Horrific War, Calamitous Peace

Nelson Rosit


HellstormHellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944—1947
Thomas Goodrich
Sheridan, CO: Aberdeen Books, 2010.

Reviewed by Nelson Rosit

Introduction

I was flattered when asked to review Thomas Goodrich’s book Hellstorm. Though first published in 2010 it has recently come out in paperback and Kindle editions and deserves wider notice. That said, I knew this would not be an easy book to read and review.

Hellstorm chronicles the atrocities and deprivations visited upon Germany from 1944 to 1947. Though much of the story will be familiar to serious students of World War II, the author appears to have also included some new primary-source material. The bibliography shows that Goodrich has accessed most of the older major works in this field, making Hellstorm a well-researched compendium. So, if you have not read Bacque, Sajar, Keeling, et al. you will find them quoted and footnoted here.[1]

In addition to hundreds of footnotes the book contains two maps, always a plus, sixteen pages of photographs, and a useful bibliography and index. If fault can be found, it would be that Goodrich seems to have completed his research by 2000 so none of the more recent historiography has been included. Also, there are places in the narrative where the events described are not assigned a date and location making the chronology a bit unclear.

These are minor criticisms, however, because it is not simply as a piece of historiography that Hellstorm finds its power, but as a gut wrenching, heart rending story of human suffering and the malice that produced that misery. Read more »


Observations - The Occidental Observer Blog
AIPAC rabbi calls for ‘militant nonviolent resistance’ to “racial injustice” in St. Louis
Caption in Huffington Post: "Rabbi Talve marches in Ferguson with Terrell Jr., a young man who knew Michael Brown."

Caption in Huffington Post: “Rabbi Talve marches in Ferguson with Terrell Jr., a young man who knew Michael Brown.” “Observing Yom Kippur In The Shadow Of Ferguson

A theme around here has been that Jews  have posed as moral paragons while relentlessly pursuing their ethnic interests, resulting in cognitive dissonance among many White liberals. A good example of the resulting hypocrisy is Reform Rabbi Susan Talve who is aiding and abetting the Ferguson protesters masquerading as an exemplar of enlightened liberal morality while also supporting AIPAC and its program of apartheid and ethnic dispossession of the Palestinians  (Philip Weiss: “AIPAC rabbi calls for ‘militant nonviolent resistance’ to racial injustice in St. Louis).

The Ferguson “gentle giant” Michael Brown story continues  to unravel , but of course facts don’t matter, least of all to Rabbi Talve.

Susan Talve is the progressive rabbi in St. Louis who has been active in racial justice issues in Ferguson while supporting Israel’s occupation of Jerusalem and its onslaught on Gaza during her Israel lobby-sponsored trip to the Jewish state last summer.

Now one might suppose that she is simply living in a state of blissful ignorance, but the good news is that she is being confronted with her hypocrisy. Tweeters at one of her talks condemning “racist Whites” focused on her hypocrisy, and there were hecklers who were unimpressed with her sanctimony:

 “What about , Susan?” AIPAC supporter Ravbi Susan Talve gets heckled at her talk about civil rights.”

“Black and brown lives matter,” says rabbi Susan Talve. She forgot to add the disclaimer, “except for in Gaza.”

Pro-AIPAC rabbi Susan Talve now speaking against racism in STL while supporting racism in Israel.

To be sure, Talve claims to oppose the occupation, but, as Weiss notes, “she’s worked with an organization, AIPAC, that supports everything Israel does in the occupied territories.”

This is a common pose of liberal Jews in the Diaspora in the West — maintaining a veneer of moral consistency while doing nothing to change their own ethnic community by trying to change AIPAC, Israel, or the US government on Palestine. All their energies are directed against White America. If they were serious about criticizing Israel, they would spend as much time protesting at the Israeli embassy or at the AIPAC offices as they do in aiding and abetting the Ferguson insanity.

There is a consistency here, of course. Activists like Talve are consistently pursuing their ethnic  interests. It’s just that their interests differ dramatically depending on whether it’s about Israeli actions vis-à-vis the Palestinians, or in promoting the anti-White coalition in the U.S.

Morality has nothing to do with it.

