Plato thought that all knowledge was a sort of recollection, anamnesis. I older I get, the more wisdom I discern in that elusive idea–not, perhaps, as an epistemological datum but as a plain statement of political truth. Let me explain. It has often been observed that one of the distinctive achievements of the species homo sapiens sapiens is its ability to pass knowledge down from one generation to the next: the great repositories of technical know-how and scientific insight into the workings of nature are eloquent testaments to this awesome process. Unfortunately, the operation of tradition, of handing down, is less successful in the realm of morals and politics (which is one reason that traditions in the civilizational sense of the word are so important: they are safeguards against the anarchy of innocence). A child born today receives as his birthright the past’s accumulated warehouse of technical knowledge, from reading and writing to the recipe for scones, penicillin, suspension bridges, internal combustion engines, and nuclear weapons. There is an important sense in which a clever 18-year-old knows more physics than Newton, more chemistry than Lavoissier, more mathematics than Euclid. But is he wiser about politics than Madison or Tocqueville? Does he know more about the question, “How should I live my life?” than Socrates?
To ask these questions is to answer them. What prompts me to raise them in the first place is the melancholy reflection that, when it comes to the field political-historical experience, almost nothing is finally settled. Every generation, it seems, has to recollect the vital, hard won lessons of the past. When it comes to political wisdom, forgetfulness is all-too-often mankind’s inheritance. Hence the pertinence of Plato’s arresting image.
How much, I wonder, did Patrick J. Buchanan have to forget to write Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War? Buchanan is not stupid. He is not, I think, malevolent. But his book exhibits an historical obtuseness that is as morally reprehensible as it is politically toxic. Buchanan’s central thesis is that the chief blame for the Second World War (and for the Holocaust) belongs to Winston Churchill, not Hitler. Germany, in his revisionist view, was the chief victim of the First World War, and he repeats the canard, popularized by John Maynard Keynes, that the harsh terms of Versailles Treaty paved the way for Hitler and made World War II all but inevitable. (This contention was usefully exploded by Andrew Roberts in his magisterial book A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900. As Roberts shows, the treaty should have been much harsher, dividing Germany into two or more parts. Instead, it left Germany “in a physical position to launch her fifth war of territorial aggression in three-quarters of a century.”)
If Patrick Buchanan were less intelligent, his book would be less depressing. Does the record really need to be set straight about the origins and nature of World War Two? Is even that recent conflagration up for fundamental political renegotiation? Apparently so. In a way, the title of Victor Davis Hanson’s response to the book says all you need to know about it: “The Delusional Views of Pat Buchanan, Pseudo-Historian,” but the whole review is worth reading. In another brilliant review for Newsweek, Christopher Hitchens eviscerates Buchanan’s argument while providing some much needed historical context about Germany’s behavior during the last century and a half. (Hitchens seems taken with the conventional, Keynesian line about the Versailles Treaty, but that is a minor quibble.) The whole review is eminently worth reading, too, but let me quote here a passage from the last part of the piece:
As the book develops, Buchanan begins to unmask his true colors more and more. It is one thing to make the case that Germany was ill-used, and German minorities harshly maltreated, as a consequence of the 1914 war of which Germany’s grim emperor was one of the prime instigators. It’s quite another thing to say that the Nazi decision to embark on a Holocaust of European Jewry was “not a cause of the war but an awful consequence of the war.” Not only is Buchanan claiming that Hitler’s fanatical racism did not hugely increase the likelihood of war, but he is also making the insinuation that those who wanted to resist him are the ones who are equally if not indeed mainly responsible for the murder of the Jews! This absolutely will not do. He adduces several quotations from Hitler and Goebbels, starting only in 1939 and ending in 1942, screaming that any outbreak of war to counter Nazi ambitions would lead to a terrible vengeance on the Jews. He forgets–at least I hope it’s only forgetfulness–that such murderous incitement began long, long before Hitler had even been a lunatic-fringe candidate in the 1920s. . . .
Buchanan’s ugly book is hardly the only reminder we have that, when it comes to history and politics, our first task in facing the future is to remember the past. Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War isn’t even the only book to argue that Churchill was the war’s chief villain. An other recent specimen Nicholson Baker’s mendacious novel [Update: A reader points out that it is "not a novel" but "a collage - some might say a farrago"] Human Smoke (about which see this review). But Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War is in a category by itself, partly because of Buchanan’s rhetorical skill. He casts his immoralism in high-toned moralistic terms, presenting himself as a Jeremiah who has been warning us all of the coming dissolution of our civilization. In fact, what our civilization has chiefly to fear at the moment (even more, I suspect, than any external threat) is the internal atrophy of that gumption–what the Greeks called thumos–that fired statesman like Churchill and whose lack among our leaders today makes for dispiriting contemplation.
Much of Buchanan’s ugliness in political argument, which shows only sporadically through his intelligence and his sometimes (but not always) predictable strong-conservatism, is easy to understand if one just faces the facts: he has the disease that John Derbyshire once complained about among otherwise competent conservatives — the Jew disease. If he can find an argument, any argument, no matter how absurdly complex or risibly flawed, to justify his deep and fundamental anti-semitism, he raises and embellishes it. It’s a deep thing, and unavoidable, almost a faith. Yes, I know: “some of his best friends are Jews.”
Now,now, Roger. I fear you are shaving your game just a bit.
As you should know (not that you practice it) what most book editors want from their authors is, “The same thing. Only different.” Crown will encourage PB to recapitulate his previous high selling tomes. It will not encourage a deviation.
Nor would PB be likely to deliver one.
You may recall an article many years ago by Tom Wolfe in which he begins by running a calculator to total his monthly nut. It is a substantial figure. PB has the same need for cash flow. He can’t have a minimal lifestyle and is probably wallowing in debt just to keep his status at a level.
This means he has to be constantly seeking for big truths to push over with bigger lies.
As they say in the movies, “Follow the money.”
But you know that.
I’m surprised Buchanan didn’t blame WWII on Israel. True, Israel didn’t exist then, but why should that deter the man whose magazine blames 9-11 on Israel. What a Jew-hating fraud he has become. Why he is allowed to troll the media (including Fox News) is beyond my powers of comprehension.
Don Kenner,
When did Pat Buchanan’s magazine (The American Conservative?) blame 9/11 on Israel? Or are you making this up? Actually TAC gave quite a scathing review to the book.
This review ignores the central assertion Buchanan makes, and significantly distorts his thesis. He does not blame World War II on Churchill–although he does spend a significant amount of critiquing an imperfect man whom neoconservatives have turned, for rhetorical reasons, into an Ozymandias. And we all know how he turned out. It might have been useful actually to cite Buchanan’s argument–you could have made space for it by leaving out the praise of that embittered anti-Catholic opportunist, Hitchens–which was this: The Entente, after winning a morally ambiguous war, cast themselves as moral heroes, in part using the language of Woodrow Wilson. In fact, they behaved with great Machiavellianism, trying to cripple Germany. But they were insufficiently ruthless, just as they had been insufficiently high-minded. In other words, they were stupid Machiavellians–worthy of the Bush administration. They wounded the beast, and left it alive. Then they surrounded it with weak nations of dubious legitimacy. Knowing just how cynically they had behaved, they lacked the moral courage to resist a revived Germany. The great tragedy, of course, is that Germany was led not by a reasonable nationalist with satiable demands–as the appeasers believed–but by a murderous sociopath. (Buchanan does NOT pass over lightly Hitler’s barbarism, as the libel-happy Hitchens suggests.) Eager to avoid the errors of August 1914, the bumblers in Britain perpetrated Munich 1938. They compounded the error by drawing the wrong line in the sand, cynically pretending to defend a Poland they could not, would not, and later on did not, protect. Poland was literally thrown to the wolves for the sake of rallying British opinion, Buchanan argues, and that was done by Chamberlain, not Churchill. What Buchanan argues is that Chamberlain should have pressed Poland to accede to Hitler’s territorial demands, and become a client state–even as France and Britain armed to the teeth in their own defense. In the event, Poland was sacrificed (1/4 of its population died in that war), which served the purpose of… buying time for France and Britain to rearm (the Phony War). And Hitler gained an alliance treaty with Stalin, freeing up his armies to concentrate on overrunning most of Western Europe. It doesn’t take a paleocon, much less a moral amnesiac, to recognize the folly of such a policy. Anyone who cares about the Poles (Hitchens was mocking them even as Communist thugs murdered Solidarity priests) should be sympathetic to this argument. Of course, Hitchens has never forgiven the Poles for beating Trotsky in 1919. Why a brilliant, tradition-minded Catholic like Mr. Kimball should be siding with a vicious evangelizing atheist like Hitchens over an honorable, honest fellow Catholic like Pat is one of the mysteries of the putrefying conservative movement.
True, the review http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_06_02/article2.html (by the eminent traditionalist historian John Lukacs) does not address in detail the tactical and strategic questions faced by the Western Powers after 1936–and before. (John Zmirak’s overall account above is quite lucid.) What it does address is the central question raised by Buchanan’s book, which is whether Hitler posed a greater threat to Western Civilization than Stalin. This is a fairly difficult one: many of us have been living in the Arendtian universe which posits two equal, malevolent totalitarianisms, the first vanquished in 1945, the second in, when–1956?, 1989? But those with decisions to make in the 1930′s didn’t have luxury of equal condemnation. The question of whether Stalin was Hitler’s equal in malice is obviously difficult. The underlying premise of most of the America Firsters (the bedrock of Buchanan’s book) is that Communism was much worse– which tended to makes such people less
hostile towards Nazism than they should have been. Lukacs makes the case differently, that Nazism, more popular, and because linked to nationalism, more “natural” was the greater threat to decency. This is counter-intuitive to much of the Old Right, but I think it’s largely correct.
Buchanan’s book is a part of a leftist and paleo-conservative attempt to repudiate World War II (and its Allied leaders) and enshrine the “lessons of Vietnam” in their place. You might also have included a recent article by Newsweek’s Evan Thomas on the “mythology of Munich.” All of this is meant to promote isolationism and pacifism, and in the case of the left, to facilitate the election of Barack Obama.
For more on this, I invite readers to read this essay on Buchanan’s book:
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/patrick_buchanan_and_the_necessary_book/
One is always fascinated by the US views of the Second World War. Could I suggest that Buchanan raises his really idiotic thesis, because he feels guilt over the fact that the Americans were very late on entering it. That is not to say that the US was not the staunch defender of justice at all times, but that some paleocons are somewhat miffed that the US was not involved as a world player in the years bewtween the Wars. For that, you have to blame Wilson and then Roosevelt, not the British and the Europeans.
re: I’m surprised Buchanan didn’t blame WWII on Israel.
He can’t do that, he already blamed WW2, the Holocaust, Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe on Poland.
Buchanan has a history of crypto-fascism, re-writing history in favor of Nazi Germany, and generally being a prick about the events in the early half of the 1900s.
“Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons’ sons.”
Having already replied to John Zmiras on Taki’s Mag I shall now take issue with Mr. Kimball. It is obvious from his comments that Kimball is a die hard Anglophile who takes heavy doses of castor oil English propaganda for his reading in history. He needs a revisionist history lesson badly. Here it is.
Although it might surprise Mr. Kimball to learn this, Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles ascribing “sole guilt” to Germany for World War One is not a historical “fact”. Neither is the “wicked Kaiser” myth. English apologists always like to forget the works of the revisionist historians of the 1920′s who demolished their World War One fables. When these works are mentioned at all, the English apologists claim that they have been “refuted” by Franz Fischer’s 1961 nonsense “Germany’s War Aims”. The dear old English have an incomparable gift for believing their own propaganda lies. In this, they resemble the Zionists, who have convinced themselves that Arab Palestine was a deserted wasteland before the Jews came and “made the desert bloom”. In the English mind, “aggression” is what other people,principally Germans,do. Thus, the German wars of unification under Otto Von Bismarck, are labeled “aggression”. Comparable English wars of unification,like Oliver Cromwell’s slaughter and rape of the Irish or Lord Cumberland’s well-known depredations in Scotland, do not similarly qualify. Dr. Joseph Goebbels once sagely commented that the English had a history which was “more than dubious”. Pious Englishmen and their clones, like Roger Kimball, do not like to be reminded of this history. It offends their highly polished sense of hypocrisy. Thus,there is no mention of stealing other peoples ships on the high seas, the deliberate starvation of the Irish by absentee English land owners, the hooking of the Chinese on opium, the slaughter of the Boers so that Jewish financiers could get their hands on the gold and diamonds of South Africa, the starvation of millions of Hindus and the looting of their wealth for three hundred years,the “Copenhaging” of the Danish fleet by Lord Castlereagh in 1807 to enforce the naval blockade against Napoleon, the sell out of the Arabs post-World War One which laid the basis for the mess in the Near East or the constant playing off of one rival after another which kept Europe in a constant stae of warfare for three to four hundred years, all to England’s material betterment. Still less is there any discussion of the Hundred Years War by which the gentle English robbed France blind and set new standards of jurisprudence at the expense of Joan of Arc.
England went to war against Germany in 1914 and 1939 for exactly the same reasons she went to war against Philip Two of Spain, the various Louis of France and the Dutch-to destroy political and commercial rivals she felt were becoming too strong. All English historiography of the two world wars is an artful camoflauge for this untidy fact. Mr. Kimball, a pious and self-serving Englishman from the looks of his noble face, would rather pontificate on the horrors of German expansion in Central and Eastern Europe than admit that his militarily incompetent countrymen bit off more than they could chew. There was no English nobility in two crusades against Germany; there was only English stupidity (a commodity which exists in abundance). The English easily could have preserved their vastly ovverated empire by collaborating with Hitler; instead they tossed it away. The poor Jews suffered during the war (although not as much as the victims of the Jewish gulag commissars of Joseph Stalin, surely.) That would upset the same English who attacked the Chinese to make billions for the poppy lord, Sassoon. The tears shed by Lionel Phillips, Samuel Montague, Ernst Oppenheimer, Barney Barnato, Werner and Beit and the other Zionist plutocrats profiting from Dutch blood can easily be imagined.
It has been a pleasure responding to your posts, Mr. Kimball. As much as I may disagree with John Zmiras on aspects of World War Two history, he is at least historically literate. You, however, have lost your handless Belgian baby and now resort to “cut and paste” historiography. I anticipate that your reaction to my demolition of your position will go far beyond Mr. Zmiras charge on Taki’s blog that I compose “intellectual pornography”.
I didn’t read the book but did Buchanan mention the nuclear weapon program the Nazis had started just prior to WW2.
I think not knowing him. If Churchill had not fought Hitler their would’ve been no resistance movement throughout Europe to assist in keeping tabs on the Nazi progress with theit nuke programs. If Hitler had succeeded the British and all other democracies would’ve yielded to Hitler’s dominance backed by nuke threats. Remember the Nazis had superior rocket technology and without Britain’ war effort at sea, the Germans would soon enough have developed submarines capable of firing nuke missiles from offshore into Britain, Russia and the USA.
Buchanan makes an idiotic proposition that there was no need to crush Hitler.
Please remember that Buchanan wrote a simple Master’s thesis in journalism, not in history. So, the first thing to ask is who was his thesis supervisor and what did he/she know about the subject? In essence, there really is not much to expect from a man who never went through the rigour of a PhD program in history. I was under the impression that he at least had a Master’s in history and read Gibbons. So let’s take this pathetic pamphlet for what it is. I doubt that he ever read the 3 volumes of “Mein Kampf” in German. The original contains German misspellings that poor Buchanan would not even have realized. “Gemeinsames Blut gehoert in ein gemeinsames Reich”. This passage alone destroys his thesis. The fact is that Buchanan lacks the language skills that would have allowed him to corroborate his “thesis”. In addition, he was not sufficiently proficient in German to understand Hitler’s speeches prior to WWII which at the time of his dissertation were widely available in vinyl records (in German of course). So it is not surprising that his poor “journalistic” mind became confused when he had to deal with a historical topic that far surpassed his poor language skills.
Mr. Froehling claims that Buchanan cannot read German. Neither can Deborah Lipstadt, that world renowned expert on “gas chambers” that never existed. Mr. Froehling likes to march behind historical orthodoxy the same way that Germans once marched behind Adolf Hitler. Perhaps Phd schoolboy Hans Froehling should put on his Kaiser Wilhelm uniform before reciting Article 231 or 234 of the Treaty of Versailles.
Germans who march behind historical orthodoxy are a scant improvement on Germans who once marched behind their Fuehrer. Mr. Buchanan may not have the Phd but he has an honest inquiring mind – something that the intellectual goose stepper, Hans Froehling, will never have.
Patrick Buchanan has just written a very cogent column arguing that Adolf Hitler was not aiming for a world war in September 1939 but only for a limited war against Poland to secure German interests in the east. He is quite correct. All the evidence indicates that Hitler was stunned when Britain and France declared war over Poland. His reaction when the declaration was read to him by his interpreter, Paul Schmidt, was dead silence for several minutes. Then he uttered the question: “What do we do now?”
All the evidence indicates that Hitler wanted war against Soviet Russia and a German empire in the east. He had nothing but admiration for the British empire. The war in the west came about because Britain wanted it, not because Hitler wanted it. The German demands over Danzig, a German city, were entirely reasonable. There was nothing in those demands which in any way threatened Polish sovereignty.
Buchanan is right about the consequences of the war. It did cost Britain her empire and the US the loss of her traditional policy of non-intervention. It also gave the Zionists the necessary propaganda hoax to steal Arab Palestine and Joseph Stalin the means to conquer half of Europe. WW2 was the wrong war against the wrong enemy.Adolf Hitler was not a man of peace but he was the better alternative to what actually happened.
Cicero,
It might be of interest to you that “schoolboy” Hans Froehling, PhD wrote an article reviewed by no other than Ernst Noltke, the conservative revisionist of the Holocaust, and who violently approved of it my own revisionism.
It might be also of interest to you that my Great-Grandfather Freiherr Egon von Linden-Neuntausend was the first justice minister under Bismarck and saved the property of the Catholic Church in Southern Germany, the reason why he received a gift of the pope that contained a particle of Jesus’ cross. This was in confiance to the first German Emperor after the victory over France in 1871.
Furthermore my Great-granduncle was Karl Marbe, the co-founder of the Wuerzburg School of Psychology and forced to resign in 1935 because he was married to a Jewish Woman, or that my mother spent two years in a concentration camp because she was actively involved in the opposition to the Nazi Regime. Moreover my grandfather was honored by the State of Israel for smuggling Jews out of Germany and treated them as an MD in the evenings when nobody would dare to get in contact with him.
I think you are doing a serious dishonor to Cicero and his “De officiis” by adopting his name by reducing your argument to a simple “ad hominem” argument “schoolboy”
.
I also wonder if your family or that of Buchanan would ever have the courage to act in a similar fashion against the forces of evil under the circumstances of the “Third Reich”. As for marching behind “historical orthodoxy”, as mentioned, it is on record that I have gone my own way and published in “Der Bundestag” the most widely read historical journal in the Federal Republic of Germany. Ironically it is fully published that I did not follow the “historical orthodoxy” as you mentioned in your vile response. However, that does not mean that I twist historical facts as Buchanan did who is simply ignorant and unacquainted with critical sources of the historical time that he covers.
I wonder what contributions you have made that can be publicly verified on this subject. My guess is that you neither have the education of a PhD in History nor the intellectual capacity to write dissertations and papers that demonstrate that you can analyze and synthesize large amounts of information on your own. Sincerely,
Hans Froehling, Phd, DBA, PsyD, CMBB (and hopefully a schoolboy for the rest of his life because the end of learning is the end of life … I hope you are not there yet
.
Cicero,
Sorry Mr. Cicero, but German aristocrats like I (I still hold the official title of a “Freiherr”) doesn’t goose step behind a plebeian like Adolf Hitler. As Nietzsche said “Wir Vornehmen: Das natuerliche Empfinden fuer Unterschiede im gesellschaftlichen Range”. Of course, this aphorism will be very difficult to find by “Cicero” in Nietsche’s work and even more difficult to translate. But even if he finds the citation in, it will be next to impossible to determine its riddle. Instead, “Cicero” will end up in the ultimate “enigma coma”
. Vielleicht ist die Wahrheit ein Weib, das Gruende hat ihre Gruende zu verbergen – Baubo ist ihr Name.
Good luck with tracing these sentences back to its sources and correctly interpreting them. You will be in the same dilemma that poor old Buchanan was in when he attempted to chew a bone that was too big for him. As a friend of mine said: “If you want to bark with the big dogs, don’t p..s like a pincher”.
Three corrections:
1. confiance should read defiance
2. Airstocrats like I (…) doesn’t, should read “Aristocrats like I don’t”
3. “But even if he finds the citation in” should read “even if he finds the citation” or “even if he finds the citation in his work”.
You see at least I can determine and correct my mistakes.
What a sad internet site that does not even allow a scholar who has written about Adolf Hitler in Journals reviewed by Ernst Noltke, Germany’s premier historian of Third Reich revisionism against ad hominem arguments levelled by ignorant hobby historians like “Cicero” using terms ike “schoolboy”, “goose stepping”, and false accusations of “historical orthodoxy”. Thankfully neither “Cicero” nor Buchanan have or will ever make an impact on the education in history. After all, this is just a silly site where opinions are biased towards a specific rather uneducated audience.
P.S. Dear editor: According to the very rules of this site (see rule 3), shouldn’t Cicero’s ad hominem against professional historians such as “schoolboy”, or “goose stepping” be removed from this site? At least be consistent if you cannot help but be biased
.
Dear Cicero,
Hitler’s key passages in regards to WWII and Britain are part of volume 3 of “Mein Kampf” which has never been translated into English. To my knowledge there is only one copy available in the Library of Congress. So research skills and skills in German language do make a big difference when dealing with such a sensitive topic as attempting a full-scale revision of history. A simple trip to Washington would have saved Buchanan quite a bit of scorn from professional historians like myself.
Dear editors: This site does have integrity after all. I don’t care what political angle someone is coming from, after all free speech is what makes this country so special! But the fact that you allow me to dispel the inaccurate accusations of “Cicero”, i.e. “schoolboy”, “goose-stepper behind the German Emperor” or the idée fixe that I am steeped in historical orthodoxy, which is totally taken out of the blue air, is greatly appreciated.
. But the world looks still different depending on which site of the pond the frog sits.
As a matter of fact, I belong to the German revisionist of psychoanalytical theories of Hitler’s assumed “psychosis”. This is something that was widely published in Germany and brought me the wrath of the “historical orthodoxy” in the 1990s in this country. How ironic that I would now be accused by an ignoramus of the same crime
This does not mean however, that I agree with Buchanan’s thesis, which is clearly falsified by historical facts. As a matter of fact, it is one of the few instances in the history of science where a hypotheses has been truly falsified because it is not phrased as a probabilistic, but as a deterministic statement. As a result, one instance of references that falsifies the statement leads to the total collapse of the argument from the point of view of philosophy of science. In Buchanan’s case neither Imre Lakatos’ research program, nor Kuhn’s version of the history of philosophy or even Feyerabend’s methodological anarchism can be brought into play to find a way out of the intellectual morass that Buchanan put himself into by stating his thesis as a deterministic one rather than an inductive one. Apodictive statements always incite Tisiphone, Megaera and Alecto to let loose the furies on the perpetrators of intellectual “crimes”. The infamous 5% rule introduced by R.A. Fisher in 1925 does not apply to Buchanan’s non-probabilistic thesis (be it in the form of the frequency of probability, Bayes’ subjective probability, Keyne’s propensity theory of probability or Fisher’s maximum likelihood version of probability. His thesis is refuted by the facts that lay buried in a simple book in the Congress of library. How sad that a “historian” has such little grasp of the impact history can have on his beloved work. As Weber said, be aware of the unintended consequences of your actions.
Cicero,
Let’s hope I or other Germans will never know your true identity. The sentence “Adolf Hitler was not a man of peace but he was the better alternative to what actually happened” will cost you a minimum of 7 years in prison if you ever decided to enter the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. Should I ever know who you really are, be assured that the “Deutsche Amt fuer die Verfassungssicherung” will know of you and your pro-Nazi opinions. I used to work for them when I was still in Germany in the area of counterterrorism. Your unreflected rambling is shameful from an historical point of view and luckily criminial in modern Germany. My suggestion: Stay in the US or keep your mouth shut in case you decided to visit Germany. With your big mouth you’ll be faster in prison than you can even imagine!
Dear Editors, please remove my posts from this site. Thanks!
By all means, is there a way that my posts can be removed from this site. I want to have nothing to do with Neonazis and antisemits who are obviously happily posting on this site. At first sight, this is not obvious. But after reviewing the comments, this is clearly a Pro-Nazi, antisemitic forum. Thanks!
Mr. Froehling has been mightily offended by inconvenient truths.
Whether Mr. Foehling likes it or not, the fact is that two world wars were a disaster for western civilization. Continuing to pound on the Germans as the “sole cause” of these wars and applying Article 234 of the Treaty of Versailles to Adolf Hitler the same way it was applied to Kaiser Wilhelm does not make for honest history; it merely constitutes groveling before the propaganda of the victors. Mr. Froehling lives in a society where bootlicking of victors history is a legal requirement.
