Posted by DanielS on Mon, 28 Jul 2014 17:03 | #

World War I started 100 years ago today.

On July 28, 1914 - Austria declares war on Serbia (WW I) following assassination of Austrian hier Archduke Franz Ferdinand

Posted by goybbels on Wed, 30 Jul 2014 12:28 | #

http://youtu.be/o70yKzzOvAQ?t=19m11s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crucified_Soldier

more brutish german crimes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_made_from_human_corpses

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:40 | #

I notice Goybbels (Marcus) that you try to mix in the absurd with the verifiable.

You don’t care for truth. You just want to spin things in your fuck-headed Nazi way.

By the way bitch…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o70yKzzOvAQ

Posted by Goybbels on Wed, 30 Jul 2014 18:05 | #

Sorry Daniel, but I’m not your arch nemesis “Marcus”. i don’t know this guy, period.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 30 Jul 2014 18:08 | #

Ok, well, you are cut from the same shit..

I found the documentary of the crucified soldier quite convincing.. Didn’t you Helmut?

Can you say Harry Band?

Ever notice that Nazis argue exactly like Jews? Seems to go back further in their tradition, as an ordeal was made out of proving Harry Band’s case in that war as well.

I suggest you have a look at Albion My Way:

A review of Mein Kampf
http://albionmyway.blogspot.com/2013/10/mein-kampf-review.html

Pro White / anti Nazi
http://albionmyway.blogspot.com/2013/03/pro-white-anti-nazi.html

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:47 | #

Pro White / anti Nazi
http://albionmyway.blogspot.com/2013/03/pro-white-anti-nazi.html

March 5th, 2013

Albion My Way: Pro White / anti Nazi  

I once wrote a piece denouncing people who profess to be white advocates and who use Nazi symbols and slogans. The original thing was quite embarrassingly PC, since I gave ‘racism’ credence as a stand-alone concept, since I was not well informed on race-realism, IQ differences etc, crime statistice, etc. at that point. As a result of these blindspots I was still advocating civic/cultural nationalism, and taking quite a positive view on race-mixing. Clearly my attitude has evolved somewhat since then, and I am now rather more outspoken in terms of white advocacy/preservationism. Yet I still think those who adopt Nazi iconography and posturing do the white cause a great disservice, living down to the image projected by anti-whites who style themselves ‘anti-fascists’.

The prevailing narrative (i.e. view of history and society) is anti-white in tone. And yes, Jews have some responsibility for this state of affairs. They were over-represented among the founders of cultural Marxism, and they continue to be represented among propators of anti-white world views. Marcuse, Adorno, Sontag, Ignatiev, etc. It is good for gentile whites to break free of this propaganda.

There is no historical crime that (gentile) whites are uniquely guilty of, or that they have never been victims of. Whites, far from being the villains of history, have contributed more of their share of the things that are useful and beautiful to mankind.

It is good for whites to realise that they can be proud of their identity and heritage.

But it seems many who rebel against the mainstream anti-white narrative fall prey to an alternative kind of brainwashing.
Which is to say self-referencing Nazi apologism/revisionism.

I want no part in this.

Most white people don’t like Nazis! Most white people never were Nazis! Most of the people who died because of the Nazis were white people! Most of the people who resisted the Nazis were white people. If you’re a Nazi please shut up! You are driving sane people away! The worst way to combat anti-white bigotry (or white ethnomasochism) is to identify with the Nazis.

 

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:50 | #

Continued..

I find it ironic that ‘white pride’ advocates use the badges of a regime that has brought more shame on ‘their people’ than any other (and which, for all that, was only an aberrant blip in history.)

Whites in general bear no-more collective guilt for the misdeeds of the Nazis than blacks do over the Rwanda Genocide.

I am British, or course, and the Nazis were a great enemy of my country. How absurd would it be to associate Britons with the actions of a regime that we were busy fighting a war against at the time!

My country’s finest hour was in 1940, when it stood alone against the Nazi dictator and his Reich.

So I would rather not see people who would be my friends displaying swastikas and the like. I know that the symbol has appeared ubiquitously in ancient cultures, where it was considered quite unoffensive.

But aircraft marked with these symbols dropped bombs on my grandparents, so don’t expect me to think of Hindu temples when I see it.

