mantra” is that labor costs must be as cheap as possible while the “value” (profit) to the stockholder must be as great as possible. Sacrificing labor on the altar of “maximum profits” NEVER works in the long term.

    Seriously OT but this is a fair statement of Western capitalism – particularly the Anglo variety.

    It’s also true that Henry Ford saw the problem back in the 1920’s. There’s a circularity to profits, skill development, employment and rewards that Ford applied to his operations in Detroit – but the concept also works at the national level (if governments represent the people rather than corporate outsourcers/speculators).

    Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage ($130 today), which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers.[23] A Cleveland, Ohio, newspaper editorialized that the announcement “shot like a blinding rocket through the dark clouds of the present industrial depression.”[24] The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs.[25][26] Ford announced his $5-per-day program on January 5, 1914, raising the minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying male workers.

    Wikipedia

    • Thanks: anarchyst
  244. Dan Hayes says:
    @Alfred

    Fast forward 2020: Dubliners need not travel north anymore to see their fill of black folk!

  245. tac says:
    @Paul Craig Roberts

    I have never studied the holocaust and have no conclusions to report.

    Spoken like a true coward, who has no intentions of finding out the ultimate truth about the holohoax! When people shall pass over your grave, it will be ordinary, one of a coward, one that covers the remains of what will soon be ushered into the silent wind of the forgotten fluctuations of the wind on a particular day, who could have made some inroads for this readers, but chose the default state of protectionism; you’ve always walked on eggshells and thus will continue till your dying day; a true statesman of the era you are not, nor will you ever be; that, far and away, belongs to one true statesman, one true politician, one true being who dared to stand for his peoples: Adolph Hitler! Before screaming and jumping to de jour conclusions, do take time to really ‘research’–and at the pinnacle of this research is none other than the holohaox! Until doing your due diligence you merely hold the well-deserved reputation of a novice, at best!

    You’ve always told half-truths mixed in with propaganda(lies) so it seems more plausible, not unlike, that your many cohorts are in similar positions–this case being NO EXCEPTION.

    When one questions the authors, one automatically becomes a persona non grata! I shall continue to question your erroneous explanations of said events of WWII, as they are, at best, half-truths.

    • Agree: Saggy
  246. S says:
    @Mefobills

    And surprise! it was hidden financiers along with propaganda (newspapers) that were the leading agents.

    Yes, in the 1890’s there was a big media campaign in America and Britain that pushed for the open reunification of the US and UK. The link below has an excerpt from one such article published in the then hugely influential Atlantic Monthly (now simply The Atlantic) pushing this.

    The problem they were running into was that after a hundred years of being taught the British Empire was the most wicked thing on the face of the Earth, a lot of the American public was having trouble making a complete about face on this subject. So the elites appeared to back off for a time, that is, until they more or less did the reunification anyway with the ‘special relationship’ circa 1900.

    What’s interesting is that King George III in his 1782 speech before the British Parliament first officially acknowledging the separation of the US from the UK, was already even then speaking about their future reunification.

    “Religion, language, interest, affections, may, and I hope will yet, prove a bond of permanent union between the two countries…”
    King George III in speech before British Parliament – December 5, 1782

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/a_special_relationship

  247. Adûnâi says:
    @commandor

    And now he has let your comment through. A nice comment, maybe even inspired by my ideas. Sounds megalomaniacal, but honestly speaking, I agree with Chechar that too few White people experience enough terror and disgust at the worship of a crucified Jew. I merely take it a step further, and fault Hitler, too.

    Hitler was a slave to his material conditions, so to say. Had he been a true messiah, he would have seen through the petty nationalist politicking of his day. Muh’ German interests, muh’ Prussian traditions, muh’ illegitimate Poland, and muh’ favourite, muh’ bloody Bolsheviks… All vanity! All the wars, all the geopolitics, all the strife is for nought if the very soul of the entire race is mortally poisoned!

    Today, there still are German men, and Russian men, and English men, but where are the armies? Where is the future? The parties, the struggle? All vanished, all stopped. Paused in the grip of the final, maddening relapse of Christianity.

    Was it not obvious that the Germanics of America and of England were spiritual Jews? Is it not obvious now that the war in Donbass does not decide the fate of Ukraine? To Hitler, it was not. Even in his final moments, amazed at the illusory strength of a Christian Communist, he thought the Russian race proved superior – only for their Soviet State to disintegrate 45 fleeting years later!

    Nobody in the world cares about history. Nobody in the world has internalized the unprecedented event when a nuclear superpower committed suicide in 1991. But to me, it is evident that wars and armies and economies and geopolitics mean jack all when all your men become homosexual faggots.

    Hitler’s approach was that of Al-Quaeda. Whereas I advocate a path that would be metaphorically similar to ISIS. One focuses on the external crusade against foreigners. The other is about purifying your nation.

    The experience of the DPR of Korea proves me right. First, you focus on your own people, and the rest will be given to you. Now, the DPRK is stronger than Germany ever was. Now, the DPRK can assure mutual destruction in a case of aggression from the USA – a hundred nuclear warheads, possible Kessler syndrome, possible EMP strikes, possible hacker attacks, possible chemical warfare… All you need is an orderly and beautiful country, and patience. Too much to ask of the Aryan slaves, it seems.

    • Replies: @Truth3
    , @commandor
  248. tac says:
    @Janusz

    Yes, you are certainly mostly right. Gdansk (Danzig) originally belonged to Poland back in 997, and through the centuries changed hands between Poles, mostly Germans, Prussians and being declared a “free” Polish territory. That is not to say Gdansk does not belong to Poland!

    What should have happened during the negotiations (after the death of Polands’ Pilsudski) Rydz-Smigly should have been more prudent in this ideological ambitions, and made some compromises with Hitler. What he did instead, both prior to the outbreak of war, and in the aftermath was strategically a mistake, given his “influence”–and he did certainly pay for this with his life shortly after returning to Poland.

    • Replies: @Saggy
  249. Parfois1 says:
    @Beckow

    If Irving got those two basic facts wrong, how is one to believe the other stuff?

    I have not read any of Irving’s books and cannot comment on his interpretation of the R-M non-aggression pact which both parties knew (as everyone with basic historic background) was an interim affair which suited both Germany and the USSR at the time but, ultimately, had a cardinal bearing on the USSR’s victory. Without that crucial respite and relocation of the frontline westwards, it is doubtful the USSR could prevent the onslaught on Moscow and win in Stalingrad. Maybe the genius of Stalin came to the fore when he decided to replace Litvinov (who was a very able statesman, by the way) and send Molotov posthaste to Berlin to stay Hitler’s hand.

    Considering the obviousness of the R-M Pact, I would assume that Irving (perhaps the most credible historian of WWII) would not get the facts wrong at all, especially on that fundamental piece of history. Probably Roberts’s summary above (note how concise his salient points are) is not a sound basis to excoriate Irving. But I see your point and commend your fuller account of the Pact, background rationale and consequences.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    , @Johnny Rico
  250. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Fox

    But I would like you to think about how Hitler would have invaded the Soviet Union if there had been no common border, which was only established after the Soviet Union invaded Eastern Poland. The SU could very well have not done that. Any theories on that, or the attack on Finland, Bessarabia, the occupation of the Baltic States?

    That the jointly planned Russian – German invasion and occupation of Poland brought German forces to the border of Russia seems to indicate that Stalin despite, his usual paranoia, neither expected nor feared a German attack.

    Stephen Kotkin, in the volumes thus far published (to 1941) of his vast Stalin biography offers little insight into Stalin’s thinking at the moment of Germany’s invasion of Russia.

    A simpleminded but seemingly plausible theory is that Stalin aimed simply to restore the 1914 borders of the Russian Empire (explaining Russia’s invasion not only of Poland, but of Finland, Bessarabia and the Baltic states) and assumed that this would be obvious and agreeable to Hitler, who likewise aimed to recover German territory lost as a consequence of WW1.

    • Replies: @Darrell Wright
    , @Fox
  251. Yusef says:
    @Curmudgeon

    By your reasoning why not say WWII started with Wilson and others who wrote and ratified the Treaty of Versailles? A lot of the people who swallowed Wilson’s “war to end all wars” and “make the world safe for democracy” understood the terms of the treaty made another major war a certainty.

    Wilson’s high minded but unworkable 14 points and League of Nations folly should have no place in politics. He was worse than Jimmy Carter.

    Famously, the Federal Reserve and federal income tax originate during Wilson’s disastrous administrations, so maybe we could also say WWI and WWII began December 23, 1913. You could endorse that, couldn’t you? You do have the Israelis declaring war on the world on March 24, 1933. Why not the earlier date?

  252. @Trinity

    Wrt John McCain’s send off to the afterlife, you must at least admit that his family and “friends did know how to put the “fun” in funeral. I think “burlesque” the single word to best characterize that shindig.

  253. Miro23 says:
    @Yusef

    I’m 100% in favor of a more balanced, informed and less cartoonishly demonized understanding of Hitler, but hey, let’s not be stupid about it. So much of what he wrote and said cannot be taken at face value. Hitler was remarkably adept at saying one thing and doing another and this ability allowed him to buy time and delay what might arguably have been a deserved harsh rebuke and retaliation from the west right at the get go, “nipping it in the bud,” as Barney Fife used to say.

    Agree with this. A contrast with Hitler are his well thought out policies for German economic reconstruction (plus clearing out Weimar financialization and sleaze) vs. his crazy racist imperialism. Irving is quite illuminating about both, since he’s studied the original sources and that’s what they say.

    Irving shows all of Hitler’s deception, and also the fact that these tactical positions and alliances were aimed at further his long term strategy – the creation of Greater Germany (i.e. a Germanic Empire covering all the German speaking peoples and also Eastern Europe, Russia and the Ukraine).

    Hitler limited his strategic communications to his secret speeches and these mostly involved the military at critical junctures.

  254. @Carolyn Yeager

    But you promote the belief in “death camps” and the hoax.

    Huh? I do no such thing. Did you make that up? Where do you get that from? My position is that people were led to believe that something was true but after reviewing the evidence, or lack thereof, have come to a different understanding. Revision, to look again.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  255. Mefobills says:
    @Ondra Hada

    The WW1 video may be perfectly fine, but I wont make time for him.

    You have the intelligence to discern wheat from chaff. The WW1 video is well researched to my eye, and I can find little to disagree with. If somebody can find something specific that is wrong, I would like to hear it.

    It is a good entry point for those who want to initiate themselves with the period.

    Hitler has served as a boogeyman for all kinds of lizard brain fantasies. He is a blank canvass for people to project onto. Besides, even if Hitler was somehow related to Rothschild (which he wasn’t), his actions were against “finance capital.”

  256. Mefobills says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    The operative who first saddled the United States with private “national” banking was Alexander Hamilton, and he was not Jewish.

    The first bank collected existing WAR debts and then CONVERTED them to preferred stock.

    The stock owners then got revenue on their former debts. The revenue came from post office and liquor taxes. In other words, non performing debts were made to perform, and said debts became the basis of bank capitalization.

    This bank then funded canal building, and a navy to protect the nascent country… especially from the British.

    The first bank was a stock owned bank, with about 50% of the stock going to “foreign” financiers. (I’m not exact on the percent of foreign ownership).

    When the bank charter was revoked, and the “owners” discovered, many were English and Dutch Jews.

    Whenever there is sneaky business with regards to money, there are Jews about – count on it.

    BUT!

    Alexander Hamilton was for national credit. My personal view is that the first bank was a desperate attempt to keep the country from falling back into English finance plutocracy hands. This plutocracy, by this time in history, was hand in glove with Jewish method.

    Hamilton was actually pretty clever and probably saved the U.S. In his first report on manufacturers he clearly understood that the “producing” sectors of the economy was where american credit should flow, and that production would be able to pay the interest and taxes on the debt.

    I actually disagree with what Jackson did in collapsing the first bank, despite it being a nest of vipers and thieves. All Jackson had to do was convert the stock of the bank into Treasury held stock, making the first bank into a national bank, and thus better able to channel credit into production.

    Hamilton is in alignment with the American System that evolved in Mass Bay.

  257. PCR is being obviously mendacious in several things:

    First, by claiming that Hitler only wanted the return of German areas taken after WWI. As William Shirer pointed out in “The Rise And Fall of the Third Reich”, the borders of imperial Germany were, to Hitler, “contemptible”. PCR fails to explain the Austrian Anschluß and Hitler’s well known plans to invade Switzerland, not to speak of his endless demands, from Mein Kampf to his last will and testament (smuggled out of the Führerbunker just before Hitler’s suicide), to “acquire Lebensraum in the East”.

    What Hitler suggested to the Brutish, whom he intensely admired, was that he would “guarantee the Brutish Empire” in return for a “free hand in Europe”. A “free hand in Europe” for any European country, whether that was Napoleon’s France or Bismarck’s Germany, of course, is exactly what Brutish foreign policy for centuries had sought to prevent. If Hitler imagined that the Brutish would change their policy just because of his offer, he was not particularly bright, was he?

    Then, PCR claims that the Brutish strategic withdrawal at Dunkirk was due to “Hitler’s magnanimity”. One wonders where he found this nugget because it was General, later Field Marshal, Gerd von Rundstedt who ordered the German offensive halted on 23rd May, and Hitler only approved the decision the next day.

    Third, PCR implies that the Brutish strategic bombing of German cities, involving cities being bombed by waves of bombers, the second wave targeting the rescuers and firemen who were trying to help the victims of the first, was what compelled Hitler to switch the Luftwaffe to bombing Brutish cities. I have not read Irving’s “Churchill’s War,” but I have read Irving’s book on the firebombing of Dresden, “Apocalypse 1945”, and I can guarantee that wherever PCR came up with this it wasn’t from Irving, who gives an exhaustive account of the evolution of Brutish city bombing. In fact the Brutish were totally incapable of bombing German cities in waves in 1940; it was only in 1942, when the Avro Lancaster came into service, that the RAF had an aircraft capable of mass city bombing. In 1940 two engined Brutish Wellington bombers hastily bombed German cities in uncoordinated attacks with relatively small, relatively few, high explosive bombs, doing little damage, and Hitler’s reaction of switching the Luftwaffe effort from countering the RAF to bombing Brutish cities (using bombers like the Dornier 17 and Heinkel 111 that were incapable of the strategic bombing role) was moronic and suicidal. As for the firebombing of Dresden killing “as many people as the two atom bombs”, that’s a red herring. The official figure, which has never been disproved, and which was cited by the Dresden authorities in the immediate aftermath of the bombing, was 20-25000. All the inflated death toll does is give ammunition to people who deny the criminality of the bombing, nothing else.

    Fourth, PCR talks about the Brutish invasion of Norway, conveniently forgetting that it was a race between Germany and Brutain to invade it, and that Germany, very narrowly, got there first.

    While PCR is correct about the Germans concentrating almost all their forces in the East, he is wrong about the “necessity” of Germany overextending its forces to help Italy. There was absolutely no need for Germany to ally with Italy. Italy’s military was so terrible that in Ethiopia it took half a year and needed to use poison gas to defeat Ethiopian troops in white cloaks armed with spears, who on two occasions defeated Italian armour with infantry charges. In Spain Italy’s pathetic Carro Veloce L3 tankettes were blown to pieces by Russian made Republican T26 tanks and Italian Fiat biplanes were shot out of the air by Republican I 16 fighters. Italy was never an asset as an ally, it was a liability, and the idiocy of tying such a millstone round his neck was yet another of Hitler’s stupidities.

    I used to admire PCR at one time. It’s a pity to watch him degenerate like this.

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
    , @tac
    , @Fox
  258. Fox says:
    @Janusz

    Janusz, it is well known that such revelations are not welcome in Poland and in Czechia. Where do you hail from, or your parents? Truly, I would feel uncomfortable, too, knowing how the land I was occupying had been taken from other people through means which can be summed up by the words “dishonorable” and ” “criminal”.
    The League in Geneva had many complaints filed by Germans under Czech or Polish rule attesting to such persecution, and such incidence were also amply known to the French and British governments through their ambassadors and through the press.

  259. Mefobills says:
    @Mefobills

    Correction, first bank charter was allowed to lapse. Jackson was against the second bank.

    Wiki if you can trust it shows Hamilton’s four goals, which includes a national bank. Hamilton DID try to give the government a modicum of control over monetary affairs. Wiki doesn’t say anything about the Dutch loan.

    In simpler words, Hamilton’s four goals were to:

    Have the Federal Government assume the Revolutionary War debts of the several states
    Pay off the war debts
    Raise money for the new government[3]
    Establish a national bank and create a common currency[4]

    According to the plan put before the first session of the First Congress in 1790, Hamilton proposed establishing the initial funding for the First Bank of the United States through the sale of $10 million in stock of which the United States government would purchase the first $2 million in shares. Hamilton, foreseeing the objection that this could not be done since the U.S. government did not have $2 million, proposed that the government purchase the stock using money lent to it by the bank; the loan to be paid back in ten equal annual installments. The remaining $8 million of stock would be available to the public, both in the United States and overseas. The chief requirement of these non-government purchases was that one-quarter of the purchase price had to be paid in gold or silver; the remaining balance could be paid in bonds, acceptable scrip, etc.[6]

    Unlike the Bank of England, the primary function of the bank would be a credit issued to government and private interests, for internal improvements and other economic development, per Hamilton’s system of Public Credit

  260. @CanSpeccy

    Unfortunately the people this article is aimed at are merely seeking validation of the view that they already hold, viz., Hitler was a heroic defender of “western civilisation” reluctantly dragged into a war by Jewish-Bolshevik conspirators. Since they are only looking for validation of their ideas, you can’t expect them to appreciate, welcome, or understand nuance.

    Italy, Germany’s ally, was already an aggressive imperialist expansionist power (Ethiopia and Albania). Japan, Germany’s ally, was already an aggressive imperialist expansionist power (Korea and China). Hitler had repeatedly ignored his country’s, and his own, commitments (Versailles, Sudetenland, even his promise in 1923 to Kahr not to launch the Beer Hall Putsch); he’d mass murdered his own comrades in The Night Of The Long Knives, an act that shocked even Mussolini. Why would anyone trust him to keep his word about anything?

    • Replies: @Malla
  261. @krotz

    Interesting and obviously knowledgeable but surely flawed, non trivially, in suggesting that Britain sought to achieve or maintain “continental hegemony”. That’s about 500 years out of date. Britain merely needed to protect the very satisfactory status quo from continental threat embodied in the more populous, and industrially advanced, Germany, led by Queen Victoria’s idiot grandson threatening that status quo as was happening when Germany built a navy to rival Britain’s without having Britain’s need for a navy.

    • Replies: @the shadow
    , @Poco
  262. Alfred says:
    @Jack McArthur

    Download for books (on a try and hopefully buy basis still covered by copyright)

    Thank you. Most helpful. 🙂

  263. Alfred says:
    @S

    As WWII progressed those forces were cannibalized, so much so that by 1945 when the Soviets invaded, they were merely a shell of what they had been.

    The Japanese had around 1,200,000 seasoned soldiers. The First Army and the Third Army. The attackers were only a little more numerous – around 1,500,000. The Japanese were the defenders and so had a huge advantage. They were preparing for such an attack for years and had plenty of fortifications.

    It was a fantastic victory for the Soviets who attacked from an unexpected direction. They took 600,000+ Japanese prisoners.

    For comparison, in the Battle of the Bulge, there were 230,000 allied soldiers and 406,000 German soldiers. The allied forces had total control of the air and unlimited supplies of fuel. The Germans were largely using reserves and the elderly. Their tanks frequently ran out of fuel.

    Please don’t try to downplay the victory of the USSR over Japan. Thank you.

    • Replies: @S
  264. Good column. I have one nit to pick, though:

    Hitler’s aim was to restore the integrity of the German nation which had been torn apart and distributed to Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, and France by the Versailles Treaty which had been forced on Germany after World War I

    The border between Denmark and Germany was established by referenda in the disputed areas, and Hitler did not propose to change that border, even if the German population in the Danish part begged him to do so.

    No territory was “recovered” during the German occupation of Denmark, the result of the 1920 referenda was respected.

  265. GeeBee says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    He actually ‘invaded’ what, until the iniquitous Treaty of Versailles in 1919, used to be part of Germany, in order to rescue his own people, who were being beaten, evicted from their homes and indeed raped and killed by the Polish Military Junta.

    Imagine if the World situation had been reversed in 1919, and, let us say, Florida had been forcibly ceded to Mexico. Its inhabitants were being beaten, evicted from their homes and indeed raped and killed by the Mexicans. Along comes a true American patriot – let’s call him Alfred Histler – who succeeds in his bid to become President of the USA. He attempts to negotiate with Mexico, but they have been given a ‘war guarantee’ by the British Empire, and the Mexicans laugh at his generous offer and continue the rapings, beatings, evictions and hillings of former American citizens in Florida.

    President Histler finally decides he can tolerate this injustice no longer, calculates that Britain, when push comes to shove, will find a way of reneging on their foolish and unworkable ‘war guarantee’ and he takes Florida back into the arms of the USA, to the joy and universal acclammation of all true Americans.

    Or rather, according to the likes of you, he ‘invades’ Florida and starts World War Two…

    • Agree: Lurker
    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  266. GeeBee says:
    @Julius Skoolafish

    Well I’m dashed! If it isn’t my good old buddy Skoolafish. Many thanks for your kind words. I no longer post on Disqus, as you know: I was one of victims of ‘the bot’ and my resulting low-rep means that all my comments went into ‘spam’. Grrr. I must say, you really ought to spend time on Mr Unz’s excellent site. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

    ‘Chatty’ comments are frowned upon here, so I’ll keep it brief, but thanks once again.

  267. Alfred says:
    @Simpleguest

    Thank you.

    I was perfectly aware of Khalkhin Gol. It was a border conflict according to Wikipedia. On the border of Mongolia and China – and nowhere near the USSR. I was discussing Soviet eastern Siberia and years later.

    In some ways, it is like the ongoing conflict in Syria between the USA and Russia. The USA is using its military and proxies to try and change the government of Syria and essentially take control of the country. The Russians are supporting the Syrians. No one would call that a Russian invasion of the USA or vice versa. 🙂

  268. Alfred says:
    @Beckow

    It is amusing how completely Anglo WWII propaganda works on even smart people.

    Thank you for the compliment. I will return the favour. 🙂

    Mongolia was and still remains a different country from the USSR.

    • Replies: @Beckow
  269. @Gordon Pratt

    “I read somewhere his notes for the book had been seized, but it was not clear by whom.” It should be clear they were seized by the “usual suspects” or else by Brits told to do so by them.

  270. @CanSpeccy

    There is an article either here or at Russian Insider proving that Hitler preempted a planned attack by the Soviets against Germany by attacking first, which he needed to do to save his country.

  271. Alfred says:
    @DB Cooper

    The capture of Japanese soldiers was just a formality.

    I see. Defeating an army of 1,200,000 Japanese in 1945 was a mere formality. How come? Did the Soviets drop atomic bombs on them as well. Did they all catch the coronavirus? 🙂 There was no internet in those days and they certainly had not heard of atomic bombs.

    Obviously, the “neutrality pact” was a convenience for both sides. Like the regular truces they have in Idlib.

    The fact remains that if it were not for those atomic bombs, the Soviets would have occupied mainland Japan. That is precisely why the atomic bombs were dropped. The Soviets did occupy some islands in the north of Japan and now they are a part of Russia.

    It is amazing how people continue to pretend that Germany was not defeated by the USSR. That strategic defeat was at Stalingrad. It took place on February 23, 1943. After that, the Germans never recovered and were in constant retreat. They lost most of their best soldiers in the east long before the Allies landed in France in June 1944.

    The shortest route from Stalingrad to Berlin is 1,660 miles (2,675 km). The shortest route from Normandy to Berlin is 745 miles (1,200 km). The Germans put far more effort into their eastern front than into their western front. They preferred to be occupied by the Americans for some strange reason. Nevertheless, the Soviets occupied Berlin when the Americans were still 120 miles (200 km) from Berlin.

