In his book Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, Pat Buchanan places particular emphasis on the role of Winston Churchill for his role in promoting both World War I and World War II. Buchanan is scathing in his criticism of Churchill, correctly pointing his bellicosity, his vanity, and his desire for personal power. There are also strong hints of his corruption as a result of being rescued by wealthy Jews from near bankruptcy after the stock market crash of 1929.
Buchanan carries on this theme in a recent column on the Katyn executions, Pat Buchanan once again comments on Winston Churchill’s treachery.
When Polish patriots, whose sons had flown with the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain, went to … Churchill to demand that he get answers from Stalin about the atrocity, he brushed them off.
“There is no sense prowling around the three-year-old graves of Smolensk,” said the Great Man.
At Stalin’s request, Churchill bullied the Poles into acceding to Soviet annexation of all the Polish land Stalin had been awarded for signing his pact with Hitler.
Michael Colhaze’s current TOO article, To Be a German, Part II, credits Buchanan with shedding light on the truly horrifying spectacle of Churchill. Ever the artist, Colhaze expresses it beautifully:
[It boils down] to one single, terrible truth, namely that this man and his paymasters were the instigators not only of the death of Britain’s and America’s finest young men, but also of the greatest carnage, the worst fratricide committed in Mankind’s entire history. It is really here, in the inordinate hate for Germany as the old heartland of our incomparable Christian-European civilisation, that the roots can be found for the ever intensifying assault on the White Man’s right to exist.
I wonder sometimes how this man must have felt during the twilight years of his life. Terrible, most likely. Fiddling with some pitiful canvas utterly devoid of human warmth, let alone artistic gratification. Abandoned by his old paymasters because that’s what they inevitably do once you’ve lost your expediency. Deserted by his political cronies who knew damn well what mess he had landed them in. Prowling the casinos of Monte Carlo where a greasy Onassis dropped an occasional chip into his pocket since he had blown his pension already at the tables. Bored to death by all the glorifications and laurels and distinctions which honoured, as he himself knew perfectly well, only the one great lie that was his life.
Churchill’s philosemitism is legendary. This review of three books on Churchill’s relations with Jews indicates that indeed, he was “among the greatest friends the Jewish people have had.” The record shows that Churchill repeatedly stood up for Jewish interests throughout his entire very long career in politics — often in opposition to those around him. Churchill’s family was philo-Semitic and socialized with Jews; he received expensive gifts as a young man from Jewish friends of his father. In Parliament, Churchill was an eloquent spokesman for Jewish immigration, and later he had a long career in support of Zionism.
He left a long record of activism for Jewish causes and was rarely deterred from these, even when he found himself in a distinct minority. When overruled by his own Cabinet, he often sought ways around the problem to help Jews and Zionism. The personal and official papers consulted in these studies confirm the picture of a man who rejected anti-Semitism in public and private, something that can be said of very few of his colleagues.
Churchill may have been the greatest friend the Jews ever had. But he certainly was not a friend for his own people.
The Joys of Jihad: Islamentable, Isatrocious, Isbetrayal
Nordics versus Implicit Jews in "The Switch"
When Heidi went to Heaven 
I wonder if this is a primal fault of Western Europeans ingeneral, venality to foreign interests.
I was listening to a Teaching Company lecture about Byzantium recently, where one of the emperors in the 900s wrote a book about administering the empire. Basically, during its long decline, Byzantium would simply bribe the rival barbarian groups to attack one another, so Byzantium itself never had to foot much of an army. Anyway, the emperor remarked how very expensive it was to get the Persian and near Eastern groups to betray one another, but that it was laughable for how little treasure the European barbarians would turn on their own kindred! Reading this article makes me worry that this may simply be a sociobiological trait of white Europeans.
Churchill’s folly was that he contrasted the “national” jew with the “international jew”. Here’s that contrast by Churchill in a 1920, widely considered by many to be anti-semitic, newspaper op-ed.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html
What was true in 1920, wasn’t necessarily true in the future. Was that Churchill’s problem? Did he allow his opinion of the Jews to frozen in 1920? I will leave that up to KMac, and the resident psychologists. ;)
Churchill did nothing to save the Jews of Europe. He never even alerted the world what was going on in Poland. If he was in the pay of Jews, he was not worth it. He did save his own country from becoming occupied like Holland and France, and himself being replaced by a Gauleiter. I dont remember who had been already named for the post of Gauleiter of England.
Certain Protestant strains seem highly prone to philo-Semitism, and certain strains of elitist Anglo Protestants in particular. This seems to apply to both liberals and conservatives of this strain.
I suspect it has to do with a common money-hungry character among all three (elite Jews and philo-Semitic, elite liberal and conservative Protestants), wherein religion is more a utility for money networking, and to be used as moral cover when put under scrutiny or criticized for money-scheming, but any true obligation to God or a Godly society is regarded as a kind of joke, only taken seriously by the rubes.
This strain of philo-Semitic Protestantism is somewhat different than the strain of Judeo-Christian Zionist dispensationalist philo-Semites, who take religion more seriously but seem to worship the Old Testament tribes of Israel more than they do Christ, although in America there is some crossover between these and the elite Anglo philo-Semitic strain.
Overall, I have observed that Protestants are more prone to philo-Semitism than are Catholics and Orthodox Christians. Again, much of this probably traces to a money fixation.
No one saved the Germans of America, or the Japanese of America, from internment camps either. That’s war, for those considered enemy aliens.
What’s This?–Is It Prelude To Yet More Holohoax Bleatings?
(Apollonian, 15 Apr 10)
Hey “J”: what are u talking about anyway?–saving “Jews of Europe”?–they did brilliantly didn’t they?–they rule world now don’t they? Why would Jews need “saving” anyway?–Jews are rapists of the world (literally), including Europe–so why/how did they need saving?–Are u perchance referring to HOLOHOAX?–see Ihr.org, Codoh.com, and ZundelSite.org for expo/ref. on holohoax.
And what, pray tell, “was going on in Poland”?–u’re so PRESUMPTUOUS, aren’t u?–just spewing usual Jew lies–hey, is that why ur moniker is “J”?–J for Jew? Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
The review linked to toward the end reviews what Churchill did to save Jews in WWII. It’s complicated, but in general Churchill did quite a bit, although perhaps not everything he could have done. It’s an interesting review–the most exhaustive I have seen. Kevin M
Appropriately named Historybunk,
The difference is, the majority of the Japanese and Germans came out the American camps ALIVE.
Jews Preserved From German Camps Too, Unfortunately
(Apollonian, 15 Apr 10)
“Whites Unite”: (a) u need to get through ur head Jews are NOT “white”–anymore than mestizos or mulattos.
(b) Jews were preserved in German camps no less than inmates in other nation’s camps, w. exception of Typhus outbreaks, complicated by nutrition difficulties caused by allied bombing. See ref.s already given. Honest elections and death to the Fed.
I would refer the readers to http://judicial-inc.biz/ where the claim that Winston Churchill was one of “them lot” is but it’s hosting service has canceled it yet again. in it’s own words:
Judicial-Inc.biz, the internet’s premier ‘Christian news website’, has been cancelled by another hosting service, with zero notice. After the Jan 2010 assault by GoDaddy hosting, Judicial kept four mirror sites, and all four have been cancelled in the last few days.
Amazingly all the other sites (Revisionists, Neo Nazis, Alternative news, Conspiracy, etc are unscathed). To date we have contacted the major hosts in India, the UK, and the US, with no luck. One host – HostGator/BlueHost allows ‘Adult Hosting’ but finds Christian News too offensive.
We will attempt to maintain a limited web presence until we can find another host.
David Irving Presents Churchill’s War
There you go. That’s how the jews do it. Freedom of speech for jews, and with them that means their Big Lies, but of course no freedom of speech for the non-jew. Control all hosting services and they control the dissemination, i.e. concealment, of the truth about them, just as they have done by owning all of “our” media.
It’s not difficult to work out why they get themselves booted out of country after country after country ad nauseum, throughout history.
You heard about the Holocaust in which 6 million Jews were killed in Nazi Death Camps.
Did you hear about the “threatened holocaust” of 6 million Jews about 20 years earlier?
Probably not, even though a former Governor of New York wrote about it in 1919, because that early holocaust never became a best-seller.
Published in
The American Hebrew
October 31, 1919
by Martin Glynn
In Glynn’s article, we find that World War I ended “for everybody, but the Jew.”
Glynn encourages the League of Nations to bring peace to the world, and he wants to “give justice to the Jew and other oppressed peoples”.
However, this threatened Holocaust of 6 million Jews never became popular with the American or European public. Perhaps this is why the Zionists staged a new and improved version of the 6 million Holocaust during World War II. In this revised Holocaust, they made sure that some of the 6 million Jews were killed. This turned out to be the key to making the Holocaust a phenomenal success.
The contents of the article are below. It serves as a lesson in how not to market a Holocaust.
1919, the crucifixion of (6 million) Jews Must Stop!
by Former Governor of NY State
http://windowintopalestine.blogspot.com/2009/06/1919-shameless-6-millions-jewish.html
Winston Churchill’s mother was the halfjew, Jenny Jerome.
In his book, “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit”, E Michael Jones talks of early Judaization of the Protestant faith. Think of all those terms like “the promised land”, the new Zion etc. Many of the Puritans regrded themselves as God’s Chosen People.
The Sept 2008 podcast on his website is worth listening to:
Culture Wars: Podcasts
The other key was the Hollywood/televison axis of evil and it’s constant manufacture of daily repetitions of the fraud.
As every thinking White knows … if it’s on the TV it’s just gotta be the gospel truth.
@Chris Moore
Anyone taken a look at the AIPAC letter recently signed by 76 US Senators pledging their loyalty to Israel. At least 19 of them self identify as Roman Catholics. The largest single religious group with 24 or 25 members of the US Senate. Follwed by the Jews with 14 or 15 in the US Senate.
Actually, this is a weak vote by the Roman Catholic faction who usually vote in greater numbers for the Jew agenda items, and the Jew’s homeland. Kerry, who I count as a Roman Catholic, and Kaufman who I also count as a Roman Catholic did not sign a Jew loyalty oath. Yet both are 1/2 Jews.
Hi Tom,
What is your point about Catholic support of Israel? I have a friend who is of the belief that the Catholics, not the Jews are the real bad guys.
“The difference is, the majority of the Japanese and Germans came out the American camps ALIVE.”
That’s because we didn’t lose the war (the way Germany did). Had we lost the war our camps would have looked the same.
By the way, if those in favor of the common sense sovereignty of the American constitutional republic decided to take action and redeem their heritage and, in the process, intern known enemies, the population of our camps would really look no different than that of Germany’s. And if we were forced to spend all of our supplies trying to fight a losing battle, the interned population might not look so fat and happy at the end of the war.
Morality doesn’t end at the ethnic boundary line.
When a government deliberately puts people into a situation in which they will inevitably die of malnutrition, THAT GOVERNMENT IS GUILTY OF MURDER.
In addition to those who died of malnutrition, vast numbers died of mass shootings and poison gas. The evidence is overwhelming (hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses, vast drop in Jewish population of Eastern Europe during WW2, admissions of captured Nazi leaders)
Holocaust denial makes us look either stupid or disingenuous, particularly if we simultaneously affirm Bolshevik and Ottoman mass-murder. Unlike those other regimes, the Nazis were caught in the act – their territory was overrun, and the perpetrators were rounded up and questioned. Accordingly, the volume of available evidence for Nazi mass-murder is greater than the volume of available evidence for Bolshevik and Ottoman mass-murder.
Truth is a powerful ally. Obfuscation is a broken reed which pierces the hand of him who leans on it. The true strategy for disarming the anti-White power of the Holocaust industry is to admit the truth about the Holocaust and mourn the 6 million Jews murdered by Hitler’s hyper-nationalist regime, but also mourn the 1.5 million Armenians murdered by the Muslim regime of the Ottoman Empire and the 21 million East Europeans murdered by Communist regimes and the Germans murdered by the “strategic bommbing” of the liberal democracies.
Here is what REALLY happened in Poland during WWII:
Governments of Israel, Poland, and Germany, published information refuting holocaust!
For decades the commemorative plaques at the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland proclaimed that the number of Jews murdered in that camp was 4 million; consequently 2 million must have been murdered elsewhere to arrive at the historic figure of 6 million Jews gassed and cremated by the Nazis.
In 1990 the Polish government, after years of study and research concluded that the number of Jews murdered in Auschwitz had been exaggerated by the communists who had liberated this concentration camp, and that 1.5 million was a more realistic number. The commemorative plaques were replaced with new ones acknowledging this reduced estimate.
Subsequently this lower figure was further reduced to a generally accepted number of 1.1 million (as per Wikipidia) for a revised total claim of 3.1 million murdered Jews.
In 2002 the Israeli government is on record as stating that in the year 2000 about 1.1 million holocaust survivors were still alive.
In 2005 the German government is on record as stating that it was still paying compensation to about 1.5 million holocaust survivors.
The conflicting data from Israel and Germany may be averaged: (1.1 m + 1.5 m) / 2 = 1.3 million survivers in 2003, to establish a point half-way between the two data points. That puts the number of survivors at 1.3 million 58 years after liberation of the camps.
The American Journal of Public Health, Dec. 1949, pg 1582, published the mortality rates for various European countries, varying from a low of 8 per thousand to almost 15 per thousand population. Since the camp survivors had been subjected to deprivations, disease, starvation, physical abuse, freezing cold, medical experiments, etc. it is reasonable to conclude that the camp survivors as a group would have a mortality rate at least at the higher level of 15 per thousand, certainly not less or the claims of deprivations would then sound hollow.
The mortality rate of 15 per thousand may be applied as a multiplier to the Jewish survivor population as follows: P x .985**58 = 1.3 m, where P is the number of survivors in 1945, .985 is the multiplier for a mortality rate of 15 per thousand, meaning that 1000 people x .985 = (1000 – 15) = 985 people survive after one year. After 58 years the original population will have decreased by .985 raised to the 58th power, ie. .985 x .985 x .985 x …. for 58 terms. Then, solving the equation for P, and using the known information as published by the above governments, the calculation shows that: P = (1.3 m / .985**58) = (1.3 m / .416) = 3.124 million survivors in 1945, ie. slightly more than the number claimed as murdered.
As author and professor Norman Finkelstein so aptly put it in his book: “With all these holocaust survivors, who did the Nazis kill”? Now we know: NOT ONE, as affirmed by those questioning the veracity of the premise of the holocaust.
HdC
Yes, yes. Let’s just mourn. That’s a very sound foundation on which to redeem a culture.
And finally, from the mouths of the Zionists themselves.
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story637.html
“I was listening to a Teaching Company lecture …”
Everything I’ve listened to by the Teaching Company has been drenched in leftism. It’s almost unbearable. I wish they’d let KMac do a series of lectures.
One more, in case you’re overwhlemed by the depth of the case against your propoganda.
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story654.html
Liar Gives No References Or Proof Of Any Sort–Typical
(Apollonian, 15 Apr 10)
“Whites Unite”: u’re simply a liar and probably a Jew too; u stink. I notice u give no references whatsoever; like a Jew u just assert blithely “evidence is overwhelming”–well, if it’s sooooo “over-whelming,” where are ur ref.s?
Further, there are and were lots and lots of Germans, and others too, who were also “eye-witnesses” and who asserted no such holohoax took place. Holohoax has long been exploded and exposed–what’s ur problem? Ck Arthur Butz’s “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century.” There are many other works too.
The gov.s which put Jews in danger of malnutrition were the allied gov.s at war w. Germany.
Assertion of Holohoax lies as urs makes U look stupid, aside fm being crass liar, no one else. And guess what?–the “Ottoman” mass-murder of Christians and Armenians was instigated by Jews too, in form of the “Young Turks” who were largely, heavily Jew (see JewishRacism.com). It goes practically without saying bolsheviki were Jews too. Jews are the murderers, criminals, and psychopaths fm whom everyone else takes lessons.
CONCLUSION: I only wish 6 million Jew psychopaths could have been “exterminated”–whoever did it would deserve great thanks and reward–and I wish the rest of Jew psychopaths could be treated in same way. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
Michael Makovsky’s “Churchill’s Promised Land: Zionism and Statecraft” (Yale University Press, 2007) could also be mentioned in this context. According to Makovsky, opportunism seems to have been important in Churchill’s case.
From a review in the Journal of World History (September 2009):
“Churchill’s infatuation with Jewish restoration to their ancient homeland began as early as 1906, when the Zionist movement itself was still in its infancy and most British Jews were not favorably disposed toward the idea of a Jewish homeland. In his bid to represent Manchester North West in Parliament, Churchill found himself courting the divided Jewish community there, openly espousing great sympathy for Jewish refugees from Russian pogroms and throwing his support behind Territorialism, a movement in favor of Jewish settlement in British East Africa and backed by Jewish financiers like Lord Rothschild, while at the same time pursuing the political support of Zionists. According to Makovsky, Churchill was philo-Semitic, which was rooted in his father’s admiration for the Jews and the late Benjamin Disraeli, but not immune to manipulating Jewish causes in order to advance his own career.”
I think Pat Buchanan is wrong about Churchill having made a difference to relations between Germany and Britain. While it may be true that Churchill took money from Jews, being for war with Germany was was no departure from his previous policy. Churchill loved war .
Germany ended up at war with the same powers – despite the differing objectives of the leaderships – in WW1 and 2. To me that suggests there was a dynamic which made war inevitable as soon as German strength made it feasible to attain the status of hegemon in Europe. After Germany’s 2nd run at hegemony (WW2) it was clear they could not achieve that objective. Hitler refused to accept that Germany was a medium sized power and tried to give it the basis for being a world power, which was not out of line with the policy of his predecessors.
I don’t think that any British government could ever have even considered allowing the Germans to conquer Russia and thus dominate Europe. The offshore balancers (UK and US) would not stand for a Regional Hegemon in Europe, the US specifically would not stand for any great power dominating its region anywhere in the world. German actions do not suggest that they wanted to fight Britain but for the British allowing the Germans to do what they did want to do (ie conquer Russia) would have been very foolish. It would have made Britain’s reduction to powerless vassal state quite inevitable .
It should be remembered that Churchill was not the one who declared war on Germany. Chamberlain did and he was surprisingly bellicose as a wartime PM. Yes Neville Chamberlain wanted to see the fighting done by the Germans and Bolshies as he said to a meeting of important Tories .
It was only when the the Nazi-Soviet pact was announced that the full guarantee was given to Poland Ref.”"On March 31, 1939, in response to Nazi Germany’s defiance of the Munich Agreement and occupation of Czechoslovakia, the United Kingdom pledged the support of itself and France to guarantee Polish independence”
There was no commitment to prevent Germany getting some territory from Poland when there was a prospect of Germany fighting the Soviets. The British attitude to Germany changed completely when the pact made it clear the USSR was not going to be fighting Gen many. At that point the Foreign Office mandarins decided war was necessary.
“On August 25, two days after the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the Polish-British Common Defence Pact was signed. The treaty contained promises of mutual military assistance between the nations in the event either was attacked by another European country”
After the pact the attitude to Germany changed for the reasons given above. That’s not to say the British wanted a German dominated Eurasia, like everyone else they never expected the Germans to do as well as they did. While it’s clear that Chamberlain hoped to encourage a conflict between the Soviet and Nazis that strategy was contingent on the Germans not achieving total success. But there was no reason in 1939 to to think that the Germans would be capable of conquering Russia. Only after the fall of France did people understand the power of the German armed forces.
Germany missed it’s chance in 1905 when defeat and revolution had weakened Russia militarily and Britain still had a tiny army. Strategic foresight in the relative power of the enemies they would be facing if they waited could have saved them. According to John Mearsheimer trying to dominate the other great powers was the only sensible thing to do.
“Given the difficulty of determining how much power is enough for today and tomorrow, great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by another great power. Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to become hegemon in the system because it thought it already had sufficient power to survive.”
Germany came into conflict with the other great powers in WW1 and 2 when it tried to secure it’s future by becoming an actual regional hegemon, that was not an misguided course of action just a logical step for Germany. By the same token allowing Germany to attain that status would not be logical for any British leader.
