← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · xmetalhead
Thread ID: 15936 | Posts: 36 | Started: 2004-12-10
2004-12-10 19:47 | User Profile
[I]There's a damn conspiracy for everything these days!! This comes from one wild and crazy thread. As for me, I might read some VNN articles but a 'neo-nazi' I certainly ain't. They seem overly obsessed with weeding out 'neo-nazis' from their midst over there at The Phora. [/I]
[url]http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?p=49464#post49464[/url]
[QUOTE=Nuclear Thoughts]And judging by the undercurrents that are now coursing through the streams of white nationalism, the Day of the Neo-Nazi is finally coming to an end. They are becoming the pariahs of our movement, and are now undergoing attack everywhere, as never before. And, for the record, I am one of the primary leaders of this ongoing attack, having been instrumental in confronting, attacking, and defeating Neo-Nazis from VNN to Stormfront to Resistance, as well as [COLOR=DarkRed]far-flung Neo-Nazi outposts like Original Dissent. I have fought for the last four years under many screen names, and I am now beginning to see more and more joining me in my anti Neo-Nazi crusade. [/QUOTE] [/COLOR]
[QUOTE=Nuclear Thoughts]During World War II, the Nazis had "outposts" scattered around the world, in places like North Africa and South America. True, they were not "centers of power", but nonetheless they were operating in those areas. [B]Likewise, Original Dissent IS an outpost of Neo-Nazis, meaning they operate on that forum, even though they don't control it. Quite a few of VNNF's resident Neo-Nazis operate on Original Dissent - I know - since I confronted many of them in the past. [/B]
So, you're indeed correct when you say OD is "paleoconservative & Christian". However, you are incorrect when you deny that OD has a sizable Neo-Nazi membership - it does. So much so, that is was linked to the biggest Neo-Nazi forum on the net - Stormfront.
Need I say more?[/QUOTE]
2004-12-10 20:47 | User Profile
This could be a sincere error on his part. OD is opposed to the agenda of the Talmudic Jews. I was unaware there were any non-Nazis who were so opposed until a few weeks after finding this site (it took me a few weeks to realize this [B][I]WASN'T*** a national socialist site). A site that is opposed to the Jews, yet isn't pro-Hitler (or Islamic), goes against what most of us have been taught to expect more-or-less all our lives.
2004-12-10 21:01 | User Profile
Kevin, I don't think it was an error. Those quotes are from two different posts by Nuclear Thought. He reiterated his view and I think later on Fade The Butcher said the same about OD.
I find the whole deal over there really bizarre. They deny that there's any Jewish conspiracy, or organized Jewry if you will, in the media!! You do not need to be a Hitlerite to accept or recognize that there is indeed an organized Jewish network that heavily controls and influences what comes out of the mass media. Does every Jew in the USA support the cabal? No. I would venture to guess though that probably large percentages of American Jews sympathize with many of the Jewish causes. For supposed White Nationalists to deny that fact and not regard it as a powerful and deadly enemy that must be overcome, or separated from, makes them seriously naive and very smug at the same time.
I've read alot of what's posted over there and I don't agree with them, but I'm not anti-Phora. I think their hearts are in the right place, but they don't really realize what they're up against out there in the real world. I still believe our Movement's success will arise from spontaneous circumstances and we will have to be ready to make our move when the time comes. Trying to work through the system is pretty much a dead end venture.
2004-12-10 22:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Kevin, I don't think it was an error. Those quotes are from two different posts by Nuclear Thought. He reiterated his view and I think later on Fade The Butcher said the same about OD.
I find the whole deal over there really bizarre. They deny that there's any Jewish conspiracy, or organized Jewry if you will, in the media!!.......
I've read alot of what's posted over there and I don't agree with them, but I'm not anti-Phora. I think their hearts are in the right place, but they don't really realize what they're up against out there in the real world.[/QUOTE] This is truly bizzare. The whole reason the Phora was startedout in the first place, a search of the record makes clear, was because they were upset with us "trying to find a Nazi under every corner", becoming theocrats, etc. Now they claim they're the anti-Nazi's. (The record is clear, even though although unfortunately Tex might have deleted some of the posts and threads at the end wher the most heated discussion took place.) The early Phora is crystal clear on that.
What keeps these guys together, and with Fade? I can only speculate. It brings all sorts of weird echoes to my mind tough of the strangest things that have happened here, even faint echoes of the "Triskelion" affair. More rootless people with mysterious pasts and weird agenda's and obviously an awful lot of time on their hands.
:ph34r:
2004-12-11 01:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]This is truly bizzare. The whole reason the Phora was startedout in the first place, a search of the record makes clear, was because they were upset with us "trying to find a Nazi under every corner", becoming theocrats, etc.
:ph34r:[/QUOTE]
The Phora was around long before Fade's gang was banned from OD.
2004-12-11 01:11 | User Profile
Apparently, OD is worse than FreeRepublic, since OD wants to "kill Americans en masse" because we're religious fanatics!! Anti-Yuppie comes to defend Original Dissent. You can't make this stuff up. This is way, way out there......
