Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s “England”—Translated and with an Introduction by Alexander Jacob
Introduction
Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1855–1927) is best known for his cultural history Die Grundlagen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts (Foundations of the Nineteenth Century; Munich, 1899) as well as for his studies of Kant, Goethe, Wagner, and Heinrich von Stein. But his several tracts written during World War I[1] are interesting in their own right as documents of German nationalist literature that prefigure the doctrines of German supremacy propounded by the Conservative Revolution of the Weimar Republic as well as by the National Socialists. Of the works dating from the war, Kriegsaufsätze (War Essays; Munich, 1914)—from which the present essay is taken—was indeed the first.[2]
Chamberlain’s essay on England is a study of the psychological bases of England’s imperial edifice as well as of its war aims in World War I. He notes that, whereas the world has been accustomed to considering Germany as a militaristic aggressor, it is in fact the imperial ambitions of England that are the principal impetus of the war. This exercise in psychological study of national character Chamberlain undertakes by highlighting, first, the social divisions in England that have informed the aristocracy and the rest of the population and, secondly, the gradual transformation of an originally insular people into an ocean-faring people intent on international trade and colonial exploitation.
The ruling class in England has, since the Norman invasion, been the French aristocracy, which, being a minority that accepted only a few Saxon and Danish families into its rather exclusive circle, did not mingle fully with the local Anglo-Saxon population. There was little interaction between them and the rest of the Anglo-Saxon population, and the social superiority of the Normans was established in a clear and unmistakable manner expressed not only in their different physiognomies but also in their linguistic expression. The aloofness of the French rulers, however, later seeped down to the classes below the aristocracy as well so that the well-known English ‘reserve’ was eventually observable throughout the population.
The government of the nation was always in the hands of the aristocracy alone and the Lower House never represented the people even when, around 1600, it gained more powers, for these powers were to benefit only the lesser aristocracy, constituted of the younger sons of nobles, and not the population as a whole. The attitude of both the traditional rulers, represented by the Conservative Party, and the relative newcomers, represented by the Liberals, was, further, one of open hostility. This is especially observable during elections when both parties customarily employed armed ruffians to intimidate the supporters of their opponents. Thus, as Chamberlain, declares:
In England’s politics two brutalities stand opposite and complement each other: the raw violence of the class used to ruling and the elementary brutality of the entire uncultivated masses who, as described above, are nowhere associated with anything higher.
Chamberlain’s description of English parliamentarianism indeed contradicts Oswald Spengler’s idealisation of the ‘old style’ of English politics dominated by aristocrats and gentlemen (see below).
More significant is the transformation of the entire nation into a sea-faring one even though the Anglo-Saxons originally had little interest in marine activities and had to be forced to develop a taste for the sea through legislation under the Tudors. However, once they had discovered the advantages of overseas trade by observing the successes of the Spanish, Dutch, and French colonial enterprises, England too began to develop its own merchant navy. What is important to note is that, in its international adventures, the English evidenced a singular proclivity to underhanded means of conquest involving piracy and cheating. When the English went to war, it was always to protect their trade interests. As Chamberlain points out, the English
have founded colonies where the countries stood empty or were inhabited only by naked savages; others they snatched through contracts from the Dutch, French, Spanish or—for example, Malta—through breach of contract. India was subjugated by Indian troops; England has never undertaken campaigns of conquest through force of arms, like the Spanish and the French. The Englishman does not, like Alexander or Caesar, conduct wars for the sake of glory. ‘To England’, says Seeley, ‘war is throughout an industry, a way to wealth, the most thriving business, the most prosperous investment, of the time.
The battles that Marlborough distinguished himself in during the eighteenth century were conducted to maintain a base slave-trade and Bolingbroke’s avowed foreign policy with regard to the continent in the same period was to contrive crises that would lead the European powers to war mutually against one another.
