The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersThe Journal of Historical Review
/
Issues
Life Under Fire
The Wages of Apostasy
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 Images
List of Tables
List of Bookmarks

(Presented at the Eleventh IHR Conference, October 1992.)

Thank you, United States, for letting me come and speak. I mean that seriously because the fight is now getting quite creepy. For two years now, in country after country, I have been conducting this international Campaign for Real History. During this period, in country after country, I’ve come up against an international campaign against real history — an international campaign full of lies, an international campaign to suppress the truth. The truth of this campaign is quite clearly something that I had previously not wanted to believe: there is, in fact, an international force out there with an influence that transcs frontiers. Day after day, country after country, month after month, I come up against this international force.

In my apartment in London, I’ve accordingly opened a file titled “Jewish Harassment.” This should not be taken to mean, in the slightest, that I am anti-Jewish, because I’m not. The fact that many Jews are anti-Irving does not mean to say that I am anti-Jewish. There’s no paradox in that statement. Week after week, month after month, they are causing me immense harassment, embarrassment and distress. But journalists come to me, again and again, and ask me: “Mr. Irving, are you anti-Semitic?” And I reply, “Not yet.”

For two years now, I have been the target of this worldwide campaign — in Germany, France, Spain, South Africa, the United States, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, and England. Let me tell you a little about what has been happening in some of these countries.

In Germany, I’m now technically a prohibited person. I can’t go there because the German authorities have ordained that David Irving shall no longer cross their frontier. A free democracy, and yet that’s the only way they can fight against me: by forbidding me to come in. That edict was issued in March 1990. But since then, I’ve been in and out of Germany 60 times. I’m not going to tell you how I’ve done it — but there are ways of doing it.

In Austria, there’s an arrest warrant out against me, but no entry prohibition (whereas in Germany there’s the entry prohibition but no arrest warrant). So between the two of them you can find a way of getting in. As I said to the Germans the last time I spoke to a mass meeting of 7,000 people in Passau: there are enough people here in plain clothes taking notes for the Ministry of the Interior, and tonight they’ll be asked: how did he get in again? To this I can only say: “Go ask your colleagues in Austria how David Irving got in this time.”

Banned in South Africa

Besides Germany and Austria, officially I am not permitted to get into Italy or South Africa. Last January and February, I spoke for two months in South Africa, this time visiting 15 towns and cities. Two weeks after I returned to England, a letter arrived from the South African government in Pretoria. It told me: “Mr. Irving, as an Englishman you normally do not require a visa to enter South African territories. For you we are going to make an exception.” I reported this ban to the South African newspapers, which discovered in a matter of days that this unique embargo was being placed on me by the South African government at the request of South African Jewish organizations. This was followed by an outcry by other South Africans who wanted to hear me on radio and television, and in person. It was another encroachment on freedom of speech.

Of course, I am able to come and speak here in the United States because you have something very important, your First Amment guaranteeing freedom of speech. It is very unlikely, I think, that the United States government would actually stoop to trying to prevent me from coming here to speak. It would be a very, very serious day indeed if that should happen.

In Canada, I have a big speaking tour lined up that is due to start on October the 26th. Yesterday, here in this very hotel [in Irvine, Califronia], I was handed an express letter from the Canadian government informing me that I would not be allowed to enter Canada. Once again, pressure has been exerted by these international groups to keep me from speaking. In this case it was the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, but the reason given me was this: “Mr. Irving, under the immigration act, a person is not permitted to enter if he has committed a criminal offense in another country, or if he is likely to commit a criminal offense in Canada. We may consider you likely to commit a criminal offense.”

After receiving this, I straight away instructed my attorney in Canada to point out that I’ve been to Canada some 30 times since 1965, and not once have I committed a criminal offense. So, prima facie, I am unlikely to commit a criminal offense on the 31st occasion. [On October 26, Irving legally entered Canada. He was illegally arrested — after lecturing on freedom of speech — at Victoria, B.C., and deported on November 13 after a three week court battle. He is appealing.]

Detention in Rome

In June of this year, I went to Italy. I arrived in Rome, after a stop in Munich, from Moscow, where I had been working for two weeks in the former Soviet government’s secret state archives. As I got off the plane in Rome, six Carabinieri police cars were waiting for me at the airfield, and as I got into the airport bus, the police stormed the bus, rifles drawn, and called out my name, “Mr. Irving.” Ladies and gentlemen, now that’s embarrassing! Under the circumstances, I tried to make it look as if this was my VIP escort!

They held me there in the police station at Rome’s airport for four hours until the plane turned round and flew back to Munich. And half way through, they let in the Italian student who had arrived to meet me there. (I had been invited by a university professor.)

During the police interrogation, I “hadn’t understood” a word of Italian, and I made them speak English to me. But when the students came in, I spoke with them in Italian, explaining how sorry I was. Seeing this, the police colonel became very indignant and said: “Silenzio, Don’t Speak.” So I said, “Where does it say that I can’t speak?” He repeated, “Silenzio, Don’t-a speaka.” And I repeated: “Excuse me, but nowhere do I see a sign that says Silenzio.” At that, he seized a thick felt- tip pen, and in a blind, Italian temper he went to the magnificently painted wall inside this beautiful, brand new police station, saying “You can’t-a see-a? Here!,” and wrote the letters S I L E N Z I O on the wall, and then shouted: “Silenzio!”

Last October [1991], I spoke in Argentina. On the morning of the first day, I took part in a two-hour television program. (I also speak Spanish.) I was on with a man named Maurizio Maro, but whose real name turned out to be Goldfarb. If only they had told me beforehand! But too late.

Goldfarb asked me questions like: “But Adolf Hitler, he was crazy wasn’t he?” And I said: “No, he wasn’t.” “But of course he was crazy,” he retorted. I responded by saying:

There’s no evidence for that at all. The evidence is that we — the British and Americans — captured seven of Hitler’s doctors. We interrogated all seven of them on that specific point: Hitler’s own physicians were asked if they considered him clinically sane or out of his mind. All of them came to the conclusion that, even until the very last moments of his life, he was totally sane. And not only that, I have personally found Hitler’s medical diaries — the diaries kept by his doctor, Theodor Morrell, which I found in the archives in Washington, DC. After transcribing them, I published them. These diaries also confirm, without a doubt at all, that Hitler was perfectly sane and physically normal.

Now considerably agitated, Goldfarb responded: “But the man must be totally crazy because he killed forty million human beings.” The first time he threw out this figure, I let it pass, but the second time round, I stopped him, saying: “Forty million? Excuse me, where does this figure come from then?” Goldfarb then said: “A person who kills even one man is a criminal.” In this case, then, I said, President Bush is a major criminal because of the damage he did in the Gulf War this very February.

At this point, the interview was dramatically cut short. And the very next day, all the other interviews that had been lined up by my publisher in Argentina were cancelled. Newspaper and television interviews, and a Belgrano University appearance — all were cancelled. It was an object lesson on the influence that certain people have. The day after that (October 18, 1991), a major daily newspaper, La Nación, published a communique issued by Argentina’s Jewish governing agency, with a headline calling me an “International Agitator.” Well, I’m sorry that the Jews get so easily agitated. But it’s not my fault. My job is to go there and lecture on the historical truth as I see it.

The Right to be Wrong

I admit that we may be wrong. Each of us in this room may be wrong on this or that matter. But I demand the Right to be Wrong! That is the essence of freedom of speech in any country.

No one is going to define for us what the received version of history is or should be. But that is what they are trying to do now in Germany, and all around the world.

Every other aspect of world history is open to debate and dispute — except one. Anyone who challenges this one aspect of history is automatically, ipso facto, described as an anti-Semite. Jewish leaders are now saying that anyone who questions any aspect of the Holocaust is an anti-Semite. Of course, that’s not true. We are just lovers of the truth, and determined to get to the bottom of what actually did and did not happen.

I do not insist that what I tell you here today is necessarily the only version of the truth, and that thou shalt have no other truth than this. I’m not as arrogant as that. I do say that this is the best that I can do, given limited resources, and against the harassment that I’ve come up against in the last few years.

That harassment has gotten worse and worse, particularly with the recent Focal Point publication of the new edition of Hitler’s War. This new edition contains material never seen before. If you want to see a photograph showing what it looks like when 17,500 people are killed in 30 minutes, here it is. Everyone’s heard about Hiroshima and Dresden, but no one knows about what happened in Pforzheim, a small German town in Baden-Württemberg, where one person in four was killed in the most horrible manner in mid-February 1945. We have photos of that crime. I’ve shown this photograph to audience after audience.

On the previous page of Hitler’s War are the well-known photographs of Dresden, where a hundred thousand people were killed in a period of twelve hours by the British and Americans. So many were killed so quickly that there weren’t enough living left to bury the dead. So the corpses had to be burned on these huge funeral pyres in the Dresden Altmarkt. I published the photographs in 1963 in my first book, The Destruction of Dresden and, now, in Hitler’s War, I publish them for the first time in color.

Window Smashing

There are 60 color photographs in this book, a work that no other publisher could have published so lavishly. Of course, our traditional enemies are absolutely livid because of this book, which is very sought-after in Britain. We published it ourselves, and personally delivered 5,000 copies to 800 book shops up and down the country and around the world.

Our traditional enemies have been fighting back. Their local cells, branches and agents have been visiting — patiently and methodically, one by one — every book shop that stocked this book, demanding that it be “un-stocked.” Because most book shop managers are not open to intimidation in the way newspapers are, they get their windows smashed. As result, there’s been a campaign of window smashing throughout Britain during the last three or four months.

During the night, the big plate-glass windows of the book stores are smashed, and the next morning the stores receive a letter on letterhead of the local synagogue, or the local Jewish Board of Deputies. The letters say “we are very sorry that your windows were smashed, but what can you expect? We promise that if you stop stocking David Irving’s books, you will find that this kind of problem ceases.”

This campaign — smashing the windows of book stores, big and small, including chain book stores in Britain such as Waterstone’s and Dillon’s — has been reported in all the local newspapers. I subscribe to a press clipping service, so I get all these clippings. But there’s been nothing in the British national newspapers.

And why not? Well, the answer is that these wondered where these journalists come from, these spineless, nasty little creeps such as Bernard Levin of The Times of London.

I am philosophical about newspapers. I remember one Monday morning ten years ago when my secretary came to me, saying: “David, how can you stand for it? Have you read what they’ve written about you yesterday in the Sunday Times? It’s only a short thing, but you now might as well pack up. You’re finished.” He read from the article: “David Irving, who appears substantially to have over-estimated his mental stability this time …” “They’re calling you mad!”

Recycled Lies

I responded by saying, “Okay, so what? Are they going to assign me to some kind of psychiatric gulag archipelago? That’s from the Sunday Times, and this is Monday.” That’s the difference between being an author and being a journalist. When I write a book it goes into a library and stays there — especially if it’s on acid-free paper. What a journalist writes for the Sunday Times appears on Sunday, but by Monday it’s wrapping fish ‘n chips! So who cares? Or if it’s not wrapping fish ‘n chips, the paper’s being recycled to be made into new newsprint for new lies.

One South African journalist wrote to me during the height of my South African tour in March 1992. I was speaking at meeting after meeting, addressing packed halls. In Pretoria, as usual, 2,000 people came to hear me. In Cape Town, another huge audience turned out to hear me at the Goodwood Civic Centre. The next day, I received a fax letter from a Cape Times journalist named Claire Bisseker who earlier had bombarded me with questions about what I thought about President de Klerk, the prospects for South Africa, the ANC, and all the rest of it. This time her letter was quite brief:

Mr. Irving, the Cape Times would like to have your response to the following allegations made by a Capetonian who atted your meeting at Goodwood [Centre] on March 8. The source said that the meeting was of a neo-Nazi nature. Complete with Nazi banners and Nazi salutes. We would appreciate it very much if you could fax back to us your response as soon as you are able.

So I turned this matter over in my mind. “Remember,” I told myself, “you’re dealing with a journalist — a journalist who will twist whatever you say. If I say that I have no comment, they will print the lies and say that Mr. Irving had no comment. If I deny it, they will print the lies and say that Irving denied it. They will print lies whatever you do.” So after some thought, I sent this brief letter to Claire Bisseker:

Dear Clair,

Thank you for your fax, and I appreciate your inquiry. Yes, you do have excellent sources. Neo-Nazi nature, Nazi banners, and Nazi salutes — the lot. As I marched in, an orchestra struck up the Slaves’ Chorus from Verdi’s opera, “Aida.” Later, the orchestra played the first bars of Franz Liszt’s “Les Préludes,” and it concluded with Liszt’s Opus 63 String Quartet. Meanwhile, searchlight batteries stationed around the Goodwood Civic Centre lit up, their crystal beams joining in a cathedral of ice ten thousand feet above the site; a thousand hands were once more flung aloft in the holy salute, and a thousand throats roared the Horst Wessel anthem. A video is available, directed by Leni Riefenstahl.

I hope the above material suffices for what you have in mind.

That’s the way to deal with journalists! I have developed my own techniques in dealing with them.

Related Reading:

 


.

(Republished from JHR, Jan/Feb 1993 by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 531 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Pindos says:

    I don’t think we’ll survive but if we do David Irving is due much credit.

  2. Bolteric says:

    Why post this now? Is free speech gone in a month?

    Of course, I have great admiration for Irving, and have made it through hundreds of pages of his writing. Ron was right: he is a riveting speaker and his lectures with links published here give the best introduction to his thought.

    Not everyone is ready for this red-pill as I have found out when suggesting his work. And in many ways he is the most rational and logical of all “heretics” – as he refers to the true, real historians (himself).

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    , @Ron Unz
  3. David Irving’s great sin was to argue that World War II was a senseless disaster. Pat Buchanan agreed several years later, as shown here:

  4. LarryS says:

    I am grateful that I had the opportunity and honor of meeting Mr. Irving in Eugene, Oregon in November 2012. My awareness began when I learned my Christian Zionism was based on the flawed theology of John Nelson Darby and premillennialism. The modern, secular socialist state called Israel is not the Israel of the Bible. Christian eschatology is not dependent on Israel or the building of the Third Temple where the Dome of the Rock now sits. This realization has freed me to consider the work of David Irving and Ron Unz.

  5. If only his name were Irving David and not David Irving, his right to travel and speak would be protected.

  6. I’ve been to hear him speak a number of times with and was always impressed with his speaking ability and his sharp mind. For all the trouble the enemy have gone to trying to silence him, banning him from various countries, burning his books and physically assaulting him, they haven’t achieved anything. People are still reading his books, discussing the finer points of what were said in his books and discussing WW2. If the enemy were so smart, they’d realize that and throw in the towel, but they obviously aren’t as smart as they’re constantly telling us, they’re just as dumb as liberals implementing the same policies that have proven to fail over and over again.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    , @tomo
  7. Wally says:

    Irving, perhaps as payment for his early release from an Austrian prison, now tries to play an absurd ‘holocaust-lite’ game. That effort is no more rational than someone trying to support the full on “holocaust”.
    recommended:

    [MORE]

    Irving attempts ‘rehabilitation’ via the Hoefle Telegram: http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4558
    Irving’s ‘holocaust’ lite / but what ‘2.4 million document’?
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4548
    Grubach’s Open Letter to David Irving: http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4563
    The Razor and the Ring, by John Weir: https://codoh.com/library/document/the-razor-and-the-ring/en/

    more at: https://www.unz.com/?s=irving&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Wally

  8. Schuetze says:

    “This campaign — smashing the windows of book stores, big and small, including chain book stores in Britain such as Waterstone’s and Dillon’s — has been reported in all the local newspapers. I subscribe to a press clipping service, so I get all these clippings. But there’s been nothing in the British national newspapers.”

    One of the most “infamous” events in the German mutiny against their Jewish slave lords before the second act of World War Zion was the famous “Kristallnacht”. The mere mention of it always gets jews kvetching and flinging spittle. Of course Kristallnacht was completely justified after the Jewish assassin Grynspyn murdered vom Rath, and Kristallnacht was the expression of the German people finally waking up and reacting their own genocide by Jew.

    Kristallnacht and the reaction of the jews to Irving’s books daring to tell the truth about “gods chosen people” really exemplifies Jewish Projection. This Jewish Projection of their own sins is omnipresent in our current society, and one of its largest recent manifestations was the Jewish “youth” who made over 1000 bomb threats to Synogogues from Israel. But it goes on all the time all over the planet. Jewish style projection is the daily bread of the Democrat party.

    When instead of BLM and Antifa, it is white Christians who rise up once again and break the windows of Jew owned monopoly businesses like Walmart, Target and Costco, when piles of Jewish pornographic books and movies are burned in the malls and town squares, then we will know that Jew White-Hate Power is finally being pushed back against once again.

    • Replies: @Ugetit
    , @Curmudgeon
    , @Guest145
  9. @Carlton Meyer

    That is SO antisemitic! As soon as they had won the war, the zionists redoubled their efforts to take Palestine, by force if necessary. The British Army resisted, but brave Jewish terrorists bombed them clean out of Palestine. A few mass murders and blown-up villages, a few rumours and threats, and the Palestinians were ausrottung: uprooted, extirpated, erased from the pages of history. “Senseless”, you say? Glorious “israel” could now threaten the world!

  10. GeeBee says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Well it certainly wasn’t a senseless disaster for those who are now in charge of things in today’s West. Far from it – absolute control having been bequeathed to them on 8th May 1945. The key question regarding whether it was ‘worth it’ or not is to ask: “Are you happy with today’s world?”

    I’m guessing that an awful lot of people would, by their answer, and perhaps unwittingly, confirm what you call ‘Irving’s greatest sin’.

  11. Presiding over a case in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Warby said: ‘Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.’

    They added that ‘free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another’.

    At last we seem to be getting legal pushback against the Free Speech Deniers. The biggest problem is the concentration of media ownership in most Western countries, created by abandonment of competition laws by governments. This enables the likes of Facebook, Twitter and Google to engage in censorship and suppression of the truth. These oligopolies need to be broken up and proper competition laws enforced, not that I’m holding my breath.

    As commenter Pindos has written, if the West survives, David Irving will be due very great thanks. Not only for championing free speech, but free inquiry as well.

  12. Anonymous[661] • Disclaimer says:

    What the Jewish smear mongers can’t take away from Irving is that he is an extraordinary thinker, writer and historian. Hitler’s War is, and I’m sure will remain, a towering masterpiece of unbiased historical research.

  13. Spect3r says:

    I havent read the text yet, im just posting to thanking Unz for allowing this great mind to publish here.
    Thank you so much for all your hard work Mr. Irving, even when faced with everything you had to face throughout your life.

  14. NomadDad says:

    Taking the topic one step further, https://barnesreview.org if not already familiar.

  15. polistra says:

    All normal humans are now living under a ban because they’re human. We have an actual worldwide pogrom underway in every country but Tanzania. We don’t have time to sympathize with people like Irving who have intentionally tempted the tyrants.

  16. Antigoyimism is sponsored by the anticementists running the sand banks

    the export of cement to the cayman islands should be stopped before everyones

    tax deaducktable pension fund gets washed away in the coming flood judgement

    As it was in the times of NoAAA so shall it be in the last dAAAys

    They should be named and shamed

    Cut backs are not enough they should be castigated

    hanging is too good for them

  17. Slade says:

    On this site people are practicing too much free speech, forbidden under the new Covid19 rules, LOL.
    I am certain the site is being watched very closely by big brother, in this case Israeli government. It would be interesting to know how many Jewish volunteers are working to closely monitor (24/7) just like 7000 volunteers world wide to monitor and edit Wikipedia.

    • Replies: @Wally
  18. gotmituns says:

    David Irving is something else. I always wondered at the logistical ability of the Germans to carry out such a program while fighting from the arctic to N. Africa and on the high seas simultaneously.
    I wondered at them pulling trains full of equipment, munitions or wounded off to sidings so trains full of Jews could go on for extermination?
    ————————————————————————————-
    I consider myself a bit of a historian (more actually a “wonderer” – when I hear something I think abut it before I come to a conclusion) of sorts. But because of a certain epiphany in my own life. I was out of the Corps when Nixon bombed N. Vietnam back to the peace conference in Paris (I remember Le Duc Tho running back to the peace table to make peace/stop the bombing). I said to myself, [hey, if Nixon did this in ten days of bombing, they could have done it at any time during that period of killing, 1965-72]. So the whole thing was all a bunch of baloney. None of us grunts had to experience it. Since then I live by – “QUESTION EVERYTHING”
    —————————————————————————————–
    Now of course I don’t believe very little and certainly not any of this current BS (covid-19) either.

    • Replies: @St-Germain
    , @Ace
    , @Rufus Clyde
  19. David Irving should investigate the twin towers controlled explosions under cantor fitzgerald and Euro bond traders on 9/11

    and which crime syndicates kept the $240,000,000,000 10 year bradybond loan due repayment on the day

    and he should investigate the storage of the 1950′ s production run of shoulder launched Davy Crocket tactical nukes stored in the safety of the gold vault s of the twin towers awaiting decomissioning by the Israel company given the contract

    and the mysterious holes visible in the aerial photographs of the devastation of ground zero twin towers

    Thanks to main scream corporate media and live video composite editing in of fake planes the lie was half way around the world before the truth was evn out of the door.

    • Thanks: profnasty
    • LOL: Ace
  20. @Wally

    Not only has David Irving been subjected to all kinds of threats. Supposedly, when these truth-hating psychopaths started threatening his family members, Irving toned down some of his assertions. What YOU have done if your family members were threatened? We’re dealing with pure evil here.

    • Agree: Old and Grumpy
    • Replies: @Wally
  21. John Hagan says: • Website

    ‘Things will change. I see a different world in the near future. Western values, including those so well adopted by our friends in Israel will come to pass into another realm. New ones will be pre-eminent. To describe this I will include a video plus this comment.

    [MORE]

    Jesus was a carpenter and Rembrant was a painter. Both were craftsmen. An apogee of the craft of painting has not yet been reached but with the advent of photography many craftsmen gave up and many decided to develop alternate concepts like a carpenter might make three legged chair which could be strangely liberating for the carpenter.
    Unless a nuclear war occurs this is about to change as Russia and China become the financial adjuciators of the craft of painting as they will have the financial clout. Should you doubt this please look at those paintings that are considered exceptional in both those countries. You will not see a Chagall nor a Wahol.
    If you are sufficently misguided to believe there is no ‘art’ history in China or Russia then I fear for your education. Russian painting will embrace the craft of the Rembrants while the Chinese will embrace the ‘line of description’ .
    Those ‘artists’ who made their liviging without the skill of a craftsman painter will be destined to the dustbin of the incompetent as will be the three legged chair for the woodworker.
    It is already begun. Consider the future for a beginning ‘modern abstract’ painter in the US or Europe today as their formless yet colorfull works be somehow titled as a poem to gender equity studies then their future is even more dire as those who may appreciate their efforts have no money to purchase such works.
    The one over-riding factor is that painters like carpenters need to make a living. They need to exchange their skills for money and should those with money be looking for well made furniture or paintings of skill and communication then those with such qualities will be pre-eminent.
    Such is life and such may be a future and I urge all who love carpentry to learn about wood, mallets and chisels and those who love painting to learn aout brushes, paint, color theory and communication.

  22. Rich says:

    The assaults on men like David Irving, are what actually opens the minds of many people. I would never have bothered questioning the accepted “holocaust ” narrative if it hadn’t been for all the laws banning even discussion of the supposedly historical event. There would be absolutely no reason to outlaw discussing and researching the “holocaust” if it had occurred. Lies die in the light.

  23. Sirius says:

    Arguing that Churchill should have opted for peace in June or July of 1940 belies the fact that he was brought in as prime minister in May 1940 precisely as the man who would manage the war. The other possible candidate, Halifax, declined the position most probably because he didn’t want that task to fall on his shoulders (he offered a weak excuse that he couldn’t because he was in the House of Lords).

    How could Irving or Buchanan or anyone else argue that Churchill should have, as the War PM in May flip to become the Peace PM in only one or two months? Churchill was the hardliner throughout the 1930s and always wanted to challenge Hitler’s Germany and restrict its power. He was willing to go to war with Germany even over Czechoslovakia, which was resolved peacefully by Chamberlain but had nearly been the point where war started.

    There was no way Churchill would have the job in the first place if he were going to sue for peace. Otherwise, why not keep Chamberlain as the PM?

    It would be more useful to analyze why the men at the top brought in Churchill to begin with, and what their debates were, but once they did, Britain’s course was sealed.

  24. @Pindos

    Now that Banjo jim Net&yahoo aka the mastermind of 9/11 wishes to give Adolf

    Hitlermann a makeover . by blaming the grande mufti of Syria for putting him up to

    the Holohoax

    we can assume that mossad will look after David Irving

    Manny was called but the feuheur was “Chosen” from the blood line

    Mossad need to avoid paying the money back to the Dumcoffs till they can frame the

    Saudis for mossads greatest hits 50th aniversary 9/11 celebrations

    after all the Saudis keep their money from oil in USA banks

  25. @Joe Paluka

    It’s not about smart. It’s about simple conditioning and repeating certain lies and associating them with positive emotions like patriotism, honor and the like on the one hand and their opposite on the other. Jewish propaganda is based upon very simple, basic psychological principles. Controlling the megaphone, they simply repeat their Big Lies over and over, drowning out all opposition. Demonizing–or declaring one insane, which amounts to the same thing–is reserved for the select few who dare to raise their voice in protest, Hitler being the foremost example. And of course, all those who independently come to similar conclusions are said to have been cast from the same mold.

    • Agree: Sin City Milla
    • Replies: @Protogonus
  26. @John Hagan

    Jews, having nothing to contribute to a tradition they had no part in creating, found themselves with nothing other than their envy, resentiment and spite. Their reaction was to create the antithesis of Art, to smear feces on the great works whose magnificence made them feel small. And all their efforts at twentieth century “social reform” are nothing other than this revenge of the inferior peoples upon their superiors. This is why liberal, upper west-side Jews make common cause with their black brothers from Harlem and the Bronx.

    • Agree: Johnny Smoggins, AndrewR, Ace
    • Replies: @gotmituns
    , @Fallingwater
  27. Irving is an amazing man….balls the size of grapefruits.

    In terms of Jewish harassment there is a similar story in that of Professor Tony Martin who revealed the Jewish involvement in the slave trade and then had his life ruined by organized Jewry. Martin had an excellent talk on the subject and I just tried to find it but naturally Youtube has removed it.

    Another great clip that has disappeared is the one where Irving confronts a group of angry Jews at one of his talks, and says something like, “You people never do anything wrong! You’re always the victim! No matter how much damage and evil you do….it’s always the other guy’s fault!”

    Ford and Lindbergh also faced Jewish wrath for speaking the truth about organized Jewry.

    The JQ is an issue that goes back in time thousands of years…because wherever and whenever there are Jews…..trouble always follows as surely as night follows day.

    Only God will be able to sort it out.

  28. Everyone together now –

    THANK GOD WE BEAT THE NAZIS OR WE’D ALL BE SPEAKING GERMAN!

  29. John Wear says:
    @Sirius

    Adolf Hitler had never wanted war with Great Britain. It was Great Britain and its leaders such as Lord Halifax and Winston Churchill that wanted war with Germany.

    World War II was an immense tragedy. David Irving deserves credit for the extensive archival research he did in his younger days.

    • Replies: @R2b
    , @Sirius
    , @anon
  30. Jimmy1969 says:

    I am looking forward to reading his new biography on Himmler. Apparently it took 20 years of research to write.

  31. gotmituns says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Jews, having nothing to contribute to a tradition they had no part in creating
    —————————————————————————————
    Interesting that you said that. The Germany youth walking groups at the beginning of the 20th century in Germany were out after their heritage walking everywhere in Germany. The Jewish groups that started about the same time said the same thing, that they had no heritage in Germany and soon disappeared.

  32. Skeptikal says:
    @Bolteric

    “Why post this now? Is free speech gone in a month?”

    Seems like free speech in the USA went out the window about a month ago.

    • Replies: @Bolteric
  33. R2b says:
    @John Wear

    Right!
    But he shoulda stayed put, and not go Barbarossa!
    Hitler is either incompetent or a traitor.

  34. Hey David, how’s that whole Holocaust-Lite thing working for you?

  35. Wally says:
    @Former Liberal

    I get your point Former Liberal, but that does not change the fact that Irving’s ‘holocaust-lite’ is ridiculous, and that he continues to make the same absurd claims about the Hoefle Telegram (please actually read my links).
    He has done much more than just ‘toning down’ his rhetoric and apparently thinks that maybe some day supremacist Jews will embrace him.

    With friends like Irving who needs enemies?

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  36. Wally says:
    @Slade

    said:
    “It would be interesting to know how many Jewish volunteers are working to closely monitor (24/7) just like 7000 volunteers world wide to monitor and edit Wikipedia. ”

    [MORE]

    Slade, you mean Thought Police like these:

    recommended:
    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
    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  37. GeeBee says:
    @R2b

    Seventeen words to describe one of the most complex issues of WWII. And in this particular instance, seventeen words too many.

    • Replies: @R2b
  38. HdC says:
    @R2b

    A modicum of research would enlighten you with the fact that thanks to the German army and the SS, Europe is still comprised of western nations with a modicum of freedoms now under severe attack.

    Without operation Barbarossa we’d all be speaking Russian and living in Communist heaven.

    If you prefer this you can always move to North Korea or Cuba.

    • Agree: John Wear
  39. Those hundreds of extravagant holocaust memorials around the world would become an extremely embarrassing reminder of Jewish duplicity if the truth about the camps was revealed.

    Next would come an accounting of all the gentile guilt money scooped up by Jewish interests based on lies.

    You can bet people would be angry. Zionists have nobody but themselves to blame for the precarious position they’ve put themselves in.

    • Replies: @Niebelheim
  40. Rogue says:
    @LarryS

    I too used to be a Christian Zionist.

    Like yourself, I’ve discarded what I believe to be a false theology.

    But it took time – for most of my Christian life I was a Christian Zionist. It’s only about the last 8 years I’ve been off that train.

    I also agree that the biblical Israel is not the modern Zionist state.

    However, I’m not anti-israeli. But they should learn to survive on their own merits – and not require endless bucket loads of US cash and all kinds of other assistance.

    • Replies: @Chris in Cackalacky
  41. Bolteric says:
    @Skeptikal

    Good point. One of us here “can” write an essay late this time next year about the devolution over these months. Could also include Trump with his EO that you couldn’t say anything bad about Israel. Or to paraphrase Mr. Irving – not that you’d yet want to criticize.

  42. The significance of David Irving as a historian is demonstrated by the rabid way Jews and Jewish organizations have attempted to silence, ruin and persecute him. This is an operation that’s been carried out at every level.

    Within the last year I saw a new book prominently displayed in my local public library, which was advertised as the definitive biography of Adolph Hitler. The book was nearly one thousand pages in length so I had no intention of reading it. I did check the index and the bibliography. Not one mention of David Irving, who up until the Jewish holy war against him was acknowledged as the world’s preeminent expert on Hitler and a leading historian of the Third Reich.

    David Irving besides being a magnificent historian has a moral courage rivaling that of many historical champions of freedom. He’s sacrificed all to defend freedom of thought and speech for the rest of us. His struggle has revealed that among the bitterest enemies of those freedoms is organized world Jewry.

    • Agree: Skeptikal
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Incitatus
  43. Sirius says:
    @John Wear

    Adolf Hitler had never wanted war with Great Britain.

    Perhaps, but whether Hitler wanted it or not, his plans for Germany acquiring Great Power status were going to inevitably lead to conflict with Britain.

    Hitler’s biographers generally agree that he was a voracious reader of history. Something he evidently failed to understand or refused to accept from his readings is that British policy in the 1800s, and especially after German unification in 1870, was to balance the forces on the European continent to make sure Germany never achieved dominance, especially over France. By the early 1900s, Britain had viewed Germany as the greatest threat to its dominant position in the world. Arguably Britain entered the First World War for that very reason, to block Germany’s rise and cut it down to size.

    So the second time around, once Germany crossed a certain line, it was inevitable that Britain would oppose Germany. That line was defined in 1939 as the invasion of Poland. Churchill the hardliner would have said the line was already crossed in Czechoslovakia in 1938 or even earlier, but by September 1939 every major British figure agreed with him and so did the British public. There was absolutely no way Britain was going to turn back in 1940.

  44. Wow! Is all I can say. Great article. Thank you for helping us all be free!!!

    I will pass this on to others!

    • Agree: Ugetit
  45. Ron Unz says:
    @Bolteric

    Why post this now? Is free speech gone in a month?

    That’s a fair question…

    The mission statement of this webzine is to provide important and controversial perspectives excluded from the mainstream media, and I have explicitly emphasized that I do not necessarily stand behind many of them. But in fulfilling this goal, I’ve at times gotten rather irritated by some of the articles I’ve published, many of which I regard as full of ridiculous crackpottery.

    As it happens, I was reading some of Irving’s old lectures in the last few days, and also watching a few that had finally gotten posted on Bitchute after having been purged from YouTube a year or two ago. Since Irving’s work is obviously ultra-controversial and important, but exceptionally thorough and accurate, I decided it might make a welcome corrective to some of the ridiculous nonsense I felt so guilty about publishing.

    Earlier this year, I’d read another four or five of his major books, and was just as impressed as I had been with the previous ones. I think he’s probably been the most internationally-successful British history of the last 100 years, and since virtually all other websites—including the “extremist” ones—are too cowardly to publish him, I might as well do so:

    https://www.unz.com/announcement/the-remarkable-historiography-of-david-irving/

  46. @Ron Unz

    “ I decided it might make a welcome corrective to some of the ridiculous nonsense I felt so guilty about publishing.”

    You mean, like claims that the US introduced covid into China at the 2019 Military Games?

    • Troll: Ron Unz
    • Replies: @Rdm
    , @Trevor Hardy
  47. Ugetit says:
    @Schuetze

    I pretty much agree with all you wrote, but I’m now beginning to suspect that certain “victims” actually did the “Kristallnacht” schtick, like the Jewish “youth” you mentioned. They’re obviously ready to do anything to advance their cause.

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch, tomo
    • Replies: @Schuetze
    , @tomo
  48. The establishment cannot afford to allow certain truths to be revealed, like who is responsible for the world wars and the Holocaust. This is why they crush influential people trying to reveal those truths. There have been evil gangs throughout history, like the one from India that murdered thousands for no apparent reason. The Khazarian mafia from central Asia, close to Georgia where Stalin came from, are the masters of deception. They hijacked the Jewish religion and caused terrible tragedies around the world, like world wars and genocides financed by their banking operations. Then they orchestrate actions to implicate regular Jewish people as the culprits. They employ scholars whose only purpose is to obfuscate history. Herbert Hoover helped them immensely when he acquired almost all of the records of WW1 in exchange for food to starving European countries including the USSR in the 1920s. The largest collection of war records are located at Hoover’s alma mater, Stanford University where they are managed carefully to create the fake history books. They have leveraged anti-Semitism as a weapon. They have infiltrated all important areas of government and commerce. They control the central banks and trillions of dollars. Notions like Papa Shrub with his Khazarian partners being the masterminds of 911 are not allowed to be contemplated. The reality of the manufactured COVID crisis must also be suppressed. They rule the world with their deceptions.

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch
    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  49. @R2b

    “Right!
    But he shoulda stayed put, and not go Barbarossa!
    Hitler is either incompetent or a traitor.”

    Germans knew they would be starved out without Ukrainian farmland. Ukraine was part of the USSR so Moscow had to be neutralized for any stable occupation.

    • Replies: @R2b
  50. Ron Unz says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    Within the last year I saw a new book prominently displayed in my local public library, which was advertised as the definitive biography of Adolph Hitler. The book was nearly one thousand pages in length so I had no intention of reading it. I did check the index and the bibliography. Not one mention of David Irving, who up until the Jewish holy war against him was acknowledged as the world’s preeminent expert on Hitler and a leading historian of the Third Reich.

    There’s an even more egregious example I mentioned in my long World War II article. Pat Buchanan’s reasonably good 2008 book Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War also totally excludes any reference to Irving’s seminal works on those very topics. PJB was a “marginalized extremist” when he wrote that public, but obviously very worried about becoming even more “marginalized.”

    By contrast, David Lough’s entirely mainstream 2015 book No More Champagne, based upon many years of archival research, corroborated that all of Irving’s astonishing claims decades earlier about Churchill’s long history of astonishing financial risk-taking and corruption. Indeed, I seem to recall that Churchill was technically bankrupt at the very moment he became prime minister. But although Lough (cautiously) minimizes his references to Irving’s pioneering work, he at least includes him in his bibliography.

  51. @gotmituns

    I was out of the Corps when Nixon bombed N. Vietnam back to the peace conference in Paris (I remember Le Duc Tho running back to the peace table to make peace/stop the bombing). I said to myself, [hey, if Nixon did this in ten days of bombing, they could have done it at any time during that period of killing, 1965-72]. So the whole thing was all a bunch of baloney.

    Yup, that was a bunch of baloney. LBJ had been carpet bombing North Vietnam’s cities and towns for years before NVA units finally joined the VC’s struggle in the South. LBJ called his terror bombings retaliation but CIA boss William Colby said no NVA were operating in the South at the time. That only changed on the eve of Tet. The Nixon administration, like LBJ’s, became convinced that bombing would not win the war. Nixon’s savage 1972 Christmas bombings of Hanoi and Haiphong were only a prexext to declare “peace with honor”, a fig leaf that would extricate the U.S. from a lost war. But the peace settlement Kissinger and Le Duc Tho initialled in Paris 23 Jan. 1973 was the same one they had already agreed upon the previous October. The Vietnamese got exactly what they had always sought: the complete withdrawal of the Americans.

    • Disagree: Rich
  52. @Schuetze

    One of the most “infamous” events in the German mutiny against their Jewish slave lords before the second act of World War Zion was the famous “Kristallnacht”.

    If only.
    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p183_Weckert.html

    • Replies: @Schuetze
    , @Thomasina
  53. @Rich

    You hit the nail right on the head. Why would it be necessary to legally protect the truth? To try to do so is the height of stupidity.

  54. @Pindos

    I think David Irving actually cracked that joke, I remember it from one of his video lectures. This was in response to a Jewish publisher putting pressure on him to include the “mandatory 15 pages of Holocaust material” into Hitler’s War and how he might have been able to get away with not doing so [while still publishing the book with that particular publisher] if his name was Irving David and nor David Irving, as Jewish authors have often been able to push the envelope way more than Gentile ones.

    • Replies: @zimriel
    , @Poco
  55. @Rich

    The assaults on men like David Irving, are what actually opens the minds of many people.

    Yes, there is a name for this

    The Streisand effect is a social phenomenon that occurs when an attempt to hide, remove, or censor information has the unintended consequence of further publicizing that information, often via the Internet. It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose attempt to suppress the California Coastal Records Project’s photograph of her residence in Malibu, California, taken to document California coastal erosion, inadvertently drew further attention to it in 2003.

    Early Life check on Barbra Streisand:

    Streisand was born on April 24, 1942, in Brooklyn, New York City,… Streisand’s family was Jewish.

    Sometimes Jews are not as smart as they could be.

  56. Irving is the bravest and therefore the greatest historian alive today. You cannot be a great historian in todays free speech shackled, politically correct, Western Press, without being brave. It’s simply a non-starter.

  57. @Sirius

    Those island monkeys are immensely greedy and they are the original christian zionists. They are paying deeply for their crimes and mentality.

  58. @HdC

    A modicum of research would enlighten you with the fact that thanks to the German army and the SS, Europe is still comprised of western nations with a modicum of freedoms now under severe attack.

    This became their narrative as they started to lose in the East, that they were not merely fighting for Germany but for Western Civilization itself, of course I don’t blame them for thinking the Americans were at the time far more civilised than hordes of Far Eastern churkas, but overall if we fast forward today, the countries which were under Soviet occupation seem to be a lot better in regards to maintaining their native cultures and peoples than the countries in the West which were “protected” by the noble SS…

    [MORE]

    Russia:

    Poland:

    France:

    England:

  59. Ace says:
    @gotmituns

    The same point can be made about the mining of Haiphong, interdicting the Ho Chi Minh Expressway, attacking sanctuaries so help me God in Cambodia and Laos, bombing bridges from China, or even bridges into Korea, come to that.

    Do, however, recall that Nixon’s predecessor LBJ was obsessed with the strategy of gradual escalation (and was the consummate micromanager). No doubt he lived in fear of leftist riots if he did anything bold and calculated to crucify the North. He ignored all “Inchon” alternatives.

    Nixon was a different breeds of cat and stuck it to the North but good. I was in the Delta in 1970 and went into Cambodia. This secured the Delta. It went from hot to cold. Trust me.

    Frank Snepp recounts how the politburo feared Nixon and only allowed Giap to stick his toe into SVN on his promise to withdraw if Nixon responded.

    The enduring legacy of the leftist scum at home is that they were able to neutralize Nixon with Watergate. 50,000 dead for at best an unnecessary draw but, boy howdy, we showed Nixon
    and those burglars.

  60. Ace says:
    @Rich

    The Streisand Effect.

  61. Petermx says:

    I had the honor of meeting Mr. Irving about 9 years ago at one of his meetings when he would tour the USA by car and speak in many cities. He used to do that every year. On his website he has an article similar to the one above, but longer. If you found the above article interesting, I think you will find this one from his website very interesting.

    Global Vendetta
    http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/Global/Vendetta.html

  62. Ghali says: • Website

    It is unbelievable that an Austrian judge accused Mr Irving of racism. I lived in Austria for several years, and I found it the most racist of all of Europe. Austria is in league with Israel, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungry and Slovakia. It is a bigoted, poor, and backward racist entity. It pretends to protect “free speech” when it allowed racist bigots to insult the Prophet Mohammed, while it imprisoned Mr Irving. It is criminal and sickening hypocrisy.

  63. @ThreeCranes

    Jews hate nature and the natural order, because it’s pure and beautiful, and also because it’s bigger and stronger than they are, and they feel that they can not fully control it. Nature’s beauty and harmony stands in stark contrast to their squalidness and ugliness, and that makes them hate it all the more. Jews are destroyers. They are anti-humans. The anti-human Jew hates and wants to destroy all non-Jews. He will also destroy even other Jews who are less destructive and evil than he is, if they get in his way.

    – Bobby Fischer, 11th World Chess Champion

  64. Anonymous[159] • Disclaimer says:
    @potemkin villiage bank

    and he should investigate the storage of the 1950′ s production run of shoulder launched Davy Crocket tactical nukes stored in the safety of the gold vault s of the twin towers awaiting decomissioning by the Israel company given the contract

    The Davy Crockett was not a shoulder-portable or shoulder launched weapon. It in fact required a five man crew. See FM 9-11: Operation and Employment of the Davy Crockett Battlefield Missile, XM-28/29 (June 1963).

    • Thanks: Rufus Clyde
  65. @Ron Unz

    What I cannot understand is the malevolent level of hatred against Irving revealed by this unending, scorched earth, campaign against him. Within the past several years a Jewish couple, who’ve been lifelong friends, invited me to see a movie with them. Since we got together like this on a fairly regular basis I arranged to drive us all to the theater. It wasn’t until the movie started that I realized it was yet another attack on Irving. The movie turned out to be “Denial”, an over the top, propaganda piece about Irving’s ill-fated attempt to silence his knee-biting critic, the fifth-rate “historian”, Deborah Lipstadt, with a libel trial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd

    The background is that Lipstadt had seriously interfered with Irving’s career and livelihood as a historian by conducting a vicious campaign of threat and intimidation against his publishers. Part of this was a smear against Irving in a book of Lipstadt’s published by Penguin. Irving decided he would put a stop to this by suing Penguin and Lipstadt for libel in the UK. Irving refused to listen to friends who suggested that he was being set up. He paid a heavy price.

    Together, Penguin and Lipstadt spent something like $17 million – much of it provided by various Jewish organizations – on the best lawyers money could buy, a large team of researchers, and sympathetic “expert witnesses”. Irving paid his attorney out of his own pocket. The case was heard before a judge who was obviously unsympathetic to Irving and, I suspect, chosen to preside for precisely that reason. Ultimately, Penguin’s and Lipstadt’s research team found some errors, mostly minor, and but a crumb of Irving’s entire corpus. The judge used these an excuse to write a 350 page diatribe against Irving.

    The case bankrupted Irving. He was ultimately forced to sell his home and his collection of historical manuscripts, arguably one of the finest and most extensive troves of historical materials regarding Hitler and the Third Reich. The case’s outcome and the judge’s diatribe were used to unfairly tar Irving and ruin his up-to-then exemplary record as an essential historian. Lipstadt retired into obscurity as a punk historian but has made a career out of gloating over how she took Irving down, not a David and Goliath story but more like a pipsqueak lumber jack bragging about dynamiting the oldest Redwood in the forest.

