|
|
Winston Churchill: A liability or an asset for the West?While the subject itself might be rather ho-hum, poor old Winnie having been sliced and diced more-or-less ad infinitum in venues such as this one ever since the dawn of the cyber-age, what caught the eye was the heavyweight panel that has been assembled to debate the following proposition in London on September 3rd, the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of WW II. Churchill was more a liability than an asset to the free world Leading the yeas in an all-too-infrequent appearance on the other side of the pond is none other than Patrick J Buchanan, whose recent book Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World rekindled interest in the eternal question. Assembled against Mr. Buchanan and his fellow anti-Churchillites is an unusually stellar array of first-rank British historians of the younger generation all, it seems, eager to defend Churchill’s reputation against the revisionists.
Intelligence Squared often posts a transcript of the proceedings a little while after the event. Let’s hope they do so on this occasion. But in the meantime, their online poll appears to be running 3 to 1 against the motion, so it would be interesting to hear the views of MR’s kommentariat, especially those who may have had the opportunity to read Pat Buchanan’s book or otherwise form an opinion on PJB’s thesis that it was, indeed, an Unnecessary War.
Posted by Dan Dare on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 at 01:11 AM in Comments:3
Posted by Leon Haller on August 19, 2009, 06:27 AM | # I have not read the Buchanan book yet, but I have long maintained a negative view of Churchill, and not only for the libertarian reasons so amply and ably discussed by the American historian Ralph Raico (see his article on Churchill in The Costs of War). Churchill was not a great statesman because he was unable to perceive that the future of much of the Western world would belong either to the Nazis or the communists, and that even by traditional Christian moral standards, let alone the yardsticks of racial and Occidental survival, the Nazis were far less objectively objectionable (the great Pope Pius XII did correctly apprehend the situation’s geopolitical and moral calculus, and behaved accordingly, mitigating Nazi moral abuses where feasible, while always recognizing the much greater threat to Christian civilization posed by Stalin). By actively opposing Hitler, Churchill effectively supported Stalin (eg, Britain had by treaty guaranteed the autonomy of Poland; why did he choose to go to war with only Germany after September 1, 1939, when the USSR had simultaneously invaded Poland from the East?). Beyond intentionality, there is the easier question of functionality. Was Churchill’s lonely stand against Germany good for ... Britain, Europe, or the white/Aryan race? That is, had Britain capitulated, would the power and position of the historic British nation, Western civilization, and the white race be weaker, or stronger, today? I think we know the answer now, don’t we? 4
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on August 19, 2009, 08:18 AM | # Churchill, was an unmitigated disaster. A Liability. I would like to disagree with Mr. Romer and that Hitler was a good guy. He wasn’t. He was a liberal like everybody else; hatred of apostolic Christianity and of hierarchy. AH was a radical egalitarian. Even though liberals destroyed monarchy and aristocracy, both the National Socialists and International Socialists created psuedo-monarchs. AH became a psuedo-monarch of Germany. The party became the new aristocracy. Yes, AH cared for his people and for a greater Germany but his mistakes outweigh the benefits. He lost more in the battle and lost the war. Salvation is not of this world. Salvation is for the world after; and that is only by believing in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The whole West when it forsook its true salvation and the truth has accepted nihilism and its own death. Life only comes from God. 5
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 19, 2009, 09:03 AM | # Who were the forces, who exactly were the men, behind Churchill? Churchill didn’t rise by himself, none of these “democratic” politicians does. Who funded his rise, who attempted to hype him in the press both at home and in North America, who vetted him beforehand the way George Bush, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Karma Chameleon were vetted beforehand as reliable on certain issues such as, in the latter four cases, willingness to keep the borders open and to refuse even to discuss the matter, and in his, Churchill’s, reckless aggressiveness in regard to Germany to the point of willingness to declare war on any insanely insignificant pretext the Jews and business interests could drum up, like Danzig? There were shadows behind him as there were shadows behind Bush, Blair, and Clinton and there are shadows behind The Magic Negro and Karma Chameleon. Why don’t the men casting those shadows make themselves visible? I’ll give you three guesses why. “Liability or asset?” Liability and that’s an understatement. Death-dealer is more like it: he helped deal the West its death-blow. 6
Posted by Søren Renner on August 19, 2009, 10:43 AM | # Hitler was not a psuedo-monarch! As a vegetarian, he never wore psuede. 7
Posted by Daily Quote on August 19, 2009, 12:43 PM | # “I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between Communism and Nazism, I would choose Communism.” - Winston Churchill 8
Posted by Frank on August 19, 2009, 12:55 PM | # Interesting that investment monies were coming from the English into Germany before the war. If the English didn’t want a powerful Germany, why the Hell were they investing in it? Why not raise trade protections? 9
Posted by Dan Dare on August 19, 2009, 01:08 PM | # The argument hinges around whether or not what Buchanan terms Hitler’s ‘Dream Alliance’ – one between the German and the British Empires – was anything other than empty rhetoric on Hitler’s part. Would a peace concluded in 1940 or early 1941 have involved terms for the British as benevolent as Buchanan and anti-Churchillites claim? We don’t really know, since the terms of any official peace ‘overtures’, if they actually existed, have never been seen. My own view is that, had Churchill been ousted, such an Alliance might well have been concluded, and in that case Britain’s role in the world would be very different today, as would that of the United States. But I am reaching that conclusion with the benefit of perfect hindsight, based upon the voluminous documentation that has since become available. As is, of course, Buchanan. The people who had to take the decisions in 1940 had none of this at their disposal. All they had were the blandishments of Herr Hitler, and we all know what they were worth. 10
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 19, 2009, 01:52 PM | #
And the perfidiousness of Albion, demonstrated by their inaction vis-a-vis Poland.
It makes the question moot and places the focus upon Chamberlain/Halifax where it should. In so doing it makes Churchill prescient.
11
Posted by Mark Ijsseldijk on August 19, 2009, 02:46 PM | # Liability. The fat, race-mixed, drunken murderer Churchill and his Red, playboy, crypto-Jew, demagogue, opportunist buddy Roosevelt were clearly friends with the fat, sadistic Georgian peasant Dzhugashvili as evidenced by the Yalta photos. It is clear to anyone who looks at those photos that these were “birds of a feather.” Their victory ushered in the Judeo-Communist system that plagues us to this very day. Yalta was merely the ceremony whereby Judeo-Communists forever took hold of the defeated “West.” 13
Posted by Mark Ijsseldijk on August 19, 2009, 02:50 PM | # Notice the posture of those above. All have their hands upon ‘muh dick’. Appropriate, no? 14
Posted by Dan Dare on August 19, 2009, 03:26 PM | # The ‘Phoney War’ and Churchill’s opposition to the Polish Guarantees are well-attested, Desmond, it’s unclear what either have to do with the question being debated. Churchill’s watch did not commence until his appointment as Prime Minister on 10th May, 1940. He cannot be made responsible for events prior to then, except in the sense of sharing collective responsibility as a member of the Government since the outbreak of war. It’s actually the case that substantive discussion on whether or not to inquire about possible terms first took place after Churchill became PM. During the last week of May the War Cabinet debated whether to negotiate with Hitler or continue the war. Ironically, the two members who pressed for negotiation were Halifax and Chamberlain; the latter proposing that Mussolini should be recruited as an intermediary. The two Labour members, Clement Attlee and Arthur Greenwood, were implacably opposed to negotiation, and it was with their support that Churchill prevailed. That week in May was probably the first and last window of opportunity for Hitler’s ‘Dream Alliance’. After Dunkirk, Mers-el-Kibr and, especially, the Battle of Britain, Churchill was unassailable and, to use Chamberlain’s phrase, Herr Hitler had ‘missed the bus’. His July 19th blandishments delivered to members of the Reichstag in the Kroll Opera House, in which he ‘appealed to reason, also in England’ came just three days after he had signed Directive No. 16, Preparations of a landing operation against England. 15
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 19, 2009, 05:11 PM | #
Where was it asserted that he was? If we accept the view that Hitler could not be trusted, then the Churchill liabiltiy question is moot. In addition, why would Hitler accept the empty platitudes of Chamberlain/Halifax after their performance vis-a-vis the Polish guarantees? It’s a level of commitment about as deep as spit on a rock. Conflict was inevitable. Why would Herr Hitler even consider riding a bus driven by the duplicitous Chamberlain after the ride that was given Poland? 16
Posted by skippy on August 19, 2009, 06:33 PM | #
I agree that the whole treatment of the lead up to the war is a gross distortion. That said I always wonder at the writings that put the blame on Poland for what was to happen. I just looked into the matter of Poland’s gains in the Munich agreement, and their territory gained was very small indeed - not enough to merit their participation being called hyena like in my cursory estimate. Maybe they wanted much more? I don’t know. They got a smallish chunk of land called Zaolzie. I’ve also read the (propaganda?) about the mistreatment of ethnic Germans in prewar Poland. I’ve never seen much corroboration of these accounts. I guess I feel badly for all the Poles had to endure, and I’m suspicious that this account of history is only a pro-german whitewash of a very messy and probably unflattering reality. I’m curious if anyone else has anymore to say on this - if any one can argue convincingly that yes, the Poles brought it on themselves then I’d like to hear it though. 17
Posted by Guessedworker on August 19, 2009, 07:12 PM | # skippy, We already visited the Polish Question: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/sowing_the_seeds_powder_keg_on_the_baltic/ The thread is a good one. 18
Posted by Prozium on August 19, 2009, 07:22 PM | # Liability. In the United States, which suffered little damage on the homefront, the Second World War was the single biggest factor in changing racial attitudes (in the American North). It was a huge catalyst. The years between 1938 and 1945 were the historical pivot that separated the old regime from the new one. I’m no expert on the subject, but I strongly suspect that WW2 was even more of a factor in war torn Europe. The Allies succeeded in demonizing racialism, eugenics, nationalism, and anti-Semitism in their wartime propaganda. From a pro-White point of view, how in the world is that a good thing? Winnie was a disaster. Hitler had no interest in conquering the British Empire. The Wehrmacht wasn’t about to roll into London, Winnipeg, or Melbourne anytime soon. The British declaration of war on Germany forced Hitler to change his war plans - to turn West instead of East. Winnie, of course, was one of the loudest warmongers in the UK under the Chamberlain regime. He played no small role in inciting the war, drawing other powers into the war, continuing the war long past the point when it was even remotely in the British self interest, polarizing the war into a contest between racism vs. anti-racism. 19
Posted by Guessedworker on August 19, 2009, 07:29 PM | # Regarding the Churchill issue, one should really weigh the question from the perspective of the times. It is not helpful to view it from our position today. No European country in possession of a democratic liberal system was suffering what we are, and the situation we have now could not have been foreseen then. In the post-war period Churchill himself was violently antagonistic to non-white immigration. So I think the question boils down to whether, in the late 1930s, a racially stable liberal democracy was a more desirable polity than a militarised totalitarian dictatorship. There was, of course, far too much that was wrong in Hitler’s Reich, including the regression to slave labour, political gangsterism and the desire to steal someone’s else’s land. Without the negatives the choice would be a much more interesting one. 20
Posted by Prozium on August 19, 2009, 08:03 PM | # We should have known better. At least in the United States, there was ample precedent for this. Whenever Yankees fight a White enemy and get all hot under the collar about freedom, equality, natural rights and so forth, a wave of liberalization usually follows. This had already happened twice before in the aftermath of the American Revolution and the Civil War. 21
Posted by Dan Dare on August 19, 2009, 08:17 PM | # Hey Proze! You seem to have changed your tune, what happened? Remember this? 22
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 19, 2009, 09:24 PM | # “Whenever Yankees fight a White enemy and get all hot under the collar about freedom, equality, natural rights and so forth, a wave of liberalization usually follows. This had already happened twice before in the aftermath of the American Revolution and the Civil War.” (—Prozium) Good point. I hadn’t thought of that. There was also a huge wave of liberalization after WW I although it was in regard to social mores rather than legislative as happened after Lincoln’s War of Northern Aggression (WW I essentially brought Victorian social mores, modesty in women’s dress codes, anti-smoking rules, and other behavior, etc., to an end). The “Roaring Twenties” represented extreme liberalization compared to what had obtained until 1914-18. 23
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 19, 2009, 11:04 PM | #
And the greatest advocate for war of any region in America, the Old South.
24
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 19, 2009, 11:16 PM | #
And that you blame on Yankee liberals? C’mom Fred, wake up. Liquor, gambling, vice and corruption; who were the biggest criminal organisations of the twenties? What was their ethnic origin?
Does that include the Virginia manumission of 1782 or GWaddress of the slave question?
Damn Yankees made him do it. 25
Posted by Prozium on August 20, 2009, 01:58 AM | # And the greatest advocate for war of any region in America, the Old South. We have already been over this at my blog. White racial attitudes in the South didn’t change much after WW2. If anything is true, they hardened somewhat. Southern liberals were given a harder time after the war than before. The drastic change was in the North and West. 26
Posted by Prozium on August 20, 2009, 02:08 AM | # DD, I’ve had the time to give the matter a lot more thought. As I said above, I still believe the Second World War was the biggest factor (the catalyst) in changing racial attitudes in the United States. The data on that point is clear. I’m not as quick though to blame Hitler and National Socialism for the change. Southerners and Afrikaners fought in the same war, but there was no sweeping change in racial attitudes in the American South and South Africa. The change was in the American North, Britain, and the rest of Western Europe. If Brits and Yankees were not so committed to liberalism, they would have reacted to the Third Reich quite differently. The ideological tenor of the Allied war effort was far more detrimental there than elsewhere. 27
Posted by Prozium on August 20, 2009, 02:26 AM | # Does that include the Virginia manumission of 1782 or GWaddress of the slave question? Damn Yankees made him do it. The same wartime ideological enthusiasm existed in the South, but to a far lesser extent, and more so in the Upper South than the Lower South. Manumission had been prohibited in Virginia prior to the Revolution. So yes, repeal does represent a weaker example of liberalization. I’m quite sure this is noted in my American Racial History Timeline. Free negroes briefly had the right to vote in Maryland, Tennessee, North Carolina, Delaware and Kentucky after the American Revolution. This right was taken away (along with several others) in the early nineteenth century as racial attitudes hardened and slavery expanded. None of this compares though to the complete collapse of slavery in the North after the Revolution or the repeal of the Jim Crow laws in the North after the Civil War. 28
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 20, 2009, 02:34 AM | # It’s a lie to assert that racial attitudes in the North changed. The forces for racial denial existed before WWII. It’s the bulwark that opposed them that was undermined by the excesses of WWII. And it was the South that led the charge to destroy those bulwarks. Even Wallace was a liberal after WWII.
His racialism was simply political expediency.
29
Posted by Kronprinz Wilhelm on August 20, 2009, 04:57 AM | # Posted by Daily Quote on August 19, 2009, 04:43 PM | # ”I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between Communism and Nazism, I would choose Communism.” - Winston Churchill Poor ‘Winny the pooh’! I guess his ‘opinions changed not so much with the wind, but with how much he drank on a given day—or, more aptly put, how much could he AFFORD to drink, i.e. how much of an ‘allowance’ would his ‘adviser’ (handler) Henry Strakosch advance him if he behaved and followed the script? http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/churchil.html http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/Waley_Cohen.html
“Bolshevism is not a policy; it is a disease.” “The day will come when it will be recognized without doubt throughout the civilized world that the strangling of Bolshevism at birth would have been an untold blessing to the human race.” http://southafrica-pig.blogspot.com/2009/02/winston-churchill-on-communism.html
“Zionism versus Bolshevism” http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html http://hidhist.wordpress.com/churchill/winston-s-churchill-zionism-versus-bolshevism/ 30
Posted by Kronprinz Wilhelm on August 20, 2009, 05:31 AM | # Also guys, DO NOT EVER FORGET the role the ‘WHIN-bag’ played in the Lusitania tragedy - [...] “The Lusitania: A classic example of war profiteering” & “Who Really Sunk the Lusitania”
“The Dardanelles Disaster: Winston Churchill’s Greatest Defeat”
Well, I take it that Churchill was just the type of ‘shabbos goy’ politician type that the forces of Marx-Mammon-Masonry (MMM) have seem fit to promote and advance to do their bidding (and cover-up their crimes and incompetance)—all at the expense of the true British people and nation. Ah ‘Whino Winnie’! May he be burning in hot whiskey in his spot in hell. What an utter travesty for the Northern European peoples! 31
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 20, 2009, 08:30 AM | # “Seymore, you know why I lost that governor’s race?… I was outniggered by John Patterson. And I’ll tell you here and now, I will never be outniggered again.” (—Alabama Governor George Wallace, quoted by Desmond) Great quote. 32
Posted by Dan Dare on August 20, 2009, 12:13 PM | # Prozium - I would dispute the contention that the opposite pole to national socialism is liberalism, which is what you appear to be implying. I’d also suggest that the sea change in post-war racial attitudes came about not because of the war per se, but because of general repugnance of the effects of the racial policies of the Third Reich, in particular the H. 33
Posted by jamesUK on August 20, 2009, 01:43 PM | # How come no one references “the Focus” group influence on Winston Churchill financing his carear. 34
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 20, 2009, 01:43 PM | # There was no broad transformation of racial attitudes post WWII. It was special interest and minority ethnic groups that perverted racial liberal democracies. Capital and ethnic groups used the excesses of war to further an agenda that was present before WWII; utilize state coercion as a club to end discrimination. Despite the war, Jews, after Germans and Japanese, were the least desirable immigrant. In Canada, Jews fell only behind the Japanese as the least desirable immigrants.
It wasn’t Northern Protestants who wrote the briefs to tear down restrictive realty covenants.
It wasn’t Northern Protestants who mounting the unrelenting campaign to demonize nativists. http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/47/03lamber.html 35
Posted by Electioneering on August 20, 2009, 03:05 PM | # Lots of good info about the motives and people (mostly international Jewish financiers) behind the warmonger Churchill in THIS SPEECH. 36
Posted by Dan Dare on August 20, 2009, 03:45 PM | # One of the loonier characteristics of Third Reich Nostalgics is their dogged insistence, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that Britain went to war with Germany because the Jews made them do it. 37
Posted by jamesUK on August 20, 2009, 04:05 PM | # @Dan Dare I take it your being sarcastic. Irving mentions “the Focus” a group of 25 industrialist mostly Jewish financing Churchill and getting him to fight against Germany. 38
Posted by jamesUK on August 20, 2009, 04:29 PM | # What about the upcoming war against Russia and capture for Eurasian oil and gas? At least someone knows the score although a mere fraction of it. The outrageous strategy to destroy Russia by Arthur Lepic http://www.voltairenet.org/article30038.html Or our disastrous post Soviet foreign policy Iraq, Balkans Middle East, Afghanistan and now Eurasia. So we can become one big global country with Turkey becoming a EU member with the establishment of Nabucco transporting oil and gas into the EU empire with your new Eastern European member states and the US lobbying for Turkey’s entry into the EU. 39
Posted by Dan Dare on August 20, 2009, 04:43 PM | # @JamesUK Whoever it who was financing Churchill did a remarkably poor job of it since by March 1938 he was practically bankrupt and had to put his estate at Chartwell on the market. Where can we view the list of donors together with the amounts each contributed, and the dates. If Churchill was beholden to his Jewish paymasters, there would have to be a record of those transactions somewhere, right? It’s not as though Irving and others haven’t been digging for years. I am aware of the Strakosch loan (£18,000) which enabled Churchill to take Chartwell off the market. Are we being asked to accept that Churchill agitated for a war with Germany in return for such a paltry sum? As for the membership of Focus, it also included Basil Liddell-Hart and Austen Chamberlain. Zionist warmongers as well? 40
Posted by Prozium on August 20, 2009, 05:48 PM | # For Desmond: http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/08/20/changing-racial-attitudes/ 41
Posted by Prozium on August 20, 2009, 05:51 PM | # DD, That only raises the question: why did the British and American media react to the Third Reich in such a hysterical way? I would submit that it was due to their own commitment to liberalism. 42
Posted by Prozium on August 20, 2009, 05:59 PM | # Re: Southern liberals I had in mind Sen. Claude Pepper of Florida and Sen. Frank Graham of North Carolina who were sacked in the 1950 elections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Pepper 43
Posted by Dan Dare on August 20, 2009, 06:08 PM | # Are you thinking about media reaction during the war itself, or in the pre-war years, P? If the latter I would contend that the British press, at least, or certain segments of it {the Daily Mail and The Times, for example) were ‘notoriously’ pro-appeasement. Later on, I’d contend that the general attitude of the media (papers and the BBC) towards the Third Reich was not hysterical but instead derisive and disdainful. Even the official propaganda tended to poke fun at the Nazi regime rather than portray them as bloodthirsty monsters. I’m sorry I haven’t studied much to any great extent how the US media portrayed the Nazis, but have observed that much of the US propaganda, especially that directed towards the Japanese, would be considered shockingly racist today.Is that liberalism? 44
Posted by Prozium on August 20, 2009, 06:31 PM | # 1.) From Munich and Kristallnacht forward. 2.) Hysterical reaction: “But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.” 3.) There was a contradiction in American war propaganda between the portrayal of the Japanese as an inferior race and the Germans as bloodthirsty racist monsters who cared only about “blue eyed, blond haired” Nordics. This stereotype lives on in American folklore about the Third Reich. 4.) Nevertheless, there was a sweeping change in American racial attitudes (in the North and West) during the wartime years which wasn’t replicated elsehwere (in the American South and South Africa). 5.) Hollywood churned out a series of films that stressed the multicultural character of the United States: Guadalcanal (1943), Bataan (1943), Sahara (1943), Gung-Ho (1943), Action in the North Atlantic (1943), Air Force (1943), Destination Tokyo (1943), Purple Heart (1944), The Fighting Seabees (1944), The Negro Soldier (1944), Objective Burma (1945). 6.) If Brits and Yankees had not been so committed to liberalism, they would not have reacted to the Third Reich in the same way. 45
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 20, 2009, 06:39 PM | # Prozium’s reference to Miller is not at odds with other NORC data.
Only 8% in 1944 suggest Negroes less intelligent. 34% suggest a lack of ambition.
Employment opportunity:
Only 5%, in 1944, felt Negroes were mentally incompetent.
