https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-understanding-world-war-ii/
But now McConnell had heard that Buchanan was planning to release a new book supposedly glorifying Adolf Hitler and denouncing America’s participation in the world war to defeat the Nazi menace.
Where did McConnell get that impression? At most, the book might have been an apology for some of Hitler's decisions, but did he really believe Buchanan would write a book GLORIFYING Der Fuhrer?
Mainstream publications had largely ignored the book, but it seemed to receive enormous praise from alternative writers, some of whom fiercely denounced TAC for having attacked it.
It was reviewed in the New York Review of Books, unfavorably but not entirely negatively. Pat Buchanan was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN for the book. Christopher Hitchens wrote a scathing review in Newsweek, then still a major publication; therefore, the book was not ignored. I mostly agreed with Hitchens' assessment of the book. The problem was not Buchanan's contrarian take on the origins of World War II but the tendency to be harsh on Churchill at every turn while soft-pedaling nearly everything Hitler did. Instead of arguing that Hitler shouldn't have done such-and-such, Buchanan placed most of the blame on those compelled to react to Hitler's moves. John Lukacs was correct in saying that Hitler was the main driver of the forces that led to WWII. Hitler's moves provoked other nations, and even if Poland, UK, and France acted unwisely(at least in hindsight), Hitler should have known that if he plays with matches, he could set off a forest fire.
Hitchens was willing to concede that maybe Buchanan and others were right about the foolishness of UK and France guaranteeing Poland against Germany. From a realpolitik perspective(and especially in retrospect), one might say UK and France acted rashly. But Buchanan goes much further than that in UNNECESSARY WAR. In the earlier book REPUBLIC, NOT AN EMPIRE, Buchanan stopped at events up to 1939. George Kennan, renowned for realism in foreign affairs, wrote him a letter of support. But in UNNECESSARY WAR, Buchanan moves beyond 1939 and keeps blaming the other players more than Germany and Hitler even as he concedes that Hitler was pathological and committed unspeakable crimes. Niall Ferguson, maybe the most famous living British historian, already argued that UK should have stayed out of World War I and let Germans dominate Europe in co-existence with the British Empire. Recently, Peter Hitchens wrote a book on WWII that agrees with the view of people like Buchanan, at least up to events in 1939. The real problem is what happened afterward, and in UNNECESSARY WAR, Buchanan keeps faulting those who reacted to Hitler than faulting Hitler for his proactive(and reckless) decisions. Christopher Hitchens also noted that Hitler was something other than a conqueror in the classic sense. If Napoleon had prevailed over Russia, there would have been at least the spread of Enlightenment values. If Hitler had prevailed over Russia, it would have been like Spartans subjugating the Helots all over again on a massive scale.
I don't think Buchanan was or is pro-Hitler, but he's always been Germano-centric. Ironically, Neocon Jews hate Buchanan because his politics of identity is much like their own. Jews have been known to favor identity over ideology. Capitalist Jews in the US sided with communist Jews in USSR and even Jewish communist spies in the US. Capitalist Jews denounced Joe McCarthy's anti-communism because it disadvantaged their tribal brethren. But Jews who supported leftist Jews also supported nationalist Jews, the Zionists. Jews have operated on the basis of "Is it good for Jews?", and Buchanan has a similar worldview about white folks, especially the Germans, his favorite people. Also, he's half-German and was born with a Teutonic personality.
Buchanan's formative years saw the world divided between godless communism that came to be associated with radical Jews & Slavs(Russians) AND capitalist Anglo-America, Catholic Spain, & fascist Germany. From Buchanan's point of view, it made more sense for democratic capitalist Anglo nations(UK and US) to side with Nazi Germany and Franco's Spain for either racial or religious reasons. Buchanan came of age in a time of much intra-racial tensions among whites. Today, we mainly talk of White People as a single group, but ethnic tensions were riding high through much of the 20th century. World War I was sparked by Pan-Germanism vs Pan-Slavism. In the US, there were many ethnic tensions among Anglos, Irish, Italians, Jews, Poles, Russians, etc. There was a view among Anglos and Germans that they were somewhat better than the Other Whites who were less pure. Apparently, Italians and Spanish had some 'black' blood, and Slavs had some 'Asiatic' blood. The ethnic tensions were made worse by the rise of communism in Russia. Suddenly, the Slavs turned into commie Slavs taking orders from Jews as the new masters. This Soviet Union was not only of the Other(and lesser) White Race but godless. Then, from the POV of people like Buchanan(and his mentors), the Anglo world should have sided with Germans as proper racial cousins and with Franco's Spain as a Catholic power that stood against communism.
Looking back, much of the problems of the West could have been avoided IF these ethnic tensions had been managed better. Buchanan himself errs in thinking Anglos should have sided with Germans against Slavs. The fact is Russians are mostly white, and the thinking should have been Anglos and Germans should have made peace with Russians and sided with them against rise of Asia. John Lukacs was prescient during the Cold War when he said the Soviet Union would be a far less challenge than China. People didn't take him seriously because back then the Soviet Union was a superpower whereas China was a mostly agrarian land of rice-eaters, but the past few decades proved Lukacs was right. Looking back, the Anglos shouldn't have alienated Germans, and Germans shouldn't have alienated Russians and other Slavs. It just ended up with so much white-on-white bloodbath. That said, the rise of communism in Slavic Nations understandably made many people like the Buchanans turn against the Other White World that seemed permanently lost to godless communism and/or Oriental Despotism.