It’s now clear that things could hardly have turned out any worse if Britain and the US had stayed out of WW2, but things are far far worse for the West than anyone could have predicted back then.
According to Enoch Powell Churchill was in the process of bringing in immigration restrictions when he retired. It was his successor that was reluctant to follow though with the bill which had already been drafted. The measure quickly became too controversial thereafter.
I have always suspected that Churchill wasn’t as honest and as good of a man that history records. For I read in one book that Churchill was the one who bombed civilians in Nazi Germany; and this forced Hitler to do the same. Even the evil Hitler was not going to bomb the civilian England at first. But thanks to Churchill; he did it in response to Churchill mounting an assault against his civilian cities.
And as a person; Churchill was a Rothschild agent that did some very evil and treacherous things to allow the war to go on further unnecessary!! For these evil International Bankers are always causing wars for great profits and they have been doing this for over 2 centuries!!
WW2 Was For Purpose Of UN World Government
(Apollonian, 15 Apr 10)
“Someday,” u’re just another Jew-friendly subversive, aren’t u? Hitler wasn’t out to conquer “Russia” nearly so much as to defend against the Jew-bolsheviks whom he rightly understood as attempting to totally take-over the world.
Further, u totally (deliberately) miss the big-picture as the active powers in US and Eng. empire were Jew bankers working through the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR–see TheNewAmerican.com and AugustReview.com for expo/ref.) and British “round-tables,” conspiring behind the “United Nations” (UN) announced by Roosevelt prior to US entering planned war against Germany. See James Perloff’s “The Shadows of Power.”
And Churchill was just another toady of same Jew bankers who all applied intensive pressure against Eng. PM Chamberlain for war against Germany as through the Jew newspapers. It never was Buchanan’s thesis, as I understand, that Churchill ever made any particular significant “difference”; he was simply a tool throughout, a ready and willing pawn of Jew bankers.
And the fact is Britain made an OFFENSIVE pact w. the Poles who were trying to take the German city of Danzig. WW2 was for purpose of UN World Gov., that’s all, and Germany was always on defense fm very first.
CONCLUSION: Ur entire analysis absolutely stinks for ur attempt to deflect fm most active conspirators, the Jew bankers, who merely used Churchill and British empire as tools, no less than USA nowadays, the rest, including Germany, simply scrambling best they could, trying to defend themselves. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
apollonian,
First of all, I am not a Jew. I am a White Gentile American, interested in defending my people from the malice of other ethnic groups – particularly powerful Jews in entertainment, media, finance, academia and government. However, I also have family and friends who are ethnically Jewish, and I don’t want to contribute to the creation of any movement which would give people like you the power to hurt them.
Secondly, we have completely opposite points of view on the Holocaust. You think no Jews were murdered, but you wish 6 million had been murdered. I think 6 million Jews were murdered, but I wish none had been.
The strongest evidence for the Holocaust is a comparison of pre-war and post-war European Jewish population statistics. (Prewar population + births during war – Postwar population – Extra-European Refugees = Deaths during war) This kind of statistical analysis shows that Jews had a higher death rate during WW2 than any other ethnic group in Europe. This needs to be explained.
“Extracts from the minutes of the Wannsee conference, January 20 1942, regarding the “Final Solution of the Jewish Question” [Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals - Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1949-1953., Vol. XIII, p. 210]
II. At the beginning of the meeting the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, SS Lieutenant General Heydrich, reported his appointment by the Reich Marshal [Goering] to service as Commissioner for the preparation of the Final Solution of the European Jewish Problem….
In the course of this final solution of the European Jewish Problem, approximately 11 million Jews are involved. They are distributed among individual countries as follows:
A. Original Reich Territory [Altreich] 131,800
Austria 43,700
Eastern territories 420,000
Government General [Nazi occupied Poland] 2,284,000
The Netherlands 160,800
Rumania, including Bessarabia 342,000
Hungary 742,800
USSR 5,000,000
White Russia, excluding Bialystok 446,484
[Many countries deleted for brevity]
TOTAL over 11,000,000
Under proper direction the Jews should now in the course of the Final Solution be brought to the East in a suitable way for use as labor. In big labor gangs, with separation of the sexes, the Jews capable of work are brought to these areas and employed in road building, in which task undoubtedly a great part will fall out through natural diminution.
The remnant that finally is able to survive all this – since this is undoubtedly the part with the strongest resistance – must be treated accordingly since these people, representing a natural selection, are to be regarded as the germ cell of a new Jewish development. (See the experience of history).
In the program of the practical execution of the Final Solution, Europe is combed through from the West to the East.
The claims often made by Holocaust deniers about emigration of Jews after the war are preposterous. For instance, there were 370,000 Jews in Palestine in 1937, and 600,000 in 1948. The numbers arrived at by the Anglo-American committee for studying the Holocaust are the following:
(Conclusions of the Anglo-American committee for studying the Nazi genocide inflicted on the Jews of Europe, with exact breakdown, country by country.)
Numbers of missing Jews (post-war minus pre-war):
Germany 195,000
Austria 53,000
Czechoslovakia 255,000
Denmark 1,500
France 140,000
Belgium 57,000
Luxembourg 3,000
Norway 1,000
Holland 120,000
Italy 20,000
Yugoslavia 64,000
Greece 64,000
Bulgaria 5,000
Rumania 530,000
Hungary 200,000
Poland 3,271,000
USSR 1,050,000
Less dispersed refugees (308,000)
Total number of Jews that were exterminated 5,721,500
Some estimates are lower, and some are higher, but these are the magnitudes in question.”
In addition to those who died of malnutrition, vast numbers died of mass shootings and poison gas. The evidence is overwhelming (hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses, vast drop in Jewish population of Eastern Europe during WW2, admissions of captured Nazi leaders)
1. You can’t have an eyewitness to the deaths of 5 million people in a multitude of times and places.
2. Plenty of Jews emigrated and concealed their Jewish identity in their new homes. Of course, we can’t know how many. We also can’t know how many Jews died fighting in the Red Army and how many fled into the USSR without record.
3. As for “admissions of captured Nazi leaders”, are there any that weren’t obtained by torture? Even Hilberg disregards Hoess’s statements.
And if there are so many eyewitnesses and admissions, why is the death toll always ultimately based on demographics?
Theer are theoretical reasons to believe that the Holocaust may have proceeded consistent with the orthodox narrative, but the empirical support you’re offering is awfully weak.
Jews Should Be Removed By Christian Methods
(Apollonian, 15 Apr 10)
“Whites Unite”: u protesteth tooooo much, sucker–and the more u do so, the more u demonstrate u’re pure Jew–who are NOT, not, not “white,” as I note for u above. And if u sympathize w. Jews then u’re traitor to humanity, pure and simple.
Let me inform u about Nuremberg trials, comrade: IT WAS PROVEN KANGAROO COURT, noted even by people who took part–where affidavits were accepted as testimony which could not be cross-examined and where Germans were horribly tortured in order to gain “confessions” and other “testimony.” See “Did Six Million Really Die?” by Harwood.
Another significant tid-bit for u is there were no more than about three million Jews within German-occupied Europe at any time–see http://www.zundelsite.org/english/harwood/Didsix01.html#3.
CONCLUSION: So look “whites unite”: u’ve been exposed AGAIN as gross liar–note I never said Jews should be “murdered”–how can u “murder” murderers? I said 6 million–and all of them–ought to be removed entirely–by Christian methods, of course–intern them, and separate them by sex until they all die out by natural causes, I say. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
the russian revolution was a jewish revolution, and most of the 20 to 30 million that died were of groups other than jews. that had a head start long before germany on the killing front of those groups they did not trust. given that most of the communist groups within europe were run by jews, it would be a good bet that just like in isreal now the internment of those you fear was to isolate them. hense the camps in ww2.
so the likes of france and holland, where facisim was a strong political force germany was seen as not such a bad thing, as the russian communism was destroying european’s not the eastern asian jews. it was as much an east west war, as the russian jews have more in common with asia than anywhere else.
but they ( j) have been at the forefront of opium into china, the slave trade into the america’s,shipping selling and owning, the mob’s in the US (drugs and the likes), prositution, blue movies industry, and as a result there was investment money for there banking operations.
so it is not hard to understand why they were looked down upon by many groups
apollonian,
Even a “non-violent” genocide is morally wrong, completely contrary to Christianity.
ben,
The Jews of German-occupied Poland had no opportunity to flee into the Soviet Union (or anywhere else for that matter) or join the Red Army. Yet the Polish Jews had the largest % drop in population of any group of Jews in Europe.
Frankly, most holocaust deniers I’ve encountered fall into two categories:
1. Hysterical conspiracy theorists like apollonian who have no appreciation for Occam’s razor.
2. Disingenuous anti-semites who pretend to dis-believe the Holocaust just because it upsets Jews.
It will be truly tragic if hitherto effective White advocates like Colhaze and MacDonald choose to join this counter-productive group.
Anti-Semitism: Very Purpose Of Christianity
(Apollonian, 15 Apr 10)
“Whites unite”: So far the only “evidence” u offer for holohoax is Nuremberg trials, proven lies, pretext for murder of Germans. But I’m truly touched nonetheless u’re so willing to enter into dialogue w. us honest folk and lecture us upon “moralism.” Problem is u don’t give ur premises in order for us to understand ur profound and Jew-friendly conclusions.
U also don’t seem to understand Judaism (see RevisionistHistory.org and Come-and-hear.com for expo/ref.), which is war against gentiles whom Jews don’t consider human as they are. We have every right to defend ourselves against Jew murderers and psychopaths, never doubt. If that makes me “anti-semitic,” let me make most of it.
CONCLUSION: If u say I’m “hysterical,” u need to show ur evidence thereto. And never doubt Christianity is, by its nature, anti-semitic (anti-Talmud as Gosp. MARK 7:1-13)–the very purpose of dear Christianity. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
The purpose of Christianity is the salvation of souls from every ethnic group, including Jews.
Of course we Whites have a right to defend ourselves, but extreme measures like forcibly seperating men from women to create a “soft-genocide” are as unnecessary as they are un-Christian.
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/
CASE CLOSED on Holyhoax
@ Fredrick Wan
I’ve been studying the Roman Catholic and Jew political alliance in Congress, and particularly in the US Senate.
The Roman Catholics and Jews, are allied and do vote as a unit, crossing party lines, and even against perceived Roman Catholic interests to support the Jew agenda, and Israel the Jew homeland.
There are different reasons for this in my opinion. Some Roman Catholic politicians need Jew political money, and favorable Jew media to get elected. Some of these political allliances may go back to the old big city racket alliances. Where the Jew mob, and the Italian, or Irish mob had some joint venture. Look at almost any large City, the three ethnic political machines are the Jews, the Italians, and the Irish. Add the Latinos and you are going to have a third major Roman Catholic ethnic mob in most cities in the US.
That’s just starters…
I have one question. I don’t trust records nor “eye witness” accounts. The German, even today, are completely phobic about movies (now videos of course) and photographs, and recording with these technologies, EVERYTHING that happens daily weekly, monthly and yearly. If Germans can afford these recording technologies, then they use them. Period. I have simply never seen a start to finish film or still photo presentation of a trainload of Jews being stripped naked, herded into gas chambers, then thrown into the ovens. Now this process happened how many times during the war? ANd ALL of this material was destroyed by the Nazis? hmmm …
It is impossible for me to believe that NO photos (other than doctored ones by the Jew Bolsheviks of course) and no film footage whatsoever, was , and to this day – HAS not been made available of this Holocaust event.
Tortured Nazis. There are today, very OLD Jews who live in England and BOAST about their torture of “Nazi Criminals”. They make NO bones about their torturing, and quite openly state that even if a particular German was NOT guilty, then he/she deserved what was done to them regardless.
I DO know that a scientist who couldn’t find any poison gas residue in these gas chambers was attacked most vociferously as being a Nazi. I DO know that in Poland, the “death figures” have been DOWNWARDLY revised to a third of the original ones.
I know that in Europe, by government DECREE, that even QUESTIONING this event is punishable by a prison sentence.
My humble assessment, in a “street logic” is this; when even QUESTIONING something is in and of itself, illegal, and leads to prosecution and imprisonment, then that something is quite simply-
Bullshit.
nothing more, and certainly nothing less.
Less and less, Normal People seem to have lost any ability to critically THINK. TO use the Scientific Method. I read mention of “Occam’s Razor”.
Here is something for the Razor,
when the very questioning of an “official account” is illegal, leading such inquirers to prison sentences, then the official account simply will NOT stand up to dispassionate Scientific Method scrutiny.
Q.E.D.
excuse , excuse for misspellings and typo errors. I thought I had proof read my post completely but I didn’t. My apologies.
Churchill’s mother is jewish
How could anyone ever say the holoco$t is nothing but wartime propaganda and a mechanism that was used to steal Palestine and milk billions from the ever gullible goyim? Want to go to jail? No problem. Say that and it’s off to jail you go … for years. Welcome to the jew World Order.
You know when jew-owned governments in “free and democratic” (pardon me while I puke) countries are imprisoning innocent people such as Ernst Zundel, Horst Mahler, Gerd Honsik, etc, etc, for years (and the solicitors who try to defend them in court, such as Sylvia Stolz), for the “crime” of doubting the holy and magical holoco$tianity religion of 6 million baked, boiled and barbecued jews, that it can’t be anything other than completely true.
We all understand that truth can never, ever stand on its own merits. Truth must NEVER be doubted or investigated. NEVER! Truth must always be defended, supported, propped up, enforced(?) with year’s long jail time, and rigid world-wide censorship of open debate.
Of course it does. You know, like all those other truths you’ll be slandered, smeared, bankrupted, divorced and ultimately imprisoned for doubting, such as … uhm, ahhh, errrr, such as ….
Thank you, Fellow Traveler – when any questioning of the “THE HOLOCAUST (trademark 1946)” is illegal, and leads to prison sentences, then the official account cannot withstand ANY scrutiny.
JFK praised Sen. Robert Taft in “Profiles in Courage” because Taft accurately denounced the Nuremberg Trials as a despicable and utterly Un-American kangaroo court, which caused Taft to lose political popularity at the time.
Churchill was a useful stooge of the Jews; whatever large amounts of money they paid him to betray his own nation was a great investment for the tribe. They are still reaping their blood drenched dividends.
Taft denounced the Nuremberg trials because they violated the ex post facto principle, but he didn’t deny that Nazis mass-murdered Jews.
I can’t agree with the reasoning which says:
European Countries have outlawed Holocaust denial
Therefore, Holocaust denial is true.
With this reasoning, you could argue:
Soviet Union outlawed Ayn Rand’s writings
Soviet Union outlawed Christianity
Therefore, Ayn Rand’s philosophy and Christianity are both simultaneously true.
“The purpose of Christianity is the salvation of souls from every ethnic group, including Jews.”
God does not exist, our genes do. The continued existence of our race is more important than your desire to act on your delusions. The Jewish compulsion to subvert to dominate host societies is genetic, an illusory conversion on their part will avail us nothing. The Jews have no natural right to live amongst us and feed off the body of our people, as goes for any racial aliens. They are a collective blight on our ability to pursue our genetic continuity, therefore they must be dealt with collectively, i.e., totally expelled.
Why is the potential injury that Jews could experience in having their parasitism ended more important to you than the injury your own blood suffer at their hands? Because of Jebus? Again, your delusion is not more important than the flesh-and-blood life of our people.
Are you really prepared to argue, in detail, the merits of the traditional Holohoax narrative, Whites Unite? I friggin’ doubt it. My suspicion, if one myth is debunked (the Holyhoax), then that may shake your faith in another myth (the Jebus myth). If it can be shown that Jews are indeed the great masters of the lie, then that certainly does strike right at the root of the tree of Christardianity.
Captain Chaos,
“Put yea first the Kingdom of God, and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.”
The Pilgrims put their faith in the Lord, and their descendants number in the millions.
The Nazis put genetic interests before morality, and they led the German people into the demographic catastrophe of WW2.
“The Nazis put genetic interests before morality, and they led the German people into the demographic catastrophe of WW2.”
What befell the German people at the hands of their conquerors shows that there was no choice but for Germany to fight. What has befallen the White race as a result of Germany’s defeat is absolute vindication of the merits of its struggle.
The mythos of Jewish victimology is more important to you than the survival of your own people. You are a slave, you are a race traitor, you have no justification whatever in calling yourself a White man.
When challenged vigorously all you can do is quote the scripture of the religion the legitimacy of which you take on faith. Just what the hell do you suppose a Jew or Muslim would do when pressed for ultimate justification of his actions deleterious to the ethnic genetic interests of the White race? That’s right, espouse dogma. And what is it you yourself would do when push came to shove in resolving that unresolvable by other means conflict of dogmas? Use violence, rationalize violence. You know you would. You filthy little hypocrite.
There will be no cosmic reward when all is said and done for not doing all that we must so secure our existence. None.
God does not exist, our genes do.
so start worshiping YOUR genes, I certainly won’t. Who created our genes? Who created the universe? it just ‘happened’ without a purpose? The more I think about about it Captainchaos the more I believe you’re an agent provocateur – simply trying to demoralize, because the ultimate demoralization is saying there is no purpose to life.
then that certainly does strike right at the root of the tree of Christardianity.
if Christianity is some jewish plot why do they hate it so much.. and come to think of it.. so do you ….hmmmm
notice how Captainchaos is trying to steer us straight into disaster?
“Whites Unite says:
April 15, 2010 at 3:18 PM
apollonian,
First of all, I am not a Jew. I am a White Gentile American, interested in defending my people from the malice of other ethnic groups – particularly powerful Jews in entertainment, media, finance, academia and government. However, I also have family and friends who are ethnically Jewish, and I don’t want to contribute to the creation of any movement which would give people like you the power to hurt them.
Secondly, we have completely opposite points of view on the Holocaust. You think no Jews were murdered, but you wish 6 million had been murdered. I think 6 million Jews were murdered, but I wish none had been.”
I don’t have friends who are ethnically Jewish, anymore, given my politics and tendency for saying it as it is. And I am post-Christian. But I agree with Whites Unite. Every Apollonian I run into makes me question my association with proEuropeans, as such.
I consider my position pretty sound. Europeans need to have a sense of self consciousness, which is independent of Jewish identity and not contingent on a Christian identity. (This solves both the need to contrive a JudeoChristian sense — the Christian-Jewish question, which is reconciling Christian universalism with Jewish particularism and the European-Jewish question, which is a Jews being US-thems.
For Christians we offer them a steady supply of Europeans that they can try to convert — and acknowledge that we would be happy to convert too, as Christianity represents a large part of our ethnocultural heritage, if they can produce a compelling view that stays true to our unique ethnic identity, as indoEuropeans, which we feel is a demonstration of the Truthfullness of any religion.
For Jews we offer them the option to identify as part of the West which was always more than Christianity.
BECAUSE the survival of my people is important to me, I am unwilling to build on any foundation other than truth and morality.
If Jews try to present themselves as unique victims, I point out the mass murders commited by the Bolsheviks and Ottomans – with Jewish complicity in both cases, particularly the first. I do not, however, attempt to deny the well documented mass murder perpetrated by the Nazis.
For people like Lesacre and Whites Unite, their ‘respectability’, in other words their status relative to other Whites, is more important to them than the survival of their race. They will tell as much themselves. That is precisely the mentality of White liberals.
re my feelings on the fate of the Jews: I no longer care what happens to them. They are now beyond the scope of my moral concern. As my people are to them. Only a fool will extend benefits to others that are not reciprocated.
No – I view respectability as a valuable tool to promote the survival of my race.