Speaking of Mr. Nolte, perhaps Mr. Froehling should read Professor Andre Gerrits recently published book, “The Myth of Jerwish Communism”. There he will learn that the charge of Jewish Communismwas substantially true, despite Professor Gerrits best efforts to whitewash this fact.
THE MYTH OF JEWISH COMMUNISM
“The Myth of Jewish Communism” by Andre Gerrits is the latest academic attempt to explain away some well-known but highly sensitive facts about the Jewish overrepresentation in communism. Gerrits doesn’t try to explain away the facts outright as that would be impossible. Instead, he engagingly asserts that the documented facts about Jewish involvement in communism tells less about Jews than about the psychological dimensions of anti-Semites. The basic parameters of Gerrits approach is laid out in the opening paragraph of Chapter Three. He writes:
“Jews have played a role out of all proportion to their numbers in the socialist and communist movements in Europe. Their participation in the early communist regimes of post-1917 Russia and the countries of Eastern Central Europe after the Second World War, in particular, bolstered anti-Jewish sentiments. The myth of Jewish Communism became one of the most powerful and destructive political stereotypes in Europe during the first half of the twentieth century. The most crucial feature of a (xenophobic) myth, as discussed earlier, is that it renders the abstraction of the group as more real than any of its specific, individual components. On this basis, one could argue that the actual involvement of the Jews in the communist movements is of only minor importance for the study of Jewish communism. The myth of Jewish Communism tells us more about anti-Semites, and perhaps communists, than it does about Jews. It should be considered, first and foremost, in the tradition of politically motivated anti-Jewish thinking. If the question of Jewish communism is basically a chimera, a political fantasy, there would seem to be little need for historians to tread beyond either its mythical or fantastic dimensions. The problem is compounded by the fact that Jewish participation in the communist movement lacks a reliable, empirical basis. Figures are fragmentary and limited and therefore difficult to assess. Jewish communism is as controversial as it is elusive. No wonder then, that so few historians have risked burning their fingers by it.”
Let us analyze what Professor Gerrits has just said. He begins by admitting the basic fact under dispute – that Jews were very disproportionately involved in Communist movements everywhere. He then asserts that this fact has no significance in itself but tells us more about the anti-Semites and their evil mind set than it tells us about the Jews, those eternally innocent people. Thus, he converts a factual dispute already settled into an attempt to pathologize those who reason from facts to justifiable conclusions (e.g., the Jews did it). This short essay does not intend to review “The Myth of Jewish Communism” in its entirety but merely to indicate the general approach of the book. It is certainly not without merit. The volume covers a vast amount of material which, although not all-encompassing, provides more than enough evidence of where the “myth” of Jewish communism came from. However, the volume most definitely follows the usual apologetic techniques of trying to ascribe Jewish involvement in communism to particular circumstances rather than to inherent characteristics of the Jewish people as a whole.
“The Myth of Jewish Communism” is hardly unique in the general approach it employs. But it must be said that Andre Gerrits does an exceedingly good job in trying to explain away the unexplainable. The book is well written and superficially plausible. The slant is obvious, however. Despite the slanting all kinds of inconvenient facts keep popping up. Thus, Gerrits has to admit that various Jewish authors such as Jaff Schatz, maintain that there were important similarities between Jewish messianic ideology and communist ideology. He also takes note of “anti-Jewish” academics like Albert Lindemann, Kevin MacDonald and Yuri Slezkine who have written extensively on the Jewish involvement in revolutionary socialism. Andre Gerrits basic problem, as anyone who reads the book can tell, is that the facts are simply against him.
No matter how masterfully he writes, it turns out that “The Myth of Jewish Communism” was the “Reality of Jewish Communism”. Too many people saw the face of the murderous tyrrany up close for there to be any doubt. Andre Gerrits “The Myth of Jewish Communism: An Historical Interpretation” is an important book because it shows that a century old charge has yet to die. It never will die because the evidence in support of it is simply too vast to be explained away. The fact that the Jews feel compelled to produce an expensive academic paperback rebutting the charge shows how concerned over it they are even to this day. “The Myth of Jewish Communism” may be a response to Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s “Two Hundred Years Together”; it may be a response to massive Internet publishing on the Jewish-Communist connection; it may be a combination of these things. It is unlikely that a better job of attempted refutation of the Jewish communist charge can be penned than “The Myth of Jewish Communism”. If the rebuttal fails – and it does – then the charge must be conceded as true. Andre Gerrits has given the subject his best shot. The reader who perceives the deficiencies of his account will have no further illusions on the subject of Jews and communism.
EXPLAINING AWAY JEWISH COMMUNISM
It is a marvel to read the sophistries by which learned historians try to “explain away” the overwhelming Jewish involvement in communism. Several classic examples occur in Andre Gerrits book “The Myth of Jewish Communism”. On pp. 140-141 he writes:
“The new political order in East Central Europe, not yet fully communist but under the political control of communist parties and their foreign masters, offered Jews unforeseen and unprecedented opportunities. Apart from their physical security (for which Jews depended on the communist-dominated governments) they profited in particular from the unique possibilities for social mobility, employment and political emancipation which the new order offered. Abel Kainer (pseudonym of Stanislaw Krajewski) emphasizes that few Jews as Jews chose for the communist regime in Poland. Those who participated in the new order (a minority among the Polish Jews who had survived the war, but the majority, most probably, of those who ultimately decided to stay) did so as individuals, mostly assimilated and, as Kainer asserts, often convincingly communist. Kainer lists a series of variables that can be read as partial explanations for why Jewish survivors were above average with respect to their receptivity to communist rule. Under post-war conditions, communism meant more than just acceptance by a community of non-Jews. Considering the situation in which most Jews found themselves immediately after the war (lacking housing and employment and boasting few relatives to fall back on), many relied heavily on support from the communist authorities…Jan Gross adds that: “They (Jews) certainly considered the Communist-dominated government as a natural ally, given the hostility of the social environment.”
On p.147 Gerrits writes:
“Immediately after their moment of greatest grief and disaster, Jews attained what they never attained before: formal positions of political power. At a time of almost existential crisis for most countries of the region – from the ravages of war and occupation to the subjugation to Soviet rule – Jews had returned with a vengeance, or so many believed. There were fewer Jews than ever but they seemed more powerful than ever. Jews appeared to be the main beneficiaries of the new order, profiting from the misfortunes of the East European nations…the notion of Jewish Communism appeared to have lost most of its pre-war mythical qualities. With the conspicuous role of Jews in most of the communist regimes, it seemed far more real than ever before – as biased and malevolent as this interpretation of communist rule my have been.”
Here we have the stereotypical effort to explain away the huge preponderance of Jews in communism as the product of particular circumstances, not as an inherent Jewish tendency. One might cynically comment that anyone who actually believes this should be looking for the proverbial bridge in Brooklyn to buy. It is no different, in essence, than the claims that Jews participated in the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 because they had been oppressed by the Czar and therefore, communism offered the best opportunity for liberation. Jews were simply availing themselves of the protection of a power which had saved them from the Nazis. Under the circumstances of the time Jews had to do business with the system which could clothe, house and feed them, so naturally they had to put on commissars uniforms. What else could they have done, as Messrs. Gerrits, Gross and others tell us? The Poles lacked the literacy to fill the upper level positions in the government, just as the Russians so lacked it in 1917, so the government just had to fill the positions with Jews. What did any Jewish pre-disposition for communism have to do with it?
This sort of apologia is utterly unconvincing. When juries in courtrooms hear these kinds of arguments from defense attorneys, they vote to convict. The Jews did not turn to communism because they were persecuted or because circumstances in individual countries made it conducive to their economic betterment. They turned to it because of their hate filled Talmudic tradition. Communism was never anything other than what the anti-Semites said it was – a Jewish attempt to tear down the non-Jewish world and to bathe it in blood. Andre Gerrits and similar academic hacks write endless pages trying to ascribe every possible motivation to Jewish participation in communism other than the real one. The intellectual gymnastics make for interesting reading but do not establish the case.
Unlike the intellectually intolerant Hans Froehling and his fellow krauts, Americans believe in concepts called “freedom of thought” and “freedom of speech”. That means Americans cannot be imprisoned for thinking or expressing opinions offensive to the powers that be. Medieval Germany still has not caught up with these concepts – and neither has the enlightened Mr. Froehling.
Unlike Mr. Froehling, I do not threaten my opponents with prison terms. I employ the more effective tactic of destroying their arguments. Since Hans Froehling, trapped in the Falaise pocket of his own stupidity, cannot deal with this tactic, he instead invokes the Inquisition and hurls anathema at me. Very impressive, Hans.
I have news for you, Mr. Froehling. The general Pattons of historical revisionism are already shooting down your orthodoxies and ramming steel bayonets of facts into your pious guts. Your stormtroopers of intellectual conformity are being butchered by fast moving, fast thinking Audie Murpheys of quick shooting intellectual marksmanship – and your clumsy, slow moving ivory tower Panzer will not save you.
Since the real issue at dispute here is whether WW2 was the wrong war against the wrong enemy, I submit that the issue of a Joseph Stalin D-Day Memorial is very much on point.
PARTNER IN ABSENTIA
Certain patriotic groups are outraged by the proposal to erect a monument to Joseph Stalin at the national D-Day Memorial. Actually, they should be overjoyed. Such a monument would demonstrate that Joseph Stalin was the real beneficiary of the D-Day invasion. Every German soldier killed by the Normandy invaders was a gift to the Soviet Union. It is true that Stalin and the Red Army did not land at Omaha and Utah beaches. But every German soldier present at Normandy was absent from Russia – and that is what Stalin wanted. It was “Uncle Joe” who wanted the second front in France – and that is what the Normandy invasion gave him. The slow advance of the Americans and British through France – and it was very slow indeed – made the westward advance of the Red Army that much more rapid.
The D-Day invasion was a gift to Stalin – and it is time that it was so recognized. Some shall object that portraying American soldiers as servants of the Soviet Union distorts history and insults their sacrifice. In fact, it merely confirms the isolationist objections to American involvement in the war. Putting up a monument to Joseph Stalin at the D-Day Memorial no more insults the soldiers of the American Army than putting up a monument of Joseph Stalin patting Franklin Roosevelt on the head would demean the WW2 Memorial in the nations capitol. But a Joseph Stalin Memorial would not be complete without a tribute to those he served. WW2 is known these days as the “liberation” of Europe. It is therefore only fitting that the D-Day and WW2 Memorials should commemorate the identity of the liberators. Thus, there should be busts of all the chief “liberators” in East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Rumania. The names and busts of Marcus Wolf, Hilda Benjamin, Jacob Berman, Hillary Minc, Hersh Smolar, Helena Volinska, Walter Groz, Rudolf Slanski, Mattias Gottwald, Ana Pauker, Jacob Broitman, Ilke Wasserman, Matyas Rakosi, Ernest Singer, Benjamin Auschpitz, Moses Kahane and many others should loom large as exhibits.
The victory of American soldiers did not enshrine Americans as commissars over half of Europe. It made commissars of a group that had supposedly been exterminated. How appropriate then, that the leader of this elect group of “Chosen” commissars, should be glorified as a partner in absentia of the Normandy, D-Day invasion.
Dear John,
I do not threaten this amateur of a historian called Buchanan (who is a journalist and a far cry from a historian) with prison terms. Take a look at the German code of criminal law, or its constitution (if you are even able to read that language). It’s clearly outlined what the law in Germany is when it comes to the nonsense that some second-rate Buchanan writes. Get your facts straight. That’s also prerequisite of “free speech”. It would also be helpful to read the Duden when you attempt to use the German language. Some terms are capitalized and you are obviously an amateur when it even comes to the German language. Stay within the realm of your limited language skills and don’t try to use a language if you can’t even spell it correctly -:).
P.S. Thanks for finally identifying who is hiding behind the name of one of Rome’s most famous intellectual Senators: “Cicero”. Just a simple-minded “John Thames” who is not much of an intellectual himself. Just another John Doe with a bloated belly and even more bloated ego
.
“kraut”, is (wohl) supposed to mean “Unkraut” and as should function as a subtle and disguised form of an insult. The world “kraut” means nothing and nothing more than weed and cannot be construed as a disguised form of an insult in the German language. It simply shows that how unfamiliar you are with the subtle nuances of this language.
How sad that your failed attempt fired right back at you in full public view. But then again, as they say: “Was kuemmert’s ‘ne deutsche Eiche, wenn ein Wildschwein sich an ihr kratzt
? How uplifting when in one little blog you are not only demonstrating a total lack of grasp of a complex language, but at the same time the Pathos of “Moechte-gern Geschichtlerei” … What can a German make smile more than to see all of this blow up in the face of the one who throws little, insignificant words like “kraut” at his opponent thinking that he strikes him fully down 
))))).
I can see Friedrich Nietzsche roll around in his grave at so much piety demonstrating nothing but pure vanity. (I suggest to read “Beyond Good and Evil” to find the section that sheds some light on this little psychological twist). Cheers and applause and please, and write more such blogs with similar silly blunders. I can’t wait to show my German friends how poorly educated you are
.
Two corrections: (1) as should be followed by “such” and the “that” after shows should be ommitted.
If you ever picked up a Duden, you’d know that ‘kraut’ is capitalized. If you ever want to throw an insult at an opponent in a foreign language, lean it first. It should say ‘Unkraut’. Your grasp of the German languages is just as “bloede” as your grasp of its history if not “bloeder”. Cheers and a HAPPY NEW YEAR!
“He speaks but he says nothing.”
Try talking about something substantive, Hans. The issue here is not grammar nor the intricacies of the German language. The issue is that you do not know what you are talking about.
THE UNNECESSARY WAR – PART ONE
Patrick Buchanan’s “Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World” is a tour-de-force account of the folly of the two world wars – the great civil war of the west, as Buchanan accurately terms it. This is a view completely contrary to the usual position. Although the folly of the First World War is now generally conceded, the Second World War is still romanticized as a great crusade against evil. Buchanan not merely rejects this view; he insists – correctly – that the folly of the second war was the direct outgrowth of the folly of the first. They were a continuum, not two separate occurrences.
In this Buchanan is entirely correct. His decision to open his book with an extended discussion of the diplomatic background of the First World War is therefore a wise one. Although some of the intricacies of European diplomacy, 1890-1914 are difficult for even well read laymen to follow (Who today remembers Falasha or two Moroccan crises?) Buchanan nevertheless makes essential points clear. The German Kaiser never once went to war in twenty-five years prior to 1914. His bark was far worse than his bite. England was perfectly prepared to resort to preventive war to smash a Germany she feared was getting too strong – as evidenced by the repeated proposals of fleet commander, Admiral “Jackie” Fisher, that the English “Copenhagen” the German high sea fleet at anchor in Kiel. The Kaiser was perpetually humiliated by his nephew, King Edward VII of England. All of this deep animosity and suspicion between the two powers was to have fatal consequences in 1914. The chief English diplomatic blunder in the pre-war years was to grant a secret guarantee to France to go to war in the event of a Franco-German war. When war came in 1914 the Germans, confronted with the specter of a joint French-Russian pincers from the east and west, had no inkling of the secret English guarantee. Neither did many of the English politicians, who were prepared to walk out of Prime Minister Herbert Asquith’s cabinet rather than declare war on Germany. They were prevented by David Lloyd George who calculated that he could ascend to the Prime Minister ship himself, if he did what was best for his career rather than what was best for his country. The Germans were not blameless for the outbreak of the war. The Kaiser had ill advisedly given a blank check to the Austrians to issue an ultimatum to the Serbian government which had indeed been complicit over the assassination of the Archduke in Sarajevo. But as war approached, it was the Kaiser who was most desperately trying to back out of the impending war. The Kaiser’s words are worth quoting. On July 31, 1914 Kaiser Wilhelm wired the Czar and King George V:
“It is not I who bears the responsibility for the disaster which now threatens the entire civilized world. Even at this moment the decision to stave it off lies with you.”
The war to destroy Germany had arrived at last. It cost the British, French and Russians far more blood than they had anticipated. More importantly, the war and the punitive peace treaty that followed laid the foundations for the second, and even more devastating, war to come. Patrick Buchanan’s description of the treaty of Versailles is masterful. The betrayal of Woodrow Wilson’s “fourteen points”, the sacrifice of the self-determination of peoples to English and French power politics, the looting of Germany’s industry and economy to pay impossible war reparations, the atrocious “sole guilt” clause ascribing responsibility for the war to Germany, the destruction of the German fleet to avoid turning it over to the English, the amputation of large sections of German territory and the turning over of millions of ethnic Germans to foreign domination, is all gone over in striking detail. The hypocrisy of the Entente powers, the humiliation and thirst for revenge of the Germans speaks clearly through Buchanan’s prose. Even better is the treatment of the dismemberment of Hungary. The amputation of two-third’s of Hungary’s territory was so excessive that even American and Entente statesmen known not to be sympathetic to the Hungarians protested. The map of Europe had been decisively butchered. But at this point, the obviously well informed and widely read Patrick Buchanan stops short. He is only too willing to inform the reader of the reasons the Germans objected so bitterly to the Versailles diktat; he is not willing to tell the reader the reasons for the anti-Jewish sentiment which erupted in Germany after the war. Buchanan goes into great detail about the behavior of Woodrow Wilson, David Lloyd George and Clemenceau at the great peace conference. But nowhere does he mention the tremendously influential Jewish delegations that traveled to Paris from the United States, Great Britain, all points of Europe and the newly emerged Bolshevik empire. He writes nothing of the discussions which raged in the English press, particularly “The Morning Post” on the implications of Jewish international politicking at Paris. There is no discussion of the intrigue behind the Balfour Declaration, the purported “contract with Jewry” of David Lloyd George, the minorities treaties” in Central Europe, the “old Jewish idea” called the League of Nations or the mandate over Palestine. There is no mention of the Zionists who controlled Woodrow Wilson or their consistent promotion of his career from president of Princeton University to president of the United States. Similarly, in his discussion of the anguish of the defeated Germans there is no discussion of the innumerable Jews who bought up German real estate and assets at a small fraction of their real value during the post-war inflation. Nor is there any mention of Rosa Luxemburg, Leo Jogisches, Paul Levi, Kurt Eisner, Hugo Haas, Ernst Toller, Max Levien, Eugene Levine-Nissen or dozens of other Jewish Communists who terrorized Germany after the war. Buchanan writes of Bela Kun and his murderous dictatorship in Hungary but omits any mention that Kun and 160 of his 200 commissars were Jewish.
It is not possible that a man so well informed as Patrick Buchanan is unaware of these facts. Such massive reading of history and abundant documentation precludes the possibility. Indeed, toward the end of his book Buchanan mentions that Winston Churchill shared the same views as Adolf Hitler on the Jewish origins of Communism. He mentions Churchill’s infamous newspaper article “Zionism Versus Bolshevism: A Struggle For The Soul Of The Jewish People” in which Churchill explicitly blames Jews for Bolshevism. Buchanan does note, correctly, that the same Churchill who once demanded an international crusade to destroy Communism with Germany as an ally, later fought Germany on behalf of Communism. (Buchanan, however, chooses not to quote those all too revealing words from “The Aftermath”, the final volume of Churchill’s “The World In Crisis” history of the First World War, where he alludes to “an international force, the likes of which the world has not yet seen, gripping the Russian people by the hair of their heads”. The meaning of the words is all too clear.)
Patrick Buchanan is writing history “up to the brink”. He is telling most of the truth while leaving the ultimate truth hidden. True, he is offering hints – strong ones. In the next section of “The Unnecessary War”, we shall examine the very powerful truths he does reveal about the Second World War – and the one point on which he is clearly wrong.
THE UNNECESSARY WAR – PART TWO
In the first part of this review, we have seen what the extremely well informed Patrick Buchanan chose to include – and what he chose to omit. Now we shall see that his analysis of the run up to World War Two demonstrates a Hitler aiming for war in the east and an opportunistic foreign policy – but not world conquest. In analyzing Buchanan’s treatment of Hitler’s foreign policy, it is evident that he has been reading the works of English historian David Irving – although Irving’s name nowhere appears in the index or bibliography. Buchanan repeatedly emphasizes Hitler’s admiration for the British Empire – and his ardent desire for a British alliance. Buchanan further recognizes that many of Hitler’s territorial demands were just – even while condemning the methods Der Fuehrer used to achieve them. Austria clearly desired reincorporation with Germany. The enthusiasm of the Austrian people was manifest for the Anschluss. Hitler had previously tried to depose the Austrian dictator, Dollfus, through an ill-advised assassination by Austrian Nazis he had had to formally disavow. Patrick Buchanan also tells the true story of Czechoslovakia – that fictional “democracy” of official history.
Czechoslovakia had been born in duplicity and deceit at Paris. Eduard Benes and Thomas Masyryk, the Czech leaders, had presented forged population maps to Wilson, Clemenceau and Lloyd George. As a consequence, the Czechs held total political power in a state in which they comprised just under one half the population (47%). Germans, Hungarians, Slovaks and Ukrainians were regularly beaten, killed and discriminated against by the Czechs. Complaint after complaint flowed against the Czechs to the “minorities rights” commission of the League of Nations. An Englishman, George Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers, traveled to the Czech state and found the German allegations to be entirely true. Buchanan’s position on Czechoslovakia may be termed semi-revisionist. He does not deny that Hitler, who grew up in the Slav-German Empire of the Habsburgs, detested Czechoslovakia and desired it destroyed. But he also makes clear that Czechoslovakia was an artificial creation from inception. As Hitler pointed out to Neville Chamberlain, once the Sudeten Germans had broken free from Czech rule, the other minorities such as the Slovaks and Hungarians, would also desire to break away. In the event, this is what happened. None of this is to deny that Hitler accelerated the process and intended to profit from it. But in the end, the dissolution of Czechoslovakia was the return of Bohemia-Moravia-Slovakia to centuries old German control.
All of this looked very different to British eyes. The German occupation of Prague in March 1939 ruined Neville Chamberlain’s reputation and led to a reversal of British policy toward Germany. Hitherto, the British had been sympathetic toward Germany and generally accommodating toward peaceful revision of the Versailles treaty. After the dissolution of rump Czechoslovakia, the British began to speak of a German drive toward “world conquest”. This was complete nonsense, of course, as Hitler’s aims at this point were the same as they had always been empire in the ease, friendship with Britain in the west. Interestingly enough, Buchanan documents what other revisionist researchers have long documented – that as of March 1939 Hitler did not want the dispute with Poland over Danzig settled by force. What changed his mind? The British guarantee to Poland. It was this guarantee, ill advised and completely unenforceable, which led the arrogant Poles to resist justified German demands and very moderate, reasonable proposals. In fact, Hitler and especially Marshall Goering ardently desired Poland as an ally in an eventual German-Russian war. The Poles, egged on by the British, preferred national suicide at the hands of both the Germans and Soviet Russians. Buchanan shows how Hitler held his hand constantly over the invasion of Poland. The initial invasion date was postponed for a week as negotiations proceeded. Even at the end all the Poles had to do was send an envoy to Berlin to negotiate a settlement. The Polish ambassador to Berlin, Josef Lipski, was specifically instructed by Polish Foreign Minister, Josef Beck, not to negotiate. Poland’s fate was thus sealed. Even on the first day after the invasion, Hitler proposed a peace conference where both the Germans and Poles would cease fire at the present battle lines. The English with their incomparable political genius, made this impossible by demanding that the Germans retire to their pre-invasion positions.
Hitler had tried to make clear to the English what his real intentions were. On August 10, 1939 he told the League of Nations High Commissioner in Danzig, Dr. Carl Burkhardt:
“Everything that I undertake is directed against Russia; if the West is too blind and stupid to understand this, then I will be forced to reach an understanding with the Russians, smash the West, and then turn all my strength against the Soviet Union.”
Clearly, British diplomacy in 1939 forced Hitler to devour a potential ally in a war he did not want. It also caused him to make the alliance with the Russians and move westward when he wanted to move eastward. In short, World War Two was the product of British diplomacy, not the product of any German desire for a repeat of World War One.
Buchanan is also very good at refuting legends of overwhelming German military preparedness. He quotes internal memoranda of the U.S. Army showing that captured German documents revealed no German preparations for war against the U.S. Germany pre-war was spending no more on armaments or military preparedness than the British or French. Similarly, the Germans had a battle fleet woefully inadequate to challenge either the British or American navies, much less both. Claims of German super bombers are likewise shown to be fanciful nonsense. The famous Battle of Britain was lost because German bombers were never designed for bombing civilian populations, only for supporting the advance of ground troops.