[url]http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5879&page=1&pp=10[/url]
2004-12-11 01:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Apparently, OD is worse than FreeRepublic, since OD wants to "kill Americans en masse" because we're religious fanatics!! Anti-Yuppie comes to defend Original Dissent. You can't make this stuff up. This is way, way out there......
[url]http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5879&page=1&pp=10[/url][/QUOTE]Poor AntiYuppie. He thought he was getting out of the flame wars going to the Phora. Out of the frying pan, into the fire. :lol:
Well maybe they'll start up Polinco again. I heard there are some clever Europeans who are looking on our disarray, and would generously offer to help out. One of them is even I heard a city councilman in some little Scandavian jurisdiction I heard of..........
Lesson - beware of phantom internet personalities, that crop up out of nowhere. Or at least don't throw all your eggs in just one of their baskets. Easy come - easy go.....
That's why we made such a big push to get us involved in constructive alternatives, and in aggresively pointing out those who seemed to be blocking the way here. Anyone could see where things were headed who used his head sensibly.
2004-12-11 01:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]The Phora was around long before Fade's gang was banned from OD.[/QUOTE]I don't think so. (Unless I misunderstand what you mean by the dates, you could be more specific). In any event, Fade never was proud of it, he's always had the habit of erasing files over a couple of months old it seems. So I'm sure we'll get some different stories here.
2004-12-11 02:17 | User Profile
Maybe I misunderstand you, but it seems that you think the Phora was established after that little dustup where Fade, Leland Gaunt, Braun, and the Orthodox Christian guy (I forget his handle) were all banned from OD? If this is so, the Phora long predates that event.
2004-12-11 05:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Maybe I misunderstand you, but it seems that you think the Phora was established after that little dustup where Fade, Leland Gaunt, Braun, and the Orthodox Christian guy (I forget his handle) were all banned from OD? If this is so, the Phora long predates that event.[/QUOTE]You mean Polish Noble? Anyway, you're right, that's the impression I got. I never heard beans about it it seems when these three were here the first time, but maybe I wasn't paying attention. Is that where they came from?
2004-12-11 06:59 | User Profile
It was Perun. Fade and Leland were banned because they were yucking it up over who would kill the most jews if given the means.
With regards to the newFade/OD/Neo-Nazi crap, I still don't pay it any attention. Obviously Fade is an intelligent guy, but I remain of the mind that he is just a guy stirring the pot for the attention it brings him. Probably a college kid with alot of time on his hands.
2004-12-11 11:57 | User Profile
It isn't often I agree with Tex these days, but I suspect he's closest to the mark.
Characterizing OD as a neo-Nazi site is part and parcel of an overall knee-jerk mentality (which Fade is actively encouraging) of Creeping Neoism. Fade wants us all to understand that Nazis Are Bad For Children And Other Living Things. To underscore the point, he has begun a secondary campaign of FDR Was One Of Our Greatest Americans as well. (To be fair, it is not Fade himself who flung the neo-Nazi accusation.)
Ironies abound. Firstly, OD has never been a neo-Nazi site, even when Neo-Nietszche, Wintermute, AY and myself were regulars here. Secondly, the Phora was - until recently - a repository and wellspring of all the things they now claim to abhor. I liken the phenomena to the reformed alcoholic who now lectures you incessantly about the evils of strong drink while you hold a glass of egg-nog in your hand.
2004-12-11 15:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I don't think so. (Unless I misunderstand what you mean by the dates, you could be more specific). In any event, Fade never was proud of it, he's always had the habit of erasing files over a couple of months old it seems. So I'm sure we'll get some different stories here.[/QUOTE]
This seems to be a constant point of misunderstanding. If memory serves, Tex banned Leland for his ravings, but I don't recall him banning anybody else. Tex set down a couple of common sense rules that enforced a modicum of decorum, but that was about it. That proved to be too much for some so they left, it appears temporarily (as far as I'm concerned, with the exception of Leland, they're more than welcome so long as they keep Tex's rules and frankly I was sad to see them go).
Whom did Tex actually ban?
I'd appreciate the record being set straight on that pont once and for all.
Walter
2004-12-11 15:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Fade wants us all to understand that Nazis Are Bad For Children And Other Living Things. To underscore the point, he has begun a secondary campaign of FDR Was One Of Our Greatest Americans as well.[/QUOTE]
Which frankly bothers me a good deal more than criticism of the tragically flawed (yet still largely great) Hitler. I gave Fade some very good reasons to dislike FDR, including at least one that was right up Fade's Anglophilic alley, i.e. how FDR destroyed the British Empire in order to seize it for himself, thus cynically betraying all his claims of trans-Atlantic brotherhood).