Among other things, he persuasively argued that the German war-guilt was somewhat less than that of most of the other participants, also noting that despite the endless propaganda of “Prussian militarism,” Germany had not fought a major war in 43 years, an unbroken record of peace considerably better than that of most of its adversaries.
Germany didn't fight in a major war in those 43 years because it didn't have a worthy competitor on the continent. But with its surging industry and imperial ambitions(though limited) made it a major candidate for aggression on the world stage. From the British and French perspective, "two's company but three's a crowd." UK and France had fought many bitter wars for imperial supremacy. Brits prevailed in North America, only to see their prize possession go independent with French aid. In the end, UK vs France in the New World ended up with both sides losing. UK lost America, and French monarchy lost its head. So, instead of endlessly fighting for every inch of territory, the UK and France came to an understanding. Brits would be the premier imperial power, and France would be #2. They would tolerate one another. While the Brits usually got the better colonies, the French got a lot too. Over time, they became partners, and both feared the rise of Germany because of its bigger population and expanding industry(that eclipsed British industrial output in just a matter of decades). Now, looking back, it might have been wiser for UK and France to make some room for Germany's place in the world, but at the time, Germany looked like a real rival. Also, Kaiser Wilhelm really was a jerk and an ass. Rash, impetuous, and vain. Difficult man to work with.
However, the bulk of the book focused on the events leading up to the Second World War, and this was the portion that had inspired such horror in McConnell... Buchanan described the outrageous provisions of the Treaty of Versailles.. whereas his democratic Weimar predecessors had failed, Hitler had managed to succeed, largely through bluff, while also annexing German Austria and the German Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, in both cases with the overwhelming support of their populations.
If Buchanan had only argued thus, it wouldn't have been a problem. Even History 101 in colleges teach that Germany was in bad straits during Weimar years and that there were real achievements under National Socialism, which was popular with Germans. Many people other than Buchanan have pointed to the Versailles Treaty as especially harmful. And if Hitler had only taken Sudetenland, things might have calmed down. But he made a move on the entire Czech territory soon after, and that became the bone of contention. Neville Chamberlain staked his pride, dignity, and reputation on peace with Germany by letting Hitler have his way JUST ONE TIME. Hitler agreed but having gained much with earlier bluffs went ahead and made a move on Poland, and Chamberlain ended up with egg on his face. Buchanan argues in bad faith because, on the one hand, he says Hitler got bolder because UK and France didn't call his bluff early on, but then, on the other hand, says UK, France, and Poland should have conceded to Hitler on just about every demand or maneuver prior to the major outbreak of war. But wouldn't giving-Hitler-what-he-wants made him even more aggressive and reckless?
On the Danzig Question, Buchanan is right that Germans had every right to claim it as their city. But if so, Hitler should have instigated a 'color revolution' in Danzig against the Poles. He should have urged Germans in Danzig to protest and rise up. Then, if the Poles used violence against the Germans, international sympathy might have been with the Germans, and then Hitler could have used his superior power to wrest Danzig from Poland as an emergency measure. I highly doubt if UK and France would have declared war on Germany over Danzig, especially if so many Danzigers were in the streets clamoring for unification with Germany. But what did Hitler do? He conspired with Stalin to tear Poland in half. Nazis bombed civilians in Polish cities, and Stalin sent his henchmen to do much killing. Now, it's true that UK and France declared war on Germany but not on the USSR, and one could fault them on principles, but it made good realpolitik sense. As Germany was nearer to UK and France, it was a bigger immediate threat. Also, their hope was to somehow create a rift between Germany and USSR, something that would have been impossible if UK and France had declared war on both Germany and USSR.
The widespread later claim that Hitler sought to conquer the world was totally absurd, and the German leader had actually made every effort to avoid war with Britain or France. Indeed, he was generally quite friendly towards the Poles and had been hoping to enlist Poland as a German ally against the menace of Stalin’s Soviet Union.
'Conquer the world' has to be taken figuratively. Even the biggest anti-Hitlerians don't literally believe that the Nazis intended to conquer all the world. But Hitler did have grand ambitions. He wrote of how Germans should conquer vast swaths of territory in Russia. So, at the very least, he wanted an empire for the Germans. Still, it's fairer to say Hitler wanted a partnership with nations that had already conquered the world, France and especially UK. He didn't want to displace the British Empire but be partners with it.
