← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Franco
Thread ID: 7484 | Posts: 66 | Started: 2003-06-14
2003-06-14 22:48 | User Profile
** Jeff Head wrote:
He's a WW II combat vet of the Pacific who willingly fought for our Republic at a very early age, **
Not to cast stones or appear as an insensitive jerk here, because I greatly sympathize with any person who becomes ill, but --
It must be said, for the benefit of the OD newbies [there are many here now], that fighting for Communism as America did in WWII is not "fighting for our Republic." It is fighting AGAINST our Republic, although granted, your father did not or could not know that at the time. All Americans were brainwashed then by the Jewish cabal surrounding FDR [here: [url=http://cptwc.matriots.com/FDRcabal.html]http://cptwc.matriots.com/FDRcabal.html[/url] ]
Don't feel bad -- my father fought similar folk, but in a different war.
It just needed to be said, that is all. No hard feelings, please.
[edited]
2003-06-15 06:03 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Franco@Jun 14 2003, 16:48 * ** [QUOTE] Franco wrote:
fighting for Communism as America did in WWII is not "fighting for our Republic." It is fighting AGAINST our Republic...All Americans were brainwashed then by the Jewish cabal surrounding FDR[/QUOTE> **
Franco, it would be more accurate to say that we were fighting (for the last 3 years) with communism as opposed to saying we were fighting for communism. Big difference.
The fact is, those millions were fighting for our Republic as I stated, despite the manueverings, propaganda and deciet of FDR. Had they not fought, the NAZIS and Japanese would have won and certainly been much more destructive of the Republic than the victory we got, despite the way we allowed the Communists to gobble up eastern Europe and the ideological and legislative losses we experienced here.
Please don't sully the names, memory, experiences and valor of hundreds of thousands by indicating that they were not fighting for our Republic. To state otherwise is to be blind to the facts of the day...despite the betrayals that you and I know occurred. The fact is that many of them, including my father, a U.S. Navy officer, knew of and understood the actions of FDR and did not support them...but they also knew that they had to defeat the Japanese and Nazis even if it meant fighting against them at the same time the Soviets were.
Hitler got away from the NWO people/efforts of his day. In large measure he was a creature of their creation. It took the combined effort of those nations to put him down. Those are the facts. As distasteful as it was to fight alongside Stalin's regime in the process, and as sour a taste as it leaves in our mouths to have had FDR at the helm...it was the way things turned out at the time and to not have fought at all would have meant that the Republic would have been completely lost.
Patton had the right idea...as did McAuthur in the Korean war.
No hard feeling, just a different perspective from the son of won who fought and understood every bit of what you talked about while he was doing so.
[url=http://www.jeffhead.com/]Jeff Head[/url]
2003-06-15 14:08 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Leland Gaunt@Jun 15 2003, 04:48 * ** @ Jeff Head
I do not intend to ruin the thread dedicated to your father. I just would like to say that the above comments on WW2 are utter nonsense. "Hitler had to be stoped". My question is - who are you (americans) to decide who is allowed to roam free (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot ect.) and who has to go? Who are you to decide which populations are to be "trasfered" (ethnicly cleansed) and which not (See Germany 1945 or Serbia 1999)? It wasn't Hitler that laid american citys into dust and ashes and roasted over a million in firestorms.
I clicked the link to your site, and I must say I am utterly disgusted by this jingoist site celebrating Bush and his War of agression against Iraq. (With all those "nice" staged Propagandapictures of the jew media.) **
The decision was made for us on Dec 7, 1941...despite all of the allegations and issues surrounding that attack. Irrespective of your belief regarding FDR's knowledge of it, the Japanese attacked us in a calculated and deadly way and killed thousands of Americans in an act of War. Hitler declared war on us immediately after. Those are the decisions that led to our direct combat involvement. Your statements about "who are we to decide" are utter nonsense both logically and historically on that particular point.
We did not "decide" to do these things, they were pressed upon us. My grandparents lost an only son in that conflict, my mother her only brother.
I have responded to you in this fashion because you chose to interject into the thread these issues and I viewed them (and still do)-based on your original comments-as a insult to the integrity and honor of men like my father despite how you tried to word it. As I stated, those individuals were well aware of many of the things you have spoken, but fought anyway because their nation had been attacked and because the menace rising in Japan and Germany threatened the entire world. Hitler, a creation of the "globalist" of his day, got away from them and ultimately chose to declare war on us. It was an ultimately fatal mistake, as was Japan's decision to attack us.
Anyhow, I will stop discussing these issues now (if you will concur) because as you say, this thread was and is about my father and is a tribute to him on Father's Day and the many things he has done to be an honorable and faithful example to his own.
2003-06-15 20:57 | User Profile
** Jeff Head wrote, in his thread about his father in Current Events:
The decision was made for us on Dec 7, 1941...despite all of the allegations and issues surrounding that attack. Irrespective of your belief regarding FDR's knowledge of it, the Japanese attacked us in a calculated and deadly way and killed thousands of Americans in an act of War. Hitler declared war on us immediately after.**
All newbies at OD must ignore this attitude about WWII, I say.
FDR's Jewish/pro-Communist cabal deliberately alienated both Japan and Germany starting in Nov. 1933. In fact, it is amazing that Japan did not attack us earlier.
We were strangling Japan financially and had seized her assets without any just cause. Part-Jew FDR was angry as well that Japan was allied with Germany. FDR preferred to be pals with the mass-murdering [15 million people by 1933], largely-Jew-led Soviet Union.
Sorry, but I must question where Jeff Head learned his history. His version is the Jew-Approved[tm] version of WWII history.
2003-06-15 21:00 | User Profile
Sorry, but I must question where Jeff Head learned his history. His version is the Jew-Approved[tm] version of WWII history.
Do not be so mean to newbies. Most people in the world still live inside the Matrix. It takes time to them to get adapted to the real world.
2003-06-15 21:12 | User Profile
Wow. All I have to say is, W-O-W.
I read OD about every 2 weeks or so, popping in to see if anyone has anything unique to say. I agree with about 90% of the ideas here, even tho I think some of the posters are quite rude and that's why I left.
This gentleman started a thread on his father. Christ, have some respect some of you. To attack a guy for thinking that the 3rd Reich should have been defeated.....It should come as no surprise to you nobody follows your beliefs, they never will, and your rudeness is a huge reason.
To this Jeff character: Happy Father's Day. Mine turns 60 this year, and I'm truly lucky to still have him alive. (He served in Vietnam, for those interested)
-Jay
2003-06-15 21:18 | User Profile
ALL -- This was originally a separate post, in the History section. Was moved. Need to note this.
2003-06-15 21:27 | User Profile
"The noise created against me is only the means by which the Jews and communists are attempting, and with good success, to implement a further dismemberment of Germany."
"We have destroyed what could have been a good race of people and we are about to replace them with mongolian savages and all of Europe with communism."
"I had never heard that we fought to 'de-Nazify' Germany. Live and learn. What we are doing is to utterly destroy the only semi-modern state in Europe so that Russians can swallow the whole."
"The more I see of people, the more I regret that I survived the war."
"The attitude of the American people as evinced by the press and the radio is such that I am inclined to think that I made a great mistake in serving them for nearly forty years."
~ General George S. Patton, Jr.
2003-06-15 21:39 | User Profile
Ruffin --
Indeed, WWII history, like all history, has been Jew-spun, e.g. Abe Lincoln-was-a-hero [nope], the civil-rights movement was led by Black like MLK, Jr. [nope], feminism is a good thing created by "leftists" [nope], etc.
In fact, History, as we know it at least, should be called "Jewstory."
In conclusion: "Those evil Southerners!!" :D
[edited]
2003-06-15 22:15 | User Profile
Jay - jeff head is the one who introduced himself to us by equating admirable fatherhood with fighting in WWII. As an admitted lurker, he knew that would raise the ire of many of us who recognize Jewish tactics like that. Otherwise he would've kept politics out of his tribute to his father. Anyone with any sense knows that preserving a union by force, as in the wbts, was not in the long term interests of white Americans. That doesn't mean that many yankee soldiers weren't honorable men doing what they thought was right. General Patton figured this out about WWII sooner than most men did, and he didn't consider it insulting to say so.
2003-06-15 23:56 | User Profile
*Originally posted by jay@Jun 15 2003, 17:12 * ** Wow. All I have to say is, W-O-W.
I read OD about every 2 weeks or so, popping in to see if anyone has anything unique to say. I agree with about 90% of the ideas here, even tho I think some of the posters are quite rude and that's why I left.
This gentleman started a thread on his father. Christ, have some respect some of you. To attack a guy for thinking that the 3rd Reich should have been defeated.....It should come as no surprise to you nobody follows your beliefs, they never will, and your rudeness is a huge reason.
To this Jeff character: Happy Father's Day. Mine turns 60 this year, and I'm truly lucky to still have him alive. (He served in Vietnam, for those interested)
-Jay **
Jay! Long time no see. Stick around, will you? If you leave again, who will be there to restore the balance against the posters who are rude? Aren't you replicating, at the cyberspace level, the phenomenon of "white flight." Turn that flight response into a fight response. ...well, ok, I admit that last slogan sounds rather cheerleader-ish in print.
But let me tell you about that Vietnam war, now that you mention it, because you know.... Just kidding! :lol:
2003-06-16 04:26 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ruffin@Jun 15 2003, 16:15 * ** Jay - jeff head is the one who introduced himself to us by equating admirable fatherhood with fighting in WWII. As an admitted lurker, he knew that would raise the ire of many of us who recognize Jewish tactics like that. Otherwise he* would've kept politics out of his tribute to his father. Anyone with any sense knows that preserving a union by force, as in the wbts, was not in the long term interests of white Americans. That doesn't mean that many yankee soldiers weren't honorable men doing what they thought was right. General Patton figured this out about WWII sooner than most men did, and he didn't consider it insulting to say so. **
No, I introduced myself to this board by paying tribute to my father for father's day.
I had no intention of making a political statement, others have chosen to try and turn it into that.
I simply stated my Dad volunteered to fight for our Republic in World War II in the Pacific and I do not apologize for that or back off of it on iota. I have rationally explained my reasons in answer to some of those posts and stand by them as well. If some disagree, so be it...that's their right and I do not deny them that right or hold it against them, whether I agree with them or not.
Finally, I have not lurked here...I posted this thread within a few minutes of registering which I did as soon as I got here day before yesterday. You have your facts wrong there.
I was pointed here by a friend at another board whom I have known for some time. In response to that, I registered and posted.
It's as straight forward as that.
Regards.
2003-06-16 05:00 | User Profile
** Jeff Head wrote:
It is a shame that some of the folks on this board fell as they do, but it is their right to feel as they please. it is a greater shame, at least as I was raised, that they must try and put down, insult, and attack something as straight forward as such a tribute in an effort to either broadcast or defend their own ideologies. **
Ok, fine. I already explained myself, regarding your father, but....
Start a thread in History and let us debate WWII there.
If you think our being pals with the murderous Soviets was ok, if our killing the only people standing up for White culture [Germany and their allies, Japan and Italy] was ok, well, then why not debate such? WWII was, actually, The War To Kill The White West And Make The West Safe For Jews. So why not talk about it?
2003-06-16 05:25 | User Profile
Originally posted by Jeff Head@Jun 15 2003, 00:03 * Franco, it would be more accurate to say that we were fighting (for the last 3 years) with communism as opposed to saying we were fighting for communism.ÃÂ Big difference.*
Jeff, this is incorrect. FDR, whose war this was, was explicitly pro-Communist.
The fact is, those millions were fighting for our Republic as I stated, despite the maneuverings, propaganda and deceit of FDR.
This is also incorrect, Jeff. These millions were duped into merely believing that they were fighting in the interest of national defense.
Had they not fought, the NAZIS and Japanese would have won and certainly been much more destructive of the Republic than the victory we got, despite the way we allowed the Communists to gobble up eastern Europe and the ideological and legislative losses we experienced here.
This is a radically uninformed and thus incorrect assessment of the circumstance, Jeff. Had you any familiarity with the parlous resource circumstance and the perpetual inextricability from Asian involvement of the Germans and Japanese (completely aside from the absence therefrom of any unprovoked untoward intentions toward the U.S.), we would have had rather another accounting of the episode at your hands.
Hitler got away from the NWO people/efforts of his day.ÃÂ In large measure he was a creature of their creation.
More non-factual facticity, Jeff. Hitler was "a creature of their creation" in small and marginal measure. Those who have investigated "Who Financed Hitler" have determined that the small contributors to the Party made the largest collective contribution to its success. The element to which you refer basically acted in reaction to the Communist threat and made a necessary, but nevertheless marginal, contribution.
it was the way things turned out at the time and to not have fought at all would have meant that the Republic would have been completely lost.
Frank Capra's fairy tale, Jeff. Time to grow up. We are here to help.