I also pressed him on his opinion of Dr. Tom Flemming's (of Chronicles magazine) [u]The New Dealers' War[/u]. Its just about impossible to read that book, or even a summary of it, and still admire That Awful Delano Person. It'll be interesting to see how long it takes to get him to respond to my suggestion he look into that book, and what character his remarks take. I don't intend to drop the subject, as he basically can't continue to defend FDR once he becomes acquainted with Dr. Flemming's research, at least not if he wishes to retain a shred of intellectual honesty and moral standing.
2004-12-11 17:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE]It'll be interesting to see how long it takes to get him to respond to my suggestion he look into that book, and what character his remarks take. I don't intend to drop the subject, as he basically can't continue to defend FDR once he becomes acquainted with Dr. Flemming's research, at least not if he wishes to retain a shred of intellectual honesty and moral standing.[/QUOTE]
On the Internet, nobody cries 'uncle'. [U]Ever[/U]. And meeting someone halfway is almost always seen as a sign of fatal weakness.
Even if this didn't create a poisonous atmosphere in which discussion degenerates into debate almost without fail, it would still be disgustingly childish. Nor is this a knock directed at Fade exclusively, although he's certainly been guilty of it. As have I, although I've begun to recognize this failing in myself and am trying mightily to resist the compulsion. When the baiting becomes too chaotic and shrill (whether I'm on the receiving end or -sadly - dishing it out), I find the simpest soultion is to go offline entirely for a few weeks. You wouldn't [I]believe [/I] what a salutary mental-health tonic a tyrned-off computer can be.
2004-12-11 17:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE]It'll be interesting to see how long it takes to get him to respond to my suggestion he look into that book, and what character his remarks take. I don't intend to drop the subject, as he basically can't continue to defend FDR once he becomes acquainted with Dr. Flemming's research, at least not if he wishes to retain a shred of intellectual honesty and moral standing.[/QUOTE]
On the Internet, nobody cries 'uncle'. [U]Ever[/U]. And meeting someone halfway is almost always seen as a sign of fatal weakness.
Even if this didn't create a poisonous atmosphere in which discussion degenerates into debate almost without fail, it would still be disgustingly childish. Nor is this a knock directed at Fade exclusively, although he's certainly been guilty of it. As have I, although I've begun to recognize this failing in myself and am trying mightily to resist the compulsion. When the baiting becomes too chaotic and shrill (whether I'm on the receiving end or -sadly - dishing it out), I find the simpest solution is to go offline entirely for a few weeks. You wouldn't [I]believe [/I] what a salutary mental-health tonic a turned-off computer can be.
2004-12-11 18:05 | User Profile
[B] - "I don't intend to drop the subject, as he basically can't continue to defend FDR once he becomes acquainted with Dr. Flemming's research, at least not if he wishes to retain a shred of intellectual honesty and moral standing."[/B]
Well Kevin, Fade has indeed read that book, it's even in his library, and he cites it in here:
[url]http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?p=32175&highlight=dealers#post32175[/url]
[COLOR=Navy][B]"Roosevelt tricked Hitler into declaring war on the United States. This is a very informative excerpt from one of the books in my library:[/B][/COLOR]
[COLOR=Indigo][B]The Big Leaker [/B]
Between a war with Japan and the next step -- a declaration of war against Germany, the imperative heart of Rainbow Five -- there was a large and mostly inscrutable void. In the scenario Roosevelt had envisioned on the eve of Pearl Harbor, the orders to the Lanikai make it clear that the president realised he had a problem. It would be difficult to persuade the nation that America, with its heritage of opposition to colonialism, enshrined in the American Revoution and restated often in other eras, should go to war to defend British and Dutch colonies in the East Indies and the Malay Peninsula and Singapore.
It was all too easy to envisage a raging quarrel over declaring war against Japan that even if successful would consume almost all Roosevelt's political capital. To pile on a proposal for war against Germany might trigger an unthinkable possibility: a congressional rejection that would make Adolf Hitler invulnerable. There was only one solution to this dilemma. Germany -- more specifically, Adolf Hitler -- had to declare war on the United States.
How could the Nazi dictator be provoked into such a decision when it was obvious that keeping the United States out of the war was one of his top priorities? He had issued orders to his U-boats and air force to avoid attacks on Americans, and had studiously ignored or downplayed the numerous provocations Roosevelt had flung his way. Moreover, the Tripartite Pact did not obligate Germany to join Japan in a war Tokyo initiated.
Pondering this awesome problem, Franklin D. Roosevelt decided to captialise on the one huge advantage he had over his opponents, both home and abroad. He knew, thanks to Purple intercepts, that war with Japan was going to start in a few days, a week at most. Why not leak Rainbow Five to one of the antiwar leaders, who would undoubtedly leak it to one of the antiwar newspapers, and inspire all these angry people to fulminate against it in their most choleric fashion? When Japanese aggression exploded in their faces, they would be left speechless with embarrassment -- and politically neutered. But that would be a minor triumph, compared to the real purpose of the leak: to provoke Adolf Hitler into a declaration of war.
II.
