Monday, May 13, 2019


Victors(or the Official Scribes) write the history. Scholars also write the history. Victors prefer their own 'good war' narrative. This is true of all sides. As for scholars, they are not necessarily on the side of victors, especially in a system that is relatively free, like in a democracy. There have been plenty of dissident or alternative scholars in the West, even in elite institutions. But scholars have tended to be on the Left. Furthermore, especially after revelations of Nazi atrocities in WWII(and because the West felt the direct fury of Nazi Germany but not of the Soviet Union), it had become increasingly difficult to be a right-wing scholar(except from the most defensive or Philo-Semitic position, self-defeating since Jewish Power is the main force against the Gentile Right). So, not only were most official scholars on the Liberal side of the spectrum but even most dissident scholars were on the Left. Naturally, they emphasized the crimes of Nazi Germany while tending to overlook the atrocities of the Liberation. In Italy as in France, the Left took to revenge with a fury. One could argue that the leftists acted worse than the Right(during the Occupation), but absent law and order(in a time of chaos and flux), mobs(of any stripe) can easily get out of hand. And it wasn't just the Left. Many Frenchmen who felt humiliation of defeat and occupation just took it out on anyone, not least on French women who had affairs with German soldiers. And there had been plenty of collaborators, big and small. And even though German Occupiers were reasonably tolerant and humane toward most Frenchmen, they came down hard on the far-left and Jews, and the Left remembered and sought revenge. In Spain in the wake of Right-wing victory, many on the Left were brutalized and killed as well. Not all of it was done by the state. Conservative and clerical forces rounded up suspected communists and anarchists and butchered them. In Indonesia, upon Sukarno's ouster upon the failed communist coup, a reign of terror engulfed the nation in which 100,000s, maybe a million, were butchered by mobs, often on economic or ethnic than ideological grounds: Chinese were often targeted.

There are many other inconvenient truths about the 'Good War'. US bombing of French towns in preparation of invasion of Normandy killed lots of French civilians. Much of US bombing of Japan was punitive and/or vengeful than strategic. Also, contrary to the belief that the US was hesitant to use nukes and was compelled to do so only to 'save lives', it was prepared to nuke 10 to 12 more cities if Japan didn't surrender. In other words, US was willing to go 'full Nazi' against a nation that was all but defeated and crippled just to push for total unconditional surrender. When I grew up, the term 'fascist' had such negative connotations that I thought Mussolini must have been just as evil as Hitler. Reading his biographies, I was surprised by how mild(relatively) his rule was compared to others. And contrary to the romantic myths about the Spanish Civil War, the Left was just as ruthless and murderous as the Right. Though made famous by Picasso's painting, the bombing of Guernica was a minor event. Indeed, all of history is a simplification or distortion. In discussion of the Vietnam War, people tend to blame LBJ or Nixon the most. For some reason, Eisenhower gets a break because he warned of the Military-Industrial Complex. But it was Eisenhower's administration that sowed the seeds of discord in Vietnam and messed up Guatemala and Iran that would have huge repercussions later.
Also, it's ironic when people say Hitler planned to 'conquer the world'. Untrue but even if true, the world was already conquered by imperialists, mainly British and French that were hardly 'liberal democracies' around the world but, in fact, often-brutal colonial powers. Accusing Nazi Germany of preparing to do what the Western Imperialists had done already is rather amusing. Though Hitler admired the imperialists, esp the British, his actions inadvertently 'saved' the Third World by bankrupting France and UK even more than after WWI. Furthermore, once UK and France redefined themselves as nations that resisted foreign tyranny, the template spread to the Third World that defined itself as the Resistance against Western 'Nazi-Like' Imperialists.