Patrick Buchanan is arguably exaggerating when he makes Winston Churchill the man primarily responsible for the stupidities of English foreign policy in two world wars. Many others, such as Lord Grey and lord Halifax, shared in the responsibility, a fact which Buchanan does not deny. Nevertheless, Winston Churchill was the Prime Minister and his decisions, political and military, had a great deal to do with the debacles of the British Empire in this crucial time period. It was Churchill who made the decision to reject the German peace offers after the fall of France in June 1940 when it is now known that the British Cabinet and the Queen herself wanted to accept Hitler’s terms to save the Empire. As a military commander Churchill’s reputation rests on prose, not deeds. As Buchanan documents, Churchill was militarily incompetent from the beginning. He participated in the slaughtering of the Dervishes at Omdurman by Herbert Kitchener. He then got himself captured by the Dutch in South Africa in a particularly stupid train adventure. During World War One as Lord of the Admiralty Churchill was responsible for the Daedanelles/Gallipoli disaster which cost many thousands of English lives and sunken battleships. In World War Two Churchill proceeded from the Narvik disaster in Norway to the fall of France to the evacuations of Greece and Crete to the humiliations in North Africa by Erwin Rommel. One could also include the summer of 1943 invasions of the Mediterranean islands which led to more humiliations for the English, as historian Max Hastings has recently documented. Then there was Churchill’s enthusiasm for terror bombing civilians by incinerating them with phosphorus and fire bombs. Mercifully, his plan to poison the Germans with anthrax bombs was dismissed as too much by the British War Ministry. Churchill promoted the arming of partisans on the Continent by “special operations”. This did minimal damage to the Germans but greatly aided the Communist maquis post war. Churchill’s one moment of strategic insight in the midst of all this blundering was the suggestion that an invasion of Europe through the “soft underbelly” of the Balkans might be preferable to a cross channel invasion into France. The German defenses were far less powerful in the Balkans. More importantly, an invasion northward through the Balkans would enable the Allies to cut off the advancing Red Army. The cross channel invasion at Normandy is precisely what Stalin wanted, a fact which Senator Joseph McCarthy repeatedly emphasized in his denunciations of Chief of Staff and later Secretary of State George Catlett Marshall.
Patrick Buchanan goes after Churchill but not so far as some historians, like David Irving. Thus, Buchanan makes no mention of Churchill’s alcoholism or his 2AM military conferences which used to drive his sleep starved generals to distraction. Nor does he suggest that Churchill was bribed by Jewish moneymen, like Bernard Whaley-Cohen of British Shell, to change his tune on the evils of Jewish Bolshevism and to go after Germany instead. That is truly hard-core revisionism which crosses the line of “history-up-to-the-brink”. Patrick Buchanan makes only one substantial error in his narrative. That is to reject the “Ice Breaker” thesis of Viktor Suvorov that Joseph Stalin was planning to attack Germany and Europe in the summer of 1941 before Hitler beat him to the punch. Instead, Buchanan argues that Hitler attacked Russia to force Britain to sue for peace. To that end, he quotes several undeniably authentic Hitler quotations to this effect. No doubt Hitler’s decision to attack Russia was woven from several strands but on this point Buchanan simply ignores the evidence coming out of the suppressed Soviet archives. Whatever Hitler’s original motivations may have been by June 22, 1941 it was clearly evident that Stalin had massed overwhelming force on the demarcation line for an attack. Operation Barbarossa, the German attack on Russia, was not a blunder but a strategic necessity.
Patrick Buchanan has done such a wonderful job in writing “Churchill, Hitler and The Unnecessary War” that it would be idle to criticize too severely. No work of history can be all-inclusive or free of errors of interpretation. As a one volume revisionist history disputing the orthodox version of two world wars, “The Unnecessary War” is as good a volume as has yet been written. It is abundantly documented, closely reasoned and indisputably correct in its main conclusions. But it is more than a revising of the history of two world wars. It is also a warning to Americans. As Buchanan notes, Americans are making the same mistakes that the British made. No one nation can police the world. Trying to do so will only bankrupt America and infuriate the rest of the world with our insolence. Like the English of the 1930’s, we are handing out foreign policy guarantees that we cannot honor. We are a declining power pretending to a glory of former greatness – just like the English declaring war on a Germany she could not defeat. There is one analogy to Britain’s folly which Patrick Buchanan does not address – and that is America’s support of Israel. England planted Zionism in Palestine – and paid the price with Palestinian rebellion and Arab estrangement. By 1948 the British were gone from Palestine, driven out by bankruptcy and Zionist terror. America, as the guarantor of Israel’s existence and, de facto, the “mandatory” of a now extant state, today suffers the same ill will that Britain once suffered as the protector of the “national home” of the Jews. That is a parallel Patrick Buchanan refuses to draw, as that would directly impinge on the Jewish question that he always skirts around, even while dropping very broad hints.
Finally, since Winston Churchill is the main villain of Patrick Buchanan’s magnum opus, he must be congratulated for pointing out that in many respects Churchill’s white supremacist racial views made him sound like a David Duke clone. Churchill was a eugenicist who believed in the sterilizing of the genetically unfit. He detested racially inferior Arabs and Hindus and believed fervently that superior races had the right to dominate inferior races. Churchill opposed the entrance of colored races from the Dominions into England and feared that it would threaten the racial purity of the English nation. Churchill’s views on Jewish responsibility for Communism have already been mentioned. Not so well known is his devout philo-Zionism. Churchill was a devoted advocate of a Jewish state in Palestine all his life. Only rarely did he sway from it. One such occasion was when the Jewish underground in Palestine assassinated his friend, Lord Walter Moyne, the British High Commissioner, in Cairo in 1944. Nevertheless, Churchill recovered from his remarks comparing Zionist assassins with Nazi thugs. He also opposed a Jewish army in Palestine until 1944, fearing that it would later be used to drive the English out of Palestine. (It was eventually used for that very purpose.) All of these details would make Winston Churchill a pariah in modern politics was they expressed today. Churchill has been forgiven his sins two reasons:
(1) He rejected the German hand of friendship under Adolf Hitler;
(2) He insisted that Britain stand by her pledge expressed by Lord Balfour.
“Churchill, Hitler and The Unnecessary War” is an essential read. When it is combined with the material Patrick Buchanan leaves out, it paints a picture of Winston Churchill totally at odds with the public image of the man. More importantly, it states most of the reasons why two unnecessary wars have brought the white race to the edge of extinction.
The fact is, you are not denying that you don’t even speak German and are at best a hobby-historian. If you are so informed, why don’t you write a book? Or at least get published in a peer reviewed article. What a difference that would make to your credibility as a “so-called expert”. … and continue to bore this world to death with your erudite nonsense about … “why two unnecessary wars have brought the white race to the edge of exctinction”. If they happened, by definition, they were historically “necessary” … jee, get your logic straight! And get a grip on yourself and your low self-esteem! With that little half-sentence you destroyed every little credibility that you could have had. “White race” … what a nonsense
. And then this end of the world whining about America policing the world … jee, just get real! You’re paranoid! That’s all that is to you! Go and see a shrink and then tell us about your experience with your tiny, little ego! What you’re writing is simple-minded psycho-babble, you’re telling more about your own little prejudice and exposing yourself for who you are than you are writing about history … you poor lost soul 
.
Dear Hans:
Before you pump yourself up with pride over your credentials as an ivory tower quack, please review all the idiocies which have been published by your “peers”. To this day, they deny the Pearl Harbor set up, whitewash the Jewish role in Communism, ignore the provable Jewish manipulations at the Paris Peace Conference, etc. Being a member in good standing with this kind of club would not enhance my reputation, believe me. Nor does it enhance yours, either.
Many truly great historians and researchers have been, and still are, amateurs. Need I mention Edward Gibbon and his history of Rome? Patrick Buchanan is an amateur but that is less significant than the fact that he (and I) are right and you are wrong. David Irving is a greater historian than either of us, that kangaroo court verdict against Deborah Lipstadt notwithstanding. Credentials cannot camoflauge the truth, Han.
I do not believe that anything in life is predetermined; it is the product of the choices of men. Those decisions can, and should, be changed. That is done by rewriting the past to demonstrate past follies and to pave the way for better choices in the future.
You attempt the standard technique of accusing me of psychological problems I do not have. Next, you assert that I lack endorsements by those who count. Professor Albert Lindemann of U.C. Santa Barbaa knows me under my real name; a well respected right wing newspaper regularly publishes my articles. You will not win this debate by arguing with me, Hans. You lack both the knowledge and the intelligence. What you will do is to continue to huff and puff, while ofering nothing substantive.
Keep trying to “Blow the man down”, Hans. In the meantime, try to refute my two-part review of Buchanan’s book, which I wrote in two evenings with a ten thousand dollar gold Mpntegrappa fountain pen you can never afford. Maybe next time, I will refute you with the diamond studded version of the pen, since a grumpy old Hindenberg type like you needs a proper send off.
THE PEACE TREATY TO END ALL PEACE TREATIES
There once was a “peace treaty to end all peace treaties”. It created all sorts of countries no one ever heard of, from the Baltic Sea to the Persian Gulf. This peace treaty was to make the world “safe for democracy” and end militarism for all time. This peace treaty was actually multiple peace treaties. It involved Versailles. St. Germain and Trianon in Europe plus Lausanne and Sevres with the Ottoman Empire. It arguably included Brest-Litovsk, imposed by Germany on Czarist/Bolshevik Russia in Eastern Europe. As a consequence of this treaty or treaties ancient empires were carved up like carcasses and distributed according to the whim of the victors. Out of the western Czarist area formerly known as Livonia came Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Poland, which had vanished from the map in the late eighteenth century, was recreated by the Germans in 1916 and enlarged three years later largely at the expense of Ukraine and Hungary. Austria was denied union with Germany and a customs union blocked crippling the economies of both nations. Hungary, at Trianon, was stripped of two-thirds of her territory. Most of the booty went to Rumania as its reward for switching sides several times during the war before winding up on the Entente side. Transylvania became a Rumanian, not Hungarian, possession. Czechoslovakia was created by incorporating millions of Sudeten Germans, Slovaks, Hungarians and Ukrainians into the Czech state. Eduard Benes and Thomas Masaryk, the Czech leaders, presented forged population maps and phony statistics to Wilson and Lloyd George at Paris to make their case. The Czechs also kidnapped the Slovak leader to prevent him from appearing at the Peace Conference. By such methods did the Czechs persuade the victorious Entente that the Slovaks and Czechs were “one people”. Poland had another huge ethnicities problem with millions of Germans, Ukrainians and Hungarians absorbed into its borders (not to mention millions of Jews). The problem would have been still worse had the polish delegates to the Peace Conference, Paderewski and Dwomski, not been thwarted by the “Little Versailles”. The Poles felt themselves aggrieved by not having their “historic borders”, namely the Jagiello dynasty of the 14th century stretching from the Baltic to the Black se, restored to them. The Entente did a particularly stupid thing in carving out the famous “corridor” separating Danzig from Germany. This eventually became the trigger for war in September 1939. Upper Silesia with its indispensable coal was taken from the defeated Austro-Hungarians and given to Poland. Alsace-Lorraine in the west was given back to the French and the Ruhr was subjected to a brutal occupation by black Senegalese troops who molested and raped German women. Russia came apart during the Bolshevik revolution and ensuing civil war. Large parts of the country were temporarily occupied by an Entente intervention and white armies. The Americans and British occupied Murmansk and Archangel in the north, near the Finnish border. The French intervened in the south Ukraine near Odessa on the Black Sea. Additional interventions took place in Siberia under the French general Janin. Russian territory switched back and forth until the Red Army under Leon Trotsky finally won the war. The Bolsheviks then tried to expand their power to the west. Marshall Tukhachevsky and the Red Army were stopped at the gates of Warsaw by the Poles.
Such was the condition of Europe in the years of the “peace making”. In the Arabian Peninsula similar drastic changes were at work. The defeat of the Ottoman Turks by General Edmund Allenby led to a post-war labyrinth of conflicting promises and pledges. The English had provoked an Arab revolt against the Turks under Sheriff Hussein of Mecca. The famous correspondence of October 24-25, 1915 between the Sheriff and Sir Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt had produced a tentative agreement in which the English promised to support a unified Arab, independent state after the war in exchange for an Arab revolt against the Turks, Germany’s ally. Palestine, which became such an issue after the war, was nowhere mentioned in the correspondence. It is now reasonably clear, from the lines on the map and the intent to exclude certain populations, that Palestine was included in the pledge to the Arabs. But there were major complications. The Sykes-Picot treaty between England and France had already encompassed the same territory. Worse yet, on November 2, 1917, His Majesty’s Government had issued a famous proclamation announcing its intent to create a Jewish “national home” in Palestine. The Arabs of Palestine were not consulted. In the end, the unified national state which the Arabs were to have received became the mandates of Iraq, Palestine, Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon. The first three were British; the latter two French. Turkey’s Arabian possessions disappeared forever; the trouble for the Anglo-French overlords of the former Ottoman dominions was only beginning. The Arabs experienced first hand at Paris, the true influences which determined English policy. Prince Feisal, the son of Sheriff Hussein, went to the French capital to press Arab demands. He discovered that Zionist Jews from England and America surrounded Lloyd George and Wilson, influencing or determining their every move. He learned that the Arabs, who had done the fighting and dying on England’s behalf against the Turks, were expendable fodder. True power lay with the Zionists, who had made that “contract with Jewry” to get the United States into the war. The Jewish “national home” was the quid pro quo. Feisal was forced to sign a ridiculous “Treaty of Friendship” with Felix Frankfurter, purporting to welcome the Jews to Palestine as fellow Semitic brothers. He saw the Arabs betrayed – and saw the true source of the betrayal.
Much else happened in Arabia after the war. The Hashemite dynasty of Sheriff Hussein was used by the English to control the area in the interests of British imperialism. Prince Feisal, a Sunni Muslim from the Hejaz on the east coast of the Red Sea, was sent by the English to become King of Iraq, an area of Shiite Muslims with whom he had no connection. He received the appointment after the French rejected him as King of Syria in March 1920. His brother, Abdullah, became emir and later King of Jordan. Thus were dynasties established by Arabs from the south of the peninsula over areas much further north and east. Poor Sheriff Hussein, who did so much to ensure British victory with Arab blood, was sold down the river by the empire in 1924-1925. He was abandoned by the English to the conquest of Ibn Saud of the Wahabi tribe. In large part, Hussein was ditched because he would not recognize the mandate over Palestine. He thus became disposable to both the English and the Zionists.
Such were the consequences of the “Versailles” of Arabia. These consequences are still with the modern world. The British Empire suffered never-ending strife during the 1921-1948 era over Palestine. Its endless investigations of Palestinian grievances never once found a satisfactory solution to the conflicting pledges given to Arabs and Jews, 1915-1917. The state of Israel rose on the foundation of the wartime pledges of Lord Balfour – with all the resulting strife we experience today. The grievances of 1915-1917 are all but unknown to the public today but still fester in the minds of the Arabs to whom they are as real as though they occurred yesterday. Such were the consequences of the “peace treaty to end all peace treaties”. The great experiment that was to reshape the world did precisely that – although not in the way intended. It did not bring democracy to the world. Nor did it bring rights of self-determination, peace without annexations or any of the other concepts with which it was sold. It brought artificial borders, wholesale amputations of populations, irredentist revisionism and conflicting promises everywhere it was implemented. It also brought a hidden agenda, hiding behind the slogans, camouflaged by the old imperialism in a new guise, but pursuing a real remaking of the world in a carefully “chosen” direction. That was the “peace treaty to end all peace treaties” – and no one can understand the world today without considering all of its momentous after effects.
THE WISDOM OF WINSTON CHURCHILL
On November 5, 1919 in the House of Commons, Winston Churchill gave a remarkable account of the Russian revolution. He began his account with a description of the sending of Lenin into Russia with his revolutionaries described by General Ludendorf. Churchill then recounted:
“Lenin was sent into Russia by the Germans in the same way that you might send a phial containing a culture of typhoid or of cholera to be poured into the water supply of a great city, and it worked with amazing accuracy. No sooner did Lenin arrive than he began beckoning a finger here and a finger there to obscure persons in sheltered retreats in New York, in Glasgow, in Berne, and other countries, and he gathered together the leading spirits of a formidable sect, the most formidable sect in the world, of which he was the high priest and chief. With these spirits around him he set to work with demoniacal ability to tear to pieces every institution on which the Russian state depended. Russia was laid low. Russia had to be laid low. She was laid low in the dust.”
The formidable sect referred to by Winston Churchill is not hard to identify. One need merely consult his infamous newspaper article “Zionism Versus Bolshevism: A Struggle For The Soul Of The Jewish People” in the “Illustrated Sunday Herald” of November 8, 1920 to know of whom he was speaking. Churchill continued along the same lines in his history of the First World War. In the final volume of the history, entitled “The Aftermath”, he wrote of an international force having seized hold of Russia. This international force was unlike anything the world had hitherto seen and was gripping the terrified Russian people by “the hair of their head”. And so the renowned Winston Churchill, the later opponent of Adolf Hitler and National Socialism, denounced Jewish Bolshevism in the most vehement and thinly veiled terms. This is not quite so amazing as it seems. Churchill was not alone in his views. His namesake Marlborough Churchill, the head of Military Intelligence in the United States, held exactly the same opinion. As shocking as Churchill’s views on Communism and the Jews may be, his later views on the virtues of Nazism are arguably even more shocking. Winston Churchill pre-war is on record as having praised Hitler’s patriotic achievement in saving Germany. He stated “one may dislike Hitler’s system while admiring his achievement”. Churchill also stated “were England to be defeated, he hoped that she would be fortunate enough to find a leader of Hitler’s magnetism and courage to lead her back to her place among the nations”. He praised Hitler’s ability to inspire his followers and noted that this characteristic had permeated his career from lowest ebb to highest tide. Finally, Churchill hoped that history might yet see a milder, more moderate Fuehrer. As Winston accurately noted, many world leaders had been forgiven rough methods when they subsequently got results.
Winston Churchill was a flaming white supremacist and racist. He detested Indians and Arabs. He callously dismissed the Bengal famine in India during WW2, caused by British scorched earth warfare against the Japanese, on the grounds that the Indian untermensch “bred like rabbits”, anyway. Winston held that superior races had the right to dominate the inferior. Churchill was a big supporter of eugenics to control he birth rate of the genetically impoverished. When England embarked on “diversity” in the 1950’s by allowing colonials to immigrate to the Mother Country, Churchill coined the expression “Keep England White”. In short, Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill was not the enlightened man that the intellectual cognoscenti would have the man in the street believe. Churchill’s reputation has degenerated considerably in England where it is now generally recognized that “Churchill’s War” against Germany destroyed the British Empire. In America however, where Zionist influence is very strong, no one wishes to examine Churchill’s actual deeds, much less his infamous words. Churchill was a man of many words (“We shall fight in the streets, we shall never surrender.”) But his most truthful words, expressed long before his most disastrous blunders, shall ring only in the ears of those who study verboten subjects.
Dear Hans:
I thought it only appropriate to entertain you with more of my “amateur” erudition. Please read my analysis of post-World War One carefully. It may provide you with the elementary grounding in basic facts usually not mastered by Phd. types like yourself. Next, please note the wisdom of another “amateur” historian, Winston Churchill. You will note, Hans, that Winston was a “neo-Nazi” before his time, fully endorsing the fallacy of Communism as a world-wide Jewish movement and making outrageously suggestive speeches in Parliament worse even than the fabled “Protocols of Zion”. You might get hold of an old State Department document from the National Archives entitled “The Power and Aims of International Jewry”, Hans. You will find it referenced in Professor Joseph Bendersky’s book, The Jewish Threat: Anti-Semitic Politics of the US Army”, Hans. More “amateurs” who thought like poor, deluded me.
Churchill was an amateur, Hans, and his most celebrated works, such as “The Gathering Storm”, are heavily slanted, to say the least.”Amateurs” twist facts, something that academically trained historians never do. Nevertheless, Hans, Churchill continues to be widely read to this day and is widely revered.Are his equally twisted historical slants of earlier days to be disregarded as untrustworthy, or do they perhaps offer insights more valuable than his later rationalizations for his innumerable military blunders?
Auf Wiederschein
PATRICK BUCHANAN: THE LAST SUCCESSFUL ANTI-SEMITE
Patrick Buchanan is the Charles Lindberg who succeeded. Lindberg plummeted from the heights of fame and fortune after he publicly accused Jews of being one of the principal forces driving America toward intervention in World War Two. Buchanan, however, has become ever more influential and widely read as he adopts more and more Charles Lindberg style positions. This is probably because Lindberg was a real threat to prevent certain trends whereas Buchanan can merely document and bemoan that which can no longer be reversed. Patrick Buchanan has, in fact, gone further in many of his public comments than Charles Lindberg ever dared. When the first Iraq war erupted Buchanan claimed that “the blood of kids named Smith and Gonzales” would pay for a war “started by Israel and its supporters. He also made numerous references to Israel’s “Amen Lobby” on Capitol Hill. Patrick Buchanan’s books have always contained an anti-interventionist outlook and a thinly veiled opposition to American participation in World War Two. In “A Republic, Not An Empire” Buchanan advanced the thesis that the proper course of action would have been to let the Germans and Russians fight it out, thereby preventing the post-war Communist occupation of Eastern Europe. This position generated some negative comment but the negative reaction increased many times over with the publication of “Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World”. Here Buchanan took a lifetime of historical research and distilled it into a one volume revisionist rewriting of the history of the two world wars. Patrick Buchanan was surely correct in treating the two world wars as essentially one, interrupted only by a bogus peace treaty. The book is neither soft-core nor hard-core revisionism, hovering somewhere in between. It is actually closer to hard-core revisionism, although hovering just on this side of intellectual respectability. Buchanan goes a very long way in “The Unnecessary War” to recasting Britain as the bad guy and the Germans as the good guy of the two wars. He displays a marked sympathy for Germany’s position while not exculpating the Germans completely. His attitude toward Britain’s obsolete balance-of-power politics is completely hostile and well justified by the facts.
Buchanan displays a firm grasp of revisionist World War One scholarship in exculpating the Kaiser. His analysis of Britain’s motives in entering a war which did not directly threaten her is incisive. It is an account that hardly reflects credit on the English. But he is at his best in describing the disastrous post-war settlement. The Treaty of Versailles, the treaties of St. Germain and Trianon are all revealed in their amazing duplicity and hypocrisy. Buchanan makes the reader aware of just what kind of conditions Adolf Hitler had to overcome when he began his revision of its terms in 1936. This makes his absorbing account of Hitler’s march to war all the more convincing as the reader understands the true background to the struggle. Hitler is shown as he actually was, not as some comic strip character of demonic evil. Buchanan stresses Hitler’s extreme Anglophilia and desire for friendship with England, all the while condemning his reckless and unnecessarily provocative means of obtaining his ends. The war, however, came about through ill-advised English diplomatic guarantees, not because of any German desire to promote a general world conflict.
This is all a long way from whitewashing Hitler, something Buchanan most assuredly does not do. His brutalities and diplomatic “fast ones” are all acknowledged and condemned. But the book is insistent on one point – it was World War Two that destroyed Britain’s Empire and western colonial dominance around the globe. It was World War Two that expanded Communism all over the globe and led to fifty years of Cold War. This is precisely what Charles Lindberg warned against. Patrick Buchanan wades in some very dangerous waters while writing “The Unnecessary War”. He quotes Churchill on the Jewish origins of Communism, thus suggesting to the reader the obvious question of why a man who agreed with Hitler should have gone to war with him. Buchanan also quotes Churchill on eugenics, white supremacy, the need to keep colonials from the Dominions out of the Mother Country so that England could “remain white”, etc. Nowhere does Buchanan explicitly endorse these views but the veiled implication is there.
There is no doubt that Patrick Buchanan is an anachronism. He is a man living in the past, espousing a point of view that has long since vanished from the American scene. Many indications exist in his own writings, such as “The Death of the West”, that he realizes this. His analysis is masterful and largely beyond rebuttal. But he is espousing a cause that can never be won and that is why he is tolerated by the political establishment. He is their token reactionary; “proof” that freedom of speech and thought still exist in America. Anyone so foolish to believe this will be holding a pink slip as he is ushered out the door. Patrick Buchanan, then, is America’s last successful anti-Semite. Mel Gibson could be offered as an exception but Patrick has not had to apologize like Mel. It is unlikely that Patrick Buchanan will be writing any more books, just as it is unlikely that he will again run for president. He has had as much say as the media will allow. But it has been a pleasure to read his wisdom, for he is one of the last living Americans who might meet Diogenes test of an honest, and intelligent, man.
What does Mr. Kimball think of all this? He isn’t saying.
THE BASIS OF THEIR REPUTATION
Where did the Jews get their reputation as international wire pullers? Why, they basically got it at the time of the Paris Peace Conference and the Communist revolution in Russia. Everyone could see that the Jews were behind Bolshevism in Russia. The commissars were Jews, Latvians, Ukrainians and a few Russians but mainly they were Jews. So said the military and diplomatic personnel at the scene; so boasted the Jews in their Yiddish newspapers; so said highly placed politicians all over the world. In Paris, Jewish delegations from New York, London and Continental Europe proliferated at the conference. The American Jewish Congress, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Alliance Israelite Universelle and the Committee of Jewish Delegations of the Central and Eastern European Jews all participated. Jewry from around the globe congregated in Paris for purposes of pursuing joint Jewish objectives.