    The movie turned out to be pure propaganda. The backstory was left out almost entirely. This left uninformed audience members with the impression that Lipstadt was a helpless warrior for truth and justice, single-handedly facing a depraved anti-Semite with limitless resources. Some of the propaganda was laughable. The actor portraying the tall, burly, and ruggedly handsome Irving was Timothy Spall, one of whose specialties is portraying unsympathetic characters, and who outdid himself in this case, portraying Irving as a hunched over, sniveling, near dwarf. The truly ogreish Lipstadt was played by the toothsome Rachel Weisz.

    When my friends asked my impression as we left the movie they clearly expected praise, little knowing that I’d read and appreciated some of Irving’s work. Diplomacy forbade a completely honest response. I told them that I was too overwhelmed for words.

  66. utu says:

    When Irving launched his career in 1960s he thought that he could do WWII history omitting Holocaust. At the same time the mainstream history of WWII was becoming more and more about Holocaust. The trajectory of mainstream history and Irving history were bound to cross. But it was Irving who bent his trajectory curve to get to the crossing point sooner by agreeing to be an expert witness at the trial of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel in 1988.

    At this point Irving became dangerous to history and mythology of Holocaust. This was the beginning of the end for Irving. The harassment by Jewish activists intensified, media became overtly critical of him and his earning began to decline. But still in 1992 his reputation was strong enough for Sunday Time of London to hire him to translate Goebbels diaries. This somewhat resuscitated his reputation at that point.

    But year later in 1993 Deborah Lipstadt ” Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory” was published in which Irving was listed among preeminent Holocaust deniers.

    Irving is denied entry to many countries. Irving is denied entry to archives. Irving career and earnings suffer.

    In 1996 David Irving sues Lipstadt and her publisher Penguin Books.

    What was he thinking? By two decisions in 1988 and 1996 Irving destroyed everything he worked for. If he stayed clear from Holocaust in which he was not really interested we still would have reputable though controversial historian that could tell us what other historians would not about WWII, about Churchill, Hitler…

  67. Schuetze says:
    @Ugetit

    IIRC Irving claimed that Hitler was very dismayed by the reaction of the German people to the assassination of vom Rath. Irving said that Hitler frantically called Himmler and ordered him to put a stop the protests immediately. I think Irving and others do a great disservice to the millions of white victims of Jewish Supremacists whenever they refer to these “peaceful protests” as “pogroms”.

    I also agree with you that likely that many of the Kristallnacht “incidents” were typical yid false flags. I also happen to be of the opinion that the Reichstag fire was also NOT an NSDAP false flag and also that the Geiwitz Incident really was a Polish attack and also NOT an NSDAP false flag.

    After all the lies that the ZOG allies made during and after the war that have been exposed over the decades, especially including Katyn forest and the gas chambers, it is my belief that Organized Jewry has lost all benefit of the doubt when it concerns their chosen narratives about WWII and the creation of Israel.

    This is one reason why I was so infuriated when Bobulinski revealed in the Tucker Carlson interview that the “Biden Family” brags about being able to get away with all their crime because of “plausible deniability”. Jews hide behind “plausible deniability” every time they deny some action that is consistent with what their Rabbi’s have written about goyim in the Talmud or the Protocols of Zion. If all these terrorist incidents during the war and its lead up were not instigated or performed by jews, then the burden of proof lies on them and not on the millions of Germans they raped, bombed, burned and murdered.

    • Thanks: Ugetit
  68. Guest145 says:
    @Schuetze

    David Irving speaking at the University of Alabama in the early 1990s:

    “I spoke in Berkeley, the University of Berkeley, just 6 to 8 days ago…and before I could speak, we had to witness this room that I was to speak in being TRASHED by 300 left-wing, Communist, Spartacist, Marxist, Jewish, homosexual, lesbian, and generally other rabble-rousing thugs, who came into that room and broke every chair, who smashed every table, who overturned the book tables on which my four or five hundred books had been set out, who trampled the books into the ground and smashed every cassette, videotape, and audio cassette. They did as much damage as they possibly could. They hospitalized several members of the audience who were taken away with blood streaming down their face. They beat them around their heads with the chair legs and table legs that they had ripped off the furniture. It was only 15 minutes later that the RIOT police finally arrived from Berkeley Campus Police and restored order, and, of course, this mob knew perfectly well what they were doing. I was able to examine what they were doing, and the tactics and the skill and the precision with which they carried out their destructive task. They had orders from somebody to intimidate me, to intimidate my audience, to intimidate the halls in which I speak and their owners, to put me out of business…So who puts the mob up to this? Who paid for their well-printed banners and placards? And who hired the thugs? None of them were students. Some of them were older than me. So who puts them up to it?”

    “…And that’s why they turn the mobs loose on us. That’s why somebody in Berkeley went out two or three days previous to my coming to Berkeley last week and hired the mob to come along and smash up the room and put me out of business. Because it doesn’t often happen there — not on this scale. Not with this degree of violence. Not with people being sent to prison. Because they want to hear somebody speak. It’s because the vital interests of a state in the Middle East are at stake…and, worst of all, they know that they can’t prove me wrong in the court of history. They know that they haven’t got a shred of evidence on their side…”

  69. @Beavertales

    What makes you think their position is precarious?

    • Agree: Rufus Clyde
  70. @utu

    In 1996 David Irving sues Lipstadt and her publisher Penguin Books.

    What was he thinking? By two decisions in 1988 and 1996 Irving destroyed everything he worked for. If he stayed clear from Holocaust in which he was not really interested we still would have reputable though controversial historian that could tell us what other historians would not about WWII, about Churchill, Hitler…

    One gets the impression that he developed a case of egomania, after all he is quite good at digging up primary sources, is fluent in German and is a skilled interlocutor, so perhaps he thought himself to be invincible and was convinced he could win the court case, even if the judges an system were against him. And a success in court would propel him to stardom as ‘The Man who Debunked the Holocaust’.

    It was obviously a massive blunder, there was no point in engaging with the nobody Lipstadt.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Rdm
  71. @Ghali

    I lived in Austria for several years, and I found it the most racist of all of Europe. Austria is in league with Israel, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungry and Slovakia. It is a bigoted, poor, and backward racist entity.

    Why did you find it ‘racist’? In what ways was it ‘poor’?

    • Replies: @Onan the Barbarian
  72. Slade says:
    @Ghali

    Why the young Muslims in UK and Germany choose violence to express their anger. Take a page from Zionist book, propaganda, and use information such as available on this site and pass on through social media. This would be non violent and beat the Zionists in their own game.

    Whenever I run into a young Muslim in UK or Germany, all I hear is how great is Islam or Islam is a peaceful religion. In my opinion, Islam is as violent as any other religion including Buddhism whose fake non violence showed up a few years ago in Burma against Hindus and Muslims. The imposter Dali Lama did not say any word about the killings.

    • Replies: @HeebHunter
    , @Ghali
  73. Ace says:
    @utu

    If only he had kowtowed to the Jews. Just play nice and it’s all smooth sailing for those with flexible opinions.

  74. Somewhat off-topic but David Irving has very recently released his Himmler biography, True Himmler and here is a nice sample of images from the book.

    • Thanks: Jus' Sayin'...
    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Schuetze
  75. @Rich

    ” I would never have bothered questioning the accepted “holocaust ” narrative if it hadn’t been for all the laws banning even discussion of the supposedly historical event.”

    That is something many of us have in common i believe🧐
    Making a opinion/history illegal increases peoples curiosity i guess.

    • Agree: Skeptikal
  76. Schuetze says:
    @Curmudgeon

    Thanks for the link, I had read that piece before and it is one reason Jews breaking windows under false pretenses gets my dander up.

    Upon re-reading the article, this paragraph caught my eye:

    “Moro Giafferi was well worth the fees LICA paid him as its legal counsel. He apparently enjoyed spectacular scenes. He had already achieved international renown at a mass meeting in Paris following the Berlin Reichstag fire of February 1933. Without knowing at all what had happened, he nevertheless delivered a spiteful speech against National Socialist Germany in which he accused Hermann Göring of setting the fire. In February 1936 Giafferi hurried to Davos, Switzerland, where the Jew David Frankfurter had shot and killed Wilhelm Gustloff, the head of the Swiss branch of the German National Socialist Party. During the subsequent trial it was clearly established that Frankfurter had been a hired murderer with backing from an unidentified but influential organization. All clues pointed to the LICA, but with Moro Giafferi as his defense counsel, Frankfurter remained silent about who, if anyone, had hired him. Amazingly enough, Frankfurter’s answers to questions about the shooting showed the same pattern as Grynszpan’s answers almost three years later after Giafferi arrived to help following the shooting of Ernst vom Rath.”

    Both Frankfurter and Grynspzan survived the war, and that both avoided execution due to their fancy jewish lawyer who also survived the war. This lawyer Giafferi had obviously been inciting anti-German hate for years and he survived too.

    But most significantly it shows how Jews had had a policy of murder and assassination of German officials and officers for at least a decade before the war got started. Of course Heydrich was also assassinated in Prague as were many other German officers once the jew stooges Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin got the war they were so horny for. “Rise up and Kill First” is the motto of the special forces of these despicable Jewish Supremacists, and the planet has centuries chock full of ample proof. I am certain the firebombing victims of Hamburg, Dresden and Pforzheim would concur.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
    , @Protogonus
  77. Rdm says:
    @utu

    So you’re saying, talk about the election without mentioning the competing candidates? 

    Talk about WWII, but don’t mention holocaust either you’re a believer or denier?

    • Replies: @L.K
  78. Tom Verso says:
    @Ron Unz

    Interestingly, just a few weeks back you were running articles about the Kennedy assassination and I was wondering:

    “Why post them now?”

    After your explanation above about posting the Irving articles, I think I understand why the Kennedy articles.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  79. Oemiktlob says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    Ha! I watched the movie for the 2nd time 3 days ago and everything about it is exactly how you describe.

    • Replies: @Dube
  80. @Anonymous

    Even John Keegan, one Britain’s greatest military historians of the 20th century has remarked that one cannot understand WWII without reading David Irving…

  81. Rdm says:
    @The Spirit of Enoch Powell

    well, to destroy the belief, you need to take on the pedestal. Lipstadt has been anointed with many awards and medals. She’s a spokesperson when it comes to 40 millions pains. She’s not from some rural town in Israel. She’s from the greatest country on this planet at the time, Uncle Sam. If you’re denying a pain as large as 50, 60 millions, even if the numbers don’t match up, you’re basically fighting the invisible million force.

    The very nation that’s supposed to protect her citizen was well underway to doom and gloom at the end of 20th century. But it’s natural that every drowning man will grab a grass even if it’s futile.

    If Irving just spent his life, denying millions deaths from Mao’s cultural revolution or one men standing at Tiannamen square, he would have been awarded as Chinese citizen right away and then he can take on Lipstadt in 21st century.

  82. Yngvar says:

    But I demand the Right to be Wrong!

    David Irving say it like it is.

  83. @Slade

    Sound like mentally healthy people who fight against foreign intervention at every step. Are we supposed to praise “Western” vaseline so we can get it raw as foreigners conquer our ethnic homelands?
    Fuck “democracy”, fuck modernity, fuck all kiked bullshit.

    • Replies: @slade
  84. Antiwar7 says:

    I think it’s clear from this illuminating article, not only that Irving was under a sustained, unfair, vicious attack by opponents who had no facts on their side (hence their insistence on ghosting, deplatforming, or imprisoning rather than debating), but that he also had a strong pugnacious streak. No doubt that’s where he got the fortitude and drive to burrow into so many archives and primary sources. But I think it also needlessly enraged people that had power over him, like those Italian carbinieri. If he had schmooze powers, and used his Italian, maybe he could have gotten them on his side.

    I’m not saying he wasn’t justified, and maybe they were all hopeless pricks. But perhaps a different skill set could have helped him out. At that time, and others.

  85. @Jus' Sayin'...

    What you should have told them is that the trial transcripts forever cement the HoyCo$t fable, showing that there is absolutely ZERO evidence for the nutty fables they claim.

    This might not be the PC response, but it is the factual one.

    @utu

    Quote When Irving launched his career in 1960s he thought that he could do WWII history omitting Holocaust. END QUOTE

    That is a lie. The HolyCo$t was not invented until 1978, with the NBC movie of the same name.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  86. Skeptikal says:
    @Sirius

    I wonder whether Britain would have turned back if anyone had had the prescience to see that Britain was going to lose its colonies basically (I think) after WW2.

    I don’t say that this was a *result* of WW2 as I don’t know to what extent that is true.

    It seems to me that the long-term trend must have been for Britain to deal with movements for decolonialization. If this was true, someone in Britain must have figured this out.

    And if such a Someone existed, this Someone must have wondered whether it was worthwhile to go to all the trouble of holding “lines” in areas of Central and Eastern Europe against Hitler where there were significant German communities. Afer all, Britain had already carried out in its colonies many policies not that different from those of the Third Reich.

    Just wondering . . .

    • Replies: @Sirius
    , @mocissepvis
  87. Skeptikal says:
    @Charles Carroll

    ” Herbert Hoover helped them immensely when he acquired almost all of the records of WW1 in exchange for food to starving European countries including the USSR in the 1920s.”

    This is the first time I am hearing about this.

    From whom did Hoover get the docs? From the US govt? Or Allied govts?

    How could he personally take control of such docs if the US govt provided food?

    Is there documentation of these transactions?

    • Replies: @Charles Carroll
  88. R2b says:
    @GeeBee

    You can count these too.
    Third, it was a done deal.
    No chance whatsoever, for Germania.
    I think they should have been more defensive.
    Not go for Moscow.
    And as you say, a most complicated passage in history,with many other possibilities.
    And then we have Dunkirk.
    Could have been made to a whole other scenario.
    The führer-prinzip was devastating.
    And how good a shape do you think the West is in now?
    It must be time for you, not to polarise, and see, that this is the result of the WW2.
    More important is, and the true origin of our predicament, the murder or General Patton.
    There you have the sign of what was going on.
    How many words?

    • Replies: @R2b
  89. tomo says:
    @Joe Paluka

    you are right about that – psychopaths are mostly just desperate – not smart.
    I’ve studied with and befriended many jews at several universities around the world (including Imperial College where Irving studied).
    They were never above average in anything (even though they were the geekiest and studied the most) – it’s a pure Jewish myth/fraud perpetuated by Pedowood and other predatory media they control.

    Their approach to life is perfectly illustrated by a joke a jewish friend told me once when we drove across Cuba together (and as soon as we met another jew from NY – they immediately teamed up against me for no reason and kind of ignored me – until the jew from NY left at which point my jewish friend from LA reverted to his normal ‘friendly’ behavior – another good insight into their mentality.

    The joke:
    a priest and a rabbi walk around town and see a bunch of boys. The priest says – let’s fuck those boys!
    The rabbi replies: Over what??!
    they are a hybrid of that priest and rabbi

    • Replies: @Boom Boom Kaboomski
  90. @Ron Unz

    There’s an even more egregious example I mentioned in my long World War II article. Pat Buchanan’s reasonably good 2008 book Churchill, Hitler, and the Necessary War…

    UNz misses an UN.

  91. Rdm says:
    @Boom Boom Kaboomski

    Not sure Ron got the sarcasm from Boom Boom Kaboomski on his take on Covid spread by the US.

  92. tomo says:
    @Ugetit

    yes ANYTHING – and the more sinister and unbelievable – the better – kind of like what Hitler said: when you lie – lie outrageously.
    Or Goebbels: always blame your victims for your own fraud and crimes…
    Psychopaths use this trick because most normal people find it very hard to believe that anyone would be so devious to lie so outrageously – that’s exactly why they use it – because it works.
    They always lie and never admit when caught – another similar trick they use on their victims/hosts because it works for the same reason as lying outrageously in extreme ways.

    • Replies: @Ugetit
  93. I do not believe in coincidence, however, synchronicity is another story, and here is an example. Over the past 18 months I have been purchasing Mr. Irving’s books. Just before coming over here to see what is happening at UNZ, I stopped to visit David Irving’s book store and purchased his book “The Destruction of Dresden”. It was pleasingly weird to see his article “Life Under Fire” republished today. I have read a few historical works and bio’s, but none of the authors present so much proof, nor do they do the leg work, and being so lacking rarely measure up to Mr. Irving’s standard of work. As someone who is very familiar with his writings I can say; he is not anti-sematic. He just calls it as he found it in: state records, diaries, and interviews, which he meticulously notes.
    If you wish to buy one, or more, of his works, please do so directly from his website. There you can form a personal relationship with the caretaker, your emails will be answered, and you avoid any interference from above. here’s a link: https://irvingbooks.com/
    I can attest to the effectiveness of his detractors. I tried to introduce my brother, who is a well educated man, to David’s work. His immediate reaction was to call him an anti-Semite, with a mission. I asked if he has read anything published by Mr. Irving, and of course he said no. Read his work. Then judge.

    • Thanks: Ugetit
  94. Skeptikal says:
    @Ghali

    I don’t find Austria to be a poor, backward county.
    Au contraire, Austria has some of the world’s best food and alcoholic beverages (wine, liqueurs, spirits)/countryside/architecture/ music/museums/ lakes/ social services/medicine / train services/ski areas/education/ hiking/ parks (including beautiful municipal parks in virtually every municipality of any size)/ Kaffeehaueser/ markets for fresh food/ rivers/ and all electric and telephone wires are buried underground so the countryside is not uglified by poles and wires. Among many other things. Did I mention pastries??

    Where in Austria did you fetch up, Ghali?? Perhaps you are referring to the fact that there are many regions of traditional villages still where people have traditional mores. Sometimes things can schieffgehen, but this is true in any rural countryside, including that of the USA.

    Many Austrians are racists; many are not. About like the USA, I suppose. Many “Austrians” are Czechs, Poles, Slovenes, Hungarians, Romanians, oh, and regular Austrians from the core Austrian countryside.

    If Austria is backward, please, give me more “backward”! Servus!

    this is not meant to speak in favor of anything that was done to Irving in Austria.

    Just to counter what seems to me like an odd characterization of the country.

    • Replies: @Ghali
  95. R2b says:
    @Alfred Muscaria

    It is a great difference, being offensive or more defensive.
    The former requires more resources.
    But then again.
    We have this Hoover thing.
    It was a done deal.
    No way out.
    Why exhaust on two fronts, and one surely offensive?
    Many things could have played out differently, with a more realistic wiew, than that of Hitler.

  96. @Ron Unz

    “For, as I take it, to lie is to affirm that to be true which is false; so as the other artists, and especially the historian, affirming many things, can, in the cloudy knowledge of mankind, hardly escape from many lies.”

    Philip Sidney, The Defense of Poesy

  97. Libby says:

    There are some racist elements in Austria but overall more tolerant than Hungarians, Poles and Sylvanian. Austrians dont have chip on their shoulders like Poles.

    • Agree: Skeptikal
    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    , @mocissepvis
  98. R2b says:
    @HdC

    You mean to some of those few countries that has no Roth-bank?
    Anyway, as I responded to others, I am convinced that a more defensive, and realistic approach, would have played out better.
    Some of the Generals, where skeptical to Hitlers strategy.
    Fact is, now we already speak covid-russian, and entering communist covid-heaven, Big-time
    Have you notised?

    • Replies: @R2b
  99. Just today I drove through Nairn in Scotland where I believe David might still live. Tempted to check him out but I guess he moved to that remote location for privacy. Such a brave and honourable man ruined by the insane decision to sue Deborah Lipstatt. Did he really think he was going to win against a Jewish woman in a Western court on an issue like the Holocau$t™?

    • Agree: utu, Rogue
  100. Ugetit says:
    @tomo

    Or Goebbels: always blame your victims for your own fraud and crimes…

    Did Goebbels really say that? I doubt it, so reference, please.

    I know others who did though.:

    “Blame others for your own sins.”

    -J. V Stalin, Anarchism Or Socialism ? December, 1906 — January, 1907
    https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm

    Churchill Blames His Victims for Greek Slaughter

    -John Hanson, title, 1940
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/hansen/1945/01/greece5.html

    “The crime which the Lovestoneites commit in creating illusions about peace under capitalism is the one they accuse us of in advocating our economic demands. But we are not at all guilty of their crime….”

    – Joseph Hansen, Lovestone Weeps with Pity for the Bankers, Socialist Appeal, Vol. IV No. 11, 16 March 1940, p. 4. (A Communist complaining of the calumniations leveled at them by other Commies, reminiscent of what “various “Christian” sects have to say about one another.)
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/hansen/1940/03/lovestone.html

    You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

    -Romans 2:1

    • Thanks: R2b
    • Replies: @tomo
  101. Dube says:
    @Sirius

    By the early 1900s, Britain had viewed Germany as the greatest threat to its dominant position in the world. Arguably Britain entered the First World War for that very reason, to block Germany’s rise and cut it down to size.

    So the second time around, once Germany crossed a certain line, it was inevitable that Britain would oppose Germany. That line was defined in 1939 as the invasion of Poland.

    Thanks for expressing this indispensable understanding. The behavior of individual figures is of interest, but not without this context.

    • Agree: Ugetit
  102. That’s the difference between being an author and being a journalist. When I write a book it goes into a library and stays there — especially if it’s on acid-free paper.

    Unfortunately, this is a badly misinformed belief.

    A recent search of an extensive inter-library catalog reveals that David Irving’s books have been almost completely “disappeared” from libraries, with the exception of those of a few universities.

    Pulping offending books is much easier than burning them.

    As an independent scholar, I have found myself unconvinced by numerous of his interpretations, but have been always grateful for his aggressive primary research.

  103. R2b says:
    @R2b

    The murder OF, it should be.
    That is, the murder of General George Smith Patton.
    Killed by Douglas Bazata.
    On the orders of William Joseph ”Wild Bill” Donovan.
    According to Ralph Epperson, among others.
    He could have taken Berlin.
    Crushed the Russians.
    And become the President of The United States of America.
    Instead of you know (((whom))).
    Just think about the Rhine meadows!
    Not what Patton would have done.

    • Replies: @R2b
  104. R2b says:
    @R2b

    It should of course be NOTICED.
    And when I’m at it.
    Russia is another country now.
    So it is a little bit unfair, caracterizing Cov-speak as russian.
    Maybe SovCov, or CovIntern?
    Better still Covid1984.

  105. @Rich

    It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.
    Thomas Jefferson

  106. @tomo

    I’ve got one:

    A banker, a communist, and a satanist walk into a bar. The bartender says, “What are you having, Shlomo?”

    Thank you, I’m here all week.

    • Thanks: tomo
  107. @Carlton Meyer

    I don’t understand the attitude of respect and hero worship for this fat bum. He caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of British, he almost single handedly caused the loss of the British Empire and he had no essentially redeeming qualities but his big mouth, which few people, even English, could understand over the radio. .LOL In all honesty, Hitler, as a soldier in the first world war, highly decorated for bravery, shot in the knee and gassed twice, always agreeing to the most dangerous of assignments, outshined Churchill by a mile. He had the true soldiers spirit and as a corporal was referred to as the “drummer”, in his ability to motivate people by his patriotic banter..

  108. Skeptikal says:
    @Schuetze

    ” Irving said that Hitler frantically called Himmler and ordered him to put a stop the protests immediately. ”

    My understanding is that the reason Hitler was incensed was because the early “pogroms” or actions or whatever you want to call them were the result of local “freelancing,” not of centrally made policy and not backed up by laws. Hitler wanted his racial policy to be buttressed by the law of the land.

    That is why a whole series of laws was passed that progressively excluded Jews from public life of any sort, business, the professions, etc. By the middle and late thirties it was a carrot-and-stick operation (mostly stick, except for going to Palestine) to induce Jews to leave Germany (and leave their money behind). Recall, there really were not that many Jews in Germany. Maybe 500,000.

    If Hitler had stuck to Germany he might have succeeded in ridding Germany of Jews. (Although not all Jewish Germans had enough cash or contacts to leave.) From this point of view he kind of blew it by getting himself entangled in France, Poland, and Russia. Not to mention North Africa, the Balkans, etc.

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  109. @Ron Unz

    Hilarious.

    “was acknowledged as the world’s preeminent expert on Hitler”

    That is the first time I have seen that phrase.

    Apparently nobody has heard of Joachim Fest or any of about a dozen authors who published about Hitler before Irving’s Hitler’s War.

    These Irving threads are always a collection of deluded straw man arguments. Including Irving’s presented here in the main article and Ron Unz’. Highly entertaining, however. Thank you, David.

  110. Ghali says:
    @Skeptikal

    Actually, most Austrians I met were decent. I mean the Austria state system is very racist. Since the death of former Chancellor Bruno Kriesky, Austria went downhill. Austria is an ardent supporter of the Israeli fascist regime. And as alaways, It is in US coalition of war criminals. The current Austrian regime a Nazi-like regime.

    Economically (compared with Switzerland and Lichtenstein and Scandinavia), Austria is poor and depends on loans from the IMF, WB and Germany. Austria produces nothing and tis main economy is tourism. Outside Vienna, Innsbruck and Gratz, Austria is still a rural backward country.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  111. Skeptikal says:
    @Libby

    It might because they have a much nicer country than the Poles. Luck of the draw . . .

  112. @utu

    Well said. Great analysis. If only Irving was self-aware and honest enough to see this. I suspect he does, but has gotten comfortable milking this victim thing.

    • Agree: Sean
    • Replies: @Boom Boom Kaboomski
  113. Ghali says:
    @Slade

    Forget about religion and try to use your (F**ing) brain to analyse why Muslims are described as “violent” by people like you and your friend Netanyahu. In reality, Muslims and Islam are NOT violent. To the contrary, they are peaceful. In the last 20 yeras, at least 6 million Muslims (mostly women and children) have been murdered (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen etc.) by U.S.-led Western Christian terrorists, including uneducated illeterate UKers like you. Who is the violent? What you and your ilk describe as violence is in fact Resistance against Western terror.

  114. Skeptikal says:

    Unz said, ” who up until the Jewish holy war against him was acknowledged as the world’s preeminent expert on Hitler and a leading historian of the Third Reich”

    I have not read all of the books on Hitler and the Third Reich. I confess also to not have read any of Irving’s, although I shall do so.

    But as for books in English, if Irving is fluent in German that already gives him a big boost as against some of the English canon on Hitler and the war.

    I tried to read Ian Kershaw’s book(s)—started with the first—and found it unreadable. The writing style was terrible and I guess the publisher didn’t dare have someone edit his writing. IIRC most of his documentation was secondary sources.

    More irritating, though, was the “filter” through which Hitler’s early life was viewed and presented. That is the filter of all that we knew came after. That is too easy. It gets to be annoying. A good biographer has to bring a “virgin” mind to the subject and take the subject on his or her own terms as the life unfolds.

    So, even though reams of books have been written on Hitler and WW2 (just in English and German; then there is French, Russian, Italian, etc.), it is still possible that Irving was considered preeminent and a leader among English-language historians if he actually plumbed sources and archives that others did not, and translated them for English and other non-German-speaking readers.

  115. zimriel says:
    @The Spirit of Enoch Powell

    Also, revisionists (that is, real investigative historians) already have our “Irving David”. He’s David Cole.

    • Replies: @Zumbuddi
  116. tomo says:
    @Ugetit

    I’ve seen this quote:

    accuse the other side of that which you are guilty

    IT’s an old psychopaths’ trick used worldwide

  117. Pre qualification: I have attended DI lectures in Canada at least a dozen times. I have purchased and read at least a dozen of his books. I have had more than several e-mail conversations with him.

    His contributions to WW2 historiography are immense. Personally I am most impressed by his industry. Though I find his books difficult to plod through because he does not have the literary gifts that say a John Keegan or William Manchester has, I also understand that a ‘documentary historian’
    can be excused from having to be a wordsmith.

    Having said that it is my opinion that his setbacks, or his demise can be roughly delineated as:

    50% due to “the enemies of free speech” (his designation)

    50% due to his enormous and unchecked ego.

    Hubris destroys almost every (great) man afflicted by it.

    As some contributors upstream pointed out he did capitulate to some ‘H-lite” which could be excusable because he had his very existence to deal with but I suspect that hubris played a part in thinking that he could sway his sheep away from unpleasant facts in due time.

    Unfortunately it was not to be as his last forays in his traveling show throughout the United States proved . The people who post about him as if he were Odin have not met the man, read the transcripts of the Lipstadt trial or investigated any part of his real life.

    Having said that I sincerely hope that some of his early followers have bequeathed considerations to him in their wills such that maybe some justice will be served for all his efforts and courage and he sees his final years through in comfort.

    If truth is to be the hallmark of this site then all aspects have to be considered. ” No man is a hero to their valet” is one of my favorite proverbs.

    Cheers-

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  118. @The Spirit of Enoch Powell

    Thanks, didn’t know the book was out. But what a farce, it’s nothing like the book Irving claimed to be writing for the past 20 years, wherein he promised to show Himmler to be the true perpetrator of the “Holocaust” by putting to death over two million Jews in gas chambers in the “Aktion Reinhardt” camps without Hitler’s knowledge. I and many others knew he would never make that work and said so many times.

    David Irving – a compulsive Liar. You said it yourself earlier: he has a case of egomania. But he didn’t just develop it after his arrest in Austria; he’s had it since childhood.

    The book description on his site says it’s comprised of “private papers, letters and diaries.” Doesn’t this sound a lot like survivor stories and memories to prove the death camps? No mention of the Koherr Report that he was previously hyping. He’s relying on his army of fans (in evidence here) to overlook his lies and bs… and they will. Another insult: the book comes in two parts (LOL) so you will have to wait and buy a second one for $66, or maybe even more, to get the whole story!

    Hasn’t there been talk that Irving has some Jewish blood?

    • Agree: L.K
    • Replies: @Timur The Lame
  119. https://www.bitchute.com/video/a9GZV26FxGgm/

    In the video above, Rabbi says Jews are the superior race and must rule the world.

    If a goy nation welcomes Jews and let Jews take over, it will be blessed.

    If a goy nation rejects Jews, it will be damned.

    But, Palestinians took in lots of Jewish Immigrants. How come they got erased?

    After WWII, Europe and US became so nice toward Jews. How come they are facing the Great Replacement?

    These Jews…

    • Thanks: Katrinka
    • Replies: @libby
  120. Incitatus says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    “Within the last year I saw a new book prominently displayed in my local public library, which was advertised as the definitive biography of Adolph Hitler. The book was nearly one thousand pages in length so I had no intention of reading it.”

    Peter Longerich’s ‘Hitler: A Biography’ (965-page Text, 1213 with Notes, 1285 with Bibliography)? True it doesn’t mention Irving – but the 72 page Bibliography names many, many other sources (many German and original).

    Obviously, you’re not referring to Volker Ullrich’s ‘Downfall’ (second/final volume in his biography) also published this year. Text a modest 632 pages, Notes an additional 147 pages, Bibliography 20 pages. Ullrich cites Irving’s “’Hitler und seine Feldherren’, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin and Vienna 1975” (page 801). Go figure!

    Given your aversion to pages in your quest for truth, DO NOT, under any circumstance, entertain reading Alan Bullock’s ‘’Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives’. It sports a 980-page text, 32 pages of Notes, 22-page Bibliography. Enlightening, but a real killer for Unzers like yourself depending on brevity (and Ron as well).

    Stick to cult-worship of Irving (if you ever really read him – doubt it) and meantime – helpful hint – try to spell your hero’s given name (“Adolph”) correctly (Adolf).

  121. Skeptikal says:
    @Ghali

    Ghali, I don’t really want to argue because I am not an expert on Austria, although I do know the country fairly well.

    However, re “Austria produces nothing” I think that is just incorrect. Austria has a pretty high standard of living, also in remote areas.

    To make it easy:
    https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-are-the-biggest-industries-in-austria.html

    Perhaps you have a fixed idea regarding the types of products that must be “produced” in order for a country to be seen to “produce” something. Such a particular forms of heavy industry. Or, 5G all over the place or access to broadband. Very possibly mountainous areas do not have good broadband access.

    Does Britain have a major wine industry? No. Does Austria? Yes.

    Austria is a major producer of hydropower.

    Salt is still mined in Austria. some other mines are petering out, although some minerals till have considerable ec. importance. Pretty much wherever you have mountains you will have mines. But how much nicer to ski down mountains rather than blow them up.

    And what is wrong with a tourist industry? Much more environmentally friendly than mining. The Austrians I know are happy with and savor their way of life and what their country and culture offers them. They are Austrian, not “world citizens,” even when very well traveled.

    Some of Austria’s signal industries have disappeared, it is true, under competition from I guess third world countries.
    For example, Austria had a prominent textile industry that was known for the high quality of its products, both textiles and finished products: cottons, linen, silks, specialized woolens (Vienna was the home of fashionable knitware). Quality of “everyday” linens was also excellent. Of course the fibers were not grown in Austria (except for wool). These was a high-value-added industry that also supported the highly developed fashion industry. Lots of Jews in textiles and fashion . . . But on my first extended trip to Austria, in the late 1980s, you could get very high-quality textile goods. On my most recent trip, not so much. I have museum quality silk scarves and other textiles that I bought in the 1980s that are beyond compare with anything available anywhere now.

    This question of “Austria is poor and produces nothing” came up in connection with racism/antisemitism in Austria. I don’t think Austria is particularly anti-Semitic but because of the WW2 history the country is under a magnifying glass internationally. Many people know practically zero about Austria but feel themselves qualified to weigh in self-righteously if they think they detect a smigeon of “back slipping.” I think this may partly explain the draconian actiion taken against Irving. Austria and Germany are constantly having to “prove” themselves to the international community (whatever that is, just using that as shorthand).

  122. Ron Unz says:
    @Johnny Rico

    “was acknowledged as the world’s preeminent expert on Hitler”

    That is the first time I have seen that phrase.

    If you’ll notice I was blockquoting from another commenter’s statement. So assuming you’ve read the thread, that’s obviously the *second* time you saw it. I’m not entirely sure I’d go that far, though I wouldn’t strongly dispute it either.

    Apparently nobody has heard of Joachim Fest or any of about a dozen authors who published about Hitler before Irving’s Hitler’s War.

    Actually, I read Fest’s book around 1980, just a few years after it appeared in English, and was extremely impressed, considering it far superior to Bullock’s standard work. However, I’d certainly rank Irving’s above it. The much more recent Stolfi book was very good as well. Since I’m not a Hitler specialist, that’s about the limit of my readings.

  123. Ron Unz says:
    @utu

    What was he thinking? By two decisions in 1988 and 1996 Irving destroyed everything he worked for. If he stayed clear from Holocaust in which he was not really interested we still would have reputable though controversial historian that could tell us what other historians would not about WWII, about Churchill, Hitler…

    Hmmm… According to Irving, he did “stay clear” of the Holocaust in his big Hitler book, but his agent strongly urged him to add 15 pages on the subject to obtain an extra million dollars in revenue. When Irving said, he hadn’t found any documents on the Holocaust, the fellow suggested he should just invent them. When he decided not to do so, decades of attacks and vilification soon began, ultimately leading to his destruction.

    So what do you think Irving should have done?

  124. @Jus' Sayin'...

    Looking at pictures of the two women, I have to say the jews are trolling us hard. Yes you expect an attractive woman to play the gargoyle Lipstadt,but using Weisz is a joke.

  125. @Ghali

    Muslims are violent, but not because they are Muslim, but because of their racial characteristics.

    Why do you insist on peddling lies about peaceful Muslims? I don’t think any group can really claim to be peaceful, least of all Muslims, if not their terrorist attacks against civilians then their propensity for criminality puts lie to this claim of peacefulness.

    Muslims must be second to only the Jews in their chutzpah abilities, this is why there is a strategic convergence between the two groups, Jews get Palestine in exchange for Muslims getting Europe and other White countries.

  126. Hitler was a true romantic that opposed reason and intellectualism, and just wanted people to feel their emotions and act based on reasonless mob rule, raw emotion, and brute force. Who knew that it would be such a Hansel and Gretel fairey tale dream come true of romanitically shoving people in ovens just like Hansel and Gretel, and invading other countries and bombing them. Yes. Hitler’s policies are revered and systematically enforced by some Jews, particularly in Israel, except that they made an exception for Jews in that case. What about the people that are not Jews though that are responsible for these problems? Ultimately, it boils down to the government. The United States government, financial sector, and corporations are wrought with corruption, and Muslims were supposedly the Guilty religion after 9/11 which again turned out to be government, corporations, and the financial sector. So, it is obviously the Jews fault and not the governments, corporations, and financial sector’s fault, Because if the Jews are the problem, then everyone else in those institutions are therefore not the problem, and the Jews are the smallest percent of the population, and yes, the wealthiest people in America are all Jewish, which the government not only permitted, but enabled and profiteered from. The force that must be reckoned with that is destructive is the stock market. Bring back the sanity when failures were allowed to fail, and not bailed out, like it was in 1987! The majority of the bailout money heads straight to China anyways, through the Pentagon, Treasury, Wall Street money laundering circuit, also permited by our government through all of the 1993-2020 deregulation, and the 1987 deregulation that allowed the Plunge Protection Team, that when first mentioned on CNBC years ago, produced jaw dropping results by the commentators, like, did they just mention that? People aren’t supposed to talk about that. It has to stop! The lying has to stop! It is not only the Jews that are lying. Your solution is a fall guy, obviously! A fall guy for the gross negligence and corruption that has destroyed our country! Well, it happened prior to the Great Depression too, and Morgan, Rockefeller, and Mellon were not Jews. The stock market is the problem! It is the entire concept of the stock market that is the problem! It s criminogenic by its very nature, and if it was run by Jesuits, ( Monteponci ) or Japanese, or Chinese, or Mexicans, ir would produce results equally as bad, and of course during the roaring twenties WASPS were in control. It’s like saying, I lost my money at a Jewish cassino, damned Jew! I will only go to a Christian cassino from now on. The idea is stupid as hell!

    This is history repeating! Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it! It didn’t work out for Hitler, and it won’t work out for you, so you can choise to specialize in being wrong if it pleases you, but being right matters!


    Andrea Iravani

  127. Judaism is not a religion, it’s a catastrophe. Read the old testament : the epitaph of humanity.

    • Agree: Druid55
  128. Petermx says:
    @Ghali

    I agree. There was a controversial book called The Israel Lobby written by two prominent professors from Harvard and University of Chicago (Walt and Mearsheimer) about 15 years ago. They had a heck of a time getting it published because of the stranglehold Jews have on the publishing industry in the US and the two professors give great detail on the stranglehold “the Zionist lobby” has on American foreign policy and the professors conclude that most of the problems the US has with Muslims, including all the “terrorism” is because the US pokes its nose into the Arab-Israeli dispute on the side of the Israelis. Several American Senators have said the same thing and I think many Americans realized that 50 years ago already (my father did) but people won’t say it publicly so they can keep their jobs and not be called an “anti-Semite” or something else by temperamental Jews.

    It has been a gradual progression of greater involvement by the US into the Arab-Israeli dispute with maybe the US involvement in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war on the side of Israel that led to all the violence between the US and Arabs since then, It is a testament to Jewish power that despite it being obvious that the US causes immense problems for itself and the rest of the world with this foreign policy, they continue to do it. Osama Bin Laden also complained of US policy against Palestinians.

    In 1973 OPEC embargoed the USA and jacked up oil prices so the whole world felt it since then. There were long lines at gas stations across the US and the fact this problem was brought on the US by its own actions to help a country of about 2 million people at the time (Israel) was not even discussed in the media. If it had been, many Americans would ask why the US would bring such problems onto themselves and the world over such a small country.

  129. @Ron Unz

    So what do you think Irving should have done?

    He should not have sued Lipstadt for libel, as utu says, Irving’s reputation was not that badly hit after Hitler’s War and he was still getting gigs from The Sunday Times as late as 1992.

    I think he got far too cocky, listening to him speak he comes across as very eloquent and charming, he must have deluded himself into thinking he could sweet talk the judges like he did with his audiences, but of course it didn’t work out well. Both those things (Zundel and Lipstadt Trials) were unforced errors on his part. This is made worse by how he later regretted this and tried to get back into the fray by going with Holocaust-lite, the Einsatzgruppen orchestrated ‘Holocaust by Bullets’, the claimed scale of which is very questionable, as well as the fact that many killed on the Eastern Front were done to death by not the SS, but the NKVD, even months after the surrender had been signed by Jodl in Berlin, the NKVD were conducting mopping-up operations in the captured territories.

    • Agree: Ron Unz
  130. @Pindos

    You are correct Sir. In one of his speeches, David Irving told his audience his publisher lamented that his name is not Irving David. If it were then the calumny Jews directed against him would not be so severe. I never intended to take credit for the quip but hoped readers would recognize David Irving as the source. If you still don’t believe me, maybe I could change my name to Chris Wallace in Cackalacky to tamp down some of your anger and distrust.

  131. @Schuetze

    I’m amazed! My mind just exploded! I had to scrape my brains off the walls and put them back. Whatever anyone ever said about the absence of evidence of huge numbers of Jewish deaths in Poland, I knew as a matter of certainty that Kristallnacht happened. I read a book, from memory In Hitler’s Germany, personal recollections of a man who’d witnessed the vandalism of the Jewish apartment on the ground floor of the “house” he was living in, and then went out onto the street and saw it everywhere, put his arm around a Jewish woman in the street with kids to save her and them from the raging vandals, and now I learn that that was all fake! All done by Jews! A hugely organized false-flag attack! Opposed by Hitler! Wow! WOW!!!

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    , @Ugetit
  132. @Skeptikal

    Prior to National Socialist Germany there were 300,000 Jews in Germany, and they had purchased almost all mercantile exchange ability for pennies during the German Hyper-inflation of the late 1920’s.

    While there certainly were some instances of German confiscation of Jewish property, any Jew that wanted to leave Germany for Palestine was welcome to participate in the Haavara agreement, where German Jews were paid for their property in Palestine.

    And let’s be clear; war was forced on Germany, and not the other way around

    • Thanks: Ugetit
  133. @gotmituns

    The US Air Force should have just killed everyone in their homes in North Vietnam, as it is the God-given right of Americans to kill anyone they choose outside the US, right? Clearly there are some things you don’t bother to question.

  134. @Ace

    Incredible! You went into Cambodia and that secured the Delta? Are you the reincarnation of Alexander the Great? But seriously, “scum” can’t do justice to describe somebody who believes that any American had a right to harm anybody in SE Asia. The R2P vermin who blew up Libya are only the most recent inheritors of your garbage imperialist beliefs. Do you find that your feet hurt when you wear shoes, because you sure don’t seem to know your left from your right. Never stop derping!

    • Replies: @Ace
  135. @Timur The Lame

    The people who post about him as if he were Odin have not met the man, read the transcripts of the Lipstadt trial

    Well, I have read the transcripts, and what is your argument? Irving is a lion, a man who single-handedly faced off against Jewish power and although the judge declared him guilty of Heresy, the transcripts prove the exact opposite.

    I don’t care what he wimped out about later. I agree with some posters that he is wrong about some of his later writings. I don’t agree this erases his contributions to real history, and his courage for most of his life.

    David Irving is a giant in a world of Pygmies. I wish I first wrote that, but I didn’t.

    • Replies: @Timur The Lame
  136. utu says:
    @Ron Unz

    “So what do you think Irving should have done?” – More important question is what he should not have done? Certainly he should have stayed away from the Holocaust denial. A loss of earnings because he was dropped by a major publisher should not have been a reason to lend his name and reputation to Zundel. It is understandable on the psychological level as na act of defiance and as his hubris but it was against his interest and his long term mission as a historian of WWII, Hitler and Nazi Germany. If he at that point wanted to go all the way and decided to become a historian of Holocaust in order to revise and deconstruct it that would be understandable. But this was not the case. What are his contributions to Holocaust revisionism apart from this claim that no paper trail to Hitler was found? The pressure against him intensified and again his response was to valiantly charge against the machine guns nests by suing Deborah Lipstadt eight years after the Zundel trial. In a just world it was a right decision but in the real world it was a decision of person lacking good judgment, a person who has no concern for his family, friends, his readers and his legacy.

  137. anon[428] • Disclaimer says:
    @John Wear

    Hitler had a fascination with British empire and royals .It was an extreme infatuation He wanted to be accepted by British as a statesman and as a leader and Germany as a power working with British agents Soviet .
    The infatuation did a number on him .

    Russia should learn from that mistake infatuation and desire.

    • Replies: @HeebHunter
  138. @The Spirit of Enoch Powell

    My friend, I normally agree with your posts. In this case I don’t.

    You are speaking about this trial as though it was something normal. Something gentlemen disagree about, and will settle in the form of reasoned law and evidence. Nothing could be further from the present day reality.

    David Irving’s did and does make a mistake about the “holyco$t-lite”. I can’t explain or speculate as to why he did this, but the Irving v Lipstadt trial was not one of his mistakes. It was a victory that will last long after we are dust.

    Best

    • Replies: @Boom Boom Kaboomski
  139. Petermx says:
    @Ghali

    Unfortunately, Germany and Austria are what Mr. Irving calls “puppet states” and they are forced to follow the lead of the US and Great Britain in regards to the Jews and many other things. I would think anyone would understand that. While being prosperous countries, there are many things Germans and Austrians are forced to do by the WW II victors. They can’t even speak up on their own behalf.