2003-06-16 05:43 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Jeff Head@Jun 15 2003, 08:08 * ** The decision was made for us on Dec 7, 1941...despite all of the allegations and issues surrounding that attack. Irrespective of your belief regarding FDR's knowledge of it, the Japanese attacked us in a calculated and deadly way and killed thousands of Americans in an act of War. Hitler declared war on us immediately after. Those are the decisions that led to our direct combat involvement...
We did not "decide" to do these things, they were pressed upon us. My grandparents lost an only son in that conflict, my mother her only brother.**
The decision was made much earlier, Jeff, when FDR decided that the U.S. would be involved militarily, by whatever means it took to introduce American combat forces despite the attempts of the Germans and Japanese to avoid responding to constant threat and provocation. "These things" were precisely not pressed upon us, and an informed American public could and should have resisted war even given Pearl harbor and the German declaration.
As I stated, those individuals were well aware of many of the things you have spoken, but fought anyway because their nation had been attacked and because the menace rising in Japan and Germany threatened the entire world. Hitler, a creation of the "globalist" of his day, got away from them and ultimately chose to declare war on us.
As you were instructed in the previous message, Jeff, this is an inversion of the case. A fairy tale, in fact, with the endorsement of which the fatuities perpetrated by a prior generation of deluded "republicans" are applauded as honorable and virtuous.
2003-06-16 12:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 15 2003, 23:43 * ... an informed American public could and should have resisted war even given Pearl harbor and the German declaration.*
Listen to yourself.
Well, you and others have your opinion of history and your interpretation of it and you are free to have it and voice it. I happen to disagree with major portions of it (all of the part about Germany and Japan somehow standing up for the White race and being somehow our Savior), and tend to agree with some aspects (the manipulations of a select elite with the aim of creating a socio-fascist world governance).
Having said that, I did not come here to be instructed by you or to be helped, no more than I would suppose by your tone than you would expect the same from me... and that's fine, I have no problem with it, or desire in that regard here on this board.
I simply posted a tribute to my father and and then responded to those who responded with what I consider to be a warped and misguided sense of various aspects of history (just like you feel about me) on this thread where it was neither asked for or expected-and this irrespective of the fact that I do believe that the historical record has been manipulated by those who would create the globalist socio-fascist "governance that I have alluded to...just not to the extent or in the specific directions that you carry it).
See the [url=http://www.petitiononline.com/usdeclar]Modern American Declaration[/url] for an example. Perhaps we can discuss (without trying to cram theories down one another's throats) issues like that on another thread sometime, but I will not discuss it here on this tribute to my father.
So, in the end, I stand resolutely by all that I have posted here in response to those posts (which now would include your own) that took issue with what they wanted to turn into the political aspects (where none existed) of the simple goal of this thread... a tribute to my father.
2003-06-16 13:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by Jeff Head+Jun 16 2003, 06:27 -->
QUOTE (Jeff Head @ Jun 16 2003, 06:27 ) <!--QuoteBegin-NeoNietzsche@Jun 15 2003, 23:43 * ... an informed American public could and should have resisted war even given Pearl harbor and the German declaration.* Listen to yourself.**
Shocking, isn't it, to read such a proposition? That the world would have been a much better and safer place today, if the Judeo-Communist regime, which fooled your dad and mine into risking their lives in the service of the Soviet and of Jewry, had been thwarted by an educated Congress and a genuinely republican general public.
Well, you and others have your opinion of history and your interpretation of it and you are free to have it and voice it.
To speak of mere "opinion" and "interpretation" in regard to matters overwhelmingly decidable on the basis of the vast body of knowledge outside the confinement of the PC "propasphere" (as Triskelion calls it) is yet to declare one's basic hostage status thereto (despite your claiming to have something of a weekend pass).
I happen to disagree with major portions of it (all of the part about Germany and Japan somehow standing up for the White race and being somehow our Savior), and tend to agree with some aspects (the manipulations of a select elite with the aim of creating a socio-fascist world governance).
Perhaps one's agreements and disagreements should first be troubled with an accurate characterization of the propositions to be evaluated.
Having said that, I did not come here to be instructed by you or to be helped, no more than I would suppose by your tone than you would expect the same from me...
You err yet again, Jeff, in that I do propose to be instructed by you and by all others here - as you now evidence, with the very product of your own fingertips, that now-confessed disinclination which we may reasonably suspect as a prime malefactor in the educational handicap under which you labor in this venue.
I simply posted a tribute to my father...
No, you didn't. You have repeatedly posited a fundamental untruth regarding the global geopolitical foundations of the past half-century.
Jeff Head
2003-06-16 14:11 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Jun 16 2003, 07:27 * ** No you didn't*
Actually...yes I did.
I guess you believe you can read minds and judge intent based soley on an initial post. As if though parsing each individual thought and responding to it with your version of events (which I already knbow you view as fact, but which I certainly do not) makes that possible. Pretty full of yourself from my perspective...actually, pretty sad...and somewhat revealing in and of itself.
Apparently you cannot just let it go. On a thread that is explicitly about someone else honoring their father, you feel the need to interject you version of events, even when it has been stated clearly to you that it is not what the original poster intended to discuss, or is in any agreement with. My advise would be for you to reflect on your apparent need to do that...but it's just my advise, take it or leave it, it didn't cost you a dime.
For me, that's more than enough. Long experience has taught that when someone starts on a particular mantra like this, that there is little or no purpose in continuing the tinkling contest.
Speak and quote to your heart's content, I stand resolutely by what I have stated on this thread. No need to refer to either of our (I am sure) vast bodies of resources. Bottom line is that we are absolutely not going to agree... I am happy to cut to that chase as quickly as possible and just leave it at that.
For anyone so interested, whether they agree or not, I'm happy to let my posts to date on this thread stand on their own. EOT.
jay
2003-06-16 14:55 | User Profile
*Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Jun 15 2003, 17:56 * ** Jay! Long time no see. Stick around, will you? If you leave again, who will be there to restore the balance against the posters who are rude? Aren't you replicating, at the cyberspace level, the phenomenon of "white flight." Turn that flight response into a fight response. ...well, ok, I admit that last slogan sounds rather cheerleader-ish in print.
But let me tell you about that Vietnam war, now that you mention it, because you know.... Just kidding! :lol: **
Vietnam was crap, I honestly would have been conflicted on what to do. In hindsight, I'd have high-tailed it to Canada in the blink of an eye. But back then, people didn't know what they were doing.
I don't have any problem with those that served our country, even tho I have major problems with our GOVT's reasoning for doing so. I still stand in respect of armed officers on Memorial Day, b/c they've lived thru things I cannot imagine.
It's not their fault that our GOVT is a disgrace or that our nation is crumbling.
-Jay
weisbrot
2003-06-16 15:34 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Jeff Head@Jun 16 2003, 10:11 * ** Bottom line is that we are absolutely not going to agree... I am happy to cut to that chase as quickly as possible and just leave it at that.
**
Sounds to me like Mr. Head is bringing some needed alternative perspective to this board.
Quite a few individuals on this board have related they held views similar to yours at one time. Research and observation have brought many to a different perspective, at the least.
A good example of the kind of reading and observation that sparks these new perspectives would be this excellent, timely and revealing article posted and discussed elsewhere on OD:
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46842-2003Jun11.html]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Jun11.html[/url] "Lord of the Flies"
The perspective on this article (and many other similar accounts of a certain dynamic that can be found on OD) that you'll often often find on this board might best be explored via the works of Kevin MacDonald. MacDonald's seminal work, Culture of Critique, explores the types of behavior explored in the above-referenced article, and posits that this type of behavior is a group survival strategy rooted in the racial and cultural unity promoted by Judaism. Your recognition of a tendency towards a globalist governance could perhaps be further developed through a reading of MacDonald's work. One of the best introductions to this important study can be found on MacDonald's own website in the published reviews- both positive and negative- of C of C, or in this review also linked off MacDonald's site:
[url=http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol1no2/hp-macdonald.html]http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol1no2/...-macdonald.html[/url]
If you're interested in continuing a discussion along the topical lines introduced on this thread, a quick read of the Post article followed by some rewarding minutes absorbing the OQ's review of the theories posited in Culture of Critique would be helpful as well as perhaps personally enriching.
MacDonald's home page: [url=http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/]http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/[/url]
NeoNietzsche
2003-06-16 17:40 | User Profile
Originally posted by Jeff Head@Jun 16 2003, 08:11 * On a thread that is explicitly about someone else honoring their father, you feel the need to interject you[r] version of events, even when it has been stated clearly to you that it is not what the original poster intended to discuss, or is in any agreement with. My advi[c]e would be for you to reflect on your apparent need to do that...but it's just my advi[c]e, take it or leave it, it didn't cost you a dime.*
Jeff, my "version" of events is the version, uncontested by all parties and merely suppressed and ignored for the sake of maintaining such as yourself in ignorance in this regard. There is no question, no controversy, regarding the circumstance of the Germans and the Japanese inextricably mired in Russia and China, only fractional portions of which they were able to occupy and govern, to the absolute exclusion of any capability or intention to interfere with authentic American interests. Your putatively "factual" contrary position can thus only hope to be based upon the now-only-too-familiar Jewish/Zionist propaganda (a' la Frank Capra's "Why We Fight" fairy tale) about "madmen" insanely intent upon world conquest and shaking hands in Iowa (as the vile and mendacious tyrant, FDR, ludicrously had it for his gullible radio audience of "republicans" in February, '43).
Pretty full of yourself from my perspective...actually, pretty sad...and somewhat revealing in and of itself.
No, Jeff - what is sad, obscenely sad, is demonstrably superior peoples such as German and Japanese civilians having been turned into human torches by fatuously ignorant, self-styled "republicans," who survive in such form even to this day, despite the ready availability of corrective information and instruction. My fullness with myself, whatever its measure and revelatory value, is of no consequence in comparison with the import of that issue.
Speak and quote to your heart's content, I stand resolutely by what I have stated on this thread. No need to refer to either of our (I am sure) vast bodies of resources.
I cannot resist the suggestion, implicit in what little you evidently know, that your "body of resources" sounds like a stack of past issues of the "New American" at best. Your "resoluteness" bespeaks an invincible commitment to preconceived ideological and theological constructs, rather than a dedication to investigation of the truth, however disappointing that truth might be.
Franco
2003-06-16 19:36 | User Profile
How ironic, this.
Since this thread was moved, it is no longer "about Head's father." Why does he keep saying "my father?"
Head would not have been born if his father was killed fighting for World Jewry.
Does Head doubt that FDR pushed for war very early, or, sided with the murderous Soviets way back in 1933, before Hitler was even a threat? I am confused as to which part of History [oops, Jewstory] NeoNietzsche is "wrong" about. Tell us, Mr. Head? Which part of the above is "wrong?"
Read "A Conversation In Germany" concerning FDR/Germany: [url=http://cptwc.matriots.com/Conversation.html]http://cptwc.matriots.com/Conversation.html[/url]
triskelion
2003-06-16 22:37 | User Profile
With respect to Mr Head it should be stated quite clearly that it was rude, as well as bad tactics, for Franco to raise the matter at hand in a thread he started to honour his father. I for one believe that Mr. Head's father was like the veterans of most wars sincere and well meaning in his intentions. I also will grant that it is are easier with hindsight to see that one has been lied to and manipulated to serve a cause that was ultimately wrong as it should be clear that most veterans on all sides (save the Soviets themselves) attempted to serve with loyalty and honour to their nations and that they should not be roundly condemned for not understanding that the powers of the state are rarely used in service of one's nation.
That being said no valid reason exists for simply parroting the Jewish propaganda of the era as almost all Americans are content to do. While I had several relatives that fought and died fighting the twin evils of American cultural Bolshevism/social democracy and it's inevitable consequence known as Stalinism my views on the matter have not been shaped by them as I only learned about them a few years back.
Rather, it seems better to point out the great number of action undertaken by the U.S. and the U.K. to start the worst war in history just as it makes sense to point out that Germany lacked the means and desire to attack the U.S. inspite of intentional provocations. It also makes sense to point out the grotesquely sanctimonious posturing in those that speak with hushed reverence about the morality of a war effort allied with Stalin that purposely incinerated millions of Japanese and Germans civilians with atomic weapons and mass incendiaries. It is just and reasonable to point out the vile inhumanity turned lose upon hundreds of millions of Occidentals in Eastern and Central Europa by America's decision to allow Stalin control over those areas. Like wise the moral poverty of the allies should be exposed by honestly addressing the vast suffering and extermination visited upon racial Germans after the war via pogroms, torture, executions and enforced starvation both the Americans, the Soviets and their client states. We should also address the American role in establishing anti Occidental mechanism of legal oppression in the West and consider what impact the occupation has had upon the decline of Europa in biologic and cultural terms.
It seems to me that moral Americans capable of critical thinking should have noted that the suffering of millions and deaths of hundreds of thousands of your countrymen were not in your nation's interests and fully avoidable would be a cause of outrage rather then pride. Certainly, a recognition of the realities mentioned above would be called for along with a re-examination of the era in general from a standpoint not fully endorsed by the ADL.