The immorality that marked England’s commercial undertakings was accompanied by a rapid decline in the traditional agricultural life of the nation. This resulted in a degeneration of the moral character of the English population as a whole:
With the total decline of country life and with the equally perfect victory of the sole God of trade and industry, Mammon, the genuine, harmless, naïve, heart-warming cheerfulness has disappeared from England.
Thus, nowadays
one finds in England no stateliness, no broad good-natured humour, no cheerfulness; everything is hatred, noise, pomp, pretentiousness, vulgarity, arrogance, sullenness and envy.
Meanwhile, the increased wealth of the nation allowed the English colonialist to be converted into a Nietzschean bully:
As soon as the brave Anglo-Saxon peasant was transformed into a pirate the blond beast appeared, as the German philologist glimpsed in his crazy dream; and as soon as the refined noble of the 15th century had lost ‘intellectual interests’ and had become covetous of gold, there arose the heartless slave trader who was different from the Spanish men of violence only in his hypocrisy. There is nothing more brutal in the world than a crude Englishman; he indeed possesses no other support than his crudeness. Mostly he is not a bad man; he has openness and energy and optimism; but he is ignorant as a kaffir, does not undergo any schooling in obedience and respect, knows no other ideal than ‘to fight his way through’.
Simultaneously, the coarsening of manners that took place abroad was reflected at home in the dissipation of the traditional aristocracy in base commercial activities:
This crudeness has slowly imbued almost the entire nation from the bottom to the top—as is always the case. Even fifty years ago it was an offence against class dignity if a member of the nobility took part in industry, trade and finance; today, the head of the oldest and greatest house of Scotland, brother-in-law of the king, a banker!
And the refined manners of the aristocracy came to serve only as a disguise for people whose ‘moral compass has lost its north.’ A further level of immorality was attained when the British government allowed the British East India Company to acquire colonial territory through devious, if not criminal, means that were justified only by the increased revenues of the Company and the steadily increasing rank of Britain among the European nations:
the temptation to enormous power on the basis of immeasurable wealth was too strong; in the nobility and in the circles related to it one soon was not able to distinguish between right and wrong. The same man who would never have deviated from scrupulous decency committed every crime in the supposed defence of the fatherland.
Chamberlain gives as examples of this indecent conduct of the British imperialists the case of Warren Hastings, who felt no qualms at all in committing all manner of political atrocities by allying himself with unscrupulous Indian potentates until, in 1788, he was formally arraigned in a famous impeachment trial that included the Member of Parliament Edmund Burke as the lead prosecutor. However, the trial was forced to drag on for ten years and ended with a final acquittal of Hastings. Hastings’ misconduct, indeed, was not unique to the eighteenth century and foreshadowed the deception exercised by Sir Edward Grey during World War I, when Britain sought to depict Germany as the aggressors whereas there was evidence, according to Chamberlain, that Britain had indeed been contemplating an attack on Belgium even before the Germans undertook one.
* * *
The relation between the ruthless nature of the politics and foreign policy of Britain and its evolving national character that Chamberlain highlights in this essay was reiterated by the German conservative thinkers Werner Sombart (1863–1941) and Oswald Spengler (1880–1936). Sombart, the German economist and social philosopher, is noted today for his several pioneering works on the capitalistic ethos. However, in his war-time tract Händler und Helden (Munich, 1915), he focused on the vital difference between the English character and the German that Chamberlain had pointed to in the first year of the war.