    It does amaze me how ungrateful some Arabs are. Of course, the whole world calls Germans racist and Arabs just jump on the bandwagon, even when the Germans welcome millions of Arabs into their countries. It’s unbelievably stupid for any country to welcome millions of foreigners from a different culture into their countries and only Europe and other white countries do it. And because these countries push this narrative, calling themselves racist, foreigners coming to these countries say the same thing. No one would dare demand Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia or other Arab countries open their borders and those countries would rightfully tell anyone saying such a thing to get lost and don’t come back.

    Despite Europe’s decline starting maybe 30 years ago after its rise to prosperity after rebuilding after WW II, Austria is still a very prosperous country and its capital Vienna is continuously recognized, year after year, as the city with the best quality of life (highest standard of living) in the entire world. That shows they are one of the most advanced countries in the world. Its other cities were similarly very beautiful the last time I was there many years ago. Austria is a very advanced country and not backwards at all. It has always been advanced.

    Here is the 2019 Quality of Life rankings by Mercer. Vienna is named the city with the highest standard of living (measuring education, healthcare, crime, safety, culture, etc.) in the world once again. Anyone that calls Austria backwards doesn’t know what he’s talking about. In fact, 6 of the top 10 cities are German speaking cities from Germany, Switzerland and Austria.

    https://mobilityexchange.mercer.com/insights/quality-of-living-rankings

    According to US News and World Report Austria has the 11th best Quality of Life in the world. It is one of the most prosperous countries in the world.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings

    I doubt these countries will remain prosperous if they continue to follow such self defeating policies as they have for at least the last 50 years.

  140. @anon

    It is true. The Great Leader’s foolish love that brought him down is the reason why I have, thanks the Almighty, return to ethnic nationalism as a natural way of life and belief, not just ideology.

    Uncle Adolf was infected by what was clearly the first strain of this huwite nationalism crap, which instilled in him the thought that “these anglo elites are such hardcore rayciss, they must like me”. Thankfully only Himmler was going around doing bizarre race mixing experiment, everyone else in the faction were sane, rooted Europeans of various ethnicities.

    There is no huwite, yellow or black race. The world is actually much more diverse than that, and this is what the kikes fear. Reducing and diminishing the heritages of all Völker is always the first attack vector of the kikes, then comes economic domination. Then the extermination. But they won’t achieve it anywhere without a nuke this time. And if any nuke flies, it will have their curly hair and nose slime all over it.

  141. Ron Unz says:
    @Tom Verso

    Interestingly, just a few weeks back you were running articles about the Kennedy assassination and I was wondering:

    “Why post them now?”

    After your explanation above about posting the Irving articles, I think I understand why the Kennedy articles.

    Actually, it was mostly a different factor…

    That high-profile assassination of a top Iranian scientist by Israel had been very much in the news, and I ended up leaving a comment on one of the related articles:

    It seems to me that one potentially counter-productive aspect of all these recent high-profile Israeli assassinations in Iran is that they may gradually draw renewed attention to aspects of various past very high-profile assassinations and such, both in the US and elsewhere, that perhaps might result in political developments not necessarily to Israel’s benefit:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-mossad-assassinations/

    After all, if somebody constantly goes around making it very clear how extremely bold and effective they are at certain types of actions, people may naturally begin to wonder if such boldness and effectiveness may have been true in the past as well…

    https://www.unz.com/ldinh/next-month-in-jerusalem/#comment-4309783

    That and the JFK assassination anniversary which had just occurred a few days earlier, made me think it was a good opportunity to refocus attention on the subject, further boosted by the new JFK assassination article one of my writers soon sent me.

    • Thanks: Tom Verso
  142. mcohen says:

    I had never heard of dave irving till I googled him and came up with a black ex nfl player who got suspended and now advocates for marijuana.
    I was confused so I searched again and came up with a white guy who got jailed for holocaust deny and now pimps for neo nazi’s.

    Whats the moral.deal in hate and you get hated.deal in marijuana and you get high.

    White Irving was onto a good thing and making big bucks and then started selling hate and lost it all.

    Let this be a good lesson to those you choose the hate path.A short thought….

    there are those,who in times of plenty make sacrifices to the corn god.
    these are the good years filled with the first and second rains.

    the rains cease and hunger and despair  demand the sacrifices of human hearts to the god of blood and gold.

    then there are those who look to the skies and choose to follow the rains as they move across the earth.they make no sacrifices to the gods.

    they have no need for them.

    • Troll: mocissepvis
  143. @mcohen

    Lol, Irving was in no way a National Socialist or fascist, even before he made concession with the Holohoax. Even then, hate is absolutely natural. When love exists, so must hate. Only a sterile, subhuman being would not know hate. But we all know that is what you want to turn us into, right?
    Remember that the hippy sign is the death rune.

    You want to talk about hate, look at Pissrael first, “McCohen”.

    • Replies: @Dingo bay rum
  144. @Genrick Yagoda

    Apart from the wisdom of initiating a suit he was likely to lose (for which he has his ego to blame), the premise of the suit was a validation of a liberal centerpiece, namely that “Holocaust denial” is the worst thing you can be accused of, and therefore you must strenuously affirm your “innocence”. Never grant the basis of your opponent’s arguments, it’s a guaranteed losing position. There is no doubt he should have just ignored this obnoxious bitch, and he has no one to blame but himself for the outcome.

  145. L.K says:
    @Rdm

    Just so you and others know, Utu is a fanatical holocaust propagandist here at UNZ.

    There is an electronic RECORD of his/her attacks on holocaust revisionism, which he/she hates and calls it holocaust “denial”.

    His/her record in past threads reveals this clown believes or pretends to believe in all of the holocaust propaganda, even the Auschwitz BS.

    Evidently this ‘utu’ has never even bothered to read any of the abundant holocaust revisionist literature but has felt the need to promote a certain gutter level anti-revisionist website and their ludicrous sophistry. The website is made up by a bunch of losers, who are nobodies in the highly corrupt field of holocaust ‘studies’, since the heavyweights know only too well what would happen if they actually engaged the revisionists on the field of intellectual discussion.

    Re WW2 more broadly, ‘utu’ has often demonstrated it goes along with much- but not all – of the official narrative.

    • Thanks: Rdm
    • Replies: @HeebHunter
  146. Other than David Irving and Ernst Zündel, there was Kyle Hunt. Kyle Hunt, a uniquely talented video producer, was targeted by hyper violent Jewish operatives after producing a number of spectacular Holocaust videos. Kyle reversed his opinions and his life and his family were spared. He may continue to live in poverty, being excluded from normal commerce. But he lives, whatever life they allow him.

    Every one of these men, dozens not mentioned here, are heroes in the truest sense of the word.

    The 6 million is a lie. An ugly lie of such demonic proportions that only the devil himself could have originated it.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Druid55
  147. Incitatus says:
    @Ron Unz

    “There’s an even more egregious example I mentioned in my long World War II article.”

    If your WW2 article was brief would the example mentioned be less offensive?

    “Pat Buchanan’s reasonably good 2008 book ‘Churchill, Hitler, and the Necessary War’ also totally excludes any reference to Irving’s seminal works on those very topics.”

    Well, for one thing, Ron, gadfly speechwriter DC-swamp-creature Pat’s book is titled “Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War “.

    You might more profitably ask (aside from pet Irving) why Pat never refers to the Hoßbach Memorandum (5 Nov 1937). A cardinal flaw. Not that it inhibits book sales and “reasonably good” reviews from those apt to confuse the book title.

    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  148. @L.K

    Please do not use the word “revision”. At least not on these already “safe” circle.
    HOLOHOAX EXPOSURE is the only way to go.

    Do not agree to their terms, do not use their vocabulary made to suppress our minds.

    Take away the holiness of the holy cash cow.
    It is a ridiculous impossible lie. Treat it as such.

  149. @Ace

    Heya Ace,

    Your flackman Rufus here is not old enough to have been there, or even alive at the time. He tells on himself with the ‘derp’ and ‘R2P’ lingo absorbed by way of insults received via internet warfare.

    The delta, periodically could stop cold, just as if it were Monday night in an entertainment district. At those times various theories abounded, mostly involving efficacy of SOG activity that simply destroyed the enemy’s repair and analysis accomplished by means of lessons learned. We briefed more than a few who admitted that after quitting that angle, they had nothing but blank book and we took those periods of silence as proof.

    Nixon was a brilliant individual. He did not understand nor could requite others the external esthetics necessary to preserving himself among those who were less intelligent, yet wholly more cunning.

    • Replies: @Ace
  150. John Wear says:
    @Sirius

    I do not agree with you. I have written extensively on this subject. Some of the articles I have written for Inconvenient History on this subject are as follows:

    1. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/12/2/7278 Breaking the Chains of Versailles

    2. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/12/3/7463 Czechoslovakia issue

    3. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391 Why Germany Invaded Poland

    4. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/3/6845 Germany’s Invasion of Norway and Denmark

    5. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/3/6814 Great Britain Perpetuated World War II

    6.https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/4/6936 Germany’s Invasion of Greece, etc.

    7. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/4/6939 Germany’s Preemptive Invasion of the Soviet Union

    There is more I have written on this subject, but this should be enough to get you started.

    • Replies: @Sirius
    , @Wizard of Oz
  151. @Just another serf

    You mean Eric Hunt, not Kyle Hunt. Do you know Eric Hunt? No, you do not. If you did, you would not be saying he was “targeted by hyper violent Jewish operatives.” He was not. Why are you making up a sob story?

  152. Ace says:
    @Rufus Clyde

    Yes, it was me alone. And just with a bayonet too.

    What is derping? I’m not familiar with this activity. Is it a traditional thing with your family?

    • Replies: @Rufus Clyde
  153. Yevardian says:

    I don’t suppose it’s possible to buy a physical copy of ‘Hitler’s War’ for anything under several hundred dollars these days.

    • Replies: @Fox
  154. @Anonymous

    ‘What the Jewish smear mongers can’t take away from Irving is that he is an extraordinary thinker, writer and historian. Hitler’s War is, and I’m sure will remain, a towering masterpiece of unbiased historical research.’

    I don’t think there’s such a thing as an absence of bias; indeed, if someone claims to be unbiased, hold on to your wallet.

    Where I get annoyed is that many of the people accusing David Irving of distorting history engage in far more egregious distortion themselves.

    • Agree: Verymuchalive
  155. Ace says:
    @The Soft Parade

    🙂 Rufus has issues. I wish I could help him.

    I don’t know anything about SOG in Cambodia. I read SOG a long time ago but I don’t think there were sustained ops that far south. I think I would have remembered any local places. I read another book by a seal and I seem to recall he ran missions in Cambodia that far south. But don’t quote me. An amazing anecdote from that book: he tripped a bouncing betty booby trap and he saw the grenade rise up in slow motion. He reached out and grabbed it but it proved to be a dud.

    [MORE]

    I can’t say I was aware of any noticeable cycles of activity in the Delta. Things were definitely heating up at the time of the incursion (God bless Nixon) but that came to a screeching halt as a result thereof. Did I say God bless Nixon?

    Nixon was a great leader in my mind. He went along with some decidedly liberal nonsense (wage and price controls?) but could think beyond next week.

  156. Sirius says:
    @John Wear

    I’m not sure what you are disagreeing with.

    You certainly gave me a lot of homework! You cover a lot of issues with all these links, and I will eventually review them. But for now I had a look at the one that seemed most relevant to our discussion, which is link #5.

    I don’t disagree with you that Hitler wanted peace with Britain. Irving makes the same point you do as well: the example of Rudolf Hess’s flight to Scotland as a peace mission that was squelched and hidden. Hess himself was kept hidden away at Spandau prison until his death so that his story would never be revealed. As far as I know, unless someone made a secret interview sometime during those decades in prison, his secrets died with him. His memoirs had he been allowed to write them are a loss to history.

    At least from that article you wrote, it seems you agree with me more than you disagree.

  157. @Jus' Sayin'...

    a Jewish couple, who’ve been lifelong friends

    Bad idea.

  158. Schuetze says:
    @The Spirit of Enoch Powell

    Thanks for that link to the pdf with images, they are fascinating and also revealing.

    One thing that really comes across in these photos of Himmler and the NSDAP is that the leadership was predominantly made up of family men. This is a far cry from todays barren dyke German leadership like Merkel or von der Leyen, and a completely different planet than the trannies and queers rapidly taking control of the US.

    • Replies: @erzberger
  159. @HeebHunter

    Where are the brown shirts when Irving needed them?

  160. slade says:
    @HeebHunter

    It is normal to be upset at all those injustices against marginalized and poor people specially when done by the so called preachers of peace and human rights, countries like US, UK, France and many more. Young people feel helpless and frustrated. They want to make a difference but system wont let them do it.
    Young people should take a page from Talmudist tricks book and use it against the them, the oppressors. That trick is “Propaganda” (a very good book on the subject was written by ED. Bernay, nephew of Sigmund Freud, in 1928 downloadable from internet).

    The young truth seekers should disseminate information and not the anger on social media. But please make sure to confirm the information and its source before sharing it. Several good examples could be found on this site. Beat the oppressors in their own game.
    Example is # 36 comment by Wally.

    It is like Judo. Use their strength (propaganda) against them (I love the scene in the movie The Untouchables where Sean Connery tells Kevin Costner how to deal with Capone. I saw the clip on this site and it is available on Youtube. Just type Church scene in the movie Untouchable). If they accuse others of being anti Semite, in return the accused should ask the accusers to prove if they are Semites or they have changed their identity like they conveniently change their names in different countries to blend in. European Jews are converted Jews. Palestinians (Muslims, Christians and all) are Semites, descendants of Abraham who spoke Semite language.

    Lot of censored information could be found on comments section on this site. Bitchute is another source. Just type Holocaust and you would see lot of censored videos. I am sure you and others young ones like you already know it. And if you are an Israeli Troll or Cryptic Jew than pass it to your Christian and Muslims friends. LOL.

  161. slade says:
    @mcohen

    Ignorance is bliss.

    At least he is accused of selling hate and not human organs and he is not a merchant of death. CEO of a big Pharma, legally and knowing selling untested drugs causing deaths worldwide.

    I hope that day will never come where these financial wizards devise a new investment trade of human organs. Just like they do it with futures in carbon trading. And the trading floor, of course be in Tel Aviv. But these guys are creative. You never know.

  162. @Incitatus

    I think I know enough to agree that any exculpatory effort for Hitler which doesn’t mention the Hoßbach Memorandum isn’t worth wasting time on.

  163. @Rogue

    Why would anyone be a Christian Zionist? Does Jesus command it? Did you fall on your head? Whom does Jesus admonish, hide from, run from and ultimately die from? The Shylock State is run by the modern-day Pharisees.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  164. Sirius says:
    @Skeptikal

    There’s really no way of knowing whether Britain would not have lost its empire anyway.

    Even if an ascendant Germany hadn’t emerged from the shackles of the Versailles Treaty, there were still other rising powers that would eventually challenge British dominion: namely the US, the USSR and one not to forget, Japan.

    Japan arguably did more damage to the British Empire than war with Germany did, certainly more directly and as a matter of policy. Japan wanted to expel Britain out of all of Asia and nearly did, right up to British India.

    In February 1942, Japanese forces, outnumbered nearly 3 to 1 delivered a decisive blow to the British in the Battle of Singapore. Interestingly, some 40,000 Indian troops joined up with the Japanese against their British colonizers.

  165. @John Wear

    I am not encouraged to treat the fact that you have emitted a lot of words on Hitler’s affairs as authoritative or reliable when you can write something as sloppily inaccurate as

    It was Great Britain and its leaders such as Lord Halifax and Winston Churchill that wanted war with Germany.

    In a previous Comment. Before Hitler attacked Poland Churchill wasn’t a leader and Halifax was one of the architects and supporters of appeasement.

    Of course Hitler would have preferred no war with Britain. Britain wasn’t going to provide Hitler’s Aryans with Lebensraum.

    • Agree: soll
    • Replies: @John Wear
    , @Fox
    , @Ugetit
  166. @Carolyn Yeager

    There was a German doctor who’s name I vaguely remember as Fehr who was very wealthy and defiant and published a weblog that could roughly be referred to as WW2 revisionism. He published in German. I do not read German but my mother does and I printed out an article he wrote about Irving stating that Irving’s mother was Jewish. This was well over a decade ago.

    Now, I had never heard this before or since but according to my mother’s reading, this doctor knew Irving very well on a friendly basis and was not a kook. So maybe this is where such rumours started.

    Cheers-

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  167. slade says:
    @Ghali

    you did not read the whole sentence Islam is AS violent as other religions. If war is violence then we can start from Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Aysha Siddiqa, what was that about? How about Imam Hussain Shaheed? Yazeed was the son of Amir Moavya the who wrote Wahees.
    And now this little information for you. If you go to Istanbul you will find Mazar of hazrat Ayub Ansari Who was a Shaheed in the war with Turks. And listen to this, Yazeed was the commander of the army. You probably never heard this from your Mullahs or Imams in your local mosques. Ask them.
    You want to know about Islam? Go to Tashkant and Samarkand and find the Quran that Hazart Usman was reciting when he was assassinated. According to UN investigators it is human blood.
    In Samarkand you can find a lot about Imam Bukhari whose Hadees is followed by majority of Muslims. His Mazar is in Samarkand and in his native/birth city is Bukhara. if you are interested I may share that information with you. That Quran does not have any Zaer, Zabar, or Pesh (vowels).

    Yes I had a few drinks and pork stake with my buddy Nattttan Yahooooooooo in a bar in Manhattan last weekend. We discussed, among other things, Hunter Biden’s girl friends picture ands what to do with. Are you happy. Dont listen to your Mullahs or Imams because they are Frauds and dont know anything from left to right. if you want to learn about Islam. Do it yourself. That is your responsibility. Go China (a far off place) for learning. I am sure you know who said that.

  168. Miro23 says:

    I read Hitler’s War and Warpath recently and didn’t find them anti-Semitic. They’re first rate history based on original documents and give a fine understanding of Hitler’s rise and exercise of power.

    The problem being that Irving was required to include the usual few pages of lies/propaganda about the “Holocaust” for Jewish approval, which he wasn’t willing to do – hence all the trouble.

    It’s not necessary to be a top ranking historian to realize that 6 million buried bodies don’t exist, that they weren’t incinerated either (the Germans at this point lacked essential fuel for the war) or that inter camp commander communications (intercepted by the British) said not a word about gas chambers (but plenty about typhoid) meaning that “gas chambers”are another post war Jewish propaganda invention.

  169. @Robert Dolan

    Re Jews and the transatlantic slave trade: the attached link is to an article on that subject. You should read it before TPTB make it disappear:

    Who Brought the Slaves to America? Jewish role in the trans-atlantic slave trade – Originalpeople.org

  170. John Wear says:

    I disagree with the following two passages in your post:

    1. “Perhaps, but whether Hitler wanted it or not, his plans for Germany acquiring Great Power status were going to inevitably lead to conflict with Britain”; and

    2. “So the second time around, once Germany crossed a certain line, it was inevitable that Britain would oppose Germany. That line was defined in 1939 as the invasion of Poland. Churchill the hardliner would have said the line was already crossed in Czechoslovakia in 1938 or even earlier, but by September 1939 every major British figure agreed with him and so did the British public. There was absolutely no way Britain was going to turn back in 1940.”

    There were some things Hitler could have done differently, but I think war with Great Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States was inevitable. If you want some more homework, you might want to read the following articles on how Franklin Roosevelt and the United States wanted war with Germany:

    1. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/3/4882 Why Hitler declared war on the United States

    2. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/12/3/7520 The Alliance of the United States and the Soviet Union

    • Replies: @Miro23
  171. @Genrick Yagoda

    Did you really read the transcripts? I doubt it because you seem to have barely read my post and the transcripts would run in word count to about a dozen decent sized books.

    But if you had read the transcripts you would have found out that Lipstadt’s army of researchers had found among other things that Irving was guilty of using selected documents and ignoring others such that his thesis on a particular book would not be disturbed by inconvenient facts. Irving had no answer for this and of course it went to credibility.

    Now if you knew anything more about the subject you could have wrote that “Irving’s ego is a giant one in a world of Pigmy egos” and you wouldn’t have to worry about accreditation.

    David Irving’s number one concern always was and is David Irving. Brown-nosers like you are enablers who ironically led to his demise.

    Cheers-

    • Thanks: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @Genrick Yagoda
  172. Rdm says:

    Aren’t you guys fed up with Schindler’s list?

    I suggest we’d have Shan’s list in 21st century.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Feng-Shan

  173. @Ron Unz

    FWIW, a quibble. Not “technically [sic] bankrupt” unless declared bankrupt by the technicality of the law – of his own motion or by a creditor exercising his rights. Insolvent maybe.

  174. Miro23 says:
    @John Wear

    1. “Perhaps, but whether Hitler wanted it or not, his plans for Germany acquiring Great Power status were going to inevitably lead to conflict with Britain”

    Read Hitler’s War and it’s plain to see that Great Power status for Hitler’s Germany involved a land empire stretching to the Urals in the East, which was to be settled and ruled by ethnic Germans. He was greatly impressed by the British Empire, wanted to be friends with the British, and have their “Empire of the Sea” complement his own continental empire.

    He wasn’t looking for any conflict with the British (unlike conflict with the Slavs of the East – who he targeted since the 1930’s).

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz, Garliv
    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @John Wear
  175. John Wear says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I do not agree with you that Lord Halifax wanted appeasement with Germany. I recommend you read the following three articles I have written for Inconvenient History as background:

    1. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/12/2/7278 Breaking the Chains of Versailles

    2. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/12/3/7463 Czechoslovakia: How Britain Turned the Failure of a State into a Cause of War

    3. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391 Why Germany Invaded Poland

    As I document in these three articles, Lord Halifax was actively involved in attempting to bring about war with Germany. Also, even though Winston Churchill did not take over from Neville Chamberlain as Prime Minister until May 10, 1940, Churchill made numerous speeches designed to influence the British public to want war against Germany. Churchill played a crucial role in agitating for war against Germany.

  176. John Wear says:
    @Miro23

    I have read “Hitler’s War”. I suggest you read “The Chief Culprit” by Viktor Suvorov. Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 was preemptive in nature.

    • LOL: soll
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @EugeneGur
  177. @John Wear

    Are you seriously trying to persuade people that whatever you get from Suvorov proves that, without the threat of a Soviet attack on Germany Hitler would not have attacked Russia? Irving is only one of many who didn’t think so as you may be aware. Is it possible you are making far too much of the fact that, at least once the Germans and Soviet forces were neighbours in conquered Poland, war was inevitable?

    • Replies: @John Wear
    , @L.K
  178. @Sirius

    Anyone promoted by the PTB has to have psychopathic tendencies as a precondition. Mike King, in his censored book “ The British Mad Dog” explains thoroughly the sick mind of Winston Churchill who can be credited for the fall of the White race more than any other contender. By his own admission, Churchill stated that his war was not against Nazi Germany but against the German people to crush them once and for all, and that Nazi Germany’s biggest crime was to deprive international banks from their due profits by trading with other nations through barter. What could be more sick than that?

    • Agree: Rurik, Ugetit
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @soll
  179. anarchyst says:
    @Timur The Lame

    Judicial notice was used in the Irving / Lipstad trial. This dishonest “judicial trick” prohibits the introduction of evidence that counters the “commonly accepted narrative”, even if the “commonly accepted narrative” can be proven to be false.
    This “judicial trick” has been used in every trial concerning the so-called “holocaust™” to hide the real TRUTH about this nonevent in history. This is how the jews and their enablers keep this lie alive. Add to that, the public funding for the propaganda mills known as jewish freak shows, the holocaust™ museums that the powers that be keep alive to keep the shekels flowing.

    • Replies: @chuckywiz
  180. John Wear says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Adolf Hitler would not have attacked the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 unless he had to. Germany was already in a nasty war with Great Britain with the real possibility of the United States entering the war on Great Britain’s side. Hitler was not so stupid as to unnecessarily open up a two-front war.

    You might read Adolf Hitler’s speech of December 11, 1941 which explains why he attacked the Soviet Union.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  181. anarchyst says:
    @Chris in Cackalacky

    Christian zionists are the unwitting dupes of world jewry, brought by their defective theology of Protestantism, which was ripe for conquest by judaic interests.

    The denial of “good works” being necessary for salvation as well as the loss of empathy for others, replaced by the judaic principles of “getting all you can” and “to hell with the other guy” and usury were the seeds of destruction for organized Christianity.

    “Sola Scriptura” another defective belief was also instrumental in assisting in the ascendancy of jews. Since the Bible was written by MEN with varying political and social aims, as well as self-interest, it must also be considered to be suspect as well.

    Christianity’s big mistake was in NOT divorcing the “Old Testament” from the New Testament. The Old Testament should have been retained, but recognized as a historical text without any spiritual implications.

    Until Vatican II, the Catholic Church was the last remaining vestige of Christianity to recognize that the jews were indeed of the “synagogue of satan”.

    • Replies: @Chris in Cackalacky
  182. @potemkin villiage bank

    The twin towers were the shiny objects used to take the public’s attention away from the real targets, the Pentagon and WTC7 where the records of the stolen trillions were located.

  183. @The Spirit of Enoch Powell

    All the countries he snubs dislike his precious Prophet.

  184. @Skeptikal

    The European governments were desperate for food for their people and were willing to surrender almost all of their records including the smallest of communications. If they weren’t, other measures could certainly be used to influence them. We are talking about trainloads of documents that affected the buoyancy of the ships that crossed the ocean to be delivered to Stanford.

    It may be the first time you are hearing about this, because the deep state scholars did a thorough and extensive job in altering the history books which had to go through Oxford (Rhodes’ and Rothschild’s base of operations) to be published. Hoover was a USG official in that program, and that was his main mission. He was later rewarded with the Presidency for his service to the deep state. Before his government career, he was a ruthless mining engineer (many deaths) working for the Rothschilds.

    This was all done to hide the fact that the deep state in the UK and the ultra-Zionists were responsible for WW1 which they prepared for 10 years in advance, including setting up the Fed and Income Tax to finance war.

    See “Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War” by Gerry Docherty and Jim MacGregor

    • Thanks: Skeptikal
  185. Fox says:
    @Yevardian

    Go to an antiquarian/used book site (e.g. Bookfinder) and look up the book.

  186. Bukowski says:

    David Irving has been banned from entering Australia since 1993. He was banned by the Labor government of Paul Keating and the ban was kept in place by Liberal prime minister John Howard in 1996. All requests to enter the country since then have been denied. David Irving is a historian. He is not a terrorist. Or a murderer, rapist, drug dealer or any other kind of criminal. When it comes to free speech Australian politicians have shown themselves to be a pack of liars.
    https://codoh.com/library/document/irving-barred-from-australia/en/

    • Agree: Rurik, John Wear, Miro23
  187. chuckywiz says:
    @anarchyst

    I was surprised to see a miniature holocaust museum in Skopje, Macedonia a tiny country. There was a post while back suggesting on demand holocaust museums at the airports, in Malls and films clip by Billy Wilder (American “GI”) or Alfred Hitchcock (A British “soldier”) who participated in liberation of all those Jewish camps. Good idea to show in commercial flights before take off to substitute safety videos. Heck they are forcing the children to read “Nights” written by tattooless holocaust survivor.

    I wont be surprised to hear that a “coming soon” holocaust museum on South Pole funded by US congress and the bill sponsored by Rabbi Schumer.

  188. @The Spirit of Enoch Powell

    Ever since The Destruction of Dresden ( 1963), Irving had been a marked man. He was not going to get a fair trial in any judicial proceeding. His belief that he would was completely delusional. So, choosing to go to court with this Zionist hackette was very stupid. Moreover, his loss was much worse than not suing at all. Afterwards, his enemies would use it to silence him. They could and would say that his claims had been overturned in a court of law. They could claim he was a propagandist, not a historian,

    You mention that he is a capable and eloquent speaker. As the article indicates, he went on numerous speaking tours in many countries. Indeed, far too many. They were superfluous to his purposes as a historian. He continued going to countries where he might fall foul of the criminal law. Ultimately, he ended up in prison in Austria. A more astute person would have easily avoided this. It’s as if the orator or actor got the better of the historian.

    The consequences of the Zundel case were not very serious. The Libel case was a crass error, but the Austrian imprisonment was gross stupidity. If you’re clever – and most people would say Mr Irving is certainly that – you do not give your enemies what they want, and make your life much more difficult as a result.

    • Disagree: Wizard of Oz
  189. R2b says:
    @R2b

    I notice no one gainsays this. It is obviously to complicated for the devout. Hitler was surely placed, by the English, and the (((English))). Securing a second ”Versailles”! So he killed himself, bigtime! You know nothing! Me neither. No corpse. So you can’t be sure. Only speculate. And let him be a hero, a saint, a …martyr. He shoulda given himself in. That! Is a martyr.

  190. Wally says:
    @R2b

    Germany had no choice but to attack the USSR.
    Please pay attention.

    Why Germany Attacked the Soviet Union, Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the USSR – Two Historic Documents by Mark Weber: https://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-attacked-the-soviet-union/

    Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999
    and:
    https://www.unz.com/announcement/the-remarkable-historiography-of-david-irving/

    • Replies: @R2b
    , @slade
    , @frontier
  191. @Wally

    Wally/Hannover, stop bashing Irving just because he doesn’t toe your particular line of revisionism. He has sacrificed more for the sake of historical truth than you ever will.

    • Agree: Skeptikal
    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Wally
  192. Fox says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    People who are citing the Lebensraum trope are uniformly also adherents of the World Conquest trope and believe that Hitler had written in 1924, while in prison, in Mein Kampf a precise plan of how he was going about realizing vast plans of conquering Europe, South America, send his armies over the Caucasus into Persia, occupy India, North America (via South America) and Russia. Hence, such an academic house of cards as the Step-by-Step Plan for World Conquest by Hillgruber would become a favorite topic of Ph.D. students and individuals who want easy access to curated careers with grand, sweeping pictures of reality as they are encouraged to compose from the premises they are giving themselves.

    In contrast to these invented scenarios, Hitler’s plans were directed at creating a new Germany, undoing the worst injustices of the Dictate Peace of Versailles (a Treaty requires two parties coming to a mutual agreement, while Germany had to sign under threat of military occupation and the maintenance of the Hunger Blockade) and unite Germans as much as possible in a German state with contiguous German settlements.
    No concession was made by the beneficiaries of the exploitation and humiliation of Germany as engineered at Versailles, it took Hitler to achieve concessions and show the way out of this deadly and idiotic tangle of malefic revenge.
    Yes, and perhaps the British colonial Empire would have disappeared even without Churchill’s interference, but it is also certain that the peoples living under colonial rule also saw that Britain was weakened by declaring war on Germany and this greatly strengthened movements for independence and the end of British rule. They shot themselves in the foot in the England who insisted on the war of 1939.

    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  193. @Timur The Lame

    Thanks for your input. That was more of a rhetorical question on my part, as I have heard such speculation but don’t like to accuse anyone of being Jewish based on speculation. Mostly I just think Irving has incredibly high regard for himself. And his books on Goebbels and now Himmler are meant to be unflattering.

    • Replies: @Timur The Lame
  194. @Skeptikal

    wonder whether Britain would have turned back if anyone had had the prescience to see that Britain was going to lose its colonies basically (I think) after WW2.

    Britain’s death warrant as an empire was signed no later than the end of World War I after she lost an entire generation of men to the slaughter of the trenches in France and Flanders. Ditto for France, which arguably suffered an even greater demographic holocaust (pardon the pun) relative to the size of her population.

  195. @Libby

    Austrians dont have chip on their shoulders like Poles.

    Having a “chip on their shoulders” has also kept massive numbers of swarthy-skinned infidel criminals from the Third World out of Poland (and the rest of Eastern Europe). In light of recent events it would greatly behoove Austria to start carrying a very big “chip on its shoulders.” Its cucked neighbor to the immediate north is beyond redemption, but Austria has historically shown enough gonads to be able to fight off the wokeness.

    • Replies: @Libby
  196. @AnnonnGuest

    He has sacrificed more for the sake of historical truth than you ever will.

    The problem with this statement is that Irving did not sacrifice willingly. In every instance his decision was intended to bring him fame and fortune, and to place him above everyone else (or at least on an equal level). I agree with those who say he simply misjudged his enemies powers compared to his own powers … leading to recklessness. That’s why he’s not a true martyr; in fact, not a martyr at all.

    • Replies: @L.K
    , @AnnonnGuest
  197. Ugetit says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Before Hitler attacked Poland Churchill wasn’t a leader …

    So what? How does his not being a leader preclude his wanting war with Germany?

    Another one who itched for a war with Germany was FDR when he was a mere bureaucrat and not exactly what one would label a leader.

    Both of those despicable clowns had a lot in common, one example being their handler, by the name of Bernard Baruch, which oughta tell ya something.

    • Agree: Boom Boom Kaboomski
  198. Skeptikal says:
    @Genrick Yagoda

    Genrick, with all due respect please do not lecture me on what was lost through Aryanization and other means.

    Thanks.

    Fuhtermore, your comment is a non sequitur to mine.

    Have nice day, and leb wohl.

  199. Skeptikal says:
    @Ann Nonny Mouse

    Ann Nonny Mouse:

    There are some nutters here.

    They just come with the real estate, so to speak.

    Like stink bugs.

  200. Skeptikal says:
    @Genrick Yagoda

    Why should Jewish German citizens go to Palestine?

    They had nothing to do with signing the agreement.

    Most assimiated Jewish Germans 9and most Jewish Germans were assimilated—that is why they were citizens) did not support the Zionist project.

    The premises of your comment are truly obnoxious; in fact, it is actually anti-Semitic in the classic sense, as well as ignorant.

    Maybe you are a diaspora German with a chip on your shoulder that Jewish German citizens were, legally, as German as you, a Volksdeutscher—until they suddenly were not . . . .

  201. L.K says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    What a SILLY and boring TROLL you are!
    I find it “amusing” that trolls like you pick on Suvorov, while ignoring the many other Russian historians, several of whom former Red Army or intel officers, who have reached the conclusion that Stalin was indeed planning an offensive against NS Germany in the summer of 1941.

    For example, Albert Weeks is a US historian & former Professor of International Affairs, fluent in Russian, who has closely followed the Russian historians’ disputes which arose [after the fall of the Soviet Union and the partial opening of archives] over the Stalin regime’s offensive war plans against NS Germany. Despite being very ignorant of the German side, basically repeating the usual anti-Hitler line, professor Weeks nevertheless concedes that several Russian historians and former Red Army and intel veterans have reached the conclusion that Stalin was indeed planning to attack Germany.
    Not only that but several of these Russian historians and military people have/had connections to the Russian Ministry of Defense and some are of a pro-Soviet inclination. Quote:

    Nevertheless, what the researchers have produced is a pattern of Red Army deployments and concentration of troops along the Soviet western frontier in spring 1941 that strongly suggests that the General Staff and Stalin were planning eventually to get the preemptive jump on the Wehrmacht. The fact that in addition to Russian historians a number of informed ex–Red Army or security officers make this allegation cannot be ignored. As it turned out, of course, the Germans got the jump on the Soviets. …
    it is significant and worth recognizing that a number of “new” Russian historians are opting for the offensist interpretation as to Stalin’s and the Red Army General Staff’s war planning on the eve of Barbarossa. In the meantime, it is unhelpful to assume, as some Western writers have, that these Russian historians take the positions they do, like the notions proffered so vehemently by émigré Viktor Suvorov, because they blindly hate Stalin or for some other reasons unrelated to the facts and documents that they have collected.
    Note that some of the historians of the offensist persuasion are connected with the Russian Ministry of Defense. Others (unlike the much despised Suvorov) show pro-Soviet tendencies in their interpretations of events. Yet they hew to the offensist thesis concerning Stalin war planning.15
    It behooves Western specialists and observers to pay attention to the Russian historians’ latest findings as well as to their interpretations of their findings. The Russian historians say that they will keep on pressing the authorities for more archives to be opened because, they insist, additional top-secret information from the period of 1939–41 continues to be kept concealed. …

    Source: Stalin’s other war

    The highly decorated Red Amy Major-General Petr Grigorenko, who commanded troops in initial battles following June 22, 1941, complained in his memoirs that

    “there could be only one reason for [the heavy deployment of Red Army offensive troops in the west], namely, that these troops were intended for a surprise offensive. In the event of an enemy attack, these troops would already be half encircled. The enemy would only need to deal a few, short blows at the base of our wedge and then encirclement would be complete.”13

    Which is precisely what happened.

    An incomplete list of such Russian historians/researchers, excluding Suvorov, include:

    Russian military historian Dr. Mikhail Meltiukhov of the Russian Institute of Documents and Historical Records Research, Russian historian M. Nikitin, V. A. Nevezhin, former Soviet Colonels Valeri. D. Danilov, Colonel Kiselev, Aleksei Filipov, historians Igor Bunich, Irina. V. Pavlova, V. L. Doroshenko, Boris Sokolov, B.N.Petrov, Vladimir Neveshin, M.Solonin, Constantine Pleshakov, Dr.Alexander Pronin, Prof. Dr. Maria Litowskaja, , Dr. Dschangir Nadschafov, faculty director of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, P. Bobylev, T. Bushueva, Y. Felshtinskiy, etc …

    • Thanks: Ugetit
  202. L.K says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    The problem with this statement is that Irving did not sacrifice willingly. In every instance his decision was intended to bring him fame and fortune, and to place him above everyone else (or at least on an equal level). I agree with those who say he simply misjudged his enemies powers compared to his own powers … leading to recklessness.

    Yeah, I believe there is a lot of truth to your above statements.

    What I also do not understand is what Irving is trying to gain by playing holocaust Not So-lite?
    I recall Germar Rudolf became quite fed up with his BS, calling him a disgrace.
    At this point, what does Irving think he can gain by trying to ingratiate himself with the Jews through promoting a only slightly reduced version of the big h? It doesn’t seem likely they’ll ever pardon him or allow his reputation to be mended…

    BTW, do you know, and if so, can you share, whatever happened in the strange case of E. Hunt, the vid maker?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  203. Thomasina says:
    @Curmudgeon

    Thanks for the link. Fascinating article, highly plausible. I have often wondered whether they broke their own windows and burned down their own buildings in order to place the blame on Germany.

    A similar incident (one of many) occurred in Syria a few years ago. I remember reading a very good article re an uprising in a town I can’t remember the name of. An old man said that men came into the village, men he had never seen before, and they proceeded to incite the people, provoke a riot. It was the beginning of the color revolution in Syria.

    A trick as old as the hills, but hard to prove, especially in the ensuing chaos.

    Thanks.

    • Thanks: Ugetit
  204. R2b says:
    @Wally

    I actually do not disagree with the proposition, that Germany had to preempt, by attacking Russia, Bolshevik Russia, as it did.
    But I advocate a more careful offensive, not requireing manifestly more resources.
    Shouldnt he, Hitler, listened more to his Generals?
    But then again, if it was a done deal, we end up with Patton.
    The last obstacle.
    You know very well, how sympathetic he was towards the Germans.

  205. libby says:
    @Priss Factor

    Mel Gibson’s dad remarks


    • Thanks: R2b
  206. slade says:
    @Wally

    First little bit recreation in the Auschwitz swimming pool and then a comment about operation Barbarossa. Uncle Hitler like Uncle Stalin found out of the about the assembly of 70,000 gliders and T-34 Tanks at German/USSR border intended for attack. T-34 tanks were suitable for road or offensive purposes. Those were not defensive one. And of course the gliders were non defensive.

    I happened to know from my neighbor’s dad who once was who is who of Moscow but went into ruins after Putin. These were his words “Soviets were planning the attack”. Jim Weaver is right.
    Tit bit information. T-34 tanks was manufactured in Chelyabinsk city and a tank is placed in town sq.

    Here is the Swimming pool link


  207. Ugetit says:
    @Ann Nonny Mouse

    While I’m sorry to hear of your brain’s mishap, may I suggest that once you get them reorganized and you’re ready to maintain your equanimity, that you consider this?:

    A seventeen year old Polish Jew, Hershel Gruenspan, residing in Paris, had become so upset about the fate of his father in Germany that he armed himself with a pistol, walked into the German embassy and, not being able to see the ambassador, shot the first secretary, vom Rath. This being the third German official assassinated by a Jew, the storm troopers were supposedly ordered out to take revenge on the Jewish population. This [Kristallnacht] story is about as ridiculous as the by now discredited myth about the 6 million gassed Jews or the one about the slaughter of the Polish officers in Katyn by the Germans.

    -Gerard Menuchin, Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil p141 (2016)
    Microsoft Word – TellTruthShameDevil-3rd-interior-2016.07.29.docx (archive.org)

    Read page 140 as well.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  208. Libby says:
    @mocissepvis

    I had a co-worker from Poland, Hotchodkowitz (spelling), Notice I did not use the word friend. He used to always brag about Poland because people in Midwest had no knowledge of the country. This guy was always complaining about Palestinian Students in Poland who going out with Polish prostitutes which was very troubling for him. He was paranoid of having a baby girl because she would date a black guy.

    When I took a tour of Poland (Warsaw, Krakow, Katowice) in 90s after USSR breakup. It was pathetic. Filth in the street and sewers and toilets without any vents even in nice hotels. Coal smoke like in Bulgaria. But the attitude of those Poles in general was unbelievable. They were expecting money from Chicago

    I am sorry to say those dark skin folks from third world are coming soon in your neighborhood in Poland. Get ready. Just go and see in Germany, or Finland they need low paid laborers for economic reasons mainly to sustain pensions for their aging population.

  209. @anarchyst

    I’m not sure all CZs are ‘unwitting dupes.’ It seems some CZs think helping Satanic Jews is a license to commit evil while assisting in fulfillment of prophecy.

  210. @Sirius

    ‘…There was absolutely no way Britain was going to turn back in 1940.’

    In point of fact, Britain did come rather close to turning back in 1940. In the interval between the collapse in France and the ‘miracle at Dunkirk,’ Halifax suggested that Britain should at least see what terms the Germans would offer. Since Hitler was fully prepared to make a generous settlement, that could rather easily have been that.

    Churchill had yet to solidify his political position, and the military outlook was truly dismal. Churchill himself even made some overtures to Mussolini, offering Malta and other concessions if only Italy would stay out. Had the expected happened, and had the bulk of the BEF been annihilated at the end of May, it’s rather easy to see matters taking a different course.

    But the BEF was rescued from Dunkirk, and things merely looked bad rather than utterly hopeless.

    But had Churchill been a slightly different person, or had the Germans managed to avoid muffing things at Dunkirk, Britain could well have turned back in 1940.

    • Replies: @Sirius
  211. @John Wear

    And why do you believe the version Hitler gave in December 1941? What about many things he said before Barbarossa over months and years? Are you so naive as to believe what Hitler said when he was faced with the failure of a strategy for which he was responsible?

    Napoleon had proven the folly of invading Russia and getting caught by winter while Britain was actually defeating French armies in Spain.. Are you claiming Hitler was a military genius who could ignore lessons from Napoleon?

    • Replies: @John Wear
  212. @L.K

    ‘I find it “amusing” that trolls like you pick on Suvorov, while ignoring the many other Russian historians, several of whom former Red Army or intel officers, who have reached the conclusion that Stalin was indeed planning an offensive against NS Germany in the summer of 1941…’

    The argument I read somewhere that impressed me is that Stalin was planning to attack Germany — but probably in 1942. Speculation is that he was going to finish off Finland in 1941, finish reorganizing and reequipping the Red Army, and then have a go at Hitler in 1942.

    That about fits with the facts. The Red Army was not ready to roll in the summer of 1941. Indeed, Hitler was right to attack, and right to attack when and as he did. The errors came in the execution, not in the essential concept.

    Another point has to do with why Stalin was taken by surprise by Hitler’s attack. Germany had preceded her prior acts of aggression with an escalating crescendo of demands: that had preceded Czechoslovakia’s collapse and the attack on Poland. Stalin tended to operate the same way: witness the course of all his annexations in 1939-40.

    So he probably wanted to play for time. And the way to do that was to avoid any provocation, or even mobilization that could produce an incident. Whatever the German build-up, he was safe for the moment; Hitler had yet to start making demands.

    Such, at any rate, is one interpretation of Stalin’s intentions and behavior.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  213. @Ugetit

    ‘…This being the third German official assassinated by a Jew…’

    That bit’s interesting. Any documentation for that from another source?

  214. @Joe Levantine

    I challenge you to authenticate the alleged Churchill quote and your proper use of it if he did say anything like that. Or are you just one of UR threads’ large band of suckers for a fake quote? “Suckers” is too kind for many of the perps if one puts a the highest value on honesty….

    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
  215. John Wear says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Hitler’s speech on December 11, 1941 is historically accurate. In regard to Stalin’s plan to invade and conquer all of Europe, the evidence is overwhelming.