In the end, I am not very interested in spending much time on the era but rather dealing with practical matters that concern Occidentals world wide today. A good deal of material on the matter is to be found at the best American website I know of: www.library.flawlesslogic.com
Valley Forge
2003-06-17 00:21 | User Profile
Jeff Head,
With all due respect sir, you need to wake up.
Your father fought for the wrong side, as did my both of my grandfathers and four of my great uncles.
Although they all survived the war, I'm thankful most of them didn't live to see what America has become
Ruffin
2003-06-17 00:51 | User Profile
My father fought in WWII also, and he lived to see the results. Living in Georgia and South Carolina during the Jewish "civil rights" era, he unhesitatingly connected the dots. And it still took research on my part to shake my own Jewish programming.
Faust
2003-06-17 03:22 | User Profile
WWII was the most tragic thing ever to happen to our Civilization. We might remember that the Great German Patriots Hindenburg and Kaiser Wilhelm II both disliked Hitler. That said I fear he was a lesser evil than Stalin. I read the failed German A-bomb builder Werner Heisenberg also disliked Hitler, but worked for Germany Victory in it's fight to stop Marxism. The US gave Europe to Stalin on a silver platter in 1945. The only winner of WWII was Marxism. If General Patton had been given a free hand much Europe could been saved. The US could have taken most all of Germany some of Eastern Europe.
General George S. Patton was a good and wise man.
**"The noise created against me is only the means by which the Jews and communists are attempting, and with good success, to implement a further dismemberment of Germany."
"We have destroyed what could have been a good race of people and we are about to replace them with mongolian savages and all of Europe with communism."
"I had never heard that we fought to 'de-Nazify' Germany. Live and learn. What we are doing is to utterly destroy the only semi-modern state in Europe so that Russians can swallow the whole."
"The more I see of people, the more I regret that I survived the war."
"The attitude of the American people as evinced by the press and the radio is such that I am inclined to think that I made a great mistake in serving them for nearly forty years."
~ General George S. Patton, Jr. **
on a related note. Neo-Fascist? by Humberto Fontova [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=8562]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...?showtopic=8562[/url]
Faust
2003-06-17 03:28 | User Profile
Ruffin,
Great Post! All too True!
My father fought in WWII also, and he lived to see the results. Living in Georgia and South Carolina during the Jewish "civil rights" era, he unhesitatingly connected the dots.
You are most Right! After WWII the marxist turned the War inward. WWII became a war to fight "Racism" and America the new "NAZI" state that needed to be destroyed. This gave us the FDR/Warren Court and the "Civil Rights" Laws. And worst of all it gave us the 1965 Immigration Act, and mass non-European Immigration.
Sisyfos
2003-06-17 04:30 | User Profile
The territorial and strategic designs harboured by the major players prior to WWII were as follows:
Germany sought to acquire Russian territory up to the Urals. The Slavic populations of the small states caught in the middle would have likely shared in the fate of Russians, i.e., reduction in status to second-class citizens or deportation, possibly to Siberia. The population of Bohemia proper, for example, was slated for either Germanization or deportation to be followed by German colonization, but the matter was never really settled, and, naturally, sentiments differed with passage of time, fortunes of war, and extent of resistance in the protectorate. How the populations of Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and Bulgaria would have made out or what variant of sovereignty they would have indulged in following a German victory is anyoneââ¬â¢s guess, given that they occupied real estate between the pre-war Reich and the Ukraine, the designated heartland of the future Greater Reich.
USSR made arrangements to conquer Europe at least as far as the Rhine, and the plan was weeks from implementation when Barbarossa struck. But this is a modest assessment for in practical terms there is nothing that would have prevented the Jew inspired Soviet from imposing Bolshevism on the entire continent.
England under Chamberlain sought to prevent German hegemony on the continent a la WWI. Under Churchill she aimed to destroy Germany and eliminate her as an economic competitor.
America, or FDR to be more precise, also sought to eliminate Germany as a state of consequence. It is also evident that Roosevelt was more sympathetic to the Soviet and was careful to refrain from pronouncing on the ideal outcome in Europe, save obviously the destruction of Germany (Churchillââ¬â¢s feelings were plain: he wanted a fight to the death--preferably fatal to both Hun and Cossack).
These were the respective objectives and they are incontrovertible. Details do not alter the underlying aims. The reciprocal aims of Germany and USSR imply that war was inevitable on that front. What ought to be reprehensible from an American standpoint is the involvement of the English-speaking nations in a conflict to which, owing to absence of war aims pertaining to tangible self-interest, England was a third party at best and US had no standing whatsoever.
Japanââ¬â¢s designs in Far-East Asia do not factor into the War aims of Westerners. She was involved in a parallel war, taking place on opposite side of the globe and the country, by virtue of an ââ¬Åallianceââ¬Â with Germany, was merely the vehicle of convenience by which FDR engineered US involvement in the European War. It should be noted that the German/Japan alliance was in name only and failed to produce a single instance of strategic cooperation in either theatre of war. Though I understand that elements of the Kriegsmarine and the Imperial Japanese Navy have met once or twice in the Indian Ocean (likely to exchange souvenirs and pleasantries).
We examine the events of the past from two vantage points: the contemporary or what we imagine to be contemporary, and the present. The former brings recognition of sacrifices made by participants, our ancestors, and the desire to give their deeds meaning. This is natural but I do not grasp the reluctance on the part of some to acknowledge that the efforts of those that came before have been channelled in the wrong direction and therefore ultimately disastrous as concerning subsequent generations. There is in my mind no discrepancy between this acknowledgment, always tempered by their not being situated to perceive the same, and the continued recognition of their contributions in other spheres of life, as well as simply being our forefathers.
Only the present vantage point is of interest today since the baggage of yesteryears shape todayââ¬â¢s politics. The inability of the masses to perceive the fraud that is the official history of WWII is significant because it places limits on corrective measures that are at once necessary and unpalatable.
The fate of the ââ¬Åvictorsââ¬Â is instructive: England is an empire no more and the small island itself is undergoing colonization at rate that allows us to estimate with some certainty the date when the heretofore dominant racial group ceases to be a majority. The US appears to hold steady on a course the Fuehrerââ¬â¢s prescience had warned us about. The link between current events and the outcome of WWII is plain. The inability of the masses to perceive the same is a hindrance to change that could avert the downfall of Western civilization. Understanding true motives of participants in WWII is a prerequisite for offloading this baggage.
jamestown
2003-06-17 07:46 | User Profile
Good post Sisyfos.
It seems to me that Americans on the rightwing regret their entrance into WWII. I should remind you that American forces entered Europe in 1944, but the German armed forces were in full retreat ever since the Stalingrad debacle and the failed Kursk tank campaigned. So I do not know how far America's involvement really affected Germany's prospect of victory. People might argue that Britain's neutrality in that war might have given the Germans more opportunity to direct all their war efforts towards the Soviets. But I guess that the German armed forces were deployed in the east up to 90% of their total strength, so I doubt that the remaining 10% troups in North Africa and along the Atlantic shore as well as Crete might have changed the outcome of the war. What the American involvement ensured was that the Soviets were stopped at the Elbe river. The Germans back then were not able to stop them anymore, and Stalin might have pushed his troups at least up to the Rhine River, if not even into France. So I see the American presence as a lesser evil. Given the fact, that the multiculturalization only happened in American occupied Europe, while the Russians pretty much did not change demographics and culture in their area, one might ask the question whether a total Soviet victory was a desirable alternative in the context of racial survival.
Campion Moore Boru
2003-06-17 08:22 | User Profile
I don't know how far you mimic your avatar's feelings on this, WeiB.
For FR, I was a "neo-nazi Bunder." Here I guess I'm a "liberal."
We should'nt have gotten involved in the War to Kill Your Brother II, on either side. Contrary to some, what I consider revisionist History, NS Germany was first and foremost about Germans and Germany. It was much less a war to save the West from Kahnunism, although there was some rhetoric to that effect, and the two melded nicely propagandistically.
Personally, I would've rooted for the Germans against the Bolsheviks and the Brits after they became involved for 'moral' reasons (coughbullshitecough). But as to some of the more extreme fantasies of the Party to turn Ukraine and Rus west of the Volga into German colonial provinces, I don't regret it didn't come to pass.
Again, contrary to the temporal manipulations of some, Opa Adolf's crusade was not for Pan-Europa, it was for Pan-Germanis. Nothing wrong with that, hell, the Germans were dismembered at Versailles, and had ethnic land stolen from them.
weisbrot
2003-06-17 13:19 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Campion Moore Boru@Jun 17 2003, 04:22 * ** I don't know how far you mimic your avatar's feelings on this, WeiB.
**
I'm not necessarily trying to mimic Lindbergh, but one could do worse.
I do think he would have welcomed open debate on most any topic, especially U.S. involvement in the European war:
[R. Douglas] Stuart says he is having trouble buying radio time for the America First Committee. Some of the radio stations have taken the stand that the committee has to do with a ââ¬Åcontroversial issueââ¬Â and therefore comes under the code they have formed against selling time for controversial issues. It is a fine state of affairs if the question of war and peace cannot be debated before the American people because it is a ââ¬Åcontroversial issue.ââ¬Â (Tuesday, October 1, 1940)
Some other interesting quotes from Lindbergh's Wartime Journals:
*Survival of the West
Sometimes I feel like saying: ââ¬ÅWell, letââ¬â¢s get into the war if you are so anxious to. Then the responsibility will be yours.ââ¬Â In comparison to the work I am now doing, the fighting would be fun. But my mind tells me that we better face our problems and let Europe face hers without getting messed up in this war. I have an interest in Western civilization, and I have an interest in my race, or culture, or whatever you want to call it, and I have an interest in the type of world my children are going to live in. That is why I will probably stay on the stump with the pacifists and why I will resign my commission if necessary and never regret my action in doing so. This war is a mistake; we will only bring disaster if we enter it; we will do no good either to Europe or ourselves, and therefore I am going to put everything I have behind staying out.
No one, not even Germany, was more responsible for the conditions which caused this war than England and France. They declared the war without consulting us. If it were possible to help them win, the result would probably be Versailles all over again. Europe must straighten out her own family affairs. Our interference would simply cause another postponement, as the last war did. Europe faces adjustments that must be made, and only she can work out what they are going to be. (Friday, April 25, 1941)
Who Favors War?