Only 4% of the white firsters thought Negroes were less intelligent. Looks like no broad transformation of racial attitudes to me. Source: Public Opinion, 1935-1946 46
Posted by Captainchaos on August 20, 2009, 06:57 PM | # Churchill did not begin to significantly mention Germany as a threat until his Wilderness Years and came into the orbit of the Focus. Churchill was a vainglorious dilettante of the heroic. He wanted a heroes reward: glory. And wasn’t above lying to get it, as he said, he would write his history. Churchill was a glutton for “the good life” and could be bribed. Churchill hated Germans. He was an artist of the English language. He was a strident racist. He was no Adolf Hitler, incorruptible, a brilliant leader, a hero. 47
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 20, 2009, 06:57 PM | #
Fundamentally and abjectly false. The Southern race to war undermined all gains by scientific racists and like Sampson brought the temple falling down upon their heads. The push for legislative change after WWII was by Catholics and Jews not Northern Protestants. 48
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 20, 2009, 07:10 PM | # Exclusionary covenants:
Prozium’s antagonistic stance toward Northern Protestants is fueled by, understandably, his EGI. The Italian-American poster Euro is also informed by the same bias. It is why white nationalists continually endeavour to distort the historic record of the founding Americans. 49
Posted by Prozium on August 20, 2009, 08:01 PM | # Fundamentally and abjectly false How so? You haven’t cited a single poll from before the war. In 1939, 22% of whites thought blacks were of equal intelligence. By 1956, 78% of whites believed that blacks were of equal intelligence. That’s a 50%+ swing in racial attitudes in 17 years. Anyone hazard to guess where the 78% of whites who believed in racial equality in intelligence lived? The Southern race to war undermined all gains by scientific racists and like Sampson brought the temple falling down upon their heads. Oh really? Normally, I would cite the JimCrowHistory.org website, but it appears to have disappeared. It will suffice to say that the Southern states passed dozens of new laws reaffirming their commitment to white supremacy and segregation from 1945 to 1964. South Africa went on to adopt the apartheid system. Southerners and Afrikaners fought in the Second World War too. In contrast, the Western states repealed almost all of their Jim Crow laws and the Northern states passed anti-discrimination civil rights laws. It is not our fault that the racial views of Yankees were so fragile that they couldn’t stand the disruption of their own wartime egalitarian propaganda. We didn’t have the same problem. It is also worth keeping in mind that the wave of liberalization that followed the Second World War was the THIRD TIME in American history such a thing had happened in the North. The push for legislative change after WWII was by Catholics and Jews not Northern Protestants. It was a repeat of the same phenomena (a wave of racial liberalism) that we saw after the American Revolution and the Civil War. Prozium’s antagonistic stance toward Northern Protestants is fueled by, understandably, his EGI. The Italian-American poster Euro is also informed by the same bias. It is why white nationalists continually endeavour to distort the historic record of the founding Americans. The vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 The original House version: Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%) The Senate version: Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) Southerners voted against the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1968. We voted against the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Immigration Act of 1965. We’re the only reason the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Equal_Rights_Amendment_Map.svg Southerners voted against the IRCA amnesty, the Civil Rights Act of 1990, the Immigration Act of 1991. More recently, Southerners defeated the Bush amnesty for illegal aliens. Needless to say, the Reconstruction amendments and the federal civil rights legislation of that era was imposed on us by the North. 50
Posted by Dan Dare on August 20, 2009, 08:29 PM | # If I may be so bold, this seems to a somewhat arcane tangent to be spinning off on, not least because whoever was at fault it certainly wasn’t Winnie. 51
Posted by Glug Glug goes the HMS Hypocrite on August 20, 2009, 08:59 PM | # Slave labour! Political gangsterism! The desire to steal someone’s else’s land! These History Channel descriptions of mid-30s Germany aren’t the words of the 19-year-old girl who lives across the street from me, ready to start her second year at Barnard in a fervent desire to gain a degree in order to be deemed capable of educating the children of inner-city Detroit. No, they are, instead, punched out from the keyboard of one “Guessed Worker”, an elderly man with the amazing English ability to fail to be able to put historical happenings in context vis-a-vis his own enslaving, gangster-ridden, and land-thieving isle. Thank the gods this tribe is going extinct. 52
Posted by Captainchaos on August 20, 2009, 09:16 PM | #
If Churchill was indeed the “indispensable man” in getting England to hold on until America entered the war, but for which America would not have entered the war, but for which Germany would have won, and the survival of our race been assured, yes, it most certainly is his fault. 53
Posted by Dan Dare on August 20, 2009, 10:27 PM | # Per the Cap’n:
This is a merciless mangling of the timeline. The Wilderness Years are variously said to have commenced when the Conservatives lost the 1929 election and Winnie the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer, or in 1931 when he was passed over for a position in Ramsay Macdonald’s National Government, or sometime in between when he made known his trenchant opposition to the ‘Home Rule for India’ Bill. At any rate it was at least five years prior to the first meeting of the Focus Group in which Churchill participated. On the other hand, he first publicly warned of the ‘menace of Hitler’ in a speech to Parliament on April 14th, 1933. Presumably then his ongoing agitations and anti-German warmongering in the three years prior to becoming involved with the Focus Group must have done on a pro bono basis.
Could be, or was? Time to provide names, ranks and serial numbers, Cap’n, if you wish your aspersions and innuendo to be taken seriously.
Hating Nazis is not quite the same thing as hating Germans, but I’m sure you’ll be able to provide a few fer instances to prove your point.
Nothing irks TRNs more than to be continually reminded that not only was WSC a more consummate politician and more accomplished orator, a better writer, and a better artist than der Führer (Hitler’s daubings rarely break into five figures at auction while a Churchill water-colour recently went for a million plus), but our chap was also a more successful warmonger. Not only that, but his compatriots continue to vote him Greatest Briton of all time every time they’re asked, even some seventy years after his Finest Hour. In contrast, your incorruptible and brilliant hero struggles to break into the Top 200 in the affections of his former Landsmänner. Erm, no scrub that. He doesn’t not just barely make it, he doesn’t make it at all. Bloody ingrates! And after all he did for them, eh? And then there’s this …
America’s entry certainly shortened the war, but it is an amusing ‘what if’ question to ponder what might have happened if they hadn’t. The record shows that the tide had already turned well before any Yanks ever fired a shot in anger in the ETO or dropped a bomb on the Fatherland – ever hear of el Alamein, Stalingrad or the 1000 bomber raid on Cologne, Ultra and the Battle of the Atlantic? The truth is that by the time the Yanks joined the party the Germans could no longer win the war, they could only lose it, and they proceeded to do so. 54
Posted by Roast Beef Replaced by Curry on August 21, 2009, 01:46 AM | # “Nothing irks TRNs more than to be continually reminded that not only was WSC a more consummate politician… He sure was. Politicians are the finest breed of men and Churchill was the greatest politician in history. “...and more accomplished orator… Subjective. “...a better writer… The fearless Churchill’s scribblings have no relevance to the state of the world today which, though GW thinks otherwise, some people did realize was coming. Bad Guy #1, OTOH, reads like a crystal ball. “...and a better artist than der Führer (Hitler’s daubings rarely break into five figures at auction while a Churchill water-colour recently went for a million plus)... Everyone knows that artists’ caliber is measured by how much money their work sells for. As a matter of fact, all quality in anything is easily measured by money made and numbers sold. “...but our chap was also a more successful warmonger… See quote above in comments section, re: English extinction. “Not only that, but his compatriots continue to vote him Greatest Briton of all time every time they’re asked, even some seventy years after his Finest Hour. Absolutely. Says it all. And in one hundred and seventy years, five of the last six Brits on the island will be doing the same thing while they’re burning atop the bonfire the Muzzies have made for them. The sixth will be too busy working for his Hindu boss to vote. “In contrast, your incorruptible and brilliant hero struggles to break into the Top 200 in the affections of his former Landsmänner. Erm, no scrub that. He doesn’t not just barely make it, he doesn’t make it at all. Bloody ingrates! And after all he did for them, eh? Wow. It’s almost like this was written by a guy who doesn’t understand a single thing about the way the world works except how to tune in to “Top of the Pops” and hit a “submit” button on a monitor screen. 55
Posted by Churchill=Pawn of Warmongering Jewish Financiers on August 21, 2009, 04:34 AM | # “All my attempts at reaching an understanding, particularly with England, nay even permanent friendly cooperation, were foiled by the wish of a small clique, who, either out of hatred or for material reasons, refused any German suggestion of agreement and did not conceal their intention or desire of war. The driving personality behind this mad and devilish plan of starting war at any price was Churchill and his accomplices, the men in the present British Government. They were trying to get support, openly and secretly, from the great democracies on this side and on the other side of the ocean. At a time when the discontent of peoples with their Governments had reached a peak, those irresponsible men believed to be able to cope with a problem by means of a war. Behind them was Jewish banking, the Stock Exchange and armament capital, which was attracted, as once before, by the opportunity of a great, if dirty, deal. As before, they were ruthlessly prepared to shed the blood of their peoples. Thus, the war started.” - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Address_to_the_Reichstag 56
Posted by Churchill=Pawn of Warmongering Jewish Financiers on August 21, 2009, 04:41 AM | # “Again I took the opportunity of that meeting to appeal to the world for peace. I did not permit any doubts that my hopes in this direction could only be slight, in view of my experiences. For the men who had wanted the war do not act out of some kind of ideal conviction; the moving force behind them was Jewish-Democratic capitalism, to which they were indebted and, therefore, subjected. The milliards of capital already invested and immobilized by these people interested in the war cried out for a return, and amortization. Therefore, a war of long duration did not frighten them; on the contrary, it was convenient. This capital, in the form of factories and machines, needed time to come into operation and even more time until it came to the distribution of the expected profits. Nothing is more hateful to these Jewish-Democratic people interested in the war than the thought that an appeal made to the commonsense of the nations could, at the last minute perhaps, succeed in ending the war without further bloodshed, and thus curtail the profits of their invested milliards. Events happened exactly as I had predicted. My peace offer was alleged to be a sign of fear and cowardice. The European and American warmongers again succeeded in blurring the sanity of the masses, who cannot gain by this war. They succeeded in awakening new hopes by lying statements, and finally, with the help of a public opinion directed by their Press, made the people continue the fight.” - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Address_to_the_Reichstag 57
Posted by Captainchaos on August 21, 2009, 01:03 PM | # In a recent interview with Tom Sunic, Kevin MacDonald described Churchill as “psychopathological” and a “maniac.” Great men think in terms of centuries. Adolf Hitler always pressed forward with his vision of what could have been the salvation of our race. But for that, your characterization of him as yet another tin-horned, saber-rattling douche-bag dictator might have merit, but it was not so. Btw, are you sure Churchill did not experience his Finest Hour whilst Lord of the Bath? 58
Posted by Prozium on August 21, 2009, 01:27 PM | # Judging from above, I don’t believe that Dan has shared his verdict on Churchill. From where I am standing, Churchill looks very much like the midwife to the Britain that now exists. A similar argument could be made about FDR. His direct actions in race relations were less important than that of his successors, but he is responsible for transforming America’s role in the world and creating the context in which the decline took place. 59
Posted by Euro on August 21, 2009, 02:16 PM | # Desmond writes:“Prozium’s antagonistic stance toward Northern Protestants is fueled by, understandably, his EGI. The Italian-American poster Euro is also informed by the same bias.” I’m not aware of any antagonistic remark of mine towards Northern Protestants,or any other Northerners for that matter.Also,EGI “biases” are a two-way street,Desmond.They flow in both directions. I treasure this site,though,I’m having trouble keeping up with all of the excellent fare while trying to read past articles.The main reason I’m hear however,is Bowery.I believe our eccentric genius friend has a really piercing insight into our present crisis.What is more,its impossible to find any similar analysis anywhere else.So poor Jim is stuck with me.Rome on Britain’s back again! 60
Posted by Captainchaos on August 21, 2009, 02:21 PM | # Danny has done the right thing, as an Englishman always does: he has extended an olive branch to those debased sub-humans known by their betters as “Krauts”. It is almost enough to make those foolish forest dwellers more wistful than before, perhaps want of love does not go unrequited forever. All can be forgiven for the small price of a little respect. 61
Posted by Dan Dare on August 21, 2009, 02:59 PM | # Prozium, I hope that I’m taking a slightly more nuanced position on this question, in comparison to the embarrassingly cartoonish ‘Dolfy gut, Winnie bad’ line being peddled by some. We have to separate, I believe, the ‘Unnecessary War’ aspect of the matter, together with its implicit charge that Churchill unreasonably continued and prolonged the war against Germany for reasons of anti-German animus and/or on behalf of shadowy plutocratic influences, from discussions about the universalistic political order that arose later, after the war. With regard to the first, I have come to the conclusion, on the balance of the evidence, that a reasonable accommodation could have been reached between Germany and the British Empire in mid-1940, and that Churchill was the principal impediment to such an accommodation. Two points bear repeating, however. First, in 2009 even an interested layman has better information about Hitler and his attitude to the British Empire than did anyone in the British (or American) government in 1940. Second, there is really no knowing whether the outcome of such an accommodation might only have been to postpone an eventual conflict for a just a few more years. How Britain would have reacted when German troops, after driving Stalin and the Red Army beyond the Urals, appeared along the borders of Iran, Iraq and perhaps India is unknowable. As to the post-war order, my view is that the international human rights regime which arose in the immediate post-war period, and which forms the legal and intellectual foundation for contemporary liberalism, is a direct consequence of the racial policies of the Third Reich. The responsibility for that cannot be laid at the door of either Churchill or Roosevelt. 62
Posted by Dan Dare on August 21, 2009, 03:10 PM | # I meant to add in the previous post, with respect to Hitler’s attitude to the British Empire, nobody in Government in 1940 would have, for example, been aware of Hitler’s unpublished Second Book. 63
Posted by Prozium on August 21, 2009, 04:15 PM | # I’ve made that argument myself, but I have since had time to reconsider. It wasn’t Hitler’s fault that Brits and Americans were such delicate flowers. Had they been made of sterner stuff, as the Germans themselves were, their reaction to the Third Reich would have been quite different. Hitler’s policies offended the liberal conscience of the British and American elite. The result was the polarization in their war propaganda against Germany and the construction of the postwar human rights regime. This would never have happened if liberalism had not already been the dominant discourse in the Western Allied countries. In South Africa, Afrikaners constructed the apartheid regime in the postwar era, which continued to exist down to the 1990s. Southerners mounted a vigorous defense of Jim Crow, passing hundreds of new state laws and local ordinances that reaffirmed their commitment to racial segregation. Why didn’t Brits and Yankees react in the same way to the defeat of the Third Reich? These societies were already in decay. In Britain’s case, Corelli Barnett makes that clear in The Collapse of British Power by chronicling the decline from the Georgians to MacDonald and Baldwin. FDR"s America had escalating racial problems. I suppose you could argue that Hitler’s racial policies were a catalyst of the decline; greatly accelerating the liberal degeneration. The ultimate responsibility rests with Churchill and FDR for waging an ideological war against racialism, nationalism, eugenics, and anti-Semitism and for international human rights and liberal capitalist democracy. They created the conditions in which the degeneration that occurred under their successors took place. Attlee and Truman didn’t spring from a vacuum. I don’t see how you can argue around that. 64
Posted by Captainchaos on August 21, 2009, 04:39 PM | #
At last. Was it really so hard?
It would have taken those of the commercial Empire and bourgeois “respectability” some time I imagine to wrap their pointy heads around the arrival of higher values having entered the world.
Gertrud Scholtz-Klink, unrepentant leader of the official women’s organizasion of National Socialist Germany remarked thus in a 1987 interview:
Pearls before swine. 65
Posted by Dan Dare on August 21, 2009, 04:58 PM | # Prozium I believe you are incorrect in coupling Churchill and Roosevelt as the tribunes of liberalism. By any modern measure, Britain in 1939 was anything but liberal. All the attributes that you cite as (presumably) desirable traits of Nazi Germany were just as evident in Britain at the time. Perhaps more muted and not so fanatically broadcast but they were there all the same. If the present-day Conservative party were to promote a socio-economic and foreign policy platform similar to that of their 1930s counterparts, they would be considered even more reprehensible than the BNP. The attitude of the general public was also far from liberal. Anti-semitism has always been an undercurrent in British society, amongst all classes. That it never reached the virulent stage that it did in Nazi Germany is really neither here nor there. As a matter of fact anti-Semitic atttitudes reached a historic high during the war years, but then collapsed following the liberation of Bergen-Belsen. What you are claiming is that anyone who was not a Nazi, or a fellow traveller, was ipso facto, a ‘liberal’. I’m afraid that such a binary characterisation displays a complete lack of understanding of official and public attitudes at the time, and it just won’t wash. David Irving had it right when he remarked that ‘If the troops landing at Normandy could have foreseen what Britain would be like, they would not have advanced forty yards up the beach’. I would be prepared to accept that attitudes in the United States may have been different (i.e. more ‘liberal’) but still await persuasive evidence of that. I concede that, at the very top, Roosevelt and his handlers were probably out of sync with general attitudes, but reject completely the contention that Churchill was. 66
Posted by Captainchaos on August 21, 2009, 05:36 PM | #
As the kikes were free to peddle their “atrocity” propaganda and induce the self-immolating altruism of our people. Which they would not have been able to do had Germany won. No way around that.
There were those that once stood as men and did all in their power beyond the confines of human endurance to secure the existence of our people and thereby what is of goodness in this world against the monsters who wish to destroy us. And you piss in their faces, therein lies your alleged “moral superiority”. 67
Posted by Prozium on August 21, 2009, 06:09 PM | # Dan, I’m truly surprised to hear you arguing that Britain in 1939 was “anything but liberal.” By modern standards, I will grant that British liberalism wasn’t as advanced as it is today (it had yet to mature into its explicitly anti-White multicultural phrase), but Britain was the progenitor and world epicenter of liberalism at the time. It sat at the apex of the liberal international order (embodied in the League of Nations and contemporary international law) which the Axis powers were challenging. Britain went to war to preserve its dominant and privileged position in that system. Britain was the home of Whigs, the Liberal Party, and the Labour Party. This graph can serve as a proxy of support for liberalism in the UK. By 1939, the British had been marinating in liberalism for over a century; the British left consistently received upwards of 50% of the popular vote in general elections. A substantial portion of the British population had progressed from classical liberalism to full blown (leftwing) socialism by the time Herr Hitler came to power. Britain had practiced full blown “free trade” for almost a hundred years until the depths of the Depression. I don’t have any data regarding British racial attitudes, so I have no way of measuring the extent of the change in the wartime years, but I would be shocked if they weren’t substantially weaker than their American counterparts. As I said in my previous post, Attlee and the even more reprehensible characters that followed him did not spring from a vaccum. They emerged out of the British left which reacted to the authoritarianism of the Third Reich in a predictable way. If Britain had been a different country, say, one without a venerable liberal tradition that stretched back over a century, the reaction to Nazi Germany would have been of a different character. 68
Posted by Dan Dare on August 21, 2009, 06:13 PM | #
Such a shame that the feelings weren’t reciprocated.
69
Posted by Captainchaos on August 21, 2009, 06:55 PM | # It would not surprise me, nor should it you, Danny, that Speer would fabricate such a “quote” for the reason that it is not implausible he valued his honesty as little as his honor given he groveled before the filthy curs that presided at Nuremberg and spared his life accordingly. Even if true, even the strongest heart despairs, when betrayed on all sides, and met with the looming destruction of all of value in this life. Also, it does have the harsh ring of truth, “beyond good and evil.” Nature gives not a damn whether our people live or die, and if the latter comes to pass, we will have proven uneven to the task of survival. Be careful. The English, if they cannot be galvanized to expel the interlopers from their lands - which includes the parasitic, death-inducing kike - Nature will have rendered its verdict. A verdict more permanent, and binding, than that of Nuremberg. 70
Posted by Dan Dare on August 21, 2009, 08:03 PM | # Prozium, I think our present difficulty arises out of different conceptions of ‘liberalism’. I have been using the term in the context of social liberalism, whereas you seek to bundle in economic liberalism as well. It’s not immediately obvious how, by abandoning its commitment to free trade or to international law and multinational cooperation, Britain would have been better equipped to deal with Nazi Germany. Perhaps you could elaborate. And for some inexplicable reason you appear to be conflating ‘socialism’ with ‘liberalism’, not just in the social, but also the economic sense. Nothing could be further from the truth. The working class, which in the late 30s still comprised 75% of the population, was deeply socially conservative and patriotic, even nationalistic. The Trade Union movement, and by extension its political wing the Labour Party, were economically illiberal, being particularly in favour of tariffs and other forms of protectionism, the complete opposite to Marx’s dream of an ‘international proletariat’. That their present-day counterparts would be enthusiastic promoters of multiculturalism, open borders and equal rights for foreign workers would have seemed bizarre in the extreme to Labour voters in the 1930s. Many people in the white working class of course still feel that way today. If we consider just the part of the problem that you bounded quite well when talking of Churchill and Roosevelt’s ‘…ideological war against racialism, nationalism, eugenics, and anti-Semitism”, I’d counter that public attitudes on each of these vectors were quite robust. Of course, there were outliers in far-left groups like the Fabian Society that sought to ‘improve’ public attitudes [as there were in Germany until the Nazis eliminated them], but their overall influence was nominal. In the case of Britain, at least, there is simply no evidence that opposition to racialism, nationalism, eugenics, and anti-Semitism provided any significant impetus to the conflict with Nazi Germany. You made the point earlier that
But it’s not really fair to lumber Attlee and the 1949-51 Labour government with the full responsibility for the social liberalism that took hold in the post-war period. The right too played its part. The principal architect of the European Convention on Human Rights, for example, was the Tory grandee David Maxwell-Fyfe. Not coincidentally, Maxwell-Fyfe was a prosecutor at the IMT in Nuremberg, being responsible for the cross-examination of Hermann Goering. And, although Attlee was the leading light behind the British Nationality Act of 1948 which effectively (although unintentionally) opened the gates to future ‘coloured’ immigration, successive Conservative governments were just as dilatory in failing to act to close those gates while in power from 1951-64. Thus it is over-simplistic to blame ‘leftist liberals’ for our post-war malaise. All members of the political elite and the opinion-forming class were involved. After the war, following the revelations at Nuremberg and elsewhere there was widespread abhorrence at Nazi atrocities, and especially their persecution of the Jews. In this climate of guilt and remorse it hardly surpising that, for example, the ECHR, the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the Geneva Convention on Refugees, the BNA 1948, the West German Grundgesetz and so on, were all enacted in the first few years after 1945. This international and national human rights regime provided the framework for the raft of other legislation since created which in toto forms the legal and intellectual rationale for the multicultural state. And it’s all ‘Hitler’s Revenge’. 71
Posted by Captainchaos on August 21, 2009, 08:45 PM | #
And having stupidly passed on “der Chef’s” offer to you to aid him in cutting the Gordian Knot you are now left with the rather feeble option of triangulating against the Krauts. “Kill Jews? No, it wasn’t me, it was that Kraut over there. Please, now be a good chap, and let me live, Rabbi Shlomo.” LOL! 72
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 22, 2009, 12:00 AM | # Winston Churchill sent Walter Chamberlain and young men like him — just kids really, 18, 19, 20 years old — to fight and die in the Normandy D-Day landings so that for those who survived, their hometowns in England would become no-go areas for whites and if they tried to enter them they’d be knocked to the ground and the bones in their faces broken.