Writing to inspire young German soldiers in their combat against the English forces, Sombart considers the world war started in Central Europe between Austria-Hungary, in July 1914, to be essentially one between England and Germany.[3] For it is, in his view, an ideological, or even ‘religious’, war between the English worldview and the German. The sociological and cultural significance of the war, according to Sombart, is the radical difference existing between the English “trader spirit,” which aims at achieving mere “happiness” through the negative virtues of “temperance, contentedness, industry, sincerity, fairness, austerity … humility, patience, etc.,” all of which will facilitate a “peaceful cohabitation of traders,” and the “heroic spirit” of the Germans which aims at fulfilling the mission of the higher self-realisation of humanity through the positive, ‘giving’ virtues of “the will to sacrifice, loyalty, guilelessness, reverence, bravery, piety, obedience, goodness”—as well as the ‘military virtues’, for “all heroism first fully develops in war and through war.”[4]
War for the English has always been a chiefly commercial enterprise, whereas for the German it is a defence of his soul from the deadening influence of this same commercial spirit. In order to reveal the essential mercantile nature of the English nation, as well as of the war that it had recently embarked on in Europe, Sombart first points to the fact that the English have, through the ages, had no higher philosophy than a utilitarian and eudaimonistic one.[5] This is demonstrable by a perusal of the works of the major English thinkers from the Elizabethan empiricist Francis Bacon (1561–1626) to the more recent evolutionary biologist and sociologist Herbert Spencer (1820–1903).
Bacon’s utilitarian views are indeed geared to the acquisition of comfort as a source of human happiness. And it is this desire for comfort that, according to Sombart, informed the British trading enterprises around the world from the beginning of the sixteenth century onwards which, in turn, consolidated the mercantile mentality of the British nation as a whole. The British empire built on these considerations is thus only a mechanical aggregation of commercial interests and not informed by any ideal civilizing impulses. The wars conducted by the British are also essentially trade wars that seek to punish violations of the ‘contracts’ established by them with other nations for their international commercial purposes. Sombart thus maintains that one of the principal causes of the First World War was Britain’s need to eliminate the threat posed by German industry to its colonial empire.
Like Chamberlain and Sombart, the Neoconservative Oswald Spengler too, in his essay, “Preussentum und Sozialismus” (“Prussianism and Socialism,” 1919), considered the so-called Marxist socialism as one based on alien, English and Jewish understandings of society and generically different from the genuine socialism of the Prussian state. The socialism of the English is demonstrated by Spengler to be a Viking-like individualism which has encouraged the colonial rapacity of the British Empire and the mercantile ruthlessness of its leaders. The Norman conquest of England had put an end to the Anglo-Saxon way of life and introduced the “piracy principle” whereby “the barons exploited the land apportioned to them, and were in turn exploited by the duke.”[6] The modern English and American trade companies are indeed enchained to the same motives of profiteering:
Their aim is not to work steadily to raise the entire nation’s standard of living, it is rather to produce private fortunes by the use of private capital, to overcome private competition, and to exploit the public through the use of advertising, price wars, control of the ratio of supply and demand.[7]
The Marxist doctrine, being a product of the Jewish mind, which is characterised by ‘resentment,’ is based on envy of those who have wealth and privileges without work, and so it advocates revolt against those who possess these advantages. It is thus essentially a negative variant of the English ethos. It is not surprising, therefore, that the worker in the Marxist doctrine is encouraged to amass his own profits through private business, so that, as Spengler puts it, “Marxism is” indeed “the capitalism of the working class.” The Marxian solution to boundless private property is also a negative one: “expropriation of the expropriators, robbery of the robbers.”[8] This is based on the “English” view of capital, wherein
the billionaire demands absolute freedom to arrange world affairs by his private decisions, with no other ethical standard in mind than success. He beats down his opponents with credit and speculation as his weapons.
The Marxist system is thus the “final chapter of a philosophy with roots in the English Revolution, whose biblical moods have remained dominant in English thought.”[9] In fact, as he goes on to say, “a biblical interpretation of questionable business dealings can ease the conscience and greatly increase ambition and initiative.”[10] While the industrialists engage in commerce with “money” as a commodity, the workers do the same with “work.”
In the Prussian state, on the other hand, work is not a commodity, but a “duty towards the common interest, and there is no gradation—this is Prussian style democratisation—of ethical values among the various kinds of work.” The Prussian sees property not as private booty, but as part of a common weal, “not as a means of expression of personal power but as goods placed in trust, for the administration of which he, as a property owner, is responsible to the state.”