The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to it, but the administration seems to have ââ¬Åthe bit in its teethââ¬Â and hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in this country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and radio and most of our motion pictures. There are also the ââ¬Åintellectuals,ââ¬Â and the ââ¬ÅAnglophiles,ââ¬Â and the British agents who are allowed free rein, the international financial interests and many others. (Thursday, May 1, 1941)
A Narrow Escape
We were met at the Minneapolis airport by various members of the local America First Committee and driven to the La Salle Hotel, where I was given the ââ¬ÅNordic Suite.ââ¬Â What a press story that could make. But ââ¬ÅNordicââ¬Â out here doesnââ¬â¢t mean what it does in the east. In Minnesota the word ââ¬ÅNordicââ¬Â has no anti-Semitic taint. And the situation is probably saved because, as I learned soon after arrival, [British diplomat] Lord Halifax and his party stayed in this same suite and left only yesterday. (Saturday, May 10, 1941)
The People vs. the Press
As I go around to these meetings I feel that, without question, if this country is run by [the] people, we will not enter this war. I always feel this way after one of our meetings is over; but I know that tomorrow, or the day after, as I read the misinformation and propaganda in our newspapers, I will begin to wonder whether people can withstand such a barrage indefinitely. And even if they can withstand it, will popular opinion be enough to keep us out of the war? Which is stronger, the money and power and propaganda pushing us into war, or the will of the people to stay out? (Saturday, May 10, 1941)
A Prejudiced Press
American press accounts of the war are so prejudiced and confused that it is almost impossible to obtain a balanced picture. Reports from Russia are headlined while those from Germany are played down, although the latter are certainly the most accurate. Results of Royal Air Force raids over the [European] continent are exaggerated, while results of German raids over England are minimized. The result is that the impression given by our newspapers is far more favorable to the British cause than is warranted by the facts. (Saturday, June 28, 1941)
Media Lies and Misinformation
The newspapers continue to misquote my address and to remove sentences from their context. Sometimes what they carry between quotation marks is completely made up and does not even approximate what I have said, or even what I believe. (Thursday, July 3, 1941)
On Having his Phone Tapped
Captain Smith (of America First) came at 3:30. He had phoned to say he had an urgent message that he must deliver personally. The message is that the FBI began tapping our telephone last Saturday and has a constant watch on it. The men in the FBI are, according to Smith, on the whole, friendly; they are simply following out orders. Smith says the America First telephones are also tapped. I told him to tell everyone in America First that there was nothing we wished to hide and that if our phones were tapped we should speak more plainly, rather than less plainly in the future. I told him to tell his friends on the FBI that if there was anything they didnââ¬â¢t understand in my own phone conversations, I would give them additional information. Captain Smith says he is certain the phones are tapped and that the information came from friends of his on the FBI, who are also friendly to me. Personally, I think it is probable that they are tapped, but I still have some question. It really makes very little difference as far as I am concerned. My main interest lies in knowing whether or not these tactics are being used by the administration. (Monday, July 7, 1941)
Three Groups Promoting War
When I mentioned [in a speech in Des Moines] the three major groups agitating for warââ¬âthe British, the Jewish and the Roose velt administrationââ¬âthe entire audience seemed to stand and cheer. At that moment whatever opposition existed was complete ly drowned out by our support. (Thursday, September 11, 1941)
The Unmentionable Subject
My Des Moines address has caused so much controversy that Gen. [Robert] Wood has decided to hold a meeting of the America First National Committee in Chicago. I must, of course, attend. I felt I had worded my Des Moines address carefully and moderately. It seems that almost anything can be discussed today in America except the Jewish problem. The very mention of the word ââ¬ÅJewââ¬Â is a cause for a storm. Personally, I feel that the only hope for a moderate solution lies in an open and frank discussion. (Monday, September 15, 1941)
Private Candor vs. Public Reticence
[America First leader] John Flynn came at 11:00, and we talked the situation over for an hour. Flynn says he does not question the truth of what I said at Des Moines, but feels it was inadvisable to mention the Jewish problem. It is difficult for me to understand Flynnââ¬â¢s attitude. He feels as strongly as I do that the Jews are among the major influences pushing this country toward war. He has said so frequently, and he says so now. He is perfectly willing to talk about it among a small group of people in private. But apparently he would rather see us get into the war than mention in public what the Jews are doing, no matter how tolerantly and moderately it is done. (Thursday, September 18, 1941)
Truth Not Important to Press
The opposition paper here [Ft. Wayne, Indiana] is carrying a large advertisement in which statements are attributed to me which I never made. As far as the ââ¬Åwar partyââ¬Â is concerned, what I actually say seems to be of little importance. They quote me as saying what they wish or think that I said. They do not bother to refer to my addresses, which are all available; at best, they refer to some garbled newspaper account. The result is that I am often quoted as saying things which I not only never said, but which I never believed. (Friday, October 3, 1941)
Catholic Leaders Oppose the War
We returned to the hotel after the meeting. People kept coming up to the room until 12:30. Father [John] Oââ¬â¢Brien [of Notre Dame Univer sity] showed me a telegram he had just received, to the effect that a poll of the Catholic hierarchy showed that ninety percent were opposed to entering the war. (Friday, October 3, 1941)
Popular Opinion vs. War Propaganda
[The] strength and influence [of the America First movement] is growing rapidly, but the power of our opposition is great. The amazing thing is not that we are so close to war but that we have been able to hold the war forces back as long as we have. Their ranks include the American government, the British government, the Jews, and the major portion of the press, radio, and motion-picture facilities of the country. We have on our side the mass of the people, but it is a question of how long the people can withstand the flood of propaganda with which the country is being covered. They have no accurate source of information to which to turn. Also, regardless of the attitude of our people, it is a question as to whether the president will force us into war by actions and incidents which will make it unavoidable. He is in a position where he can force war on us whether we want it or not. (Saturday, October 4, 1941)*
weisbrot
2003-06-17 13:25 | User Profile
Below are Lindbergh's thoughts after reviewing and preparing his journals from 1938-1945 for publication, in a 1970 letter to his publisher. It is worth noting that Lindbergh served with distinction in the Pacific.
*You ask what my conclusions are, rereading my journals and looking back on World War II from the vantage point of a quarter-century in time. We won the war, in a military sense; but, in a broader sense, it seems to me we lost it, for our Western civilization is less respected and secure than it was before.
In order to defeat Germany and Japan, we supported the still greater menaces of Russia and Chinaââ¬âwhich now confront us in a nuclear-weapon era. Poland was not saved. The British empire has broken down with great suffering, bloodshed, and confusion. England is an economy-constricted secondary power. France had to give up her major colonies and turn to a mild dictatorship herself. Much of our Western culture was destroyed. We lost the genetic heredity formed through eons in many million lives. Meanwhile, the Soviets have dropped their iron curtain to screen off Eastern Europe, and an antagonistic Chinese government threatens us in Asia.
More than a generation after the warââ¬â¢s end, our occupying armies still must occupy, and the world has not been made safe for democracy and freedom. On the contrary, our own system of democratic government is being challenged by that greatest of dangers to any government: internal dissatisfaction and unrest.
It is alarmingly possible that World War II marks the beginning of our Western civilizationââ¬â¢s breakdown, as it already marks the breakdown of the greatest empire ever built by man. Certainly our civilizationââ¬â¢s survival depends on meeting the challenges that tower before us with unprecedented magnitude in almost every field of modern life. Most of these challenges were, at least, intensified through the waging of World War II.
Are we now headed toward a third and still more disastrous war between world nations? Or can we improve hu man relationships sufficiently to avoid such a holocaust? Since it is inherent in the way of life that issues will continue between men, I believe human relationships can best be improved through clarifying the issues and conditions surrounding them.
I hope my journals relating to World War II will help clarify issues and conditions of the past and thereby contribute to understanding issues and conditions of the present and the future.*
Lindbergh died having never apologized for his Des Moines speech.
edward gibbon
2003-06-17 16:00 | User Profile
Leland Gaunt:> ** The comments on Germanys plans for the east are just about as credible as reading tea-leaves. Most of you anglo-saxons view this from a pretex that Germany somehow was agressive and imperialist and thus there must be a shred of truth to the postwar allegations.
Well, lets look at the facts.
If Germany wanted to expand its territory at the costs of the mentioned nations, then it wouldn't have bothered helping Slovakia and Croatia gain independence. The NS ideology is based on the principle of ethnic homogenety. If Germany had plans to anex Hungary, Roumania ect. then it wouldn't have bothered helping Hungaria regain its lost provinces from Roumania through the Vienna accord in 1941. It wouldn't have bothered to restore the baltic states and it wouldn't have bothered with a "Generalgouverment" but rather annexed entire Poland.
You also forget why the War broke out. That it became a world War was not Germanys fault. It just wanted Danzig and its lost provinces in the east back. Poland ón the other hand wanted to expand towards the west. If we would have gotten what we wanted from Poland, then there would have been no need for War. We had good relations to our neighbours slovakia, Hungary, Roumania, Italy, the low countries.**
From my book War, Money and American Memory: Myths of Virtue, Valor and Patriotism:> The great understanding of the Rapallo Treaty in 1922 with all its secret codicils was enunciated by General Hans von Seeckt, aristocratic Chief of Staff of the German Army: Russians and Germans mutually agreed that the state of Poland had no right to exist. Seeckt was advising the Weimar government: "Poland's existence is intolerable, incompatible with the essential conditions of German life. Poland must go and will go.... With the disappearance of Poland will fall one of the strongest pillars of the Versailles Peace, the hegemony of France". A Chinese officer was so impressed with Seeckt and other German advisors, especially von Falkenhausen, that he posed the conditional conjecture that if the Germans had two more years in China, the Japanese would have faced a far different foe. Continued German influence may have even enlisted the Chinese on the side of the Germans and changed the balance of power in the world. Lest the reader think the Germans were there in significant numbers the numbers given by the New York Herald Tribune for the total number of German advisors in the ten year period from 1928 to 1938 was 137 Germans with a maximum number of 64 in 1934. It was more than a little discomforting that this Chinese author did not think the later American effort under Chennault and Stilwell was near the standard set by the Germans even considering the much greater number of Americans and amount of war materiel sent by the United States. ** Seeckt was regarded as the most influential German General of World War II by British military historian, Liddell Hart. Quite an honor considering he died in 1936. Jamestown:> ** I should remind you that American forces entered Europe in 1944, but the German armed forces were in full retreat ever since the Stalingrad debacle and the failed Kursk tank campaigned. So I do not know how far America's involvement really affected Germany's prospect of victory. People might argue that Britain's neutrality in that war might have given the Germans more opportunity to direct all their war efforts towards the Soviets. But I guess that the German armed forces were deployed in the east up to 90% of their total strength, so I doubt that the remaining 10% troups in North Africa and along the Atlantic shore as well as Crete might have changed the outcome of the war. What the American involvement ensured was that the Soviets were stopped at the Elbe river. The Germans back then were not able to stop them anymore, and Stalin might have pushed his troups at least up to the Rhine River, if not even into France. So I see the American presence as a lesser evil.
From my book:> According to official Wehrmacht statistics, German casualties from June 22, 1941 to December 31, 1943, including dead, missing and wounded, totaled 3.726 million with 3.513 million of them coming on the Eastern front. Over 94 percent of German losses occurred on the Soviet front, and if the remaining 6 percent were inflicted in other theaters, the American share of that would be about one-half at most. What this meant was that during this period for every casualty inflicted by the American military well over 30 were inflicted by the Red Army. By the end of 1944 the Germans had lost over 2.5 million dead or missing on the Eastern Front.
Franco and Jeff Head> ** Franco, it would be more accurate to say that we were fighting (for the last 3 years) with communism as opposed to saying we were fighting for communism. Big difference.
The fact is, those millions were fighting for our Republic as I stated, despite the manueverings, propaganda and deciet of FDR. Had they not fought, the NAZIS and Japanese would have won and certainly been much more destructive of the Republic than the victory we got, despite the way we allowed the Communists to gobble up eastern Europe and the ideological and legislative losses we experienced here.
[color=red]Please don't sully the names, memory, experiences and valor of hundreds of thousands by indicating that they were not fighting for our Republic. [/color]To state otherwise is to be blind to the facts of the day...despite the betrayals that you and I know occurred. The fact is that many of them, including my father, a U.S. Navy officer, knew of and understood the actions of FDR and did not support them...but they also knew that they had to defeat the Japanese and Nazis even if it meant fighting against them at the same time the Soviets were. Most men fought for their friends, their unit and their pride. Patriotism was far from their mind. Jeff Head: > [color=red]The decision was made for us on Dec 7, 1941...despite all of the allegations and issues surrounding that attack. Irrespective of your belief regarding FDR's knowledge of it, the Japanese attacked us in a calculated and deadly way and killed thousands of Americans in an act of War[/color]. Hitler declared war on us immediately after. Those are the decisions that led to our direct combat involvement. Your statements about "who are we to decide" are utter nonsense both logically and historically on that particular point.
We did not "decide" to do these things, they were pressed upon us. My grandparents lost an only son in that conflict, my mother her only brother. Historian Charles Beard places the entry of America into World War II in March 1941 when we passed the Lend-Lease Act. A West Point history book agrees and states Germany could jusitifiably passed a declaration of war From my book on Japanese sneak attacks:> To the present day many Americans have continued to believe the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor to be treachery unequalled in the annals of mankind. Yet when China, Russia, France, Great Britain and the United States convened to form the United Nations in World War II, their great common bond was being attacked without warning by Japan within the preceding half century. From the sinking of the Chinese troop ship, Kow Shing, in 1894 to December 7, 1941 the knights of Bushido had not bothered to declare war before assaulting the five nations forming the Security Council of the United Nations. The Japanese sneak attack at Port Arthur against Russia in 1904 brought respectful compliments from American cultural icons such as Teddy Roosevelt and the New York Times. [color=blue]On February 13, 1904 the New York Times berated the Czar of Russia: "the point that the Japanese violated international law in going to war without a formal declaration would be of no importance if the Czar had not dignified it in raising it to the Russian people"[/color] and added "[color=blue]the practice of initiating war by formal declaration has gone out"[/color]. Rough Rider Teddy wrote his son on how pleased he was by Japan's stunning duplicity at Port Arthur. His sense of fair play was not affronted. While December 7, 1941 is still remembered as a day of infamy in America, no historical sense exists that other nations suffered similar faithless hostility. We have continued to reject history, not only our own, but especially other's, as a guide to human intercourse. Americans have preferred to rely on manifest nobility and being blessed by a kindly Providence to divine human actions.**
jamestown
2003-06-17 17:25 | User Profile
Caution, Lelant Gaunt
The history of WWII cannot be painted into black and white. The Germans supported Hungarian nationalists during WWII. Hungary lost 2/3 of its territory due to the Versailles treaty and was as angry as Germany. Hungary was Germany's most reliable ally. The Hungarian army surrendered to the American forces the same day as the German forces on Bavarian soil. One million Hungarians found refuge in Germany at the end of the war and were sent back by Eisenhower in operation "Kneehowl". Romania and Albania were two German allies, in contrast to Hitler's race theory. So overall, one cannot say that Germany was generally slavophobic.
But on the other hand, Germany's war aims were not altruistic. The major obsession of Hitler was to gain living space in the East. Actually, territorial expension was the most important war aim to him. Even one day before his suicide, on 29th April 1945, he still lectured the army officers that their most important task was to secure that territory. I should remind you that at that time the Red Army was already in Berlin, so one can clearly see the obsession that Hitler had with this idea. A few weeks ago I found an interesting book in the library that was explaining the "Generalplan Ost", signed by Himmler. I do not think that that plan was just another Allied war propaganda, as there are original SS plans depicting the plan. Furthermore Hitler was never shy about that plan.