”played an important role in generating support for the British National Party in that town,” did it? God damn fucking straight it did. Long live the BNP! 73
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 22, 2009, 12:05 AM | #
It’s just not true. It was the racist discriminatory war time liberalism that gave rise to the non-discriminatory anti-liberalism. It was spearheaded by organized Jewry.
The result of the rejection of Slavic, Jewish, Italian, Chinese and African workers during the war period led to a full scale assault, led, organized and financed by organised Jewry that ended in the perversion of racist discriminatory liberalism.
Sure the war gave scientific racism a bad name, but discriminatory legislation never would have changed without the full scale press mounted by organized Jewry. 74
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 22, 2009, 12:17 AM | #
Of course in Israel, which all these pro-civil-rights Jews in the West support to the hilt, discrimination by Jews against non-Jews is the name of the game. It’s built right into the fabric of the nation. You can’t get away from it or do anything about it. Ahhhhh but that’s Israel: THEIR country. That’s different. It’s not YOUR country, the one they’re trying to bring down. See the diff? OK, you get it now. 75
Posted by Frank on August 22, 2009, 12:25 AM | # The Jews though are the “Chosen”. We’re not special. We’re supposed to mix away into nil. 76
Posted by Dan Dare on August 22, 2009, 01:36 AM | # Desmond claimed
Then it should be a simple matter to provide the names of the leading lights in organized Jewry who spearheaded this racist discriminatory war time liberalism. Who were they? To the extent that you are able to extend your arguments beyond the bounds of Canadian provincialism the more persuasive they will be. 77
Posted by Mark Ijsseldijk on August 22, 2009, 02:04 AM | # Liberalism was, of course, already well-advanced by wartime in the US. There is significant circumstantial evidence that the US banking collapse starting a decade prior to the War was the first Judeo-Communist engineered privation. And indeed the subsequent chaos deadened the fierce Eurocentrism that had defined White America in the ‘20s. It also brought the warmonger and Marxist Franklin Delano Roosevelt to power, whose New Deal was a linchpin in the introduction of institutional liberalism into America. And eventually he went whole hog, allowing the PH attack to happen and Demonizing all opposition to the war as “unpatriotic”. We know the rest. If it was not a Marxist macro-plot then it sure served the Judeo-Communist interests fortuitously. 78
Posted by Captainchaos on August 22, 2009, 02:05 AM | #
The Jewish Labor Commitee was one such organization, as listed in Desmond’s source.
Check this shit out Danny Boy:
79
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 22, 2009, 02:08 AM | #
It was in the interest of South African Jews to side with the Afrikaner. Apartheid was a system of cheap labour and Jews benefited.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/07/southafrica.israel Contrast that with North America. Jews were excluded under racist discriminatory liberalism but under Afrikaner nationalism an alliance was formed because it served ethnic interests. South Africa was a friend of Israel. In SA Jews were white. In North America, maybe not so white. 80
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 22, 2009, 02:30 AM | #
They didn’t spearhead it. It’s called freedom. Good old fashion Millsian classical racist exclusionary liberalism. They perverted it. 81
Posted by Captainchaos on August 22, 2009, 02:58 AM | # The victory of dumbocracy over the Krauts emboldened the Kikes:
I think I’m feeling queasy. Churchill, Man of the Century? Fuck that…Man of the Millennium. LOL! 82
Posted by Niroy Stonebreaker on August 22, 2009, 06:39 AM | #
Well considering that ‘liberal democracy’ fully enfranchised The Eternal Jew one is safe in saying that the militarized totalitarian dictatorship of Germany was the way to go!! Also recall that there was still this little hob-goblin about known as the Soviet Union bearing down from the East and also lots of Reds agitating everywhere for communism… those were the ones Brown-shirts had to be mobilized against!!! Leader Adolf Hitler > Sir Oswald Mosley > Prime Minister Churchill 83
Posted by Niroy Stonebreaker on August 22, 2009, 06:47 AM | #
As someone who is half-German and half-Norwegian thank the Gods that those philo-semitic Anglos got kicked out my northern homeland by brave National Socialist soldiers! If it wasn’t for Hitler and Quisling I probably wouldn’t exist right now! May they enjoy their sojourn in Valhalla whilst Churchill roasts in Hell and as London becomes Londonistan through bad karma!!! 84
Posted by Dan Dare on August 22, 2009, 11:56 AM | # Desmond commented:
To say the least.
But what was it that rendered inoperative the earlier, existing defences against such pressures? 85
Posted by Robert Reis on August 22, 2009, 11:57 AM | # http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MalWAuKcIzk&feature=related Inglourious Basterds “Nations Pride” Viral Video 86
Posted by Dan Dare on August 22, 2009, 12:53 PM | # It was interesting to note Kevin MacDonald’s comments in the recent exchange with Eric Kaufman on vdare.com:
87
Posted by Mark Ijsseldijk on August 22, 2009, 01:23 PM | #
Very interesting especially since McCarthy must have known of the Semitic essence of Communism. And as for what he hoped to accomplish by sucking up to the same people who invented Communism and furthered it’s ends implicitly during the phony “Cold War” I cannot guess. Probably just another political hack willing to pull punches for money and power. 88
Posted by Prozium on August 22, 2009, 03:42 PM | # I’m still not buying the argument that it was all Hitler’s fault; that his regime was so intrinsically awful that the Allies were left with no choice but to wage an ideological war against the Axis and construct the postwar international human rights regime in its wake. The postwar order was envisioned and planned several years before the full extent of German atrocities became known. Naturally, it raises several obvious questions: 1.) Why did the British elite react so negatively and forcefully to the Third Reich? All of these lines of inquiry lead back to the liberalism of the British public and ruling class. I showed in my last post that Britain had been soaking in liberalism for over a century before the Second World War. At least half of British voters had been voting for leftwing parties for around a hundred years. By 1939, these voters had travelled further down the leftwing road from classical liberalism to socialism. While not “liberal” by today’s standards, they certainly were by those of 1939. By “liberalism,” what do I mean? Certain philosophical notions about fundamental individual rights and liberties, self government, equality, tolerance, and economic exchange. In 1939, there was a long established ideological and moral consensus about these matters in Britain that crossed party lines, a minimum that almost all Britons could agree to, as was also the case in the United States. It was through this lens that Britons saw the Third Reich. Hitler was said to be a nasty authoritarian dictator, a bully of smaller nations, a racist who persecuted the Jewish minority and violated their rights and freedoms, etc. In other words, Herr Hitler was found guilty of not being a liberal. This was what was so objectionable about him. Here’s an excerpt from a random speech by Churchill that hits all of these themes:
In the speech above, Churchill is appealing to these consensus liberal principles and creating a polarization between freedom-loving Britons and dictatorship-worship amongst the Nazis. Tellingly, he claims that “racial persecution” harkens back to the Dark Ages. It was precisely rhetoric and propaganda of this sort in the wartime years that created the impression (which has been with us ever since) that racialism is intrinsically hateful and immoral. The liberalism of the British public and ruling class was the decisive factor that determined their negative reaction to the Third Reich. The roots of the postwar human rights order can be traced back to reigning liberal consensus moral principles that existed before the war. As I have said repeatedly, it didn’t spring from a vacuum sui generis. Face it, Dan: if the British had been more like the Finns, the Italians, the Spanish, the Argentines, the Afrikaners, or the Portuguese, which is to say, less liberal than they otherwise were, there probably wouldn’t have been a war; the racial masochism that followed would never have existed. Churchill was like a man who drives a bus off a cliff. Even if it wasn’t his intention, his efforts played no small part in launching Britain in the direction it has taken, which is why he is considered the “greatest Briton” of all time (as opposed to Oswald Mosley or Enoch Powell) in the multicult UK. 89
Posted by White Preservationist on August 22, 2009, 04:13 PM | # Desmond Jones - regarding the Jews in South Africa, yes they were generally accepted as ‘White’ there simply because of the overwhelming number of Blacks. Thus Jews had no choice but to seek unity with the truly White/Europeans who were living in South Africa. Also, Jews were and still are the main utilizers of Black slave/semi-slave labor in the diamond mines in South Africa; Jews have been running the international diamond trade for well over two centuries now, with Jews and Jewish families owning and running nearly all of the South African diamond mines ever since they were created. Thus Jews are the people most responsible for exploiting Blacks in the South African diamond mines, not just South African ‘Whites’ in general. You were probably already aware of all this, but I’m just stating it out for those people who might be reading this who might’ve been unaware. 90
Posted by Captainchaos on August 22, 2009, 09:07 PM | # As a mitigating factor, Churchill did try to “keep England White,” but was too old at the time to put enough vigor into the project. 91
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 22, 2009, 10:01 PM | #
He must have become financially solvent by that point, no longer in need of Jewish loans (maybe the books he wrote did well?). 92
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 23, 2009, 12:11 AM | #
Irish Catholics from Al Smith to JFK were more than willing to ally with Jews to undermine WASP America. n/a writes: Seymour Martin Lipset pointed out in 1955:
93
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 23, 2009, 12:26 AM | #
In Canada, Ontario Premier Leslie Frost,
94
Posted by Al Ross on August 23, 2009, 03:12 AM | # Unfortunately, CC, Churchill’s supposed effort to keep Britain White did not extend to the point of sponsoring legislation designed to abolish the UK right of abode to which the Empire’s non-White citizenry were entitled. 95
Posted by Al Ross on August 23, 2009, 04:09 AM | # It is surely a triumph of innate Jewish perversity that, as anyone who has read any history knows, the natural intellectual process of revisionism (even unto the hallowed status of Churchill) pertains to every topic of historical interest, with the exception of the Chosenites’ Hollowhoax. 96
Posted by Felim on August 23, 2009, 06:52 AM | # Pre-WWII Britain doesn’t strike me as a particularlly liberal country. Ahem, - -Aliens Restriction Act, 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. c. 12) -Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919 (4 & 5 Geo. c. 92) -Aliens Order, 1920 -Special Restrictions (Coloured Alien Seamen) Order, 1925 97
Posted by LONG DIE CHURCHILL! on August 23, 2009, 09:43 AM | # LONG DIE CHURCHILL! - http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42450000/jpg/_42450893_churchill_vandalised300.jpg 98
Posted by VanSpeyk on August 23, 2009, 12:32 PM | # An old review in American Renaissance (August 1992) of an even older book (1923) shows that even before the war things were beginning to change. I am talking of The Philosophy of Nationalism by Charles Josey, in whose view “there was one great question on which all else depended: would the white nations maintain their loyalties to culture, nation, and race, or abandon those loyalties in the name of universal brotherhood? The answer to that question would govern the course of history.” http://www.amren.com/ar/1992/08/#article1 Well, we all know how that turned out. Did anyone here ever read the book? 99
Posted by herman on August 23, 2009, 01:47 PM | # If Churchill had accepted Hitler’s peace offer in late 1940, he’d have saved some twenty million lives, the British empire, and the freedom of Eastern Europe. But all this did not matter to him as much as his personal political ambition. Peace with Germany in 1940 or early 1941 would have been the end of his political career. He had lost the battle of Norway and the battle of France, later the battle on the Balcans, he had sacrified the lives of some 50000 British soldiers, he had spent tremendous sums on war efforts, and had nothing to show for it at that time. That’s why he refused Hitler’ offer, that’s why he kept Rudolf Hess, Hitlers last peace messenger, in solitary confinement. Hatred of Germans and ideology may have played a role too, but his strongest motive was his personal ambition. 100
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 23, 2009, 01:59 PM | # The Amren article Van Speyk linked was good. So was the Arthur Jensen interview on the same Amren page: 101
Posted by Dan Dare on August 23, 2009, 07:19 PM | # Prozium, I want to respond to several of your points, which I’ll now do, but I also want defer my refutation of the argument that, in the inter-war years, Britain was ‘steeped in liberalism’ to a another, separate posting.
I don’t know where such an argument was made. The term ‘Hitler’s Revenge’ is intended ironically. What I am attempting to show is that the abhorrence of Nazi racial policies was a necessary, if not sufficient, catalyst for the post-war order. Besides providing the essential propellant for the creation of the whole post-war human rights infrastructure, didn’t Truman also invoke them to justify the recognition of the state of Israel over the objections of the State Department? The same arguments were used in Britain to sideline Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, who was also implacably opposed to recognising Israel.
I don’t believe that’s actually the case. Each of the several foundational components of the international human rights regime that I cited above came into existence in the period after 1948, well after the scale of Nazi atrocities had became known. The Nuremberg IMT proceedings had already concluded in 1946, and other war crimes trials were already in progress, some of which including the Bergen-Belsen Auschwitz trial were already concluded as early as 1945. The general public as well as, more importantly, elite opinion formers were well aware of the worst of the excesses by the end of 1945, if not earlier. Our old Mam always used to say when asked about the war that the two worst things were ‘the concentration camps and them atom bombs’. This from a woman whose own family had, to use the official euphemism, been ‘de-housed’ during the Blitz. Her perception of the camps, and of Germans generally, were formed indelibly by the images and descriptions that came out of the liberation of Bergen-Belsen in April, 1945. Joanne Reilly describes the general public reaction thus in Belsen: The liberation of a concentration camp:
So to turn to your ‘Six Points’, in turn:
I’m not at all certain they did, at least not until quite late in the day. During the 1930s, the key imperative was to avoid another war at all costs – memories were still fresh of the bloodletting on the Western Front in 1914-18. The prevailing idiom was appeasement, not least amongst the elites. A number of establishment figures visited Germany in the mid-thirties and returned impressed with the socio-economic achievements of the NS regime, the Duke of Windsor and David Lloyd George being just two prominent examples. Many other members of the elite either overtly or covertly opposed hostility towards Germany; see for example Ian Kershaw’s Making friends with Hitler. Even Halifax ‘turned’ relatively late, perhaps responding to the public mood which underwent a sea-change following the annexation of Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939. Prior to that, the general mood was one sanguinity. Nobody got particularly excited about the Anschluss or the Sudetenland, the latter at least was widely regarded as rectifying one of the blunders made at Versailles. However, the invasion and dismemberment of Czechoslovakia was a step beyond an invisible line in the sand in the British view, and led directly to the Polish Guarantees and all that ensued from that. Perhaps if more members of the elite (and the public) had responded to Churchill’s exhortations to stand up to Hitler while he was still weak, much of the later catastrophe might have been avoided.
I think the answer should be fairly obvious, but in brief, I believe they came to see Hitler and Nazism as an existential threat to the ‘British way of life’. If I had told my Dad that the six years he spent in RAF Bomber Command were part of an ideological crusade against racialism, nationalism, eugenics, and anti-Semitism, he would have asked me what I’d been drinking.
I don’t know of any western country which did not share the general feelings of revulsion to the Nazi excesses in eastern Europe. In a number of western countries, Holland being one, there is still today a broad undercurrent of anti-German feeling as a result of the wartime experiences.
For a variety of reasons. Some were opportunistic, hoping for territorial gains and restoration of their own empire (Italy), some were fearful of Germany and decided to go along for safety’s sake (Hungary), some were fearful of Russia and saw an alliance with Germany as the best way to guard against Soviet expansionism (Finland, Rumania, Bulgaria), and a few were animated by racial animus against the Jews (the Arabs in Palestine and the Middle East, maybe Slovakia) or other ethnicities (Croats). Others, who might otherwise been thought of as potential allies, if not active supporters, chose to stay neutral (Spain, Portugal, Turkey).
I’m uncertain what you mean by ‘polarized’. I’ve been looking through Anthony Rhodes’ excellent Propaganda – The Art of Persuasion: World War II, which includes many examples of propaganda posters and leaflets produced by the major belligerents. From my perspective, the most strident examples are those from the Axis powers, Italy surprisingly taking an even more hostile approach than the Germans. Some of the German efforts are quite frankly baffling. I mean, what, exactly, was the point of issuing a ‘parody’ postage stamp of King George VI (a scion of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty) with a Star of David on top of his crown? Who was going to be duped by that?
Well, as I think has been probably become apparent by now, my own view is that the process received its essential impetus from the reaction (elite and public) to the excesses and atrocities of the racial policies of the Third Reich. What else is there to explain the dramatic step change in attitudes between 1939 and 1945? Prior to the war, supranational organisations were not-existent; the League of Nations had been a total fiasco. Then a few short years after the war, the United Nations was formed. Prior to the war Jewish refugees from Central and Eastern Europe were denied sanctuary in every western democracy, although some like the US and Britain did grudgingly admit a small proportion. In 1939, Britain even terminated Jewish immigration into Palestine. Countries like France and Poland were actively considering exporting their own Jewish population to Africa. Then by 1951 the UN Convention on Refugees had been ratified. How to explain this fundamental shift if not by reference to the H? What else happened between the years in question that could explain the phenomenon? If, as is being claimed, the post-war order was merely an extrapolation of earlier, existing trends, what was it that caused ‘liberalism’ and in particular universalism to advance further in the ten years after WW II than it had in the previous two hundred?
They may do so within the confines of your preferred narrative, but when taken together, and by any objective measure, they fail to persuade. As stated, I’m deferring further discussion of the state of British liberalism in the inter-war period to a separate post which will be appearing later today or perhaps tomorrow. In the meantime let me quickly respond to a couple of further points.
It won’t have escaped notice I’m sure that the speech was directed towards an American audience rather than a British one. There’s an element of playing to the gallery about it, certainly ‘racial persecution’ was in truth not something that Churchill himself lost much sleep about. As Andrew Roberts notes in Eminent Churchillians: “Churchill’s racial assumptions occupied a prime place in his political philosophy… He was a convinced white supremacist and thought in terms of race to a degree that was remarkable even by the standards of his own time” [p.211]. He may have had half an eye on the Roosevelt’s Jewish coterie, perhaps believing that by appearing to take up their cause he might provide a nudge to US policy, in favour of Britain and to Germany’s disadvantage. It hard to see what else he might have had in mind since holding forth on racial persecution to an American audience would otherwise seem to be risky strategy. As for Churchill’s supposed ‘preoccupation’ with respect to racial persecution of Jews in particular, his own six-volume history gives the lie to that. In its three-thousand odd pages, there are less than two dozen references to Jews. The great majority of those relate to Palestine, and particularly the nuisance that Jews are creating for the British mandate there. There are just two references to ‘Nazi persecution’, one of those recording his veto of Eichmann’s ‘Trucks for Jews’ proposal.
Prozium this is almost embarrassingly facile. Even at that late stage, Britain was still a great world power with a quarter of the world’s population within its Empire. With that status come rights and responsibilities which simply don’t apply to geopolitical tiddlers who can serenely paddle their own canoes in puddles of their own liking. It’s not a matter of liberalism – there’s the question of national prestige as well. How would Britain have been perceived in the world at large, and especially within its own Empire, if it had turned a blind eye to Hitler’s aggressive militarism and continued to ignore his bullying and assaults against his neigbours? Sooner or later it had to be confronted. 102
Posted by Captainchaos on August 23, 2009, 08:37 PM | # Dare, you continue to gloss over and muddy the distinction between perception and reality, all with the motif of English correctness of action predicated on said. Your house of cards will come crashing down unless you can demonstrate that in fact Jewish machinations and the progress of liberalism would not have brought us to where we are now but for the perception of the “misdeeds” of the “beastly” Krauts. If you cannot, you would be honor bound to admit the English fucked up, but I doubt you ever would. Btw, please do remember that as a racist the sight of niggers cavorting with English women turns your stomach, and I’ll bet you wish you could ‘do something about it’. Just what would ‘that’ be? 103
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 24, 2009, 03:06 AM | # Jews and Irish Catholics riot in the streets of London and Englishmen lose their right to free assembly. 104
Posted by Britain on August 24, 2009, 02:42 PM | #
Both Dan Dare’s and Guessedworker’s fathers were in the RAF mass murdering and fire bombing German civilians with white phosophorus ( http://www.whale.to/b/walsh1.html ), yet they go on prattling about “German atrocities”. Some would call it chuzpah! In any case, they obviously have a vested interested in demonizing the Third Reich and their attitudes towards Germans have a distinguished family pedigree. I recently heard that over 40% of Black males in Britain live with White females. En-joy! Maybe the aliens replacing the indigenous population will be more pragmatic and rational. 105
Posted by Dan Dare on August 24, 2009, 02:57 PM | # The RAF learnt all it needed to know about the effectiveness of incendiary bombs through observation of the Luftwaffe’s use of that technique during the Blitz, in particular the raid on Coventry on 14th November 1940. 106
Posted by Britain on August 24, 2009, 03:10 PM | # DD, you know your history much better than you let on. Why don’t you own up to what your father did! Be proud of your old man! He, and his fellow RAF members, sure taught those nasty Krauts a lesson! Be proud! They sure showed them! Don’t run away from those accomplishments, DD.
99. J. M. Spaight, Bombing Vindicated (London: Geoffrey Bles, Ltd., 1944) and Sir Arthur Harris, bomber Offensive (London: Collins, 1947).
