Every 4th of July, Americans love to pontificate about 1776. Some now rhapsodize about 1619.
But most relevant and significant for us is the stealth revolution that began in 1992 when the boomers took over. Among boomers, Jews were the most powerful, something that wasn't true up to the 'greatest generation'. So, the ascendancy of the boomers meant the rise of the Jews and their eventual supremacist takeover. Billy Boy Clinton was, in this sense, the First Jewish President. Still, being a Sixties guy, he had just enough idealism to try to broker a deal between Jews and Palestinians, albeit one heavily tilted in favor of the Jews. Liberal Jews used him for this end, but many other Jews were angered by his partial empowerment of Palestinians and cut him off at the knees with the Monica Blewinsky scandal. The next boomer president, George W. Bush, operated on the basis of Jew-Envy. Jews are the richest and most influential in top institutions. Also, they gained holy credit via Holocaust Narrative. But most Jews are Democrats. Furthermore, most Republican voters disagreed with the Jewish domestic agenda of globo-homo and anti-whiteness, thus alienating powerful Jews. This meant the Democrats had a bigger schwarz than the GOP, leaving it anxious with schwarz-envy.
So, how could the GOP win over the Jews? Give Neocons everything they want. Let them triumph and become the premier Jews with the most prestige. Hopefully, that just might persuade more Jews to become Neocons and come over to the GOP than remain as nay-saying 'Liberal Jews' among the Democrats. So, we had 9/11 and Iraq War. Dubya would be like the New Churchill standing side-by-side by heroic Neocons who would remake the world for the better. And Jews would be so shocked-and-awed by this that more of them would won over to neoconservatism. Well, the Iraq War didn't go so well. Also, Dubya was an embarrassment, a caricature of the dumb silver-spoon Wasp in decline, and the bi-partisan handing over all the financial decisions to Wall Street Jews led to massive bust in real estate that led to the Great Recession. (Besides, after the yuppie 80s, the fall of the Soviet Union, and Bill Clinton's New Democrat singularity-triangulation strategy that adopted free trade and financial deregulation, there wasn't all that much difference between the two parties. Neo-Liberal Jews and Neocon Jews were essentially two sides of the same coin, working under the table to further Jewish supremacy uber alles. Thus, both the 'left' and 'right' had no real home in either party.) Jews used the foreign policy debacle and financial crisis to push through the Big One. The first mulatto president, a product of ACOWW or Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs. The message was white wombs exist to be colonized by black seed, and white folks must worship the product of jungle fever. Obama's significance was most crucial in terms of sexual politics. His rise meant whites were totally cucked, much like South Vietnamese who offered their women as whores to US invaders. Also, it was under Obama that Jews pushed through globo-homo and without any GOP opposition. The Zeroeth Amendment of America became "If Jews want it, they get it." It's no wonder GOP is so eager to attack China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and etc. Even though Jews are the main enemy of white patriots, the cuck elites are too afraid of Jews to confront them and seek out external enemies, often imagined or exaggerated, instead. They are like dogs that, afraid of master's stick, bark at strangers and other animals.
So, we need to revise the discussion of US history and talk about this Stealth Revolution. It was a profound transformation, no less than the fall of the Soviet Union, aka Russian Empire in 1991. But because of the semblance of political continuity, conceit of 'muh democracy', and continued prosperity, it was assumed that the American system remained intact. No, something profound took place and seriously altered the trajectory of American History. All of US history had been about Wasp-Christian domination until the Rise of the Boomers. That American reality quasi-officially ended in 1992 with the boomer-Jewish takeover. Pat Buchanan was correct in the 1992 Republican Convention speech. He called it a Culture War, but it was essentially an Ethnic War as it was the Jews who drove the New Agenda to subvert, discredit, and undermine White Christian America. Of course, the Wasp order was already on wobbly legs by 1992(indeed even by the Sixties). It was on its last legs as the children of the Wasps had already been indoctrinated in elite colleges by Jews and their useful idiots, the shabbos goy collaborators. Jews have big minds, whites have small minds, and big minds control small minds. Prophets direct the priesthood. Jews think like prophets with the vision(now satanic), and whites go about like priests who receive dogma and enforce it.
This Stealth Revolution took off in 1992 and was completed in 2008 with Barack Obama. Donald Trump seemed to promise to reverse things in a Counter-Revolution or a kind of Restoration, but how could he when he (1) couldn't name the Jew and (2) his Jewish Policy was same as the Dubya Neocon strategy: Mindless support of Israel, deranged vilification of Iran, hostility toward Russia... even though he ran on an essentially anti-war platform in regards to Syria and anti-cold-war proposition in regard to Russia?
So, forget about 1776. That was about the beginning of the Wasp-American nation, now fallen and turned to dust. Forget about 1619. That's just Jews using CRT to guilt-bait whites into moral paralysis, all the better to use them as 'redemptive' cucks beholden to Jewish masters. No, what must really be discussed is 1992 or 1992-2008, the total Jewish takeover. Since then, we are living in a New America. Unless this ethno-revolution is addressed, there can't be any honest assessment of what is really happening in America. And there can be no White Liberation from Jewish Supremacism, the only hope for mankind as Jewish Evil will collapse without white cuck-collaboration, just like British Imperialism came tumbling down in India when the natives refused to collaborate with the empire.
Incidentally, US and Russia fell to Jewish Takeover around the same time. Fall of communism paved the way for the rise of Jewish oligarchs in Russia. The Clinton presidency heralded the Jewish-boomer takeover of just about everything. Paradoxically, the weakness of Rule of Law and sheer gangsterism of Russian realities allowed Russians like Vladimir Putin to regain a measure of autonomy and independence from Jewish supremacist power. In Russia, Jews played dirty but so did the Russians, especially the veterans of the KGB seasoned in gangster tricks. Lack of Rule of Law meant Jews could pull all manner of dirty tricks and take over much of the economy, but it also meant Russians could play dirty and use the same gangster tricks on the Jews. In contrast, American Jews, though no less gangster-like, used the Rule of Law established by Anglo-America to gain power & dominance and continue to rely on the long-existing legal infrastructure to maintain their power. Thus, their power has more legal protections. Putin could go 'Michael Corleone' on the Jewish oligarchs in Russia, but such is nearly impossible in the US where Rule of Law still matters. But as American Jews do think and act like gangsters, the Rule of Law has become more ethno-centric, arbitrary, unprincipled, and corrupt. Jonathan Pollard walks free, moves to Israel, gives middle finger to the US and urges more Jews to betray the US to serve Zion, and stands next to beaming Netanyahu, at whose feet US politicians of both parties groveled. The New Rule of Law allows such things. We were told 'Jeffrey Epstein killed himself', and there's been no real inquiry into what really happened. Those who pushed Russia Collusion Hoax face no punishment, just like no Jewish Wall Street crook got jail time after the 2008 fiasco. Jews allow BLM and Antifa to attack patriots in the streets, and the cops protect BLM and Antifa scum and arrest patriots when they fight back. Jews bitch and whine about how Rule of Law in America had been 'systemically racist' in favor of whites over non-whites for most of its history(which is true enough), BUT their agenda isn't to make the law color-blind but to favor Jews over Palestinians(thus the suppression of BDS), homos over moralists(thus the attack on Christian bakers and florists by trannies and homos), and illegals over American citizens.
And yet, because of stealth revolution of 1992 and the Jewish takeover as the godlike overlords of America, all we get from both political parties is, "We worship, honor, and serve Jews." Jewish Power f---d Trump in the rump, and his message to Jews is, "Can I suck your dic*?" It'd be more honest if we did away with the pretense of democracy and announced that, especially since 1992, the US has undergone a profound revolution that elevated Jews as the master class in the US. As such, Jews are above the law and can do as they wish. The worst kind of Jewish crooks are pardoned by US puppet-presidents, not least Trump, while white patriots are put in solitary confinement and tortured, waiting to be hit with stiff sentences for minor infractions. Jews keep invoking defense of 'liberal democracy' to justify their rule, but their power is about ethnic supremacism, distortion of rule of law, betrayal of Constitutional principles, massive censchwarzship, denial of financial services to patriots(despite banks being bailed out by ALL tax payers), and even use of BLM-Antifa gangsterism to suppress dissent. When politicians run for office in the US, they don't sign a pledge to defend the Constitution but a pledge to blindly support AIPAC and the Zionist Yinon-Plan.
It's a question of Big Idea vs Little Ideas. Big Idea subsumes little ideas. Big 'Truth' redeems small lies.
Also, of the Big Conviction and Small Criticism. Nothing is perfect and can be criticized. During the Cold War, there were plenty of faults with both US and USSR. One could pile up countless things wrong with the US, the West, capitalism, and liberal democracy. Same with the Soviet Union. And yet, some Big Ideas and Big Systems, despite all the problems and imperfections, are better than other Big Ideas. Take Freedom vs Slavery for example. One can find much that is wrong with freedom and find some advantages to slavery. So, when it comes to nitpicking, one can find bad things about freedom and good things about slavery. But as Big Ideas go, most people prefer Freedom to Slavery.
Communism, as a big idea, argued that capitalism is just a form of exploitation and doomed to failure. It argued the state must control everything to prevent one bunch of people from gaining all the wealth and power to exploit the rest. Capitalist liberal democracies argued that capitalism can reform, the democratic process allows for checks/balances, and only a market economy can function properly, create lots of wealth, & lead to innovation. In both argument and delivery, capitalist democracy won over communism — what Francis Fukuyama called the 'End of History'(or Conflict among Big Ideas). But then, what Fukuyama failed to understand was that, as liberal democracies are essentially plutocracies(where politicians are vetted and selected by the rich), their character reflects that of the ruling elites. Lucky for America, the Anglo-Germano-American ruling elites, for all their faults and hypocrisies, were among the best the world had ever seen. They had some sense of common good and higher principles. And some sense of shame and honor. In contrast, when elite power passed to Jews, many of whom turned out to be utterly shameless in their hypocrisy, megalomania, and paranoia, the Jewish character came to shape the direction of democracy and capitalism in the West.
