Maggoty White Cuck worships Negro-as-god. He also plays 'new jesus' washing the feet of the 'Wretched'. Thanks, Jews.
It's been said when General Douglas MacArthur was running for the presidency back in the US, Japanese who came to revere him put up a sign, "We play for MacArthur's erection." They got the 'l' and 'r' confused. In the US, the only politics in town is goyim playing for Jewish Supremacist erections. US politics is just Viagra for the Jewish Pud. Even when Donald Trump, much loathed by Jews, became president, all we got was more 'Muh Israel' and playing for Jewish hard-ons. It's a Portnoic World.
It's beyond Jews as godhead. They are godpud as well. Jewish Power constitutes the god-mind of America. But mind without hysteria and violence can only go so far. So, Jews have groomed 'woke' whites as the furies and black thuggery & Antifa goonery as the fist. But there has to be some sweetness in the mix, and homos play the role of angel-fairies. How often have we seen BLM and globo-homo signs side by side?
Now, given that the Jewish Mind directs 'woke' hysteria and black violence at the white community(and rest of middle America), why does it get away with such foulness? Shouldn't most Americans be furious with the Jewish Mind, white self-loathing hysteria, and black thuggery? After all, if someone spews hatred and threatens/attacks you with violence, you would naturally hate that person and push back. But then, maybe not when the aggressive force comes with the aura of divinity.
It's like the stories in the Bible. God does lots of violence to humanity. He sends plagues, floods, fires, pestilence, and etc. And yet, the Biblical message is not to hate or oppose God but to get on your knees, apologize, beg forgiveness, and seek atonement/redemption before God. As the Bible says God is righteous and true while humans are sinful and bogus, it doesn't matter what horrors God visits upon mankind. God has the right to judge and punish, and humanity deserves to get kicked in the butt. So, God could destroy your community. He could smash your property. He could wipe out your kinfolks. He could whup your ass. But He is right, and You are wrong and deserved all the misfortunes because of your systemic sinfulness. Pagans thought likewise. Aztec gods were fearsome and monstrous. Aztecs believed the gods often acted violently toward people. So, did the Aztecs hate the gods and curse them out? Did they unite to wage war on the gods? No, they groveled before the gods. Gods were super beings, and whatever their motives, they were greater than mankind and could sit in judgement and punish as they wished. Aztecs even offered human sacrifice to the gods.
So, even though it's generally true that people hate whatever force that does them harm, the dynamics plays out differently IF the people (1) believe that the fearsome power is divine or morally superior by some degrees and (2) believe that their own side is especially foul and disgusting. It is why Germans today feel hardly any hatred and rage toward the Allies that smashed their nation and killed millions. Germans, rightly or wrongly, believe that they were so awful, vile, disgusting, scummy, loathsome, and worst-ever that they deserved to be smashed/punished and were, if anything, saved by Allies from their own diseased German souls that led to Wagner and Hitler, even if the 'saving' entailed millions of deaths and raped womenfolk. So, if you were to point out that Allies firebombed Hamburg & Dresden and killed a lot of innocent people, the German response will be, more often than not, "Oh, we deserved it, so thank you, thank you very much for kicking our vile and sinful Germanic butts."
And a similar mentality explains why so many white people in US and EU are supportive of Jewish Power and BLM even after the alliance of Jewish Mind and Black Fist led to so many eruptions of violence that paralyzed entire areas of US and Europe(and parts of Canada as well). Given that Jewish Power called for mass hysteria all across the West and that blacks & self-loathing white Antifa took up the challenge by looting, pillaging, burning, and attacking ordinary people, one would think most people would be totally livid with anger toward Jews and blacks. But as they've been brainwashed and browbeaten by academia, news media, and entertainment(as well as 'acceptable' political discourse), their mentality is neo-biblical. They don't see it as virulent Jews and violent blacks acting like scumbags and destroying peace & stability in the West. They see Jews and blacks as divine forces of historical justice and spiritual sanctity. Jews are the holy Holocaust people, and blacks are the MLK people who are also good at rapping and playing basketball. And in an age when 'twerking' is the most celebrated expression of 'Western Values', it's an added bonus that blacks are very sexual with dongs and buns. Thus, Jewish Mind and the Black Fist are seen as divine. Therefore, their hatred and violence come with spiritual pedigree. It's the violence of righteous judgement. In contrast, whites have internalized the notion that their race is especially guilty, foul, lowdown, disgusting, putrid, and irredeemably sinful, mainly because it committed wrongs against holy Jews and noble Negroes in the past. (After all, whites need not feel 'white guilt' about what they did to Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians. Indeed, Muslims matter ONLY AS a immigrant-minority that can be used by Jews against 'white supremacist' nativists in the West.) So, just like Biblical Jews only blamed themselves more when God hurled brimstone and hellfire at them, whites-as-sinners grovel even more when the Jewish Mind and Black Fist concoct another round of Kick-Whitey's-Ass. Or to put it in the pagan context, when the Jewish Mind and Black Fist are angry and do violence, whites offer White Human Sacrifice in the form of more sucking up to Jews, more sucking up to blacks, more purging of whites, more promises of promotions for blacks, more support for Israel, and etc.
It's all satanic because when one group of people worships other groups as godly and divine, it is worship of man-as-god. Jews are not gods. Black feet don't come with divine toes worthy of kissing. Homos are not angels, and true worship isn't celebration of sodomy and tranny-penis-cutting.
History shows that exposing hypocrisy is the surest way to pull the rug out from under the authority of those who command the dogma/narrative. When are children most likely to respect for parents, teachers, 'heroes', or authority figures? It's not when they realize the adults are imperfect(as everyone is) but when they realize certain adults are full of BS who say one thing but do another. This is why it's especially damaging when a reverend is caught in a sexual or financial scandal. Because spiritual leaders spout high-and-mighty about virtue and morality, their reputations shrivel when they are caught with pants down or hand in the cookie jar.
What was the main reason for the fall of White Authority & Power in the West? As the Christian-Humanist-Enlightenment West was confidently moralistic, righteous, and even holier-than-thou — "God is on our side", "White Man's Burden", "Human Rights", "beacon of liberty", etc — , it was especially vulnerable to exposure of hypocrisy. An amoral power like that of Vikings, Huns, or Mongols had no use for righteousness, but Western Power rose not only with guns and gold but with the Good Book and the Idea of Progress. Christianity was especially vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy because it is so purist in its moralism; after all, Jesus even said "Turn the other cheek" and "Love thy enemy." As long as the West guarded its Narrative and Agenda from accusations of hypocrisy, they had the authority, self-respect, and even the respect of their subject peoples(who, despite their resentment against Western Imperialism, were eager to learn from the superior and more advanced white civilizations and gain approval from them). Sure, some critical whites noticed the hypocrisy from within, but their mostly constructive criticism and relatively mild rebuke led to reforms and progress that served as the basis for yet more moral pride: "We are not perfect, we made mistakes, but we work hard to make progress and improve things." This is why, for the first 100 yrs after the Civil War, America was not particularly burdened with guilt over slavery. The favored white narrative was, "Slavery was wrong, but WE white Americans fought a war to end it." As long as whites held the megaphone, they could direct people's attention to the ultimate redemption of Western Civilization and White Folks via progress and reform, thus emphasizing pride over shame/guilt. As a result, the element of White Hypocrisy was muted.
But then, Jews took over the megaphone, and one of their main methods of undermining White Authority was by exposing white hypocrisy and making it the central theme of Western History. So, at every turn, Jews condemned whites/Christians for having preached one thing while practicing another. If whites-in-power had argued that their world wasn't perfect but nevertheless enacted reforms and furthered progress, a point of pride, Jews emphasized the shame and guilt of white failures to practice what they preached. As such, Jewish Logic insisted whites no longer deserved moral authority, and if whites were to gain a measure of redemption, they had to surrender to the newly ascendant moral authority of Jews(and their allies, mainly blacks and homos) with the power of judge-and-jury to outline what whites must do in order to be rehabilitated: Total rejection of white identity & interests, even to the point where "It's Okay to be White" is denounced as 'white supremacist', blind faith in Diversity designed to turn white nations into white-minority nations, worship of Shoah as neo-religion, Afro-mania, Globo-Homomania, and total support for Zion & Wars for Israel.
As ALL orders(and individuals) are hypocritical to some extent — practice almost always never matches principles or theory — , the real issue is NOT "Who is or isn't hypocritical?"; rather, it is "Who owns the megaphone that directs our attention to a particular hypocrisy?" When white power wielded the megaphone, it decided who were or weren't hypocritical, but when the megaphone was yielded to Jews, the Jews got to select and pass judgement. And whites were vulnerable especially in the 20th century because of World War I and World War II(and the Shoah). Prior to such cataclysms, despite setbacks and failures, it seemed as though the West was making great advances on all fronts and at all times, industrial and moral. Enlightenment and People Power seemed to be creating a better and happier world. Yet, in WWI and especially WWII, all the themes of progress — populist passions, mass communications, science and technology, social engineering, etc — all converged into a total catastrophe. Once Christian moralism faded among whites, it was replaced by secular Pride of Progress, but even that failed for White Authority in the horrible events of the 20th century. That said, if white power had tenaciously clung to the megaphone regardless, its pride might have survived intact. After all, the Chinese Communist Party has much to answer for, but as it has always controlled the megaphone, the main theme of Chinese politics is not the hypocritical discrepancy between what the CCP promised and what it delivered in terms of Maoism and then capitalism. Maoism was an utter disaster, and capitalism is hardly what a communist party should be practicing, and these are Easy Hypocrisies that could be exposed to undermine CCP authority, but not many talk about such in China because the megaphone of the CCP is about patriotism and unity and reversing "100 yrs of humiliation".
What do Jews fear most? They know from recent history what undermined white authority, not least because of their crucial role in it. It was by exposing White Hypocrisy, thus denuding whites of respect and awe that they once held in the world. Jewish Judgement made whites lose their 'innocence' like Adam and Eve who suddenly realize they are naked. But, what was an effective weapon against whites can be an effective weapon against Jews. As long as Jews control the megaphone, they need not worry much since most people aren't independent thinkers and just go along with the prescribed narrative and the general hype. As control of media and academia is very expensive, it was easy for super-rich Jews to maintain a near-monopoly over the Narrative. But the internet changed the playing field, and there were suddenly many voices, from left and right, that began to expose Jewish Hypocrisy. And in this, the Shoah increasingly became an Achilles Heel for Jews. It was with the Shoah Narrative that Jews made themselves out to be a saintly victim race that wouldn't hurt a fly, no more than Norman Bates's mother could. Rather, we were told that the Shoah was the final culmination of goy madness that had irrationally targeted Jews in perpetuity for all the problems of the world when, if anything, no people were as innocent and decent as the Jews.