The significance of the notion of the national state is completely ignored by Marx in his focus on “society.” Parliamentarianism is not only inappropriate in a monarchical state such as the Prussian but it is a tired and outmoded system which has lost the glory lent it by the “gentlemen” and aristocrats who once ruled German and British politics. Now
the institutions, the sense of tact and cautious observance of the amenities, are dying out with the old-style people of good breeding. . . . The relationship between party leaders and party, between party and masses, will be tougher, more transparent, and more brazen. That is the beginning of Caesarism.[11]
On the other hand, the Prussian form of socialism is based entirely on the notion of the primacy of the state, which is indeed the ideal of the Teutonic knight, diametrically opposed to the roving plunder of the Viking:
The Teutonic knights that settled and colonised the eastern borderlands of Germany in the Middle Ages had a genuine feeling for the authority of the state in economic matters, and later Prussians have inherited that feeling. The individual is informed of his economic obligations by Destiny, by God, by the state, or by his own talent . . . Rights and privileges of producing and consuming goods are equally distributed. The aim is not ever greater wealth of the individual or for every individual, but rather the flourishing of the totality.[12]
While English society is devoted to “success” and wealth, the Prussian is devoted to work for a common national goal:
The Prussian style of living . . . has produced a profound rank-consciousness, a feeling of unity based on an ethos of work, not of leisure. It unites the members of each professional group—military, civil service, and labour—by infusing them with a pride of vocation, and dedicates them to activity that benefits all others, the totality, the state.[13]
We see therefore that Chamberlain’s war essay on England had a major influence on the emphasis on the immoral nature of English commerce that is evident in the Neoconservative thinkers of the Weimar Republic.[14] More comprehensively than Sombart or Spengler, however, Chamberlain offers us insights also into the historical transformations of the British national character that underlay the several ill effects of this empire.
Part 2: Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s “England.”
Alexander Jacob obtained his Master’s in English Literature from the University of Leeds and his Ph.D. in the History of Ideas from the Pennsylvania State University His post-doctoral research was conducted at the University of Toronto while he was a Visiting Fellow at the departments of Political Science, Philosophy, and English Literature of the University of Toronto.
His scholarly publications include De Naturae Natura: A Study of Idealistic Conceptions of Nature and the Unconscious, Franz Steiner, Stuttgart, 1992, (2nd ed. Arktos Media, 2011), Indo-European Mythology and Religion: Essays, Melbourne, Manticore Press, 2019, Nobilitas: A Study of European Aristocratic Philosophy from Ancient Greece to the Early Twentieth Century, University Press of America, Lanham, MD, 2001, and Richard Wagner on Tragedy, Christianity and the State: Essays, Manticore Press, 2021.
He has also published several English editions of European thinkers such as H.S. Chamberlain, Edgar Julius Jung, Alfred Rosenberg, Charles Maurras and Jean-François Thiriart.
[1] These include Politische Ideale (1915) [tr. A. Jacob, Political Ideals, University Press of America, 2005], Die Zuversicht (1915), Deutsches Wesen (1916) and Ideal und Macht (1916).
[2] This collection was translated by Charles H. Clarke as The Ravings of a Renegade (London, 1915). The other essays in it are ‘German Love of Peace’, ‘German Freedom’, ‘The German language’, ‘Germany as the leading power of the world’, and ‘Germany’.
[3][3] Germany joined forces with Austria-Hungary against Russia in August 1914, and Britain declared war against Germany when the latter invaded Belgium in the same month in order to gain access to France.
[4] Werner Sombart, Händler und Helden: Patriotische Besinnungen, Munich: Duncker und Humblot, 1915 [translated A. Jacob, Traders and Heroes, London: Arktos, 2021].