Hitler could be diplomatic and courteous with world leaders, including Polish ones, but he didn't have much regard for the Polish people in general. But then, he didn't much care for Slavs, even though a strain of Nazism accepted Poles as fellow Aryans. Still, there was a good reason why Poles rejected the offer of 'alliance' with Germany. It would not have been an equal partnership. It would have been like the 'alliance' of USSR and its satellite states. Also, Poles were correct to assess Hitler as a dangerous character who might cause problems. Who fared better in the long run? Mussolini who forged a close alliance with Hitler or Franco who kept Hitler at arm's length? Poland knew it was wedged between powerful USSR and mighty Germany, and it wanted neutrality. It didn't want to get caught between a fight that might break out between a bear and tiger. If Poland leaned toward Germany, it would have enraged the USSR, and vice versa. Poland came to lean on UK and France because they seemed to the only major powers that might change Hitler's mind.
At any rate, what is the true worth of 'friendliness' in politics? The West was quite friendly with Gaddafi but it wasn't. Hitler offered carrots, but Poles saw the big stick. While it's true that Hitler and Germans in general were angry over lost territories, that issue was also a pretext(at least for Hitler and his cohorts) for larger ambitions. It's like the US raged over Alamo to take over the entire SW. US fumed about Pearl Harbor to dominate all of the Pacific. Similarly, Hitler exploited legitimate issues of territorial disputes in order to use Poland as launching pad than obstacle to his eventual clash with the USSR. While, as Lukacs said, Hitler could be rational and even statesmanlike, his essential personality and worldview was 'artistic' than political. He viewed the world as a stage for his rather Wagnerian and operatic ambitions. Judging by his statements and autobiography and tome MEIN KAMPF, he was clearly megalomaniacal and saw himself as a Man of Destiny. Personality matters in politics, as when Khrushchev found it impossible to deal with Mao because of differences in personality. In contrast, Putin and Xi get along because both are more sober and temperate.
Hitler had always wanted friendly relations with Britain... he therefore offered very magnanimous peace terms../ The British government had been pressured into entering the war for no logical reason and against its own national interests, so Chamberlain and half the Cabinet naturally supported commencing peace negotiations...
But... Churchill remained absolutely adamant that the war must continue... Churchill had had a remarkable record of repeated failure, and for him to have finally achieved his lifelong ambition of becoming prime minister only to lose a major war just weeks after reaching Number 10 Downing Street would have ensured that his permanent place in history was an extremely humiliating one.
But could Churchill alone have been so consequential? Notwithstanding Jewish influence/bribery and Churchill's vanity, wasn't the bigger problem that the Brits had fallen into a mental habit of relying on Balance of Powers as a panacea for all European problems? The policy generally worked out in favor of Britain that formed alliances against whatever happened to be the top Continental Power so as to ensure that Europe could not be united bloc against the island nation. But then, things work until they don't. The iron policy of balance-of-power backfired in a big way in World War I that depleted the British Empire of so many men and money. One could argue it worked in in WWI and WWII to the extent that UK, along with other nations, did manage to suppress the rise of Germany as the dominant continental power, but it was achieved at the cost of British bankruptcy and decline. Germans were defeated, but the Brits hardly gained anything while losing a lot.
...Britain and Germany had signed international conventions prohibiting the aerial bombardment of civilian urban targets, and... Hitler scrupulously followed these provisions. In desperation, Churchill therefore ordered a series of large-scale bombing raids against the German capital of Berlin, doing considerable damage, and after numerous severe warnings, Hitler finally began to retaliate with similar attacks against British cities.
But Hitler had no qualms about raining down mass destruction on Polish and Russian civilian populations. Hitler may have been more restrained with the British out of racial respect, but ironically, it seems Anglos regarded the Germans the way Germans regarded the Slavs: Barely civilized barbarians who only understand ruthless power. Hitler's illusions about the British were as unsound as his sentimentality about Mussolini and dementia about the Slavs. Churchill was a bastard but more focused on what was really at stake.
Churchill’s ruthless violation of the laws of war regarding urban aerial bombardment directly led to the destruction of many of Europe’s finest and most ancient cities.
He was a bastard, but let's not forget what Hitler did to Warsaw and cities & towns across the USSR.
...late in the war during 1944 the relentless Allied bombardment of German cities led to the devastating retaliatory attacks of the V-1 flying bombs against London, and an outraged Churchill became adamant that German cities should be attacked with poison gas in counter-retaliation.
I read V-1 rockets weren't particularly effective. At any rate, war brings out craziness on all sides, especially when desperation and hatred take over. Japanese went crazy in Nanking, and Germans turned to mass-extermination once the tide of war decisively turned against them. Problem with David Irving is he holds Churchill and others like him to the highest standards of ethics while making excuses for Hitler who not only fought ruthlessly also but was possessed of an insane ideology.
Taylor, Irving, and numerous others have thoroughly debunked the ridiculous mythology that the cause lay in Hitler’s mad desire for world conquest, but if the German dictator clearly bore only minor responsibility, was there indeed any true culprit? Or did this massively-destructive world war come about in somewhat similar fashion to its predecessor, which our conventional histories treat as mostly due to a collection of blunders, misunderstandings, and thoughtless escalations.