In Russia, the unfettered extreme Jewish kind of capitalism led to the crazy 1990s when a handful of oligarchs, mostly of the Tribe, took control of much of the Russian economy while leaving most people destitute. And as 'democracy' is a plutocracy, the Russian government of Boris Yeltsin merely did the bidding of Jewish oligarchs.
Though the US has been much richer and better prepared to weather economic storms, something similar happened there. The increasingly financialized and monopolized economy became less principled, less fair, and less rational. It led to ever greater concentration of wealth, especially as globalism undermined the checks-and-balances among the classes, i.e. globalism gave capitalists access to cheap labor all over the world and pretty much destroyed the US working class that had once been a real political force. Moral Hazard totally went out the window; if anything, the 'experts' smeared it as hypocritical hand-wringing by economic illiterates. And the media, another corporate entity, became a total propaganda machine. When the internet promised to spread the power around, the Jewish monopolists and their allies used all manner of dirty tricks to shut down free flow of information and debate. And of course, Republican politicians, shills of plutocracy, haven't done anything. (There is a 'libertarian' argument for letting the rich do as they please, but notice the so-called libertarians are oddly silent about the state's role in shutting down BDS. Shouldn't libertarians at least be opposed to STATIST suppression of activism and discourse?) At any rate, even though Fukuyama focused on the value of Big Ideas, he failed to understand that any set of ideas, big or small, is shaped by the character of those with the power. Indeed, the failure of Latin American democracies is ample proof that worthless elites lead to worthless democracies. Freedom is better than slavery, but Freedom controlled by rotten scum can be as bad or even worse than slavery(dominated by enlightened tyrants).
Anyway, the Big Idea and Big Conviction works like an umbrella against the storm of small ideas or small criticisms. People with a clear sense of Big Idea can weather the storm of small criticisms. (Same goes for Big Feeling vs Little Feeling. No family is perfect, but the deep wells of emotion keep the family united against threatening forces, like in THE GODFATHER.) But people without such conviction can easily lose faith and go with whichever side is making the Most Noise. The question is, do most young Russians have a Big Idea/Conviction about Russian people/culture, history/culture, and destiny? If they do, they could brush off subversive foreign efforts to undermine Russian unity and power. If they don't, they will likely be swayed by whomever has the means to make the most noise(as most people cannot think for themselves and allow others to do the thinking for them).
Among the primary ways of persuading people are the means of associative ideology and associative idolatry. Globo-Homo spread by both means. The elites associated 'gay'-this and 'gay'-that with 'equality', as in 'marriage equality' even though the notion of homosexuality being of equal value/worth with real sexuality is ludicrous. But in a political culture that lionizes the notion of 'equality', it did the job in persuading many people that homos are deserving of 'marriage equality'. But there was also associative idolatry. Homos were made sympathetic, 'cool', joyous, colorful, wonderful, and even sacred by endless propaganda in movies, TV shows, advertising, 'gay pride' celebration days/weeks/months, and etc. They were made 'iconic'. And of course, as the West is most associated with power, wealth, and status, many around the world seek to burnish their image by being pro-'Western'. It is the Polish Disease — Pathetic Polacks are Slavs who want to be thought of as being part of the West, not the backward East — , and it is spreading in Russia as well. Ireland is falling apart because it too has the Polish Disease.
Another example of associative ideology can be seen in the West's coverage of Ukraine and Hungary. Even though Ukraine is run by Jewish gangster oligarchs, it is associated with 'liberal democracy', whereas Viktor Orban's style of governance in Hungary is associated with 'autocracy' or 'anti-democratic' impulses. This may seem odd when Orban came to power through free election whereas the current Ukrainian regime is the product of US-backed coup or 'color revolution'. But for many fools who rely on the media, such ideological sleight-of-hand tricks do the magic. Of course, many wanna-be-elites and would-be-educated rely on New York Times, The Economist, New Yorker, and the like for status-reasons. Though ostensibly about 'freedom of the press', their main value is as status-signalers. They offer fashion-news, or the kind of ideas one must espouse IF he or she is to be accepted into Elysium, if only 'psycho-virtually' — even those who come nowhere near elite bastions of power/privilege like to smugly feel that they belong to the 'better kind of people' because they get their information from stuff like The Atlantic, a journal read by 'important' people.
As for another example of associative idolatry, there is the cult of Noble Negro, what with some European nations being even more enthused about BLM than the US is. The idolatrous idea or 'idological' notion is that blacks are 'cool', badass, noble, awesome, and etc., therefore anything is made better if associated with Negroes. Why is that taco better than this taco? Because it has been advertised as 'BLM'. BLMour(or blamour) is the new glamour.
Vladimir Putin has been around for some time, and he's been a good manager. But has he supplied Russia with a Big Idea or Deep Conviction about Russian Civilization? Being a good manager is important but not enough. In the end, managers serve the idea. Without a Big Idea about the worth of Russian Civilization, many young Russians will just become minions of Pop Culture and silly memes. Their worldview will be mostly that of associative ideology and associative idolatry pushed by the West, which isn't even Western anymore but Judeo-Afro-homo or JAH-ist. It is ironic that Anatoly Karlin is worried about the West's infection of Russia, but he bought the Covid-hysteria nonsense hook, line, and sinker. Covid was never going to be a mass-killer, and Jews pushed it to destroy Trumponomics and to restore power to globalist governments to shut down populist-nationalist challenges.
If Russians have a Big Idea about the Motherland, they will be able to weather the storm. For all its faults, they will see Russia as worth preserving and defending against the globalist tide. If not, Russia will become a big Ireland or what Poland is destined to be, as its young are total minions of JAH-ist garbage. Russia must articulate its role in history. How it came to be, how it survived(sometimes against impossible odds), and how it is unique. A sense of how Russia overcame communism and Jewish oligarchic capitalism.
Also, Russia must be honest about Jewish Power. The current US and EU animus against Russia was cooked up mostly by Jews. Russians must know this. Russians must know the Jewish Mind, i.e. that Jews believe that they are so smart and Russians are so dumb, and therefore, Jews deserve to dominate Russia and Russians deserve to be helots of Jews. In a way, the Jewish vision of Russia isn't much different from the Nazi vision of German 'Aryans' lording over Russian Slavs as helots. Russians must understand that most goyim in US and EU are puppets of Jews.
The reasons are twofold. Naturally, most politicians whore out to Big Money, and Jews are the richest. But the other reason is Jewish Power replaced Christianity with Holocaustianity. Therefore, white goyim not only serve Jews-as-oligarchs but Jews-as-god. Now, Russians make a big deal of how Russia defeated Nazism and saved Jews, and that is a legit historical and moral argument. But, Russia must also understand that Jewish radicalism and subversion did great harm to Russia prior to rise of Nazism and, if anything, led to Adolf Hitler's rise because Germans(among others) had enough of crazy Jews. Furthermore, Jewish craziness is buried deep within the Jewish Core. Karl Marx thought communism would cure Jews of greed, but Jewish communists turned out to be bloody greedy for power. Libertarians and conservatives think capitalism and Zionism will cure Jews of radicalism, but today's super-capitalist Jews are pushing insane radical agendas. (But the lesson of Nazism is one shouldn't fight craziness with more craziness.) Russians must also understand that Globo-Homo is the proxy tool of the Jews. Jews relish the sight of the vast-majority of straight people groveling at the feet of homos and even trannies. (Homos went from liberation to inquisition. First, they were liberated from traditional restrictions and could do their homo thing. But that wasn't enough for their vanity and vengeance. They weren't content to be homo and distorted the law and other means to FORCE straight people to comply to homo demands or else be purged. In other words, straight society had to swallow the notion of 'gay marriage', and we must make-believe that a tranny is a 'woman' or some guy is a 'they' than a 'he'. Of course, Jews love the sight of this. Just as they relish the sight of hapless goyim groveling at their feet, they just can't get enough of the vast-majority of straights being kicked around by a bunch of trannies. Jews or homos/trannies, it's a case of elite-minority supremacism over the majorities.)
Russians must also realize the threat of the Cult of Negro. So far, most Russian athletes are Russian, and Russians look up to Russian idols as 'national heroes'. Russians must realize that the promotion of Negrolatry is to rob the white race of their own idols and heroes. In the US, white boys and girls worship Negro stars in pop culture and sports. And this is spreading all over Europe. Presence of Negroes leads to white cuckery. Look at the Africanization of France and UK. Why would anyone want this? Well, Dumb Polacks want it because they have the Polish Disease and are so eager to be petted by the West as 'good doggy'. But Russians should not play this game.
Of course, it is tempting to play the Noble Negro card. The USSR did it during the Cold War by spreading propaganda that Noble Negroes were being oppressed by Evil Whites. And Europeans who felt moral inferiority-complex vis-a-vis the US(especially because of WWI and WWII) played the same game. But what is the result of this? Tug-a-Gro(or Tug-a-Negro) where all sides pretend (1) Negroes are so special and (2) they love Negroes more than others do. "With Negro on our side." What kind of moral argument is this? Elevating the most savage and destructive race as sacred/noble and premising one's moral value on the extent of slavishness to Afromania and BLM. Russians and Chinese who, cynically or sincerely, brandish BLM memes need to understand that it is a Jewish Ploy against the National Majority. Jews rule the US, and Jews spread BLM to morally browbeat the white majority. Russians and Chinese must stop believing that US is run by whites who oppress blacks. US is run by Jews who oppress whites by invoking black holiness. So, if China and Russia really want to counter Jewish Power that controls the US, they are better off with PLM or Palestinian Lives Matter.
How many Russians know that Russia is a world unto itself and has so many potential(and that Russians are the biggest under-achievers around the world)? If Russians got their act together, the sky would be the limit. But they do so little with what they have and look to the outside world(that is dominated by Jews, homos, and white cucks) for meaning and purpose. This is truly sad. For all the rottenness of Jews, imagine the things they could do if they were the majority group in Russia. In some ways, Jews have done more for Israel than Russians have done for Russia. Too many Russian elites are corrupt, and too many Russian masses are stupid 'white trash'. They really need to clean up their act. While Putin made things more efficient and streamlined, he hasn't altered the essential character flaw of Russians. He hasn't cultivated a new crop of visionary and inspirational leadership. All around him are flunkies and hangers-on. This is why when Putin eventually leaves the scene, Russia could become a big Poland or Ireland. The Polish Disease is spreading.