People become more vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy if they elevate themselves as high-and-mighty moral arbiters for all humanity, and Jews did just that with the Shoah Narrative. And this made Jewish Hypocrisy a real problem because it isn't difficult to point to all the bad things Jews have done over the ages and are doing now. While a miniphone is no match for a megaphone, when there are so many miniphones on the internet exposing Jewish Hypocrisy on Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, and etc., all those voices add up to something like a counter-megaphone. It's like enough mosquitoes can drive a man crazy. And this is why Jewish Power is so hellbent on using their ethno-monopoly over internet platforms to shut down as many voices as possible because they know full well that the very thing that brought down white authority can bring down Jewish authority in turn.
Authority is key because wealth and privilege are not enough. Even now, white gentiles have the bulk of the wealth in the US, but they totally lack authority. Even grubby non-whites who just got off the boat feel emboldened to spit on whitey as indeed many Hindus do. Blacks are poorer than whites, but they have great moral authority due to the prevailing narrative pushed by the Jewish megaphone. Currently, Jewish Power is rife with hypocrisies of all kinds. Jews talk of equality but are the most unequal people. Jews talk of the evil of 'hate', but they run Hollywood that makes hateful movies about the Other, especially Muslims and Russians. Jews talk about the dangers of misogyny, but they control porn and made billions from rap music where women are 'bitchass hos'. Jews bitch about atavistic nationalism, but they demand that we all support Israel, the Jewish homeland. Jews call for War on Terror, but they've been working with terrorists against Assad of Syria. They say we must remember the Shoah, but radical Jews played a key role in mass killings in the 20th century. Jews berate Russia for all sorts of bad behavior, but the reason why a man like Vladimir Putin came to power is because of Jewish oligarchic malfeasance in the 90s. And so on and on.
All we need to do is pull on the string of Jewish Hypocrisy, and Jewish Authority could come apart at the seams and unravel. Jews could have all the wealth in the world, but without the element of authority, they would lose respect/reverence, and then they would be an easy target of criticism and rebuke. And that's why there is growing censorship or censchwarship on internet platforms. But for how long can Jews hold out against accusations of wanton hypocrisy, which has paradoxically gotten worse precisely because of Jewish suppression of criticism of Jews. Without healthy criticism and debate, a power grows even more corrupt and vile, and then there is even greater hypocritical distance between what it preaches and what it practices. Shielded from criticism, Jewish Power has grown more obnoxious and foul, making its hypocrisy worse, thereby requiring more suppression, which only compounds Jewish vileness even more in a vicious cycle. But I'm sure Jews will remind us that they are for 'free speech, not hate speech', what with 'hate' being defined by themselves. AIPAC's call for more 'genocide' of Palestinians apparently isn't 'hate'.
But now McConnell had heard that Buchanan was planning to release a new book supposedly glorifying Adolf Hitler and denouncing America’s participation in the world war to defeat the Nazi menace.
Where did Scott McConnell get that impression? At most, the book might have been an apologia for some of Hitler's decisions, but did he really believe Buchanan would write a book GLORIFYING Der Fuhrer?
Mainstream publications had largely ignored the book, but it seemed to receive enormous praise from alternative writers, some of whom fiercely denounced TAC for having attacked it.
It was reviewed in the New York Review of Books, unfavorably but not entirely negatively. Pat Buchanan was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN about the book. Christopher Hitchens wrote a scathing review in Newsweek, then still a major publication; therefore, the book was not ignored. I mostly agreed with Hitchens' assessment. The problem was not Buchanan's contrarian take on the origins of World War II but the tendency to be harsh on Winston Churchill at every turn while soft-pedaling nearly everything Adolf Hitler did. Instead of arguing that Hitler shouldn't have done such-and-such, Buchanan placed most of the blame on those compelled to react to Hitler's initiatives or provocations. John Lukacs was correct in saying that Hitler was the main driver of the forces that led to WWII. Hitler's moves provoked other nations, and even if Poland, UK, and France acted unwisely(at least in hindsight), Hitler should have known that if he plays with matches, he could set off a forest fire. Hitchens was willing to concede that maybe Buchanan and others were right about the foolishness of UK and France guaranteeing protection for Poland. From a realpolitik perspective(and especially in retrospect), one might say UK and France acted rashly. But Buchanan goes much further than that in UNNECESSARY WAR. In the earlier book REPUBLIC, NOT AN EMPIRE, Buchanan stopped at events up to 1939. George Kennan, renowned for realism in foreign affairs, wrote him a letter of support. But in UNNECESSARY WAR, Buchanan moves beyond 1939 and keeps blaming the other players more than Germany and Hitler even as he concedes that Hitler was pathological and committed unspeakable crimes. Niall Ferguson, maybe the most famous living British historian, already argued that UK should have stayed out of World War I and let Germans dominate Europe in co-existence with the British Empire. Recently, Peter Hitchens wrote a book on WWII that agrees with the view of people like Buchanan, at least up to events in 1939. The real problem is what happened afterwards, and in UNNECESSARY WAR, Buchanan keeps faulting those who reacted to Hitler than faulting Hitler for his proactive(and reckless) decisions. Christopher Hitchens also noted that Hitler was something other than a conqueror in the classic sense. If Napoleon had prevailed over Russia, there would have been at least the spread of Enlightenment values. If Hitler had prevailed over Russia, it would have been like Spartans subjugating the Helots all over again on a massive scale.
I don't think Buchanan was or is pro-Hitler, but he's always been Germano-centric. Ironically, Neocon Jews hate Buchanan because his politics of identity is much like their own. Jews have been known to favor identity over ideology. Capitalist Jews in the US sided with communist Jews in USSR and even Jewish communist spies in the US. Capitalist Jews denounced Joe McCarthy's anti-communism because it disadvantaged their tribal brethren. But Jews who supported leftist Jews also supported nationalist Jews, the Zionists. Jews have operated on the basis of "Is it good for Jews?", and Buchanan has a similar worldview about white folks, especially the Germans, his favorite people. Also, he's half-German and was born with a Teutonic personality.
Buchanan's formative years saw the world divided between godless communism that came to be associated with radical Jews & Slavs(Russians) AND capitalist Anglo-America, Catholic Spain, & fascist Germany. From Buchanan's point of view, it made more sense for democratic capitalist Anglo nations(UK and US) to side with Nazi Germany and Franco's Spain for either racial or religious reasons. Buchanan came of age in a time of much intra-racial tensions among whites. Today, we mainly talk of White People as a single group, but ethnic tensions were riding high through much of the 20th century. World War I was sparked by Pan-Germanism vs Pan-Slavicism. In the US, there were many ethnic tensions among Anglos, Irish, Italians, Jews, Poles, Russians, etc. There was a view among Anglos and Germans that they were somewhat better than the Other Whites who were less pure. Apparently, Italians and Spanish had some 'black' blood, and Slavs had some 'Asiatic' blood. The ethnic tensions were made worse by the rise of communism in Russia. Suddenly, the Slavs turned into commie Slavs taking orders from Jews as the new masters. This Soviet Union was not only of the Other(and lesser) White Race but godless. Then, from the POV of people like Buchanan(and his mentors), the Anglo world should have sided with Germans as proper racial cousins and with Franco's Spain as a Catholic power that stood against communism.
Looking back, much of the problems of the West could have been avoided IF these ethnic tensions had been managed better. Buchanan himself errs in thinking Anglos should have sided with Germans against Slavs. The fact is Russians are mostly white, and the thinking should have been Anglos and Germans should have made peace with Russians and sided with them against rise of Asia. John Lukacs was prescient during the Cold War when he said the Soviet Union would be a far less of a challenge than China. People didn't take him seriously back then because the Soviet Union was a superpower whereas China was mostly an agrarian country of rice-eaters, but the past few decades proved Lukacs was right. Looking back, the Anglos shouldn't have alienated Germans, and Germans shouldn't have alienated Russians and other Slavs. It just ended up with so much white-on-white bloodbath. That said, the rise of communism in Slavic Nations understandably made people like the Buchanans turn against the Other White World that seemed permanently lost to godless communism and/or Oriental Despotism.
Among other things, he persuasively argued that the German war-guilt was somewhat less than that of most of the other participants, also noting that despite the endless propaganda of “Prussian militarism,” Germany had not fought a major war in 43 years, an unbroken record of peace considerably better than that of most of its adversaries.
Germany didn't fight in a major war in those 43 years because it didn't have a worthy competitor on the continent. But with its surging industry and imperial ambitions(though limited) made it a major candidate for aggression on the world stage. From the British and French perspective, "two's company but three's a crowd." UK and France had fought many bitter wars for imperial supremacy. Brits prevailed in North America, only to see their prize possession go independent with French aid. In the end, UK vs France in the New World ended up with both sides losing. UK lost America, and French monarchy lost its head. So, instead of endlessly fighting for every inch of territory, UK and France came to an understanding. Brits would be the premier imperial power, and France would be #2. They would tolerate one another. While the Brits usually got the better colonies, the French got a lot too. Over time, they became partners, and both feared the rise of Germany because of its bigger population and expanding industry(that eclipsed British industrial output in a matter of decades). Now, looking back, it might have been wiser for UK and France to make some room for Germany's place in the world, but at the time, Germany looked like a real rival. Also, Kaiser Wilhelm really was a jerk and an ass. Rash, impetuous, arrogant, and vain. Difficult man to work with.
However, the bulk of the book focused on the events leading up to the Second World War, and this was the portion that had inspired such horror in McConnell... Buchanan described the outrageous provisions of the Treaty of Versailles.. whereas his democratic Weimar predecessors had failed, Hitler had managed to succeed, largely through bluff, while also annexing German Austria and the German Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, in both cases with the overwhelming support of their populations.
If Buchanan had only argued thus, it wouldn't have been a problem. Even History 101 in colleges teach that Germany was in bad straits during Weimar years and that there were real achievements under National Socialism, which was popular with Germans. Many people other than Buchanan have pointed to the Versailles Treaty as especially harmful. And if Hitler had only taken Sudetenland, things might have calmed down. But he made a move on the entire Czech territory soon after, and that became the bone of contention. Neville Chamberlain staked his pride, dignity, and reputation on peace with Germany by letting Hitler have his way JUST ONE TIME. Hitler agreed but, having gained much with earlier bluffs, went ahead and made a move on Poland, and Chamberlain ended up with egg on his face. Buchanan argues in bad faith because, on the one hand, he says Hitler got bolder because UK and France didn't call his bluff earlier, but then, on the other hand, says UK, France, and Poland should have conceded to Hitler on just about every demand or maneuver prior to(and even after) the outbreak of war. But wouldn't giving-Hitler-what-he-wants have made him even more aggressive and reckless? On the Danzig Question, Buchanan is correct that Germans had every right to claim it as their city. But if so, Hitler should have instigated a 'color revolution' in Danzig against the Poles. He should have urged Germans in Danzig to protest and rise up. Then, if the Poles used violence against the Germans, international sympathy might have been with the Germans, and then Hitler could have used his superior power to wrest Danzig from Poland as an emergency measure. I highly doubt if UK and France would have declared war on Germany over Danzig, especially if so many Danzigers were in the streets clamoring for unification with Germany. But what did Hitler do? He conspired with Stalin to tear Poland apart. Nazis bombed civilians in Polish cities, and Stalin sent his henchmen to do much killing. Now, it's true that UK and France declared war on Germany but not on the USSR, and one could fault them on principles, but it made good realpolitik sense. As Germany was nearer to UK and France, it was a bigger immediate threat. Also, their hope was to somehow create a rift between Germany and USSR, something that would have been impossible if UK and France had declared war on both Germany and USSR.