Ricardo Duchesne on Canadian Identity

Ricardo Duchesne (whose work has been discussed several times on TOO) recently dissected an interview with Adrienne Clarkson, a former Governor General of Canada who is of Chinese descent (“Adrienne Clarkson: The Greatest Mind of our Times,” posted at the website of the Council of European Canadians).  All the comments excerpted are from Prof. Duchesne.

This usage of the word “we” is common in liberal elite circles. They believe that their thoughts, feelings, and experiences embody or represent the view of most Canadians, not as Canadians are, but as they should be, and as they are being made to be, as members of a universal country belonging to humanity, devoid of nationalism, ethnic ancestry, religious identity, historic pride and greatness. Adrienne projects the “we” of this universal belonging. She is Canada in her highest moral aspirations. Ordinary Canadians don’t have a full grasp of the ethics and goals of this “we”. She stands for the “we” humanity has always longed for. Ordinary Canadians need to enlarge their “circle” of “belonging” by including the whole world inside Canada.

Canadians often ask this question. The reason they can’t define what it means to be Canadian is that their elites have prohibited them from expressing their true ancestral feelings. The elites of Canada have been committed to the complete alteration of Canada’s national heritage from an Anglo-French-European nation to a multicultural and multiracial immigrant nation. This effort to destroy Canada’s European identity has been going on for some five decades, and it is in this context that we should address this question and appreciate why Canadians are having such difficulties answering it.
Not long ago Canadians knew they were British. Stephen Leacock’s identification of Canada as British, in opposition to central, southern, and eastern European and Oriental immigration, was typical of intellectuals in Canada during the first decades of the 20th century. The French were extremely self-conscious of their identity as “Quebecois” until some years ago when the “ethnic vote” defeated their nationalist aspirations and their nationalist leaders watered down the meaning of “Quebecois” by equating this identity with the French language alone. Welcome Haitians and French Africans. Why did Canada come to be viewed officially as a nation founded by the British and the French if not because of the strong identification of Canadians with these nationalities? Gradually, as Europeans immigrants came, and willingly assimilated to this nation, immigration restrictions policies were instituted identifying the country as “White”. Prime Minister William Mackenzie King, Canada’s longest serving prime minister at 21 years, had the full support of the Canadian population when he announced in 1947 that:
  • Canada is perfectly within her rights in selecting the persons whom we regard as desirable future citizens [...] There will, I am sure, be general agreement with the view that the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population. Large-scale immigration from the Orient would  change the fundamental composition of the Canadian population.
He knew, and so did the majority of Canadians, that Canada was an Anglo-French nation, overwhelmingly populated by Whites, over 96 percent of the population, when he confidently made this announcement. He knew what to answer to the question what is a Canadian. …
All nations have country-making myths, so why is Canada lacking one? For a leftist the foundational stories of nations are myths in the bad sense of the word; as she adds, Canadians have not “made up” any artificial stories about their origins.  The unsaid or hidden awareness behind Adrienne’s words (there is no further elaboration in the interview) is that Canadians no longer have an over-arching story because the traditional foundational story was thoroughly discredited by liberal elites as a history of expropriation of native lands, Anglo “conformity” and immigration restrictionists. Canadians are simply not allowed to celebrate the making of Canada as Europeans. They can only define themselves as “immigrants,” no different from newly arriving immigrants, everyone equally important in the making of the nation. …

Any Canadian today who asserts with pride that the country was created by Europeans will be accused of making up a story; never mind that, as of 1971, when multiculturalism was introduced, the population of Canada was 96 percent ethnically European and the country had already been created from east to west. We are all immigrants! It does not matter what the truth is: that i) 90 per cent of all immigrants who came to Canada before 1961 were from Britain, ii) at the time of Confederation in 1867, despite the large numbers of European immigrants in the preceding decades, 79 percent of the European population had been born in Canada, iii) the French-speaking population numbered about 70,000 in the 1760s, and thereafter, until the 1950s, the population expanded rapidly, not through immigration but through the high fertility rates of the French natives. …

Newly arrived immigrants have a keener sense of what it is to be Canadian than Canadians with centuries-old ancestries in this land. And they do, since the whole institutional network of the country, media, government, schools, churches continually promotes the idea that Canada = immigrant. European Canadians, the actual makers of the nation, born in the country, are prohibited from saying anything other than “I am an immigrant”, and since they are not immigrants, they are perforce unable to answer this question.