Lenin, Stalin, and Hitlerio

Posted by Anonymous species-hater on August 14, 2007, 10:56 AM | #

Since the CIA regularly sponsors books attacking its geopolitical rivals and BusinessWeek’s a jew operation, here’s a cynical interpretation:

The book is aimed at undermining Russian national identity. To those of us here familiar with the Jewish role in 1919 this seems ridiculous, but the masses in and outside of Russia know nothing of that.

In Russia’s ongoing nationalist renaissance Stalin is resurrected as something of a firm leader who guided the USSR to superpower status, which outweighs his many flaws (Hey, what is Putin to tell the masses even if he knew the truth, which he very well might???)

On the Totem Pole of Evil, that Hitler isn’t the true target explains both his slight (and you can be certain temporary) downgrade from the very top and Stalin/Lenin’s promotion above him.

Posted by Red Baron on August 14, 2007, 01:25 PM | #

Is this any different than what Ian Kershaw, Gordon Craig, or numerous court historians have written? I’ve heard all this stuff in undergraduate history courses decades ago.

What’s new here?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 14, 2007, 01:46 PM | #

IN THEIR different ways they were as bad as each other, the three monsters of 20th-century Europe.” (—from the log entry)

They forgot the fourth monster of the 20th Century:  Franklin Roosevelt.

Posted by Maguire on August 15, 2007, 03:32 AM | #

“They forgot the fourth monster of the 20th Century:  Franklin Roosevelt.”

Gellately also forgot the fifth one.  This was the Zionist Man of Blood, Neocon Winston S. Churchill.  He deserves to be remembered as the Destroyer of Western Civilization.  And owning a First Edition collection of most of his major works, and having studied his career in depth, I’m ready to engage on that with anyone, English or otherwise.

Posted by robert gellately on August 15, 2007, 12:44 PM | #

To the Red Baron,

Yes, there is something new under the sun. “Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler” goes well beyond the historians you mention and uses sources, especially from Russia, that have only been opened long after these earlier books had gone to print.

Moreover, it’s not just a question of some new “facts,” because the hypotheses and perspectives are original. Before you write off new books it might be worth giving them at least a casual glance.

Posted by Ben on August 15, 2007, 05:54 PM | #

What about Mao Tse Dong?

He is missing from the list

Posted by Desmond Jones on August 15, 2007, 07:27 PM | #

“He deserves to be remembered as the Destroyer of Western Civilization.”

Yet, apparently, not harbouring, unlike FDR, a desire to replace his own people.

Churchill considered blocking all immigration to Britain because he feared a growing “coloured population” was posing a threat to Britain’s social stability, The Sunday Telegraph reported.

At a Cabinet meeting on February 3, 1954, the prime minister told colleagues: “Problems will arise if many coloured people settle here. Are we to saddle ourselves with colour problems in UK?”

Churchill, then 79, told Cabinet colleagues that he did not “want a parti-coloured UK”.

Churchill said immigrants were attracted to Britain by the welfare state: “Public opinion in UK won’t tolerate it once it gets beyond certain limits.”

Cabinet notebooks reveal that lawmakers considered a total ban on non-white immigrants, a quota system and deporting anti-social elements from overseas

Address on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Statue of Liberty.

October 28th, 1936

For over three centuries a steady stream of men, women and children followed the beacon of liberty which this light symbolizes. They brought to us strength and moral fibre developed in a civilization centuries old but fired anew by the dream of a better life in America. They brought to one new country the cultures of a hundred old ones.

They came to us speaking many tongues—but a single language, the universal language of human aspiration.

It was the hope of those who gave us this Statue and the hope of the American people in receiving it that the Goddess of Liberty and the Goddess of Peace were the same.

He suggested that liberty enlightening the world would extend her rays from these shores to every other Nation.

Undoubtedly, that speech could play today, without changing a single word.

Posted by Maguire on August 15, 2007, 09:09 PM | #

“Churchill considered blocking all immigration”

‘Considered’?  Considered??  Is this the best you can do?  Why didn’t he and the rest of his - ahem, ‘Conservatives’ - follow through?  He was Prime Minister then.  He and the ‘Conservatives’ did possess a Parliamentary majority in the House of Commons at that time. 

“Yet, apparently, not harbouring, unlike FDR, a desire to replace his own people.”

“Mission Control to Desmond Jones, come in, over… Desmond, this is Houston, are you there?”

If he didn’t ‘harbour’ the desire, then why he didn’t he follow through with ‘action’?  Remember the famous ‘Action This Day’ label?  I guess this particular piece of policy didn’t get that label.  Maybe WSC also had a “Take No Action” label he used, and which we haven’t heard about yet.

I rate that right up there with WSC’s worries about war causing the English people an economic catastrophe.  Worries that didn’t start expressing themselves on paper until early 1944. 