What did the plan contain? The Czech republic was incorporated into the Empire and Goebbels made it clear that the Czechs have to accept German rule forever. Poland was devided into the Wartheland (Danzig hinterland) and the General Gouvernement. The Wartheland was directly incorporated into the Empire. The "Back to the Reich" compaign lured foreign born Germans into that area in order to turn demographics in favor of the Germans. The SS drew up plans how to keep the Polish birthrate as low as possible. Farmland was confiscated or bought and sold to German colonists. The idea was to turn Poland into a huge Westbank, with the Polish heartland mutulated into ever shrinking Bantustans surrounded by German settlements. Look at Israel to find out how the Nazis envisioned their future in Poland.
The three Baltic states Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia indeed regained independence once Germany invaded the Soviet Union. But the General Plan East considered a process of a one hundred years lasting process of assimilation of these nations into the German culture. The Nazis considered the Balts of the same racial stock as the Germans, so no plans of deportation or population exchange (Umvolkung) were planned in that area. But there were considerations to incorporate these states into the German empire or at least to rule them indirectly.
The White Russian republic was destined as a dumping ground for groups that were undesirable racially. The General Plan East considered the deportation of up to 30 million Eastern Europeans out of the German hemisphere far to the fringe of Europe. The Ukraine should become the major German colony. The native population was supposed to become a second class citizenry destined to work on German farms. The Crimearian peninsular was also destined to be swallowed up. The German government even had contracts with Holland concerning the donation of potential colonists. Germans were even paid to move to the East.
The program generally ended up as a disaster, because only very few Germans were interested in that program and had no interest in living a colonist's life in the East. For the Polish people, the Nazi plans meant national death. To be fair, one must say that Germany was not the only country that had territorial ambitions. Even in the 1920s Polish nationalists were dreaming of pushing Germany back to the Elbe river. The French were pushing for a Rhine border and even annexed the Rhine area in 1923. After the war they tried to incorporate the Saarland into their Republic. Finally even the Dutch wanted to get East Frisia after the war. Stalin insisted in getting Eastern Prussia and the Polish government in exile in London derived a plan in 1940 already that pushed for a Odera River border as it exists today. The Czechs were trying to get rid of the German minority in the 1920s that sparked the Sudeten crisis. Even today, the Czech government is pushing the Brussels bureaucracy to turn the Benesh decrets that legalized the forced expulsion of the Sudetengermans into European law. Italy incorporated parts of Tyrol and Mussolini, although officially an ally of Germany, suppressed the German minority. Even today there are nationality conflicts down there as Berlusconi has cut back autonomy laws in that region.
It is too simple to say that there are good and bad guys in Europe. Things aren't that easy and one should better say that there are only the strong and the weak in Europe. The continent is teeming with ethnic clashes (Basque Region, Flanders, Corse, Northern Ireland, Moldavia, Cyprus etc. ) and Central Europe is a particularly dangerous piece of real estate as this is literally the crossroads of Europe and of major strategic importance.
Sisyfos
2003-06-17 17:38 | User Profile
jamestown:
It seems to me that Americans on the rightwing regret their entrance into WWII.I should remind you that American forces entered Europe in 1944, but the German armed forces were in full retreat ever since the Stalingrad debacle and the failed Kursk tank campaigned. So I do not know how far America's involvement really affected Germany's prospect of victory.
There is no question that American military contribution to ââ¬Åvictory in Europeââ¬Â as is popularly understood is yet another in a long line of Hollywood originating gags. Apart from the U-boat war, Americaââ¬â¢s chief contribution to Europe was the noble work of the Eight Air Force. I knew that the Soviets dealt with the overwhelming bulk of German forces all by their lonesome right up until end of hostilities, but to a tune of Edward's 94% casualty rate, geez.
The logistical support furnished by the Americans to the Soviets is more difficult to evaluate. The thousands of planes and tanks shipped over were for the most part unsuited for war in the Eastern front, the armour in particular was next to useless. But the foodstuffs and trucks were badly needed and there is quite a bit of truth in the sentiment that Americans ââ¬Åput the Red Army on wheels,ââ¬Â while also contributing to avert starvation among their cannon fodder.
jamestown
2003-06-17 18:15 | User Profile
I have told you my background and so there is not a single drop of Polish blood in my veins. The relationship between the Germans and its Slavonic neighbours over the last 1500 years had always been one of intense hatred and still is so today. The question simply is, can we afford that any longer. Finally a hundred years ago every German school boy learned that there is eternal arch hostility with France. If people a hundred years ago had any idea of the demographic situation on this planet and been farsighted, we would not have the mess we are in today. German French cooperation is vital for Europe, and this has nothing to do whether the Germans and the French like each other on a personal level. To me the "French German Friendship" is more an elitist idea than something that has broad support among the population. The special relationship between the US and the UK may be much stronger. French culture has hardly any effect on German life in stark constrast to the Anglo-Saxon world by the way. But finally this alliance is based on common sense, even if it is not warm. The idea of a "German Polish" friendship is utopia. It will never gain much support from the common man. But finally, we must learn to see things from a different perspective. Conflicts in the 21th century will increasingly be intercivilizational. Islam-Christianity, China-America, Hinduism-Islam, Zionism-Islam, North-South, the African Chaos spilling over into other areas etc. National conflicts, on the other hand, have to take a back seat.
Sisyfos
2003-06-17 18:20 | User Profile
**If Germany wanted to expand its territory at the costs of the mentioned nations, then it wouldn't have bothered helping Slovakia and Croatia gain independence. The NS ideology is based on the principle of ethnic homogenety. If Germany had plans to anex Hungary, Roumania ect. then it wouldn't have bothered helping Hungaria regain its lost provinces from Roumania through the Vienna accord in 1941. It wouldn't have bothered to restore the baltic states and it wouldn't have bothered with a "Generalgouverment" but rather annexed entire Poland.
You also forget why the War broke out. That it became a world War was not Germanys fault. It just wanted Danzig and its lost provinces in the east back. Poland ón the other hand wanted to expand towards the west. If we would have gotten what we wanted from Poland, then there would have been no need for War. We had good relations to our neighbours slovakia, Hungary, Roumania, Italy, the low countries.**
Come now Leland, you protest too much. I do not think that anyone is being judgmental. Myself, I mere laid down the general war aims of the concerned parties and stated what likely would have materialized had the course war gone their way. The facts as they stand are bad enough for the victorious Allies, and there really is no need to make the Germans into Saints. Besides, no nation qualifies, certainly no viable nations do.
The desire for expansion is an innate characteristic of the state organisms and those that fail to heed its calling die sooner than most. Four hundred years ago, quite apart from the territory comprising the Holly Roman Empire, your German ââ¬Åethnicââ¬Â borders were roughly what they are now. The territory possessed by pre-WWI Germany was gained via natural population movements and wars of acquisition. It was lost in much the same fashion, albeit abruptly. Youââ¬â¢re pi**ed, and I would be as well were I German. But you canââ¬â¢t win them all, and real estate struggles of the past are insignificant next to the modern conflict which has across-the-board white racial extinction/absorption as its war aim.
Nor do ââ¬Åthe factsââ¬Â support you position of German benevolence. Since Jametown covered much Iââ¬â¢ll stick to few instances and the above comments. Mein Kampf was not a novel but a NS road map. Slovakia was puppet used to put pressure on Prague when that government still had teeth and a defendable boarder position. You received the Sudetenland so why march into Prague in 1939? After the partitioning of the corpse (return of minorities but not without some excesses), Slovakia got its reward and was eager to make friends with the German lest it risk loosing further territory to Hungary.
Concerning Yugoslavia, WWII was nothing but a cover for a civil war or Serbo-Croatian War to be more precise. Serbs had English backing and Croats were pro-German. That simple. Regarding occupied Poland let us not get into actual power comparisons between the ââ¬ÅGeneral Governmentââ¬Â and Berlin.
As for your ââ¬Ågood relationsââ¬Â with Italy and other minor allies it should be noted that the intensity of these love-ins tended to change with fortunes of war. When we talk of real politics it helps to be a cynic. Bottom line: prior to the war it was convenient to support ethnic minority demands, afterwards, wellââ¬Â¦ you take what your armed forces can bring you, as is human, ergo, as it should be.
You are German nationalist, which is fine, but you are not well versed in Eastern-European history, for your statements amount to slogans that might have been popular in Germany around WWII. Do not think it Gospel. The propaganda of Gobbels may have paled in comparison to what is peddled today but a great deal of it was propaganda nonetheless.
PS: An ounce of appreciation (or indifference, in lieu of misunderstanding) for "Czechiaââ¬â¢s" situation would be appreciated. After all we did furnish you with complete plans to the Maginot line and two armoured division, later seen in the Paris victory procession. The cheap labour too could use a smidgeon of recognition; just as Iââ¬â¢m cognisant of the injustices associated with what some have aptly named ââ¬Åour Klondikeââ¬Â in the immediate post-war period.
All fascinating and ironic to be sure, but ultimately irrelevant in comparison with our present dilemma.
edward gibbon
2003-06-17 19:07 | User Profile
Sisyfos > There is no question that American military contribution to ââ¬Åvictory in Europeââ¬Â as is popularly understood is yet another in a long line of Hollywood originating gags. Apart from the U-boat war, Americaââ¬â¢s chief contribution to Europe was the noble work of the Eight Air Force. I knew that the Soviets dealt with the overwhelming bulk of German forces all by their lonesome right up until end of hostilities, but to a tune of Edward's 94% casualty rate, geez.
The numbers were computed by a man named Sorge, born in Germany, but served as an American Air Force officer. The numbers apply only to geographical locatable (?) casualties.
According to official Wehrmacht statistics, German casualties from June 22, 1941 to December 31, 1943, including dead, missing and wounded, totaled 3.726 million with 3.513 million of them coming on the Eastern front. Over 94 percent of German losses occurred on the Soviet front, and if the remaining 6 percent were inflicted in other theaters, the American share of that would be about one-half at most. What this meant was that during this period for every casualty inflicted by the American military well over 30 were inflicted by the Red Army. By the end of 1944 the Germans had lost over 2.5 million dead or missing on the Eastern Front.
The great myth of aid through Murmansk so loved by the Larry Lawrences of the world.> The great supply route for the Soviets was the North Pacific from the American west coast to Vladivostok where the supply ships were reflagged American freighters. The Germans protested mightily to the Japanese that this resupply effort was hurting the German war effort on the eastern front, but the Japanese blithely replied the tonnage was much smaller than what the Germans claimed and was not war materiel. Colonel Saburo Hayashi writing for the Japanese public in 1951 and without histrionics of apology and vituperation outlined the course of the war for Japan. As a former military attaché in Moscow and chief of the Russian section of the Imperial General Headquarters, Hayashi understood his neighbor. In June 1944 he assumed charge of the Organization and Mobilization Section when the war became very critical. In April 1945 he became Military Secretary to the Minister of War, General Anami, who later committed seppuku after surrendering. His vantage point was at the highest level. He wrote of aid from America to the Soviet Union growing quickly in 1943 and estimated that over 200 planes per month crossed the Bering Strait from America to the Soviet Union. The Japanese further estimated that about 500,000 tons a month, a truly astonishing figure, of machinery and fuel were unloaded in the harbor of Vladivostok from America every month. [color=red](The supplies were carried in reflagged freighters. Prior to Pearl Harbor the Japanese agreed to permit Russia to receive non-military supplies in Vladivostok. The Germans complained bitterly, but the Japanese blithely lied and denied the Russians received any war materiel. The Japanese remembered only too well the beating they received from Zhukov and the Red Army in the summer of 1939.) [/color] The Japanese were never shy about putting their interests paramount. Nor, it should be added, were the Russians all that keen to help American efforts to fight the Japanese.
Gerald Weinberg, A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II, p404 (Cambridge Univ Press, 1994) Saburo Hayashi, Kogun: The Japanese Army in the Pacific War, ppv-ix, p169, (Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn, 1978 reprint) originally published in Japan as Taiheiyo Senso Rikusen Gaisi in 1951. Famine in India - (The cause of Rbanowitz's brain damage)> The allies were hardly blameless during the fighting although very few people today remember the famine in India, concentrated in the state of Bengal, in 1943 in the middle of the war. As with so much of Asia there was very little interest shown then or now on the extent of starvation in that cursed land. As there have been no hard numbers and no census taken of the victims, the unmistakable impression given the Indians has been that their people did not matter then and do not matter now. The estimates of 1.5 to 5 million dead in Bengal have not registered on American ears.
Many, many people died in what was called World War II. As Chou En Lai told James Reston, Americans relatively suffered very little damage. His opinion is shared by intelligent people from Tokyo through the Eurasian land mass to London and Dublin.
