Peter Hitchens: Was WW2 pointless? The Daily Mail is a ghastly little rag. It makes its money by throwing tidbits to the apoplectic classes. Apoplectica - never an attractive demographic, but also never slow on the patriotic uptake - duly responds with much harrumphing and general, if meaningless, indignation. Master valve open. Hot air released. Situation normal. It’s a curious kind of handcart for the ride to hell. But since 2001 the Mail has been able to boast among its columnists the doyen of thinking cart-pullers, Peter Hitchens. It even gave him his own Hitchens, of course, is famously conflicted with his brother Christopher, the infinitely more successful and recently-Jewish one-time Bilderberger and liberal galáctico. One can only imagine with what disdain the bibulous god-basher must view his brother’s professional domicile in right-wing populism. But I’ve a sneaking suspicion that matters took a serious turn for the worse over the cornflakes this morning. The headline won’t have helped: Was World War Two just as pointless and self-defeating as Iraq, asks Peter Hitchens. Hitch explains:-
If I was a betting man I wouldn’t mind a small wager that it was at this point in the proceedings when sometime yesterday the telephone rang chez Peter, and the voice of Paul Dacre sounded in his shell-like. “Peter, this piece you mailed in ... not your usual line of country, is it?” Perplexed silence. “Don’t misunderstand me, Peter. All very interesting. But you know how we operate. We’re not in business to challenge the reader. This isn’t New Statesman.” “But Paul, I ...” “I’m sorry, Peter, we have to think about our advertisers. Remember who pays your wages. And mine.” In any event, Hitchens didn’t go on to scorch the page with hard-won truths about the internationalism for which Alled servicemen really fought. Dots remained unconnected. The Mail’s decorum was respected. But he goes on to explain that:-
It’s odd because, like Hitchens, I was born six years after the war and I have had to make the same journey of accomodation he has. MRers will know that as well as being an accomodation with the past it is a revelation about the present. The accomodation, of course, is not with liebensraum or Tuetonic supremacism, or the militarisation of society, or the violation of human rights or any other of the trespasses of Nazism. It is with the unacknowledged trespasses of “our” side, if one can even call it that. This is an accomodation that can be made by any of the British war veterans who write to Hitchens and ask “Why did we bother?”. I find it difficult to believe that a pugnacious and intelligent inquirer like Hitchens only made it himself the other day when, Damascene-like, he chanced upon these two inconvenient books. I presume, therefore, that he used them to front subject matter that he wants, for his own reasons, to inject into public consciousness. If so, and if he returns to the subject more expansively later, I will be able to re-assess the man more favourably. I doubt that I will have occasion to re-assess the Daily Mail. Anyhow, here’s some more of what Hitchens published:-
Comments:2
Posted by Amalek on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:17 | # I’d rewind further. Our big mistake was to guarantee “gallant little Belgium” in 1914. It was touch and go on that hot Bank Holiday weekend if Britain would come in. Probably most Liberals in the country did not want to fight the Kaiser on the Tsar’s and M. Le President’s behalf. Edward VII had facilitated the entente cordiale which finally made us turn our back on the ally of 1815 and side with our ancestral enemy since Bloody Mary’s day against our closer racial kinsmen—side with infidel republicans against Christian monarchy. That horrible little Welsh rat Lloyd George swayed the Cabinet to send the BEF, which blunted the impact of the Germans’ “sichelschnitt” just enough to bog the three great Ruropean powers down in trench warfare. For four years we bled each other white and sealed Europe’s fate. The universal darkness of American multiculti subtopia and Judeao-Bolshevism, financed on Wall Street, were granted world economic and, in time, military, leadership. Blame the balance of power doctrine Britain had evolved for the far less crucial wars of professionals in the 17th century. We had not thought it necessary to bale out Napoleon III in 1871. In 1914 the incidental danger to our naval supremacy of Germans taking Channel ports tilted the scales. Beneath that rationale lay our fear and jealousy of Germany’s surpassing us industrially, possibly taking world markets and colonies from us. As America is now finding out, vis a vis Asia, if you no longer have the energy and ingenuity for economic domination, shows of military force will never save you. Being a “superpower” will ruin you. Being an imperial power will adulterate your stock and disintegrate your nationhood. Germany was already haunted by similar fears, seeing Russia’s rise—and America’s quick overtaking of its own industrial lead. Our quixotic intervention in 1914 opened a can of worms whose consequences we are still suffering. In a way, the European War of 1939-41 was only an epilogue. For civilisation the Great War was Europe’s cataclysm. 3
Posted by Robert Reis on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:47 | # Amalek: the name has a lovely ring to it, it surely does. Cheers! 4
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:15 | # Here‘s a log entry that contains some good summaries of what’s going on and why. (I have no idea who the blogger “Hajo” is. Iceman of Prozium’s Odessa Syndicate blog has recently taken this “Hajo” on as a blogger there.) 5
Posted by DavidL on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:00 | # For any American, reading this article by Peter Hitchens is both humorous and maddening at the same time. He and his brother (Christopher ) are a rare set of Hegelian siblings - one thesis, one antithesis and we get “The country most interested in dismantling our Empire was the USA.” Why ? Our military is the enforcer arm “Germany dominates Europe behind the smokescreen of the EU” Why all the hatred of Germans ? Your very own Royal Family As to being your “special friend”, long have your elite tried to enslave our nation. Hopefully, for all of us, American and 6