As for Operation Pike, historians focus mainly on what happened that what-might-have-happened. For example, if Hitler had planned the Shoah but didn't carry it out, it would be discussed far less. If the US had planned using atomic bombs on Japan but finally decided not to, it would be treated as a footnote. There are surely political and ideological reasons as to why Operation Pike would rather not be mentioned by scholars, but it didn't happen in the end. It was talk, not walk.
Was Josef Stalin preparing to conquer all of Europe? Could he have? I just don't see Stalin being so reckless. If Soviets(and that is a Big If) did set up offensive posture against Germany, it was likely to force Germany into a defensive posture, thus thwarting any first attack on Germany's part. Given Stalin's nature -- consider his ambiguous position on Korea -- , it's difficult to believe he planned to conquer all of Europe. Maybe just maybe, he hoped that France and Germany would weaken each other as in WWI and then, if the opportunity was ripe, the Soviets would sweep in to take it all(as the Soviets did with Eastern Europe). But Germany's victory over France was so swift and commanding that Stalin was in awe of Germany, and the last thing he wanted was a war. Stalin had expected the Franco-German War to last several yrs, bleeding both the republic and Reich as in the previous war. He had no idea that it would end so quickly and dramatically.
However, he may have feared that Hitler would then move against the USSR, and therefore set up 'offensive' positions along the border to send a strong message that Soviets are not to be threatened.
Consider that part of the reason why France lost was it thought ONLY in terms of defense. Even though it declared war on Germany and not vice versa, France was dug in for defense and had no capacity or will for offense. Stalin may have thought that the ONLY way to stop Hitler was put up an offensive posture. Also, it's hard to believe that Hitler and his men prepared such a vast undertaking(total war on Russia) at the last moment in panic and desperation. It had all the hallmarks of a well-thought-out plan. And the timing was near perfect as it was around summer solstice, the longest day of the year.
While Stalin might have had big plans -- he was a Marxist after all -- , he was not a dreamer like Hitler who thought more like an artist than an intellectual. More than anything, Wagner's operas were the inspiration of Hitler's vision of history. Thus, he saw himself as a Man of Destiny. Also, his initial gains pumped him full of hubris. And then, his swift victory over France made him feel near-invincible.
According to John Lukacs and Pat Buchanan, the main reason for Hitler's attack on the USSR was to bring UK to the table. This theory sounds absurd, but it makes sense from a psychological point of view. From a practical point of view, it makes little sense. If Hitler was having such a hard time defeating UK, why enter into a two-front war that also involves USSR? That seems utterly stupid. But if we consider that Hitler loved and admired the UK while loathing the 'subhuman Slavs', then what he ultimately wanted was an alliance with the British while subjugating the Slavs. So, by taking the USSR out, Germany would demonstrate to the UK that it alone is the undisputed ruler of Europe, and there is NOTHING the UK could do about it except to come to the table and form a partnership with Germany. As Lukacs wrote, Hitler's main ideology was not Germanism but Aryanism. He regarded Britons as fellow Aryans, and so, British Empire was Aryan rule over the world. Though Hitler had alliances with Italy, France(which had no choice), Spain(in a willy-nilly way), Eastern European nations, and Russia prior to Operation Barbarossa, he didn't prize them as much as he did the hypothetical one between Germany and Britain, the World Empire. That would have been Aryan + Aryan. Could such have been possible if not for Jewish influence in Britain? Or, was the culture of class and manners too important to the British elites to side with a 'vulgar' demagogue like Hitler, gutter trash who rose to the top by ranting like a lunatic?
Great Britain had played a moon-like influence on Continental Europe. A balancing effect. Just like the moon steadies the rotation of Earth and ocean waves, British influence maintained balance of power on the Continent by forging alliances against whatever power was most dominant. Indeed, had it not been for Britain, perhaps a Continental Empire might have formed. But in WWI, British influence went awry and made things much worse by intervening on the side of France. Its effect was more like that of an asteroid than the moon. As for Hitler, he was a super-volcano that just erupted out of nowhere. British asteroid and German volcano undid Europe in the 20th century.