The widespread later claim that Hitler sought to conquer the world was totally absurd, and the German leader had actually made every effort to avoid war with Britain or France. Indeed, he was generally quite friendly towards the Poles and had been hoping to enlist Poland as a German ally against the menace of Stalin’s Soviet Union.
'Conquer the world' has to be taken figuratively. Even the biggest anti-Hitlerians don't literally believe that the Nazis intended to conquer all the world. But Hitler did have grand ambitions. He wrote of how Germans should conquer vast swaths of territory in Russia. So, at the very least, he wanted an empire for the Germans. Still, it's fairer to say Hitler wanted a partnership with nations that had already conquered the world, France and especially UK. He didn't want to displace the British Empire but be partners with it. Hitler could be diplomatic and courteous with world leaders, including Polish ones, but he didn't have much regard for the Polish people in general. But then, he didn't much care for Slavs, even though a strain of Nazism accepted Poles as fellow Aryans. Still, there was a good reason why Poles rejected the offer of 'alliance' with Germany. It would not have been an equal partnership. It would have been like the 'alliance' of USSR and its satellite states. Also, Poles were correct to assess Hitler as a dangerous character who might go off the rails. Who fared better in the long run? Mussolini who forged a close alliance with Hitler or Franco who kept Hitler at arm's length? Poland knew it was wedged between powerful USSR and mighty Germany, and it wanted neutrality. It didn't want to get caught between a fight that might break out between a bear and tiger. If Poland leaned toward Germany, it would have enraged the USSR, and vice versa. Poland came to lean on UK and France because they seemed to be the only major powers that might change Hitler's mind. At any rate, what is the true worth of 'friendliness' in politics? The West was quite friendly with Gaddafi before it wasn't. Hitler offered carrots, but Poles noticed the stick. While it's true that Hitler and Germans in general were angry over lost territories, that particular issue was also a pretext(at least for Hitler and his cohorts) for larger ambitions. It's like the US raged over Alamo to take over the entire SW. US fumed about Pearl Harbor to dominate all of the Pacific. Similarly, Hitler exploited legitimate issues of territorial dispute in order to use Poland as launching pad than obstacle to his eventual clash with the USSR. While, as Lukacs said, Hitler could be rational and even statesmanlike, his essential personality and worldview was 'artistic' than political. He viewed the world as a stage for his rather Wagnerian and operatic ambitions. Judging by his statements and autobiography and tome MEIN KAMPF, he was clearly megalomaniacal and saw himself as a Man of Destiny. Personality matters in politics, as when Nikita Khrushchev found it impossible to deal with Mao Zedong because of differences in personality. In contrast, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping get along because both are more sober and temperate.
Hitler had always wanted friendly relations with Britain... he therefore offered very magnanimous peace terms../ The British government had been pressured into entering the war for no logical reason and against its own national interests, so Chamberlain and half the Cabinet naturally supported commencing peace negotiations... But... Churchill remained absolutely adamant that the war must continue... Churchill had had a remarkable record of repeated failure, and for him to have finally achieved his lifelong ambition of becoming prime minister only to lose a major war just weeks after reaching Number 10 Downing Street would have ensured that his permanent place in history was an extremely humiliating one.
But could Churchill alone have been so consequential? Notwithstanding Jewish influence/bribery and Churchill's vanity, wasn't the bigger problem that the Brits had fallen into a mental habit of relying on Balance of Powers as a panacea for all European problems? The policy generally worked in favor of Britain that formed alliances against whatever happened to be the top Continental Power so as to ensure that Europe would not become a united bloc against the island nation. But then, things work until they don't. The iron policy of balance-of-power backfired in a big way in World War I that depleted the British Empire of so many men and money. One could argue it worked in in WWI and WWII to the extent that UK, along with other nations, did manage to suppress the rise of Germany as the dominant continental power, but it was achieved at the cost of British bankruptcy and decline. Germans were defeated, but the Brits hardly gained anything while losing a lot.
...Britain and Germany had signed international conventions prohibiting the aerial bombardment of civilian urban targets, and... Hitler scrupulously followed these provisions. In desperation, Churchill therefore ordered a series of large-scale bombing raids against the German capital of Berlin, doing considerable damage, and after numerous severe warnings, Hitler finally began to retaliate with similar attacks against British cities.
But Hitler had no qualms about raining down mass destruction on Polish and Russian civilian populations. Hitler may have been more restrained with the British out of racial respect, but ironically, it seems Anglos regarded the Germans the way Germans regarded the Slavs: Barely civilized barbarians who only understand ruthless power. Hitler's illusions about the British were as unsound as his sentimentality about Mussolini and dementia about the Slavs. Churchill was a bastard but more focused on what was really at stake.
Churchill’s ruthless violation of the laws of war regarding urban aerial bombardment directly led to the destruction of many of Europe’s finest and most ancient cities.
He was a bastard, but let's not forget what Hitler did to Warsaw and cities & towns across the USSR.
...late in the war during 1944 the relentless Allied bombardment of German cities led to the devastating retaliatory attacks of the V-1 flying bombs against London, and an outraged Churchill became adamant that German cities should be attacked with poison gas in counter-retaliation.
I read V-1 rockets weren't particularly effective. At any rate, war brings out craziness on all sides, especially when desperation and/or seething hatred come to the fore. Japanese went crazy in Nanking, and Germans turned to mass-extermination once the tide of war decisively turned against them. Problem with David Irving is he holds Churchill and others like him to the highest standards of ethics while making excuses for Hitler who not only fought ruthlessly also but was possessed of an insane ideology.
Taylor, Irving, and numerous others have thoroughly debunked the ridiculous mythology that the cause lay in Hitler’s mad desire for world conquest, but if the German dictator clearly bore only minor responsibility, was there indeed any true culprit? Or did this massively-destructive world war come about in somewhat similar fashion to its predecessor, which our conventional histories treat as mostly due to a collection of blunders, misunderstandings, and thoughtless escalations.
I agree with Lukacs. No Hitler, no WWII. While Hitler didn't plan to conquer the entire world, he did have dreams of taking a huge chunk of the East(mainly Russia) so as to make Greater Germany about the size of the US or bigger. Though rather successful as a national leader, he was not content with national affairs. In this, he was like the Neocons who aren't satisfied with Jewish wealth and Jewish homeland. They must always have more, and this means meddling in other parts of the Middle East. Neither Hitler nor Neocons were about world conquest. Neocons mainly focus on proxy-empire building(by using the US) in the Middle East and North Africa to ensure Israel's hegemony; they also hunger for control of Russia with its vast resources and 'lazy, dumb, and drunk' Russkies whom Jews regard as worthless dummies. Similarly, Hitler sought hegemony in the European continent, and the only way he could ensure German imperial predominance was to take huge territories from Russia.
On the eve of World War I, so many peoples all across Europe wanted war. The general peace for 100 yrs since the fall of Napoleon had made people less aware of the horror of war. France did lose to Germany in the Franco-Prussian War, but it had been a swift defeat, and the French had been dreaming of revenge ever since. The Russian Tsar thought war would play a unifying role, and Germans were ready to take on all-comers. At the outbreak of war, no one quite realized that the two sides would be stacked against each other with nearly equal force, thus prolonging the war that also incorporated modern weaponry that had proved so effective against the backward non-West. When used against the non-west, modern weaponry meant quick victory. But when modern weaponry went against modern weaponry in Europe, it led to destruction on an unprecedented scale. But few people foresaw the dangers. So, when war broke out, there were celebrations all throughout Europe.
But, on the eve of World War II, most people didn't want war. Even Germans didn't want it despite Hitler's popularity. If Germans cheered loudly after a victory, it was out of hope that it would be the last conflict, finally the war to end all wars. France didn't want war with Germany. It declared war as a bluff and just dug in and played defense. Chamberlain did try to come to terms with Hitler. Many Brits felt a bit of guilt over Versailles and economic ruin of Germany. As such, they were willing to negotiate, but Hitler was the sort of person who always regarded concession as weakness and vulnerability that could be exploited for More. He was also devious like Bismarck but without the Iron Chancellor's sense of limits and keen calculation.
We could all agree that if Germany had remained democratic, there would have been no war EVEN IF some nations wanted to pick on Germany. I would also argue that if Nazi Germany had been ruled by someone like Ataturk, Franco, or Putin, there would have been no war. Such a leader would have understood that Germany has legit grievances, but so do other European powers, and therefore, the best bet is some kind of compromise. Or, if suspecting foul play, he would have waited for the other side to make the first move and then make a counter-move, thereby having the moral advantage. But Hitler was incessant in his demands and acted as if Germany was the only aggrieved party when, had Germany won World War I, it too would likely have taken advantage of the situation. Suppose Hitler died of illness in 1939, and someone like Goering took over. I just don't see World War II happening. Now, if Himmler had taken over, then war might have been even more likely as he was truly nuts. But Hitler was an extreme personality too. MEIN KAMPF is proof of how obsessive and egomaniacal he could be. Turkey after WWI and Russia after the Cold War had tons of legitimate grievances, but Kemal Ataturk understood limitations and acted accordingly. Same with Putin in Russia. In contrast, Hitler kept pushing against all sides.
From 1940 onward, FDR had been making a great political effort to directly involve America in the war against Germany, but public opinion was overwhelmingly on the other side, with polls showing that up to 80% of the population were opposed. All of this immediately changed once the Japanese bombs dropped on Hawaii, and suddenly the country was at war.
FDR may or may not have wanted war, but even if he was baiting Germany, would a more sober leader have fallen for the trap? Also, even if FDR was hoping for war to boost the economy or unite the nation(thus ensuring his reelection), the reason he targeted Germany had a lot to do with his genuine loathing of Nazism. As for problems with Japan, it goes back to the confused/contradictory US policy of befriending both Japan and China. On the one hand, UK and US had built up Japan as bulwark against Russia and possibly resurgent China. But the US also postured(against Europeans and Japanese imperialists) as a friendly nation to the Chinese. So, the US was, at once, selling war materials to Japan that was attacking China and professing sympathy for China. This all came to a head with the embargo and what came afterwards. Anyway, FDR inherited this crazy foreign policy in the Asian Pacific. He didn't create it.
But then, there are other considerations. Would Japan have attacked Pearl Harbor if Germany hadn't invaded Russia in the summer of 1941 and seemed poised to win? Didn't Japan wager on German victory. Then, if Hitler had not invaded Russia, Japan might not have acted so boldly and instead come to the table and agree to US terms: Japan keeps Taiwan, Korea, and Manchuria but withdraws from China Proper. That was not a bad deal. Now, it's possible that FDR offered those terms in bad faith and fully planned to renege on them and find some other excuse to choke Japan's economy, thus forcing it into war. We'll never know.