    Please forget the Hollywood movies about the wonders of the US Army. They have yet to win a single land war against any serious foe. In recent years, they have resorted to using large numbers of Muslim mercenaries.

    These discussions remind me of the allegation that Napoleon was defeated by the Russian winter. A total fabrication. The French retreated from Moscow long before the winter started in Russia. The retreat started in the middle of October 1812. The famous painting showing Napoleon retreating in the snow with his soldiers was pure propaganda. He travelled back to Paris in a few days in a fast carriage with frequent changes of horses. He abandoned his army so that the Russians could destroy them.

    Napoleon did the same thing in Egypt in 1799. He took a fast sailing boat back to France – dodging through the slower ships of the Royal Navy. He abandoned his army which was obliterated at Gaza on its failed retreat.

    Why are Russians so hated and feared in the West?

    • Agree: CanSpeccy
    • Thanks: FB
    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Trinity
    , @DB Cooper
    , @S
  272. @GeeBee

    You’re avoiding the point at issue.

    It doesn’t matter whether or not Hitler was justified in invading Poland. He may have been. I don’t think he was. It isn’t relevant to this question.

    The fact is that he did indeed invade Poland, and in doing so he initiated World War II.

    • Replies: @Truth3
    , @GeeBee
  273. Malla says:
    @S

    Yes according to James Perlov, one of the many reasons why FDR baited Japan into an attack on the USA was that he was scared that Japan would invade the Soviets from the East and his pet nation, not the USA, but the USSR would cease to exist.
    The Japanese never expected the Soviets to attack them. But only a fool would trust a guy like Stalin.

  274. Beckow says:
    @Alfred

    Mongolia was and still remains a different country from the USSR.

    Well, last time I checked so is France. Did you know that Normandy was and still remains in France?

    Let’s summarize your view: Japan attacks Russia through Mongolia, a Soviet ally. Russians defeat them and Japanese run back to Manchuria (in China) and never try again. That proves that ‘Japan never attacked USSR‘. Right?

    Since you never heard of it it must not exist.

  275. Malla says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    Japan, Germany’s ally, was already an aggressive imperialist expansionist power (Korea and China).

    Nope, not so easy. The most aggressive imperialist power was as always the Soviet Union. And one of the biggest supporter of this aggressive power was the good ol USA. Both Japan and Germany (and many countries) was weary of the expansion of Communism.

    James Perloff – An Alternative History to World War 2

  276. Truth3 says:
    @Adûnâi

    Who the hell is this megalomaniac moron?

  277. Malla says:
    @Alfred

    The fact remains that if it were not for those atomic bombs, the Soviets would have occupied mainland Japan. That is precisely why the atomic bombs were dropped.

    That is pure B.S. The Soviets ans the Western allies were one team and the US Govt was pro Soviet. The USA gave Land Lease help to the USSR and the US govt was full of pro Soviets like Alger Hiss.

    They preferred to be occupied by the Americans for some strange reason.

    For the same reason as why workers would risk life and limb to escape from their “Worker’s paradise” and jump the Berlin Wall from the East to the West and rarely in the opposite direction. For the same reason as to why people were risking life and limb to escape Mao’s “Worker’s Paradise” China to live under the evul British in Hongkong rather then go the other direction. For the same reason that even today, Cubans are more likely to want to leave their “Worker’s paradise” and boat or swim across to the great Satan USA than Americans wanting to escape to “Worker’s paradise” Cuba. Millions of American workers or Mexican workers and how many of them escaped to “Worker’s paradise” Cuba? Blacks in the ghettos of USA blabbering all day about evul racist Murica and not many taking a boat to Worker’s paradise Cuba. Very Strange, no????

  278. Truth3 says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    The fact is that he did indeed invade Poland, and in doing so he initiated World War II.

    The British initiated WW2 on September 3, 1939.

    Truth hurts the Liars, every time.

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  279. @Malla

    “The most aggressive imperialist power was as always the Soviet Union.”

    Even if this fantasy had any truth to it, it has no relevance whatsoever to the fact that Italy and Japan were aggressive imperalist nations and allied to the Nazis.

    • Replies: @Malla
  280. @Malla

    Since the Japanese had *already* attacked the USSR in 1939 at Khalkhin Ghol and had their heads handed to them on a platter, thereafter never even attempting a move against the USSR even in 1941, your fantasy is just that. A fairly entertaining fantasy.

    • Replies: @Malla
  281. @Darrell Wright

    You seem to have confused “claiming” with “proving.”

    Russia Insider is an openly pro Nazi site which routinely publishes articles from the likes of The Daily Stormer, and is run by an American who was expelled from Russia. Its credibility is as suspect as your understanding of the difference between “claiming” and “proof”.

    • LOL: CanSpeccy
    • Replies: @Mefobills
  282. Beckow says:
    @Parfois1

    It is possible that Robert’s summary misrepresented Irving. It is also possible that Irving got the Western half of WWII right, but for whatever reason bought unto the Anglo myths about the war in the east – the real war, where 80-90% of fighting took place.

    It happens, it is a defense mechanism, one can only break so many taboos. I would have been more willing to consider his books if Roberts or he said nothing about Sudeten and M-R agreement.

  283. GeeBee says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    It was Britain and France who declared war on Germany. And as Rudolf Hess remarked regarding Germany’s invasion of Poland, ” there will be a little thunder storm”. Any sane political stance that was not hell-bent on a war against Germany, would never have given such a unique carte blanche to Poland, which in effect put them in control of British and French foreign policy. And any sane government would certainly have turned the invasion into nothing more than such a ‘little thunderstorm’. But that is not what they wanted at all. Britain was in fact hell-bent on war, and would have done anything to achieve that end.

    The old canard about ‘Hitler starting the war’ should by now have been long put to bed. That people like you – and of course there are countless others in your dismal flock – continue to argue this bankrupt case says nothing for your objectivity and everything for the brainwashed masses today finding themselves mentally unable to confront the truth about their own countries, and especially about their nefarious and criminal deeds in waging a war on Germany that ultimately bequethed the world to Neoliberal Globalism – as was the sole intent all along.

    I have managed to swallow these deeply unpleasant truths. It is a pity that more cannot bring themselves to do do.

  284. DaveE says:
    @Sudetenlander

    If the rest of your narrative is as truthful as thes sentence, you can roll it up and stick it, you know where.

    I love comments like this. Jewish panic is palpable from Uranus…… as in YOUR anus, not Dr. Roberts’.

  285. @Wizard of Oz

    Excuse me, but how is suggesting “that Britain sought to achieve or maintain ‘continental hegemony’. . . about 500 years out of date” that is your critique of the comment, but your claim that “Britain merely needed to protect the very satisfactory status quo from continental threat embodied in the more populous, and industrially advanced Germany” up to date history?

  286. Cleburne says:
    @Hibernian

    You’re ignoring the point that they didn’t do anything to promote Anglicanism in India either.

    So what?

    As for Cromwell, he was a disaster for both Britain and Ireland.

    – For Britain? I don’t think so, but I’m certainly interested in your argument. And to play devil’s advocate, I’ll note that Cromwell’s invasion of Ireland was not, as E Michael Jones and Jake would have it, done simply to bash Catholics, but to put an end to the three-way civil war that had been raging in Ireland since 1641. Probably 90% of the deaths attributed to Cromwell were the result of that Irish-on-Irish slaughter. “To hell or Connaught” was not the kindest policy but probably not as brutal as, say, Wallenstein may have been.

  287. After almost 100 years of misinf, crossfire n propaganda, things are finally coming up for the joy of the so called “information society”. But, truly, what sort of “information” does this hell of “society” really exchanges? Mainly BS, openly propaganda. And that´s just what makes ideology what it is: deep-routed misconception of reality. The “free-edited” wikipedia just comes up when describing Irving as “holocaust denier” to “kill” him for the younger generations fastly, just as it was once said about Immanuel Kant as having all his theories stemming from his “petite bourgeoisie” background. N thus will the future continue this tradition of hiding the truth to protect the SL of money far too few people make, blaming everybody for it´s own heinous wrongdoing. But this is all too much short-sighted: how long do those morons believe truth will take to show up? Ignorance on History is naturally a main troubble in Western education, just like pityfull maths as well. And so we’ll read here again and again one comment after another just bringing about the same “truth” they’ve been telling us “westerns” for the last 75 years, even knowing that this BS is just the same we read about the miracles of many pills to make you “younger”, “stronger” and even “say goodbye to baldness” – mere and lame advertising.

  288. commandor says:
    @Adûnâi

    Agree with what you’ve said on Hitler.

    I have a problem with the DPRK, it allows miscegenation!

    푸옹 Phuong DPRK Daily is half Korean (North Korean) half German (GDR) !

    Still, it’s only the white race that could have colonized other planets, the others can’t! The white race has tragically betrayed its potential…

  289. Cleburne says:
    @Mefobills

    Bingo! Thank you for the excellent summary, good sir.

  290. Saggy says: • Website
    @tac

    Gdansk (Danzig) was 99.9% Germanic at in the 1930s and had been for hundreds of years (the numbers aren’t exact and it would take a while for me to get the right numbers) and there was agitation in Danzig to reunite with Germany.

  291. Nimrod says:
    @Saggy

    Similar considerations can also be found in the remarkable work of Gerard Menuhin (yes, the son of the great violinist) “Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil”. Also interesting is that these realities are corroborated by testimonies of respectable Jews who lived during those years, or who were close to those who were in concentration camps in Poland. G. Menuhin’s book can be downloaded for free from this link here: https://www.holocausthandbooks.com/dl/978-1-59148-141-6-TellTruthShameDevil-2nd-LowRes.pdf

  292. KA says:

    “Nazis Boasted About Six Million Holocaust Victims. But It Was a Jew Who First Cited That Figure 
    A historian embarks on a pioneering archival journey to discover the first time that someone used the number
    On January 21, 1944, about a year and a half before the end of World War II, a dramatic item was published on the front page of Haaretz. Under the headline Six million Jewish victims, it brought unusual… ”

    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-figure-of-6-million-holocaust-victims-first-cited-by-polish-survivor-not-eichmann-1.8781961

  293. Trinity says:
    @Alfred

    Germany was defeated by lack of manpower and simply being overwhelmed. While I agree the Brits and Americans role in winning WWII is mostly bullshit, to say that the Soviet Union alone defeated Germany is laughable. America was supplying Soviet forces with tanks and little Germany, a country about the same size in area as the state of Montana was fighting a war on two fronts. Sure, the Eastern Front was where the real fighting took place, there is no doubt that the Eastern Front was where the outcome of the war was decided, but as I stated before, there is no way in hell that the Soviet Union, despite having a huge edge in manpower, and even being supplied by the Brits and Americans, could have defeated Germany without help. Look at German casualties compared to casualties suffered by the Soviets. Given the size of the German army, and how they weren’t really prepared to enter into a huge war at the time, this had to be one of the greatest fighting forces in the history of the world. And btw, nothing against my Russian brothers, but if Russia was such a supreme fighting force, how in the hell did they lose the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05? Interestingly, JEW NYC banker, Jacob Schiff lent a helping hand in bankrolling Japan’s war effort to defeat the Russians. Jews and their wars for Jewish power. The Jew hardly ever suffers and fights, he just simply sits on the sidelines and watches the goy slaughter each other. smdh.

    • Replies: @Sean
  294. @GeeBee

    The British “guarantee” to Poland served as the pretext for Britain to launch its planned war against Germany in exactly the same way that the guarantee of Belgian neutrality served as the same pretext justifying the British war on GErmany that they had been conspiring to organize with France, Russia and Belgium since the Boer War as is clearly exposed in the Dockerty and Macregor book, Hidden History.

    That this was so is exposed in an article of the March 1920 “Round Table” cited by Carroll Quigley, in “The Anglo-American Establishment”. Writing for the Milner Group that implemented the conspiracy to start WWI and was behind British policy afterwrds’ While discussing the groups objections to the League of Nations Covenant calling for government to enforce peace, the author notes that “If England was threatened by invasion, the other English democracies would mobilze at once in her support; but though they have a written obligation to Poland [under the Covenant], which they never dreamed of giving England, they would not “in practicve mobilize a single man to defend the integrity of the Corridor to Danzing or any other Polish interest. . . (p. 256f)”

    That was and remained the truth as Britain gave that “guarantee” to Poland in 1939. What changed?

    British policy in the 1920’s favored Germany to counterbalance and put in their place the French who were sort of the dominant force on the continent after Germany was crushed in WWI. Hitler’s policies, however, immeasurably strengthened Germany and the British realized after the Munich Pact that it was now necessary to reverse course and do WWI all over again. They, however, again needed a pretext to trigger the war that would enable them to blame Hitler as the aggressor when the guarantee they gave Poland ensured that the military dictator running the country would humiliate Hitler who tried to resolve the critical issues the Poles were creating by demanding that Germany pay customs duties for goods shipped across the corridot to Prussia, by underminiging they tried to underming the status of Danzing as a free city using force exerted by sending police into the city, and terorizing German civilians living in the corridor. The British knew that Hitler could not stand idly by while the Poles impudently engaged in such aggression against German interests. And anyone who thinks that’s absurd should then consider how the US insists on being entiteld to use force against anyone in the world who threatens what the US defines as its interests.

    The guarantee to Poland was a pretext for starting war, and blame the Germans for it. Period, paragraph, end of story.

    • Agree: GeeBee
    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  295. Alfred says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I am glad that some of the points I brought up in our previous discussion about Churchill are supported by the writings of Irving.

    Of course, Irving did not write about WW1 and Churchill but I did offer you a book full of original references. I won’t bother making any more points here as plenty of others are doing a good job on improving your education. 🙂

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  296. CanSpeccy says:
    @Darrell Wright

    There is an article either here or at Russian Insider proving that Hitler preempted a planned attack by the Soviets against Germany by attacking first

    A classic Unz Review comment of which PCR and RU can be proud.

    But to clarify you point, lets rephrase it thus:

    There is an article somewhere or other with no evidence that I recall proving that Hitler was a much maligned decent chap who only engaged in WW2 as a matter of national self defense.

    • LOL: FB
  297. Mefobills says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    You are coming down on the side of censorship by flaming a website because it is “openly pro Nazi” and routinely publishes articles from Daily Stormer.

    Real men (and women) have the ability to discern for themselves, and don’t need you to censor for them.

    With regards to the argument about Soviet Aggression, that mostly centers around Suvarov’s book “Icebreaker.” Suvarov makes some points that are not easily refuted. There is controversy around just how offensively tilted the Red Army was.

    The offensive vs defensive nature of an army tells one the strategic posture of a country.

  298. Sean says:
    @Trinity

    Well the Germans got rid of the Jews. EthnoGermans now run Germany, which spends nothing on defence and has the best medicine in the world for the average citizen, so Hitler may be said to have won WW2 for his precious Aryans.

    • Replies: @Malla
  299. @CanSpeccy

    Your claim has psychological plausibility, although it provides no basis for the view that either Britain or, single-handedly, Winston Churchill was responsible for the war, or that events made any war inevitable. Rather, Germany and Russia entered into a secret agreement to commit the ultimate war crime: the initiation of a war of aggression, a war that resulted in the occupation and partition of the sovereign state of Poland.

    Timelines are important here. Which came first, Poland’s refusal to negotiate with Hitler or the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact?

  300. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @GeeBee

    Any sane political stance that was not hell-bent on a war against Germany, would never have given such a unique carte blanche to Poland

    Said carte blanche being the:

    Anglo-Polish Agreement in 1939 for mutual assistance in case of a military invasion from Germany, as specified in a secret protocol.

    So Britain, directed presumably by the devious Winston Churchill – a back-bench MP at the time, gave a “unique carte blanche” to Poland to do what, exactly? Defend itself? Good God, how devilish was that? No wonder Hitler conspired to wipe Poland off the map.

  301. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Alfred

    I won’t bother making any more points here as plenty of others are doing a good job on improving your education.

    Listen sonny, sour comments don’t win debates. But apparently that’s all you have, so your departure from the discussion is welcome news.

    • Replies: @GeeBee
  302. Gratulation, Herr Roberts!

    Good summation of David Irving, who will be remembered long after the coming “German” Reconquista.

    I only found four factual errors/lies I’d like to address:

    – Stalin started the war in the east with 5 million active soldiers and ended it in Berlin in 1945 with 5 million soldiers. The incredibly superior Wehrmacht eliminated ALL his strategic reserves of 25 to 30 million soldiers, and did NOT kill millions of civilians as insinuated in this article, the killing of Russian civilians was Stalin’s work alone (verbrannte Erde).

    – English “Intelligence” were NOT able to break the Enigma code at any time of the war, not even by obtaining an Enigma machine. Neither with the help of that ridiculous Turing machine (Germans invented the modern computer and had far superior machines in use by the end of the war). The only thing the English could do was to invent “Signals Intelligence”, look it up. The information about attacks and troop movements were given to them by traitors within the Reich, Canaris in the West and Borman in the East.

    – Although (((Czechs))) were financing Churchill’s war effort, they did NOT kill Germans until the war’s end in 1945, only (((Poles))) did in 1939.

    – Do NOT call “jews” Zionists, they haven’t got the first clue where holy Zion really is situated. “Jews” are neither Judahites, nor Judeans, nor Israelites, nor Hebrews, nor Semites. With the exception of a tiny 0.01% of Edomites (Rothschild and 299 other families) who are in the line of Shem and Eber, “jews” are Japhethites, i.e. Asiatic mongrels who successfully stole the Judean identity around two hundred years ago. The real Judeans decided to be stumm about it, since it allowed them to but their Israelite brethren to the test. (And three of them failed, two out of envy, one out of pride).

  303. @Ondra Hada

    Dear Ondra Hada,
    The Corbett WWI report IS very good. When I first saw it I was impressed, and eager to watch the WWII report – only to be disappointed (in fact disgusted). The rest of Corbett’s output is not in sync with my level of discrimination, nor, I guess, with yours. His WWI video stands out from the rest.

    Thanks for recommending my article debunking “Hitler’s Jewish Grandfather.” Though written in 2011, I still stand behind it 100% and it’s something of an exemplar on the subject.

    • Thanks: Ondra Hada
    • Replies: @the shadow
  304. @CanSpeccy

    “We cannot hand over colonies irrespective of the wishes of their inhabitants and of a great many other considerations. We should be very wrong if we were to give Germany a guarantee that so long as she left Britain and France alone in the West, she could do what she liked to the peoples of the center and south­east of Europe. To give such an assurance at other people’s ex­pense would not only be callous and cynical, but it might actually lead to a war the end of which no man can foresee.”

    When Britain and France had such large colonies almost all over the world save for the Americas, where the line was drawn to would be European colonizers by the Monroe Doctrine, Germany had only six colonies in Africa. All of those colonies were stripped from Germany’s possession after the armistice and German territories were conceded or taken over by France, Czechoslovakia and Poland contrary to the promises made by the allies before the ceasefire. So what colonies was Churchill alluding to especially that Hitler declared in a public speech that Germany’s lack of resources from colonies shall be compensated by astute management of its economy. And what logic justifies that Britain enjoy the resources of so much of the world through force and deny Germany the right to expand eastward or the right to recuperate lost territories which were ceded under duress.

    Churchill, being a man of intelligence, should have known that the wrongs of the Treaty of Versailles would eventually lead to another confrontation. It would be absurd to analyse the causes of WWII without referring to to WWI and the treaty of Versailles.

    Unfortunately, Churchill was hell-bent on a confrontation with Germany because he perceived German economic and trading success as a threat to the hegemony of Britain. Chamberlain was betting that once Germany manages to recuperate its previous borders, the inevitable confrontation between Bolshevism and Fascism would weaken both parties and strengthen Britain’s geopolitical position while saving Western Europe another bloodbath.

    Hitler and Germans had every right to be bitter about the outcome of WWI especially since Kaiser Wilhelm II tried in 1916 to end the war on a status quo ante when Germany was negotiating from a position of strength. For more on the circumstances that prevented a negotiated settlement to WWI, please refer to the link about Benjamin Freedman speech in 1961, a Zionist dissident, through the following link:

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  305. @CanSpeccy

    Said carte blanche being the:

    Anglo-Polish Agreement in 1939 for mutual assistance in case of a military invasion from Germany, as specified in a secret protocol.

    So Britain, directed presumably by the devious Winston Churchill – a back-bench MP at the time, gave a “unique carte blanche” to Poland to do what, exactly? Defend itself? Good God, how devilish was that? No wonder Hitler conspired to wipe Poland off the map.

    Yes. Quite benign. By the same token, you must find China being upset about the commitments the US made to Taiwan in case of invasion quite baffling as well.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  306. Wally says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    – That’s it? That’s your reply? LOL

    – It’s noted that you cannot refute what I posted.

    – But hey, we don’t want to confuse silly children like you with facts.

    have another from https://www.unz.com :
    Collusion: Franklin Roosevelt, British Intelligence, and the Secret Campaign to Push the US Into War, by Mark Weber: https://www.unz.com/article/collusion-franklin-roosevelt-british-intelligence-and-the-secret-campaign-to-push-the-us-into-war/
    also:
    Why Germany ‘Invaded’ Poland, by John Wear: http://inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  307. @NoseytheDuke

    Well, I know that in the past you have expressed views on WWII and A. H. very different from my own. So just what is your position on “German guilt” in regards to the “Holocaust?” Just “a little revision” is in order? I know others who absolutely hate and ridicule Adolf Hitler but say they are at the same time holocaust revisionists and anti-Jewish. I don’t think the two positions go together.

  308. GeeBee says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I must say that you always strike me as an arrogant and deeply unpleasant person. Your clear failure to grasp facts, coupled with your arrogance, not only results in recourse to your stock-in-trade argumenta ad hominem but also displays a closed mind. You never take on board a single word anyone says. In fact, you are reminiscent of those Jews whose methodology of argument Adolf Hitler described in Mein Kampf

    Informed people here already know what he wrote. I certainly shan’t waste time repeating them for your benefit, as you are clearly beyond all ability to learn anything beyond the propaganda that you have so clearly imbibed and installed in your brain as unassailable fact, for example your ridiculous and demonstrably false assertion that Germany started the policy of Bombing British civilians, which David Irving has proven to be the opposite of the truth (but oh – what does he know? quoth the fount of all knowledge Canspeccy)…

    • Thanks: Alfred
  309. S says:
    @Alfred

    Japan’s position in relatively speaking ‘quiet’ Manchuria vis-a-vis the Soviet Union and their ‘surprise’ invasion was roughly analogous with Germany’s position in relatively ‘quiet’ Western Europe vis-a-vis the Western Allies (ie US/UK) and their own ‘surprise’ attack/invasion.

    Despite certain impressive defensive numbers in Manchuria and Western Europe (particularly infantry wise) amongst their respective Japanese and German defenders, who in each instance had spent years preparing defensive works and strategies, each defensive group was a stripped down shell of its former self. Years of cannibalizing these defending armies and sending the best fighting men and heavy equipment to where the real fighting was taking place, to the Pacific theatre against the United States in regards to Japan, and to the east against the Soviet Union in regards to Germany, had taken a steep toll.

    Having said that, I’m surprised that some who can so readily see that Germany by the time of D-Day (June 6, 1944) in the West had by and large already been defeated due to fighting on other fronts, can’t see the quite obvious parallel with Japan already having been largely defeated in Manchuria due to fighting elsewhere by the time of the Soviet invasion (August 9, 1945).

    Thankfully, whilst retaining a quiet respect for the fighting men involved, most who have thought it out don’t make too much of either D-Day in 1944 or Manchuria in 1945.

    To do otherwise is a little bit like someone crowing about Italy’s ‘great victory’ over an already defeated France in it’s last minute invasion of the French Alps in June, 1940.