Were the activities of the Jews in Paris to no purpose? Hardly. The Jews knew what they wanted – and they got a great deal, although not all of what they wanted. They did not get a Jewish “state within the state” in Poland but they got separate Jewish schools and exemption of work on the Sabbath. They also got Jewish national councils in such countries as Latvia and Lithuania which were then given official standing in the national legislatures. It was Lucien Wolf of England and Simon Dubnow of Russia who worked with the Englishman, James Headley-Morham, in formulating the Polish-Jewish minority treaty. The aforesaid Lucien Wolf was praised by the Zionist Israel Zangwill as the man behind the League of Nations, that “essentially Jewish aspiration”. Nahum Sokolow referred to the League of Nations as an “old Jewish idea”. Then there was that League of Nations granted mandate over Palestine where the language of Britain’s Balfour declaration was incorporated into the language of the mandate. The Balfour declaration, which was the basis of the mandate, was written, modified and tailored by the Zionists behind the scenes before being formally issued on the paper of the British Foreign Office. Jacob de Hass, Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis, Rabbi Stephen Wise and others made key alterations to the British document to make it more congenial to Zionist ambitions. Another Zionist, Felix Frankfurter, drew up one of the early drafts of the mandate for Palestine. Woodrow Wilson was also deeply involved in the drafting of the Covenant of the League of Nations, particularly Article 22, the article that dealt with the whole granting of mandates, especially that key one in Palestine. Wilson had many assistants on that one, most particularly the arch-Zionist frankfurter.
The activities of the Jews at the Peace Conference were very sly and cunning. For the most part, these activities were conducted behind the scenes, not in formal session. Indeed, the only formal session before the Council of the Big Four (Britain, France, the U.S. and Italy) was held in February 1919 at a time when Woodrow Wilson had headed back to Washington for a month. But although the Jews did their work behind the scenes, there was one noteworthy appearance before the Four. Howard Bliss, the president of American University in Lebanon, told the leaders of the Four that the decision to sacrifice the Arabs of Palestine to Jewish takeover was immoral and wrong. He predicted never ending strife if Lord Balfour’s pledge to the Jews was implemented. The Four were much discomfited but the truth was not about to change plans already formulated. Paris 1919 was a Jews fest. It is not possible in a short essay to list all the machinations of the Jews at the great conference to remake the world. But surely one of the most influential was Louis Marshall. Head of the American Jewish Committee, Marshall was in charge of reconciling the various Jewish disputes over the meaning and extent of “minority rights”. As a representative of a country where Jews enjoyed more legal protection than anywhere else in the world, Marshall personally had little concern for the concept. But to the Jews in the war torn countries of Eastern Europe it was the topic of centuries old strife between the Jews and their host populations. Marshall watered down the concept as it applied to the Jews of England, France and the United States. He did this to defuse the ancient charge of dual loyalty which the Zionist movement was threatening to revive. But when it came to the Eastern Jews, still living in medieval ghettos and fanatically committed to Communism and Zionism, the issue was a different matter. Marshall would not allow the outright “state within the state” for fear of the issues it would raise but he allowed Wolf, Dubnow and Headley-Morham to get as close to it as reasonably possible. The English and Wilson himself did not think that the “minorities rights” issue should be pushed too far. One inhibiting factor was that minorities rights as a rallying cry could be used as a rallying cry by the large numbers of Germans and Hungarians being placed under the control of repressive Czech and Romanian regimes.
All this Jewish intrigue was overshadowed by the brutal reality of Jewish revolution erupting everywhere. Communism was liquidating aristocracy all over Europe. Incredible atrocities were being committed by Communists who mainly seemed to be Jews. It had been well known long before the eruption of the First World War that the revolutionary movements in Russia were dominated by Jews. The Bund, the General Confederation of Jewish Labor of Lithuania-Poland, was 100% Jewish and Marxist. The Rusian Social Democratic Labor Party, later to become the Communist Party, was heavily dominated by Jews in both the Menshevik and Bolshevik factions, particularly the former. Poale-Zion, the Jewish Socialist Workers Party, the Zionist-Socialist Workers Party and the May 1917 merger of the latter two parties into the United Jewish Socialist Workers Party, constituted the main revolutionary line up. If one adds the Social Revolutionaries and the Polish Social Democrats of Rosa Luxemburg, the castoff players is reasonably complete. Once the hated Czarist monarchy collapsed, the Jews erupted in fury. Jewish commissars appeared in all government bureaus. The Jew with the Red Star became almost the prototype of the revolution. Trotsky-Bronstein, Kamenev Rosenfeld, Zinoviev-Apfelbaum-Radomylsky became international symbols of Jewish revolution. The Jews foolishly played into their enemies hands by openly boasting of their role in the revolution. The Communist press, published for self-evident reasons in Yiddish, glorified the role of the Jews. Boastful gloats appeared in the “American Hebrew” about how “the revolution in Russia was a Jewish revolution, the product of Jewish brains and discontent”. The “Jewish Chronicle” of London published an editorial claiming that “the ideals of Bolshevism are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism”. Prideful lists of Jews high in the Soviet government appeared in official Jewish journals. Communist governments in Europe appeared that were almost completely Jewish. Bela Kun in Hungary in March-August 1919 was surely the most dramatic but hardly unique example. Intelligence agencies virtually obsessed over the perceived danger. The sheer quantity of reports generated and processed by the American State Department, Military Intelligence Department and the British Foreign Office in the 1917-1921 period on the equation of Jews and Communism must be read to be believed. Congressional and State investigating committees, such as the Lusk Committee report, entered into the fray as well. Whenever the issue of Communism came up in the American press, there was always mention of the “lower east side of New York”. The man who was later to become Adolf Hitler’s nemesis in World War Two, Winston Churchill, wrote flaming denunciations of Jewish responsibility for Communism. An issue that later became taboo was openly discussed.
Thus, whether it was the velvet glove of omnipresent Jewish diplomacy at Paris or the mailed fist of Jewish Communist revolution the impression was everywhere the same – Jewish power had been unleashed on prostrate Christian Europe! This, then, is the background of the much maligned idea of omnipresent Jewish international power. As the reader can discern, there is considerable factual support for this old but still current idea. Since the advent of the internet all of this buried but still extant information has reemerged. The reemergence of the information has sparked some interesting academic efforts to counter the material. Among the efforts worth mentioning are Sharman Kadish’s “Bolsheviks and British Jews”, Mark Levene’s “Jews, War and the New Europe” and Andre Gerritts “The Myth of Jewish Communism; An Historical Analysis”. These efforts have their differences, of course, but the common theme is the effort to explain away the undeniable Jewish involvement in Communism as the product of particular historical circumstances, having nothing to do with Jews or Judaism as such. Thus, Czarist persecution is routinely invoked, as well as the claim that Jews practicing Communism were non-Jewish Jews who had repudiated their faith. Another standard defense is that Jews, as a better educated segment of the population, were attractive to the Soviet leaders as a labor pool. Whatever one thinks of these arguments, they represent an effort to deal with a provable fact, a disproportionate Jewish involvement in Communism, rather than trying to deny it outright, as was once the case, particularly post-World War Two.
Today, there are still those who reason that Jewish power in the world has not decreased. As proof, they point to the strangle hold of the Israeli lobby over U.S. foreign policy, the attempt to demonize the Holocaust Denier in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahminijad, the disproportionate financing of U.S. politicians by Zionist money and like phenomena. Thus, they see the emergence of Jewish power in Paris in 1919 and this same power operating today as the growth of a cancerous force threatening civilization. Such are the historical roots of the idea of Jewish power. The ultimate expression of this idea of diabolical Jewish power is Holocaust Denial, the belief that the extermination of six million Jews in purported ”gas chambers” is a hoax. Whatever one thinks of Jewish global power theorists, they do have certain provable facts to which they can refer. Jews did exert great influence at the Paris Peace Conference following the “Great War”; they were disproportionately involved in Communist revolution and there has been a rather easily provable cover up of this fact. The past will not die so long as the facts are there to sustain it. Anti-Semites will always have an arguable case so long as the Jews cannot satisfactorily explain certain inconvenient facts.
You will never learn it: It’s not “Auf Wiedersehen”, and with the likes of you it is “Auf Nimmerwiedersehen”. You’re so not worth it
Jee, what does “Auf Wiederschein” mean? And I feel so sorry that you never had the opportunity to complete a rigorous education
. As Nietzsche said so eloquently, “the aggressive pathos belongs as necessarily to strength as vengefuness and rancour belongs to weakness”. Sorry to learn that you are of the latter kind. And as they say in Tennessee: God bless you, my child!
Hans:
As enjoyable as it is to trade insults with you, why don’t you try responding to my essays? I have not seen even one feeble attempt yet. Surely a man of such prodigious, “peer reviewed” wisdom should have no problems demolishing such a rank amateur as me. Specifically, Hans, why don’t you prove:
(1) that there was no Jewish disproportion in Communism in the 1920′s and 1930′s:
(2)that Jewish delegations were not operating at Paris in 1919;
(3)that learned and wise men in both the British government and the American State Department did not share Adolf Hitler’s later opinions about the international aims and characteristics of Jewry?
I would rather argue those points than worry about the grammar of a language I do not speak and could care less about. In other words, Hans, try sticking to the subject.
JUDEO-COMMUNISM DENIERS
We live in a world where Holocaust Denial is increasingly a crime. Strangely, however, Judeo-Communism deniers have total freedom of speech. It is an incontestable fact that Jews dominated all communist movements until at least the end of the Second World War. Yet one hack journalist after another, such as Cathy Young in “Reason” Magazine, pretends that the Jewish Communist connection just isn’t there. Cathy does not go to prison for Judeo-Communist Denial. Walter Duranty did not go to jail for Ukrainian famine denial in the 1930’s. Instead, he got the Pulitzer Prize the year before for his expert lying on behalf of Joseph Stalin and the workers paradise. Judeo-Communism deniers are everywhere in the prostitute press. They will tell you that the charge was a delusion of a pathological Nazi liar named Adolf Hitler. But the Judeo-communism deniers shall not tell you that Winston Churchill made the same charge in 1920.
Judeo-Communism denial is safe and brings the blessings of a happy Jewish boss and a secure paycheck. Holocaust denial means career destruction and permanent unemployment. In the world of Judeo-Communism denial, facts mean nothing but a fat bank account means everything. Judeo-Communism denial does not bother Jewish academics who write proudly of the Jewish involvement in Marxism. Judeo-Communism is only for the stupid masses who need to be hoodwinked. Thus, Marci Shore, Yuri Slezkine, Benjamin Ginsberg, Henry Sbrernik, Andre Gerritts, Robert Brym, Jonathan Frankel, Gerald Sorin, Nora Levin, Tony Michels, Elliot Ratzman and a galaxy of academic authors can write extensively on Jews and Marxism, while the Walter Duranty clones deny Jewish commissars with Zyklon B on their breath. True, there are a few heretics like Eric Margolis with the Toronto Sun and the late Alexander Solzhenitsyn, but the latter can be dealt with by not translating “Two Hundred Years Together” into English.
Judeo-Communism denial shall continue to flourish, just as the New York Times shall continue to hold onto Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer Prize. Facts are not the issue: polishing the platter of the Chosen People is the prime directive of every journalist desirous of a long working life.
James,
Well, let’s start with your first claim: (1) that there was no Jewish disproportion in Communism in the 1920’s and 1930’s. In your next post you state the opposite namely that “It is an incontestable fact that Jews dominated all communist movements until at least the end of the Second World WarYou”. First of all you have to make up your mind as to which of these statements you support. Also, there is nothing like an “incontestable fact” when you make a statistically oriented argument such as “that there was no Jewish disproprotion in Communism …”. by using the term “proportion” you make a probabilistic statement in the form of the frequency theory of Richard von Mises that requires falsification and requires the use of statistical testing to corroborate it. The way you state it, it is not even a research hypothesis, so you will have to first translate this statement into a research hypothesis and then analyze it by using a Logit-Linear Analysis. You have made the argument a little more difficult by putting your statement into negative terms. Moreover, you would have to decide which form of hypothesis framework you want to use: R.A. Fisher’s or Neyman/Pearson’s. In addition, you will have to decide on an appropriate alpha and beta level and subsequently determine the appropriate sample size given your alpha and beta levels as well as what proportion you deem important enough to support your claim. In any case, you will have to translate your statement into a testable hypothesis.
Good luck!
Jews were represented in all parts of German and European culture prior to World War II: Finance, Academia, Industry, Politics, Arts, Philosophy … you name it. Until you have gone through this process claim is just what it is: hypothetical! That some Jews were prominent within the Communist Party does not imply a priori that Jews were disproportionally under- or overrepresented. This is a question of empirical and a posteriori analysis. In particular:
- you would have to specify what group(s) you want to compare your target group with. Parties, revolutionary cells??? You will also have to deal with the problem of the exact defintion of the communist party: National, if so,which nations, international (Comintern) etc.
- specify if you assume a Poisson or a multinomial distribution (i.e. determine if your sample is not fixed vs. if your sample is fixed).
- specify your model by determining if you want to include potential moderating variables and covariates.
A serious problem of the analysis of your first hypothesis is the question of the randomness of the sample. What sampling frame will you use? Is there bias in the sampling frame and what impact does it have on the analysis? Not being a journalist, I can only outline how you can approach your research. Given the form of the statement you will not be able to prove anything, but only disprove with a certain level of confidence and at a certain error I and error II risk. That’s the principle of falsification that has been built into scientific inquiry since Popper’s “Logik der Forschung”. So far, it has withstood the test of time despite all efforts “to ban the hypothesis test”. I assume that given the complexity of anwering your claim, you will want to drop it from a serious, scientific investigation. Furthermore, you are the one who makes the claim, so it is up to you to show scientific evidence.
As for number 2 there is no doubt that Jewish delegations were present in Paris. After all you had the Sykes-Pikot agreement from 1915, the Balfour declaration of 1917, a letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild, and Wilson’s 14 points on January 8, 1918. So, what’s your point?
As for your claim three, you will have to elaborate on this one. It is not comprehensible in its current form. It looks more like the private semantics that children are known for between the ages of 1 and 2.
So, the ball is in your court. As shown, you’ll have a lot of work in front of you to even substantiate your first claim. Remember, you’re not dealing with a journalist like your good old friend Buchanan
It would appear that good friend Frohling is acquainted with the principles of statistical analysis. He seeks to redefine history in terms of principles he actually understands. (He does understand something). Bravo, Hans! You are not quite the half-wit I thouht you were.
Let’s quantify the analysis to better suit your scientific mind. Let us start with Bela Kun’s Communist dictatorship in Hungary in 1919, a rather well known episode in modern European history. According to the reputable Jewish social scientists Rothman and Lichter in their “Roots of Radicalism”, 160 out of 200 top level commissars were Jewish. That is exactly 80% in a land where Jews were nothing like 80% of the population. The same information may be found in many other accounts. Now, you will no doubt respond that most Hungarian Jews were not Communists and that this figure means nothing, especially as many non-Communist Jews also suffered under Bela Kun.
Let’s take another example. It is commonly asserted that the majority of Bolsheviki in Russia were Russians, not Jews, especially at the lower ends of the Party. This only makes sense, as Jews were only 2% of the Soviet population. But at the upper levels of the Party apparatus, where control lay, the percentage was enormously higher. To quote one very specific example, according to Marci Shore, a reputable Jewish academic relying on data contained in Yuri Slezkine’s “Jewish Century”, out of 112 or so high NKVD officials on the eve of the great Purge, over 40 were identifiably Jewish. If one were to look at the membership of the American Communist Party in the 1920′s through 1950′s, at least 40% and probably as high as 80% of the Party’s membership was Jewish, especially in major metropolitan areas like New York and Los Angeles. You might look at Elliott Ratzman’s website, “The Jewish Romance with , Communism, Zionism and Liberalism” for confirmation.
The argument that Jews were also disproportionately involved in other intellectual movements is a familiar evasion and may be found in many explanatory accounts. As Professor Kevin MacDonald notes in his “Culture of Critique”, this argument fails to explain why Jews always seem to predominate in leftist intellectual movements, not rightist ones. Your assertions regarding the meaning of the Jews activities at the Paris Peace Conference was not the conclusion that informed observors of the time drew. If you will look in Professor Gerritts book you will find the famous observation of the English observor, Edward J. Dillon, that the real lesson of the Peace Conference was that “henceforth, the world would be run by the Anglo-Saxon races, who would in turn be swayed by their Jewish elements”. I am well acquainted with Sykes-Picot, the Balfour Declaration and the Balfour Declaration. In fact, I know far more about them than you do, Hans. For instance, although the Balfour Declaration was issued on the paper of the English Foreign Office and signed by Arthur James Balfour, it was not really written by Balfour, Lord Milner, Lord Cecil or any of the rest of them. Major changes were made in the drafting of the Declaration by Zionists behind the scene, tailoring the declaration to their own specifications. Thus, the Zionists wrote their own declaration and passed it off as a British declaration to them! You can read all about it in JMN Jeffries 700 plus page account, “Palestine: The Reality”, published by Longman, Greens in 1939. I already have. That certainly establishes a certain influence operating behind the scenes, does it not, Hans?
Were you to apply your statistical wisdom to a legitimate subject, Hans, shall we say the manipulation and distortion of genetic evidence in court rooms to mean what prosecutors want it to mean, or to the misuse of slender strands of genetic evidence to either prove or disprove the Khazar Turkish descent of Eastern European Jewry, you would be performing a service, Hans. But when you apply this same metholdology to try to disprove a fact firmly established from other sources, you make yourself ridiculous, Hans. Any diplomat present in Saint Petersberg during the Revolution would have laughed at what you so piously deny – that Jews were behind the Bolshevik coup d’etat. These were the men and women on the scene when the Revolution occurred – and their testimonies are all consistent as to the disproportionate Jewish control. This kind of testimony carries great weight in legitimate judicial proceedings Hans, (And no, I am not talking about that kangaroo court in Nuremberg.) partiicularly when it is consistent with the rest of the evidence.
In short, Mr. Frohling, nice try, but you still lose on the basis of the facts.
Hans:
Point number three may be understood simply by reading Joseph Bendersky’s book, “The Jewish Threat: Anti-Semitic Politics of the US Army”. If that is not sufficiently informative, try reading, Sharman Kadishes “British Jews and Bolsheviks”. You will find the same sort of treatment of the post-WW1 belief in “Judeo Communism”. (Or Zydokomuna if you prefer Polish.)
James,
Nice try, but you still haven’t proven anything. You have simply taken a few convenient samples in an attempt to support … well, I still don’t know what claim because you are contradicting yourself in the two previous responses. For your information I am amongst others a certified forensic expert in the German court system and have done legitimate work on the likelihood of defendants’ committing murder, rape, child abuse etc. As a forensic psychologist with a PsyD and one of my areas of expertise was personality assessments. In addition, I am a PhD in History, so the idea that I redefine history in statistical terms because that is all that I understand is simply conjecture. You may want to pick up a book or two on historiography and historical methods. Maybe, you’ll find one or two ideas about the idea of historical “facts”. Well, good luck in convincing readers of this site of your superior historical knowledge. I doubt that another academic historian would even start a serious discussion with you and so I will end mine because it is so not worth it. Good luck and keep on believing in your superiority
. You obviously need this delusion!
Hans:
I was so impressed by your doctoral dissertation on statistics that I immediately thought of the ostrich with its head in the sand – it is counting the grains of silicone with great meticulousness while oblivious to the real world. If a prosecutor has a videotape of a guilty defendant shooting the decedent dead, Hans, then arguing over the fingerprints on the gun seems a rather bad defense tactic.
INTELLECTUAL PROSTITUTES AND PAID LIARS
The Jewish preponderance in revolutionary socialism has always been a highly troubling fact for the academic intelligentsia. They have never liked to deal with it and have all kinds of innovative techniques for thinking their way around it. One is to claim that although many Communists were Jews, they only constituted a small minority among Jews generally. That assertion is more than debatable. It is a little like asserting that only a small minority of Jews support Israel. If one reviews the Communist/Socialist press, 1880-1950, a very high percentage of it was published in Yiddish, the language of the Jews. A good example would be the “Morning Freiheit”, the largest circulation Communist newspaper published in the United States. One wonders who would be reading Communist newspapers published in Yiddish if not Communist Jews. Another favorite technique of the Judeo Communism Deniers is to count only the Jews who were members of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party ) later the Communist Party) before the revolution, while omitting the Marxist Jews who were members of the other revolutionary parties. These Jews later joined the Communist Party en masse after the Bolsheviks took control. Still another favorite sleight-of-hand technique is to argue that the Mensheviks were dominated by the Jews but the Bolsheviks were not. Thus, if there were a “Jewish” phase of Communism, it only lasted from the time of the Provisional government in March 1917 to the Bolshevik seizure of power in October of the same year.
These are some of the sophistries by which Jews and their apologists try to whitewash the real Jewish role in Communism. The hard truth of the matter is that Jews up to the end of WW Two were as solidly behind the Soviet Union as participants and supporters as they are participants and supporters of Israel now. It is idle to point to Democratic Socialist Jews who objected to Soviet terror, just as it is idle to point to anti-Zionist Jews like the late Alfred Lilienthal and present day Norman Finkelstein. A key tip off to real Jewish sympathies is whose persecution they object to. When the German Nazis launched their Jewish persecution campaign, Jews all over the world erupted in rage. When the Jewish gulag commissars of Joseph Stalin murdered millions in Soviet Russia, world Jewry warmly applauded. All students of Communism are acquainted with Walter Duranty, the New York “Times” star reporter who denied the Ukrainian famine of 1932-1933 in which 7-10 million people were deliberately starved to death by Joseph Stalin and Lazar Kaganovich. Academics who deny the real Jewish role in, and collective responsibility for, history’s most murderous tyrrany, are Walter Durantys of the ivory tower. They are intellectual prostitutes and paid liars – and should be dismissed as such by all informed people.
Hans:
It is certainly nice to know that you are a court approved expert in criminal procedings. But you are very lucky that Iam not cross-examing you under oath.Your first ordeal would consist of one quotation after another from Jewish academics and their reference works on the Jewish involvement in Marxism. Since you are a court approved expert, you will realize that this is called, in legal parlance, “admissions against interest”. Next , Hans, I would quote you long pages from various Jewish Encyclopaedias on the role that Jews played in establishing Comunism. For a follow up, I would then quote literally hundreds of State Department and Military Intelligence reports from the National Archives by equally paranoid and delusional people who shared my
“statisticaly invalid” belief that Jews were behind Communism. Then, I would refer you to various internet websites containing hundreds of photograps of Jewish commissars in Polish, Hungarian and Soviet Communist uniforms. Then, I might confront you with dozens of articles in Yiddish on the joys of Communism and ask you to translate them to demonstrate your undoubted language skills. All of this, and more, Hans, is called “preponderance of evidence”. (Another legal concept with which you are no doubt acquainred.)
I have no doubt, Hans, that were this the era of Senator Joseph McCarthy, you would be testifying as to the Senator’s “paranoid obsession” with non-existent Communists in the American government. But we now know, from the Venona decrypts and other sources, that the paranoid Senator was absolutely correct and that, in fact, there were Communists in the US government, many of whom have not been exposed to this day. About 80% of them were Jewish. One finds the same proportion among the atomic spies and the Hollywood Reds. (More improper statistical sampling problems, Hans?)
It really has been a pleasure debating you, Hans, because you give new meaning to the phrase, “taking candy from a baby”.
James, sorry to bother you once more: But thanks for the unexpected compliment! Your analogy doesn’t make much sense to me as do most of your posts. But I take it as a compliment that you are trying to be your charming self! I am sure that you are at least as successful if not more as I am in the “real world”. What other reason would you have to use terms like “intellectual prostitutes” or “liars”? Only people at the highest level of an organization will get away with such exquisite and well-thought through vulgarities … or what you call in the US “White trash”. Of course I can already hear the retorting bells of “European trash” spouting off out of your ever so kind keyboard to characterize me. But then, it’s all a question of perspective and in the area of evaluation it is difficult to come by the “true facts”:-). Cheers and keep on going. Your posts become more and more amusing as you keep on harping and harping on the same old theme: “Judeo-Communist conspiracy theory”. BTW, what exactly is the benefit of your ever deeper and deeper morass in regards to the analysis of the beginning of 20th European history to American “real world” of today? How will you ever dig yourself out of that hole? Like Muenchhausen pulling himself out by the boot strep? Every historian has written for his or her time in order to provide a lesson (see Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius among others). Sometimes I am not sure if your posts were born out of the spirit of silly Don Quichotery or the result of a simple-minded madman. Genius and madness are so closely related to each other that they are almost indistinguishable from each other.
.
Hans:
You do not bother me at all. I became well acquainted with the academic “mind” during my years at university. You are simply oblivious to the facts, as are so many of the academically trained. You ask why the harping”. The thread began as a commentary on Buchanan’s book on two world wars. The greatest fall out from WW1 was the Jewish-Bolshevik revolution in Russia. Why not focus on the most important product of the most important war? It certainly seems germane to me.
Yes, Hans, I went a long way in the world in a legally related business. I made a lot of money and inherited even more. That is why I can now devote my time to historical studies. In America, Hans, we have a concept known as “freedom of speech”. That means we can be as crude and rude as we like – particularly to those who deserve it. This is something Europeans cannot understand. I guess it derives from that medieval time when peasants swore allegiance to their lords. We don’t do that over here.
I think I’ve given you the education you never got in Heidelberg, Hans. As for Miss Merkel, your Chancellor, she seems to specialize in getting down on her knees before the Knesset. (O dear, there I go again!) Anyway, Hans, when you tire of me, please read Mr. Gwynne, editor of “The Morning Post”, on the danger of Judeo Bolshevism to the British Empire. It didn’t begin with me, Hans, and the facts have not changed either.
