Some Zionist terrorists had a beautiful career; they had authority, audacity and a very convincing dignity — especially when, having become Prime Minister, they treated others as rabble.

Count Folke Bernadotte in his headquarters on the island of Rhodes, Greece, 19 July 1948. Source: United Nations audiovisual bookshop.

I – A short analytical review of the main terrorist acts of Haganah, Palmah, Irgun (Etzel), Stern and Lehi.

First, it is worth remembering that not only were Jews engaged in fierce campaigns of terrorism in Mandatory Palestine and abroad against the British, but they openly incited terrorism — in a high-profile American newspaper. On May 15, 1947, playwright and screenwriter, and American League for a Free Palestine co-chairman Ben Hecht published in the New York Post “Letter to the Terrorists of Palestine”. The ad said, “We are out to raise millions for you.” This letter included the infamous phrase that every time British soldiers were shot or blown up “the Jews of America make a little holiday in their hearts.”

Hecht also wrote a Broadway play to raise money. In A Flag Is Born, the role of a Holocaust survivor was played by Marlon Brando.

1 – Indiscriminate Attacks on Civilians

Unless I am mistaken, indiscriminate violence against civilians is generally the criterion used to talk about terrorism. So, here are some examples:

• Grenade attack on 17 March 1937, the first by an Irgun militiaman, against a café frequented by Palestinians. Many victims are reported.
• Bomb attack on a busy Palestinian market in Haifa, on 6 July 1938, by members of the Irgun, killing 21 people and injuring 52.

2 – Attacks on Civil Collective Transport (Train – Boat)

• A huge explosion shakes the city of Haifa on the morning of November 25, 1940. It is discovered that the target is a French ship, SS Patria, docked in the port, with on board 1800 Jewish migrants, including women, whom the British authorities wish to send to Mauritius because they do not have residence permits in Palestine. Opposed to the British project, the Haganah decides to damage the ship. Result: 252 deaths among the Jewish passengers, to which 12 victims were added among the British police officers, and 172 were injured among the other passengers. The Palestinian sailors managed to save the rest of the migrants from the shipwreck. The survivors were then authorized by the British to remain in Palestine.
• The bombing of the Cairo-Haifa train, in March 1948: just a few months before the start of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the Cairo-Haifa train was bombed several times, attacks claimed or attributed to Lehi. A single attack kills 40 civilians and injures 60 others. In February, an attack kills 28 British soldiers and injures 35 others.

3 – Mass Killing in the Villages

• Attack by a unit of the Haganah on the village of Beit Sheikh, near Haifa, in June 1939. Abduction of 5 villagers who will be assassinated.
• On April 9, 1948, units of the Irgun and the Lehi commit a massacre in the village of Deir Yassin, which counts 700 Palestinians, among whom more than a hundred are assassinated.
• During the night of 22 to 23 May 1948, eight days after Israel’s proclamation of independence, the Alexandroni brigade of the Palmah (“Shock Unit”) seized Tantura, a prosperous port village with some 1,600 Arab inhabitants, about thirty kilometers south of Haifa. After brief fights, the soldiers gathered the remaining Palestinian inhabitants. They kill between 200 and 250 people and expel the others towards the neighboring village of Fureidis, where workers will have to dig two mass graves and bury the corpses — next to the beach, under the current parking lot of the kibbutz built on the village leveled by bulldozers.

4 – Explosives Hidden in Civilian Objects

• On 29 June 1946, following a wave of arrests by the British police in the offices of the Jewish Agency, the Irgun militia, led by Menahem Begin, decides to target the headquarters of the British army, installed at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. It was dynamited on July 22, 1946, resulting in the death of 91 people including 28 British, 17 Jews, 41 Palestinians, and 5 other victims from various affiliations.

When Carter went to Israel in March 1979, in a meeting in the Presidential Suite of the King David Hotel, Begin bragged to Carter about blowing it up in 1946. “I’ve always liked the King David Hotel. You know, I blew it up once, using explosives in milk canisters.” He enjoyed the joke, smiling as he concluded, “Don’t worry, I’m not going to do it again.”