I am talking about the bombing of English cities. The destruction of life and limb and historical monuments. I know we returned the favour, and it was all very sad, but you’re not going to get me approving of the iconography and slogans of a destructive and dangerous historical enemy which we defeated, at great cost. There is no ‘white guilt’ for Nazism. There is white pride for being of the white peoples who bravely resisted and ultimately defeated Nazism.

Holocaust denial is no more a prerequisite of white advocacy than support for ‘gay marriage’ is a prerequisite of atheism.

I don’t think Holocaust denial should be criminalised, but I do find it absurd as a proposition.

Evidence of the Nazis’ intention to wipe out all Jews within their grasp is found in the minutes of the Wannsee Conference, held on Jan 20, 1942.

‘The Jews should in the course of the Final Solution be taken ... to the east for use as labour…

The Jews capable of work will be brought to these areas for road building, in which task undoubtedly a large number will fall through natural diminution. The remnant that is finally able to survive all this- since this is undoubtedly the part with the strongest resistance- must be treat accordingly, since these people, representing a natural selection, are to be regarded as the germ cell of a new Jewish development, in case they should succeed and go free’.

Clearly no Jews were intended to survive this programme.

The Muslim Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, an anti-Zionist Palestinian, visited Berlin in 1941, meeting the top Nazis.  He recorded in his memoirs, later on, that, as Himmler informed him, by that time the Nazis had already killed three million Jews.  (Not even David Irving disputes this evidence).

So the idea that six million had been killed by 1945 is hardly far-fetched.

Even if Auscwitz was a myth (which it wasn’t)...

Belsen should have been enough to make Nazis pariahs forever.

Anyone who defends the Nazis should read Richard Dimbleby’s account of Belsen in the immediate aftermath of its liberation by British forces.

Incidentally it is not necessary to deny the holocaust in order to condemn the actions of the State of Israel, nor to condemn the Jewish hypocrites who condemn present-day white nationalism while defending the Jewish state. Many Britons lost sympathy for the Jews when they became the oppressors of the Palestinians.

Victim status is not fixed.

One can also criticize the Jewish predominance in Cultural Marxism.  Indeed the predominance of internationalist Jews in original, revolutionary Marxism was condemned in the 1920s by Winston Churchill.

But Churchill had a favourable view of the ‘national’ Jews, who were loyal to the countries in which they resided. This measured view contrasts, rather, to the Nazis’ fanatical attitude. The Nazis failed to see a distinction between a seditious Jewish Bolshevik and a innocent person who happened to have Jewish ancestry.

The opponents of Nazism included nationalists. To be anti-Nazis did not mean believing in racial ‘equality’, nor in ‘multiculturalism’.

Nazi apologists/revisionists pose as though they have some special inside information, but their view of things is actually a mixture of wishful thinking and outlandish conspiracy theory.

Often they are ignorant of basic facts, for example I have twice had one tell me that Churchill declared war, even though Churchill was not even PM at the start of the war. War was declared, very reluctantly, by Neville Chamberlain, who had hitherto followed a policy of appeasement.

These Nazis criticise Churchill for his strategic alliance with Stalin, yet it was the Nazis who made a pact with Stalin’s USSR, with whom they jointly dismembered Poland.

Poles in the Nazi-occupied sphere were subjected to genocide by deliberate starvation.

So much for the Nazis’ pro-white credentials!

They were not even nationalists, in the ideological sense, since they did not recognise the sovereignty of other nations.

It is tempting, looking at the worst results of post-war non-white immigration, to regret the fact that the Germans lost the war, since at least Europe’s core population would not have been subjected to this adulteration.

Some attribute the multicult policy to Leftist ‘revenge’ on the right, and to Jewish influence, with Jews seeing multiculturalism as a shield against the prospect of another Hitler coming to power.

Nazi atrocities like Oradour, however, seem to indicate that it would be no fun for other whites to live under Nazi tyranny.

Multiculturalims was not the inevitable outcome of allied victory.
Churchill, a staunch opponent of Communism in the post-war period, was also an advocate of keeping Britain white.  Enoch Powell and Bernard Montgomery were also exponents of views which would be unwelcome except on the alternative right in this day and age.

Early on in his career Churchill had also warned of the potential danger to Europe from Islam.