Polish Confidential Report:
Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100% [of the] radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible... At the present moment most Americans regard Chancellor Hitler and National Socialism as the greatest evil and greatest peril threatening the world... It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia is almost completely eliminated. Soviet Russia, if mentioned at all, is mentioned in a friendly manner and things are presented in such a way that it would seem that the Soviet Union were cooperating with the bloc of democratic states.
I doubt Jewish control of media was as predominant back then as now. If Jews already controlled 100% of media back then, they must have made no further gains since. Anti-Germanism was the product of Jewish concerns coinciding with Anglo interests. But then, anti-Germanism had been extreme in the US even during World War I when Jews had even less power. Anglos and Anglo-Americans had a tendency to look upon Germans as semi-barbarians, indeed as if Anglos were the New Romans and Germans were the 'Huns'. There was something 'brute' and 'Teutonic' about the Germans that rubbed Anglos the wrong way. Anglos were also into racial ideology and aggression but had perfected a manner of talking around their true feelings. Germans were less refined & 'ironic', and such 'honesty' threatened Anglo conceit of being perfect gentlemen bringing light of progress to the world. Anglo supremacism wore a velvet glove whereas German supremacism put on a boxing glove. Anglos tended to see Germans as akin to mean Irish or rowdy Scots but in charge of a nation bigger and stronger than the UK. As for Jews, they prized Germany as the center of European economy and culture(eclipsing even France), and they valued their key role in it... before Nazis came along and said No More. Paradoxically, Jews were most upset with Nazi Germans precisely because, among European nations, they felt most at home in Germany.
But there were ideological reasons as well. If Anglo refinement disdained German 'Teutonism', leftist-universalist idealism loathed the brutal honesty of fascism about the nature of power. Fascism was clearly more candid about the nature of power than communism could ever be, but communism's appeal was its dream of the brotherhood of man. Naturally, the well-educated and idealistic(steeped in Christian credo) felt warmer toward communism(despite its brutality) than to fascism that seemed like a 'pornography of power'. While Stalin could be as brutal as anyone, his Soviet empire pontificated about universal justice, whereas Nazi ideology obsessed over the innate specialness of the 'Aryans'. Even for racialist Anglos, that was too much Or shed light on their own 'darkness'. Germans were like the Id of Anglos. As racial ideology, theirs was too crude, vulgar, and philistine. It was political kitsch. Just like Carlito Brigante didn't want to be associated with Benny Blanco from the Bronx(despite both of them being gangsters), Anglos distanced themselves from Germans as the vulgar 'nouveau riche' of power.
Another reason for the US being friendlier to the USSR had to do with realpolitik. It's like the US was warmer toward Mao's China than the USSR in the 70s even though Soviets had moderated considerably while Mao was a mass-killing nut. As the US considered USSR as the main rival, it found ready excuses to paint a friendly portrait of China as a potential ally against the Soviets. Likewise, when Nazi Germany seemed like the epicenter of the world's troubles, it made sense for the US and UK to pretend that USSR wasn't so bad and could be an ally against the Nazis.
During his political rise, Hitler had hardly concealed his intent to dislodge Germany’s tiny Jewish population from the stranglehold they had gained over German media and finance, and instead run the country in the best interests of the 99% German majority, a proposal that provoked the bitter hostility of Jews everywhere.
While Germans had good reasons to be angry with Jewish Power, Hitler went about this in a bad way because he denounced ALL Jews based on extreme racial ideology. Hitler could have avoided much trouble by targeting only radical or disloyal Jews. Mussolini did just that, and he didn't have much trouble with Italian Jews in general. If anything, he later moved against them only under German pressure.
Also, while Jewish power was immense back then, it was nothing like what it is today, largely because Anglos who built America passed the reins over to the Jews. Despite Jewish role in Bolshevism, Jews couldn't stop Stalin's mass-killing of Jewish communists(along with others). Jews had a difficult time goading the West into war against Germany. Also, even when the war began, it turned out badly for Jews because (1) Germans totally crushed Poland (2) quickly defeated France and (3) allied with Stalin's USSR, the last hope for many Jews. In the end, Hitler brought ruin upon himself and Germany because he invaded the USSR and then declared war on US after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. He went full Tony Montana.
Now, the theory that Germany invaded Russia only upon realizing Stalin intended to attack first may be compelling when we look at armaments but not when we consider the element of psychology. Stalin wasn't a gambler. Also, he likely placed Soviet tanks and troops into offensive position to force Germans into a defensive one, thereby ensuring that Germans would not attack first. Stalin was surely aware that France gained nothing by fighting an entirely defensive war in 1940. It seemed scared and timid, like a turtle hiding in a shell. In contrast, Stalin might have felt that if Soviet military boldly positioned itself against German forces, Hitler would have had second thoughts about attacking. Also, the fact that Stalin set up so much industry east of Moscow suggests insurance against German invasion.
Lukacs argued that the main reason why Germany attacked Russia was to force UK to make the peace. The reasoning goes as follows. As long as the UK hoped that USSR would turn against Germany, it was unwilling to come to the table. But if Germany crushed Russia, UK would have realized that Germans are the masters of Europe, and that's that; then, UK would have had to come to terms with Germany. Now, from a common sense point of view, this sounds crazy. UK was dropping bombs but had no means to defeat Germany or even take an inch of European territory on its own. So, why didn't Hitler keep his alliance with USSR and run out the clock with UK? Why create a two-front-war situation, especially when, unlike the UK, the USSR had the means to invade Germany IF the Germans were to fail to take Moscow? But from a psychological point of view, it makes some sense because of Hitler's different feelings for Anglos and Russians(and Slavs and untermensch whites). Even when Hitler was livid with the Anglos, he hoped that Anglos and Germans as fellow 'Aryans' would bury the hatchet and rule the world together. In contrast, he really loathed the Slavs and 'lesser whites' of the East. Ideally, he preferred an alliance with Anglos against Russians, but all he could muster was an alliance with Russians against the Anglos. It was the opposite of what he really wanted. Also, considering that it was entry of the US army that finished off Germany in WWI, Hitler may have hoped that if he comes to terms with UK, then the US wouldn't enter the European War. It seems Hitler seriously underestimated the power of USSR and the ability of US and UK to supply the Russians with war materials.
In recent years, somewhat similar Jewish-organized efforts at international sanctions aimed at bringing recalcitrant nations to their knees have become a regular part of global politics. But these days the Jewish dominance of the U.S. political system has become so overwhelming that instead of private boycotts, such actions are directly enforced by the American government. To some extent, this had already been the case with Iraq during the 1990s, but became far more common after the turn of the new century.
But Jewish power was considerably less in the 30s and 40s. First, 'antisemitism' wasn't as taboo as it later became. Plenty of politicians all over Europe ran on anti-Jewish platforms. In the US, Father Coughlin and Charles Lindbergh were major players. Plenty of Jews were mindful not to rock the boat. 'Antisemitism' was a national pastime in France, and even plenty of French Jews disdained Jews from Eastern Europe. Jews couldn't prevent European nations from making loans to Nazi Germany that made German economic resurgence possible in the 30s. Jews couldn't persuade Stalin not to make a pact with Hitler. Furthermore, if German invaders gained mass support from the local population on any particular issue, it was over the Jewish Question. Plenty of locals were willing to hand over Jews to the Germans. Also, Jews have long complained that FDR dragged his feet in really engaging Germany. He let Russia do most of the fighting, and the Western Allies landed on the European continent only in 1944. So, FDR did little to save Jews from the Nazis. While World Jewry did coordinate to destroy Nazi Germany, Hitler really brought ruin to himself with his recklessness. Had he maintained the alliance with Russia, Nazi Germany would have been untouchable as all of Europe except for UK were constituted of allies, partners, or neutral players like Sweden. At any rate, Jewish Power became especially potent AFTER World War II not only because Jews rose to the top in the US, the premier superpower, but because the cult of the Holocaust elevated Jews into a holy people and vilified 'antisemitism' as the worst possible sin. But up to WWII(and even in the immediate aftermath), Jews weren't so sacred, and plenty of people on both sides of the Atlantic could get away with critical and even condemnatory views of Jews.
Most foreign policy experts have certainly been aware that Jewish groups and activists played the central role in driving our country into its disastrous 2003 Iraq War, and that many of these same groups and individuals have spent the last dozen years or so working to foment a similar American attack on Iran, though as yet unsuccessfully.
While we may find parallels between fear-mongering about Nazi Germany and scaremongering about Iraq, the truth is Nazi Germany was a genuine great power whereas Iraq in a 2003 was a mere skeleton. If we must draw parallels between Nazi Germany and Hussein's Iraq, it should be during the 80s when Hussein the aggressor attacked Iran and killed scores of people with poison gas. But of course, the US was on the side of that Hussein at war with Iran. Still, prior to the disastrous Gulf War(for Iraq), Hussein's regime was a major power in the region. But by 2003, Iraq was a mere skeleton, and all the Hitler analogies were ridiculous. That said, Nazi Germany in 1939 was a formidable power genuinely feared by France, UK, USSR, and lesser nations. Mussolini initially disdained Hitler but, alarmed(and impressed) by resurgence of German might, decided an alliance as the safest bet. Stalin felt likewise. If you can't beat em, join em. France and UK figured if bluff worked so well for Hitler, it might work for them as well, and they bluffed with war guarantee for Poland. So, while the Neocon stuff about Iraq in 2003 was all hype and BS, there was genuine fear of Germany among many nations regardless of Jewish effort. It was made worse by Hitler's invasion of Greece to prop up the illusion of Italian prowess. And Nazis were allied with some loathsome groups, like Croatian fascists who went about slaughtering 100,000s of Serbs. Jews fanned the flames of anti-German hatred, but there would have been plenty of it in Europe even without Jews. Similarly, there would have been plenty of anti-Jewish sentiments even without Nazi propaganda. Most Europeans found Germans too brutish and Jews too radical. In a way, it's ironic that Germans and Jews became arch-enemies for reasons why both groups were feared and/or hated by most Europeans.
Another striking historical parallel has the fierce demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who provoked the great hostility of Jewish elements when he ousted the handful of Jewish Oligarchs who had seized control of Russian society under the drunken misrule of President Boris Yeltsin and totally impoverished the bulk of the population.
This is true. But despite being attacked and baited by Jewish power that is many times greater than in the 30s and 40s, notice how Putin has played the game with patience and sobriety. If Hitler hadn't been so prone to throwing tantrums and pumping himself up with the Man of Destiny operatics, he would have weathered the Jewish campaigns against him much better. At any rate, just like Jews tried to unite the world against Germany, Hitler tried to unite all Europeans against ALL Jews. In Italy, a good many Jews had joined the Fascist Movement and were loyal to Mussolini, but under great pressure from Germans, Mussolini decided to turn against even loyal Jews. So, the race war went both ways between Jews and Germans. Just as Jews were trying to recruit every nation against Germany, Germans were urging all peoples to 'hand over your Jews'.