There is no absolute proof of this scenario, but its fits the devious side of Franklin D. Roosevelt's complex personality. He often liked to boast about the way he outwitted his opponents. Six months after Pearl Harbor, he told Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau: "You know I am a juggler, and I never let my right hand known what my left hand does . . . and furthermore I am perfectly willing to mislead and tell untruths if it will help win the war." The search for the leaker of Rainbow Five offers more than a few clues that point to FDR as the master of the gambit.
. . . Finally, there is strong evidence that Rainbow Five played a part in Hitler's declaration of war on the United States.
IV.
While his military advisors were digesting Rainbow Five, the German dictator wrestled with an immense political decision.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor surprised him as much as it staggered Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Tripartite Pact had never been implemented by specific agreements about coordinating Germany, Italy, and Japan's war aims. The German foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, had promised Hiroshi Oshima, the Japanese ambassador to the Third Reich, that Germany would support Japan if it became embroiled with the United States. Other Germans had quoted Hitler as offering similar assurances and the Führer had promised Japanese foreign minister, Yosuke Matsuoka, Germany's assistance when he visited Berlin in April 1941.
But no guarantees existed on paper and Matsuoka had been ousted from his job when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union without bothering to inform Japan in advance. The two allies soon acquired additional doubts about each other's reliability. The Nazis groused about Japan's failure to attack Russia, which would have forced Stalin into a two-front war. Germany had repeatedly urged the Japanese to attack Singapore and the rest of Great Britain's Far East Empire, to no effect. The Japanese cooly informed Berlin that they preferred to wait until 1946 to go after Singapore. That was the year that the Phillippines would be granted its independence and the American army and navy would withdraw from the islands. (Here, it might be added, was additional evidence of Japan's reluctance to challenge the United States.) The Japanese had smugly lectured the Germans about the original goal of the Tripartite Pact: to keep America from declaring war on Germany. In the summer of 1941, before the undeclared oil embargo began, Tokyo insisted that negotiating with the Americans was the best way "to bring about [their] domestic disintegration rather than to excite and unify them."
In Berlin, after Pearl Harbor, Ambassador Oshima urged Ribbentrop to make good on his promise to join the war against the United States. The German foreign minister replied with cool generalities and urged Hitler to let the Japanese and the Americans fight it out, while Germany mopped up the Russians and the British. There were good reasons, aside from Germany's disappointment with their inscrutable ally, to pursue this course. Hitler viewed the Japanese as an inferior race -- far below Germany's supermen -- and he never had any compunction about breaking his promises, as his attack on his ally, Josef Stalin, made clear. Moreover, the Germans had assumed that Japan's war with America would begin with an American attack to prevent the Japanese from seizing Singapore, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies. If Germany joined that version of the war, it would look like the decision of an honourable ally. Japan's ferocious assault on Pearl Harbor now made a German declaration of war on America look like the tail, not the head of the Axis kite.
Even after Roosevelt had issued orders to American warships to "shoot on sight" at German submarines on October 8, 1941, Hitler had ordered Grand Admiral Raeder, the German navy's commander in chief, to avoid incidents that Roosevelt might use to bring America into this struggle. After the war Colonel General Alfred Jodl, Hitler's chief planner, said that the Nazi leader had wanted Japan to attack Great Britain and the USSR in the Far East but not the United States. He though there was a very good chance that Roosevelt would not be able to persuade the Americans to go to war to defend Britain's Asian colonies. Hitler had wanted "a strong new ally without a strong new enemy."
On December 8, 1941, President Roosevelt seemed to confirm the wisdom of Hitler's policy in his speech to Congress, calling for a declaration of war against Japan. Condemning the attack on Pearl Harbor as a "date which shall live in infamy," FDR did not so much as mention Germany. Hitler's policy of keeping incidents between America and the Reich to a minimum seemed to have succeeded.
On December 6, just before Japan launched its attack, Admiral Raeder became a major player in the Führer's global decision. Hie submitted to Hitler a report prepared by his staff that pointed with particular urgency to the most important revelation contained in Rainbow Five: the fact tht the United States would not be ready to launch a military offensive against Germany until July 1943.
Raeder argued that this necessitated an immediate reevaluation of Germany's current strategy. He recommended an all-out offensive on land and sea against Britain and its Empire to knock them out of the war before this crucial date. He envisaged further incidents between American naval vessels and German submarines in the North Atlantic and admitted that this could lead to war with the United States. But he argued that Rainbow Five made it clear that America was already a "nonbelligerent" ally of Great Britain and the Soviet Union and that a declaration of war was no longer something Germany should seek to avoid by restraining her U-boats. Moreover, Raeder concluded that Roosevelt had made a serious miscalculation "in counting upon Japanese weakness and fear of the United States" to keep Nippon at bay. The president was now confronted with a Japanese war two or three years before the completion of a two-ocean navy.
Hitler concurred with Raeder on launching the U-boat offensive. On December 9, he let the German navy suspend its prohibition against attacking American ships. But this was not a declaration of war. On the contrary, it could be justified by the asusmption that American voters, having failed to respond to previous unauthorised attacks, would still ignore them.