5 – Invention of the Car Bomb Attack

• On December 5, 1946, the Lehi used for the first time the car bomb process, stationed near buildings in Sarafend.

6 – Parcel Bombs

• Between June 4 and 6, 1947, twenty letter bombs were sent from Italy to British politicians in London. In 1948, Rex Farran, brother of the intended target, Captain Roy Farran DSO, MC — an SAS anti-terrorism specialist, opened the parcel bomb addressed to “R. Farran” at the Farran family home in Staffordshire. He was eviscerated by the explosion; the package bomb had been sent by Misrahi’s colleagues in the Paris-based Stern Gang cell.

7 – Kidnapping — Hostage Taking

• On 18 June 1946, British citizens were kidnapped as a means of exerting pressure on the authorities in their country. This is the first resort of Zionist terrorism to the process of hostage-taking.

8 – Kidnapping – Liquidation

• On 29 July of the same year, the same militia proceeded to kidnap British soldiers and liquidate them in the area of Netanya. This is a particularly odious case in which two young sergeants were hung with piano strings in the middle of a grove of eucalyptus trees near Netanya. The attack triggered a Crystal Night in England.

9 –  Attack on Foreign Soil

• On October 31, 1946, the Lehi used explosives against the British embassy in Rome.
• Late one bitter cold evening in March 1947, young French philosophy student Robert Misrahi slipped away from a servicemen’s social club just off Trafalgar Square in the heart of London. Minutes later, the British Colonies Club was wrecked by a massive explosion, causing many injuries but miraculously no deaths. Misrahi had left his overcoat at the club, its shoulders packed with gelignite.

10 – Targeted Killings (or attempted) of Senior Civilian Officials

• The Lehi tried to assassinate the British high commissioner in Palestine, Harold McMichael on August 8, 1944.
• Two members of the Lehi assassinate Lord Moyne in Cairo on November 6, 1944. Lord Moyne was the highest representative of the British government in the Middle East, targeted for his support for the project of an Arab federation in the region. The two assassins, Eliyahu Bet-Zuri and Eliyahu Hakim, are tried by a military tribunal and executed by hanging in Cairo on March 23, 1945.

11 – Attack against Mediators from International Bodies, the Red Cross, and the UN

• The most important assassination, however, remains that of the Swedish count Folke Bernadotte (1895–1948), number two of the Swedish Red Cross before being appointed in May 1948 by the UN secretary general, Trygve Halvdan Lie, mediator for Palestine. He was striving to amend the partition plan of Palestine in order to settle disputes between Jews and Arabs. The leadership of Lehi decided to assassinate him. Four of its members, dressed in Israeli army uniforms, blocked his car on 17 September 1948 in the part of Jerusalem controlled by the Israelis. They shot at him as well as another passenger, the French Colonel André Sérot, head of the UN military observers in Palestine. The two men are killed on the spot. An organization called «Front National» then claims the operation to cover up the crime. The attempt at diversion was not successful, however, and the condemnation of the real perpetrators is unanimous.

Assassinated for having proposed in his report the unconditional return of all refugees, and a re-dividing of the country into 2 equal parts, it was partly due to the work of Bernadotte based on international conventions that on 4 November 1948 the UN General Assembly passed resolution 194 in favour of the right of return for refugees. Count Bernadotte had also obtained a truce in July, but the Israeli army took advantage of it to continue the ethnic cleansing.

A minute of silence is observed at the General Assembly in tribute to Count Bernadotte during the UN General Conference.

12 – Project for a massive Attack by Poisoning the Water Supply

• Paris-based Stern Gang cell’s leader Yaacov Eliav had planned what would have been the worst terrorist atrocity of all time soon after Misrahi’s arrest. He obtained active cultures of cholera bacteria from Jewish contacts at the Pasteur Institute in Paris. A water engineer was sent to London to scout the best method of introducing cholera into the city’s water supply. It was only following Zionist success in winning UN backing later in 1947 that this cholera plan was abandoned.