    The Japanese forces (Kwantung Army) were far below authorized strength; most of their heavy military equipment and all of their best military units had been transferred to the Pacific front over the previous three years to contend with the advance of American and Allied forces. By 1945, the Kwantung Army contained a large number of raw recruits and conscripts, with generally obsolete, light, or otherwise limited equipment. As a result, it had essentially been reduced to a light infantry counter-insurgency force with limited mobility or ability to fight a conventional land war against a coordinated enemy.

    The Kwantung Army had less than eight hundred thousand (800,000) men in twenty-five divisions (including two tank divisions) and six Independent Mixed Brigades. These contained over 1,215 armored vehicles (mostly armored cars and light tanks), 6,700 artillery pieces (mostly light), and 1,800 aircraft (mostly trainers and obsolete types). The Imperial Japanese Navy did not contribute to the defense of Manchuria, the occupation of which it had always opposed on strategic grounds. Additionally, by the time of the invasion, the few remnants of its fleet were stationed and tasked with the defense of the Japanese home islands in the event of an invasion by Allied forces.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_War

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_invasion_of_France

  310. Wally says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    Germany did what they were forced to do, protect Germans, retrieve their stolen land, and stop Polish warmongering

    Pre-‘invasion’ inconvenient facts:

    – Poland threaten Lithuania with an ultimatum.
    – Poland invaded and annexed parts of Czechoslovakia, held large parts of German territory, was engaged in atrocities against German civilians.

    – Plus, recommended:

    Polish Warmongering / Polish Atrocities against Germans before 1. September 1939: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7525
    again:
    Why Germany ‘Invaded’ Poland, by John Wear: http://inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  311. Malla says:
    @Sean

    Present day Germany is occupied territory.

    • Agree: fatmanscoop
    • Replies: @Sean
  312. Malla says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    Even if this fantasy had any truth to it,

    The fantasy is the B.S. nonsense the the Globalist elites and their shameless Commie and Corporate slaves have sold us all these years.

    Italy and Japan were aggressive imperalist nations and allied to the Nazis.

    Italy yes. Japan, not so much. Italian imperialism probably cost the Germans a lot.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  313. Malla says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    Since the Japanese had *already* attacked the USSR in 1939 at Khalkhin Ghol and had their heads handed to them on a platter, thereafter never even attempting a move against the USSR even in 1941

    Just because the Japanese lost one battle does not mean it would or nor could ever launch a major attack the USSR when the USSR was fighting the Western Axis forces.

  314. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @RationalRabbit

    By the same token, you must find China being upset about the commitments the US made to Taiwan in case of invasion quite baffling as well.

    Not baffling in the least.

    In both cases, the Anglo-Polish Mutual Assistance Agreement and the US commitment to Taiwan, the objective was to deter what the UN has defined as the ultimate war crime, a war of territorial aggression.

    • Replies: @RationalRabbit
  315. DB Cooper says:
    @Alfred

    “I see. Defeating an army of 1,200,000 Japanese in 1945 was a mere formality. How come?”

    How come? Are you seriously that clueless? Because after Japan was nuked the surrender of Japan was expected and imminent. This is an oportunistic move on the Russians to be a party to the war victory power in the pacific theater. The Soviet Union DID ABOLUTELY NOTHING fighting the Japanese. If the Soviet Union really want to fight Japan it would have done so a long time ago. It wouldn’t wait till Japan was demoralized and was about to surrender to send in the army.

    I hope Russia won’t make the claim that it defeat Japan because claiming credit where credit is not due is not a good trait to have.

  316. If I understand correctly, infuriated Zionists with plentiful funds used unethical tactics and brought lawsuits, the defense against which eventually bankrupted him.

    Irving himself brought the lawsuit.

    In 1977 Irving was still a well-regarded historian. He later crossed a line into holocaust denial, and sued Deborah Lipstadt for pointing this out. Nowadays, having gained access to Eichmann’s diaries, Irving’s beliefs are close to the conventional holocaust narrative. However, the damage is done. Any historian whose career has a “flat earth” period is bound to be mistrusted. Despite this, his early books are still a valuable contribution to the history of WWII.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  317. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Joe Levantine

    I agree for the most part with your sentiments.

    Concerning the specific question:

    And what logic justifies that Britain enjoy the resources of so much of the world through force and deny Germany the right to expand eastward or the right to recuperate lost territories which were ceded under duress.

    The answer is, I think — I have great knowledge of international law — that all disputes must be addressed on the basis of the status quo.

    This seems an unavoidable condition of peace and stability, otherwise disputes would never end. England would now be demanding the return of Normandy, France the return of Alsace-Lorraine, Germany the return of the Sudetenland, Russia all of Poland, and the Amerindians the whole of both American continents.

    Probably there are people making precisely those demands. But to hold their claims justifiable and to initiate action to settle them would result in Armageddon.

    Churchill was hell-bent on a confrontation with Germany because he perceived German economic and trading success as a threat to the hegemony of Britain.

    That is certainly not the impression conveyed by his Evening Standard article that I posted above, all of which, unfortunately, was placed by the moderator behind a “More” button, thus denying visibility to even one sentence of Churchill’s own words in self-defense against PCR’s ridiculous attack.

    Chamberlain was betting that once Germany manages to recuperate its previous borders, the inevitable confrontation between Bolshevism and Fascism would weaken both parties and strengthen Britain’s geopolitical position while saving Western Europe another bloodbath.

    Churchill never, so far as I am aware, said that was his position. Moreover, in the run-up to Britain’s declaration of war on Germany, Churchill did not have a finger on the levers of power. But in any case, if the thesis was correct, as events proved it to be (notwithstanding the demise of the British empire and Britain’s reduction to the status of side-kick to America), how could any responsible British politician not have acted on the basis of it?

    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
  318. @Malla

    “…Italy and Japan were aggressive imperalist nations and allied to the Nazis.

    Italy yes. Japan, not so much…”

    If with “not so much” you mean the ambition to conquer all of East and South East Asia and probably New Guinea and Australia too, then yes…

    • Replies: @Malla
  319. John Wear says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    Hitler did invade Poland. My analysis of why he invaded Poland is located at
    https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391.

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  320. @Carolyn Yeager

    “…I know others who absolutely hate and ridicule Adolf Hitler but say they are at the same time holocaust revisionists and anti-Jewish. I don’t think the two positions go together…”

    Only if you think in black-and-white terms. You can be a holocaust revisionist and a critic of Jewish supremacism, but that doesn’t mean you must therefore endorse everything Hitler stood for. The world is not black-and-white, nearly always gray-and-gray.

    BTW, I expected an article on Hitler’s birthday on your website, but there isn’t any. Have you forgotten that important date of your hero?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  321. @Cleburne

    You forgot the Whiskey Rebellion.

  322. Escher says:
    @Anon

    Hitler was quite open about his contempt for Eastern Europeans and other “untermenschen” aaa he called them.
    I am not passing judgement on the authenticity or otherwise of the holocaust as a planned extermination with gas chambers, especially when some of the more outlandish allegations of lampshades and soap made from human remains have been proven to be false.
    However, the Germans did commit plenty of atrocities that turned the population of the occupied Soviet territories against them. No mean feat when the alternative was Stalin.

  323. Fox says:
    @CanSpeccy

    There was no agreement on an invasion of Poland from East and West at the same time; the SU merely, in the Secret Protocol, had delineated its Sphere of Influence. Whatever this might mean in practical actions, it did not imply, and there was no understanding to that effect, that the SU would occupy the part of Poland in this Sphere of Influence. Hence, to do so was Stalin’s intent, and I think with his long-term goal of overrunning Germany, then all of Europe to make offensive politics to carry forward the Communist World Revolution- after Western Europe had itself exhausted in the necessary war to weaken itself sufficiently to become unable to defend itself.
    After signing the German Soviet pact on August 24, 1939, Hitler was still continuing his efforts to come to a peaceful solution of the Danzig and Korridor problem. It was an obvious tactical move to both signal to England and France that no help was to be expected from Stalin, and to Poland that they better fess up to reality and recognise the reality of the fact that Danzig is a German city with a German population intending to rejoin Germany politically, and that an end to the tensions in the passage between Germany in the West and East Prussia had to be found. The proposals Hitler made as a basis for negotiations were very conciliatory towards the Poles, and addressing a serious problem that had be engineered with evil intent by the geriatric assembly at Versailles in 1919, but they had to part of course with the idiotic idea that because -possibly- Danzig was 1000 years back a Polish fishing village it is now with 400000 German inhabitants and perhaps 8000 Poles still a Polish town.

    Of the triad Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, the latter was by far the most intelligent and intellectually accomplished, with the ability to formulate a rational goal (World-Communism and how to accomplish it) and thinking through of how to achieve it. He was a ruthless, unfeeling man, but so were his allies, only that they were motivated by a blind and stupid idea that eliminating Germany would clear the way to some sort of happy lalaland, either with Roosevelt and Stalin as the World Presidents (that was Roosevelt’s bunny dream), or with Churchill’s satisfaction of having broken German strength and vigor in order to increase the sales of small businesses in England, or something unfathomable and insane like that. Both Roosevelt and Churchill made their initial fortunes even before1914, the outbreak of the First War, with their active measures against Germany. Both, interestingly, coming from the perspective of naval power.

  324. Escher says:
    @Leon

    Straw man?
    Hitler always had the eventual goal of creating a greater Reich, using the fertile plains of Russia to settle Germans. He was never going to stop after recovering the lost territories.
    It is documented in Mein Kampf, which is a fairly badly written book by the way.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Grahamsno(G64)
  325. Escher says:
    @W.W.H.D.

    And after cleansing the land of Russians.

    • Replies: @W.W.H.D.
  326. @Gast

    You have to rely on sources. And you have to realize that jews control all media and have a history of shaping the historical narrative for thousands of years by bringing contaminated “sources” into being.

    Apparently you have not read the article nor are you familiar with David Irving. Because the last thing in the world he relies on is sources from the media. And even in the archives he had rules about the documents, ie why are they here, who wrote them, markings etc.

    David Irving initially discovered and translated Goebells’ diaries, among other contemporaneous writings. He also spoke to the people who there, on many different sides.

    Further, you have never read any of the transcripts of the Irving V Lipstadt trial if you think Irving weakened the revisionist position. You yourself must have relied on the Jewish media if this is what you are claiming. Because once again, the weakness of “the holocaust” was exposed for anyone with the ability to read.

    PCR is right on this, as he is on most subjects.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Gast
  327. @CanSpeccy

    “The answer is, I think — I have great knowledge of international law — that all disputes must be addressed on the basis of the status quo.”

    I am grateful that you invoke international law. It is recorded history that Hitler did refer to The League of Nations to settle the issue of German minorities in the Polish corridor but to no avail. And let us face the hard reality about international law: all countries are equal but some countries are more equal than others. This trend has been apparent in the post WWII events especially with Anglo American policies towards lesser countries like Serbia, Iraq and Libya to name a few. In one of Mike King’s books, it was stated that Hitler asked for a referendum by the Germans stuck under Polish rule for the right for self determination, a right guaranteed by international law, but did not receive any cooperation on this issue from the League of Nations.

    About Churchill’s desire for war with Germany and his disregard for peace overtures from Hitler, I would state what history revisionists state as the reason Hitler issued strict orders to Guderian to stop pursuing the retreating British army and block their Dunkirk escape route; Hitler thought that by letting the British retreat rather than be humiliated by rounding up the bulk of their troops in Europe, there would be a better chance for a peaceful settlement. Hitler sent a peace proposal to the British government right after the defeat and retreat of the British army but Churchill refused to discuss it with his cabinet despite the objections of Lord Halifax.

    Some quotes Of Churchill that I heard at Rense Radio without unfortunately keeping the reference are ( I am purveying the meaning as I do not have access now to my notes)

    -This war is not against National Socialism but against Germany and the Germans to crush their power once and for all.
    -Germany’s biggest sin was its execution of its foreign trade through a barter system thereby depriving international banks of their right to profit.

    Mike King did have a lot of references about Churchill’s quotes and state of mind in his book “ The British Mad Dog” which offers an opposing view about everything that we were taught about Churchill in history classes and the media in general.

    As for the theory about Chamberlain betting on a clash between Germany and the Soviet Union, this was a broad idea within conservative currents which also subdivided into those who thought that a German victory would give Germany it own India while others were hoping that such a clash would destroy both socialism and communism. I regret that I do not have the reference for the theory as I read about it a very long time ago.

    • Replies: @the shadow
  328. S says:
    @Alfred

    Why are Russians so hated and feared in the West?

    Is this a trick question?

    Russia has historically experienced the same ‘hatred’ and ‘fear’ (though ‘valid concerns’ might be the better term) that Spain experienced in the time of it’s great empire hundreds of years ago for the very same reason, ie the great extent of its physical empire.

    [MORE]

    It will be recalled Spain at its heighth (roughly four hundred years ago) had claim to the whole of South America, Central America, about half of North America, the Netherlands, and other locales. Land rich Spain’s Empire was figuratively something like Darth Vader’s ‘Death Star’ vs most of the rest of land and territory poor Europe’s X-wing fighters. Queen Elizabeth in relation to this is said to have declared (understandably) that ‘Spain is too powerful!’

    For that reason Spain was forever having to deal with various alliances and combinations (of both a defensive and aggressive nature) formed against it. Spain didn’t much like this, protested it at times, but I doubt they ever said ‘why do they ‘hate’ and ‘fear’ us so much’ as the answer to that is much too obvious. [But, then again, maybe they did. 🙂 ]

    Having said that, how exactly these valid concerns, or, as you put it, ‘hatred’ and ‘fear’, are dealt with, is certainly debateable.

    I’m not much into empires no matter whose they are. I think they’re a bad business. It ought to be enough to take care of what one’s own plate and not take what’s on everybody else’s plate besides.

    Relatedly, I submit that little England had watched and learned from Spain’s difficult experience with empire. When French power had been smashed in North America at the conclusion of the Seven Years War in 1763, and Spain was already experiencing steep decline, the whole of North America lay open for the taking by the British Empire. The stone age aboriginal tribes would not be able to put up meaningful resistance.

    However, if England openly took North America, the very act of doing so would create it’s own resistance, sometimes called ‘hate’ and ‘fear’ 😉 , in the same way Spain (and later Russia) experienced due in large part to the great extent of their respective empires.

    To avoid this, under cover of the 1776 Revolution, a revolution which simultaneously satisfied British Whig ‘republican’ ideals whilst keeping British North America within the empire, a ‘false split’ was put in place between the US and UK. In other words, despite the real sincerity and courage of the vast majority of both crown and rebel forces, the 1776 revolution was ‘thrown’ by powerful elements and hangers on of the British Empire in favor of the ‘rebels’.

    English control of North America over the next one hundred years would be consolidated ‘on the sly’, and unwittingly, by the ‘former colonists’. Once the consolidation of the heartland of North America had safely occurred in 1890 with the declaration that year of the ‘end of the frontier’ by the US government, the push was on by powerful elements of the Anglo-Saxon establishment and hangers on of the US and UK to reunify the United States openly with the British Empire. This effort fell through, initially, due to US public resistance, but, more or less was then accomplished anyway with the ‘special relationship’ circa 1900.

    W T Stead, a close associate of Cecil Rhodes of British Empire fame, calculated on pgs 10, 11, and 12, of his celebratory 1902 book The Americanization of the World, that the US and UK between them had three times the wealth and economic resources of the combined French, Russian, and German empires. Stead in the book declares the US/UK to be the ‘supreme power’ and ‘world conquerors’.

    An effectively reunited US and UK had achieved virtually overwhelming power, whilst Europe and the rest of the world slept. The 1776 false split had achieved it’s aims.

    Through 1941, as the British Empire was still intact, something like those figures probably still stayed true. Even with the physical demise of the that Empire since, and no doubt some of that ‘loss’ was simply monetized, as the US portion of the US/UK bloc has grown in power, a strong edge still is almost certainly retained by the US/UK.

    The biggest empire of them all at present is the US/UK, and it’s historic plans are to enlarge it considerably, after WWIII, with the final convergance and synthesis of Capitalism and Communism to form the ‘United States of the World’.

    It’s entirely understandable, therefore, if the rest of the world has valid concerns about the US/UK empire, or, dare it be said, hatred and fear.

  329. @Carolyn Yeager

    BTW, that video as based almost entirely on the Docherty-Macgregor book Hidden History.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  330. @Franklin Ryckaert

    I’m so glad you were disappointed.

    I’m waiting to hear from the person I wrote to with my statement – Nosy – so have no intention of wasting my reply on you.

  331. Fox says:
    @Escher

    Badly written in what way? If thematically, why do you take it seriously, if stylistically, how? Do you want to have it both ways, take Hitler seriously at the same time you don’t, so that your arguments are always fitable to your intent?

    • Replies: @Saggy
    , @Escher
  332. @Carolyn Yeager

    Carolyn, much respect to you. I’ve come across you writings and interviews on many occassions. You have been fearless in standing up for truth about this demonic “holocaust” nonsense.

    But for what it’s worth, David Irving and PCR are 2 very widely read writers who come from mainstream backgrounds. It doesn’t do our cause any good to attack them. Particularly over an issue like your position of PCR not being sufficiently outraged.

    Regrettably, when “the holocaust” is finally ended, it will be because “respectable” public figures cause it to be this way. Consider that Zundel’s team killed “the holocaust” in the 1980’s, and yet here we still are.

    Wouldn’t it be better to appreciate and support today’s efforts of truth tellers like PCR, and our host Ron Unz?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  333. @CanSpeccy

    In both cases, the Anglo-Polish Mutual Assistance Agreement and the US commitment to Taiwan, the objective was to deter what the UN has defined as the ultimate war crime, a war of territorial aggression.

    Complete BS. You do realize that there was no UN back then to make such a declaration.

    Also, Germany would say it had a duty to protect the Germans in Poland which supercedes any laws against territorial aggression. The duty to protect has been used by the west as recently as its invasion of Libya and Syria.

    Also, China would that the US is committing war crimes by aiding and abetting those who seek to violate its territorial integrity.

  334. @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    his last will and testament (smuggled out of the Führerbunker just before Hitler’s suicide), to “acquire Lebensraum in the East”.

    Can you produce a copy of such writings in Hitler’s last testament? Because I’d sure like to see a copy of this fantasy.

    Then, PCR claims that the Brutish strategic withdrawal at Dunkirk was due to “Hitler’s magnanimity”. One wonders where he found this nugget

    It takes a particularly innocent individual to fail to undestand that had Hitler wanted to he could have launched Sarin and Tabun, binary nerve agents that only the Germans possessed in order to kill every single one of the British military at Dunkirk. Although the thought may seem barbaric, in light of the British incinerating hundreds of thousands of people at Dresden this would have been the better course.

    So yes, lucky for the British, unlucky for the rest of the world that Hitler was a magnanimous leader, and far too ready to attempt to reach peace.

    I have read Irving’s book on the firebombing of Dresden, “Apocalypse 1945”, and I can guarantee that wherever PCR came up with this it wasn’t from Irving, who gives an exhaustive account of the evolution of Brutish city bombing.

    That is interesting, because in Apocalypse 1945 on page 9 of chapter 1 David Irving points out that it was Britain who were first to deliberately target civilians.

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Dresden/Apocalypse_2007.pdf

    It’s seems clear that your sympathy for PCR’s degeneration should be saved for the man you see in the mirror.

    • Replies: @tac
    , @Wizard of Oz
  335. @Genrick Yagoda

    I’m pretty sure we have disagreed on this very subject of Irving’s great performance in the Irving v Lipstadt trial in the past. But I’ll say again I cannot put any faith in you on the subject of wwII or holocaust revisionism, any more than I can have full confidence in David Irving. I’m all for giving Irving all the credit due him, and there is some, but it’s overdone here at Unz Review. Irving has some severe weaknesses.

    I do wonder why you insist on spelling Joseph Goebbels name as “Goebells.” This is not the first time, as I seem to remember. If you are familiar with Goebbels’ diaries or Irving’s book on Goebbels, you would have seen the name spelled correctly many times and it would have sunk in.

    I think I’ve asked you before but you didn’t answer: Why do you think Germar Rudolf, the editor of the large library of Holocaust Handbooks, said (and has never retracted) that he wished David Irving would “shut up” about holocaust historiography because he’s “not a holocaust revisionist, hasn’t read the literature, and doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” (paraphrasing, but very close)

  336. @the shadow

    Yes, that’s true. A very good point to make. And I had already read that book when I saw the video. So Corbett is someone who puts other people’s research into professional quality videos; it doesn’t come out of his own “brilliant” head. That’s why I only found one I liked!

  337. anarchyst says:
    @James N. Kennett

    Irving made a cardinal mistake of attempting to sue a jewish libeler (Lipstadt) in a jewish-run judicial (jewdicial) system.
    He had no chance of winning his lawsuit with all of the cards stacked against him.

    • Replies: @Fox
  338. Sean says:
    @Malla

    Not occupied by Jews though. Few live in Germany and those that do have zero influence over national policy. Also, Germany ignores America over all sorts of things. Hitler successfully eliminated Jewish influence in Germany, and it has been successful ever since, thereby proving an advanced country could do without Jews. And Germans live well. So you cannot say Hitler was a total failure by his own lights any more that Churchill was.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Alfred
  339. Saggy says: • Website
    @Fox

    Badly written in what way?

    Nearly everyone with the exception of Nazi fanboys says that Mein Kampf was poorly written, boring, etc. But, IMO the opposite is true, the writing is extraordinary in terms of style and substance, and I think that can be demonstrated with a selection of quotes ….. starting with my favorite ….

    The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn’t help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn’t help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn’t remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.

    Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck.

    I didn’t know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying.

    Gradually I began to hate them.

    Another –

    As I listened to Gottfried Feder’s first lecture about the ‘breaking of interest slavery,’ I knew at once that this was a theoretical truth which would inevitably be of immense importance for the future of the German people. The sharp separation of stock exchange capital from the national economy offered the possibility of opposing the internationalization of the German economy without at the same time menacing the foundations of an independent national self-maintenance by a struggle against all capital. The development of Germany was much too clear in my eyes for me not to know that the hardest battle would have to be fought, not against hostile nations, but against international capital. In Feder’s lecture I sensed a powerful slogan for this coming struggle.

    And here again later developments proved how correct our sentiment of those days was. Today the know-it-alls among our bourgeois politicians no longer laugh at us: today even they, in so far as they are not conscious liars, see that international stock exchange capital was not only the greatest agitator for the War, but that especially, now that the fight is over, it spares no effort to turn the peace into a hell.

    The fight against international finance and loan capital became the most important point in the program of the German nation’s struggle for its economic independence and freedom.

    In Vienna Hitler is employed as a common worker, and he encounters trade unions, Social Democrats, Jews, and Marxism:

    At midday some of my fellow workers used to adjourn to the nearest tavern, while the others remained on the building premises and there ate their midday meal, which in most cases was a very scanty one. These were married men. Their wives brought them the midday soup in dilapidated vessels. Towards the end of the week there was a gradual increase in the number of those who remained to eat their midday meal on the building premises. I understood the reason for this afterwards. They now talked politics.

    I drank my bottle of milk and ate my morsel of bread somewhere on the outskirts, while I circumspectly studied my environment or else fell to meditating on my own harsh lot. Yet I heard more than enough. And I often thought that some of what they said was meant for my ears, in the hope of bringing me to a decision. But all that I heard had the effect of arousing the strongest antagonism in me. Everything was disparaged – the nation, because it was held to be an invention of the ‘capitalist’ class (how often I had to listen to that phrase!); the Fatherland, because it was held to be an instrument in the hands of the bourgeoisie for the exploitation of’ the working masses; the authority of the law, because that was a means of holding down the proletariat; religion, as a means of doping the people, so as to exploit them afterwards; morality, as a badge of stupid and sheepish docility. There was nothing that they did not drag in the mud.

