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”.