By that time WSC had been writing historical novel series based on his periods in office for over 30 years.  His first series was titled “The World Crisis”.  His fourth series of historical novels, titled the “History of the Second World War”, was greatly enhanced by his knowledge he was going to write it if he lived long enough.  The credibility of that framework of fantasy has been sustained by keeping all his non-published memoranda secret from everyone except Jew Martin Gilbert.

“Undoubtedly, that speech could play today, without changing a single word.”

So can his 1930s article where he praises Adolf Hitler as a great leader of national revival, and saying he hoped that England would find such a leader if she were ever cast down.  The case of Abigail Howarth makes it look like now is the time.

Your mentally ill (he was a clinical maniac-depressive) deadbeat drunk was a Jew tool from the very start of his career, if not a crypto Jew himself.  He began that career in Court Jew “Sir” Ernest Cassel’s pocket.  And on this policy front WSC didn’t confine himself to ‘consideration’.  He always acted, consistently and in one direction.  One of his premier concerns while nominally supporting Kolchak and Denikin during the Russian Civil War was to suppress all manifestations of anti-Semitism among their forces.

Posted by Desmond Jones on August 15, 2007, 11:44 PM | #

How exactly could they do it, after the excesses of WWII and the UNESCO declaration on race?

Oh by the way boys, thousands of Irish, okay, but you black and brown chappies have to stay home!

All of the rest proves what exactly? He was a drunk. Cassell’s allegedly gave him money. So what? What exactly was the outcome of his alleged furitve trists with international Jewry? Did he suppress all manifestations of Russian anti-semitism or not?

Ifs ands or buts, candies and nuts, big deal.

Posted by Desmond Jones on August 16, 2007, 02:10 AM | #

Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People

Winston Churchill

Some people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.

And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.

The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honourable and successful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia’s economic resources, and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organisations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholders of friendship with France and Great Britain.

In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek—all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses.

The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.

Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people. Wherever General Denikin’s authority could reach, protection was always accorded to the Jewish population, and strenuous efforts were made by his officers to prevent reprisals and to punish those guilty of them. So much was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda against General Denikin denounced him as the Protector of the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, relating their personal experiences in Kieff, have declared that to their knowledge on more than one occasion officers who committed offences against Jews were reduced to the ranks and sent out of the city to the front. But the hordes of brigands by whom the whole vast expanse of the Russian Empire is becoming infested do not hesitate to gratify their lust for blood and for revenge at the expense of the innocent Jewish population whenever an opportunity occurs. The brigand Makhno, the hordes of Petlura and of Gregorieff, who signalised their every success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found among the half-stupefied, half-infuriated population an eager response to anti-Semitism in its worst and foulest forms. The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies which are now being perpetrated.

Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism.

Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.

Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920, page 5.

Posted by wjg on August 18, 2007, 03:00 AM | #

Desmond,

As all awakened Euros should become aware there was no Zionism VERSUS Communism struggling for the soul of Jewry.  That was an ill-informed projection on the Jewish mind of the Aryan characteristic (and often weakness) of ideological purity.  The same Jews that funded the undermining of Christian Russia funded the impetus for the Balfour Declaration.  To the Jewish elite Zionism and Communism were never at odds but were tools to be used in their struggle to weaken Europe and finish their ascendancy.  Bolshevism destroyed millions of the best Aryans in Russia, turned Russia firmly against Europe, and enriched the Master Race in the process.  Zionism gives them all a place to flee when they’ve made themselves unwelcome.  Where is Sir Winston’s “struggle” here?

To expand upon what Maguire says Churchill may have been the single worst Euro leader in the 20C, if not all history.  If he wasn’t an outright tool of Jewry he certainly acted in ways that make the distinction moot.  He destroyed Britain to an even greater degree than he mass-murdered Germans.

Posted by Anonymous species-hater on August 18, 2007, 03:51 AM | #

David Irving’s freely downloadable masterpiece Churchill’s War recounts in detail the Jewish schemers that worked from the mid-1930s to elevate Churchill to the prime minstership. 

Why did World Jewry shrewdly pick Churchill? Because he meant war.

Posted by Desmond Jones on August 18, 2007, 06:12 AM | #

If he wasn’t an outright tool of Jewry he certainly acted in ways that make the distinction moot.

Interesting, considering Professor Ebeling the Ludwig von Mises Professor of Economics at Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Michigan, suggest that Churchill was, in fact, a holocaust enabler.

With the Polish areas beginning to overflow with an increasing Jewish population and with tens of thousands more Russian, Ukrainian, and Baltic Jews now coming under Nazi control, a “final solution” had been devised.