    ……

    Hitherto my acquaintance with the Social Democratic Party was only that of a mere spectator at some of their mass meetings. I had not the slightest idea of the social-democratic teaching or the mentality of its partisans. All of a sudden I was brought face to face with the products of their teaching and what they called their Weltanschhauung. In this way a few months sufficed for me to learn something which under other circumstances might have necessitated decades of study – namely, that under the cloak of social virtue and love of one’s neighbour a veritable pestilence was spreading abroad and that if this pestilence be not stamped out of the world without delay it may eventually succeed in exterminating the human race. (bold added)

    Hitler identified the Jews with Marxism and the Marxist Social Democracy party. The above passages refer to a period before WW I, but were written after WW I and the Marxist revolution in Russia.

    Now begins the great last revolution. In gaining political power the Jew casts off the few cloaks that he still wears. The democratic people’s Jew becomes the blood-Jew and tyrant over peoples. In a few years he tries to exterminate the national intelligentsia and by robbing the peoples of their natural intellectual leadership makes them ripe for the slave’s lot of permanent subjugation.

    The most frightful example of this kind is offered by Russia, where he killed or starved about thirty million people with positively fanatical savagery, in part amid inhuman tortures, in order to give a gang of Jewish journalists and stock exchange bandits domination over a great people.”

    Finally, on the big lie..

    But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall [of Germany in WWI] precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice.

    All this was inspired by the principle — which is quite true in itself — that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.

  340. now we know who won the first & the second World Wars: the actual “owners” of the West, the Jewish interests.

    • Replies: @Sean
  341. @Neuday

    Meaning what?

    A reference perhaps to the real Escher’s optical illusions, with the idea being that “Escher”s ideas are illusory?

    If not, then what?

    • Replies: @Neuday
  342. @Joe Levantine

    I only take issue with your comment that ” I would state what history revisionists state as the reason Hitler issued strict orders to Guderian to stop pursuing the retreating British army and block their Dunkirk escape route; Hitler thought that by letting the British retreat rather than be humiliated by rounding up the bulk of their troops in Europe, there would be a better chance for a peaceful settlement. ” In point of fact, the notion Hitler gave the stop order to let the BEF escape to give perace a better chance is not revisi0nist history but what the german generals served up to the fawning Liddell Hart, the English military historian to explain their bungling. Army Group A’s (Rundstedt’s) war diary for the relevant period (I have a photo copy) makes clear the first stop order was issued by the Army Group and only confirmed by Hitler. Guderian in fact fully agreed with the second May 24 stop order after they hit the channel, as he makes clear in his book Panzer Leader where he recounts he went to admonish Sepp Dietrich commanding LAH for attacking against orders across the Aa canal at Watten that he approved after Dietrich told him they had to capture the hill over looking their position to prevent the Brits from effectively firing artillery at them. It is thus nonsense for Jacobsen to write in his book on Dunkirk that Guderian was allegedly “left speechless” by the May 24 halt order when the action he took that he describes in his book proves he wholeheartedly agreed with it. Guderian couldn’t say otherwise because the war diary of his Pz Corps undoubtedly confirmed it. Moreover, Guderian even acknowledges that he was left rudderless about how to proceed after they hit the channel when the high command failed to give him directions on how to proceed thereafter, and the general who never got an order that he wasn’t ready to disobey calmly went along with it because he also had no clue on how to proceed. So he proceeded to invest and capture Calais and Bolougne, two objective that did nothing to press the Brits at Dunkirk.

    The long and short of this is that it was the German generals after the war who came up with the notion it was Hitler’s interference with how they wanted to run the war properly that undermined their strategy that would have produced victory while Hitler chased the illusion that letting the BEF get away was throwing them an olive branch prompting the Brits to make peace.

    It is this notion that needs serious revisionism from historians.

    Even momentary thinking would make clear that the surest way to convince the Brits to be reasonable and conclude peace was to capture the entire BEF at Dunkirk that would have crushed almost the entire British standing army at that time and would surely have resulted in the peace factions in England running Churchill out of office.

    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
  343. @Genrick Yagoda

    Not for me. The one thing I would abhor is for the world to simply one day turn the page and quietly stop talking about “The Holocaust.” To just let it fade away. Maybe you think that would be a victory.

    I know I’m accused of getting too personal, but I believe in accountability. I’m incensed over what has been done to Germany and Germans for well over a century already. And your words and attitude do not ameliorate that. I question the line between truth-tellers and gate-keepers. People like PCR may be a gatekeeper without intending to be. His mild approach, not wanting to blame anyone (except maybe the “Nazis” still) and depending entirely on David Irving and Ron Unz for what he knows, or doesn’t know is infuriating. For him to say he “has never looked into the holocaust” is insulting and an avoidance; the same thing is said by Kevin MacDonald. Why should I then praise him for putting his name on these essays?

    I’m sure I shouldn’t pick on PCR. I’m more glad than not that he’s done this, but it’s not enough. And for you, I think you are English (or British); true, there are very many British supporting WWII Truth and Holocaust Truth, for sure, but at the same time they feel the need to portray Britain as a victim too, and indeed all of Europe. I think Germans should be pushed forward as spokesmen on this topic, but Germans seem to think they have little credibility and prefer to stand in the shade of other Europeans.

    The very worst showing of the British I’ve come across is in this letter to the BBC and the Church of England: https://jan27.org/incredible-cynicism-of-winston-churchills-government-exposed/ Please read it, reflect on it, take in all the connotations. Mr. Roberts should read it too, and David Irving. I consider this extreme evil, done in the name of an agenda of national deceit … which continues. And you want to criticize Joseph Goebbels?

  344. FB says: • Website
    @W.W.H.D.

    It’s true that Hitler’s plan was to seize food from Russia, so that Germany would not be ‘starved again’ as it was by the allied blockade in WW1…

    However…the plan involved starving between 20 and 30 million Russians instead…

    The Hunger Plan was devastating to ordinary Russian folks during the Nazi occupation…mainly in the cities and towns, as the plan was meant to not only seize the food and transport it to Germany, but to also empty out the cities to be repopulated by Germans…

    The plan as a means of mass murder was outlined in several documents, including one that became known as Göring’s Green Folder, which quoted a number of “20 to 30 million” expected Russian deaths from “military actions and crises of food supply.

    The main architect of the plan was agriculture minister and SS man Herbert Backe…who, ironically was born in the Russian Empire into the Caucasian German settler community there…

    He committed suicide while awaiting trial at Nuremberg…

    The Russian people have bitter memories of the Nazis…and with good reason…

    A masterful Russian film deals with this subject…Trial on the Road…about Partisans that plan to hijack a train loaded with food stuffs and livestock, bound for Germany…

    In the opening sequence of the film a German fuel truck is dumping gasoline on potatoes that local peasants were forced to dig up, in order to deny food to the locals…

    Such was the cruelty of the Nazis…it’s really ridiculous that any normal person could take seriously the notion that these monstrous pigs were anything but psychopathic criminals…

    Of course, as it turned out, the land that the Nazis planned as their ‘living fields’ turned into their dying fields instead…

    • Disagree: Ondra Hada
    • Replies: @W.W.H.D.
    , @Wally
  345. Malla says:

    The truth is that the Globalist Zio controlled slave nations of United States of America, Britain & its Empire and Soviet Russia were used to crush a liberated nation where the goyim had the courage to revolt against both Vulture Capitalism and Marxist Communism/ Leftist Modern Cultural Destruction, the Third Reich Germany and its ally, the Japanese Empire which stood as a bulwark against Communist murder and slavery in East Asia. For this, the Soviet solders were literally used as the cannon fodder and so were the British and American soldiers too. But mostly the Soviets.

    And strangely all of Third Reich Germany’s enemy have collapsed. The British & the French have lost their empires and third worlders run around, raping and pillaging. Truly pathetic sight. The mighty USSR collapsed, lost pathetically in poor Afghanistan, a country 1/20th in population. The Koran destroyed Das Capital, it always will. Only America is left. And what has the USA, the land of the brave and free become? It became an Empire, exactly what the founding fathers had warned against becoming. A colony of tiny Israel, looted and pillaged and used & abused by the chosenites, a country with its culture destroyed, a country gone mad attacking and warring everywhere, Americans dying in alien lands for their ungrateful masters, killing people they need not have killed. A large chunk of the USA is already Mexico. LOL. The USA will collapse too one day. All of them, the British Empire, the USSR, the USA….all of them were cursed when Berlin fell in 1945.

  346. Sean says:
    @nietzsche1510

    Germans own Germany, and they run it too. You may not like they way it is run. but Jews hardly control it,

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  347. Caroline-

    Re; Goebbels, I am often making spelling errors, particularly mis-ordering letters. Don’t read anything into it, particulary since it appears the spell check is off. I usually just look for a red underline, and if I don’t see one I assume I haven’t mis-spelled anything.

    I’ve read Goebbels’ diaries, I’ve read many of his writings, his wartime speeches, and I’ve read lots of what Irving writes about Goebbels.

    You did not ask me about Germar, but he is a warrior. And Germar is not saying anything that Irving himself does not admit. Irving has stated, and I bet a lot it is on his website, that he is not an expert in “the holocaust”, whatever it was. And I have my own questions about Irving, particularly his claims about the Operation Rheinhard camps. But that doesn’t change what Irving did in the Irving V Lipstadt trials.

    As far as trusting me, you don’t know what I’ve done in the past about “the holocaust”, but not under this identity. I live in a country where you certainly cannot survive financially if you are known as a “holocaust denier”. Let’s just say my efforts are significant, substantial, and have had an extremely long lasting effect.

    But your comment reinforces my earlier communication. Does it really help to get into battle your allies?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  348. Fox says:
    @anarchyst

    And there was a big effort made to crush this one heroic individual with a budget of 25 million dollars, several high-powered lawyers and a press all in sympathy with the poor Dr Lipstadt and her intellectual and moral inability to make a case based on facts.
    My first impression at the time was: How pathetic. It was like using an artillery division to defeat a single, stationary unarmed soldier on an open field.

    • Thanks: anarchyst
  349. @Paul Craig Roberts

    This review implies you’ve studied WWII at least a little.

    “Eisenhower was far from a good field commander.”

    He never was a field commander. And I’m not aware of any actual historians claiming he was.

    Churchill may have been dependent on alcohol yet Irving’s Hitler’s War makes clear Hitler was a drug-addict.

    The numbers and order of incidents you and Irving provide are all correct. The spin is yours. Truth is biographic.

    This article is as much a fairy-tale as the narrative produced by the victors 75 years ago.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
  350. @Carolyn Yeager

    Well, I know that in the past you have expressed views on WWII and A. H. very different from my own.

    Nonsense. Your disagreement with me in the past came about after I made the comment to the effect that your website praises AH to the skies upfront and with that you would create few, if any, converts to your cause and end up only preaching to the choir, to which you responded in your characteristic manner. Franklin Ryckaert advised you not to only see things in black and white and I would say that that was very good advice given to you.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  351. Fox says:
    @Sean

    There are a lot of Jews in Germany and they seem to be usually in influential positions. Without consulting any references, there come to mind the (former) TV news announcer Ulrich Wickert, there is somewhere in this threat a reference to the retired professor Brumlik at Frankfurt University, now in some social justice club in Berlin and newspaper columnist, there were chancellors Schmidt (Jewish grandfather), Brandt (Jewish father according to older sources, but after a lengthy “adjustment” of facts, this is not so), there was the actress Ingrid Meysel, the director Atze Brauner, a former Constitutional Court judge Benda, – in reading through German news it ever so often slips through that such and such is a Jew. In addition, under chancellor Kohl (who is also purported to be of Jewish lineage) there were 200000 contingent Jews brought into Germany from the SU (that was in the 1990s).
    These are just the things skimmed off the surface of what I remember in thinking about this topic coming up. As far as I know, knowledge in these matters is forbidden territory within the borders of the current Germany.

    • Replies: @Sean
  352. @Wally

    What more is there that needs to be said?

    And your first resort is ad hominem insults? O well done.

    I have no doubt that there were shenanigans going on between the US, Britain and France regarding their intentions.

    And I have no doubt that one can make a case that Hitler was justified in invading Poland. Or even merely ‘invading’ Poland.

    But the facts stand: the British and French did not mass their troops on the German border, declare war and go directly into German territory. It was the Germans who did this – massing their troops on the Polish border, declaring war, and invading Poland. The British and French declaration was a response to the German invasion of Poland. The German invasion of Poland, whether justified or not, was an act of war, and the act of war which caused Britain and France to declare war on Germany.

    This isn’t hard. It is quite basic. Sufficiently basic that, dare I say, even a child can grasp it.

    • Agree: Johnny Rico
    • Replies: @Wally
  353. @Truth3

    Any why did they do that?

    What was the proximate cause for Britain’s declaring war on Germany?

    • Replies: @Saggy
    , @Fox
    , @Truth3
  354. @Parfois1

    “Without that crucial respite and relocation of the frontline westwards, it is doubtful the USSR could prevent the onslaught on Moscow.”

    Why? It would have been easier to prevent if Germany had to go through ALL of Poland first.

    Both sides were actively and inadvertently for various complex reasons supplying each other’s military efforts almost up until June 1941.

    Regardless, most current historical work shows all the seeds of Barbarossa’s failure by September, before they even reached “the gates of Moscow.” The Germans were out of tanks and serviceable trucks.

    The Russians had written off Moscow, but when Stalin asked Zhukov the latter kept saying trust me, trust me. They kept baiting the Germans on and feeding divisions in piecemeal to block them through November.

    It was the Red Army’s losses in the first 6 months, lack of equipment, lack of competent leadership, and absurd tactics that saved the Germans until Spring 1942 when a pointless offensive could be renewed.

    By then, only capture of Ukraine and the Caucasus would suffice and Germans barely made it there with zero tanks and no fuel.

    By this time, the industrial might of the entire world is arrayed against them and the Soviet industrial capacity is coming back online. The Soviets are also able to replace something like 200 divisions. Massive German intelligence failure.

    Germany is out of manpower, can’t replace losses, and can only replace units by lowering the authorized strength of existing units and cannibalizing.

    Between Moscow and Kursk was a mirage for Hitler. Even Hitler knew Kursk was the last chance, kept putting if off, and then cancelled it in the midst of success by the IISS Panzer Corps because it was obvious decisive breaking of the Red Army was not in the cards.

    The General staff knew there was no hope back in 1942 or earlier. That’s probably why the resistance/plots started centered in Army Group Center HQ.

  355. S says:
    @Malla

    Yes according to James Perlov, one of the many reasons why FDR baited Japan into an attack on the USA was that he was scared that Japan would invade the Soviets from the East and his pet nation, not the USA, but the USSR would cease to exist.

    The City of London had invested far too much in the ultimate success of Communism since 1789, and in that ideology’s flagship state, the Soviet Union since 1917, to risk letting it go under. So, Roosevelt’s actions fit in perfectly with that. One can be sure, too, if the Soviet lines had seriously shattered on the Russian front, that the US/UK would have sent their own infantry and equipment directly to fill in the broken lines and stop the breach.

    [MORE]

    Of course, the exact same applies to the Capitalist flag ship state, the United States, and it’s paralleling battle with it’s own quasi nationalist nemesis, the Southern Confederacy, eighty years prior to Barbarossa. Had the Union lines seriously been broken by the Confederacy, one can be sure as well the British Empire, at the City’s request, would have directly intervened and filled in the Union lines with it’s own troops and plentiful equipment.

    The ultimate goal of this manufactured anti-identity, anti-human, Hegelian Dialectic which has been at play since 1776 and 1789, is for the Capitalist thesis and paralleling Communist anti-thesis to synthesize in global Multi-culturalism, and a world state/empire to be formed, historically referred to as the ‘United States of the World’.

    That the Anglo-Saxons Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and apparently Benjamin Franklin as well, were each quite involved in both the 1776 Capitalist, and 1789 Communist revolutions, ought to be of the gravest concern to true believers in those ideologies everywhere.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  356. ‘… The answer is that real history is history that travels straight from history-maker to the history-maker’s documents and from the document archives to the historian’s book without political input and free of academic and patriotic prejudice. It is history that cannot be bought…’

    It is also history that doesn’t exist. All historians have an agenda; the question is whether they admit that to their readers, or if not to their readers, at least to themselves.

    David Irving is no worse than most historians, and better than many. He’s also not noticeably better than many — just considerably more iconoclastic.

  357. Poco says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Why should Britain get to decide who needs a Navy?

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  358. Saggy says: • Website
    @Stebbing Heuer

    What was the proximate cause for Britain’s declaring war on Germany?

    They entered the war to protect Poland from the Huns, but …. a thoughtful person might question that motive as they did absolutely nothing to stop or even hinder the invasion of Poland.

    John Toland’s ‘Adolf Hitler’ describes secret negotiations occurring at the very beginning of the war:

    “There is only one chance,” Fritz Hesse in London phoned Hewel of the Wilhelmstrasse, “namely that we immediately move out of Poland and offer reparation payment for damages. If Hitler does that there is probably one chance in a million of avoiding the catastrophe.” Within two hours Hewel called back. A deep voice broke in, Ribbentrop’s. “You know who is speaking,” he said but asked not to be mentioned by name. “Please go immediately to your confidant—you know who I mean [he was referring to Sir Horace Wilson]—and tell him this: the Führer is prepared to move out of Poland and to offer reparation damages provided that we receive Danzig and a road through the Corridor, if England will act as mediator in the German-Polish conflict. You are empowered by the Führer to submit this proposal to the British cabinet and initiate negotiations immediately.” ….. Hesse asked Ribbentrop to repeat the offer. He did, adding, “So there will be no misunderstanding, point out again that you are acting on the express instructions of Hitler and that this is no private action of mine.”

    By the end of September the Poland had surrendered. The British and French guarantees were proven a sham, neither had done anything to counter the German advance.

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  359. Wally says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    – As opposed to your initial “ad hominem insults”.

    – I gave you valid reasons for the German reactions to Polish warmongering & incitement and you ignored them.

    And of course, you ignore the fact that Britain & France did not declare war on the communist USSR which invaded from the east and took 60% of Poland.

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  360. Fox says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    You tell us why the British opened the gates to World War 2 on September 3, 1939.

    There is a lot of speculation about what drove them to commit national suicide on that day. It is certain that they could have not done it, at the peril of displeasing Roosevelt and a raft of people working behind the scenes, building up, among other war advocates, Winston Churchill. Even on September 2, after Mussolini had suggested a conference of Italy, Germany, France and England, and Germany had agreed to halt military advance, England refused and forced France to withdraw her initial agreement. So, England demonstrated a peremptory determination to go to war. Churchill said in his Fulton speech of 1946 (quoting from memory), “in 1939, we could have prevented the war from breaking out without a single shot being fired, but e didn’t want to”. So, what drove the few people who made the decisions in London to sign the War Warrant and choose the path of doom?

  361. @GeeBee

    1. Yes. Britain and France declared war on Germany. I don’t dispute this. They only did so because Germany invaded Poland. This was the act of war which precipitated the British and French declarations of war.

    2. Rudolf Hess was wrong, obviously.

    3. Who, anywhere at any time, could be described as sane? Was Hitler’s decision to invade Poland sane?

    4. If Britain was so hell-bent on war, why didn’t they invade Germany? It was the Germans who invaded their neighbour – why don’t you describe them as being ‘hell-bent on war’?

    5. What do you mean ‘people like you’? We’ve never met each other. What ‘dismal flock’ am I supposed to be a member of?

    6. Why isn’t it possible for me to believe i) that my country is run by a criminal gang of oligarchs and kleptocrats, AND ii) that Hitler started World War II by invading Poland? Why should these two things be mutually exclusive? What would you make of the proposition that ALL of these people are utterly disgusting criminals?

    Generally, I find it fascinating that people automatically default to ‘black-white’ thinking – one side good, the other bad. ‘If the leaders of the western countries are nasty criminals, then Hitler couldn’t have started the war’. The idea that they are all equally culpable and criminal, but even then that some actions – such as invading a neighbour – are worse than others, just doesn’t occur automatically to people as a possibility. It’s a strange quirk of our psychology.

    • Replies: @GeeBee
  362. profnasty says:
    @W.W.H.D.

    I believe Ukrainians welcomed the Germans as liberators. I don’t believe mass murder has ever been a part of the German soul. Lebensraum was certainly intended as a permanent trade relationship with a liberated Ukraine. And as an assurance the Empire would never again be able to starve Germany into submission.

  363. @the shadow

    The British “guarantee” to Poland served as the pretext for Britain to launch its planned war against Germany in exactly the same way that the guarantee of Belgian neutrality served as the same pretext justifying the British war on GErmany that they had been conspiring to organize with France, Russia and Belgium since the Boer War as is clearly exposed in the Dockerty and Macregor book, Hidden History.

    Both of which the Germans could have avoided by staying within their borders and not invading their neighbours.

    The dastardly British – always making plans for war that depend completely on the other country starting the war! How could anyone escape such a plan! LOL

    • Agree: FB
    • Replies: @the shadow
  364. @Poco

    Britain had always been a sea power needing a strong navy to protect its commerce and territory. The Royal Navy was referred to as the Senior Service and had prevented invasions of Britain by both Spain and France previously so British long-term policy had decreed that no nation would be allowed to have a navy of sufficient size to be a threat. Germany was seen as a land power so the building up of Germany’s navy prior to WWI was perceived as a direct threat to Britain. The people of both nations suffered considerably as a consequence of the resulting arms race and the wars that followed.

    • Replies: @Poco
  365. @Wally

    protect Germans

    You know there are alternatives to starting a war of conquest. Emigration into Germany, anyone?

    retrieve their stolen land

    It wasn’t stolen. They lost World War I, and the redistribution of land was part of the settlement. They were thoroughly thrashed. When you lose, you have stuff taken off you. It’s a good reason not to go starting wars.

    and stop Polish warmongering

    Again, you know there are alternatives to a war of conquest? Highlighting Polish aggression in international fora? A diplomatic demarche and warning that you would declare war if the provocations didn’t stop? Or if you had to declare war, doing so in accordance with international law, conducting a raid over the border, thrashing the enemy, achieving an acceptable settlement and then retreating back within one’s borders?

    Germany did none of these – it agreed to divide Poland with the Soviet Union, and then invaded with the intention of wiping it off the map. Hitler wanted a war of conquest, nothing less. All of your reasons are nothing but rationalisations to excuse a warmonger.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Genrick Yagoda
  366. W.W.H.D. says:
    @FB

    Are you telling me that the Germans, in the few months between the invasion of Russia and Stalingrad, where wasting gasoline and food just to fuck over some random peasant? Do you think maybe the reason it was in that movie was because someone who hates nazis made it up? Do you think hating real people because of something you saw in a propaganda film is a smart move?

    • Replies: @FB
  367. W.W.H.D. says:
    @Escher

    I’m sure it would have been at least as humane as when we ethnically cleansed eastern Germany. That unfortunately is war

    • Replies: @Escher
  368. tac says:
    @Genrick Yagoda

    Can you produce a copy of such writings in Hitler’s last testament? Because I’d sure like to see a copy of this fantasy.