Doesn’t one notice that mostly every grasping politician from/mostly from todays distorted conservatisem quotes the 20th Centuries greatest monster ;Winston Churchill.Why?,Because they seek the same;,now all, powerful connections that lisping troglydite had:The Rothchilds(57%US FEDERAL RESERVE,and City of London FOX NEWS)))Historians from the courageous David Irving(CHURCHILLS WAR;see David Irving Action Report for details/downloadsto VAALE(NEMESIS AT POTTSDAM)and now the wonderful Patrick J.Buchanan has exposed him.Even Churchills own offical biographer,Jew Martin Gilbert has written a very revealing book:CHURCHILL AND THE JEWS,documenting how this coniving,sniveling snob,dillitane,drunk and incompetant, was sponsored from the beginning by the Rothchilds(FAMILY FRIENDS)and the most powerful Zionists in the world!,There was no need for war between Germany and Britain;in 1814,or 39.Hitler did not seek this.Churchill did,and in truly Old Testament fashion made the war a fight to the finish,breaking the Western World,and destroying his own Empire.:He at 66was a life long GermanEurope hater,and was insanely jealouse of Adolf Hitler,who at than only in his late 40′s and up from poverty stood at the top of the political world.So the old sot needed a war to strut his enfeebled self on the world stage,while his Jewish masters plotted for a world war which would see 50 million dead but have them emerge as the masters of the world.This is why the name Churchill is so enshrined,and on the lips of every Jewish media toady:The old cretin was there instrument:There Messiah!
What is contemporaneously ‘respectable’ is not innate of us, it is acquired. And so much of what is now acquired is of Jewish paternity, and as expected serves Jewish interests at the expense of our own. If that is allowed to stand, what is innate of us will be destroyed. The task of a revolutionary is not to make accommodations with prevailing ideations, but to replace them.
P.S. It is a well established military precedent that non-uniformed combatants (e.g., partisans and filth columnists) shall face summary execution. Forget about gas chambers, if you wonder after the fate of Jews killed on the Eastern Front, wonder no longer – a bullet worked just fine. Jews now strive toward our genetic annihilation in an undeclared race war, all without paying us the courtesy of donning uniforms. They could always do us and themselves the favor of standing down, but of course they never will. And remember, they absolutely do seek our total racial dismemberment. I will be good and goddamned if I pay them any respect whatever.
The German people put the interests of their nation ahead of the interest (pun intended) of the blood sucking jew usurers and booted their miserable asses out, and then created in a few short years a prosperous and thriving nation for themselves free of jew usury, BECAUSE they had removed the parasite from the financial affairs of their nation.
That was when international jewry openly declared War on Germany – 1933.
Germany had to be utterly destroyed by the parasites and their wholly owned US and English poodles, unless the rest of us gullible Whites woke up to the jew usury scam.
One more thing -
The sweet irony is that now, 65 years after the end of their war, the jew parasites have bled their American poodle as dry as they had Germany leading up to 1933.
Who got the money that used to belong to mongrelized America? How about homogeneous China, homogeneous Japan, Homogeneous India maybe, certainly the homogeneous jew terrorist apartheid state in the Middle East.
I like that bible quote goes something like – The sins of the father will be visited upon the sons … unto how many generations?
Churchill was a Jew. Churchill’s mother was the very wealthy, American Jew, Jennie Jerome. To hide her Jewish features, Churchill (and others), claimed Jennie Jerome was part American Indian.
Nothing wrong with that, you are sticking up for your Jewish family. Others on TOOBlog are sticking up for their families – who are NOT Jewish.
Thanks for being honest.
The Hollowco$t tale has more holes than a 50-lb. Swiss cheese. And damn a spurious respectability that can only be secured by kissing Hymie’s hirsute tuchus.
Apollonian is here merely to try and ruin the site. That’s what he/they do. If the Hasbara playbook scripts don’t work, and they’re not, the ‘Apollonian Routine’ starts, with Uncle Schmuely and Abe Foxman and the rest hoping the nonsense will drive people away from a site filled with nuts. The folks in charge should yank every one of his/its posts as they appear.
A Tricky Little Problem – The Missing “Holocaust”
“I’ve checked out Churchill’s Second World War and the statement is quite correct – not a single mention of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war.
Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill’s Second World War total 4,448 pages; and de Gaulle’s three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages. In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war.”
– Richard Lynn Professor Emeritus
University of Ulster, December 5, 2005
————–
Oooops!
The so-called worst crime in the history of the world and these three make absolutely no mention of it.
Does this make Churchill, Eisenhower and De Gaulle “Holocaust® Deniers”? If not, why not?
It just slipped their mind?
Or it was a hoax right from the outset, just as the jews first attempt to fly it during and after their First World War was a hoax.
“Captainchaos says:
For people like Lesacre and Whites Unite, their ‘respectability’, in other words their status relative to other Whites”
What I say here, I more or less say in public. This means talking about interracial differences, Jewish ethoactivism, and European interest. So, while that has cost me ‘social respectability’ — I deal with the academic type, after all, so just imagine — it’s important for me to have a principled coherent position. It gives me a sense of confidence in face of those who would deem me — and you –insane or evil.
Do not dismiss the importance of having a principled coherent position. The more intellectually inclined people are, the more they need to make sense of their positions.
1.Coherence sells ideas
2.Ministering to Peoples Left-minded perspective sells ideas
3. Offering something that is flush with potential sells ideas
By principal I mean something like Ideal. Reality and Necessity is another issue.
I guess you are saying we need to live and focus on that at all costs.
I appreciate that. But I am saying that people are calling us a disease, and that many of us have been infected with the disease of thinking we are a disease. The disease is so ingenious, that when infected, the very act or resisting further infection, aggravates it. So it is not enough to just resist this infection of anti-whiteness. A cure has to be found, before it can be resisted. And part of this cure is thinking we are not a disease. And since we are called a disease because we are ourselves and therefore, by definition, exclusive to ourselves, part of the cure is showing how this is not really a disease, but a delusion, which is preventing a cure, which it is.
I guess what I’m saying is –
“Ride in on the Panzer and Clean Up!” — isn’t helping. Thought I agree saying “It’s evil!! to think or say — Ride in on the Panzer and Clean up!” — Doesn’t help either.
What you really mean by “Ride in on the Panzer and Clean Up!” is “I love my people and I want to help them, and I am pissed because X,Y,Z, so if it keeps up …Ride in on the Panzer and Clean Up” But it is so obvious that you don’t articulate it. And some people have gone about inverting what you mean, saying that you are really saying: “Ride in on the Panzer and Clean Up X, Y, Z, because this makes me gleeful because I hate those people and I want to hurt them.” And this has been further inverted to mean: “I love my people and I want to help them, which means constantly ride in on the Panzer and Clean Up X, Y, Z, because this makes me gleeful because I hate those people and I want to hurt them and this is what mean “helping my own” means”
This is where the pro-white = hate-others comes in. And the disease. It’s all rather clever.
I fall for the trap too. And sometimes I think if I scream load enough I can break through. But I end up, given how things are framed, just proving that I am insane and deserving to be carted away — the very thing I was screaming about.
It’s best to just not get in this situation. But we are in it. Anyways, my point is to try to articulate what you are not, yourself.
Germany ended up at war with France, Britain and Russia in both WW1 and WW2. Many veiwpoints and interests may be represented in a nation states calculations, however what it does in virtually the same situation decades apart might be thought to cast some light on a degree of continuity in those calculations. Britain and the US went to war in WW1 for much the same reason as in WW2; they were not prepared to allow Germany to become a superpower.
America came in when it looked like Germany might win both times, yes the US and British leaderships were planning to take Germany down which suited the Jews. Jews were not happy about fighting on the side of the Czar in WW1 but they were delighted to fight Nazi Germany so the Jew’s views were not the determining factor in either decision to go to war. The WASP elite still ran a lot back then.
As a state on the far side of an country they were at war with Russia was a natural ally for any leader of Britain, Churchill did no different than what anyone else would have and I repeat he was not the one who declared war. In the run up to WW 2 Churchill was loud but not at all important in the the decision to go to war, (however happy he was about it).
The USSR was planning to attack Germany but Hitler was surely out to conquer “Russia”. If he didn’t he had a funny way of showing it. The USSR took four years to recover what Germany took in 4 weeks, only the stop at Smolensk (for 2 months!) saved the battered bulk of the Soviet forces which were in front of Moscow from being crushed and the remaining north and south Soviet forces from having to fight on reversed fronts while at the same time being pressured by the N. and S. German army groups . (Hitlers Panzers East by Russell Stolfi)
Debating Nazi war crimes seems to be a compulsion with some people here.
Churchill and Hitler and history and stuff..
Winston Churchill was knighted after World War 2 and buried from Westminster Abbey, perhaps the highest tribute that could be paid to him, while Adolf Hitler has been accorded the status of perhaps the most evil politician in human history.
WINSTON CHURCHILL in July 1940
“When I look around to see how we can win the war I see that there is only one sure path. We have no Continental army which can defeat the German military power.. Should [Hitler].. not try invasion [of Britain].. there is one thing that will bring him back and bring him down, and that is an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland. We must be able to overwhelm them by this means, without which I do not see a way through. We cannot accept any aim lower than air mastery. When can it be obtained?” [Extract from Winston S Churchill The Second World War (Volume 2 Their Finest Hour Appendix A), Memo from Prime Minister to Minister of Aircraft Production, 8.July 1940].
ADOLF HITLER in May 1940
Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Hitler actually wanted peace with Britain, as the German generals admitted (Basil Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill 1948, Pan Books 1983) with regard to the so-called Halt Order of 24 May 1940 at Dunkirk, where Hitler had the opportunity to capture the entire British Army, but chose not to. Liddell Hart, one of Britain’s most respected military historians, quotes the German General von Blumentritt with regard to this Halt Order:
“He (Hitler) then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but ‘where there is planing, there are shavings flying’. He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church – saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties anywhere..” (p 200).
According to Liddell Hart, “At the time we believed that the repulse of the Luftwaffe in the ‘Battle over Britain’ had saved her. That is only part of the explanation, the last part of it. The original cause, which goes much deeper, is that Hitler did not want to conquer England. He took little interest in the invasion preparations, and for weeks did nothing to spur them on; then, after a brief impulse to invade, he veered around again and suspended the preparations. He was preparing, instead, to invade Russia” (p140).
David Irving in the foreword to his book The Warpath (1978) refers to “the discovery.. that at no time did this man (Hitler) pose or intend a real threat to Britain or the Empire.”
_______________________
A major awkwardness concerning Churchill’s conduct of the war lies in the secret British policy of so-called ‘area bombing’, adopted early in 1942 and outlined by (Lord) CP Snow in the 1960 Godkin Lectures at Harvard University (published in his book Science and Government, Oxford University Press 1961). Snow had an insider’s view of the development of this policy. He outlines how the sinister Professor FA Lindemann (later to become Lord Cherwell, Churchill’s chief scientific adviser), persuaded the British Cabinet to adopt the policy of directing bombing campaigns primarily against German working-class housing. ‘Middle-class houses have too much space around them, and so are bound to waste bombs; factories and “military objectives” had long since been forgotten, except in official bulletins, since they were much too difficult to find and hit’ (p 48). Snow asks, ‘What will people of the future think of us? Will they say.. we were wolves with the minds of men? Will they think that we had resigned our humanity? They will have the right.’ (p 49). Fortunately, Snow needn’t have worried. There have been and remain such powerful vested interests committed to preserving the myths of World War II that even the history departments of universities have in most cases assisted with the cover-up.
The respected British military historian Martin Middlebrook says, ‘In some ways, Area Bombing was a three-year period of deceit practiced upon the British public and on world opinion. It was felt to be necessary that the exact nature of R.A.F. bombing should not be revealed. It could not be concealed that German cities were being hit hard, and that residential areas in those cities were receiving many of the bombs, but the impression was usually given that industry was the main target and that any bombing of workers’ housing areas was an unavoidable necessity. Charges of ‘indiscriminate bombing’ were consistently denied.. The deceit lay in the concealment of the fact that the areas being most heavily bombed were nearly always either city centres or densely populated residential areas, which rarely contained any industry.. The vital links in the dissemination of this view were the press and the radio upon which the public depended for all wartime news.. Neutral reports [of the campaign against the residential areas of the German city of Hamburg, for example] that 20,000 or 30,000 people had been killed were dismissed as ‘Nazi-inspired stories’.. The military historian Sir Basil Liddell Hart [after the Thousand Bomber Raid on Cologne with its claim of so many acres of city destroyed] wrote: “It will be ironical if the defenders of civilization depend for victory upon the most barbaric and unskilled way of winning a war that the modern world has seen.” ’ (Middlebrook, The Battle of Hamburg (1980) pp 343-4]. In his foreword, Middlebrook notes ‘I am likely to be criticized.. for choosing a series of raids which produced such extremes of horror on the ground. But I must point out that a large proportion of the raids carried out by R.A.F. Bomber Command in the Second World War were devoted to this type of bombing. What happened at Hamburg was when Bomber Command ‘got everything right’ (p 12). In reality many of these raids consisted of initial attacks using high explosive bombs to break up the buildings, followed with attacks using thousands of incendiary bombs to set alight all the fabrics, furnishing and upholstery exposed by the explosives. In this way firestorms were created under the right conditions which burned tens of thousands of people alive, especially the women and children at home while the men were at the front.
Churchill himself ordered the firebomb raid on the city of Dresden (David Irving The Destruction of Dresden (1966) pp. 96-100), Alexander McKee Dresden 1945 (1982) p 300, 306, 310) in the last months of the war, producing the most spectacular deliberate firestorm in the history of Europe. This action was probably the major war crime committed in Europe – Dresden was not in any way a military target, and was packed with refugees fleeing the advancing Russians, mainly women and children and the elderly who were unfit to fight. It is therefore understandable that it has been necessary to distract attention away from this viciously and appallingly barbaric act by fabricating war crimes afterwards and attributing them to the other side, a procedure that is finally starting to come unstuck. The Bush-Blair attack on Iraq at the behest of Zionists in the US administration such as Paul Wolfowitz has demonstrated before a world audience the lies that can be used to start wars, and in fact usually do. The transparency and scale of Bush Administration lies, together with the support given to the lies by a diverse array of other governments, is producing a revulsion for professional politicians and their handlers and spin doctors and sponsors.
At the Nuremberg trials, captured German leaders were convicted of ‘crimes against humanity’ and ‘war crimes’ as defined in the London Charter signed on August 8 1945 by the Allied powers. The judicial procedures that were followed remain interesting. The Trials were judicial in appearance only. The judges were not neutral. The victors in the war commissioned their own judges, who were under pressure to provide justification for Allied policies. The Allies themselves were guilty of major war crimes, the most outstanding of which were
* the fire-bombing of the civilian residential areas of Dresden (no military significance) under Winston Churchill’s orders (David Irving The Destruction of Dresden (1966) pp. 96-100), Alexander McKee Dresden 1945 (1982) p 300, 306, 310); and
* the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9 1945, in spite of the fact that Japan had signalled her willingness to capitulate some weeks previously (Robert Junck Brighter than a Thousand Suns (1958) pp. 189-191, Martin J Sherwin A World Destroyed (1975) pp. 235-237).
To summarize the sequence of the important dates concerning the atomic bombing:
* Mid-July 1945: Japanese government communicates to US government their willingness to negotiate capitulation;
* August 6 1945: US drops atom bomb on Hiroshima;
* August 8 1945: US signs the ‘London Charter’, or Charter of the International Military Tribunal defining war crimes, including Principle 6 (b) ‘wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.’
* August 9 1945: US drops atom bomb on Nagasaki.
With reference to the atomic bomb, Admiral William Leahy – Chief of Staff to both Roosevelt and Truman – commented, ‘My own feeling was that, in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Age. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.’ (Liddell Hart, History of the Second World War (1970) p725-6, JFC Fuller, The Decisive Battles of the Western World, 1792-1945 (1970) p584). Awkwardly enough, for the sake of judicial impartiality, Churchill and Truman should themselves have been executed at Nuremberg for these undoubted crimes.
The Hidden but Awkward Origins of World War 2
The unexpected views of four key diplomats who were close to events:
Just consider the following:
Joseph P. Kennedy, U.S. Ambassador to Britain during the years immediately preceding WW2 was the father of the famous American Kennedy dynasty. James Forrestal the first US Secretary of Defense (1947-1949) quotes him as saying “Chamberlain (the British Prime Minister) stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war”. (The Forrestal Diaries ed. Millis, Cassell 1952 p129).
Count Jerzy Potocki, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, in a report to the Polish Foreign Office in January 1939, is quoted approvingly by the highly respected British military historian Major-General JFC Fuller. Concerning public opinion in America he says “Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish hands…when bearing public ignorance in mind, their propaganda is so effective that people have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe… It is interesting to observe that in this carefully thought-out campaign… no reference at all is made to Soviet Russia. If that country is mentioned, it is referred to in a friendly manner and people are given the impression that Soviet Russia is part of the democratic group of countries… Jewry was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike camps…President Roosevelt has been given the power.. to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for.” (Fuller, JFC: The Decisive Battles of the Western World vol 3 pp 372-374.)
Hugh Wilson, the American Ambassador in Berlin until 1938, the year before the war broke out, found anti-Semitism in Germany ‘understandable’. This was because before the advent of the Nazis, “the stage, the press, medicine and law [were] crowded with Jews…among the few with money to splurge, a high proportion [were] Jews…the leaders of the Bolshevist movement in Russia, a movement desperately feared in Germany, were Jews. One could feel the spreading resentment and hatred.” (Hugh Wilson: Diplomat between the Wars, Longmans 1941, quoted in Leonard Mosley, Lindbergh, Hodder 1976).
Sir Nevile Henderson, British Ambassador in Berlin ‘said further that the hostile attitude in Great Britain was the work of Jews and enemies of the Nazis, which was what Hitler thought himself’ (Taylor, AJP: The Origins of the Second World War Penguin 1965, 1987 etc p 324).
Is all of this merely attributable to terrible antisemitism?
The economic background to the war is necessary for a fuller understanding, before casting judgement on the originators of these viewpoints.
At the end of the First World War, Germany was essentially tricked [see Paul Johnson A History of the Modern World (1983) p24 and H Nicholson Peacemaking 1919 (1933) pp13-16] into paying massive reparations to France and other economic competitors and former belligerent countries in terms of the so-called Treaty of Versailles, thanks to the liberal American President Woodrow Wilson. Germany was declared to be solely responsible for the war, in spite of the fact that ‘Germany did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine efforts, though too belated, to avert one.’ (Professor Sydney B Fay The Origins of the World War (vol. 2 p 552)).
As a result of these massive enforced financial reparations, by 1923 the situation in Germany became desperate and inflation on an astronomical scale became the only way out for the government. Printing presses were engaged to print money around the clock. In 1921 the exchange rate was 75 marks to the dollar. By 1924 this had become about 5 trillion marks to the dollar. This virtually destroyed the German middle class (Koestler The God that Failed p 28), reducing any bank savings to a virtual zero.
According to Sir Arthur Bryant the British historian (Unfinished Victory (1940 pp. 136-144):
‘It was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities.. They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of the real property in the Reich. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation.. But to those who had lost their all this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings they had now been deprived of their last possessions. They saw them pass into the hands of strangers, many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and who cared little or nothing for their national standards and traditions.. The Jews obtained a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned professions (in spite of constituting) less than one percent of the population.. The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a large part of the press – all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country is formed.. The largest newspaper combine in the country with a daily circulation of four millions was a Jewish monopoly.. Every year it became harder and harder for a gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation.. At this time it was not the ‘Aryans’ who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination.. It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed – and lavishly displayed – by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe. Beggars on horseback are seldom popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle.’
Goodness gracious, Sir Arthur! What made you get out of the wrong side of the bed?
Strangely enough, a book unexpectedly published by Princeton University Press in 1984, Sarah Gordon (Hitler, Germans and the “Jewish Question”) essentially confirms what Bryant says. According to her, ‘Jews were never a large percentage of the total German population; at no time did they exceed 1% of the population during the years 1871-1933.’ But she adds ‘Jews were over-represented in business, commerce, and public and private service.. They were especially visible in private banking in Berlin, which in 1923 had 150 private Jewish banks, as opposed to only 11 private non-Jewish banks.. They owned 41% of iron and scrap iron firms and 57% of other metal businesses.. Jews were very active in the stock market, particularly in Berlin, where in 1928 they comprised 80% of the leading members of the stock exchange. By 1933, when the Nazis began eliminating Jews from prominent positions, 85% of the brokers on the Berlin Stock exchange were dismissed because of their “race”.. At least a quarter of full professors and instructors (at German universities) had Jewish origins.. In 1905-6 Jewish students comprised 25% of the law and medical students.. In 1931, 50% of the 234 theatre directors in Germany were Jewish, and in Berlin the number was 80%.. In 1929 it was estimated that the per capita income of Jews in Berlin was twice that of other Berlin residents..’ etc etc.