On December 9 Hitler returned to Berlin from the Russian front and plunged into two days of conferences with Raeder, Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, the chief of staff of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (usually referred to as the OKW, the army general staff), and Reich Marshall Hermann Goering, the commander of the German air force. The three advisors stressed Rainbow Five's determination to defeat Germany. They pointed out that the war plan discussed the probability of a Russian collapse and even a British surrender, whereupon the United States would undertake to carry on the war against Germany alone. By and large they leaned toward Admiral Raeder's view that an air and U-boat offensive against both British and American ships might be risky, but America was unquestionably already an enemy.
V.
On December 9, 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt made a radio address to the nation that is seldom mentioned in the history books. It accused Hitler of urging Japan to attack the United States. "We know that Germany and Japan are conducting their military and naval operations with a joint plan," Roosevelt declared. "Germany and Italy consider themselves at war with the United States without even bothering about a formal declaration." This was anything but the case, and Roosevelt knew it. He was trying to bait Hitler into declaring war, or, failing that, persuade the American people to support an American declaration of war on the two European fascist powers.
FDR added to this accusation of German complicity a string of uncomplimentary remarks about Hitler and Nazism: "Powerful and resourceful gangsters have banded together to make war upon the whole human race," he declared. "Their challenge has now been flung at the United States of America." He saw a pattern of aggression by Japan, Italy, and Germany, beginning as far back as 1931. "Modern warfare, as conducted in the Nazi manner is dirty business," the president said. "Your government knows that Germany has been telling Japan that if Japan would attack the United States Japan would share the spoils when peace came. She was promised by Germany that if she came in she would receive the whole of the Pacific area and that means not only the Far East but all the islands of the Pacific and also a stranglehold on the west coast of North and Central and South America. We know also that Germany and Japan are conducting their naval operations in accordance with a joint plan."
There was little truth in any of this rhetoric. Germany and Japan di not have a joint naval plan before Pearl Harbor and never concocted one for the rest of the war. Japan never had any ambition or plan to attack the west coast of North, Central, or South America. Her goal was to create a new order in the Far East, with Japan running things instead of the British. Germany did not "promise" Japan anything in the Far East. The Third Reich's power in the region was negligable.
On December 10, when Hitler resumed his confernece with Raeder, Keitel, and Goering, the Führer's mind was made up. He said that Roosevelt's speech confirmed everything in the Tribune story. He considered the speech a de facto declaration of war, and he accepted Raeder's contention that an unwanted war with Japan made it impossible for the Americans to follow the grand strategy of defeating Germany first that had been laid down in Rainbow Five.
On December 11 Hitler went before the Reichstag and announced that Germany and Italy had been provoked "by circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt" to declare war on the United States. His final decision, Hitler said, had been forced on him by American newspapers, which a week before had revealed "a plan prepared by President Roosevelt . . . according to which his intention was to attack Germany in 1943 with all the resources of the United States. Thus our patience has come to a breaking point." The yes-men in the Reichstag cheered wildly, Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop grandly approved his leader's decision. "A great power does not allow itself to be declared war upon," he intoned. "It declares war on others."
With a little extra prodding from the White House, the big leak had handed Roosevelt the gift that he desperately needed to proceed with the program outlined in Rainbow Five. Contrary to Raeder's expectations, neither America's military leaders nor the president altered the Europe-first cornerstone of the Victory Program. "That's because it was sound strategy," General Wedemeyer avered in 1986. He went on to plan Operation Bolero, which eventually became Overlord, between known as D day.
VI.
For a few more weeks the big leak developed yet a third life in Germany. Berlin greeted Rainbow Five's revelations as "the most profound intelligence value conceivable, enabling [the German High Command] to adapt [its] arrangements to the American program." The offensive against Moscow and Leningrad was faltering in the freezing Russian winter. The general seized on the Roosevelt war plan to reinforce a suggestion they had already made to Hitler: to pull back to carefully selected defensive positions that would give them time to regroup and reinforce their decimated divisions.
In a postwar memoir, General Walter Warlimont, the deputy chief of the general staff, revealed how little information the generals had on the United States, which made Rainbow Five all the more important to them. Warlimont told of receiving a phone call from Jodl in Berlin on December 11, 1941:
"You have heard that the Führer has just declared war on America?" Jodl asked.
"Yes and we couldn't be more surprised," Warlimont replied.
"The staff must now examine where the United States is most likely to employ the bulk of her forces initially, the Far East or Europe. We cannot take further decisions until that has been clarified."
"Agreed," Warlimont said. "But so far we have never even considered a war against the United States and so have no data on which to base this examination."
"See what you can do," Jodl said. "When we get back tommorrow we will talk about this in more detail." The OKW staff soon submitted to Hitler a study of the "Anglo-Saxon war plans which became known through publication in the Washington Times-Herald." The analysts concluded that to frustrate the Allies' objectives, Germany should choose a "favourable defensive position" and terminate the Russian campaign. Next Hitler should integrate the Iberian Peninsula, Sweden, and France within the "European Fortress" and begin building an "Atlantic wall" of impregnable defences along the European coast. The "objective of greatest value" should be the "clearing of all British and allied forces out of the Mediterranean and Axis occupation of the whole of the northern coast of Africa and the Suez Canal."