I agree with Lukacs. No Hitler, no WWII. While Hitler didn't plan to conquer the entire world, he did have dreams of taking a huge chunk of the East(mainly Russia) so as to make Greater Germany about the size of the US or bigger. Though rather successful as a national leader, he was not content with national affairs. In this, he was like the Neocons who aren't satisfied with Jewish wealth and Jewish homeland. They must always have more, and this means meddling in other parts of the Middle East. Neither Hitler nor Neocons were about world conquest. Neocons mainly focus on proxy-empire building(by using the US) in the Middle East and North Africa to ensure Israel's hegemony; they also hunger for control of Russia with its vast resources and 'lazy, dumb, and drunk' Russkies whom Jews regard as worthless dummies.
Similarly, Hitler sought hegemony in the European continent, and the only way he could ensure German imperial predominance was to take huge territories from Russia.
On the eve of World War I, so many people all across Europe wanted war. The general peace for 100 yrs since the fall of Napoleon had made people less aware of the hellishness of war. France did lose to Germany in the Franco-Prussian War, but it had been a swift defeat, and the French had been dreaming of revenge ever since. The Russian Tsar thought war would play a unifying role, and Germans were ready to take on all-comers. At the outbreak of war, no one quite realized that the two sides would be stacked against each other with nearly equal force, thus prolonging the war that also incorporated modern weaponry that had proved so effective against the backward non-West. When used against the non-west, modern weaponry meant quick victory. But when modern weaponry went against modern weaponry in Europe, it led to destruction on an unprecedented scale. But few people foresaw the dangers. So, when war broke out, there were celebrations all throughout Europe.
But, on the eve of World War II, most people didn't want war. Even Germans didn't want it despite Hitler's popularity. If Germans cheered loudly after a victory, it was out of hope that it would be the last conflict, finally the war to end all wars. France didn't want war with Germany. It declared war as a bluff and just dug in and played defense. Chamberlain did try to come to terms with Hitler. Many Brits felt a bit of guilt over Versailles and economic ruin of Germany. As such, they were willing to negotiate with Germany, but Hitler was the sort of person who always regarded concession as weakness and vulnerability that could be exploited for More. He was also devious like Bismarck but without the Iron Chancellor's sense of limits and keen calculation.
We could all agree that if Germany had remained democratic, there would have been no war EVEN IF some nations wanted to pick on Germany. I would also argue that if Nazi Germany had been ruled by someone like Ataturk, Franco, or Putin, there would have been no war. Such a leader would have understood that Germany has legit grievances, but so do other European powers, and therefore, the best bet is some kind of compromise. Or, if he suspected foul play, he would have waited for the other side to make the first move and then make a counter-move, thereby having the moral advantage. But Hitler was incessant in his demands and acted as if Germany was the only aggrieved party when, had Germany won World War I, it too would likely have taken advantage of the situation.
Suppose Hitler died of illness in 1939, and someone like Goering took over. I just don't see World War II happening. Now, if Himmler had taken over, then war might have been even more likely as he was truly nuts. But Hitler was an extreme personality too. MEIN KAMPF is proof of how obsessive and egomaniacal he could be. Turkey after WWI and Russia after the Cold War had tons of legitimate grievances, but Ataturk understood limitations and acted accordingly. Same with Putin in Russia. In contrast, Hitler kept pushing against all sides.
From 1940 onward, FDR had been making a great political effort to directly involve America in the war against Germany, but public opinion was overwhelmingly on the other side, with polls showing that up to 80% of the population were opposed. All of this immediately changed once the Japanese bombs dropped on Hawaii, and suddenly the country was at war.
FDR may or may not have wanted war, but even if he was baiting Germany, would a more sober leader have fallen for the trap? Also, even if FDR was hoping for war to boost the economy or unite the nation(thus ensuring his reelection), the reason he targeted Germany had a lot to do with his genuine loathing of Nazism. As for problems with Japan, it goes back to the confused/contradictory US policy of befriending both Japan and China. On the one hand, UK and US had built up Japan as bulwark against Russia and possibly resurgent China. But the US also postured against European(and Japanese) imperialists as a friendly nation to the Chinese. So, the US was, at once, selling war materials to Japan that was attacking China and professing sympathy for China. This all came to a head with the embargo and what came afterwards. Anyway, FDR inherited this crazy foreign policy in the Asian Pacific. He didn't create it.
But then, there are other considerations. Would Japan have attacked Pearl Harbor if Germany hadn't invaded Russia in the summer of 1941 and seemed poised to win? Didn't Japan wager on German victory. Then, if Hitler had not invaded Russia, Japan might not have acted so boldly and instead come to the table and agree to US terms: Japan keeps Taiwan, Korea, and Manchuria but withdraws from China Proper. That was not a bad deal. Now, it's possible that FDR offered those terms in bad faith and fully planned to renege on them and find some other excuse to choke Japan's economy, thus forcing it into war. We'll never know.
Polish Confidential Report:
Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100% [of the] radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible... At the present moment most Americans regard Chancellor Hitler and National Socialism as the greatest evil and greatest peril threatening the world... It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia is almost completely eliminated. Soviet Russia, if mentioned at all, is mentioned in a friendly manner and things are presented in such a way that it would seem that the Soviet Union were cooperating with the bloc of democratic states.