The value of the Big Idea can be appreciated by using land as analogy. Big Territory is harder to conquer than Small Territory. If Russia had been the size of France or Poland, Germans might have prevailed over the Soviet Union with its Blitzkrieg attack. But the sheer vastness of Russia allowed the USSR to move its industrial base to the east while Germans became over-stretched across vast territories to the point where their logistics broke down, especially with rain and snow. Likewise, China was able to weather the Japanese invasion because of its vastness. In contrast, Taiwan and Korea were easily swallowed up by Japan.
Same goes for Big Ideas. They are much harder to conquer than small ones. Now, a people don't need a Big Territory to have a Big Idea. Jews are a prime example of this. For much of their history, they had no territory to call their own. But they preserved their identity and culture because they had a Big Idea, that of the Covenant that linked the Jews as a special people to the one-and-only God. This is why Jews, among all the immigrant groups in America, were not conquered by Anglo-American-ness but, in time, came to conquer and reduce the 'Wasps' into pathetic puppets and tools of Jewish Power centered around a Big Idea. In contrast, all other groups, from Germans to Filipinos, have been utterly conquered by Anglo-American-ness and are now being converted to globo-homo cuckery to Jewish Supremacism and Afromania. The ONLY group that may follow the Jews in their identity-insistence is the Hindus who, like Jews, are ethno-religionists, or identity over ideology. In contrast, Muslims, Christians, and Buddhists are credo-religionists, or ideology over identity. Russia has been able to survive due to Big Territory, but does it have a Big Idea that can fend off the slings and arrows of other ideas, hostile and foreign? Of course, many foreign ideas can be useful and productive, but they're usually in the fields of science and technology. Especially in the post-modern world, there have been no great new ideas. Indeed, we are living in the Age of 'Idology', or idolatry-as-ideology, and Russia need to develop its own 'idology' that resists that of the Holy Three of Jews, Homos, and Negroes.
Jews want all the world to worship the Holy Holocaust uber alles. Jews want all nations to replace its national idols with Negro athletes and stars. Jews want all houses of worship of whatever faith to hoist the 'gay' flag and celebrate sodomy as globo-homo-mania is the proxy agenda of Jewish Supremacist Power. Do most Russians understand this and realize what is at stake? If Russians lack the Big Idea of what their people, culture, and history are about, they do not understand, and it's only a matter of time before they will succumb to the Polish Disease.
Now, there are smart and dumb ways to spread the Big Idea. Russians need a Big Idea about Russia, and to some extent, Putin has tried to bring this about. He built more churches and promoted more nationalism. But building more churches is only symbolic. Most Russians will not visit these cathedrals and won't care. In our age, people are persuaded by electronic signals, not stone objects. Electronic signals are the 'spirit' of the modern world. Also, a generic kind of nationalism isn't enough. A nationalism needs a clear sense of 'who we are' and 'who hate us'. While Russians are clear about their enemy during World War II — the Nazi Germans — , they aren't about the New Enemy, the Jewish Globalists. Now, this doesn't mean Russians should bash all Jews. Just like not all Germans were enemies(and Russia and East Germany could be friends after the war), not all Jews are enemies. Still, Russia needs to spell out what is really happening. The problem isn't EU or US per se but Jewish control of US that controls the EU. And why do Jews hate Russia? Jews look upon Russians as vodka-swilling dummies who should serve the smarter/superior Jews. All Russians need to understand that the current Jewish animus against Russia goes back to the 1990s and even earlier. In both the early years of the Bolshevik Revolution and the gangster-capitalist 1990s, Jews nearly had Russia and are still livid with rage that the big dumb Russian fish slipped out of their grasp. But Jews are like Captain Ahab and won't give up until they get their whale. If Russians understood this basic fact, they would see foreign anti-Russian sources of News for what it is. While anti-Russian news/opinions may well have kernel of truth to them, it would be understood by most Russians that the PRIMARY purpose of these news isn't to spread truth or serve justice but to turn Russians into deracinated globo-homo minions who worship Negroes(than their own national idols/heroes), thereby easing the path for Jewish Supremacists to take over Russia. Such a Big Idea of what Russia is up against would weaken all the small ideas/criticism of Russia by outsider and Russian cucky-wucks. Putin's style of nationalism has been the Silent Majority kind. Building churches may have some symbolic value but lacks dynamism. Byzantine Empire built many churches but couldn't prevent the enervation and decline. Under Byzantine rule, Christianity became a dogma controlled by corrupt elites into court intrigue. In a way, as bloody as the Catholic vs Protestant conflict was, it might have been good for both and for Western Christianity that it fostered competitiveness. Neither could take things for granted as a monopoly. The Protestant challenge also meant that Western Christianity couldn't just be a bureaucratic labyrinth. Individual conscience mattered. Even as Catholics denounced Protestantism, the threat from the New Church forced them to reflect and make reforms. In contrast, no such challenge compelled the Eastern Church to make reforms and revivify itself as the soul of Byzantium. It became the mummified religion of the elites behind the walls. Against the threat from Muslims who, for a time, had all the youth, excitement, and energy, the Byzantium World only knew conservatism, wall-mentality(against Muslim war mentality), and status quo. When one side pushes to gain new ground while the other side stands only to hold territory, the former will eventually win. Against the pusher, one must push back. Byzantium failed to push back. And today, Russia won't push back against the Jews. Even as Putin took measures to restore some degree of nationalism and restrain out-of-control Jewish Power, he hasn't taken up the necessary challenge.
Also, Russia has failed to offer anything of itself to the Western World. For example, RT News doesn't convey Russian ideas, Russian values, and Russian grandeur. Rather, it just hires Western SJW types and 'leftists' to offer 'progressive' assaults against Western Imperialism. It's like the 'conservative' game of 'Democrats are the real racists', i.e. it accepts the enemy's platform as the main moral premise. Now, if this was just a facet of RT, it wouldn't be so bad. But it's about 99% of it. Even when Russia gains access to other nations, it does little to impart Russian ideas, culture, and values. It just hires 'leftists' with somewhat more integrity than the usual 'liberals' in the Western Media. So, Christopher Hedges and Rick Sanchez have shows on RT. Now, this isn't entirely a bad strategy: Use Western Left to attack Western Liberals. Also, whereas the educated class in the West may scoff at Russian culture and values, they might listen to True Leftists or Dissident Progressives who've been fired, purged, or blacklisted by Jewish-dominated 'liberal' mainstream media.
Still, it's just Russians offering an alternative Western viewpoint against the 'mainstream' or official Western Agenda. America is now a satanic and crazy empire(with both its elite and mass culture in a state of total retardation), BUT what it has to offer still excites people all over the world. Something always seems to be 'happening'. It's an 'event'. It's 'cool', 'badass', and/or 'awesome'. Whether it's comic book movies, rap concerts, globo-homo-mania, BLM, or whatever, the West seems to be always 'rocking'.
Now, there is pro and con to the current 'Western' Way. It is highly effective because it's so well funded and charged. It's abuzz with energy as the Jews control all the hype machine. Also, the West's shamelessness means that it will promote and disseminate ANYTHING, no matter how outrageous(or more outrageous the better), that might have mass appeal or immediate sensory excitement. Like 'twerking'. It's demented, but it has spread all over because, by the lowest common denominator, people are hairless apes. But there is a downside to all this. It's the Disco Factor. At one time, Disco ruled and was everywhere. It seemed like it would last forever... except it vanished almost overnight. What had been so 'cool' was deemed clownish and insipid. People were embarrassed that they had anything to do with Disco. Usually, something sensational has a short shelf-life. And so much of current 'Western Values' or 'Western Causes' are like fireworks without the fire. They are so much about hysteria, outrage, thrill, orgasm, or etc. When fireworks are over, they are really over. This is why the West has to keep generating sensationalism and excitement to keep up the thrill-level or outrage-level. Nothing it puts forth has any intrinsic value except as hype or Da Bomb. Whether it's the buzz over the new blockbuster or new video-game OR hysteria for something about homos, BLM, illegals-are-dreamers, or Covid lunacy, the Western Media have to keep injecting new doses of sensory overdrive. Thus, there's a lot of energy but almost no meaning.
Take the hysteria about J.K. Rowhling and trannies. Sane people would not attack a woman for saying 'man with balls is not a woman', but so many young people in the West are so charged with 'moral' outrage and hysteria about holy homos and precious trannies that they can't think straight. Of course, they can't think at all, and their 'morality' or 'ethics' is just a matter of celebrity-worship and Political Correctness. Celebrity Worship makes them agree with whatever Hollywood and Music Industry pushes at the moment, and PC molded their minds to think in terms of holy vs taboo. Despite its term, 'Critical Theory' is the most anti-critical tool in the academia. It says certain groups, especially Jews, blacks, and homos, are sacred, whites are especially guilty & wicked, and the rest better side with Jews, blacks, and homos against whites. This is why there is no rhyme or reason to current 'progressive' thought. Leftism used to be premised on class ideology, mostly of Marx. Liberalism used to be based on either the theory of individual rights or universal justice. But current 'progressivism' is mostly about idolatry of Jews, homos, and blacks. Antifa and billionaire oligarchs chant the same mantras about trannies being treasures or BLM even though all facts show blacks kill blacks(and non-blacks). And if Jews are truly liberal, why do they insist we support Zionism and Jewish imperialists over Palestinians? Jews used to bleat about socialism or individual rights, but now, most are totally okay with super-capitalism(that made Jews the richest people) and into globo-homo, which lionizes homos as the favored pets of the ruling elites class. And this is being broadcast all over the world in a kind of new cultural imperialism.