    (starting from the fifth image do indulge yourself):

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_testament_Hitler

    http://www.ihr.org/other/hitlertestament.html

    https://archive.org/stream/HitlerLastPoliticalTestament/Hitler-LastPoliticalTestament_djvu.txt

    http://www.tomatobubble.com/hitler_suicide.html

    https://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/adolf-hitler-last-political-testament/

    CIA progaganda put out for political consumption:

    https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/HITLER%2C%20ADOLF_0001.pdf

    A diluted publication, but worthy of some of the anecdotal revelations in its writings:

    https://archive.org/details/PoliticalTestamentOfAdolfHitler/page/n1/mode/2up

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  369. Fox says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    Of course Britain was hell-bent on war. There was plenty of time to help defuse the situation between the fully-mobilised Poland and and the offers for discussions of how to come to a solution to a problems the dimwits had created 20 years prior at Versailles. Britain did nothing, did not even pass on to the Poles German notes, as the Poles refused to accept them.
    Your opinion is in accord with the general interpretation of history: If any country takes anything, or a part from Germany, then this is justified; if Germany objects, wants or takes it back, then it’s aggression.
    Why is is ok if Poland occupies and requisitions German territories (after the First War), and why is it an act of aggression, even for the Germans living there, and under the Polish predations, to object?
    Your solution for the Germans to leave is quite childish. Voluntary ethnic surrender and voluntary ethnic cleansing is your solution. I wonder why anywhere in the world people object to being manhandled by others, they could just leave. You are brilliant in your own way, but I venture to guess that in almost any part of the world people like you with such advice would not fair well.
    It is much too little known that Mussolini proposed a conference between Italy, Germany, France and England as a late attempt to avert war. Germany and France immediately assented, Germany was willing to halt further military operations. Britain strong-armed France to withdraw its agreement, Britain rejected (Halifax was in favor of the conference but Chamberlain overruled him), and events took their course.
    If you can’t discern the absolute will to war, no matter what, in Britain’s ruling class in this, then you are simply not capable of thinking through an argument.
    Perhaps you should realise that problems are real, and in particular the Danzig and Korridor problem were created by, among others, Britain. Hitler had absolutely nothing to do with it, he inherited it from the Weimar governments which never recognized the borders with Poland. Lloyd George, and even the busy Churchill were aware of the need to adjust the German Polish border to avoid conflict. Churchill changed his opinion, as so easily and so oftentimes before, when his pecuniary situation required an adjustment of his principles to new realities through a generous, but not price-less, rescue from his bankrupt situation. His behavior showed that he was not just venal, he was absolutely passionately paying the price required for this rescue out of the pit of non-luxury.

    • Agree: the shadow
    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  370. @Stebbing Heuer

    Both of which the Germans could have avoided by staying within their borders and not invading their neighbours.

    Sure they could have – and turned themselves into the vassals of the British. Just like the Japanese could have avoided war with the US by completely submitting to US sanctions. Exactly like every leader in the world today could avoid CIA coups aganst his regime by succumbing to US deands they surrender their country the New World Order run by the US elites.

    Anybody can always avoid trouble by submittng to the demands of the bully and turn himself into the bully’s slave.

    So you want to side with the bullies and entirely ignore the demands they impose on others that they threaten to enforce with power, and then denounce as the aggressor those who stand up to them.

    I concede the Brits were better liars and propandists than the Germans, especially since the only people they really tried to convince were the Americans, and they had the advantager of sharing a language.

    If you really want to unbderstand who is responsible for starting a war, start by looking at the conditions being imposed by the powerful on others, and what options that leaves those who are threatended.

    • Agree: GeeBee
  371. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @S

    The City of London had invested far too much in the ultimate success of Communism since 1789, and in that ideology’s flagship state, the Soviet Union since 1917, to risk letting it go under.

    Could you clarify that a bit. I mean the Communist Manifesto was not published until 1848, so what investments had the City of London made in the “ultimate success of Communism” prior to that date. And for that matter, can you give a summary of the gigantic investments you claim the City had made in the Soviet Union after 1917?

    • Replies: @Franz
  372. @tac

    OK, I induldged myself. No where in any of those links does Hitler write:

    his endless demands, from Mein Kampf to his last will and testament (smuggled out of the Führerbunker just before Hitler’s suicide), to “acquire Lebensraum in the East”.

    Thanks for adding your voice and confirmation to my condemnation of poster Friendly Neighborhood terrorist’s inaccurate claims.

    • Replies: @tac
  373. @Stebbing Heuer

    It wasn’t stolen. They lost World War I, and the redistribution of land was part of the settlement. They were thoroughly thrashed.

    At the end of WWI, Germany held enemy territory. No German territory was taken. This is what you call thoroughly thrashed? You must be standing on your head.

    Are you German? I’ve often read that Germans these days are a defeated and thoroughly brainwashed lot. You would certainly fit this bill, based on your posts.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Stebbing Heuer
  374. “This is what you call thoroughly thrashed?”

    Whatever Ludendorff’s description of the German Army was on August 8th, 1918. That is what I would call “thrashed.” “Thoroughly thrashed” is what it was in November.

    Captured territory has been an on and off ultimate determinant of victory over the centuries. Smashing of the enemy’s will to resist has usually been a big one, though.

    The Germans held French territory but the German people were starving. Ludendorff couldn’t manage the whole economy on a total war footing.

  375. Fox says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    If you are serious with what you are writing, you are not knowledgeable beyond the level of newspaper headlines and their agendas. Where did you learn about “the well-known plans to invade Switzerland”? And how come that you seem to be flabbergasted about the Anschluß of Austria to the rest of Germany? It was the wish of the vast majority of the Austrians to do so and not only restored the old unity of Germany (you could call it the German commonwealth), but was decided on in the Austrian Parliament on November 11, 1918, again in two Austrian provinces in 1921, and 1931 a customs union was decided by the Austrian Parliament – all forbidden by the Versailles crowd or the League.
    What makes me think that you are not serious is your unrelenting referring to the “Brutish” .

  376. Wally says:
    @FB

    Oh yawn.

    – We’re waiting to hear about the absurdly impossible ‘gas chambers’ next.
    – There was no Hunger Plan, period. I challenge you to show us this “Hunger Plan” in authentic German documents. You cannot.
    – So what do you present?
    Instead you give us a laughable Zionist dominated Wikipedia link and a hilariously staged Communist propaganda production film which you ridiculously label as “masterful”.

    – No doubt you consider this hilariously fake Communist production “masterful” proof of the demolished claims about Babi Yar:caption: Photo taken from the body of a dead German officer killed in Russia, showing a Nazi firing squad shooting Jews in the back as they sit beside their own mass grave, in Babi Yar, Kiev, 1942. LOL

    recommended, from https://www.unz.com:
    How Israel and Its Partisans Work to Censor the Internet: https://www.unz.com/article/how-israel-and-its-partisans-work-to-censor-the-internet/?highlight=wikipedia
    and:
    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189

  377. Jaylonw says:

    A friend of mine told me what happened after he posted the link to this article on Quora – just a few hours after the posting, there were already half a dozen comments all proclaiming that David Irving was a court convicted Holocaust denier. Then one day later (today), his Quora account is banned, i.e stripped. He was surprised, as he told me he had previously posted quite a few “controversial” links from Unz.com. Power of the Jewry

  378. According to Wikipedia, David Irving is one of the vilest examples of holocaust denial ever. I have followed Dr. Paul Craig Roberts’ articles and comments for many years, and on me he has left an impression of integrity, reliability and courage. Standing up for Irving is another coureageous step and with such endorsement, i now dare purchase Irving’s books. But what are we to do with Wikipedia? If it lends itself to such blatant defamation of character, the world must learn that as a source it has become worthless.

  379. Wally says:
    @W.W.H.D.

    You mean the “lebensraum policy” that never existed.

    After all, Hitler had years to enact your fabled “policy” if he desired.

    IOW: Obviously there was no “lebensraum policy” or it would have been put into place.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  380. This is incoherent. Truly poor understanding and relation of history. Failure on every level.

    All the British could do was to sic an entire fleet on a single German warship and bomb French and German civilians. In North Africa the British failed to push out the outnumbered Germans and called in the Americans. Eisenhower was far from a good field commander. After Rommel smashed through the Kasserine Pass, delivering to the American army “one of the most resounding defeats ever inflicted on the Americans in war,” Rommel reported to Berlin that despite being outnumbered and without supplies, he could again take the offensive. He attributed success in part to “the low fighting value of the enemy.” Eisenhower’s aide Harry Butcher recorded, “We sent out some 120 tanks and 112 didn’t come back.” Churchill shared Rommel’s dismissal of the American fighting man. “After Kasserine Churchill made little attempt to conceal his contempt for the American forces and their fighting value.”

    Nobody has ever doubted or denied the relatively poor quality of American ground forces in the western theatre who had no combat experience prior to Kasserine Pass. There was a deliberate attempt to slowly “blood” American units and prepare them for the invasion of Normandy.

    But, bizarrely, two paragraphs earlier, PCR states:

    German intelligence never caught on that the British were reading their codes and knew precisely every shipment to resupply Rommel which the British seldom failed to send to the bottom of the Mediterranean. One would think that after nothing gets through time and again that a light would come on.

    Kasserine Pass takes place in Tunisia in February 1943. It is big in American history because of its early date in the war. I believe Guadalcanal is the only previous major land battle waged by Americans. It is not big in the larger global history of the war.

    300 Americans killed. 3000 wounded. 3000 missing (I’m guessing probably dead?). 184 tanks destroyed but easily replaced. The Germans record 2000 killed or wounded.

    But look what had happened before and after. Rommel had been decisively defeated by Montgomery in November 1942 at El Alamein and had been retreating strategically. On Feb. 23rd, Rommel calls off the offensive (Kasserine) and orders German units to return to their start lines.

    Throughout the North African campaign, Rommel spent half his hours begging Hitler for more tanks, men, supplies and most importantly fuel and complaining that he was getting nothing. A great deal of the little Hitler sent was intercepted or destroyed as everybody knows…but it is also known that a lot got through since the supply route from Sicily is relatively short.

    After Kasserine Eisenhower made some major changes including bringing Patton to the forefront.

    75 Days later in early May 1943, German resistance in Tunis ends.

    So much for PCR’s/Irving’s statement – “Rommel reported to Berlin that despite being outnumbered and without supplies, he could again take the offensive.”

    “one of the most resounding defeats ever inflicted on the Americans in war,”

    Whatever. Does it matter? Maybe it ranks as number three behind Pearl Harbor and the Battle of the Bulge. But only the few who read World War II history are even aware of the name. There are a hundred American victories that were more costly. What was Tet? Did we win or lose that? Chosin Reservoir? Those were later anyway. The take-away from Kasserine is the turnaround and recovery of the Army. The lessons learned. War is the best teacher. But she kills most of her pupils.

    How many Russian troops did Stalin’s generals continue to order to storm German machine-gun bunkers after July or August 1941? Millions…but PCR and/or Irving relate Americans taking casualties on the one-hand as weakness and lack of skill at Kasserine and at the same time Stalin is ungrateful for the British and Americans NOT feeding tens of thousands more into the meat-grinder. Talk about cake and eating it too.

    PCR using Irving’s history has nothing but criticism for Eisenhower and Churchill based on a fleeting German tactical victory at Kasserine for five days in the midst of a six-month-long German strategic collapse that happens simultaneous to Stalingrad.

    This is all bad news for Hitler.  PCR’s narrative does not mesh with the actual dates and direction of the fighting that EVERYBODY agrees took place. Why that is only he can answer.

    As Paul Kennedy relates in ‘The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery’ on page 302,”…despite Allied merchant ship losses of almost eight million tons in 1942 alone, the lines of communication were kept open. And in the same year Anglo-American naval forces themselves carried the offensive to the enemy by escorting invasion troops to North Africa; later they provided cover for the assaults upon Sicily, southern Italy and eventually France itself…”

    Churchill and Eisenhower oversaw what is actually quite a remarkable turnaround success,”carrying the offensive to the enemy.”

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
    , @Hibernian
  381. @Happy Tapir

    Read the judgment in the first trial. Despite the contorted logic used to reach the flawed conclusion, most of the judgment is sound and informative.

    The judgment in the appeal is rubbish, it merely upholds the first decision and adds little if anything.

    • Replies: @Amber Dekstris
  382. @Amber Dekstris

    Irving did a poor job of representing himself. He should have enlisted a real barrister or not filed the suit.

    • Replies: @Sean
  383. @Wally

    “…Obviously there was no “lebensraum policy” or it would have been put into place…”

    The Lebensraum policy could only have been implemented after Hitler would have defeated the Russians. Since that didn’t happen that plan could not be implemented, but that is no proof that it never existed. Hitler’s intentions of settling Russia with Germans is clearly stated in Mein Kampf and in several places of his Table Talk.

    • Replies: @apollonian
  384. Dube says:
    @Paul Craig Roberts

    “…WW II started when Britain and France declared war on Germany.”

    You might announce that at a meeting of your school board.

    “It was a war that Hitler did not want.”

    It was not the war that Hitler did want.

    • Agree: Johnny Rico
  385. @Saggy

    Ask yourself his intention. Did he intend to perform an analysis? Did he intend to let the documents speak for themselves?

  386. @Fox

    No one forced Hitler to invade Poland.

    The Brits weren’t there pointing a gun to his head saying ‘Invade Poland or you’re dead’.

    He chose to do it of his own free will.

    No doubt the Brits made stupid mistakes. No doubt sordid deals were being done behind the scenes.

    It doesn’t change the central fact of the beginning of the war: Hitler chose to invade Poland. That was the principal, primary cause of the war. Nothing else comes close.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  387. GeeBee says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    Sigh. OK, your point no. 1. I have already explained why Germany had to invade Poland: to rescue German citizens from their plight, as in my example regarding Florida. I have also explained that Britain was hell-bent on war, hence the unprecedented ‘war guarantee’ that effectively handed control of British foreign policy – and policy of the most serious kind, that of declaring war – to Poland. Think about this for a moment. Britain would have its war with Germany come what may.

    Your point no. 2 – yes, he was wrong wasn’t he? Because he was rational, or more to the point, was unaware of the mendacity of the British position.

    point 3. – I shan’t even comment on such Hasbara nit-picking and hair-splitting, except to say that my choice of the word ‘sane’ might have been better. Prudent perhaps. Or logical.

    point 4. – This one is utterly pricesless. I shall repeat it: ‘If Britain was so hell-bent on war, why didn’t they invade Germany?’ Maybe because, in order to invade Germany, the dictates of geography apply: one’s route into Germany involves going through either France or the Low countries. As France actually did invade Germany (a little-known fact) immediately after she declared war jointly with Britain, then Britain decided that the French route was the better option, and landed the BEF, under the command of Lord Gort, in France. With what intention do you suppose? That of invading her ally France? Silly boy, do pay attention. That Britain was easily rolled back all the way to the English Channel by Germany obviously pre-empted the intended attack on Germany.

    5. – You’re hasbara and I’m not (or at least you give the strong impression that you are), which leads me onto your most important point number

    6. – ‘Why isn’t it possible for me to believe i) that my country is run by a criminal gang of oligarchs and kleptocrats, AND ii) that Hitler started World War II by invading Poland? Why should these two things be mutually exclusive?’

    Until a critical mass of people can grasp the fact that WWII was nothing more than the first and bloodiest example of ‘regime change’, undertaken by the very ‘criminal gang of oligarchs and kleptocrats’ that, as you rightly lament, now rule over us, expressly because they understood that Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich posed a mortal danger to their kleptocracy, then we who wish to see an end to this kleptocracy will get nowhere. There is much erudite discussion of this here on Unz, both in the articles and, perhaps more so, by posters such as the redoubtable ‘Mefobills’ (I strongly advise you to take a look at his posting history).

    World War Two has been carefully crafted by these kleptocratic victors into a foundational mythology, whose purpose is to undergird the Neoliberal-Globalist orthodoxy that – I’m sure you’ve noticed – will brook no challenge to its precepts, no matter that they are egregiously false, totally bankrupt, utterly discredited and thus lie in tatters. The problem for us being that those of us who have destroyed their bogus narrative have very little traction: the brainwashing continues apace, and thus the great majority of people in Oceania continue to believe what ‘The Party’ tells them about Emmanuel Goldstein. Sorry, I mean that the great majority of people in Britain and America continue to believe what their de facto one-party state tells them about Adolf Hitler.

    Am I getting anywhere with you? Or ought I just to give up, and leave you to your debt-bondage to our kleptocratic masters, in whose loathsome shadow we wretched members of the new species Homo economicus all crawl? Bribed, brainwashed and bludgeoned into submission by their propaganda and tyranny – their stick and carrot – and all dutifully indulging in our ‘two minutes hate’ against that ‘evil tyrant’ Adolf Hitler, while braying our approval of ‘the wartime spirit’ and bleating their mantra of ‘democracy good, fascism bad’ even as we are herded towards the slaughter-house?

    A ‘third way’ was on offer until 1945, but the ordinary people were tragically propagandised into fighting their own salvation. Those who saw what was really going on – men like Arnold Leese and Sir Oswald Mosley – were thrown in jail. What I like to think of as ‘German Ethical Socialism’ (as Oswald Spengler described National Socialism) sought to send the ‘Financial International’ and their perpetual scheme of usury and rake-off to enrich themselves packing. Indeed they did exactly that. For which ‘crime’ they were brutally extirpated by ‘the victorious allies’.

    Until, as I say, a critical mass of people become aware of these truth, there is no hope.

    • Agree: the shadow, Lurker
  388. Franz says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Could you clarify that a bit. I mean the Communist Manifesto was not published until 1848, so what investments had the City of London made in the “ultimate success of Communism” prior to that date.

    I can help with that one. It was widely accepted, apparently even by Karl Marx, that “communism” as an ideal existed centuries before the word was used as a political badge.

    Not certain where, but Marx alleged that an early version of the socialist cadres for a communist revolution started under Cromwell. No kidding.

    On April Fools Day, 1649, Gerrard Winstanley plus others took over St George’s hill and essentially created an early communist polity for a short time. He was put down, but even the Soviet state, while still operational, considered him an early progenitor of the New Socialist Man. Some of his writings — many survive — show how very ahead of the curve he was.

    I know wiki infuriates many, but at least the dates and general outline on the fellow seems accurate to what I studied of him years ago:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrard_Winstanley#The_Diggers

    I’m very surprised modern pro-socialists are ignorant of him. Only a few decades back even anarchists claimed him, so great was Gerrard’s rep. Maybe it was because of the movie about him, now just as forgotten as he apparently is.

  389. Alfred says:
    @CanSpeccy

    European powers guaranteed Belgium’s independence, which breach was clearly a prelude to an attack on Britain’s chief ally, France.

    This is a British lie. Belgium was not neutral. The British army kept supplies there. The British army regularly visited Belgium to make common plans in the event of a German Invasion. The disposition of supplies for an army arriving from England were in place. The French army did the same. These two countries were hostile to Germany. That means that Belgium was not neutral.

    Once again, I respectfully suggest that you go to original sources and forget about what the “Daily Mail” or the “Sydney Morning Herald” wants you to think.

    I have taken screen shots from books with original sources.

    1- World War I: Primary Documents on Events from 1914 to 1919 by Ross F. Collins

    2- United States Congressional Serial Set, Volume 7598 page 1411

    99.99% of the population of English-speaking countries who are over the age of 60 agree with you – because they have been fooled. The good news is that you are not alone. 🙂

    • Replies: @the shadow
  390. refl says:
    @DB Cooper

    The Red Army invaded Manchuria on August, 8th, 1945. It had been agreed at Yalta that the Red Army would take action against Japan 3 month after VE, which was on May, 8th. They delivered promptly.
    The Japanese war party had its base in the army, which held Manchuria under occupation. With Manchuria gone, they lost that base.
    It has been argued that the US deliberately hindered Japanese efforts to negotiate a surrender, because it would have betrayed them of using that fashionable new weapon they had produced.
    The majority of victims at Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not die from radiation but from untreated burns that could have been helped. But an ever higher death toll was certainly in the sense of the authors to that crime.

    In any event, the detonation of those two nuclear bombs drew the line under old fashioned warfare: The new overlords would stop at NOTHING, and that is the world we are all inhabitating ever since.

    That is, where we are now.

  391. Sean says:
    @Amber Dekstris

    Bringing libel actions is a very expensive business. He had been advised to ignore it, but in the twenties Churchill had brought a successful libel action against Lord Alfred Douglas (yes Oscar Wilde’s boyfriend who had a magazine called Plain English that was no friend of the Jews ) for accusing Churchill of betraying the Fleet to the Jews working for the victory of Wilhelmine Germany in WW1. Churchill could not afford to fly to the law, being in the process of accumulated a debts equivalent to $4 million gambling. Jews paid it off and that is a fact. His enormous losses at Monte Carlo before and after WW2 were written off by the house. So not only an alcoholic like two of his children but a compulsive gambler.

    Multiple legal actions against Private Eye over allegations he had helped fugitive murderer Lord Lucan almost bankrupted Sir James Goldsmith, before he cut his losses and went the US where he became Britain’s first self made billionaire before returning to found and front his leave the EU pressure group The Referendum Party (election broadcast here). It is amusing to think that the Private Eye/BBC satirical show Have I got News for You through popularising Boris Johnson did more than a little to bring Goldsmith’s Brexit dream to fruition. Goldsmith was a gambler who knew when to walk away and knew when to run and fight another day.Churchill was horrified by coloured immigration and but for his illness would have brought in measures against it before anti racism paralysed the political class, according to Powell.

    Irving was not. He did very well out of bringing a legal action early in his career. That kind of thing is a double edged sword rather like having a huge win gambling (as Lord Lucan did before his descent into ‘house player’ at Aspinall’s) inasmuch you are likely to become convinced you have the golden touch and have a bias to proceed where cutting your losses in the thing to do. It is nevertheless puzzling why someone of his intellect thought he could possibly win such a suit while representing himself. That would have been a challenge even if the British legal system was totally neutral on WW2, not heavily larded with Jews and those indebted to them, and his opponents had not had comparatively limitless resources.

    I have no idea why Irving thought he could fail to bankrupt himself and end his career by bringing such a suit. Did he think he could get the truth out better in a court of law than in his books? Enoch Powell said the truth does not emerge from debate and trying to clear up misunderstandings, but from everyone going on living.

    • Replies: @Alden
  392. @the shadow

    “ Even momentary thinking would make clear that the surest way to convince the Brits to be reasonable and conclude peace was to capture the entire BEF at Dunkirk that would have crushed almost the entire British standing army at that time and would surely have resulted in the peace factions in England running Churchill out of office.“

    I admit that I am not in a position to contest the valuable information that you posted about the subject of Dunkirk though I wish I could witness a debate by heavyweight scholars about the issue that would include first and foremost David Irving whom I personally consider to be a leading historian when it comes to WWII matters. Also it would have been more helpful to use less abbreviations so the laymen could be more at ease grasping the text.

    However, judging by hindsight, had the British army been captured in France, WWII would have not proceeded and all of Europeans would have ended winners, instead of the two parties who were the uncontested beneficiaries of that useless conflict, the USA and the Soviet Union. Britain would have kept most of its colonies, Germany would be free from NATO occupation and would have acted as a counterweight to the banksters liberal order that has sucked the bone marrow of most European and world citizens, the Soviet Union would have proceeded with its communist system without the burden of the Cold War and the USA would have been more of a republic than an empire with less propensity towards militarism… In short, we would have been living in a multipolar world with different and competing social and economic systems where the citizens of the world would be free to assess and chose the system that suits them best.

    Instead, we have ended under the control of international and transnational organisations where the sovereignty of nations, and by induction the liberty of individual citizens have been subordinated to the New World Order which is the process of constant and progressive concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few at the expense of all the rest.

    Churchill eventually triumphed and openly advocated for the United States of Europe while hinting at the eventuality of One World Governance. Looking at the state of the EU, where citizens are getting dwarfed by an increasingly oppressive Brussels bureaucracy, I can only conclude that Churchill’s glory was the European’s downfall.

    • Replies: @S
  393. @Carolyn Yeager

    That’s denial, not just ‘revising’ the narrative, such as lowering the death number would be.

    I prefer “Actual History” and “Actual Historian” over revisionism, denialism, revisionist, denialist etc.

  394. Alfred says:
    @Sean

    The German secret service was originally staffed by Germans who did a similar job for Hitler. They switched to working for the USA. Their spy networks in the USSR switched to the USA. Most useful!

    Since then, those who followed them have been doing the same. The idea that Germany is an independent country is a poor joke. An independent country would have exposed the Holohoax a long time ago and refused to pay alimony to the vast number of Jews who claim to have been in its “extermination camps”. Those who survived even though they were children at the time. The sheer nonsense that the Germans tolerate is conclusive proof that they are still under occupation. I would go to prison for listing this in Germany.