I doubt Jewish control of media was as predominant back then as now. If Jews controlled 100% of media back then, they must have made no further gains since then. Anti-Germanism was the product of Jewish concerns coinciding with Anglo interests. But then, anti-Germanism had been extreme in the US even during World War I when Jews had even less power. Anglos and Anglo-Americans had a tendency to look upon Germans as semi-barbarians, indeed as if Anglos were the New Romans and Germans were the same old barbarians, or even the 'Huns'. There was something 'brute' and 'Teutonic' about the Germans that rubbed Anglos the wrong way. Anglos were also into racial ideology and aggression but had perfected a manner of talking around their true feelings. Germans were less refined and 'ironic', and such 'honesty' threatened Anglo conceits of being perfect gentlemen bringing light of progress to the world. Anglo supremacism wore a velvet glove whereas German supremacism put on a boxing glove. Anglos tended to see Germans as akin to mean Irish or rowdy Scots but in charge of a nation bigger and stronger than the UK. As for Jews, they prized Germany as the center of European economy and even culture(eclipsing even France), and they valued their key role in it... before Nazis came along and said No More. Paradoxically, Jews were most upset with Nazi Germans precisely because, among European nations, they felt most at home in Germany.
But there were ideological reasons as well. If Anglo refinement disdained German 'Teutonism', leftist-universalist idealism loathed the brutal honesty of fascism about the nature of power. Fascism was clearly more candid about the nature of power than communism could ever be, but communism's appeal was its dream of the brotherhood of man. Naturally, the well-educated and idealistic(steeped in Christian credo) felt warmer toward communism(despite its brutality) than to fascism that seemed like a 'pornography of power'. While Stalin could be as brutal as anyone, his Soviet empire pontificated about universal justice, whereas Nazi ideology obsessed over the innate specialness of the 'Aryans'. Even for racialist Anglos, that was too much. As racial ideology, it was too crude, vulgar, and philistine. It was political kitsch.
Another reason for the US being friendlier to the USSR had to with realpolitik. It's like the US was warmer toward Mao's China than the USSR in the 70s even though Soviets had moderated considerably while Mao was a mass-killing nut. As the US considered USSR as the main rival, it found ready excuses to paint a friendly portrait of China as a potential ally against the Soviets. Likewise, when Nazi Germany seemed like the epicenter of the world's troubles, it made sense for the US and UK to pretend that USSR wasn't so bad and could be an ally against the Nazis.
During his political rise, Hitler had hardly concealed his intent to dislodge Germany’s tiny Jewish population from the stranglehold they had gained over German media and finance, and instead run the country in the best interests of the 99% German majority, a proposal that provoked the bitter hostility of Jews everywhere.
While Germans had good reasons to be angry with Jewish Power, Hitler went about this in a bad way because he denounced ALL Jews based on extreme racial ideology. Hitler could have avoided much trouble by targeting only radical or disloyal Jews. Mussolini did just that, and he didn't have much trouble with Italian Jews in general. If anything, he later moved against them under German pressure.
Also, while Jewish power was immense back then, it was nothing like what it is today, largely because Anglos who built America passed the reins over to the Jews. Despite Jewish role in Bolshevism, Jews couldn't stop Stalin's mass-killing of Jewish communists(along with others). Jews had a difficult time goading the West into war against Germany. Also, even when the war began, it turned out badly for Jews because (1) Germans totally crushed Poland (2) quickly defeated France and (3) allied with Stalin's USSR, the last hope for many Jews. In the end, Hitler brought ruin upon himself and Germany because he invaded the USSR and then declared war on US after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. He went full Tony Montana since then.
Now, the theory that Germany invaded Russia only upon realizing that Stalin intended to attack first may be compelling when we look at armaments but not when we consider the element of psychology. Stalin wasn't a gambler. Also, he likely placed Soviet tanks and troops into offensive position to force Germans into a defensive one, thereby ensuring that Germans would not attack first. Stalin was surely aware that France gained nothing by fighting an entirely defensive war in 1940. It seemed scared and timid, like a turtle hiding in a shell. In contrast, Stalin might have felt that if Soviet military boldly positioned itself against German forces, Hitler would have had second thoughts about attacking. Also, the fact that Stalin set up so much industry east of Moscow suggests insurance against German invasion.
Lukacs argued that the main reason why Germany attacked Russia was to force UK to make the peace. The reasoning goes as follows. As long as the UK hoped that USSR would turn against Germany, it was unwilling to come to the table. But if Germany crushed Russia, UK would have realized that Germans are the masters of Europe, and that's that; then, UK would have to come to terms with Germany. Now, from a common sense point of view, this makes no sense. UK was dropping bombs but had no means to defeat Germany or even take an inch of European territory on its own. So, why didn't Hitler keep his alliance with USSR and run out the clock with UK? Why create a two-front-war situation, especially when, unlike the UK, the USSR had the means to invade Germany IF the Germans were to fail against Stalin?