Posted by torgrim on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 03:27 | # Captain Chaos; “Lindbergh was right.” Amalek; “Our quixotic intervention in 1914 opened a can of worms whose consequences we are still suffering. In a way, the European War of 1939-41 was only an epilogue. For civilisation the Great War was Europes catalysm.” Charles Lindbergh Sr. was a member of the House from the state of Minnesota. It seems that he had made many enemies. He opposed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, and like his son, a generation later, opposed the Great War. As a consequence, the money lenders, supported another candidate and Lindbergh Sr. lost his Office. Being of Scandinavian ancestry, he was well aware of his position as a new comer, to the seat of power in DC and New York, as Scandinavians were, just beginning to find their way into the political arena. This pretty much ended after 1913. Mostly, Scandinavians were of the free farmer class, the Yeoman or Bonde, the middle class of Norway. The Fed Act was seen correctly by the farmers as a threat. It gave unlimited control of money to the bankers, railroads, etc. Charles Lindbergh Sr. saw this and attempted to stop this coup. http://www.clubconspiracy.com/f40/your-country-war-whathappens-you-5851.html 7
Posted by torgrim on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 03:41 | # About the link… http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/f40/your-country-war-whathappen-you-5851.html please go to the ‘books’ section and press the link for, “Your Country at War” by Charles Lindbergh. This link tells of Sr. Lindbergh’s book being taken off the printers machines and confiscated by the US Government, also about using troops to break up meetings of farmers when Charles Lindbergh was to speak and using force to shut him up. 8
Posted by Philipa on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:15 | # Scrutiny of WW2 is always going to be revealing and helpful in considering future (and present?) actions, so yes, I agree with you and well said that man in wondering if this was just an opportunity for Peter to voice some things he’d long considered before now. If he hadn’t questioned received opinion of the great wars then I can only assume it is like his fond embrace, without question, of religion - he doesn’t want to question it. But here we see at least some questioning of events though I don’t necessarily agree with the views presented in the two books and think Peter correct when he says saving the jews was accidental in that it was not the main motivation. Camps like Auschwitz were set up for the best reasons, humanitarian reasons. Unfortunately one mans humane social solution is another mans genocide. What starts as the intended gentle euthanasia of hopelessly sick, injured or mentally ill people grows into ‘ethnic cleansing’. I’m sure Hitler was a “highly competent, cool, well informed functionary with an agreeable manner, a disarming smile, and few have been unaffected by a subtle personal magnetism” - I’m convinced of that. You see, it’s the charmers, the most impressive amongst us, the really great leaders who could lead, with their persuasion and personal magnetism, all of us to do something we would otherwise not do. If left alone. To think. And we should think and we should question expecially those who suggest uncomfortable things for our benefit, like detention without trial, like torture and like the loss of habeus corpus. China tackles population control for the good of the people, how? Things can start with the best intentions and end up as atrocities. I too will welcome further consideration and debate on these issues and think Peter Hitchens perfectly suited to comment. If only it wasn’t for the blasted Daily Wail agenda. He should write another book. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:36 | # Yes, Philippa, another book would be the way to do it. In print journalism the best Peter Hitchens can do is this model of Britain aided and abetted by a self-interested America, and locked in an eternal struggle with the irridentist Teut. That’s not good enough, of course. The more profitable context for re-assessing the European Wars is as a conflict between nation and internationalism, the first without, as yet, a truly appropriate political and philosophical form, the second a child of the individualist zeitgeist. Whether Hitchens himself conceives the issue at this level, we cannot know. But it is, as you say, difficult to believe that he is completely unaware of it, though that is his clear inference. There is one other, disturbing possibility. Like Mark Stein, Anthony Daniels, Lawrence Auster and many others, Peter Hitchens serves the purpose of deflecting popular inquiry into harmless ends. The others have their (very often ethnic) reasons, of course. But if Hitchens is merely another child of liberalism - an individualist, a journalistic hedonist - he might be satisfied with the egoistic wages he receives for his service in the diversion of the masses. In that event, he will harbour no wish to think in revolutionary terms. As I said in the post, if he proceeds further from this point, I shall have to re-assess him. For the moment, he remains in my estimation a triangulator and an entertainer, albeit it an unsettling one, in the same sense that his brother is of that constitution. 10
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:58 | # Over at Prozium’s, new blogger Hajo <a >replies</a> to his thread commenters. (Again, I don’t know who this Hajo is, but I would call this entry of his a must-read.) 11
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:01 | # Sorry, I’m using Internet Explorer as my browser, and either it or this new machine I’m at won’t embed links into text. But you can pick out the URL from the above. It’s this: http://blog.odessa-syndicate.com/2008/04/21/replies-to-my-recent-post/ 12
Posted by R.E. Prindle on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:33 | # Hitchens is exactly right on all counts. Let’s hope this isn’t a false dawn. 13