Faust
2003-06-17 19:12 | User Profile
There was never any reason why the US should have helped the Soviets. The Soviets would have been helpless without US food and aid. The Soviet would have starved without American wheat. And Remember America built the Factories that built the tanks that overran Europe in 1945!
edward gibbon
2003-06-17 19:22 | User Profile
Dr. Faustus: > There was never any reason why the US should have helped the Soviets. The Soviets would have been helpless without US food and aid. The Soviet would have starved without American wheat. And Remember America built the Factories that built the tanks that overran Europe in 1945!
An American who fought in Europe with a tank division wrote a book and made some interesting comments.
Belton Cooper, (foreword by Stephen Ambrose), Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II, Presidio, 1998> ** Page vi Ambrose mentioned not one of the deficiencies noted by Cooper in the book. Ambrose stated he quoted extensively from it in his own Citizen Soldiers. Ambrose believed that was the highest compliment he could give.Page xiv Of all of his friends assigned to combat positions- in the infantry, tanks, combat engineers, or as artillery forward observers - not one made it from Normandy to Germany without being killed or severely wounded.
Pp8-9 Bocage Normandy countryside had deep rich topsoil without stones and to mark fields rows of trees or hedges were planted. Erosion left the hedgerows, 6 to 8 feet high and 10 to 12 feet wide at the base. Reinforced by roots these natural fortifications could not be penetrated by tanks. These fields extended inland from 10 to 40 miles. German generals had a formidable defense against armored and infantry troops. Even the vaunted Maginot and Siegfried lines paled in comparison.
Pp20-1 Isolationist Congress refused to fund tank development. A brilliant engineer name J. Walter Christie developed a new suspension system for the hull and took it to Russia where its genius was appreciated. They used it and later so did the Germans.
P22 Early in war he recognized German tanks were far superior after seeing a demonstration in England. Many Americans would die for this. A half-century later when visiting this post the local historian told him they only had records that the demonstration took. place. The inadequacies of American tanks and demonstrated superiority of the German ones had been carefully omitted.
P27 George Patton favored the lightly armored M4 tank over the more mobile, yet heavier M26 tank. This resulted in one of the most disastrous decisions of World War II. The effect on American casualties would be catastrophic.
-p138 The vastly inferior M4 medium tank had horrendous losses. Its abysmal performance placed an onerous burden on the other combat arms.
-p193 Tremendous losses in tanks and men necessitated training of men who never been exposed to tanks before. They were then thrown into battle. This tragedy would be repeated many times.
-p295 Repeats observation that friends in combat arms all died or were severely wounded.
-p308 German tanks had a qualitative superiority over the M4 Sherman as much as 5 to 1. **
The American tank was deficient in many qualities. The Red Army had the best tank of the war. Ask the Germans. They know.
jamestown
2003-06-17 19:25 | User Profile
I agree with you, Leland, that the Czechs are much more nationalist than the Germans. Zeman even said that the Germans should have been glad that they were not all killed right on spot as that is what traitors deserve. I am not talking about 1938 but about the year 2002 in the so called United Europe.
But peace must always be kept up by the stronger power. Fact is that Poland is dirt poor and more dependent on Germany than the other way around. I do not care what the Poles or Czechs think of us as we are the stronger part. The stronger part should just keep a poker face, lean back and let the little boys play their nasty little games. We just live in a too dangerous world that we cannot afford to lose our attention to neglectable issues.
As for Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia, these areas were German for 800-1000 years, but Slavic before, although Germanic before that, but the Polish position is based on the Slavic time. So as Poles insist that areas that were Polish 1300 years ago are still considered Polish today should make Americans think over the Aztlan myth twice. Europeans fight for territories that belonged to the various ethnic groups back in the Middle Ages (Think of the Serb claim of Kosovo). American history looks like a fast motion picture in comparison to that.
I few weeks ago I saw a documentary about Poland before the EU referendum. They interviewed a 90 year old Prussian lady what her thoughts were on the fact that in the first half of her life her Silesian home was German and in the second half it became Polish. She said that it hurt her. But then she said that if one considers to start a war he most also ensure to win it. Wars aren't fought to "liberate" people. Nor to spread freedom and democracy. Nor to save human rights. Wars are fought to gain power, territory, foreign treasuries and technologies. A nation that loses a war can hardly claim to be mistreated. That is what life is all about.
Faust
2003-06-17 19:38 | User Profile
edward gibbon
Yes I did know about the deficient M4 Sherman Tank.
"The American tank was deficient in many qualities. The Red Army had the best tank of the war. Ask the Germans."
"Isolationist Congress refused to fund tank development. A brilliant engineer name J. Walter Christie developed a new suspension system for the hull and took it to Russia where its genius was appreciated. They used it and later so did the Germans."
My point was Caterpillar and Ford built the Soviet Trank Factories.
And Soviets needed American weat imports.
Walter Yannis
2003-06-18 11:34 | User Profile
Originally posted by Leland Gaunt+Jun 17 2003, 20:55 -->
QUOTE* (Leland Gaunt @ Jun 17 2003, 20:55 ) <!--QuoteBegin-jamestown@Jun 17 2003, 13:25 * ** A nation that loses a war can hardly claim to be mistreated. That is what life is all about. ** If the fate we had to endure in 1945 was not "mistreatment" then I don't know what is. The death-marches, rapes, lynchings, looting, humiliation.
I dont know where you get the idea that we are the "stronger" part. Just look at our economy. Our birthrate is plunging into unknown dephts. In 2045 we will be around 25 Million Germans, the rest aliens. The Poles will be much bigger than we are. And during this time we will have to suport them through EU funding. Poland and Czechia will prosper at our costs. How did a french paper once write "Maastrich is Versailles just without War".
It will allways be Bresalu and not "Wroclav" and always Reichenberg and never "Liberece". Never surrender, never give in. The cradles of Hindenburg, Eichendorf, Moltke, Agnes Miegel will always be German.
Its not that the Czechs are more nationalistic, it's rather that the Germans are today so utterly pathetic and treacherous. We have to clean our own house from all the filth that has set roots here since '45, then we will recuperate and gain our strength back. **
I agree with your general sentiments.
The problem was that the Germans turned their backs on the Church and embraced ne-pagan Nazism in their pressing need to defend themselves from the Jewish Bolsheviks. The Jewish Bolsheviks were as bad if not worse than the German Nazis from the point of view of Christian America, no doubt about that, but as a Roman Catholic I don't mourn the passing of either ideology. Both were an unfortunate pain in the Church's collective backside, and I'm glad that Christendom is shut of them both.
I would rather have stayed out of the entire thing and allow the Nazis and Bolsheviks to kill each other off en masse, allowing America to grow rich selling arms and supplies to both sides, and then to sweep in for the kill in the fullness of carnage and time. For the salvation of their immortal souls, of course. But that was not to be, with our quixotic entry into the war doubt engineered by our own Anglophiles and Semites in and around the FDR administration. But even then, I must say that if Christian America found it convenient to take out the Nazis first and then the Bolsheviks, then so be it. That's history.
The great German nation paid a terrible price for their apostasy. Germany is a reduced nation territorially, culturally, and indeed in population because of their dalliance with the Nazi perversion. The crimes committed against innocent German civilians after the war are among the most horrific in history, many by the Bolsheviks. One of my sisters married the son of Sudetenlanders who settled in the Midwest - great guy, and a great family. I'm proud to call them kin. I heard the stories, and yes they suffered horribly. It's a crying shame.
But all of us must look to the future. We need to find our common European and Christian identity and the will to defend Christendom, or all of us will go the way of the dodo bird. I say let's stop fighting WWII, a war that we all ultimately lost (except the Japanese!)
In short, take your lumps, man. The Nazis lost, having had their asses kicked by their betters. Admit it, deal with it, dump all talk of resurrecting that particular corpse, and let's all move on to the life and death tasks at hand.
Warmest regards,
Walter
NeoNietzsche
2003-06-18 12:26 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jun 18 2003, 05:34 * The Nazis lost, having had their asses kicked by their betters.*
I'm tempted to file this under "Exceptional Assininities I've Encountered" - but I will extend the preliminary courtesy of inquiring after the standard by which one is here reckoned a "better" and to whom this applies amidst the wording of our exceptional assininity candidate.
I will also preemptively mention that the Germans/Nazis were either peerless or unsurpassed in so many worthy dimensions, other than in countering the critical Allied cryptanalytical conspiracy which predated and doomed the Third Reich, that one must prejudicially account Brother Walter's remark as remarkably inconsiderate of facts with which he ought to be acquainted.
Walter Yannis
2003-06-19 06:03 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche+Jun 18 2003, 12:26 -->
QUOTE (NeoNietzsche @ Jun 18 2003, 12:26 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Walter Yannis@Jun 18 2003, 05:34 * The Nazis lost, having had their asses kicked by their betters.* I'm tempted to file this under "Exceptional Assininities I've Encountered" - but I will extend the preliminary courtesy of inquiring after the standard by which one is here reckoned a "better" and to whom this applies amidst the wording of our exceptional assininity candidate.
I will also preemptively mention that the Germans/Nazis were either peerless or unsurpassed in so many worthy dimensions, other than in countering the critical Allied cryptanalytical conspiracy which predated and doomed the Third Reich, that one must prejudicially account Brother Walter's remark as remarkably inconsiderate of facts with which he ought to be acquainted. **
Neo, my brother, the only fact that counts is victory.
We have it, the Krauts (may God bless them) don't.
And that, as they say, is that.
Winners are the moral, losers are the immoral. I'm speaking in terms of the big picture, of course, rather than in any individual conflict. That's the law of Nature and Nature's God, and none of us may, or indeed can, break that law. We're stuck with it. The Natural Law precedes and encompasses us. We are powerless to rise above it, at least under our own steam.
For a self-professed Nietzschean, you have seem to suffer curious difficulty with this most obvious of moral truths.
I do so hope that you will somehow find your way into a clearer moral vision, rather than mucking about in maudlin sentimentality and a thoroughly adolescent love of noble defeat. I gently challenge you, Neo, to see that your identification with the defeated Nazis itself proceeds from an unacknowledged evangelization of your own conscience. You display here the very (deformed) Christian tendency to love and pity the weak precisely because they are weak that you purport to condemn in others.
Kindly meditate on that at the fourth chakra level, and revert to me.
Warmest regards,
Walter
triskelion
2003-06-19 08:15 | User Profile
I am simply am amazed at asinine and mindless dribble that finds it's way on boards such as these. Mr. Yannis was someone I long regarded as thoughtful so rather then hold up his posts in this thread as an example of my opinion being wildly at variance with reality I will instead simply presume that his comments in this matter were the product of a difficult evening or simply him not being up to his usual standards.
The notion that NS Germany "turned it's back on the Church" is silly piffle that is quite beneath you. A great number of leading NSDAP luminaries were Christians as were numerous SS leaders including the commanding staff of the Norsk Legion and Dansk Freikorps which members of my family served. If you are actually interested in the matter please permit me to direct you towards the article "The National Socialist Stand On Religion" taken from the Nov./Dec. 1999 issue of The Barnes Review pp. 55-57, as well as Mr. Hitler's speech of Jan. 30, 1939 on the topic of how the regime buttressed the Church. Both are on the Sciptorium site. While a fair amount of ambiguity exists with respect to what the personal opinions of Mr. Hitler were on religion it was very obvious that he went to great lengths to actively court Christian opinion which several allied governments clearly did not. One can also readily note by reviewing leftist pagan sites that Mr. Hitler outlawed the pagan lodges that followed the Germanic mysticism of Von List.
I could of course point that the ruling elites within the Allied nations were hardly bastions of Christian piety and that Stalin was driven by a genocidal mania to destroy Christianity just as I could point out that all of the European allies of Germany were far more committed to theocratic doctrine then any post war government anywhere in the world. Rather then look for Devine intervention as a reason for the destruction of the Axis it seems more sensible to consider that the saying "God blessed those with overwhelming advantages in men and material" as more probable.
I find it strange to see you say the you view National Socialism as somehow opposed to Christianity. In part it seems that this stems from a total American ignorance that National Socialism predated the NSDAP by several decades and that it existed in nearly every nation in all of Europa and the facts I previously mentioned. I might also point out that a very influential figure in early NS thought was a fellow named Charles Maurras whose organization Action française (which is still very active and doing wonderful work today: [url=http://actionfrancaise.free.fr]http://actionfrancaise.free.fr[/url] ) was a major influence upon radical nationalists of all kinds in numerous nations and one that embraced a very radical and totally Catholic world view decades prior to the NSDAP taking power. I could also point out to you that the Maurras in turn was influenced by the Marquis De La Tour Du Pin who was also a very famous and important NS thinker active from the 1890s till the 1930s that inspired racial as well as societal/economic thinking for NS and fascist parties right up till the present from Iberia to Moscow and even the indigenous organizations in several Scandinavian nations including mine. I could also point to numerous staunchly religious organizations promoting variants of NS thinking and folkish renewal in Spain and Portugal as well numerous Eastern European nations that were as ardent in their adherence to ultra-traditional Catholicism as anyone you care to think of and that many of them were allied with the Axis.