    From the Times of Israel this week. Don’t forget these people were liberated 75 years ago.

    “I personally am not afraid, but everyone around me is afraid for me. I tell them: When I was a kid, it was dangerous to be a kid,” 87-year-old Naftali Pirset, who has a partner, told Channel 12 news. “I’m close to 90 now, so it’s also dangerous. So I was born at a bad time.”

    “I’ll show you a photo from 1945 in Buchenwald, four days after liberation. I was in concentration camps for three years. To compare that miserable situation, with prisoners dying there, and the conditions of the day?” he said.

    ‘Nobody is hitting you. Be optimistic’: Holocaust survivors stoic amid the virus

    Meanwhile Polish partisans were hiding in the forests and harassing the Germans. They were just as hungry. The Germans never paid them a bent penny.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  395. @Wally

    The author displays gullibility. I have in nothing I’ve done displayed childishness.

    I acknowledged your valid reasons for German reactions to Polish actions. What I am saying is that a war of conquest was neither a reasonable nor warranted response to those actions.

    I have also acknowledged that the British and French were less than honourable and rational in their conduct; I have also said that actions such as not declaring war on the Soviet Union are not relevant to the question of who started World War II.

    The fact remains: it was Hitler who decided to invade Poland in order to conquer it and remove it from the map. That is the central cause of World War II. Nothing else comes close.

    • Replies: @Wally
  396. @Fox

    Why is is ok if Poland occupies and requisitions German territories (after the First War), and why is it an act of aggression, even for the Germans living there, and under the Polish predations, to object?

    The Germans lost World War I. The creation of Poland was part of the settlement. Whatever was taken from them was taken as part of a settlement that the Germans themselves recognised via their elected government.

    It is not an act of aggression to object. It is an act of aggression to start a war, which is what Hitler did.

    Your solution for the Germans to leave is quite childish. Voluntary ethnic surrender and voluntary ethnic cleansing is your solution. I wonder why anywhere in the world people object to being manhandled by others, they could just leave.

    Plenty of people come to my country, and I suspect yours, each year to escape predatory governments. In the nineteenth century this included tens of thousands of Germans. If something better exists, exit is a great option.

    It is much too little known that Mussolini proposed a conference between Italy, Germany, France and England as a late attempt to avert war. Germany and France immediately assented, Germany was willing to halt further military operations. Britain strong-armed France to withdraw its agreement, Britain rejected (Halifax was in favor of the conference but Chamberlain overruled him), and events took their course.
    If you can’t discern the absolute will to war, no matter what, in Britain’s ruling class in this, then you are simply not capable of thinking through an argument.

    I am not saying the British didn’t want a war. I am saying that Hitler started it with his invasion of Poland. The Brits would never have got their war if Hitler had stayed within his country’s lawful borders. If what you’re saying about the Brits is true, then Hitler played right into their hands. More fool him.

    Perhaps you should realise that problems are real, and in particular the Danzig and Korridor problem were created by, among others, Britain. Hitler had absolutely nothing to do with it, he inherited it from the Weimar governments which never recognized the borders with Poland. Lloyd George, and even the busy Churchill were aware of the need to adjust the German Polish border to avoid conflict.

    So why didn’t Hitler just win the war, fix up the borders for the Corridor and Danzig, impose a settlement, and then bugger off back to Berlin? He wanted a war of conquest and annihilation, to remove Poland from the map and to enslave the Poles, as prelude to his plans for Russia and the Slavs. No matter how you spin it, Hitler’s actions were neither reasonable nor warranted by the behaviour of the Poles. He was a warmonger in pursuit of slavery and genocide. You would do well to distance yourself from him and his actions.

    • Replies: @FB
    , @CanSpeccy
    , @Fox
    , @Wally
  397. @Curmudgeon

    Robert Faurisson noted that Irving, on the Hollowco$t, often left out important information that provided context to the facts.

    In Hitler’s War/The War Path, Irving makes it clear that he set out to write the history that Hitler wanted to be remembered by. He did that. The book is biased. But the bias is significant only in a couple of respects.

    For example, Irving spends considerable effort showing that there is no written order by Hitler authorising mass gassing, and that the gassing that occurred was very small scale such as carbon monoxide from truck exhaust. In my opinion, the whole smoking gun angle is moot because Hitler was the boss and anything that occurred was his responsibility whether or not he ordered it done: it was his responsibility to end any bad things that occurred and his responsibility to put in place systems to prevent any bad things from occurring.

    There are a couple of other areas as well. Mostly, the book is a very informative and engaging read.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  398. @Fox

    Buggered if I know.

    The Brits were always more ruthless and rapacious than they were clever.

  399. @Miro23

    Alanbrooke, who briefed Stalin several times, credited him with “a first-class military mind.” Stalingrad was named for Uncle Joe for good reason.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  400. FB says: • Website
    @W.W.H.D.

    I could care less what an illiterate moron like yourself believes…

    Have you ever traveled to those lands in Eastern Europe that were under Nazi occupation for NEARLY FOUR YEARS…and spoken to those people with memory of the war..?

    Or even read any of the mountains of historiographic literature on the subject…?

    Obviously not…you certainly do not give the impression of a well travelled or well read individual…

    Why don’t you start with the books cited in that Wikipedia article on the Hunger Plan…?

    Russia lost 20 million civilians in the war…Poland lost several million civilians…even Czechia, which was formally incorporated into the Nazi Reich as a ‘Protectorate’ was treated with such ungodly brutality that millions of German civilians were brutalized and expelled after the liberation…

    Obviously there was a reason for such harsh reprisals…I have traveled extensively in Eastern Europe since the 1980s…studying and working…the entire region is full of memorials to ordinary folks brutalized by the Nazi criminals…

    Like the memorial to the children massacred by the SS at Lidice, Czechia…the entire village rounded up, shot, and the village razed after the crime…

    These were all Christian, white folks…and the news of that heinous crime IMMEDIATELY was on the front pages and the subject of shocked dinner table conversations stateside…

    People remember that kind of stuff…

    Nobody except societal rejects and various sickos feels sorry for the Nazis…including the German people themselves, who were victimized by the Nazi maniacs…

    My father was stationed in West Germany in the 1960s, and I attended my first three grades of school there…everybody hated the Nazis for what they did to the country…

    You have so little actual knowledge of anything that it makes my head spin that you could presume to argue about European history…

    The Nazis got ground up into mincemeat by the ‘inferior’ Slavs they sought to conquer…that’s a good lesson for all mankind to not get carried away with delusional fantasies…

    Hitler boasted that he would be in Moscow within three months…that the Russian ‘house’ would fall apart after he kicked the front door in…

    And what happened to this LOSER…?

    He decided to blow his brains out like any other cornered street punk…instead of leading his men to an honorable surrender, like Field Marshall Von Paulus did at Stalingrad…and saving many lives of his men and civilians…

    But he remained a coward to the end…

    He must be grateful that there are a few pitiful social rejects here on UNZ that are shedding clown tears for him…

    • Replies: @John Q Duped
  401. Poco says:
    @NoseytheDuke

    I know all this of course. If Britain had built up a large land army would that give Germany a right to say Britain doesn’t need one? No, but Britain automatically reserved the right to themselves to dictate Germany’s needs.
    Yes, suspicions of other countries create arms races. Ordering other countries around creates frictions as well. Kind of a catch-22.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Saggy
  402. @Alfred

    The information you posted further buttresses the points Dockerty and Macgregor make about this in their Hidden History.

    • Agree: Alfred
  403. Alden says:
    @Sean

    Thanks. I knew Churchill was an alcoholic and always in debt with many financial problems. I thought it was just grandiose living beyond his income. I didn’t know his financial problems were gambling debts.

    I doubt he’d have been able to do anything about colored immigration. He died before it really became a problem. He was too old. His son Randolph was mentally ill and given to enraged outbursts as well as being an alcoholic. Horrible family going back to Jack and Jenny

    • Replies: @Sean
  404. @Johnny Rico

    Paul Craig Roberts does not permit comments on his website.

    This contorted nonsense is an excellent example of why that is the case.

    • Disagree: Wizard of Oz
  405. @GeeBee

    I have already explained why Germany had to invade Poland

    I know, but can you just do it one more time. Please. Or tell me what comment it was. I just gotta see for myself.

  406. Saggy says: • Website
    @GeeBee

    Sigh. OK, your point no. 1. I have already explained why Germany had to invade Poland: to rescue German citizens from their plight,

    No, you didn’t explain that with any supporting evidence whatever, and I don’t think there is any supporting evidence. If I were going to look for evidence I’d plow through ‘The War with Many Fathers’ by ….., which I have, but I’m not sure I’d believe the author unless there was some documentation.

    So, what is the evidence?

    I agree with most of your post, and totally agree that Britain was the proximate and really only cause for WW II which began when Britain and France declared war on Germany, but I also think that Hitler made a horrific blunder in attacking Poland – following the original blunder which was the pact with the Soviet Union which led to the attack on Poland.

  407. @GeeBee

    continue to argue this bankrupt case says nothing for your objectivity

    Or the thousands whose objectivity causes them to observe with fascination that this is not an argument in the adult world and ignore it.

    Does Irving make your case? I’ve got copies of both Hitler’s and Churchill’s War in front of me. Care to give me some page numbers?

    I like Irving’s writing and narratives but PCR spins his own interpretation to say things Irving doesn’t say. Are you doing the same thing?

  408. @Godfree Roberts

    I’m sure it was a good reason. But what was that?

    Since it was renamed Stalingrad in 1925, 17 years before the famous “military” battle.

    Or did I miss something?

    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  409. Saggy says: • Website
    @Poco

    There can be no retention of present British sovereignty without the repression of territorial and political expansion of other nations – a condition that must culminate in war, one war if the Empire is destroyed, a series of wars if it is victorious.

    from ‘Day of the Saxon’ by Homer Lea, 1912

    The British Empire of 1912 has become the US/British Empire of 2020, and the Empire hasn’t lost yet.

    • Agree: S
  410. Alden says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    The Germans didn’t bomb Guernica from the air. It was a communist held town controlled not by Spanish communists but by the soviet soldiers fighting with the Spanish communists.

    The Soviets set explosives on the ground which damaged the town. Guernica was a very successful communist/liberal propaganda operation

  411. Alden says:
    @Yusef

    The Hell’s Angels became very popular with the American hippies and counterculture of the 1960s 70s. Like the Black Panthers they were admired as rebels against boring bourgeois America.

    The Stones were foreigners who saw only the romantic hippy view of the Hell’s Angels, not the criminal brutal side.

    Plus, the Angels were major drug dealers and pumps. Rock bands need drugs and girls. They can’t just fly into a strange town and buy illegal drugs. They need reliable local contacts. Thus the Angels.

  412. FB says: • Website
    @Stebbing Heuer

    [Hitler] wanted a war of conquest and annihilation, to remove Poland from the map and to enslave the Poles, as prelude to his plans for Russia and the Slavs.

    No matter how you spin it, Hitler’s actions were neither reasonable nor warranted by the behaviour of the Poles.

    He was a warmonger in pursuit of slavery and genocide. You would do well to distance yourself from him and his actions.

    That’s the core story of WW2 in a nutshell…thank you for articulating this, among your many reasonable and factual points in this debate…

    The Hitler fanboys here are a pitiful lot…social outcasts that could never pronounce this kind of sick Nazi idolatry in polite company…

    Probably they are the result of a poor upbringing…a decent upbringing means teaching children not to hate…so that one may hold one’s head high in respectable society…

    Where do you think in society that these Hitler fanboys can go and not be scorned by decent folks…?

    They only can exist at the fringes among the bottom feeders…and that is what they prefer…

    You will never reach them with historical facts nor logic, no matter how much you try…

  413. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Genrick Yagoda

    At the end of WWI, Germany held enemy territory. No German territory was taken.

    Not so. See map.

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  414. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Stebbing Heuer

    It doesn’t change the central fact of the beginning of the war: Hitler chose to invade Poland. That was the principal, primary cause of the war. Nothing else comes close.

    In a sense you are right. Going to war is, after all, a cause of war.

    But Hitler’s invasion of Poland provided Britain the justification it sought for declaring war on Germany without actually doing anything as a consequence — other than drop some leaflets over the Black Forest. (When the government was asked in Parliament why Britain was not, at the very least, bombing German munitions factories, the answer given in Parliament was that such action would entail the destruction of private property. Sounds nuts but it’s true, look it up.)

    What the Allies wanted was for Russia to destroy Germany, or rather for Russia and Germany to mutually destruct.

    By declaring war on Germany, Britain signaled its readiness to form an alliance with Russia: the Russia, that is, that had committed exactly the same war crime for which Britain had declared war on Germany, namely, territorial aggression against Poland — an act that was labelled, after the war, as the supreme war crime.

  415. @CanSpeccy

    You map shows German territory lost AFTER WW l

    No argument there. That was one of the causes of WWII. But that doesn’t change anything about my post.

  416. @FB

    Neither you nor the Stebbing character have any evidence at all for such a claim. Not in the Germans’ spoken words, not in their writings, not in their orders, and not in their deeds.

    That has nothing to do with being a “fan boy”, that has to do with the observable evidence I just mentioned.

    Some day, and that day is rapidly approaching, people who hold your views will be considered the “fan boys” and bottom feeders. As Hitler himself wrote in his final testament;

    It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was wanted and provoked solely by international statesmen either of Jewish origin or working for Jewish interests. I have made too many offers for the limitation and control of armaments, which posterity will not be cowardly enough always to disregard, for responsibility for the outbreak of this war to be placed on me. Nor have I ever wished that, after the appalling First World War, there would ever be a second against either England or America. Centuries will go by, but from the ruins of our towns and monuments the hatred of those ultimately responsible will always grow anew against the people whom we have to thank for all this: international Jewry and its henchmen.

    • Agree: GeeBee
    • Replies: @FB
  417. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Stebbing Heuer

    I am not saying the British didn’t want a war. I am saying that Hitler started it with his invasion of Poland. The Brits would never have got their war if Hitler had stayed within his country’s lawful borders.

    The Brits certainly did not want war. They were struggling to recover from the Great Depression, while their economy was rapidly declining relative to that of the United States, and the Empire was headed for disintegration.

    But the British certainly feared the rapidly growing power of Russia, a state committed world revolution, and the rapid and illegal (under the Treaty of Versailles) rearmament of Germany, a county committed to territorial expansion.

    It was thus in Britain’s interest to see Russia and Germany pitted against one another, and when that clash occurred, quite independently of any action by Britain, the British, in accordance with longstanding policy on Europe, backed the weaker party, Russia.

    The outcome was as hoped: Germany down, Russia too weak to expand beyond the borders of Eastern Europe, and the United States bearing the burden of West European defense. Meantime, the British empire, though crumbling, remained intact.

    Churchill’s real accomplishment was neither to cause the war, nor to play a great role in the war, but to induce, America, the great power of the New World, to redress the balance of the old.

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  418. Wally says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    – Still dodging what I post, your lack of specific rebuttal is noted. You’re the embodiment of the Zionist ‘History Channel’.

    – Hitler decided to retrieve it’s stolen land after international appeals, and stop the the cruelty of Poland and you call it a “war of conquest”. Any country would have done the same.

    – Britain & France declared war on Germany first and there’s nothing you can say to refute that fact. Germany, per piece offerings to both clearly did not want a larger war. You continue to dodge reality.

    – And of course, you continue to ignore the very relevant fact that Britain & France did not declare war on the communist USSR which invaded from the east and took 60% of Poland.
    – That fact shows the French Empire’s and British Empire’s attempt to remove Germany from the map in favor of the Communist / Zionist regime in the USSR.

    You stand utterly refuted.

    Recommended again & more of what you dodge:
    Germany Did Not Start World War II, by Paul Craig Roberts:
    https://www.unz.com/proberts/germany-did-not-start-world-war-ii/
    Roosevelt [with USSR] Conspired to Start World War II in Europe:
    https://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/
    The Soviet Union Conspired to Foment World War II: Government, By John Wear https://codoh.com/library/document/6807/?lang=en

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  419. S says:
    @Joe Levantine

    Churchill eventually triumphed and openly advocated for the United States of Europe while hinting at the eventuality of One World Governance.

    I can certainly believe it.

    Speaking of a ‘United States of Europe’, there’s a little known 1929 British film called High Treason which features a future ‘USE’. This intriguing futuristic feature length silent film is sort of a combination of Metropolis, Things to Come, and, 1984 all in one.

    Without giving too much away, as in Things to Come, Raymond Massey acts in it, and 1940 (again!) is set as the prospective year for the start of a second world war.

    In High Treason traditional countries have given way to something like continental super states. Due to problems along the border, and, more importantly, a major false flag event set off by powerful forces behind the scenes, the future United States (called the ‘Empire of the Atlantic States’, which now also includes South America) almost makes war upon the United States of Europe. War is averted at the last moment due to a surprise event.

    The film features vid phones, television, and televised live action reporting, synthesized music, along with scenes of destruction due to the aerial bombardment of cities, as well as a channel tunnel for two way rail traffic. The women of the future aren’t too shabby either.

    YouTube has a pristine copy of the film if a person finds that sort of thing interesting.

    A still from 1929’s High Treason:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Treason_(1929_British_film)

    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
  420. Wally says:
    @CanSpeccy

    – What a laughable load of Chosenite propaganda. Do you ever turn off the ‘History Channel’?

    – You’ve been crushed on the fake & impossible “holocaust” nonsense so now you desperately resort to demonizing Germans via just as easily debunked war propaganda.

    – The following is from Royal Air Force Spaight’s The Splendid Decision. Compare with the above, ch. iii, p. 74:

    “Adolf Hitler only undertook the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly after the RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets… It gave Coventry, Birmingham, Sheffield and Southampton the right to look Kiev, Kharkov, Stalingrad and Sebastopol in the face. Our Soviet allies would have been less critical of our inactivity if they had understood what we had done… Hitler would have been willing at any time to stop the slaughter. Hitler was genuinely anxious to reach with Britain an agreement confining the action of aircraft to battle zones.”

    – All the info. which sends you packing is readily available to you at unz.com.
    – Allied initiation of terror bombing covered here:
    Introduction to HITLER’S WAR: https://www.unz.com/article/introduction-to-hitlers-war/
    American Pravda: When Stalin Almost Conquered Europe, by Ron Unz: https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-stalin-almost-conquered-europe/

    – You conveniently ignore the fact that Germany’s attack on the USSR was preventative:
    Why Germany Attacked the Soviet Union, Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the USSR – Two Historic Documents: https://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-attacked-the-soviet-union/
    also covered here:
    Germany Did Not Start World War II, by Paul Craig Roberts: https://www.unz.com/proberts/germany-did-not-start-world-war-ii/

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @anon
  421. @FB

    Didn’t General George Patton say that the US fought the wrong enemy?

    And who decided to call them “Nazi’s?” Must come from the term Ashkenazi as a deflection of those whom Patton spoke of as the real enemy. Just like today and goes way back in time. And you hate Germany for trying to rid their country of these demons. Hello USA.

    • Replies: @Amber Dekstris
  422. TGD says:
    @Happy Tapir

    Below is a link to criticism of David Irving by the late John “Birdman” Bryant, a fellow traveler in the pursuit of historical justice. Bryant considered Irving to be the scum of the earth.

    Sadly, Bryant’s website has been taken down but not before the “Way Back Machine” saved the Irving piece for posterity. PCR, you ought to be ashamed.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20060714121113/http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/NetLoss/Irving/Irving-ExposingIrving.html

  423. FB says: • Website
    @Genrick Yagoda

    Well…I already said you nutters were incapable of being reached by facts…

    That is enough of an answer to an absolutely retarded plea that amounts to Hitler ‘dindu nuffin…’

    Aside from the fact that tens of millions of REAL PEOPLE lived through these events…Hitler and his Nazis left literally mountains of records…

    Many of which have in fact been cited by none other than David Irving himself…

    In comment 35 above extensive direct citation is given…

    The focus of my research fell on his years of power; and from 3rd February 1933, when Hitler tells his generals in secret of his ambition to launch a war of imperial conquest in the east as soon as Germany is able, the detail thickens and the colour becomes enriched.

    But as Trevor -Roper has rightly observed, the central purpose of Hitler’s foreign policy remained constant throughout his career: a campaign of conquest in the east. And when all Hitler’s secret speeches are analyzed , using reliable source materials, this is quite clear: he stated this objective in his speech of 3rd February 1933 (pages 28-9), and on numerous subsequent occasions.

    I have located without much difficulty the records of many more secret “programme” speeches by Hitler, proving this consistency of aim: on 21st January 1938, on page 67 (One day, the entire world …”); on 28th May 1938 (page 101); on 15th August 1938 (pages 123-4); and of particular interest, several speeches delivered by Hitler in secret to senior officers during January, February and March 1939 – and recorded on discs – during which he made it quite plain that Nazi Germany was inevitably steering towards war (pages 173-6).

    These speeches of pivotal importance, have been neglected by Hitler’s biographers – either because they had not been identified and listed in convenient archive catalogues; or because the biographer did not set foot in foreign archives anyway; or because the speeches have not yet been translated into English.

    German writers have even lamented – e.g. in the annotations to Tagebücher eines Abwehroffiziers (Stuttgart 1970) – that no transcripts of the speeches exist: well they do, and I have quoted some of their more important lines.

    –David Irving, ‘The War Path: Hitler’s Germany…’

    So if you have a factual rebuttal to Mr Irving, by all means feel free to contribute something more substantial than ‘Hitler dindu nuffin…’

    And btw…if you’re going to appropriate the name of a historical figure as your handle here, at least get the spelling right…Yagoda’s adopted first name was ‘Genrikh’, not ‘Genrick’…

    • Agree: Adûnâi
    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  424. @Sean

    Today’s Germany is run by communist and globalist-indoctrinated Germans, and they give Jews much greater control than what their number warrants. These “Germans” agree with the sole-guilt theory of Germany in WWII and in everlasting punishment of Germans for the genocidal “Holocaust” of 6 million Jews. They even insist that the overriding purpose of the post-war creation of the Federal Republic of Germany (today’s Germany) is to protect and serve Israel, land of the Jews.

    This view of Germans is enshrined in their Basic Law, a substitute for a constitution, not approved by the people but dictated by the Allied Control Council led by the U.S. Army Supreme Command (under Eisenhower) beginning in 1945. Because the majority of Germans today feel they have no choice but to go along, they accept peace and prosperity over demanding greater independence.

    It is possible to destroy a strong people, and that’s what has happened to Germans. But it’s not true to say that Germans own Germany, and run it as they like.

  425. @FB

    Where exactly does any of that state that

    [Hitler] wanted a war of conquest and annihilation, to remove Poland from the map and to enslave the Poles, as prelude to his plans for Russia and the Slavs.

    No matter how you spin it, Hitler’s actions were neither reasonable nor warranted by the behaviour of the Poles.

    He was a warmonger in pursuit of slavery and genocide

    ?

    It doesn’t. Seems that fan boys like you are incapable of reading correctly, and you think that others are, too. Your method of argument reminds me of my ( and other’s) favorite Hitler quote

    The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn’t help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again.

    • Replies: @FB
  426. Fox says:
    @Wally

    Wally,
    although J.M.Spaight (an official in the British Air Ministry, writing the book in 1943 (published 1944) is of the war party and openly states that the “splendid decision” to bomb with intent of causing terror (“disrupt” he would call it) was made on May 11, 1940 in London, this is never taken up by the people for whom it m u s t have been Hitler starting the war against civilians from the air. The findings of the “Nuremberg Tribunal” have precedence, even if “not bound by the usual rules of evidence”.
    For those interested, the book is purchasable as a facsimile re-print from Ostara Publications at a reasonable price.