107
Posted by Dan Dare on August 24, 2009, 03:15 PM | # To cite Sir Arthur “Bomber” Harris, AOC RAF Bomber Cammand: “He has sown the wind, and now he must reap the whirlwind” 108
Posted by Britain on August 24, 2009, 03:19 PM | # ...All one needs to know about MR’s predictably anti-German flavor is to know that both GW’s father and D.D.‘s were in the RAF during the war; and all things fall into place. As to Britain’s antipathy to Germany predating the Third Reich by at least a hundred years, so much has been written about it that it seems redundant to add anything. It’s a well-established historical fact. It didn’t matter if it were Mother Teresa or Adolf Hitler as leader, the reaction to German attempts at reversing the outrageous spoliation of the Versailles Diktat would’ve been exactly the same. 109
Posted by Britain on August 24, 2009, 03:21 PM | # That’s the spirit, D.D.! I like that! You sure showed them! 111
Posted by Britain on August 24, 2009, 04:28 PM | # Britain today is arguably the filthiest, most degenerate, most decadent, feminized, niggerized, judaized, weakest, and where the loony anti-White Left rules like no where else on the continent. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6806502.ece 112
Posted by Friedrich Braun on August 24, 2009, 04:39 PM | # I know why you picked Winnipeg, Fade. 113
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 24, 2009, 05:43 PM | #
Source: The Communist Party of Great Britain since 1920
Cable Street riot
114
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 24, 2009, 06:13 PM | #
115
Posted by Sid on August 25, 2009, 12:45 AM | # Some of the comments on this article are hilarious - (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6806502.ece) ‘‘And I thought we were nuts in the US with all our “political correctness.” No wonder you Brits lost your Empire. What spineless idiocy. Why don’t you get your backs up and tell these people they are fools? Please, you’ve been leaders before. You can do it again and we need you.’‘ 116
Posted by Dan Dare on August 25, 2009, 12:58 AM | # So here’s the promised (threatened?) second part of my response to Prozium, intended to provide a refutation of the notion that inter-war Britain was a liberal society. It will also probably be my final word in this particular thread (hurrah! the cry goes up), unless any dispute arises about matters of fact. In his previous post Prozium said:
I hope you’re not making the assumption that the Liberal Party in the 19th century was ‘liberal’ or left-wing as we would understand it. It was not; it represented the interests of big business and commerce, as opposed to the Conservative Party, which represented the aristocracy and the landed gentry. There was no left-wing party to vote for until the very end of the century, the Labour Party only gained its first two MPs in 1900. So it is not correct to state that at least half of British voters had been voting for left-wing parties for around a hundred years [by 1939].
The voters who were travelling down the ‘left-wing road’ had never been classical (economic) liberals; the latter were always supporters of the Liberal Party which, by the 1930s was expiring on its feet. The ‘left-wing roaders’ were the Labour-voting working class and a tiny number of middle-class intellectuals. Most of the former had only received the franchise in 1918, when the size of the electorate almost trebled overnight through the extension of suffrage to all males (and females) over 21. Prior to 1918 little more than half of all male adults were entitled to vote, the remainder being disqualified as non-property owning. The question then arises, just how liberal were these new left-wingers? I’d have to say, not very. In many respects they were more conservative than the conservatives, at least in many aspects of social policy. Practices that were condoned, tolerated or even surreptiously indulged in by intellectuals and the upper classes – such as homosexuality, adultery, even miscegenation (eg with Jews) – were reviled by the working class. Their attitudes on a wide range of social issues - capital punishment, racial prejudice, foreigners in general, illegitimacy – were consistently less liberal than elite opinion. We can can observe today similar attitudes among the white working class, who form the core ofsupport for the British National Party. This highlights the folly in attempting to equate ‘left-wing’ or even socialism, in its non-Marxian pre-war context, with ‘liberalism’.
By and large I would agree with this, except for the matter of equality. The class hierarchy was still very much in place in Britain and there was little social mobility. And given this rigid social structure, the attitude of the public - and particularly the supposedly ‘left-wing’ working class, which constituted 75% of the population – towards other races meant that they would be considered as being even lower on the totem pole than the white working class. This was easily discernible in the colonies, most of which had a three-tier racial heirarchy with whites (of all ranks) forming the upper tier, an intermediate tier comprising Indians and perhaps some Jews, and the lowest tier where the ‘natives’ would be grouped. Anyone visiting, say, Trinidad or Guyana would immediately recognise the legacy of this system of racial segregation, although most of the Europeans have now long since departed or merged into the dominant gene pool. In some other ex-colonies (especially in black Africa) the Indians have disappeared too. What your definition of liberalism fails to take into account is that there is a world of difference between caring about individual rights within a society and actively seeking to promote those same concepts outside it. Except for a few oddballs, pre-war Britons of all classes saw no contradiction between demanding particular rights for themselves, and denying those rights to others, say Indians. Similarly, they could also be quite comfortable that people in Germany, for example, might not have the same rights of freedom and expression and association that Englishmen enjoyed. That’s hard luck for the Germans, but nothing that we need be concerned about. That is a fundamental distinction to be drawn between the pre-war idiom and the post-war.
Yes Hitler was perceived as a bully and above all a shady, duplicitous character who could not be trusted, but that aside I’m afraid that this is a complete misreading of British attitudes towards Nazi Germany. Almost no-one cared very much what Hitler got up to in his own back yard. There was no great swelling of public opinion against Nazi policies towards the Jews; reaction to the Nuremberg Laws was muted, what Hitler did to rid himself of that troublesome minority, which was not greatly loved in Britain either (see below), was not of major concern as long as they didn’t get pushed our way. It’s often forgotten that the British had themselves lobbied hard for a Jewish homeland in Uganda, and that one of the principal motivations behind the Balfour Declaration was the hope that the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine would entice many Jews from Britain and elsewhere to emigrate there. In that respect, it prefigures the Transfer Agreement concluded between the Nazi government and various Zionist organisations in 1933. Balfour, it will be recalled, was prime minister at the time the Uganda Plan was floated and also one of the main sponsors of the 1905 Aliens Order, which was specifically enacted to prevent further Jewish immigration into Britain. Balfour’s enthusiasm for Zionism was in effect a product of his anti-semitism (see, for example, Tom Segev’s One Palestine, Complete p41) Any claim, therefore, that Britain went to war in 1939, or even continued to prosecute the war, on behalf of Jewish interests or as a reaction to Nazi ‘racial persecution’ are simply without foundation. The notion is completely risible.
Had the war not occurred there is simply no plausible reason to assume that the changes that took place in the post-war period would have happened as they did. There was no comparable reaction in the aftermath of the First World War, even though for some of the principal combatants (especially France and Britain) the wartime experience was even more traumatic. There was no great upswell of support for ‘liberalism’, no calls for ‘universal’ human rights, no cries for an end to the ‘colour bar’, no demands for equal rights, little if any support for anti-colonialism and, above all, absolutely no constituency for mass non-white immigration and multiculturalism. And yet, in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, all these concerns, which had not been on the agenda in the late 30s, came to occupy centre stage.
The extract are all from publications in my personal possession; with access to a library database much, much more in similar vein could have been turned up.
First, some comments by Ian Spencer on official attitudes to coloured immigration in the inter-war period: ‘Before the substantial inward movement of of the post-Second World War began, official policy displayed a clear hostility towards the settlement in Britain of non-white communities of significant size’ ( Spencer p 4) Speaking of West Indian and African seamen who had attempted to remain in port on arrival, a Home Office communiqué read ‘Their presence is socially very undesirable and gives rise to “trouble” . The police are very anxious to get rid of them.” (p 11) This was in 1921, and followed the serious race riots in several port cities in 1919 which resulted in five deaths. ‘In the inter-war years the government developed another method to keep out British subjects that it did not want … [it] caused various of its overseas agencies to restrict the issue of travel documents, and in particular to refuse them to certain classes of persons that it wished to keep out.’ (p 12) The policies clearly worked; Spencer states that according to an official estimate the settled population of blacks and Asians was no more than around around 7000 in 1939. As late as the 1950s more than half of the population had never seen a black person. For that reason, it is difficult to make a case for or against the presence of widespread racial prejudice in pre-war Britain using opinion polls as we are used to today. There were simply so few non-whites in the country that the issue never arose at the national level. In the absence of national surveys about public attitudes to race, anecdotal reportage will have to suffice. Although few Britons would have encountered non-whites on home turf, many more developed a racial consciousness through overseas services in the Empire. My own father spent much of military career overseas and the negative attitudes that he formed then towards ‘natives’ would stay with with him the rest of his life. By the outbreak of war millions of Britons like him would have served abroad in a military,commercial or administrative function, and returned home ‘racially aware’, as we say today. Lawrence James helps explain how the British became ‘racists’ in a country in which almost everybody was of the same racial background.
117
Posted by Dan Dare on August 25, 2009, 01:03 AM | # DD to prozium, Part the Third James later notes that such ‘racial arrogance was not limited to India, but endemic throughout the Empire.
Racial ‘hauteur’ was not only a characteristic of the upper classes, even lowly Tommies were affected.
The tone for the inter-war period had been set by the 1905 Aliens Order, the very first restrictionist legislation enacted in Britain, and specifically intended to prevent a repetition of the large influx of Eastern European Jews who arrived as refugees from the Russian Empire in the late 19C. This was followed and expanded upon by the 1920 Aliens Order. According to Lappin:
The feeling on the left was not much different even when the scale of the Nazi persecution became apparent in the mid 1930s.
The undesirabililty of admitting large numbers of Jews was also reflected in official policy:
Endelman goes to recount the rise and fall of the BUF, and the persistence of anti-Semitism throughout the war. Other commentators, such as Philip Ziegler and Angus Calder, maintain that anti-Semitism actually reached a peak during the war itself, citing many of the same public perceptions as Endelman.
Sources Ian Spencer, British Immigration Policy since 1939 Lawrence Rees, Raj: the Making and Unmaking of British India Shalom Lappin, This Green and Pleasant Land: Britain and the Jews Todd Endelman, The Jews of Britain – 1856 to 2000 Angus Calder, The People’s War 1939-1945 Philip Ziegler, London at War 118
Posted by GenoType on August 25, 2009, 01:05 AM | #
A whirlwind enabled by American production of British fighter and transport aircraft. This allowed Britain to concentrate on bomber production. Russian peasants advancing on the ground. American farmboys and British serfs bringing death from above, enabled by U.S. industry “across the pond.” What’s not to like? Definitely a win-win game for Winnie the Pooh and the UK’s upper classes. 119
Posted by GenoType on August 25, 2009, 01:43 AM | # “Sowing the whirlwind.” Brave words from Sir Arthur. Let’s tame the propaganda a bit. There was zero possibility that Britain could win the war, by itself, after the fall of France. Victory over the British upper class meant Hitler would have controlled all of Europe, its industry, arms, advanced weapon development programs, and the British fleet. American farmboys could not have challenged him from “across the pond.” (Here we see how America’s primary military advantage could become a disadvantage.) Soooo, Roosevelt had Congress pass The Lend-Lease Act. Signed into law on 11 March, 1941, the Act empowered the president to “sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of” military articles to “any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.” By war’s end Congress had appropriated $50 billion for Lend-Lease. The lion’s share, totaling $31.6 billion, went to Great Britain (for aircraft and shipping); the second largest share, worth some $11 billion, went to the Soviet Union (for small arms and artillery). 120
Posted by GenoType on August 25, 2009, 01:45 AM | # Ooops! Did I say “sowing the whirlwind?” I meant “reaping the whirlwind,” of course. 121
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 25, 2009, 01:43 PM | # In light of the evidence, continued post war anti-Semitism, the resurrection of the BUF, the actions of the Communist Party and Jewish antifa groups and the reluctance of the then post war Labour government to do anything to curtail the activities to of the BUF, may we lay the “seachange” myth to rest. Nazi racial policies, as attested to by the leader of the Jewish antifa,
had little effect upon people’s thinking about Jews after the war. 122
Posted by Dan Dare on August 25, 2009, 02:28 PM | # Attitudes towards Jews and attitudes towards Nazi atrocities were not necessarily two ends of the same string. It was perfectly rational to despise Jews and to want to be rid of them (especially in light of the ongoing Jewish terrorism in Palestine) while at the same time feeling repugnance at the barbaric cruelties that the Germans inflicted on Jews (and others) during the war. It would be misleading to over-emphasise the post-war importance of the BUF, especially when based such a position on the histrionic propaganda of Jewish ‘antifas’. After 1945 the BUF (actually the Union Movement) was an extremely pale shadow of its pre-war self no matter what self-serving latter-day Jewish mythologists would have us believe. 123
Posted by Matra on August 25, 2009, 02:35 PM | # Until the Americans (particular Jewish-Americans) took control of the historical narrative of WW2 it was, for the most part, interpreted as a Great Powers war fought for geopolitical reasons. American cultural hegemony of the West changed WW2 into a moral crusade for anti-racism, internationalism, and the democracy God. 124
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 25, 2009, 03:20 PM | # Notting Hill riots; more seachange?
125
Posted by Dan Dare on August 25, 2009, 04:04 PM | # Desmond, we’re getting far off beam here, the Notting Hill riots happened in 1958. The important period for present purposes is the immediate post-war years in which the political climate was conducive to the radical changes that resulted in, amongst other things, large scale coloured immigration into Britain. As a matter of fact, the Notting Hill riots were the essential catalyst which caused the Conservative government to finally climb down off the fence and introduce legislation which would terminate primary immigration from the ‘New’ Commonwealth. This took the form of the 1961 Immigration Act. 126
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 25, 2009, 05:12 PM | # Large scale New Commonwealth immigration didn’t occur until the early 1960s.
British Immigration Policy since 1939: The Making of Multi-Racial Britain 127
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 25, 2009, 05:34 PM | # In practice the Act stimulated the growth of the Asian and black population…
1. Source: 1982 Policy Studies Institute Survey. Adapted from C, Brown, Black and White Britain: The Third PSI Survey, Heinemann, London, 1984, p. 27. 128
Posted by Prozium on August 25, 2009, 05:43 PM | # Poor Winnie had nothing to say about the clash between “democracy” and “totalitarianism” in Europe? He didn’t frequently comment on the immorality of Nazi racial discrimination? He didn’t wage a war against Germany in the name of the United Nations? That’s news to me. 129
Posted by Prozium on August 25, 2009, 05:47 PM | # I will have a response up to Dan Dare in a few days. It is a matter of locating and retrieving the relevant sources. 130
Posted by Dan Dare on August 25, 2009, 05:54 PM | # The point is that a coloured population of almost a quarter of a million at the end of the 1950s (Spencer, Table 6, p 117) *was* considered to be large-scale at the time, especially since the population only ten years previously had been effectively zero. The coloured population was certainly large enough and considered to be potentially problematic enough for the 1962 Act to be passed. For the first time in history, Commonwealth citizens would not now have the automatic right of abode in the UK. It’s hard to overemphasise what a ‘sea-change’ that represented. But that aside, what is the point of all this cavilling? Do you have an alternative proposition of your own to put forward Desmond, or are you limiting your ambitions to taking potshots at mine? I’ve set my stall out so it’s only fair that you should reciprocate. 131
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 25, 2009, 07:21 PM | # According to Spencer, (p.21 THE MYTH OF CIVIS BRITANNICUS SUM ), effectively, automatic abode did not exist.
What is your position? First you claim Nazi racial policies produced a mass “seachange” in the thinking of the British public vis-a-vis Jews and blacks. Now you proclaim the “seachange” was the restriction of the automatic right of abode. How does the 1962 restriction link to Nazi racial policies? 132
Posted by Dan Dare on August 25, 2009, 07:39 PM | # ‘Sea-changes’ work in both directions, tides go out as well as in. What the 1962 Act was intended to do was to reverse the provisions of the British Nationality Act 1948 which, as well as codifying the status of all Commonwealth citizens, re-affirmed their general entitlement to right of abode in the United Kingdom. The 1962 Act abrogated that right. The BNA 48 and the 62 Act worked in opposite directions, one towards openness, the other towards exclusion. 133
Posted by Captainchaos on August 26, 2009, 09:34 PM | # GT wrote:
Human sheep. Fuck ‘em. (sarcasm alert) 134
Posted by Captainchaos on August 29, 2009, 01:04 PM | # Sunic tells us why the Jews and their bootlicking enablers hate Krauts:
He identifies Germans as, more or less, the Master Race:
Sunic quotes Freda Utley regarding the bootlicking cowards who triangulate against alleged German “atrocities”:
135
Posted by Kronprinz Wilhelm on August 31, 2009, 03:48 PM | # “The German people, as the synthesis of all European races and residing in the place where North and West meet South and East in Europe, are in many ways the most accomplished of all Indo-European peoples. Rising from the ashes of WWII, they have built the strongest, most productive economy in Europe. Germans have a special sense of space and order (Ordnung and Ortung), which other European peoples do not have to the same degree. ...” Well said! Thank you Dr. Sunic. DAS LIED DER DEUTSCHEN / DEUTSCHLANDLIED http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P7ZnU_wZnM&feature=related Also - German Anthem by Tobey Wilson 136
Posted by Prozium on August 31, 2009, 04:33 PM | # I’m having a delightful time reading through the sources I have acquired, taking notes, and formulating arguments. As a preliminary to my response, I would like to ask Dan if it is fair to call Winston Churchill a ‘liberal’? 137
Posted by Dan Dare on August 31, 2009, 04:55 PM | # Big L or little l? He was certainly the former (twice) but I don’t think anyone could make a serious case that he was the latter, at least not in any sense that we could relate to today in any meaningful way. Some might argue, for example, that in championing the introduction of unemployment insurance and other social welfare measures whilst Home Secretary, Churchill was exhibiting liberal tendencies. But his inspiration for such progressive measures was Bismarck, and the motivation was the same in both cases: industrial peace. Should we therefore consider him a closet liberal too? But go ahead, give it a whirl, this could be fun. 138
Posted by Prozium on August 31, 2009, 05:52 PM | # In both senses, I suppose: 1.) For much of his career, Churchill was formally affiliated with the Liberal Party. He broke with the Conservative Party over ‘free trade’ (having felt that strongly about economic liberalism). As you note, he went on to champion unemployment insurance and social welfare policies. 2.) In my last post, I defined ‘liberalism’ as “certain philosophical notions about fundamental individual rights and liberties, self government, equality, tolerance, and economic exchange.” Churchill’s political philosophy oscillated between classical liberalism and reform liberalism. He was somewhat to the right of FDR. Clearly, his views (on the above) fall along the liberal spectrum. In the Preface of Churchill: A Life, Martin Gilbert describes Churchill as “a consistent and life-long liberal in outlook.” Gilbert provides hundreds of quotations from Churchill in the course of his biography about individual rights, self government, religious and racial tolerance, equality, free trade and so on. 139
Posted by Prozium on August 31, 2009, 06:11 PM | # I’ve also been reading through Churchill’s speeches. In particular, this excerpt from ‘A Total and Unmitigated Defeat’ (delivered before the House of Commons) caught my eye:
In the speech above, Churchill draws a polarized distinction between ‘totalitarian States’ and ‘Liberal and democratic countries’, while including pre-war Britain in the liberal category. Dan has strenuously denied that pre-war Britain was in anyway ‘liberal’ whereas Churchill here says the exact opposite before the House of Commons. 140
Posted by Dan Dare on August 31, 2009, 06:22 PM | # Oh dear, not Martin Gilbert, please. His official biography sails as close to hagiography as David Irving’s does to character assassination. Roy Jenkins, even though a commited political adversary, does a far better job at reaching the essence of the real Churchill, warts and all. Not only that, Jenkins was a proper card-carrying liberal too. 141
Posted by Prozium on August 31, 2009, 06:32 PM | # Martin Gilbert is widely acknowledged to be Churchill’s most authoritative biographer. For several years now, I have owned a copy of Churchill: A Life (the single volume biography), which I reread to check out your assertions. Gilbert has also written a multivolume biography and several other books about Churchill which I don’t possess. I’m planning to pick up Gilbert’s Churchill’s Political Philosophy tomorrow from the library. It should be especially relevant to this discussion. I don’t see how you can argue against the fact that Churchill was a liberal. Gilbert provides hundreds of direct quotations to that effect over the course of several decades ... and that’s just from the single volume biography. There must be thousands of quotations in the multivolume edition that illustrate this. 142
Posted by Dan Dare on August 31, 2009, 06:59 PM | # OK Prozium, I’ll keep quiet until you present your case. Would just like to note, however, that the dispute really centres around whether or not Britain was a liberal society during the interwar years. On that broader canvas, Churchill himself was ultimately a peripheral figure, politically, for much of the time. 143
Posted by Al Ross on September 01, 2009, 04:14 AM | # Churchill was a political grasshopper and his political stridulation was the cause of WW2. 144
Posted by Euro on September 01, 2009, 08:58 AM | # “Martin Gilbert is widely acknowledged to be Churchill’s most authoritative biographer.” Careful Prozium,Gilbert is also Jewish. 145
Posted by Kulaks Never Learn on September 02, 2009, 02:10 AM | # Now even the Russians are getting into the act and (beginning) to recognize the Truth regarding the origins of the Second War of White Genocide, oops, “WW2? -
“The lengthy diatribe, which is unlikely to be welcomed in Warsaw, also lashed out at Britain and France for giving the Poles “delusions of grandeur” by promising to intercede if the Nazis invaded. “”Anyone who has been minded to study the history of the Second World War knows it started because of Poland’s refusal to meet Germany’s requests,” the statement read. “The German demands were very modest. You could hardly call them unfounded.”” [...]
146
Posted by Dan Dare on September 04, 2009, 12:38 PM | # Uh oh, this wasn’t supposed to be in the script. Not many buyers for Squinty Pat’s historical theses, it seems, perhaps he should stick to the Rutting for Jesus campaign in future.