Now, Russia could stand for Nationalism against Imperialism. The problem is many people all over the world are mesmerized by the cultural imperialism of globo-homo, rap music, Hollywood, celebrity culture, pornography, and etc. Why don't they stand for their national culture against imperialist junk culture? Because most people around the world are unimaginative folks with nothing to say or express. They are passive than active creatures. As people are easily bored, they crave distractions. It's like a dog wants someone to throw sticks so it can play fetch. Most people need others to toss them the stick. They can't create their own culture. It's no wonder few religions dominate the world. If most people can't create their own stuff, they will gravitate to whatever has the most mass appeal or generates the most buzz. If someone had to sit in a theater without anything on screen or stage, he'd be bored to death. He wouldn't be able to entertain himself with his own ideas and imagination. But if there's a fun movie on screen or show on stage, he could sit there for 3 hrs, even 4 hrs, in pure delight. He wants his heart and mind to be captivated by another. Most people around the world feel like bored nobodies sitting in a theater with nothing playing. So, they are grateful for ANYTHING that grabs their attention. Anything to stave away the boredom. It's like sitting on a sofa for 5 hrs is a boring notion, but you forget all about the boredom if the TV is on. It doesn't matter that most stuff on TV is dumb. At least, Dumb isn't Boring, which people hate more. Now, if people are bored, shouldn't they create their own stuff? Shouldn't they try to be creative and seek truths? But most people want others to do it for them. This is especially true of conservatives. Even as they bitch about 'liberal' domination of movies and music, they hardly create their own.
It's been said the US is very creative, but there are just few centers of creativity. Most Americans in most of America are passive and do nothing. It's just a few centers in cities that make most arts, culture, entertainment. 1% of America is 'New York', rest is 'Nebraska'. It's just a few universities that create new ideological trends. This is why people sound like clones. Ministry of Information says "trannies are holy", and soon, just about everyone is spouting the same nonsense. It is why most US conservatives are such servile dogs to Zion. GOP as standard-bearer of American Conservatism says it's one's God-given duty to support Israel(even though Jews hate Christians and turned the Holy Land into Sodom and Gomorrah).
Most Russians are not creative. They just like to get drunk, dance on tables, and curse. They would wrestle bears too, but there aren't too many bears around Moscow. Just about the only happening place in Russia is Moscow, but not much happens there compared to any major city in the US. Also, despite their small number, Jews do far more thinking, speaking, and creating in Russia than Russians do. Now, most Jewish ideas may be crazy or harmful, but they are saying something. Meanwhile, Russians are just getting drunk and acting dumb. To be sure, this 'dumb' quality, along with corruption, may have allowed Russians to become relatively more independent of Jewish Power. Anglo-Americans, being better educated, more sober, and more conscientious, could be easily baited and cajoled into looking up to Holy Holocaust Jews as the ultimate moral arbiters. In contrast, the more slovenly and rule-breaking Russians are less likely to be conscientious, therefore less likely to be morally baited by Jews. (You can fool a well-meaning person but not a gangster who cynically believes EVERYONE, even the so-called 'good', are up to no good.) Indeed, one key difference between the Russian Revolution and Jewish takeover of the US is that Jews had to pander to Russians in the former whereas goyim ended up sucking up to Jews in the latter. Though it's true that the Bolshevik Revolution put many Jews in power over Russians, Jews themselves had to de-emphasize Jewishness and speak up for the common good for all those in the Russian Empire. While Russian chauvinism was suppressed, so was Jewish identity. This may be why Jews eventually lost out in the Soviet Union. In contrast, Jewish takeover of the US after WWII was premised on elevating Jews as a specially holy and tragic people. The Holy Holocaust People so full of woe, wit, and wisdom. The idea was the US had to support Israel because the ultimate truth is about Holy Jews vs Their Evil Enemies. Anglo-Americans were well-meaning and conscientious enough to fall for the moral bait. (A cynical Sicilian would have seen right through the BS.) If Jews are holy, their demands are godly. And if Jews are godly, those who displease Jews are ungodly and must be crushed. Look at today's US. Jews shit on Donald Trump day and night, but Trump's big message is "I love Jews, I serve Jews." If Jews cut off one of his legs, Trump would say, "I will hobble around on my remaining leg to serve you holy Jews and give you anything you want." Is it any wonder this country is so screwed up?
Against all this, what can Russians do? Against the insane fireworks of the New West, what can Russia offer? There is nationalism to be sure, but it must be substantive than symbolic. Parades and pageantry are nice, but such didn't save the USSR. And they won't save Putin's Russia. Also, while military parades and big rallies have a galvanizing effect, they can also become routine and boring, especially with young people. Of course, young people eventually turn into old people, but as the young are more active than the old, nationalism must have the hearts and minds of those who are young. Karlin wonders maybe Russia should censor like China to win over the young, but that is a form of retreat. In the long run, it won't work because the young will feel that the ONLY way the system can win is by shutting down speech and availability of information. To truly win over the hearts and minds, the System must offer the better vision and solution.
1. Russian youths need to be instilled with a deep sense of Russian-ness. Such depth has been lost in the US, UK, and EU, replaced by PC and Pop Culture. Deep Nationalism requires family life and its connection to history and heritage. Consider the film SIBERIADE by Andrei Konchalovsky. What that film teaches us is that family, community, and personal memory are the glue between the individual and the nation/civilization. In the West, there is a sense of the individual and a sense of history/civilization but hardly any sense of family, kinship, and memory. It's almost as if the individual is independent of or separate from the civilization. No wonder then that anyone can become anyone. An African can become a Frenchman or Briton. Now, if a European had a personal, familial, and ancestral consciousness, he would know that he is bound to his nation by blood of relatives and forebears. Without such mindset, a civilization is just a bundle of ideas, and that means ANY individual who applies for citizenship and learns to speak the language is part of the nation. Such is recipe for national suicide and decline. Today in the West, young people are taught history, but they are not encouraged or guided to cultivate a personal link to the story of the past. What links an individual in a deep personal sense to history and nation? He is linked by ancestry. People were aware of this in the past, especially as their cultural outlook developed in close proximity of family and community, independent of the constant distractions of TV and pop culture that make young ones primarily identify with pop idols, most of whom are shallow dolts or freaks. A Briton had an ancestral and cultural sense of who he was. But today, Britain is just an idea. Anyone can become 'British', and even British history no longer belongs to the ancestors of the White British. Rather, it's a just a bunch of narratives that can be molded by BBC to feature past Britons as some multi-culti polygot. Now, Britain is diverse in the sense that it was a coming together of various ethnic groups, some of whom to this day have a sense of distinctness. Still, they have deep roots in that land, real ancestry of blood and soil. For this reason, no people can survive for long if they just focus on the individual and civilization. It must focus on familial ties and ancestry as the binding element between individual and civilization.
2. Russia or any civilization that wants to survive in the long run must prioritize organicism over individualism. This doesn't mean individualism should be quashed. It is valuable for freedom, enterprise, and creativity. But just like the body isn't a collection of individual/independent cells, a civilization cannot simply be about individuals. The fact is individuals are different and serve different roles. Imagine if liver cells decided to serve as pancreatic cells. This doesn't mean a return to serfdom where people are strictly bound to occupations or obligations. But it does mean one should think of one's place in society than merely "whatever I want to do". The individual must ask, "how does my ideas and my actions serve the nation well?" Also, men and women are fundamentally different. True, women are equal in intelligence and, especially in our mechanized age, can do most jobs men can do. Women can be good doctors and accountants. But any healthy society must prioritize jobs for men, especially well-paying jobs for men. Whereas men will marry women without jobs, vice versa is rarely true. So, if women take jobs from men, far fewer men have incomes necessary to attract wives. Therefore, most key jobs should go to men. Now, women may call this 'unfair', but this is because they prioritize individualism over the common good. Favoring men in the economy is a form of biological socialism. If men and women are allowed to pursue jobs as individuals, men with good jobs will marry women with good jobs, and most of the wealth will accrue to such people. Meanwhile, men who can't get good jobs will have a hard time finding a wife, and many women without good jobs will end up single. There is something to be learned from Islam. A people must work for the common good. They must have a sense of what is good for most people than just 'myself'.
3. As for arts, culture, and entertainment, Akira Kurosawa presented the best formula in HIGH AND LOW. There must be both substance and style. Not just hardy boots or flimsy high heels but a shoes of quality with measured style. The kind of work that can bridge the elites and the masses. Kurosawa's films certainly did that. They were serious and entertaining. They were unique to Japanese culture but had universal appeal and reach. Russians need to follow this model to revive culture and gain soft power around the world. 4. Russia should promote a kind of universal nationalism that respects the differences and particularities among nations in history, culture, values, food, attitude, and etc. Now, there are universal values in our day and age. We don't want a culture to practice human sacrifice, slavery, or torturing animals as blood-sport. Still, one-size-fits-all globalism must be countered with true appreciation of diversity. When PC globalists claim to celebrate 'diversity', they show no interest in other peoples, cultures, and values. Rather, they mean the diverse peoples of the world should all listen to rap music, worship the Holocaust & praise Jews, and wave the homo flag. It's McDiversity where all groups must go for Happy Meal of Jewgromo-centrism(Jew-Negro-Homo-centrism). There are so many peoples and cultures in the world. The world is truly diverse. The best way to preserve and honor diversity is for every nation to secure itself against the threat of mass-invasions(aka immigration) and to respect the uniqueness of other peoples. Of course, there should be trade and travel among nations but never to the point where it leads to the Great Replacement and Deracination(as preparation of the satanic globalism that would have everyone bow down at the altar of sodomy, black thuggery, and Jewish gangsterism). There was a time of national cinema. The world came to appreciate the films of other nations in a spirit of mutual respect and curiosity, but each nation produced its own movies with uniqueness and distinctness. But look at French and British culture today. French are now like Americans who speak French, and the British might as well be members of the 51st state of America. And just look at the state of Polish and Japanese cultures. All globo-homo and Negro-worship.
Now, it's a tall order for vodka-swilling Russians to sober up and get off their asses to do what's right. But this looks like the repeat of the Roman Empire. The Western Empire fell but Eastern Empire survived. Western Europe seems about to fall to host of diseases like feminism, globo-homo, BLM, and etc. If things continue, Russia will be the last remaining bearer of European Civilization. Now, Byzantium, even as it survived the fall of the Western Empire, failed to achieve much and just slowly rotted. Can Russia survive the new Western Fall and also avoid the fate of the Byzantines who lacked the dynamism necessary to keep the fire going? THE OFFICIAL COVID NARRATIVE IS FALLING TO PIECES
But now McConnell had heard that Buchanan was planning to release a new book supposedly glorifying Adolf Hitler and denouncing America’s participation in the world war to defeat the Nazi menace.