The real apostasy comes from the allied forces which rejected the salubrious vision of folkish restoration in favour of cultural and political bolshevism which has utterly destroyed your nation and remade it into some horrid monstrosity that would be unrecognizable to anyone that lived in the states prior to the war. A war which a jew in the White House and a jew client in 10 Downing Street actively sought war and turned down peace proposals in ââ¬Ë40 and ââ¬Ë41 made by Germany. It also should mentioned that were it not for Mr. Hitler's pre-emptive offensive in the East the fate that your country abandoned Eastern Europa to would have also engulfed the Western portion of the continent which would have served a devastating blow to your faith.
For the current decrepitude your country suffers it gave up the lives of hundreds of thousands of your countrymen and murdered millions of Christian civilians and became a client state of Israel. Your nation not only allowed but participated in actions that purposely murdered several millions more to be slaughtered and raped after the war but turned over several nations to the tender care of Stalin who succeeded in obliterating christianity at an incredible cost in Occidental lives over the course of the next two generations leaving Eastern Europa in a very nasty state today.
So please. Please spare me pius flummery about righteous Christians winning a war against a Hollywood created myth of evil. It is sickening, inane and totally beneath you.
NeoNietzsche
2003-06-19 13:48 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis+Jun 19 2003, 00:03 -->
QUOTE (Walter Yannis @ Jun 19 2003, 00:03 )
QUOTE (NeoNietzsche @ Jun 18 2003, 12:26 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Walter Yannis@Jun 18 2003, 05:34 * The Nazis lost, having had their asses kicked by their betters.* I'm tempted to file this under "Exceptional Assininities I've Encountered" - but I will extend the preliminary courtesy of inquiring after the standard by which one is here reckoned a "better" and to whom this applies amidst the wording of our exceptional assininity candidate.
I will also preemptively mention that the Germans/Nazis were either peerless or unsurpassed in so many worthy dimensions, other than in countering the critical Allied cryptanalytical conspiracy which predated and doomed the Third Reich, that one must prejudicially account Brother Walter's remark as remarkably inconsiderate of facts with which he ought to be acquainted. **
Neo, my brother, the only fact that counts is victory.
We have it, the Krauts (may God bless them) don't.
And that, as they say, is that.
Winners are the moral, losers are the immoral. I'm speaking in terms of the big picture, of course, rather than in any individual conflict. That's the law of Nature and Nature's God, and none of us may, or indeed can, break that law. We're stuck with it. The Natural Law precedes and encompasses us. We are powerless to rise above it, at least under our own steam.
For a self-professed Nietzschean, you have seem to suffer curious difficulty with this most obvious of moral truths.
I do so hope that you will somehow find your way into a clearer moral vision, rather than mucking about in maudlin sentimentality and a thoroughly adolescent love of noble defeat. I gently challenge you, Neo, to see that your identification with the defeated Nazis itself proceeds from an unacknowledged evangelization of your own conscience. You display here the very (deformed) Christian tendency to love and pity the weak precisely because they are weak that you purport to condemn in others.
Kindly meditate on that at the fourth chakra level, and revert to me.
Warmest regards,
Walter**
Neo, my brother, the only fact that counts is victory.
In which case, your observation would properly have been simply "The Nazis lost." Not content, however, with the bald fact which you now acknowledge as the alpha and omega of the issue, you insert a characteristic dig, on which you have been corrected previously by "grp14w". I call you on it again, as you here implicitly acknowledge your own misdemeanor and misconception.
**Winners are the moral, losers are the immoral.ÃÂ I'm speaking in terms of the big picture, of course, rather than in any individual conflict.ÃÂ That's the law of Nature and Nature's God, and none of us may, or indeed can, break that law.ÃÂ We're stuck with it.ÃÂ The Natural Law precedes and encompasses us.ÃÂ We are powerless to rise above it, at least under our own steam.
For a self-professed Nietzschean, you have seem to suffer curious difficulty with this most obvious of moral truths.**
Thanks for this statement of the obvious, Brother Walter, compromised though it is by the appended misappreciation of my own orientation. Our disagreement (beyond the correction, above, of your triumphalist extrusion) concerns not the undeniable defeat of the Third Reich, but rather the putative "victory" of the Western Allies, who, of course, lost all that which ostensibly was the goal of the campaign against Germany in the first place (i.e., Polish independence and no domination of a combination of Central and Eastern Europe). My judgment is that a merely temporary "victory," just another interregnum, was purchased in yet another of a long line of Faustian Pacts with a mortal enemy (this time the Soviets) - an enemy who now endures despite appearances (according to Golitsyn, Epstein, Senja, et. al.), and is yet to emerge and impose a catastrophic defeat upon the fatuously self-congratulatory"victors". Your contrary judgment would indicate that you are yet to free yourself from the totality of Jewish propaganda and native American ignorance regarding the fundamentals of political science, which I have attempted to communicate in several essays posted in OD and which have unfortunately passed without evident comprehension by much of the membership - uninstructed victims they of the American miseducational system.
I do so hope that you will somehow find your way into a clearer moral vision, rather than mucking about in maudlin sentimentality and a thoroughly adolescent love of noble defeat.ÃÂ I gently challenge you, Neo, to see that your identification with the defeated Nazis itself proceeds from an unacknowledged evangelization of your own conscience.ÃÂ You display here the very (deformed) Christian tendency to love and pity the weak precisely because they are weak that you purport to condemn in others.
My own hope is that a self-improvement program undertaken by your worthy self, Brother Walter, will involve a refinement of your facility for psychological insight. This is not one of your evident strengths, and as you find my past attempts half-seriously to arouse enthusiasm for the transcendence of bourgeois culture both ludicrous and the occasion for embarrassment on my behalf, so do I find your attempts at "analysis" on your behalf.
Hug and Kisses, as always,
Neo :rock:
na Gaeil is gile
2003-06-19 14:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by triskelion@Jun 19 2003, 02:14 * *I am simply am amazed at asinine and mindless dribble that finds it's way on boards such as these. ... So please. Please spare me pius flummery about righteous Christians winning a war against a Hollywood created myth of evil. It is sickening, inane and totally beneath you. **
Overly harsh words, especially for you Trisk. Our American cousins sometimes have a propensity to see the world through star-spangled lenses and thus misinterpret localised memes as universalisms.
The whole problem with this thread is summed up in its title Refighting World War II. There is no point in re-fighting WW II; I want to know how weââ¬â¢re going to fight WW III ââ¬â the war for the salvation of the White race. Right now weââ¬â¢re far up sh*t creek and we donââ¬â¢t even have a canoe never mind a paddle, so letââ¬â¢s aim the vitriol where it belongs: at the Marxists.
Kurt
2003-06-19 14:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by na Gaeil is gile@Jun 19 2003, 08:15 * ** There is no point in re-fighting WW II; I want to know how weââ¬â¢re going to fight WW III ââ¬â the war for the salvation of the White race. Right now weââ¬â¢re far up sht creek and we donââ¬â¢t even have a canoe never mind a paddle, [u]so letââ¬â¢s aim the vitriol where it belongs: at the Marxists[/u]. **
If by "Marxists," you mean Jews, then I'm with ya! :th:
[SIZE=1]I'd also like to aim some vitriol (as well as few other things) at the Blacks, mestizos, and other assorted non-Whites; as well as the White race traitors, but that's strictly off the record.[/SIZE] ;)
Ruffin
2003-06-19 14:49 | User Profile
Just aim those other things at the powerful White race traitors and Jews, and the non-whites will scurry like rats.
Kurt
2003-06-19 14:57 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ruffin@Jun 19 2003, 08:49 * ** Just aim those other things* at the powerful White race traitors and Jews, and the non-whites will scurry like rats. **
Yes, you're probably right, Ruffin. :gun:
triskelion
2003-06-19 17:20 | User Profile
I reluctantly admit that na Gaeil is gile correct. However, just a few hours before I wrote that post I found out that my last relative from the era, at the age of 74 Yngvar Lundquist, pasted from this mortal coil after being robbed and koshed by an American Congoid on the mainland. Needless to say, I am upset and less willing to take American swagger in stride then usual. Yngvar was a much finer man then I that joined the Dansk Freikorps at the age of 15 in '44 after the death of his family in an American bombing raid that had no military worth. He fought against occcupation till his capture in January '46 and spent 6 years in jail. He then joined the forerunner of an organization I belong to, started a family and worked as a jet engine mechanic till he retired.
Of course it is pointless to re fight the war. This thread was started because of some comments by Franco and Mr. Head (whom it seems has left OD and is likely back with the freepers) and has gotten very far from what it should have been. In the future, I will stay with my basic themes of ideological development and practical activism.
Ruffin
2003-06-19 17:49 | User Profile
triskelion - Thanks for veering off of your intended course long enough to help set the record straight. More Americans need to be confronted with these facts, and you and Leland Gaunt do it well. The entire episode known as WWII is as big a part of the American neurosis as is its queen bee, "the holocaust", and cracking those diseased eggs should be a part of our activism, IMO.
My condolences on the death of your compatriot at the hands of my mercenary countrymen and the scum that rules over us all.
edward gibbon
2003-06-19 17:52 | User Profile
triskelion> **I find it strange to see you say the [color=blue]you view National Socialism as somehow opposed to Christianity[/color]. In part it seems that this stems from a total American ignorance that National Socialism predated the NSDAP by several decades and that it existed in nearly every nation in all of Europa and the facts I previously mentioned. I might also point out that a very influential figure in early NS thought was a fellow named Charles Maurras whose organization [color=blue]Action française (which is still very active and doing wonderful work today: [url=http://actionfrancaise.free.fr]http://actionfrancaise.free.fr[/url] ) was a major influence upon radical nationalists of all kinds in numerous nations and one that embraced a very radical and totally Catholic world view decades prior to the NSDAP taking power.[/color] I could also point out to you that the Maurras in turn was influenced by the Marquis De La Tour Du Pin who was also a very famous and important NS thinker active from the 1890s till the 1930s that inspired racial as well as societal/economic thinking for NS and fascist parties right up till the present from Iberia to Moscow and even the indigenous organizations in several Scandinavian nations including mine. I could also point to numerous staunchly religious organizations promoting variants of NS thinking and folkish renewal in Spain and Portugal as well numerous Eastern European nations that were as ardent in their adherence to ultra-traditional Catholicism as anyone you care to think of and that many of them were allied with the Axis. **
I have read that Maurras was best described as a royalist Catholic atheist.
Maurras also proclaimed Captain Dreyfuss "guilty by his heritage", if I remember correctly. Proust would read his newspaper for the colorful invective.
Sisyfos
2003-06-20 01:04 | User Profile
Leland Gaunt :
A picture of the good ol days, when slovakia was free from communism. Dr. Tiso meets with Hitler and Ribbentrop.
Anouncement of Dr. Tisos execution.
(My apologies for not reproducing the pertinent pictures of previous page, but I think it more merciful to self and hard disk.)
Iââ¬â¢m puzzled, mon cher ami. Tisoââ¬â¢s death is common knowledge, so why post a document announcing the undertaking, typed in language that probably no one (myself excepted) on this board can read?
What of the touching photographs? Was it your intent to elicit commentary on the significance of a political dwarf, leader of a small nation, freshly minted, with scarce resources, totalling some four million souls, caught geographically between two colossuses intent on brawling, and bordering another with thoughts of annexation, with zero prospects for continued sovereign existence should its behaviour stray from exemplary vis-à-vis the colossus that had a hand in its birth; standing next to an underling and his boss, a political giant, leader of the aforementioned colossus, a state with venerable history under various political forms, with massive resources and industrial capacity, totalling more than eighty million beings, flushed with success at having acquired some additional territory bearing other ethnics and eager forââ¬Â¦ further expansion east.
You know, itââ¬â¢s difficult to tell from the pic but it seems to me that Dr. Tiso is a tad bashful during introductions. Were I in his place my grin would be at least as wide as Ribbentropââ¬â¢s. :D
I think Iââ¬â¢ll decline the commentary, except to say that Iââ¬â¢m all for cooperation among those fighting the ââ¬Åevilââ¬Â communists, past and present, but it gets comical when I see a game--that is often, as was the case here, a matter of convenience for some and a matter of survival for others--interpreted as an instance of pro-Christian/anti-Communist love fest.
Mir,
Sis
triskelion
2003-06-20 01:38 | User Profile
Hello all,
Marraus was indeed anti-German although I have not seen that quote before. His notions on Germany don't interest me and I'd say the same about religion. He most definately was not an atheist. If you read what he had to say about the monarchy you'd not that he refered instead to an absolutism which was seen as the embodyment of state power to be used as an instrument of the Nation which he saw in organic terms. He was very anti-jewish and had a very developed corporatist notion which I approve of in many ways. If one reads old AF theory organs (I have a very good colection of said material which was reprinted in Icelandic) the ideology that the group espoused is refered to by the term National-Socialism which they quickly admited to have taken from La Tour Du Pin. Presently, AF, has dropped the term so as not to be associated with the NSDAP (which would result in them being banned by the court) but the substance of the ideology has not changed and the members that I know have no anti-German notions and I find little to disagree with them on save religion. Of course, the AF and it's members have frequent legal problems any way.