Arthur Koestler confirms the Jewish over-involvement in German publishing. ‘Ullstein’s was a kind of super-trust; the largest organization of its kind in Europe, and probably In the world. They published four daily papers in Berlin alone, among these the venerable Vossische Zeitung, founded in the eighteenth century, and the B.Z. am Mittag, an evening paper.. Apart from these, Ullstein’s published more than a dozen weekly and monthly periodicals, ran their own news service, their own travel agency, etc., and were one of the leading book publishers. The firm was owned by the brothers Ullstein – they were five, like the original Rothschild brothers, and like them also, they were Jews.’ (The God that Failed (1950) ed. RHS Crossman, p 31).
Edgar Mowrer, Berlin correspondent for the Chicago Daily News, wrote an anti-German tract called Germany Puts the Clock Back (published as a Penguin Special and reprinted five times between December 1937 and April 1938). He nevertheless notes ‘In the all-important administration of Prussia, any number of strategic positions came into the hands of Hebrews.. A telephone conversation between three Jews in Ministerial offices could result in the suspension of any periodical or newspaper in the state.. The Jews came in Germany to play in politics and administration that same considerable part that they had previously won by open competition in business, trade, banking, the Press, the arts, the sciences and the intellectual and cultural life of the country. And thereby the impression was strengthened that Germany, a country with a mission of its own, had fallen into the hands of foreigners.’
Mowrer says ‘No one who lived through the period from 1919 to 1926 is likely to forget the sexual promiscuity that prevailed.. Throughout a town like Berlin, hotels and pensions made vast fortunes by letting rooms by the hour or day to baggageless, unregistered guests. Hundreds of cabarets, pleasure resorts and the like served for purposes of getting acquainted and acquiring the proper mood..’ (pp. 153-4). Bryant describes throngs of child prostitutes outside the doors of the great Berlin hotels and restaurants. He adds ‘Most of them (the night clubs and vice-resorts) were owned and managed by Jews. And it was the Jews.. among the promoters of this trade who were remembered in after years.’ (pp. 144-5).
Douglas Reed, Chief Central European correspondent before WWII for the London Times, was profoundly anti-German and anti-Hitler. But nevertheless he reported: ‘I watched the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots and daubing on the window panes the word “Jew”, in dripping red letters. The Kurfürstendamm was to me a revelation. I knew that Jews were prominent in business life, but I did not know that they almost monopolized important branches of it. Germany had one Jew to one hundred gentiles, said the statistics; but the fashionable Kurfürstendamm, according to the dripping red legends, had about one gentile shop to ninety-nine Jewish ones.’ (Reed Insanity Fair (1938) p. 152-3). In Reed’s book Disgrace Abounding of the following year he notes ‘In the Berlin (of pre-Hitler years) most of the theatres were Jewish-owned or Jewish-leased, most of the leading film and stage actors were Jews, the plays performed were often by German, Austrian or Hungarian Jews and were staged by Jewish film producers, applauded by Jewish dramatic critics in Jewish newspapers.. The Jews are not cleverer than the Gentiles, if by clever you mean good at their jobs. They ruthlessly exploit the common feeling of Jews, first to get a foothold in a particular trade or calling, then to squeeze the non-Jews out of it.. It is not true that Jews are better journalists than Gentiles. They held all the posts on those Berlin papers because the proprietors and editors were Jewish’ (pp238-9).
The Jewish writer Edwin Black notes ‘For example, in Berlin alone, about 75% of the attorneys and nearly as many of the doctors were Jewish.’ (Black, The Transfer Agreement (1984) p58.
To cap it all, Jews were perceived as dangerous enemies of Germany after Samuel Untermeyer, the leader of the World Jewish Economic Federation, declared war on Germany on August 6 1933. (Edwin Black The Transfer Agreement: the Untold Story of the Secret Pact between the Third Reich and Palestine (1984) pp272-277) According to Black, ‘The one man who most embodied the potential death blow to Germany was Samuel Untermeyer.’ (p 369). This was the culmination of a worldwide boycott of German goods led by international Jewish organizations. The London Daily Express on March 24, 1933 carried the headline Judea Declares War on Germany. The boycott was particularly motivated by the German imposition of the Nuremberg Laws, which ironically were similar in intent and content to the Jewish cultural exclusivism practiced so visibly in present-day Israel (Hannah Arendt Eichmann in Jerusalem p 7).
Hitler saw the tremendous danger posed to Germany by Communism. He appreciated the desperate need to eliminate this threat, a fact that earned him the immense hatred and animosity of the Jewish organisations and the media and politicians of the west which they could influence. After all, according to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant, although Jews formed less than five percent of Russia’s population, they formed more than fifty percent of its revolutionaries. According to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant in his book The Jews (1977, chapter 8):
‘It must be added that most of the leading revolutionaries who convulsed Europe in the final decades of the last century and the first decades of this one, stemmed from prosperous Jewish families.. They were perhaps typified by the father of revolution, Karl Marx.. Thus when, after the chaos of World War I, revolutions broke out all over Europe, Jews were everywhere at the helm; Trotsky, Sverdlov, Kamenev and Zinoviev in Russia, Bela Kun in Hungary, Kurt Eisner in Bavaria, and, most improbable of all, Rosa Luxemburg in Berlin.
‘To many outside observers, the Russian revolution looked like a Jewish conspiracy, especially when it was followed by Jewish-led revolutionary outbreaks in much of central Europe. The leadership of the Bolshevik Party had a preponderance of Jews.. Of the seven members of the Politburo, the inner cabinet of the country, four, Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Radomsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Sverdlov, were Jews.’ Other authors agree with this:
“There has been a tendency to circumvent or simply ignore the significant role of Jewish intellectuals in the German Communist Party, and thereby seriously neglect one of the genuine and objective reasons for increased anti-Semitism during and after World War 1.. The prominence of Jews in the revolution and early Weimar Republic is indisputable, and this was a very serious contributing cause for increased anti-Semitism in post-war years.. It is clear then that the stereotype of Jews as socialists and communists.. led many Germans to distrust the Jewish minority as a whole and to brand Jews as enemies of the German nation.” (Sarah Gordon Hitler, Germans and the ‘Jewish Question’ Princeton University Press (1984) p 23).
“The second paroxysm of strong anti-Semitism came after the critical role of Jews in International Communism and the Russian Revolution and during the economic crises of the 1920s and 30s… Anti-Semitism intensified throughout Europe and North America following the perceived and actual centrality of Jews in the Russian Revolution.. Such feelings were not restricted to Germany, or to vulgar extremists like the Nazis. All over Northern Europe and North America, anti-Semitism became the norm in ‘nice society’, and ‘nice society’ included the universities.” (Martin Bernal, Black Athena vol. 1 pp. 367, 387).
“The major role Jewish leaders played in the November (Russian) revolution was probably more important than any other factor in confirming (Hitler’s) anti-Semitic beliefs.” (J&S Pool, Who Financed Hitler, p.164).
Hitler came to power in Germany with two main aims, the rectification of the unjust provisions of the Versailles Treaty, and the destruction of the Soviet/ Communist threat to Germany. Strangely enough, contrary to the mythology created by those who had an opposing ethnic agenda, he had no plans or desire for a larger war of conquest. Professor AJP Taylor showed this in his book The Origins of the Second World War, to the disappointment of the professional western political establishment. Taylor says, “The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all” (p.267), and “Even in 1939 the German army was not equipped for a prolonged war; and in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French in everything except leadership” (p104-5). What occurred in Europe in 1939-41 was the result of unforeseen weaknesses and a tipping of the balance of power, and Hitler was an opportunist ‘who took advantages whenever they offered themselves’ (Taylor). Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Hitler wanted peace with Britain, as the German generals admitted (Basil Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill 1948, Pan Books 1983) with regard to the so-called Halt Order at Dunkirk, where Hitler had the opportunity to capture the entire British Army, but chose not to. Liddell Hart, one of Britain’s most respected military historians, quotes the German General von Blumentritt with regard to this Halt Order:
“He (Hitler) then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but ‘where there is planing, there are shavings flying’. He compared the British Empire with the catholic Church – saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties anywhere..” (p 200).
According to Liddell Hart, “At the time we believed that the repulse of the Luftwaffe in the ‘Battle over Britain’ had saved her. That is only part of the explanation, the last part of it. The original cause, which goes much deeper, is that Hitler did not want to conquer England. He took little interest in the invasion preparations, and for weeks did nothing tospur them on; then, after a brief impulse to invade, he veered around again and suspended the preparations. He was preparing, instead, to invade Russia” (p140).
David Irving in the foreword to his book The Warpath (1978) refers to “the discovery.. that at no time did this man (Hitler) pose or intend a real threat to Britain or the Empire.”
This gives a completely different complexion, not only to the war, but to the successful suppression of this information during the war and afterwards. Historians today know only too well where the boundaries lie within which they can paint their pictures of the war and its aftermath, and the consequences of venturing beyond those boundaries, irrespective of the evidence. Unfortunately, only too few of them have been prepared to have the courage to break out of this dreadful straitjacket of official and unofficial censorship.
E-mail comment received:
I worked and studied in Berlin for three years, have an MA in International Relations and a BA in Government with a minor in History. I am embarrassed to say that until I read this article, I had no idea of the scope and cause for the anti-Semitism in Germany before WWII. The Halt Order at Dunkirk was never mentioned in my studies, nor was the ownership of the media, banks and businesses.
Thank you for the excellent article. It certainly gives me a new perspective. I have always questioned the actual numbers of Jewish victims of the concentration camps, as the numbers didn’t make sense based upon Germany’s population. Perhaps it was fear of failing or being labeled an anti-Semite by my history professors (all but two were Jewish) and classmates that I refrained from demanding an honest discussion during my classes. I once said that the only reason Israel existed was out of Holocaust guilt, and I was immediately labeled a terrorist sympathizer.
I see what is now happening in Israel and I am aghast. The parallels to WW II are frightening. Even today, one cannot bring up this subject without being labeled a Holocaust denier or white supremacist.
Thanks again for an excellent article. I am forwarding it to several friends.
JBP
THE ‘INCORRECT’ SIX MILLION
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prizewinner and author of The Gulag Archipelago, in a speech in Washington in 1975 had this to say of the Soviet system which was deemed worthy of recognition as one of ‘our’ Allies fighting ‘for Democracy’ against the ‘Dictators’ in WW2:
“This was a system which, in time of peace, artificially created a famine causing SIX MILLION PERSONS to die in the Ukraine between 1932 and 1933. They died on the very threshold of Europe. And Europe didn’t even notice it. The world didn’t even notice it. SIX MILLION PERSONS!”
(Alexander Solzhenitsyn Speaks to the West (1978) p 16)
Who were these people, and why was and is their fate unknown to the ordinary man in the street in western countries?
Franklin Roosevelt’s ally and associate Joseph Stalin was the supreme dictator of Russia for almost a quarter of a century, from 1929 until his death in 1953. Born as Iosif Djugashvili, he adopted the very indicative name ‘Stalin’, ‘man of steel’. He lived up to this name in every respect. Soviet Russia under Stalin was a despotic police state that relied on espionage and terror, with a profound gulf in manner of living between the rulers and the ruled.
Stalin’s first Five-Year Plan (1928-1932) sought to bring about the ‘collectivization of agriculture’ in accordance with the ‘abolition of property in land’ put forward in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. But back in 1861 Czar Alexander II had liberated 23 million serfs, four years before slavery was abolished in the United States. In the period before the Revolution, millions of these peasants had been enabled to get title to their own individual plots, boosting Russian agricultural productivity. These independent peasant farmers became known as kulaks. When Communism was imposed on Russia, the kulaks as private property owners now stood in the way of the idea of Communism. In 1929 Stalin called for ‘the liquidation of the kulaks’, and their small family farms, animals, implements and crops were declared to belong to the state. “(The Jews) Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev had always argued that the peasant would never surrender enough food voluntarily, and must be coerced and, if need be, crushed” (*Paul Johnson A History of the Modern World (1983) p 268). The Red Army and the GPU secret police were used to implement the policy. All peasants who resisted were treated with violence. A very large number were killed or sent in cattle or freight trains to exile in remote areas in the frozen north or the desert steppes. Rather than give up their animals to the collective farms, many peasants killed and ate them. As a result, the number of farm animals in the Soviet Union was catastrophically reduced:
1928 vs 1933 statistics
Cattle
30,7 million
19,6 million
Sheep and goats
146,7 million
50,2 million
Hogs
26 million
12,1 million
Horses
33,5 million
16,6 million
(*Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p 398).
The peasants stopped farming on ground that suddenly, officially, no longer belonged to them. As a result, food production decreased drastically. After a while, the cities started running out of food. Orders were given for grain to be confiscated from the peasants, whether they had sufficient for themselves and their families or not. Those caught trying to reserve food for their families were ‘severely dealt with’. By the winter of 1932-3, virtually no food was left in the countryside. By early March 1933, ‘death on a mass scale really began’ (Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow (1986) p243). The main farming areas of Russia, in the regions of the Ukraine and North Caucasus, were utterly devastated. Millions of people were forced to eat anything that was available, mice, rats, birds, grass, nettles, bark and even cats and dogs, but even then did not survive. It was a time of great and terrible hunger, a catastrophic man-made famine.
The American journalist Eugene Lyons was sent to Russia in 1928 as chief correspondent for the United Press agency. Arriving as an enthusiastic communist, he was able to experience the Soviet experiment at first hand. He became extremely disillusioned. He described the famine in his book Assignment in Utopia (published in 1937) in the following terms:
“Hell broke loose in seventy thousand Russian villages.. A population as large as all of Switzerland’s or Denmark’s was stripped clean of all their belongings.. They were herded with bayonets at railroad stations, packed indiscriminately into cattle cars and freight cars and dumped weeks later in the lumber regions of the frozen North, the deserts of central Asia, wherever labor was needed, there to live or die..”. The number of people that died is unknown, but the famine alone is estimated conservatively to have been responsible for 6 million deaths, almost half of them children (*Conquest, p 303-4). Other millions died from the killings and sickness as a result of the deportations (*p 304-7). At the famous Yalta conference in 1945, Winston Churchill was able to question his friend and fellow ally Stalin about the process. Stalin said ‘ten million’ had been ‘dealt with’, but that it had been ‘absolutely necessary’. Churchill records that he ‘sustained the strong impression of millions of men and women being blotted out or displaced forever’ (*Churchill, The Second World War, vol. IV p448). However Churchill – thank God for Winston Churchill – had no further comment to make on the matter. Controlling the agenda is always so important!
Lyons, himself Jewish, credits the Jewish commissar Lazar Kaganovich with the major portion of responsibility for this major crime against humanity:
“Lazar Kaganovich… it was his mind that invented the Political Departments to lead collectivized agriculture, his iron hand that applied Bolshevik mercilessness.” (*Lyons, p 578). The Encyclopaedia Britannica says tersely, “(Kaganovich) was one of the small group of Stalin’s top advisors pushing for very high rates of collectivization after 1929.. Within the Politburo, Kaganovich and Molotov led the opposition to Kirov’s proposed concessions to the peasantry and to his attempts to relax the harshness of Stalin’s control.. (Kaganovich) opposed Krushchev’s de-Stalinization..”. Kaganovich died at the ripe old age of 98 in 1991 (Encl. Brit.), ethnically safe from pursuit by the Israeli secret service, the Simon Wiesenthal organization, the New York media-intelligentsia or other hunters of real or imagined war criminals or human rights violators.
The suffering caused by the great man-made famine was covered by some reports in newspapers in Britain, Europe and the United States. Books dating from before World War Two can still be found in second-hand bookshops which describe the ferocity… Arthur Koestler, Soviet Myth and Reality in The Yogi and the Commissar (1945) Muggeridge, Lyons, Chamberlin… Yet this episode has been completely, entirely, totally ignored by our guardians of history, morality and political correctness…
NO MEMORIAL EXISTS IN WASHINGTON DC
(obviously) to record the indescribable scale of human suffering which resulted, undoubtedly because such a high burden of responsibility for it lies with the Jew Kaganovitch, and because the victims were not Jewish. No chance exists for such a monument, according to a private consensus, owing to certain political realities.
This six million is the ‘incorrect’ six million, because their inconvenient story is not and has not been useful to today’s elite. The tribal affiliations of the chief perpetrator (Jew) and the victims (non-Jews) are the wrong ones, not fitting into the ‘correct’ pattern.
According to Solzhenitsyn in the eighty years that preceded the Revolution in Russia, – years of revolutionary activity, uprisings and the assassination of a Czar, an average of ten persons a year were executed. After the Revolution, in 1918 and 1919, according to the figures of the Cheka, the secret police itself – more than a thousand persons were executed per month without trial. In 1937-8, at the height of Stalin’s terror, more than 40 000 persons were executed per month. (*Solzhenitsyn p17).
Millions of persons were executed or sent to labour camps. In his magnum opus The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn credits Naftaly Frenkel, a ‘Turkish-born Jew’, with being works chief / chief overseer of the one-hundred-and-forty-mile-long Belomor (Baltic-White Sea) canal, built entirely with slave labour (paperback edition, vol 2 p 72). Solzhenitsyn quotes the official Soviet history of the project which describes Frenkel as having ‘..the eyes of an interrogator and prosecutor.. A man with enormous love of power and pride, for whom the main thing is unlimited power. If it is necessary for him to be feared, then let him be feared. He spoke harshly to the engineers, attempting to humiliate them.’ (ibid p 75). Other Jews were also involved in influential positions. Yakov Rappoport was deputy chief of construction (p 78) and Matvei Berman was the Chief of Gulag (p 79). Frenkel, Berman and Rappoport are amongst six men described by Solzhenitsyn as ‘hired murderers’, ‘each of whom accounted for thirty thousand lives’ (p 91). Is Solzhenitsyn alone in his accusations? Why are these names generally unknown to ordinary citizens in the West?
“The major role Jewish leaders played in the November (Russian) revolution was probably more important than any other factor in confirming (Hitler’s) anti-Semitic beliefs.” (J&S Pool, Who Financed Hitler, p.164).
“There has been a tendency to circumvent or simply ignore the significant role of Jewish intellectuals in the German Communist Party, and thereby seriously neglect one of the genuine and objective reasons for increased anti-Semitism during and after World War 1.. The prominence of Jews in the revolution and early Weimar Republic is indisputable, and this was a very serious contributing cause for increased anti-Semitism in post-war years.. It is clear then that the stereotype of Jews as socialists and communists.. led many Germans to distrust the Jewish minority as a whole and to brand Jews as enemies of the German nation.” (Sarah Gordon Hitler, Germans and the ‘Jewish Question’ Princeton University Press (1984) p 23).
“The second paroxysm of strong anti-Semitism came after the critical role of Jews in International Communism and the Russian Revolution and during the economic crises of the 1920s and 30s… Anti-Semitism intensified throughout Europe and North America following the perceived and actual centrality of Jews in the Russian Revolution.. Such feelings were not restricted to Germany, or to vulgar extremists like the Nazis. All over Northern Europe and North America, anti-Semitism became the norm in ‘nice society’, and ‘nice society’ included the universities.” (Bernal, Black Athena vol. 1 pp. 367, 387).
“To many outside observers, the Russian revolution looked like a Jewish conspiracy, especially when it was followed by Jewish-led revolutionary outbreaks in much of central Europe. The leadership of the Bolshevik Party had a preponderance of Jews and included Litvinov (real name Wallach), Liadov (Mandelshtam), Shklovsky, Saltz, Gusev (Drabkin), Zemliachka (Salkind), Helena Rozmirovich, Serafima Gopner, Yaroslavsky (Gubelman), Yaklovlev (Epstein), Riaznov (Goldendach), Uritsky and Larin. Of the seven members of the Politburo, the inner cabinet of the country, four, Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Radomsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Sverdlov, were Jews.”