A film by the Paz brothers, ‘Plan A’ – poisoning the water supply of Nuremberg, shows the activities of the Nakam who wanted to kill millions of Germans after the war to take revenge for the Holocaust but ended up crossing paths with the Jewish Brigade, which made him abandon his project. The premiere in Israel was held in September 2021 at the Haifa film festival.

II – The Prestigious Posterity of the Terrorists

1 – Ben Gurion

As we know, he became the first Prime Minister of Israel, yet he was the head of the Haganah and it is the Haganah that is directly involved in the attack on the village of Beit Sheikh.

In any case, he also oversaw the Irgun and the Lehi. After the assassination of Bernadotte, Prime Minister Ben Gourion dismantled the Lehi and the Irgun to calm the UN; this act was covered up and the investigation botched. Only one of the three leaders of the Lehi will do 15 days in prison.

2 – Yitzhak Shamir

Shamir joined the Mossad and then was a member of the Likud parliament. He was elected President of the Knesset in May 1977, then became Minister of Foreign Affairs and, twice, Prime Minister of Israel (until 1992).

He led the Lehi; the three perpetrators of the ambush against Folke Bernadotte and the French Colonel André Sérot belonged to the Lehi.

3 – Menahem Begin

Prime Minister from 1977 to 1983 Begin led the Irgun.

4 – Yeoshua Cohen

He later confessed to having shot Bernadotte; he was one of the founders of a kibbutz in the Negev where David Ben-Gurion will retire. He was decorated by Ben Gurion.

III – Some remarks on Hamas

1 – Hamas is not a regular army; on October 7, its attack killed 1,200, but this compares to 784 British police officers, military personnel, and crown servants, victims of Jewish terrorism during the Palestinian mandate crisis between 1944 and 1948.

2 – Today, the Palestinian resistance is essentially Muslim, but who is to blame?

In 1947, at the time of independence, 25% of the population of Palestine was Christian. It was not the Muslims who drove them out of Palestine.

Among the first wave of resistance were many terrorists (or thinkers) of Christian persuasion: Georges Habache, Wadie Haddad, Georges Abdallah, Kamal Nasser, Nayef Hawatmeh, Monseigneur Hilarion Capucci, Michel Aflak, Antoun Saadeh, Constantin Zureiq, Leïla Khaled, Hanan Achrawi, Edward Saïd, Elias Khoury, Souha Tawil.

3 – Radical Islamist movements are the work of the West — in Afghanistan, in Tajikistan or, lately, in Syria where Joulani seems to be an emanation of Mossad.

4 – Hamas does not take action outside of Israel, nor does Hezbollah.

Conclusion,

Free Palestine  does not mean now what it meant then.

But our Jewish-owned media seem to follow the motto: “do as I say (now), not as I did (then)”

Speaking of terrorists, it must be remembered that the IDF was created by the gathering of the Hagahna, the Irgun, and the Lehi.

Tintin would have told you so:

Tintin – Land of Black Gold (first version)

Francis Goumain

Sources:

Institut pour les Études Palestiniennes

Aux origines du terrorisme sioniste | Institut des études palestiniennes

Association France Palestine Solidarité

17 septembre 1948 : assassinat à Jérusalem par une milice sioniste de Folke Bernadotte, médiateur de l’ONU, et du français André Sérot – Association France Palestine Solidarité

CJPMO (Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East)

Le terrorisme juif sous le mandat britannique – CJPMO – French

The Occidental Observer

August 1947—Kristallnacht in the UK in response to Jewish anti-British terrorism in Palestine to the sergeants hanged in Palestine affair

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2024/05/03/august-1947-kristallnacht-in-the-uk-in-response-to-jewish-anti-british-terrorism-in-palestine-to-the-sergeants-hanged-in-palestine-affair/

Jeune Nation Le massacre de « Tantura »

Le massacre de « Tantura » – Jeune Nation

Real History

French Jewish terrorist escapes extradition to UK – Real History

Counter Currents

Plan A

The Occidental Observer Commemorating British Casualties of Jewish Terrorism, 1944–1948