Admiral Raeder and Reich Marshal Goering joined in this recommendation in the most emphatic fashion. They told Hitler in 1942 Germany and Italy would have "their last opportunity to seize and hold control of the whole Mediterranean area and of the Near and Middle East." It was an opportunity that "will probably never come again." To everyone's delight Hitler agreed to these proposals.
A few days later, the Nazi leader returned to the Russian front, where he was astonished and enraged to find his armies reeling back under assaults from Soviet armies whose existence his intelligence officers had failed to detect. The Führer flew into a rage and summoned Col. Gen. Franz Halder, the chief of staff of the Germany army, and Field Marshal Walther von Brauchitsch, the commander in the chief. Berating them hysterically, Hitler declared that "a general withdrawal is out of the question." Whereupon he fire Brauchitsch and took over command of the army. A dismayed General Halder filled his diary with lamentations about Hitler's "fanatical rage against the idea of withdrawing to a winter line."
If Hitler had stuck with his original decision and acted to frustrate the objectives of Rainbow Five, he could have freed a hundred divisions from the eastern front for a Mediterranean offensive. Against this force the Allies, including the Americans, could not have mustered more than twenty divisions. Germany's best general, Erwin Rommel, was already in Egypt, demonstrating with a mere nine divisions (three German, six Italian) what he could accomplish against the British and Australians.
There is little doubt that Hitler could have turned the Mediterranean into a German lake and nullified the Allied plan to seize North Africa and attack Europe from the south. The catastrophic German defeat at Stalingrad would never have occurred, and the Allied attempt to invade Europe at any point, particularly across the English Channel, would have been much more costly. This grim possibility explains why men trained to think strategically, like Albert Wedemeyer, were horrified by the leak of Rainbow Five. The Allies were rescued from the worst consequences of Roosevelt's gamble by the emotional instability of another amateur strategist, Adolf Hitler."
[SIZE=3][B]Thomas Fleming, The New Dealers' War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and The War Within World War II (New York: Basic Books, 2001), pp.25-39[/B][/SIZE][/COLOR]
Petr
2004-12-11 19:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]It was Perun. Fade and Leland were banned because they were yucking it up over who would kill the most jews if given the means.[/QUOTE]
This is false. We were banned in this thread: [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2073&page=1[/url]
and not for "yucking it up who would kill more jews given the means."
2004-12-12 01:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]This is false. We were banned in this thread: [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2073&page=1[/url]
and not for "yucking it up who would kill more jews given the means."[/QUOTE]
Yes, Friedrich. It was that thread where y'all were yucking it up over who would kill more jews. The offending posts have long been deleted.
2004-12-12 01:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]It isn't often I agree with Tex these days, but I suspect he's closest to the mark.[/QUOTE]
I'm shocked you admitted that here in semi-public, IR.
2004-12-12 02:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Yes, Friedrich. It was that thread where y'all were yucking it up over who would kill more jews. [B]The offending posts have long been deleted.[/B][/QUOTE]
No. That thread had nothing to do with jews. Perun was never banned either.
Only Leland, Agrippa (who didn't even participate in that thread at all), FadeTheButcher, and myself were banned.
It looks like your memory is playing tricks on you.
The only person that advocated the [I]en masse [/I] killing of jews was FadeTheButcher and that was done in a different thread; a thread that was subsequently entirely deleted. This is especially ironic in light of his most recent transformation into a jew-loving neo-con. :yawn:
2004-12-16 03:19 | User Profile
My new post on the Phora!
OriginalDissent.com owned by... [url]http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?p=52214#post52214[/url]
2004-12-16 07:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]My new post on the Phora!
OriginalDissent.com owned by... [url]http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?p=52214#post52214[/url][/QUOTE]
:lol: Thanks, Faust. That'll fit right in nicely over there. :)
2004-12-16 18:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Which frankly bothers me a good deal more than criticism of the tragically flawed (yet still largely great) Hitler. I gave Fade some very good reasons to dislike FDR, including at least one that was right up Fade's Anglophilic alley, i.e. how FDR destroyed the British Empire in order to seize it for himself, thus cynically betraying all his claims of trans-Atlantic brotherhood).
I also pressed him on his opinion of [COLOR=Red][I][B]Dr. Tom Flemming's[/B] [/I] [/COLOR] (of Chronicles magazine) [u]The New Dealers' War[/u]. Its just about impossible to read that book, or even a summary of it, and still admire That Awful Delano Person. It'll be interesting to see how long it takes to get him to respond to my suggestion he look into that book, and what character his remarks take. I don't intend to drop the subject, as he basically can't continue to defend FDR once he becomes acquainted with Dr. Flemming's research, at least not if he wishes to retain a shred of intellectual honesty and moral standing.[/QUOTE]Another man, a genuinely intelligent man, wrote that book, not that gutless cretin.