LOL, what do I have to do with “Heidelberg”? You don’t have the slightest clue! Even that “fact” is fictional
. Enjoy your vulgarities and continue to demonstrate in full public that in reality you are nothing more than a rotten, poorly educated and vile antisemite with a paranoid mind (I guess that’s free speech). As far as I can see it, all of your “devotion to historical studies” does not attract a lot of attention or interest in this country at least not on this site 
. You sound more like someone who is used to endless monologues rather than intelligent discourse. And what do you know about Angela Merkel? I haven’t heard that a certain John Thames is even running for local office :=)))))) Enjoy reading the Morning Post and the other crap that you pretend to be so knowlegeable about.
Hans:
You really don’t know when your leg is being pulled do you?
Now to something substantive. I am far better educated than you. I have delved into far more reference works on far more subjects than you have. That I did not do it as part of someone’s Phd. program is neither here nor there. Both Professors Kevin MacDonald and Albert Lindemann know me personally and are well acquainred with my research and writing abilities.
As to Miss Merkel, I do know that she went to Israel and pleaded for forgiveness for non-existent “gas chambers”. That is an indisputable fact. As to running for public office and its meaning, one need merely look at the imbeciles filling the US Congress to know what that counts for. Since when was any politician a scholar on a search for the truth?
You think I am insignificant. In today’s dumbed down environment, I may well be precisely that. But pray tell, Hans, if I am so insignificant and ill informed as you pretend, why are you trying so hard to refute me? Is it perhaps because I do have the real facts on what you are trying so desperately to cover up?
THE SHABBATAI ZEVI OF THE SHABBAT GOY GERMAN PROFESSORS
A Mr. Hans Frohling is the Shabbatai Zevi of the Shabbat Goy German professors. Herr Frohling should take a trip down the yellow brick road to Tel Aviv. With his companions the Tin Man, the Straw Man and the Cowardly Lion, he should be well protected on his pilgrimage to the Land of Zion. Shabbatai Zevi was, of course, the 17th century Jewish Messiah who led many thousands of European Jews to Constantinople where he magically converted to Islam before the Sultan who threatened to test his immortality with arrows. It would be nice to see Benjamin Netenyahu and Tipni Livi do the same but Israeli Sabras are made of sterner stuff. Hans Frohling would have no trouble attracting followers. German scholars, like German politicians, are servile boot lickers. Shabbatai Hans and his faithful trot off, carrying their Zyklon B detectors, to search for the Auschwitz grail. (This is a Zionist crusade, not a Christian on.) Hans and his flock eventually reach Tehran where Messiah Frohling sees the light and is magically converted to Holocaust Denial by the President of Iran. Mahmoud Ahminijad anoints the new “Templar” of truth.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pl&u=http://www.polonica.net/mordercy_Polakow.htm&ei=OwqhS_jnLpTysQPJmvTSCw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CA0Q7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dwww.polonica.net/mordercy_Polakow.htm%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1W1ADBF_en
Well noe, Hans, the “statistical sampling” in this one looks mighty impressive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeyWbMB-gIw
Adolf Hitler Discovers Holocaust Denial Video
Guess what: I did spend six months with the Israeli army in Tel Aviv as a fellow of one of Germany’s three Military Leadership academies to cover the Gulf War. A missile struck right next to the place where I lived, and a gas mask was always right next to me. I celebrated the “End of the World Party” in Tel Aviv, the day before the war broke out. What do you have to offer? Nothing, no facts, no “impressive statistics”, just a bad mimicry of “Les Fleurs du Mal” and foul language. You’re an antisemite, plain and simple, and you’re on record! In reality, you’re a poor fellow who craves attention, but doesn’t get it because he can’t publish or write coherent arguments in historical narratives. That’s all there is to you. A very sad and pathetic figure! In reality, I feel very sorry for you even though you don’t even deserve that.
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Holocaust:denial.htm
Feel sorry for yourself, poor Hans. It does not surprise me that you served in your favorite country. You have merely substituted “Schmuck Heil!” for “Seig Heil!” You should be be proud of yourself.
In actual truth Hans, I have all kinds of documented facts that you have not even tried to refute. Did you look at the hundreds of photograps of Jewish Communists in Polish uniforms, Hans? Apparently not. Anyone can read my abundantly documented, well reasoned historical essays and perceive that I am twirling you around my little finger.
You are pathetic, Hans. Like camp survivors, you lie and lie and lie. Doubtless you shall continue to do so. You have nothing else to offer.
You’re pulling yourself deeper and deeper into a morass. It looks more and more to me as if you are a simple youth trying to grand-stand with “so-called” facts but no coherent message. A lawyer would know that in order to impress and persuade a jury, he’d need a message. So far, there’s nothing like it. Being called liar by someone with such low ethical standards is neither a flattery nor an insult. It shows simple-mindedness. With every post you’re showing more and more who you are and what cloth you are made of. Anyway, enjoy finding someone who will take you up on your photographs and your imaginary friends, your ” historical facts”. What kind of a nonsense is the sentence “Like camp survivors, you lie and land lie”. So here we have, yet another indication of the imaganitaion of a twisted mind: a successful, retired lawyer. You’re so amusing being such an intellectual mini fleyweight (WBO standards so you don’t have to look it up). Enjoy your “intellectual” shadowboxing exercises. Hopefully, they keep you at least physically fit. Intellectually, you’re way past your prime
. Cheers!
THE MILITARY CONFIRMED
Was there ever a “Jewish Threat” to the United States? If one consults Joseph Bendersky’s immensely informative but almost totally ignored book “The Jewish Threat: Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army” the answer is yes. Bendersky paints a picture of a world view that no longer exists in America. It was a world view of Nordic supremacy which viewed Eastern European Jewry as the source of all communist and racial subversion. Professor Bendersky is properly shocked by the world view he describes. The reader suspects that his indignation is de rigueur, the price of membership in good standing of the modern intellectual community. Nevertheless, it was not always so. Bendersky paints a picture of a world of Social Darwinism, in which there was a natural order of superior and inferior races. Throughout the pages of his deeply researched volume, Joseph Bendersky shows just how entrenched was the view that Jews were a distinct threat to American life. This view did not begin with the First World War and the aftermath of Communist revolution, as the reader might suppose. Although Bendersky does not go into it, anti-Jewish sentiment in the U.S. began almost at the same time that mass Jewish immigration began in the 1880’s. Jews were viewed even at that early date as the brewers of revolutionary socialism from the ghettos of Czarist Russia. The perception was greatly magnified by the eruption of Communism throughout Russia, Poland, Germany and Hungary.
Joseph Bendersky goes into elaborate detail about the innumerable eugenicists and Nordic supremacists who lectured at the Army War College in the 1920’s. One such was Charles Davenport, a leading eugenicist from Harvard and the University of Chicago. But there were many others. Two of the more important were Clark Wissler, an anthropology professor at Columbia University and especially William McDougall of Harvard University, a fervent advocate of a national eugenics program, as he made clear in his 1921 volume “Is America Safe For Democracy?” These frequent lecturers were joined by Henry Osborne, president of the Museum of Natural History and Professor Henry Platt Fairchild of New York University, author of “The Melting Pot Mistake”. That these views were not just the views of visiting professors is shown by similar ideas presented by Army and State Department personnel lecturing at the War College. The names of such lecturers are legion. Robert Kelley of the State Department argued that Communism in Russia could not succeed without taking into account the slovenly nature of the Russian people. General “Bull Durham” Connor preached pure “survival of the fittest”. Colonel Preston Brown, Major William Hicks and Colonel Walter Sweeney delivered one lecture after another on the folly of eternal peace. Hicks, in particular, identified Jews as the brains behind Communism. The works of Madison Grant, Lothrop Stodddard and the Frenchman, Gustave Le Bon, were used as virtual bibles of racial purity.
The army’s view of Jews as dangerous racial aliens was also widespread. Eastern Jews were regarded as Mongoloid descendants of the Khazars, the Turkic tribe which converted to Judaism in the Dark Ages. Although some officers distinguished between civilized western Jews and the more barbaric eastern Jews, the general attitude toward Jews was negative. The intelligence agencies overflowed with reports on the Jewish nature of Communism. Moreover, the information coming from all countries was consistent. British, American and Dutch diplomatic, military and consular officials all told the same story. The Dutch minister in Saint Petersburg, Oudendyke, sent a telegram forwarded to the British that “Bolshevism was a movement organized by atheistical Jews for ends of their own which would engulf the entire world if it were not nipped in the bud”. Robert Wilton, the correspondent of the “London Times” in Russia, published a list of Bolshevik commissars purporting to show that 450 out of 550 were Jewish, giving real names and Russian pseudonyms. Paul Dukes, a British intelligence agent, wrote a book, “Red Dusk and the Morrow”, testifying to Jewish influence in Bolshevism. General Ironsides and Winston Churchill wrote tirades against Jews and Communism. The latter’s infamous newspaper article in the ”Illustrated Sunday Herald” of February 8, 1920 is almost too well known to mention. Churchill continued his tirades against the international menace behind Communism in the final volume of his history of the First World War, entitled “The Aftermath”. General Marlborough Churchill, the namesake of his British counterpart and the head of the MID, the Military Intelligence Department in the United States, presided over the interpretation of innumerable intelligence reports saying the same things.
Joseph Bendersky would have the reader believe that all these accounts from different sources saying the same things were delusional in nature and not to be believed. That conclusion, as Professor Kevin MacDonald indicates in his review of Bendersky’s book, hardly stands the test of the evidence. Today, the “Jewish Threat”, if there is one, consists not in discredited Communism but in the Zionist manipulation of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Joseph McCarthy worried mainly about Jewish Communists in the State and Treasury Departments; today overt agents of Zionism fill these departments and many others, such as the Department of Homeland Security and the National Security Administration. In 1919, as Professor Bendersky documents in his study, the State Department issued a remarkable document, “The Power and Aims of International Jewry”. Today, with the American government gearing up for war against the Holocaust Denier in Tehran, the document might have to be retitled “The Power and Aims of International Zionism”. Jewish power remains a taboo subject precisely because it is so omnipotent. It was possible, in 1920’s America, to speak of Jewish power behind the scenes in U.S. government circles. Today, such candid discussion would constitute political suicide.
Instead of writing, like Joseph Bendersky, of a Jewish “threat” to America, it might be more appropriate to write of a Jewish take over of America. All the fears of the military for what a Jewish takeover portended for America, save the anticipated Bolshevik blood bath, have been largely realized. There has been a genetic downgrading of the population, the borders of the country have been opened to a racial invasion and all the social disharmony and chaos which must inevitably accompany such a process have already taken place. Joseph Bendersky could have titled his book, “The Military Confirmed” but that would have prevented its publication. The reader may judge for himself the validity of Professor Bendersky’s interpretations. The documentation contained within the covers of “The Jewish Threat: Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army”, however, contains irrefutable primary evidence for the researcher. It also confirms one of history’s most hotly disputed charges – Jewish responsibility for history’s greatest crime – the unleashing of Communism upon the world.
Poor, Poor Hans!
You can no more master the art of the insult than you can master elementary historical facts. I really think you should read Professor Bendersky’s book then “psychoanalyze” it. Bendersky spends 450 pages accusing the Army of “hallucinations” when it is perfectly obvious, on the basis of Bendersky’s own research, that the Army had it right – the Jews did it.
You babble on and on, Hans, about how my evidence does not prove anything. But you will not state what you would accept as evidence – because the hard fact is that you would accept nothing as evidence. You are committed, a priori, to the proposition that Jews were innocent of unleashing Communism on the world. Thus, if I post hundreds of photos of Communist Jews in Polish uniforms, you say: “So what?” That is an impressive argument, Hans. Maybe it impresses you; it does not impress me.
Hans:
Why don’t you testify as an expert at John Demjanjuk’s trial? Then you can really show your stuff. You can argue the authenticity of Soviet forgeries, proclaim how evidence invalidated at a previous trial is really valid, shrug off the behavior of US Office of Special Investigations prosecutors who knew all along that the charges against Demjanjuk were bogus and play Dr. Freud on the superb reliability of memories of ninety year old men remembering things that “happened” sixty years ago.
Come on, Hans. You are the perfect prostitute for the job. You can deny hundreds of photographs of Jewish commissars shoved in your lying face, deny official State Department documents, deny the admissions of Jewish academics and deny the testimonies of diplomats and statesman who saw it all happen in kosher living color. You’re perfect. Hell, I’ll reccomend you for the job. What more could you ask?
James,
Now that you are at the courteous point of making job offers, let me return the favor: Why don’t you join the tea bagger party as a spokesperson. They could definitely need someone with your extraordinary skills who has no qualms using the “N” or the “F” words. Sorry to hear that your site of the aisles received such a resounding defeat in Congress yesterday despite all of the efforts of the tea bagger party to communicate to the American Public. I think you’re the missing link given that you have no decorum, ethics or virtues whatsoever:-). Good luck with the interviewing process. I am sure you’ll all yell out of the top of your lungs at each other. The one who yells the loudest profanities will get the job. As shown in the e-mail trail above, you are extremely well prepared for that
.
Hans:
I think you confuse good manners with intelligence and ability. One of our famous combat generals had very poor manners but took your vaunted soldiers and butchered them by the barrel. His name was George Patton. Andrew Jackson, Old Hickory, also was extremely irascible but managed to shoot down Wellington’s veterans at New Orleans. As for the “N” and “F” words. college students used them all the time in the late ’60′s during the Vietnam war. Progressive types like you applauded that vocabulary as “youthful conscience”. (Herbert Marcuse used to call this sort of double standard “repressive tolerance”. It is OK if we do it; not OK if you do it.)
As for the Tea Party, it is only another kosher conservative misdirect effort con game. It will go nowhere, just like the Council of Conservative Citizens has gone nowhere. Americans will have to realize at some point that both political parties are run by the same tribe – and that tribe will never allow any genuine representation of white interests. The best hope is Ron Paul, who at least realizes that America’s anti-Moslem foreign policy is run by Israel First Jews, although he prefers to phrase the issue in terms of neutrality and non-intervention.
Paul is cagey enough to know that it is not possible to take an overt anti-Israel position in the US because they are far too powerful but the Jews know he knows. Witness Ben Stein’s vicious attack on Paul as an “anti-Semite”. (Bad manners again, Hans?) Actually Hans, I am frequently quite charming. I just derive too much amusement from baiting you.
Just as an FYI, whose definition of intelligence are you referring to: Binet-Simon, Stern, Terman, Goddard, Yerkes, Spearman, Cattell … ? Have you ever heard of content, predictive, concurrent or construct validity, nomoligical networks etc. in order to substantiate you claim that “I” am confusing a construct like “manner” with a construct like “intelligence”. Maybe you want start all over again with Aristotles’ ta meta ta phusika, in particular books zeta, eta and theta. Enjoy the read! And for the record, neither Marcuse, nor Adorno, nor Horkheimer have ever been high on my priority list. Remember my previous post: It clearly indicates to what degree I’m a positivist. So your Marcuse comment totally misreads where I am coming from! But that is also too much of a philosophical topic for a superior historian like yourself (sorry, but I can’t help giggling about the degree to which you openly demonstrate with every post your lack of knowledge and your inability to read between the lines
.
P.S. I am positively surprised that you are distancing yourself from the tea baggers. Maybe you just have an obsession with a Judeo-Communist conspiracy and other than that you are a charming guy. If that is the case, I think we can simply agree to disagree on that topic, and I will be more than happy to put my hats up (chapeau, Hut ab) and we can go on with our lives knowing that we have had some fun seeing how we can “bait” one another. In any case, I have enjoyed this exchange. Maybe it’s time to finish it because we will not agree on a topic that is important to you (for whatever reason). As Rosa Luxemburg said: Freedom is also the freedom of the other. I gladly bow out and grant you that freedom. After all, isn’t that the essence of freedom of speech? I think we can agree that this is a valuable tool in a political discussion forum. Without it, history would never make a step forward. Again, my respects to you as a person, (even though we disagree on a specific topic)!
Hats up should read “hat off”, i.e. a European saying to grant a strong opponent his respect (chapeau [French]; Hut ab [German}. I’m not so sure if Americans use this exact terminology, but I think you’ll get the idea
. Good Luck and thanks for the intellectual exchange.
Hans:
I would certainly agree that there are many kinds of intelligence. A person may have very good intelligence in some respects and very poor intelligence in others. I think your understanding of certain historical subjects leaves a lot to be desired but you obviously have professional training in others. Good luck in your career.
THE VALUE OF INDUCTIVE REASONING
Inductive reasoning is the art of reasoning from the particular to the general. Inductive reasoning is very valuable because it cuts through the failing of not being able to see the forest because of wandering about the trees. Far too many people get overly focused on details without grasping the larger question of what the details really mean. There are many examples of this. The 09/11 incident is a good one. The complete story is immensely complicated. However, certain key points stand out. The buildings came down in what appear to be a controlled demolition. Such a demolition would require planting explosive charges within the buildings at the stress points of the support beams. Innumerable witnesses heard explosions going off within the building. Normally buildings do not collapse when planes crash into them. This time they did. Thus, inductive reasoning leads to the conclusion that the buildings were indeed blown up from within. Now we come to the question of who did it. 09/11 conspiracy theorists love to argue over passenger lists, who was really on the planes, what the Arab hijackers really could have learned down at Florida pilot school, etc. All good questions of themselves but completely irrelevant to the real issues. Two major commercial buildings in the heart of New York City, a heavily Jewish city, were blown up from within. How could this have happened, without the knowledge and consent of the Jews? Someone shut down all of the security agencies and air force defense systems. Whoever did that had to have a pervasive, controlling influence within all departments of the U.S. government. Someone had to be able to write a whitewash report afterwards so that all the real questions could be evaded. Who, and who alone, had the power to do all these things? Someone had to benefit from the attacks. The Arabs, who supposedly launched the attacks, in no way benefited from them. Quite the contrary, it was the 09/11 attacks which motivated the U.S. to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Who benefited from that? Why, the Zionists, of course. All these inductive considerations lead to the inevitable conclusion that the Zionist Jews perpetrated 09/11.
Let’s take a second example – Pearl Harbor. The ten or more Pearl Harbor investigations arguably generated more tons of paper than the 09/11 investigation. The attack continues to be a political hot potato to this day. Dozens of academics continue to argue that there is no “smoking gun” to implicate Franklin Roosevelt. These apologists ignore the circumstantial evidence against Roosevelt – and the inductive reasoning that flows from it. Roosevelt pursued precisely the policies leading to Pearl Harbor which one would expect from a man planning a set up. He had failed to provoke Hitler into war in the North Atlantic. His “back door” to war was to provoke Japan in the Pacific. To do this he rejected all Japanese peace offers, insisted that Japan clear out of China and cut off all Japanese access to oil and iron ore, thereby condemning Japan to economic strangulation. Roosevelt then transferred the Pacific fleet from a relatively safe base at San Diego to a more vulnerable position at Pearl Harbor. Next, Roosevelt kept the Pearl Harbor commanders in the dark about the increasing war tensions. He did not send the base translations of intercepted Japanese diplomatic communiqués. Over and over again, he denied the base necessary reconnaissance planes and repair parts. Roosevelt, two weeks before the attack, removed the absolutely essential aircraft carriers from the base while leaving the obsolete and expendable battleships. Then, when, the attack occurred, he pretended to be “surprised”. He waxed eloquent about “a day which will live in infamy”. Anyone employing even the most elementary principles of inductive reasoning can see what happened.
Let us take a third example: The Holocaust Hoax. Superficially, the evidence for the claim of six million Jews killed in “gas chambers” is overwhelming. There is the Nuremberg Trial which accepted the claim as a proven fact; there are thousands of testimonies by survivors; there are the films documenting terrible conditions in the camps at wars end; there are the Germans who testified at Nuremberg as to the reality of the extermination; there are the photographs of crematory ovens and the cans of Zyklon B, etc. How can it not be true? But inductive reasoning and very simple considerations raise grave doubts. All around the globe the Jews have passed laws making Holocaust Denial a crime. Why? Common sense would suggest that only people who know they are lying pass such laws. Another obvious problem is: too many survivors. A real extermination produces few survivors. Yet so many Jews miraculously survived the Nazis that one may legitimately ask: How? The Germans were fighting a war on several fronts simultaneously during World War Two. Their forces were stretched to the limit. Where did they get the men and resources to simultaneously murder six million Jews? Finally, the countless billions in reparations the Jews have milked from the story plus the moral cloak it has provided them give them an enormous incentive to exaggerate their losses. Thus, inductive reasoning tells us that the story must be a whopper, without even delving into the technical impossibilities of the “gas chambers”, the inconsistencies of the witness accounts, the kangaroo nature of the Nuremberg court or the body disposal capacity of the crematory ovens.
Inductive reasoning does not mean that research is unnecessary. It is always useful to learn more. But piling fact upon fact is useless unless facts are analyzed to common sense conclusions. Thousands of pages of documentation are only useful if they support “two plus two equals four” bottom lines.
Ironically, intelligence testing showed that neither inductive nor deductive logic could determine what underlies “intelligence”. Intelligence just happened to be the “battle ground” for the clarification of validity and validity generalization in the 20th century and you mentioned it in your previous post. First, psychologists attempted to operationally define intelligence (content validity), then they attempted predictive validity which can be either inductive or deductive depending on your preference for Carnap’s verification or Popper’s falsification theorem, then came the era of constructive validity in various forms (Cronbach and Meehl (trait validity), Campbell and Fiske (Mulit-trait-Mulit-method matrices, etc.). Ever since Hume’s support in regards to inductive reasoning, no philosophy of science has ever been able to either get around the subject or to find a solution to it. I assume that your validity goes back to the pragmatist Peirce who coined “adductive validity” (even though I strongly doubt that you’ll subscribe to pragmatism in the American sense … too left-wing for your taste, I assume). However,it is the only validity that historians can come by. This is just methodological jibberish for most (and I expect a clear repudiation for even bringing up the topic given your previous responses
, but I just wanted to set the record straight. In any case, I am glad that we have come to a point of civility that may not bring us closer in our views, but at least, it’s better than what’s so prevalent in political discourse today. Imagine that people can actually agree to disagree and have an “intelligent” exchange of ideas. The key question that I still have is: What’s behind your historical quest? I haven’t figured it out yet. It must be more than just the old Roman annalist tradition of the pontifex maximus putting out on a tablet in public view on an annual basis the major events of the Roman year during the early and later Republic. As a matter of fact, I’d be disappointed if there wasn’t an underlying message behind your very strongly held beliefs. So what are they? Maybe I can follow your train of thought better if I understood the message that holds your selection of “facts” together (which are far from being arbitrary) . Thanks in advance!
THE POWER BEHIND THE SCENES
The aftermath of the Second World War is just as convincing of the power of Jewry as the aftermath of the First World War. In the aftermath of the first conflict the Jewish delegations at Paris achieved some amazing things. These included the mandate over Palestine, the incorporation of the language of the Balfour Declaration in the text of the mandate, the minorities treaties in Central Europe and the Covenant of the League of Nations. But in the aftermath of World war Two, the Jewish achievement in power politics was even more amazing. First came the great Nuremberg Trial where the German defendants were hung during the Jewish high holidays of October 1946. But even more impressive was the immense army of “carpetbaggers” who followed the American and British armies into Germany. They were joined by a similar army of occupiers from the Soviet east. These occupiers wore British, American and Soviet uniforms but all displayed the same ethnicity. The Hungarian author, Louis Marschalko, describes the process in his extremely rare book, “The World Conquerors”, published in English translation in 1958.
In Chapter Nine, “Revenge Is Ours”, Marschalko writes:
“On May 9th, 1945, the revenge of Jehovah was turned loose over Europe. The planes of the British and American forces were still called ‘liberators’ but Eisenhower announced:
“We are not coming as liberators but as conquerors!’
But were the Americans, in fact, the real victors? In the wake of the advancing American forces a sinister fifth column followed, the members of which in ninety-nine per cent of the cases were not Americans. This revengeful army was made up of emigrants from Eastern European countries, of black market operators from Brooklyn ghettos, of Czech, Polish and Hungarian Jews who took refuge in London and of criminal inmates from the liberated concentration camps. They filled all major and minor posts in the C.I.C., organised according to the Morgenthau Plan, they swarmed in the O.S.S., in the various commissions searching for war criminals, as well as in the American security organizations. They became mayors of German towns and commandants of P.O.W. camps. They administered LaGuardia’s U.N.N.R.A. They occupied key positions in the American forces and thus exercised control over them.
There were only 2,524 German war criminals on the original list of the U.N., but soon the C.I.C. and the American conquerors were conducting a search for one million German ‘war criminals’. At first the Soviets wanted to shoot 50,000 Germans summarily, then they proposed to bring 200,000 ‘war criminals’ to trial at Nuremberg.
Simultaneously, the conquering flood began to move eastwards. A mass of several hundred thousand released from the concentration camps surged toward Poland, Hungary, Roumania and Yugoslavia, to become officers in the Communist police forces and other terror organizations and to assume judicial powers in the people’s tribunals and so be able to pass sentence upon innocent people in an orgy of revenge. They were welcomed with open arms by the Soviet MVD who were in control of the Eastern European countries. The pattern was everywhere the same. In the forefront there was either an American, a Soviet or a French general but in each case a Jewish deputy dogged his heels.