Indeed, over the last few decades, the bitter conflict between Nazi Germany and world Jewry has become such an overwhelming theme of our popular media that this element may be almost the only aspect of the World War II era that is known to many younger Americans.
Actually, if people saw it in terms of a conflict, they would understand it better. But it's not portrayed as a conflict but of one-sided persecution. Instead of Nazi Germany vs World Jewry in an empire-vs-empire struggle, the Narrative says Germans chased down totally innocent, helpless, and clueless Jews who were merely minding their own business. It's like the Jewish-Russian Relations are remembered only in terms of helpless Jews being set upon in pogroms by drunken Russkies and Cossacks. There is no mention of Jewish role in radical politics and how this led to mass deaths of Slavs. While there were many innocent Jewish victims of Germans(just like there were plenty of innocent German victims of Allies and Jews), there was a Jewish Power that constituted a world empire of its own(or a shadow empire that attached itself increasingly to Anglos).
Another obscured fact is that some 150,000 half- and quarter-Jews served loyally in Hitler’s World War II armies, mostly as combat officers, and these included at least 15 half-Jewish generals and admirals, with another dozen quarter-Jews holding those same high ranks.
I don't really think this means anything. Nazis weren't purists when it came to blood. Germans who were 1/4 Jewish were mostly considered as 'Aryan'. And many Germans with partial Jewish blood regarded themselves mainly as Germans and were loyal to Hitler. Just because some American Indians sided with whites against other Indians doesn't negate the fact that White America was generally hostile to the Red Savages who were targeted for removal or destruction.
Meanwhile, although our heavily Jewish-dominated media regularly presents Hitler as the most evil man who ever lived, many of his prominent contemporaries seem to have held a very different opinion.
While Hitler has been made into a cartoon villain, there was no doubt he was pathological and of a maniacal personality plagued with vanity, megalomania, and arrogance. Also, we have the benefit of hindsight whereas contemporaries did not... until they realized what Hitler was really capable of. And same could be said of many world leaders. Mugabe was initially seen as a sane and moderate African leader, but how did he turn out? Idi Amin was initially seen as a fun colorful leader of Uganda before he turned out to be nuts. Many people praised Stalin as a great leader, but now, we know better. He was a mass killer. Many Americans were duped into believing Mao was an agrarian reformer in the 40s. He turned out to be a megalo-nut.
And over the decades, considerable evidence has accumulated that the Gas Chambers and the Jewish Holocaust—the central elements of today’s Nazi “Black Legend”—were just as fictional as all those other items.
Many details of Nazi atrocities have proven to be wrong or exaggerated, but the Eastern Front turned into a total race war, and there is no doubt that Nazis butchered countless Jews and Slavs in their war path. None of this should be surprising given the nature of war and Nazi propaganda. Himmler was especially sinister in this regard. David Irving has been careful not to deny that mass atrocities took place. His shtick has been that Hitler wasn't informed of what was really happening or it was Himmler who really done it. I would argue that such is merely a technicality. It's like it doesn't matter if Mao wasn't fully informed of the disaster of the Great Leap Forward and/or if he didn't order the Red Guards to go totally nuts. What matters is he created a system and set off events that led to mass suffering, and so, he is ultimately responsible. Likewise, we can't excuse Hitler on grounds of ignorance, indifference, or negligence. He created a system that was capable of industrial mass slaughter.
While many of the more lurid accounts of the Holocaust seem dubious, it doesn't surprise me that Germans would have acted that way. Japanese went crazy in Nanking. US, a liberal democracy, was capable of dropping two nukes on Japan(and planned to drop 10 to 12 more if Japan didn't surrender). After the war, anti-German violence was extreme all over Eastern Europe. Tons of Germans were massacred or brutalized in revenge and hatred. People of all stripes are capable of the most horrendous things. The fact is Nazi Germany instilled radical Jew-hatred in an entire generation of men who became soldiers in the bloodiest conflict that further desensitized whatever humanity was left in them. Especially when the fortunes turned against Germany, there was the temptation to use violence on easy scapegoats. That said, it's foolish to count all Jewish dead as victims of the Holocaust. Many Jews surely died from the sheer brutality of war like so many goyim did. It didn't take the Holocaust to kill millions of Poles and Ukrainians. They just got crushed between big powers. So, even if there had been no Holocaust, it's likely many Jews would have died just the same because they were caught in the middle in the bloodlands of war.
By contrast, Irving notes that if the Allies had instead been in the dock at Nuremberg, the evidence of their guilt would have been absolutely overwhelming.
When it comes to UK/US vs Germany, the former did more violence to the Germans because they could. German attacks on UK was limited and ineffective,and Germany had no chance of attacking the US. In contrast, US/UK could drop tons of bombs on Germany. But this had nothing to do with Germans being better or more moral. Rather, most of their energies were directed at the East, and there, German brutality toward Slavs and Jews were worse than Allied bombing of Germany. Allied bombings killed 100,000s of Germans, whereas the Wehrmacht directly and indirectly killed millions. Same is true of US vs Japan vs China. US war crimes against Japan were many times worse than vice versa but not because Japanese were better. It was because US had overwhelming force over Japan. But where Japanese had advantage over their enemies in places like China, they were real sons of bitches. As awful as US/UK bombing of Germany was, for the Western Allies it seemed preferable to losing many more men by prematurely landing troops on the continent. Sure, killing lots of civilians is a dastardly way to fight a war, but World War II was a war without pity, a truly 'existential' war that decided the fate of entire nations.
Although hardly sympathetic to the defeated Nazis, she strongly shared Beaty’s view of the monstrous perversion of justice at Nuremberg and her first-hand account of the months spent in Occupied Germany is eye-opening in its description of the horrific suffering imposed upon the prostrate population even years after the end of the war.
Yes, Nuremberg was a joke, but I think the kind of 'justice' that would have been imposed by victorious Germans especially over Slavic lands would have been many times worse. As compromised and hypocritical as the Nuremberg trials were, the message was that wars of aggression and genocide are evil. I don't think the victorious Nazis would have even come down against genocide, which they likely would have committed against the Slavic populations.
The traditional excuse publicly offered for the virtual absence of any Japanese POWs was that their Bushido code made surrender unthinkable, yet when the Soviets defeated Japanese armies in 1945, they had no difficulty capturing over a million prisoners.
There are key differences. Japanese who fought Americans in all those islands didn't go face to face against full battalions. They fought more like guerrillas. They were dug into all nooks and crannies like mice or cockroaches, and so, Americans came upon pocketfuls of Japanese who might leap out of nowhere. Thus, Americans who fought Japanese in the islands had a far more nerve-racking experience than the Soviets did in the plains of North Asia. In contrast, Japanese in Manchuria and North China fought as an army, and as such, it was easier for them to surrender to the Soviets in an official capacity. In the clash of Soviet armies with armored tanks vs Japanese armies, the latter had no chance and surrendered en masse. Also, Japanese in Manchuria and North China had less incentive to fight with absolute zeal. After all, they were on Chinese soil, not their own. In contrast, the Japanese who fought the Americans in a string of islands were utterly fanatical because they believed they were defending the homeland from US invasion.
By the way, what happened to all those Japanese who surrendered to the Soviets. Most ended up in gulag and Siberia and never saw home again.
American GIs also regularly committed remarkably savage atrocities. Dead or wounded Japanese frequently had their gold teeth knocked out and taken as war-booty, and their ears were often cut-off and kept as souvenirs, as was also sometimes the case with their skulls.
Ugly, but all sides do stuff like this in war.
The American media generally portrayed the Japanese as vermin fit for eradication, and numerous public statements by high-ranking American military leaders explicitly claimed that the bulk of the entire Japanese population would probably need to be exterminated in order to bring the war to a successful conclusion. Comparing such thoroughly-documented facts with the rather tenuous accusations usually leveled against Nazi political or military leaders is quite revealing.
There is one key difference, and post-war history vindicates it. US derangement syndrome against Japan was the result of War Fever. In other words, Americans didn't harbor genocidal feelings toward Japan prior to the war or afterwards. So, it was wartime craziness. And even though there were people in government who said, "Let's kill all Japs", theirs was a minority opinion that was obviously overridden. Once the dust settled, US buried the hatchet and made Japan an ally against USSR. In contrast, even prior to the war, Nazi German ideology was based on racial supremacism. And had the Germans been victorious, anti-Slavic genocide and mass enslavement would have happened just the same. Granted, Germans weren't so vicious to all groups; the French, Dutch, Norwegians, and etc. fared pretty well under German occupation as long as they didn't resist. But no such mercy would have been shown to the Eastern Slavs who were slated for mass destruction. It's all there in Hitler's Table Talk.
For decades, Western propagandists had relentlessly barraged the Soviets with claims that they were keeping back a million or more “missing” German POWs as slave-laborers in their Gulag, while the Soviets had endlessly denied these accusations. According to Bacque, the Soviets had been telling the truth all along, and the missing soldiers had been among the enormous numbers who had fled westward near the end of the war, seeking what they assumed would be far better treatment at the hands of the advancing Anglo-American armies. But instead, they were denied all normal legal protections, and confined under horrible conditions where they rapidly perished of hunger, illness, and exposure.
But the Soviets did use many German POWs for slave labor. Consider German soldiers who surrendered at Stalingrad. Most did not return home. Perhaps, there was a kind of rough justice in this as they were part of an invading army who would have enslaved or mass-slaughtered Russians had they been victorious. But it is true that Soviets held back many German and Japanese POWs, partly out of revenge and partly out of need for manpower given the loss of life and industry in the war.
Irving never directly addresses in either book the Holocaust. He does document the massacre of many Jews, but the picture that emerges from the factual evidence is that the holocaust of Jewish people was different from the official Zionist story.
One of the problems of Holocaust Remembrance(akin to Holocaust Worship, which leads to Worship of Jews) is that it 'esoterically' carries the seeds of Judeo-Nazism. In other words, it is supremacist, or yet another form of supremacism even as it denounces the 'master race' supremacism of Nazism. The rites and rituals of Holocaust Remembrance aren't really about the evil of mass murder, six million dead, or a people being targeted for mass extermination. It's really about the outrage that it was done to JEWS. The moral logic would suggest that Jews are the superior race, the true master race, the holy race. Therefore, the real crime of the Holocaust was that a false wanna-be master race(the Teutons) dared to mass murder the true master race, the Jews. In remembrance, what we hear is not the outrage of killing 6 million people(though some analyses point to numbers closer to 3 million) but 6 million JEWS. So, the real abomination of Nazi Criminality was that it targeted Holy Jews than mere humans. One gets the sense that the Holocaust wouldn't have been deemed so evil and unforgettable/unforgivable IF Nazi Germans and their collaborators had killed another people while sparing Jews. Abe Foxman was once recorded admonishing Ukrainian leaders NOT to conflate the 'Holodomor' with the Holocaust. The Shoah is a jealous god, and 'thou shall not worship no tragedy before(or alongside) it'. If Jews really regarded the Holocaust as a crime against Humanity, they would welcome comparisons of Jewish suffering in the Shoah with the sufferings of rest of humanity in similar tragedies. But Jews insist on maintaining the singularity of the Shoah because the victims weren't merely human but JEWS. Now, it's understandable why a people would be more upset with their own dead. After all, Armenians are more upset over what the Turks did. Chinese are more sensitive about the Nanking Massacre. The difference is that Jews don't merely grieve over their own dead among themselves but try to force all the world to feel that the Shoah was worse than any other tragedy because it was done to JEWS. Indeed, Jews want goyim to believe that suffering of Jews is worse than even the suffering of their own goy kind. Whites, it seems, have truly bought into this. They are so obsessed with protecting a single hair on a Jewish child in Israel but turn a blind eye to the grisly deaths of thousands of whites in South Africa(because whites expressing white identity will displease the holy Jews). As long as the super-rich Jewish diamond industrialists can rake in billions by bribing the black-run government, who cares if white gentiles get slaughtered on farms?