Commemorating British Casualties of Jewish Terrorism, 1944–1948 – The Occidental Observer

Renagade Tribune

Jews: The First Terrorists

Jeune Nation Des chrétiens dans la résistance en Palestine – La Résistance Palestinienne Chrétienne

https://jeune-nation.com/actualite/geopolitique/des-chretiens-dans-la-resistance-en-palestine

Politics Forum – Letter to the Terrorists of Palestine by Ben Hecht of the PALESTINE RESISTANCE FUND

Letter to the Terrorists of Palestine by Ben Hecht – Politics Forum.org | PoFo

2999 Words

Last month Tucker Carlson had chemistry professor David Collum on his podcast to discuss Collum’s original takes on a host of topics. These include the Hunter Biden laptop, the origin of COVID, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, the Diddy Trial, Q-Anon, and many others. A fascinating discussion. Fairly soon, however, a theme emerged—all is not as it seems, and if you dig deeper you’ll likely find cynical actors doing nasty things in the name of some ideal. A pretty safe bet, it would seem. Then, in the middle of the interview, after an amusing anecdote about bass fishing, the pair briefly ventured into the ultimate taboo, World War II (~1:04)

COLLUM: Well, you know, now, first of all what is the truth right? The truth is now becoming very ambiguous. Last year I wrote about the history of World War II. I did a mini Daryl Cooper.[1]

CARLSON: Yes.

COLLUM: And it started when I read a book by Diana West[2], who would be good if you interviewed her. And it was a revisionist history of World War II. And you go, “Well, why would you want to read that?” Well, it turns out I think the story we got about World War II is all wrong.

CARLSON: Actually, I think that’s right.

COLLUM: And then I read about FDR and FDR’s right-hand man was a Soviet spy.[3]

CARLSON: Certainly was. Confirmed, confirmed, by the way.

COLLUM: One can make the argument we should have sided with Hitler and fought Stalin. Patton said that. And maybe there wouldn’t have been a Holocaust, right? But Stalin was awful by any metric and we weren’t his ally. The story is that there were a few missing American soldiers at the end of World War II in Russian territory.

CARLSON: No!

COLLUM: 15 to 20,000 were missing and we left them there. And then you read about Pearl Harbor. We all sort of know the Pearl Harbor story’s not what we’re told. But I dug into that, and you find out that we knew to the morning that Pearl Harbor was going to get attacked. Stalin knew it was going to be attacked. He wanted us to take the Japanese off his flank. And FDR’s right-hand man was okay with that because he was a Soviet spy, right?

By refusing to demonize Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, Collum enters the sometimes murky and always dangerous territory of Second World War revisionism. As the traditional narrative justifying America’s role in it grows ever shakier, Collum asks whether America should have sided with Hitler rather than Stalin. Not only have we uncovered historical evidence which counters this narrative, but Collum seems to imply that the Nazis were in higher moral ground than the Soviets. And this comes while the West begins to succumb to forces the Nazis would never have tolerated, namely, cultural Marzism, mass-immigration, and Islam.

In response to Collum’s broad-brush analysis, historian Victor Davis Hanson offers a fine-point rebuttal. Only, he fails to answer Collum’s main question directly. Hanson seems to assume that if he can refute the four points which Collum offhandedly produces to bolster his argument, he can discredit the question entirely. (Here he discusses the topic at greater length.)

This is a false assumption. First, there could have been more to the story. Collum and Carlson spent less than two minutes discussing the Second World War, while Hanson, in his Daily Signal piece, refutes it in seven (seventeen in the longer video linked above). Clearly Collum wasn’t prepared to revise the war on Carlson’s show, and likely would have shored up his arguments in a more formal setting. Perhaps a more fair-minded response from Hanson would have been either to read what Collum has already written on the subject before commenting, or invite him on his show to discuss it further. Unfortunately, he did neither. Second, VDH does not offer affirmative reasons why America should have sided with Stalin rather than Hitler. Instead, he nitpicks the bark off the trees, while missing the forest entirely. Finally, by casually mentioning that Stalin was a “monster” who had “killed twenty million people” before the war, Hanson invalidates his own position and doesn’t seem to realize it.