    If you don’t want to accept the documentation in Viktor Suvorov’s book “The Chief Culprit”, see post number 207 on this discussion thread. You were given in this post a large number of historians and military experts who have reached the same conclusion as Viktor Suvorov.

  216. @L.K

    I thank you for what could be an enlightening reading list but it is a pity you undermine your intellectual and maybe ethical weight by failing to recognise what question I has actually, carefully, posed. My question was about whether Hitler was only, as he may have said in a self serving speech, prompted to pre-emptive attack by the threat of attack by the Soviet Union.

    Still your reply seems to have more substance than John Wear’s pathetic effort. Hitler was supposed to be concerned by a threat from the British who had scuttled from Dunkirk and, even with the Americans couldn’t return to France till mid 1944!

    • Replies: @utu
  217. @Carolyn Yeager

    As a curiosity, my mother went to Mannheim every summer to visit her mother who refused to die. We are talking about the 1970’s to the early 2000’s.

    Every year she visited she went to normal Kiosks and hinted that she wanted to buy a ‘special’ newspaper. The vendor would wink and hand her a fresh copy of what was called ” Die Natzional Zeitung or something readily under the counter. It was like a Korean variety store owner would offer me a porno in the 70’s. (yes I bought them ). This would be the publication I referred to .

    It is all degeneration now. Do you want a shot in the arm? Google ” battle of the bulge” Robert Shaw and/or Panzer Lied and see how ‘snowflakes’ of a different era looked like.

    Cheers-

  218. @Genrick Yagoda

    Where do you find the figure of 300,000 Jews in pre Nazi Germany? The figure most often quoted is close to 600,000. On top of that thrre were quite a lot of Ost Juden I understand. They were not in favour with most German Jews and, it occurs to me, the 600,000 may have included some very assimilated Jews.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  219. @Colin Wright

    That all conforms with my reading. It is extraordinary what contortions some go through to be contrarian as if Hitler had no ambitions to seize Soviet land and resources. It seems to go with the need to connect Churchill’s many failings with responsibility for a war that was, unambiguously, started by Hitler’s attack on rackety Poland when it seems he took the chance that France and the UK were only bluffing despite his breaches of p promises that secured the Munich agreement.

  220. @Schuetze

    But most significantly it shows how Jews had had a policy of murder and assassination of German officials and officers for at least a decade before the war got started.

    At the risk of splittng hairs, I would say Zionists or Zionist Jews, but yes it was much longer than a decade, and not only Germans.
    https://www.972mag.com/the-first-political-murder-in-jewish-palestine-lessons-of-intolerance/

    • Replies: @Schuetze
  221. @Fox

    If you think I am “citing” the “Lebensraum trope” then you should know that I give no credit to the idea that Hitler was planning world domination. He was in some respects a flexible opportunist with several objectives and potential objectives of varying priority.

    • Replies: @Fox
  222. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    The Talented Mr. Suvorov: How GRU operative Rezun succeeded pleasing both Hitler and Stalin fanboys and helped to whitewash the embarrassment of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the 1941 Red Army debacle from Russia history.

    We know that Hitler fan boys love Suvorov’s Icebreaker theory because it absolves Hitler from the sin and stupidity of attacking the USSR. But the Icebreaker theory was never meant to be anti-Soviet. Quite the opposite. Stalin wanting to preemptively attack Hitler and save the world and the Jews was a good thing. Russians prefer that image of Stalin and of themselves to that of Stalin being trusting and servile nincompoop in the Hitler-Stalin partnership. The Icebreaker theory basically does way with the shameful Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the fact that it was the USSR that aided and abetted Hitler to start WWII and then joined him 17 days later.

    Suvorov offers alibi for the disastrous Soviet performance in 1941 when the glorious Red Army was almost completely annihilated. You can’t fault Stalin who in his foresight was preparing preemptive attack to liberate Europe and save the Jews. Red Army in the noble attempts to save the Jews was busy preparing the attack so it could not think about the defense. How selfless!

    And then Suvorov’s book is full of peans about Soviet military industry and brilliant engineers and designers who were building all kinds of Soviet Wunderwaffe. Suvorov paints Red Army in 1941 as the world’s greatest fighting force and Stalin as military genius playing 6D chess.

    It is really interesting that Hitler fan boys and contrarians like Ron Unz, who is no fan of Stalin, I think, love Viktor Suvorov while in fact his writing glorify Soviet Union, Stalin and KGB.

    Comment by “another anon”:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-west-is-1-in-academic-freedom/#comment-4294238

    I do not understand why Soviet Union never made “Suvorov thesis” official. The 1939 M-R pact and the total debacle of 1941 were two greatest embarrassments of Soviet history impossible to forget and impossible to explain. Wouldn’t “We were ready to strike at the fascist beast and destroy it once and for all, but the beast hit first” be better official line than “The fascist beast signed a treaty with us and promised do not attack us. WAAH! We trusted them so much! WAAH! No one can expect that they would betray us, WAAH WAAH WAAH!”

    • Replies: @Miro23
  223. Skeptikal says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Presumably the total included Ostjuden.

    ” Eighty percent of the Jews in Germany (about 400,000 people held German citizenship). The remainder were mostly Jews of Polish citizenship, many of whom were born in Germany and who had permanent resident status in Germany. In all, about 70 percent of the Jews in Germany lived in urban areas. Fifty percent of all Jews in Germany lived in the 10 largest German cities. The largest Jewish population centers were in Berlin (about 160,000), Frankfurt am Main (about 26,000), Breslau (about 20,000), Hamburg (about 17,000), Cologne (about 15,000), Hannover (about 13,000), and Leipzig (about 12,000). . . . [400,000 obviously refers to the 80%, leaving ca 125,000 others–big deal!; also these should be referred to as Jewish Germans; also, a large number of Jewish Germans were actually Mischlinge, and intermarriage was on the rise.]

    According to the census of June 16, 1933, the Jewish population of Germany, including the Saar region (which at that time was still under the administration of the League of Nations), was approximately 505,000 people out of a total population of 67 million, or somewhat less than 0.75 percent. That number represented a reduction from the estimated 523,000 Jews living in Germany in January 1933; the decrease was due in part to emigration following the Nazi takeover in January. (An estimated 37,000 Jews emigrated from Germany during 1933.)”

    There really were not very many Jewish Germans or other Jews in Germany.

    It is incredible that the whole history of the Third Reich in the popular mind has come to be viewed through the Jewish filter.

  224. Zumbuddi says:
    @zimriel

    David Cole is to David Irving as Lee Child is to Leo Tolstoi

  225. @Carolyn Yeager

    I never said he was a martyr. And the man has to earn a living somehow. Irving lost plenty and your interpretations of his motives don’t mitigate that. Whatever his assertions are these days, he still has a body of past work out there that defies much of the mainstream narrative. It was enough to pique my interest years ago.

    I do respect you, Ms. Yeager, for putting your real name out there and taking flak for your beliefs, though. I hope more people listen.

    • Agree: John Wear
  226. Schuetze says:
    @Curmudgeon

    I have never heard of de Haan until now, but I sincerely doubt that he was the “first political murder in Jewish Palestine”, and certainly not the “first murder by jew”.

    One of the most famous Jewish vendettas against a Christian leader was after Alexander I of Russia refused to accept a Central Bank and cooperate with the Rothschild’s during the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Rothschild, King of the Jews, swore revenge and the Romanov royal family suffered repeated assassination attempts. Alexander II was assassinated, and with the extermination of Tsar Nicholas and his family the jews managed to eradicate the entire royal bloodline. Of course there also was assassination of Archduke Ferdinand which was used as tinder initiate the entire century of wars for Zion. There was also assassinations of Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley at the behest of the Rothschilds.

    I am certain that some will quibble and claim that all these assassinations were neither performed by jews nor were jews directly responsible for them. I consider Freemasonry to have largely been subsumed by the Rothschild agent “Spartacus” Weishaupt before the French Revolution, and since that point in time Freemasonry has been the hidden hand of Zionism. Assassination by Freemason is in effect assassination by jew unless it can be proven otherwise.

    Of course these are only the political assassinations. The assassinations of entire races and religions is another jewish specialty.

    • Replies: @Bolteric
    , @Curmudgeon
  227. Fox says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    In your comment #170 you are using the Lebensraum trope to give a reason for Hitler not wanting war with England.
    And what does it mean when you call Hitler in “some respects a flexible opportunist”? In the first place he wanted the war to come to an end. He was apparently the only major player who understood that this war was a huge catastrophe and was causing immense harm to everyone in it. People like Churchill, Chamberlain and Roosevelt didn’t see it that way. Only Stalin as the most intelligent of the Allied leaders seems to have had occasional thoughts in that direction.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  228. Druid55 says:
    @Just another serf

    And the devil(s) did originate it!

  229. @mcohen

    Its not going to end well for you people this time either. It never does and you never learn. There will be no USA coming to save your people this time. This time your ilk ripped off the whole world.

    Tick tock jewboy.

  230. @Timur The Lame

    Lipstadt’s website is http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com, and of course Irving’s website is Fpp.Co.UK. The both have the trial transcripts.

    Of course I have not read all of the transcripts, only the parts that interested me. Most often, that particular part was about “the holyCo$t”. However, I will say that the few items I did view were “Gotchas” along the lines of “You said blue, now you say Indigo”. In other words, not really all that significant.

    It would be worthwhile to read the transcripts to the extent of what Irving did accomplish, and it’s significant. For example, in spite of some tens of millions of dollars spent on legal fees, and in spite of every single professional “holyCo$ter on the planet on Lipstadt’s side, the defense was not able to prove 1 single scrap of evidence for these fantasy “gas chambers”.

    That alone is worthwhile. Their HolyCo$t story has been forever etched in cement for curious minds to read.

    I should add “brownosers”? Even if I were one, how on earth could I have possibly enabled Irving? If he had asked me, and he didn’t, since he does not know who I am, I would have advised against the case. Not because I was concerned he wouldn’t score points, but instead because I am certain that the legal system itself is stacked against him.

    • Replies: @Timur The Lame
  231. Skeptikal says:
    @utu

    “What was he thinking? By two decisions in 1988 and 1996 Irving destroyed everything he worked for. ”

    Maybe kind of like Oscar Wilde foolishly thinking he could take on the Marquess of Queensberry.

    • Agree: utu
  232. Anonymous[401] • Disclaimer says:

    Jews…the “Good Germans” who are so tolerant, inclusive, and loving.

    The tribe that builds walls on stolen land which excludes THE DIVERSITY (and kills USA sailors/citizens with impunity)…all while conning non-Jews to open borders and hate themselves.

    Jews…the group booted from 109 countries, the folks who “heal the world” one harassment/hasbara lie at a time via AIPAC-of-Liars, ACLU, YouTube, Google, Instagram, etc. while, of course, getting goyim guilt-gelt for the Holycost.

    Jews…who want to destroy the First Amendment and genocide Palestinians while spying on Uncle Sucker, selling America’s secrets to its enemies.

  233. @Genrick Yagoda

    If you don’t want to be relegated to the dimbos league you should avoid such solecisms as calling anything you regard as an important error a “lie”. And, you should also show yourself to recognise that Irvi ing could think himself able to write history while ignoring the facts of what came to be regarded as and called The Holocaust in later years. No more of a problem than someone denying or affirming the existence of tectonic plates before they came to be called t”ectonic plates”.

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  234. @Robert Dolan

    People need to understand that the JQ has morphed into the JKK.

  235. @Wally

    American tax dollars at work.

  236. @Wizard of Oz

    Speaking of the Dimbos league,

    you should also show yourself to recognise that Irvi ing could think himself able to write history while ignoring the facts of what came to be regarded as and called The Holocaust in later years.

    Seriously? You think Irving’s inability to find anything that would support the HolyCo$t lie is “ignoring facts”?

    OK, this should be good. Where are these magic facts that were kept hidden from Lipstadt’s team and the entire World HolyCo$t industry?

    Are you some sort of anti-semite that you would keep this information to yourself?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  237. Bolteric says:
    @Schuetze

    Nathan Rothschild supposedly issued the vendetta against the Romanov lineage, and presumably there are few remaining members of the family, not direct descendants of Nicholas II of course.

    Where is there evidence that they also took care of Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley? I have seen a few hints of this, but it has appeared to be lost in the sands of time.

    • Replies: @Schuetze
  238. @Fox

    I admit that Hitler’s “flexible opportunist” aspect was not always to the fore. Maybe it would explain him better if emphasis was put on his having multiple objectives that could vary in importance to him. Euthanasia of the disabled was one of those. So was ridding Germany of Jews and his decisions as to who were to be counted as Jews for the purposes of gettingrid of them.

    • Replies: @Fox
  239. Wally says:
    @AnnonnGuest

    “Hannover”?

    LOL I certainly am not him. However, from what I understand your curiously beloved Hannover has been said to be at least 12 different people. Amazing.
    I will say that he is quite good at debunking dumb Zionists, see below.

    – As for Irving, he has indeed served the interests of Real History, but to a point. It is noted that you cannot refute the information I posted about his preposterous “holocaust-lite” attempt. Irving said what he said.
    recommended:

    [MORE]

    CODOH routs Industry spokesman Andrew Mathis of ‘Holocaust’ Controversies:
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4451&p=72138&hilit=mathis+thames+mulegino#p72138
    See fraudulent ‘Villanova professor’ and ranting Zionist Andrew Mathis skewered here by Ms. Lee:
    http://www.angelfire.com/fl4/fci/andysjew.html
    and: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11798&p=88277&hilit=mathis+professor+lee#p88277

    Ron Unz crushes shyster Andrew Mathis:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-stalin-almost-conquered-europe/?showcomments#comment-2359020
    “Well, our friend “Andrew E. Mathis” is not only an ignorant activist-type, but also an extremely lazy one …”

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/?showcomments#comment-3224852
    – Actually, your ridiculous behavior reminds me quite a bit of that “Andrew Mathis” fellow, who was some sort of history-hoaxer who occasionally used to hang around here

    https://www.unz.com/article/debunking-myths-of-red-brown-alliances/?showcomments#comment-3189950
    – “After I recounted this fascinating and long-suppressed story of WWII, a notorious history-hoaxer calling himself “Andrew E. Mathis” showed up to defend the honor of the American historical profession —
    – Against these obvious facts, a dishonest history-hoaxer like “Andrew E. Mathis” ignores reality and claims against all evidence that the French plans for a 1940 strategic bombing offensive against the USSR weren’t almost totally censored out of virtually all WWII history books for six decades.
    – Perhaps instead of wasting his time leaving dishonest comments on this website, “Andrew E. Mathis” should go off and fulfill my request to locate a standard WWII history text …”

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  240. Schuetze says:
    @mcohen

    “I had never heard of dave irving till I googled him”

    It has long been my contention that jews are the most ignorant people on the planet. Sure, they are good at reading and language, but centuries of being lied to by Rabbis and centuries of studying their talmudic books of lies have directly led to a race of people who cannot discern the truth and only excel at lies. This is why jews make such toxic lawyers, politicians, pawn shop owners, drug peddlers, porn directors, and to Irvings dismay, historians.

    But it is their latest manifestation that is the most toxic to civilization, as doctors and scientists. With their endless lies and their desolation of truth, jews have corrupted both the soul of western civilization and their one god outside of Satan’s realm. The CV19 plandemic is the direct result of this jewish propensity for self deception.

    • Agree: tomo
    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  241. Miro23 says:
    @utu

    We know that Hitler fan boys love Suvorov’s Icebreaker theory because it absolves Hitler from the sin and stupidity of attacking the USSR. But the Icebreaker theory was never meant to be anti-Soviet. Quite the opposite. Stalin wanting to preemptively attack Hitler and save the world and the Jews was a good thing. Russians prefer that image of Stalin and of themselves to that of Stalin being trusting and servile nincompoop in the Hitler-Stalin partnership. The Icebreaker theory basically does way with the shameful Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the fact that it was the USSR that aided and abetted Hitler to start WWII and then joined him 17 days later.

    Comment by “another anon”:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-west-is-1-in-academic-freedom/#comment-4294238
    I do not understand why Soviet Union never made “Suvorov thesis” official. The 1939 M-R pact and the total debacle of 1941 were two greatest embarrassments of Soviet history impossible to forget and impossible to explain. Wouldn’t “We were ready to strike at the fascist beast and destroy it once and for all, but the beast hit first” be better official line than “The fascist beast signed a treaty with us and promised do not attack us. WAAH! We trusted them so much! WAAH! No one can expect that they would betray us, WAAH WAAH WAAH!”

    Sometimes it’s better to just look at what people say and do. The invasion of Russia was in line with Hitler’s declared intentions from the 1930’s onwards of incorporating Russia (and Eastern Europe) into his Greater Germany – and he made endless detailed plans for the administration of his future colonies. It’s the main theme of “Table Talk”:

    It’s true that there was also a timing aspect – given growing Soviet power. The conclusion is that he saw a window of opportunity. Like he said:

    STALIN – (267) “Stalin too must command our unconditional respect. In his own way he is a hell of a fellow! He knows his models, Genghis Khan and the others, very well, and the scope of his industrial planning is exceeded only by our own four Year Plan.” (300) “If Stalin had been given another ten or fifteen years, Russia would have become the mightiest state in the world, and two or three centuries would have been required to bring about a change. It is a unique phenomenon! …..They have built factories where a couple of years ago only unknown villages existed – and factories, mark you, as big as the Hermann Göring Works.”

    Table talk Conversation Nº ( )

  242. erzberger says:
    @Schuetze

    One thing that really comes across in these photos of Himmler and the NSDAP is that the leadership was predominantly made up of family men. This is a far cry from todays barren dyke German leadership like Merkel or von der Leyen

    Lol. Von der Leyen has 7 (!) children, and outperforms most NS family men in that respect. Your argument is indeed “barren”, based on myth not fact.

    • Replies: @Schuetze
  243. @Genrick Yagoda

    I was merely pointing to the logical gap in what you said. The fact (if it is a fact) that the actual or fake facts of the Holocaust were not given that appellation till later does not mean that he could not have decided not to include references to those facts or fake facts earlier but, when describing what he was doing later, applied the later coined word “Holocaust” to describe with convenient brevity what he was not including.

  244. @Wally

    The causes of Irving’s present predicament were self inflicted: the 1996 Libel case, which resulted in his bankruptcy, and his imprisonment in Austria. He did not need to litigate, and he should have refrained from going to countries where “Holocaust Denial” was illegal. You do not give your enemies what they want, which is precisely what Irving did.
    Now, he seems to be giving his enemies more of what they want. This will not appease them, it will blemish his reputation for independent inquiry and antagonise former supporters. Really, very sad.

    • Agree: Boom Boom Kaboomski
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Dube
  245. John Hagan says: • Website

    Why do you imagie that here are 50 states in the US and 32 Holocaust museums. yet there are only 25 civil war museums. Even universities in the US understand that Jewish equity studies have a higher academic appeal than trans gender equity studies.

  246. PolarBear says:
    @Ghali

    You don’t want a healthy Austria or any European country for that matter. Vienna is the opposite of poor and backwards. Racial hygiene is essential for European countries to continue to prosper. So hop on your camel and fuck off to whatever shithole you were spawned from. The wife and kids you left behind need you. Europe does not need another ungrateful parasite.

    • Agree: Gleimhart Mantooso
    • Replies: @Gleimhart Mantooso
  247. anonymous[378] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    I’ve at times gotten rather irritated by some of the articles I’ve published, many of which I regard as full of ridiculous crackpottery.

    After reading this, many authors here would be like… oh crap!, is he talking about us?

  248. @Wizard of Oz

    The two quotes that I stated, I did hear them on Renseradio.com, many years back, when Jeff Rense was interviewing a historian who gave the references which unfortunately I did not note down.

    However I will give you some quotes that shed light on the psychopathic character of Churchill from Mike King’s “ The British Mad Dog”:

    Churchill quotes

    “I want the Germans to start bombing London as early as possible because this will bring the Americans into the war when they see the Nazis’ frightfulness, and above all it will put an end to this awkward and inconvenient peace movement that’s afoot in my own Cabinet and among the British population.”
    Joe Kennedy, quoting from conversation with Winston Churchill (20)

    Just remember that British bombers bombed Berlin 7 times before Hitler started retaliating at London.

    In a July memo to the Minister of UK Aircraft production, Churchill writes:

    “When I look around to see how we can win the war I see that there is only one sure path. We have no Continental army which can defeat the German military power.. …there is one thing that will bring him (Hitler) down, and that is an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland. We must be able to overwhelm them by this means, without which I do not see a way through.” (26)

    Note here that the criminal bombing of Dresden when Germany’s defeat was a foregone conclusion is added proof of Churchill’s criminal mind.

    ―Churchill’s drunken rantings, often during cabinet meetings, disgusted many of his generals, as when, at a meeting on July 6, 1944, the prime minister told his commanders to prepare to drop two million lethal anthrax bombs on German cities. Of this meeting Britain’s First Sea Lord, Admiral Cunningham, wrote, according to Irving: “There’s no doubt that P.M. is in no state to discuss anything, too tired, and too much alcohol.” (3)
    – Historian David Irving

    I hope these quotes are engraved in granite on the pedestal of Churchill’s statue.

    • Agree: Boom Boom Kaboomski
    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    , @Wizard of Oz
  249. @Jus' Sayin'...

    Who advised DI to take that case? It was total insanity. Reminds me of the Irish aphorism ‘suing the Devil in the courts of hell’. In other words he had no chance – zero – of winning. He was also destined to be bankrupted since the loser in a libel case must pick up all of the costs including the $17 million racked up by t6he other side. Beggars belief.

    • Replies: @ivan
    , @Verymuchalive
  250. Schuetze says:
    @erzberger

    I stand corrected, I am neither a German nor an EU slave. But then I have to ask the question what business does a mother of 7 have leaving her children to be raised by others while pursuing Economics, Medical and Political careers. I would contend that the only way she could square that circle is by cheating her children out of being raised by a nurturing mother. Oh my, look at this:

    “In 2015, researchers collaborating at the VroniPlag Wiki reviewed von der Leyen’s 1991 doctoral thesis and alleged that 43.5% of the thesis pages contained plagiarism, and in 23 cases citations were used that did not verify claims for which they were given. Multiple notable German academics such as Gerhard Dannemann [de] and Volker Rieble [de] publicly accused von der Leyen of intended plagiarism. The Hannover Medical School conducted an investigation and concluded in March 2016 that while the thesis contains plagiarism, no intention to deceive could be proven. The university decided not to revoke von der Leyen’s medical degree.

    Von der Leyen is a cheating scum bag. Can you please point out which high ranking NSDAP members had cheated to obtain their doctors title?

    • LOL: Skeptikal
    • Replies: @erzberger
    , @Skeptikal
  251. @Wally

    Plausible deniability.

    • Replies: @Wally
  252. Sirius says:
    @Colin Wright

    The government of Neville Chamberlain fell precisely because Parliament, and this included the opposition Labour Party and dissenting Conservative Party members, wanted to take a harder line against Germany and go all out in the war effort. It was right after the failure to stop the Germans in Norway. Just look at the parliamentary debates that took place before May 10, 1940, when Churchill assumed the prime ministership.

    One doesn’t put in a gung-ho hardliner like Churchill to sue for peace a month or two later, notwithstanding the French defeat. In fact on June 11 Churchill urged the French to mount a street by street defense of Paris, which horrified leaders Weygand and Pétain.

    Furthermore, from London, De Gaulle made his radio speech rebelling against the newly forming Vichy government on June 18 urging the French to fight on, with obvious British support.

    It’s not a credible argument that the British were seriously contemplating peace overtures from Germany during those critical months of the war.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Disagree: Colin Wright
  253. @Verymuchalive

    I’ve obviously missed something.How is he now giving his enemies more of what they want?

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  254. Skeptikal says:
    @Joe Levantine

    The bombing and fire-bombing of Dresden and Hamburg (and other German cities), full of civilian refugees from the East, were war crimes. Period.

    I can see bombing railroad and other infrastructure.

    But I don’t think railroads were very a prime target of the Allies.

    Instead they bombed city centers full of apartment blocks and people. Thjey pursued the people with more fire bombings when they fled to the rivers to escape the furnace.

    Beyond comprehension. Evil.

    Germans had to be made to believe that they were responsible for everything that happened to them, so suck it up don’t even bother to have post-traumatic stress syndrome. The Holocaust narrative plays a prominent role in enforcing this narrative.

    • Thanks: Joe Levantine
  255. @Schuetze

    ,,, centuries of being lied to by Rabbis and centuries of studying their talmudic books of lies have directly led to a race of people who cannot discern the truth and only excel at lies.

    This is one of the best explanations I’ve ever heard, and quite succinct. Anyone can understand it. I was saying the same thing, but taking the longer way around, in the article I recommended here not long ago: http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/elie-admits-his-true-stories-never-happened/. I still recommend it, to put a little more meat on the bones of understanding why the Jews are “the people of the Lie.” Lying is their way of life and is infused into their religion. This is why the more religious Eastern Europe Jews are the worst; they will believe anything.

    Naturally, they project “the Lie” onto their enemy or opponent as a matter of course. It’s not possible to ever assimilate them. Thank you Schuetze, for this gem.

    • Replies: @Schuetze
  256. @Genrick Yagoda

    Fair comment. I probably should have qualified the ‘brown-nosers’ comment because I was projecting, I was myself an original ‘brown-noser’. The notion was that Irving’s fans would support him come what may because to them he represented the real truth.

    When Irving was exposed to having used selected documents to push his dialogue I felt a feeling of betrayal. Much like finding out that your wife was sleeping around. There is much anger but no reflection on how one could have been so deceived.

    Now I understand that he was simply making a (good) living and had an eye towards stunning women which I admire in any ambitious man but his choice of vocations meant that there there would inevitably come a reckoning, perhaps a 100 years or so. With the advent of the internet, him walking naked in public was going to pass much more quickly.

    It was his great misfortune that the internet was to start coming into ubiquity right around the time that he launched his Barbarossa against the Tribe. I think that he expected to lose but thought that his grandstanding on a global stage would have cemented his reputation as a fearless authority on truth in history and so on. Added to which he controlled his followers and was assured of large audiences and brisk book sales in that demographic alone.

    But getting back to my hubris theme he miscalculated in that he assumed the opposition would simply stick to the facts of history. Here he would and did slay them. But being a legal forum in which the law and not justice is the final arbiter he let himself open to the trier of credibility. They dug up such long and discarded underwear (and more recent in skid marks in Moscow) of his that may have even shocked him.

    And then it was over. Not just the legal case but the credibility he had with his following. Of course there are the true believers all which would show up in groups of 10 or 20 after he had driven 300 miles that day. When I attended his lectures it was standing room only in large venues.

    So live by the sword and die by the sword I suppose. I am also being generous in not expounding on him as being an unlikable person. His arrogance was very palpable. But, for reasons of my own I always found British arrogance enjoyable even when directed against me. Think Basil Fawlty.

    Anyways, just my two cents,

    Cheers-

    • Thanks: Genrick Yagoda
    • Replies: @cohen
  257. @Sirius

    First rule of management: when you’re in charge, everything is your fault.

    • Replies: @Wielgus
  258. @Schuetze

    Again, splitting hairs, perhaps, but the assassinations you reference were about control of finance which would lead, long term, to control of the nation. the de Haan assassination was a blatant political assassination of one of their own, to stop the exposure of Zionism.

    • Replies: @Schuetze
  259. Ron Unz says:
    @L.K

    For example, Albert Weeks is a US historian & former Professor of International Affairs, fluent in Russian, who has closely followed the Russian historians’ disputes which arose [after the fall of the Soviet Union and the partial opening of archives] over the Stalin regime’s offensive war plans against NS Germany.

    Yes, earlier this year I finally got around to reading the Albert Weeks book, and it provided a great deal of material strongly affirming the Suvorov Hypothesis that Stalin had been on the verge of launching an all-out attack on Europe when Hitler preempted him.

    As I emphasized in my original article, for decades the Suvorov Hypothesis has been the subject of massive scholarly debate in Russia, Germany, Israel, and many other parts of the world, while being totally ignored and blacklisted in the English-speaking world.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-stalin-almost-conquered-europe/

    So Weeks was able to extensively quote the findings from the various Russian academics whose research supports Suvorov’s theory:

    The book received favorable mention by a number of prominent American figures, including Strobe Talbott, Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State and president of The Brookings Institution.

  260. Schuetze says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Thank you, Frau Yeager. Und Frohe Weinacht.

  261. Schuetze says:
    @Curmudgeon

    I guess the point you are making is that to a European Christian, betrayal of your own people is the greatest of sins. But to a jew, brutally betraying and sacrificing your own people for your god Satan is the greatest of virtues. We have seen this time and again over the centuries, like when the Ashkenazi terrorized Sephardim jews across the middle east in order to force them to migrate to Israel in the 1940’s and 50’s. Or when the Kapos terrorized other jews in the labor camps in order to produce victims for the Holocaust propaganda they knew was coming after victory. Or when gangs of jewish thugs brutalized other jews and broke their shop windows on Kristallnacht. Or when the Zionists declared war on Germany in order to force the NSDAP to cooperate and sign the Hasbara accords. Or when….

    Come to think of it, all these “pogroms” jews love to kvetch about are really just jewish projection of their own fratricidal hate and brutality onto Christians.

    • Agree: Curmudgeon
    • Thanks: tomo
  262. cohen says:
    @Timur The Lame

    The first rule to defend your views is to attack the personality of your opponent. Julian Assange is a recent example. Regardless who David Irving is as a person and what his motives were there is hardly a debate to dispute his findings. I dont believe in he said she said and the self proclaimed “historian”.

    Sorry, I dont believe politicians, contemporary historians and journalist unless they produce the material to back their claims. No opinion. My late Jewish boss and mentor used say if that if you put 3 Jews in one room to debate you will get 8 opinions (paraphrasing). Everyone has opinion and why should we listen to other’s “opinions”
    When Youtube blocked everything on David Irving that made to believe him more and more, period.

  263. @Ron Unz

    Probably the best book on all of this is Sokolov’s Myths and Legends of the Eastern Front. He agrees that Stalin was preparing an attack but that he greatly overestimated Soviet military capabilities.

    • Replies: @L.K
  264. Poco says:
    @The Spirit of Enoch Powell

    Normal White people need to start taking jewish names and fighting back. Infiltration need not be a one way street.

  265. @Wizard of Oz

    You’re being disingenuous, Wiz. Most of us, you and me included – I hope- go through life without making enemies – personal or otherwise. Also, we don’t become personal enemies of other people.
    Public figures – David Irving, a prominent historian, is such – are different. They often make enemies, personal or otherwise.
    Your enemies would be pleased to see you lose a libel case, bankrupted and imprisoned. But they usually want more. Further personal abasement. Certainly. Irving’s back tracking on his previous views – Holocaust Lite, as some commenters call it – fits that category. But that won’t appease them. They usually want you destroyed, physically or otherwise.
    I hope I have made myself clear.

    • Agree: John Wear
  266. @L.K

    No one understands what David Irving is thinking at this point. He seems to have gotten himself in so deep he has no graceful way of extricating himself from his many errors. He felt compelled to produce a book on Himmler, yet it appears on the surface not to deal with the Aktion Reinhardt theories he’s been promoting at all. By making it Part One of Two, is he putting that off for a future book which may never come? Yet he’s hoping to make a bundle on Part One? What a swindle. I’ve no interest in reading it.

    As to Eric Hunt, yes I know what didn’t happen, more that I could say with assurance what did happen. He was not chased out by vengeful Jews who threatened him. He had a promising future working with Germar Rudolf and Codoh at the time, with promising projects planned. He was receiving money for his work. He told me he had enough money. But throughout all the years I knew Eric (from 2007), and helped him myself quite a bit over the years, he was subject to dramatic swings between being positive and appreciative to being angry, resentful and dismissive of me for certain positions I took related to Elie Wiesel especially. That’s why I believe he was/is bi-polar, which he liked to deny. Not long before his announced change of mind he suffered a major personal disappointment in his life unrelated to revisionism, and following that began intimating to me that he thought the ‘evidence for Babi Yar’ was convincing. He was also complaining that the leading revisionists had not proven what happened to the millions of Jews sent to the Eastern camps (re the Koherr Report), and this was a major failure that hurt their credibility. He emphasized that Germar Rudolf, his friend and mentor at the time, did not even try to answer that question. When he sent me two photographs he claimed were evidence of a massacre at Babi Yar, I just laughed and said he couldn’t be serious. I didn’t take it seriously … but he did!! Very soon, he made it public, and what I said to him about it caused him to cut off our Skype connection. I soon realized he was hoping I would be supportive of him, but there was no way.

    I can’t say what state of mind he was in, but it was like, in making such a fool of himself as he did in the following weeks with his impossibly weak ‘argument’, he intended to burn his bridges behind him so completely that he could not go back. I have heard the degenerate Jew David Cole-stein say that he was in contact with Eric and was instrumental in changing his mind. I never heard Eric mention such a thing, but I wouldn’t rule out that he was talking with a variety of people.

    My impression is that Eric, who was very young (too young) when he blundered into Elie Wiesel’s hotel when under a manic episode, and got the scare of his life in the California court system and renounced revisionism under the influence of court attorneys and to save himself from prison, then hoped to justify/rehabilitate himself in his family’s eyes by proving Wiesel and the Holocaust was a lie. After many years of a brilliant effort and much personal sacrifice, he saw a poor future for himself and wanted a way out. He was too young when he started, also too confident that his insights would be the discovery that would blow the whole thing out of the water. But it doesn’t work that way. It’s not about truth but about politics. Political power denies the truth and gets away with it. We need political power.

    • Thanks: L.K
    • Replies: @cohen
  267. L.K says:
    @Boom Boom Kaboomski

    While it is known that the German leadership underestimated Soviet war capacities, it is less known that Stalin overestimated Soviet military capabilities and underestimated those of the Germans.

    The newspaper Pravda, an organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, stated as much in May, 1991:

    Unrealistic [Soviet] plans of an offensive nature were drawn up before the war as a result of an overestimation of our own capabilities and an underestimation of the enemy’s. In accordance with these plans we began deploying our forces on the western frontier. But the enemy beat us to it.

    Sokolov’s scathing criticism of key ‘great patriotic war” myths is quite devastating.

    • Agree: Boom Boom Kaboomski
    • Replies: @Boom Boom Kaboomski
  268. Incitatus says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I like Buchanan (interesting writer/character). Bought several of his books, including ‘Unnecessary War’ in hardcover. The latter seems a ‘what if’ tome by an Amero-Irish with little love for Brits. Pat – let’s face it – had little problem retailing “silent-majority” petty kick-back Spiro Agnew and his boss “I am not a crook” Dick Nixon) to the very end of credibility and beyond. That’s the DC swamp.

    When Pat ran for president, if memory serves, he showed up to garner support at a US auto-worker venue fully recognized as driving a Mercedes. Didn’t go well.

    That Pat’s ‘Unnecessary War’ is an Unz cult favorite is little surprise. It’s malleable (confers status to the most egregious views because it’s not history – it’s a political pipe dream largely untroubled with historical fact).

    I’ve read several Irving works (20+?) years ago and respect him. But, to be honest, ‘Hitler’s War’ seemed a dry account Adolf’s press secretary would give based on newspaper clippings. Explanations on major issues (why go to war, what about all the killing, what about Aktion-T4 murder of Germans, the war against the Church, why didn’t German troops have winter gear October 1941 Russia, and so on) are missing. Irving seems to excuse gross leadership failure (unexplored) as routine and respectable. Is that why it’s an Unz favorite? A lot easier than reading history.

    One example. 15 October 1941 (13 days into Army Group Center’s Operation Typhoon Moscow offensive) Adolf Hitler assured Economic Minister and Reichsbank President Walter Funk’s warnings of hyper-inflation due to protracted war would be ultimately be assuaged by riches immanent from eastern conquest, suggests an interim solution:

    “Inflation doesn’t come from the fact that more money comes into trading, but only if the individual demands more payment for the same performance. Here one must intervene. I also had to explain to [Dr. Hjarmar] Schacht that the cause the consistency of our currency is the KZ [concentration camp].”
    -Stahel ‘Operation Typhoon ‘ p.108

    Slave labor will solve currency inflation. Thus spoke the (former vagabond) Führer.

    Don’t recall that in Pat Buchanan’s ‘history’. Don’t recall that in any UR ‘long article”. Indeed, like Irving, those accounts can be remarkably fact free.

    Wonder why.

    • Thanks: Wizard of Oz
  269. L.K says:
    @Ron Unz

    As I emphasized in my original article, for decades the Suvorov Hypothesis has been the subject of massive scholarly debate in Russia, Germany, Israel, and many other parts of the world, while being totally ignored and blacklisted in the English-speaking world.

    Indeed… yet we still find laughable propagandists, including in Russian media, who try to advance the notion that Suvorov is a product of the US and British secret services working to discredit the Soviet participation in WW2, which makes absolutely ZERO sense on so many different levels. For one thing, as you have stated, Suvorov himself was largely ignored in the English-speaking world, despite all the debate in Europe and Russia, a debate he had been significant in sparking. Even worse, all the work published by many Russian, German and Austrian historians, many of them academic ones, has been almost entirely blacked out in English.

    On another note, the Anglo-American participation in WW2 is so intertwined with the Soviet effort, and the evidence that both the US and the British knew only too well the nature of the Stalin regime is so massive, that there is no way they can jettison the Soviets without discrediting their own mythologies built around this war, for which the American and the British hold enormous responsibilities.

    This is not to say that the debate conducted in Europe and Russia was free of state politics. Soon those historians offering new interpretations were either attacked or ignored in German speaking Europe, and in Russia the government passed laws designed to punish historians who dispute officialdom, and basically closed the Russian archives. In fact, as von Thadden explained in the mid 90s, the major players worked together and coordinated their response to the revisionists. Scholars from many English speaking countries took part, including from the US. One historian who was given special access to Soviet archives, in order to “debunk” Suvorov(which he did not, just obfuscation) was the israeli historian Gabriel Gorodetsky.

    To shore up the beleaguered “establishment” view of the Hitler-Stalin clash, a group of concerned scholars met at an international conference in Moscow in 1995. Historians from Europe, Israel, the United States and Canada met with their Russian counterparts to coordinate the “official” line, in both Russia and the West, on the German-Russian clash and its origins.

    After all this we still have to put up with stupid Russian propaganda that Suvorov is a product of the CIA or something, and a lot of fools bite, including, if memory serves, that “Saker” guy who writes here…

    Merry Christmas.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
    , @Verymuchalive
  270. cohen says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    What are you trying to say? All this write up for nothing just waste of your time and one try to read.
    What is with you people to avoid the facts and get into personal attacks. I could hire a good writer to counter your BS with humor. Here is a clip about swimming pool, a library, a post office at Auschwitz. You can deny it as a fake, or you agree (impossible) or prefer to complete silence. A predicted option. Post office, swimming pool, a library, Vegetable garden for inmates in a camp.


  271. Fox says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    You like to shift the goal posts.

    • Agree: Skeptikal
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Skeptikal
  272. Incitatus says:
    @L.K

    “the Anglo-American participation in WW2 is so intertwined with the Soviet effort, and the evidence that both the US and the British knew only too well the nature of the Stalin regime is so massive, that there is no way they can jettison the Soviets without discrediting their own mythologies built around this war, for which the American and the British hold enormous responsibilities.

    Who’s ‘jettisoning’ anything? Soviets? You (half-breed German – Italian mode)? Talk about ‘massive’ clusterfuck. You and your parents entertained/attracted total ruin. Now you stick your pencil neck out to claim sanctitude?

    Don’t think so.

    Merry Christmas.

    • Troll: Verymuchalive
  273. @Verymuchalive

    Yes, disingenuousness is the Whiz’s MO. That, and being a boring, self-important gasbag.

  274. @L.K

    There are a great many interesting nuggets in Sokolov’s book, including the fact that Soviet military effectiveness consistently declined over the course of the war (the Germans maintained tactical superiority until the very end), and the critical role American air power played in weakening the German war effort in the East. (He believes, accurately, that if Normandy had failed, the Americans would have used atomic weapons against the Germans in 1946.)

  275. @Fox

    I suppose I can accept “shift” as indicating some careful redefinition rather than carrying the implication of crass unfairness.

  276. @Sirius

    Long before being pushed and promoted to serve as Britain’s next prime minister by England’s Jewish lobby, Churchill, who was forever in debt to the bankers as a result of excessive drinking and gambling, had long since been bought by Jewish bankers who repeatedly bailed him out of debt for that specific reason.

    • Agree: John Wear
  277. @Verymuchalive

    No, you haven’t made yourself clear if by that you mean that you think you have clearly answered my question. You are now emphasising that his enemies want to totally destroy him. But that was the given. What I wanted to know was how he was still helping them. Do you mean that his dealing with 1940s-402s German history and only giving a pallid lightweight view of the Holocaust does that so he needs to shut up about WW2 and the Nazis altogether?

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  278. erzberger says:
    @Schuetze

    I have to ask the question what business does a mother of 7 have leaving her children to be raised by others while pursuing Economics, Medical and Political careers.

    Do you get upset about the de facto First Lady of Nazi Germany, Magda Goebbels? About the 6 children she had with Goebbels being raised by others? Even though there were offers to save the children, she personally took care of poisoning them to spare them a life of shame and ridicule – the future of all other German children. Some model for motherhood and political leadership. I’ll take von der Leyen over Goebbels any time, both as a mother and female politician. As for current Chancellor Merkel: she has no fewer children than former Chancellor Hitler.

    Re plagiarism: Von der Leyen is not the only German politician accused of plagiarism in her doctoral thesis, and the scandal only made her more popular. Before, she seemed superhuman, after it was clear that she too had to cut some corners. Would you prefer she had cut corners wrt her large family?

    I am not aware of any Nazis being accused or guilty of plagiarism in their doctoral theses. But much of Nazism was nothing but plagiarism: from the Hitler salute modelled after the American Bellamy salute to the Volkswagen (Model T), the Autobahn or Swastika, the Hitler Youth (Boy Scouts), the Aryan origin myth, the European East as American West, the genocide of Slavic peoples modelled after the genocide of Native Americans, concentration camps etc etc – there was barely anything original about Nazism. And Dr Goebbels’ much admired model was the Jewish/Austrian/American father of propaganda, Edward Bernays – one of the most disastrous characters of the 20th c. You may want to watch the documentary “Century of the Self”, on YouTube, and read up on Bernays and your “family man” Goebbels, his epigone

    • Replies: @Schuetze
    , @HeebHunter
  279. Dube says:
    @Verymuchalive

    Correct me, but I think I recall that in UK the burden by law was on Lipstadt, which is advantageous for Irving, so he was not just flipping a coin.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  280. @Ron Unz

    I understand your excitement at discovering Suavarov and other non Anglophone writers on similar themes. But, on full consideration , does it exempt Hitler from he charge of desiring, intending, and planning to take Lebensraum from the Soviet Union regardless of Stalin’s intention or plan to attack Germany? One might sympathise with Hitler’s intention if one was sufficiently appalled by Stalin’s régime though it seems hard to deny that Hitler’s wet dreams started well before Stalin, or Trotsky, could settle on any realistic aggressive aims.

    So what that the Soviet Union was likely to have attacked Germany later in 1941, or, much more likely summer 1942 or later?

    • Agree: ivan
    • Replies: @Incitatus
  281. @Joe Levantine

    Nothing surprising in most of that. Britain was at war with a country that had done a deal with the Soviet Union and he was responsible for trying to win it. But I challenge you to show any special responsibility for the tragedy of Dresden which my memory me tells me he regretted. I don’t think he had anything like the same ultimate responsibility as he had for the (IMO justified) decision to attack the French fleet in 1940.

    What I find really interesting in what your comment throws up is the question whether he had his drinking under control adequately during the early part of the war when his capacity and decisions were vital. By late 1943 he didn’t matter half as much and maybe self-discipline slackened.

    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
  282. Bukowski says:
    @Sirius

    Neville Chamberlain stated that in the week after declaring war on Germany he received 10 000 letters from the British public. Two thirds were asking him to stop the war. Churchill became prime minister due to the action of other politicians. He did not win an election. In July 1945 when the British public were allowed to vote his party was thrown out.
    Churchill was a repulsive hypocrite. He claimed to be fighting against dictatorship and yet was a bootlicker of the dictator Stalin. He claimed to be fighting for parliamentary democracy yet supported the one party state of the USSR. And in 1944 even before the Yalta Conference of 1945 he had agreed to let Poland be taken over by the Soviets. The entire British Empire went to war over Poland and Churchill agreed to stab them in the back to please Stalin.
    http://newobserveronline.com/churchill-conspired-with-stalin-to-give-east-europe-to-soviet-union-secret-documents-reveal/

    • Agree: Boom Boom Kaboomski
  283. @L.K

    Thanks. You’re the most knowledgeable commenter here ( John Wear is a Columnist). You’ve drawn my attention to a number of matters of which I was completely unaware, especially the International Conference in Moscow in 1995.
    I find it very interesting that the Russians and the West would seek to co-ordinate the official response to Suvorov’s hypothesis. When Icebreaker was published in 1987, the SIS probably thought it was just another opportunity to bash the Soviets. They didn’t think it might help revise views of WWII completely. Unintended consequences and all that.
    I would be grateful if you could supply a reference about this conference, as I would like to find out more.