Actually, Europe did not fall under the Russians, British or Americans, but under Jewish occupation. Everything that had rightly or wrongly belonged to Europe for 2000 years now disintegrated. The avengers continued doing (but more cruelly) the very things they had set down as crimes against Hitler. This was no occupation by the forces of American democracy or Bolshevism but by those of a victorious Jewish nationalism glowing with hatred. Ensconced in key positions among the occupying powers, they were able to punish everyone, whether innocent or guilty. In their eyes there was but one crime – to have opposed, or to be in a position to oppose, Jewish nationalism…
The Western and the Eastern Jew set out hand-in-hand to liquidate the Christian upper classes who had succeeded in escaping from Bolshevism. These were considered unreliable people. Vlassow’s Cossacks, for instance, wanted to fight against Bolshevism. But whoever resists Bolshevism is actually fighting one section of the Jewish world-kingdom. These Cossacks knew very well who were the commissars of the collective farms (kolkhoz) before whom the Russian peasant had to go down on his knees. In 1940 they had seen the “Russian” MVD entering Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania and thus knew the Jews almost exclusively organized the deportation of tens of thousands of unfortunate people from these small Baltic states. These people were dangerous because they had witnessed certain things. These witnesses must be slain!
How can one account for the fate of Vlassov’s Cossacks otherwise than by Jewish nationalism operating behind the visible power. How else could such inhumanity be accounted for when British democracy allowed armed military police to deploy against thousands of unarmed Cossacks.”
Louis Marschalko here touches upon one of the great hidden secrets of the Second World War – the true identity of the conquerors. The British, Americans and Soviet Russians were merely the front men for the real power. Very little academic research has been done on the facts he recounts. It is one of those subjects that “respectable intellectuals” just do not delve into. Nevertheless, the facts are precisely as Marschalko recounts them. A Jewish terror did descend upon Europe after World War Two. This terror was as omnipresent as it has been little mentioned since. Whether it was Herbert Lehman or Fiorello LaGuardia running the UNNRA or Ana Pauker terrorizing Romania, it was, as Marschalko says, the terror of the Jew. Jews everywhere seized the finest properties in Europe. They lived it up at the expense of the defeated while portraying themselves as the greatest of martyrs. None of this fits the story in the history books – which is why it is deleted. A few individuals, such as British general Sir Frederick Morgan and American general George Patton, tried to blow the whistle on what was going on but were quickly silenced. Morgan spoke of a huge flood of Jews pouring down the Balkans out of the Iron Curtain countries toward Palestine. At first the charge was denied but then admitted. Morgan was quickly removed and replaced for daring to tell the truth. General Patton wrote scathingly on how displaced person, meaning Jews, were living it up as virtual privileged saints in Germany after the war. What happened to Patton, and the reasons for it, is only too well known. Post World War Two Europe was a Jews harvest. “Survivors” proliferated in American and British uniforms; Jewish commissars dominated in Stalinist governments; refugees swarmed to the best hotels and UNRRA supply depots on their way to the Holy Land. To investigate any of this in detail is to raise immediate questions about the Jewish extermination story. Thus, the rich and fallow territory of the Jewish conquest of post-World War Two Europe lies largely unexplored. In all probability that shall continue. The subject is loaded with historical dynamite.
Hans:
I shall be happy to oblige.
There is a concept in mathematics called the common denominator. If one looks at the modern world, all the old values have been turned upside down. The question is: Why? The usual explanation is various “social forces” producing a series of reactions which are usually described as “marching toward modernity” or some similar phrase. I think that there is a more basic explanation. Most modern ideas are essentially Talmudic concoctions devised by the Jews coming out of their ghettos in the late 18th/early 19th centuries as they began to enter the mainstream of western civilization. Please understand that I am not basing any of this on the fabled Protocols of Zion, although I see nothing in the Protocols that is inconsistent with what has actually transpired in the world since their publication. The point I am making is gone over in very striking form by the late Irish American sociologist, John Murray Cuddihy in his classic “The Ordeal of Civility”. I reccomend the book to you. Since you are a psychologist, I think you would find it extremely interesting. Essentially, Cuddihy argues (in vastly simplified form) that Jews entering western society felt the ned to remold it to make it more congenial to their mindset. Hence, all kinds of essentially rabbinical concepts were sold to the gentiles under the banners of the day, Marxism and Freudianism among them. The great popular movements for equality and fraternity were also designed to tear down barriers against Jews and their progress into socirty.
Cuddihy essentialy saw this as intellectual gamesmanship, ethnically motivated. Professor Kevin MacDonald takes the same approach. My position is that Hitler and the Nazis were certainly crude but essentially correct. There is, quite obviously, an evil at work in the world. The state of Israel is the visible head of the evil but not the source of it. When Jews entered western society they swore to Napoleon Bonaparte in 1807 that they were only a religion and had no desire to recreate their ancient state in Palestine. Now the thing denied has come to pass. At this moment it wants all out war against Iran. Whether there is an age old Jewish conspiracy coming to fruition as some believe or merely the working out of a centuries old bias, there is a problem, Hans. It is becoming ever more self evident.This eruption of Jewish evil has been seen before. It was seen in the European revolutions of 1848 where Jews predominated in the upheavals all over the continent. It was seen, even more virulently, at the time of the First World War and the eruption of Communism. Then it was seen again at the time of Nuremberg and the concoction of an extermination hoax by 2400 Jews out of 3000 total personnel at the trial. Now, the same force, personified by the Zionist state, is dragging the world toward a Third World War in the Mid-East using the US as a proxy.
I assure you that I am neither insane, irrational or uninformed. Jews do not control everything in the world and I never claimed they did. But they do wield enormous power in pursuit of an agenda. I believe that the agenda includes the destruction of the nation state, racial homogeneity and traditional sex roles. I also believe that the “gas chamber hoax” is the covering myth of the plan and that the bogus “War on Terror” aims at the creation of a Zionist Empire in Arabia. Only time will tell whether I am right but all signs point in that direction.
http://exposing-the-holocaust-hoax-archive.blogspot.com/2009/10/private-letter-from-thomas-dodd-former.html
Hans:
Note the very interesting comments by a future US Senator on the force “behind the scenes” at Nuremberg. I do not want to get you thrown into jail in the land of free thought called Germany, but you will perceive, I believe, the opportunities for “frame up” and bogus evidence implied by this hushed up fact.
A WORKER’S PARADISE WITHIN A WORKER’S PARADISE
The Jewishness of Communism is best illustrated by the admissions of Jewish scholars in Jewish reference works. The latest example is Jerusalem on the Amur: Birobidzhan and the Canadian Jewish Communist Movement, 1924-1951” by Henry Felix Srebrnik. From Chapter Four, “Canadian ICOR Branches: The First Decade, 1925-1935” we read (ICOR was Association for Jewish Colonization in the Soviet Union):
“For many Jewish immigrant radicals in Canada, their actual country of residence was irrelevant: in their own minds, they lived in ‘America’. It was natural, then, that Canadian supporters of Birobidzhan readily involved themselves in the work of ICOR; in fact, the Canadian ICOR at first functioned as a section of the United States based organization.
From 1917 on, many Canadian Jews gave uncritical support to the country that emerged from the Bolshevik Revolution. Some even moved to the USSR to take part in the building of a socialist society. A significant minority became involved, either as members or sympathizers, with the Communist Party of Canada (CPC). Founded in 1921, the CPC by 1927 had formed a National Jewish Bureau, a subcommittee of the party’s central committee, with members in Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg. According to historian David Rome, the Jewish group was the most vital faction in the Canadian Communist movement. (emphasis added) ‘It was a total society with its own political and cultural institutes.’ The Jewish Communists, in particular, felt duty-bound to ‘counteract the nationalist, imperialist Zionist movement’ by demonstrating that the Soviet Union had ‘the only true and sensible solution ‘to the national question’. Winnipeg’s North End, home to most of that city’s 15,000 or so Jews, was a hotbed of radical politics, and among the Jews, its cultural life was dominated by secular Yiddishists, to the extent that ‘the strongest of Winnipeg’s Jewish political orgaizations…were leftist.’ As the Winnipeg district bureau of the CPC stated in a resolution passed at a meeting in January 1930, it was necessary to rally Jewish support for the USSR ‘upon the basis of the national aspirations of the Jewish people.’ (emphasis added) Indeed, the struggle between the Jewish Communists and their opponents for leadership of the Jewish working class was a ‘hallmark of the immigrant community during the inter-war period’.
In his study of the American Jewish left, Arthur Liebman has referred to the various Jewish fraternal orders, newspapers, and unions grouped around the Communist Party as having constituted a distinct ‘Jewish Left’ subculture. This was also the case in Canada. Communists active in the Jewish community encouraged the formation of organizations that would appeal to Jews interested in preserving their Jewish culture in non-Zionist ways. Their strategy was to combat ethnic nationalism while harnessing feelings of Jewish identity to the class struggle. A variety of these ‘front’ organizations operated in the Jewish community, especially among its large urban working class. Yiddish language pro-Soviet groups, comprised mainly of eastern European working-class immigrants, were in particular concerned with Soviet treatment of its Jewish population and were impressed by the decision to found a Jewish national territory in the far east. Organizations such as the Friends of the Soviet Union (FSU), formed in 1930, grew in numbers and influence in the Jewish community. Specifically Jewish groups were also created as tension between anti-Soviet social democrats and pro-Soviet radicals grew, particularly in theWC (Workers Councils/Arbayter Rings), which had, in 1922, at its Toronto national conference, condemned Soviet style Communism. In 1923, the Jewish Communists in Toronto opened a Frayhat club and organized the Jewish Women’s Labour League (Yidishye Arbayter Froyen Farayn), which raised money to buy tractors for Birobidzhan. The Froyen Farayn also organized a children’s camp, Kindervelt, on Lake Ontario in 1925. One year later, the Communists broke away from the WC altogether and formed the Labour League. In Winnipeg, radical Jewish women formed the Mister Faryan, or Mother’s League, in 1919. The Jewish Communists also founded a weekly newspaper, “Der Kampf”, in November 1924.” (pp.70-71)
Although Henry Srebrnik is here writing only of the Canadian Jewish enthusiasm for the Soviet Birobidzhan project, the 1928 Soviet scheme for creating a Jewish autonomous region in Siberia adjacent to Japanese occupied Manchukuo, what he writes is consistent with virtually all Jewish attitudes toward Communism in the inter-war period. Birobidzhan was an effort to satisfy the old Marxist dialectical conflict between international socialism which was to solve the age old “Jewish problem” and the Marxist-Zionist desire for Jewish “cultural autonomy”. In the later pages of his book Henry Srebrnik discusses the aging Chaim Zhitlovsky who was one of the main synthesizers of this thesis. “Jerusalem on the Amur” is a specialized study and does not address the Jewish involvement in Communism as a whole. Nevertheless, Henry Srebrnik cannot discuss the Canadian Jewish involvement in the Birobidzhan colonial scheme without discussing it as a component of a whole. And Canadian Jewry, like Jewry everywhere of the inter-war period, was absolutely flush with enthusiasm for the workers paradise and its allegedly wonderful achievements. This is clearly indicated in the lengthy quotation with which this essay began. The number of Canadian Jewish Communists described in the pages of “Jerusalem on the Amur” is legion. Melech Epstein, Joshua German, Joseph Glassman, Abraham Reisen, Jacob Levin, Gina Medem, Leon Talmy, Sam Lepedus, Sam Carr, Norman Fried, Bill Sidney, Reuben Brainin, Moishe Katz, Elias Wattenberg, Max and Annie Dolgoy, Labl Basman, Noah Levin, Philip Halpern, Israel Rabinowitch, Israel Medres, Mordecai Ginsberg, B.G. Sack, Rabbi Abraham Bick, Fred Rose, Max Bailey, Rose Bronstein, A.B. Rosenberg, Harry Guralnick, Joseph Zuken, Berel Silverberg, Paul Phillips, on and on the list goes.
Clearly, Canadian Jewish enthusiasm for the workers paradise in the Soviet far east was no insubstantial thing. A fair number of Canadian Jews not merely enthused for Birobidzhan but actually left to live there. In this they followed the example of a great many Jews in the U.S. and England who also emigrated back to Russia after the 1917 revolution. The process was repeated in the Depression decade of the 1930’s when substantial numbers of American and Canadian Jews also fled back to Russia. Thus, the Jewish romance with Birobidzhan was part of a larger Jewish love affair with Communism generally. Ultimately, the Jewish infatuation with Birobidzhan faded. There were various factors involved, the most important of which were the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the removal of the Jewish commissars in Iron Curtain Europe starting around 1950. But before the creation of the Zionist state the lure of Birobidzhan, the Jewish autonomous republic in the Soviet Union, was one of the main devices by which the Jewish Communists attempted to lure the Marxist Jewish masses away from the siren call of Zionism. Communism, not a British imperialist adventure in the Middle East, would give Jews both the Jewish nationality – and the Marxism – that they craved.
As always, “explanations” are difficult to come by in history. There are at least four alternative views and many more:
1. During the 3rd – 7th century AD, the pendulum swung from liberal Athens to monotheistic Jerusalem (Josephus, St. Augustine, Isidore of Seville etc.). So, your explanation would have to take the antithesis between englightened “Athens” and religious “Jerusalem” into account.
2. How does your explanation take into account the transformation from the 13th to the 15th century in terms of the center of the “World system”. I am not only talking about Wallerstein, but also Hodgson.
3. In addition, how does your theory incorporate Polyanyi’s “Great transformation” during the first and second industrial? This was a transformation from business embedded in society (pre-industrial) to society embedded in business.
4. Thoenniess and Durkheim claimed a change from “Gemeinschaft” to “Gesellschaft” or “organic” to “mechanistic” society.
You have various competing “explanations”. How do you make sure that your explanation is the best when we are dealing with such a large historical change and data that make trend analysis difficult at best? And even trends have their problems (see Campbell’s article on quasi-experimental designs from 1959 and the 8 challenges to qualsi-experimental validity due to the fact that we have no experimental data in history)?
As Nietzsche said, it is always possible that there is an “intellectual short circuit” in historical “explanations”. What’s the difference here between “episteme” and “doxa”. How do you safeguard yourself against simple “doxa” as opposed to “episteme”? I have no answer, but any historical explanation begs this question.
P.S. How do you incorporate Hannah Arendt’s thesis that the Jew became stigmatized as the change agents at a time when their power had clearly dwindled, i.e. starting with the Dreyfus affair? The Jewish conspiracy seems to simple as an answer because it does not take into account the social, economic, political and psychological transformation. The Soviet experiment was clearly a success story at a time when the US and Europe went through their greatest depression. Even Schumpeter or Hayek negate this.
Hans:
You bring up, in your list of questions, a host of things I have never heard of. (German philosophy is not my strong point.) In more general terms, lots of things go on in the world and lots of them have nothing to do with Jews. As to how anyone decides berween competing theories, it is a purely arbitrary process and, to a very large extent, it depends on one’s point of view and personal prejudices. A lot of people would like to pretend that their choices are far more “scientific” than they really are.
I would, however, challenge your assertion that Jewish power was declining at the time of the Dreyfusss affair. I see nothing in the record of that time, or this, that Jewish power is “declining”. AIPAC seems to have Barack Obama by the balls. I would also challenge the assertion that the Soviet Union was “succeeding” in the Depression decade of the 1930′s. To this day leftists continue to believe the phony Soviet statistics of those days. I suggest you get a copy of Malcolm Muggeridge’s hard to find classic, “Winter In Moscow” and read it. It provides a classic account of the starry eyed pro-Bolsheviks who saw milk and honey in the midst of starvation and gulags. Or you could read Eugene Lyons old book, “Red Decade” which is still very much on point.I just ordered Mary Leder’s book, “My Life In Soviet Russia” in which her parents returned to Russia in the 1930′s because of the allegedly wonderful state of affairs in the “workers paradise”. She found out differently, as did a lot of others.
As you can tell, I am no socialist. I regard the system as unsound and unworkable. As for capitalism in its present degenerate form (run by Wall Street Jewish crooks and swindlers) it is a far cry from the gold standard of the 19th century. You may think I am an ultra-conservative. Not true, because there is nothing left to conserve. I’m simply a pissed off reactionary.
Best.
The success of the Soviet Union in the beginning of the 20th century has always been measured as a relative increase in industrial output at a time when the US and European economic output decreased. As with every developing economy one can make the case that when production output is low to start with, percent increases are higher than in more mature economies (see the current Chinese growth percentages, which will not be sustainable in the long run). The numbers of relative increase were not doctored (unlike the numbers under Brezhnev, and Andropov). I am more than less of a fan of Stalin, Stalinism, the Gulags or the social circumstances of these economic growth data. The social and political price was extremely high! But they are pretty much unrefuted by any economist of academic standing. Hayek (who, after all is the “godfather” of the Chicago monetarist school of thought in economics, which became the Mantra of the M3 indicator mania of the beginning of the 1980s in Britain ;see Thatcher’s interesting memoirs, and the deregulation mania of Reagonomics propounded since the middle of the 1980s in the US by the Republican party) wrote his work in the 1930′s exactly in response to the focus of the economic rather than the social implications of the rise of the twin socialisms of the Soviet and the Nazi models and their impact on individual liberty. Even Schumpeter foresaw that entrepreneurial capitalism cannot survive in the long run (I agree with you that he was right. What we have are oligopolies with a strong leaning towards monopolies, but barely the kind of naive market models of the utilitarian micro-economists a la Marshal, Walras etc.
Hannah Arendt’s data are well documented and justified. So, there is little that I can add other than recommend to read her as a counterpoint to the literature that you suggest to read.
What remains to be explained is why “Jews” became so prominent since the Dreyfus affair. This is particularly astounding when you take a long-term view of the evolution of “Western Civilization”. It is an amalgamation of pagan Greek/Roman and Hebrew/Christian philosophies, i.e. the merger of philosophy and theology from the 3rd to the 8th century and then again from the end of the 12th century to the middle of the 14th century. None of the “intellectuals” mentioned above are philosophers (they are primarily church fathers, or modern sociologists). I added “Josephus” deliberately, to show that the Christian Catholic faith which developed from around 300 to 800 was founded on Jewish, Christian and pagan Greek/Roman neoplatonic ideas. The “enemies” of the Byzantine and Roman churches alike then were Arianists (Goths), Monophysites (Syrians), Donatists (Northern Africa) etc. The differences were primarily due to a fight within the churches of the various parts of the disintegrating Roman Empire. Aristotle created the second wave in the 13th century when his work became available in Arab translations due to transfers from Israel during the Crusades and the conquering of Spain, particularly the large library of Cordoba. His writings were originally put on the index of the Roman Catholic Church until the University lecturers in Paris, Cologne and Prague could incorporate his ideas within the framework of philosophy as the “ancilla theologiae” (maiden of theology) in the 13th century.
My key point is that the Jewish influence was there from the beginning of the adoption of the monotheistic faith by Constantine I. Due to the fact that the Catholic faith did not allow for the levy of interest of loans, Jews were put as the middlemen for financial transactions. Their power grew with the development of the nation-state starting in the 16th century and lasting into the 18th century, when the first industrial revolution made the lending of money common practice and banks and insurance schemes were developed by the up-and-coming industrial nations. As a result, the Jewish, economic power declined. It was always confined to a rather smaller group of bankers and international merchants with the bulk of the Jews living in near poverty. The Russian pogroms of the beginning of the 20th century were a rather “normal” phenomenon for Ashkenazy Jews starting with the Inquisition. In essence, the history seems to be a little more complicated than the assumption that Jewish power rose at the beginning of the 20th century.
As for “capitalism”, it has always been an idea rather than a “reality”. The “free market” is an assumption, i.e. a model that micro-economists started with to develop the explanation of certain economic phenomena. The assumptions are then “fine-tuned”, i.e. restricted to make the model “explain” reality better. The “free market” therefore also never existed either other than as a “model”. This kind of “model” can be traced back to Socrates’ dialogues in the Republic where he advocates a discussion of what is “justice” by imagining “a perfect polity of the mind”. The gold standard was abandoned because it restrained economic growth. In its place the Bretton Woods agreement and the monetary institutions such as the IMF, World Bank etc. were established. The gold standard also never really worked perfectly but could be politically manipulated. I, honestly, don’t see any “rosy picture” of the 19th century. It was brutal, in that the second generation of industrialized nations evolved (the US, Germany and Japan) and World War II finally decided which of these countries and models would lead the second industrial revolution. Currently we live through a third industrial revolution. The 19th century is of little help in telling us how to muddle through. Anyway, so far my five cents of worth to the question if a “reactionary” attitude is helpful. It’s a romantic notion promulgated by the likes of Newt Gingrich and some others. But that’s all it is: romantic. I’d rather stand with two feet on the floor and face current realities rather than imagine what the world would look like if we could go back to the 19th century. We would make the same mistakes as the world made then.
Best regards!
http://powerofno.org/component/content/article/5813
This essay is a good clue to my mindset.
Hans:
I’m afraid I take issue with the assertions regarding the supposed economic achievments of Soviet Russi. Few people realize this but Russia pre-WW1 was making tremendous strides economically. Industrial and agricultural output was expanding very rapidly. It was the disaster of the First World War that caused all this to be reversed. The bolsheviks took over at the end of the economic chaos of the war and civil war. If one measures their figures from that base point maybe you can make an argument. But that ignores the spectacular pre-1914 growth that has now been forgotten.
As to the 19th century being a lost paradise, not really. But La Belle Epoque looks pretty good compared to 1914-1945. The criticisms of the gold standard are unfounded. The world actually went off the gold standard because it acted so effectively as a check on free spending politicians. Under the gold standard, a financially profligate government is punished quickly and effectively by depositors wanting their money back because they (justifiably) do not trust the ploiticians. Hence, an immediate outflow of gold. Gold in no way restricts the amount of trade. What it restricts is counterfeiting of money by government. The key concept is ratio of prices. With a fixed supply of money under a gold standard, prices will slowly drop. More goods bidding against the ficed supply guarantees it. However, as the prices of necessaries would be dropping just as fast or faster than wages, the result would be a rising standard of living based on a gently declinig price level. That was precisely the monetary history of the 19th century. Check out the figures some time. Under a monetary system of inflation (constantly increasing the quantity of money and credit to “stimulate” the economy)there is a constant cycle of boom and bust caused by the unsound monetary policy. The pumping of the money into the system causes a temporary boom. Everybody has more money to spend. However, as the money circulates through the economy, prices rise more rapidly than the gain and everybody starts to hurt. Businesses shut down because the increased “demand” generated by the inflation was illusory. It happens every time. I read Von Mises; so should you.
Interestingly, Hitler was a Keynsian. He spent Germany into recovery – and his boom was going bust when the war came in 1939. German cash and gold reserves were almost exhausted; prices were starting to rise despite the strict Nazi wage and price controls. Hitler benefitted from seized Czech gold reserves and other loot but the Nazi “economic miracle” was running out of steam. There was substantial similarity between Roosevelt’s deficit spending and public works schemes and Hitler’s version of the same things. This would shock many Americans who think that America had nothing in common with Nazi Germany. In actual fact, Roosevelt’s “New DeaL” was very much a form of American National Socialism – as I bdlieve your felow Geerman Wolfgang Schivelbauss has pointed out in his interesting book “The Face of Three Fascisms”.
Best.
It’s interesting how your arguments continute to tell half of the story
. There is no doubt that under the finance minister Witte (1892 – 1903) Russia expanded industrially. Actually, the origins of Russian economic expansion date back to the reign of Peter “the Great” (1682 – 1725). Under Witte the focus was on the expansion of the rail roads which expanded from 2,000 km to 70,000 km. Russia adopted the gold standard in 1897. However, the economic expansion was primarily financed via foreign debt (not a small difference vis-a-vis the 1920s). However, at the same time, agricultural production sank from 58% in 1895 to 51% in 1913. The agricultural crisis was due partly due to disincentives of productivity increases because of the social make-up of the agricultural sector and many specialists attribute the revolution of 1905 not in small part to the decrease in agricultural output. Witte is well documented in history books in Europe. So, when you say “few people” realize the above, I assume that you are referring to a population other than German, French or British High School students. My previous argument just compared the economic performance of the “West” vs. the USSR during the 1920s and 1930s. So, in essence, you are actually supporting my argument. Thanks!
As for von Mises, the economist Ludwig von Mises’ brother Richard von Mises was a very close friend of my great-uncle Karl Marbe. In return, I therefore suggest to read Robert von Mises and the contributions of my own great-uncle to the development of the frequency of probability theory (published in 1956). You’re dealing with family connections here and you can be assured that I am well versed in both of their works (Ludwig and Richard
.
The process of business cycles was thought to be resolved by no others than Greenspan and the last Bush administration, when the deregulation boom hit back hard last year and we are now plagued with a 10% inflation rate in the US alone. The avoidance of throwing “bad money after good money” is a rather old tenet and summarizes your lengthy treatise on “unsound monetary policy”.
As for the gold standard, let’s clarify, which gold standard you refer to: the gold specie standard, the gold exchange standard or the gold bullion standard. Which of the three would you like to be reintroduced?