But this need not have been the fate of the European Jews. In April 1940, official Nazi policy still permitted the emigration of the Jews from Europe. In June and July 1940, a new plan was promulgated in the German Foreign Ministry’s Department for Internal German Affairs. In a memorandum, “The Jewish Question in the Peace Treaty,” it was declared, “The desirable solution is: All Jews out of Europe.” Their point of destination would be the island of Madagascar, off the east coast of Africa, then under French colonial administration. The plan had the full support of Hitler, who told the German ambassador to France at the beginning of August that “he intended to evacuate all Jews from Europe after the war.” In the middle of August 1940, a new memorandum prepared under the supervision of Adolf Eichmann called for “the project to settle around four million Jews on Madagascar.”

But the continuance of the war due to Churchill’s refusal to countenance any attempt to bring the conflict to any end short of a total Nazi defeat sealed the fate of six million Jews in Europe.

...for the Jews of Europe, Churchill’s refusal to reach a negotiated peace with Hitler closed the door on a deathtrap.

Of further interest, IMO, is how the Nazi plan to deal with European Jews, transfer out of Europe, so closely parallel’s Churchill’s.

Why did World Jewry shrewdly pick Churchill? Because he meant war.

It was Chamberlain that declared war, not Churchill.

And now, when every one of these aids and advantages has been squandered and thrown away. Great Britain advances, leading France by the hand, to guarantee the integrity of Poland - of that very Poland which with hyena appetite had only six months before joined in the pillage and destruction of the Czechoslovak State. There was sense in fighting for CzechoSlovakia in 1938 when the German Army could scarcely put half a dozen trained divisions on the Western Front, when the French with nearly sixty or seventy divisions could most certainly have rolled forward across the Rhine or into the Ruhr. But this had been judged unreasonable, rash, below the level of modern intellectual thought and morality. Yet now at last the two Western Democracies declared themselves ready to stake their lives upon the territorial integrity of Poland. History, which we are told is mainly the record of the crimes, follies, and miseries of mankind, may be scoured and ransacked to find a parallel to this sudden and complete reversal of five or six years’ policy of easy-going placatory appeasement, and its transformation almost overnight into a readiness to accept an obviously imminent war on far worse conditions and on the greatest scale.

Moreover, how could we protect Poland and make good our guarantee? Only by declaring war upon Germany and attacking a stronger Western Wall and a more powerful German Army than those from which we had recoiled in September, 1938.
Here is a line of milestones to disaster. Here is a catalogue of surrenders, at first when all was easy and later when things were harder, to the ever-growing German power. But now at last was the end of British and French submission. Here was decision at last, taken at the worst possible moment and on the least satisfactory ground, which must surely lead to the slaughter of tens of millions of people. Here was the righteous cause deliberately and with a refinement of inverted artistry committed to mortal battle after its assets and advantages had been so improvidently squandered. Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly you may come to the moment when you will have to fight withall the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.

Posted by Anonymous species-hater on August 18, 2007, 07:32 AM | #

considering Professor Ebeling the Ludwig von Mises Professor of Economics

Quoting libertardians who…

… suggest that Churchill was, in fact, a holocaust enabler

Why? Because Churchill sought nothing less than the annihilation of Germany:

...Churchill’s refusal to countenance any attempt to bring the conflict to any end short of a total Nazi defeat

Yet the same libertardian acknowledges Hitler’s plan involved relocating Jews:

“[Hitler] intended to evacuate all Jews from Europe after the war.” In the middle of August 1940, a new memorandum prepared under the supervision of Adolf Eichmann called for “the project to settle around four million Jews on Madagascar.”

It was Chamberlain that declared war, not Churchill.

Ah, but it was the cabal of Rothschilds, Hore-Belishas, Bullitts, Baruchs, and Amerys that maneuvered France and Britain into a guarantee for Poland, and organized the half-decade-long propaganda barrage in the Anglosphere. 

is how the Nazi plan to deal with European Jews, transfer out of Europe, so closely parallel’s Churchill’s.

And what did Churchill do to the Jews? I mean, other than take their money, their counsel, and hobnob with the Morgenthaus and Baruchs coordinating the anti-Germany effort?

Posted by Desmond Jones on August 19, 2007, 03:05 AM | #

Ah, but it was the cabal of Rothschilds, Hore-Belishas, Bullitts, Baruchs, and Amerys that maneuvered France and Britain into a guarantee for Poland, and organized the half-decade-long propaganda barrage in the Anglosphere.

Interesting, if it wasn’t for the fact a Polish-French alliance already existed in 1934, subsequently followed by a Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact signed in 1934 which

provided the Polish government with some assurance that the Germans would not attempt to recover the Polish corridor by military force. Under the direction of the Foreign Minister, Colonel Josef Beck, Poland attempted to balance its alliance with France with German friendship in an attempt to avoid involvement in foreign quarrels. This agreement represented the first breach in the French alliance system in Eastern Europe and the Polish government became the first friendly power to reach an understanding with the new National Socialist government in Germany.