The 20th century has seen lots of bloodshed and mayhem. But most mass-killings have been forgotten, ignored, or suppressed. Even rationalized. Many will argue that the Holocaust was especially evil because it wasn't just mass-killing but a targeted genocide of a specific people. Fair enough. Still, one can't help but feel that the real outrage is over murder of JEWS than murder of mere people, the goyim. Suppose millions of Jews had died not by targeted genocide but by a broader movement, like forced collectivization in the USSR. Suppose a political campaign ended up killing millions of Jews by famine and starvation than by extermination squads. Would the deaths of those millions of Jews be mostly ignored like the deaths of millions of Ukrainians or Chinese(under communism)? I think not. The reason why Jews are far less harsh on communism is because most Jews greatly benefited in the USSR just when millions of Slavic Christians were being dispossessed and killed by starvation. It was good for Jews, and the victims were goyim. And do Jews feel even a smidgen of remorse or conscience about what they did in Russia in the 90s? Most Jews don't. If anything, they even make alliances with Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine to undermine and eventually take over Russia, as if it belongs to them as well. Jews kvetch about one dead Jew in Israel but show NO feelings about countless dead Muslims resulting from Wars for Israel.
So, Holocaust Remembrance isn't anti-supremacist. It is a sly program of slipping in Jewish Supremacism under the guise of anti-supremacism. Jewish dead in the Holocaust are portrayed as the greatest victims of racial supremacism, but the sheer inordinate emphasis on the victims being Jewish implies that Jewish Lives are more precious than any other lives. If German Nazis had spared Jews but tried to wipe out Hungarians or only Gypsies, I doubt there would be as much fuss about it. One thing for sure, Hitler's plan for Russia was grim and brutal. He planned mass exterminations in the millions to be followed by mass enslavement. A Slavic-holocaust or Slavocaust was planned for Russians, and given that Germans conquered much territory during the war, one could argue that all the Slavs under German Occupation were also holocaust survivors(using the logic of the Jewish definition of 'holocaust survivor', who could be ANYONE who lived in zones under Nazi Occupation even if he or she never stepped inside a Nazi Concentration Camp). And yet, there is no World Remembrance of Russian deaths and sacrifices. Germans aren't pressured to feel guilty over their crimes against Slavs. If anything, the German government is pressured by Jewish-controlled US to wage economic war to spread misery in Russia. Germany is also silenced from noticing and denouncing the alliance of Jews and Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine. Also, if the great lesson learned by Germans from WWII and the Holocaust is the evil of Ethno-Supremacism, why are most Germans and Europeans silent about the obviously ethno-supremacist policy of Jewish-controlled US that favors Jews over Palestinians, Jews over Arabs/Muslims(whose nations have been devastated at the behest of Zionist power), Jews over Christians -- notice the total silence about all those Christian Arabs destroyed as the result of Wars for Israel -- , and Jews over Russians? In the end, the lesson of Holocaust Remembrance is not "It is evil for any people to claim superiority and commit mass-murder against another people deemed inferior" but "It is evil to target Jews for political violence because Jews are innately holier, superior, and more precious than any other race." Holocaust Remembrance logic implicitly posits that the Shoah was worse than a case of mere human-cide. It was closer to Deicide, the killing of god-men. It's a logic borrowed from Christianity. Why did the killing of Jesus matter so much? After all, Jews and Romans killed plenty of people. Jews stoned many deemed as heretics or blasphemers. Romans killed many deemed to be traitorous or dangerous to the empire. Then, why make such a big fuss about the killing of Jesus, some Jewish carpenter in Judea? Because, at least according to Christian Mythology, He was no ordinary man. Indeed, He was even more than a Great Man. He was God-Man. Thus, it wasn't murder of a human but the murder of the Son of God. Similar logic underlies Holocaust Remembrance. The real crime is not mass murder of humans but the mass murder of JEWS, the holy race, the awesome race, the genius race, the ancient race, the super race, and etc. Granted, Jews are indeed one of history's great peoples, and surely, the mass killing of Jews will be more consequential than the mass deaths of, say, Bolivians or Burmese. If all Bolivians or Burmese were to disappear(or had never existed in history), the world be pretty much as it is. But if Jews had never existed, the world would be profoundly different, for good or ill. And if Jews were to vanish into the thin air, the world would be much affected by their absence. So, it's understandable why Jews(and their fans, admirers, cucks, and worshipers) would be so obsessed about the well-being and power of Jews in the world. But then, this is precisely why Holocaust Remembrance isn't ultimately anti-supremacist but neo-supremacist. It is less a condemnation of racial supremacism per se than a condemnation of false supremacism that dared to do violence to the true supreme people, the genuine master race of Jews. Indeed, US politics cannot be understood apart from the fact that Jewish Supremacism is the core defining 'principle' of all that happens. Notice how US politics isn't essentially about Left vs Right but "Jews like?" vs "Jews don't like?" White Identity is suppressed(even if it isn't supremacist) because Jews fear ANY white consciousness will undermine blind obedience among whites to Jewish Supremacism. Slaves mustn't have pride or ego. Only the master deserves to have them. People with pride and ego do not want to serve others. Only when such are taken from them do they become servile to those who are allowed a sense of self. Jews hate the sight of 'uppity' whites who prefer to think for themselves about their own identity and history than be berated by Jews that they are so tainted by 'white privilege' and burdened by 'white guilt' that they must forsake white identity and serve another people, one that happens to be holy, to gain redemption. Of course, that Other People are Jews(even though Jewish money and skills played a big role in White Imperialism, Slave Trade, and conquest of non-whites). Jews bitch about 'white supremacism', but they are suppressing white national liberation from Jewish Supremacism. All this Russia, Russia, Russia hysteria is presented as 'progressive' resistance against Trump as Putin-Puppet, but it's all about Jews. Jews hate Russia because its national autonomy stands in the way of total Jewish World Hegemony. And they esp hate Russia because it says NO to Homomania, a proxy of Jewish World Imperialism. Jews push mass non-white immigration into the West on grounds of 'tolerance' and 'inclusion', but it's all about "Is it good for Jews?" It's obvious from so many New York Times op-eds that what Jews want is to destroy white majority power and create a crazy-quilt nation so that they can play divide-and-rule among goyim from above. That's all it's about. And notice how Jewish Power, both Republican and Democratic, work behind the scenes to shut down BDS even though it is mostly deemed a leftist movement. Why are Jewish 'progressives' working with Jewish Republicans(and cuck-christo-Goppers) to destroy BDS, a movement for justice for Palestinians? Because most Jewish Liberals are Jews first and Liberals second. Or, they are Jewish Supremacists first and Jewish humanists second. Even in the bluest states, powerful Jewish Liberals have worked with even hardline Republicans(worthless christo-cucks, the most of them) to shut down BDS. New York is said to be one of the most 'liberal' states, but its cuck-governor bans BDS. Texas and NY are seen as red vs blue, but when it comes to Jews uber Palestinians, both are totally agreed that the US must serve Jews no matter what. And in Florida, a bill is about to become law that would ban speech that notices Jewish power, Jewish supremacism, and Zionist tyranny over Palestinians. Such a law isn't about humans. It's about gods, premised on the notion that Jews are so holy, great, awesome, and wondrous that it would be downright blasphemous to cast negative aspersions on Jewish Power, notice wicked patterns of behavior among Jews, connect the dots of Jewish influence, condemn Wars for Israel, and call out on Zionist tyranny over Palestinians(and others). Jews say they are condemning 'hate speech', but they are pushing blasphemy laws with themselves as new gods. Also, if Jews are so concerned about how 'Hate Speech' may lead to violence against powerless minorities, why were they so silent about all those 'liberal' Hollywood movies and TV shows that feature Muslims and Arabs as terrorist madmen or token 'good guys'(who are good ONLY WHEN they collaborate with the US empire against other Muslims)? If Jews are so sensitive about victim-hood, why do they promote violent rap music that celebrates gun violence, rape, & mayhem and call women 'bitches' and 'ho's'? If Jews are so worried about how 'hate speech' may lead to new atrocities and wars, why do the Jewish-run media spew so much Hate News against Iran, Syrians, Arabs, and Russians? Didn't Fake News and Hate News under Bush II and Obama lead to bloodbaths in Iraq, Libya, and Syria? And if Jews despise Trump as 'literally Hitler', why are they most silent and even supportive of him when he is most belligerent, demagogic, and warlike in his hysteria about Iran and Venezuela? It seems Jews don't mind Trump being 'literally Hitler' as long as it's against peoples and nations hated by Jews. Indeed, Jews even form alliances with Literally Nazi elements in Ukraine to get what they want. They even cheer on ISIS psychopaths to wreck Syria, an ally of Iran, IF it is deemed Good for Israel.
The 'moral' logic of Holocaust Remembrance is like that of Globo-Homo-Mania. Initially, the 'gay' agenda was sold as freedom for homosexuals. We didn't have to approve them or welcome them. It was based on the scientific truth that some people are born with homo tendencies, and it's not their fault. Also, as people have feelings, it's not good to insult and harm homosexuals. Just let them be. And most Americans went along with this. But, it soon turned out that this GloboHomo business wasn't just about tolerance of deviancy and freedom for perverts but a supremacist idolatry of homos(and even trannies) as an angel-like special people whom we must feel compelled to celebrate, praise, lionize, and rhapsodize over. As for those who refuse to do so and call out on the true nature of the 'gay' agenda, they are to be deemed as 'homophobic', or sick in the head and unfit to reach upper ranks of society where all the goodies are. Even a huge chain like Chick-Fil-A is to be denied access to cities like Chicago where mass celebrations of Anno Sodomini takes place annually. Apparently, Dick-Fill-Ass is what the US is really about.