Whites should wish to preserve themselves, and their majorities in their traditional homelands.

This should be done through immigration restrictions, welfare reform (so that benefits are not payed to scrounger immigrants or to recklessly fertile colonisers.

I was formerly an advocate of ‘civic nationalism’, prioritising culture and values over race. I now see that as problematic.  When immigrants of a foreign race become sufficiently numerous, they have no incentive to subscribe to a culture that was not created by their ancestors.

I don’t think race mixing should be outlawed (due to my respect for individual autonomy), but I take a dimmer view on it than I once did. I once saw it as a positive sign that immigrants were assimilating. I now appreciate the danger. If there are too many non-whites and we mix with them too freely, then we lose what makes us distinct in our physical form and also some deeper, hereditary character traits. If Western Civilisation is to endure then relatively unadulterated white populations need to be preserved, and to retain control of the places where they historically predominated.

I have had to give up on the idea of assimilation. I rather too frequently see ‘British’ blacks, en masse, behaving like Sub-Saharan blacks, and ‘British’ Muslims voting for Islam. To call such people ‘British’ diminishes the concept, since Britons are the ancient people of this island. Someone without British ancestry or racial affinity can really no-more be a Briton than a white man can be a Zulu or an Eskimo.

I don’t believe ‘diveristy’ is any kind of blessing (except to those who would use it as a smoke screen) nor do I think multiracial democracies can function, since the different races have different interests, instincts and agendas.

British culture and Freedom would die without people of British stock to maintain it. Extensive mixing with foreign races would dilute our very nature. There is a popular idea among the Jews that for them, marrying out is to give Hitler ‘posthumous victories’. In other words that race mixing is a form of genocide.

While I embrace ethnic nationalism, I reject racial supremacism, in that I have no desire to have dominion over other races. All peoples should have self-determination in their own homeland, the sovereignty of which should be considered inviolable.

If only for this reason, the trappings of the Nazi regime, which was founded on supremacism and imperialism, should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Posted 5th March 2013 by Albion My Way

Posted by goybbels on Fri, 01 Aug 2014 13:11 | #

so let’s see what you have subcribed to

The first part deals with Hitler’s early life under a seemingly quite tyrannical father.

?
i did read the german version about three times but this is quite new to me.

Early signs of Hitler’s megalomania are in evidence when he describes an early ambition for the religious life, but fancied not just being a monk but an abbot.

but when young boys dream of beeing astronauts or football stars one day no one is going to tackle that. *rolling eyes*

Hitler also insisted that the Jews were a racial group, who only posed as a religion when it suited them. Their Talmudic religion existed to ensure that they kept their blood ‘clean’ as a race, he claimed.

okeey…

I reject the Nazi ideology since I place more of a premium on individual liberty, and due to the failure to acknowledge the sovereignty of other nations, which is explicit in Mein Kampf.

oh, that’s fine, why don’t you join the libertarians, danoiel?

Hitler seemed to believe that the superior ‘Aryan’ race was justified in subjugating and enslaving others.

where did he say that? so the polans aren’t aryan?

He believed Germany had a right to expand at Russia’s expense.

only russia has the divine right to attain new Lebensraum at the expense of germans,finns,romanians,estonians etc.. that’s logical and WN of course!

The prevailing narrative (i.e. view of history and society) is anti-white in tone. And yes, Jews have some responsibility for this state of affairs. They were over-represented among the founders of cultural Marxism, and they continue to be represented among propators of anti-white world views. Marcuse, Adorno, Sontag, Ignatiev, etc. It is good for gentile whites to break free of this propaganda.

i’m sure glorious polskie siły is going to deal with the jews one day. But first, it has to destroy the imminent threads and occupants of polish soil; the teutonians, banderites, EU-Nazi brussel, ruthenians….!

My country’s finest hour was in 1940, when it stood alone against the Nazi dictator and his Reich.

I am talking about the bombing of English cities. The destruction of life and limb and historical monuments.

ahh, that’s what he’s up to. an antifa. the subhuman churchILL did a nice job by-  starting the night raids on germans cities in 1940, to which hitler didn’t retaliate for 4 weeks; -not agreeing hitler’s withdrawal proposal from poland and finally, giving poland to his binge drinking friend stalin in the end.