    • Replies: @L.K
  284. ivan says:
    @Irish Savant

    Perhaps he thought that Truth was its own defence? I consider David Irving to be a scrupulous historian, he always backs up what he maintains with original documentation. I don’t particularly care for his conclusions, for example I am a somewhat subdued fan of Churchill, but he never shirks from what the documents tells him. An honest man in the Devil’s Court as you say.

  285. teo toon says:
    @LarryS

    The modern, secular socialist state called Israel is not the Israel of the Bible.

    Nor are the Ashkenazim, Khazars, and the mixed Canaanites and Edomites true Israel; they are counterfeits; nor is Judaism, really Pharisaism, the biblical Hebraism; they are the enemies of Jesus Christ and the Father. There may be a small part of Levites and Judahites mixed in; but that does make the Jews/Pharsees Israel. Judaism is the original replacement religion.

    The ten tribes of the northern kingdom the House of Israel still exists; most of us do not know who we are; and our pastors are too committed to Zionism to care or do the research. Israel is not Israel without the ten tribes; in fact the names Jacob, Israel, and Isaac belong to the House of Israel; in particularly to the half tribes of the tribe of Joseph: read Genesis 48: 14-20. The very name Saxons is derived from “Isaac’s sons.”
    As for the current presence of the Israelite tribes, see Genesis 49.

    • Replies: @Dave Bowman
  286. @Wally

    I have no time to waste on a very old and hideously ugly faggot such as librarian Jonnie Hargis aka Hannover aka Wally, whose life revolves around maintaining a vast archive of comment threads from which he throws out a few old and tired favorites in response to any perceived ‘attack’ from a perceived ‘enemy.’ A gutter player is our Wally. And ineffective. I’m sorry I mentioned his name, actually trying to complement him.

    BTW, I’ve never been “slapped silly” by anyone. That was one of Hannover’s trademark sayings at CODOH Forum, so it’s strange he can’t give it up if he’s really trying to convince Unz readers that he’s someone other than Hannover. Can he explain that?

    • Replies: @cohen
  287. cohen says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    You dont have time to face the truth. But sure like to give the impression of being a legend in your own mind. The bullies when challenged back off with some excuses. Why dont you answer my questions about the post office, Library, swimming pool, soccer games, and theater in the cammps.
    Post # 278. I guess not time to check the facts.

    1.So what happened to Elie’s tattoos from German camps. He used soap from human fat as a eraser.
    2. So what do you say about six million magic number that was is used a holy number before, during and after the war. You guys are genius and know how to sell crap.
    3. What transpired (holocaust promoters} to lower the deaths count in Auschwitz from 4 to 2 then to 1.1 million.
    Enjoy this clip about Holocaust Survivors. Good plot for a Speeeeeel Burrrrrrg movie


  288. cohen says:

    Here is clip that is not available on Yourtube.
    A John Linen Parody. Some call it counter charging


    • Replies: @mcohen
    , @Skeptikal
  289. @Irish Savant

    I totally agree. Equally insane, he continued frequenting countries where “Holocaust Denial ” is a criminal offence. You don’t give your enemies a stick to beat you with.

  290. @Dube

    The case was held before a judge without a jury. Unsurprisingly, the judge was an establishment minion who did what was required of him. The establishment were not leaving anything to chance.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Gray_(judge)

    Even if the judge had decided in Irving’s favour, it was still in his power to order minimal damages, or not award Irving his costs. Either would have bankrupted Irving,
    Lipstadt was massively funded by Jewish organisations, and would have appealed if she lost. The case would have gone to the Appeal Court, where the establishment would overturn it and prevent further appeal.
    Irving had gone on a fool’s errand. He should have known this beforehand and not litigated in the first case.

  291. How to end this Jewish Medical Tyranny.

    SCG – How to use Rife Frequencies to protect/cure this virus.


  292. mcohen says:
    @cohen

    give it up friend you cannot win.

    • Replies: @cohen
  293. L.K says:
    @Verymuchalive

    I would be grateful if you could supply a reference about this conference, as I would like to find out more.

    Adolf von Thadden discusses it in his book Stalins Falle: Er wollte den Krieg.

    Wolfgang Strauss also talks about these issues in his book „Unternehmen Barbarossa und der russische Historikerstreit“, for ex in chapter 7(Der Fall Gorodetsky), where he discusses the Israeli Gabriel Gorodetsky:

    … Ältere Geschichtsforscher erinnern sich, daß es einen gleichnamigen orthodox-sowjetischen Historiographen gegeben hat, einen Apologeten der Stalinschen Außen- und Kriegspolitik, später ausgewandert.

    Ein Gabriel Gorodetzsky aus Tel Aviv nahm denn auch 1995 an einer Konferenz altstalinistischer Historiker, wie russische Zeitungen meldeten, in Rußland teil. …

    There are others, but I cannot remember specific names, not off the top of my head.
    Best regards

    • Thanks: Verymuchalive
  294. anon[232] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wally

    I am no longer a participant on this forum and would appreciate your leaving me out of your fights.

    -Andrew E. Mathis

  295. JWalters says:
    @Wally

    I’ve heard Irving talk about those documents (video), and looked at their reproductions (via your helpful links). It seems to me Irving has maintained his primary focus regardless of a possible shift in his picture of holocaust details. His original and main focus remains the manipulation of politics behind the scenes, especially in matters of war. He established that we can add WWII to the list of manufactured wars, which include Iraq and Vietnam. Those have been conclusively proved to have been pushed into being by people behind the scenes. And the evidence points strongly to the same people in all these cases, a banking mafia, Jewish dominated, using ethnic bonds as a security measure. Very large amounts are spent to emotionally manipulate the general Jewish population into acting as a defensive perimeter. They are ready to charge forward at the cry of “anti-Semitic!” from their mafia overlords. Sociopath, heartless overlords. Very dangerous for society to have such people at the steering wheel, obviously. It seems to me this is Irving’s great service. And he appears to be the only person who has turned up actual Nazi documents with data that he says MIGHT be describing such a mass murder, and I agree. It is a testament to his honesty that he did not hide them. And a further testament that he stuck to his original thesis, perfectly rationally it seems to me.

    I agree with other commenters who point out that we must keep in mind, for all who struggle against this mafia, that they may be subject to physical threats, against their family as well as themselves. There are documented instances of those tactics being used. One death is nothing to mass murderers.

  296. @teo toon

    The very name Saxons is derived from “Isaac’s sons.”

    Utter rubbish.

    Saxon (n.)
    c. 1200, from Late Latin Saxonem (nominative Saxo; also source of French Saxon, Spanish Sajon, Italian Sassone), usually found in plural Saxones, probably from a West Germanic tribal name (represented by Old English Seaxe, Old High German Sahsun, German Sachse “Saxon”), traditionally regarded as meaning literally “warrior with knives” (compare Old English seax, Old Frisian, Old Norse sax “knife, short sword, dagger,” Old High German Saxnot, name of a war-god), from Proto-Germanic *sahsa- “knife,” from PIE root *sek- “to cut.” But Watkins considers this doubtful.

    – Online Etymological Dictionary

  297. @Sirius

    Arguably Britain entered the First World War for that very reason, to block Germany’s rise and cut it down to size

    … and arguably, Britain did not. In fact, the truth, as very often, is very much simpler – and depressingly mundane and stupid:

    … Germany hoped Britain would stay out of the war altogether. However, the Germans knew that Britain had promised to defend Belgium under the Treaty of London of 1839. The Germans wanted the British government to ignore the Treaty of London and let the German army pass through Belgium. The British government made much of their duty to protect Belgium. Belgium’s ports were close to the British coast and German control of Belgium would have been seen as a serious threat to Britain. In the end, Britain refused to ignore the events of 4 August 1914, when Germany attacked France through Belgium. Within hours, Britain declared war on Germany. The Kaiser said how foolish he thought the British were. He said that Britain had gone to war for the sake of a “scrap of paper”.

    http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/greatwar/g2/backgroundcs1.htm

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    , @Colin Wright
    , @Fox
  298. Incitatus says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Stalin’s hostile intent summer 1941?

    Göbbels (briefed by Hitler) gave the press corps three reasons for invading the USSR 23 Jun 1941:

    1) “The possibility of mounting a major attack on England…did not exist so long as Russia remained a potential enemy [requiring troops defending the border]”;
    2) “The attack will provide an enormous increase in gasoline, petroleum and grain supplies”;
    3) “Conflict with Russia [is basically unavoidable]…For Europe to remain at peace for several decades Bolshevism and National Socialism could not exist side by side…It’s better for the conflict to happen now than when Russia has got its act together internally and has rearmed.”

    -Joseph Göbbels MK 23 Jun 1941, Tagebücher 24 Jun 1941; Longerich ‘Göbbels’ p. 480-481

    Striking down the ‘rotten’ Soviet house of cards, thought to take a few months given Stalin’s purges, would remove the sole remaining continental rival and force Britain to reassess its jealous objection to the Thousand Year Reich. Hells-Bells, the Führer would even help the UK administer any unruly English colonies (doubtless helped by the Duke and Duchess of Windsor).

    Fifteen days later (8 Jul 1941) Hitler orders Göbbels to start a new press campaign insisting Barbarossa was pre-emptive defense against an imminent Soviet threat [Longerich ‘Göbbels’ p. 482].

    Meanwhile German advance units found little suggesting a Soviet invasion threat:

    “I think it would be nearest the truth to describe the Soviet dispositions – to which the occupation of eastern Poland, Bessarabia and the Baltic territories had already contributed very strong forces – as a ‘deployment against every contingency’. On 22nd June 1941, undoubtedly, the Soviet Union’s forces were still strung-out in such depth that they could then have been used only in a defensive war.”
    – Generalfeldmarschall Erich von Manstein, ‘Lost Victories’ p.181

    “Hitler insisted we must strike before Russia became too strong, and that she was much nearer striking than we imagined. He provided us with information that she was planning to launch an offensive herself that same summer, of 1941. For my part, I was very doubtful about this – and I found little sign of it when we crossed the frontier…In the first place, the Russians appeared to be taken by surprise…On my front we found no signs of offensive preparations in the forward zone…
    – Generalfeldmarschall Gerd von Rundstedt [Liddell-Hart ‘The German Generals Talk’ p.171]

    Austrian vagabond Hitler attacked a compliant trading partner (pre-invasion commodities sent by Stalin 1939-41 were never rivaled by post-invasion plunder) and willingly made them a second-front enemy, the quintessential German nightmare. Subsequent years were spent killing millions of Germans and tens-of-millions others in the gefreiter’s Darwinian ‘Lebensraum’ blood-fest.

    • Thanks: Wizard of Oz, ivan
    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    , @John Wear
  299. Skeptikal says:
    @cohen

    The video didn’t play for me.

    • Replies: @cohen
  300. Skeptikal says:
    @Dave Bowman

    “Arguably Britain entered the First World War for that very reason, to block Germany’s rise and cut it down to size”

    Seems very “arguable.” It is the “argument” made in Hidden History, by Docherty and MacGregor.
    I am just informing myself as to the content of this book (have ordered it but not yet read).
    Here is an interview with one of the authors:

    But how far-fetched is the idea that Britain would brook no German competitors muscling in on their imperial hegemony and making implicit demands and plans to share the earth?
    Not very. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
    Since Kaiser Wilhelm was Queen Victoria’s beloved grandson, it seems probable that Britons desiring to cut Germany down to size would operate sub rosa.

    See also https://www.amazon.com/War-Bagdad-Railway-Morris-Jastrow/dp/B000857H8K

    After unification in 1871, Germany was surging ahead with tremendous energy and resourcefulness. Best engineers, best medicine, best chemists, best steel, best military culture , etc. No reason at all to doubt that the Brits wanted to cut and keep Germany cut down to size and eliminate it as a competitor on the world scene.

    There was even a very strong chance that German, not English, would become the commercial world’s lingua franca. Even in Africa!! What upstarts!!! Bring the smelling salts!

    • Agree: erzberger
    • Thanks: Sirius
  301. Skeptikal says:
    @Incitatus

    “2) “The attack will provide an enormous increase in gasoline, petroleum and grain supplies”;”

    A film put out by the US Department of War or maybe it was Dept of State in ca. 1943 lauding the Soviet Army’s defense of the USSR made the point and showed this point clearly in maps that a primary aim of the German invasion was to capture oil wells and refineries needed for the war effort. This was the reason for the Stalingrad campaign.

    I think this is it: The Battle of Russia (in 5 parts, directed by Frank Capra):

  302. @Carroll Price

    In fairness this quip comes from David Irving and not me. But if my name were Irving David, I would likely have the chutzpah to try and claim David Irving’s words as my own.

  303. John Wear says:
    @Incitatus

    I think Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union was preemptive in nature. I looked up your quote on page 181 of Erich von Manstein’s book “Lost Victories”. The next four sentences in Manstein’s book read:

    “Yet the pattern could have been switched in no time to meet any change in Germany’s political or military situation. With a minimum of delay the Red Army–each of whose army groups was numerically, if not qualitatively, superior to the German army group facing it–could have closed up and become capable of going over to the attack. Thus the Soviet dispositions did in fact constitute a latent threat, even though they remained formally defensive up to 22nd June. The moment the Soviet Union had been offered a favorable opportunity–military or political–it could have become a direct menace to the Reich.”

    So Erich von Manstein’s book does not prove that Stalin was not preparing to attack Germany. In my opinion, Viktor Suvorov’s book “The Chief Culprit” offers convincing evidence that Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union was preemptive in nature. Hitler’s attack of the Soviet Union surprised Stalin. This is confirmed by your quote from Gerd von Rundstedt. Soviet forces were not prepared for Germany’s attack, which is why German forces did so well in the first few months of their invasion of the Soviet Union.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Incitatus
  304. Protogonus says: • Website
    @ThreeCranes

    ‘The Reign of Quantity’ (1945 in French, 1953 in English) explained the modus operandi of this particular practice of repeated suggestion and demonstrates its centrality in the centuries-long enterprise of ever-deeper spiritual repression:

    “Nevertheless, there is within the modern world itself a [Talmudic] secret better kept than any other: it is that of the formidable enterprise of suggestion which has produced and which maintains the existing mentality, which has constituted it and as it were ‘manufactured’ it in such a (truly diabolical) way that it can only deny the existence and even the possibility of any such enterprise” (p. 109).

    For more, see:

    https://www.academia.edu/44692464/The_Antichrist

  305. Protogonus says: • Website
    @Robert Dolan

    The essentially cosmic process of “God sorting it out,” as stated here, is the profound thesis of ‘The Reign of Quantity’ (1945 in French, 1953 in English):

    For a chapter-by-chapter synopsis that will save you a lot of time:

    https://www.academia.edu/44692464/The_Antichrist

  306. Protogonus says: • Website
    @Schuetze

    As lawyer Horst Mahler (now imprisoned for his views) carefully notes in his latest writings and speeches (ca. 2017), the Talmud, their leading light, commands them:

    “Kill the best of them, but do it SLOWLY.” After leading Goy A is eliminated, they move to leading Goy B, who is now leading Goy A (since the former Goy A is deceased). And so forth. They do it for the God of Wrath, for their spiritual guides (again the Talmud) systematically deny the Eternal Son and the Holy Spirit (see ‘Encyclopedia Judaica’). This point is important: The do it for (their) God.

  307. @Dave Bowman

    ‘…The Kaiser said how foolish he thought the British were. He said that Britain had gone to war for the sake of a “scrap of paper”.’

    I believe that was Bethman-Hollweg that said that, not the Kaiser.

    As to Britain’s motives for going to war, they had already pretty much boxed themselves into entering the war on France’s side if it broke out — Belgium was a wonderful causus belli, but the British were committed regardless.

    • Replies: @Bukowski
  308. @John Wear

    You seem to be hammering away with your ambiguous
    peremptory attack explanation as if the fact that Hitler wanted to get in first had any moral or legal significance. So what that Hitler sought to time his invasion while Stalin’s forces still hadn’t recovered from his purges or needed more time to be ready to attack. It is not really surprising that Anglophone historians didn’t get excited by this apparent attempt to shift blame in some way between Nazi and Communist dictatorships. After all they had both carved up Poland and were getting ready to attack.

    • Replies: @John Wear
  309. Schuetze says:
    @erzberger

    Well I guess I should not be surprised that someone who uses as his handle the name of one of a primary Novemberverbrecher tries to defend Van der Leyen, the ZOG whore of Europe.

    As far as the “de facto First Lady of Nazi Germany, Magda Goebbels” being a better or worse mother than Van der Leyen, that is like comparing apples to foreskin.

    I also know all about Bernays, the incestual “”double nephew” of Viennese psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud”. Both were almost certainly Sabbatean Frankists. Merkel and Van der Leyen are probably members of a some kind of witch coven, just consider Merkel’s continual illuminati hand signals.

    • Replies: @erzberger
  310. @Ace

    You protest too much, lady.

  311. Wielgus says:
    @Boom Boom Kaboomski

    That is how it should be, but often not how it actually is. Sometimes if something goes wrong, a subordinate is scapegoated or blame offloaded in some way.

  312. John Wear says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    If Hitler had not invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, Stalin would have conquered all of Europe. This is well documented in Viktor Suvorov’s book “The Chief Culprit”. Hitler was forced by Stalin to invade the Soviet Union.

    • LOL: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  313. @Wizard of Oz

    Oy Vey. Everyone seems to be in a fighting mood, my good self excluded ! Wally and Caroline Yeager are calling each other rude names, Incitatus is well… inciting. You’re picking fights with all and sundry, including the proprietor. All this and Ursula von der Leyen, too!??
    Now you could say that David Irving has this effect on people – and you would probably be right. Now to the question in hand.

    What I wanted to know was how he was still helping them. Do you mean that his dealing with 1940s-402s German history and only giving a pallid lightweight view of the Holocaust does that so he needs to shut up about WW2 and the Nazis altogether?

    If he truly is back tracking on his previous views and produces a work to that effect, the answer is yes. He is giving some succour to his enemies. But his enemies don’t buy his books. Most buyers of his previous books will infer that he has been “got at.” They are therefore unlikely to buy the new work. So, as a money making exercise, it seems doomed to failure. He is 80 now, so maybe he should stop trying to publish new works.

    I wish you and everyone else a Happy Boxing Day and New Year – even the trolls !
    Keep Calm and Be Stoical.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  314. cohen says:
    @mcohen

    Dissemination, dissemination, dissemination of information, that is the goal.
    I like Tom Paine’s quote “Where knowledge is a duty, ignorance is a crime.”

    YOURTUBE banned so many videos by capitulating to bullies. Bitchute is alternative means and I hope it stays that way.

    To this day all those Holocaust “promoters and profiteers” dont provide any counter evidence for such videos or rebuttal of any printed information like origin of 6 million magic number, where is the beef (missing tattoos on Elie Wiesel’s arm), post office, library, theater, swimming pool, soccer games etc in concentration camps. Your counter response or defense is anti Semite, anti Semite and more anti Semite which itself is a made up term.

    Why you guys are afraid of information? “I change my opinion when I get new information” John Maynard Keynes.
    Why dont you guys take all that funding from 46 museums in US and donate to the real victims of oppression, the homeless and would be homeless.

  315. cohen says:
    @Skeptikal

    Sorry. I am not an expert and dont have resources like the holocaust “promoters and profiteers” (Speeeeeelburrrrrrrg). If you could paste this link

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/dwfAm4slAnME/” Please take the quotation marks out


    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  316. Bukowski says:
    @Colin Wright

    The authors of Hidden History – The Secret Origins of the First World War (Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor) comment on this. According to them British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey stated to the German ambassador that if there was a conflict between France and Germany then the UK would stay out of it. This was a bare faced lie because Britain had committed itself to the Triple Entente.
    https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  317. Skeptikal says:
    @Schuetze

    You should have left it at “I stand corrected.”

    And acknowledged that your “analysis” or views based on your ignorance are worthless.

    Instead you flip your argument so that your views are retooled —now based on the *opposite* straw man: number of children a woman has is the new culprit and explanatory bit, not being childless.

    These mental gymnastics are laughable.

    Main takeaway: **All of your views are worthless self-serving constructs.*

    Von der Leyen’s policies may be terrible, but your explanations are worse!!!

  318. erzberger says:
    @Schuetze

    your language itself identifies you as a conspiracy nut with whom rational and fact based arguments are impossible to conduct. I’ve come across absurd invectives against Freud here before. You folks are apparently completely ignorant of how much Freud detested the US and, especially, Woodrow Wilson and US entry into WW I. He even wrote a book about Wilson in which he portrayed him as an oedipal character and psychopath, Inflicting onto Europe and Austria what his father failed to accomplish in the American South – secession . He was thus as critical of Wilson as were the Kaiser and Hitler, who saw him as a criminal rather than a neurotic or psychopath.

    I answered your criticism of Erzberger elsewhere, in dialogue with another commenter.

  319. Skeptikal says:
    @Skeptikal

    Footnote:

    I have read (sorry, can’t produce instant documentation) that Wilhelm’s biggest mistake was to can Bismarck, and with it Bismarck’s lodestar policy: Do not get into a fight with Russia.

    As Docherty points out in the video, after two centuries of enmity and competition with Russia in the form of the Great Game of Asia, Britain did an about-face and made up with Russia. In order to gang up on Germany, a bigger challenge on the world industrial, colonial, and commercial scene than Russia.

    No doubt Britain had the idea of using Russia to cut down Imperial Germany and then turn on Russia *again* to continue the Great Game, at that time (of the Great Game) focused on maintaining control of India and Southeast Asia, etc.

    It occurs to me that it is also possible that at that point in time British economic and financial “Macher” were unaware of the vast mineral resources of Russia, esp. energy resources. If they had realized that, British imperialists might have realized that in a way Africa was small change in the resources department and proposed an alliance with Germany to “crush” Russia and carve up Africa as part of the deal.

    However, Albion, always perfidious, would never had kept to any deal with the Germans, or anyone else. Despite the decent impulses and family connections of the royal family (who, it must always be recalled, were Germans).

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  320. Skeptikal says:
    @erzberger

    ” Wilson . . . as an oedipal character and psychopath, Inflicting onto Europe and Austria what his father failed to accomplish in the American South – secession”

    Can you please expand on this?

    In what sense was WW1 a “secession”?
    If Wilson identified with the South in the Civil War, what is the “South” analogue in WW1?

    Or, what did Freud say it was?

    In any event Freud is not responsible for the ideas of his nephew and the uses to which they were put, even if his ideas influenced his nephew’s. Bernays took the “practical” applications of the manipulative uses of understanding the unconscious mind and drives way further than Freud AFAIK ever contemplated or could ever have contemplated.

    Making people who have ideas responsible for the actions of others who pick up or expand on those ideas is a classic form of false argument.

    It is the rhetorical legerdemain that lays at Trump’s door the actions of anyone who may appear to agree with or support him in any fashion.

  321. Skeptikal says:
    @cohen

    Thanks for the effort.

    Bitchute also gave me a “404 page not found” message.

    So I pushed “play.” This time it played.

    Disgusting. Childish. No idea why posted. This young lady obviously has a problem with self-esteem. She has far too much of it.

    Whoever made this piece of Dreck should be sued her pants off by Lennon’s estate and made to repeat “Zyklon B” until she learns to pronounce it correctly and then for a few hours after that with ten lashes to her bare bottom for any back sliding. Then made to swallow both zyklon B and some gravel and then left to sing herself to sleep, forever . . .

  322. erzberger says:
    @Skeptikal

    The argument was most prominently made be John Maynard Keynes’ “The Economic Consequences of the Peace”, immediately following WW I. Keynes, who had promoted war against Germany, revealed the cause to be getting rid of an economic rival by weakening Germany/Prussia for the benefit of Poland – a country with no industry other than anti-semitism as Keynes put it. Russia, of course, was the leading anti-semitic country as well and allied with Britain. Didn’t prevent the West to make alliances with either during/after WW I, so why was anti-semitism supposedly a big dealbreaker in WW II? of course, it wasn’t

  323. @erzberger

    Yes. Keynes’ opposition to reparations at Versailles has become mythologized, he in fact advocated for them and his primary concern was that they not be so high as to force the Germans into international financial competition with Britain:

    https://mises.org/wire/economic-consequences-peace-100-years-later

    It’s always amusing to see how surprised men like Churchill and Keynes were that the Americans expected to be paid back after twice bailing out Britain against the Germans. Total indictment of how inbred the British aristocracy had become.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  324. @Ghali

    Islam (Hanafi Rite) is a recognized religion in Austria since 1912 (1908 Annexation, 1909 tolerance treaty with Bosnia). When did your shithole abolish slavery?
    Bosniaks are in essence Croats who drink a little less and leave sheep instead of pig entrails behind when they picnic – way preferrable to Serbs;
    As for the rest of the ´ummah sorry to have to break the news, but the voluptuous Dirndl-clad blondes adorably falling over themselves to blow some random Abd only exist in the teaser vids the Jews hand out all over the turd world.

    – It is well to remember Germany and Austria are still Enemy States (Art. 53, 77 and 107 0f the UN Charter) i.e. not sovereign, you can bomb them without recourse to the SC and their armed forces are unlawful combatants; they pay so much to assorted Jews (“Wiederjudmachung”, “pensions” etc.) no one dares publish the actual numbers.
    The US ambassadors are always Jews, in the case of Germany the most rabid psycho available (Grenell was archetypal) and for Austria the largest donor of the presidential campaign i.e.
    – the post of American viceroy in Vienna is considered a real plum, and
    – it´s usually a bumbling idiot but it doesn´t matter.

    I´ve met Irving in Vienna in the 80s, and the repression was already worse than behind the iron curtain … so don´t be too harsh 😀

  325. Fox says:
    @Dave Bowman

    Bethmann-Hollweg: “Compared to the terrible event of a German-English war the Neutrality Treaty is can be but a scrap of paper”.
    The German ambassador in London, von Lichnowski, was trying to know England’s response in case of war on the continent. Grey’s answers were sibyllitic. That Belgium would be passed through according to the Schlieffen Plan in case of war of Germany with France was no secret in Europe. The French and English went as far as establishing a (secret) military alliance with Belgium besides the also secret “military convention” between their countries or rather between a few leading personalities of their countries, among them Grey. The latter did inform Parliament of this obligation on August 3.
    The German ambassador asked under what conditions would England declare to stay out of a war in Europe. Grey wouldn’t say, and a German abstinence of passing through Belgium (i.e., not bringing the Schlieffen Plan into action) in the case a war with France was also not a reason to keep Britain neutral.
    The German understanding of the situation was that France and Russia had an alliance to crush Germany from the east and the west by coordinated action. The needed England as an additional ally to be assured of victory. Had England stayed out, Russia would have reversed its general mobilization order, France would not have mobilized and Germany as the last of the powers would have not have mobilized either. Mobilization was understood in these days as imminent danger of war.
    As it was, the much outnumbered Germany had only a chance to prevail if France was defeated first in a quick dynamic strike, followed by turning to the Eastern front.
    Belgian Neutrality was only brought up after the war had already decided on. In regard to England’s rude treatment of the term sovereignty (how did England gather up all of those colonies?) such an idealistic motive is laughable, but that it is even now believed is evidence for the diabolic power that lies in propaganda and especially the possession of the means to wield it massively.

    • Agree: L.K
  326. @Robert Dolan

    Speaking of slaves – I find it truly astonishing that there is a website that details in a very comprehensive manner all the details of British slave ownership. There is a fascinating piece regarding
    Baron James de Rothschild’s (Fifth son of Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812) and Gutle Schnapper (1753-1849)) ownership of slaves. Not only that bombshell – but the fact that Rothschild and his brother Nathan Mayer Rothschild put together the £20 million government loan which financed the compensation process. The Rothschilds actually received compensation for their slaves. You can look up Slave Owners by their religion Oy Vey. I would love to know how much this project was offered to keep any mention of Jewish owned slaves out of it. One thing is apparent and it is the fact that Christians were not the majority slave owners.

    It was as recently as 2015 that, according to the Treasury, British taxpayers finished ‘paying off’ the debt which the British government incurred in order to compensate British slave owners in 1835 because of the abolition of slavery

    https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/person/view/2146631433

    To search the datbase:
    https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/search/

    • Thanks: Genrick Yagoda
    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  327. Skeptikal says:
    @erzberger

    “a for the benefit of Poland”

    I haven’t read Keynes on this, but “for the benefit of Poland” seems pretty lame!!!

    Especially since Poland itself was home to 3 million Volksdeutsche . . .

  328. @Ron Unz

    Indeed. Churchill was similar to the perenially bankrupt Trump in that Jewish bankers repeatedly rescued him from financial ruin as a result of recognizing his potential of rising to a high enough political position to become a major Israeli asset. And they were right.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  329. @Verymuchalive

    I understand that Irving has just published a book about Himmler so that might be a fair test case. Is that helping his enemies, no doubt unintentionally? If so, how?

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  330. Skeptikal says:
    @Skeptikal

    Gerry Docherty is most admirable.

    Well worth a listen and view for the material, the analysis and perspective, and also for the conviction and passion he brings to the wide-ranging subject. With film clips, obviously supplied by Docherty.

    Must have been a tiring interview, requiring quite a lot of preparation, and by the end he looks quite drained.

    Highly recommended, despite the sometimes overly wordy interview style of James Corbett.

  331. @John Wear

    ‘If Hitler had not invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, Stalin would have conquered all of Europe…’

    Given that in the upshot, the Soviet Union didn’t overcome its military deficencies until 1944, that’s dubious.

    Left to its own devices, the Soviet Union might well have launched an attack on Germany in 1942. However, whatever its numerical superiority and the high theoretical quality of its arms, I suspect it would have quickly stumbled to a halt, and the extremely proficient Wehrmacht of the day would have given us an impressive display of military brilliance as it fluently chopped the Soviet behemoth into pieces.

    It’s all an interesting alternate timeline — but I wouldn’t put too much money on the Soviet Union unless you can get good odds.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Miro23
  332. @Skeptikal

    Of course Britain, like France and Russia was concerned about the rise of a heavily militarised power with a larger and faster growing population and a surging economy. That concern was ordinary prudence. But it is strange that you do not mention the rapid development of a Navy to rival Britain’s. Why? Why did id it need to? Probably no Brit and no German had an adequate answer. But the reason that the Brits went to war that they could sell to themselves and all people who didn’t like the idea of going to war is that they had made treaties designed to protect the neutrality of Belgium and aimed to protect the rest of Europe against aggression – reasonably apprehended to be from the Germanic monarchies.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  333. @Carroll Price

    Try not to bumble your prejudiced lines. It was a Jewish South African mining magnate who bailed Churchill out not “Jewish bankers”. And, at the time, and for at least 10 years there was no Israel or even the probability of there being an Israel.

  334. @Colin Wright

    I think you areclearly right although one should consider what might have happened if Pearl Harbour had taken place on or about 7th December 1941while Britain remained undefeated, or not.

    Of course the Suvarov enthusiasts really have a problem with making it mean anything new and important. Hitler getting in first simply doesn’t mean he wasn’t going to attack the Soviet Union if he hadn’t though Stalin might get an advantage if he could choose his time to attack.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  335. Schuetze says:
    @erzberger

    your language itself identifies you as a conspiracy nut

    The Gospel of “Anti-Conspiracy Theolology” is one of the principle writings in the book of Woke. This of course is the foundation of the entire new religion called the “Sheeple of the Great Reset”.

    Erzberger, are you gay?

  336. @PolarBear

    I don’t know if there is anything I hate more than smelly invaders from 3rd World shit holes entering what are supposed to be White countries and then complaining that some of those who actually belong there are insufficiently grateful for their presence.

  337. @Wizard of Oz

    We will shortly find out. No doubt Unz columnists or commenters, much better versed in this matter than us, will tell us.

  338. Miro23 says:
    @Colin Wright

    Left to its own devices, the Soviet Union might well have launched an attack on Germany in 1942. However, whatever its numerical superiority and the high theoretical quality of its arms, I suspect it would have quickly stumbled to a halt, and the extremely proficient Wehrmacht of the day would have given us an impressive display of military brilliance as it fluently chopped the Soviet behemoth into pieces.

    It’s all an interesting alternate timeline — but I wouldn’t put too much money on the Soviet Union unless you can get good odds.

    Agreed. In the event, Wehrmacht Operation Typhoon came very close to overwhelming Russian defenses at Moscow (Dec. 1941). This was despite being unprepared for one of the coldest winters of the 20th century, having divided its forces (3rd Panzer Group heading North, and Guderian’s 2nd Panzer Group heading South), while at the same time depending on hazardous 1000km+ supply lines.

    Alternatively, if the same Wehrmacht was operating at full power, along short supply lines and in well prepared defensive positions along the relatively short German/Soviet border – then there’s a completely different calculation. It was acknowledged that the Germans had the best trained, most modern, and well equipped military in the world.

    It doesn’t seem realistic for Stalin to take this risk (in 1942 or later) when looking at the potential gains/losses.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
  339. @Boom Boom Kaboomski

    Aha, some explanation emerges. You are one of those who have sold your brain to von Mises cranks (von Mises surely deserved better epigones) and apparently are totally unaware of how dopy your “inbred” and “British aristocracy” prove you are.

    In brief Keynes was no aristocrat (and his breeding was British educated upper middle class which bred much of the genius that contributed to Britain’s leading part in creating the modern world (cf. Greg Clark’s “A Farewell to Alms” and articles). BTW, the greater Austrian, protegé and colleague of von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek, wrote in 1946 that Keynes was the greatest man he had ever met

    What about Churchill? His mother was an American, Jenny Jerome. So no inbreeding there either!

  340. @Wizard of Oz

    Addendum/PS
    Inbreeding isn’t always bad as any slight acquaintance with racehorse breeding would remind one.

    In humans the Rothschild descendants of Mayer Amschel Rothschild of Frankfurt are a good example as were some of the Pharaohs and most of the Ptolemaic line down to Cleopatra.

  341. @Wizard of Oz

    You’re boring. You completely missed the point about inbreeding. It’s about believing too much of their own bullshit, something you are quite familiar with.

    • Agree: Skeptikal
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  342. @Wizard of Oz

    My God you are a self-important windbag. Do you ever just shut the fuck up?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  343. @Wizard of Oz

    In humans the Rothschild descendants of Mayer Amschel Rothschild of Frankfurt are a good example as were some of the Pharaohs and most of the Ptolemaic line down to Cleopatra.

    The Ptolomeys are not a good example. Incest resulted in high numbers of stillbirths ( even for those times ) and genetic defects. We don’t know who the mother of Cleopatra III or her brother Ptolomey was. The ancient sources do not tell us. Given their good health and vigour ( Cleopatra became the mother of 5 sons, for example ), it is unlikely that they were the product of incest or inbreeding.

    • Thanks: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  344. Australians inbreed with kangaroos, it’s the national pastime.

  345. @Boom Boom Kaboomski

    You can hardly expect recognition for your decidedly unusual metaphor if you embed it in a lazy display of ignorance about the English upper classes on which you chose to opine.

    Perhaps you would care to back up at least some of what you must have remembered (or misremem bered) from non boring reading, namely where you can find Keynes and Churchill indicating surprise after the Americans had bailed them out in two world wars that they expected to be repaid, to put the question in words chosen by you.

  346. @Boom Boom Kaboomski

    De gustibus non disputandum & (vide infra #354) chacun à son gout.

  347. @Verymuchalive

    If vigour is your thing, meta-analysis of the Icelandic genealogic tables indicates a biological optimum in the vicinity of second cousin i.e. there are benefits to genetic synergy;
    defects are not an issue as long as selective pressure (read: culling) is high enough. “Hybrid” vigour is a thing only in laboratory inbred strains.

    – The Ptolemaians adopted Egyptian ideas about the purity of royal blood i.e. routine half-sibling marriage but I´m not aware of specific problems on the order of late European nobility – they had loads of concubines and enough sons to discard the sickly.

  348. @Annony Mouse

    Nothing to see here 😛

    They did the same with the European central banks –
    after more than a century of using them to pump blood out of the national economies they freaking demanded compensation after making them obsolete.

  349. @Wizard of Oz

    ‘Of course the Suvarov enthusiasts really have a problem with making it mean anything new and important. Hitler getting in first simply doesn’t mean he wasn’t going to attack the Soviet Union if he hadn’t though Stalin might get an advantage if he could choose his time to attack.’

    Well, that’s interesting. Hitler intended to seize the Ukraine for Lebensraum — someday. But then, someday I intend to have ten acres on the river.

    When that day might come is a different matter. In Hitler’s case, if it had been a question of waiting until Poland had been fully settled with Germans first, it might have been a while; I suspect that the whole Lebensraum schtick would have failed simply because not all that many Germans would have been actually interested in moving. It’d be something like American Jews and Israel; mighty fine — but not for me personally.

    There’s an irony here in that Nazi social programs — guarantee of title to farms, etc — would have done much to remove any incentive to settle in the east. If you’ve got a guarantee that now you’ll always have your ten-acre farm in Bavaria, and your children are all receiving fine educations that will let them have rewarding careers at home, why on earth are you going to want to be a soldier-colonist in Russia?

    So maybe the whole project would have bogged down in trying to find enough Germans even to repopulate West Prussia and the Warthegau. The timeline now projects the colonization of the Ukraine can begin in 2124…

    But be that as it may. The actual course of events was that the Soviet Union started making progressively more threatening moves and demands over the course of 1940, culminating in Molotov’s trip to Moscow in the fall, in the course of which he demanded, among other things, land for a Soviet naval base on the North Sea.

    The event was overdetermined, as the jargon goes. Hitler decided he’d best attack Russia now; that it fitted in with his long-term plans must have made the choice congenial, but it doesn’t follow that he wouldn’t have decided to do it anyway, or that he ever would have got around to it if Russia had been friendlier. He would certainly have had a harder time justifying an attack in 1941 if Russia hadn’t been posing an obvious and growing threat.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    , @L.K
  350. This clip shows a good reason to cast doubt on the fake holocaust story:

    Dr Evil Argues with son Scott Scene “Scott, you just don’t get it, do ya? You don’t.”

  351. @Wizard of Oz

    A lot has been written for and against Winston Churchill, a most controversial figure.

    My own conviction is that the man was a war monger, a war criminal, and a megalomaniac hell bent on glorifying his name at the expense of millions of people who would perish in his unnecessary war. ‘ Hitler’s War’ by the author of this article sheds light about how the war proceeded based on factual evidence. Suffice to mention that after the disaster of Dunkirk, Lord Halifax was very willing to study the peace proposal of Hitler but Churchill would have none of it. Churchill won his war which he often justified by claiming to want to protect the British Empire only to lose it all after the war when Hitler was willing to put two German divisions at the disposal of the British in his desperate attempt to avoid any conflict on the Western front. When in 1948 Churchill spoke of a United States of Europe, his globalist credentials were exposed to the light. All in all, Churchill’s legacy is one of blood and tears.

    • Agree: John Wear, Fox, L.K, Skeptikal
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @Fox
  352. @Joe Levantine

    ‘A lot has been written for and against Winston Churchill, a most controversial figure…’

    One aspect of hanging out at Unz is I keep finding myself playing the moderate; it’s not my accustomed position. Here, I propose shooting all the adult males — and I’m denounced for not wanting to get the women and children too.

    Oh well. Anyway, with respect to Churchill, I agree the conventional deification is absurd; he was decidedly flawed and had a catastrophic effect in a number of ways. However, I think the revisionist vilification goes to the opposite extreme. It’s not too exciting, and one has to sort through the brambles rather than just going to the wall — but as so often, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Churchill had his good points.

  353. Fox says:
    @Joe Levantine

    War was the only thing that seems to have excited Churchill. Although you speak of “his” war with respect to the Second War, he had a decisive hand in bringing about the First World War, the Russian Civil War after the Communist Revolution in Russia, and after the Second War he was looking forward to yet a bigger war with the Bolsheviks as adversaries.
    He could not think. His plan was basically to have a war, or wars, in which he had a leading role. He had no thought of the consequences of the events he set in motion. There is something infantile in this man.
    In Ralph Raico’s essay Rethinking Churchill, Churchill is quoted making a remark to this private secretary on V-E-day:” What will lie between the white snows of Russia and the white cliffs of Dover?” With Raico’s reply ” Really, what are we to make of a statesman who for years ignored the fact that the extinction of Germany a a power in Europe entailed…. certain consequences. Is this another Bismarck or Metternich we are dealing with here? Or is it a case of a Woodrow Wilson redivivus – of another Prince of Fools?”

    • Agree: Joe Levantine
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  354. @Colin Wright

    I have read a few books about Churchill prior to the World Wars and have a tough time disparaging him even though I would very much like to. His witticisms, unless someone can point out to me that they weren’t his were simply legendary.

    ” He has all the virtues I despise and none of the vices I admire” always comes to mind.

    He kind of reminds me of the theories that expound the concept that aliens came to the earth eons ago and interbred with the women and created entities that are indistinguishable from every day people but have a superiority that defies rational explanation.

    Surely going into David Icke territory now but I can’t seem to shake the thought out of my mind. There is so much unexplained about personalities throughout history that ‘ the right person at the right time’ doesn’t seem to quite cut it.

    Is believing in providence irrational? Maybe it is just me. After all I can understand how they might have gotten a man on the moon but can’t for the life of me figure out how they get bears to ride those minibikes at Marineland.

    Cheers-

    • Agree: Colin Wright
  355. William says: • Website

    I have not personally experienced the harrassment that David Irving has,
    but I have seen the power that prohits any criticism of Israel, a power of censorship that keeps the American public from full knowledge of U.S. and Israeli mass murder of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children in much of the Middle East.
    Since Jews own or control the major papers in the U.S., and a large part — probably a majority — of the electronic media, plus absolute dominance of movies produced in the U.S., plus majority control of book publishing and news magazines, Americans are kept in astonishing ignorance of the criminal behavior of the U.S. and Israel.
    I am definitely not anti-Jewish, but I am against the unspeakable violence
    that Israeli politicians direct. For those who need help understanding that,
    suppose that critize the U.S. congress for corruption and incompetence. Add to that a strong criticism of American foreign policy in general. None of that
    makes me anti-American. It is astoundingly absurd that criticism of Israel
    is suppressed, and that a number of countries actually forbid denial of
    the holocaust, making it a crime to do so. Absurd!
    The American public would never tolerate Israeli barbarism or the supine,
    cringing, cowardice and greed of an American congress that lavishes billions
    of dollars on Israel while ignoring the war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinian people.
    No, I am not anti-Semitic, but I am outrageous criminal behavior of Israel
    and the shameful, dishonarable fawning of the American congress.

  356. @Fox

    ‘War was the only thing that seems to have excited Churchill…’

    He would have added gardening. However, there’s much to be said for your criticisms.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Wizard of Oz
  357. Skeptikal says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    This sounds like a circular argument.

    Re ” But it is strange that you do not mention the rapid development of a Navy to rival Britain’s. ”

    Why? Why should I mention it? I wrote a very short comment, not a book.

    Furthermore, though, since you raise the point, Germany had just as much right to a navy as Britain.
    Unless your unstated premise is the that only Britain has a right to have a navy.

    From your writing I very much doubt that you are British, so I can’t imagine why you would operate on such a premise.

    • Agree: Petermx
  358. Skeptikal says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Have you examined any photographs or portraits of the Rothschilds?

    The males who actually ran the banks, for whom outbreeding was verboten?

    They certainly do not support your blithe contention regarding the benign results of inbreeding . . .

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  359. Skeptikal says:
    @Colin Wright

    “There’s an irony here in that Nazi social programs — guarantee of title to farms, etc — would have done much to remove any incentive to settle in the east. If you’ve got a guarantee that now you’ll always have your ten-acre farm in Bavaria, and your children are all receiving fine educations that will let them have rewarding careers at home, why on earth are you going to want to be a soldier-colonist in Russia?

    So maybe the whole project would have bogged down in trying to find enough Germans even to repopulate West Prussia and the Warthegau”

    Interesting points and worth noting in a slightly different context.

    I think it is quite possible that the explanation for the extreme spleen of people like Frau Yeager toward Jewish Germans is seething resentment that Jewish German citizens were enjoying the benefits of citizenship and residence in Germany while diaspora Volksdeutsche were stuck in abgelegenenen Orten in Pommerania, Poland, and points farther east and southeast—locales where, to boot, there actually were far more Jews than in Germany.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  360. @erzberger

    Pffft, von der Leyen, for real?
    Folks, as a citizen of occupied Germany, I must warn you to dismiss anything this “thing” has to say. This is the kind of golem that gets all hot and bothered at the idea of Europeans continue to suffer this monster called the (((EU))) and all the perks that come with the perverted postwar humiliation.