  427. @Genrick Yagoda

    You address me as Caroline – yep, you’re British. You very well may be Canadian, but still British. I suspect you are affiliated with CODOH, too. I know you are, like Roberts, a self-satisfied person whose self-image is one of inhabiting the highest moral ground. Good for you.

    But you are lukewarm … in order not to alienate all those “responsible public figures” you think are so important. And of course you “live in a country where you certainly cannot survive financially if you are known as a holocaust denier”. That’s your objection to the term “denier” — because it hurts you financially. That was David Irving’s objection too! That’s the reason, the only reason, he sued Deborah Lipstadt, and took such a chance in court. If Irving really denied the existence of the Holocaust, why object to the word ‘denier?’ Same with you, Genrick. (Of course, Irving doesn’t.)

    I do deny the “Holocaust” of 6 million, death camps, gas chambers and the N-S intention to murder jews through any means including starvation, took place. So after a bit I thought, why object to being called a denier? and took it up for myself. Even Germar Rudolf doesn’t object to it, he speaks truth to it. You say he is a warrior. We should all be warriors. But what you write points out the truth of what I wrote to you, which is that “British supporters of revisionism feel the need to portray Britain as a victim too, and indeed all of Europe.” Europeans have been perpetrators against Germany! I’m sorry if that doesn’t fit your idea to portray Germans as partially responsible and Joseph “Goebells” as morally damaged.

    You make no mention of the letter I linked to which, for me, is of supreme importance. Thus I’m copying it here as it’s not too long. Hope the moderator won’t hide it.

    This is a February 29, 1944 letter to the BBC and higher members of the British Clergy, from the British Ministry of Information [ie Propaganda].

    “Sir,

    I am directed by the Ministry to send you the following circular letter :

    It is often the duty of the good citizens and of the pious Christians to turn a blind eye on the peculiarities of those associated with us.

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

    We know the methods of rule employed by the Bolshevik dictator in Russia itself from, for example, the writing and speeches of the Prime Minister himself during the last twenty years. We know how the Red Army behaved in Poland in 1920 and in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Galicia and Bessarabia only recently.

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

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

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

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

    Your expression of belief in such may convince others.

    I am, Sir, Your obedient servant,

    (signed) H. HEWET, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

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

    I guess you would dismiss this as “what all nations at war do.” But no, Germany was always engaged in trying to get the truth out about their actions and endeavors, not in covering them up … that is, until the Reich collapsed and the Allied Control Council took over. But I request your comment on this letter, please. Then I might know if you are my ally or not.

  428. @CanSpeccy

    It seems that you have studied history at an English school. It is well known and well documented fact that the bombing of civilians was initiated by Churchill, who bombed Berlin seven times before the Germans started retaliating. Churchill’s aim was to divert the Luftwaffe from fully concentrating its war effort against the RAF and stated on many occasions that the best way to defeat Germany was through aerial warfare.

    When I was studying history at a British school, my English teacher taught us that Germany was trying to starve Britain into submission through its U boats encirclement during WWI which I contested stating that war by starvation was initially a British policy, having also studied history outside Britain. The teacher gave me a cynical smile and ask me after class how I got the information which I duly obliged without any further comment from his side.

    For a proper assessment of history, one should always give the opposing view the benefit of the doubt.

    • Agree: Genrick Yagoda
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  429. Fox says:
    @FB

    Your and Heuer’s view is that of the intended outcome of the Nuremberg procedure, the continuation of warfare in the courtroom to once and for all defeat, delegitimize and eliminate Germany.
    However:
    Historical accuracy is obviously not achieved by decree, historiographic and hagiographic needs, decree, judicial decisions or parliamentary edicts, but by meaningful interpretation of facts (documents, opinions and attitudes of all sides involved at the time, considerations of reasonableness, human psychology).
    The very fact that it is becoming more and more a matter of the penal code what interpretation, based on facts, one gives to actual reality one observes and experiences, forces the conclusion that something is wrong with the forced administered world view. The meaning of this also seems to be escaping you.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  430. Fox says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    Lucky the man who robs you; not only will you give your money gladly, you will also think it right for him to keep it, after all, it’s his money now….

  431. @S

    The PTB’s agenda is always conceived and thoroughly studied decades before it is executed. They give us a hint of what is to come to show us their real power. Just think of how many indices we had about 9/11 through the Simpsons among other means. Then once the event happens, any real investigation is prevented from reaching a clear conclusion. Then many years after the fact they start throwing some bits of truth here and there and people of all types start contributing each according to his or her cultural and educational background. Through the whole process the truth is never allowed to be clear cut.

    • Agree: S
    • Replies: @S
  432. FB says: • Website
    @Genrick Yagoda

    Like I said…YOU’RE A MENTAL CASE…

    Irving’s extensive documenting of Hitler’s plan for ‘a war of IMPERIAL CONQUEST in the east’ is historical fact…

    And supports precisely what was said by Stebbing Heuer and myself…since we said nothing more and nothing less than what Irving has dug up from Hitler’s own words…

    International law is very clear…a war of CONQUEST is a war of AGGRESSION…the Supreme War Crime…

    Insects like you have neither shame nor basic intelligence…

  433. Carolyn- I’ll try to be as clear as possible.

    1) My image is not self satisfied, it is instead one of a coward. I don’t want to suffer the same fate as people like Alfred Schaeffer or Germar Rudolph, or thousands of others who found themselves unemployable after speaking the truth.

    2) I am not a “holocaust denier” I am instead a Holyco$t ridiculer. The entire thing is a bad joke, and I treat it that way.

    3) Whatever David Irving’s reasons were for taking Lipstadt to court, it was a victory that will last for thousands of years. Nothing will change the fact that the Worldwide Holyco$t swindlers tried their best to find evidence for their fairy tales, and were unable to do so. In my view, this counts for more than brave Germar Rudolph’s sterling work, which no normal mainstream person will read or understand, or even likely be exposed to.

    4) I’m not sure where you are getting the idea that I am claiming Britons are victims, or that Germans are responsible, or that Goebbels is damaged, but you are miles off base.

    5) As far as your letter, it is extremely damning, but I didn’t see where it requires my further comment. Germans were the ones who were holocausted, not just during the war, but after the war. The cover up of the savagery has been going on for 75 years. I thought that was understood, and that this is the reason we are here commenting.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Adûnâi
  434. @FB

    The words were Enslavement and Genocide. Whether one acquires territory through war or intimidation has nothing to do with either of those things. And nothing you quoted suggests or supports any such thing, as I’ve already explained to you. More than once.

    And even if I were a mental patient, I am at least smart enough to understand what I am reading. You are not. You are in no position to comment on other people’s intelligence, given your clear handicap.

    • Replies: @FB
  435. anon[299] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wally

    There is no book called ‘Splendid Decision’ by anyone called Spaight.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Wally
  436. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Joe Levantine

    It seems that you have studied history at an English school. It is well known and well documented fact that the bombing of civilians was initiated by Churchill, who bombed Berlin seven times before the Germans started retaliating. Churchill’s aim was to divert the Luftwaffe from fully concentrating its war effort against the RAF and stated on many occasions that the best way to defeat Germany was through aerial warfare.

    Aerial bombing of cities in fact started during WW1. Germany adopted the tactic on a massive scale during its 1939 invasion of Poland, deploying several thousand aircraft to that end.

    Britain began bombing Germany in May 1940, two days after the German air attack on Rotterdam: targets included oil plants and other civilian industrial targets that aided the German war effort, such as blast furnaces that at night were self illuminating.

    “The Jules Verne, a variant of the Farman F.220 of the French Naval Aviation, was the first Allied bomber to raid Berlin: on the night of 7 June 1940 it dropped eight bombs of 250 kg and 80 of 10 kg weight on the German capital.

    Allied bombing of Berlin was for sometime thereafter sporadic. Germany’s attempt to defeat Britain by massive air attacks on London and other cities, began in September, 1940.

    I have those dates from Trikipedia ( but they are probably correct) not my English school where history, for me, ended while Otto von Bismark was still German Chancellor.

    • Replies: @RationalRabbit
  437. Fox says:
    @anon

    The book’s title is Bombing Vindicated, the author J.M.Spaight and a facsimile re-print is available from Ostara Publications, perhaps from other printing houses as well.

  438. Sean says:
    @Fox

    Germany is not entirely free of Jews or nonEuropeans. But it has far fewer than any comparable country. ‘

    • Replies: @anon
  439. Neuday says:
    @Old Palo Altan

    I’m not the original author, but what I think he’s saying by being honest enough to call himself Escher is that, like Escher, he’s putting forth a mirror image of reality but doesn’t know which side is reality and which side is the mirrored image. I could be wrong.

    • Agree: Fuerchtegott
    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
  440. anon[437] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    Yes but that’s not what Wally said. Neither does the quoted text appear in that book.

  441. FB says: • Website
    @Genrick Yagoda

    Look you little bug…

    You and the rest of your pathetic ilk here have been arguing about more than just two words…

    The genocide and enslavement ARE HISTORICAL FACTS…as proved by the deaths of 20 million Russian civilians, over three million POWs…and the enslavement of millions of Europeans, including Germans, in forced labor camps…

    Your sick little brain is visibly squirming in agony, like a worm cut in half by a spade…trying to deny the devastating facts that I presented…and for which you have no answer but the most ridiculous kind of word games…

    Just as I expected…you are nothing…scratch one of you silly Nazi fanboys and you are treated to a smorgasbord of pitiful pathology…

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  442. @Mefobills

    I would like to know your source for your statement about ownership of Hamilton’s first “National” Bank. I don’t reject the idea, per se, at all, but I want to know the basis of the claim.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  443. @FB

    🙂

    Good argument. Well thought out. You do yourself credit, and I’m certain everyone here at UNZ will hold you in high esteem for your erudite post.

    If I was inclined to reply, I would point out that Soviets killed in a war is not a “genocide”, and that the largest group of forced labor were the millions of Germans sent into forced labor by FDR, Stalin and Churchill. And that millions of Germans were holocausted both during and after the war.

    But since I’m not inclined to communicate with someone with the apparent temperment and intelligence of a bar room drunk, I’ll simply bid you one great big fat “Smell you later”.

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

    • Replies: @FB
  444. Robjil says:
    @Grahamsno(G64)

    Even some Jewish Rabbis question this 6 mill mantra. This 6 mill thing was talked about since 1823 in Jewish circles. It is “messiah” like now since it allows Jewish/Zionist top people to do whatever they want to do with impunity on our little planet since 1945. In other words, it was “wanted” to happen or look like it happened, in order for, the Top bad acting Jews/Zionists to get a free ride over all of us.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/ny-rabbi-not-even-1-million-jews-killed-in-holocaust/

    In a video posted online, Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi can be seen saying that high assimilation rates in pre-war Europe and broad Nazi definitions have exaggerated the numbers of Jews recorded as killed by the Nazis during the Holocaust. At least five million of the six million were “total goyim,” Mizrachi told the crowd, adopting a
    “The truth, I am telling you, is that not even one million Jews were murdered,” Mizrachi said, trashing accepted historical accounts. “A lot of non-Jews were meshed into the count, but in truth, how many Jews really were killed?”

  445. S says:
    @Joe Levantine

    The PTB’s agenda is always conceived and thoroughly studied decades before it is executed. They give us a hint of what is to come to show us their real power.

    Yes, I have heard for many years they tell us beforehand of their plans, if a bit cryptically at times. I think this is quite true.

    [MORE]

    In the early 60’s, prior to Kennedy’s murder, presidential assassination seemed to be ‘in the air’ in regards to the corporate mass media and the ‘foreshadowing’ of such an event. The Manchurian Candidate, amongst other examples, comes to mind.

    Same with 911 in the years immediately before that, with television shows such as the provocatively named ‘Lone Gunman’ pilot, and the movie ‘Fight Club’, each having the World Trade Towers and their destruction figuring prominently.

    Similarly, that WWII would start on (or about) 1940 seems to have been a meme of mass media for years prior to the actual event. Along these lines, Metro-Goldwyn Mayer came out with a movie in 1933 called Men Must Fight, which like Things to Come, and High Treason, also has WWII starting in 1940. This time it is the United States against ‘Eurasia’.

    And who exactly is ‘Eurasia’?

    The movie makes plain Eurasia specifically consist of (at least) Germany, Japan, and Italy.

    Below is an excerpt of a review of Men Must Fight from a site dedicated to ‘precode’ Hollywood.

    The destruction of the Empire State building (Men Must Fight– 1933)

    ‘It has the eerie feeling of a 9/11 analogy, 80 years too soon.’

    There are plenty of people who call out the prescience of Men Must Fight, which lands on 1940 as the next major war. There’s also a sequence as Laura, helming a peace conference on the brink of war, is pictured begging dutiful mothers from Nazi Germany and Japan to consider the costs of war. But even more pointed is the film’s sequence that foresees an air raid on New York, including the decimation of the Empire State Building. It has the eerie feeling of a 9/11 analogy, 80 years too soon.

    http://pre-code.com/men-must-fight-1933-review-with-diana-wynyard-lewis-stone-and-phillips-holmes/

  446. @CanSpeccy

    Aerial bombing of cities in fact started during WW1. Germany adopted the tactic on a massive scale during its 1939 invasion of Poland, deploying several thousand aircraft to that end

    As usual, CanSpeccy provides a post that is a complete deflection. The point was not who started bombing first but who purposely bombed civilian, non-military targets first in WWII and this was indisputably the British.

  447. FB says: • Website
    @Genrick Yagoda

    Civilians killed DELIBERATELY in war is a war crime…whichever nationality…

    Your saying that these millions of ordinary folks that were starved, summarily shot, worked to death and otherwise had their lives taken away by Nazi psychopaths [that ended up destroyed anyway] ‘don’t count’ because they are Soviet is sick beyond imagining…

    The Hunger Plan that was part and parcel of the Nazi aggression on Russia was planned fully advance, with 20 to 30 million dead planned for…IS A WAR CRIME…

    The three million Russian POWs starved to death IS A WAR CRIME…

    The slave labor is a WAR CRIME…

    The vastness of the Nazi war crimes is unprecedented in history…

    I’m glad to have heard you mouth the words here that the Russian innocent lives wasted don’t count because they are Russian…because now you are no
    longer denying these crimes, but only saying they don’t count…

    I hope you will never be so stupid to travel to Russia…[although I don’t think people of your lowly station in life travel internationally anyway…]

  448. Erzberger says:
    @GeeBee

    Very interesting. Thanks for sharing

  449. @Genrick Yagoda

    Their army was thrashed on the field of battle. That that battle took place outside of Germany doesn’t matter – they were thrashed, and they knew it. That’s why they sued for peace.

    Pershing wanted to go all the way to Berlin. He had learnt from Sherman: the enemy must know he has been defeated. Otherwise all sorts of nonsense about ‘never actually losing’ and ‘being stabbed in the back’ will proliferate.

    Your comment demonstrates the wisdom of Pershing’s insight. A hundred years on and you still think Germany never lost the war.

    I’m not German. Quite the opposite: it was my ancestors doing the thrashing.

  450. @the shadow

    So Germany sought to escape becoming vassals of the British by, um, conquering Czechoslovakia and invading Poland.

    O yeah that makes sense.

  451. Wally says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    said:
    “The Germans lost World War I. The creation of Poland was part of the settlement. Whatever was taken from them was taken as part of a settlement that the Germans themselves recognised via their elected government. ”

    – Yawn. Another blatant Zionist lie.

    – You mean “recognised” via an illegal Versailles Treaty that was forced upon Germany by an illegal blockade and threats of violence.

    – A “Treaty” enforced by a blockage & threat of violence is not legal.

    – The illegal Versailles Treaty was “signed” under official German protest & German renouncement.

    You mean an illegal Versailles Treaty which the US Senate refused to accept.

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  452. Wally says:
    @anon

    That was taken from:

    Search engines are your friend.

    more:

    Published in 1944 by a former British Principal Secretary of the Air Ministry, this book set out to justify the saturation bombing of civilians. It reveals that the tactic was initiated by the British in May 1940, and that Hitler opposed this concept and refused to retaliate for months while the German cities were bombed. The British bombers were designed to bomb cities, he said, while the “Teutonic mind” never even considered such a policy, and instead viewed an air force merely as a tool to “blast open” a path for attacking armies. The German air force, he pointed out, was never used for anything else until ordered to retaliate against the British campaign. “Whatever Hitler wanted or did not want, he most assuredly did not want the mutual bombing to go on. He had not wanted it ever to begin. He wanted it, having begun, to be called off. There was ample evidence that he did not want the latter kind of bombing to become the practice. He had done his best to have it banned by international agreement.”

  453. @John Q Duped

    And who decided to call them “Nazi’s?” Must come from the term Ashkenazi

    “Nazi” was a play on “Sozi” which was short for Sozialist, Sozialdemokrat etc.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  454. Sparkon says:
    @Alfred

    That fake image is a composite. The standing guy was added later.


    Original image: New York Times Magazine, May 6th, 1945

    https://destroyzionism.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/the-most-famous-holocaust-photo-of-all-time-is-a-fake/

    • Thanks: Genrick Yagoda, Alfred, Robjil
  455. @Johnny Rico

    It was for his defense of the city against Western forces during the revolutionary wars, I believe.

  456. Hibernian says:
    @Johnny Rico

    It’s long been known that American forces have used the strategy of attrition, going back to the Union side of the Civil war. After 1945 we haven’t been able to win even with that, except for the First Gulf wart.

  457. @Wally

    1. Hitler conquered Poland and eradicated it from the map. That’s pretty much the definition of a war of conquest.

    2. I completely acknowledge that Britain and France declared war on Germany first. They did so in response to Hitler’s invasion of Poland. Hitler kicked it all off with his invasion of Poland. That he didn’t want a larger war merely shows that he miscalculated. Note also your use of the phrase ‘larger war’ – you didn’t say that he didn’t want war. That is very telling. You give yourself away.

    3. I didn’t ignore that fact. I quite clearly acknowledged it. What I am saying is that it is completely irrelevant to the question of who started the war. And I don’t think it at all supports the proposition that the Brits and French wanted to replace Germany with the Soviet Union. It more supports the proposition that, in September 1939, because they were weak and were led by idiots, they found themselves in an awful muddle, and didn’t know what to do except wait behind their lines for the Germans to overreach like they did in 1914. It didn’t work.

    Lastly, let me state my position on war: I detest ALL warmongers, whatever their stripe. No matter which way you cut it, Hitler was a warmonger: he wanted war, he pursued war, he prepared for war, and he launched war. There were myriad solutions to Germany’s problems with Poland in 1939, launching a war was only one of those solutions and nowhere near the best, especially after the British and French said that they would oppose such an invasion; Hitler didn’t care, he wanted a war and he bet that the Brits and French would back down, as they had done so many times before. He miscalculated, and we ended up with the catastrophe that was World War II. Regardless of the machinations of any other world leader, it was Hitler who pushed the world into crisis in 1939 with his invasion of Poland.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @John Wear
    , @Wally
  458. @Wally

    What part of the concept of ‘war’ do you not understand?

    VAE VICTIS

    If you don’t like the idea of having a settlement imposed on you, DON’T BLOODY START A WAR.

  459. @CanSpeccy

    I completely agree.

    I was assuming my interlocutor’s point for the sake of demonstrating his argument to be absurd.

  460. @Amber Dekstris

    This reminds me that Paul Craig Roberts said in his above article that NAZI stood for National Socialist German Workers Party. Most people here, both authors and commenters, know very little about the subject they’re discussing. One could spend hours just correcting errors of common fact, and still never get done.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  461. @Amber Dekstris

    In my opinion, the whole smoking gun angle is moot because Hitler was the boss and anything that occurred was his responsibility whether or not he ordered it done.

    Your opinion must be the same for Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt, Mussolini, Franco and so on. What a mess you are left with. Are you able to sort it out?

  462. Fox says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    Do you also detest Churchill and Roosevelt? What about Vansittart? Is Stalin a warmonger? Benes? Beck? Rydz-Smigly? Eden? Cooper? Just curious about the reach of your vocabulary.

  463. Fox says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Moralists find themselves always in a big mess, as soon as their principles are applied to a broader field than they mean them for.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
  464. @NoseytheDuke

    Hi Nosey, that statement from me you call “Nonsense” is not nonsense at all. You reinforce it’s truth right here. I didn’t like it when you were telling me how to run my website, as though my intention was (should be) to “draw converts” to essentially your lukewarm view of Hitler, not my own. As I recall, you thought having my book with Hitler on the cover at the top of my site was just terrible, and would drive potential readers away. As I see it, anyone driven away by that is not a potential reader of mine and I don’t wish to waste time on them.

    What you and Franklin Ryckaert must have in common is that you fancy yourselves holocaust revisionists and anti-Semites yet love to blame Adolf Hitler for a boatload of things. I have been advised many times by “alt-right” White Nationalists that I should balance out my view of Hitler with some criticism … but that doesn’t happen to be “my view.” Funny how you both think you should dictate what I think and write.

    BTW, I like preaching to the choir; they need it. I’m sure you consider yourself part of the choir, don’t you? Also, some things are black and white, or at least very close to it. And it’s always been a favorite fashion combination of mine. So many of my favorite clothes, as I so fondly remember them, were just that – black and white. And so was my favorite dog, my companion of 13 years. There’s a lot to say for black and white.

  465. @Stebbing Heuer

    Wars don’t really start when the first shots are fired, that’s just what is written in “history” books by the victors for the consumption of the masses, the sheeple. Wars require much preparation ahead in terms of economic planning, materials, logistics and propaganda and conditioning. This was certainly true of what we call WWII, which was going to happen for whatever reason or excuse that could be found, even if one had needed to be invented.

    Just look at the advance development of British heavy bombers, weapons of little tactical use on the battlefield but specifically created for the high-altitude bombing of industrial centres with large civilian populations. Witness also the early vilification of target nations by the media prior to the wars, we see it happening again now with Iran, China and Russia.

    The wars of the 20th century were planned in the banking boardrooms of London and New York and much, much earlier than when those wars are said to have begun.

    • Agree: the shadow, Genrick Yagoda, S
  466. @Carolyn Yeager

    One could excuse a leader for atrocities committed by his subordinates if they were committed without his knowledge and against his will. But in case of the atrocities committed by the German troops in Poland, Hitler not only knew about them, he had himself ordered them!

    Here is an extract from the Wikipedia article on Canaris, who protested against such atrocities to the Nazi top leadership and the reaction he received :

    “…After the outbreak of war between Germany and Poland in September 1939, Canaris visited the front, where he saw the devastation rendered by the German military—seeing Warsaw in flames nearly brought him to tears and it was reported that he exclaimed, “our children’s children will have to bear the blame for this”.[70] He also witnessed examples of the war crimes committed by the Einsatzgruppen of the SS, including the burning of the synagogue in Będzin with 200 Polish Jews inside.[71] Moreover, he received reports from Abwehr agents about several incidents of mass murder throughout Poland.[72] Canaris visited Hitler’s headquarters train on 12 September 1939, at the time in Province of Silesia, to register his objection to the atrocities.[73] Canaris told chief of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW, Supreme Command of the Armed Forces) Wilhelm Keitel about the “extensive shootings … and that the nobility and clergy were to be exterminated” to which Keitel informed him that Hitler had already “decided” the matter.[74] Keitel warned Canaris to go no further with his protest, as the detailed plan of atrocities came directly from Hitler…”

    Source : Wikipedia, Wilhelm Canaris.

    That Canaris eventually decided to overthrow the Hitler regime only adds to his credit. That is not “treason”, that is moral integrity.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  467. @Carolyn Yeager

    There may be some people out there who absolutely love the fact that they can so easily dismiss the arguments of so many people simply by using just two words, holocaust denier. Good luck with your website Carolyn.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  468. John Wear says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    If you want my explanation of why Hitler invaded Poland, please read the article at
    https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391.