I can believe that Jacob Schiff played a role in Bolshevism. Not out of ideology but tribal loyalty and hatred against 'bad goyim'. We see the same patterns today, what with Jewish Oligarchs even siding with Neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine against Russia. And Israel works with extreme Muslim elements to subvert secular Arab regimes(that are regarded as bigger threat to Israel). Also, George Soros throws his money around at ANYTHING to get what he wants. Given the level of hatred Jews felt toward Russia in the 19th and early 20th century, it seems likely that a Jewish banker like Schiff and others would aid JEWISH Bolsheviks against Traditional Russia. It was mainly about JEWISH capitalists aiding JEWISH communists. If a conflict was about GOY communists vs JEWISH traditionalists, I'm sure men like Schiff would have funded the latter. Blood matters sometimes. Though both China and Vietnam were communist while the Chinese minority in Vietnam was capitalist, the Boat People tragedy(that targeted capitalist Chinese) angered China(though communist), partially accounting for the brief Sino-Vietnam War. And there are plenty of capitalist Chinese who loathe communism but still side with Mainland out of tribal loyalty.

As for David Irving, yes, he was targeted for taking on sacred cows, but it was also the way he did it. An abrasive and difficult personality, he relished the role of playing enfant terrible just too much. Also, he has a double standard when it comes to history. When it comes to Hitler's crimes, he insists on total documentary proof. But on other matters, he's willing to go with established narrative, flimsy evidence, or wild exaggerations if it makes the Allies, esp Churchill, 'just as bad as Germany'. His suggestion of moral equivalence that Allies were just as bad as Nazi Germany is going too far. In war, both sides did horrible things, but does anyone really think Germany would have treated the vanquished like the Allies treated Germany? Once the dust settled, Germany was treated like a normal nation by the Allies, but what would a victorious Germany have done? If Germany had won over Britain, humane treatment was likely. But against Russia, it would have been horrors on a scale unimaginable. And as it would have been on racial than ideological grounds, it would have been far worse. (Germany was treated reasonably fairly by Allies after WWII, though in the immediate aftermath, there was a period of unspeakable atrocities against Germans, esp the women by Soviet troops. If things got worse for Germany over the years, it has to do with Jewish Power taking over the US and turning Shoah into a secular religion, thus turning German Guilt from a historical matter to a spiritual one. But then, this Sacred Cow that comes with powerful taboos applies to all of Europe, as well as Canada and US and beyond. The Shoah Narrative is nearly as harsh on France, Poland, UK, Sweden, and etc. as on Germany. If Germans are to apologize forever as the killers, other Europeans are to apologize forever as collaborators or craven cowards who failed to stand up to Hitler. As EU is a US satellite and as the US is controlled by Jewish Power, much of the 'free world' is occupied zone of Jewish Supremacism that, while calling on whites to atone for their own past supremacism, also insists that whites must support Jewish Supremacism against Palestinians, Arabs, Iran, and Russia.)
Was Kaiser Wilhelm a 'peacemaker'? The article says Wilhelm was once praised by the New York Times as a rational and sound leader, but what does that mean? NYT was and is full of shit. During the Newt Gingrich and then George W. Bush II era, NYT often praised John McCain as the Good Republican, moderate and balanced. But in the 2008 campaign, he was made out to be a moron, nutjob, and loon in contrast to messiah Obama. And then in the Trump era, he's been rehabilitated and praised once again as a voice of reason by NYT and rest of 'Liberal' Media. In the 70s, US media were full of high praise for Mao. In the 80s, US media called Jihadis in Afghanistan 'freedom fighters', and Saddam Hussein wasn't such a bad guy because he was fighting Iran. But then, he was 'new Hitler' in the early 90s. So, it doesn't matter how NYT may have characterized Wilhelm before WWI. NYT is a political rag of the moneyed class, and it's been all over the map. Also, when even if something was printed in the NYT, it was either one writer or a handful of people on the editorial board. It doesn't mean everyone working for the paper agreed. Many newspapers offer varying points of views.
The fact is Wilhelm was vain, arrogant, and conceited. And when it mattered most, he failed miserably, but then so did the idiot Czar of Russia and the French Republic in revanchist mode(going back to 1870 defeat to Prussia-Germany). WWI was a case of "It takes two to tango" or "It takes a bunch to start a barroom brawl." UK didn't make things any better as it hoped German defeat would thwart its global ambitions, esp as Germany had surpassed UK as the #1 industrial power in Europe.
Viktor Suvorov
Did FDR want a war with Germany to save his presidency? And was Adolf Hitler not so bad? The notion that FDR was itching for war just to have another term sounds far-fetched. Also, even if was true, Hitler was the one who was driving events. He could have avoided much trouble by not moving on Czech territory, for which he was forgiven and accommodated(or 'appeased'). And then, whatever problems he had with Poland, the joint German-Soviet invasion was pure evil. But even then, his victory over France meant he had domination over all the continent except the Soviet Union. He could have kept the peace with USSR and run out the clock against the UK.
Now, Viktor Suvorov argues that the USSR was about to attack Germany and that Hitler didn't have a choice, but this is still conjecture and speculation, a matter open to debate, one that I still don't believe. If indeed, Stalin did amass military formations against Germany, he took a huge gamble. Likely, he was using a mental strategy against Hitler. A show of force from the position of strength to psych Hitler out and prevent Germans from attacking. But maybe Hitler read things differently and really believed a Soviet threat was imminent, in which case Stalin's bluff failed(or succeeded to well in convincing the Germans). Now, given the endless lies we've gotten from the media -- and bogus books on Israeli History, such as the notion that Palestinians abandoned their homes voluntarily during the Jewish-Arab War in 1948 -- , it's possible that there's far more to WWII than we'd been told so far. But psychology matters in history, and Stalin's psychology just doesn't indicate 'Invade all of Europe'. Also, the big difference between Stalin and Hitler was that the former already had vast areas and vast populations under direct control. Even without taking another inch, the USSR was an empire unto itself. Stalin already had what it took to be an emperor. In contrast, Hitler's ego was just as big or even bigger, but he only ruled over 'tiny' Germany. Germany had dominion over satellite states, but it was far from what Stalin had. From that perspective, Stalin was content without taking further territory. He was content to nibble on parts of Finland(though he could have taken it all) and Baltic states. Also, even if the Soviet offensive against Germany might have been successful, it would have been at huge cost, and I highly doubt if Stalin was willing to risk that.