[5] Sombart particularly recalls Nietzsche’s similar low evaluation of the English mind and its typical representatives: They are not a philosophical race, these English. Bacon signifies an attack on the philosophical spirit in general, Hobbes, Hume and Locke a degradation and devaluation of the concept of a ‘philosopher’ for over more than a century.[5]
[6] Oswald Spengler, ‘Prussianism and Socialism’, in Selected Essays, tr. D.O. White, Chicago, 1967, p.62.
[7] Ibid., p. 63. This is the essential evil of the modern geopolitical phenomenon of Atlanticism.
[8] Ibid., p. 118.
[9] Ibid., p. 97. What Spengler does not explicitly observe here is that the biblical mode of thought which directed Puritan capitlistic industry is in fact a basically Jewish, voluntaristic one deriving from the conception of the universe as created by a Pantokrator who rules the creation with his Will as a personal Lord (see E. Zilsel, ‘The Genesis of the Concept of Physical Law’, in Philosophical Review, no. 51 [1942], p. 247ff). For a discussion of the Jewish origins of this concept as well, see Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, tr. T. Parsons (London : George Allen & Unwin, 1930).
[10] ‘Prussianism and Socialism’, loc.cit., p. 97.
[11] Ibid., p. 89. This depiction of European parliamentarianism is derived from Chamberlain’s other essay on ‘Germany as the leading power of the world’ in Kriegsaufsätze.
[12] Ibid., p. 62.
[13] Ibid., p. 47.
[14] Unfortunately, the moral corruption infusing the British Empire up to the First World War has continued beyond this war into the present day through the shadowy commercial empire that the Bank of England has maintained on the basis of revenues secretly channelled into the banks in the City of London from the tax havens in the former colonies of Britain in the Caribbean and elsewhere (see Nicholas Shaxson, Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men who stole the World, London, 2011.)
Very good and interesting article. Spengler’s unforgivable and inexcusable “blindness” regarding the Jews and their nefarious role and influence on Western civilization spoils his work.
I haven’t read Max Weber’s “Protestant Ethic” but there is an excellent work in Spanish dedicated to the deeply Jewish character of Calvinism/Puritanism that has corrupted to the core the English and their North American cousins. (“La judaizacion del Cristianismo” by Federico Rivanera Carles)
Thanks to Calvinism both peoples have become spiritually 100% Jewish, no wonder the Jews have reached such colossal influence and power in Great Britain and the USA.
BTW: Napoleon defined the English beautifully when he said: “They are a nation of shop-keepers”
BTW I believe that after the Battle of Waterloo a general suggested to Napoleon that he should escape to the USA, to which Napoleon replied ” I would rather be the prisoner of a nation I hate than citizen of a nation I detest”
That was a great article, a healthy slap in the face to British excepionalism/supremacy, which isn’t really a ‘problem’ per se, as all nations/people’s in good health should consider themselves the best, but it absolutely was used to manipulate the simple-minded British peasants into doing things totally against their own interests.
The exact same phenomenon is used in America today, on the exact same type of good-hearted, right-thinking people, probably by the exact same brand of knowing exploiters, with this Sinophobia nonsense.
These guys explaining English defaults to Germans were obviously polemacists, and right and good to do what they did, especially considering the maniac policies of Britain at the time, I just doubt that this was their opinion ‘in the round’ of the Engish. The fact the essays were published in England, all be it under a ‘patriotic’ title, kind of proves that the English were at least open & interested in how others saw them, which shows a willingness to improve that’s never seen in the fanatic patriots of any nation, Germany including(but obviously everyone these days thinks of Americans).
I’ve personally always got the vibe from the English that their main issue with the Germans is, that this is the only nation they genuinely feel inferior to, whose gifts and talents they themselves wish they had.
Who’s ever seen an elite Englishman who wanted to be American? Or Chinese? The authors themselves I reckon are an example of this phenomenon. I don’t blame them.
To me this article gets to the bottom of why this is.