The last paragraph seems to me argumentatively rather poor in that it is a prime example of how the different “causes” of three “economic policies” are thrown into one basket: Keynes monetary policy prescrption (purely theoretical at first) in order to save liberalism, Hitler’s worker’s program of the 1930′s in order to reduce unemployment and prepare for war, and the adaptation of Keyne’s principles to US financial policy decisions during the Roosevelt era also in order to save liberalism. Since Aristotle, we have differentiated between four forms of causes (material, formal, efficient, teleological). In addition, there is a fundamental difference between the attempt to save “liberalism” and “individual freedom” as Hayek pointed out in the 1930′s based in large part on the observations of Ludwig von Mises (as you correctly pointed out before) and the attempt to conquer the world as in the case of Hitler. Plato differentiated between “appearance” and “form”, Aristotle by contrast between “actuality”, “potentiality” and “substance” in order to avoid a duplication of the world into “real” and “unreal”. Rhetorics and dialectics do not loom large in our modern curricula. But if you want to be a true “reactionary”, I would suggest to consult some of the old Scholastic “text books” in these areas. As a former lawyer, I would assume that you are familiar with correct forms of argumentation and conclusions, i.e. “actuality is the end”, and the “actualities” in the three cases (Keynes, Hitler and Roosevelt) are very different: policy prescription (Keynes), war preparation (Hitler), ensuring the survival of freedom and social justice (Roosevelt)
. Best regards!
P.S. I cannot find “Wolfgang Schivelbaum”, can you review the writing of his last name again?
P.S. The Treasury bond has been a remarkably successful substitute for the “gold standard”. As the admiral in “The Pirates of the Caribbean” said: “The immaterial has become immaterial”
.
Hans:
First, my apologies on the title of the book. It is “Three New deals” by Wolfgang Schivelbus. That’s why you could not find it. As to the purported differences between Hitler, Roosevelt and Mussolini’s economic policies, I don’t see any. Structurally, they were all the same. Deficit financing, public make works, social welfare programs, etc. What is the distinction between the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Army of the Spade? None that I can see. As for Hitler building to conquer the world, I thought he was building to conquer Soviet Russia instead.
As to the gold standard, either the bullion or the specie are acceptable. Bretton Woods style tie the world to the dollar and the dollar only partially to gold absurdities, are not acceptable. They are half way measures and cannot work. As to Russian agricultural policy, I am anything but an expert on the subject. However, I wonder if the abolition of serfdom in the 1860′s and the gradual reallotment of the land to the peasants may have had something to do with reducing efficiencies of scale in production? Just a thought.
I still do not buy the Soviet “success” story. There used to be a joke in Russia of that time. Mother to her son: “Want to read a fairy tale? Read your father’s factory production figures.”
Best.
ADOLF AND SCARLETT
“As God is my witness…” The famous words of Scarlett O’Hara after she gags on the turnip and rises from the devastated earth. “As God is my witness, I’ll never be hungry again. If I have to lie, steal, cheat or kill…” What is this but the same philosophy which raised Germany from the ashes of defeat and despair under Adolf Hitler? Why is it considered honorable and noble for Scarlett to resort to any stratagem, fair or foul, to rise again, whereas it is considered evil for Adolf Hitler to resort to any stratagem, fair or foul, to raise Germany again? Adolf and Scarlett saw things the same way. Scarlett was a blood and soil Southern racist. She drew her strength from the “red earth of Tara”. As her father, Thomas O’Hara, lectured her: “Land is the only thing that counts. It’s the only thing worth fighting for, worth dying for…” Did Adolf Hitler disagree? Did not Der Fuehrer devote his political career to reclaiming every ounce of soil taken from Germany at Versailles? Scarlett invoked the name of the deity to justify some very unchristian behavior. Adolf Hitler invoked the Lord to “bless his struggle”. Adolf and Scarlett lived in different times and places but displayed the same belligerent resentment toward foreign conquest and occupation.
“Gone With The Wind” could just as easily be “Gone With The Reich”. Scarlett O’Hara never wore the swastika but always stood proudly as the daughter of the Old South. She threw dirt in the face of carpetbaggers the same way Adolf Hitler redrew the borders of artificial states.
First, you are correct in assuming that the abolition of serfdom and the holding of the majority of land after 1850 by aristocrats had an impact on the loss of productivity in the agricultural sector.
“Three New Deals” sounds definitely more academic than “Three New Fascisms”. I assume that this was a Freudian slip. I still can’t find Schivelbus. Where did you get the book? He is not a well known German author and might well come out of the “New Underground” scene, i.e. anti-globalization, inhibition of trade etc.
I am surprised to find the goal of “full employment” as the defining character of fascism.
This is a macroeconomic goal that is inherent in any socio-political system of the post 1920′s era and not a defining characteristic of fascism. As a matter of fact, fascism advocates a third way (troisieme voie) between liberalism and the command economies of the Soviet style. It has become popular in the right wing scene of France and to some degree modern Germany. While Hitler and Mussolini can be subsumed under “fascism”, Keynes and Roosevelt cannot.
As a matter of fact, macroeconomics was single-handedly developed by Keynes as an answer to the up and coming forms of fascisms (Spain, Italy, Germany) and the command economy structure of the Soviet Union in the 1920s.
“Structurally” macroeconomics is driven by countercyclical fiscal policy, while fascism refutes fiscal policy and instead promulgates “corporatism” (see Krupp, Siemens etc.). Fascism exclude “non-national” minorities are merit-aristocratic and advocate internal and external violence to achieve their goals. Thus, “structurally” there is a strong gap between Keynes macroeconomics and Hitler’s full-employment programs. So saying that Hitler was a Keynesian is utter non-sense. In addition, fascism are inherently nationalistic while macro-economists and monetarists are inherently international and liberal in outlook. Hitler never spoke or read English and had little patience for matters other than politics and architecture. What you may be able to argue with Ernst Noltke is that Hitler emulated the Archipel Gulag and created the concentration camps as a means to retrieve cheap labor in order to support his war goals. I don’t agree with Noltke, but at least, this is a position that can be debated.
What astounds me is how close you are to the positions of the anti-globalization movement in Europe which combines elements of Soviet style socialism and National Socialism (see NPD in Germany, PDS in France etc.). Anti-Semitism is a cornerstone for the “purification” and the xenophobia of those Europeans who live under the illusion that Multinational Corporations are taking over the political and economic systems of the nation-state. They assume that political decisions are more and more made by Multinational Corporations who have no allegiance to any nation-state. However, MNE’s make up less than 5 – 10% of GDP in any country and are only a far cry from what they are made out to be by the new European flavor of “Neocons” (even though they look upon themselves as progressively reactionary
.
The German social welfare program is also an attempt by Bismarck to counteract communist uprisings as was seen during the Paris Commune in 1871. Thus, social welfare programs are much older than National Socialism. The CCC only lasted from 1933 – 1943. Main reason: Workers needed to be sent to the front rather than preserve wildlife etc. in the US. The big difference between the CCC and the Army of the Spade was that enrollment in the CCC was voluntary while the “Army of the Spade” was forced. Politics is not as stringent as mathematics, but if x = y and a = b, then there is no way to find a common denominator in algebraic equations to transform the CCC formula (x = y) with the Army of the Spade formula (a = b).
Finally, the fact that the “world is tied to the dollar” is the very backdrop of American global supremacy and the fact that it can continue its huge current account deficits. The Europeans and Arab countries have long discussed tying oil prices to the Euro rather than the dollar because European fiscal policy is more stringent with clear rules of foreign debt as a ratio of GDP, growth targets etc. The US would fiscally collapse if the pegging of the oil to the dollar would change to the Euro.
Anyway, there are many facets to the problem and history and historiography are messy subjects to start with. Best Regards.
ZYDOKOMUNA WAS NO MYTH
Jews are at great pains to demolish what they call the myth of Zydokomuna – the myth of Jewish Communism. This is the firmly entrenched belief in Eastern Europe that Communism was nothing but a front for a Jewish takeover of society. The basic “explanation” is that although there were a lot of Jews involved in Communism most Jews were, supposedly against Communism. This facile explanation fails on a great many grounds. First, the Communist Party was illegal during most of the inter-war period and it could be very dangerous to publicly identify oneself as a Communist. Thus, there were many more Jewish Communists than the official statistics would reflect. Moreover, the Communist Party had many fellow travelers and sympathizers – all of whom came out of the closet when the Red Army invaded Poland at the end of World War Two. The Party instructed huge numbers of Jews to change their names to Polish ones to hide their ethnic identity. Finally, the charge is routinely denounced as a product of either medieval prejudice or Nazi mind conditioning of the polish population.
Any objective examination of the facts will, however, quickly show the reality of Zydokomuna. Jewish participation in the Polish Communist movement averaged anywhere between 40-70% between the two wars. In The Society For Aid To Revolutionaries it rose as high as 90%. After the 1945 Soviet occupation Jewish ratios in the hated secret police rose to 75%. None of these facts leave the slightest doubt as to the reality of Zydokomuna. The Jews know that Zydokomuna was real – terribly, terribly real. That is why they are at such great pains to refute it. So long as Zydokomuna remains a reality in so many minds, Jews face the possibility of punishment for their crimes. The crimes were far worse than the mythical “gas chambers” of the Nazis. The number of actual deaths in Poland and the U.S.S.R. far exceeded the “six million”. Any punishment of the Jews proportional to their Communist crimes would involve a retaliation far beyond the hangings at Nuremberg. In fact, it might even exceed the fabled six million.
THE PATHOLOGY OF ZYDOKOMUNA
Once the charge of Zydokomuna, Jewish Communism, was met by simple denial of facts. Since that is no longer possible, the up-to-date technique is to accuse those who harp upon the fact of psychological problems. Or, to quote the marvelous upside down think of Professor Andre Gerrits, the “myth of Zydokomuna tells us more about the anti-Semites and their mind set than it does about the Jews”. Equally one might say, a la Johnny Cochrane, that the use of the “N” word tells us more about racist cops than it does about guilty defendants and bloody gloves. The charge of psychological aberration seeks to shift the burden of explanation from those who committed the crime (the Jews) to those who expose the crime. It is interesting that no charge of psychological aberration is leveled against Jews who invent fake “gas chambers” and a mythical six million dead. Telling the world to “never forget” the real and supposed crimes of the Nazis is intellectually commendable; daring to charge the Jews with the much greater crime of Communism is completely acceptable.
WHY NOT STAND UP TO THEM?
Again and again the question is asked: Why not stand up to the Jews? And the answer is: money. Money allows the Jews to do two things: )1) It allows them to buy opposition and (2) It allows them to destroy careers. That, in simple terms, is why people will not stand up to the Jews. Anyone tempted to go up against the Jews can see what happens to people like David Irving and Fred Leuchter. They go from secure incomes to penniless penury. Politicians can see that those who go up against the Jews get driven from office and have their campaign financing cut off. Just ask William Fullbright, Paul Findlay or Paul McCloskey. Hollywood stars who might be tempted to speak out against the Jews can behold the Mel Gibson treatment – and ask whether they have the financial resources to withstand it, like Mel. But all kinds of people can see what happens if you dare to challenge them.
Why is it that so many people will make perfectly true statements about the Jews – and then apologize profusely, crawling on their knees? They do it because failure to do so means permanent social ostracism and grinding poverty. Look at the journalist William Cash who had to bend over backwards for the sin of saying that Jews run Hollywood. Dorothy Thompson, the journalist, used to be the darling of the Jews when she was attacking Adolf Hitler. But when she started comparing what the Zionists were doing to the Arabs with what the Nazis had done to the Jews, that was the end of her column. President Jimmy Carter was virtually called a Nazi when his book “Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid” first came out. Jewish organizations and Professor Alan Dershowitz tried to cancel as many of his speaking engagements as possible. Jews, as these examples and innumerable others demonstrate, are utterly ruthless in using their power to crush those who oppose them. The very best example of this Jewish ruthlessness is the laws around the world crimalizing Holocaust denial. You can deny the crimes of Joseph Stalin or apologize for the massacres of Mao Tse Tung and remain a citizen in good standing. No one will fire you from your job or throw you into gaol. But if you dare to suggest that Nazi “gas chambers” are a hoax you will be prosecuted in at least a dozen countries. That is the real extent of Jewish devotion to “freedom of thought” that threatens their group interests.
I can only say that thank God you are in the miniscule and totally inconsequential minority. You appear to be paranoid, plain and simple and the object of the paranoia just happens to be “the Jew”. Unlike Hitler, who had an outlet of his potential paranoia of being 1/8th of a Jew in art (his silly little post cards from his time in Munich after WWI and the megalomaniac architectural constructions with Speer) and later in his political speeches, you are stuck with the comic books that you are reading. I think that’s your personal problem and I’ll leave it at that. Stating that the gas chambers were invented is outright idiotic and uninformed. Freud said that the paranoids are the happiest psychotics in the world because they are totally impervious to rational discourse. So, I assume that you will happily convince anybody who will listen that the Jews rule the world. Good luck, but I don’t think you will get any farther than this kind of site. The world has a tendency to destroy distortions of the thruths with a vengeance (at least that was one of Hegel’s contributions to speculative philosophy of history). There is really not much more to discuss about. In any case, best regards and enjoy your happiness (disturbed at times by bouts of outrage of anger and frustration because all of your comic book reading has no impact on the real world whatsoever). It was fun to see the discussion go in full circle. I have definitely learned a lot about your twisted and unhappy world view. Good luck and best regards!
Hans:
Thanks for the compliments but I am anything but twisted. Accusing heretics of dementia is the oldest trick in the world. It has no applicability to me, I assure you. I can assure you that comic books are precisely what I do not read. My reading is all on the university research volume as well.
I take the long view on certain subjects. The world has been so bamboozled on certain subjects that I do not expect the “gas chamber” lie to fall in my life time. As for being “idiotic and uninformed” that is you, not me. Take a look at the revisionist research some time and you will quickly discover that you’ve been had. That would rock your world far more than it would rock mine.
Anyway, here is some documented info on that Judeo -Communism “myth” you mock, from a Polish source, not a German one. The evidence is very convincing, Hans, whether you want to believe it or not.
http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Poland-WW2/ethnic_minorities_occupation/jews_4.html
Best.
Best.
Is that all you can say? Jee, you’re not the sharpest knife in the drawer … of course the easy way out is to accuse me of that … Hello und Alaaf! That’s all there is to your pseudo-intellectual rambling.
PROMISES OF LONG AGO
When the Zionists first started pouring into Palestine after WW1, they were very careful to dissemble over their real aims. They used the phrase “national home” to pretend that they were not aiming for a Jewish state at the expense of the intended victims, the Arabs. Indeed, the Zionist Max Nordau coined the expression “Heimstaat” (German for “national home”) to “deceive by its mildness until we were ready to announce our real aims”. No Arab was to be dispossessed, no one was to be expelled over the Jordan river. The Balfour Declaration only intended a Jewish cultural renaissance and the blessings would be extended to Arab and Jew alike. As Winston Churchill said in his 1922 White Paper, Zionism was to benefit both Arab and Jew. The previous High Commissioner, Sir Herbert Samuel, had formally disavowed any intent to dispossess the Arabs or to create a Jewish state at their expense. Indeed, he had even stated that were the Jews to expel the Arabs from Palestine, they would be committing the very offense that had been committed against the Jews over the centuries. Even Chaim Weizmann, the driving force behind the Balfour Declaration, declared in a private letter to the banker Warburg in the late 1920’s that a Jewish state in Palestine was no more possible than a Jewish state on Manhattan island.
So what happened? What happened is that the Jews – specifically the Zionists – deliberately lied. That is not exactly surprising. Had the Zionists openly admitted that a Jewish state in Palestine – at the expense of the Arabs was – was their real objective, it would have been much more difficult to achieve it. Jews have frequently lied over the centuries. They lied to Napoleon Bonaparte in 1807 when they pretended that Jews were Frenchmen like everyone else. They lied when they disavowed any intention of recreating their ancient state in Palestine. This pious disavowal by Jews of having any intent to create a Jewish state in Palestine forms an interesting contrast with their posturing today. Now they affirm that the Jewish state in Palestine that they were never going to create has an inalienable “right to exist”. How do the Jews get away with such brazen lies? They get away with it because not one American in a million knows the suppressed facts. That is the beauty of media control.
CHRISTIAN ZIONISM IS THE CANCER OF PATRIOTISM
The Reverend Ted Pike has written a profoundly important article attacking the Zionist-Christian right in America. His thesis is that so long as the Jews are not targeted as the real menace to America, that any Tea Party Revolution is doomed to failure. He is absolutely, one might even say divinely, correct. Pike points to the massive infiltration of the Reagan administration of the 1980’s by hordes of supposedly conservative Jews, the precursors of the “neo-conservatives”. These Jews made sure that Reagan conservatism was nothing but a front for Israel-uber-alles. Reagan, after all, did nothing when Israel launched its criminal invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Sarah Palin, a devout Christian-Zionist, is a favorite of the Tea Party crowd. Whoever leads the Tea Party will simply be a front for the Zionists. The Zionists will never permit any tax revolt that threatens their overseas wars for Israel. Neither will they permit any restoration of the United States as a white country. Even a relatively decent man like Ron Paul will not challenge Christian-Zionism. He cannot, without alienating the base of his support. The most that he will do is to insist upon a more “even handed” Middle East policy.
Christian Zionism is, of course, Christianity turned upside down. It forgets the Crucifixion. For a thousand years Catholicism taught that the Jews, as the murderers of Christ, had voided all the prophecies of the Old Testament. The once Chosen People were now the outcasts, the rejects of God. But now Christian Zionists, told that the Jews have been cleared of the murder of God’s Son (on what evidence?) have once again revived the Old Testamentary prophecies. Forgotten is the fact that the Jews had already returned to Palestine under the Persian King Cyrus – and that no second return was ever promised. Ignored is the Khazar conversion to Judaism of the Dark Ages – a fact that invalidates all Old Testamentary prophecies. Ignored is the Marxist background of Labor Zionism in Russia – and the fact that the Zionist settlers swore allegiance to the Communist International – not the teachings of Moses. Christian Zionists not merely do not understand the theology of their own religion, they do not understand basic historical facts.
Christian Zionism is the force that must be purged from America if any genuine right wing movement is to succeed. Otherwise, any Tea Party will be diverted into shekels for Israel and wars for Israel paid with American blood.
Thanks for the blog post on disaster preparedness. I will have to place this into effect. Thank you!
John,
You have blood on your fingers since the attempted assassination of the Congresswoman in Tuscon AZ, and six innocent bystanders. You are a paranoid person with a low level of intelligence and the unfortunate thing is that nothing will can change that. It will only get worse (particularly the decline in intelligence). Be ashamed. But shame is not what drives intellectual midgets like yourself. It’s bloodthirstiness. You got what you wished for and you will have to live with the consequences for it for the rest of your life. Lang lebe die Rationalitaet der Aufklaerung.
How do I have blood on my hands? I didn’t do it – and I’m quite sure the assassin never read one of my essays. Besides, wasn’t he a Jew or part Jew?
NEW STANDARDS IN TERRORISM
In 1944 the Roosevelt administration staged a gigantic sedition trial in which approximately 35 defendants were prosecuted because of views which resembled, in certain respects, those of the German Nazis. The trial collapsed after many months because none of the defendants could be proved to have committed an overt act against American forces at war with the Germans. However, now that the Supreme Court has ruled that aid to terrorism need not involve an overt act, such as money or buying weapons, but merely moral and intellectual support, then anyone who says a kind word for Palestinians, doubts the reality of the “War on Terror”, espouses conspiracy theories or does historical research undermining media, ethnic or government myths can be labeled an “accomplice of terrorism”. The chilling effect on dissent is obvious.
Of course, all this is purely hypocritical. The same Zionist controlled judiciary that comes up with this nonsense is well acquainted with the history of the state of Israel. Justices Kagan and Ginsberg know that both Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, future Prime Ministers of the state of Israel, were wanted by the British Palestine Police Force for terrorist attacks against English soldiers and officials. And, speaking of lending “moral assistance” to terrorists, they undoubtedly remember Mr. Ben Hecht’s famous letter to the New York Herald Tribune in May 1947 in which he boasted that “every time a terrorist blows up a British train or building, the Jews of America make a little holiday in their hearts”. Ben Hecht’s famous play “A Flag Is Born” might have been construed as promoting terrorism, if an English judge were hearing the case. And then, the vast Zionist smuggling of arms and munitions to Palestine would qualify as aiding and abetting terrorism even under more old fashioned definitions. The Supreme Court shall ignore these precedents for “aiding and abetting terrorism” because concocted jurisprudence is merely a cover for more sinister objectives.
The Supreme Court does not practice Constitutional jurisprudence; it practices “ethnic-specific” jurisprudence. Terrorism is to be condoned and tolerated when it promotes Zionist-Jewish objectives; it is to be condemned when it can be used as a scapegoat for wider designs. “Is terrorism good (or bad) for the Jews” is the test.
Jee, you are still trying to sell your uneducated “Bloedsinn” on this blog
. Look up the word “consistency”, it’s the first step to the “validation of a nomological network of interrelated and proven hypotheses”. Your pseudo-theoretical rambling is standing on extremely thin ice these days. Luckily, there is not much to be feared from the likes of you! Cheers!
This should rock your world, Hans.It might even convince you that I am as crazy as you think I am. here is no more revolutionary act than telling the truth.
http://www.rebelnews.org/opinion/history/5813
Before writing a book, you should start with a level 101 course in English grammar and sentence composition. As for your craziness, that’s definitely certifiable.
Dear Hans:
You confuse my limited typing skills with my grammar. You need less epistemological nonsense and more grounding in facts. I have both the facts and the analytical ability that you lack. Here is one more example.
THE REAL PROOF OF JEWISH COMPLICITY IN COMMUNISM
Although Jews have evolved some rather clever techniques for explaining away their complicity in Communism, the proofs of that complicity are not hard to find. Two of the best proofs are: (1) the Yiddish Communist press and (2) the Jewish agricultural settlements in Russia. Anyone who has studied the Communist press pre-World War Two knows that it was disproportionately published in Yiddish world wide. That would certainly indicate a Jewish connection with Communism. The flourishing of Jewish Communist agricultural collective farms in Ukraine, the Crimea and especially the Birobidzhan project in Siberia also demonstrate the Jewish Communist connection.
Anti-Communists sometimes put too much faith in lists of Jewish commissars. Although there is little doubt that Jews were disproportionately involved in the Soviet commissariats at all levels, lists can be disputed on many grounds, not the least of which is the fact that lists are constantly changing, as are percentages of ethnicity. Thus, one list may be adjusted by including some names but not others. Lists then, are indicative but not determinative. Consistent sympathies based on ethnicity all over the globe are much more reliable.
Jews know that their sympathies have always been consistently pro-Communist for decades. This fact is much more damaging to them than Jewish names in the commissariats. When the largest circulation Communist magazine in the United States is the Morning Freiheit, published in Yiddish, with a circulation of thousands, that fact is much harder to explain away than the fact that seven out of ten gulag commissars in the 1930’s were Jews. An individual Jew with Communist sympathies means nothing. But if the student of the subject notices a Yiddish Communist newspaper in Buenos Aires named Der Royter Shtern (The Red Star) or notices that the American Communist Party always had a publication entitled Jewish Affairs, then that commonality of language and ethnicity is much more convincing.
An individual Jew who moves from New York to Moscow to practice Communism proves nothing. But when thousands of Jews move from Canada, America and Argentina to the Soviet Far East in response to the siren call of Joseph Stalin, that fact is very indicative of pro-Communist sympathies. American Birobidzhan Committee (Ambijan) and the Canadian ICOR (Jewish Colonization Society for Russia) were not organizations of just a few Jews. They were mass organizations including thousands of Jews all over North America loyally committed to the hammer and sickle. The Joint Distribution Committee and the Agri-Joint were not minor community councils. They were lavishly funded organizations headed by the luminaries of Jewry. These organizations expended major funds establishing Jewish collective farms in Soviet Russia.
These are the real facts that establish the Jewish Communist connection. These are the facts that should be hammered on, again and again, not whether Lavrenti Beria was Armenian or Jewish.
More devastating documentation.
A PICTURE DRIPPING KOSHER RED
The old Soviet Union had a variety of motives in sponsoring “Palestine in Siberia” or the old Birobidzhan project. The reasons are expertly explained by Henry Felix Srebrnik in “Dreams of Nationhood: American Jewish Communists and the Soviet Birobidzhan project, 1924 -1951”. Writes Srebrnik:
“The Bolsheviks did their utmost to facilitate the social rehabilitation pf the Jewish petty bourgeoisie by promoting the formation of atrtisanal co-operatives, and by encouraging the constitution of Jewish agricultural collectives in areas of heavy Jewish population destined to become autonomous regions. The focus at first was on settlements in Belarus, Ukraine and especially, the Crimea. With the establishment of the Jewish autonomous districts – the Kalinindorf, the Stalindorf, and Naystotopol in Ukraine, plus Fraydorf and, later, Larindorf in the Crimea – Jews were settled in agricultural colonies. The campaign to settle déclassé Jews on the soil was widely publicized in the United States and elsewhere. The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (the “Joint”) and the World Union of Societies for Promotion of Artisanal and Agricultural Work Among the Jews of the World (World ORT Union) already active in helping poor Jews in eastern Europe, provided money for projects in the Soviet settlements. The American Jewish Joint Agricultural Corporation (the “Agri-Joint”) had been formed by the Joint in 1924 specifically to aid Jewish farmers in the Soviet Union.”