Hanson:

Number one, he said the Soviets had killed 15 to 20,000 POWs when they inherited them after freeing the American POWS from German prisoner of war camps in the east. That’s not true. There was a joint Soviet American commission. There were agreements that the Soviets would return American prisoners. There were disagreements about whether the allies would return Russian prisoners to Russia because some of them had been captured fighting, most of them, for Germany. And Stalin wanted to kill them or work them to death, and they wanted asylum. But other than that, eventually most of the Americans found their way back to Allied lines and were repatriated. Were there some that we don’t know about today? Yes. But over a four-year period, there were a lot of Americans that were captured and held in German prisoner war camps, were shot on the battlefield, were blown—We didn’t know what happened to them. But the idea that we would allow 15 to 20,000 American POWS in Russian hands to die is not true. It can’t be substantiated.

First of all, since all this happened well after the war started, it has little bearing on the comparative moral status of the belligerents in 1939, which, presumably, would have helped the United States determine a side to favor. So it’s a bit of a red herring. In any event, after Stalin’s atrocities in the 1920s and 1930s, 20,000 unaccounted Allied POWs is a drop in the bucket (0.1%). Still, by dismissing Collum’s claim that the US abandoned so many POWs, VDH runs into the research of James Sanders in his 1992 work Soldiers of Misfortune. Subtitle: “Washington’s Secret Betrayal of American POWs in the Soviet Union.” Also standing in his way is John M.G. Brown who, in a 1990 Veteran Views article, stated that Stalin used tens of thousands of Allied POWs as pawns to blackmail the Allies into returning millions of captured Soviets for him to kill or enslave. Brown reports that while some Allied POWs were returned, “Stalin reneged on full reciprocation and most of the Allied POWs disappeared into secret, special camps.” To save face, the Allies then scaled down the number of soldiers lost to the Soviets.

I’m sure Hanson is aware of these sources, which were possibly also Collum’s. In any event, either Hanson is right, or Sanders and Brown are. There is no middle ground. If it’s the former, then Hanson needs to state categorically that the work of Sanders and Brown have been debunked since their publication dates. But even if he could do that, it does not refute Collum’s main thesis that Stalin was worse than Hitler. After all, Stalin was cold-blooded enough to hold tens of thousands of his allies hostage in order to murder a much larger number of expat or captured Russians after the war ended— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn places it at over 1.5 million in his 1975 volume Warning to the West. Doesn’t such grotesque behavior make Stalin worse than Hitler, who at least waited until war was declared before doing his killing?

VDH then takes on Collum’s claim that General George Patton believed that America “should have sided with Hitler and fought Stalin.” Here he sets up a strawman and slaps it down. As pro-consul of Bavaria, Patton was not above enlisting former Nazis—rehabilitated or not—to help administer the region since postwar conditions were dire and manpower limited.

Hanson explains:

That led to further statements, he said, as the Red Army violated the Yalta agreements and the Potsdam agreements and did not hold free elections or free communications and transportation and intercourse between occupied Russian territory and occupied Allied territory. A new proto-, I guess you would call it, a proto-iron curtain had already emerged. And Patton at one point said to Eisenhower and others, “I know we’re going to be in a war cold or hot with the Soviet Union and we’re here. Let’s not go back to the United States. Let’s confront them militarily to make them honor their agreements, and if we don’t have the manpower, the wherewithal . . . ”—Russia had 500 divisions; the allies had about 200— “. . . we can always use veterans from the German army.” That’s about as close to lunacy as he said. It was an unfortunate remark, but he didn’t say while Hitler was alive, we should have joined the Nazis to fight Stalin.

VDH fails to note that Collum’s claim about Patton implies looking back in time. According to Collum, it seems, Patton felt this way after the war ended, and not while the Wehrmacht was raining down lethal fire upon his beloved Third Army. So VDH’s possibly true claim that Patton never said such outlandish things “while Hitler was alive” is a completely useless point. Sophistry, if you will.