You appear contradictory. First you assert the “Jewish schemers” worked to elevate Churchill to the PMO, therefore Churchill was “the Zionist Man of Blood”, and then upon realization that Churchill was not in favour of war in defence of Poland, you advocate that it was the “Jewish schemers” that “maneuvered France and Britain into a guarantee for Poland”, an alliance France had already established. So which is it? Churchill “an outright tool of Jewry” or not?

As the saying goes, “you can’t suck and blow at the same time”.

And why Poland? Why not the Rhineland, Austria or Czechoslovakia? WWI killed tens of millions of Europeans, why allow Germany to abrogate the Treaty of Versailles?

The point being that if universal nationalism is Salter’s solution to ethnic survival then belligerent nationalism cannot be condoned.

Posted by Anonymous species-hater on August 19, 2007, 04:13 AM | #

Why did World Jewry succor Churchill instead of Chamberlain? Because Churchill was a hot-blooded nationalist whose 19th-century worldview (balance of power on the continent, maintained by war) would collide with Germany.

Therefore, Churchill needn’t be a hand-puppet in the strict sense.

The point being that if universal nationalism is Salter’s solution to ethnic survival then belligerent nationalism cannot be condoned.

Salter’s intent must have been to provide a “morally justifiable” alternative to the genocide versus mass immigration dyad. He must know UN is theoretically leaky.

And why Poland? Why not the Rhineland, Austria or Czechoslovakia? WWI killed tens of millions of Europeans, why allow Germany to abrogate the Treaty of Versailles?

My argument has been this: perhaps it benefited Britain to bottle up Germany, but only after dealing with World Jewry first as the primary threat. Then, and only then might Brits and Germans do a toughman contest see who is the most virile of the European races.

Interesting, if it wasn’t for the fact a Polish-French alliance already existed in 1934...

It is doubtful the French would have gone to war without the backing of the British, or without a reaffirmation of the defense pledge in March 1939. The French people did not want war for many good reasons…

Posted by Desmond Jones on August 19, 2007, 06:43 AM | #

Why did World Jewry succor Churchill instead of Chamberlain? Because Churchill was a hot-blooded nationalist whose 19th-century worldview (balance of power on the continent, maintained by war) would collide with Germany.

The point is he wasn’t.

Here was decision at last, taken at the worst possible moment and on the least satisfactory ground, which must surely lead to the slaughter of tens of millions of people.

The theory does not make sense. Chamberlain was PM appeasing Hitler for half a decade. Chamberlain declared war. Churchill declared it an act without parallel in history. An act of supreme folly. The theory flip-flops more often than a cod in a dory. Was Churchill the “outright tool” of world Jewry or not. The case has not been made.

Hitler had the JQ in Germany well under control. Even Sir Martin Gilbert recognised that virtually all the Jews rounded up after Kristallnacht were released within a few weeks if they promised to leave Germany.

Most of the Jews arrested after Kristallnacht were released within a few weeks after they promised to make arrangements to leave Germany. Around 8,000 of the 30,000 Jews, who were taken into “protective custody,” were allowed to enter Great Britain without a visa and thousands more went to Shanghai, where no visa was required. Altogether, more than 50,000 German Jews found safety in Britain before World War II started, including 10,000 Jewish children, according to Martin Gilbert.

Further transfer out of Germany to Palestine, the UK or Madagascar was accomplishable. World Jewry was a threat to Germany because Jews were there. No Jews, no threat.

It is doubtful the French would have gone to war without the backing of the British, or without a reaffirmation of the defense pledge in March 1939.

Yet the French choice of an alliance with Poland inevitably meant war.

Posted by robert gellately on December 16, 2007, 08:06 PM | #

Dear Friends,

I came into this discussion a long time ago when someone mentioned my book “Lenin, Stalin and Hitler.” I look in from time to time, but see few comments on which I can usefully comment. Most have strayed from the topic.

It seems to me that some of you are re-running the history of the world. You need some new fuel, new in-puts, i.e. fresh information and new points of view. The history of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany is already complicated enough without dragging in Churchill, Zionism, and God knows what else into the matter.

My suggestion is, again, to read my book, “Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler.” There’s no sense talking about what is or is not in it or should, could, or might be in it, unless and until you have read it.

My suggestion: Narrow the focus to a subject that is feasible and useful to discuss and then go for some new data and alternative perspectives. You could start by taking a look at one attempt to deal with my effort of comparing and contrasting Soviet Communism and German National Socialism. It’s just one click away at:

http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9616751

We could even start a new discussion about the topic. But an informed discussion is so much more fruitful, don’t you think?

Robert Gellately