    And the barrage of nazi this natzee that gave him away too.

  361. Fox says:
    @Colin Wright

    That’s new to me that he was into gardening.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  362. @erzberger

    conspiracy nut

    Why can’t these shills stop using the same tired tactics?

    • Replies: @Schuetze
  363. Petermx says:
    @Skeptikal

    The propagandists make many erroneous points meant to justify a war and then everyone repeats them. My German mother once made the point that the Rhineland was German territory and Germany can put its troops where it wants on its own territory to the oft repeated “accusation” that Germany “occupied the Rhineland”. You can’t “occupy” your own country. Also, there was no accusation against the French when they massed troops at the Maginot line next to the Rhine River, right across the border from Germany, or that France and Belgium repeatedly violated Germany’s border in the 1930’s and sent troops into Germany. That was why Hitler was elected, or at least one reason.

    • Agree: Skeptikal, Fox
  364. @Fox

    ‘That’s new to me that he was into gardening.’

    There’s some quotation from him along the lines of ‘war is the noblest occupation of man.

    ‘…that and gardening.’

    He was also a fairly talented painter…and of course a master of English prose.

    …the devil is rarely as black as he is painted.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @L.K
  365. @Skeptikal

    ‘…I think it is quite possible that the explanation for the extreme spleen of people like Frau Yeager toward Jewish Germans is seething resentment that…’

    I dunno about that. However, I have long since noticed the extreme resentment of Jews whose parents were ejected from Germany in Thirties; Daniel Goldhagen of Hitler’s Willing Executioners is a good example, but he’s not the only one.

    I can see it; German Jews had more or less decided they were ‘Germans of the Mosaic Faith’ — then they were tossed out on their ear. Heaven hath no fury like a woman scorned, and all that.

    Plus, in the upshot, about half of them lived. And they were largely the population that gives Jews their reputation for intelligence…so they were vocal.

    So maybe ol’ Carolyn is returning fire. I think Germans are pretty good people, too. I had a great-, great- grandmother from Memel. I can relate.

  366. Skeptikal says:

    This is truly a silly comment.

    First Colin chops off the part of my sentence that contains the main idea; then he changes the subject to a completely different one and just basically riffs in a distracted fashion on Jewish Germans’ “resentment” at being hounded out of their country. His comment about the “mosaische” Religion are the words of an ignoramus. Judaism was one of the state religions in the Second Reich. Jewish citizens were so registered and paid taxes for the upkeep of their religious institutions just like Evangelische und Katholische.

    As for Wright’s comment on Churchill:

    ” It’s not too exciting, and one has to sort through the brambles rather than just going to the wall — but as so often, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Churchill had his good points. ”

    Actually, truth often is *not* somewhere in the middle.

    Funnily enough, I have often noticed that Colin, though often producing some good observations, also sees himself as the great moderator and often ends up sounding mealy=mouthed and content-free in order to present this persona. His ego seems to be bound up with this “playground monitor” role. Perhaps Wright’s default is to laud “the middle” because that is the lofty territory he has staked out for himself.

    Everyone has good and bad points. Churchill was not stupid and had that typical British flair with words and could cut good bons mots.

    But that does not give him a pass for or justify (as Wright seems glibly determined to do) the desperately bad decisions he made (starting with Gallipoli) nor for the even worse character traits (delusions of personal grandeur) and convictions (delusions absolute English superiority and grandeur that fed his own megalomania) that appear to have led, or driven, him to make those disastrous decisions (again starting with Gallipoli . . .). Basically he was an alcoholic public school boy whose social background gave him an entree to power in Britainistan.

    He comes across as scarcely human in his love of war (1 & 2, for starters) and vengefulness (Dresden & Hamburg for starters). A world devoid of Churchill would have been a better world, and eff the bons mots.

    The record is actually quite clear on this revised and more informed assessment of Churchill.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Wizard of Oz
  367. Fox says:
    @Colin Wright

    I also know of his many clever and witty sayings; he was indeed a very talented writer and speaker. The pictures he painted have appeal, I noted especially his sense of color.
    However, few, if any, gardeners, hobby painters, writers and creators of funny or sarcastic witticisms have caused so much misery and effectively destroyed the basis for a whole civilisation through a ceaseless pursuit of a passion for war, destruction, fighting, the clash of armies, titanic forces and pleasure in mayhem as Churchill did. He loved war because it gave him satisfaction and fulfilled him more than anything else, I think that it gave him a feeling of exhilaration. He seems to have had no objective other than defeat of his foes and triumph of his arms, and I think that he thought of it as a kind of game. Hence, he had no ideas or plans about what would come after the defeat of Germany.
    I have to cite from memory something he said around 1950 (I read it in one of Emrys Hughes’ books) in Parliament. He said that he thought it time to end the passionate hatreds and emotions vis-a-vis Germany stemming from the war. He did not understand that unleashing diabolical forces in people could not simply be switched off in the minds and souls of his fellow countrymen, but this remark in particularly made me think that war was all fun and games for him.
    He mistook politics for playing war. That makes him a colossal failure as Prime Minister.
    His life was an unmitigated disaster for the world.

  368. L.K says:
    @Colin Wright

    Hitler intended to seize the Ukraine for Lebensraum — someday. …
    In Hitler’s case, if it had been a question of waiting until Poland had been fully settled with Germans first, it might have been a while. . blah, blah

    Really? So why didn’t he do it in March of 1939 then? As usual, you have NO idea what the hell you are talking about. As German military historian Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof explains in „1939 – Der Krieg, der viele Väter hatte“( ‘1939: The War that Had many Fathers’);

    – On 14 March 1939, i.e, BEFORE the negotiations which later led to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Prime Minister Voloshin of the newly independent Carpatho-Ukraine wanted to have his country put under the protection of Germany. Hitler rejected his request. Had Hitler been pursuing the goal of taking Ukraine for the sake of Lebensraum in the East, he would have taken control of this part of Ukraine and thus would have gotten his ‘foot in the door’ of Ukraine, but he did not.

    Regarding Poland Hitler desired no war with her, only to resolve the situation of Danzig and a corridor within the corridor to reconnect East Prussia to the rest of the country. In fact, on 2 September, with the Polish campaign already rolling, London was informed very explicitly that the German forces would withdraw if concessions were made and the Poles ended their previous provocations( Polen 1939: Kriegskalkül, Vorbereitung, Vollzug by German historian Stefan Scheil).

    In regards to the constant repetition of the propaganda line about “Hitler with his Lebensraum project in Eastern Europe”, German military historian Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof clarifies:
    Hitler had indeed written in 1924 that Germany had to gain ‘Lebensraum in the East’ where German farmers would be then settled, … BUT in the last few years before the war and even after the war broke out, Hitler was no longer pursuing this goal of Lebensraum in the east and there is much solid evidence in support of this thesis. …

    When Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in 1924 he could not dream of becoming Germany’s leader and there is much difference between whatever he said then and the situation in the late 1930s.

    Rhonhof explains that Hitler had reduced his desire for living space to Austria( a German state that had wanted to join Germany after the end of WWI and the destruction of Austria-Hungary, but was stopped from doing so by the British and French ) and a part of Czechoslovakia. By 1939 both had been achieved. Also, the economic considerations which had led Hitler in 1924 to his ideas of Lebensraum were no longer present in 1939 because of extensive preferential trade with 25 export-import partner countries. (Some specific points, the one about Ukraine already made):

    – In september 1938 during the Polish-Czech dispute over the city of Oderberg, which, tough Czech, was largely inhabited by Germans and was claimed by Poland, Hitler decided to allow the Poles to annex Oderberg, against the German Foreign Office position. “We cannot dispute with Poland over every German city.” Had Hitler wanted war with Poland in order to prepare the way for a future conquest of Soviet territories, he would not have given in.

    – In August 1939 during the “Customs Inspector’s dispute” between Danzig and Poland, the Poles were on the verge of starting a war. Hitler pressured the president of the Danzig Senate to seek détente and not ‘poison the situation further.”
    If, so close to the actual outbreak of the war with Poland, Hitler had wanted conflict, he would have just allowed the Customs dispute to escalate for Danzig. Poland would probably have initiated the war as it had threatened to do so. Had Hitler unconditionally wanted war with Poland to gain ‘Lebensraum’ in the East, he would have certainly seized this opportunity.

    – In August 1939, after the NS regime had secured the non-aggression Pact with the USSR, Hitler postponed the scheduled start of the Wehrmacht’s attack on Poland 3 times, each time telling the Wehrmacht’s High Command he needed more time to negotiate. If Hitler had unconditionally wanted his war with Poland for vital space, he would have allowed the Wehrmacht to proceed with the offensive once fully deployed, since Stalin had assured him through the Pact that Germany’s back would be safe.

    – In 1939 Hitler had no plan for the conquest of “Lebensraum in the East”. It is clear from the records of his conversations during the Polish campaign that he did not know what to do with Poland after a military victory. If Hitler had envisioned Poland in 1939 as living space in the east, he and his regime would have had a defined plan for defeated Poland ready at hand.*

    – After the campaign in Poland, Hitler offered peace to the British and French governments. Included in the offer were the EVACUATION of Poland by the Wehrmacht, except for Danzig and the ‘corridor’. Had Hitler wanted Poland in 1939 as Lebensraum in the East, he would have made no such offer. (“Poland shall be made independent. It will not become part of the German realm nor be under the administration of the Reich.” The Soviets pressured Germany to abandon plans to restore Polish statehood. Hitler had also planned to offer to restore sovereignty to the Czech state as well, in order to achieve peace with the Western Powers. Molotov expressed Moscow’s position on Poland: “Nothing is left of this miscarriage of the Versailles treaty, which owed its existence to the suppression of non-Polish nationalities.” ).

    – in 1940, Hitler, in a treaty arrangement with Stalin, had set to relocate the ethnic German farmers from Soviet Ukraine, who had been settled in Ukraine 200 years before – in the Warthegau at the edge of the German Reich territory. If Hitler had still desired to settle German farmers in Ukraine – as written in Mein Kampf in the 1920s – he would not have arranged to bring ethnic German farmers back ‘home into the Reich’ from Ukraine.

    – After the successful Western campaign in the summer 1940, in which France was decisevely defeated, Hitler had the production of tanks and munitions reduced by a third. At the same time Hitler also had 35 Army Divisionen demobilized. If at the time Hitler had been considering to continue the war by attacking the Soviet Union, for the purpose of conquering ‘Lebensraum in the East’, he would not have decreased arms production or the personnel strenght of the Wehrmacht.

    – Hitler had not equipped the Wehrmacht for a war against the S.U. From logistic preparations to winter uniforms, long-range bombers and more, much was lacking. If between 1935 and 1939 Hitler had had the goal to conquer ‘living space in the east’, he would have had the Wehrmacht properly equipped.

    … So one must conclude that the reasons for the German campaign against Poland, and thus also for starting a localized conflict which later was escalated into WW2, arose instead from the concrete situation faced in the fall of 1939 with its 3 unresolved German-Polish problems, rather than from a plan of Hitler’s for conquering Lebensraum.
    Thus, the question that again moves to the fore is: who created the German-Polish problems in 1918 and 1919, and who purposely brought them to a critical point in 1938 and 1939?
    The initiator of a war is not necessarily only the one who fires the first shot, but those who previously created the problems leading to the fight.

    * British Court historian, R. Overy admits For example, well known Court historian, Richard Overy, in his book 1939: Countdown to War, writes:

    If Hitler was responsible for war in 1939, this still begs the larger question of what kind of war he wanted.
    Few historians now accept that Hitler had any plan or blueprint for world conquest, in which Poland was a stepping stone to some distant German world empire. Indeed recent research has suggested that there were almost no plans for what to do with a conquered Poland and that the vision of a new German empire in central and eastern Europe had to be improvised almost from scratch.

    • Agree: John Wear
    • Thanks: Joe Levantine
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  369. @Skeptikal

    No I haven’t except very casually but can’t suppose that intellectual incapacity or moral defect would leap off the canvas or photo for recognition. I trust that those who use UR to air their belief that “Rothschild” owns and runs the world will come down on you for implicitly negating their creed.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  370. L.K says:
    @Colin Wright

    You are also completely wrong that the Soviet offensive was planned for campaign season 1942. Writing some stupid shit that you supposedly read this somewhere means as much as a fart.

    In Unternehmen Barbarossa und der russische Historikerstreit, the author mentions several Russian historian’s starting dates:

    Stalins Absicht, noch im Juli 1941 loszuschlagen, wobei die Ansichten russischer Historiker über den Tag X differieren. Suworow nennt den 6. Juli, (retired Soviet Colonel)Danilow den 2.Juli, während Meljtjuchow schreibt: »Vor dem 15. Juli wären Angriffsmaßnahmen der Roten Armee gegen Deutschland nicht durchführbar gewesen.«63

    In a new, massively documented book(Deutschland im Visier Stalins( “Germany in Stalin’s cross hairs”]: der Weg der Roten Armee in den europäischen Krieg und der Aufmarsch der Wehrmacht : eine vergleichende Studie anhand russischer Dokumente), published in Germany in late 2015 by former East German general, Bernd Schwipper, July of 1941 is also given as the most likely time for the beginning of the Soviet offensive.
    Generalmajor Schwipper, among other things, studied at the Soviet Army General Staff academy in Moscow, is fluent in Russian and went through the Russian archives for several years, when they were still partially open.

    An offensive in the summer of 1941 is what actually FITS the facts, for the simple reason that it met the end of the secret mobilization plan with all its consequences( inevitable Soviet offensive) devised by Marshal and Soviet Chief of the General Staff, B. Shaposhnikov.

    The gigantic forward deployment of manpower and staggering amounts of war materiel, which was being completed in July, near the German border, could not be kept idle until the next campaign season of 1942(summer), as such is economically and militarily impossible. Not to mention the Soviet economy had been turned into a full war economy and this also could not be sustained any longer.
    Some historians mention late summer of 1941, due to delays, but no longer than that.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Colin Wright
  371. @Colin Wright

    And painting? And wtoting, especially history, though no doubt someone will make an equally unsourced allegation that his subjects all had a personal angle to recommend them.

  372. @Skeptikal

    Fair enough if you had given a product warning against any expectation that you were trying to be fair and balanced in making a case. No, Britain couldn’t claim to be the only country entitled to a powerful navy but that didn’t make the slightest difference to the fears naturally aroused by Germany, more populous and highly militaristic, building a large modern navy. What part of Pax Britannica was on the nose?

    • Replies: @Timur The Lame
    , @Skeptikal
  373. utu says:
    @L.K

    “…and went through the Russian archives for several years…” – Where he found not a single document supporting Suvorov’s thesis.

    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @L.K
  374. utu says:
    @Skeptikal

    Funnily enough, I have often noticed that Colin, though often producing some good observations, also sees himself as the great moderator and often ends up sounding mealy=mouthed and content-free in order to present this persona.

    A very peculiar character, who in everything is very moderate except when it comes to Israel where he is an uncompromising staunch opponent of Israel’s right to exist. An unusual combination of a pedestrian consumer of the MSM with Hamas, Hezbollah plus Islamic Revolutionary Guard take on Israel. The only real people, afaik, who could approximate such a strange position are Marxist virulent Anti-Zionist Jews like Lenni Brenner.

  375. Schuetze says:
    @HeebHunter

    Those (((tired tactics))) of projection and plausible deniability have worked for thousands of years, why should the Semites and their shabboz queers stop using it now? The only way to stop it is to pry off their slimy grip on the bullhorn of the worlds media.

  376. @L.K

    ‘You are also completely wrong that the Soviet offensive was planned for campaign season 1942. Writing some stupid shit that you supposedly read this somewhere means as much as a fart…’

    Did I run over your cat or something?

    Anyway, that’ll do.

  377. @Fox

    ‘…However, few, if any, gardeners, hobby painters, writers and creators of funny or sarcastic witticisms have caused so much misery and effectively destroyed the basis for a whole civilisation through a ceaseless pursuit of a passion for war, destruction, fighting, the clash of armies, titanic forces and pleasure in mayhem as Churchill did…’

    You see, this is attributing almost demonic powers to Churchill. He certainly didn’t start the First World War, and if he contributed to the needless slaughter that marked that struggle, he was hardly alone in that respect.

    Nor did he start the Second World War — in fact, he was an almost marginal figure when it began. There’s certainly much to be said about his impact on the course of that struggle — but first, let’s reduce the man to human proportions.

    I think people always want to find the bad man. Well, it’s an exaggeration to say there aren’t any — but you won’t be led as far astray if you operate on that principle instead.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  378. @Fox

    Whether or not Churchill’s passions were wicked and dangerous you completely fail to make your case when you say

    [He] destroyed the basis for a whole civilisation through a ceaseless pursuit of a passion for war, destruction, fighting, the clash of armies, titanic forces and pleasure in mayhem as Churchill did

    Churchill s influence in Asquith’s Cabinet in 1914 as First Lord of the Admiralty was very far from decisive, if not quite negligible. It was not he, after all, that had entered into the Triple Entente.

    In 1939 he had been out of office for about 10 years and he was widely regarded as a has been. It was only after Hitler attacked Poland and war was declared by Chamberlain that he was even made a Minister again.

  379. @Skeptikal

    As you have attached special blame to Churchill for Ha.burg and Dresden I would welcome your providing your evidentuary sources.

    Regardless of who was principally responsible, there really wasn’t much alternative to bombing Hamburg for several good strategic reasons. Indeed Albert Speer, in an interview, I heard said that it would have ended the war if they had kept doing it instead of diverting the bombers to assist the invasion.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  380. @Skeptikal

    I know its all only a provocative frolic but, a propos your remrk about the Royal Family being German do you know how many of Victoria’s many current spoke German fluently, and better than French?

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  381. @Bukowski

    You seem to like the word “lie” and its cognates. But it is not helpful when misused, whether it is because the error isn’t caused by dishonest denial of the known truth or because it is just wrong. In this case I wonder how it could have been in Grey’s or the UK’s interest to encourage Germany to feel free to attack France. It doesn’t ring true.

  382. @Fox

    Most of what you say is true. If his political career had ended in the 1920s, he would have been remembered as a very capable writer and speaker with a chequered political career. His appointment as British war leader was certainly a disaster for Britain. To claim that he destroyed the basis for a whole civilisation is over the top, though. The cast in that story is very large.

    You are correct about the disconnect between Churchill’s ostensible aims and his actual policies. His ostensible aims were the continuation of Britain as a Great Power and the retention of the British Empire. War with Germany and Japan imperilled both these objectives. As AJP Taylor put it:
    “Though the object of being a Great Power is to be able to fight a Great War, the only way of remaining a Great Power is not to fight one.”

    Churchill didn’t seem to understand this. When the war was over, Britain was bankrupt and the British Empire was unravelling. In 1940, Britain needed a leader who was flexible and pragmatic – who would have got Britain out of the war after Dunkirk, who would have stopped goading Japan. Instead it got Churchill.

    • Replies: @Fox
  383. @Wizard of Oz

    Recommended reading for you might be the two massive volumes by Robert K. Massie, Dreadnought and Castles of Steel.. Britain had an empire where the sun didn’t set. It was imperative to protect sea lanes, literally a matter of life or death. Germany’s encroachment on her naval superiority was more or less a whim by the man-child Kaiser Willie who was fascinated by ships and also wanted colonies for Germany’s economy and prestige (Germany was truly an adolescent empire at the time).

    A strong case can be made that Britain entered WW1 as an adversary of Germany to maintain Naval superiority knowing full well that her land armies couldn’t compete and that the land based conflicts could be carried on mainly by France and Russia.

    I didn’t quite catch the context you had with respect to Queen Victoria’s brood speaking German but at the time of his birth, young Wilhelm was seventh in line to the British throne.

    Cheers-

  384. Skeptikal says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Here come duh judge.

    Judge Where Iz Yo Sozes.

    Honestly you sound like a broken record.

    I don’t see any reason to do your work for you, as they say, but compassion motivates me.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    The Hamburg firestorm was a part of “Operation Gomorrha” – the code-word used by the Allies for the bomb attacks on the Hanseatic League town from July 24th to August 3rd, 1943. The main aim was, from the words of the then British Prime Minister Winston Churchill himself, **to break the morale of the Germans and to speed up the end of Hitler’s Germany. **

    “Gomorrha” was a reference to the biblical story of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were completely consumed by fire and brimstone by the divine judgement of God. A nod towards * the plan of annihilating a large part of the city of Hamburg.*

    But how did the bombing lead to an unrelenting and vicious firestorm? . . . The sparks from the bombs latched on to large fire units and absorbed the oxygen. The result: hurricane-like storms raced through the city. Trees were uprooted, roofs of houses were torn apart. The flames even sucked unfortunate bystanders into their midst. Many others suffocated in the basement shelters.

    . . . The morning after the firestorm Günter Lucks also stumbled through the ruins, turning over corpses in search for his brother. “Many had shrivelled to the the size of a child”, he remembers.
    ++++++++++++

    NB: Phosphorus bombs are used on people, not docks.
    “Under international law, white phosphorus is considered an incendiary weapon, defined by Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons as “any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to *cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.*

    “The protocol prohibits using incendiary weapons against military targets located among civilians, although the United States has not signed it and is not bound by it. ”

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  385. @Timur The Lame

    Thanks. It makes sense. Of course the man child should have had to face re-electiion and term limits such as limit even Ameerica’s man child, but, even so I think Admiral von Tirpitz and the “military industrial complex needed to be restrained.By odd chance I spent Christmas in Germany with a grandson of Tirpitz who had been a WW2 Wehrmacht officer, a POW of the British, and an Anglophile whose English was so good that my German never had a chance.

    My question about the languages Victoria’s children spoke was just a counter tease against what I took to be an unserious remark about the Royal family being German.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  386. EugeneGur says:
    @John Wear

    Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 was preemptive in nature

    .
    Preemptive, of course, what else? But before that, Hitler preemptively swallowed Austria, grabbed Czechoslovakia, attacked Poland, France Belgium, Netherlands, etc, all the while fearing that the mighty Soviet union would attack poor defenseless Germany. The whole construct is so absurd, it should sound funny even to you.

    Suvorov is a scumbag but he offered the guys like you a carrot, which you happily gobbled up. The Nazi crimes in the Soviet Union are undeniable and couldn’t be possibly put down to the pernicious nature of the universal Jew. So, that preposterous story about “preemptive” invasion is such a welcome way out for the Nazi fans.

    • Replies: @Jazman
  387. @L.K

    London was informed very explicitly that the German forces would withdraw if concessions were made and the Poles ended their previous provocation

    And this time Uncle Adolf was to be trusted never to try it on again.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  388. Skeptikal says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “1917
    The House of Windsor came into being in 1917, when the name was adopted as the British Royal Family’s official name by a proclamation of King George V, replacing the historic name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

    The royal family was German.
    Victoria’s mother was a German princess.
    Victoria’s husband was German.
    Victoria’s half-sisters were German, so her nieces were German.
    Victoria’s eldest child, Victoria, became Princess Frederick, the German empress and the queen of Prussia.
    She was Wilhelm’s mother.

    https://www.goethe.de/ins/gb/en/kul/foc/vll/21618144.html

    “Queen Victoria’s mother was originally from Germany, so Victoria spoke only German for the first three years of her life. Furthermore, she was raised by the German baroness Louise Lehzen and also received private German tuition during her school years. The catalogue of her private library records a whole host of books in German from her younger years. As a result of her political standing, Queen Victoria later spoke primarily English, though she also spoke fluent French, as well as some Italian and Latin. Although Victoria spoke English fluently, she nonetheless had a German accent, so two tutors were engaged to help her get rid of it. …Queen Victoria spoke German almost all of the time with her husband Prince Albert, even when the latter’s English became increasingly proficient. As Victoria’s mother felt that English was more politically appropriate, Victoria and she later spoke only English together. All nine of Victoria and Albert’s children received tuition in German, with the result that they were able to speak the language fluently; German was also spoken within the family. A large number of children’s books in German were acquired for them. ”

    • Thanks: Wizard of Oz
  389. John Wear says:

    I don’t think it is fair to call Suvorov a “scumbag.” I also don’t think it is fair to say “The whole construct is so absurd, it should sound funny even to you.”

    I have researched this subject extensively. I have written the following articles about this subject:

    1. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/12/2/7278 Breaking the Chains of Versailles

    2. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/12/3/7463 Czechoslovakia issue

    3. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6391 Why Germany Invaded Poland

    4. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/3/6845 Germany’s Invasion of Norway and Denmark

    5. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/3/6814 Great Britain Perpetuated World War II

    6.https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/4/6936 Germany’s Invasion of Greece, etc.

    7. https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/11/4/6939 Germany’s Preemptive Invasion of the Soviet Union

    There is more I have written on this subject, but this should be enough to get you started. After reading these articles, if you have any questions or comments, please let me know.

  390. Fox says:
    @Verymuchalive

    In saying that Churchill destroyed the basis of a whole civilization I am pointing towards the steep decline European-Western civilization has been undergoing since the end of the Second War.
    That this war became such a disaster is almost single-handedly the result of Churchill’s doing. He made sure that anyone in England in favor of ending the war would be silenced, he did make sure that the war was expanded, he did make sure that Roosevelt had his chance to end the fight against the wishes of the American people, he did barbarize the war by encouraging partisan warfare, civilian bombing (yes, it was his “splendid decision” on May 11, 1939), he did make sure that huge upheavals continued after the war by moving the Polish area of settlement westwards with the loss of 30 % of German territory, and he made Europe subject to extra-European powers which made Europeans mere objects.
    If you put poison in someone’s food, you don’t kill or make sick that person, it’s the poison that does it, but you are the cause of the the effect of the poison. That’s how I classify Churchill. He did not act alone, but he rallied all the forces of destruction for his own love of war and conflict and he was very good at it. Without him, there would have been no such event as a World War in 1939 to now.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  391. frontier says:
    @R2b

    But he shoulda stayed put, and not go Barbarossa! Hitler is either incompetent or a traitor.

    Right, not only Barbarossa, he should’ve stayed out of Czechoslovakia to begin with. The fact that CZK was given to him on a silver platter should’ve made him think… but he was incapable of thinking. It’s now abundantly clear that Hitlertology is well funded and pushed by people with real money and power. The new/old mythology as glaring under the cute stories about downtrodden & suppressed but completely controlled “heroes”… Yeah, the Italian policeman wrote ON THE WALL, that’s some real abuse taken by a real hero… The few hapless dumbos who believe the 90+% trolls here are going to be really surprised, my hope is that their stupidity is going to prevent them from being well used. Hopefully, smarter people have learned something during all these years.

  392. Skeptikal says:
    @Fox

    Also called “changing the subject.”

  393. frontier says:
    @Wally

    Germany had no choice but to attack the USSR.

    That’s precisely like saying the rat had no other choice but to get in the trap, I mean precisely.

    • Replies: @Dube
  394. Skeptikal says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “Fair enough if you had given a product warning against any expectation that you were trying to be fair and balanced in making a case. ”

    Huh?

    There you go again, trying to reset parameters for others and tell them what they *now* have to say in order to avoid eliciting your opprobrium—as if anyone cares— changing the topic, and basically gasifying.

  395. German_reader says:
    @utu

    is very moderate except when it comes to Israel where he is an uncompromising staunch opponent of Israel’s right to exist.

    Didn’t you once write a comment on Karlin’s blog firmly stating your opinion that Russia ought to attack Israel with nuclear weapons? I assume you’ve moderated your opinions since then?

    • Replies: @utu
  396. L.K says:
    @utu

    utu

    Where he found not a single document supporting Suvorov’s thesis.

    LIAR… and of course you never ever read this or any of the many other books that deal with the subject, eh Pinocchio? Or is it Mr.300 ppm? LOL

    Folks should know that “utu” is on record under a Revusky article admitting there is nothing wrong with lying, if you can get away with it…

    This imbecile “believes” the fiendish Nazis discovered a way to make vanish without a trace massive amounts of human remains from a few small well known camps in Poland! Not only that but the Nazis disappeared with the many gigantic mass graves as well, since nothing compatible with holohoax claims was ever found!!
    As I once said, what a pity… CSI teams around the world are missing out by not hiring this “genius” utu, aka Mr. 300 ppm.

    Utu’s utter stupidity does not manifest itself only with regards to WW2 or the holocaust.
    This narcissistic fool has stated in all seriousness that Netanyahu and Israel are behind Putin’s Russian intervention in Syria!! Acc to our resident genius, the Russians intervened to help Israeli interests in Syria! pffffHAHAHAHAHAHA
    Except for the fact that after the US coalition backed Al-Qaeda militants overran Idlib, BEFORE the Russian intervention, the Israeli aims for the region had never become so close… So, the Russian intervention did the exact opposite of what ‘utu’ said it did. Think tanks and media outlets should hire this geopolitical “expert”… oh, wait, they already have far too many ‘utus’ working for them…

    @Wizard of Oz; Wizard, you are a boring old gasbag good only at SPAMMING threads with your silly nonsense. Consider changing your moniker to Wizard of SPAM.

    @Colin Wright; Nah, you just got NOTHING, as usual. I accept your surrender and will keep you as a pet.

    @Timur The Lame; “Britain had an empire where the sun didn’t set. It was imperative to protect sea lanes, literally a matter of life or death. Germany’s encroachment on her naval superiority was more or less a whim by the man-child Kaiser blah, blah”

    Yawnn. Old British propaganda. The German navy never “encroached” on Britain’s naval superiority. You really are LAME. No wonder you are getting along so well with the wizard of spamming…

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Timur The Lame
  397. @Skeptikal

    “”And is that your best argument” I have heard a judge ask of counsel. The Protocol you refer to was not signed at all till the 1980s. And still without the US

    Like the deaths of Iraqi children because Saddam Hussein didn’t give them priority the civilian deaths in Hamburg resulted from their not being evacuated by their government.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  398. @Timur The Lame

    Exactimento, Your Imperial Majesty.
    Without the German naval build up, it is difficult to see how Britain would have been drawn into a full blown land war. Faced with an analogous position in 1793, when Revolutionary France was threatening the Low Countries, Britain declared war. However, it did not put an army into the field against France until 1808!
    Several historians, including the late Alan Clark, have argued that this should have been the policy in 1914. If Britain had to go to war over Belgium, then naval blockade and warfare should have been the first or only option. There should have been no British Expeditionary Force in France, or only a small one.
    If there had been no German naval build up, and the Germans had gone out of their way to ensure the British remained neutral, then there was more chance that this option would have been applied. Even better, if there had been no invasion of Belgium at all, then it is likely Britain would have remained neutral.
    In the event, the German Grand Fleet only put to sea once – at Jutland. Otherwise, it was immobilised in its home ports. Ultimately, they were scuttled at Scapa Flow. Kaiser Bill’s White Elephants.

  399. @Fox

    ‘…That this war became such a disaster is almost single-handedly the result of Churchill’s doing…’

    Kinda shortchanging Stalin, Hitler, Roosevelt, and Tojo there, aren’t you?

    Really, people seem to have this almost irresistible attraction to the extremes. If Jews aren’t the snowily innocent martyrs of history, they must be a monolithic cabal eternally plotting to enslave the gentile. If Hitler wasn’t a demonic villain, he must have been a misunderstood saint. If America hasn’t always been in the right, we must have always been in the wrong. If Churchill wasn’t ‘the greatest Briton of all time,’ he must have been the antichrist.

    Any chance the truth lies somewhere in the middle? At least sometimes? Why does it seem to be almost invariably held to lie either at one extreme or the other? Anything to Dostoevsky’s dictum that the line between good and evil runs through every human heart?

    Nahh…I thought not. ‘Morons. I’m surrounded by morons…’

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  400. utu says:
    @German_reader

    I vaguely remember the discussion about it. I found one fragment of it.

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/open-thread-41/#comment-2310009
    If Putin wants to be a big boy he must read the riot act to Netanyahu. It can be all hush hush but Putin’s will (if he has it) must be conveyed unambiguously so Netanyahu knows of consequences: (1) Russia extends protective umbrella over the whole Syria and (2) any Russia’s assets harmed nuclear retaliation on territory of Israel.

    I have changed my position after realizing that Russia’s role in ‘saving Syria’ was coordinated with Israel’s interest to maintain Syria as a buffer space between Israel and Turkey because Obama had no intention of doing anything after Daesh was done with Assad while Iran was ready to send more reinforcements and also Turkey was ready to move in. Russia’s move to Syria was not in any way antagonistic to Israel while at first I naively fell for the narrative of American MSM at that time that the sky was falling because Putin dared to send troops to Syria.

    • LOL: L.K
    • Replies: @German_reader
  401. utu says:
    @L.K

    What are the documents from Soviet archives supporting Suvorov?

  402. Skeptikal says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    The date of the protocol does not change the facts of the effects of phosphorus bombs, Dummkopf.
    I guess you actually think that the fire bombing was OK if it didn’t break a rule!! Gotcha!, right??
    Uh, no.
    The quote was an *explanation* of *why* phosphorus bombs were eventually banned.
    That point “whizzed” right by your Kopf.

    The USA’s failure to sign the agreement is also totally tangential to the issue under discussion, which is why I chose to cut off the quoted material where I did.

    As for “failure to evacuate” being the cause of this genuine holocaust, the less said of such a grossly immoral and illogical “victims are the real perpetrators” conclusion the better.

    Two times in one post you confuse cause and effect.

    You truly are a gas bag, burning your gas on defending the indefensible.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  403. @Colin Wright

    “ However, I think the revisionist vilification goes to the opposite extreme. ”

    It is only natural for the pendulum to swing to the other side. When matters of state were the exclusive domain of kings and feudal princes, the people were kept apart from the core of the conflict as the French Revolution had not made the practice of the universal draft nor was the propaganda machine set and oiled for the constant vilification of the enemy. Starting with the eighteenth century, the war between countries became increasingly a war between people standing on the opposite sides of the conflict and the factory of lies went full throttle to galvanise the people of the nation against the enemy. Hence the story of German soldiers cutting the hands of babies during the Belgian offensive in WWI.

    Though let us face the sad reality: Hitler’s vilification has become memetic in the West. David Irving paid a heavy price for trying to set the record straight about a leader whose biggest crime was to have lost. History is never kind to the losers. Churchill had some good principles such as his stand against Bolshevism were he was not shy to blame the Jews for this destructive phenomena. But Churchill’s flaws far exceeded his virtues and his war legacy can be seen clearly with the transformation of Europe that was once made up of virile states with a strong sense of independence to occupied states under the full control of the globalists.

    • Agree: Skeptikal
  404. Skeptikal says:
    @Colin Wright

    “Really, people seem to have this almost irresistible attraction to the extremes. If Jews aren’t the snowily innocent martyrs of history, they must be a monolithic cabal eternally plotting to enslave the gentile. If Hitler wasn’t a demonic villain, he must have been a misunderstood saint. If America hasn’t always been in the right, we must have always been in the wrong. If Churchill wasn’t ‘the greatest Briton of all time,’ he must have been the antichrist.”

    All of this is a red herring.
    Wright again prioritizes his own preferred wishy=washy one-stop-shop stance to everything to actually dissecting the issues under discussion.

    Mr. Moderation would have had Solomon award the baby to the woman who suggested cutting the disputed infant in half, since the truth always lies right in the middle.

    You get an A on your fractions homework. Bravo!

    • LOL: Verymuchalive
  405. German_reader says:
    @utu

    I have changed my position after realizing that Russia’s role in ‘saving Syria’ was coordinated with Israel’s interest

    That doesn’t really sound like you’d object in principle to nuking Israel though. Bit strange that you seem to criticize Colin Wright for his opposition to Israel’s “right of existence”. Presumably he wouldn’t be in favour of Israel’s physical destruction, just of a dismantling of Zionism.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @utu
    , @utu
  406. @utu

    ‘…An unusual combination of a pedestrian consumer of the MSM with Hamas, Hezbollah plus Islamic Revolutionary Guard take on Israel…’

    Not great, but I’ll take it. ‘Pedestrian consumer of the MSM’ I suppose is relative. Compared to some around here, I guess I am.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  407. @German_reader

    ‘…Presumably he wouldn’t be in favour of Israel’s physical destruction, just of a dismantling of Zionism.’

    My theory is that past a point, the problem would solve itself. Stripped of its subsidies and immunities, Israel would swiftly prove to be an unattractive place to live. Once a certain proportion of the Jewish population had left, the bulk of the remainder would follow.

    The only real hitch would be if Jews were not given a reasonable place to move to. This is where the United States comes in.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    , @Wizard of Oz
  408. @Colin Wright

    ‘Not great, but I’ll take it. ‘Pedestrian consumer of the MSM’ I suppose is relative. Compared to some around here, I guess I am.’

    The thing is, sometimes the truth just isn’t some exciting, hidden secret.

    The earth really is round. Life in the United States is preferable to life in North Korea.

    These thoughts may not be radical and interesting — but that doesn’t render them untrue.

  409. utu says:
    @German_reader

    “That doesn’t really sound like you’d object in principle to nuking Israel ” – I do not object in principle to nuking anybody.

  410. @Boom Boom Kaboomski

    CHURCHILL’S WAR was the most interesting and readable history of WWII I’ve ever read. You really feel like you’re in the room with these people and Churchill’s cat Nelson.

  411. utu says:
    @German_reader

    I have noticed that you are not clickable and you have no history. Is it new? You are like anonymous who can’t be searched with the standard UR tool. Did you ask Ron Unz to make you special? Why?

    • Replies: @German_reader
  412. German_reader says:
    @utu

    Did you ask Ron Unz to make you special? Why?

    I could be sent to prison in Germany for commenting on a site like Unz review. You don’t want that, do you?
    (Ok, that’s a bit of an exaggeration, but I want to make it at least a bit harder to identify me; originally I wanted all of my comments completely deleted, but apparently that wasn’t possible).
    I probably should stop commenting anyway, it’s an unhealthy habit.

    I do not object in principle to nuking anybody.

    That’s disappointing tbh, I would have thought you’d be opposed to it for moral reasons.

    • Replies: @utu
  413. @Skeptikal

    ‘Furthermore, though, since you raise the point, Germany had just as much right to a navy as Britain.
    Unless your unstated premise is the that only Britain has a right to have a navy.’

    Yes — but wise statesmanship isn’t about asserting whatever you conceive to be your ‘rights.’

    It’s about ascertaining what will promote your interests. Germany, after the wars of 1864-1870, was the dominant power in Central Europe. To retain that position, it was essential to avoid the formation of a coalition that could defeat her. Building a powerful navy wasn’t essential to maintaining that position.

    Given those rather obvious facts, proceeding to construct a fleet that would pose a threat to British naval supremacy was incredibly foolish. It wasn’t even possible. Britain would always outbuild any European power that attempted such a thing — and since Britain was both still very wealthy and didn’t need to maintain a large land army at the same time, Britain would always win the contest.

    …which is exactly what happened. Germany built a big navy — so Britain built an even bigger one. Germany got exactly nowhere — and gifted France with an ally to boot.

    Bismarck never would have permitted it.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    , @L.K
    , @Verymuchalive
  414. utu says:
    @German_reader

    “That’s disappointing tbh, I would have thought you’d be opposed to it for moral reasons.” – I am not an absolute pacifist or conscientious objector. I believe that suffering of civilians in a military conflict should be limited and my sentiment tells me that to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki was just as wrong as to bomb Dresden and many other German cities. What weapon was used is not that important. What is bombed and what was the true intention is important.

    I understand about your concerns but I think they won’t be going that far.

    • Agree: Robjil
  415. Skeptikal says:
    @Colin Wright

    Let them go to Canada, Australia, or Russia’s Far East.

    Or South America. Or Central America. Or Africa.

  416. Skeptikal says:
    @Colin Wright

    What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    If it wasn’t possible for Germany to build a fleet that could or would challenge Britain, then it was not wise statesmanship on the part of Britain to act as though it actually felt challenged by Germany and start a war over a “toy navy.”

    But of course this has nothing whatsoever to do with “wise statesmanship.”

    None of this intangible “statesmanship” cloud dust changes the fact that German navy or no, Britain was out to crush Germany and was greedily watching for opportunities to advance its program. Thus, it actually made sense for Germany to attempt to defend itself and its population and mercantile interests on and by sea. The blockade proved this consideration to be valid.

    Wilhelm was not the guy to lead the new country through this delicate phase of nation building.
    RIP Bismarck.

    .

  417. Dube says:
    @frontier

    In the online game of rethinking maneuvers of WWII in Europe, how might Hitler have disposed his forces in a defensive strategy against the Soviets?

  418. L.K says:
    @Colin Wright

    Germany, after the wars of 1864-1870, was the dominant power in Central Europe. To retain that position, it was essential to avoid the formation of a coalition that could defeat her. Building a powerful navy wasn’t essential to maintaining that position.

    Huh?? What utter nonsense!

    Like Britain, international trade was vital to Germany’s survival as a modern industrial nation. Her balance of trade deficit was largely caused by the importation of foodstuffs and raw materials.13 Without sufficient imports of food, Germany would be starved into submission.
    13.C. Paul Vincent, The Politics of Hunger, The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915-1919. p. 36., quoted in Prolonging the Agony.

    The physical capacity of the Royal Navy to cut off the sea trade routes between Germany and her markets throughout the world was unquestioned.2

    Germany passed its first Fleet building Act AFTER several other major powers had done so, such as England, France, the USA, Russia, Japan.
    The purposes behind the German naval building from 1898 until WW1 were all of a defensive nature, aiming at deterrence and to guarantee her international trade and national security. The British knew this, but used the PRETEXT to agitate and propagandize against Germany.
    The German aims were:
    – to protect against the piratical methods used by British fishing fleets, even operating in German territorial waters.
    – to curb British naval power from suppressing German trade routes.
    – to protect Germany against the British tradition of using its enormous naval power for naval blockades with which they would cut off hostile countries and neutrals from importing raw materials and foodstuffs.
    – Yet another goal was the naive German belief that if Germany had a strong navy, the leadership of the British Empire, if confronted by other major naval powers, might look at Germany as a potential ally.

    Admiral von Tirpitz and the High Command of the German navy believed that if they built up their forces to at most 60% of British naval power, they would be able to secure the above aims without threatening British naval supremacy. However the British passed an Act in 1899 which determined that British naval superiority must be greater than the sum of the next 2 strongest navies combined by some 10%, the so called ‘2 power standard’.

    Count De Lalaing, the Belgian ambassador in London, put it best, when he wrote to the minister of foreign affairs in Brussels, on 7 February 1905:

    The hostility of the English public towards the German nation is founded apparently in jealousy and fear: jealousy in view of Germany’s economic and commercial schemes; fear from the perception that the German fleet may perhaps one day become a competitor for naval supremacy … This state of mind is fomented by the English press, heedless of international complications … the spirit of jingoism runs its course unchecked among the people in England; and the newspapers are, bit by bit, poisoning public opinion.19

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  419. @Skeptikal

    I didn’t miss your possible/probable point. But not being blessed with your superior intuitions of virtue I doubt very much that I would have seen things differently from Churchill and contempories 40 years before the world got round to making a rule of limited effect against some means of fighting wars. By the 1980s there were accurately aimable bmbs and still a reluctance to sign up, especially by those who wanted to win and had the means to.

    Blaming the victims? No to that cliché [you’re good at clichéd thinking]. I said the Nazis could have used resources to save their people.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  420. @Colin Wright

    My prescription is a single state with a powerful second chamber of the Knesset which will only be elected by substantial net taxpayers so no problem of Jews being out voted for 100 years. What’s the problem with that except that it won’t be adopted?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  421. @L.K

    That last quote must have resonance for 21st century Americans. But I doubt that jealousy had a big place at the height of the British Empire. Fear certainly and fear of Germany’s real or imagined envy.

  422. @Wizard of Oz

    ‘My prescription is a single state with a powerful second chamber of the Knesset which will only be elected by substantial net taxpayers so no problem of Jews being out voted for 100 years. What’s the problem with that except that it won’t be adopted?’

    The problem with that is that it won’t solve the problem.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  423. @Dube

    ‘In the online game of rethinking maneuvers of WWII in Europe, how might Hitler have disposed his forces in a defensive strategy against the Soviets?’

    That is kind of interesting. For different reasons, he has to protect his two extreme flanks: the Russians can’t be allowed to overrun the actual Germans of East Prussia, and the oil fields in Romania have to be protected.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  424. @Dube

    I’m sure Hitler would have had access to plans of the Maginot Line….

    • Replies: @Dube
  425. @Colin Wright

    Why would it not – on the unlikely assumption that some cashed up Arab states got behind it, starting with the West Bank, and said “this is your last chance for serious support if Israel will go along with it”?