Both Holocaust Remembrance and Globo-Homo have been sold as being about justice, equality, and anti-supremacism, but both are actually predicated on the supremacist notion that Jews and homos(their main allies and most tireless globalist agents) are special and deserve praise, adulation, and obedience above and beyond all other peoples. Clever Jews have coated the poison pill of Jewish supremacism with anti-supremacist sweetener. In the mouth, it tastes like 'equality and justice' but dissolves in the stomach to spread mindless support of Jewish Supremacism. At AIPAC rallies, Jews and cucks make big speeches about 'Never Again' and 'No to Hate', all the while pledging undying support for Zionist tyranny against Palestinians, Wars for Israel, mindless hatred against Iran, and defamation of whites who insist on having an identity emancipated from the clutches of the Shylock Doctrine.
Jews could have used Holocaust Remembrance to learn and teach a greater lesson for all mankind. It could have been about how it's wrong for ANY would-be supremacists to wipe out another people. Alas, the lesson has become just another form of Supremacism, i.e. we need to remember the Holocaust forever and ever because the victims were JEWS, the holy and superior race. The lesson became selective than universal. Even the Jewish-controlled Narrative of the US is about "Is it good for Jews?" Jews say Immigration was noble because it was great for their own kind. But didn't Immigration of Europeans and Jews lead to the 'genocide' of native indigenous folks? Didn't Jewish Hollywood make tons of Westerns lionizing the white pioneers who rubbed out the Indians? Didn't immigration lead to Nakba Pogroms that wiped Palestine off the map? Never mind all that. Too inconvenient for the Judeo-centric Narrative. Jews say they are for universal principles and reach for a global audience on that basis, but their ultimate message isn't "equal justice for all humans" but "all humans must agree to praise, worship, and serve Jews and furthermore ensure that all the world will be good for Jews". Jews are not surrendering to universalism but exploiting its reach to make humans serve Jews as the god-race.
But then, the very notion of Jewishness is essentially supremacist as it's based on the conviction that the one true God chose Jews to be masters over all humanity. Indeed, when so-called progressive Jews cling to Jewishness, they are sticking to an exclusionary identity-ideology that says Jews are special and more blessed than others. Even among secular Jews, this mental habit seems to remain. Some Jews argue that Jewishness is about Jews minding their own business and demanding to be left alone by goy bigots. But Jewishness isn't like being Amish, a culture that really just wants to be left alone. Jewishness is about Jews excluding goyim from their own world but making all the goy world include Jewish Power as the righteous master and ruler over all of humanity. It is a mad contradiction, a psycho-political dilemma at the root of the world's biggest problems and conflicts.
If Holocaust Remembrance really has a universal lesson to impart, it should be that ANY PEOPLE can act like Nazis and ANY PEOPLE can end up like Jewish victims. If the message is truly anti-supremacist, then no people are innately nobler than others & no people are innately more wicked than others. Germans who were once Nazis could suffer like Jews did under Nazi tyranny. Jews, who were once victimized, could become like Nazis and terrorize the world. In other words, any people, even Germans, could become 'Jews' in the metaphorical sense, and any people, even Jews, could become 'Nazis' in the metaphorical sense. But according to Holocaust Remembrance, we are to fixate on Jews as the Eternal Victims no matter what they do in the future. Such Moral Privilege is a form of supremacism. It implies that even if Jews were to act like Nazis, they shall always be morally shielded with the Anne Frank card. And even when Germans face replacement and extinction, they are to be regarded as 'Nazis' forever. This is crazy, and the Holocaust is now just a Holo-Curse.
Victors(or the Official Scribes) write the history. Scholars also write the history. Victors prefer their own 'good war' narrative. This is true of all sides. As for scholars, they are not necessarily on the side of victors, especially in a system that is relatively free, like in a democracy. There have been plenty of dissident or alternative scholars in the West, even in elite institutions. But scholars have tended to be on the Left. Furthermore, especially after revelations of Nazi atrocities in WWII(and because the West felt the direct fury of Nazi Germany but not of the Soviet Union), it had become increasingly difficult to be a right-wing scholar(except from the most defensive or Philo-Semitic position, self-defeating since Jewish Power is the main force against the Gentile Right). So, not only were most official scholars on the Liberal side of the spectrum but even most dissident scholars were on the Left. Naturally, they emphasized the crimes of Nazi Germany while tending to overlook the atrocities of the Liberation. In Italy as in France, the Left took to revenge with a fury. One could argue that the leftists acted worse than the Right(during the Occupation), but absent law and order(in a time of chaos and flux), mobs(of any stripe) can easily get out of hand. And it wasn't just the Left. Many Frenchmen who felt humiliation of defeat and occupation just took it out on anyone, not least on French women who had affairs with German soldiers. And there had been plenty of collaborators, big and small. And even though German Occupiers were reasonably tolerant and humane toward most Frenchmen, they came down hard on the far-left and Jews, and the Left remembered and sought revenge. In Spain in the wake of Right-wing victory, many on the Left were brutalized and killed as well. Not all of it was done by the state. Conservative and clerical forces rounded up suspected communists and anarchists and butchered them. In Indonesia, upon Sukarno's ouster upon the failed communist coup, a reign of terror engulfed the nation in which 100,000s, maybe a million, were butchered by mobs, often on economic or ethnic than ideological grounds: Chinese were often targeted.
There are many other inconvenient truths about the 'Good War'. US bombing of French towns in preparation of invasion of Normandy killed lots of French civilians. Much of US bombing of Japan was punitive and/or vengeful than strategic. Also, contrary to the belief that the US was hesitant to use nukes and was compelled to do so only to 'save lives', it was prepared to nuke 10 to 12 more cities if Japan didn't surrender. In other words, US was willing to go 'full Nazi' against a nation that was all but defeated and crippled just to push for total unconditional surrender. When I grew up, the term 'fascist' had such negative connotations that I thought Mussolini must have been just as evil as Hitler. Reading his biographies, I was surprised by how mild(relatively) his rule was compared to others. And contrary to the romantic myths about the Spanish Civil War, the Left was just as ruthless and murderous as the Right. Though made famous by Picasso's painting, the bombing of Guernica was a minor event. Indeed, all of history is a simplification or distortion. In discussion of the Vietnam War, people tend to blame LBJ or Nixon the most. For some reason, Eisenhower gets a break because he warned of the Military-Industrial Complex. But it was Eisenhower's administration that sowed the seeds of discord in Vietnam and messed up Guatemala and Iran that would have huge repercussions later. Also, it's ironic when people say Hitler planned to 'conquer the world'. Untrue but even if true, the world was already conquered by imperialists, mainly British and French that were hardly 'liberal democracies' around the world but, in fact, often-brutal colonial powers. Accusing Nazi Germany of preparing to do what the Western Imperialists had done already is rather amusing. Though Hitler admired the imperialists, esp the British, his actions inadvertently 'saved' the Third World by bankrupting France and UK even more than after WWI. Furthermore, once UK and France redefined themselves as nations that resisted foreign tyranny, the template spread to the Third World that defined itself as the Resistance against Western 'Nazi-Like' Imperialists.
As for Operation Pike, historians focus mainly on what happened that what-might-have-happened. For example, if Hitler had planned the Shoah but didn't carry it out, it would be discussed far less. If the US had planned using atomic bombs on Japan but finally decided not to, it would be treated as a footnote. There are surely political and ideological reasons as to why Operation Pike would rather not be mentioned by scholars, but it didn't happen in the end. It was talk, not walk.
Was Josef Stalin preparing to conquer all of Europe? Could he have? I just don't see Stalin being so reckless. If Soviets(and that is a Big If) did set up offensive posture against Germany, it was likely to force Germany into a defensive posture, thus thwarting any first attack on Germany's part. Given Stalin's nature -- consider his ambiguous position on Korea -- , it's difficult to believe he planned to conquer all of Europe. Maybe just maybe, he hoped that France and Germany would weaken each other as in WWI and then, if the opportunity was ripe, the Soviets would sweep in to take it all(as the Soviets did with Eastern Europe). But Germany's victory over France was so swift and commanding that Stalin was in awe of Germany, and the last thing he wanted was a war. Stalin had expected the Franco-German War to last several yrs, bleeding both the republic and Reich as in the previous war. He had no idea that it would end so quickly and dramatically. However, he may have feared that Hitler would then move against the USSR, and therefore set up 'offensive' positions along the border to send a strong message that Soviets are not to be threatened. Consider that part of the reason why France lost was it thought ONLY in terms of defense. Even though it declared war on Germany and not vice versa, France was dug in for defense and had no capacity or will for offense. Stalin may have thought that the ONLY way to stop Hitler was put up an offensive posture. Also, it's hard to believe that Hitler and his men prepared such a vast undertaking(total war on Russia) at the last moment in panic and desperation. It had all the hallmarks of a well-thought-out plan. And the timing was near perfect as it was around summer solstice, the longest day of the year. While Stalin might have had big plans -- he was a Marxist after all -- , he was not a dreamer like Hitler who thought more like an artist than an intellectual. More than anything, Wagner's operas were the inspiration of Hitler's vision of history. Thus, he saw himself as a Man of Destiny. Also, his initial gains pumped him full of hubris. And then, his swift victory over France made him feel near-invincible. According to John Lukacs and Pat Buchanan, the main reason for Hitler's attack on the USSR was to bring UK to the table. This theory sounds absurd, but it makes sense from a psychological point of view. From a practical point of view, it makes little sense. If Hitler was having such a hard time defeating UK, why enter into a two-front war that also involves USSR? That seems utterly stupid. But if we consider that Hitler loved and admired the UK while loathing the 'subhuman Slavs', then what he ultimately wanted was an alliance with the British while subjugating the Slavs. So, by taking the USSR out, Germany would demonstrate to the UK that it alone is the undisputed ruler of Europe, and there is NOTHING the UK could do about it except to come to the table and form a partnership with Germany. As Lukacs wrote, Hitler's main ideology was not Germanism but Aryanism. He regarded Britons as fellow Aryans, and so, British Empire was Aryan rule over the world. Though Hitler had alliances with Italy, France(which had no choice), Spain(in a willy-nilly way), Eastern European nations, and Russia prior to Operation Barbarossa, he didn't prize them as much as he did the hypothetical one between Germany and Britain, the World Empire. That would have been Aryan + Aryan. Could such have been possible if not for Jewish influence in Britain? Or, was the culture of class and manners too important to the British elites to side with a 'vulgar' demagogue like Hitler, gutter trash who rose to the top by ranting like a lunatic? Great Britain had played a moon-like influence on Continental Europe. A balancing effect. Just like the moon steadies the rotation of Earth and ocean waves, British influence maintained balance of power on the Continent by forging alliances against whatever power was most dominant. Indeed, had it not been for Britain, perhaps a Continental Empire might have formed. But in WWI, British influence went awry and made things much worse by intervening on the side of France. Its effect was more like that of an asteroid than the moon. As for Hitler, he was a super-volcano that just erupted out of nowhere. British asteroid and German volcano undid Europe in the 20th century.