147
Posted by Dan Dare on September 11, 2009, 08:10 PM | # US politician puts blame on Churchill for Second World War Still waiting the transcript from the event itself, however in the meantime some London Evening Standard readers subject Pat Buchanan to intense flak, for example:
Some of his follow panelists were less than complimentary as well:
Nice to see the Special Relationship is still in such rude good health! 148
Posted by Prozium on September 15, 2009, 11:13 AM | # The video of the debate is now playing on C-SPAN: 149
Posted by Ian V. Macdonald on September 24, 2009, 12:56 AM | # In the Associated Press article on yet another Bronfman “restitution” scam (Jan. 17, 2001) the following bald statement appears: “Hitler’s forces…slaughtered six million Jews and five million others and enslaved 12 million to use as labour in Germany’s war effort”. Surely, 55 years after the end of the War, no legitimate purpose is served by attempting to perpetuate this vicious anti-German hate propanganda. It may even be illegal to do so, unless Germans are excluded from protection under the Human Rights legislation. In any event, the “six million” canard has long since been discredited, beginning with Winston Churchill’s definitive “history of the Second World War” in which he pointedly omits any reference to execution “gas chambers”, a subject with which he would have been well informed through British Intelligence and would have given prominent coverage, had they existed. Other, less fastidious, historians seeking to ingratiate themselves with potential benefactors, have chosen to give credence to the “gas chambers” story (or rather, stories, since “eye-witness” accounts differ radically) but until now no one has been able to produce a shred of forensic evidence that even one Jew died from gassing or any form of organized mega-killing. Had such taken place, obviously, as any crematorium operator or physicist can confirm, there would have been literally a mountain of evidence to attest to the fact, especially where only coal and wood were available for fuel and many thousands of victims “burned in pits” where combustion would not have been complete. As for the “12 million slaves”, there is similarly a lack of evidence to support the story. Very large numbers of non-Germans were employed in the German war effort but according to Prof. A. S. Millward (Edinburgh and Stanford Universities) the foremost authority on the subject and author of “The German Economy at War”, the “foreign workers were not slaves. Nor for the most part were they prisoners”. Most would have been motivated by the job opportunities and higher wages, then as now, and by opposition to communism. The reference in the AP article to “five million others” is not clear. Certainly, millions died during and immediately after the war, a good proportion at the hands of our Glorious Russian Ally whose sickening barbarism in crushing ethnic Germans, Ukranians, Balts and other freedom-seeking minorities is unrivalled in modern European history. Stalin’s chief executioner, ironically but not coincidentally, was Ilya Ehrenberg who, along with a good proportion of the bloodthirsty Commissars, was a Jew. Not far behind in the killing stakes was Certified War Hero and Saviour of the British Empire Winston Churchill, mentor of Air Marshall “Bomber” Harris who, I regret to say as a former member of the RCAF, waged war on defenceless women and children, killing many hundreds of thousands, at the same time gleefully destroying a priceless legacy of European architectural treasures. The perversity of the uncivilized bombing offensive against civilian targets is accentuated by the fact that Germany offered Britain an honourable peace in 1940 and as a gesture of good faith permitted the evacuation of British troops at Dunkirk. In an unprecedented act of treachery, Warlord Churchill contemptuously rejected the peace offer, doomed Britain as a world power and set the stage for Stalin’s ultimate conquest of Eastern Europe and for the post-war international turmoil which has shown no sign of abatement. The Allied mega-killing of German civilians has been rationalized by anti-German historians as inevitable collateral damage or occasionally as an attempt to “demoralize” the enemy. RCAF and RAF aircrews who carried out the raids were not informed that the intention was to kill good Christian women and children and unquestioningly sacrificed their young lives and the happiness of their families to the diabolical bombing campaign. Near the War’s end however, the truth began to emerge, RCAF Wing Commander Giff Gifford’s crews, for example, being informed by their British briefing officer that “we have a real juicy one for you tonight, gentlemen. It’s Dresden, and it’s packed with rerfugees”. The spectre of these desperate women and children fleeing Soviet butchery and rape only to die horribly at our hands in a genuine holocaust, haunted Gifford for the rest of his life. (This anecdote was contained in his testimony to the CBC “Valour and the the Horror” enquiry that took place shortly before he died). When the true history of the sinister origin and purposes of World War II emerges, if ever, it will show a very different picture from that of a struggle to “save civilization from Nazi tyranny”. It will show that Germany was our natural ally, was the victim of a war contrived by a vengeful minority, that Godless, expansionist communism and avaricious Zionism were the true enemies of Mankind, that Western Civilization was the loser and the only winners, as in the case of virtually all wars, were the money-changers who, as Bronfman so brazenly demonstrates, continue to profit. Ian V. Macdonald, former Canadian diplomat 150
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 24, 2009, 09:31 AM | #
The money-changers and the race-replacers:
About a year-and-a-half ago I read a long report at Fdesouche.com on the activities and the successes of a quasi-governmental group in France (I forget its name), staffed partly by naturalized Maghrebians together with the usual mixture of the walking braindead including of course plenty of clueless twenty-something French females just out of university and still angry at their white fathers and white ex-boyfriends and ready to take revenge along the lines taught them by their Jewish uni profs, a quasi-governmental agency which had as its aim the settlement of (non-white North-African and Sub-Saharan-African Negro) immigrants away from the big cities and the “banlieus” surrounding the big cities, and instead into the small towns and tiny villages of rural France (where there is no work for these immigrants but these non-whites live entirely on government welfare payments, so that’s no obstacle). In the article, the person being interviewed, a young second-generation North African “Frenchwoman” who headed one of the local agencies of this organization, was very happy with its successes, and they showed photos of some of the rural French areas that were being deliberately filled up with Cameroonians and so on. Anyone concerned about the race-replacement crisis immediately, on reading this article, thought to himself, “There goes the last reservoir of biological Frenchmen, rural France: what diabolical mind thought this project up?” Then, in something like the last line of the article, almost as an afterthought — it might have been a footnote — it mentioned the group’s official “advisor.” You’ll never guess what ethnicity the name sounded like. Don’t even try — you’ll never get it, it’s so unlikely. The group’s official “advisor” was a Frenchman named “Hirsch.” Now, I admit that could be a Christian name from Alsace ............................ But I googled the guy and found him (sorry, I can’t recall his first name but he turned out to be a known quantity in extreme “left-wing” circles in France), and his bio read like an integral copy of that of someone like Julien Dray, if one gets my drift — a typical, typical, typical specimen of ...... well ........ a typical specimen of someone who wouldn’t be a Christian from Alsace ................. This ilk and their allies were the winners of World War II. Guess who were the losers? (Got a mirror? ….) 151
Posted by Wandrin on September 28, 2009, 09:31 AM | # Churchill was flawed. Hitler was flawed. Churchill was half-right. Hitler was half-right. Any more of a compromise than that will never work. Hitler correctly analyzed the threat of Bolshevism and the jews however his planned method of dealing with the problem was built on German supremacy. Churchill reacted as a British nationalist to that claim of German supremacy - as did the French, Czechs, Poles etc. White nationalism has to be nationalism++ i.e a claim of right to exist as separate sovereign blood nations within agreed borders in our respective homelands plus the acceptance of the same right for the other white and allied nations. The balance of hero/villain between Hitler and Churchill needs to be made more 50/50 as the current balance puts non-German nationalism above white nationalism but trying to reverse it completely requires all the other white nations to accept the right of the Germans to be supreme. Politically speaking that is an entirely pointless and self-defeating line to take. Seperately, on the question of the post-war collapse in white ethno-centricity. There wasn’t one. It happened later through cinema and television with jews and marxists using the holocult, slavery and colonialism to create overpowering white guilt. There are many horrific things in history but in the past people could only read about them. It was seeing white people endlessly portrayed in films and television doing evil things for ethno-centric reasons that poisoned the immune system of the white nations and led us where we are. 152
Posted by Friedrich Braun Part I on October 02, 2009, 11:26 PM | # German Patriot Reflects On September 1939 Die Kriegschuld-Lüge Lies About German War Guilt By Jürgen Rieger www.juergen-rieger.de
Once again we have another round-number date to observe: the 70th anniversary of the invasion of Poland . The truth is that the German-Polish war began on 1 September 1939, and this local war became a European war with England’s and France’s declaration of war against the Third Reich on 3 September. Unlike the Western leaders, Hitler had realistically evaluated the dangers posed by the bolshevik Soviet Union. The German minority had been disfranchised in the 1920s, and in the 1930s it was subjected to open terror, murder and rape, especially in the months preceding September 1939. For 300 years Britain had pursued a “Balance of Power” policy of allying herself with the second most powerful nation against the most powerful. It is a mistake to maintain that the entry of German troops into Czechoslovakia on 15 March 1939 brought about a change in Britain’s policy toward the Reich. Hitler was concerned about the threat to German cities and industrial areas that was posed by Czech air bases. It is very clear that Hitler did not violate the Munich accord. Just two days later, however, in sharp contrast to this explanation given in the British lower house, Chamberlain condemned the “German invasion” in his Birmingham speech of 17 March 1939; and on 31 March 1939 he signed an agreement with the Polish government in which Great Britain promised to support Poland in the event of war. So how did it come about that England encouraged Poland to go to war against Germany? 153
Posted by Friedrich Braun Part II on October 02, 2009, 11:28 PM | # It could be that Tileda’s false allegations about German threats were inspired by Rumania’s needing British economic assistance, and he was desperately trying to persuade Britain to grant this assistance. As Hitler well understood, Chamberlain was playing for time in order to displace Germany as the leading power on the Continent as soon as Britain, which had enormously increased its armaments program, would have adequate trained men and materiel. http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/HomePage28April2009/Rieger_09.htm On 29 March 1939, before the British-Polish Pact, Colvin met with Chamberlain at the instigation of Churchill. Since the British guarantee of 31 March 1939 gave Poland carte blanche in its dealings with Germany, Poland intensified its persecutions of the German minority. German intelligence succeeded in breaking the Polish code, so that the Germans knew that Warsaw had given directives to Polish ambassador Lipski that under no circumstances could he intervene or offer concessions to Germany. Thus the US, England, France and Poland all trusted in the promises of the German Opposition to execute a putsch if Hitler invaded Poland and the Western powers declared war on Germany. The fact that Chamberlain, knowing of the Polish, French and American desire for war, gave a free hand to Polish war policies and did not urge Poland to accept the moderate German demands can be explained only by the fact that he also wanted war on 1 September 1939. Occasionally the Establishment media admit that Hitler had not planned a world war on 1 September 1939. Beginning with the English-German War of September 1939 that he so ardently desired, Roosevelt violated the guidelines for neutral nations countless times. The above is the simple unadorned truth. Jürgen Rieger 154
Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 02, 2009, 11:38 PM | # http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5718#p38549 The deliberate mass murder of as many Germans as possible was, I believe, an actual goal of Anglo-American policy. Generally it was covered up, however, by various deceptions but there is an emerging body of evidence which shows that the policy really was one of genocide against the Germans. The reasons are easy enough to find as well. It is important to recognize this genocidal madness in order to understand why the holocaust hoax was necessary. The Morgenthau Plan which was genocide could NOT be implemented for many reasons—it was too horrible to actually implement, even for the Americans—but a program of total cultural destruction was within reach instead. The war against the German people and Germany is ongoing. 155
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 03, 2009, 11:58 AM | #
Posted day before yesterday over at Robert Steuckers’ site, an account of how largely the same forces did the same thing to Germany one generation previously: http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/archive/2009/09/25/8ab02b526a902d9a3633f55e04f71e30.html . They blockaded them for six months after the war ended (until the Spring of 1919), starving them in what has been claimed was not only an attempt to kill lots of them, but a way of trying to stunt the next generation by starving infants, young children, and pregnant women. 156
Posted by Dan Dare on October 03, 2009, 02:51 PM | #
I’m taking the term ‘genocide’ to refer particularly to the Allied strategic bombing campaign, in which case there is really little need to wait for evidence to ‘emerge’ to discover the origins of the area bombing policy. It is all laid out in plain view in the official history (G. Webster, N. Frankland, The Strategic Air Offensive Against Germany 1939-45 Vols. I – IV, HMSO, London 1961). Appendix 8 provides a complete list of all fifty-odd ‘Air Directives’ which were the orders from the Air Ministry Staff to the operational commander of RAF Bomber Command. The instruction to move to an area bombing strategy was issued on 9th July 1941 Directive, and the following is an extended extract from the document which is reproduced in its entirety in Appendix 8 (xvi) of the Official History, pp 135-140.
The decision to attack the enemy at one of his perceived weak points, i.e. the morale of his civilian population seems to me to be neither immoral nor unrealistic. It is no different in principle to Hitler’s efforts to starve the British into submission with the U-boat campaign in the North Atlantic. It was Clausewitz, after all, who stated that, in addition to the enemy’s military force and territory, the enemy’s will to resist is also a legitimate objective: ‘…the destruction of his courage rather than his men … warfare is an act of policy’. There seems little doubt that these words, or something very similar, must have animated the Nazi leadership when they launched the Blitz on Britain just as they later provided a legitimate rationale for Bomber Command’s own area bombing strategy, employing many techniques pioneered by the Luftwaffe in 1940-41. David Irving would appear to think so. In his Goebbels biography, he notes:
157
Posted by Captainchaos on October 03, 2009, 03:52 PM | # Dare, you honor neither yourself, your people, nor the memory of your fallen by carrying on in this way; it was not their fault, they were good men, and did everything duty asked of them in performance of what they were fooled to believe was a just cause. You cannot as an honorable man defend the indefensible. Whatever atrocities Germans did indeed commit pale in comparison to that of your countrymen, my own countrymen and certainly that of those with whom you made that match in a back ally with, those Bolshevik demons. The attempted extermination of the German people was the greatest crime in our history. And yes, a double standard does rightly apply, for the German people acting out of just obedience and love for their Fuhrer, a self-made king who rightly ruled because, as he said correctly, and with utter sincerity, lived only for his people; and it was only he that could have sheppered Germany through the valley of the shadow of death that was Versailles. It was only they who followed the indomitable example of their Fuhrer that could then - and perhaps now never again - have delivered our race from destruction. The example of the Waffen-SS is singular proof of the intention of my blood to give all the children of Europe their birth right of eternal being secured for all time. Truly it can be said that the best men our race ever produced fought with a heroism unsurpassed in all history against the Dimming of the Light. Our unyielding enemies, the Jews, who want nothing more than to destroy us, are America’s anchor sinking it, having breached the hull, into oblivion, and America is a problem for you which will not easily go away. We aid ourselves not in the least by truckling before our enemies in continuing to besmirch the memory of those great men, those heroic Germans, that gave all that we might live. 158
Posted by Dan Dare on October 03, 2009, 04:46 PM | # Hey Cap’n as long as Third Reich Nostalgics continue to peddle the hoary old chestnut of German ‘genocide’ I’ll continue to carry on this way, exposing it as ahistorical nonsense and self-serving, emotive girlishness. Now come on, show us what you’re made of. You’ll be playing the trump card next, the ‘Lindemann Plan’. right? 159
Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 08, 2009, 07:38 PM | # It seems there is more evidence that Brits tried to exterminate Germans than Germans Jews. British built millions of Anthrax-cakes to wipe out Germans. I really don’t know how this colossal detail has been swept under the rug of history. Anthrax as a weapon is not new. In 1945 England planned to wipe out Germany with 5 million anthrax cattle cakes to be dropped in pastures from bombers. The aim of “Operation Vegetarian” was to wipe out the German beef and dairy herds and then see the bacterium spread to the human population. With people then having no access to antibiotics, this would have caused many thousands—perhaps even millions—of German men, women and children to suffer awful deaths.
England’s Operation Vegetarian was planned for the summer of 1944, but it was abandoned as the Allies’ Normandy invasion progressed successfully. At the end of 1945, 5 million anthrax-infected cattle cakes were incinerated in one of Porton Down’s furnaces in Southern England.
This wasn’t just some insane idea hatched out at a boardroom meeting, they built these weapons with the ultimate intent to actually kill millions of Germans. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31255-2001Oct21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vegetarian Speaking of the wonderful Anglos, a French-Canadian author has a book out detailing the criminality of Anglo-Saxons going back to the Viking raids. He maintains that its the most homicidal race still walking the earth. 160
Posted by Wandrin on October 08, 2009, 10:01 PM | #
Yay us. We rocked. It’s bad luck not to be proud of your ancestors. The holocult is about using guilt as a weapon. One way for Germans to get out from under the guilt is to say the Nazis didn’t do anything bad. A second way is for Germans to try and out-jew the jews by whining about what victims they are. Pathetic. The third way is accepting reality. Tribal warfare is normal and natural human behaviour. It usually involves two tribes in their own homeland fighting across a mutual border. jews lost their homeland and became an international landless tribe. This didn’t stop them indulging in tribal warfare however, always looking to increase the power and influence of the tribe in every country they reside in. They got lucky and managed to take control of Russia. They also had fifth columns inside all the neighbouring countries ready to betray. The Germans went to war against an existential threat. There is no need for guilt. If the jew-bolsheviks had won and both Germany and Russia united under a communist flag then we’d all be dead or slaves. 161
Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 09, 2009, 04:52 PM | #
Except for the detail that the author is French Canadian (not German), a valid psychoanalysis. :/ 162
Posted by Dan Dare on October 09, 2009, 05:42 PM | # I wonder whether Friedrich Braun will get around at some point to explain away the rationale for the production of tens of thousands of tons of nerve agents during the NS era. Meant for killing lice, no doubt. 163
Posted by Wandrin on October 09, 2009, 06:01 PM | #
It’s a shame the first shot was fired but it was. Once the first shot is fired then it’s war - bombing, anthrax, nerve gas. It’s all war. 164
Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 09, 2009, 06:13 PM | # Nerve gas was never used and there were no plans to us it; however, the Allies in W.W. I were the first to have used nerve agents and nobody could predict whether they were going to do it again. 165
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 09, 2009, 06:17 PM | #
Even in war there are supposed to be rules, Wandrin. As horrible as war is, there are rules the combatants are supposed to follow. In fact, it is my impression the Axis (Japan excepted) followed the rules of civilized warfare more faithfully than the Allies. 166
Posted by Captainchaos on October 09, 2009, 06:24 PM | #
I wonder Dare, are your constant insinuations of a concerted attempt by Germans to exterminate Jews - though you don’t believe it yourself - an involuntary tic, or a mindful attempt at propaganda? Hopefully this will render it unnecessary: No, the British did not actually burn a million defenseless Krauts alive. How’s that? 167
Posted by Guessedworker on October 09, 2009, 07:06 PM | # CC, There were 30,000 Londoners killed in the blitz before the RAF’s Area Offensive commenced. The plain fact is not that “the British burned a million defenceless Krauts alive” but that the British and Americans developed vastly superior carrying capacity which the Luftwaffe could not remotely match. Had the technological balance favoured the latter, the results would have been reversed. C’est la guerre. 168
Posted by Dan Dare on October 09, 2009, 07:22 PM | #
So the 10,000 tons of bombs that the British found filled with tabun (and the weapons that the Americans found filled with sarin) were intended to do what, exactly?
That would have been a remarkable achievement for the Allies since nerve agents were not invented until the 1930s (in Germany). Are you sure you’re not getting confused with the first use of poison gas during WW I in April 1915? But hold on, wasn’t that Jerry again? And there’s no show without Punch, as they say …
Hardly defenceless, Cap’n old son. The flak regiments of the Luftwaffe alone numbered around 900,000 men in 1944, almost twice as many as Rommel had at his disposal in resisting the Normandy landings. 169
Posted by Wandrin on October 09, 2009, 07:25 PM | # @Fred Scrooby
True of course. I just find point scoring over WWII when we’re all collectively in the process of losing WWIII a bit mind boggling. Generally: Simple fact. Most of us had relatives who fought in WWII. Most of us have an instinctive desire to be proud of those people. Trying to turn the accepted history of WWII on its head and blame the allied side will not work for those personal reasons as it’s a guaranteed way of turning off all the Poles, Brits, (most) Americans, French etc. On the other hand Germans have the same desire to be proud of their people and they can’t officially because they are the officially designated baddies. To my mind one possible compromise history is: 170
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 09, 2009, 08:50 PM | # I like your compromise, Wandrin. I like it very, very, very much. In fact, you’ve been posting lots of good stuff lately. I’m impressed. 171
Posted by Armor on October 09, 2009, 09:10 PM | #
If you have dirty weapons, you should use them. If you won’t use them, you should try to negotiate peace. But if you continue the war with conventional means and accept to suffer casualties, it feels as if you are playing a game with human lives. 172
Posted by GenoType on October 10, 2009, 02:16 AM | #
Sit unused due to German forbearance in the face of imminent defeat, that’s what old son.
Certainly no chemist here, but it’s difficult to believe this claim. Sounds like propaganda written by the winning side. Wasn’t hydrogen cyanide first isolated in the early 18th Century and used in whaling harpoons throughout the 19th? Didn’t George Thomas Beilby and Hamilton Castner patent processes for producing gaseous cyanides in the 1890’s? It’s very difficult to believe that nobody died in the process or the effects of the gas were unknown. A teeny bit of HCN history here, worth exploring I’d say: “Hydrogen cyanide was discovered in 1782 by Carl Scheele, who was investigating the dye Prussian Blue (or Berlin blaue, as it was known in the German-speaking world). Mixing the dye with an acid and heating gave him a flammable gas that dissolved well in water, producing an acidic solution. Logically enough, he called his discovery Berlin Blausäure (Berlin blue acid - chemical nomenclature in 1782 was not as systematic as it has become today). The Berlin was soon dropped, and it became simply Blausäure (in the English-speaking world, the name became Prussic acid). Scheele’s death in 1786 is sometimes attributed to accidental poisoning by hydrogen cyanide; it may also have been due to chronic poisoning due to his habit (common among chemists of the time) of tasting everything he synthesized. “The actual composition - 1 atom each of hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen - of hydrogen cyanide was not definitively determined until 1811 by Joseph-Louis Gay-Lussac. While Claude-Louis Berthollet had analyzed it in 1787 and determined that it contained only hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen, his results had been questioned because it was manifestly an acid, and the prevailing theory of acids (Lavoisier’s oxygen theory of acidity) at the time stated that oxygen had to be present for a material to act as an acid. Gay-Lussac’s results for hydrogen cyanide, along with those of Davy for hydrochloric acid, were essential in disproving this theory. “Its poisonous properties led to its early consideration as a chemical warfare agent, but during the First World War, hydrogen cyanide was employed only occasionally, primarily by the French. who dubbed it Forestite. Because of its high vapor pressure and low vapor density it tended to dissipate rapidly, and its low flash point meant that it would often (about half the time) ignite when released from artillery shells, limiting its military effectiveness. The French attempted to produce hydrogen cyanide-containing mixtures that would be more persistent, and so more useful. The best known of these is probably Vincennite, which was a mixture of 50% hydrogen cyanide with the smoke producers arsenic trichloride (30%) and stannic chloride (15%) along with chloroform as a stabilizer. Despite their best efforts, however, they were never able to produce a hydrogen cyanide munition that answered the needs of the period, and in a war in which the chemical industries of the world strained to produce enough deadly chemicals, usage of hydrogen cyanide was a relatively paltry 4000 tons. “The French belief in the utility of hydrogen cyanide as a war gas stemmed in large part from experiments done on inhalation exposure in dogs. There was considerable disagreement in the chemical warfare community over how (or whether) the data from the dog experiments applied to humans - British experiments with goats had led them to the opposing conclusions about its utility. This disagreement led to one of the more dramatic (and foolhardy) moments in the history of research on chemical warfare agents.”