But from a psychological point of view, it makes sense because of Hitler's different feelings for Anglos and Russians(and Slavs and untermensch whites). Even when Hitler was livid with the Anglos, he hoped that Anglos and Germans as fellow 'Aryans' would bury the hatchet and rule the world together. In contrast, he really loathed the Slavs and 'lesser whites' of the East. Ideally, he preferred an alliance with Anglos against Russians, but all he could muster was an alliance with Russians against the Anglos. It was the opposite of what he really wanted. Also, considering that it was entry of US army that finished off Germany in WWI, Hitler may have hoped that if he comes to terms with UK, then the US wouldn't enter the European War. It seems Hitler seriously underestimated the power of USSR and the ability of US and UK to supply the Russians with war materials.
In recent years, somewhat similar Jewish-organized efforts at international sanctions aimed at bringing recalcitrant nations to their knees have become a regular part of global politics. But these days the Jewish dominance of the U.S. political system has become so overwhelming that instead of private boycotts, such actions are directly enforced by the American government. To some extent, this had already been the case with Iraq during the 1990s, but became far more common after the turn of the new century.
But Jewish power was considerably less in the 30s and 40s. First, 'antisemitism' wasn't as taboo as it later became. Plenty of politicians all over Europe ran on anti-Jewish issues. In the US, Father Coughlin and Charles Lindbergh were major players. Plenty of Jews were mindful not to rock the boat. 'Antisemitism' was a national pastime in France, and even plenty of French Jews disdained Jews from Eastern Europe. Jews couldn't prevent European nations from making loans to Nazi Germany that made German economic resurgence possible in the 30s. Jews couldn't persuade Stalin not to make a pact with Hitler. Furthermore, if German invaders had mass support from the local population on any particular issue, it was over the Jewish Question. Plenty of locals were willing to hand over Jews to the Germans. Also, Jews have long complained that FDR dragged his feet in really engaging Germany. He let Russia do most of the fighting, and the Western Allies landed on the European continent only in 1944. So, FDR did little to save Jews from the Nazis. While World Jewry did coordinate to destroy Nazi Germany, Hitler really brought ruin to himself with his recklessness. Had he maintained the alliance with Russia, Nazi Germany would have been untouchable as all of Europe except for UK was constituted of allies, partners, or neutral players like Sweden.
At any rate, Jewish Power became especially potent AFTER World War II not only because Jews rose to the top in the US, the premier superpower, but because the cult of the Holocaust elevated Jews into a holy people and vilified 'antisemitism' as the worst possible sin. But up to WWII(and even in the immediate aftermath), Jews weren't so sacred, and plenty of people on both sides of the Atlantic could get away with critical and even condemnatory views of Jews.
Most foreign policy experts have certainly been aware that Jewish groups and activists played the central role in driving our country into its disastrous 2003 Iraq War, and that many of these same groups and individuals have spent the last dozen years or so working to foment a similar American attack on Iran, though as yet unsuccessfully.
While we may find parallels between the fear-mongering about Nazi Germany and scaremongering about Iraq, the truth is Nazi Germany was a genuine great power whereas Iraq in a 2003 was a mere skeleton. If we must draw parallels between Nazi Germany and Hussein's Iraq, it should be during the 80s when Hussein the aggressor attacked Iran and killed scores of people with poison gas. But of course, the US was on the side of that Hussein at war with Iran. Still, prior to the disastrous Gulf War(for Iraq), Hussein's regime was a major power in the region. But by 2003, Iraq was a mere skeleton, and all the Hitler analogies were ridiculous.
That said, Nazi Germany in 1939 was a formidable power genuinely feared by France, UK, USSR, and lesser nations. Mussolini initially disdained Hitler but, alarmed(and impressed) by resurgence of German might, decided an alliance as the safest bet. Stalin felt likewise. If you can't beat em, join em. France and UK figured if bluff worked so well for Hitler, it might work for them as well, and they bluffed with war guarantee for Poland. So, while the Neocon stuff about Iraq in 2003 was all hype and BS, there was genuine fear of Germany among many nations regardless of Jewish effort. It was made worse by Hitler's invasion of Greece to prop up the illusion of Italian prowess. And Nazis were allied with some loathsome groups, like Croatian fascists who went about slaughtering 100,000s of Serbs. Jews fanned the flames of anti-German hatred, but there would have been plenty of it in Europe even without Jews. Similarly, there would have been plenty of anti-Jewish sentiments even without Nazi propaganda. Most Europeans found Germans too brutish and Jews too radical. In a way, it's ironic that Germans and Jews became arch-enemies for reasons both groups were feared and/or hated by most Europeans.
Another striking historical parallel has the fierce demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who provoked the great hostility of Jewish elements when he ousted the handful of Jewish Oligarchs who had seized control of Russian society under the drunken misrule of President Boris Yeltsin and totally impoverished the bulk of the population.