This is a good example of the kind of propaganda produced on the various sides in the late 19th century as industrial and empire competition increased, leading to the first world war. Enough truth to seem somewhat plausible, but definitely over-egged and aimed at the lower IQ i.e. English all-evil! Prussians all-noble! Black hat, White hat….
This should ring bells with at least some of your readers….Rooskies & Chinks All-Evil, Americans All-Good ? The Democracies versus The Authoritarians?
Moving forward 20 years from WW1 we find good use has been made of Chamberlain’s thesis -scapegoating, demonisation, justification through racial claims, censorship, mandates, illegal medical interventions, false imprisonment, rendition to camps and an economy whose ‘miracle’ is based on war preparation. Perhaps this might also ring some bells. And for the better informed this might remind them, too, of Israel.
“scapegoating, demonisation, justification through racial claims, censorship, mandates, illegal medical interventions, false imprisonment, rendition to camps and an economy whose ‘miracle’ is based on war preparation”
That sounds to me like modern day Australia/USA(the US is always preparing for war, despite 160 years of peace at home), except add in th ghoulish 100million abortions or whatever it is, plus MK Ultra, delibertally breaking children’s psyches through psychological/sexual trauma and torture, which seems to me on it’s own make the American regime the most evil in human history(that we know of, I don’t even want to think of what happens to Palestinians in Israelie jails). There was/is more raw sadism in MK Ultra than anything medieval or Biblical, by a factor of about a thousand.
You were bound to get the above quoted after what the allies did to Germany during and after WWI. Was as predictable as night following day, what did they expect, a kumbaya system? With a genocidal totalitarian monster breathing down it’s neck & feverish terror dreams of it’s own holodomor mass slaughter?
Anglos act like the Nazis sprang out of the same civil order, peace & security that existed in their own nations. It’s a total lack of imagination.
Maybe these intellectual stirrings did create all the bad parts of Nazism(as if we can judge), my guess is it was more pressing issues though.
First of all, it’s nice that we have Mr. Jacob contributing. Secondly, his short paper does show he’s educated. Here, it’s early in the morning and I have many things to do, so don’t intend to engage in polemics. However, it should be said that the premise of the paper appears to lie on faulty grounds. Nearly all classes, and all European countries were ruled by an unscrupulous hierarchy.
Time was spent in England and it can be recalled that during the 1960s there was a great influx from the Third World. It was then that the character seemed to radically alter. Then again, every decade in most countries character alters.
I found the average Englishman to be a delightful fellow with a great many qualities. Too many good qualities to list during a time crunch. English language and culture has prevailed all over the civilized world. One has merely to look at America, Australia, Canada or New Zealand to see splendid accomplishments regarding civilization.
It should be stated, however, that the English in the 1970s didn’t seem as outgoing as in the past. It’s (also) and absolute fact that they were among the most educated in the world. Further, it should be emphasized that the English brought civilization to much of our planet. As far as misdeeds, all nations have warts.
Regarding our German brothers, it can be mentioned that they have a great many qualities. I can recall watching a literal sea of them with their lunch boxes heading off to work. They are an industrial lot. It breaks my heart to see what Saint Merkel has done. Perhaps she was trying to copy London’s policies of the 1960s.
Mr. Jacob did ambulate along a decent path when reading Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Houston was a versatile highly educated and bilingual intellectual. Although we can disagree with some of his ideology, few can honestly deny that he had a excellent mind.
Pieces like that of Monsieur Jacob’s are not envogue on a public platform due to the Z’s media image. Nevertheless, argumentation within today’s cancel culture is not fair and overall not permitted. We can be thankful for TOO.
AJ is correct when commenting on once-GB’s trepidation of growing German industry. It’s an absolute fact that she produced more steel and many other vital items then did Great Britain.