    And if Israel could more or less regularise its settlements and put off the Gaza problem while seeing opportunities for good business on the West Bank and a saving in the defence budget could all be reinforced by real money going into joint business ventures with the Gulf States in Israel on its new boundaries, why not (rationally)?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  426. @Colin Wright

    It is not just oil from Romania Hitler would have to worry about. If there was still a naval blockade it would be food also.(I was surprised to read how much food Germany had to import even before WW1). However, the reinforcement of East Prussia and Romania could be part of a plan to have the Red Army over extend itself as it marched through Poland and, after being massively
    slaughtered, subjected to a devastating counter-attack which might sweep up almost as many prisoners as Barbarossa.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  427. @Colin Wright

    I must agree with you on this one, Mr Wright. The German Grand Fleet only ever had one outing – at Jutland. It completely failed to prevent the British naval blockade – and indeed was blockaded in its home ports. Finally, it was scuppered at Scapa Flow. Militarily, it was a white elephant. Politically, as you say, it was a disaster. The German naval build up paved the way for the Ententes of 1904 and 1907.

    Adolf Hitler was much more pragmatic on these matters. The Anglo-German Naval Agreement ( 1935) set Kriegsmarine tonnage at 35% of Royal Navy tonnage. By 1939, this limit had still not been reached.
    It would have been interesting if the Germans had offered something similar before 1904 to Britain. Maybe not 35%: let’s say 25% ( at the time, the French Navy was about 25% of the Royal Navy). The Germans could reasonably claim that they were just seeking parity with France.

    Once Bismarck went, not only did realpolitik go out the window, so did diplomacy. The long term effects for Germany were disastrous.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Disagree: L.K
    • Replies: @L.K
    , @Colin Wright
  428. @L.K

    ” You really are LAME” I get it. My handle is Timur The Lame and you picked up on the Lame part and threw it back at me. With a rapier wit like that maybe I should be more careful in the future.

    Ok, Bubi, back to your (mis)understanding of the naval history between Britian and Germany prior to WW1. While technically it is true that Germany never encroached on British naval superiority it is because it was a work in progress. Do you think that policy makers don’t look at possibilities down the road otherwise known as looking into the future?

    If you really are interested in the topic then check out the Robert Massie books I referenced. There is so much detail there that my conclusions are most certainly correct. Then you would know that among 1000 other details the the Kaiser had Alfred Mahan’s book specially translated into German to hand out to all of his naval and policy makers. That was the bible of how sea power was the essential element in a nation’s expansion/progress. How would the British Admiralty interpret that?

    Added to which there were complications in the general naval calculus in that submarines and advanced torpedoes were coming to the fore when even the recent revolutionary concept of the “Dreadnought” (‘fear nothing’ for you trivia buffs) was becoming outdated. In all this you imply that the British would say ‘ho hum’ , our battleships are becoming obsolete but we still rule the waves. It is too stupid a contention on your part to argue further.

    I am not aware of the significance of having a star beside your handle. If I were to guess I would think that it is the same as having ‘Idiot’ tattooed on your forehead. A sort of warning by Ron Unz.

    Cheers-

    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @L.K
  429. L.K says:
    @Verymuchalive

    Adolf Hitler was much more pragmatic on these matters. The Anglo-German Naval Agreement ( 1935) set Kriegsmarine tonnage at 35% of Royal Navy tonnage. By 1939, this limit had still not been reached.

    Yeah, and it changed absolutely NOTHING and made NO difference in the outcome of things and that is a fact.

    The French and the British declared war on Germany because of problems THEY had created, with US help, at the end of WWI. Then they rejected all peace feelers, encouraged by the Americans. The only thing was Germany was forced into another world war, with a very weak navy.

    The issue of how effective, or how well used, was the German high seas fleet is a different one, and easy only with the benefit of hindsight.
    As a major power in the late 19th century the German government had every reason, as explained in my post #431, to build their navy up for deterrence reasons… that it did not work is a different story.

    Had Germany had only a toy navy, the Entente would have formed all the same, since German naval power, besides being a pretext the British elite used to poison the public mind about Germany, played no real role in this military encirclement of the Central Powers.

    According to your logic, the Germans should have just put their economic lifeline and even national security at the mercy of Perfidious Albion.

    • Agree: Fox, Skeptikal
  430. @Wizard of Oz

    ‘And if Israel could more or less regularise its settlements and put off the Gaza problem while seeing opportunities for good business on the West Bank and a saving in the defence budget could all be reinforced by real money going into joint business ventures with the Gulf States in Israel on its new boundaries, why not (rationally)?’

    Why not? Well, to begin with, there’s the moral aspect of the question: Jewish chauvinists have no right to keep their ill-gotten gains.

    But perhaps you disagree. Even so, you posit something that isn’t there: an amicable Israel, capable of living at peace and in mutual respect with its neighbors.

    There demonstrably isn’t any such animal. As I keep pointing out, Israel is unique among twentieth century states; it has attacked every single one of its neighbors — even Hitler and Stalin didn’t quite manage that. Israel has bombed and attacked states from Tunisia to Iran. It literally pokes sticks in the eyes of every child on the playground it can reach. It was Israel that learned that Soleimani was going to show up for talks with Saudi Arabia — and ordered us to murder him when he did.,

    It attempts to subvert the nations around it. Iraq, Syria. An Israeli general boasted of the role Israel played in subverting Morsi’s presidency. Israel compulsively harasses, humiliates, and dispossesses any individual gentiles that fall under its power. It breaks every treaty it signs.

    It doesn’t get along with the other children. You say, ‘well what if Israel started playing nicely?’

    You might as well say, ‘well what if the Sahara started receiving forty inches of rain a year? Couldn’t we farm there?’

    Sure. Just one problem. It’s not going to happen.

    Israel won’t suddenly begin behaving. It won’t. It can’t. It’s the little boy that is seriously disturbed. If it was an individual, we’d have to lock it up. Since it’s an institution, we should dismantle it.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  431. @Verymuchalive

    ‘…Adolf Hitler was much more pragmatic on these matters. The Anglo-German Naval Agreement ( 1935) set Kriegsmarine tonnage at 35% of Royal Navy tonnage. By 1939, this limit had still not been reached…’

    I was thinking about that. Hitler — unlike Wilhelm II — settled for a prestige navy that wouldn’t challenge Britain. I mean, you gotta have your battleships — but find out what you can have without raising too many hackles.

    And by coming to an agreement with Britain, Hitler was actually splitting Britain away from the already existing anti-German front. Look at Britain’s response to the Rhineland, Austria, the Sudetenland.

    Now obviously Hitler failed to contain himself, and so forced Britain back into the alliance against Germany — but that wouldn’t have happened had there been a 1904 Anglo-German Naval Agreement. Germany then was essentially a satisfied power, with no particularly divisive demands to make. No march into Prague. No attack on Poland.

    There are, of course, a dozen other variables. But on the face of it — and ironically — it was Hitler who demonstrated what could have been accomplished with a little restraint. Wilhelmine Germany could have had some of its battleships — and a Britain that wasn’t effectively part of France’s war plan.

    It’s one of the sadder elements of history that Germany, 1870-1914, was essentially a satisfied power — and one that was evolving relatively harmoniously. As such, it was a force for making the world a better place. That got thrown away — and for frivolous reasons.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  432. To those who wish to look into aspects of pre-WW1 European diplomatic/economic jockeying one must never ignore the “Berlin to Baghdad Railway” issue. A 10,000 word essay would not be able to properly air the implications. Among weakening the British Empire with alliances there was the issue of navies converting from coal to oil.

    There is a book by author Sean McMeekin that came out in 2010 that seems to have favourable reviews that ironically for me are not an endorsement but I should make an effort to read it to decide.

    My previous exposure to this issue came from various articles in the excellent British series The History of The Twentieth Century.

    Cheers-

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  433. @Wizard of Oz

    ‘It is not just oil from Romania Hitler would have to worry about. If there was still a naval blockade it would be food also.(I was surprised to read how much food Germany had to import even before WW1). ‘

    Coincidentally, I was just reading the diary of an American woman boarding with a fairly elevated circle in 1933 Germany — half the women are ‘von’ this or that.

    She’s complaining about the food. Almost no meat. No nothing, really. Just interminable potatoes and the like. It’s curious. One can have a maid — but roast beef would be a real treat.

    …so yeah. Food would seem to have still been a problem.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    , @Skeptikal
  434. Skeptikal says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “Blaming the victims? .. . . I said the Nazis could have used resources to save their people. ”

    Right, it’s a snap to “evacuate” 1.3 million people. You should really have been working for Hitler, Mr. Wizard, since you obviously could have worked magic

    Quite apart from the daftness of your idea, you are blaming the victims since your premise is that govt should have and could have known in advance that the British were going to commit horrendous bombings of civilians in Hamburg via firestorms aimed at destroying people, not things.

    After the clairvoyant Germans had looked into their crystal balls and waved their magic wands to “evacuate” 1.2 million people to . . . somewhere . . . safe (like where?)—because of course an “evacuation” of 1.2 million could have been accomplished in the twinkling of an eye— the Brits would then have had “carte blanche” to do their bombing after the targets were whisked away and the Germans gave the signal to start the bombing . . .

    Uh-huh. Jeez, if only you had been in charge of Germany’s war!

    Given that the point of the bombings was to destroy morale, which meant destroying the people, the bombers would no doubt have followed the evacuees to their new homes, in effect another city of some kind, in perhaps new cities or enormous camps? Hard to imagine just what the Wiz has in mind.

    Quite apart from the fact that in the case of Dresden the city was already crammed full of refugees who had streamed to the city because there was no place else to go. Your idea of “evacuating” German cities in advance of unprecedented attacks on civilians rests on a combo of crystal ball gazing and magic wand waving.

    Thanks for the additional insights you are providing into your magical thinking.

    Totaler Bloedsinn.

    I’ll most likely just pass over your magic theater in the future ans spend my time reading more sensible comments.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  435. L.K says:
    @Timur The Lame

    Mr. Lame,

    Keep parroting 100 + year old Anglo propaganda if it gives you emotional satisfaction, which it clearly does… and yes, there is no lack of anglo-american court historians who repeat this shit since the end of the Great war, since the German fleet building was one of the WW1 victorious powers allegations of German guilt for causing the war, which is total bull. After WW2, plenty of anti-national German court historians have taken this peace of Brit propaganda up as well, which is not surprising for a country that lost its sovereignty.

    Up yours, 🙂

  436. Skeptikal says:
    @Timur The Lame

    Re the Berlin=Baghdad Railway see my comment # 311.

    A number of other works by Morris Jastrow bear looking at for excellent perspectives on the run-up to and aftermath of WW1 ( I think all are available online).

    ##The War and the Baghdad Railroad. Philadelphia and London: J. B. Lippincott Company. 1917.
    Available online here:
    https://archive.org/details/warandthebagdadr001985mbp/page/n13/mode/2up

    Page 16: “there is, I feel, considerable justification for regarding the war of 1914 viewed from the point of view of 1914, and not of 1917 as a struggle for supremacy among European nations, brought about, in the last analysis, as the result of conflicting national ambitions, with Germany’s aggressive policy for domination in the East, under the threat and menace of the mailed fist, as the chief factor, but not as the only one, in leading to the conflict that has plunged the world into such sorrow and suffering.”

    One of Churchill’s WW1 war aims was to nip the Berlin-Baghdad Railway project in the bud (practically an early Belt and Road initiative that made an end run around sea routes dominated by the British Navy; the end terminal was actually planned to be on the Persian Gulf; see map here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin%E2%80%93Baghdad_railway).
    Furthermore, German officers were training Ottoman officers and soldiers. Churchill also wanted terminate German influence in the Ottoman Empire and carve up the empire into chunks for the “Allies.” All of which happened. I don’t think you can understand the run-up to WW1 if you only concentrate on events around the North Sea and ignore Germany’s actual and implicit challenge to the British Empire in the Middle East.

    From Wiki:
    “During World War I (1914-1918), French, British and allied forces (Australian, New Zealand, Newfoundland, Irish and Indian) fought the Gallipoli campaign (1915-1916) in and near the peninsula, seeking to secure a sea route to relieve their eastern ally, Russia. The Ottomans set up defensive fortifications along the peninsula and contained the invading forces.

    In early 1915, attempting to seize a strategic advantage in World War I by capturing Istanbul (formerly Constantinople), the British authorised an attack on the peninsula by French, British and British Empire forces. The first Australian troops landed at ANZAC Cove early in the morning of 25 April 1915. After eight months of heavy fighting the last Allied soldiers withdrew by 9 January 1916.
    . . .
    On the Allied side one of the promoters of the expedition was Britain’s First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, whose bullish optimism hurt his reputation that took years to recover: . . . Australians and New Zealanders resented perceived British incompetence and the alleged British propensity to use them wastefully as cannon fodder. No serious attempt was made to understand the nature of the terrain nor logistical support required for success against the Turkish army. The wishful thinking of generals not based on reality doomed the campaign before it began.[17]”

    There in a nutshell are Churchill, the British ruling class, and its empire: the incompetence and self-regard of its leaders’ public school mentality combined with the well-known English perfidiousness, their ingrained assumption that the world is their oyster and that theirs is the right to take it by any means, fair or foul. Gallipoli — the Charge of the Light Brigade 2.0.

    ##The War and the Coming Peace. Philadelphia and London: J. B. Lippincott Company. 1918.

    ##Zionism and the Future of Palestine: The Fallacies and Dangers of Political Zionism. New York: Macmillan Company. 1919. LCCN 19010235.

    +++++

    None of these issues just suddenly appeared on the radar after the assassination in Sarajevo in June 1914. Areas of competition were developing for decades before. This fact seems to be circumstantial evidence supporting the Docherty-Macgregor approach in Hidden History. It is also quite possible that Wilhelm and Victoria, grandson and grandmother, didn’t clearly perceive the animosities that were brewing.

    • Agree: L.K
    • Replies: @L.K
  437. Skeptikal says:
    @Colin Wright

    Actually there was a voucher system in Germany, so no one would have starved. It is described in detail by Lothrop Stoddard in one of his works made available at UR. (Unfortunately I cannot figure out how to navigate the section at https://www.unz.com/print/Books/ to find Stoddard’s publications.) The system as described was very fair. After the genuine starvation and deprivation of the twenties the Germans understood the necessity of a voucher system for food, clothing, soap, etc.

    Of course some of the wealthy would be grousing, but the system is widely credited with leading to the result that the German recruit was in far better physical shape than his English counterparts once the fighting started.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  438. @LarryS

    David Irving came to Eugene to study WWII related documents at the U of O, according to an email he sent me. I stumbled onto him by researching the story of Ernst Zundel. I used to believe all the propaganda about WW-II and the Holocaust because we are inculcated with this narrative from childhood, especially via Hollywood…
    I credit Alternative info sources such as Jeff’ Rense, M.S King (The Bad War— book), and the Barnes Review for helping deprogram me, a process that took several years in my case…
    Thank You Ron Unz…and the heroes who have gone to jail fighting for Truth. “Truth fears no questions.”

  439. @Skeptikal

    ‘Blaming the victims? .. . . I said the Nazis could have used resources to save their people. ”…’

    ‘Right, it’s a snap to “evacuate” 1.3 million people. You should really have been working for Hitler, Mr. Wizard, since you obviously could have worked magic…’

    For what it’s worth, the Germans did evacuate children and non-essential workers from the more obvious targets on a huge scale. Villages and small towns in Eastern Germany were full of civilian evacuees from the big city. It created some interesting culture clashes.

  440. @Colin Wright

    ” Frivolous reasons.”
    Crass, stupid, moronic would be much more descriptive.
    In 1897, von Tirpitz presented his plan.

    On 15 June Tirpitz presented a memorandum on the makeup and purpose of the German fleet to the Kaiser. This defined the principal enemy as Great Britain, and the principal area of conflict to be that between Heligoland and the Thames. Cruiser warfare around the globe was deemed impractical because Germany had few bases to resupply ships, while the chief need was for as many battleships as possible to take on the British fleet. A target was outlined for two squadrons of eight battleships, plus a fleet flagship and two reserves. This was to be completed by 1905 and cost 408 million marks, or 58 million per year, the same as the existing budget. The proposal was innovative in several ways. It made a clear statement of naval needs, whereas before the navy had grown piecemeal. It set out the programme for seven years ahead, which neither the Reichstag nor the navy should change. It defined a change in German foreign policy so as to justify the existence of the fleet: Great Britain up to this point had been friendly, now it was officially an enemy.

    So aided by the Kaiser, von Tirpitz designated friendly power, Britain, as an enemy, without the knowledge or consent of the Reichstag. Not in 1914, but in the 1890s ! Not very surprisingly, Britain reacted very strongly.

    [MORE]

    Politically and strategically, Tirpitz’s Risk Theory ensured its own failure. By its very nature it forced Britain into measures that would have been previously unacceptable to the British establishment. The necessity to concentrate the fleet against the German threat involved Britain making arrangements with other powers that enabled her to return the bulk of her naval forces to Home Waters. The first evidence of this is seen in the Anglo-Japanese treaty of 1902 that enabled the battleships of the China squadron to be re-allocated back to Europe. The Japanese fleet, largely constructed in British shipyards, then proceeded to utterly destroy the Russian navy in the war of 1904–05, removing Russia as a credible maritime opponent. The necessity to reduce the Mediterranean Fleet in order to reinforce the navy in home waters was also a powerful influence in its détente and Entente Cordiale with the French. By forcing the British to come to terms with its most traditional opponent, Tirpitz scuttled his own policy.

    What is very depressing is that both Kaiser Wilhelm and von Tirpitz should have known better. Wilhelm could speak excellent English as could von Tirpitz. The latter even sent his daughters to Cheltenham Ladies College ! Both should have been acutely aware of the consequences of their actions: that by targeting Britain as an enemy power, Britain would treat Germany as an enemy power.
    I’m not going to reply to LK and the other Germanics. Until Tirpitz, Germany had little in the way of naval tradition. Even now, I find that very few Germanics have a firm grasp of naval history and policy. They keep on repeating the same half baked stuff.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • LOL: L.K
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  441. Dube says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I’m sure Hitler would have had access to plans of the Maginot Line….

    Indeed he did. But the question in this game asks for your plan. How might Hitler have disposed his forces in a defensive strategy against the Soviets?

  442. @Skeptikal

    ‘Actually there was a voucher system in Germany, so no one would have starved. It is described in detail by Lothrop Stoddard in one of his works made available at UR. (Unfortunately I cannot figure out how to navigate the section at https://www.unz.com/print/Books/ to find Stoddard’s publications.) The system as described was very fair. After the genuine starvation and deprivation of the twenties the Germans understood the necessity of a voucher system for food, clothing, soap, etc.’

    As I noted, this was 1933 — so I’m not sure any such system would have been in place.

    But that’s not the point. Essentially, we’re not arguing here. The point is that Germany was short of food. Sure, they made sure you wouldn’t starve — and that’s mighty commendable — but no…you can’t have an extra dollop of sour cream on your potato.

    And not because it might make you fat, either.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  443. @Verymuchalive

    ‘…What is very depressing is that both Kaiser Wilhelm and von Tirpitz should have known better. Wilhelm could speak excellent English as could von Tirpitz. The latter even sent his daughters to Cheltenham Ladies College ! Both should have been acutely aware of the consequences of their actions: that by targeting Britain as an enemy power, Britain would treat Germany as an enemy power…’

    I think you have to blame Wilhelm here more than Tirpitz. After all, Tirpitz is supposed to advocate for what will increase the importance of his branch of the service; that’s why he’s there.

    It was Wilhelm who should have dispassionately evaluated the merits of the proposal, given the big picture — and obviously failed to do so.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  444. Incitatus says:
    @John Wear

    “I think Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union was preemptive in nature.”

    Disagree (there’s no proof), but respect your view, at least in so much that Hitler convinced himself of such. Incidental to long held lebensraum ambition (‘Mein Kampf’, Hoßbach Memo – probably back as far as reading Karl May as a child). According to Göbbels, the Führer didn’t describe Barbarossa as preemptive until 8 July 1941 – 15 days after instructing Göbbels describe it as robbing England of a potential continental ally, boon to plundered commodities, and timely defeat of a rotten existential enemy. That was all that mattered in a Führerstaat.

    Wind back the clock. Here’s what the Austrian gefreiter told the German people in 1939:

    “I am happy particularly to be able to tell you of one event. You know that Russia and Germany are governed by two different doctrines. There was only one question that had to be cleared up. Germany has no intention of exporting its doctrine. Given the fact that Soviet Russia has no intention of exporting its doctrine to Germany, I no longer see any reason why we should still oppose one another. On both sides we are clear on that. Any struggle between our people would only be of advantage to others. We have, therefore, resolved to conclude a pact which rules out for ever any use of violence between us. It imposes the obligation on us to consult together in certain European questions. It makes possible for us economic co-operation, and above all it assures that the powers of both these powerful States are not wasted against one another. Every attempt of the West to bring about any change in this will fail.”

    “At the same time I should like here to declare that this political decision means a tremendous departure for the future, and that it is a final one. Russia and Germany fought against one another in the World War. That shall and will not happen a second time. In Moscow, too, this pact was greeted exactly as you greet it. I can only endorse word for word the speech of Russian Foreign Commissar, Molotov.”
    -Adolf Hitler 1 Sep 1939 Address to the Reichstag

    Russia and Germany will never fight again? Cats and dogs will unite in harmony? Well, at least until both newborn bosom confederates digest Poland. Full stop.

    Hitler promised 26 Sep 1938 “This [Sudetenland] is the last territorial demand I have to make in Europe, but it is a demand on which I will not yield.”, signed ‘peace in our time’ after awarded Sudetenland 30 Sep 1938, invaded rump Czechoslovakia and Memel six months later (15 Mar 1939/23 Mar 1939).

    Guided by ’providence’, Hitler was a lethal opportunist more than willing to throw Germans into war they didn’t desire. After all, he ruthlessly (without trial) had his domestic rivals killed in Operation Hummingbird 1934.

    “ I looked up your quote on page 181 of Erich von Manstein’s book “Lost Victories”. The next four sentences in Manstein’s book read… Thus the Soviet dispositions did in fact constitute a latent threat:”

    Good for you reading Manstein. Pity he lost his son. “Latent threat”? You mean a foreign army stationed to defend their own sovereign frontier from congentital liars like gefeiter Hitler?

    Manstein concluded (despite what-if’s) there was no evidence of immanent threat. And then there’s von Rundstedt’s “On my front we found no signs of offensive preparations in the forward zone…”

    “In my opinion, Viktor Suvorov’s book “The Chief Culprit” offers convincing evidence that Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union was preemptive in nature.”

    Please forward celebrity Suvorov’s evidence. Plus corroborating testimony from Soviet and German generals. Spare no words.

    “Hitler’s attack of the Soviet Union surprised Stalin. This is confirmed by your quote from Gerd von Rundstedt. Soviet forces were not prepared for Germany’s attack, which is why German forces did so well in the first few months of their invasion of the Soviet Union.”

    Exactly. Amazing you trumpet Stalin’s surprise while arguing he was poised to attack. What’s up with that? Please explain.

    German forces indeed did well “in the first few months” of Barbarossa. But isn’t that another factor that argues against German preemption nonsense? Russia was, by your own admission, unprepared.

    October-November 1941, things changed, especially with/after the launch of Operation Typhoon. Why? Because Hitler’s model offensive depended on rapid (weeks rather than months) régime destruction. It was unsuited to a long war of untimely duration (which would expose a disfunctional Reich governed by corrupt NSDAP rival cronies. By Nov 1941 Hitler lost the war. Millions of Germans of tens of millions others were subsequently killed. Thank Hitler (who, at least, if late, bravely blew his brains out with a Walther 7.65 (after having his dog and her pups murdered, let alone his new frau).

    • Replies: @utu
    , @John Wear
  445. L.K says:
    @Skeptikal

    One of Churchill’s WW1 war aims was to nip the Berlin-Baghdad Railway project in the bud (practically an early Belt and Road initiative that made an end run around sea routes dominated by the British Navy; the end terminal was actually planned to be on the Persian Gulf; see map here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin%E2%80%93Baghdad_railway).
    Furthermore, German officers were training Ottoman officers and soldiers. Churchill also wanted terminate German influence in the Ottoman Empire and carve up the empire into chunks for the “Allies.” All of which happened. I don’t think you can understand the run-up to WW1 if you only concentrate on events around the North Sea and ignore Germany’s actual and implicit challenge to the British Empire in the Middle East.

    Very true… and one notices the ominous parallels with regards to the USA and the current Chinese ‘Belt and Road initiative’…

    There in a nutshell are Churchill, the British ruling class, and its empire: the incompetence and self-regard of its leaders’ public school mentality combined with the well-known English perfidiousness, their ingrained assumption that the world is their oyster and that theirs is the right to take it by any means, fair or foul. … None of these issues just suddenly appeared on the radar after the assassination in Sarajevo in June 1914. Areas of competition were developing for decades before.

    Very well said.
    Somewhat ironic is the fact that, while the Brits focused exclusively on Germany, from the late 19th century until WW2, as the power which they saw threatening their global hegemony at the time, it was actually the USA which was much better positioned to do so, and over the course of only a few decades achieved exactly that…
    While striving to destroy her European economic competitor, Britain achieved this goal, but while at it completely wrecked Europe, and sped up the demise of their gigantic world empire, the largest the world has EVER seen, good riddance!
    The British elites… Perfidious and monumentally STUPID.

  446. utu says:
    @Incitatus

    “…lebensraum ambition […] probably back as far as reading Karl May as a child…” – You are not familiar with Karl May. Indians with the exception of few whites like Old Shatterhand (German friend and blood brother of Winnetou) were the good guys. No German kid wanted to be a paleface when they played Karl May version of Cowboys and Indians. Hitler even wanted to make Karl May books available to Wehrmacht soldiers so they could emulate the noble and brave Winnetou.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  447. John Wear says:
    @Incitatus

    You state: “Please forward celebrity Suvorov’s evidence.”

    The first chapter of my book “Germany’s War” summarizes Suvorov’s evidence. It is available on this website at https://www.unz.com/book/john_wear__germanys-war/. For more complete evidence, I recommend you read Suvorov’s book “The Chief Culprit”.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  448. @John Hagan

    Western values are based on

    “Possession [piracy] is 9/10 ths of he law”

  449. It is time to start calling the westrun Goebelist main scream corporat zombie media

    The Askanatzi party

  450. @Colin Wright

    Obviously, Wilhelm II was more culpable. He was Head of State- and not merely a titular one. Under the German system, he had considerable autonomy. He was responsible for von Tirpitz’ appointment and, without his backing, the latter’s plans would not have been fully implemented.

    But Tirpitz is supposed to argue for what is in Germany’s best interests. Sure, it might increase the size and importance of his organisation. But what Tirpitz did was to promote what was in Germany’s worst interests. When he realised that Britain wasn’t reacting in the way he thought they would – in fact, quite the contrary – he didn’t have the sense or courage to say stop. It was left to Bethman-Hollweg to do this in 1912, which he did, but without telling the British. The rest is History.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @L.K
  451. Skeptikal says:
    @Colin Wright

    ” but no…you can’t have an extra dollop of sour cream on your potato.

    Germans do not eat sour cream on potatoes, but if they did, and had a voucher for, say, Quark, they could have whatever the voucher permitted. The vouchers did not determine price, but amount—say, 100 grams/day, or 500 grams/week. At least as described by Lothrop Stoddard. Previous conditions leading to the development of the voucher system were also discussed.

    I am still trying to find Into the Darkness here at UR. I would like to review what he (or his wife) actually reported about this. I am hitting a stone wall here:
    https://www.unz.com/print/author/StoddardLothrop/Search/?Title=Into+the+Darkness&PubType=All&Action=Search

    All I get is links to reviews of the book.
    I am surprised that it is so difficult to navigate the archive section of this website to find the actual original document. I would have thought that entering Stoddard’s name in a search box for author’s name would bring up all links to his works that are stored here.
    What am I doing wrong?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Skeptikal
  452. Ron Unz says:
    @Skeptikal

    I am still trying to find Into the Darkness here at UR. I would like to review what he (or his wife) actually reported about this. I am hitting a stone wall here…What am I doing wrong?

    Here’s the link:

    https://www.unz.com/book/lothrop_stoddard__into-the-darkness/

    Finding an HTML Book is easy:

    (1) Click the HTML Book link in the top menu:

    https://www.unz.com/book/

    (2) Insert the first few letters of the author’s name in the Filter Box of the dynamic Author Cloud at near the top of the Books page, then click on the author’s name to get his complete list of books:

    https://www.unz.com/book/author/lothrop_stoddard/

    • Thanks: Skeptikal
    • Replies: @L.K
  453. Skeptikal says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “My question about the languages Victoria’s children spoke was just a counter tease against what I took to be an unserious remark about the Royal family being German”

    Yes, your intention was obvious. Again, you seem not to know what you are talking, or teasing, about.

    The fact that the British royal family was actually de facto German is not an “unserious remark.” It is an important consideration in respect to both world wars and especially the run-ups to those wars.

    Thus, the Whiz’s remarks are the “unserious” red herrings.

  454. @Colin Wright

    Has Israel attacked Saudi Arabia? Not that I think you have a killer point with your accusation that it is unique in having attacked all its neighbours. Once you recognise that Israel is a country that like dozens of others has borders defined by war and sees no reason to liquidate itself a lot flows from the fact that many Muslin/Arab countries regard themselves as still at war with Israel and wish, ideally, to wipe it out as a state , and to repopulate it with a much expanded Arab population. It is perfectly rational of Israel to respond by seeking to keep the Arab world Balkanised and weak, preferably with others paying for it. With Iran pitching in too it is hardly surprising that Israel is energetically proactive . I agree of course about it being extremely unlikely that my sort of One State solution would be adopted. But it seems even less likely that an acceptable two state solution can be agreed and implemented. So the problem of the Palestinians existing still in old Palestine may one say need a solution and maybe one state will just be the least bad option from Israel’s point of view. Enabling a lot of Palestinians to get quite rich and be able to do good business could help a lot

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  455. Skeptikal says:
    @Colin Wright

    “Roast beef” is not a typical German dish anyhow.

    If these elevated persons couldn’t figure out how to locate some protein on the hoof or fin or already dressed or packed into a sausage casing, they must have had similar limitations as the class that Churchill hailed from. Surely they had estates where they could catch a fish or shoot a duck or a deer. Maybe instead of sitting around grousing they should have betaken themselves to the fields and bagged a grouse or two.

    Perhaps they were rendered helpless by the absence of servants and staff.

    Let’s have a source for the diary.

    Thanks.

    • Replies: @Wielgus
    , @Colin Wright
  456. Skeptikal says:
    @Skeptikal

    Into the Darkness is also available at Gutenberg Australia.
    It has good info on the issue of food (and clothing, and heat, and and) in Weimar and Third Reich Germany.
    http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300731.txt

    Do a search for
    “VII. IRON RATIONS
    VIII. A BERLIN LADY GOES TO MARKET

    Viz.:

    [MORE]

    “The German people have
    poignant memories of the terrible starvation years during [[and after]] the World
    War, and they are willing to undergo almost anything rather than see
    mass-starvation come back again. The Government claims that it has
    devised a starvation-proof system including not merely the foodcards
    but also the complete “rationalization” of agriculture, with fixed
    prices all the way from producer to consumer. Before the farmer starts
    his spring planting, he knows that everything he raises will be bought
    at a figure which should normally enable him to make a slight profit.
    At the other end of the scale, when the housewife goes to market, she
    knows that the storekeeper cannot charge her more than the Government
    permits. The food regulations today in force assure to the poorest
    German the basic necessities of life while the richest cannot get much
    more than his share. So long as the German people believe that the
    system will enable them to keep above the hunger-line, there seems to
    be scant likelihood of a popular revolt over food alone.”

    “The Germans have been
    through a lengthy and bitter schooling in adversity. They have not
    known a really normal life since the World War broke out in July,
    1914. That fateful summertide was twenty-six years ago. For more than
    a quarter-century the Germans have experienced about every sort of
    vicissitude–war, inflation, an unsound boom, deflation, civil strife,
    the Nazi Revolution, and now war again. No German man or woman under
    twenty-six years of age was even born into what we would call a normal
    national life or has had any personal experience of it unless they
    have been abroad.

    No German under forty has more than childhood recollections of the
    “good old times.”

    This historical background should always be kept in mind if we are to
    judge correctly German reactions to their surroundings. We see here *a
    people so accustomed to do without things or to get them only with
    difficulty and in limited amounts that they are used to it*. Therefore
    Germans take lightly or never think about many matters which, to
    Americans especially, are irritations and grievances. We thus
    encounter two standards of living and attitudes toward daily life
    which differ from each other so profoundly that they cannot easily be
    compared.”

    Further:
    “Germany is today a fortress under siege by the British naval blockade.
    Even where the Reich has apparently unhampered sally-ports through
    neutral neighbors, its freedom is relative; for the neutrals in turn
    feel the pressure of British sea-power in whatever may aid England’s
    arch-enemy. In the World War, Germany collapsed through this
    strangling grip. To avoid a similar fate, the Nazi Government has
    developed an amazingly elaborate system of rationing which extends to
    the smallest details.

    The foreign visitor to wartime Germany encounters this all-pervading
    system the instant he crosses the border, when the frontier inspector
    hands him a few bread, meat, and butter coupons nicely calculated to
    avert hunger till he reaches his destination. Thereafter he receives
    full sets of coupons (collectively termed “food-cards”) enabling him
    to buy specified amounts of eatables. As already related, the quality
    depends on the prices he is willing to pay; also he can purchase
    certain high-priced luxuries, such as game which (with the exception
    of venison) is card-free. *But, no matter how great his wealth, he
    cannot get more coupons than are legally allotted him.* Except under
    special circumstances, he gets the same treatment as the average
    citizen of the Reich. Germans or foreigners, they all “eat out of the
    same [official] dish.”

    Offhand, one would be apt to think that such severe restrictions would
    produce a thriving bootleg trade. As a matter of fact, underhand
    trading does exist. But it is relatively small and very much
    undercover, because German law punishes the buyer equally with the
    seller, and sentences can be imposed up to ten years at hard labor.
    For most persons, therefore, the risk is too great.

    Legal differences in rationing there are. These, however, are based,
    not on wealth or influence, but on age and occupation. Infants and
    small children get special foods to safeguard their health and growth.”

    Very interesting reading. Thanks to Ron Unz for featuring Lothrop Stoddard and his writings (in earlier essays), which were new to me.

  457. Wielgus says:
    @Skeptikal

    It does sound like a tourist complaining about the food. I don’t suppose there was a sausage shortage but perhaps that did not count.

  458. Jazman says:
    @EugeneGur

    Excellent comment Eugine .

  459. @Verymuchalive

    ‘…But Tirpitz is supposed to argue for what is in Germany’s best interests. Sure, it might increase the size and importance of his organisation. But what Tirpitz did was to promote what was in Germany’s worst interests. When he realised that Britain wasn’t reacting in the way he thought they would – in fact, quite the contrary – he didn’t have the sense or courage to say stop…’

    In an ideal world, you’d be right — but to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

    It would take a remarkably detached head of the air force to agree there was no need for the next generation of manned fighter; it’s a safe bet the commander of a navy is going to feel a pressing need for more battleships.

    In an actual system, I’m inclined to see Tirpitz as fulfilling about the role expected of him. Of course he is going to argue for a big, blue-water navy. It’s up to others to consider the merits of his arguments.

    Truly, Tirpitz would have been a figure of unusual moral stature had he said ‘no, a big navy is unwise.’ However, one can’t build a system around the assumption that everyone will be a figure of unusual moral stature. You need it to work with figures of more human scale — and in such a system, it’s up to someone else to tell Tirpitz, ‘no.’

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  460. @Skeptikal

    ‘Let’s have a source for the diary.’

    It’s my grandmother’s ! You’ll just have to accept that whatever I say is in it is in it. She lived in Germany off and on between 1933 and 1939 — it would seem about two-three years, all told.

    Admittedly, this is a very small pond — but I’m king in it.

    Anyway, I’m intrigued by the obvious constraints on the food supply coupled with the presence of domestic staff. Today, we can afford more or less whatever we please to eat — but few of us could afford live-in servants.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  461. L.K says:
    @Verymuchalive

    In 1998, the highly regarded Oxford historian Niall Ferguson published “The Pity of War” to laudatory reviews. Here’s what he has to say on the issue:

    …it is quite misleading to see the naval race as a ‘cause’ of the First World War. There were strong arguments on both sides for a naval agreement. Both governments were finding the political consequences of increasing naval expenditure difficult to live with. The possibility of some kind of arms limitation agreement surfaced on numerous occasions: in December 1907, when the Germans proposed a North Sea convention with Britain and France;84 in February 1908, when the Kaiser wrote to Lord Tweedmouth explicitly denying that Germany aimed ‘to challenge British naval supremacy’;85 six months later, when he met the permanent under-secretary of state at the FO Sir Charles Hardinge at Kronberg;86 in 1909–10, when Bethmann proposed to Goschen ‘a naval agreement … as part of a scheme for a good general understanding’;87 and in March 1911, when the Kaiser called for ‘a political understanding and a naval agreement tending to limit naval expenditure’.88 The most famous opportunity came in February 1912, when, at the suggestion of the businessmen Sir Ernest Cassel and Albert Ballin, Haldane travelled to Berlin…

    So why was there no deal? The traditional answer is that the Germans were only willing to discuss naval issues after they had received an unconditional British pledge of neutrality in the event of a Franco-German war. Yet this is only half the story. Asquith later claimed that the German formula of neutrality would ‘have precluded us from coming to the help of France should Germany on any pretext attack her’. In fact, Bethmann’s draft stated:
    “The high contracting powers … will not either of them make any unprovoked attack upon the other
    or join in any combination or design against the other for the purpose of aggression … If either …
    becomes entangled in a war in which it cannot be said to be the aggressor, the other will at least
    observe towards the power so entangled a benevolent neutrality”.92

    The clause was also to be regarded as void ‘in so far as it may not be reconcilable with existing agreements’. …

    The other explanation for the failure of the Haldane mission is that Tirpitz and the Kaiser torpedoed it by introducing a new naval increase on the eve of Haldane’s arrival, thereby ‘ruin[ing] the relationship with England … for good’. According to Geiss, ‘Germany’s refusal to come to terms with Britain on curbing the costly arms race at sea by naval agreement blocked any kind of rapprochement’.94 The British government said much the same at the time.95
    But this too needs to be treated with scepticism. The Germans were willing to make a naval deal in return for a neutrality statement; it was on the neutrality issue that the talks really foundered. And arguably it was the British position which was the more intransigent – not surprisingly, as it was based on unassailable strength. …
    As Grey put it in 1913, ‘If you are going to have an absolute standard superior to all the other European navies put together … your foreign policy is comparatively simple.’96 His view was accordingly uncompromising: Bethmann seemed to want something in return for recognizing ‘permanent [British] naval superiority’ – or, as his principal private secretary William Tyrrell put it, ‘the principle of our absolute supremacy at sea’. …

    What is harder to understand is Grey’s belief that almost any expression of Anglo-German rapprochement was out of the question. Why, if Germany posed neither a colonial nor a naval threat to Britain, was Grey so relentlessly anti-German?

    Ironically, as I have said previously, the USA DID pose such threats to the British Empire.

    Anyway, you, whom I thought mistakenly to be a serious person, and 2 obvious trolls, Lame and your buddy Colin ‘nuking Japan was justified’ Wright, are spamming this thread with old British propaganda in the form of ‘the naval race, provoked by the evil Krauts, who shoulda known their place, was a major cause for the great war’.
    This propaganda aimed – successfully – to create a pretext, which in turn is purposefully confused with the real reasons that led to war. Currently, one can observe how the US and the Zionists/Israel use the Iranian civilian nuclear program and even its ballistic missile program as pretexts to justify their regime change operations against the country.

  462. L.K says:
    @Ron Unz

    In case you missed it, in a ‘A People That Shall Dwell Alone’, Prof. Kevin MacDonald makes use of several respectable mainstream scholars to delineate the process of the rise of modern anti-Jewish feelings in Europe following the so called Jewish emancipation which took place starting in the late 18th century through the early 20th century and the issues generated by it… Re Germany:

    Lindemann (Lindemann, A. S. (1991). The Jew Accused: Three Anti-Semitic Affairs (Dreyfus, Beilis, Frank) 1894-1915. New York: Cambridge University Press. P, 10) notes that “[i]n the long history of the Jews, the rise of the Jews in the nineteenth century has few parallels in terms of the rapid transformation of the condition of the Jews—in absolute and relative numbers, wealth, in fame, in power, and in influence.”
    The extraordinary rise of Jews in Germany in the period from 1870 to 1933 following emancipation was a general phenomenon. …

    In 1871, when the Jews became fully emancipated in Germany, 60 percent were already in the middle-and upper-income brackets (Sorkin, D. (1987). The Transformation of German Jewry, 1780-1840. New York: Oxford University Press, P.110).

    Werner Mosse (Jews in the German Economy: The German-Jewish Economic Elite 1820-1935 1st Edition by Werner Eugen Mosse, Oxford University Press; 1st edition (May 21, 1987), 204) estimates that despite representing less than 1 percent of the population, Jews controlled 20 percent of the commercial activity in Germany in the period from 1819 to 1935, as indicated by percentages of Jews among the economic elite.
    Moreover, Jewish involvement in the largest companies was even more substantial than this figure might indicate. For example, Mosse (1987, 273-274) finds that in 1907 Jews had a dominant position in 33 of the 100 largest companies and in 9 of the 13 companies with share capital over 100 million marks. Jews occupied a similar position through the Weimar period (pp. 357-358).

    In some areas where Jews were concentrated, the overrepresentation of Jews was far higher. Thus, in the capital of Berlin, Jews accounted for nearly 45 percent of the official government Kommerzienrat awards given to outstanding businessmen, and in Prussia in 1911, 44 percent of the 25 richest millionaires were Jews, as were 27.5 percent of the 200 richest millionaires and 23.7 percent of the 800 richest. In Berlin, as in the Hesse-Nassau area, 12 of the 20 wealthiest taxpayers were Jews.
    In the period from 1928 to 1932, Jews controlled 25 percent of retail sales and had a dominant position in certain areas, such as metal businesses, textiles and clothing, grain trade, and department stores (Hitler, Germans and the “Jewish Question”,by Sarah Gordon, Princeton University Press, 1984 ). Jews also had a prominent position in private banking, so that, for example, in Berlin in 1923, there were 150 Jewish banks and 11 non-Jewish banks. And Jews were also prominently involved in the stock market, the insurance industry, and economic consulting firms. In 1923 Jews occupied 24 percent of the supervisory positions in joint-stock companies. Gordon (1984) also shows that Jews were vastly over-represented in the legal and judicial system, among university faculty, and as physicians.

    At times, the competitive benefit of Jewish group membership was decisive. Thus, in attempting to account for the almost complete absence of gentile banking enterprises in Prussia in the late 19th century, Mosse (1987, 117) emphasizes the competitive advantage enjoyed by Jewish banking firms resulting from the patronage of the Rothschilds, who provided them with capital and higher credit ratings. *Jewish banks also had a competitive advantage because, as emphasized in Chapter 6, they were able to take advantage of international Jewish contacts, which were not available to their gentile competitors*.19 In the era after 1900, all of the large joint-stock banks had a prominent representation of Jews on their boards of directors (Mosse 1987, 158). …

    Gordon (1984, 44) notes that “it is difficult to reject these [economic] differences out of hand as non-existent or unimportant, and they probably continued to contribute to anti-Semitism because they fostered group tensions.. “

    Sources: Jews in the German Economy: The German-Jewish Economic Elite 1820-1935 1st Edition by Werner Eugen Mosse, Oxford University Press; 1st edition (May 21, 1987)
    Sorkin, D. (1987). The Transformation of German Jewry, 1780-1840. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Hitler, Germans and the “Jewish Question”, by Sarah Gordon, Princeton University Press, 1984.
    Lindemann, A. S. (1991). The Jew Accused: Three Anti-Semitic Affairs.

  463. Skeptikal says:
    @Colin Wright

    “It’s my grandmother’s ! You’ll just have to accept that whatever I say is in it is in it. She lived in Germany off and on between 1933 and 1939 — it would seem about two-three years, all told.

    Admittedly, this is a very small pond — but I’m king in it.

    Anyway, I’m intrigued by the obvious constraints on the food supply *coupled with the presence of domestic staff. *”

    No idea what you are on about here.

    Something written in the diary?

    As for “I’m king in it,” um, no.

    Having named your source, refusing to quote from it but asserting that it says what you say it does is not being “king.” It is playing your readers for Dummkoepfe.

    Now that you have named your source, please do provide documentation from this primary source.

    That is, prop it open in front of you and type relevant bits into your computer and post them.

    I am all ears (and eyes). Genuinely curious. Why are you withholding?

    Such coyness coupled with your airy self-proclamation of subject-matter authority by dint of your own say-so is your all-too-typical MO.

    IOW, document your assertions or STFU. ((:-))

    • Troll: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  464. Skeptikal says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    The Brits had a far longer record of untrustworthiness than AH.