German economy did better under Hitler than US economy under FDR, but then that was one of the advantages of a centralized state. Hitler didn't have to deal with democratic brakes for his plans that were implemented overnight and at vast scale. In contrast, FDR's New Deal was hampered by opposition from the other party and capitalists(and American individualism). So, it's understandable why he wanted to be wartime president because war(and hate), like nothing else, unites a nation together for a single purpose. While the notion that FDR provoked Japan into aggression to facilitate US entry into the war is maybe plausible, he would have had to been a super 4D chess player to foresee and manipulate events in Europe. Also, considering that he won his terms by promising peace than war, a mere outbreak of war in Europe would NOT have guaranteed US entry unless US it was itself attacked(and that took Japan).
As for Hitler not being 'Hitler' of Villainy, this is true enough up to 1939. It's like what Joachim Fest wrote in his biography: Had Hitler died in 1939, he would have been remembered as one of Germany's greatest leaders. But there were events following 39 and esp 41, and they revealed the dark side of him. That dark side had always been there, but it truly emerged as he gained greater power and means to do as he wished. Given his ideology and worldview, Hitler could be reasonably humane among his own kind and those whom he respected(like the French). He regarded them with affection and fondness. It's like Jews in Israel are wonderfully nice to other Jews but virulently murderous to those in Gaza. But his racial ideology meant he could be incredibly uncaring and even hostile/murderous toward certain others. He didn't merely dislike the Slavs. He despised them as a people. His hatred of Jews was understandable given Jewish role in communism and Weimar decadence, but it went beyond human hatred toward something monstrous that led to atrocities that even David Irving admits. Irving never said Germans didn't commit atrocities against Jews. He said he found no evidence that Hitler directly gave those orders, but this is rather incredible. While Hitler surely didn't order every instance of mass-killing of Jews, he presided over a system and appointed the kind of men who would gladly do such things.
Morality depends on context. A chimp can be a capital fellow among his own tribe. He can be a good friend and leader. But against an enemy tribe, he can be most vicious, commit all sorts of mayhem, and bite off the genitals of the Other. So, Hitler's rather decent behavior among Germans says nothing of his behavior among Russians or Jews. Likewise, white Americans who could be so nice among themselves could ruthlessly wipe out Indians or kill tons of Filipinos or Vietnamese. Americans, who talk of law & order and democracy, turn a blind eye to all those dead Muslims killed by Wars for Israel. In the American Way of Thinking, a fellow American is a capital fellow and becoming America is ennobling, but 'muzzies' in the Middle East are just cannon-fodder for "Support the Troops" mentality. Americans have affection for Jews and praise them highly, but when it comes to Palestinians, it's like a Brahmin sneering at an Untouchable. Farrakhan is so loving and forgiving of his black brothers and sisters... but feels contempt for rest of humanity. Israeli Jews are brothers and sisters, but they don't care how many Syrians are slaughtered as long as it's 'good for Israel'. Hitler was no different.