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:46 | #
And let’s hope Hitchens’ dawn transitions to blazing high noon: he may be exactly right on all counts but he has lots more counts to be right on which he hasn’t even gotten to yet. So far, he’s just scratching the surface. 14
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:38 | # Jack, you do wonderful work at your blog. By the way, anyone considering reading that Red Ken exposé of yours had better swallow a couple of anti-emetics first (a couple? more like a couple of handfulls) — either that, or ... well, just don’t be wearing your best clothes when you attempt it ... 15
Posted by Yuezhus on Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:14 | # While war was officially declared on Germany by Britain, for invading Poland, it would be a long while indeed until actual hostilities began. ‘The Phoney War’ was the affectionate term given to the stagnant conflict by beleaguered Poles who had expected genuine, swift aid. At this point, the British side would still be striving towards diplomatic solutions. But then Nazi Germany invaded France, the Netherlands and Scandinavia, bombing many cities into oblivion. Then it killed 40,000 British civilians in bombing raids. Sorry, Germany. You were a genuine threat too close to home, and you ruined what was once an amiable relationship with Britain with your stance against Communism. Britain did not go to war for Jews, or international finance or multicultural decadence, but to stave off what was all too quickly becoming a totalitarian, bloodthirsty menace looming on their doorstep. And letting the Soviet Union easily invade Poland two weeks after you did? Nice going, Germany. You had diplomats from all over the place splurting out their coffee on hearing of this unthinkable maneuver. Absolutely no one could’ve expected such a bizarre course of action, especially since you had created the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in dark secrecy, unlike the Anglo-Polish Defence pact, which was in plain sight to Germany prior to Poland’s invasion. The Soviets could never have invaded Poland so quickly on their own. Nazi Germany’s autistic perspective of foreign relations aside, I don’t consider the non-Soviet Allied forces to have been the beacon of Hope and Good in Europe. Both sides were ridiculously naive and shortsighted, just in vastly different ways. I can’t agree with Buchanan and other revisionists who point the finger of blame on Britain for starting World War I. France was also a powerful player in European geopolitics at the time, and the power that made the Versailles Treaty so unfair on the Germans, in remembrance of the earlier reparations France had to pay after losing the Franco-Prussian War. Both Wars were pointless. Both sides were idiots. Had Hitler one, Europe would be ethnically pure, yes, but it would be a veritable hell hole in Eastern Europe, if for all of Europe, to a lesser extent. America would remain unaffected. I simply would’ve gone back in time and convinced Gavrilo Princip to chill the hell out and not unwittingly ruin the 20th century. 16
Posted by PATRIOT on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:23 | # Yes, World War II was completely pointless, it was all a conspiracy concocted by Jewish Communist Homosexuals to distract Americans while they slowly allowed Mexicans and Irish to invade their nation. Now Communists control the media, and it never would have happened if not for World War II. 17
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:24 | # “PATRIOT,” just above, also signs in the “Iraq and Heartland of the Coalition” thread as “WHITE POWER” and elsewhere, I suspect, as “John.” The third post in the “Iraq and Heartland” thread, signed “John,” is confusing because it seems at first glance to be the product of a non-diseased mind, leaving you wondering if there aren’t two different “Johns” posting comments at the moment, one normal, the other degenerate with brain leprosy. But on further consideration I believe the last-mentioned post by “John,” the one that seems at first glance normal, is also intended by this diseased individual as subtle pro-race-replacement sarcasm. As I’m pretty sure there used to be a poster signing as John here who wasn’t diseased, this must be a new “John.” 18
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:33 | # Throw “Manly” into the mix of aliases this degenerate uses (in the “Conscious Decision Belated” thread). 19
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 13:45 | # Oh, and “PALESTINE FOREVER,” of course, in the “Ben Stein” thread: it’s all from the same piece of excrement signing with different names. 20
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:48 | # I just noticed the same pile of dog excrement is posting comments signing as “James” over at the “Los Angeles on the Leading Edge” thread. 22
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:28 | # Peter’s younger brother speaks out, rightly of course, against the current Jewish-imposed practice of punishing all expressions of doubt as to the WW-II gas chambers or the number of Jews killed. It’s in the first video at the link. (The second video is devoted entirely to condemning religion, a stance I don’t happen to endorse.) 23
Posted by Jones on Tue, 24 May 2016 23:29 | # I have read this from wikipedia not long time ago. Post a comment:
Next entry: San Jose Mercury News Bid to… ?
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:00 | #
Charles Lindbergh opposed the United States entering the war against Germany explicitly for the reason that it would be bad for our race. He was right.
Hitler wanted a free hand in the east, he should have been given it. Had Hitler not been forced to fight a two front war Germany almost certainly would have been victorious against the Soviet Union. The jews would have been finished in Europe. Europe would have had a commitment to racial health and high fertility.
I believe this to be what Hitchens and Buchanan truly believe and wish they could shout from the roof tops but can only hint at lest they be driven into financial oblivion: Lindbergh was right.