2004-12-17 04:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]The only person that advocated the [I]en masse [/I] killing of jews was FadeTheButcher and that was done in a different thread; a thread that was subsequently entirely deleted. This is especially ironic in light of his most recent transformation into a jew-loving neo-con.[/QUOTE]
That's a little unfair. Fade can be irritating and mercurial, and some of his views are similar to those of the neo-cons (although I do not believe his motivation stems from the same place, i.e. treason), but that's just unfair. That's like saying the poor boy deserves to be taken out and shot. He's a naive kid who means well, and is just a little too impressed with how many books he's read (which is, apparently, quite a few).
2004-12-17 04:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][B] - "I don't intend to drop the subject, as he basically can't continue to defend FDR once he becomes acquainted with Dr. Flemming's research, at least not if he wishes to retain a shred of intellectual honesty and moral standing."[/B]
Well Kevin, Fade has indeed read that book, it's even in his library,
I am just barely managing to cling to my belief that Fade is a good guy who means well, but damn is he making it hard. How anyone can have read this book, and still admire FDR as one of the "greatest Americans," is simply beyond me. One might as well read a history of Idi Amin's reign in Uganda and conclude he was one of Africa's great humanitarians and upholders of libertarian virtues. I'm starting to worry about that boy's soul.
2004-12-17 04:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]Another man, a genuinely intelligent man, wrote that book, not that gutless cretin.[/QUOTE]
I beg to differ. The book is on my shelf, the name is correct, and the author bio sounds a lot like Dr. Flemming's career. He can be a trifle gutless in cerain respects (race, the Jews), I'll grant, but its one of the best revisionist works on the Second World War yet written.
2004-12-17 19:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe][I][B][COLOR=Red]I beg to differ[/COLOR][/B][/I]. The book is on my shelf, the name is correct, and the author bio sounds a lot like Dr. Flemming's career. He can be a trifle gutless in cerain respects (race, the Jews), I'll grant, but its one of the best revisionist works on the Second World War yet written.[/QUOTE] Please see the below siten for bio notes on the real Fleming: [url]http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:PTQMrRlx_cUJ:duel2004.weehawkenhistory.org/tfleming.php+new+dealers+war+thomas+fleming&hl=en[/url]
This Fleming is older, more mature and much wiser than your hero. Your Fleming would be wetting his pants if he even thought about danger. To me he represents what is so drastically wrong in any movement in America with conservative pretensions. His advocacy and his ideals require the courage of others to prevail.
2004-12-17 19:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon] This Fleming is older, more mature and much wiser than your hero. Your Fleming would be wetting his pants if he even thought about danger. To me he represents what is so drastically wrong in any movement in America with conservative pretensions. His advocacy and his ideals require the courage of others to prevail.[/QUOTE] Don't you think you're being a bit hard on the Thomas Fleming of Chronicles fame? He may be too moderate for some, and he certainly dances around some issues instead of meeting them head on, but overall he edits what I think is an excellent magazine, and he has written some nice pieces himself. If your critique of him is that he is all talk and no action, then that is likely true; but much the same thing could be said of the vast majority of conservatives.
2004-12-18 08:37 | User Profile
edward gibbon,
Two Tom Flemmings, I did not know that. I had wondered about that some, I read things written by both and something did not seem right. I had been meaning to look that up. That clears things up some. Well I learned something new today.
:cheers:
2004-12-18 09:14 | User Profile
Texas Dissident,
Glad you liked it. :cheers:
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]:lol: Thanks, Faust. That'll fit right in nicely over there. :)
*Originally Posted by Faust My new post on the Phora!
OriginalDissent.com owned by... [url]http://www.thephora.org/forum/showt...52214#post52214[/url] *[/QUOTE]
2004-12-18 18:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Don't you think you're being a bit hard on the Thomas Fleming of Chronicles fame? He may be too moderate for some, and he certainly dances around some issues instead of meeting them head on, but overall he edits what I think is an excellent magazine, and he has written some nice pieces himself.
[COLOR=Red][I]If your critique of him is that he is all talk and no action, then that is likely true; but much the same thing could be said of the vast majority of conservatives[/I][/COLOR].[/QUOTE]Previously I had written: [QUOTE]This Fleming is older, more mature and much wiser than your hero. Your Fleming would be wetting his pants if he even thought about danger. [COLOR=Red][I]To me he represents what is so drastically wrong in any movement in America with conservative pretensions. His advocacy and his ideals require the courage of others to prevail[/I][/COLOR].[/QUOTE]Once again I feel the acceptance of lack of courage by conservatives, or those purporting to be, as a character trait not to be reviled, indicates the depth to which we have fallen.
Your Fleming had written an article for [I]The Spectator [/I] (London) approving E.M. Forester's remark that if he had to choose between betraying a friend or his country, he would unhesitatingly betray his country. This attitude is what should be expected from Forester, an aged homosexual.