Further, it flies in the face of evidence revealing that Patton did say after the war that the US had fought the wrong enemy. If not, then Hanson must contend with research and reminiscences by Anthony Cave Brown in his 1975 work Bodyguard of Lies Volume II, Phillip Coleman in his 1987 work Cannon Fodder: Growing up for Vietnam, and Betty South in her 1953 National Guardsman article “We Called Him Uncle Georgie,” all of which cite how Patton stated that the US had faced the wrong enemy all along.

Finally, why was the remark unfortunate? Because it put General Eisenhower in the hot seat? Because it offended the “monster” Josef Stalin? Because it caused Patton to be sacked from Third Army command? Eighty years after the fact, are these really good reasons? Were they ever? This would be like calling Galileo’s claims of planetary motion “unfortunate” because they put him under house arrest by the Pope. The only good reason to consider Patton’s remark unfortunate today would be if they were wrong. And VDH has yet to prove that they were.

Although Hanson does not list this as one of Collum’s three main points, in the longer piece I link above he also addresses Colllum’s claim that the Pearl Harbor attack was a set up. Basically, President Roosevelt wanted to enter the war against Germany and did everything he could to provoke the militaristic Japan, Germany’s ally, into attacking US forces which were conveniently placed at Pearl Harbor. Hanson respects this position up to a point, but doesn’t seem to realize that he respects it enough to validate Collum.

I do know that FDR ordered in May of 1940, Admiral Richardson, the head of the Seventh Fleet, to move the base in San Diego all the way to Pearl Harbor. And he said, “I’m putting my head in a noose. The Seventh Fleet is not able to deter the Japanese Imperial Fleet in the Pacific. If you put me way out in the middle of nowhere in Hawaii, I will not have the infrastructure, the air support that I would have in San Diego.” And he kept complaining and they relieved him. Then Admiral Kimmel took over and he was relieved of command. I think 3 weeks afterwards, he was the fall guy. And out of that came a conspiracy that Roosevelt was doing anything he could to provoke the Japanese with sanctions, putting us out very vulnerable so we would be attacked. There may be some truth to that, but the idea that there’s a big untold story of Pearl Harbor is not true. We pretty much know that Roosevelt wanted to get in the war sooner or later. He felt that Europe would fall and he underestimated the ability of the Japanese to harm the US Navy, but he didn’t plan to have Pearl Harbor attacked.

This seems like a distinction without a difference. How could there be “some truth” to this conspiracy, but not enough to validate Collum’s claim that “the Pearl Harbor story’s not what we’re told?” Also, if FDR really “underestimated the ability of the Japanese to harm the US Navy” wouldn’t that support the idea that he deliberately made the Pacific fleet vulnerable to an attack by a not-so-harmful enemy? Unfortunately, Hanson does not bring up evidence discovered by Robert Stinnett in his 1999 work Day of Deceit which all but proves that FDR wanted Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. This evidence includes:

1. The Eight-Point McCollum Memorandum, written in October 1940, which outlines the strategy the US employed during the 14-month lead up to the attack;
2. The sophistication of US cryptoanalysis, which had broken Japanese codes and reveals that US forces knew the attack was coming and did nothing to stop it;
3. The fact that Kimmel had been kept in the dark regarding this cryptoanalysis;
4. The myth of Japanese “radio silence” as their ships sailed towards Pearl Harbor;
5. There is also all the suspicious secrecy which still surrounds the Pearl Harbor attack, such as logs and encrypted messages which have disappeared from the National Archives.