“Felix Warburg, chair of the Joint, had been active in the work for Russian Jews in the 1920’s, providing a gift of $400,000 at a meeting of the Joint in Philadelphia on September 12-13, 1925. Dr. Joseph A. Rosen, the Joint’s specialist on Jewish colonization in the USSR, told the gathering that ‘the Jews in Russia, under the present government, feel safer now than under any other Government.’ Rosen had been instrumental in convincing the Joint to form the Agri-Joint, which provided aid to the KOMERD in creating Jewish agricultural colonies in the southern Ukraine and Crimea in the 1920’s and 1930’s. In 1927, Warburg visited the Jewish agricultural colonies in the Crimea and Ukraine and wrote to James N. Rosenberg, the chair of the Agri-Joint, that he was ‘profoundly impressed’ by the ‘rapid progress’ being made, thanks to the ‘splendid understanding and assistance’ of the Soviets. Jews had fully vindicated themselves as farmers, he declared, and he became ‘an enthusiastic believer in the land settlement work’”.
“Rosenberg told the New York Times after returning from a visit to the Soviet Union in June 1926 that ‘These Jews, hitherto herded in ghettos, are eagerly seizing the chance now given them to settle on the soil, the same as other Russians.’ The newspaper called him ‘the American father of the back-to-the-soil movement among the Jews of the former Pale of Settlement.’ Rosenberg noted that since 1923, more than 100,000 Jews had settled on more than one million acres in the Crimea, Ukraine and White Russia. He said that ‘The Jewish farmer destroys a thousand blind prejudices against the Jew’ and ‘is an irrefutable demonstration of the Jewish aptitude for a hardy, natural life of productive toil.’ In any case, with immigration to the U.S. curtailed, the economically ‘surplus’ Jewish population in Russia can absorb would-be emigrants.’”
“When the writer Elias Tobenkin visited the Soviet Union in 1933, he was especially impressed with the Jewish settlements in the Crimea. ‘The dream of a Jewish republic on the shores of the Black Sea won the sympathy of Jews the world over. American Jews responded with utmost generosity,’ he wrote. With the help of the Agri-Joint, the farms were a greater success. William Zuckerman, too, touted the success of the Crimean settlements. The Crimea had an excellent geographic location, enjoying good transportation by land or sea. Near major centers of population, it was itself more sparsely populated and, being almost an island, isolated enough to become a compact Jewish-majority territory. Its excellent climate and soil made it ‘the California of Russia’, Zuckerman exclaimed. The Crimea also appealed to Jews abroad. Non-Zionist organizations such as the ORT and the Joint ‘flocked to the banner of the Crimea’ and answered the GEZERD’s appeals for funds. Jewish nationalists, including Folkists, Bundists and territorialists, approved of the idea, while some Zionists saw it as a ‘second Palestine, a Zion of the Diaspora’. A few even dreamt of a ‘Greater Zionism” embracing both the Crimea and Palestine.”
“But a Jewish Crimea was not to be. Land was in great demand in the European areas of the USSR, and Jews faced hostility from native Tatars and Ukrainians. So the Yevsektsia and GEZERD began to look for larger, more remote areas in which to settle Jews. The plan was to move as many Jews as possible to a parcel of rich, entirely undeveloped land on the easternmost borders of Siberia where, freed from the bourgeois trader of the shetl, they would form collective farms and transform themselves into a strapping class of Soviet peasantry. Their presence in the east would also help safeguard against a Chinese or Japanese invasion. Some considered the project a shrewd means by which to neutralize Zionist sentiments among the Jewish masses in the Pale of Settlement. Thousands of Soviet Jews would see an opportunity to escape poverty and anti-Semitic violence and become part of a longstanding dream: a Jewish homeland – but in the USSR. The development of a national area for Jews might also help reduce anti-Semitism in the cities in Belarus, European Russia, and Ukraine where Jews competed with other nationalities for scarce resources.’”
(Srebrnik, pp/10-12)
These are most amazing passages. They show the active collaboration of American Jewry with the Jewish Bolsheviks in setting up vast Jewish Communist agricultural communes in the Crimea next to the Black Sea. That this collaboration was based not just on a humanitarian desire to help brother Jews, but also on an active sympathy for the Communist system is shown by the quotation from Joseph Rosen. This assistance involved vast sums of money funneled to Russia through the American Jewish Committee, the Joint Distribution Committee, the Agri-Joint, Mr. Felix Warburg, the banker and Mr. Julius Rosenwald of Sears, Roebuck and Company. The agricultural collectives represented a Jewish dream of a “greater Palestine” encompassing not just the Holy Land but also the Jewish Communist Motherland in Russia. It was a scheme for Jewish nationality within a Communist system linked to, and allied with, Zionist-Marxism in Palestine. The third link in this system was the Soviet Birobidzhan project. Known as “Palestine in Siberia” Birobidzhan aimed to give Soviet Jews the nationality they craved away from the other Soviet peoples who despised them. Formally inaugurated by Stalin in 1928, Birobidzhan was the formal Soviet alternative to Zionism. Its theoretical advantages were that it was located within socialist Russia and was not inhabited by Arabs hostile to a Jewish state in their country. It also was launched just before the 1929 riots in Palestine, so damaging to Zionist pretensions, broke out.
As the extended quotation from Srebrnik’s book shows, Jews in America were most enthusiastic about both the Jewish Communist Crimean colonies and the Birobidzhan project in the 1920’s and later into the 1930’s. This enthusiasm had its roots in the fact that many American Jews had emigrated from the revolutionary areas in Russia in the 1880’s and 1890’s. Their relatives who remained behind had made the 1917 revolutions. Thus, Communism traveled back and forth from Russia to America, courtesy of the same ethnicity. Many, many Jews from America toured the Jewish Communist agricultural colonies in the Crimea, always returning with glowing praise. Both Felix Warburg and Joseph Rosen were two such. The reciprocity between American and Soviet Jews on this issue, as well as the extensive fund raising and coordination of efforts in keeping the colonies flourishing, is one of the best practical examples of the Jewish internationalism flourishing behind the hammer and sickle. It is common these days, thanks to Zionist media disinformation, to condemn Communism as a system which “persecuted” Jews. But as these documented facts show, there was a time when Jews gladly cooperated with a system that they regarded as an outreach of their power. These facts are easily verifiable from Jewish reference works – and they paint a picture dripping kosher red.
Here is someone who thinks like me.
LOUIS FERDINAND LEPEN?
Louis Ferdinand Celine was the famous French writer of unabashed anti-Semitic beliefs. One of his more famous works was “Bagatelle for a Massacre”. Jean Marie LePen, the founder of the French National Front, is not dissimilar in his views. LePen once dismissed the Jewish Holocaust myth as a “detail” of the Second World War. LePen gave a private interview in 2002 with the Canadian journalist Eric Margolis in which he confessed to the ultimate in politically incorrect beliefs. Essentially, LePen said that the Jews who created Communism have now created racial equality as an alternative means toward world conquest. The idea, said LePen, is to mongrelize and destroy the white race by mixing it with inferior breeds.
He scathingly commented on the masses of Arabs living in France, denouncing them as a racial invasion and a breeding grounds of crime and poverty. As Margolis noted, LePen is an “equal opportunity anti-Semite. He hates Arabs and Jews equally.” LePen never expressed himself in public so blatantly, of course. That would have been suicidal. However, as Margolis correctly noted, it would be incorrect to describe LePen as a “Nazi”. More precisely, he is a product of the Catholic, anti-Masonic, anti-Jewish mentality of the 1930’s. In a sense, Jean Marie LePen might be considered a French Patrick Buchanan. One rather doubts that LePen shares Buchanan’s pro-Germanism but otherwise their positions are remarkably similar.
LePen’s daughter, Marine, has publicly distanced the Party from her father’s rhetoric while maintaining the essence of his positions. The National Front, far from being a French Nazi Party, is much more akin to the movement of Charles Maurras in the 1930’s, L’action Francaise, without the obsessive anti-Germanism and more up-to-date. (The National Front does not pine for the restoration of the Bourbons.) The National Front forms an interesting contrast with American conservative groups. Unlike American conservatives who have largely sold out to the Jews and the state of Israel, the National Front is historically literate and not the least bamboozled by Zionist propaganda.
Whether the National Front shall ever come to power in France remains an imponderable. What is clear is that the National Front is the real thing. It stands for France for Frenchmen, breaking Jewish-Masonic power and a return to a Europe of nations, not a Europe of Jewish international finance.
ADOLF HITLER IN VIENNA
When Adolf Hitler was living in the Ratzner’s men’s hotel in Vienna he became very good friends with several of the Jewish residents there, particularly Joseph Neumann and Siegfried Lofner. The young Adolf not merely had many political conversations with these Jews, he personally profited from the associations. One of them was a coppersmith and Hitler used him to market his paintings. Hitler also spent many hours in conversation with Neumann, discussing such things as Herzl’s Zionism. On one occasion, Hitler objected to Kaiser Wilhelm’s removal of a statue that had been erected to the German-Jewish poet, Heinrich Heine. Although Hitler stressed that he did not share Heine’s politics, he thought it wrong not to honor the poetic achievements of a great German.
None of this jibes with the later fiction that Hitler was reflexively anti-Jewish. It is, of course, true that Hitler was a great admirer of Karl Lueger, the anti-Semitic mayor of Vienna. As in the case of Lueger, Lueger’s anti-Semitic bark was worse than his bite. The future Fuehrer also liked to attend performances of Shakespeare’s “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” by Max Reinhardt of whom Hitler was a great admirer. Hitler later marketed the vast majority of his paintings through the Viennese Jewish art dealer, Morgenthau, who sold Hitler’s paintings and sketches to mainly Jewish clients (as revealed by Morgenthau’s card index). Adolf Hitler thought very highly of his family’s Jewish physician, Eduoard Bloch, who treated, unsuccessfully, Hitler’s mother, Klara, for breast cancer. In fact, Hitler went on to say that Dr. Bloch was a “good Jew” and that if all Jews were like Dr. Bloch, there would be no “Jewish problem”. Bloch was given special protection by the Gestapo when the Anschluss took place in 1938 before he emigrated to New York, dying in 1945. Bloch’s comments on the young Hitler who accompanied his mother to Bloch’s office are interesting. Doctor Bloch stated that the young Hitler was extremely well behaved, polite and showed no signs of mental disturbance whatever. Moreover, when Hitler’s mother died, Bloch never saw a more distraught individual. While not condoning Hitler’s later policies, Eduoard Bloch had nothing but positive memories of Adolf Hitler as a youth.
If Hitler was not originally anti-Semitic, what happened to change his attitudes? As the historians Brigitte Haman and David Irving have demonstrated, Hitler’s attitude change was a direct response to the Jewish involvement in Communism and the post-war betrayal of Germany. The strikes at war’s end which crippled Germany were largely Jewish inspired, as even anti-Hitler writers acknowledge. Communism in the year 1919 in Germany was everywhere Jewish. The three Bavarian Communist upheavals were led by men like Kurt Eisner, Hugo Haas, Ernest Toller, Eugen Levine-Nissen and the revolutionary Jewess, Rosa Luxemberg. Other prominent Communist Jews of the day were Leo Jogisches, Paul Levi, Klara Zetkin and Ruth Fischer. The Brest-Litovsk treaty which ended Germany’s war with Russia was signed, on behalf of Bolshevik Russia, by Trotsky-Bronstein, Joffe and Abramovich. In nearby Hungary, the six month reign of Communist terror, March through August, was run by the Jew Bela Kun. 160 out of 200 of his top commissars were Jewish, including the notorious hangman, Tibor Tzamuelly.
This is what changed Adolf Hitler’s attitudes toward Jews. Hitler’s identification of Jews with Communism was not unique. Virtually everyone of his time made the same identification. The authoress, Cecille Tormay, who wrote the famous autobiographical account of the Hungarian revolution, “An Outlaw’s Diary”, said the same. So did Winston Churchill, in his famous newspaper article, “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People”. The American State Department overflowed with reports in the early 1920’s on Jewish involvement in Communism. Despite Hitler’s undoubtedly correct view on the Jewish involvement in Communism, he continued to make distinctions between good Jews and bad Jews. When Hitler discovered that his chauffeur, Emil Maurice, may have been a Jew, he personally ordered Maurice converted into an “honorary Aryan”. The early National Socialist regulations made exceptions for Jews who had loyally fought for Germany in the First World War. When the Nuremberg race laws were passed in 1935, Hitler had a major problem because of the huge number of part Jews in the Wehrmacht. He converted over 50,000 of them into “honorary Aryans” to avoid their expulsion from the military. An excellent source on this is “Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers” by Bryan Rigg.
Hitler undoubtedly acted to purge Germany of Jewish influence. His closing down of Jewish businesses and banning of Jews from the professions is proof of this. Yet he continued to be remarkably lenient in many cases. Hitler personally sponsored the career of the part-Jewish soprano, Marguerite Slezak, at the Berlin State Opera. He also managed to overlook the marriages of a great many German artists to Jewish spouses. A classic case in point was the operetta composer, Franz Lehar, who married Lizzy Leon, the daughter of the Viennese Jewish librettist, Victor Leon. A not inconsiderable number of Nazi officials were also of part Jewish ancestry. Reinhard Heydrich, the head of the Czech protectorate, was actually or allegedly the son of a Jewish actor. In the military, part Jews like Lutwaffe General Helmut Wilberg, General Johannes Zukertort, Admiral Bernhard Rogge, Commander Paul Ascher of the battleship Bismarck and the famous General Manstein (Lowenstein) are choice examples of part Jews serving Germany’s National Socialist regime.
Adolf Hitler was not above making deals with those who later denounced him as the source of all evil. One of his first acts as Chancellor of Germany was to conclude the Havaara or Transfer Agreement with the Zionists. By the terms of this agreement approximately 40,000 of Germany’s Jews were sent to Palestine minus an exit tax. This facilitated the Nazi objective of ridding Germany of unwanted Jews while facilitating the Zionist objective of moving Jews to Palestine. Zionist leaders praised Hitler as the man who would preserve the “racial purity of both the Germans and the Jews. It was two Zionist rabbis, Leo Baeck and Joachim Prinz, who helped Hitler formulate his definition of a Jew in the Nuremberg laws. The Nazis founded special Zionist training camps for agricultural pursuits for Jews who wished to go to Palestine. The Nazi press consistently praised the achievements of the Zionists in Palestine and not so subtly suggested that German Jews should emigrate there. The Nazis prepared a special medallion commemorating Zionism and allowed the blue and white flag of Zionism to fly alongside the swastika. It was the only flag beside the swastika to legally fly in the Third Reich.
Today, all these verifiable facts about Adolf Hitler’s intimate relations with Jewry have gone down the historical memory hole. No one wishes to remember that it was the Central Emigration Office of the SS under Adolf Eichmann who loaded Jews onto the boats on the Danube as they sailed to British Mandatory Palestine. Nor does anyone wish to remember Werner Goldberg, the ideal Nazi soldier, who was the half Jewish son of a convert to Lutheranism. Even more forgetful was the little Jewish girl and her mother who used to visit Hitler at Berschtesgaden until 1938. And as for Hedy Lamar’s claim that she had a sexual tryst with Der Fuehrer at the insistence of her half Jewish husband and Nazi arms dealer, Fritz Mandel, the less said the better.
Adolf Hitler, for better or worse, was a thinking man’s anti-Semite. He opposed Jewish influence while acknowledging the good in individual Jews. Since these facts do not comport with the legend that he killed six million Jews in purported “gas chambers”, the facts have generally been buried. To read the suppressed facts is to realize, once again, that history is “a lie agreed upon”.
A CASE STUDY IN THAT WHICH DOES NOT EXIST
A professor Jeffrey Herf in Chicago promotes the line that any idea of Jewish ethnic solidarity across national lines is a myth. One wonders how professor Herf reconciles this thesis with certain well known facts. Let’s examine just one episode inconsistent with his thesis. Prior to the creation of the state of Israel American Zionists organized a vast arms smuggling operation on behalf of the Jewish underground in Palestine. This operation was transcontinental in scope, involving Jews of many different ideologies in many countries, united only by ethnicity and Zionism and manipulating governments all over the world. Let us examine how it was done.
The operation began with a meeting of prominent American Jews in New York City. The number was only about fifteen. One, however, was the extremely influential Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver, the chief advisor to Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio. These men decided that the Jewish nation hood movement had to be supported by arms and munitions from America. They organized to that end. One of their stratagems was to buy large quantities of WW2 army surplus. Prominent Jews in the sheet metal business and related industries began acquiring machine guns and ammunition either by buying it or stealing it. The next problem was how to ship the material to Palestine in violation of American export laws. Various methods were employed. Many arms shipments were packed within carpet roles or fruit cases and shipped as “freight”. Unions, dock workers and public officials were corrupted, bought off or intimidated. Unconfirmed allegations have been made that J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI were co-opted into the operation. A particular problem was how to fly the supplies to Palestine. The Zionists conceived the idea of registering planes they had purchased in America in Panama to avoid American export restrictions.
This necessarily involved the cooperation of various South American governments. This was achieved by both economic and political contacts. Samuel Zemmaray, the chief share holder of the gigantic United Fruit Company, was very influential in this process. So was the dictator, Antonio Somoza of Nicaragua, who agreed to provide aircraft and bases for flying transports overseas. On the diplomatic front, South American politicians provided invaluable support to the Zionists. The president of the General Assembly of the United Nations, Aranha of Brazil, was a Zionist agent. When the United Nations were debating the partition of Palestine resolution of November 1947, it was president Aranha who delayed the final vote on the resolution several times so that the Zionists could coerce the necessary votes to obtain passage of the resolution. Garcia Granados, the president of Guatemala, provided similar services to the Zionists as documented in his book, “The Birth of Israel”.
The Zionists needed a base in Europe to transport the arms to Israel-in-the-making. Transatlantic flights to Palestine were simply too long to consider. They found their allies in the Communists of Czechoslovakia. With the approval of Joseph Stalin, the Czech Communists agreed to train Zionist pilots and provide them with high quality captured German Messerschmidts. The planes were then refueled in Communist Yugoslavia under the direction of a Mr. Joseph Korbel and then flown to Palestine to attack the Arabs. (Mr. Korbel later came to America and established an institute for international studies in Denver, Colorado where two future U.S. Secretaries of State, Condoleezza Rice and Madeline Korbel/Albright were trained. The Zionist international does get around.)
Back in America, the Zionists were extremely busy. Jews like Mickey Cohen, the L.A. Jewish mobster, Mr. Greenberg, the Las Vegas newspaper editor, Jewish casino owners, Lyndon Johnson and his friend Jim Novy and many, many others were funneling arms, munitions and money to the Jewish underground. Former camps for German prisoners of war, like the camp in Oswego New York were used as training grounds for Zionist troops to fight the Arabs. This amazing activity, which included the Jewish community in America, the corruption of the U.S. government, the recruitment of South American governments, the corruption of the United Nations, the assistance of the Soviet Communists and the help of Jews all over the world in pursuit of an ethnic agenda, leads to only one conclusion. Jews are indeed an international community, bound by ties of blood – and no denial by professor Jeffrey Herf shall alter that fact.
INNOCENCE BY PROCLAMATION
Whenever the Jews are caught with their pants down on the facts, they resort to certain standard responses. Thus, whenever confronted with the Jewish involvement in Communism or the slave trade, they will assert that the facts are taken out of context, that only a small minority of Jews are involved in such activities, that the facts may be true of one specific instance but not all instances, that the behavior was the product of unique historical circumstances or of oppression, etc. In short, every possible excuse is trotted out of the closet. But never, ever, do Jews concede: “Yes, it’s true. We did it.” Jews have refined these techniques to a fine art. Jews who were Communists were non-Jewish Jews who repudiated their Jewishness; Zionists who invaded Palestine were somehow the victims of the Arabs they were dispossessing; Jews in Russia sex slaving women were victims of Czarist oppression; Jewish tax collectors gouging on commission were merely doing the king’s bidding, not robbing the citizen’s blind, on and on it goes.
The one constant in all the bullshit is that Jews are always innocent. Always – that is axiomatic. To reach any other conclusion is anti-Semitism. What anti-Semitism means is: Jews are always innocent regardless of the facts. Facts cannot be used to convict Jews of any collective offense. This is true because Jews say so. If you think otherwise you are an irrational bigot no matter what the evidence shows. Anti-Anti-Semitism is innocence by proclamation. Innocence by proclamation cannot be enforced by evidence; it can only be enforced by fear. The implied threat behind innocence by proclamation is: If you do not buy it, your career will be destroyed. You will become an unemployable social outcast. And that is why people tremble before the accusation of anti-Semitism. It is a threat – and one that will be enforced.
THE WARREN COMMISSION LEARNED IT FROM THE NUREMBERG COURT
As everybody knows, the Warren Commission rewrote the laws of physics with its magical “single bullet” theory. This bullet did things never seen before or since. It changed directions and went through bones and marrow without leaving a dent on the casing or shell. It was also fired from an inferior gun with a bad sight by a lousy marksman with pin-point accuracy. It left major holes as entrance wounds and minor holes as exit wounds. This bullet was truly marvelous. But let no one think that the fabulous “single bullet” was unique. It was not. Its prototype, the “gas chambers” of Adolf Hitler, were even more fabulous. Those gas chambers were built underground at Auschwitz. This greatly facilitated the dispersal of the gas which is usually dealt with by building the gassing facility above ground. Then too, the “gas chambers” were not properly sealed or ventilated. They had no means of heating the gas to the necessary temperature for dispersal. And the room was not even big enough to hold the claimed number of victims. Hardly any trace of Zyklon B “Prussian Blue” residue can be found in the chambers where millions of Jews were supposedly killed. Why, it is enough to make JFK’s head explode a second time.
The Warren Commission managed to ignore all kinds of evidence from witnesses who saw shots coming from the grassy knoll, rather than the Texas Book Depository building. They overlooked evidence that Oswald was actually employed as an agent by the FBI. And they managed to rewrite witness statements to make the original statements mean what the Commission wanted them to say. They would not let Jack Ruby tell what he knew although Ruby badly wanted to talk. And, of course, they let the Dallas police Department do its own investigation of who let Ruby into the basement of the Dallas police headquarters to shoot Ruby. Naturally, the Dallas Police concluded that Ruby, a man with deep connections to hundreds of officers in the Department, got in all by himself.
It was all very innovative. Now, where did the Warren Commission learn these investigatory techniques? Why, at Nuremberg obviously! At Nuremberg hardly an original German document was introduced. All the documents were “certified copies of copies”. Genuine German documents of the Auschwitz camp were carted off by the Soviet Union and concealed from the tribunal. Thus, the Jews testifying to “gassings” at the tribunal did not have to explain the German records that showed only about 150,000 deaths of all causes at the camp (only a percentage of which were Jews).They were not confronted by the fact that the Zyklon B used at the camp was used to control typhus epidemics by killing typhus bearing lice or the fact that the crematory ovens were there to burn bodies that died of disease. Heinrich Himmler’s order that the “death rate in the camps was to be reduced at all costs” was, of course, not introduced. No one performed any forensic tests of the alleged “gas chambers”. (That was only done fifty years later.) Genuine German records showing that German policy was to deport the Jews to the occupied territories in the east were suppressed. So too, was Adolf Hitler’s dictum that he wanted “the Jewish question shelved until the end of the war”. The fact that the Communist governments being imposed on Eastern Europe after the war was 75% Jewish was not mentioned at Nuremberg. After all, was it conceivable that the Jews supposedly being exterminated were actually hiding out east of the Ural Mountains during the war? A Jewish newspaper in Sweden during the war claimed that 50-75% of Russia’s Communist Jews had been evacuated eastward before the Wehrmacht arrived. This newspaper was naturally not quoted by the prosecution at Nuremberg.
The Nuremberg Court, like the Warren Commission, arrived at the conclusions it wanted to reach. This process was aided and abetted by the fact that 2400 out of the 3000 total personnel behind the scenes at Nuremberg were Jews. Robert Jackson, Francis Biddle, Sir Hartley Shawcross and others were merely the front men for the real orchestrators of the kangaroo court. It was rather like the Warren Commission, where the presence of Allen Dulles was to help cover up the involvement of U.S. intelligence agencies in the president’s murder. Earl Warren, the man who was responsible for the round up and internment of Japanese-Americans in World War Two, was the Robert Jackson of the Warren Commission. The German defendants at Nuremberg were hung during the Jewish high holidays in October between the Day of Atonement and the Day of Final Judgment. They were ritually executed, just like Lee Harvey Oswald was ritually sacrificed to a pre-determined verdict and judgment.
The Kennedy assassination has generated an enormous literature disagreeing with the obviously doctored official conclusion. But the literature disproving the kangaroo court at Nuremberg is still very much underground. It is read privately by those deathly afraid of career destruction if they are found out. But the deniers of the mythical six million and the deniers of the mythical single bullet have something in common, nonetheless. Both are seekers after truth. And the truth, surprisingly enough, is the same in both cases. The real killers of John Kennedy were they who concocted the hoax of the “gas chambers”. And the motive, in both cases, was the same – to promote the interests of the emerging, and later extant, state of Israel. But that is another story for another essay.