Daniel, even you should now, that during the siege of warsaw, the luftwaffe halted all arial attack for three days to give the poles the opportunity to evacuate the city.

There is white pride for being of the white peoples who bravely resisted and ultimately defeated Nazism.

the same “heroes” imported millions of third worlders to europe and the us, reinstalled the frankurt school in germany and promoted feminism and cultural liberation in the west.

I don’t think Holocaust denial should be criminalised, but it I do find it absurd as a proposition.
Evidence of the Nazis’ intention to wipe out all Jews within their grasp is found in the minutes of the Wannsee Conference ,  held on Jan 20, 1942.

what?evidence? oy…

The Muslim Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, an anti-Zionist Palestinian, visited Berlin in 1941, meeting the top Nazis.  He recorded in his memoirs, later on, that, as Himmler informed him, by that time the Nazis had already killed three million Jews.  (Not even David Irving disputes this evidence).
So the idea that six million had been killed by 1945 is hardly far-fetched.
Even if Auscwitz was a myth (which it wasn’t)...

without gas chambers and in 1941??!!it’s not true, it was 3 shekelzillion!

Belsen should have been enough to make Nazis pariahs forever.

any evidence again? he’s crying 6 million tears for the jews here. they’re obviously more important than the bombed of Dresden or Hamburg.

what about the thousands which churchill gassed in africa?
what about the first concentrationscamps for 100,000 and more afrikaners in south africa?
what about the killed chinese during the opium trade?
what about the hunger blockade against post war germany in 1918/19?
what about the millions of dead indians? 
what about the british mandatory of palestine which was given to the jews?
what about the british wars against france, the netherlands and portugal during the last centuries?
what about the british crown in the north america?

don’t mistaken this for a rant against britons, i just want to show how futile and pathetic it can be to blame something on other europeans nowadays . EDL supporters like your friend should stick to TV.

Poles in the Nazi-occupied sphere were subjected to genocide by deliberate starvation.
So much for the Nazis’ pro-white credentials!

yet the polans survived the nazi-vampires, which never starved! and here we see where your priorities lie, doniyl.

Nazi atrocities like Oradour, however, seem to indicate that it would be no fun for other whites to live under Nazi tyranny.
Multiculturalims was not the inevitable outcome of allied victory.

but he doesn’t hide the involvement of the stalinists in that story. unfortantely, there are dozens of survivors of that retaliation attack.

I was formerly an advocate of ‘civic nationalism’, prioritising culture and values over race. I now see that as problematic.  When immigrants of a foreign race become sufficiently numerous, they have no incentive to subscribe to a culture that was not created by their ancestors.

bingo! at least he gets that one, what a poor idiot.
great articles, donyil.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 01 Aug 2014 13:54 | #

Posted by goybbels on August 01, 2014, 08:11 AM | #

“so let’s see what you have subcribed to”

Why do you propose to know? This was written by someone else, who I do not entirely agree with by the way.

“The first part deals with Hitler’s early life under a seemingly quite tyrannical father.?

i did read the german version about three times but this is quite new to me.”

I didn’t see that in Mein Kampf either. Maybe he is talking about an edition with a forward.

“Early signs of Hitler’s megalomania are in evidence when he describes an early ambition for the religious life, but fancied not just being a monk but an abbot.

but when young boys dream of beeing astronauts or football stars one day no one is going to tackle that. *rolling eyes*”

I am not going to stand by his every word and defend every little trivial point you can make in your Jewish style argumentation.

“Hitler also insisted that the Jews were a racial group, who only posed as a religion when it suited them. Their Talmudic religion existed to ensure that they kept their blood ‘clean’ as a race, he claimed.”

Yes, and I agree with Hitler about that.

“okeey…

“I reject the Nazi ideology since I place more of a premium on individual liberty, and due to the failure to acknowledge the sovereignty of other nations, which is explicit in Mein Kampf.

oh, that’s fine, why don’t you join the libertarians, danoiel?”

Because this is not my writing and I do not agree with the author on that particular point.

“Hitler seemed to believe that the superior ‘Aryan’ race was justified in subjugating and enslaving others.

where did he say that? so the polans aren’t aryan?”

He says it in Table Talk for sure, about Slavics.