Where did Scott McConnell get that impression? At most, the book might have been an apologia for some of Hitler's decisions, but did he really believe Buchanan would write a book GLORIFYING Der Fuhrer?
Mainstream publications had largely ignored the book, but it seemed to receive enormous praise from alternative writers, some of whom fiercely denounced TAC for having attacked it.
It was reviewed in the New York Review of Books, unfavorably but not entirely negatively. Pat Buchanan was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN about the book. Christopher Hitchens wrote a scathing review in Newsweek, then still a major publication; therefore, the book was not ignored. I mostly agreed with Hitchens' assessment. The problem was not Buchanan's contrarian take on the origins of World War II but the tendency to be harsh on Winston Churchill at every turn while soft-pedaling nearly everything Adolf Hitler did. Instead of arguing that Hitler shouldn't have done such-and-such, Buchanan placed most of the blame on those compelled to react to Hitler's initiatives or provocations. John Lukacs was correct in saying that Hitler was the main driver of the forces that led to WWII. Hitler's moves provoked other nations, and even if Poland, UK, and France acted unwisely(at least in hindsight), Hitler should have known that if he plays with matches, he could set off a forest fire. Hitchens was willing to concede that maybe Buchanan and others were right about the foolishness of UK and France guaranteeing protection for Poland. From a realpolitik perspective(and especially in retrospect), one might say UK and France acted rashly. But Buchanan goes much further than that in UNNECESSARY WAR. In the earlier book REPUBLIC, NOT AN EMPIRE, Buchanan stopped at events up to 1939. George Kennan, renowned for realism in foreign affairs, wrote him a letter of support. But in UNNECESSARY WAR, Buchanan moves beyond 1939 and keeps blaming the other players more than Germany and Hitler even as he concedes that Hitler was pathological and committed unspeakable crimes. Niall Ferguson, maybe the most famous living British historian, already argued that UK should have stayed out of World War I and let Germans dominate Europe in co-existence with the British Empire. Recently, Peter Hitchens wrote a book on WWII that agrees with the view of people like Buchanan, at least up to events in 1939. The real problem is what happened afterwards, and in UNNECESSARY WAR, Buchanan keeps faulting those who reacted to Hitler than faulting Hitler for his proactive(and reckless) decisions. Christopher Hitchens also noted that Hitler was something other than a conqueror in the classic sense. If Napoleon had prevailed over Russia, there would have been at least the spread of Enlightenment values. If Hitler had prevailed over Russia, it would have been like Spartans subjugating the Helots all over again on a massive scale.
I don't think Buchanan was or is pro-Hitler, but he's always been Germano-centric. Ironically, Neocon Jews hate Buchanan because his politics of identity is much like their own. Jews have been known to favor identity over ideology. Capitalist Jews in the US sided with communist Jews in USSR and even Jewish communist spies in the US. Capitalist Jews denounced Joe McCarthy's anti-communism because it disadvantaged their tribal brethren. But Jews who supported leftist Jews also supported nationalist Jews, the Zionists. Jews have operated on the basis of "Is it good for Jews?", and Buchanan has a similar worldview about white folks, especially the Germans, his favorite people. Also, he's half-German and was born with a Teutonic personality.
Buchanan's formative years saw the world divided between godless communism that came to be associated with radical Jews & Slavs(Russians) AND capitalist Anglo-America, Catholic Spain, & fascist Germany. From Buchanan's point of view, it made more sense for democratic capitalist Anglo nations(UK and US) to side with Nazi Germany and Franco's Spain for either racial or religious reasons. Buchanan came of age in a time of much intra-racial tensions among whites. Today, we mainly talk of White People as a single group, but ethnic tensions were riding high through much of the 20th century. World War I was sparked by Pan-Germanism vs Pan-Slavicism. In the US, there were many ethnic tensions among Anglos, Irish, Italians, Jews, Poles, Russians, etc. There was a view among Anglos and Germans that they were somewhat better than the Other Whites who were less pure. Apparently, Italians and Spanish had some 'black' blood, and Slavs had some 'Asiatic' blood. The ethnic tensions were made worse by the rise of communism in Russia. Suddenly, the Slavs turned into commie Slavs taking orders from Jews as the new masters. This Soviet Union was not only of the Other(and lesser) White Race but godless. Then, from the POV of people like Buchanan(and his mentors), the Anglo world should have sided with Germans as proper racial cousins and with Franco's Spain as a Catholic power that stood against communism.
Looking back, much of the problems of the West could have been avoided IF these ethnic tensions had been managed better. Buchanan himself errs in thinking Anglos should have sided with Germans against Slavs. The fact is Russians are mostly white, and the thinking should have been Anglos and Germans should have made peace with Russians and sided with them against rise of Asia. John Lukacs was prescient during the Cold War when he said the Soviet Union would be a far less of a challenge than China. People didn't take him seriously back then because the Soviet Union was a superpower whereas China was mostly an agrarian country of rice-eaters, but the past few decades proved Lukacs was right. Looking back, the Anglos shouldn't have alienated Germans, and Germans shouldn't have alienated Russians and other Slavs. It just ended up with so much white-on-white bloodbath. That said, the rise of communism in Slavic Nations understandably made people like the Buchanans turn against the Other White World that seemed permanently lost to godless communism and/or Oriental Despotism.
Among other things, he persuasively argued that the German war-guilt was somewhat less than that of most of the other participants, also noting that despite the endless propaganda of “Prussian militarism,” Germany had not fought a major war in 43 years, an unbroken record of peace considerably better than that of most of its adversaries.
Germany didn't fight in a major war in those 43 years because it didn't have a worthy competitor on the continent. But with its surging industry and imperial ambitions(though limited) made it a major candidate for aggression on the world stage. From the British and French perspective, "two's company but three's a crowd." UK and France had fought many bitter wars for imperial supremacy. Brits prevailed in North America, only to see their prize possession go independent with French aid. In the end, UK vs France in the New World ended up with both sides losing. UK lost America, and French monarchy lost its head. So, instead of endlessly fighting for every inch of territory, UK and France came to an understanding. Brits would be the premier imperial power, and France would be #2. They would tolerate one another. While the Brits usually got the better colonies, the French got a lot too. Over time, they became partners, and both feared the rise of Germany because of its bigger population and expanding industry(that eclipsed British industrial output in a matter of decades). Now, looking back, it might have been wiser for UK and France to make some room for Germany's place in the world, but at the time, Germany looked like a real rival. Also, Kaiser Wilhelm really was a jerk and an ass. Rash, impetuous, arrogant, and vain. Difficult man to work with.
However, the bulk of the book focused on the events leading up to the Second World War, and this was the portion that had inspired such horror in McConnell... Buchanan described the outrageous provisions of the Treaty of Versailles.. whereas his democratic Weimar predecessors had failed, Hitler had managed to succeed, largely through bluff, while also annexing German Austria and the German Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, in both cases with the overwhelming support of their populations.
If Buchanan had only argued thus, it wouldn't have been a problem. Even History 101 in colleges teach that Germany was in bad straits during Weimar years and that there were real achievements under National Socialism, which was popular with Germans. Many people other than Buchanan have pointed to the Versailles Treaty as especially harmful. And if Hitler had only taken Sudetenland, things might have calmed down. But he made a move on the entire Czech territory soon after, and that became the bone of contention. Neville Chamberlain staked his pride, dignity, and reputation on peace with Germany by letting Hitler have his way JUST ONE TIME. Hitler agreed but, having gained much with earlier bluffs, went ahead and made a move on Poland, and Chamberlain ended up with egg on his face. Buchanan argues in bad faith because, on the one hand, he says Hitler got bolder because UK and France didn't call his bluff earlier, but then, on the other hand, says UK, France, and Poland should have conceded to Hitler on just about every demand or maneuver prior to(and even after) the outbreak of war. But wouldn't giving-Hitler-what-he-wants have made him even more aggressive and reckless? On the Danzig Question, Buchanan is correct that Germans had every right to claim it as their city. But if so, Hitler should have instigated a 'color revolution' in Danzig against the Poles. He should have urged Germans in Danzig to protest and rise up. Then, if the Poles used violence against the Germans, international sympathy might have been with the Germans, and then Hitler could have used his superior power to wrest Danzig from Poland as an emergency measure. I highly doubt if UK and France would have declared war on Germany over Danzig, especially if so many Danzigers were in the streets clamoring for unification with Germany. But what did Hitler do? He conspired with Stalin to tear Poland apart. Nazis bombed civilians in Polish cities, and Stalin sent his henchmen to do much killing. Now, it's true that UK and France declared war on Germany but not on the USSR, and one could fault them on principles, but it made good realpolitik sense. As Germany was nearer to UK and France, it was a bigger immediate threat. Also, their hope was to somehow create a rift between Germany and USSR, something that would have been impossible if UK and France had declared war on both Germany and USSR.
The widespread later claim that Hitler sought to conquer the world was totally absurd, and the German leader had actually made every effort to avoid war with Britain or France. Indeed, he was generally quite friendly towards the Poles and had been hoping to enlist Poland as a German ally against the menace of Stalin’s Soviet Union.