From observation of current Jewish mindset and attitude, I wouldn't be surprised if Jewish globalists harbored a supremacist outlook in the early 20th century(as did the French and Anglos who also vied for world supremacy) and that was a factor in German resistance against Weimar-ism.
Indeed, most of Western Europe was in imperialist hegemonic mode, and Jews were a part of it. Whether it was military supremacy, financial supremacy, intellectual/ideological supremacy, cultural supremacy, religious supremacy, racial supremacy, and etc., it was a real game of thrones. As Jewish money and involvement were inseparably intertwined with Western Imperialism, it's likely Jews had a similarly supremacist outlook. In some ways, Jewish hegemonism may have been stronger because of their ancient pedigree of the Chosen rooted in the Covenant.

The tragedy of National Socialist Germany was it didn't counter Jewish supremacism with German Nationalism and Humanism. Alas, it countered Jewish Supremacism with 'Aryan' supremacism and thus forfeited whatever moral credibility it could have possessed. Indeed, one moral advantage of communism was it cleverly framed the global conflict in terms of capitalist-imperialists vs social justice for all of humanity.

But then, it's hardly surprising why Hitler thought as he did since most of the world was already under one form of supremacist domination or other. So-called democracies were the biggest imperialist powers who'd secured dominance over the world. If they felt threatened by Hitler, the reasons weren't merely militaristic but rhetorical. His brazen racial theories bared naked the true nature of imperialism. In essence, it wasn't about enlightenment, Christianity, and spreading progress but about the supremacist hegemony of one group of people(mostly Europeans, Anglos, and Jews) over the rest of mankind. Hitler was blunt and 'rude' enough to spell out what other white elites really thinking but wouldn't say, or at least didn't shout for all to hear. Hitler was too much of a 'cowboy' who called attention to the true gangster-nature of Western Power. Gangsters like to keep things orderly and cordial on the surface: Keep it respectable and gentlemanly. If dirty business has to be done, use the goons, but leave the talking to Men with Manners. In contrast, Hitler did a lot of goonish hollering. In the gangster world, anyone who causes too much stir and spills the beans on what it's really about must be wiped out. Like Tommy in GOODFELLAS.

No comments:

Post a Comment