  469. @Carolyn Yeager

    I was referring to the effort expended by Irving in exonerating Hitler from gas chambers. I don’t see how you derive from that a more general point involving Stalin et al. Perhaps you are connecting Hitler to them? My point concerned Irving, not Hitler.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  470. @Carolyn Yeager

    Preaching to the choir is good for sects, not for broad audiences. But of course you are free to choose creating a small Internet sect instead of reaching a broad public.

    Yes, some things are indeed “black-and-white”, but not the Second World War. That was not a struggle of the “good” Allies against the “bad” Axis (to save the “innocent” Jews), but a conflict in which all participants were morally depraved, Hitler and his Nazis emphatically included. To notice the hypocrisy and cruelty of the Allies and the machinations of the Jews does not exculpate the other side, even if we remove all the Allied propaganda lies.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  471. @FB

    Thanks FB.

    I suppose it’s a dreary fact that Hitler fanboys exist. The thing that surprises me is that they always seek to distract from his actions, saying ‘look over there!, those guys were worse!’

    None of them have the guts to come out and say: ‘Yeah, Hitler started World War II, he knew what he was doing, he had a plan, and good on him for doing so.’ They’re always bitching and moaning about how unfair things were, about how everyone was picking on Germany, about how everyone else was plotting against Germany.

    None of them will acknowledge that Hitler was working to his own plan to conquer Europe, depopulate huge swathes of it, and then repopulate those swathes with his chosen people; and that other nations’ opposing actions were natural reactions to this plan. Even though most if not all of them would agree with this plan, they won’t dare come out and say it.

    Because there is nothing good to be said about Hitler and his plans, all they can do is point fingers at others and moan about how awful they were.

    There’s a PhD waiting to be written about the bizarro-world that is Hitler-worship.

    • Agree: Adûnâi
    • Replies: @Fox
    , @apollonian
    , @FB
    , @John Wear
    , @Wally
  472. tac says:
    @Genrick Yagoda

    Well, the world does not exist solely to confirm your misinformed biases. The mirror is the last refuge for those who cannot seem to exhibit a sense of curiosity. You’ve proved nothing, and yet managed to side-step what I’ve presented. Do you speak German, btw?

    It is the fool, the all knowing expert who “contributed” to the cause, entrenched in his delusional narcissistic beguile and who thumps his fists upon his chest while voraciously exclaiming, without an ounce of retrospection or skepticism, that he alone holds the key for knowledge; not having once taken in evidence presented to him, against his very own folly, as to simply question his very foundation …. for whom the bell tolls ….

    Here is a summation for people such as yourself, who somehow, someway are tinkled by their own “knowledge”:

    NOT LONG ago, I noticed that the ham actor in the White House was trying to entertain his audience by reciting some moral indignation about the wicked Soviets. From time to time, one hears the same patter from dithering “Liberals” and high-pressure Jesus-hucksters, often with reference to the Gulag Archipelago or some more recent work by Solzhenitsyn. The boobs, of course, squeak a bit in horror at the wickedness of the Soviets, but they do not think, perhaps because they know they are not supposed to remember that it was they who created the present regime in Russia when they permitted that most loathsome of anthropoids known to history, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to send crazed hordes of them into Europe to punish the Germans for not worshipping Yahweh’s Master Race and to save the Soviet barbarism from the only nation that was sufficiently civilized and alert to try to preserve Aryan civilization. Americans, and Americans only, must bear the full gravamen of guilt for the Suicide of the West, and they will be estopped from justly complaining when they experience all the admired qualities of undisguised Soviet rule in their own country.
    https://nationalvanguard.org/2020/03/those-wicked-soviets/

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  473. @the shadow

    As you must know, I was responding to your comment that “Both of which the Germans could have avoided by staying within their borders and not invading their neighbours.”

    Right, and the Brits could have avoided all the trouble by staying within their borders and not creating an empire subjugating millons and murdering thousands. But they didn’t. And they could have stayed within their borders and not declared war on Germany. But they didn’t. So if starting was is aggresion, they started it with Germany. Nothing forced them to declare war. It was their choice, and they chose aggression. In fact, Hitler had far greater justification for attacking Poland when the Poles were murdering Germans in the corridor that Britain had for declaringwar on Germany when the Germans had not harmed a single Englishman.

    They in fact stacked the deck to trigger it. So I will cite for you Carroll Quigley’s assessment of what was going on leading up to Munich regarding “. . .the theory that the British government had no intention or desire to save Checkoslovakia in 1938 and was willing or even eager to see it partitioned by Hitler, and only staged the war scare in September in order to make the British people accept this abuse of honor and sacrifice of Britain’s international position” (p.290) There we have the craven British apparently sacrificing their international position. Bull biscuits. They were frying much bigger fish – setting up the start of Wortld War II. The fact is that despite the popular vision of history that Britain was less well armed than Germany, the truth was the exact opposite as Quigley also makes clear.

    Your comments reveal a simple-mindedness that proves you lack the capability to engage in the subtle and critical thinking required to understand, assess, evaluate and reach rational conclusions about international power politics that would enable you to penetrate into the plans the British were implementing to start that war. You simple are incapable of rising up the propaganda history that has been served up to you about what went on.

    Do you have any idea why British government records about the period still remain deep, dark secrets? Nah, it would take too long for you to figure it out.

  474. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Wikipedia is not at all a credible source, less so on this topic than just about any other one.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  475. @NoseytheDuke

    Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It doesn’t create its information, it collects it. You can’t blame an Internet commenter for consulting an encyclopedia for quick reference. It is simply undoable to read first big tomes about a subject before commenting on it. You need quick information. That is what encyclopedias are for.

    If you have information that Canaris did not complain to Keitel about German atrocities in Poland and that Wikipedia is lying about that, then provide us with that.

    • Replies: @Mark Gobell
    , @Wally
  476. David48 says:

    David Irving, my favorite holocaust denier, continually trashes Churchill. Sad to see Quora publishing his nonsense.

    • Troll: Alfred
  477. Fox says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    Your thesis is that Hitler woke up one morning, saying: “I think I’ll have me a nice world war, now.”

    The expansion of a small, local armed conflict into a world war was not Hitler’s doing. The first steps were taken by the Chamberlain government together with France with heavy pressure from Roosevelt; but it was Churchill who did refuse all offers of peace by the German leadership and rather worked with all his might to get the US into war, thus making it a World War. Without this disgrace to the human race, there would probably not even been a German-Polish war. He did enough, even when not in public office, to work behind the scenes with his Focus money and sympathies to work towards the goal of war. Churchill was the most destructive individual, the most negative influence on the world in all of human history.
    As regards Hitler, his book Mein Kampf appears to be only superseded worldwide in readership by the Bible. I suppose you have to work even harder with your distempered opnions to convince even more people that a man so assiduously, so diligently smeared over a century now, and 80 years after he left this world, is worthwhile a look.
    In this connection I am interested how you feel about the American-led NATO attack on Serbia, or rather Yugoslavia in 1999.

    • Replies: @GeeBee
  478. Wally says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    – As I have shown Poland instigated war with Germany. Poland murdered countless Germans, would not return stolen German land that was seized via the illegal Versailles Treaty, see may comment #62,

    Also you dodge the fact that Poland invaded Czech territory and seized Czech land.
    Poland threatened to invade Lithuania. Poland had to be stopped.
    By your own logic, Poland then started WWII in Europe.

    2. You continue to dodge the specifics of what others have written (as I posted) because it refutes your obvious Zionist bias.

    3. You continue dodge the relevant fact that GB & France declared war on Germany which started WWII. No declaration of war by GB & France, then no WWII In Europe.

    4. You cannot explain why the communist invasion of Poland didn’t warrant a declaration of war from GB & France, both had pledged to do so if Poland was attacked by anyone.

    You forgive communist Stalin for his invasion, but critizw Hittler who has good reason to attack Poland, as I have shown repeatedly and you dodge.

  479. Wally says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    What about International Law don’t you understand?

    – No declaration of war against Germany by GB & France, no WWII in Europe.
    Poland invaded Czech territory and seized Czech land.
    Poland threatened to invade Lithuania. Poland had to be stopped.
    By your own logic, Poland then started WWII in Europe.

    • Agree: the shadow
    • Replies: @anon
  480. @NoseytheDuke

    I don’t need luck, Nosey. My websites are doing fine. And where is yours? As someone who understands the issues so widely and thoroughly, how are you sharing your wisdom? Oh, here on Unz? Good luck with that.

  481. @Franklin Ryckaert

    I don’t see you chasing after people who praise the Allies the way your chase after me. Why not? I don’t see you reaching a broad public either. Where is your website? Where is your voice except in comment sections, where you also find mine.

    You really just can’t take it so you fake it. You are very uncomfortable about that letter from the British Ministry of Information to the BBC and Church leaders, aren’t you? Will you ever mention THAT in condemnation? Does Wikipedia have a page devoted to that? No and no, you pathetic phony.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  482. @Amber Dekstris

    I must disagree, Amber. You may have been commenting on Irving’s book, but you clearly said

    Irving spends considerable effort showing that there is no written order by Hitler authorising mass gassing, and that the gassing that occurred was very small scale such as carbon monoxide from truck exhaust. In my opinion, the whole smoking gun angle is moot because Hitler was the boss and anything that occurred was his responsibility whether or not he ordered it done: it was his responsibility to end any bad things that occurred and his responsibility to put in place systems to prevent any bad things from occurring.

    How can you now say you were not talking about Hitler and his total responsibility, but only about David Irving? Are you daft?

    So I still ask you to answer my question, if you would be so agreeable as to do so. If not, suit yourself.

    • Replies: @Amber Dekstris
  483. @tac

    I have absolutely no idea of what you are writing about, nor how this post relates to any of our exchanges. Nor would anyone else be able to decipher what you are referring to when they would review our exchanged comments.

    This is beyond bizarre. What has happened to the normally well informed commenters at UNZ?

    A while ago I was wondering if I would make the cut when Ron Unz proposed his suggestions to improve the site. Now I am starting to believe that if Ron shut down about 50% of the posters and I didn’t make it, it would still be worthwhile and much improved forum. As long as the UNZ site retained columnists like PCR and other well informed and intelligent posters, who idiots like you seem intent to drive away.

    There is a big difference between putting forward an opposing position and spitting out word salad. You are in the latter category. And I am 100% certain that everyone would agree with this who reviews your posts.

    • Replies: @tac
  484. apollonian says: • Website
    @Stebbing Heuer

    Stebbing (Too Conveniently) Overlooks Most Significant History, Actual Facts

    “Stebbing” tells us,

    “[t]here’s a PhD waiting to be written about the bizarro-world that is Hitler-worship.”

    And it’s as if “stebbing” can’t imagine what that “bizarro-world” might be about.

    But what’s so difficult about it, stebbing? Truly, we “fan-boys” absolutely LOVE unc’ Adolf; he was a great hero, but he was merely a little before his time. And we don’t “worship” unc’ Adolf; we (a great many–even most of us) worship TRUTH (= Christ, Gosp. JOHN 14:6)–which is difficult for u Satanists to grasp, u being the pathological subjectivists as u are.

    [MORE]

    Hitler under-estimated exactly what he was up against (which is why he came up a little short), though he knew, and showed a good part of the way, and explained quite a bit. Unc’ Adolf made one serious mistake, for sure–he shouldn’t have declared war against Jew S A as quickly as he did. For after that declaration, for one thing, his ally, Italy, had about 18 months to go before they were defeated and knocked out of the conflict.

    Without Jew S A there would have been no Western front against Germany, and German heroes may well have defeated soviets, not having to station troops in Italy, not having lost the great number of soldiers (more than at Stanlingrad) stuck in Tunisia just prior to Allied invasion of Italy.

    And what was it Hitler was REALLY up against? Well, u ought to know, stebbing, it was ur people, the “chosen” race of Satanists who ran that amazing instrument known as CENTRAL-BANKING (see Mises.org for expo; use their site search-engine for particular terms, like fiat-currency), legalized counterfeiting, literally–that amazing God-like creation of nearly endless currency, not real money, which affords financial liquidity and greasing of the war-production machine which then allowed for amazing production of weapons, food, and trucks, for example, which thus equipped and supplied the soviets and British to enable the eventual defeat of those tremendous German heroes.

    For as reality is objective (Aristotle) and determined, in accord w. absolute cause-effect, there being no perfectly “free” human will,” history is CYCLIC in accord w. Oswald Spengler’s “Decline of the West.” Thus socialism, central-banking, and SATANISM (extreme subjectivism, holding reality is produced by mind/consciousness, making subject to be creator, hence God), was to prevail in 1945, led and prosecuted by the ultimate Satanists and subjectivists (featuring “midrash” and “Oral Law Tradition”) against any and everyone else, including those magnificent Germans, heroic, productive, and ingenious as they were and are–it just wasn’t in the cards enough for the Germans to defeat the Satanists leading the allies against the axis.

    Note the Satanist surge (“Decline of the West”) had begun and gained much speed and momentum w. rise of central-banking, Rothschilds, Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, and socialism in this Western Spenglerian “decline,” ironic as it might seem–it all eventually defeated Germany, virtuous as they were, and now it has essentially defeated the Jew S A too, the Jew S A now firmly controlled by those Satanists, giving their orders fm stolen Palestine and directing things in all their branch offices throughout the world as in London and Jew York.

    Stebbing lies and says, “…there is nothing good to be said about Hitler and his plans…,” but of course, stebbing is just the typical liar who wants to divert fm the great struggle of humanity against his Satanist sponsors who are all busily at work as we speak, stebbing pretending,

    “…they always seek to distract from his [meaning Hitler] actions, saying ‘look over there!, those guys were worse!”

    No excrement, Sherlock.

    And WHO could possibly be “worse” than ur satanistic people, stebbing?–unc’ Adolf was not only hero, but a prophet, and he did his best to instruct and inform the rest of the world (who actually already knew–and still know–a good deal about the subject, satanism).

    So u see, stebbing, u’re exposed as u “protesteth” a little too much w. ur stupid lies and lying about dear unc’ Adolf. Why else would u lie so desperately and even hysterically about such magnificent people (the German people) and their great leader, dear unc’ Adolf?

    Hitler united the German people and even many others fm other countries and nations, esp. of eastern Europe, and even India (see Subhas Chandra Bose, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Subhas-Chandra-Bose). Unc’ Adolf just didn’t do enough of the right and necessary things regarding France, UK, and Jew S A–which all needed and required the real and true Christianity (worship of TRUTH, above all) for such necessary and sufficient gentile unification, as during the time of St. Constantine the Great, early 4th cent., against Satanism and ur monstrous people, stebbing, those foremost Satanists universally and traditionally, even religiously hated by all humanity, but for those taking money (or currency) fm them.

  485. Sean says:
    @Alden

    If the Confederacy had won the war the South would by now be full of mulattoes. If Britain not fought WW2 and had kept the Empire–India and most of the rest of by 1939 long since having become a financial drain–the UK would have got a tsunami of immigrants far greater than actually have arrived there to date, the county would have become impoverished, and white people that had not fled abroad would be much worse off

    http://enochpowell.info/wp-content/uploads/Speeches/Sept-Dec%201988.pdf

    By the time Churchill ceased to be Prime Minister in 1955, a Bill to restrict in the United Kingdom the right of entry and domicile, as every other country on the face of the earth restricts it, to belongers was in draft and awaiting introduction into Parliament. There is no reason for supposing that it would have been particularly controversial there or elsewhere. … [But] Macmillan shelved the whole matter for the duration of the/parliament. Quite suddenly, in the middle and later 1950’s, not only did the reform come to be perceived as a threat to the multi-racial Commonwealth but the idea grew up that there would be actual merit in the presence in Britain of those whom the reform would have excluded if it had been in force already.

    Anthony Eden (mocked by the young Powell as ‘not a person, but an arrangement of coloured lights’) and Harold MacMillan (according to John Junior expelled from Eton for homosexualism, which is really saying something) were the guilty men. Churchill lived on another ten years. His drinking diminished him for what might have been his greatest hour.

    Address by the Rt Hon. J. Enoch Powell, MBE, to the Dinner of the International Churchill Society 1988.

    The philosopher Aristotle in defining tragedy stated, you may perhaps think surprisingly, that it must have mekos or “length”. […] By 1955 it was given to Winston Churchill to have become the living embodiment of his nation through the accumulation of its past in his own individual person. He had the ability to change with the times and to share the vicissitudes of opinion. […] Churchill’s warnings of German aggressive intention after 1934, which reinforced his personal authority … was not so much the triumph of distant deductive reasoning as the long vista of historical and personal memory which, when others were still blind, revealed to him the nature and inevitable outcome of the resurgent German empire. […] As in all human affairs, there was a big element of chance. But chance is powerless without a quality in the human beings whose lives it rules that is anything but fortuitous.

    It is unfair to blame Churchill and even Eden and MacMillan. No one understood what kind of a great replacement was coming and both Churchill’s Empire and MacMillan and Eden’s Commonwealth substitute both entailed the right of UK entry and domicile.. No one understood because even Churchill had not the recollection of anything similar to comprehend the meaning with. By trying to make their county great or keep it so, Hitler got rid of the German Jewish problem and Churchill got rid of the British Empire, remember them for that. Even though were horrendously costly and not truly final solutions, the indigenous population of both Germany (especially) and Britain is lot better off for 1939-45 than if it had not seen WW2

  486. @Carolyn Yeager

    WW2 revisionism with criticism of the Allied hypocrisy and crimes is already a going concern to which I have nothing to add. Others have done that far better than I could do and I wish their endeavor much success.

    The only thing I want to stress is that NS is not the same as WN. NS is/was German supremacism at the cost of Slavic peoples, while WN is ethno-nationalism for all European peoples, including Slavs, who happen to be the most numerous part and inhabiting the biggest territory of them all.

    Besides, when all revisionism about the NS regime has been done, still Hitler was not innocent of crimes of his own. Claiming otherwise tends to create a “cult” around him that he doesn’t deserve.

    To run an own website takes all one’s time, mostly with little result. Compare your own Alexa ranking of 1,289,313 with that of Unz of 13,831.

  487. Ron Unz says:

    One of the most shocking elements I discovered in reading the first volume of Irving’s ground-breaking work on Churchill was the latter’s financial situation, in which his history of remarkable greed combined with spendthrift ways allowed him to be “bought” by the wealthy financial interests that sought a war against Germany. Irving’s material seemed very solid and convincing, but I still retained a bit of stubborn doubt about something so remarkable.

    But then a few months ago, I got around to reading a 2015 book focused entirely on Churchill’s finances, based on absolutely exhaustive archival research, glowingly praised in all our elite media outlets, and written by someone with a long career in finance:

    Lough naturally avoids mentioning Irving’s findings of decades earlier since he wanted his book to get published. But his research absolutely confirms and even greatly magnifies the same perception of Churchill, who may have been one of the most astonishingly greedy, spendthrift, and risk-taking senior political figures in all of modern history.

    As a single striking example that he mentions in the opening paragraph, Churchill became Prime Minister on May 10, 1940, but was effectively bankrupt at that point, with no money to pay his household bills, his taxes, or the interest on his large bank overdraft, which was due at the end of the month.

    The material in the entire volume, which runs more than 500 pages, is of a very similar character.

    The whole sordid story accords perfectly with some of my own American Pravda articles dealing with our own country’s unfortunate situation:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-john-mccain-jeffrey-epstein-and-pizzagate/

    • Agree: Alfred
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Vaterland
  488. FB says: • Website
    @Stebbing Heuer

    Exactly right Stebbing…

    Now here’s the funny part…these clowns are so uninformed about Germany and the German people that they don’t even understand how actual Germans despise Hitler…

    My father was a military man who was stationed for six years in what was then West Germany…the British Army of the Rhine, I Corps…

    I attended my first three years of school in Germany in the late sixties…learned the language and a decade later took up an exchange student opportunity in East Germany…

    I remember my childhood days in Bielefeld…it was the HQ of the BAOR…four divisions and nearly 80,000 men, including tactical battlefueld nukes [US made 8 inch howitzer shells and Honest John unguided rockets…and the much bigger Corporal guided missile designed by the Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena…]

    Dad was in logistics and they would often go on maneuvers in the countryside lasting several days…

    I still have old friends in Germany, both east and west…and have traveled to the country so many times that I have lost count…

    German people have nothing but scorn for Hitler and the Nazis…they brought the nation to ruin…people like Carolyn Yeager speak for no one…much less the completely ignorant fools here who have no connection whatever with Germany…

    Their ignorance of historical facts and their misconceptions about everything are truly fantastic…they live in a cartoon world…and their idolatry of Hitler and historical revisionism is not welcome in the least. ..

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @Fox
    , @Stebbing Heuer
  489. Sean says:

    This is sort of true but rather ignores that–fantastic as it now seems–Britain’s establishment thought itself to be in charge of the most powerful country in the world in the run up to 1939. It must never be forgotten that Chamberlain declared war on Germany in 1939, not Churchill. This was no surprise as Chamberlain had in public speeches given several increasingly strident warnings that Britain was ready willing and able to fight another war with Germany. Unspoken was that Germany taking a bit of Poland (or Poland cooperating with Hitler in his attack on the USSR as was his preference) was acceptable to the British foreign policy establishment, but the Nazi-Soviet Pact was unacceptable and made war necessary. The Soviet Union was considered the real problem by the british foreign policy establishment. And of course as soon as Hitler made a deal with Stalin it became obvious that the might of the German army would be thrown West (first). The British simply underestimated Germany.

    It was May 1940, after the disastrous Norwegian campaign that Churchill had directed as Naval minister, that Chamberlain resigned as PM and Winston became prime minister. From then until a few weeks before his death in November 1940 Chamberlain was a minister under PM Churchill. As Enoch Powell (no fan of Chamberlain) noted, the official records show “Chamberlain, when serving in Churchill’s cabinet after Churchill had superseded him in 1940, became surprisingly tough and bellicose”.

    The important point was in 22 June 1940 when France fell and Britain was forced off the Continent at Dunkirk. The only people who were in favour of asking what terms Hitler was willing to give were Rab Butler and Lord Halifax, neither had much of a following and Halifax was packed of to the US as Ambassador. Given the Navy and RAF there was no way Hitler could invade and Britain could draw on a lot of resources from the Empire. Churchill made no difference to anything, except maybe PR for the benefit of the American public. Any Prime Minister who had tried to capitulate to Germany, even at the low point of June 1940m would have been unceremoniously removed as PM.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  490. Sean says:
    @FB

    Not many Jews in Germany, but they are terribly missed. A bit like the US loving Native Americans after they had all been killed off. Do Germans live better than they would have ‘sharing’ (actually being dominated by) their land with a million Jews? If so, Hitler must be given some credit, even if the price paid was much too high.

    • Replies: @Fox
  491. @Franklin Ryckaert

    I have nothing to add

    Very astute of you. Indeed, you do add nothing.

    NS is not the same as WN

    Duh! Another of your strawmen. Whoever said it was? Certainly not I!

    Hitler was not innocent of crimes of his own

    Without quoting from Wikipedia, and in your own words, convincingly indict Hitler for his crimes. What is your evidence? I’m serious and await it.

    an own website takes all one’s time, mostly with little result.

    You mean it takes work and dedication, which is more than you have to give. Quoting from or linking to Wiki pages is your maximum effort. I join into comments like this for fun and relaxation, not to get ‘results’. But it’s your sole “contribution” and always has been. A free-loader.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  492. Fox says:
    @FB

    I think I understand the German People rather better than a man who, as a son of an officer of an occupying military, has come in contact with people who had just recently been the victims of this power and nominally to this day are the overlords of the German people. The Enemy State Clauses are still in force at the anti-German league “UN”, and the FRG signed the Transition Treaty in 1991 which states that Germany will keep in place all laws instated by the Allies to eliminate Nazism, and will keep in force all findings from the Nuremberg Tribunal and subsequent proceedings, even if in contradiction to the Basic Law (what goes in Germany as a “Constitution”). To speak