'Conquer the world' has to be taken figuratively. Even the biggest anti-Hitlerians don't literally believe that the Nazis intended to conquer all the world. But Hitler did have grand ambitions. He wrote of how Germans should conquer vast swaths of territory in Russia. So, at the very least, he wanted an empire for the Germans. Still, it's fairer to say Hitler wanted a partnership with nations that had already conquered the world, France and especially UK. He didn't want to displace the British Empire but be partners with it. Hitler could be diplomatic and courteous with world leaders, including Polish ones, but he didn't have much regard for the Polish people in general. But then, he didn't much care for Slavs, even though a strain of Nazism accepted Poles as fellow Aryans. Still, there was a good reason why Poles rejected the offer of 'alliance' with Germany. It would not have been an equal partnership. It would have been like the 'alliance' of USSR and its satellite states. Also, Poles were correct to assess Hitler as a dangerous character who might go off the rails. Who fared better in the long run? Mussolini who forged a close alliance with Hitler or Franco who kept Hitler at arm's length? Poland knew it was wedged between powerful USSR and mighty Germany, and it wanted neutrality. It didn't want to get caught between a fight that might break out between a bear and tiger. If Poland leaned toward Germany, it would have enraged the USSR, and vice versa. Poland came to lean on UK and France because they seemed to be the only major powers that might change Hitler's mind. At any rate, what is the true worth of 'friendliness' in politics? The West was quite friendly with Gaddafi before it wasn't. Hitler offered carrots, but Poles noticed the stick. While it's true that Hitler and Germans in general were angry over lost territories, that particular issue was also a pretext(at least for Hitler and his cohorts) for larger ambitions. It's like the US raged over Alamo to take over the entire SW. US fumed about Pearl Harbor to dominate all of the Pacific. Similarly, Hitler exploited legitimate issues of territorial dispute in order to use Poland as launching pad than obstacle to his eventual clash with the USSR. While, as Lukacs said, Hitler could be rational and even statesmanlike, his essential personality and worldview was 'artistic' than political. He viewed the world as a stage for his rather Wagnerian and operatic ambitions. Judging by his statements and autobiography and tome MEIN KAMPF, he was clearly megalomaniacal and saw himself as a Man of Destiny. Personality matters in politics, as when Nikita Khrushchev found it impossible to deal with Mao Zedong because of differences in personality. In contrast, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping get along because both are more sober and temperate.
Hitler had always wanted friendly relations with Britain... he therefore offered very magnanimous peace terms../ The British government had been pressured into entering the war for no logical reason and against its own national interests, so Chamberlain and half the Cabinet naturally supported commencing peace negotiations... But... Churchill remained absolutely adamant that the war must continue... Churchill had had a remarkable record of repeated failure, and for him to have finally achieved his lifelong ambition of becoming prime minister only to lose a major war just weeks after reaching Number 10 Downing Street would have ensured that his permanent place in history was an extremely humiliating one.
But could Churchill alone have been so consequential? Notwithstanding Jewish influence/bribery and Churchill's vanity, wasn't the bigger problem that the Brits had fallen into a mental habit of relying on Balance of Powers as a panacea for all European problems? The policy generally worked in favor of Britain that formed alliances against whatever happened to be the top Continental Power so as to ensure that Europe would not become a united bloc against the island nation. But then, things work until they don't. The iron policy of balance-of-power backfired in a big way in World War I that depleted the British Empire of so many men and money. One could argue it worked in in WWI and WWII to the extent that UK, along with other nations, did manage to suppress the rise of Germany as the dominant continental power, but it was achieved at the cost of British bankruptcy and decline. Germans were defeated, but the Brits hardly gained anything while losing a lot.
...Britain and Germany had signed international conventions prohibiting the aerial bombardment of civilian urban targets, and... Hitler scrupulously followed these provisions. In desperation, Churchill therefore ordered a series of large-scale bombing raids against the German capital of Berlin, doing considerable damage, and after numerous severe warnings, Hitler finally began to retaliate with similar attacks against British cities.
But Hitler had no qualms about raining down mass destruction on Polish and Russian civilian populations. Hitler may have been more restrained with the British out of racial respect, but ironically, it seems Anglos regarded the Germans the way Germans regarded the Slavs: Barely civilized barbarians who only understand ruthless power. Hitler's illusions about the British were as unsound as his sentimentality about Mussolini and dementia about the Slavs. Churchill was a bastard but more focused on what was really at stake.
Churchill’s ruthless violation of the laws of war regarding urban aerial bombardment directly led to the destruction of many of Europe’s finest and most ancient cities.
He was a bastard, but let's not forget what Hitler did to Warsaw and cities & towns across the USSR.
...late in the war during 1944 the relentless Allied bombardment of German cities led to the devastating retaliatory attacks of the V-1 flying bombs against London, and an outraged Churchill became adamant that German cities should be attacked with poison gas in counter-retaliation.
I read V-1 rockets weren't particularly effective. At any rate, war brings out craziness on all sides, especially when desperation and/or seething hatred come to the fore. Japanese went crazy in Nanking, and Germans turned to mass-extermination once the tide of war decisively turned against them. Problem with David Irving is he holds Churchill and others like him to the highest standards of ethics while making excuses for Hitler who not only fought ruthlessly also but was possessed of an insane ideology.
Taylor, Irving, and numerous others have thoroughly debunked the ridiculous mythology that the cause lay in Hitler’s mad desire for world conquest, but if the German dictator clearly bore only minor responsibility, was there indeed any true culprit? Or did this massively-destructive world war come about in somewhat similar fashion to its predecessor, which our conventional histories treat as mostly due to a collection of blunders, misunderstandings, and thoughtless escalations.
I agree with Lukacs. No Hitler, no WWII. While Hitler didn't plan to conquer the entire world, he did have dreams of taking a huge chunk of the East(mainly Russia) so as to make Greater Germany about the size of the US or bigger. Though rather successful as a national leader, he was not content with national affairs. In this, he was like the Neocons who aren't satisfied with Jewish wealth and Jewish homeland. They must always have more, and this means meddling in other parts of the Middle East. Neither Hitler nor Neocons were about world conquest. Neocons mainly focus on proxy-empire building(by using the US) in the Middle East and North Africa to ensure Israel's hegemony; they also hunger for control of Russia with its vast resources and 'lazy, dumb, and drunk' Russkies whom Jews regard as worthless dummies. Similarly, Hitler sought hegemony in the European continent, and the only way he could ensure German imperial predominance was to take huge territories from Russia.
On the eve of World War I, so many peoples all across Europe wanted war. The general peace for 100 yrs since the fall of Napoleon had made people less aware of the horror of war. France did lose to Germany in the Franco-Prussian War, but it had been a swift defeat, and the French had been dreaming of revenge ever since. The Russian Tsar thought war would play a unifying role, and Germans were ready to take on all-comers. At the outbreak of war, no one quite realized that the two sides would be stacked against each other with nearly equal force, thus prolonging the war that also incorporated modern weaponry that had proved so effective against the backward non-West. When used against the non-west, modern weaponry meant quick victory. But when modern weaponry went against modern weaponry in Europe, it led to destruction on an unprecedented scale. But few people foresaw the dangers. So, when war broke out, there were celebrations all throughout Europe.
But, on the eve of World War II, most people didn't want war. Even Germans didn't want it despite Hitler's popularity. If Germans cheered loudly after a victory, it was out of hope that it would be the last conflict, finally the war to end all wars. France didn't want war with Germany. It declared war as a bluff and just dug in and played defense. Chamberlain did try to come to terms with Hitler. Many Brits felt a bit of guilt over Versailles and economic ruin of Germany. As such, they were willing to negotiate, but Hitler was the sort of person who always regarded concession as weakness and vulnerability that could be exploited for More. He was also devious like Bismarck but without the Iron Chancellor's sense of limits and keen calculation.
We could all agree that if Germany had remained democratic, there would have been no war EVEN IF some nations wanted to pick on Germany. I would also argue that if Nazi Germany had been ruled by someone like Ataturk, Franco, or Putin, there would have been no war. Such a leader would have understood that Germany has legit grievances, but so do other European powers, and therefore, the best bet is some kind of compromise. Or, if suspecting foul play, he would have waited for the other side to make the first move and then make a counter-move, thereby having the moral advantage. But Hitler was incessant in his demands and acted as if Germany was the only aggrieved party when, had Germany won World War I, it too would likely have taken advantage of the situation. Suppose Hitler died of illness in 1939, and someone like Goering took over. I just don't see World War II happening. Now, if Himmler had taken over, then war might have been even more likely as he was truly nuts. But Hitler was an extreme personality too. MEIN KAMPF is proof of how obsessive and egomaniacal he could be. Turkey after WWI and Russia after the Cold War had tons of legitimate grievances, but Kemal Ataturk understood limitations and acted accordingly. Same with Putin in Russia. In contrast, Hitler kept pushing against all sides.
From 1940 onward, FDR had been making a great political effort to directly involve America in the war against Germany, but public opinion was overwhelmingly on the other side, with polls showing that up to 80% of the population were opposed. All of this immediately changed once the Japanese bombs dropped on Hawaii, and suddenly the country was at war.
FDR may or may not have wanted war, but even if he was baiting Germany, would a more sober leader have fallen for the trap? Also, even if FDR was hoping for war to boost the economy or unite the nation(thus ensuring his reelection), the reason he targeted Germany had a lot to do with his genuine loathing of Nazism. As for problems with Japan, it goes back to the confused/contradictory US policy of befriending both Japan and China. On the one hand, UK and US had built up Japan as bulwark against Russia and possibly resurgent China. But the US also postured(against Europeans and Japanese imperialists) as a friendly nation to the Chinese. So, the US was, at once, selling war materials to Japan that was attacking China and professing sympathy for China. This all came to a head with the embargo and what came afterwards. Anyway, FDR inherited this crazy foreign policy in the Asian Pacific. He didn't create it.
But then, there are other considerations. Would Japan have attacked Pearl Harbor if Germany hadn't invaded Russia in the summer of 1941 and seemed poised to win? Didn't Japan wager on German victory. Then, if Hitler had not invaded Russia, Japan might not have acted so boldly and instead come to the table and agree to US terms: Japan keeps Taiwan, Korea, and Manchuria but withdraws from China Proper. That was not a bad deal. Now, it's possible that FDR offered those terms in bad faith and fully planned to renege on them and find some other excuse to choke Japan's economy, thus forcing it into war. We'll never know.
Polish Confidential Report:
Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100% [of the] radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible... At the present moment most Americans regard Chancellor Hitler and National Socialism as the greatest evil and greatest peril threatening the world... It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia is almost completely eliminated. Soviet Russia, if mentioned at all, is mentioned in a friendly manner and things are presented in such a way that it would seem that the Soviet Union were cooperating with the bloc of democratic states.