I don’t really care what is Aryan. For me it is a word. I care about Europeans.

“He believed Germany had a right to expand at Russia’s expense.”

That’s true enough.

“only russia has the divine right to attain new Lebensraum at the expense of germans,finns,romanians,estonians etc.. that’s logical and WN of course!”

Well that’s a false either/or. I don’t believe that they have a right to expand at other European peoples expense either.

Now we are moving on to another article.. and I see you are plucking out the worst parts (what a surprise).

“The prevailing narrative (i.e. view of history and society) is anti-white in tone. And yes, Jews have some responsibility for this state of affairs. They were over-represented among the founders of cultural Marxism, and they continue to be represented among propators of anti-white world views. Marcuse, Adorno, Sontag, Ignatiev, etc. It is good for gentile whites to break free of this propaganda.”

I know and you know this is true but UNDERSTATING the case of Jewish power and influence. The author was obviously in recent transition to Jew awareness.

“i’m sure glorious polskie siły is going to deal with the jews one day.”

It is not my writing and where has this ‘glorious half Italian, half Polish American, gone long before raising the J.Q. ..aye Helmut?

“But first, it has to destroy the imminent threads and occupants of polish soil”

Now that we have established what YOU are pre-occupied with..

how about considering that my concern is to coordinate European interests? Forget it, I am talking to Goybbels. You will never stop arguing like a Jew. You will never deal honestly. You will never say anything but Hitler and Nazis were perfect and when I notice that they were not, I must be a Polish chauvinist.

What a Jew you are Goybbels.

“the teutonians, banderites, EU-Nazi brussel, ruthenians….!”

I don’t know what you are talking about there. Next..

“My country’s finest hour was in 1940, when it stood alone against the Nazi dictator and his Reich.”

Ok, well, that is the author speaking and I accept his British patriotism there.

“I am talking about the bombing of English cities. The destruction of life and limb and historical monuments.”

Yes.  He is true enough

“ahh, that’s what he’s up to. an antifa.”

Here we go with that again. Anybody who does not genuflect to Hitler is an “anti-fa”

Life should be so convenient for you; you can’t live without Hitler’s cookie cutter, I guess.

“the subhuman churchILL did a nice job by-  starting the night raids on germans cities in 1940, to which hitler didn’t retaliate for 4 weeks; -not agreeing hitler’s withdrawal proposal from poland and finally, giving poland to his binge drinking friend stalin in the end.”

Yes, we know, Hitler was so trustworthy LOL.

“Daniel, even you should now, that during the siege of warsaw, the luftwaffe halted all arial attack for three days to give the poles the opportunity to evacuate the city.”

It was very kind of them.

“There is white pride for being of the white peoples who bravely resisted and ultimately defeated Nazism.”

I can agree with that.

“the same “heroes” imported millions of third worlders to europe and the us, reinstalled the frankurt school in germany and promoted feminism and cultural liberation in the west.”

I don’t agree that the two go together at all. In fact, had the Nazi platform not been so narrow and then over the top, we could have managed the situation - the transfer agreement in particular - infinitely better. More, if not for the Nazi tactlessness, we would not be in the situation we are now, where even normal ethnocentrism is stigmatized.

“I don’t think Holocaust denial should be criminalised, but it I do find it absurd as a proposition.  Evidence of the Nazis’ intention to wipe out all Jews within their grasp is found in the minutes of the Wannsee Conference ,  held on Jan 20, 1942.

what?evidence? oy…”

I am not interested in arguing this point. It’s your problem.

“The Muslim Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, an anti-Zionist Palestinian, visited Berlin in 1941, meeting the top Nazis.  He recorded in his memoirs, later on, that, as Himmler informed him, by that time the Nazis had already killed three million Jews.  (Not even David Irving disputes this evidence).

  So the idea that six million had been killed by 1945 is hardly far-fetched.
  Even if Auscwitz was a myth (which it wasn’t)...

without gas chambers and in 1941??!!it’s not true, it was 3 shekelzillion!”

Wrong. It was 500 billion!

“Belsen should have been enough to make Nazis pariahs forever.

any evidence again? he’s crying 6 million tears for the jews here. they’re obviously more important than the bombed of Dresden or Hamburg.”