The form of athoritarianism they (and La Tour Du Pin as well) promoted is not quite to my taste but they are dead on as to why we should reject parlimentarianism in favour of Organic Democracy and National Syndical (which is indeed socialistic along the line promoted by the BUF) economics which I like as it follows the economic decralization that I favour and I see at helping foster a folkish economy in the current era. In short, I would not state that AF and the people they were influenced by were correct in all respects but I like what they have to say about Organic Democracy and economics which did have influences are beyond France as I mentioned early. Hopefully, no one will think that I am promoting simply mimicry of the old AF (which by the way had numerous factions some of which were very pro-German and condemned Maurras for his stance) as doing so is clearly wrong headed. If you want to know where exactly I stand in terms of the form of National Socialism I personally support (as well the organizations I am most active with) I would say without hesitation that it is the Nordic Imperium School which is very much pan European. If anyone wants details i'll be happy to refer you to them.
Thank you Ruffin for your comments of support. Setting lies right is worth while even if it is on just historical matters.
Paleoleftist
2003-06-20 02:24 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Leland Gaunt@Jun 17 2003, 09:12 * ** You also forget why the War broke out. That it became a world War was not Germanys fault. It just wanted Danzig and its lost provinces in the east back. Poland ón the other hand wanted to expand towards the west. If we would have gotten what we wanted from Poland, then there would have been no need for War. We had good relations to our neighbours slovakia, Hungary, Roumania, Italy, the low countries. **
Wait a moment; this is nonsense.
Unless you view not only Himmlerôs Posen Speech, but also "Mein Kampf" itself, as manufactured, there is no way to believe Hitler didnôt want "Lebensraum" at the expense of the Russians. And there is no denial that NS plans for Russia (and most likely also Poland) were genocidal.
It is one thing to say "Hitler was, if viewed from a certain angle, possibly not QUITE the villain as depicted by Allied propaganda", but an entirely different thing to say he was the hero of the piece. Wayyyy out.
Campion Moore Boru
2003-06-20 02:30 | User Profile
So then Leland, you are stating that the war was born over territotial disputes, not a war to maintain Western Civilization? Rather motivated by Germany's (rightful) claims to Danzig, Sudeten, and other Volksdeutsche regions?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, as here one can't nec. tell if a post is a reply to another's, but I thought you had stated that NS Germany was not really about Germans, or Greater Germany, but rather about defending the torch of the West.
Campion Moore Boru
2003-06-20 02:44 | User Profile
Very good then. I had misunderstood you.
NS Germany was about, by, and for Germans. My criticism is of reviosionist historians who try to paint it as a crusade for the West. It wasn't, at its core. Oh, and as some of my Alsatian ancestors will tell you: Alsace ist auch Deutsche, Klaar!
Paleoleftist
2003-06-20 02:51 | User Profile
*Originally posted by jamestown@Jun 17 2003, 11:25 * ** But on the other hand, Germany's war aims were not altruistic. The major obsession of Hitler was to gain living space in the East. Actually, territorial expension was the most important war aim to him.
Even one day before his suicide, on 29th April 1945, he still lectured the army officers that their most important task was to secure that territory. I should remind you that at that time the Red Army was already in Berlin, so one can clearly see the obsession that Hitler had with this idea. A few weeks ago I found an interesting book in the library that was explaining the "Generalplan Ost", signed by Himmler. I do not think that that plan was just another Allied war propaganda, as there are original SS plans depicting the plan. Furthermore Hitler was never shy about that plan. **
Great post!
Good to see a German pointing this out. :rock:
We Europeans in here have a particular responsibility in this respect, namely help preventing Americans who have found out that their previous White guilt complexes were unjustified, from developing a new kind of guilt complex, namely the "Itôs our fault that Saintly Adolf didnôt win the War" complex, ultimately resulting in replacing the Holocaust Museums by Hitler Museums.
Iôd rather prefer that not to happen. :)
Paleoleftist
2003-06-20 03:04 | User Profile
*Originally posted by triskelion@Jun 19 2003, 02:15 * ** I find it strange to see you say you view National Socialism as somehow opposed to Christianity. **
But then you may never have read Hitlerôs table talks.
Or you question them as a source; but even then, evidence that Hitler didnôt think highly of Christendom abounds.
triskelion
2003-06-20 03:12 | User Profile
With respect to the comment above I will say that yes I have read it and yes I know that Mr. Hilter had plenty of personal criticisms of Christianity. You it seems have not examined the other sources I mentioned above or considered other points made because if you did you would have noted that the NSDAP regime actively sought and got massive support from the Church and that it's policies reflected such an effort.
My view is that the war started as a result of territorial disputes for which I too feel Poland was responsible in large measure because of the anti-German pogroms that took place at the time and largely reflected expansionist motives of the Polish government at the time. Please note that I am not in any way anti-Polish as I work with many ITP comrades from that nation. What made that dispute a world war was the active efforts by the U.S./U.K. to make it so. To me the whole matter is very depressing and one that I don't wish to spend more effort talking about as this has been a tough day.
As to National Socialism it is correct to say that the NSDAP variant is not for export, was never intended as such and became a Pan European current by the strange tides of war rather then by design. To me, all truly worthwhile ideas are timeless in value and that means they are reflective of the fundamental truths of that which unites genetics and history for the preservation of human diversity for the purpose of allowing the most productive expressions of a folk's traditions and aspirations. As a result, I subscribe to a view of National Socialism far more expansive then that promoted by the NSDAP while accepting and applauding it's aspects which were historical valid and the less numerous elements that hold relevance to the time struggle for Pan Occidental renewal. What this entails is a synthesis of diverse elements from the canons of many National Revolutionary traditions providing all Occidental nations with overarching principles which I have detailed else where as well specifics tailored to each specific branch of Europa Universalis (which includes Occidentals in North America) so as to reflect local folkways and dispositions.
This will be my last post dealing directly the war as the matter is simply too depressing and must be neglected in favour of things far more timely that we can effect.
Paleoleftist
2003-06-20 03:26 | User Profile
*Originally posted by triskelion@Jun 19 2003, 21:12 * ** With respect to the comment above I will say that yes I have read it and yes I know that Mr. Hilter had plenty of personal criticisms of Christianity. You it seems have not examined the other sources I mentioned above or considered other points made because if you did you would have noted that the NSDAP regime actively sought and got massive support from the Church and that it's policies reflected such an effort.
**Hitlerôs views about Christianity were not just one manôs opinion, ;) but would certainly have been implemented one way or other, given a victory and time.
I believe collaboration between the Church and Nationalsocialism has been overstated, not so much by forces wanting to defend Nationalsocialism, but rather by those who want to attack the Church (Goldhagen etc). B)
Leaving aside the things we disagree on, I also was sad to hear about your loss. :( My condolences!
Paleoleftist
2003-06-20 03:43 | User Profile
Leland: "a) You probably don't even know what the Posen speech is all about, but just parrot the usual media crap that is claimed about it. The speech is rather questionable and was probably tampered with after the war. even if not, I realy see no problem in it."
[color=blue]Errr,... "For the SS Man, one principle must apply absolutely: we must be honest, decent, loyal, and comradely to members of our own blood, and to no one else. What happens to the Russians, the Czechs, is totally indifferent to me. Whatever is available to us in good blood of our type, we will take for ourselves, that is, we will steal their children and bring them up with us, if necessary. Whether other races live well or die of hunger is only of interest to me insofar as we need them as slaves for our culture; otherwise that doesn't interest me. Whether 10,000 Russian women fall down umfallen from exhaustion in building a tank ditch is of interest to me only insofar as the tank ditches are finished for Germany." [/color] [url=http://www.cwporter.com/posen.htm]http://www.cwporter.com/posen.htm[/url]
"b ) Hitlers book was written 1924. Later he said that he never should have written it."
:lol: :lol: :lol: [color=blue] I believe you fully and whole-heartedly. But what he was meaning was, of course, he shouldnôt have told anybody about his plans in advance. Come on, you know better than that! :jest: [/color]
jamestown
2003-06-20 07:37 | User Profile
We Europeans in here have a particular responsibility in this respect, namely help preventing Americans who have found out that their previous White guilt complexes were unjustified, from developing a new kind of guilt complex, namely the "Itôs our fault that Saintly Adolf didnôt win the War" complex, ultimately resulting in replacing the Holocaust Museums by Hitler Museums.
The Anglo contribution of the Nazi defeat is neclectable. Germany was defeated by Russia and no one else. The French resistence, the Anglo-American bombing campaign and the Polish and Serb partisans hardly contributed to that. More than 90% of German soldiers were killed by the Russian. After the war, suddenly every Frenchman became a resistence fighter and DeGaulle was suddenly a participant of WWII. Hollywood has led to the impression that Americans liberated Europe from fascism. Fact is that the turning point of WWII was the failed German winter campaign against Moscow in Jan 1942. That campaign failed because Japan attacked Pearl Habour on 7th Dec 1941 that allowed Stalin to withdraw his troops from Khasachstan and Xinkiang (Now Chinese, back then Soviet) and to put them against the German troops that were besieging Moskow. Hitler wanted Japan to attack the Soviet Union as this had forced Stalin to fight a two front war. Japan's decision not to attack the Soviet Union contributed more to the defeat of Germany than America's entrance into the war. The American presence on the Pacific theatre was more important as it bound Japanese forces that no longer threatened Russia. The Brits barely escaped at Dunkirk and the Americans showed up at Omaha beach when the show was over anyway. The German tanks in the Ardennes didn't have fuel and were abandoned. The armed forces on German soil facing American troops consisted of 14 year old kids. It is a usual American tactic to let proxies fight its wars while America at the end of the war declares victory and takes the spoils of war.
**Very good then. I had misunderstood you.
NS Germany was about, by, and for Germans. My criticism is of reviosionist historians who try to paint it as a crusade for the West. It wasn't, at its core. Oh, and as some of my Alsatian ancestors will tell you: Alsace ist auch Deutsche, Klaar! **
The NS ideology was neither German nationalism nor Paneuropean white nationalism. The correct interpretation is Pangermanism. Pangermanism came up in the 19th century. Before the foundation of the Bismarck empire in 1871 the Pangermanist congress envisioned a nationstate including Britain, the Netherlands, the German countries and Skandinavia. The Nazies took up that idea and included Celts into their racial worldview. This explains the unwillingness of the Nazies to really fight Britain. To them that was an innergerman fracticide. The treatment of the Western European nations was completely different from the treatment of the Eastern Europeans.
As for the NS ideology in general. It was not a dogmatic and allcompassing ideology, but rather the collection of very disparate ideologies. When the Nazies took power in 1933, they were pretty shy in exchanging elites, in stark contrast to the Communists who made a complete exchange of personal in every society they conquered. Yilmar Schacht, the shaper of NS financial policy, was a freemason. Many jewish actors, like Theo Lingen, made movies in Goebbels propaganda ministry. The Army officer corps largely consisted of the old Prussian aristocracy that was antagonistic to Hitler as the assassination attempt on 20th July 1944 made evident.
The Nazis were pragmatic in many ways and often adapted their ideology to current circumstances. Furthermore, every Nazi official had his own vision. Not to mention the various fractions that existed in that movement as the Roehm Putsch killings in 1934 made clear.
So what the whole NS meant is often dependent on time, circumstances and persons.
**Hitler main life goal was reversing Versailles. **
That was the major focal point of the Nazi election campaigns in the 1920s. That was Hitler's policy until 1939. But Hitler admitted that he wanted a major conflict already in 1938 at the height of the Munich agreement. Back then the army officer corps was even contemplating his removal.
Hitler renounced any claim to Alsace-Loraine, allthough in 1924 he was for regaining it.
When Germany conquered France that area should remain to France as Hitler did not want to provoke the French even further. Later on that territory was incorporated into the Empire anyway, as Hitler needed soldiers and in case of the annexation he could extent the draft to that area. The annexation was due to the need of more canon fodder and had less to do with nationalism.
As for the claim that the Nazis fought for the white race. They did, but white meant something different to them than what it means today. Germans with French or Italian ancestors dating back to the 17th century had problems getting a marriage licence. People in NS Germany were only allowed to marry if they possessed a Arierausweiss ( Aryan identification card ).
Paleoleftist
2003-06-20 21:35 | User Profile
*Originally posted by jamestown@Jun 20 2003, 01:37 * ** Germany was defeated by Russia and no one else. **
By Russia, mostly.
It is arguable, though, that, in the Stalingrad campaign, the Anglo-Allied threat did make a difference, in so far as German divisions stayed in the West and South, which could have been used for Stalingrad.