I doubt Jewish control of media was as predominant back then as now. If Jews already controlled 100% of media back then, they must have made no further gains since. Anti-Germanism was the product of Jewish concerns coinciding with Anglo interests. But then, anti-Germanism had been extreme in the US even during World War I when Jews had even less power. Anglos and Anglo-Americans had a tendency to look upon Germans as semi-barbarians, indeed as if Anglos were the New Romans and Germans were the 'Huns'. There was something 'brute' and 'Teutonic' about the Germans that rubbed Anglos the wrong way. Anglos were also into racial ideology and aggression but had perfected a manner of talking around their true feelings. Germans were less refined & 'ironic', and such 'honesty' threatened Anglo conceit of being perfect gentlemen bringing light of progress to the world. Anglo supremacism wore a velvet glove whereas German supremacism put on a boxing glove. Anglos tended to see Germans as akin to mean Irish or rowdy Scots but in charge of a nation bigger and stronger than the UK. As for Jews, they prized Germany as the center of European economy and culture(eclipsing even France), and they valued their key role in it... before Nazis came along and said No More. Paradoxically, Jews were most upset with Nazi Germans precisely because, among European nations, they felt most at home in Germany.
But there were ideological reasons as well. If Anglo refinement disdained German 'Teutonism', leftist-universalist idealism loathed the brutal honesty of fascism about the nature of power. Fascism was clearly more candid about the nature of power than communism could ever be, but communism's appeal was its dream of the brotherhood of man. Naturally, the well-educated and idealistic(steeped in Christian credo) felt warmer toward communism(despite its brutality) than to fascism that seemed like a 'pornography of power'. While Stalin could be as brutal as anyone, his Soviet empire pontificated about universal justice, whereas Nazi ideology obsessed over the innate specialness of the 'Aryans'. Even for racialist Anglos, that was too much Or shed light on their own 'darkness'. Germans were like the Id of Anglos. As racial ideology, theirs was too crude, vulgar, and philistine. It was political kitsch. Just like Carlito Brigante didn't want to be associated with Benny Blanco from the Bronx(despite both of them being gangsters), Anglos distanced themselves from Germans as the vulgar 'nouveau riche' of power.
Another reason for the US being friendlier to the USSR had to do with realpolitik. It's like the US was warmer toward Mao's China than the USSR in the 70s even though Soviets had moderated considerably while Mao was a mass-killing nut. As the US considered USSR as the main rival, it found ready excuses to paint a friendly portrait of China as a potential ally against the Soviets. Likewise, when Nazi Germany seemed like the epicenter of the world's troubles, it made sense for the US and UK to pretend that USSR wasn't so bad and could be an ally against the Nazis.
During his political rise, Hitler had hardly concealed his intent to dislodge Germany’s tiny Jewish population from the stranglehold they had gained over German media and finance, and instead run the country in the best interests of the 99% German majority, a proposal that provoked the bitter hostility of Jews everywhere.
While Germans had good reasons to be angry with Jewish Power, Hitler went about this in a bad way because he denounced ALL Jews based on extreme racial ideology. Hitler could have avoided much trouble by targeting only radical or disloyal Jews. Mussolini did just that, and he didn't have much trouble with Italian Jews in general. If anything, he later moved against them only under German pressure.
Also, while Jewish power was immense back then, it was nothing like what it is today, largely because Anglos who built America passed the reins over to the Jews. Despite Jewish role in Bolshevism, Jews couldn't stop Stalin's mass-killing of Jewish communists(along with others). Jews had a difficult time goading the West into war against Germany. Also, even when the war began, it turned out badly for Jews because (1) Germans totally crushed Poland (2) quickly defeated France and (3) allied with Stalin's USSR, the last hope for many Jews. In the end, Hitler brought ruin upon himself and Germany because he invaded the USSR and then declared war on US after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. He went full Tony Montana.
Now, the theory that Germany invaded Russia only upon realizing Stalin intended to attack first may be compelling when we look at armaments but not when we consider the element of psychology. Stalin wasn't a gambler. Also, he likely placed Soviet tanks and troops into offensive position to force Germans into a defensive one, thereby ensuring that Germans would not attack first. Stalin was surely aware that France gained nothing by fighting an entirely defensive war in 1940. It seemed scared and timid, like a turtle hiding in a shell. In contrast, Stalin might have felt that if Soviet military boldly positioned itself against German forces, Hitler would have had second thoughts about attacking. Also, the fact that Stalin set up so much industry east of Moscow suggests insurance against German invasion.
Lukacs argued that the main reason why Germany attacked Russia was to force UK to make the peace. The reasoning goes as follows. As long as the UK hoped that USSR would turn against Germany, it was unwilling to come to the table. But if Germany crushed Russia, UK would have realized that Germans are the masters of Europe, and that's that; then, UK would have had to come to terms with Germany. Now, from a common sense point of view, this sounds crazy. UK was dropping bombs but had no means to defeat Germany or even take an inch of European territory on its own. So, why didn't Hitler keep his alliance with USSR and run out the clock with UK? Why create a two-front-war situation, especially when, unlike the UK, the USSR had the means to invade Germany IF the Germans were to fail to take Moscow? But from a psychological point of view, it makes some sense because of Hitler's different feelings for Anglos and Russians(and Slavs and untermensch whites). Even when Hitler was livid with the Anglos, he hoped that Anglos and Germans as fellow 'Aryans' would bury the hatchet and rule the world together. In contrast, he really loathed the Slavs and 'lesser whites' of the East. Ideally, he preferred an alliance with Anglos against Russians, but all he could muster was an alliance with Russians against the Anglos. It was the opposite of what he really wanted. Also, considering that it was entry of the US army that finished off Germany in WWI, Hitler may have hoped that if he comes to terms with UK, then the US wouldn't enter the European War. It seems Hitler seriously underestimated the power of USSR and the ability of US and UK to supply the Russians with war materials.
In recent years, somewhat similar Jewish-organized efforts at international sanctions aimed at bringing recalcitrant nations to their knees have become a regular part of global politics. But these days the Jewish dominance of the U.S. political system has become so overwhelming that instead of private boycotts, such actions are directly enforced by the American government. To some extent, this had already been the case with Iraq during the 1990s, but became far more common after the turn of the new century.
But Jewish power was considerably less in the 30s and 40s. First, 'antisemitism' wasn't as taboo as it later became. Plenty of politicians all over Europe ran on anti-Jewish platforms. In the US, Father Coughlin and Charles Lindbergh were major players. Plenty of Jews were mindful not to rock the boat. 'Antisemitism' was a national pastime in France, and even plenty of French Jews disdained Jews from Eastern Europe. Jews couldn't prevent European nations from making loans to Nazi Germany that made German economic resurgence possible in the 30s. Jews couldn't persuade Stalin not to make a pact with Hitler. Furthermore, if German invaders gained mass support from the local population on any particular issue, it was over the Jewish Question. Plenty of locals were willing to hand over Jews to the Germans. Also, Jews have long complained that FDR dragged his feet in really engaging Germany. He let Russia do most of the fighting, and the Western Allies landed on the European continent only in 1944. So, FDR did little to save Jews from the Nazis. While World Jewry did coordinate to destroy Nazi Germany, Hitler really brought ruin to himself with his recklessness. Had he maintained the alliance with Russia, Nazi Germany would have been untouchable as all of Europe except for UK were constituted of allies, partners, or neutral players like Sweden. At any rate, Jewish Power became especially potent AFTER World War II not only because Jews rose to the top in the US, the premier superpower, but because the cult of the Holocaust elevated Jews into a holy people and vilified 'antisemitism' as the worst possible sin. But up to WWII(and even in the immediate aftermath), Jews weren't so sacred, and plenty of people on both sides of the Atlantic could get away with critical and even condemnatory views of Jews.
Most foreign policy experts have certainly been aware that Jewish groups and activists played the central role in driving our country into its disastrous 2003 Iraq War, and that many of these same groups and individuals have spent the last dozen years or so working to foment a similar American attack on Iran, though as yet unsuccessfully.
While we may find parallels between fear-mongering about Nazi Germany and scaremongering about Iraq, the truth is Nazi Germany was a genuine great power whereas Iraq in a 2003 was a mere skeleton. If we must draw parallels between Nazi Germany and Hussein's Iraq, it should be during the 80s when Hussein the aggressor attacked Iran and killed scores of people with poison gas. But of course, the US was on the side of that Hussein at war with Iran. Still, prior to the disastrous Gulf War(for Iraq), Hussein's regime was a major power in the region. But by 2003, Iraq was a mere skeleton, and all the Hitler analogies were ridiculous. That said, Nazi Germany in 1939 was a formidable power genuinely feared by France, UK, USSR, and lesser nations. Mussolini initially disdained Hitler but, alarmed(and impressed) by resurgence of German might, decided an alliance as the safest bet. Stalin felt likewise. If you can't beat em, join em. France and UK figured if bluff worked so well for Hitler, it might work for them as well, and they bluffed with war guarantee for Poland. So, while the Neocon stuff about Iraq in 2003 was all hype and BS, there was genuine fear of Germany among many nations regardless of Jewish effort. It was made worse by Hitler's invasion of Greece to prop up the illusion of Italian prowess. And Nazis were allied with some loathsome groups, like Croatian fascists who went about slaughtering 100,000s of Serbs. Jews fanned the flames of anti-German hatred, but there would have been plenty of it in Europe even without Jews. Similarly, there would have been plenty of anti-Jewish sentiments even without Nazi propaganda. Most Europeans found Germans too brutish and Jews too radical. In a way, it's ironic that Germans and Jews became arch-enemies for reasons why both groups were feared and/or hated by most Europeans.
Another striking historical parallel has the fierce demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who provoked the great hostility of Jewish elements when he ousted the handful of Jewish Oligarchs who had seized control of Russian society under the drunken misrule of President Boris Yeltsin and totally impoverished the bulk of the population.