An accompanying photograph of Fleming showed him slumped in a chair with a tired, but satisfied look on his face. I suspect he just may have choked on a penis. He is a loathsome man.
2004-12-19 01:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]Two Tom Flemmings, I did not know that. I had wondered about that some, I read things written by both and something did not seem right. I had been meaning to look that up. That clears things up some. Well I learned something new today.[/QUOTE]
OKay, at times I suspected there was more than one Tom Flemming, but I was never certain. There's actually a third, recently deceased Tom Flemming who was apparently very active in the ethnic Black press (thus when I posted an anti-war article from the Chronicles Flemming, this was cited as evidence of my Communist sympthies, which struck me as somewhat peculiar until the misunderstanding was cleared up).
2004-12-19 01:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]This Fleming is older, more mature and much wiser than your hero. Your Fleming would be wetting his pants if he even thought about danger. To me he represents what is so drastically wrong in any movement in America with conservative pretensions. His advocacy and his ideals require the courage of others to prevail.[/QUOTE]
Let's just clear up the fact that Dr. Flemming of Chronicles fame is [B]NOT[/B] my "hero." I greatly appreciate much of what he's written, and I acknowledge his enormous talents as a writer (which is to say an unusually eloquent wordsmith). I find some of the things he was written, and even more that he has declined to write, if you take my meaning, to be quite frustrating. I strongly object to a small portion of his writing (I suspect it largely overlaps with that portion you dislike the most). His ideological orientation is probably closer to that of the "Christian Nationalist" designation formally affiliated with Original Dissent of just about any public figure I know, and while I consider such people to have enormous potential value as allies, colleagues, friends and fellow builders of civilization, their views, and thus those of Dr. Flemming, are not my views in a number of very key respects.
With that said, I'm frankly more than just a little confused about why this apparent tone of hostility, in your recent posts to me within this thread, is deemed by you to be the correct manner of addressing me on this topic, seemingly for no other reason then because the level of sincere frustration I feel with regard to Dr. Flemming's lack of candor on racial and Talmudic related topics, is apparently dwarfed by yours. And who knows? Perhaps your feelings on the subject of Dr. Flemming are wiser amd more appropriate than mine. But why does that fact, in and of itself, incline you to so readily dispense with what I had always assumed was a tone of mutually respectful cordiality, or at the veryy least, ordinary politeness between us? Did we become opponents without my knowledge? I thought we were both on the side of the West....
2004-12-19 01:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]Previously I had written: Once again I feel the acceptance of lack of courage by conservatives, or those purporting to be, as a character trait not to be reviled, indicates the depth to which we have fallen.
I'm inclined to agree (which is one reason I post under my real name, Mr. Gibbon). Cowardice is a despicable trait; one that is far worse than the Puritannical fascination people tend to have with degenerate sensual pratices or an excessive fondess for occassional intoxication, to cite two of the more obvious examples in this regard. In any event, a failure to comply with your agenda within the pages of Chronicles magazine and his "Hard Right" on-line column, hardly constitues an example of innate cowardice. Sincere disagreement on tactics and strategic reality are likely to be the primary factors in any ideological discrepancy between your stated views and those of Dr. Flemming.
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]Your Fleming had written an article for [I]The Spectator [/I] (London) approving E.M. Forester's remark that if he had to choose between betraying a friend or his country, he would unhesitatingly betray his country. This attitude is what should be expected from Forester, an aged homosexual.
Both sides of this argument have valid points, as I'm sure you're intelligent enough to see for yourself.
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]An accompanying photograph of Fleming showed him slumped in a chair with a tired, but satisfied look on his face. I suspect he just may have choked on a penis. He is a loathsome man.[/QUOTE]
Um, OKay....
2004-12-20 17:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]I'm inclined to agree (which is one reason I post under my real name, Mr. Gibbon). Cowardice is a despicable trait; one that is far worse than the Puritannical fascination people tend to have with degenerate sensual pratices or an excessive fondess for occassional intoxication, to cite two of the more obvious examples in this regard. In any event, a failure to comply with your agenda within the pages of Chronicles magazine and his "Hard Right" on-line column, hardly constitues an example of innate cowardice. Sincere disagreement on tactics and strategic reality are likely to be the primary factors in any ideological discrepancy between your stated views and those of Dr. Flemming.[/QUOTE]I have bitter memories about many on the professed right. They know only too well that my proving the cowardice of Jews in American wars should be much more widely known and discussed openly. Yet they lack the balls to do so. Sometime I will write about those who know, but will not discuss Jewish treachery openly. This list includes such stalwarts as Charley Reese and Pat Buchanan.
These people would rather see the slaughter of innocents and the deaths of thousands than undergo the onus of being accused publicly of antisemitism. I feel the present conflict in Iraq just may evolve into a hundred years war that this country could not withstand. Fleming is a minor, but important player, in this charade.
My real name is not too difficult to figure out.