By mid-1944 Luftwaffe strength in the skies (where it mattered) was “history,” so to speak. That’s what we Amurricans are told, anyhow. 173
Posted by Wandrin on October 10, 2009, 02:28 AM | # @Fred Scrooby Thanks. I only post now and then as if i think about this stuff too much it makes it harder for me to act moderate offline. It’s good to be able to share some thoughts now and then. 174
Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 10, 2009, 02:32 AM | #
There was some talk about using it on the Soviets in the last stages, but Hitler decided against it. If you believe Speer, he didn’t even know they were being produced. 175
Posted by GenoType on October 10, 2009, 02:36 AM | # Apparently cyanides are not nerve agents, but are in a class by themselves. Oops! Ah well, Dare is simply attempting to justify British barbarity with who started what. Know the game well. And it is a game, one written by the winners and belabored ever afterward by hobbyists. The French employed cyanides in the First War. Nasty stuff, I think. Don’t hear too much about that, do you? Probably because so little was produced. ; P Delivery was difficult. The French. Allied with those patented Brit and Amurrican cyanide producers, were they? 176
Posted by Dan Dare on October 10, 2009, 03:09 AM | #
Good of you to acknowledge your earlier error.
I suppose it might just be plausible that they hadn’t wanted to trouble der Chef with the trifling detail that 12,000 tons of Tabun had already been stockpiled in the form of bombs and other projectiles, or that a facility capable of producing 500 tons of Sarin every month was under construction at Falkenhagen in Brandenburg in late 1944. As for believing Speer, was it not he who in his apologia “Inside the Third Reich” described his plan to assassinate Hitler by introducing Tabun into the ventilation system of the Führerbunker? Yes indeed, here it is on p. 576 of the paperback edition:
177
Posted by Captainchaos on October 10, 2009, 04:13 AM | # I think it is unarguable that those wars shattered moral confidence in White Supremacy. Looking back on it all, adopting a cosmic perspective, it is almost as if it were punishment from the gods for hubris that we burn our own house to ashes. It is hard to believe that any of the Gentile warlords thought it would come to this, they were all of them at least tacitly racist. And it is absurd to blame the Jews, they obviously cannot help themselves. It is the best of us who are free, if anyone is at all. We are the only people that can experience our own survival as an existential question. It matters to us what we survive as, as a great and magnanimous people. If we can redeem ourselves in becoming great again all our failures and folly will be as nothing in the bright new dawn that awaits. 178
Posted by SM on October 10, 2009, 07:40 AM | # Dan Dare is a wierdo. Dan, your precious greatest generation was comprised of mostly confused dunces. So take that. Everybody made gas. Pointing at the Germans having it says nothing. There is something profoundly wrong with the anglo american vibe regarding WWII. 179
Posted by SM on October 10, 2009, 10:00 AM | # OFF TOPIC I have question. Have any of you heard of “Jackson katz” http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/10/the-“tough-guise”-scam/#comment-1007 Just how jew is he? (Is he a jew? The name is.) I need to know before I start bitching about how “it’s a classic example of jew marxist anti host culture bullshit”. 180
Posted by Wandrin on October 10, 2009, 10:50 AM | # @Dan Dare The official version of WWII history is designed to be a dagger at our throats. In particular the idea that there was a sudden explosion of racism and anti-semitism that came out of nowhere, an explosion that requires constant vigilance and repression of White ethno-centricity to prevent a repeat. That’s not what happened and yet that is what my children are taught at school. The history that needs researching and disseminating is not what happened after the Nazis came to power but what happened between 1917 and 1933. That’s the history the enemy doesn’t want told. 181
Posted by Dan Dare on October 10, 2009, 01:59 PM | # Wandrin, it is certainly true that what is laughably termed the educational system in Britain has, since the 1960s, mutated into a system for social conditioning and political indoctrination in the service of the multicultural state. However the solution for that state of affairs is not just a simple matter of substituting one form of propaganda for another, as more than a few here would like us to think. 182
Posted by GenoType on October 10, 2009, 02:36 PM | #
Too bad you’re not up to the task. Not many realize that France, a nation allied with Britain, introduced the use of HCN in WWI. HCN is deadlier than tear gas, I think. Even I have survived repeated exposure to the latter. Turns you into a coughing, eye-stinging, snotty mess for thirty minutes or so. Once again we see that historical memory is selective and used as a political weapon. By mid-1944 Luftwaffe flak regiments were without planes. Tons of nerve agents, manufactured by National Socialist Germany, sat unused throughout the war. Why is that, I wonder? There was plenty of opportunity. Moral forbearance on the part of Uncle Adolf, perhaps? You know, the “cowardly little corporal,” “house painter,” and “carpet-muncher” with a “small, dysfunctional penis” who put a bullet through his head rather than “face justice?” Hmmm. This could be another idea the war’s winners DO NOT want us to pursue. 183
Posted by Captainchaos on October 10, 2009, 03:03 PM | #
So I take it you well understand then the sociological power collective guilt has over our people. There was no systematic attempt by Germans to exterminate Jews, but that does not matter, it is true because the powers that be say it is. And it is to be your guilt now too, it does not matter that even by their narrative the English were not directly responsible, they were guilty by omission in not having done enough, and soon enough, to stop it. If Britain was justified in fighting by any means necessary in smashing Germany to stave off invasion, then why was Germany not also justified in doing same against the Soviet Union? And if Germans deserves to experience collective guilt for their treatment of Jews, and other occupied peoples, though it was arguably necessary in the face of the Bolshevik threat, then why not the English for their role in brutalizing the German people in the face of the German threat? Moreover, if survival of a people is the ultimate value, and therefore the unarguable justification in doing whatever must be done in securing it, wouldn’t the triumph of National Socialism then have been desirable, and justifiable, in light of all that has come to pass? Your professed aversion to propaganda is not convincing, as you dabble in it yourself. Would you be willing to have the bit of moral reasoning I laid out above taught in British schools? I doubt it. Because that would mean exchanging one guilt narrative for another, if consistency were to be maintained. 184
Posted by Dan Dare on October 10, 2009, 03:20 PM | #
185
Posted by Captainchaos on October 10, 2009, 03:42 PM | # Dare, as you should know by my comment previous to last, I’m prepared to adopt a detached, dare I say ‘philosophic’, perspective to it all. If we are to survive we must ask ourselves these questions, because they obviously matter to us due to our moral constitution. And even those, such as SM, who see that moral constitution as very nearly the very problem itself, and therefore something to be overcome, must yet deal with it on its own terms if they were to gain the power to overcome it at all. Perhaps what is discussed here was the inevitable outcome of petty nationalism. Perhaps National Socialism was just another example of petty nationalism, or a birth pang of something more to come, or merely a reaction in our racial immune system. But clearly, if there was not something fundamentally amiss in the ordering of things it would not have come to this. 186
Posted by Dan Dare on October 10, 2009, 04:34 PM | # I don’t believe there was anything fundamentally amiss in the order of things prior to the emergence of National Socialism in the 1930s. I’d certainly make that case in the case of Europe although others have argued that under Roosevelt the United States had already made its fatal turn even before the war. I think we’d still have seen the rise of social market democracy in Europe, decolonisation and a kind of EU too. But what I don’t think we would have seen is the emergence of the international human rights regime nor the predominantly universalist anti-nationalistic idiom that accompanied it. Even if it hadn’t attacked its neighbours Germany would have become a kind of pariah state for a while, with Hitler a kind of 1940s Idi Amin. But that too would have passed, the economic effects of isolation would have taken their toll, and the regime would have mellowed and eventually Germany would have drifted back into the European mainstream. Where of course it truly belongs. That’s the trajectory that I believe we were on before Hitler’s aggressively short-sighted hyper-nationalism upset the applecart. 187
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 10, 2009, 04:57 PM | #
You mistake where the existential threat was coming from. It was not coming from the side your country and mine were fighting. On the contrary, the side we were fighting was explicitly opposed to that existential threat which it perceived, and predicted others would feel unless it was checkmated. You are now under existential threat, and that for reasons stemming directly from the Allied victory in that war. From the moment the Third Reich offered the British Empire terms for ending the war — and apparently terms were offered on a number of occasions, reasonable terms, even generous ones — your island home and way of life could no longer be said to be under existential threat, if they ever had been.
German NS involved elements which aren’t essential aspects of NS and which do not characterise other varieties of NS than the German one. When you picture German NS you reject it but in present-day Japan and Israel, both of which are NS societies, there is no Prussianism, no goosestepping military tradition, no political murder, no effective outlawing of opposition parties, as existed under the Nazis. What there is is rejection of unwanted demographic threats to the traditional population’s racial homogeneity and biological integrity, rejection of unwanted external threats to its ethnocultural character and tradition, safeguarding of the national well-being against the ravages of unbridled capitalism by means of state intervention when indicated, generous social protections and safety nets for the homogeneous national population, recognition that society has certain requirements for its well being which take precedence over selfish or nihilistic “individual rights,” and so on. If your country is to emerge from the mess it’s in and restore a semblance of normalness and societal health it will have to adopt at least a certain number of like policies, ones explicitly rejecting race-replacement immigration for example, explicitly frowning on aspects of the national existence being ravaged by unbridled capitalism, explicitly favoring generous social safety net protections for the native race, explicitly encouraging marriages and births where needed (or the opposite where needed — Japan was getting frankly overcroweded at one point and intelligently, gently brought its own population increases under control, as it is now intelligently dealing with its low birth rates, and shows every sign of correctly managing that aspect for the nation’s good, not for the good of the wallets and bank accounts of international Jewish capitalism). Eurosphere nations now under existential threat as a direct outcome of the Allied victory in 1945 will need to adopt certain NS remedies when they emerge from that threat, or go under again, this time for good. 188
Posted by Anon on October 10, 2009, 05:07 PM | # CC, give it up. You’re not going to come to any sort of terms with Dan Dare. Clearly he has a different agenda. He is very intelligent and informed, yet unfailingly argues slightly besides the point. On crucial issues he regularly fails to recognize them as such. Since I’m only an occasional and casual observer of this forum I don’t catch all his drifts, but my impression is he is working to give this forum a new bearing, perhaps even to disrupt it. Maybe in some quarters it was feared it might turn into a threat for their interests and something had to be done about it without being too obvious. 189
Posted by Dan Dare on October 10, 2009, 05:26 PM | #
A rhetorical question, surely? The reason Hitler did not give permission to use them, even though several discussions were held on the matter especially after the Stalingrad debacle, was simply fear of retaliation.
190
Posted by Captainchaos on October 10, 2009, 06:33 PM | # Alright, I’ll lay this out again: Your reasoning, Dare, is that Germany posed a genuine threat of invading England, plus they did a lot of bad shit besides that to other Europeans than the English. Therefore, England was justified in forming unwholesome alliances and using barbarous means to smash Germany. Yet, Germany, whom also formed unwholesome alliances, and committed barbarous acts, too, did as they did under the rationale of staving ruinous invasion, and had a lot of bad shit done to its own people by other Europeans, including the English. So, any moral superiority you claim over them is purely self-serving and the result of your chauvinism. Fine, but don’t go complaining when German nationalists take the same tack. Furthermore, playing up German guilt only ascaperbates your own situation because the Jews are intent upon pinning that case on you. And don’t tell me various English nationalist don’t do that, because you and I both know that they do. If there is any factor which breaks that logjam it is the fact that if given a free hand in the East there would have been no threat of invasion of England by Germany. But, was there even the possibility of any German concessions staving off a Soviet invasion? Well no, in fact the Western democracies acted to hamstring Germany’s ability to fend of said pending invasion by the Soviets. 191
Posted by GenoType on October 10, 2009, 07:18 PM | #
Fear of retaliation by a “dictator” who shot himself to “escape justice,” “sacrificed Hitler Youth” in last ditch efforts, allowed widowed women and fatherless children to die in Dresden? I could go on. On what authority do you base this explanation? One pulled from your ass, surely?
An dual morality this, one which exculpates Englishmen from feelings of moral guilt for “Nazi victims” yet justifies the use of American lives to preserve that shitty little isle from Nazi domination. Interesting.
Not above making apple to orange comparisons, are you?
Anon is correct, CC. Dare’s agenda is not White. 192
Posted by Dan Dare on October 10, 2009, 07:42 PM | #
193
Posted by Dan Dare on October 10, 2009, 07:52 PM | #
No. One pulled from the transcript of the IG Farben trial. I know you’d like to be spoon-fed with the Volume and page numbers etc but you can fuck off and find it for yourself.
No again. More of a Reichsjuden to Ugandan Asian sort of comparison, but the allusion was obviously beyond you. I won’t be making that mistake again, in fact I will be ignoring you completely from this point forward. 194
Posted by Captainchaos on October 10, 2009, 08:01 PM | # Dare, I don’t mean to accuse you, but I will ask, is their per chance a Jew in your “farrago” of a woodpile?
Oh, let me see here, lack of any real conviction in wanting to preserve the English genetically? Malice for White Americans (many of whom are Germans, or have significant German ancestry), and Germans which bubbles up from time to time? Don’t interpret this as me trying to ‘chase you away’ from the blog, you write some good copy. And if there is a Jew in the woodpile that doesn’t necessarily disqualify you from Whiteness if you are phenotypically White and loyal. If I stumbled upon a Jew in my family tree it wouldn’t alter my convictions at all, and it’s a mystery to me why quarter Jews, or whatever, would find that a stumbling block. Being White beats being a Jew any day of the week, because, well, Jews are fucked up. (Too bad this piece of shit Diamed couldn’t get that through his thick fucking skull, so I had to take him to the woodshed at VNN - LOL! Bad shit happens when Jews actually fool themselves into thinking they’re smarter than us.) 195
Posted by Wandrin on October 10, 2009, 08:09 PM | # @Dan Dare
I think it partly does require a substitute propaganda. Though i agree just flipping the guilt round isn’t likely to work.
I’d agree that no one thing is likely to be our “only antidote”. I’d also agree that after sixty years of propaganda any open political organisation that copies any kind of NS symbolism is dooming itself to failure before they start. I also agree that methods that worked in the 1930s might not work in current circumstances. I also agree that flipping the guilt around will lead to exactly the same problem we have here but in reverse. And in that last sentence lies the “relevance for our current predicament”. Guilt is a demoralizing weapon. It needs some kind of fix.
That would include the hijacking of Russia by jewish Bolsheviks and the mass murder of millions? The rise of the various Fascist movements in Europe were a direct reaction to the growth of Communist parties in Europe allied to and controlled by the blood-drenched regime in Moscow. In the year before Hitler was given the Chancellorship six million Ukrainians were starved to death a few hundred miles from Germany’s eastern border. How can this not be relevant? If it’s not critical why does the enemy try so hard to cover it up? I could understand where you were coming from apart from this. 196
Posted by Captainchaos on October 10, 2009, 08:29 PM | # That’s right, Dare is very careful to mention that everything should be considered “in context.” Well, when mentioning the alleged “beastly” treatment of Jews in German concentration camps Dare should contextualize that with the fact that German Jews were every bit the cancer on the German nation that they been for America. And, it whose those hook-nosed demons that liquidated tens of millions of Russians and Ukrainians. The spawn of Satan coughed up straight out of the bowels of Hell. Put that in your context pipe and smoke it. 197
Posted by Dan Dare on October 10, 2009, 10:06 PM | # Dearie me Cap’n, you are a card!
Jews were vanishingly rare in the Great Northern Coalfield and besides which I’m R1b1b2a1b5* (R-L21+) and H3 on the maternal side. What are you if you don’t mind me asking? Any Cherokee in the closet? 198
Posted by Agent provocateur on October 11, 2009, 10:07 AM | # Liability without a shadow of a doubt. Second only to hitler in making disasterous military decisions and continued to make them across the span of two world wars (although at least hitler had both competent and great generals). Some argue he was a great speaker/orator but this too comes into question as claims suggest he had many doubles, actors doing his radio broadcasts (speeches) and lesser appearances for him. Quite frankly he was disaster of a man who surely recieved immense backing throughout his career that has falsely elevated his historical standing to that of national hero in the Uk. Ironic that poland (betrayed by promises and agreements) should emerge after their occupation culturally and racially intact, where’as one needs only a quick glance at france, germany and britian to see the real losers. 199
Posted by Dan Dare on October 11, 2009, 03:13 PM | #
Fred, my perception of the source of the threat is not an issue in the present discussion. What is important is the perception held by people in 1940, not just in government but also amongst the population at large. I have already conceded elsewhere that, given our present knowledge, it would be reasonable to conclude now that Hitler’s attitude to the British Empire (if not to some other Europeans) was essentially benign. But, and this is the key point, such a conclusion can only be reached when based on access to documentation that was not available even to people in government at the time in question (e.g. Das Zweite Buch). I know you have brought up the matter of German ‘peace feelers’ but I would like to defer that until a little later.
Again, I believe it is important to respect the timeline. At the historical moment we are concerned about, Germany and the Soviet Union, which I am assuming is the existential threat you are actually referring to. Although immediately after typing that the thought occurred that you might be referring to International Jewry instead, perhaps you could clarify. Anyway, proceeding on the initial assumption, it’s relevant to point out that at the time in question the USSR was still faithfully honouring its obligations under its non-aggression pact with Germany, which entailed the regular delivery of significant amounts of food, fuel and other vital raw materials. The United States was two years or more away from taking an active part in hostilities although of course it was overtly and covertly aiding the Allies in a material sense. With that arrangement of the key actors, it was surely not unreasonable for the British to identify Nazi Germany and not the Soviet Union as the proximate threat.
With perfect hindsight it is easy to say now that the best strategic option for Britain would have been to stand aside while Germany and the USSR fought each other.
What is conspicuously missing from this megaphone-style diplomacy is evidence of any official contact at the inter-governmental level, which would be a prerequisite for any serious consideration to be given to what is being stated. I have often asked to see evidence of such communication originating from the German government but none has ever been forthcoming. Some people point to the Hess episode as an example, however even Irving concedes that Rudolf Hess was flying solo on that one (figuratively as well as literally).
I certainly agree that a turn towards a more authoritarian societal model is necessary to counter the nihilistic hyper-individualism and moral decadence that afflict contemporary society. However I believe there is a world of difference between seeking to reverse the Long March by reinstating the social mores and attitudes of the 1950s, while retaining an open parliamentary democracy, and calling for the adoption of a totalitarian state, even one which does not go to the repressive extremes of Nazi Germany. I lived in Singapore for several years and experienced just such a regime first-hand. I have no wish to live in an extended Kindergarten where the government instructs me what I to read and watch, even to the extent of censoring a harmless publication like The Economist. On the other hand, of course, some other policies of the Singapore government especially those concerning crime and immigration, are to be applauded. It’s not immediately clear why we can’t create a political system that provides the latter benefits while still preserving our traditional personal and political freedoms as well. 200
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 11, 2009, 04:20 PM | # I’ll look up the German peace feelers that were put out and rebuffed, for an exact citation. They were put out to the U.S. also, and rebuffed with the reply that unconditional surrender was the only terms the Talmudevelt Administration would consider. About your final point, at least you do agree that once we get out of this mess, there can be no going back, zero going back, ever, to the present set-up, but certain fundamental changes will be mandatory lest we go down for good next time. Can I take it you agree? I mean, the mere insertion of explicit race-cognizant principles into immigration policy, ones explicitly reflecting the traditional people’s natural desire not to be changed by hostile, or uncaring, or bought élites into another race, requires fundamental changes, at a minimum: no such provisions could be inserted with explicitness under today’s set-up. There will have to be some deep adjustments made. Race-respecting principles for setting immigration policy and dealing generally with domestic population concerns guide all national socialist set-ups from the Nazis to modern Israel, Singapore, and Japan. Explicit race preservation of the nation’s traditional population is not a characteristic of present-day “liberal democracy,” a set-up so beloved of Jews because, among other defects, it makes the goys sitting ducks for Jewish plunder, rapine, and wholesale demolition. 201
Posted by Dan Dare on October 11, 2009, 04:49 PM | #
I certainly feel great compassion for our Russian racial cousins as well as the tens of millions of other Europeans who suffered under Bolshevism for over 70 years. Taking the long view, however, it was inevitable that a political system based solely on lies and repression would collapse under the weight of its own internal contradictions, which of course is what happened in the 1980s and 90s. A case might even be made that the life-cycle of Soviet-style communism was extended by success in the Second World War, since this expanded the USSR’s economic sphere of influence and facilitated the perception, if not the reality, that the USSR and its satellites together constituted a global superpower. With respect to the point that Fascism was a necessary and even indispensable reaction to the threat of Bolshevism in western Europe, I am unpersuaded by that argument. Reactions to the Bolshevik menace varied widely by country but, in general, the threat was weakest in those countries where national governments had pre-empted the appeal of Bolshevism by improving the living standards of the working class and restraining naked capitalism. In other countries, especially the UK, the innate common-sense of the working man together with an ingrained scepticism of continental-style ‘-osophies’ predicated against Bolshevism gaining anymore than an insignificant toe-hold. In fact in Britain, Communism gained many more adherents from the intellectual and upper classes than it ever did from the proletariat. In the case of Germany, Italy and Spain, as well as France to a certain degree, the simultaneous rise of both Fascism and Bolshevism within the same polity points more to underlying flaws in the political and social structures of these countries. In contrast to the UK and other countries in northern Europe, none of them had ever really completed a successful transition from despotic absolutism to fully-functioning democracy by the 1930s. The fragility and brittleness of their social and political infrastructure rendered them especially prone to extremism. History shows us that the best defence against the threat of Bolshevism was a combination of stable parliamentary democracy (often in the form of a constitutional monarchy) and an economic system which ensured reasonable living standards for all, together with respect for individual freedom and development. Fascism only became a viable counter-strategy, in the sense of gaining popular support, when one or more of these key factors is absent, as proved to be the case in both Italy and Germany. 202
Posted by Dan Dare on October 11, 2009, 05:00 PM | # Fred - yes I do agree with your assessment that the ‘present setup’ is suicidal and must be jettisoned. But I also believe that, in travelling from A to B, NS is a cul-de-sac that we need to avoid entering at all costs. And in transitioning from here to there, it will certainly be necessary to box a little clever at times. It should, for example, be a relatively simple matter for an incoming administration to craft a migration policy that is covertly ethnically-selective, while not appearing to be so. Similarly, the worst excesses of the Human Rights legislation could be eliminated by the simple expedient of restricting its jurisdiction to citizens by birth. 203
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 11, 2009, 05:16 PM | #
Can’t be done: the Jews will instantly ferret that out and be on it in a millisecond. It has to be explicit and explicitly backed up by Euros against hysterical, frenzied Jewish attack. Jews are extremely formidable here. We have about 10 to 12 million of them (that’s my esimate; “officially accepted” among Jewish organizations is about 5½ million but even many Jews admit that’s laughably too low for the reason that Jews traditionally don’t like to admit they’re Jews). We face a very very big Jewish problem over here in trying to get this thing sorted out. 204
Posted by Dan Dare on October 11, 2009, 05:42 PM | # I agree it would be especially challenging in the US where over 90% of legal immigration is for other than employment-related reasons. The first priority there should be to go after the H1B and L1 migrant streams (as well as students ‘converting’ from H2). In the case of the UK, however, with its shiny new points-based migration scheme there are lots of opportunities for judicious tweaking. Raising the minimum salary bar to, say, £100,000 would eliminate practically all work-permit seekers from the third world at a stroke. 205
Posted by GenoType on October 12, 2009, 12:17 AM | #
No widespread deployment of tabun or sarin by the Reich (for fear of retaliation, according to Nuremberg trial no. 6 of 12), despite on-going production past July, 1944 and the near-complete destruction of Germany.