This is true. But despite being attacked and baited by Jewish power that is many times greater than in the 30s and 40s, notice how Putin has played the game with patience and sobriety. If Hitler hadn't been so prone to throwing tantrums and pumping himself up with the Man of Destiny operatics, he would have weathered the Jewish campaigns against him much better. At any rate, just like Jews tried to unite the world against Germany, Hitler tried to unite all Europeans against ALL Jews. In Italy, a good many Jews had joined the Fascist Movement and were loyal to Mussolini, but under great pressure from Germans, Mussolini decided to turn against even loyal Jews. So, the race war went both ways between Jews and Germans. Just as Jews were trying to recruit every nation against Germany, Germans were urging all peoples to 'hand over your Jews'.
Indeed, over the last few decades, the bitter conflict between Nazi Germany and world Jewry has become such an overwhelming theme of our popular media that this element may be almost the only aspect of the World War II era that is known to many younger Americans.
Actually, if people saw it in terms of a conflict, they would understand it better. But it's not portrayed as a conflict but of one-sided persecution. Instead of Nazi Germany vs World Jewry in an empire-vs-empire struggle, the Narrative says Germans chased down totally innocent, helpless, and clueless Jews who were merely minding their own business. It's like the Jewish-Russian Relations are remembered only in terms of helpless Jews being set upon in pogroms by drunken Russkies and Cossacks. There is no mention of Jewish role in radical politics and how this led to mass deaths of Slavs. While there were many innocent Jewish victims of Germans(just like there were plenty of innocent German victims of Allies and Jews), there was a Jewish Power that constituted a world empire of its own(or a shadow empire that attached itself increasingly to Anglos).
Another obscured fact is that some 150,000 half- and quarter-Jews served loyally in Hitler’s World War II armies, mostly as combat officers, and these included at least 15 half-Jewish generals and admirals, with another dozen quarter-Jews holding those same high ranks.
I don't really think this means anything. Nazis weren't purists when it came to blood. Germans who were 1/4 Jewish were mostly considered as 'Aryan'. And many Germans with partial Jewish blood regarded themselves mainly as Germans and were loyal to Hitler. Just because some American Indians sided with whites against other Indians doesn't negate the fact that White America was generally hostile to the Red Savages who were targeted for removal or destruction.
Meanwhile, although our heavily Jewish-dominated media regularly presents Hitler as the most evil man who ever lived, many of his prominent contemporaries seem to have held a very different opinion.
While Hitler has been made into a cartoon villain, there was no doubt he was pathological and of a maniacal personality plagued with vanity, megalomania, and arrogance. Also, we have the benefit of hindsight whereas contemporaries did not... until they realized what Hitler was really capable of. And same could be said of many world leaders. Mugabe was initially seen as a sane and moderate African leader, but how did he turn out? Idi Amin was initially seen as a fun colorful leader of Uganda before he turned out to be nuts. Many people praised Stalin as a great leader, but now, we know better. He was a mass killer. Many Americans were duped into believing Mao was an agrarian reformer in the 40s. He turned out to be a megalo-nut.
And over the decades, considerable evidence has accumulated that the Gas Chambers and the Jewish Holocaust—the central elements of today’s Nazi “Black Legend”—were just as fictional as all those other items.
Many details of Nazi atrocities have proven to be wrong or exaggerated, but the Eastern Front turned into a total race war, and there is no doubt that Nazis butchered countless Jews and Slavs in their war path. None of this should be surprising given the nature of war and Nazi propaganda. Himmler was especially sinister in this regard. David Irving has been careful not to deny that mass atrocities took place. His shtick has been that Hitler wasn't informed of what was really happening or it was Himmler who really done it. I would argue that such is merely a technicality. It's like it doesn't matter if Mao wasn't fully informed of the disaster of the Great Leap Forward and/or if he didn't order the Red Guards to go totally nuts. What matters is he created a system and set off events that led to mass suffering, and so, he is ultimately responsible. Likewise, we can't excuse Hitler on grounds of ignorance, indifference, or negligence. He created a system that was capable of industrial mass slaughter.
While many of the more lurid accounts of the Holocaust seem dubious, it doesn't surprise me that Germans would have acted that way. Japanese went crazy in Nanking. US, a liberal democracy, was capable of dropping two nukes on Japan(and planned to drop 10 to 12 more if Japan didn't surrender). After the war, anti-German violence was extreme all over Eastern Europe. Tons of Germans were massacred or brutalized in revenge and hatred. People of all stripes are capable of the most horrendous things. The fact is Nazi Germany instilled radical Jew-hatred in an entire generation of men who became soldiers in the bloodiest conflict that further desensitized whatever humanity was left in them. Especially when the fortunes turned against Germany, there was the temptation to use violence on easy scapegoats. That said, it's foolish to count all Jewish dead as victims of the Holocaust. Many Jews surely died from the sheer brutality of war like so many goyim did. It didn't take the Holocaust to kill millions of Poles and Ukrainians. They just got crushed between big powers. So, even if there had been no Holocaust, it's likely many Jews would have died just the same because they were caught in the middle in the bloodlands of war.
By contrast, Irving notes that if the Allies had instead been in the dock at Nuremberg, the evidence of their guilt would have been absolutely overwhelming.
When it comes to UK/US vs Germany, the former did more violence to the Germans because they could. German attacks on UK was limited and ineffective,and Germany had no chance of attacking the US. In contrast, US/UK could drop tons of bombs on Germany. But this had nothing to do with Germans being better or more moral. Rather, most of their energies were directed at the East, and there, German brutality toward Slavs and Jews were worse than Allied bombing of Germany. Allied bombings killed 100,000s of Germans, whereas the Wehrmacht directly and indirectly killed millions. Same is true of US vs Japan vs China. US war crimes against Japan were many times worse than vice versa but not because Japanese were better. It was because US had overwhelming force over Japan. But where Japanese had advantage over their enemies in places like China, they were real sons of bitches. As awful as US/UK bombing of Germany was, for the Western Allies it seemed preferable to losing many more men by prematurely landing troops on the continent. Sure, killing lots of civilians is a dastardly way to fight a war, but World War II was a war without pity, a truly 'existential' war that decided the fate of entire nations.
Although hardly sympathetic to the defeated Nazis, she strongly shared Beaty’s view of the monstrous perversion of justice at Nuremberg and her first-hand account of the months spent in Occupied Germany is eye-opening in its description of the horrific suffering imposed upon the prostrate population even years after the end of the war.
Yes, Nuremberg was a joke, but I think the kind of 'justice' that would have been imposed by victorious Germans especially over Slavic lands would have been many times worse. As compromised and hypocritical as the Nuremberg trials were, the message was that wars of aggression and genocide are evil. I don't think the victorious Nazis would have even come down against genocide, which they likely would have committed against the Slavic populations.
The traditional excuse publicly offered for the virtual absence of any Japanese POWs was that their Bushido code made surrender unthinkable, yet when the Soviets defeated Japanese armies in 1945, they had no difficulty capturing over a million prisoners.
There are key differences. Japanese who fought Americans in all those islands didn't go face to face against full battalions. They fought more like guerrillas. They were dug into all nooks and crannies like mice or cockroaches, and so, Americans came upon pocketfuls of Japanese who might leap out of nowhere. Thus, Americans who fought Japanese in the islands had a far more nerve-racking experience than the Soviets did in the plains of North Asia. In contrast, Japanese in Manchuria and North China fought as an army, and as such, it was easier for them to surrender to the Soviets in an official capacity. In the clash of Soviet armies with armored tanks vs Japanese armies, the latter had no chance and surrendered en masse. Also, Japanese in Manchuria and North China had less incentive to fight with absolute zeal. After all, they were on Chinese soil, not their own. In contrast, the Japanese who fought the Americans in a string of islands were utterly fanatical because they believed they were defending the homeland from US invasion.
By the way, what happened to all those Japanese who surrendered to the Soviets. Most ended up in gulag and Siberia and never saw home again.
American GIs also regularly committed remarkably savage atrocities. Dead or wounded Japanese frequently had their gold teeth knocked out and taken as war-booty, and their ears were often cut-off and kept as souvenirs, as was also sometimes the case with their skulls.
Ugly, but all sides do stuff like this in war.
The American media generally portrayed the Japanese as vermin fit for eradication, and numerous public statements by high-ranking American military leaders explicitly claimed that the bulk of the entire Japanese population would probably need to be exterminated in order to bring the war to a successful conclusion. Comparing such thoroughly-documented facts with the rather tenuous accusations usually leveled against Nazi political or military leaders is quite revealing.
There is one key difference, and post-war history vindicates it. US derangement syndrome against Japan was the result of War Fever. In other words, Americans didn't harbor genocidal feelings toward Japan prior to the war or afterwards. So, it was wartime craziness. And even though there were people in government who said, "Let's kill all Japs", theirs was a minority opinion that was obviously overridden. Once the dust settled, US buried the hatchet and made Japan an ally against USSR. In contrast, even prior to the war, Nazi German ideology was based on racial supremacism. And had the Germans been victorious, anti-Slavic genocide and mass enslavement would have happened just the same. Granted, Germans weren't so vicious to all groups; the French, Dutch, Norwegians, and etc. fared pretty well under German occupation as long as they didn't resist. But no such mercy would have been shown to the Eastern Slavs who were slated for mass destruction. It's all there in Hitler's Table Talk.
For decades, Western propagandists had relentlessly barraged the Soviets with claims that they were keeping back a million or more “missing” German POWs as slave-laborers in their Gulag, while the Soviets had endlessly denied these accusations. According to Bacque, the Soviets had been telling the truth all along, and the missing soldiers had been among the enormous numbers who had fled westward near the end of the war, seeking what they assumed would be far better treatment at the hands of the advancing Anglo-American armies. But instead, they were denied all normal legal protections, and confined under horrible conditions where they rapidly perished of hunger, illness, and exposure.
But the Soviets did use many German POWs for slave labor. Consider German soldiers who surrendered at Stalingrad. Most did not return home. Perhaps, there was a kind of rough justice in this as they were part of an invading army who would have enslaved or mass-slaughtered Russians had they been victorious. But it is true that Soviets held back many German and Japanese POWs, partly out of revenge and partly out of need for manpower given the loss of life and industry in the war.