I don’t think he’s crying for Jews so much as saying he’s not into the revisionist bandwagon and that it is an unnecessary angle to White defense - he is clear that he thinks that.

“what about the thousands which churchill gassed in africa?
what about the first concentrationscamps for 100,000 and more afrikaners in south africa?
what about the killed chinese during the opium trade?
what about the hunger blockade against post war germany in 1918/19?
what about the millions of dead indians?
what about the british mandatory of palestine which was given to the jews?
what about the british wars against france, the netherlands and portugal during the last centuries?
what about the british crown in the north america?”

What about it? I know this, I had nothing to do with it.

“don’t mistaken this for a rant against britons, i just want to show how futile and pathetic it can be to blame something on other europeans nowadays . EDL supporters like your friend should stick to TV.”

We can agree that we do not have blame for history. So why don’t you stop blaming people for it?

“Poles in the Nazi-occupied sphere were subjected to genocide by deliberate starvation.
  So much for the Nazis’ pro-white credentials!

yet the polans survived the nazi-vampires, which never starved! and here we see where your priorities lie, doniyl.”

Not really, my priority is in inter-European cooperation. It is awkward when I have to come to the defense of Poles (or even when other people do it, as in this case) as it will be taken by people like you as “all I really care about.”

“Nazi atrocities like Oradour, however, seem to indicate that it would be no fun for other whites to live under Nazi tyranny.

  Multiculturalims was not the inevitable outcome of allied victory.

but he doesn’t hide the involvement of the stalinists in that story. unfortantely, there are dozens of survivors of that retaliation attack.”

Oh, good. There’s a point for you Goybbels.

“I was formerly an advocate of ‘civic nationalism’, prioritising culture and values over race. I now see that as problematic.  When immigrants of a foreign race become sufficiently numerous, they have no incentive to subscribe to a culture that was not created by their ancestors.

bingo! at least he gets that one, what a poor idiot.
great articles, donyil.”

They are good articles. I don’t agree with everything. For example, I would make interracial marriage illegal in European lands. Those who seek such relationships would be required to renounce citizenship and leave.

Posted by wvs on Fri, 01 Aug 2014 22:50 | #

“I don’t agree with everything. For example, I would make interracial marriage illegal in European lands. Those who seek such relationships would be required to renounce citizenship and leave.”                                                 

—

Lol

As if you would ever have any power to do anything beyond your own chidish fantasies.

Time for you to grow up and get real, kiddo!

Posted by TJ on Fri, 01 Aug 2014 22:59 | #

The focus of this seems to be remembrance of WW1. And I think it’s appropriate that we consider the disastrous effects on all sides. We can’t be slaughtering each other on this scale, especially as International Capitalists/Jews profit from both sides. Nobody won WW1 or WW2.

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/29972844
http://www.landskip.co.uk/belweb8/verfold/verdun9.html
http://www.landskip.co.uk/belweb8/verfold/vercat1.html
http://www.verdun-douaumont.com/?lang=en

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 02 Aug 2014 04:40 | #

WV,  number 10 says:

Posted by wvs on August 01, 2014, 05:50 PM | #

“I don’t agree with everything. For example, I would make interracial marriage illegal in European lands. Those who seek such relationships would be required to renounce citizenship and leave.”                               

—

Lol

As if you would ever have any power to do anything beyond your own chidish fantasies.

Time for you to grow up and get real, kiddo!

On the contrary. It is absolutely possible to establish a nation, that is, to establish rules which make interracial marriage illegal; and to prohibit those who would marry as such from participating in the nation’s resources (of course prohibiting any interracial offspring from participating as well).

How to prohibit interracial unions outside of marriage is a bit more difficult but can be managed with cultural change in the rule structures of the nations.

Bowery has been pointing to one such rule change - whereas individual White males have been prohibited from fighting for White women who would be taken by non-Whites, the rules need to be changed where it is recognized as honorable if individual White men do fight against these would-be interlopers .

What to do about those who might go on vacation, dally, and then come back, is obviously harder to manage. I look upon that as an interesting problem. However, GW has the good idea that its best to create a situation or kind of consciousness where they would not want to do that (betray their people when going abroad).

Posted by Max Hastings on Tue, 16 Dec 2014 22:12 | #

Max Hastings: The Necessary War (World War I)