Further, overall, the German population was more educated than that of England. For example, Germans read more newspapers than the combined readership of France, Italy and Britain. But, to even suggest that Austria-Hungary did not start the spark of Eurocide I and Berlin did not add wood to the fire is more than dubious. Let us hope that in the future Euroman’s inclination towards infighting is eradicated.
Chamberlain’s interpretation of England’s politics and sociology is laughable. It is true that the seeking of wealth through legitimate trade or conquest was a component of English history but it took a long time to reveal itself , say 500 years after the Conquest. Moreover when it did begin to arise it was not simply greed which drove it forward. Spain’s Conquests in the New World set not just England but Western Europe generally (and especially France and Holland) into a state of fear because they could see that Spain (with Portugal for more than half a Century) ) represented a serious danger simply because of their new found wealth . Nor was this a false fear. Spain three times in the last latter years of the 16th Century sent invasion fleets against England . Moreover, this English fear of invasion never left England. From Louis XIV to Hitler there were credible invasion threats. It should also be born in mind that Ireland, Wales and Scotland served as launching pads for foreign invasion of England..
Colonialism brought the same fear of being left behind in the colonial race was not driven solely by individual greed but national fear that if for example, France became a very successful coloniser and England did not , that would make England vulnerable.
As for England being Governed by a French aristocracy that won’t do. Even if one overlooks the fact that the Normans were Norse by ultimate origin we know that they were largely assimilated by the 14th Century because routinely they spoke English rather than French and when they spoke French it was a decayed form – Chaucer make’s fun of the Prioress in the Canterbury Tales that “After the scole of Stratford atte Bowe, / For Frenssh of Parys was to hire unknowe” (Canterbury Tales I 124-25)..
As for England having a Parliament which only served the well-to-do it was a marvel that England had a Parliament at all after the 16th Century because Parliaments (once common in Europe) had more or less ceased to function or had simply died when faced withe the idea of absolute monarchy. Even more surprising during the period 1600-1800 the England evolved an entirely new form of government, namely representative with the Executive power effectively within Parliament.
Agree with this mostly, what’s so annoying about the English invasion fears, which were totally real, is that to this very day English people simply cannot extend this sympathy towards every single one of their continental cousins, who aren’t protected by the sea. Case no.1 Russia, who’s entire history is just getting invaded and raped by invaders.
This also might seem pedantic, but there was zero invasion threat from Hitler. The coastal defences were a phy-op on their own people. It’s mainstream that Churchill was transferring Spitfires and Hurricanes to Africa at the height of the Battle of Britain, our ‘darkest hour’. You need an invasion fleet to invade an island. Germany didn’t have one. End of.
Might seem a small point, but we really need to get over this spasticated war propaganda, it’s been 80 damn years. This is ridiculous. It borders on ritual humiliation of the plebeian class.
‘Saving’ us from Hitlerism and speaking German(which they inflicted on no-one), is a corner stone of our elite’s legitimacy to rule over us. We shouldn’t let them away with this crap.
The threat of invasion by Hitler was real. He might not have had a ready made invasion force but if the Battle of Britain had been lost that would probably have resulted in a peace treaty which would have effectively placed Britain under German control. Moreover, the British had seen how Hitler had swept through Europe. In the British public’s mind an invasion of the UK would have seemed a real treat.
Emicho is right, the threat of an invasion was a ghost created by the British/Jewish propaganda. You obviously do not have a clue about the nature of the conflict or the personality of Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill. The former, a great admirer of Great Britain who offered more than honourable conditions for peace; the latter a warmonger who was in the pocket of the Jews since the moment they paid his enormous debts (David Irving)
In Martin Allen’s excellent book (The Hitler/ Hess Deception) the extraordinary peace offer of Hitler in late 1940 is fully described: Germany will evacuate ALL the occupied countries (except Poland) and even pay some compensations. Basically, it was a return to August 1939. Only a bastard bent on war at all costs like Winston Churchill would have refused such a magnanimous and decent offer.