When Lenin died in 1924, Zinoviev – the first chairman of the Communist International – formed a triumvirate with Kamenev and Stalin to govern Russia. This ‘Troika’ as it was known was formed to keep Trotsky from the succession. Stalin was the only one of the three members of the Troika who was not Jewish. “Though Zinoviev and Kamenev feared Trotsky as too militant and extreme, they shared his belief in permanent revolution, which Stalin did not. Russia had been in almost continuous turmoil for twenty years and had suffered revolutions and counter-revolutions, war, invasions and a pitiless and drawn-out civil war. There were limits to which the endurance of a people could be stretched. The Russians wanted to bury their dead and resume what they could of normal life. Stalin understood this. Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev (the three Jews) did not.”
“Jews had a prominent role in Communist parties elsewhere..” (Chaim Bermant, The Jews (1977)).
THE ‘CORRECT’ SIX MILLION
What about the ‘Actual’ Holocaust?
Norman G. Finkelstein of the City University of New York says:
‘ “The Holocaust” is an ideological representation of the Nazi holocaust. Like most ideologies, it bears a connection, if tenuous, with reality. The Holocaust is not an arbitrary, but rather an internally coherent construct. Its central dogmas sustain significant political and class interests. Indeed, The Holocaust has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon. Through its deployment, one of the world’s most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a ‘victim’ state, and the most successful ethnic group in the United States has likewise acquired victim status. Considerable benefits accrue to this specious victimhood – in particular, immunity to criticism, however justified. ” (Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry (2000) published by Verso, p 3).
On page 83 he notes that ‘The Israeli Prime Minister’s office recently put the number of “living Holocaust survivors” at nearly a million.’ This means, in plain English, that there is no actual shortage of Holocaust Survivors.
Some further quotes:
“In an authoritative study, Leonard Dinnerstein reported: Sixty thousand Jews.. walked out of the concentration camps. Within a week more than 20,000 of them had died.”. But ‘As it entered into negotiations with Germany [just two years ago, in 1999], the Holocaust industry demanded compensation for 135,000 still living former (camp inmates).’ (pp125-6)
On page 127 he further notes ‘If 135,000 former Jewish slave laborers are still alive today, some 600,000 must have survived the war. That’s at least a half-million more than standard estimates.. If Jews only constituted 20% of the surviving camp population and, as the Holocaust industry implies, 600,000 Jewish inmates survived the war, then fully 3 million inmates in total must have survived. By the Holocaust industry’s reckoning, concentration camp conditions couldn’t have been that harsh at all; in fact, one must suppose a remarkably high fertility and remarkably low mortality rate.. If, as the Holocaust industry suggests, many hundreds of thousands of Jews survived, the Final Solution couldn’t have been so efficient after all – exactly what Holocaust deniers argue. (pp127-8). ’
‘Both my father and my mother were survivors of the Warsaw ghetto and the Nazi concentration camps.. One of my father’s lifelong friends was a former inmate with him in Auschwitz, a seemingly incorruptible left-wing idealist who on principle refused German compensation after the war. Eventually he became a director of the Israeli Holocaust museum, Yad Vashem. Reluctantly and with genuine disappointment, my father finally admitted that even this man had been corrupted by the Holocaust industry, tailoring his beliefs for power and profit. As the rendering of the Holocaust assumed ever more absurd forms, my mother liked to quote (with intentional irony) Henry Ford: “History is bunk.” (ibid. p7).
‘The Holocaust proved to be the perfect weapon for deflecting criticism of Israel’ (ibid p30).
‘Much of the literature on Hitler’s Final Solution is worthless as scholarship. Indeed, the field of Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense, if not sheer fraud.’ (p 55).
‘Given the nonsense that is turned out daily by the Holocaust industry, the wonder is that there are so few skeptics’. (p 68).
‘Annual Days of Remembrance of the Holocaust are a national event. All 50 states sponsor commemorations, often in state legislative chambers.. Seven major Holocaust museums dot the American landscape. The centerpiece of this memorialization is the United States Holocaust museum in Washington.. (This) museum’s annual budget is $50 million, of which $30 million is federally subsidized.’ (p72). (This is in spite of the fact that, as he points out on page 32, per capita Jewish income in the US is almost double that of non-Jews). ‘With a reelection campaign looming, Jimmy Carter initiated the (US Holocaust Museum) project to placate Jewish contributors and voters, galled by the president’s recognition of the “legitimate rights” of Palestinians.’ (p 73).
And:
‘The Holocaust may yet turn out to be the “greatest robbery in the history of mankind”.. The Holocaust industry has clearly gone berserk.’(p 138-9).
on a lighter historical note, were those cigars Winston sucked down cuban?
Churchill had a basic anti-German instinct long before the war. He was an anti-German philo-Semite, and he did what he could to crush a European, Germanic nation in the heart of Europe in two world wars. Pretty heavy stuff, if you ask me.
The question is: if his “grand strategy” was to save the British Empire, did he succeed? Obviously not. In retrospect, of course, Churchill was a disaster (indeed, a monster) to Europe, to the Wester world, and to his own country.
The two world wars also demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that White people must go beyond the narrow confines of the national “paradigm”. White people should think of themselves as Whites in an ethnic sense, not as “Germans”, “English”, “Dutch”, “Americans” etc. We should have learned that lesson now, after two fratricidal world wars fighting each other.
I think that Lesacre and Whites Unite are spammers. Notice how one of them uses the familiar Jewish argument that to question the Holocaust puts Jews at risk somehow. I’ve never been able to swallow that one. How does saying a mass murder did not take place make murder more likely to happen? It’s absurd logic.
Israel, at the zenith of human hypocrisy, denies the alleged Armenian genocide. Clearly, in this case, nobody feels that this endangers Armenians.
“Apollonian is here merely to try and ruin the site.”
I agree.
IIRC, apollonian has been banned from a few white advocacy blogs.
Jews, Suck-Alongs Intensively Resent Merit, Truth, Honesty
(Apollonian, 16 Apr 10)
“Anne,” here’s what u should do: if I (or anyone) say something that’s wrong or inaccurate, or objectionable, u should refute it–how’s that? If u can’t, then u have no complaint, do u? But like a Jew, u can’t speak to any particular issue, so u just make use of some utterly irrelevant point, don’t u?
Note there are lots and lots of Jews who have lots of money and spare time w. their own little idiot blogs–look at http://lesacred.wordpress.com. And there are lots of Jew suck-alongs, like urself and “Whites Unite,” who have lots of time to go posting on blogs so they can tell their Jewwy friends about it all. And I’m very proud, u may be sure, I’ve been banned fm many of those blogs–so what’s big deal?
But I don’t advocate u or that other ignorant scum, posted above, “FTJ DTTF,” be banned–u know why?–BECAUSE U’RE SOOOOO BRAINLESSLY INSIGNIFICANT and pathetic–which speaks for itself, doesn’t it?
CONCLUSION: So I’ve been banned fm some blogs–oh, boo hoo hoo, big deal–that’s the way life goes–didn’t u know that?–u utterly insignificant, little guttersnipe who says practically nothing, that means nothing and proves nothing. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
Did Mr Winston Churchill rely on funds from the Jews?
From David Irving: “Churchill’s War”, vol. i: “Struggle for Power”
ON the day after the Horsham speech [i.e. July 24, 1936] the ten top members of the Anti-Nazi Council trooped into Morpeth Mansions, his London pied-à-terre, for a second conspiratorial luncheon. In response to Churchill’s wishes for a less negative title, they now called themselves The Focus but, cat-like, this was a name known only to themselves, The main decisions this day were to set up a research section under Wickham Steed and to draft a manifesto. (According to Steed it was seen by ‘one American visitor’ who insisted it be shown privately to certain associations, which he did not identify, in the United States.[23])
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]
Funds had been arranged two days earlier at a private dinner in North London, hosted by the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Its vice-president Sir Robert Waley-Cohen, chairman of British Shell, was a charismatic Zionist extrovert who would become, in the words of his authorised biographer Robert Henriques, the ‘veritable dynamic force of Focus,’ 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]
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/Waley_Cohen.html
“Churchill was a Jew. Churchill’s mother was the very wealthy, American Jew, Jennie Jerome. To hide her Jewish features, Churchill (and others), claimed Jennie Jerome was part American Indian.”
IF some dirt bag troll here is going play Lesacre, have the decency to link my blog. (My posting name should be Blue). Was that you Cap?
“Lesacre”: don’t worry; nobody pays much attn to ur posts anyway–u only want to pretend u’re “sensitive,” “insightful,” and “moral”–in style of Immanuel Kant, right? Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
“Apollonian is here merely to try and ruin the site.”
There are a lot of lonely trolls here.
“Think that Lesacre and Whites Unite are spammers.”
If I am a spanner than google me and verify. Regardless, a principled position is needed. I line needs to be drawn between sane talk and Apollonian talk. Some here have a problem with drawing lines. They have a problem, because lines have so often been used to demonize their interests. They have come to think that speaking of right and wrong, and acceptable and unacceptable, is just another attempt to exclude them. They then refuse to make the distinction, which makes them prone to engage in behaviors which justifies for others their exclusion. I appreciate this. But this is a mistake. Making distinctions between what is appropriate and what is in appropriate is needed.
If you comment on this site, and your motives are sincere, you are pro-European; you are motivated to defend European individual and group interest and identity. That is the starting point. You are simply protecting yourself. And when protecting yourself ,individually, you imaginably have some idealized notion of right an wrong, acceptable and unacceptable — regardless of the actual demands of circumstance. Additionally. you have some sense of what you are not willing to do, situation depending. Right?
Maybe if some of you start taking this seriously you can think about it seriously, and acting accordingly. Which means stop being irresponsible. How do some of these comments help Kevin M, as he is teaching in a public University? How do they help what you profess to be interested in? How does that not help justify the view of you?
With regards to Jews, my affirmation and concern for my ethnic identity, means I have to accept as legitimate theirs, to the extent there is not conflict. It’s that simple. I appreciate that there are a good number of vindictive, Jews that don’t reciprocate, but they are not me. And my way is not to be more vindictive. Nor to try to be more hypocritical and clever.
Spammer or not, think about it.
Stalin wanted to sit out the war between the capitalists out and reap the rewards. Neville Chamberlain wanted to see the fighting done by the Germans and Bolshies. The British considered the Soviet Union to be the real problem, not the Nazis. With the the Nazi-Soviet pact the powerful Soviet deterent to any aggression was out of the equation and the British realized the balance of power had moved against them, which was unacceptable in a way that war between the Nazis and Soviets was not. If Hitler didn’t have to worry about the Soviets at his back that suddenly made all the previous calculations obsolete.
It is ridiculous to claim that Stalin didn’t understand that in making a non agression pact with Hitler he was freeing him to attack France ect in the west. Stalin, like everone else underestimated Hitler and the German army. Few people expected Gemany to win against France and Britain. It’s only because things didn’t go as expected that Stalin was left looking naive.
At that time people had a very exaggerated idea of the destructiveness of bombing, it was thought London would be leveled within a few weeks. Rather than re-run WW1 with mass bombing Chamberlain and his supporters wanted to bring the USSR into conflict with with Germany; Germany wouldn’t play ball because it made a pact with the USSR; once that happened Britain had little choice. If Chamberlain was forced into war by anyone (apart from Hitler) it was by Stalin.
It may be true that Germany was unable to choose the timing because Jewish media power played an important role in generating hostility in the US and Britain which led to those countries accelerating military build ups which constrained the military options in 1939. Hitler had an objective that could only be got by war. In 1939 his assessment of the correlation of forces building against him he realized that he would loose an advantage in military might by waiting.
Hitler’s preparations to cross the Channel were never serious but a ruse to lull Stalin into thinking that his plan of getting Germany into an exhausting conflict in the West had succeeded, it worked brilliantly. Although Stalin may have anticipated territorial demands or military pressure such as border incidents he was astounded when Hitler subjected the USSR to an all out attack with the goal of conquering the soiet state. Like I said everbody underestimated the Hitler and the German army. There was nothing Stalin could do at that point because his forces were out of position, being in an offensive posture for they were too far forward. Stalin’s orders, when they came, were to stand and fight. That played into the Germans hands and allowed then to cut off and destroy much of the huge Soviet forces that Stalin had so foolishly concentrated along the border, especially in the south opposite Romania.
It was only because Hitler – against the advice of every military professional – decided to halt the drive to Moscow that the main enemy forces survived and the Soviet state was not destroyed in 1941.
You say Churchill was a “friend of the Jews”. Actually he WAS a Jew – because his mother was jewish he was, by
Israel’s law of return, a Jew. Since his mother was notably free with her favors he may have been 100% Jew. He
certainly did not resemble his “father”.
Schizoid Loves To Babel–But Only He Knows What He’s Talking About
(Apollonian, 16 Apr 10)
“Lesacre”: u know, u’re just funny in ur brainless, presumptuous, chattering fashion. Let me give u an example of ur truly schizoid mentality–observe ur just above sentences, quoted in entirety:
“Maybe if some of you start taking this seriously you can think about it seriously, and acting accordingly. Which means stop being irresponsible.”
So here’s my question: what exactly do u mean to referring to by use of the word, “this” in ur first quoted sentence?–can u tell us in a word or two–maybe a short sentence? U see–u’re just a presumptuous schizoid mentality, demonstrated by ur use of loose-reference pronouns.
CONCLUSION: “Sane talk”?–u’re a joke, Frenchy. And of course, we don’t want to get u started on what u mean by “responsibility,” do we? Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
Apollonian,
Having an ideal is a good thing. It allows you to appreciate how far, at any time, circumstance has necessitated that you deviate from that. I am not saying the ideal is categorical, or is something that you should adhere to at all costs. Having values only makes sense, presupposing your existence. So that obviously must be the primary value — a value which takes precedence over others. That is Where you and CaptainChoas come in. And where saying the hell with respectability makes sense.
My problems with your comments are not that you are critical of Jewish Individuals or you question this or that, or that you are righteously angry at their hypocrisy. Or you point out Jewish group tendencies. It’s your apparent essentialization of Jewish iniquity. You cross the line, when doing so, and render your valid points suspect.
Yes, so I would say it’s not acceptable to demonize a whole class of people. When discussing groups, care is needed. Call me a crypto-Zionist or Liberal traitor. Or just ignore my posts.
“So here’s my question: what exactly do u mean to referring to by use of the word, “this” in ur first quoted sentence?–can u tell us in a word or two–maybe a short sentence?”
Quote:
If you comment on this site, and your motives are sincere, you are pro-European; you are motivated to defend European individual and group interest and identity. That is the starting point. You are simply protecting yourself.
“Responsibility”
Acting a in a way that actually does ‘this’ more good than harm
No Lesacre, I totally agree that some behavior will make us look bad, and that the perps may well be trolls, similar to the widespread belief that the tea partiers screaming the “N and F” bombs are liberal plants. Some people would like it to appear that only crazed skin heads read Occidental Observer.
Maybe I’m wrong that it was you, but I thought that you had said we shouldn’t question anything about the holocaust. Without revealing what I personally think, I believe this is legitimate inquiry into a (alleged) historical event. It’s not a sacred cow. There are some circumstances around the official story which are undeniably fishy. These are things that anyone can verify for themselves. Some parts of the official holocaust historiography have been altered over time. I’m thinking of the alleged creation of human artifacts, mentioned in Colhaze’s most recent article and the status of Dachau as one of the “death camps”. Or the incremental decline of the Auschwitz death toll. Might this trend continue towards zero one day?
Jews Must Take Responsibility For Murder And Talmudic Psychopathology
(Apollonian, 16 Apr 10)
But “Lesacre” (can I just call u “Frenchy”?): how is it possible to take a schizoid like u seriously when u just ignore, like a Jew, the definitive references (i.e., RevisionistHistory.org and Come-and-hear.com) I give u regarding Jew psychopathology regarding their murderous Talmudic religion–they’re just a race of liars, criminals, and murderers who worship murder and lies.
Look at the Jew holy-days of passover, purim, and hannuka–commemorating bloody mass murder. Look at their Kol Nidre invocation by which they justify lying.
U thus practice a suicidal, irrational philosophy when u refuse to make Jew murderers responsible for their deliberate murders and religion thereof. And it’s most egregious when u demand everyone else practice ur irresponsibility regarding Jews.
CONCLUSION: Jews are justly worthy of condemnation qua Jews, period. To not so hold Jews responsible is not responsible judgment, to use ur own word and ideal. So pls take responsibility for ur own irresponsibility–though I know that’s difficult for u. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
“Maybe I’m wrong that it was you, but I thought that you had said we shouldn’t question anything about the holocaust. Without revealing what I personally think, I believe this is legitimate inquiry into a (alleged) historical event. It’s not a sacred cow.”
The Holocaust surely acts as a religion. And insofar as the Holocaust narrative conflicts with our ethnic interest, it needs to be subject to criticism and intense scrutiny. For those people that are upset about this criticism, they have their politically exploitative co-ethnics to blame. Many of those same coethnics that had no problem ruthlessly criticizing our historic religion. So I agree with you there.
My point with Cap, thought, was that this is complex because many white people have been conditioned to think they need to justify ethnic interest on the basis of being not-Holocaust-prone or they think they should not be ethnically inclined at all (ie white guilt). Obviously this makes no sense, because seeing the Holocaust as particularly bad presupposes that you value ethnic identity as particularly good, which includes European man’s ethnic identity; regardless, dealing with this matter is complex.
And I meant that as a separate point, though not completely separate, from what I was saying about having a principled position.
Frenchy (“Lesacre”): I dare say, for u EVERYTHING is hopelessly “complex”–am I right? Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
“But “Lesacre” (can I just call u “Frenchy”?):”
Lesacre is from “Le Sacre du printemps,” or Stravinsky’s “Rite of Spring.”
I use to name for my blog, because Stravinsky was an iconoclastic Jewish composer, and I am trying to offer him the posthumous chance to redeem himself — which means giving a rite of spring to a healthy European sense. It would be like if you called yourself Franz Boas.
“CONCLUSION: Jews are justly worthy of condemnation qua Jews, period. To not so hold Jews responsible is not responsible judgment, to use ur own word and ideal.”
I agree with this logic. In fact, I think it’s our moral duty to get “Liberal” Jews to embrace cultural Liberalism for themselves. They are confused and sick and we have an obligation to alleviate the poison of ethnicity, as they so conceived it.
“EVERYTHING is hopelessly “complex”–”
Seeing things complexly is a way of seeing. For those that are not stupid, it’s a choice. And it’s a reasonable choice to make when seeing-things-simply fails to achieve your desired ends and leads to more confusion and trouble than otherwise. In this case, screaming “Jews are evil,” in my estimate, seems to lead to more good than bad — in general and, most importantly, for us. You seem to disagree.
Let me ask you, do you see Kevin M screaming that?
Jewwy-Oriented “Historian” Mis-Represents Truth Of WWII
(Apollonian, 16 Apr 10)
“Someday,” ur highly questionable scholarship (at best) requires a footnote for ur statement, “The British considered the Soviet Union to be the real problem, not the Nazis.” For British were TOTALLY under socialistic thumb of Jew conspiratorial Round-table groups (see TheNewAmerican.com and AugustReview.com for expo/ref. on CFR-Bilderberg conspiracy and history thereof).
So when nazis and Soviets finally got into it, Churchill was on a submarine to his buddies the reds in Moscow, wasn’t he?–this after Hitler groveled to British for peace, letting British army get away at Dunkirk to prove his good intentions.
For ur (above-quoted) statement is totally, absolutely, demonstrably false. Bolsheviks were deliberately sponsored, funded, nurtured, and subsidized by the West, including USA, and Jew banking powers behind the “Round-table” conspiratorial groups, purpose being World gov. of UN (United Nations–see Perloff’s “Shadows of Power”).
And ur snide little crack about nazi “war crimes” rather gives u away again, doesn’t it?–for ur Jewwy bias. For among all the powers, Germans were by far the most honorable, least responsible for “war-crimes”–as Germans WERE ON DEFENSIVE at all times, in all ways.
It was indubitably the Soviets who were colossally armed, aggressive, and expansionistic, heavily subsidized by West, including USA, demonstrated by Antony C. Sutton, in his “Wall Street…” series, long before Hitler achieved power. See Sutton’s “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution.”