This is true. But despite being attacked and baited by Jewish power that is many times greater than in the 30s and 40s, notice how Putin has played the game with patience and sobriety. If Hitler hadn't been so prone to throwing tantrums and pumping himself up with the Man of Destiny spectacle, he would have weathered the Jewish campaigns against him much better. At any rate, just like Jews tried to unite the world against Germany, Hitler tried to unite all Europeans against ALL Jews. In Italy, a good many Jews had joined the Fascist Movement and were loyal to Mussolini, but under great pressure from Germans, Mussolini decided to turn against even loyal Jews. So, the race war went both ways between Jews and Germans. Just as Jews were trying to recruit every nation against Germany, Germans were urging all peoples to 'hand over your Jews'.
Indeed, over the last few decades, the bitter conflict between Nazi Germany and world Jewry has become such an overwhelming theme of our popular media that this element may be almost the only aspect of the World War II era that is known to many younger Americans.
Actually, if people saw it in terms of a conflict, they would understand it better. But it's not portrayed as a conflict but of one-sided persecution. Instead of Nazi Germany vs World Jewry in an empire-vs-empire struggle, the Narrative says Germans chased down totally innocent, helpless, and clueless Jews who were merely minding their own business. It's like the Jewish-Russian Relations are remembered only in terms of helpless Jews being set upon in pogroms by drunken Russkies and Cossacks. There is no mention of Jewish role in radical politics and how this led to mass deaths of Slavs. While there were many innocent Jewish victims of Germans(just like there were plenty of innocent German victims of Allies and Jews), there was a Jewish Power that constituted a world empire of its own(or a shadow empire that attached itself increasingly to Anglos).
Another obscured fact is that some 150,000 half- and quarter-Jews served loyally in Hitler’s World War II armies, mostly as combat officers, and these included at least 15 half-Jewish generals and admirals, with another dozen quarter-Jews holding those same high ranks.
I don't really think this means anything. Nazis weren't purists when it came to blood. Germans who were 1/4 Jewish were mostly considered as 'Aryan'. And many Germans with partial Jewish blood regarded themselves mainly as Germans and were loyal to Hitler. Just because some American Indians sided with whites against other Indians doesn't negate the fact that White America was generally hostile to the Red Savages who were targeted for removal or destruction.
Meanwhile, although our heavily Jewish-dominated media regularly presents Hitler as the most evil man who ever lived, many of his prominent contemporaries seem to have held a very different opinion.
While Hitler has been made into a cartoon villain, there was no doubt he was pathological and of a maniacal personality plagued with vanity, megalomania, and arrogance. Also, we have the benefit of hindsight whereas contemporaries did not... until they realized what Hitler was really capable of. And same could be said of many world leaders. Mugabe was initially seen as a sane and moderate African leader, but how did he turn out? Idi Amin was initially seen as a fun colorful leader of Uganda before he turned out to be nuts. Many people praised Stalin as a great leader, but now, we know better. He was a mass killer. Many Americans were duped into believing Mao was an agrarian reformer in the 40s. He turned out to be a megalo-nut.
And over the decades, considerable evidence has accumulated that the Gas Chambers and the Jewish Holocaust—the central elements of today’s Nazi “Black Legend”—were just as fictional as all those other items.
Many details of Nazi atrocities have proven to be wrong or exaggerated, but the Eastern Front turned into a total race war, and there is no doubt that Nazis butchered countless Jews and Slavs in their war path. None of this should be surprising given the nature of war and Nazi propaganda. Himmler was especially sinister in this regard. David Irving has been careful not to deny that mass atrocities took place. His shtick has been that Hitler wasn't informed of what was really happening or it was Himmler who really done it. I would argue that such is merely a technicality. It's like it doesn't matter if Mao wasn't fully informed of the disaster of the Great Leap Forward and/or if he didn't order the Red Guards to go totally nuts. What matters is he created a system and set off events that led to mass suffering, and so, he is ultimately responsible. Likewise, we can't excuse Hitler on grounds of ignorance, indifference, or negligence. He created a system that was capable of industrial mass slaughter.
While many of the more lurid accounts of the Holocaust seem dubious, it doesn't surprise me that Germans would have acted that way. Japanese went crazy in Nanking. US, a liberal democracy, was capable of dropping two nukes on Japan(and planned to drop 10 to 12 more if Japan didn't surrender). After the war, anti-German violence was extreme all over Eastern Europe. Tons of Germans were massacred or brutalized in revenge and hatred. People of all stripes are capable of the most horrendous things. The fact is Nazi Germany instilled radical Jew-hatred in an entire generation of men who became soldiers in the bloodiest conflict that further desensitized whatever humanity was left in them. Especially when the fortunes turned against Germany, there was the temptation to take out the violence on easy scapegoats.
That said, it's foolish to count all Jewish dead as victims of the Holocaust. Many Jews surely died from the sheer brutality of war like so many goyim did. It didn't take the Holocaust to kill millions of Poles and Ukrainians. They just got crushed between big powers. So, even if there had been no Holocaust, it's likely many Jews would have died just the same because they were caught in the middle in the bloodlands of war.
By contrast, Irving notes that if the Allies had instead been in the dock at Nuremberg, the evidence of their guilt would have been absolutely overwhelming.