Having said that England is paying now very nicely for her crimes against Europe and the White race. The island is a hellhole full of raping and murdering savages from Africa and the Middle East. “You reap what you sow”
First of all Mr Henderson, I want to salute you for replying and defending your points. It’s amazing on this site how many people just roll over and die when you attack their ideas/opinions. They act like you’ve slandered their mothers. Where has the spirit gone? There is a weird vibe of death around this site sometimes, I often wonder the average age of the readers. Yet the quality of content is amazing! I suppose most whites with something to lose just presume this is some sort of government corral site, and are terrified of linking their email addresses to it.
–
I can tell by your answer we are already miles apart, and this interaction ain’t gona resolve this, there’s too big a difference to be made up by argument.
But here’s where I come from, if you are interested, you can point out any flaws you think you see in this, and I promise I will answer them.
Operation Sealion, the Nazi plan to invade England, existed, in so much as American military plans, A, B, C etc existed in those militaries, as thought experiments. These dealing with hypothetical invasions of the US mainland by Britain or Germany, an alliance of Britian & Germany, an alliance of Britain, Germany & Soviet Union, etc, etc, you get the point. Militaries have to have starting proposal points for every eventuality, if they are responsible.
What decides how seriously to take each plan, resources to give it, extend it, etc, is the political situation.
National Socialist Germany had been preparing since it’s birth for the reunification of Germany, then to seize territories in the East. That’s why they built the Western Wall, to defend their rear, made famous to us by the mocking song “We’re Going To Hang Out Our Washing Out On The Siegfried Line”.
So Germany had a land army to invade land. So turning it from East to West to invade France is one thing, turning it into a force capable of crossing the Channel is another.
America & Britain together were in full scale total war mode for three years before they dared cross the Channel.
What exactly does victory for Germany in the BoB look like, once you understand an invasion is impossible?
Why is submission to Germany worse than submission to America?
Who had the higher culture, who were we more like(excluding language, obviously)?
Hitler’s peace overtures were real and generous, offering German military support to shore up our empire, which he correctly saw as a good, nessesary and civilising feature of the world. Well it wouldn’t have been in German interests for France, USSR, US or Japan to gain it!
Germany with a limited Eastern Empire would have balanced out the world, avoided the war, and all that entailed, the nuclear age, holocaust etc, etc.
We have to deal with Germany. British elites were delighted to submit to Germans under the EU, they couldn’t wait!
Nazi Germany had some weird pagan stuff around it’s fringes, but it was at bottom a simple right wing authoritarian, patriotic dictatorship.
Which if you actually gave the people of this country, or any other in fact, what they really wanted in a government, that’s what you’d give them.
In 1900 GB gave dominion status to Australia, New Zealand and Canada. It was working on India, Ireland and South Africa, but had to stop because of Germany.
The some rich, powerful people began planning for WW1 in 1904 and the Archduke was sent to be murdered in 1914.
There were 5 war aims, the only one I remember being to stop the World becoming
Christian.
Trotsky was one of the errand boys used to start the war using bribery and blackmail.
America gave loans to the allies to destroy their empires, which were being dismantled. The USA supplied the Central Powers through Spain, Scandinavia, Holland and occupied Belgium.
In 1915 the USA sent German occupied Belgium 1 million tons of (humanitarian) meat. Paid for?
Nurse Edith Cavell, one of Jonathan Bowden’s despised vicar’s daughters, reported this
to the Times which spiked the story while the Germans shot her when asked to do so by the British.
The poor Germans suffered a lot, not the rich Germans who now want everything given back to them because they are in the club.
“In 1915 the USA sent German occupied Belgium 1 million tons of (humanitarian) meat.”
Good. As soon as war began Britain committed the biggest war crime with their civilian starvation policy.
Then spent the rest of the war moaning about Germany trying to retaliate with submarines.
This striking at someone while simultaneously crying out in pain, reminds me of something, I just can’t think what.