And don’t forget Roosevelt’s “quarantine” speech was given in 1937, telegraphing the hostile and aggressive intentions of conspiratorial “allies” against Germany.
CONCLUSION: As I understand, German army was simply worn-out when they paused before Moscow after having fought so intensively, they having lost so much men and materiel. USA and England did EVERYTHING they could to prop up Soviets. Germans were simply doomed practically fm the first, they having no choice but to fight to the end. Honest elections and death to the Fed.
Schizoid Refuses To Face Simple Reality–All In Effort To Pretend To “Moralism”
(Apollonian, 16 Apr 10)
“Frenchy”: u’re hopeless–AGAIN, u ignore my simple argument against Jew murderers and psychopaths who worship lies, murder, and psychopathology, as I prove, including by means of references–which u, again, IGNORE in ur demented schizoid obsession for appearing “moral”–u’re just simply impossible for having rational dialectic.
And I don’t say Jews are “evil,” as that’s Pelagian hereticalist subjectivism. I say very simply Jews are psychopathic liars and murderers–as proven by their psychopathic worship of murder and lies of Talmud, their VERY RELIGION, for goodness sakes, u confounded schizoid.
And I’m not “screaming”; u are–note I gave u references to prove and substantiate my simple case. I have solid, demonstrable, verifiable facts on my side: Jews are murderers and psychopaths: proof is their murderous, psychopathic Talmudic religion, justification for my categorical condemnation of Jews, all Jews, Jews qua Jews. Q.E.D. Psychopaths must be exterminated.
CONCLUSION: Worship of psychopathology must be exterminated. Psychopathologic religion, hence Talmudism, must be exterminated. And I think these are reasonable conclusions. Did u observe, and are u aware of the mass-murder conducted by Jews in Gaza of late Dec. 08 through first of 09?–are they not psychopaths, proven over and over and over? Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
There was no bigger prostitute in all of British politics than this pig Churchill
I never ever liked that toad
Geiseric: I sympathize with your position. I’ve argued similarly myself. Protect the race and you protect the nations, the ethnicities, it gives rise to. These days, however, I consider myself an English rather than white nationalist (I am English, not ‘british’). The change was forced on me to some extent, not least by attitudes among other whites, many of whom seem to blame us for all the ills of the world. The job of a nation is to survive – even if its most murderous assailants are related by blood and should know better.
For blood is everything as you know. It’s just that in the present climate the aim of racial unity is destined to prove illusory. Too many ancient enmities. The EU for one is positively dedicated to settling old scores, and particularly in its relations with England, which has suffered grievously in recent years. A further problem is that racial historical perspectives so often blame the English as a whole. Criticism rarely confines itself to elites, those truly culpable. Analysts don’t single out traitorous politicians, monarchs or dynasties.
Instead condemnation gets directed at ‘the English’. I have learnt to be wary of works by Mr Buchanan and his ilk. No doubt the publication is a model of impartial research. It’s just that were you to tell me as much, categorically denying that Buchanan had been influenced by any of the anti-Englishness familiar to all who claim Scottish ancestry, I should have to disbelieve you. Churchill has much to answer for I know. But his corruption and that of the monarchy seem to have become just the excuse some are looking for to vent a more general dislike of England and the English people. That’s okay. We can take it (and even enjoy it).
But let’s not be hypocritical. Let’s call it for what it is. Identity wars began on American campuses during the 1970s. Offering a chance to re-write history they also provided a profitable opportunity to play the role of victim, depending on how well you embroidered the sob-story. Contrast the privileges enjoyed by Irish and Scots, lauded relentlessly by Hollywood, with the remorseless campaign of vilification regularly conducted against my people, the English, whose wickedness apparently knows no bounds. This carefully orchestrated exercise in character assassination isn’t harmless. It isn’t a bit of fun. What’s more it has consequences. Open your eyes. You’ll see the results all around if you care to look.
Start with all those pious, Hollywood-oirish ‘white nationalists’ in America. This scurvy lot raised hardly a whisper during six decades in which England – and England alone – was violated and changed forever by a veritable river of human slurry from the third-world. Let a couple of hundred Nigerians turn up in Dublin, however, and a hysterical cry of ‘Ireland for the Irish!’ goes up all across the internet.
Scots, too, get a free pass when it comes to national suicide. Scots are ‘british’ (sic) too, by the way, at least when it suits them, which means when English money’s being handed out. It just that shouldering anything like their share of ‘Britain’s’ burdens, which it almost always falls to their southern benefactor to pay for, doesn’t suit them very often. Oh their politicians talk of ‘proudly multicultural Scotland’. They speechify in the usual fashion, praising the success of a ‘British’ multiracial experiment they work tirelessly behind the scenes to ensure their own country is excused.
They get away with it too. When Scottish officials illegally refused to process asylum applications in 2003, telling applicants to go south to England instead, the Scot-dominated government in Whitehall turned a blind eye. No-one was even disciplined, much less sacked.
So you’ll forgive me if a cry of ‘white unity!’ leaves me unmoved. Irish and Scots threaten England’s well-being far more than non-European immigration. These are people who would dance on our grave if they could, and who may well get their chance if the demographic evidence is to be believed. Don’t blame the darkies. They only came at the invitation of the many white ‘British’ leaders who were not actually English themselves, whose private loyalties lay elsewhere, but who were happy to govern on behalf of alien interests so long as their own patch remained unplundered.
Being governed by whites doesn’t mean much when it’s whites who are twisting the knife. We haven’t had an English government for a thousand years. Until that’s corrected the rest is meaningless.
Hitlers orders spared the British at Dunkirk, he also spared the Soviets at Smolensk. While it can be argued he intended the first result I’m sure he didn’t intend the second.
Hitler’s goal was to make Germany a world power. He thought that objective was attainable and worth the risk, everthing he did was to further that aim.
Reinterpreting Operation Barbarossa
The argument that the Germans were exhausted by the time they reached Moscow is answered HERE (scroll a third of the way down) .
Jewwy “Historian” Continues To Beg Question In His Deception, Ignorance
(Apollonian, 16 Apr 10)
“Someday”: the citation u give is merely an opinion; if there’s some conclusion to be drawn, u need to make it citing the premises. Germans were fighting a purely, rather desperate, defensive war, all the way–which they reasonably expected given the bolshevik build-up by the Jew-dominated and -captivated powers of the West.
Hitler simply wanted peace and security, this in view of the bolshevik colossus to the east and the active hostility of the Western powers.
U remain absurdly ignorant of the Jew-bankers conspiring for world gov., and u fail to acknowledge plain fact there was no holohoax as Jew liars and propagandists falsely assert, ignoring numerous citations and links. U stink for scholarship, logic, and facts. War was declared against Germany by Britain and France, provoked by Poland, as Hitler strove for peace.
Ur Jew-friendly statement makes no sense, begging obvious question–which u brainlessly ignore regarding “Hitler’s goal….worth the risk.”–”risk” of what?–just existing in peace, eh? U stink. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
The ever kvetching “me” states:
“notice how Captainchaos is trying to steer us straight into disaster?”
I guess Richard Hoste, by your standards, much be in the pay of ZOG as well.
Read:
“Another point that’s important to consider is that there’s pretty much no way for whites from Middle America to take power from the elites after getting fed up with them short of violent revolution. A population with an IQ of 95 producing enough smart people to march through institutions built and maintained by the smartest people of populations with IQs of 103 (Blue State whites) and 110 (Jews) is about as unlikely to happen as Mexicans ending up an elite class.”
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/hbd-human-biodiversity/the-red-state-brain-drain/
Next time Hoste writes something for the Occidental Observer why don’t you let him know you’ve got his ZOG-truckling ass figured out, all right “me”?
Or else shut your carping little pie hole.
Wonderful people and brilliant people on this site!I enjoyed everyones (except the Jewish Agents)posts and learned new things!I have been on AXIS HSTORY Forum and been viciously attacked for quoting the true version of events,surrounding WW2,and the Gollum Churchill,with even my ESTABLISHMENT sources questioned.For mentioning Mr.Irving I was ostricized,of course,and my refernencing Martin Gilberts (A Jew,and hagiographer of dear pro dear Winnie book CHURCHILL AND THE JEWS,as NAZI PROPAGANDA!!!!!!! But the site originates in Zionist Occupied Germany and is being watched by misinformed Anglophiles,brain washed flag waving conservatives,and Jews of course!We must continue to fight this difficult battle by refusing to allow the name Churchll to be diefied without a fight.For Churchill symbolizes all things evil;greed,corruption,selfshness,lack of fitness,/drunkeness,cruelty,primative racisem;His refernces to people of other races from Asia to Africa,and of course Europe and the Middle East, are beyond anything Adolf Hitler ever said,or did),and certainly his love of destruction(When asked if he were pleased the war was now finally over in the fateful year 1945?His reply;”I LOVED EVERY MINUTE OF IT”!
@Harold Stone: Thanks for sharing some of your thoughts and perspectives. I agree that ‘White’ as an (meta-)ethnic term makes almost no sense in a European context. In the European ethnic landscape (including England, of course), terms such as ‘Germanic’, ‘Celtic’, ‘Slavic’ etc. seem to be more appropriate. Certainly, Englishmen should regard themselves as an ethnic group within the Germanic “family”. To me it makes more sense to talk in supra-national terms in a post-national era. Don’t you agree?
People Need Aesthetic For Leadership, Unity
(Apollonian, 16 Apr 10)
“Geiseric”: “white” is abstraction which requires definition, subject then to subjectivist desires of whoever–esp. Jews who so often want to pretend they’re “white” too, like mestizos and mulattos.
It’s best then to understand a large, general Gentile Alliance, united against Jews IN REASON–versus Jew psychopathology and worship of murder, lies, etc.
Thus in reason, people naturally respect ancestors, culture, and people desiring to pro-create in image thereto, themselves, in healthy loyalty and pride.
But problem is REASON is only practical for maybe 5% of population; that’s why they need AESTHETIC which is a parallel method, much expounded by the Danish philosopher Kierkegaard, for example.
Thus now u only need an anti-semitic AESTHETIC, consistent w. reason, and historically this was the great and magnificent CHRISTIAN achievement, which stands for TRUTH, according to Gosp. JOHN (14:6) against Jew lies and conspiracy (JOHN 8:44).
Note then such truth requires OBJECTIVITY (Aristotle, logic and science) as necessary criterion thereto.
But further observe then, as hist. is CYCLIC, according to “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler, once the devil and Jew are banished (Jew-Expulsion), momentarily defeated, the great ideal, health and reason, is lost for its contrast, losing its meaning for evermore people who forget–such was fate of Christianity which became mystified through the years, people now imagining it means such crap as “love,” or mystic “faith” which originally only meant LOYALTY.
Thus as gentiles re-learn again lying to one another, as culture “declines,” the all-time experts and professionals, Jews who worship lies, will eventually work their way back into cultural-political dominance, as we see, esp. by means of “banking,” which folks have such difficulty understanding.
That’s why such anti-semitic Christianity needs merely be resurrected, so to speak, as observe there’s no other sort of aesthetic which even begins to fit the necessities–and reason, as I note, will remain inaccessible to most.
CONCLUSION: Jews’ weak-pt. is their dependence upon “Judeo-Christian” (JC–see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo/ref.) hereticalists and suck-alongs who traitorously support enemy Israeli terror-state, say Christ was Jew (hence Talmudist), and deliberately distort and fudge the stark and radical differences/distinctions of “Jew” with Judean and Israelite–for Jew is strictly follower of Talmud, never forget–which was explicitly repudiated by Christ as expounder of Mosaic law and Torah, Christ upholding TRUTH, again, explicitly against Jew (Pharisaic) liars. JCs can well and even easily be “had”–ck out heroic work of pastor Carlson of Whtt.org. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
What I was trying to say is that ‘White’ makes sense as an ethnic term in the Anglo-sphere beyond England. It makes sense because all the major European groups have intermingled in the US, Australia etc. Since whiteness makes sense to Americans, they should continue to be White. In Europe, the major (meta-ethnic) groups have largely evolved independently, intermingling mostly within their respective groups. There are still huge differences in terms of culture and psychology between these major groups in Europe. The racial history of some of these groups also seem to differ – at least since the LGM.
But, as I said: I respect ‘White’ as a meaningful ethnic term for Europeans in the Anglo-sphere. It just doesn’t seem to work in the European heartland.
Those were some very informative posts there Jason, thank you. Many people reading this blog may not be aware of the amount of historically revealing documentation that there actually is available on the subject of the real German-Jewish situation.
Regarding Churchill, very few people may know that there was an anti-Jewish pogrom at Tredegar in South Wales in 1911, which was brutally suppressed, with lethal military force, by the British Home Secretary, who, at the time was none other than Winston himself. Furthermore, Francis Neilson, a former member of Parliament, who knew Churchill personally, wrote a scathing biography of him called, appropriately, THE CHURCHILL LEGEND. There is also a new book about Churchill’s machinations that just came out in German by Dietrich Aigner, called: Der Geplante Krieg – Churchills Verschwörung Gegen Deutschland. (The Planned War-Churchill’s Plot Against Germany). There is also another new book, now being published in German, about Churchill’s lifelong animus at Germany in general, and the Third Reich in particular. The truth about this supposed moral icon just keeps surfacing, but is intentionally ignored, and the general public is never informed of it.
Interesting article on the origins of the major European populations:
http://eprints.uniss.it/2783/1/Francalacci_P_Articolo_2008_History.pdf
Western Europeans are descended from the LGM Iberian refuge; Eastern Europeans from the Balkanic or Ukrainian refuge.
Germany started with nothing to fear from the Soviets as it did not have a border with the Soviet Union until Hitler made a pact with Stalin to divide Poland. Stalin would have been at war with the entire West if he had tried to drive though Poland to get at Germany.
Your view seems to be :-`Britain started the war that destroyed Nazi Germany; Jews wanted to ruin Nazi Germany and had backed Churchill; therefore the British decision was determined by Jews`.
Very well then, why did Britain start WW1 in almost exactly the same way ?
It is true that Germany never wanted anything from Britain except to be left alone but that was because left alone Germany would be on the fast track to superpower status. Britain did not want Germany to be a superpower and to prevent that happening they declared war – TWICE.
A. J. P. Taylor. The Origins of the Second World War:
Churchill did not understand what the future held for the West but he had no real impact on whether the British – or Americans – went to war or kept fighting, that was decided by the calculus of power politics.
@Someday:”It is true that Germany never wanted anything from Britain except to be left alone but that was because left alone Germany would be on the fast track to superpower status. Britain did not want Germany to be a superpower and to prevent that happening they declared war – TWICE.”
So what if Germany “would be on the fast track to superpower status”?
The most (perhaps even the only) interesting question for post-WWII generations of European stock is this: Did the British passion for power balance in European geopolitics gain our common, long-term ethnic interests? Obviously, the answer is no.
Winston Churchill was half-Jewish. His mother, Jenny Jerome(nee Jacobson) was Jewish. This fact has been well established. Professor MacDonald, were you aware of this?
“Moshe Kohn, in an article in The Jerusalem Post on 15 January 1993, alleged that the Jerome family name was originally Jacobson, and that Jennie’s ethnic ancestry was, in fact, Jewish, at least on her father’s side. However, there is no truth to this claim; the name of the family has always been Jerome since the family (in the person of a Huguenot immigrant named Timothy Jerome) first set foot in America about 1717.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Randolph_Churchill
“Your view seems to be :-`Britain started the war that destroyed Nazi Germany; Jews wanted to ruin Nazi Germany and had backed Churchill; therefore the British decision was determined by Jews`.
Very well then, why did Britain start WW1 in almost exactly the same way ?” -Someday says: April 17, 2010 at 7:04 AM
* * * * *
Persistent Stupidity Attempts To Wear Down Truth
(Apollonian, 17 Apr 10)
“Someday,” u are simply, utterly, thoroughly incompetent and deliberately stupid–after I’ve given u numerous citations and references–u’re just a brainless waste of time, aren’t u?–and u confirm ur Jew tendencies too. I thought Jews were supposed to be “smart”?
CONCLUSION: Jew bankers are the definitive powers behind economics hence war machines, dumbass. And Jews have controlled Western banking since Napoleonic wars. Ck ref.s already given and noted. Q.E.D. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
I’ll try again, Britain treated Wilhelmine Germany exactly the same as it treated Nazi Germany. If the Jews were behind it why was Czarist Russia supported against philosemitic Wilhelmine Germany eh?
When a great power gets strong enough relative to its rivals it takes a run at regional hegemony.
There was nothing the British leadership or Churchill could have done to prevent WW1 or 2. The Germans believed they could win and thought the prize was worth the risk . I repeat, until Hitlers attack on Poland got Germany into a war in the West and brought the USSR to the German border on the East, Germany had no reason to fear attack. The long term effect of peace and a high standard of living was what Hitler was worried about. he feared a fall in the birthrate.
Moron Continues Pushing Jew-Friendly Thesis Againt Germany
(Apollonian, 17 Apr 10)
“Someday,” u’re just a consistent Jew liar at this pt., aren’t u?
Dipshit, GERMANY LOST, u dig?–Gemany LOST WWI–and after being literally starved to force them to sign Versailles Treaty, they were on defense all the way after that, Jews having an economic boycott against them fm 1933, etc., the bolshiviks in east being heavily subsidized and built-up by West.
U say “Germans believed they could win and thought the prize was worth the risk.”–well, they didn’t have too much choice against aggressions of West, Poland, et al. But this quote of urs is nothing and could be nothing but ur brainless, Jew-friendly, punk’s opinion, moron–and u give no ref.s either.
CONCLUSION: Regarding WWI, it was Jew bankers behind Britain, France, and USA who pushed for “world gov.,” and the wars were the way to doing it, dumbass moron, as all the ref.s I give verify. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
“The Germans believed they could win and thought the prize was worth the risk .”
WWII-Germany never intended a war against Great Britain and suggested something resembling today’s European Union. As we all know, there were representatives of the British elite who suggested a completely different strategy than Churchill’s. The latter’s strategy obviously didn’t save the British Empire – it collapsed two years after WWII, and the country itself has imploded into a multicultural dystopia ever since.
“Hitler actually wanted peace with Britain, as the German generals admitted (Basil Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill 1948, Pan Books 1983) with regard to the so-called Halt Order of 24 May 1940 at Dunkirk, where Hitler had the opportunity to capture the entire British Army, but chose not to.”
It should be noted that this was a mistake.
They were the soldiers of a Country that was hostile to Germany at the time, they weren’t Civilians or Women or Children, they had guns in their hands.
They had no right to lose a battle and not be taken captive.
“There was nothing the British leadership or Churchill could have done to prevent WW1 or 2.”
If they stayed out of it, it would’ve helped matters.
Hitler was too easy on Moscow, and too hard on the South of Russia.
If only he had concentrated more on defeating Stalin, and less on the theories of Thomas Malthus.
What Germany needed was for the competing ideology of Communism to die, and more specifically to be killed, not living space.
Communism was ten thousands times the threat to National Socialism than Germanic overpopulation was.
If Germany won, all Malthusian issues could’ve been addressed in the same way the British used to handle it in the heyday of their Empire.
And in fact, just a decade or two after World War II, Australia accepted massive numbers of White Immigrants from Europe.
No reason they couldn’t have been Germans if the defeat of the National Socialists hadn’t led to a collapse in the German birthrate.
The whole premise of the Jewish Holocaust defies simple logic: Why would Germany, fighting a war on two fronts . . . with fuel scarce . . . short of all resources . . . ship millions of Jews by railroad . . . hundreds and thousands of miles . . . to camps specially built just to hold them . . . feed them . . . clothe them . . . tattoo them in order to keep track of them . . .
Just to KILL them?!?!
It doesn’t even begin to make sense. If the Germans had wanted to kill the Jews, they would have done it the way the Russian Jews murdered 20 to 80 million Russian Christians earlier in the century . . . with a bullet to the base of the skull, wherever they were found.
In fact, the WWII Jewish Holocaust did not really take shape until fully fabricated by Jews during the late 1950s. That is why, in the memoirs of so many WWII leaders and generals, including Eisenhower, Churchill and De Gaulle, as recently pointed out by Professor Richard Lynn, “one will find no mention either of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war.”