Hanson’s strongest point comes in response to Collum’s weakest claim—that maybe the Jewish Holocaust wouldn’t have happened if the US had sided with Germany. In staking this claim so delicately, I’m sure Collum would be the first to switch that “maybe” into a “maybe not.” Regardless, Hanson delves into German anti-Jewish atrocities which he says commenced on the very day of the invasion of Poland in 1939, and then suggests that the industrialized Jewish Holocaust would have happened one way or the other. Maybe that’s true. That the Germans killed large numbers of Jews during the war—perhaps up to the high end of four million as cited by David Cole in this 2013 Guardian article—won’t be contested here. At the time, Eastern European Jews (or Ostjuden) were notorious for their left-wing radicalism. Any Jew captured in enemy territory would have been more likely than anyone else to cause problems for the Reich as partisans. And this says nothing of all the atrocities that Soviet Jews had committed during the interwar period, which the Nazis were fully aware of and rightly feared.

Since the Nazis were in effect fighting Ragnarök against an evil enemy in the Soviets, as well as deceitful ones in the United States (according to Stinnett) and England (according to David Hoggan in his 1961 work The Forced War) they had little reason to keep Jews around once they got their mitts on them. Cruel? Yes. And did a goodly number of Germans overdo it on the cruelty? I’m sure they did. But VDH has his work cut out for him persuading us that Hitler deserved to be America’s enemy more than Stalin when Stalin with his twenty million victims had been worse on the Russians than Hitler was. According to numbers compiled by Louis Rapoport in his 1990 work Stalin’s War Against the Jews, Stalin may even have approached Hitler’s numbers when it came to killing Jews.

Hanson also does not step far enough into Collum’s thought experiment. Yes, it is absurd that FDR and his disproportionately Jewish Brain Trust would have sided with the anti-Semitic Hitler against the disproportionately Jewish-led Soviet Union. But if, in Bizarro world, this had happened, the star-spangled Axis would have smashed the Anglo-Soviet alliance in less than a year. As such, the Germans, now on the winning side, would have had less reason to commit such a cruel and desperate act as the Jewish Holocaust, and, more importantly, less time. So Collum is on firm ground proposing the Jewish Holocaust as it known today might have not happened had FDR plopped for the Axis, despite Hanson’s presentation of Germany’s violent anti-Semitic bona fides.[4]

Most importantly, Hanson neglects to recognize how he himself immolates his own argument. By August 1939, Stalin had killed twenty million people during peacetime, whereas the Nazis had bumped off a microscopic fraction of that. Further, all Nazi atrocities occurred during wartime, after the British and French had declared war on them. Isn’t that enough to prove David Collum correct? If not, then what reason could there possibly have been for Roosevelt to see the Nazis as the more deserving enemy?

Despite Hanson’s best efforts, there isn’t one. Instead, he notes both astutely and regrettably a recent theme in Tucker Carlson’s podcasts, that “the Jews are at the problem of all these things.”

Victor Davis Hanson may be wrong in his assessment of David Collum, but he is certainly right about that.

[1] “[M]ini-Darryl Cooper,” refers to Tucker Carlson’s 2024 interview with podcaster and historian Darryl Cooper, who shares much of Collum’s Second World War skepticism. The internet pretty much exploded as a result, with the Left denouncing Cooper as a Nazi apologist, and the mainstream Right—Hanson included—taking Cooper to task over the facts.

[2]The Diana West book Collum refers to refers to is American Betrayal, published in 2013. “Read her lively response to Collum here in which she rejects both Collum’s and Hanson’s characterizations of her work.

[3]The “right-hand man” of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt may have been his advisor Harry Hopkins, whom historian Sean McMeekin claims in chapter 29 of his 2021 work Stalin’s War had passed American nuclear secrets and fissile material to his Soviet spymasters as part of the Lend-Lease program. More likely, however, the Soviet mole in the White House was the Jewish Assistant Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White, whom McMeekin bluntly describes as an “NKVD asset.” Former Soviet agent Whittaker Chambers said as much in chapter ten of his famous 1952 work Witness.

[4] Surprisingly, former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir shared a similar opinion, as revealed by Gordon Thomas in his 1999 history of the Mossad Gideon’s Spies. Shamir felt a rapprochement between Roosevelt and Hitler would have allowed Hitler to complete his repatriation of Jews to Palestine as part of his “Transfer Agreement,” thus preventing the Jewish Holocaust from ever happening.