Defensive are you? You should be. The comparison was false and intended as propaganda.
No doubt. You’re a hypocrite. Tell us again, how many serviceable aircraft did the Luftwaffe flak regiments have in mid-1944? 206
Posted by Dan Dare on October 12, 2009, 12:42 AM | #
None, you bleeding cretin, Luftwaffe flak regiments operated anti-aircraft artillery not aircraft. That’s what flak means, Fliegerabwehrkanone. Duh. I’ll leave it as an exercise for you to find out how many fighter aircraft the Luftwaffe had at its disposal for the Air Defence of the Reich in mid-1944. Here’s a hint - there were lots, the Germans were still producing an average of 2500 fighter aircraft each month through 1944. But that wasn’t the problem, can you figure out what it really was????? 207
Posted by Wandrin on October 12, 2009, 12:47 AM | # @Dan Dare
Hmm. My argument is guilt is being used by the enemy as a demoralizing weapon of psychological warfare. In Germany this guilt is mostly focused on the holocult leading to Germans, or people of German descent, wanting to get out from under that guilt somehow. The same thing is done in the Anglospshere with the guilt focused on slavery and/or the Empire but combined with us as the official goodies in the holocult story - this leads Anglos to stress the part of the official story where we are the goodies to get away from the part where we are the baddies. The end result of the official story is that the two groups who it is most neccessary should be on the same side in this current war are put into conflict over the previous one. This doesn’t help our mutual survival chances. So, there needs to be a new story which fits the facts but it is more politically useful. My story would be that Russia was hijacked by the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks committed mass murder on a previously unimaginable scale. The Bolsheviks attacked all their near neighbours. The Bolsheviks were hell-bent on expanding the industrial might of the Soviet Union and the creation of a huge military force. The Bolsheviks had a fifth column in most European countries including Germany that was actively seeking to overthrow the government and link up with Moscow. All of this taking place between 1917 and 1933. During 1932-33 the Bolsheviks starved six million Ukrainians to death a few hundred miles from Germany’s eastern border. Hitler was given the Chancellorship in 1933. This version of the story has the German people reacting to a clear and present danger. Depending on the audience there could be multiple versions of the story. One could be that Hitler and the Nazis mistakenly equated Bolshevism and the jews because of how many jews were involved in the various Communist parties and that mistake led to the reasonable reaction of the German people being side-tracked down a wrong path. Another version could say Hitler was right to view marxism as a vehicle for jewish tribal warfare. Reacting to a threat is natural and understandable. To Britain the threat of the Soviet Union was further away. More importantly perhaps there was a low threat from a domestic Communist party for the reasons you mentioned. If the threat the Germans were reacting to appeared small in Britain then maybe the German reaction to that threat might have looked like a threat itself. It would be like a tunnel with a monster at one end and two men. The first man is in the middle of the tunnel and can see the monster so he draws a sword and starts waving it around. The second man is at the other end of the tunnel. He can’t see the monster, all he sees is the first man waving a sword around. So a story that focuses on marxists (or jews using marxism), who are definitely an enemy today, as the official baddie, or a story that focuses on Germans, who are a critical ally in the current war, as the official baddie. I can obviously understand you having a problem with simply flipping the baddie round from Germans to British. I’d find that idea counter-productive even if i wasn’t English but i don’t understand reluctance to try and shift the official baddie to the Bolsheviks (or jewish-Bolsheviks depending on audience). Especially as the driving force for this version of the story comes from pre-1933 before the first shot was fired and the rest could be told as a kind of unfolding, unstoppable tragedy stemming from that 1917 Bolshevik root like a chronicle of deaths foretold. 208
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 12, 2009, 01:22 AM | # Brilliant overall analysis by Wandrin above at 4:47. Simply brilliant, first word to last. Flawless. 209
Posted by Desmond Jones on October 12, 2009, 01:55 AM | #
With respect, it appears the opposite was the case. Lloyd Georges efforts to intervene on the behalf of Poland, during the Soviet-Polish war was undermined by the Trade Union Congress with threats of boycotts. The TUC worked closely, during this time, with the Communist Party of Great Britain.
210
Posted by Desmond Jones on October 12, 2009, 02:14 AM | # And contrary to the opinion of some, the Poles were apparently capable of righteous atrocities. However, it’s always easier to blame it on the Germans. 211
Posted by Captainchaos on October 12, 2009, 04:16 AM | #
GT obviously meant the number of aircraft available to work in concert with flak regiments, flak regiments being insufficient by themselves to fend off the airborne arsonists.
I’m willing to bet it was the dwindling supply of fuel, and the military necessity of allotting the limited (and dwindling) supply of said in fending of the ground incursion (which was the reason for the limited and dwindling supply of fuel) of the Bolshevik butchers; which was one of the major rationales (preventing the Bolshevik butchers from invading in the first place - so they later wouldn’t have to be fended off), and fully justified at that, for invading the Soviet Union to begin with. 212
Posted by Captainchaos on October 12, 2009, 04:39 AM | #
But was it not also inevitable that Stalin would attempt invasion of the West, because it was his will, and his strength was only waxing?
In taking the long view, militarization was necessary on the part of Germany to at a minimum provide a deterrent to potential Soviet aggression, and more so to preempt Soviet aggression if that was inevitable (because it was Stalin’s will and his strength was only waxing). Interesting, that Germans are expected to take “the long view,” but the English are not held to that higher standard (by you) in relation to their opposition of the Third Reich and its potential racially ruinous consequences. Is that an unconscious acknowledgement on your part of German superiority, assuming foresight is “superior” of course? 213
Posted by SM on October 12, 2009, 05:15 AM | # Wanderin 4:47. Yes good! That is the truth anyway. I would “develop”/add more to YOUR statement at the end that the ‘bad stuff’[tm] happened late war as the Germans were losing. It wasn’t the side effect of fascism speeches in the 30s. (And further you continue, saying eugenics is not fascism nor is internment eugenics or fascism.) The ‘bad stuff’ was anti saboteur and anti terrorist policy ramping up when the Germans realized they were losing and massively retreating in 43; and German jew internment in late 43/44—where every jew _WAS NOT_ interned—in the name of putting German labor in the _unbombed_ jewish quarters. And there was no gassing [link/quote “David Cole”]. Admit that ‘summary execution’ occurred (along with disease wastage) towards the end as the German guards were depressed fatalist by that time (and were probably not “doing the right thing” when a someone “smudged their sneakers”). Admit it was a bad scene (the whole war too)—terrible. But that BadScene was not the _point_ of anything. The war was fought over Germans annexing zones that were “living memory” grievances (Rhineland, Prussian corridor), from the bad WWI treaty. (Also a profound kind of “gym class jealousy” between the english and germans. But no one is going to get that alpha-beta-gamma sibling rivalry stuff.) Again that’s all truth. People at large don’t know the Time line. They literally think the Germans started putting people in camps and invading the world in the name of racism and then Ang-Am comes is and liberates everyone. The notion that Hitler /Germany was taking over the world in the name of racism and the anglo americans ride in to save the world is the lie. (Like the Amer Civil War tale where the north isn’t racist too.) Every body was racist back then. The Germans had an—as far as the effete english were concerned—unattractive militant masculine thing going on. But that’s really all they were “guilty” of that ang amer wasn’t. – Ie throw your sanctimonious enemies curves. CC makes good arguments about the moral similarity between angl-amer and Germans on page 2 here. The angl amer bomb people for political reasons—“it’s horrible but it has to be done”; and the Germans pushed some classes out of power (enemy aliens in Germany!) and interned people, and yes executed some—horrible but it had to be done. _Both for the same reasons: Political problem solved through horrible intimidation._ (Note the ang amer reason is less valid since they really were not under _acute_ threat.) DD didn’t get the point. He responded back to CC “The english have no reason to feel guilty about the people harmed under German occupation.” Duh. CC meant the Germans that the ang-amers bombed, dingie. You also missed the “existential threat” point coming for F Scroob. The threat isn’t the Germans or Russians invading the west with tanks etc. It is the sneaky migrant liberal revolutionaries advocating radical change to everything unasked for and unvoted for—and ultimately, back then, imposed through homo sovieticus methods. (lime trench from Full Metal Jacket.) Missing both those points really underscores your lack of knowledge about a key part of the equation here. DD, you seem oblivious to the ‘JewQuest’ part of “our” situation here in the modern west. Ang amer conservatives have a kind of self congratulatory hubris about that part of history. It really is blinding them. [I’m drunk as skunk—I can’t think clearly. Thank gawd for Spell check.] 214
Posted by Captainchaos on October 12, 2009, 06:31 AM | # Dare’s oeuvre and emotings to date stand upon his tacit understanding of the sociobiology of various European ethnies, his assumed superiority of the sociobiology and corresponding group strategy of a particular ethny, historical grievances he nurses at an alleged pending invasion and the Lend-Lease liquidation of the British Empire by cynical allies, a historical interpretation which complements said assumed superiority, and political expedience in light of what has come to pass - because of what was done of understanding “in context” - with the aid of occasional sly propagandistic jabs, which he believes to be “boxing smart.” Not necessarily internally inconsistent, just possibly wrong. 215
Posted by BGD on October 12, 2009, 11:21 AM | #
Dan ‘The Focus’ was largely funded by Jewish money*. Its purpose as the original title “Anti Nazi Council” suggests is not hard to fathom. It is not surprising to have non-Jews in the front row of organisations pursuing Jewish interests whether as active members or just window dressing. Indeed when you think about it (particularly between the wars) it would probably be foolhardy not to wouldn’t it? And five members pushing in one direction is likelier a stronger force than twenty members pushing in various directions. So we have very rich and powerful Jews at the head of an organisation trying to use their leverage to push Britain into war with Germany. They have a series of meetings with Churchill. While we await further evidence of how far he was financed to act on their behalf it seems clear they he was regularly in touch with them and their interests were much the same – war with Germany. Quite why WC pursued the case so strongly is open to question. I assume money wasn’t his overriding concern (as shown by the state his finances got into) but of course he lived extravagantly and hence the need for the loan you mentioned. Glory has been mentioned and as a writer and a member of the corrupt Churchill clan he probably wanted his page in the history books. Additionally as Irving has mentioned elsewhere he had a massive country estate and a staff of up to twenty people – all on an MP’s salary. No doubt in years to come the chapter and verse of this may be uncovered but is it likely the Churchill clan will be opening up WC’s papers to historians (apart from Gilbert and a few handpicked cronies) anytime soon? Irving believes that between 1936 and 1939 he was kept afloat by The Focus. Is there hard evidence for this – I don’t know. Welfare recipients always seem to spend beyond their means. The loan is something different. In a more general way there is also the (attributed) quote of Chamberlain regarding the Jews forcing him into war. N.B. On a side note I recently spent an evening at The Westerham Brewery where they hold evenings that allow you to sample their wares over a few hours for a small fee. I was told (I assume truly) that in a house on one side of the entrance to the brewery Churchill’s grandson lived and on the other an arms dealer lived. Seemed fitting somehow.. *Irving’s Churchill’s War Vol 1(http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/Waley_Cohen.html): There were embarrassed coughs when the organising secretary of ANC, A.H. Richards inquired where the money for all this was to come from; Mr Churchill appeared angry at the question. Richards was taken aside and asked to announce simply that all their requirements had already been met.[24] At a dinner on July 22 at his home, Caen Wood Towers, he launched the initial secret £50,000 fund for The Focus. His associates signed immediate cheques for £25,000 and pledged the rest.[25] 24. Eugen Spier, Focus - A Footnote to the History of the Thirties (London, 1963).—Credit is due to Dr Dietrich Aigner of Mannheim Univ. for his research into the Focus in Das Ringen um England. Das deutsch-britische Verhaltnis (München, 1969) and particularly his unpublished bibliography, On Producing Chaff. Materials for an Inquiry (Weinheim, 1980). 25. Robert Henriques, Sir Robert Waley-Cohen 1877-1952. A Biography (London, 1966) 362. 216
Posted by Wandrin on October 12, 2009, 11:25 AM | #
My priority is a political story that works for our survival so i’m okay with a few cracks here and there as long as there’s a reasonably plausible argument that can be made about those cracks. My argument on the crack you mention would be that stealth communists working for the Soviet Union behind the scenes in Britain doesn’t compare with the visible threat of large-scale communist street violence or the Red Army being only a few hundred miles away. It’s a different order of magnitude.
All tribes are capable of atrocities including the British, Germans, Poles and of course the Bolsheviks (or jewish-Bolsheviks) who (deliberately) starved six million Ukrainians to death during 1932-1933 (as revenge for Ukrainian pogroms in the 1880s) making the Germans fear the same could happen to them if the Bolsheviks (jewish-Bolsheviks) weren’t stopped (once and for all). Obviously there’s no way of knowing if it was deliberate revenge but their story is killing us so we need to fight fire with fire.
Yes the story could be extended. If i was German i’d focus on the pre-1933 story and the Bolshevik holocaust as that undermines the holocult without breaking any laws. What happened later in Germany becomes a reaction to an existential threat and people accept bad things can be justified or at least made understandable by self-defense.
There was certainly a lot more of them 217
Posted by Dan Dare on October 12, 2009, 01:07 PM | # BGD - I already addressed the question of the Focus about seven weeks ago in this very thread. Unless you have something else new to add beyond re-presenting Irving and his innuendo (which I know almost by heart) then I see little point in taking up the point again. However since you seem to be under the impression that Churchill financed Chartwell and his other extravagances out of an MP’s salary (plus of course the mystery Judengeld), I’d suggest you read Chapters 22 to 27 of Roy Jenkins’ Churchill for a more balanced perspective on the state of Churchill’s finances generally and sources of income particularly during the period in question. 218
Posted by Dan Dare on October 12, 2009, 01:44 PM | # Wandrin - I seem to have lost the thread here. In constructing your new narrative, who again is the intended audience? And, if the object of the exercise is to shift the burden of war guilt from the Nazis to the Bolsheviks how, exactly, would that facilitate the mission of eliminating cultural marxism and dismantling the multicultural state? 219
Posted by Captainchaos on October 12, 2009, 01:56 PM | #
The pathologization of National Socialism and the allegation that all expressions of European nationalism end in mythic exterminations of the Other is the centerpiece of gaining submission through shaming of Europeans. ‘You just can’t live, see, because then others will die, sorry, it’s in your makeup; laying down and dying to the decent thing to do, I hope you’ll understand. There’s a good chap. No poetry after Auschwitz (and no, I don’t mean the beer, you blighters).’ 220
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 12, 2009, 01:58 PM | # For starters, DD, it would facilitate it by revealing how the ones chiefly imposing cultural marxism now aren’t the simon-pure innocents they propagandize themselves as (and propagandize everyone else, us included, as the opposite). 221
Posted by Captainchaos on October 12, 2009, 02:16 PM | # Moreover, aiding in the pathologization of German National Socialism may not be clever strategy, and could amount to nothing more than carrying the Jews’ water for them, in that implicit in it is the prospect that our right to life is not absolute, and correspondingly our right to defend that life cannot be by any means necessary. If our right to life is absolute, and so too our right to whatever self defense is needed, then National Socialism is a legitimate political expression of our will to be in extremis. 222
Posted by Dan Dare on October 12, 2009, 02:25 PM | # The part of the narrative that holds that Hitler and the Nazis considered themselves on a crusade to save Europe from Judeo-Bolshvism is hardly a startling revelation. The tricky bit is explaining away why they felt it necessary to attack, invade, occupy and enslave their neighbours rather than making a serious effort to persuade them of the rightness of their cause. Surely if the threat was so apparent everybody else should have seen it too and joined forces with the Nazis to slay the Bolshie beast in its lair. But strangely enough they didn’t. Why was that, I wonder? Something beginning with J, perchance? 223
Posted by Captainchaos on October 12, 2009, 03:07 PM | # Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think this a proposition worthy of consideration:
Now, how that would read if axiom:
Of course, if the latter is not so, then we are in the wrong to object or resist too strenuously in defending the life of our peoples. Which means those that rail against National Socialism express the morally correct stance, and not merely the politically expedient one. And, if the latter is not so, then those that tout National as a legitimate political express of our will to be in extremis adopt the morally incorrect stance, whether born of political expedience or otherwise, and are in fact morally obliged to cease and desist. 224
Posted by Captainchaos on October 12, 2009, 03:12 PM | # That should read:
And:
225
Posted by Wandrin on October 12, 2009, 03:26 PM | # @BGD
Churchill was an ultra-patriot. The simplest explanation is the jews gathered around him because he was an ultra-patriot who could be manipulated in the direction they wanted. The jews are just one tribe and tribal warfare and competition exists separately to the JQ. What is neccessary for WNs today, unlike their predessors in the 1930s, is to focus on the threat from the less visible international tribe first and the threat from the other more visible nations second. @Dan Dare
Partly i was imagining the line i’d take if i was German in Germany.