I can believe that Jacob Schiff played a role in Bolshevism. Not out of ideology but tribal loyalty and hatred against 'bad goyim'. We see the same patterns today, what with Jewish Oligarchs even siding with Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine against Russia. And Israel works with extreme Muslim elements to subvert secular Arab regimes(that are regarded as bigger threat to Israel). Also, George Soros throws his money around at ANYTHING to get what he wants. Given the level of hatred Jews felt toward Russia in the 19th and early 20th century, it seems likely that a Jewish banker like Schiff and others would aid JEWISH Bolsheviks against Traditional Russia. It was mainly about JEWISH capitalists aiding JEWISH communists. If a conflict was about GOY communists vs JEWISH traditionalists, I'm sure men like Schiff would have funded the latter. Blood matters sometimes. Though both China and Vietnam were communist while the Chinese minority in Vietnam was capitalist, the Boat People tragedy(that targeted capitalist Chinese) angered China(though communist), partially accounting for the brief Sino-Vietnam War. And there are plenty of capitalist Chinese who loathe communism but still side with Mainland out of tribal loyalty.
As for David Irving, yes, he was targeted for taking on sacred cows, but it was also the way he did it. An abrasive and difficult personality, he relished the role of playing enfant terrible just too much. Also, he has a double standard when it comes to history. When it comes to Hitler's crimes, he insists on total documentary proof. But on other matters, he's willing to go with established narrative, flimsy evidence, or wild exaggerations if it makes the Allies, esp Churchill, 'just as bad as Germany'. His suggestion of moral equivalence that Allies were just as bad as Nazi Germany is going too far. In war, both sides did horrible things, but does anyone really think Germany would have treated the vanquished like the Allies treated Germany? Once the dust settled, Germany was treated like a normal nation by the Allies, but what would a victorious Germany have done? If Germany had won over Britain, humane treatment was likely. But against Russia, it would have been horrors on a scale unimaginable. And as it would have been on racial than ideological grounds, it would have been far worse. (Germany was treated reasonably fairly by Allies after WWII, though in the immediate aftermath, there was a period of unspeakable atrocities against Germans, esp the women by Soviet troops. If things got worse for Germany over the years, it has to do with Jewish Power taking over the US and turning Shoah into a secular religion, thus turning German Guilt from a historical matter to a spiritual one. But then, this Sacred Cow that comes with powerful taboos applies to all of Europe, as well as Canada and US and beyond. The Shoah Narrative is nearly as harsh on France, Poland, UK, Sweden, and etc. as on Germany. If Germans are to apologize forever as the killers, other Europeans are to apologize forever as collaborators or craven cowards who failed to stand up to Hitler. As EU is a US satellite and as the US is controlled by Jewish Power, much of the 'free world' is occupied zone of Jewish Supremacism that, while calling on whites to atone for their own past supremacism, also insists that whites must support Jewish Supremacism against Palestinians, Arabs, Iran, and Russia.)
Was Kaiser Wilhelm a 'peacemaker'? The article says Wilhelm was once praised by the New York Times as a rational and sound leader, but what does that mean? NYT was and is full of shit. During the Newt Gingrich and then George W. Bush II era, NYT often praised John McCain as the Good Republican, moderate and balanced. But in the 2008 campaign, he was made out to be a moron, nutjob, and loon in contrast to messiah Obama. And then in the Trump era, he's been rehabilitated and praised once again as a voice of reason by NYT and rest of 'Liberal' Media. In the 70s, US media were full of high praise for Mao. In the 80s, US media called Jihadis in Afghanistan 'freedom fighters', and Saddam Hussein wasn't such a bad guy because he was fighting Iran. But then, he was 'new Hitler' in the early 90s. So, it doesn't matter how NYT may have characterized Wilhelm before WWI. NYT is a political rag of the moneyed class, and it's been all over the map. Also, when even if something was printed in the NYT, it was either one writer or a handful of people on the editorial board. It doesn't mean everyone working for the paper agreed. Many newspapers offer varying points of views. The fact is Wilhelm was vain, arrogant, and conceited. And when it mattered most, he failed miserably, but then so did the idiot Czar of Russia and the French Republic in revanchist mode(going back to 1870 defeat to Prussia-Germany). WWI was a case of "It takes two to tango" or "It takes a bunch to start a barroom brawl." UK didn't make things any better as it hoped German defeat would thwart its global ambitions, esp as Germany had surpassed UK as the #1 industrial power in Europe.
Viktor Suvorov
Did FDR want a war with Germany to save his presidency? And was Adolf Hitler not so bad? The notion that FDR was itching for war just to have another term sounds far-fetched. Also, even if was true, Hitler was the one who was driving events. He could have avoided much trouble by not moving on Czech territory, for which he was forgiven and accommodated(or 'appeased'). And then, whatever problems he had with Poland, the joint German-Soviet invasion was pure evil. But even then, his victory over France meant he had domination over all the continent except the Soviet Union. He could have kept the peace with USSR and run out the clock against the UK. Now, Viktor Suvorov argues that the USSR was about to attack Germany and that Hitler didn't have a choice, but this is still conjecture and speculation, a matter open to debate, one that I still don't believe. If indeed, Stalin did amass military formations against Germany, he took a huge gamble. Likely, he was using a mental strategy against Hitler. A show of force from the position of strength to psych Hitler out and prevent Germans from attacking. But maybe Hitler read things differently and really believed a Soviet threat was imminent, in which case Stalin's bluff failed(or succeeded to well in convincing the Germans). Now, given the endless lies we've gotten from the media -- and bogus books on Israeli History, such as the notion that Palestinians abandoned their homes voluntarily during the Jewish-Arab War in 1948 -- , it's possible that there's far more to WWII than we'd been told so far. But psychology matters in history, and Stalin's psychology just doesn't indicate 'Invade all of Europe'. Also, the big difference between Stalin and Hitler was that the former already had vast areas and vast populations under direct control. Even without taking another inch, the USSR was an empire unto itself. Stalin already had what it took to be an emperor. In contrast, Hitler's ego was just as big or even bigger, but he only ruled over 'tiny' Germany. Germany had dominion over satellite states, but it was far from what Stalin had. From that perspective, Stalin was content without taking further territory. He was content to nibble on parts of Finland(though he could have taken it all) and Baltic states. Also, even if the Soviet offensive against Germany might have been successful, it would have been at huge cost, and I highly doubt if Stalin was willing to risk that.
German economy did better under Hitler than US economy under FDR, but then that was one of the advantages of a centralized state. Hitler didn't have to deal with democratic brakes for his plans that were implemented overnight and at vast scale. In contrast, FDR's New Deal was hampered by opposition from the other party and capitalists(and American individualism). So, it's understandable why he wanted to be wartime president because war(and hate), like nothing else, unites a nation together for a single purpose. While the notion that FDR provoked Japan into aggression to facilitate US entry into the war is maybe plausible, he would have had to been a super 4D chess player to foresee and manipulate events in Europe. Also, considering that he won his terms by promising peace than war, a mere outbreak of war in Europe would NOT have guaranteed US entry unless US it was itself attacked(and that took Japan).
As for Hitler not being 'Hitler' of Villainy, this is true enough up to 1939. It's like what Joachim Fest wrote in his biography: Had Hitler died in 1939, he would have been remembered as one of Germany's greatest leaders. But there were events following 39 and esp 41, and they revealed the dark side of him. That dark side had always been there, but it truly emerged as he gained greater power and means to do as he wished. Given his ideology and worldview, Hitler could be reasonably humane among his own kind and those whom he respected(like the French). He regarded them with affection and fondness. It's like Jews in Israel are wonderfully nice to other Jews but virulently murderous to those in Gaza. But his racial ideology meant he could be incredibly uncaring and even hostile/murderous toward certain others. He didn't merely dislike the Slavs. He despised them as a people. His hatred of Jews was understandable given Jewish role in communism and Weimar decadence, but it went beyond human hatred toward something monstrous that led to atrocities that even David Irving admits. Irving never said Germans didn't commit atrocities against Jews. He said he found no evidence that Hitler directly gave those orders, but this is rather incredible. While Hitler surely didn't order every instance of mass-killing of Jews, he presided over a system and appointed the kind of men who would gladly do such things. Morality depends on context. A chimp can be a capital fellow among his own tribe. He can be a good friend and leader. But against an enemy tribe, he can be most vicious, commit all sorts of mayhem, and bite off the genitals of the Other. So, Hitler's rather decent behavior among Germans says nothing of his behavior among Russians or Jews. Likewise, white Americans who could be so nice among themselves could ruthlessly wipe out Indians or kill tons of Filipinos or Vietnamese. Americans, who talk of law & order and democracy, turn a blind eye to all those dead Muslims killed by Wars for Israel. In the American Way of Thinking, a fellow American is a capital fellow and becoming America is ennobling, but 'muzzies' in the Middle East are just cannon-fodder for "Support the Troops" mentality. Americans have affection for Jews and praise them highly, but when it comes to Palestinians, it's like a Brahmin sneering at an Untouchable. Farrakhan is so loving and forgiving of his black brothers and sisters... but feels contempt for rest of humanity. Israeli Jews are brothers and sisters, but they don't care how many Syrians are slaughtered as long as it's 'good for Israel'. Hitler was no different.
From observation of current Jewish mindset and attitude, I wouldn't be surprised if Jewish globalists harbored a supremacist outlook in the early 20th century(as did the French and Anglos who also vied for world supremacy) and that was a factor in German resistance against Weimar-ism. Indeed, most of Western Europe was in imperialist hegemonic mode, and Jews were a part of it. Whether it was military supremacy, financial supremacy, intellectual/ideological supremacy, cultural supremacy, religious supremacy, racial supremacy, and etc., it was a real game of thrones. As Jewish money and involvement were inseparably intertwined with Western Imperialism, it's likely Jews had a similarly supremacist outlook. In some ways, Jewish hegemonism may have been stronger because of their ancient pedigree of the Chosen rooted in the Covenant.
The tragedy of National Socialist Germany was it didn't counter Jewish supremacism with German Nationalism and Humanism. Alas, it countered Jewish Supremacism with 'Aryan' supremacism and thus forfeited whatever moral credibility it could have possessed. Indeed, one moral advantage of communism was it cleverly framed the global conflict in terms of capitalist-imperialists vs social justice for all of humanity.
But then, it's hardly surprising why Hitler thought as he did since most of the world was already under one form of supremacist domination or other. So-called democracies were the biggest imperialist powers who'd secured dominance over the world. If they felt threatened by Hitler, the reasons weren't merely militaristic but rhetorical. His brazen racial theories bared naked the true nature of imperialism. In essence, it wasn't about enlightenment, Christianity, and spreading progress but about the supremacist hegemony of one group of people(mostly Europeans, Anglos, and Jews) over the rest of mankind. Hitler was blunt and 'rude' enough to spell out what other white elites really thinking but wouldn't say, or at least didn't shout for all to hear. Hitler was too much of a 'cowboy' who called attention to the true gangster-nature of Western Power. Gangsters like to keep things orderly and cordial on the surface: Keep it respectable and gentlemanly. If dirty business has to be done, use the goons, but leave the talking to Men with Manners. In contrast, Hitler did a lot of goonish hollering. In the gangster world, anyone who causes too much stir and spills the beans on what it's really about must be wiped out. Like Tommy in GOODFELLAS.