— — —
On the strength of their holoco$t Big Lie they have stolen Palestine from its rightful inhabitants and slaughtered them mercilessly, man woman and child, ever since (with munitions paid for by your US tax dollars).
How ironic that the White race has proven itself to be absolutely the most brilliant race of inventors/creators this world has ever seen, while at the same time being the most abysmally gullible race of self-destroying fools this world has ever seen.
Our seemingly willful stupidity, and willingness to believe any and all jew Big Lies, beggars belief.
“Communism was ten thousands times the threat to National Socialism than Germanic overpopulation was.”
Hitler realized that for Germany to enjoy national self-sufficiency and therefore national self-determination in the event of war Germany would need more agricultural land defensible on land than it possessed pre-WWII. Which is why he sought to gain control of the Ukraine. Essentially the same superiority on land that at sea Britain insisted on as vital to its national survival. Hitler was well aware of the effect the British starvation blockade of Germany during WWI had on Germany’s war effort.
History Is CYCLIC, All Nations, People Suffering Hubris, Sin, Destruction, Etc.
(Apollonian, 18 Apr 10)
“History…bunk”: Now u begin to understanding CYCLIC “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler. Thus entire cultures fall prey to HUBRIS, no less than individuals. Jews then are catalystic disease-of-opportunity, functioning as brokers for war and de-population.
Specifically, hubristic, over-populated goyim, imagining they’ve achieved “success,” and “prosperity,” begin to pretending to moralism-Pharisaism, esp. in late-modern era, esp. for that rationalistic-style of Immanuel Kant (also Eng. utilitarians).
CONCLUSION: This suicidal moralism evidences in US at least by time of Civil War when North decided to go to war in gross violation of US Constitution and 10th amendment which plainly leaves states obvious right to secede. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
Pontiffic Declarations Still Need Foundation Of Some Sort
(Apollonian, 18 Apr 10)
“CaptainChaos”: u’re amazing for ur Jew-like presumption. Where do u get this crap u recite so brainlessly? U don’t even have any respect for the readership by giving a source or ref. for ur blithe declarations. What good are u, anyway? Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
Read what the net effect of American bankers was:-
The Versailles Treaty was harsh yes, but the German economy benefited from reorganization, loans, and trade agreements subsequently. It’s true that Hitler’s regime was penalized economically but that was due to Nazi policies alarming France and Britain. They would have given everything Germany could have wanted economically well into the mid thirties but Hitler was not prepared to accept that Germany’s place in the world was that of a medium sized workshop economy that was dependant on imported food.
The concessions given at Munich hardly suggest France and Britain were out to get Germany.
Pat Buchanan says Hitler’s bid to try and conquer the USSR was not something that was against Britain’s national interest and that Churchill was instrumental in a perverse decision to declare war. But it was not Churchill who was PM at the critical time when the decision to declare war on Germany was taken, it was Chamberlain. Diplomatic history suggests that Chamberlain and the Foreign Office civil servants were influenced by the same power politics considerations as the leadership of every other nation state of the time – including Germany.
Hitler’s Germany tried to grab the agricultural and natural resources of Russia and world power status. He wasn’t trying to save the white race but doing something that was in the national interest of Germany and only Germany.
The words of Himmler as recounted in the memoir of Latvian Waffen-SS man Artur Silgailis:
“He (Himmler) then singled out those nations which he regarded as belonging to the German family of nations and they were: the Germans, the Dutch, the Flemish, the Anglo-Saxons, the Scandinavians and the Baltic people. ‘To combine all of these nations into one big family is the most important task at the present time’ (Himmler said). ‘This unification has to take place on the principle of equality and at that same time has to secure the identity of each nation and its economical independence, of course, adjusting the latter to the interests of the whole German living space. . . After the unification of all the German nations into one family, this family. . . has to take over the mission to include, in the family, all the Roman nations whose living space is favored by nature with a milder climate…I am convinced that after the unification, the Roman nations will be able to persevere as the Germans…This enlarged family of the White race will then have the mission to include the Slavic nations into the family also because they too are of the White race . . . it is only with such a unification of the White race that the Western culture could be saved from the Yellow race . . . At the present time, the Waffen-SS is leading in this respect because its organization is based on the principle of equality. The Waffen-SS comprises not only German, Roman and Slavic, but even Islamic units and at the same time has proven that every unit has maintained its national identity while fighting in close togetherness . . . I know quite well my Germans. The German always likes to think himself better but I would like to avert this. It is important that every Waffen-SS officer obeys the order of another officer of another nationality, as the officer of the other nationality obeys the order of the German officer.”
Someday: “But it was not Churchill who was PM at the critical time when the decision to declare war on Germany was taken, it was Chamberlain.”
You’re missing the point: The situation in 1939 was very different from the situation a year later, when Churchill entered the stage. With Scandinavia, France and Poland conquered by Germany, England stood alone against Continental Europe. Chamberlain was narrow-minded, but Churchill was completely irresponsible. Great Britain was already weakened after WWI. It was obvious that a second world war would be fatal to the British Empire. Churchill’s only reasonable alternative after the summer of 1940 was to negotiate a peace treaty with Germany on the more than reasonable terms proposed by the Germans.
“He wasn’t trying to save the white race but doing something that was in the national interest of Germany and only Germany.”
Wrong. Germany (including Hitler’s version) had a long history of pan-Germanic inclinations, and it is clear that his vision was a Europe dominated by Germanic (not only German) nations. Hitler’s anglophilia is well documented, and he admired the British Empire and the English nation for its achievements.
Jew Liar, “Someday,” Continues Repetition Of Lies
(Apollonian, 18 Apr 10)
“Someday”: u’re just psychopathic Jew liar who continues psychopathically w. ur repeated Jew lies.
Jew bankers were and still are determined to establish and now consolidate world dictatorship by means of war, this perfectly demonstrated by their waging wars of WWI and II–see Perloff’s “Shadows of Power.”
CONCLUSION: And Hitler was perfectly justified working in rational interests of Germany. “Someday,” brainless Jew liar, Germany was sorely beset and it was France and Britain who declared war against Germany in Sep ’39 in accord w. Jew and banker conspiracy behind Roosevelt, Churchill, et al. U’re now just repeating ur Jew lies over and over like psychopathic Jew u really are. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonain
Dear All,
We, the large population of this world, are not interested in what happened in past century. We sincerely think that it is a fruitless talk and will be on & on. We are more concerned about what is happening now.
I do remember somebody saying that, “We will support Jews because they suffered a lot”. Of course they had suffered a lot but now other people are suffering more then that because of that support.
My point is that we (the world) should support for the right thing, no matter who ever do the right thing. DO NOT SUPPORT the wrong actions of some ruthless nations, otherwise, if not in near future, may be in distant future, every one will pay for that support for wrong actions of those nations.
Capitulating is an option that states (or men worthy of the name) never take if they are in with a fighting chance, Britain was. The British knew the US would try to stop Germany becoming a world power and come in if it looked like Germany was going to win. Entirely predictable as it had happened in almost exactly the same way in WW1.
What would have happened if the (by 1940 loss making) British Empire had continued for decades after it did can not be known but it should be remembered that every subject of the Empire had the right to come to live in Britain.
I don’t know how a superpower Germany would have affected the birthrate of the British or the amount of immigration to Britain from it’s Empire and neither does anyone else.
Things might have been a lot better for the Germans if the British had capitulated after Dunkirk, but you can’t hang Churchill because he didn’t do the best thing for the Germans, that was Hitlers job.
The Churchill personality cult among neocons notwithstanding Hitler’s initiatives would have been reacted to in the same way by Britain whoever was leading it. The Nazis took a big risk with other Europeans’ ethnic interests when they tried to make Germany a world power.
As Nick Griffin pointed out, the BNP is the party that Churchill would be at home in today.
@Junghans; Thanks for the ref, seems like a book to get. Let me reciprocate with 2 great books, which are the recent work of 2 important and brave German historians; Dr.Max Klüvers ‘Die Kriegstreiber – Englands Politik gegen Deutschland 1937- 1939′ and the massive “Die Ursachen des Zweiten Weltkrieges” by Dr.Post. For German initiatives for peace with England have a look at Dr.Gellermanns “Geheime Wege zum Frieden mit England”. Word war II had many fathers, some of the most important ones were Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt.
@WhitesUnite; you are under the impression as are most people, that the so called holocaust is one of the most well documented events of history. Problem is, that IS TOTALLY FALSE. First, one should define this holocaust. The disenfranchising of Jews, loss of civil rights and with the outbreak of war and its escalation, ever increasingly persecutory/harsh measures like deportation, forced labor, ghettos and internment in the concentration camp system of many, these things are well documented. That the Nazis developed a plan to physically exterminate all European Jews, mostly by using gas vans and stationary gas chambers built in some “extermination camps” in occupied Poland, now that is completely unverified, not proven and there is a mass of evidence that contradicts such alleged stories. Here and there, some of the most important holocaust “historians” have made such admissions. In 1988 Jewish-American historian Arno Mayer, who teaches at Princeton University wrote “Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable. No written order for gassings have turned up thus far(Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The “Final Solution” in History,p362 1989)” In 1989 the fiercely anti-revisionist French historian Baynac admitted with regret in 2 interviews that “it is necessary to recognize that the lack of traces involves the inability to directly establish the reality of the existence of homicidal gas chambers.” Very recently Holo Bishop and fanatic Van Pelt admitted re Auschwitz in an article: “Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge”(!!!) He should have added he does not have documentation either. I’d call a dude such as Van Pelt a quack historian. Holo pope, the late Hilberg had the gall to write in the first edition of “Destruction..” that that there were two orders by Hitler to exterminate the Jews, and then later to declare, in 1983, that the extermination had come about on its own, without any order or plan, but rather through “an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus — mind reading by a far-flung [German] bureaucracy.” Quack again! Court historian Ian Kershaw makes several admissions against interest in his”Hitler, the Germans and the final solution”. For example, re whether Hitler ordered the Jews exterminated, he writes “Research had, in certain ways, then, moved away from the differing hypotheses about the date of Hitler’s decision for the final solution by implying – or explicitly stating – that no such decision had been made(p.97)” Hmmm…
WhitesUnite, THERE ARE NO hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses to the mass murder aspects of the holo at all. A few dozen is more likely. The others just repeat what they heard, much like yourself. Of the few who claim to have witnessed the gassings, almost none were cross-examined during the cangaroo trial proceedings. But just reading their stories with objectivity, one detects countless obvious LIES. On the rare occasion such witnesses were cross examined they were demonstrated to be lying,ie, to have never witnessed gassings. If you had any understanding of how those early illegal Allied trials worked u would not be so impressed with the SS admissions of guilt or tales of gas chambers. Ditto for the later show trials in puppet west Germany. The first SS camp commanders to corroborate the gassing stories, Höss and Kramer, were both tortured. This was corroborated in the case of Höss by the torturers themselves and in the case of Kramer by a british journalist who saw the tortured Belsen SS men in their cells.
WhitesUnite writes “The Jews of German-occupied Poland had no opportunity to flee into the Soviet Union (or anywhere else for that matter) or join the Red Army. Yet the Polish Jews had the largest % drop in population of any group of Jews in Europe.”
THIS IS TOTALLY FALSE. The Jewish statistician Eugene Kulischer calculates that 500.000 Polish Jews from the eastern parts of Poland alone were able to flee the German invasion into the Soviet Union and never came under German control. He adds another 30.000 Jews from the Baltic states and 1.1 million from other Soviet territories who were evacuated by the Soviets at the start of the germano-soviet conflict. Jewish journalist and author L.Rapoport draws a terrible picture of what happened to many of the polish Jews; “of the approximately 1 million Polish Jews sent into the Urals and Siberia – the journey lasted 4 to 6 weeks under horrific conditions – a fifth to a third died, according to a news sheet of the Joint distribution comittee from the year 1943.” The American Jewish Yearbook, various editions, sheds further light;
“When the war between Poland and Germany broke out, hundreds of thousands of refugees, most of them Jews, fled before the German army to the East, and concentrated mainly in the big cities. When the Russians occupied the Eastern part of Poland, they welcomed the refugees and freely permitted them to cross the German-Russian frontier. Later, however, the Russians changed their policy and closed the border to all refugees from the German-occupied area. [...]
The refugees were called upon by the Russian authorities either to accept Soviet citizenship or to go back. Many of them chose the latter alternative [...] The Germans, however, refused to allow any Jewish refugees to return to Nazi-occupied Poland. At the end of June, 1940, the refugees who had not accepted Russian nationality, were rounded up, first individually, and then in groups, and sent to the interior of Russia.”
AJYB 1941-1942, Pages 241-242
The population displacements happened even after the war;
“During the Summer of 1949, the Jewish press outside the Soviet Union carried a number of reports about the mass deportations of Jews from the Western border regions of the Soviet Union, especially from White Russia, the Ukraine, Eastern Galicia, Bukovina, and Bessarabia. According to one report, the deportations affected mainly those Jewish citizens who had relatives in America or Western Europe; other sources maintained that the whole Jewish population of some territories was being deported. The reports described, often in great detail, how the secret police rounded up the Jews, put them on deportation trains, and sent them off to unknown destinations, presumably Siberia or the Arctic regions of European Russia.[...]“AJYB 1950, Page 340
It should be remembered that Israeli demographer Sergio DellaPergola estimated that there were more than 1 million Holocaust “survivors” in the year 2003!!! This does NOT even take into account the countless Jews who assimilated, particularly in the Soviet Union.
So much for your certainties sir.
@Someday: “Capitulating is an option that states (or men worthy of the name) never take if they are in with a fighting chance, Britain was.”
Who mentioned anything about capitulation? Peace negotiations do not necessarily imply capitulation. By all accounts, Hitler wanted to preserve the British Empire, while Churchill wanted to destroy Germany.
“The British knew the US would try to stop Germany becoming a world power and come in if it looked like Germany was going to win.”
There was a strong opposition in the US to any involvement in the European theater of war. The “natural enemy” of the US was Japan, not Germany. Unfortunately, Germany remained loyal to Japan by declaring war after Pearl Harbor. The Japanese, by contrast, never declared war on Russia by cutting off the Russian supply lines in the Pacific.
“What would have happened if the (by 1940 loss making) British Empire had continued for decades after it did can not be known but it should be remembered that every subject of the Empire had the right to come to live in Britain.”
The multicultural dystopia evolving after WW2 would have been a very unlikely scenario, though, for a “racist” nation in its imperial zenith.
“… you can’t hang Churchill because he didn’t do the best thing for the Germans, that was Hitlers job.”
You can “hang Churchill” because he didn’t do the best thing neither for Europe as a whole nor for his own country. He failed to see the fatal consequences of his own actions and decisions.
“As Nick Griffin pointed out, the BNP is the party that Churchill would be at home in today.”
Nick Griffin should think twice before picking a fight over Churchill’s dubious “heritage”. Even if he “wins” (highly unlikely), he’ll lose because his “hero” sucks.
The British unconditional guaranty to Poland did support the aggressive politics of them: they mistreated the minorities, Ukrainians, Jews, Lithuanians and Germans severely, had even concentration camps. The new Poland after 1919 had started wars with all neighbors. About 800 000 Germans fled from their homes.
A. Hitler asked the other countries for an agreement to disarm in 1933 /4 as was agreed on in the treaty of Versailles. Then in 1934 he concluded a treaty of non-aggression with Poland and in 1938 one for the protection of minorities. But soon Germans were again treated badly in Poland, farms burned thousands had to flee. Poles shot at Lufthansa-planes outside their territories. In addition to that Poles threatened Danzig the old German Hanse-harbor (98% German) in the socalled customs-quarrel – even threatened war if the Reich would interfere.
Hitler offered six times from Oct 1938 on, the Poles to guarantee their new borders, which no chancellor of the Weimar republic had offered before, and asked for transit ways through the Korridor to the cut off East-Prussia and the return of Danzig to the Reich.
In this frame of history falls the British guarantee for Poland that let the Poles ignore the proposals. Churchill’s politics may have been in the background as was Roosevelt’s, it was already the British war party.
Often as in the Nuremberg trial, geo-strategic ideas from Mein Kampf are quoted, but Hitler as chancellor was far more moderate and responsible. He though may have acted too quick with the occupation of Czechia. But that was former Austrian Bohemia.
These facts are from Gerd Schultze-Rhonhoff’s: “1939 Der Krieg, Der Viele Vaeter Hatte”
Most ” official” history-books are too narrow only regarding the German role. But the picture becomes complete only when the other countries’ politics are investigated. e.g. comparing the armaments shows clearly that Germany was in no way preparing a great war, but the Bolshevics did build up a huge overpower (e.g. Victor Suvorov: The Icebreaker, Werner Maser and others).
The main motivations of Hitler’s politics were to relieve the consequences of Versailles and the Bolshevic threat, that had also led to civil-war-like situations in Germany in the 1920s, with often Jewish communist leaders.
To add to my comment: regarding the still unclear causes for the WW-2, I’ve got to thank Prof.Kevin MacDonald for the article about Churchill and his background (links). We have in the situation as it is – permanent wars today, limited sovereignty in Germany – we have to investigate the causes that led to the war. For me Benjamin Freedman’s speeches about Zionism and the banker’s role give an original witness in addition and since 1990 the archives in Moscow have been researched in part. So we are in a better situation now to regard the facts. Also the chapter in Culture of Critique about the Frankfurt school is important in these relations.
(Rudold was a typo) – (another typo was: Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof (with one -f, but the book is probably only in German)) .. for Germans actually it is the obvious question, that is in the background: a people has the right to their true history and there are falsifications regarding the 4 protocols of internal speeches Hitler’s, that were used at the Nuremburg tribunal, that was really one-sided anyways, then the role of the “peace loving Sovietunion” omitted and FDR’s and Churchill’s role to get WW-2 going. In the media, movies, as in history channel it is more a superficial presentation of history but in the world, especially the white of European descend, almost no day is passing without the mention of the evil nazis as the cause of all evil. This really has damaged self-determination of German culture.
Hobbes said it best.
While it’s true Britain would have gained in absolute terms by an alliance with Germany it would have been a big loser in terms of relative power because Germany would be more powerful than Britain; no assessment of Britain’s national interest could mandate acquiescence in German hegemony in 1939/41 any more than in 1914 . Take Churchill out of the equation things would have been no different.
“The multicultural dystopia evolving after WW2 would have been a very unlikely scenario, though, for a “racist” nation in its imperial zenith. ”
The only ‘“racist” nation in its imperial zenith ‘ could have been Germany. The main reason that the Germans did so well in 1941 was that Soviet forces were deployed for attacking while Britain still held out. So a British deal would have meant the Soviets would not be taken by suprise.
The loss making British Empire was at its nadir . After being thrashed by the Germans in 1940 it’s most unlikely the British could have held onto their overstretched Empire as everybody realized it was militarily a bluff. Maybe if Britain had brought the Nazis in to run their Empire
I am not aware of a single example of any great power ever having actied in the self sacrificing way it’s claimed Britain obviously ought to have.
Western Civilization Must Simply Revive For Truth, Reason, Anti-Semitism
(Apollonian, 19 Apr 10)
“Someday,” everything about u stinks: “great powers” rise and fall in CYCLIC manner according to “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler, pure and simple. Impetus behind British and present USA is EXACTLY THE SAME–the Jew banking money power, as I’ve noted and documented.
Thus Jew banking powers were force behind all the militarism and economies of Britain, USA, France, Germany, and Russia, including esp. the bolsheviks, and their purpose fm 19th cent. was WORLD EMPIRE and government.
For Western civilization was, fm French Revolution, in decisive “decline,” the middle class now enmired and under sway of mystic, subjectivistic moralism-Pharisaism as of J.J. Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and Eng. Utilitarianism–not to mention all the various, escalating statisms and degrees of socialism. USA mass murdered Southern Americans in 1860s, the Constitutional republic now destroyed, but still hanging on economically.