I agree with all the answers already given. Also, i think people try and get out from under guilt that is laid on them. One way for Germans to get out from under the holocult guilt is to try and switch the victim and villain round. This leads to a conflict with everyone else. At the same time one way for everyone else to get out from under the guilt of slavery and empire is to dwell loudly on the bit of the official history where we’re the goodie. Those two things combine to create an inevitable collision between two groups who absolutely require to be allied in the current war. It’s similar to the Anglo-Irish problem - an internal conflict between nationalists who need to be allied in the current war. 226
Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 12, 2009, 03:31 PM | #
And who might they be? Well, let’s take modern “art” for example — we know the people like art but not what’s being rammed down their throats as “art” — stuff like a shark suspended in a tank of formaldehyde, a crucifix submerged in a mason jar full of urine, a photo of homo guy shoving the handle of a bullwhip up another guy’s rectum, a rotting pig snout with flies buzzing around it, a canvas of the Virgin Mary smeared with manure and surrounded by pasted-up vagina photo cut-outs from porn mags, a sealed can with a label on it saying the artist’s feces are inside, and a twenty-something slut’s dissheveled bed with used morning-after condoms, soiled panties, and used sanitary napkin lying strewn around. People don’t like that stuff, they don’t like their tax money going to pay for or in any way subsidize or encourage it, and they don’t consider it art. OK, if the people don’t like it, aren’t clamoring for it for the supposed reason that they went from being normal in 1955 to “liberal” today — if that’s not it, if all of that’s not happening, what in the hell IS happening? Who exactly is responsible for this stuff being “created” and shoved down the public’s throat? Answer: the cultural marxists. Question: could you name names? Answer: OK, will these links be of any assistance? Have a look: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Darkmoon-ArtI.html , http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Darkmoon-ArtII.html . 227
Posted by Wandrin on October 12, 2009, 03:42 PM | #
I think it’s simpler than that. Size of threat divided by distance. If Britain was where Finland is we’d have probably been in an alliance with Germany. 228
Posted by BGD on October 12, 2009, 04:12 PM | # Dan, thanks I’ll read Jenkins. On the other comments - I don’t really see what time has to do with it. I could have just returned from six months being chained to a floor at Guantanamo and thought the thread worth commenting on as have others. Whether you have already answered a point and I was too lazy or inept to notice is another thing. Your comment that “One of the loonier characteristics of Third Reich Nostalgics is their dogged insistence, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that Britain went to war with Germany because the Jews made them do it.” is what I was looking to question. Think the sentence is overblown but were or were not highly influential and privileged Jews in the UK funding an organisation whose intention was to push Britain into war? If so then it is not loony - although it might be an exaggeration - to take the line that Jewish pressure was a factor in Britain going to war. If various other forms of pressure are added to that (pressure on newspaper barons and their bottom line etc) then perhaps the case can be made stronger still. FWIW I agree that in this country (unlike possibly the US) the J question (if such it is) is a lot less black and white. 229
Posted by GenoType on October 12, 2009, 11:16 PM | # Why We Didn’t Use Poison Gas in World War II by Barton J. Bernstein “By mid-1945, as Army planners knew, Japan had produced very little gas and, lacking air superiority, could not use it against American troops outside the main Japanese islands. While the United States had produced about 135,000 tons of chemical warfare agents, Germany about 70,000 tons, and Britain about 40,000 tons, Japan had only 7,500 tons. In brief, American production was 1,800 percent greater than Japan’s.” ————— [stamp] PRIME MINISTER’S PERSONAL MINUTE [stamp, pen] Serial No. D. 217/4 [Seal of Prime Minister] 2. It is absurd to consider morality on this topic when everybody used it in the last war without a word of complaint from the moralists or the Church. On the other hand, in the last war bombing of open cities was regarded as forbidden. Now everybody does it as a matter of course. It is simply a question of fashion changing as she does between long and short skirts for women. 3. I want a cold-blooded calculation made as to how it would pay us to use poison gas, by which I mean principally mustard. We will want to gain more ground in Normandy so as not to be cooped up in a small area. We could probably deliver 20 tons to their 1 and for the sake of the 1 they would bring their bomber aircraft into the area against our superiority, thus paying a heavy toll. 4. Why have the Germans not used it? Not certainly out of moral scruples or affection for us. They have not used it because it does not pay them. The greatest temptation ever offered to them was the beaches of Normandy. This they could have drenched with gas greatly to the hindrance of the troops. That they thought about it is certain and that they prepared against our use of gas is also certain. But they only reason they have not used it against us is that they fear the retaliation. What is to their detriment is to our advantage. 5. Although one sees how unpleasant it is to receive poison gas attacks, from which nearly everyone recovers, it is useless to protest that an equal amount of H. E. will not inflict greater casualties and sufferings on troops and civilians. One really must not be bound within silly conventions of the mind whether they be those that ruled in the last war or those in reverse which rule in this. 6. If the bombardment of London became a serious nuisance and great rockets with far-reaching and devastating effect fell on many centres of Government and labour, I should be prepared to do [underline] anything [stop underline] that would hit the enemy in a murderous place. I may certainly have to ask you to support me in using poison gas. We could drench the cities of the Ruhr and many other cities in Germany in such a way that most of the population would be requiring constant medical attention. We could stop all work at the flying bomb starting points. I do not see why we should have the disadvantages of being the gentleman while they have all the advantages of being the cad. There are times when this may be so but not now. 7. I quite agree that it may be several weeks or even months before I shall ask you to drench Germany with poison gas, and if we do it, let us do it one hundred per cent. In the meanwhile, I want the matter studied in cold blood by sensible people and not by that particular set of psalm-singing uniformed defeatists which one runs across now here now there. Pray address yourself to this. It is a big thing and can only be discarded for a big reason. I shall of course have to square Uncle Joe and the President; but you need not bring this into your calculations at the present time. Just try to find out what it is like on its merits. [signed] Winston Churchill [initials] 6.7.44 [underlined] —————- Winston S. Churchill: departmental minute (Churchill papers: 16/16) 12 May 1919 War Office: “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. “I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.” ————— Henry Gonzalez, US Congressman, referred to this in the House of Representatives on March 24, 1992: “Moral right” is of course the reason this piece of history has now been dredged up again - by people who see contradictions in the pious arguments of Messrs. Bush, Blair et al. And this seems only fair. In 1998 Clinton denounced opponents to his planned attack on Iraq for “not remembering the past”. > I remain unconvinced that the UK used chemical weapons > in the middle east in the 1920s…. > but I’m open to correction. Not easy. And if you’d rather not… Churchill thought of it as poison gas - and so, apparently did everyone else. The idea of using it was his alone. And he is also is also to have given the authorization to the RAF. He wanted gas to be used in addition to regular bombing: “against recalcitrant Arabs as experiment”. According to Simons, gas was not dispensed in bombs. The intention was to quell a growing rebellion in remote villages. He met with objections but maintained that “we cannot in any circumstances acquiesce in the non-utilisation of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier”. It seems Churchill wanted to cause “disablement”, “discomfort or illness, but not death”. In any case, to Churchill this was not a moral issue. Here is part of a memo, so you can see it through his eyes. He wrote this during WWII, when he contemplated using poison gas, but never did: 230
Posted by GenoType on October 12, 2009, 11:53 PM | #
Irritating you, am I? Zero aircraft to deliver the nerve agents. Old men, Hitler Youth, and disabled vets operating the anti-aircraft guns. That’s what we’re told, anyhow. A ruined nation depopulated of young men. You think otherwise, I take it? 900,000 men, fit and ready to kick Russian ass? The U.S. and Britain produced 175,000 tons of poison gas. Apparently the Allies did this to poison ants and night time creepy crawlers, for it is said they were quite surprised to find the Reich’s stocks of nerve gas. No doubt! 231
Posted by SM on October 12, 2009, 11:57 PM | # >The tricky bit is explaining away why they felt it necessary to attack, invade, occupy and enslave their >neighbors rather than making a serious effort to persuade them of the rightness of their cause. Time line again. Germany invades Denmark/Norway and then low countries and France AFTER war is definite (and Britain also sent singles [real or phony] that they were looking at occupying Norway). Those German invasions are ‘march/marsh zones”(buffers) after the war was inevitable. That stuff is already known too. For someone who studies this you don’t know a lot about it. As far as enslaving people. Who? The _"lesser combatants"_? You mean HAVING to go to work where you’re told? All people are enslaved. It is just a question of costume /zeitgeist. What do you think transferring men’s wealth to women is now etc? >“Why didn’t everyone just see what the NS types saw?”... Well that is complicated (meaning I can’t just explain it all) BUT it would be the same thing that causes people in a diverse and complicated world to not see political issues the same now in our time. 232
Posted by GenoType on October 13, 2009, 08:00 AM | #
I wonder whether Dan Dare will get around at some point to explain away the rationale for the production of tens of thousands of tons of nerve agents during the Churchill era. Meant for killing lice, no doubt. Ah, the moral implications! 233
Posted by GenoType on October 13, 2009, 08:53 PM | # Hello Professor Dare, I know you’re reading this. After all it’s your “log entry,” as Scrooby would say. Spare me the condescension and insinuation. It’s obvious this is not my specialty. In this I’m the student. Educate me. I have three questions for you: (1) The 40,000 tons of blood agents produced by the Brits were intended to do what, exactly? (2) The 135,000 tons of blood agents produced by the Americans were intended to do what, exactly? You]http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/winston_churchill_a_liability_or_an_asset_for_the_west/P100/#c82673]You made the following comment[/url] to Cap’n Chaos:
So professor, in light of this comment … (3) Why should National Socialists, then or now, experience guilt for the Third Reich’s stockpiling of 70, 000 tons of Sarin and Tabun? 234
Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 16, 2009, 08:13 PM | # This goes out to the German speaking readers, lately the best documentary on WW2 is hosted on youtube. It deals with Hitler´s various efforts to avoid war, how the Allies intrigued against Germany´s efforts to find peaceful settlements, it refers to Stalin’s starving the Ukranians, Polish provocations and murders of Germans in Poland, a fair and unbiased version of WW2 which paints a completely different picture from the 60 + years of victors’ one-sided and self-serving propaganda we’ve been forced-fed. Try to get a book published that doesn’t toe the “evil Nazis incompetent at everything” party-line. Watch it, spread it, you have never been informed about WW2 the way this professional documentary does (professional speakers, cuts, editting….). Watch and spread: Hitlers Krieg? Was Guido Knopp verschweigt 236
Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 17, 2009, 03:53 PM | # Is there any doubt that the BRD is a free country? In other news, Sylvia Stolz’s appeal has been denied. The Bastardstate is very comfortable with jailing Germans for their views or even for defending certain clients. How long can this oppressive and paranoid little system last? The BRD is a anti-German dictatorship that doesn’t respect the human rights of Germans…real human rights like free speech and free inquiry. Note that the video is banned despite that it doesn’t doubt Holocaust dogma. Anything that challenges the victors’ historiography makes the BRD apparatchiks very nervous indeed. It’s more like an obscurantist banana republic akin to Haiti under Papa Doc than a civilized state it pretends to be. It’s amazing how many taboos exist in our tolerant, multicult, enlightened nations. And the list keeps growing. Even the weather is now a controversial topic. Just try to express misgivings about global warming in public and see what happens. 238
Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 17, 2009, 07:43 PM | # On YouTube you can find a series of videos discussing Churchill’s War, and in particular it mentioned how he demanded that Germany be destroyed with gas and anthrax bombs. 239
Posted by Captainchaos on October 17, 2009, 08:07 PM | #
Instead of triangulating against the Krauts Sunic looks to rehabilitate European ethno-nationalism by giving voice to the legitimate victimhood of the German people. Good man. 240
Posted by anon on October 18, 2009, 03:52 AM | # “On YouTube you can find a series of videos discussing Churchill’s War, and in particular it mentioned how he demanded that Germany be destroyed with gas and anthrax bombs.” Those videos are censored as well in Germany. They take extreme care that the dumb sheeple over here don’t get any ideas. 241
Posted by Friedrich Braun on October 18, 2009, 02:25 PM | # Yeah, but what’s the point? Using a proxy is very easy. Personally, if I were living in the Bastardstate I’d encrypt my use of the Internet. It’s a worthy investment. http://perfect-privacy.com/ By the way, who bans these videos? How is it done? Here’s a good example of the BRD’s sensitivity to politically incorrect history: Since June 2005, in an unintended proof of the author Oliver Hassencamp’s statement that “a lack of rational arguments usually results in a ban”, the Federal German censorship authority “Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien” (“Federal Office for the Investigation of Youth-Endangering Media”) has been trying to force us to censor our Archive. The historical books etc. in our Archive, which shed a clearly undesirable positive light on German history, are liable - so the BPjM evidently fears - to negatively influence young Germans in their normal development into well-informed and morally balanced citizens of the Federal Republic… (On the other hand, sites that incite to hatred against Germany and the German people are not, of course, deemed to be similarly “youth-endangering”; at least, we know of no such case of censorship ordered by the Federal Republic.) http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/welcome.html 243
Posted by Friedrich Braun on November 08, 2009, 12:46 AM | # Richard Hoste on how Britain short-sightedness and jealousy killed western civilization: To Galton, the English and other Europeans needn’t worry if other intelligent races prosper in their own sphere. He was probably correct. Westerners aren’t worse off due to a strong South Korea or Japan and we won’t suffer due to the rise of the Chinese in and of itself (Of course we could suffer if that growth is partly based on interest from American debt, which it is, or if Richard Lynn’s predictions come true and they end up using biotechnology to give themselves an average IQ of 200). It was the zero-sum mentality that would make the British desperate to keep the Germans weak and lead to the disastrous and dysgenic two World Wars. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Hoste-GaltonII.html 244
Posted by Friedrich Braun on November 08, 2009, 04:34 AM | # Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today wondered why any crimes committed by the Germans against the Jews should be used as a pretext to punish Palestinians. He also questioned why scholars across Europe are sitting in jail for their opinions about a historical event. The Iranian president called for freedom of speech on this and all other academic issues.
http://www?.theoccide?ntalobserv?er.net/aut?hors/Hoste?-Ahmadinej?ad.html 245
Posted by Friedrich Braun on November 08, 2009, 05:11 AM | # “Germans did not show any trace of racial hatred toward Blacks. The British Empire has caused more human misery than Hitler will cause if he lives a hundred years. It is idiotic to talk about a people who brought the slave trade to its greatest development, who are the chief? exploiters of Africa and who hold four hundred million Indians in subjection, as the great defenders of democracy.” - W.E.B. Du Bois (statements after six months in the Third Reich) 246
Posted by Frank on November 08, 2009, 06:18 AM | #
Your post reminds of Rainbow “Southrons” who seek desperately to prove how multicultural and tolerant the CSA was. Oh, Marxists what must we do to impress thee? Legitimate complaints against Hitler fall in the category that he caused unnecessary violence, suffering, and manipulation (or related complaints that NS as a system is too centralised and managerial and thus potentially dangerous to the nation it is meant to serve). Complaints that he loved the German people too much and was too sincere of a nationalist ought to replied with an affirmation! 247
Posted by Baldwin de Cormier on November 08, 2009, 11:07 AM | #
I’m not sure if many know this, but American soldiers who were considered “of exceptional ability” were often held in reserve rather than being sent to either the European or Pacific Fronts. This was related to me by family and friends who witnessed it - I heard of engineers, bankers, and even steelworkers receiving this treatment. It seems that the US Army at the time had a policy with at least a hint of Eugenics. 248
Posted by Friedrich Braun on November 08, 2009, 03:13 PM | # Evergreen Review 19, 1961 ROBERT STROMBERG A TALK WITH LOUIS-FERDINAND CELINE Gallimard, his publisher, recently brought out his latest book, North. “It is about how the Germans suffered during the war,” Celine said. “No one has written about that… no! no! you’re not supposed to mention that, how they suffered… keep quiet… shhh!” He put his finger to his lips for quiet. “It isn’t nice to talk about that… be still… NO! only the other side suffered… shh!” ... “Why were you in jail in Denmark?” “I was a criminal of war.” “Were you accused of collaboration?” “I said criminal of war! Don’t you understand! Criminal of war! I was not accused of collaboration… I was a criminal of war! Is that clear!” “You were supposed to have written things against the Jews.” “I wrote nothing against the Jews… all I said was that ‘the Jews are pushing us into war,’ that’s all. They had a fight with Hitler and it was none of our business, we shouldn’t have mixed into it. The Jews have had a war of lamentation for two thousand years and now Hitler has given them more lamentations. I have nothing against the Jews… it is not logical to say anything good or bad about five million people.” 249
Posted by Legionaire on December 08, 2009, 05:17 PM | # I say this will all due respect, being aware there´s very little chance of saying bad things about Churchill without causing a harsh reaction from those who praise him…but i do think that Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Churchill and any other top British politician of the era that acting together or independently decided to enter the war in WW2 are to a great degree responsible for turning the once Great British Empire into a second class world player. First comes Chamberlain for declaring the state of war to -presumably- defend Poland. Everyone in the top rankings of both British Army and Royal Navy knew that there was no physical possibility to aid the Polish nation. They say Hitler was a gambler, but aren´t all politicians consummate gamblers? Hitler´s gamble was that France and England would not declare war if he attacked Poland? What do you call Chamberlain´s declaration of war against Germany? If they knew perfectly they could not aid Poland, why did they declare war vs Germany? Simple, one gamble to find out if Hitler would be scared enough to call off the invasion against Poland..“Ohhh France and England declared war?? Abort the invasion!”. Two gambles that failed, further complicating the already nasty geopolitical scenario in Europe. Second comes Churchill -and any other British politicians that might have had a word in the issue- for not pulling England out of the war as early as in the first half of 1940, after the French surrender. This decision cost the British empire the lives of hundreds of thousands of its fine young men, and further accelerated the collapse of the once Great Empire. The military and financial weaknesses of the British Empire had become apparent as early as in world war one [near bank-rupt]...but they were brutally exposed in the first 2 years of the war: in the ETO the British Army was thoroughly defeated, routed and expelled from continental Europe, wherever they clashed with the Germans: Norway, France, Balkans and even Crete. Material/financial aid was urgently sought and found with the U.S.A. Only with extreme sacrifices and high losses they managed to repulse the Luftwaffe aerial assault during the summer of 1940. [Human and material losses that could have been avoided if Churchill accepts German peace offers]. Even with the entire logistical business playing against him, including a faltering Italian ally and everything but the best political support in Berlin, the dessert fox delivered several initial brutal punches to a larger British Army in North Africa. He would be defeated there only when his army was virtually abandoned [with the U.S. military directly involved in the area now]. Finally, in the Far East a swift Japanese attack and Singapore was lost faster than a sigh. 2 Royal Navy capital ships were caught by Japanese bombers and torpedo planes, attacked, rapidly sunk and that was it for England in the PTO. From then on the military campaign in such scenario would be 99.9% American business [the only nation with financial, material and human resources to conduct military operations wherever it was needed]. With all these naked symptoms it makes one wonder what the hell they were thinking in London. It was crystal clear that without foreign aid [American aid], England had no business to conduct on its lone some self. It would take England ~60 years to pay the whole bill. There are so many myths that “we know” in the present-day world. Churchill did the right thing by putting German peace offerings in the dustbin -“where they belonged given the regime transmitting them”-. After all, what would have happened to our free world if Sir Winston Churchill does not stand to an evil regime swallowing Europe first, later the entire world. Churchill had a moral, ethical duty to preserve the free world, so he stayed in the war. Churchill thoroughly fulfilled a superior moral obligation to save not only England and the Empire but humanity [which should include me here, i was saved by Churchill even if i would not be born until many decades after the war]. In other words the zenith of Statesmanship. With all due respect all these views so many people around the world “know” are weaker than a paper castle constructed while a hurricane strikes. Churchill´s statesmanship plus those moral/ethical obligations that most people address are shattered in a sigh when we know what we do know: Churchill comfortably seated by the side of who? Stalin. But that´s only the memorabilia, Churchill´s nearly unrestricted support of Stalin´s Soviet Union is the main case, not forgetting the war crimes that point the finger to Churchill´s head. In the circumstances of Great Britain in 1940 would have accepted peace and watch the progression of events in the continent. Why would you want and accept the risk of jumping into a fight, and get either injured or killed in the process, when you are being told the problem is not with you? Your financial situation is not good, your military capabilities have been tested and were thoroughly defeated. The enemy is not directing his attack to your homeland and people. Above all, a true Statesman seeks the good of his people and their material possessions, but politics is a stinking arena isnt´t it? 250
Posted by Bill on December 08, 2009, 06:49 PM | # Legionaire on December 08, 2009, 09:17 PM Chamberlain, appeasement, Poland, Hitler, Germany, Russia. The Anglo American Establishment. Carol Quigley. I found this rambling but it’s all in there. 251
Posted by Wandrin on December 08, 2009, 07:44 PM | # Legionaire One factor that for me outweighs everything else is simply that the Churchill myth - backs to the wall facing invasion, we shall never surrender etc - is potentially of immense psychological benefit to British people now in the face of the 3rd world invasion orchestrated by the enemy. Nick Griffin is using the Churchill mythology and it definitely helps because British people have been brought up with that mythology of defiance. I think the history needs to be rebalanced because the official version is used as a method of divide and rule but the defiant defense aspect of the Churchill myth is too valuable a propaganda tool in Britain not to use it. 252
Posted by Bill on December 09, 2009, 05:40 AM | # Twice (independently) within 48 hours I’ve come across this theme.
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2009/091201sovereign_defaults.html
. 253
Posted by Legionaire on December 16, 2009, 04:43 AM | # Bill, Wandrin: All i´m trying to express here is that Mr. Churchill should be, in the present-day world, a far more controversial figure. I´m referring to what people presume to know about Churchill and about that horrific catastrophe known as World War Two. People presume to know World War Two is the sole responsibility of the plans and actions of one individual: Hitler, and that´s about it. That sums it up. Churchill made a massive contribution in turning a “local” conflict into the sort of global conflagration the whole thing became in the end. “To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill” said Sun Tzu. Hitler, portrayed as the man with a thirst for blood not even all blood available could quench, showed he tried to avoid armed conflict as much as he could. Through political and/or diplomatic pressure or negotiations he assured peace, assistance and/or cooperation [however you want to call it] with many countries in Europe to secure his plans that aimed East: Austria and Czechoslovakia [annexed to the Reich], Finland, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania…without firing a single bullet. This is not to say that those countries were enemies of Germany; but given the geo-political scenario in Europe war was unavoidable. The 2 heavy weights, Germany and USSR, were on a collision course; it was only a matter of time, so Hitler wanted to assure that the countries flanking the Soviet Union would not become his enemies or friends of Germany´s potential or actual enemies. These political maneuvers Hitler conducted were pure perfection: not one of his soldiers and pilots are lost; not one tank, aircraft, rifle or artillery piece was lost, keeping his military force intact. Not one single soldier and civilian from those countries was wounded or killed. Simple. Perfection. Just do not forget one significant thing here: when the shells, bombs and the fire came to Yugoslavia during March 1941, it was thanks to direct British involvement in Yugoslavian affairs that lead the Coup d´etat. No British involvement in supporting the coup, no bombs fall over Belgrade. The allies call the regimes that signed alliances with Hitler “puppet regimes”...what do you call those aided/established by the Brits, like in Yugoslavia in 1941? Who wanted the blood in that country? Churchill or Hitler? Again, war was unavoidable, it´s just that it could have been way smaller than it actually happened. Next entry: Unite Against Fascism, state terror group. Previous entry: Alex Linder: Attack the Conservatives |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Wandrin commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 04:44 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 03:20 PM. (go) (view) grecian commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 03:10 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:04 PM. (go) (view) Salvatore Quinto commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/24/12, 12:47 PM. (go) (view) Classic Sparkle commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 12:07 PM. (go) (view) Cobus commented in entry 'A genocide in South Africa' on 05/24/12, 10:14 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 09:49 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 08:54 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:41 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:18 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:53 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:48 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:47 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:32 AM. (go) (view) Guest commented in entry 'The Torment of the Mulattoes' on 05/24/12, 06:17 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/24/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:26 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:23 PM. (go) (view) 7 Year BA commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 09:19 PM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 08:31 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Vanessa…you owe me one, man! You were trolling on SF out of boredom, it doesn’t have much to do with more time to reflect.
Posted by Steven E. Romer on August 19, 2009, 02:56 AM | #
Without a doubt a liability—as were Stalin and Roosevelt. The Nazis were unequivocally the good guys by every objective standard I can find, doing what was necessary for the future of our people, eliminating corruption and destruction for the long run—looking to the future salvation of their people. Our lot has been all downhill since then. Money, power, ego, and hatred all conspired to destroy the German blossoming of the European survival urge. In the modern corrupt world, mere survival and goodness are not enough. Everyone wants to know what is in it for themselves. It is sin writ large, and it is killing us. The wages of sin is death. We are going extinct. To even question that Churchill was a bad guy shows that you have been conditioned and immersed so long in this diabolical pshychological soup that you may never fully get out and become aware. The “free world” is a western, European invention. Even the Vikings had the “thing” meetings of equals which is reflected today in our congress here in the USA. Freedom and representative government are a northern European thing. Race is the foundation of the free world, and also the foundation of objectivity and objective justice so important to Europeans above all people. We invented science as an externalization of our best thinking and minds also for much the same reasons. Justice and freedom. Remember that nice guys seem to always finish last—the good guys don’t always win because the bad guys will say or do anything while the good guys won’t. Then even many of the good guys get duped into fighting against their own best interests as we and the English were in WW2.
If we had real leaders, these things woudl never have happened.