When it comes to UK/US vs Germany, the former did more violence to the Germans because they could. German attacks on UK was limited and ineffective,and Germany had no chance of attacking the US. In contrast, US/UK could drop tons of bombs on Germany. But this had nothing to do with Germans being better or more moral. Rather, most of their energies were directed at the East, and there, German brutality toward Slavs and Jews were worse than Allied bombing of Germany. Allied bombings killed 100,000s of Germans, whereas the Wehrmacht directly and indirectly killed millions.
Same is true of US vs Japan vs China. US war crimes against Japan was worse than vice versa but not because Japanese were better. It was because US had overwhelming force over Japan. But where Japanese had advantage over their enemies in places like China, they were real sons of bitches.
As awful as US/UK bombing of Germany was, for the Western Allies it seemed preferable to losing many more men by prematurely landing troops on the continent. Sure, killing lots of civilians is a dastardly way to fight a war, but World War II was a war without pity, a truly 'existential' war that decided the fate of entire nations.
Although hardly sympathetic to the defeated Nazis, she strongly shared Beaty’s view of the monstrous perversion of justice at Nuremberg and her first-hand account of the months spent in Occupied Germany is eye-opening in its description of the horrific suffering imposed upon the prostrate population even years after the end of the war.
Yes, Nuremberg was a joke, but I think the kind of 'justice' that would have been imposed by victorious Germans especially over Slavic lands would have been many times worse. As compromised and hypocritical as the Nuremberg trials were, the message was that wars of aggression and genocide are evil. I don't think the victorious Nazis would have even come down against genocide, which they likely would have committed against the Slavic populations.
The traditional excuse publicly offered for the virtual absence of any Japanese POWs was that their Bushido code made surrender unthinkable, yet when the Soviets defeated Japanese armies in 1945, they had no difficulty capturing over a million prisoners.
There are key differences. Japanese who fought Americans in all those islands didn't go face to face against an army. They fought more like guerrillas. They were dug into all sorts of places, and so, Americans came upon pocketfuls of Japanese who might leap out of nowhere. Thus, Americans who fought Japanese in the islands had a far more nerve-racking experience than the Soviets did in the plains of North Asia.
In contrast, Japanese in Manchuria and North China fought as an army, and as such, it was easier for them to surrender to the Soviets in an official capacity. In the clash of Soviet armies with armored tanks vs Japanese armies, the latter had no chance and surrendered en masse. Also, Japanese in Manchuria and North China had less incentive to fight with absolute zeal. After all, they were on Chinese soil, not their own. In contrast, the Japanese who fought the Americans in a string of islands were utterly fanatical because they believed they were defending the homeland from US invasion.
By the way, what happened to all those Japanese who surrendered to the Soviets. Most ended up in gulag and Siberia and never saw home again.
American GIs also regularly committed remarkably savage atrocities. Dead or wounded Japanese frequently had their gold teeth knocked out and taken as war-booty, and their ears were often cut-off and kept as souvenirs, as was also sometimes the case with their skulls.
Ugly, but all sides do stuff like this in war.
The American media generally portrayed the Japanese as vermin fit for eradication, and numerous public statements by high-ranking American military leaders explicitly claimed that the bulk of the entire Japanese population would probably need to be exterminated in order to bring the war to a successful conclusion. Comparing such thoroughly-documented facts with the rather tenuous accusations usually leveled against Nazi political or military leaders is quite revealing.
There is one key difference and post-war history vindicates it. US derangement syndrome against Japan was the result of War Fever. In other words, Americans didn't harbor genocidal feelings toward Japan prior to the war or afterwards. So, it was wartime craziness. And even though there were people in government who said, "Let's kill all Japs" their was a minority opinion that was obviously overridden. Once the dust settled, US buried the hatchet and made Japan an ally against USSR.
In contrast, even prior to the war, Nazi German ideology was based on racial supremacism. And even after the war, had the Germans been victorious, anti-Slavic genocide and mass enslavement would have happened just the same. Granted, Germans weren't so vicious to all groups as the French, Dutch, Norwegians, and etc. fared pretty well under German occupation as long as they didn't resist. But no such mercy would have been shown to the Eastern Slavs who were slated for mass destruction. It's all there in Hitler's Table Talk.
For decades, Western propagandists had relentlessly barraged the Soviets with claims that they were keeping back a million or more “missing” German POWs as slave-laborers in their Gulag, while the Soviets had endlessly denied these accusations. According to Bacque, the Soviets had been telling the truth all along, and the missing soldiers had been among the enormous numbers who had fled westward near the end of the war, seeking what they assumed would be far better treatment at the hands of the advancing Anglo-American armies. But instead, they were denied all normal legal protections, and confined under horrible conditions where they rapidly perished of hunger, illness, and exposure.
But the Soviets did use many German POWs for slave labor. Consider German soldiers who surrendered at Stalingrad. Most did not return home. Perhaps, there was a kind of rough justice in this as they were part of an invading army who would have enslaved or mass-slaughtered Russians had they been victorious. But it is true that Soviets held back many German and Japanese POWs, partly out of revenge and partly out of need for manpower given the loss of life and industry in the war.