CONCLUSION: So now proper purpose and goal presently is JEW-EXPULSION, as of magnificent Roman revolutionary example which revived the empire, at least briefly in 4th cent., led by St. Constantine the Great. Thus Christianity must be RESURRECTED for its necessary and thematic anti-semitism (anti-Talmud, as Gosp. MARK 7:1-13) and its upholding of TRUTH and reason against Jew subjectivism, mysticism, and hence present putrid Pelagianism. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
“While it’s true Britain would have gained in absolute terms by an alliance with Germany it would have been a big loser in terms of relative power because Germany would be more powerful than Britain”
The point is that this was never a zero sum game situation. B is Britain, G is Germany.
1) B destroys G => reciprocal destruction
2) G destroys B => reciprocal destruction
3) B and G smoke the peace pipe => mutual benefit
“The main reason that the Germans did so well in 1941 was that Soviet forces were deployed for attacking while Britain still held out. So a British deal would have meant the Soviets would not be taken by suprise.”
The Soviets didn’t expect a quick victory for Germany in 1940 – 41, and was not 100% ready for war. Without the second front, Germany would have had a better chance to terminate the USSR.
“The loss making British Empire was at its nadir . After being thrashed by the Germans in 1940 it’s most unlikely the British could have held onto their overstretched Empire as everybody realized it was militarily a bluff.”
So, what you’re saying is that this was a lose-lose situation for Britain. Why destroy a European country if Britain would lose anyway? Only non-European Russia gained from intra-European fratricidal warfare.
“I am not aware of a single example of any great power ever having actied in the self sacrificing way it’s claimed Britain obviously ought to have.”
You’ve just described how Britain sacrificed itself to destroy Germany/Europe in order to “save” democracy.
Britain Really Did Serve Self-Sacrificing, Self-Destructive purpose
(Apollonian, 19 Apr 10)
Ha ha, “Geiseric”–u make most excellent pt.s, truly. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
‘Britain sacrificed itself to destroy Germany/Europe in order to “save” democracy’
Nation states are entities for getting and keeping power; if they don’t do that they disapear. The rhetorical justification given for fighting the Nazis – to save democracy – was just BS. Britain had done almost exactly the same thing in WW1 when Germany was a democracy, sort of. It was all about power politics.
Nazi rhetoric called for ‘hard clarity’ about the realities of life, yet they were surprised when Britain acted the same way in WW2 as in WW1.
There never has been, and never could have been, a leader who would act as Buchanan thinks Chamberlain or Churchill should have.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
“Nation states are entities for getting and keeping power; if they don’t do that they disapear.”
Did Denmark disappear from the map after WW2? I don’t think so. Nations and ethnic groups have a far more ancient history than states have. States exist in order to defend the interests of their respective populations. The British elites – primarily Churchill & co – acted in a way contrary to its own population’s longterm interests.
“Nazi rhetoric called for ‘hard clarity’ about the realities of life, yet they were surprised when Britain acted the same way in WW2 as in WW1.”
Can’t say I blame them for being surprised by the total lack of rationality and enlightened self-interest.
“There never has been, and never could have been, a leader who would act as Buchanan thinks Chamberlain or Churchill should have.”
“They call this war a cloud over the land. But they made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say ‘Shit, it’s raining!’”
-Ruby Thewes, Cold Mountain
The Jewish underground in mandatory Palestian blew up the British High Command in Jerusalem (in King David Hotel) killing hundreds of British. The Jews certainly did not consider the British as their friends: The British ruled the seas and they closed Europe to fleeing Jews, to the point of sending them back to Hitler’s Germany. The British did no harm to any Jew but did make sure that no one will escape. They did not bomb the camps, they did not send arms to Jewish partisans in Poland, they did nothing active for the salvation of the Jews. I understand they were inhibited because they were being accused by Hitler of waging the war for the Jews, but resuscitating the very same lye 70 years after, hits me as delusionary. More than, because Hitler defamating Churchill was done in the framework of a war between the two, but what sense it does today, when all of them are long dead and their nations are allies?
“Hindsight is a wonderful thing.”
Determinism is a wonderful thing, too. Explains it all, doesn’t it?
Determinism Is Irrefutable Observation, Punishing Hubris Of Perfectly “Free” Will
(Apollonian, 19 Apr 10)
“Geiseric”: actually, I’d say determinism does indeed explain quite a lot, I submit. For things must follow in accord w. cause-effect which is irrefutable. Humans are sinners, always have been and always will be.
And reality is CYCLIC, in accord w. “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler, Jews dominating over-populated hubristic gentiles, but then receding when gentiles recede, Jew parasites left to kill one another, allowing gentiles then to resurge, building civilization anew, etc.
It’s idea of hubristic perfectly “FREE” human will which explains how humans then work to screw things up, adopting now Pelagianist “good-evil,” etc., by which, led by Pharisaist-moralist paragons, Jews, over-populated humans work to exterminate one another, as we see now in Iraq and Afgan.
CONCLUSION: So I observe, things are un-questionably determined–we just don’t know exactly how things will turn out at any given time. At same time we do have will, though it’s not perfectly “FREE.” Thus we have choice for emotions as we observe reality–working with it if we’re wise, against it if we’re not so wise. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
Denmark was too weak for it’s decision to compare to that of the world power Britain was in 39. However, weak as their position was Denmark had to be invaded. So it’s evidence for states preferring to survive as states in almost all circumstances.
There is no precedent for a great power letting a rival gain power and hence establish the basis to be a mortal threat to it’s existence. Hitler was following the logical course for a powerful state that wanted to be secure from any future threat in trying to become a superpower. For any British leadership in 39 or 40 exactly the same considerations meant Buchanan’s deal with Germany was a non starter.
” total lack of rationality and enlightened self-interest”
Yes it was total, no leader could have made the deal Buchanan suggests, the country’s establishment wouldn’t have allowed it.
“There is no precedent for a great power letting a rival gain power and hence establish the basis to be a mortal threat to it’s existence.”
Obviously, the choice you seem to rule out was a choice – even if this was a unique situation. It was not a zero sum game situation. The traditional British approach to power balance in Europe has been to secure its hinterland in France and the Benelux countries. In 1940, when Churchill entered the stage, this was no longer an option. The only viable choice was to accept the new situation and negotiate – exactly as Britain/England had done with France throughout the centuries.
“Denmark was too weak for it’s decision to compare to that of the world power Britain was in 39.”
In other words, Britain (as a world power) was in a negotiating position vis-a-vis Germany, but chose to sacrifice itself to destroy the latter.
“The Jewish underground in mandatory Palestian blew up the British High Command in Jerusalem (in King David Hotel) killing hundreds of British.”
Disgusting example of complete and total lack of GRATITUDE on the part of the Jews.
Thousands of British soldiers died fighting to liberate Palestine from the Ottoman Empire. This is the only reason significant numbers of Zionists were able to move to Palestine in the first place.
Historysbunkbunkbunk says:
April 18, 2010 at 2:31 AM
“The whole premise of the Jewish Holocaust defies simple logic: Why would Germany, fighting a war on two fronts . . . with fuel scarce . . . short of all resources . . . ship millions of Jews by railroad . . . hundreds and thousands of miles . . . to camps specially built just to hold them . . . feed them . . . clothe them . . . tattoo them in order to keep track of them . . .
Just to KILL them?!?!”
The following entry is from the Jewish-owned
Wiki(Zio)pedia, and its significance will become
evident further on (emphasis mine):
“On September 13, 1944, Göth was relieved of his
position as Commandant of Krakau-Płaszów and was
assigned to the SS Office of Economics and
Administration. Shortly thereafter, in November 1944,
Göth was charged with THEFT of JEWISH PROPERTY (WHICH,
ACCORDING TO NAZI LEGISLATION, BELONGED TO THE REICH),
and was arrested by the Gestapo. He was scheduled for
an appearance before SS judge Georg Konrad Morgen, …”
Like most Americans, up until the last three years, I
was completely ignorant about world history (but not
American history or at least the sanitized,
Jew-approved version) and started reading as much as I
could from Rense after discovering that awesome
website and home to so many important writers. It was
from Rense that I first came across some of the
historical revisionists (scholars/truthtellers), and
videos (Cole’s and others’) questioning the veracity
of the Jewish version of the “holocaust” and closely
scrutinizing long-held claims. Curt Maynard’s
recommendation of Michael Hoffman as being someone
needing/deserving financial support prompted me to
order many of his exemplary, extraordinary
publications. The one that would prove to be the
single biggest factor in my rejecting the standard
“holocaust” fable was Hoffman’s incredibly important
internet debates whereby he takes on three Jewish
holocaust “experts” (some over a period of years; this
is how devoted a patriot to truth and justice this
remarkable scholar is, and serves as a reminder of how
fortunate we are to have intellectual giants such as
he leading the charge) and buries them with their
lies. One of those foolish enough to cross swords with
Hoffman was a Jewish rabbi regarding Spielberg’s
propagandistic epic “Swindler’s List.”
I had never known until reading those enlightening and
entertaining (seeing these smarmy prolific liars
exposed for what they are) that there were over 100
officers (including high-ranking officials) and the
notorious officer, Amon Goth, who is the featured
brutal Nazi subject in that production of distortions
and LIES) in the SS who were either under indictment
or had been successfully prosecuted for a whole range of crimes including
brutality and “assumption of a license to kill by commandants and subordinates” of the Jews. The officer in
Speilberg’s movie, Goth, was under indictment and had been arrested by the SS Judicial Police for both “acts of BRUTALITY and SADISM against inmates, among other crimes” – a critical (and devastating to the holohoaxers) fact Hoffman asserts Spielberg deliberately omitted to perpetrate further
lies and perpetuate hatred of the beleaguered German
people who were and remain the real victims’ of the
Jews’ engineered World Wars and subsequent shakedowns.
From Hoffman’s vitally important booklet:
“The intervention of SS jurisdiction in the concentration camps commenced with the initiation of my investigations in July 1943 and lasted until the conclusion of the war. It could not have started sooner, because there were no suspicions in this regard.”
Michael Hoffman: “Arrested were the commandants of Buchenwald, Lublin, Warschau, Herzogenbosch, Krakau-PPlaszow.
The commandants of Buchenwald and Lublin were shot.
More than a hundred cases were brought to a verdict. Maximum punishments were imposed on members of all ranks.”
The citation was “from Affidavit SS-65 by SS Judge Konrad Morgan, IMT Vol. 42, p. 556.
Hardly the policy of a government/madman with a
mandate for exterminating the self-anointed “God’s
Chosen People.”
That’s when I unequivocally KNEW it was mostly
manufactured lies, and THAT was the reason they have
criminalized the historical revisionists – to SHUT
THEM UP.
Note too in the “Wikipedia” entry above there
is NO reference to this critically important truth. It
is a detail which single-handedly shreds their fairy
tale holocaust to bits because any rationale person
would question how this doesn’t comport with the
Jewish narrative that a neo-nazi dictator was
purportedly committed to exterminating these saintly
people though not a shred of historical evidence has
been revealed that attest to such a policy. Hitler’s
“regime” prosecuting its own officers for such
behavior simply doesn’t jibe with the tall tale.
Therefore, it must be obliterated down the memory
hole. Hence, the only forum Michael Hoffman had
available to him for exposing them as
propagandists/inveterate liars was on a lowly website
devoted to historical revisionism (truth) and the
continuing censorship by the Jewish owned Wikipedia
doing what it does so superbly: coloring the truth so
it’s favorable to the Jews’ and their interests.
Hitler had merely sought to free his country from
their unfettered parasitism and their penchant for
tyranny over others’ and thus had to made an example
of for all the world to see lest anyone else dare try
the same. Their respective roles had to reversed for
the perpetrators of crimes against humanity and the
victims, and he who owns the press gets to write the
history. To the victors go the spoils indeed…!
Even the term “holocaust” is deliberately deceptive.
Holocaust means “death by fire.” The real holocaust was committed against the German CIVILIAN population at Dresden who were burned
alive in an intentionally evil conflagration (and I
must add so too were the Japanese who were also
victims of Jewish excesses, sadism and power) during WWII.
Few people today know that Churchill, Eisenhower and
Roosevelt were ALL covert Jews – a truth which upon
learning has explained perfectly the sheer wickedness
committed against the Germans’ both during and
following WWII. The deliberate mass slaughter of 2 million, defeated, bedraggled, helpless German army what must rate as one of the most heinous war crimes never told and should be a source of infinite shame that we allowed OUR people to be snookered into killing our own brethren at the behest of the Jewish Communists/Zionists infesting our Western institutions:
Eisenhower’s Slaughter Of Nearly
2 Million German POWS
Inside ‘Eisenhower’s Death Camps’ -
A U.S. Prison Guard Tells His Story
http://www.rense.com/general88/eisen.htm
It is the JEWS’ who are responsible for this dearth of the White
race. Their greedy, cutthroat banksers
have been the catalyst for every war in the last
century (likely even earlier), losses of tens of
millions (Note: if Solzhenitsyn is correct in his
assessment of 66 million as he asserts in “The Gulag
Archipelago”, then we can say the wholesale slaughter
of over 100 million of our people
(http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/2008/02/alexander-solzhenitsyn-and-jews.html)
of Russian, Slavic, European and American lives as
fodder for their self-aggrandizing profiteering and sadistic
totalitarianism even as our numbers world-wide
continue their precipitious decline and we face
outright
extinction. (See “Global White Population to Plummet
to Single
Digit—Black Population to Double”
http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/search?q=Global+White+Population+to+Plummet)
Funny how on every site like this there will be a SOMEDAY.An Anglophile-defacto,Judaic, Churchillian,useually ‘rightwing conservative’There arguments either openly anti-German/Europe,or backers of the Zionist monster.This is how AXIS HISTORY FORUM is.I would ask the brilliant posters on here to join there,and fight for our ideals against incredible evil with your collective knowledge.
Pardon My Typos:I am site impaired!But not mentally so!I learned the truth about the Jews by hard experience,observation and reading,great books by David Irving,John Toland,and websites like ADOLF THE GREAT,,SEVETRI DEVI ARCHIVE,and of course this site Don’t forget the Barnes Review and American Free Press.Plus IMPERIUM By Francis Parker Yockey
J, they’re everyone’s enemy. They used Britain when it was good for jews to do so; they attacked Britain when it is good for jews to do so.
Winston Churchill.
The answer may be found in Leo Zagami in the 2012 Armageddon.It also
may be found in the Benjiman Freedman speech also at You Tube.The
motives of Churchill as all in politics are clouded.Royal bloodlines,and
secret clubs run the world and always have.Churchill and Bush have
much in common for example.Of course this is just my opinion.The
answer to Churchill may be found by viewing “Syndrome of Control”
at You Tube.Lindsey Williams and Jonathan May Testimony.How is it possible this information is available,but no action is taken?Communication Silent at Fox,CNN,Bloomberg,etc???
is controlled by special interest.Media is its puppet.Churchill was doing
his duty as he was directed as Obama is.Those who control the puppets
are responsible.England is home of world banking.International bankers
and the other corporate control the world as secret government with
royal bloodlines at apex.FED is private central bank.Go to the source.
The Satanic Central Banksters’Monetary Enslavement System 3 Sept 09
with 91 comments and references by me and others will prove
Churchill a puppet.Walter E. Haas search Google and Yahoo for title.
The answer is Jordon Maxwell”You are property of the Rothschild family”
at You Tube.Also “Truth about middle east and israel”Jordon Maxwell
You Tube.Most important “Syndrome of Control”You Tube.
Why run in circles.The point is exposed.Churchill was actor for elite,
as Hitler was?Who financed Hitler.Who bought Palestine for betrayal of
Germany.Who caused the Russian revolution.Gentile and jew elite.Look
to secret organization for answers.JFK speech on Secret Organizations.
The FED rules America for the Crown?Please prove this untrue.It may
not be true.Maybe it is just fiction?Please research for truth.I hate liars
and those who change what I type and remove it.Someone makes my
typing as it is.Long lines,short lines,type jumps lines.Caused by out House
source see what I mean.Has someone got the answer? I am serious?
Computer Specialist said it comes from out yonder!
Who are the few who really control?
Walter E. Haas God Bless America
“Churchill bullied the Poles into acceding to Soviet annexation of all the Polish land Stalin had been awarded for signing his pact with Hitler.”
It was a fait accompli; short of threatening war what could be done? Anyway Winston Churchill’s priority was to do the best for his people not to help Poles make futile noises about the unfairness of Poland being carved up. Is Buchanan seriously suggesting that Britain was under an obligation to act for Poland irrespective of the consequences. The only ones with that obligation would be Poles and they could have done that by fighting to the death in Poland ( or France), which the those who ended up in Britain had plenty of chance to do, but hadn’t.
Just as Colhaze’s bar room brawl should have taught him that the consequences of going toe to toe with three opponents are best avoided after WW1 the Germans should have understood that there is no such thing as a limited liability war.
Germany’s problem is the impending demographic implosion, I don’t think it has anything to do with the legacy of WW2, economically succesful people have low bithrates . Hitler predicted that but he thought it would be caused by restricted food supply and wanted to grab land so Germany could feed itself. Wather Darre was more sophisticated in that he understood the real conection was between urban living and falling birthrates and wanted Russia to settle Germans on with the primary objective of creating a fecund peasantry. It might not have worked the birthrate in the non urban population was falling and ideologicaly committed nazis such as the in the SS did not have big families on average.
Churchill was never in a position to do anything to prevent the wars – either of them – he had a lot of illusions about Britain’s place in the future and the value of the Empire but those illusions were shared by everyone in the country. No one understood what would happen with mass immigration, no one at all.
Churchill was kept afloat by Jewish money and he helped Zionists and maybe the Jewish influence was useful in getting the US in but the idea that the USA had no interest in stopping Germany from becoming a superpower is simply nonsense.
History: John Mearsheimer ( At 25:50- 28:34)
Book Review: Churchill: The End of Glory; A Political Biography
“1/7 Syndrome of Control”You Tube
Stop spinning the wheels and put the breaks on.Overdrive is not Churchill,
but Jonathan May.Yes the topic is suppose to be about Churchill,but it
seems if you understand “1/7 Syndrome of Control” at You Tube really
you understand what drove Churchill.History is half truth and half lie if
your lucky.Otherwise it is total disinformation.Norman Dodd said they
said blend the U.S. with the Soviet.Is China close enough?What did
Churchill know in 1945.What really happen to Gen. Patton.Who are
the communist fascist.
Walter E. Haas search Yahoo.com God Bless America
As already mentioned, my problem with Someday’s version is its deterministic tendency and zero sum game interpretation of WW2.
The demographic implosion has obviously something to do with the legacy of WW2 (ideology, for instance). Yes, economically succesful people tend to have low bithrates for numerous reasons, Frankfurt School-style ideology being one of them.
“Churchill was kept afloat by Jewish money and he helped Zionists and maybe the Jewish influence was useful in getting the US in but the idea that the USA had no interest in stopping Germany from becoming a superpower is simply nonsense.”
Why, then, did the U.S. need to be persuaded in the first place?
It didn’t, the WASP establishment who largely ran the US were determined to stop Germany; FDR won a third term by telling lies about his intentions to stay out but became frantic when it looked like Germany might win. Just as in WW1 when Wilson won a second term by saying he was going to stay out and jumped in when the Germans looked as if they might win. Czarist Russia was a lot less friendly to Jews than the Kaiser’s Germany so Jews didn’t make the difference in WW1. If you know how long it takes to bring an aircraft to production it becomes clear how early the USA was gearing up to stop Nazi Germany and if Nazi Germany it had been a Jewish dominated state like the USSR was under Stalin things would have been no different . The rhetorical rationale would have been but the real motivation is given in Mearsheimer’s interview linked to above. The Anglo- American establishment were racial brothers and both were offshore balancers who understood the inexorable logic of realism.; Germany could not be allowed to become a superpower and turn the Volga in to their Mississippi. It was a zero sum game because it was all about relative power.
Someday: ” Germany could not be allowed to become a superpower” If that is so, why would it be acceptable for the Soviet Union to become one, one more powerful than the Axis powers combined? Why was a Eurasia dominated by Germany unacceptable, yet a Eurasia dominated by the Soviet Union okay? The answer is not to be found in Great Power Politics but ideology. The Second World War was in essence a struggle between Communist revolution and it’s counter-revolution, fascism. It was up to the U.S. to choose which side it would support. Given the amount of Soviet agents in the Roosevelt administration, exposed in the Venona transcripts, the choice was a foregone conclusion.