    Wiz is again gazing into his very own ex post facto crystal ball to come up with ex post facto foreign policies. It is funny.

  465. Skeptikal says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    “No I haven’t except very casually but can’t suppose that intellectual incapacity or moral defect would leap off the canvas or photo for recognition. I trust that those who use UR to air their belief that “Rothschild” owns and runs the world will come down on you for implicitly negating their creed.”

    Hmm, I expect that “except very casually” actually means “Not at all. I haven’t a clue what you are alluding to, but I’ll comment anyhow and present my ideas and suppositions as though they were yours.”

    Please try harder.

    My point was a limited one, but clear.
    Before commenting perhaps you should take the trouble to check out the images I alluded to.
    You can find reproductions of portraits going back to the Mayer Amschel Rothschild and his five sons and their sons in Frederic Morton, The Rothschilds.

  466. @Colin Wright

    Truly, Tirpitz would have been a figure of unusual moral stature had he said ‘no, a big navy is unwise.’ However, one can’t build a system around the assumption that everyone will be a figure of unusual moral stature. You need it to work with figures of more human scale — and in such a system, it’s up to someone else to tell Tirpitz, ‘no.’

    It’s also true to say that a strong manager will choose strong subordinates. Weak managers choose weak subordinates because strong ones would expose their weakness. The weakness and vanity of Kaiser Wilhelm II was the fatal flaw of the German system. In normal times, this didn’t matter. Germany was prospering greatly. Much of the power was devolved at the Federal and Confederal level. As you say, pre-1914 Germany had many admirable features. But 1914 was not a normal year.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  467. @L.K

    Firstly, Niall Ferguson’s book, prepared with the help of numerous research assistants, was widely criticised. Secondly, you make no attempt to refute my claim that the Anglo-German Naval Arms Race was initiated by Germany in the late 1890s. Thirdly, you start rambling on about trolls, Israel, Zionists and Iran, noneof which is germane to the matter in hand.

  468. @Verymuchalive

    ‘The weakness and vanity of Kaiser Wilhelm II was the fatal flaw of the German system. ‘

    It’s interesting to note that several of the crowned heads of state in the world at the time performed badly — and none did conspicuously well.

    Wilhelm II, Tsar Nicholas II, and whoever the Ottoman Sultan was all screwed the pooch (the last wound up signing a ridiculous peace treaty which the Turks themselves refused to accept. Hence the Turkish Republic).

    I’m not aware of particularly inspiring performances from the King of Italy or George V either.

    It might have been the times. Perhaps society’s values and complexity had simply evolved to the point where a hereditary monarch could no longer perform effectively.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    , @Wielgus
  469. @Colin Wright

    All valid points. I wouldn’t be too harsh on Nicholas II, though. Russia fought a World War to defend some “shitty little country” in the Balkans with which it didn’t even have a defence treaty. Nicholas was acutely aware that, if he didn’t do it, he would be replaced by someone who would. He even send numerous pleading telegrams to the Kaiser to avert this.

    Of course, this sort of thing doesn’t happen in the 21st Century. Eh… what you saying there, Colin? What’s this shitty little country you’re thinking of……..

  470. Incitatus says:
    @John Wear

    Thanks, John Wear. I’ll try to read it and Suvorov in future, mired as we are in the pandemic.

    Recently finished Bullock’s ‘Hitler and Stalin’ (read his ‘Hitler: Study in Tyranny’ fifty years ago). As Oppenheimer might say, two scorpions in a bottle. Won’t argue Stalin (as ruthless and pragmatic as Hitler) ultimately might have attacked, though the time for that would have been May 1940.

    But Hitler’s reasons given Göbbels 23 Jun 1941 seem to argue against genuine preemption and for risky opportunism (rapid régime change in destroying a Soviet ‘house of cards’).

    Weeks later (8 Jul 1941) Hitler orders Göbbels to switch the tune to preemption. Any thoughts?

    • Replies: @John Wear
  471. Skeptikal says:
    @L.K

    “Currently, one can observe how the US and the Zionists/Israel use the Iranian civilian nuclear program and even its ballistic missile program as pretexts to justify their regime change operations against the country. ”

    Yes it seems to be a similar game plan in that (in this case) an ally’s superiority is guaranteed by the USA.

    At the same time the USA sees its own superiority as an obvious and nonnegotiable right and the mere perception or hint that another entity may possibly have the potential to challenge this god-given right (I know, an oxymoron, but that is how these people appear to “reason”) makes itself a target for multiple forms of attack, ultimately military. And it’s all the target’s fault for violating the “chosen’s” unquestionable right to remain superior.

    As for Britain’s choice to see itself as challenged by Germany and the “logic” whereby this was a valid precondition for plotting against Germany, the example of the Dutch empire is an interesting contrasting example. (Caveat: I am not an expert in the history of the Netherlands but just did some reading, and some differences seem glaringly obvious to me.) The Dutch also sought and gained an overseas mercantile empire, but for some reason (? . . .) didn’t seem to consider unchallenged global superiority as their god-given right. They fought with their competitors and advanced and retreated on many fronts over three centuries, as did other empires that expanded and contracted, and finally found some sustainable level of overseas involvements and toeholds for national well-being.

    The megalomaniacal British, insisting on their right to unchallenged hegemony and deference from all the earth’s peoples, ultimately lost it all except their snooty pride in “After all, we’re English.” Meanwhile the Dutch have a very nice, pretty well-functioning little country with a number of productive, profitable sectors still anchored in economic connections with former colonies.

    The British did not *have* to feel challenged by the Germans to the point of extirpation of the latter’s global economic ambitions. They chose to. They could have made a deal to divide territories, or some such, as the British and French did when they carved up the Middle East *after* the war and in effect planted the British flag in Palestine to boot. Instead they and their secret allies ganged up on Germany and the Ottomans, making sure that the “sick man of Europe,” the Ottoman Empire, was rendered incapable of profiting from infusions of know-how and investment from the newly “healthy” man of Europe, Germany. Of course this plan would have brought advantages to Germany, too. That is the point of investing. But likely also to other European players.

    The “German Belt and Road Initiative” (Berlin-Baghdad Railway) would have been a development engine for the Ottoman Empire and could well also have had positive political consequences for the empire’s component regions (for a model of how this could work read any history of the expansion of the railroads in the USA after the Civil War). This economic and political development was indeed nipped in the bud and torpedoed by WW1, to mix metaphors.

    Both Germany and the Middle East were destroyed. Having been denied a valid international role by the “jealous” Brits (as in “my God is a jealous god”), Germany—not yet totally beaten down and with post-unification success and momentum still fresh in memory for those over, say, 40—resorted to a nationalist fascist totalitarianism to haul itself up out of the mire. Meanwhile, the post-WW1 British-French-Zionist deal cut in the MENA is still wreaking havoc in the region and elsewhere (such as Europe) and creating ever-new groups of genuine victims.

    • Agree: L.K
  472. Skeptikal says:
    @Skeptikal

    Ha ha!

    “Troll,” eh?

    I reckon there isn’t any such diary.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  473. Incitatus says:
    @utu

    Thanks for your post.

    “You are not familiar with Karl May. Indians with the exception of few whites like Old Shatterhand (German friend and blood brother of Winnetou) were the good guys… Hitler even wanted to make Karl May books available to Wehrmacht soldiers so they could emulate the noble and brave Winnetou”

    Indeed I’ve not read Karl May. Your details make me think I should, despite rarely reading fiction. James Fenimore Cooper (‘Last of the Mohicans’ 1828) seems a kindred spirit (?). Le bon sauvage. Complete with glossy, saccharine Hollywood cinema apropos.

    Radically different from non-fiction accounts in the Jésuit Relations, Parkman, Hackett-Fischer and Morrison’s works on Champlain, Steele’s ‘Betrayals’, and many more. Nor from family accounts from 1620, including First Nation roots. The cinematic counterpoint is the 1991 Canadian film ‘Black Robe’, which seems largely accurate (Iroquois vs. Hurons c. 1635).

    Karl May visited the US in 1908, spending six weeks in New York State and Massachusetts (Upper New York State had an Iroquois ‘reservations’ as late as the 1950s – wonder if Karl visited).

    One thing puzzles me, Utu. If Hitler admired First Nations lauded by Karl May, why did he say this:

    “Everything that resembles civilization, the Bolsheviks have suppressed it, and I have no feelings about the idea of wiping out Kiev, Moscow or St-Petersburg. We shan’t settle in the Russian towns, and we’ll let them fall to pieces without intervening. And, above all, no remorse on this subject! We’re not going to play at children’s nurses; we’re absolutely without obligations as far as these people are concerned. To struggle against the hovels, chase away the fleas, provide German teachers, bring out newspapers – very little of that for us! We’ll confine ourselves, perhaps, to setting up a radio transmitter, under our control. For the rest, let them know just enough to understand our highway signs, so that they won’t get themselves run over by our vehicles!

    For them the word ‘liberty’ means the right to wash on feast days…There’s only one duty: to germanise this country by the immigration of Germans, and to look upon natives as Redskins.”
    – Adolf Hitler 17 Oct 1941 Tischgespräche [Stahel ‘Operation Typhoon ‘ p.230]

    “Look upon [Slavs/Russians/Ukrainians] natives as Redskins” seems far distant from honoring Karl May’s noble Winnetou, does it not?

    • Replies: @utu
  474. utu says:
    @Incitatus

    Comparing Slavs to redskins is nothing new for Germans. Frederick the Great did it and Bismarck did it comparing Poles to Iroquois of Europe.

    Israelis are the most recent ones who use the comparison to the conquest of America to justify their conquest in the ME. In fact it makes a perfect sense because the Protestants conquistadors, who unlike the conquistadors in Spanish colonies consisted also of Protestant women which made them much more deadly and persistent than Spaniard, were using ancient Hebrew biblical conquests, massacres and genocides to justify their actions. The Old Testament is the oldest instruction manual on how to take territory from the native population and how to genocide them.

    The literature based on Jesuit documents on Indians from New France is pretty accurate. It is interesting that on the basis of that literature the sentimental concept of a noble savage developed in continental Europe. Not so much in England because there they had their Old Testament insulate them form any human reactions towards the conquered natives. Jesuits saw the native as humans that could be saved through religion and education. (Btw, Protestants did not give that chance to the natives and when it happened they still destroyed them as is the case with Cherokees who adopted the Western ways and even got written language.) At the same time they knew that they were dealing with the extreme savagery, with culture the takes delight in torture and suffering on unprecedented scale. Many Jesuit were tortured to death and many Indian converts were torture to deaths. No other culture was able to produces Christin martyrs at the rate American Indians could and they did it not do it because they were agains Christianity or French, no they did because they liked torturing people.

    And now about you. I can see one can get really irritated by various Hitler apologists and fanboys. But you are not better than them. You are just as one sided and one dimensional as they are. You create just as cartoonish image of Hitler as they do. And you are smug on top of it. I have no respect for you. So GFY.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    , @Incitatus
  475. Skeptikal says:
    @utu

    Karl May was a huge influence in Germany, to the extent that Germans whom I met in the 1970s assumed that I knew who Karl May was. They couldn’t believe that I, an American, had never heard of Karl May and Winnetou!

    I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the May’s stories were used in quite differing ways by Protestants and Catholics in Germany and to prop up quite different narratives as to Germany’s relationship with other ethnic groups.

    Since I have never read any Karl May books I can’t form any further opinion. My comment extends only to my learning, in Germany, of the Karl May phenomenon, in Germany.

    • Replies: @utu
  476. utu says:
    @Skeptikal

    I do not think there were any differences how Karl May stories were used in Germany. German Protestants never went as far as Calvinists and Dutch and English Protestants in the Judaizing heresy . Keep in mind that Martin Luther in the end went after Jews.

    Children loved Karl May stories. They loved Indians and wanted to emulate them. They were used by various scouting movements including Deutsches Jungvolk and Hitlerjugend. In general in continental Europe Indians were portrayed mostly as good guys. Here are East German Karl May based movies from 1960s filmed mostly in Yugoslavia iirc.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  477. Wielgus says:
    @Colin Wright

    The aristocratic and upper middle class did not do too well either. It is striking how bad WW1 generals were, their tactics not keeping pace with technology and huge slaughter among their troops was the result.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  478. anonymous[251] • Disclaimer says:

    Sigh.

    “the Good War”.

    Anglo Saxon Brits and Anglo Saxon Americans slaughtering Saxon Germans in Dresden Saxony.

    Exactly how was that a good thing?

    Is there a single instance of a Jewish person in England, South Africa, Canada, USA advocating that their governments go slaughter their Jewish people in Israel?

    This all seems so obvious to me since I reached the age of 30 and just noticed the racial, criminal, immigration anarchy in American, British cities.

    Why did our grandparents do this stupid #*$&@?

  479. John Wear says:
    @Incitatus

    I appreciate your response. You might want to read the text of the speech Goebbels made on June 22, 1941 at http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p50_Hitler.html.

    It is my understanding that Hitler always said his attack of the Soviet Union was preemptive.

  480. Could you kindly provide Israel’s defined borders map or any verifiable information.
    Do you know if Israel finalized its constitution yet.

  481. ‘The aristocratic and upper middle class did not do too well either. It is striking how bad WW1 generals were, their tactics not keeping pace with technology and huge slaughter among their troops was the result.’

    Actually, if one looks at American Civil War battles such as Murfreesboro and Gettysburg, it becomes obvious that the pre-modern scale of slaughter could easily equal that of World War One. There’s not much to choose between Pickett’s Charge and the First Day of the Somme. Ditto, say, for Borodino.

    The difference is that after a bloody-but-not-particularly-decisive Civil War Battle, everyone was more or less out of ammunition and replacements for a while. Everyone sort of backs off and thinks about that one for a month or two.

    I’d say the critical difference in World War One was that modern bureaucracy, transportation, and industrial production was such that more men, equipment, and munitions could just be funneled in in a constant stream. The Somme didn’t have to come to a grinding halt after three days. It could continue virtually indefinitely.

    • Replies: @Timur The Lame
  482. @Skeptikal

    ‘Ha ha!

    “Troll,” eh?

    I reckon there isn’t any such diary.’

    Fine with me.

    • LOL: Skeptikal
  483. @utu

    More exactly these are the classic FRG versions, only filmed in the Yugoslavian Karst; starring Lex Barker, Pierre Brice as Winnetou, Stewart Granger and youthful indiscretions by Götz George, Terence Hill (!) and of course Elke Sommer 😛 , Karin Dor and Uschi Glas.

    The DEFA blaxploitations starring Gojko Mitic (can´t seem to find one in English) were a lot more social critic.

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

  484. @L.K

    Well, Bubi “there you go again” (Ronny Reagan). Being referred to as being a troll for a purely historical issue, which shouldn’t evoke any passions at all given that all issues associated with it happened over a 100 years ago makes me wonder where your fire comes from.

    Were the great schisms in Christianity, however confusing simply a matter parties ‘trolling’ each other in your parlance? Quit embarrassing yourself.

    I have Ferguson’s book. Truth be told I couldn’t get through it. He writes like a university professor and by that I am saying he makes a book unreadable by just vomiting out charts, quotes, and borrowed conclusions to create a farrago which, like the Bible has content in it that any twit can find what they want in it if a twit took a notion to do so.

    That it has gotten “laudatory reviews” means that it is stamped “approved” and means that every court historian has officially declared that Ferguson will be invited to sing a song at their next dinner. Think incestuous fraternity.

    Here is a little tip for you. History is still politics by a different name. Remember what Orwell wrote about controlling the past. Or better yet, ask why the subject of this post, David Irving has not been accorded the same adulation and media interviews as Ferguson has? I mean they both deal with long passed events and did their respective research with the exception that Ferguson was more likely a manager of collected and collated excerpts leading to a prearranged conclusion while Irving to his immense credit actually toiled with the archives and first person interviews.

    George ‘Chimp’ Bush wrote a book that may interest you. It would be a Guinness record of sorts in that it would be the first time that a person who never read a book wrote one. In plain English there hasn’t been a reputable history book written since the 1970’s.

    OK , enough paddling. Am I to assume that you are on record as stating that the imminent Naval rivalry between Britain and Germany in the ironclad era had NO influence on Britain siding against Germany in The Great War? If so fine that is your opinion. But that is all it is. If however you say well, maybe some influence then you are a time waster.

    Cheers-

    • Replies: @fact-checker
    , @Skeptikal
    , @L.K
  485. @Timur The Lame

    Correction!Please dont insult Chimps by calling the idiot Bush a chimp.

    I agree with your observation on David Irving collecting data and providing backup documentation rather just opinion.
    His visit to Torpedo Factory in Old Town Alexandria VA (by the river) was intriguing for me to visit the place. The factory is still there and is an art center but no one know what happened to all those captured Nazi documents. The German Lady who was in charge of the facility died last year.

    David despite having a strong opinion about other race I still believe what he wrote because of his supporting material.

  486. @Wielgus

    ‘The aristocratic and upper middle class did not do too well either. It is striking how bad WW1 generals were, their tactics not keeping pace with technology and huge slaughter among their troops was the result.’

    There may have also been a simple problem with coordinating and controlling such huge masses — particularly given that the shelling was going to promptly destroy what ability there was to control those masses. I believe it was Loos that first clearly demonstrated this inability to find out what the hell was happening and respond appropriately — but maybe it was some other early slaughter.

    Largely, German infiltration tactics can be seen as a solution to this. ‘We’re not going to be able to tell you what to do next — so here’s how you decide for yourself and keep going.’

    But that took several years to come up with. Equally to the point, it went directly against the European tradition of very rigidly controlled masses of perfectly drilled troops doing exactly as they were told — although the Prussians had begun emphasizing initiative among their junior commanders back in 1866-70.

    But more generally, the First World War presented the spectacle of huge and unwieldy masses of men lurching forward clumsily into devastating artillery and machine-gun fire, coming to a halt, and then not getting told what to do next. Put that way, it becomes more of a problem of technology and communication than of the individual inadequacy of the commanders.

  487. Skeptikal says:
    @Timur The Lame

    Hmm, Bubi yourself!!

    Not sure I follow your logic.

    I am not a huge fan of Ferguson, but the Ferguson quote/info cited seems to me to support the contention that Britain was determined to get into a war with Germany (i.e., WW1).

    Not sure how this plays into the Irving position, but it seems to me that placing more responsibility on Britain for fanning the flames of war pre-WW1 would tend to support the gist of Irving’s contentions, or at least his general revisionist stance as to who were the true “villains” of WW2.

    • Replies: @Timur The Lame
    , @Skeptikal
  488. @Colin Wright

    I was always struck by the passage in Robert Graves’ book ‘Goodbye To All That’ when a snotty British Colonel walked into the barracks of his previously shot up battalion to announce that he had great news in that they were granted the opportunity to “avenge their comrades” presumably with another charge in no man’s land against barb wire and machine guns. They went.

    Interestingly perhaps is that in the next war the “Blighty” was considered a lottery win and a wound that evoked envy. In present wars at least in the forces of the “Coalitions Of The Willing” hearing shots in the distance or an Iraqi child fart brings about disablement due to PTSB.

    Are soldiers degenerating or are they getting smart? My guess is both.

    Cheers-

    • Replies: @Wielgus
    , @Skeptikal
  489. L.K says:
    @Timur The Lame

    Time waster? Look at yourself in the mirror asshole. Your whole idiotic post was an exercise in wasting time, yours und others, and at OBFUSCATION.
    Your obfuscation about Niall Ferguson is probably the silliest of it all.
    Anyone who knows anything about the situation of WW I “scholarship” in the West, even more so in the Anglo sphere, understands very well that Ferguson tears up the establishmentarian version of the war to bits in that book, and this even though he pulls his punches a bit, perhaps out of necessity.
    That is exactly the reason why you and that other dork, ‘verymuchalive’, have disliked the book… if you even actually read it. Being an Oxford linked historian, and Oxford being evidently a place where A LOT of anti-German pseudo history has been cooked up for the last 100 years, makes it harder to just dismiss Ferguson out of hand though. That happens every once in a very long while. Another one was A. J. P Taylor, though through touching an even more taboo/sacred official narrative, that of WW2, it caused him a lot of trouble.

    American Jewish scholar P. Gottfried, describes the situation well in one of his articles:

    ‘Having devoted considerable time over the last forty years to studying the Great War, … I am no longer surprised or disappointed by fictional accounts of this conflict… This is seen particularly in the attempt to attach overwhelming responsibility to the losing side while making the Allied governments look better than they were. …
    I examine this skewed approach not as an exception to current historical studies but as characteristic of the way they are now done: although at no other time has there been so much available historical information, perhaps never before has historiography been so drenched in ideology. Historians and journalists now have at their command more data than was available to great historians of the past. But this opportunity for accurate depictions is squandered when readers are bombed with ideologically shaped stereotypes.
    One can cite as examples such journalists as Victor Davis Hanson, Max Boot, and David Frum, all of whom never rise above clichés in their condemnation of the losing side in World War One. …
    More relevant to my discussion, however, are those who know something about the War but who can’t resist serving us warmed-over platitudes. Someone who fits this category is the distinguished British historian Sir Max Hastings. …
    I am citing Hastings’s work not because it contains an unusual number of errors but because it typifies a widely accepted interpretation of the War. Unlike such publicists as Hanson and Max Boot, Hastings understands his subject. …
    Too often his anti-German, anti-Austrian bias gets in the way of impartial judgment.

    LAME:

    Am I to assume that you are on record as stating that the imminent Naval rivalry between Britain and Germany in the ironclad era had NO influence on Britain siding against Germany in The Great War?

    My point was made very clearly, do you have trouble understanding your own mother tongue?
    Once again, for the last time; the naval “rivalry” was indeed the PRETEXT for the British Empire siding against Germany in the years before the outbreak of the Great War. The British never really felt threatened by German naval power, and rightly so. The German navy was much smaller and Germany lacked the global naval bases that the Brits had in order to project power.
    Already in the year 1900, this was the conclusion reached by the British in their analysis of the naval balance of strenght between the 2 countries. British »Naval Annual« of 1900. (Schattenstrategen, Kriegstreiber, stille Profiteure 1914 und heute,WOLFGANG EFFENBERGER und WILLY WIMMER).
    The same can be said of other pretexts masquarading as real reasons, such as the dork ‘verymuchalives’ rehashing the notion that Russia entered the war because of Serbia.
    As Sean McMeekin explains in ‘The Russian Origins of the First World War’:

    Likewise, Russia’s real interests in July 1914 could not possibly have been as ethereal as her public posturing about “Slavic honor and the Serbs.” An extensive survey of Russia’s diplomatic correspondence in the months before the Sarajevo incident does not reveal undue concern with any sort of Serbian problem, nor, indeed, is concern voiced in the months after July. (Revealingly, one of Sazonov’s first diplomatic moves following the outbreak of the world war was to pressure Serbia to cede Macedonian territory to Bulgaria.)48 What it does reveal is a widespread obsession, bordering on panic, with the Straits question. Following the Italian and the two Balkan wars, it was now universally assumed that Turkey would not last for long in the face of the belligerent hostility of its neighbors. The question was, which power would swallow which pieces of the carcass as the Ottoman Sick Man was carved up? And for Petersburg, the question was starker still:
    who would now control Constantinople and the Straits?

    • Replies: @Timur The Lame
  490. Incitatus says:
    @utu

    Remarkable post. In many ways.

    I might respond on Jésuits“ (many were family members) and the rest, but to what purpose? Given your poison pill:

    “And now about you. I can see one can get really irritated by various Hitler apologists and fanboys. But you are not better than them. You are just as one sided and one dimensional as they are. You create just as cartoonish image of Hitler as they do. And you are smug on top of it. I have no respect for you. So GFY.”

    What does that mean, utu? Please explain differences with anything I’ve posted (in detail with sources).

    All ears.

    Do you have a therapist? Just a thought.

  491. @Wizard of Oz

    ‘Has Israel attacked Saudi Arabia?

    I can’t resist pointing out that Israel doesn’t border on Saudi Arabia.

    ‘…Enabling a lot of Palestinians to get quite rich and be able to do good business could help a lot…’

    Indeed — and in the past, when the Palestinians have been able to work, they have swiftly ceased to make much trouble.

    …but you’re back to misunderstanding Israel. She’s not a nice person. She’s the little boy who likes to pull the wings off flies. She’s the dog owner who finds it amusing to stub cigarettes out on her pet’s back. She can’t stop tormenting her victims and attacking the neighbors.

    It’s pointless to talk about what could happen if she wasn’t crazy. It’s like talking about what a fine citizen a serial killer could make if only…

    • Agree: anarchyst
  492. @L.K

    Your reply to me was indeed a time waster (mine) but I do want to make subsequent point. First off it is obvious to reasonable people that nothing historical is close to being black and white. Depending on the issue there are 10,000 shades of grey involved. Looking at issues from a century ago even citing documents of the time still takes one no closer to absolute truth in that real discussions, sentiments and decisions among those who end up implementing them are often unrecorded (also sealed or destroyed) or not revisited in memoirs written decades later. The individuals making fateful decisions at such time did not possess hind-sight which is an advantage for some students of history and an equal disadvantage to others such as yourself.

    You argue on the basis that you know every fear or concern that responsible people involved had at the time which means that you think you have a precognition on what the German navy may have looked like in say, 1925 if WW1 hadn’t broken out as well as how submarine development would have proceeded, the geopolitical implications of navies switching to oil subsequently not needing coaling bases but needing guaranteed sources of petroleum and making appropriate alliances and then protecting those sea lanes etc etc etc…

    Got it? You post as if you are in possession of the absolute truth and the final word on a superbly complicated matter and get rude with people who may not adopt your line wholesale.

    Your points, my points and Ferguson’s conclusions are in the final analysis just our respective opinions. We have all done our reading, obviously some more than others and equally obviously from disparate sources and as such formulated our conclusions as best as the analytical parts of our brains allow. No one is the final arbiter unless they can claim and prove divine status.

    So P-off with your selected quotes and abrasive rejoinders. The only purpose they serve is to show that your brain is calcified on the issue and not open to objective revisions.

    Paraphrasing Keynes, when fact based opinions change I may change my mind, what do you do? You offered a good perspective but it didn’t change my mind. I obviously didn’t influence you. Is historiography advanced? It is if someone was reading our respective arguments and formed a valid synthesis as a result of that. That is what history is about.

    Cheers-

  493. @Skeptikal

    So you are saying that Ferguson agrees with me? Good on him!

    Cheers-

  494. Wielgus says:
    @Timur The Lame

    Difficult to say – military discipline was draconian. The British executed over 300 of their own soldiers for desertion or cowardice in WW1, although there were over 3,000 death sentences not carried out. The Italians shot large numbers of retreating soldiers, including officers, after Caporetto. Troops who did not attack had to factor in the real possibility that they might be shot for not attacking.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  495. Skeptikal says:
    @Skeptikal

    That is what it looked like to me. Not that Ferguson “agrees with” you—Ferguson is unaware of you and your positions—but that the excerpt presented seems to present info that aligns with your position.

    So not sure why you attacked “Bubi” for presenting this info.

    • Replies: @Timur The Lame
  496. @Skeptikal

    I was trying to make a funny. I obviously doubt that Ferguson would read unz.com. let alone give a fig what I thought. The enmity with “Bubi” was because while unprovoked he referred to me as a troll. Of course he would only do that if our positions were not aligned and the subsequent exchanges came from that.

    I very much prefer to exchange ideas in a civil manner and at worst to agree to disagree but insults will not go unanswered because I am not “fair game”.

    I have a bit of true life trivia getting back to what this whole thread was about namely David Irving and his ‘life under fire’ hence the quotation marks on ‘fair game’ because I got it from him.

    I cannot nail down the year but it was in the 1980’s and Irving was making regular appearances across Canada but it was in the latter stages before he was banned. He had booked a large hall at a notable hotel in the West end of Toronto and I was going to attend. When I arrived there was noticeable confusion in the parking lot with people running around and approaching cars. It seems that some pressure group had phoned up the management of the hotel (and the police) to suggest to them that there would be imminent violence and the venue was cancelled.

    Somehow some Germans (Canadians of course) had thrown together at the last moment the arrangement that the venue would be changed to a large German private club in Kitchener. This would be a two hour drive away. Amazing because this was before cellphones it seemed that the great majority decided to take the trip. In retrospect it was quite an impressive display of solidarity and defiance.

    When things finally commenced some hours later there was a huge crowd of several hundreds and the beer was flowing freely. Irving, feeling his oats and knowing that he need not hold back unleashed a presentation that was less a lecture than a rallying speech to the troops. He started off by saying that he had not planned to mention the great ‘H’ but now that they had crossed him he would talk exclusively on the subject. The crowd was ecstatic, roaring with laughter and applauding regularly. All his one-liners came out. I think that it was the first time he used the “more people died in the back of Teddy Kennedy’s car than in the holocaust”.

    The crowning moment came when he declared the he is not “fair game”, referred to the issue at hand as The Battleship Holocaust and while holding a large poster of himself out towards the crowd declared that he, and he alone will sink it! (long and thunderous applause). It was a great performance and I suppose a historical moment of sorts. But that was then and this is now.

    Sorry for the side-step but I thought that maybe some readers might find that interesting.

    Happy New year!

    Cheers-

  497. @Wielgus

    It must be mentioned in this regard that the pressure for the executions was coming from the politicos, not the military. It was Haig and other generals who were instrumental in cutting the number actually executed by over 90%. Left entirely to the politicos far more would have been executed.
    Desertion during battle and mutiny had always been regarded, quite rightly, as highly dangerous. But regulations that were suitable for small, volunteer armies obviously weren’t always suitable for mass, conscript armies with considerable numbers of men who would not normally pass military tests.
    At least the politicos learnt their lesson and there was no repeat in WWII.

  498. Wielgus says:

    Have you got documentary evidence that civilian politicos wanted more executions? Servicemen were under military law, not civilian. Unlike the generals, civilian politicians had to face the electorate, and I am not certain “I ensured Private Bennett was shot at dawn” was quite something they wanted to take into an election campaign. Explanations for the rather high number of British executed have included the claim that the British Army was traditionally a small volunteer army with the attitudes that go with that, but became a mass conscript army, especially by 1917-18. However, the generals were the ones who had trouble adjusting their state of mind, from what I have read, not civilian politicians. I understand the majority of those executed were conscripted and not volunteers. Apparently only the court files of those executed survive – the files of the over 3,000 sentenced to death but reprieved have been destroyed, so it is now difficult to determine the criteria according to which they were reprieved, and whether it was the generals like Haig who were responsible for reprieves and whether they were pushing back at civilian pressure to shoot more soldiers.
    The Germans for their part appear to have shot far fewer for desertion – they were more accustomed to mass conscript armies, having had conscription since forever, and were aware that a certain proportion of their troops were not willing or well suited to military life.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  499. Skeptikal says:
    @Timur The Lame

    “Are soldiers degenerating or are they getting smart? My guess is both.”

    Hmmm I guess some people never heard of shell shock.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_shock

    It sure seems like the seriousness of shell shock has been degraded since the advent of more jargony and trendy terms such as PTSD.

    If Lame has actually been in active combat he might have the right to comment on the mental and nervous condition of others who have been in active combat.

    If not, he really should go to his corner and be quiet.

    Well?

    • Replies: @Timur The Lame
  500. Toni says:

    MSM’s distortion of history is in fact literary genocide.

  501. @Wielgus

    However, the generals were the ones who had trouble adjusting their state of mind, from what I have read, not civilian politicians.

    Then why did the military reduce actual executions by 90%.

    Apparently only the court files of those executed survive – the files of the over 3,000 sentenced to death but reprieved have been destroyed, so it is now difficult to determine the criteria according to which they were reprieved, and whether it was the generals like Haig who were responsible for reprieves and whether they were pushing back at civilian pressure to shoot more soldiers.

    The files of the other 3,ooo were not destroyed.
    https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/military_justice
    https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/solicitors-in-world-war-one/shot-at-dawn-time-to-look-at-the-truth/5040402.article
    Gordon Corrigan has more on this. I will dig up more stuff as required.

    • Replies: @Wielgus
  502. @Skeptikal

    Well aren’t you a bag of pleasantness. Yes I have heard of shell shock as well as it’s WW2 upgrade “battle fatigue’ and of course it’s latest iteration PTSD. If you read my post before you had your response ready you would realize that my point wasn’t about mental trauma from battle as such but in essence the diminishing willingness of combatants to march into a wholesale slaughter situation with each subsequent war and instead search for a way out of the mess.

    In Canada a huge percentage of returning soldiers claim PTSD because they get a big disability payment out of the deal if so certified which brings into the question are they being clever or are they snowflakes who get traumatized by hearing shots in the distance as opposed to the many millions who actually lived through intense artillery barrages in WW1 and WW2 and went back home to live normal lives.

    Did you actually write that unless I was in active combat I have no right to comment on the nervous conditions of people who were? Really? To make a comment that silly would mean at the very least you would have had to have been in active combat situations, full blown battles, no ifs ands or buts about it by any logic.

    It would also mean that if you live by your own rules, STFU about WW1 because you weren’t there. That includes you writing about the original ‘shell shock’. You weren’t in the trenches so STFU!

    Your writing style and level of obnoxiousness reminds me of someone. I guess that only Ron Unz knows for sure.

    Grapes-

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  503. Wielgus says:
    @Verymuchalive

    My glance over your links does not specifically cite anywhere the files of cases where soldiers were sentenced to death and it was commuted. In one place it is suggested that generals were less likely to commute sentences if an offensive was coming up. The relative harshness in relation to sentencing people to death of the British Army of WW1 is noted. The Austro-Hungarian army was especially harsh, but it was frequently on the brink of falling apart in WW1.

    https://blindfoldandalone.wordpress.com/about/
    This site has files about those who were executed.
    I may be in error about the commuted files being destroyed – what I would like to see is an example of a commuted file and the reasons for commutation, like the files on the executed in the link.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  504. Skeptikal says:
    @Timur The Lame

    Re: “If you read my post before you had your response ready you would realize that my point wasn’t about mental trauma from battle as such but in essence the diminishing willingness of combatants to march into a wholesale slaughter situation with each subsequent war and instead search for a way out of the mess.”

    I did read your post, and here is what you actually wrote:

    “Interestingly perhaps is that in the next war the “Blighty” was considered a lottery win and a wound that evoked envy. In present wars at least in the forces of the “Coalitions Of The Willing” hearing shots in the distance or an Iraqi child fart brings about disablement due to PTSB.
    Are soldiers degenerating or are they getting smart? My guess is both.”

    Readers can make up their own minds as to what you “meant” and your attitude toward “degerating” “fart-hearing” front-line soldiers.

    • Replies: @L.K
  505. @Wielgus

    Thanks for your reasoned reply. ( A lot of the regulars have been thoroughly unreasonable ! As I joked elsewhere: David Irving seems to have this effect on people )
    I don’t think British military justice was harsh viewed from the totality of the cases. The military justice article notes:

    Prosecuting Desertion↑
    Alongside cowardice and mutiny, desertion was regarded as the most serious military offence; it was punishable in all armies by death. A very high proportion of death sentences and executions were imposed on deserters. About two-thirds of British death penalties were imposed on deserters and three-quarters of those executed were deserters; in Canada the comparable figures were 91 percent and 88 percent. Table 3 provides an overview of available statistics from various nations.

    Nation Great Britain
    Convictions 38,620
    Death Sentences 2004
    Executed 272
    % of Death Sentences executed 13%

    Of those convicted, only 0.07% were executed. The rest of Table 3 gives comparative figures for other countries.
    https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/military_justice

    So obviously, the files of the commuted were not completely destroyed as the offences and outcomes were noted. Gordon Corrigan also noted material from commuted cases. Sadly, I have lost track of the particular work, and can’t remember its name.
    The main reason, I believe, is that the full files of the commuted are embargoed under the Official Secrets Act. In the United Kingdom, Census records are only available until 1911. As the ONS notes:

    All later censuses remain in the custody of the Office for National Statistics. They will remain closed to the public for 100 years after the date they were conducted.

    I think the same principle applies to the files of commuted cases. Hopefully, they will be made public later this decade.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    , @Wielgus
  506. @Verymuchalive

    Of those convicted, only 0.07% were executed.

    Oops, That should read 0.7%

  507. Wielgus says:
    @Verymuchalive

    It would be interesting to see them to judge the criteria used in commutation of cases. It seems strange that the files of those who were shot should be readily available, as in the link I cited, while those who were not shot are embargoed, if not destroyed.
    Yes, I am usually pretty reasonable, especially on historical topics. This site does attract some unreasonable people, though.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
  508. L.K says:
    @Skeptikal

    Taxi, who has had a few of her articles featured here at Unz, had the following to say about the British elites, which is roughly how I feel too.

    The Brits invented the term ‘fair play’ because they are the nastiest, double-crossing motherfucking hypocrite goy cunts. They are a mere handful of degrees less evil than the jews. This makes them the most evil of all goy. Thus, we understand the enduring and close relationship between the terrorist Rothschild dynasty and the unelected terrorist Brit Deep State, a relationship that’s even longer than that between the jews and the yanks by some 150+ years. The evil Brit Deep State loves the evil jews – they are so very impressed by jewish evil – they want to emulate it for their own benefit. …

  509. @Wielgus

    It’s like this. Those who were executed are dead, actually and officially. No problem. Commutations and the like may well involve people who are still alive. So they have the 100 year rule for disclosure.

    Nowadays, in the UK, if an employer wants to see your criminal record ( or non-record ), he has to ask your permission. No permission, he doesn’t get it. Of course, he can draw an inference from your refusal. Of course, for some jobs – working with children and vulnerable adults – this is standard. If you refuse permission, you will be refused employment.

    There were 38,000 convicted of desertion and only 2,000 sentenced to death. Finally only 272 were actually executed. I suspect the 36,000 not sentenced to death had only some form of summary, not solemn procedure ( only the charge and verdict ). The rest would certainly have a summary and comments/recommendations from the trial judges.

    These cases then would go to the head of the army – Sir John French ( to 1915 ) and then Earl Haig ( 1916-18) . They would recommend commutation or execution – in 90% of the cases. At both levels, the Army was trying to commute as many cases as possible. I’m sure these files are still extant, including the reasons given by the generals.

    • Replies: @Wielgus
  510. Wielgus says:
    @Verymuchalive

    That explanation for the files is plausible though in classifying commuted files, whether they were all that bothered about the after-lives of those who were commuted is not clear to me.
    Nor is it obvious that they were trying to commute as many cases as possible – the British Army still shot its own troops for desertion or cowardice in larger quantities than some other belligerents in WW1, most notably the Germans.
    I find the figure of 38,000 convicted of desertion interesting – a little higher than I would have suspected, considering that many tens of thousands more would have been in a grey area like absent without leave or retreating with undue haste from German attacks, such as those in March and April 1918.

  511. Soll says:
    @Genrick Yagoda

    Genrick Yagoda says:

    “Prior to National Socialist Germany there were 300,000 Jews in Germany, and they had purchased almost all mercantile exchange ability for pennies during the German Hyper-inflation of the late 1920’s.”

    “And let’s be clear; war was forced on Germany, and not the other way around”
    • Agree: Carolyn Yeager, John Wear

    Late 1920s?? The short-lived hyperinflation of 1922-23 was already over by late 1923. You have your time period all over the map.

    How was war allegedly forced upon Hitler? No one caused him to keep breaking his treaties all throughout the 1930s, even on the eve of war being declared by Chamberlain, a final appeal for peace was made for Hitler to move out of Poland, Hitler instead ignored the British peace offer and allowed war to be declared against Germany.

    No one forced Hitler to break his 1938 Munch Pact, neither his 1934 Non-Aggression Pact with Poland, into him breaking his 1939 Non-Aggression Pact with the USSR etc. While “John Wear” parades hoax quotes all over his website of Churchill, who was not even in office when war was declared.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @John Wear
  512. Fox says:
    @Soll

    The hyperinflation had the effect of huge wealth and asset transfer. People who lost about everything were forced, for sheer survival, to sell off what assets they had left for practically nothing to those who had foreign currency. You apparently think that the people driven to ruination during the hyperinflation were well off again as soon as the inflation was brought under control.
    Hitler did not “break the Munich Pact”; it might have been a wrong move political move to occupy the remaining rump Czechia. The events followed the secession of Slovakia, the Hungarian and Ruthenian parts of the artificial Czecho-Slovakia, cobbled together just 20 years earlier. And if you are into treaties and accords, it was the President of Czecho-Slovakia (even as the secessions had already been declared, he was still President of the state that was falling to pieces, but he could only speak for the Czech part) himself who came to Berlin to agree to this German course of action. I am certain that it was a bitter mission for him. Chamberlain declared at the time that the secession (= falling apart of the integrity of the original object of the Munich agreement) had voided an obligation of His Majesty’s Government in the matter (my words, as cited from memory). You might also count into your tally that Poland was also occupying an area of Czecho-Slovakia at the time. Your words betray an easy relationship with inconvenient memories; while it is ok for you to knowingly not knowing (i.e., being a hypocrite) the betrayal of Germany after the Armistice under the agreed-upon 14 Points of Wilson, the occupation of the German Sudetenland by the armed Czechs in spring of 1919, the interference of the Versailles victor crowd with the Austrian-German government to join Germany proper as the Austrian state (Germany was and is composed of such states representing old, tribal divisions of the German people), the occupation of West Prussia and Pomerellen by Poland, the Memel area by Lithuania, the betrayal of Germany after the plebiscite in Upper Silesia, …
    Likewise, after Poland entered into a military alliance with Britain directed against Germany in spring of 1939, in which way can Germany break the Non-Aggression Pact of 1934? What was it resting upon after Poland entered an anti-German aggressive Pact with England?
    Hitler’s aim was to undo the most destructive and peace-threatening provisions of the “Treaty of Versailles”, signed under threat of force and formulated without Germany’s participation (as a normal Treaty would require). He did not cause it, he had no hand in creating this “Treaty”. Everyone, including the French and English beneficiaries of it, recognized the destructive potential but that was of course a major reason for writing this infernal document and enforcing it in the manner of time-proven hypocrisy. “A treaty is a treaty”, but then, as with Chwalkowski (Czech President) agreeing to a German occupation of Rump Czechia in March of 1939, it suddenly is not so anymore.
    No one forced England into declaring war on Germany in 1939 over the desire of the German city of Danzig to re-join Germany and not to live under quasi Polish occupation. No one forced the SU to pursue an expansionist policy n Eastern Europe after signing the Non-Aggression and Friendship Pact in August of 1939, no one forced the SU to attack Finland in December of 1939, no one forced the US to pretend that its neutrality meant taking sides…. I hope you can see that everything has two sides. Germany was acting in specific situations that developed, much more so than her opponents who were active in creating these situations.

    • Agree: John Wear, Alexandros
    • Thanks: L.K
  513. John Wear says:
    @Soll

    Ron Unz was nice enough to publish my book “Germany’s War” on his website at https://www.unz.com/book/john_wear__germanys-war/. The first four chapters of my book explain how World War II was instigated and should answer your questions.

  514. Tanky says:

    “If you would know who controls you see who you may not criticize.”

    ~Tacitus

    • Replies: @soll
  515. @Jus' Sayin'...

    Diplomacy forbade a completely honest response. I told them that I was too overwhelmed for words.

    Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. Are you a good man, sir?
    You sure did nuffin’

  516. soll says:
    @Joe Levantine

    Joe Levantine says:

    “…By his own admission, Churchill stated that his war was not against Nazi Germany but against the German people to crush them once and for all, and that Nazi Germany’s biggest crime was to deprive international banks from their due profits by trading with other nations through barter. What could be more sick than that?”

    Those are hoax quotations alleged at Churchill as promoted by the usual fringes, like “John Wear.”

    The economy of the Third Reich all throughout the 1930s was behind either Great Britain and the United States, even this hoax quote recited to each-other in these paranoid echo chambers is contradictory to the actual period and outcome.

    While Churchill was not even in office when war was declared.

    The Reichsbank still had interest-rates, base rate was 4%. Hitler was not motivated by any monetary reform, its why he replaced Gottfried Feder with Schacht. Schacht by 1936 got tired of Hitler’s inflationary policies and damage he was causing to the German workers wages that resulted in his famous public speeches against Hitler, later seeing him dismissed as Hitler continued to run their economy into the ground.

    “I succeeded in dissuading Hitler from putting into practice the most foolish and dangerous of the ideas on banking and currency [interest/usury free money] harbored by his party colleagues [Feder al.].” — Hjalmar Schacht, “The Magic of Money” p. 49 ”

    • Troll: L.K
  517. soll says:
    @Tanky

    Tanky says:

    ““If you would know who controls you see who you may not criticize.”

    ~Tacitus”

    This common misquote is actually from convicted pedo, Kevin Alfred Strom.

    • Replies: @Wielgus
  518. Wielgus says:
    @soll

    Sometimes it is attributed to Voltaire, also wrongly.

Current Commenter
says:

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


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to All David Irving Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?