Counter-Currents
204 words
In the latest episode of Guide to Kulchur, historian Mark Weber joins Fróði Midjord to discuss Pat Buchanan’s book Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. The conversation sets the record straight about misunderstood aspects of the Second World War and reveals how the war ultimately resulted in the fall of the West.
The episode is archived on BitChute (video) and Spreaker (audio only). Guide to Kulchur streams live on YouTube and DLive Tuesdays at 2:00 PM Eastern / 20:00 CET. Two episodes per month are devoted to First Principles, a series discussing books that are central to understanding a Right-wing worldview.
Previous episodes of Guide to Kulchur are archived on BitChute. You can also follow them on Twitter and Telegram for regular updates about upcoming shows and guests.
If you want to support our work, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every Friday.
Don’t forget to sign up for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
7 comments
Swear to God I used to antagonize people in the 1970s by saying America fought on the wrong side in WW2. It was obvious to me then as it is now. Most white morons still think of WW2 as a “good war” in which America was one of the “good guys” (along with the USSR?). But ever more cracks in that narrative are breaking out. I wonder if a mass-public reassessment will ever take place, where vast numbers of ever more oppressed whites look back and wonder why in the hell millions of whites – all of whom should have been in alliance for mutual racial survival – were killing each other? Could it happen by 2050? I might still be alive then, and would love to live to see it.
Yockey (“Imperium”) suggests the Second World War will be seen differently at around 2050.
A very important broadcast….the post 1945 world, means extinction of European Culture…..I agreed with all of Mark Weber’s analysis….I am 4 years younger, so we grew up in same era…
Giggling. The large bore lesson of WWII in Europe (very different in Asia – that was a 20 year war that had little to do with what was happening in Europe, started earlier etc) is Hitler’s idiocy in prosecuting the war beyond a few countries he shared borders with. Germany could have taken them and stopped and survived. The Nazi navy was a joke, unable to fight the Brits in any meaningful way on the seas, aside from the notable “wolf packs” of subs. But in terms of carriers and battleships, they were no match. As well, the German airforce was a joke. They had no ability to project real power beyond continental Europe and then stupidly attacked the USSR to boot.
Hitler destroyed his own “volk” and nation due to his insanity. And I don’t use the world lightly, but it’s pretty clear he was deteriorating mentally quite rapidly by 1941. Was his brain affected by syphilis contracted while the young Hitler was a student in Bavaria? Perhaps it was the copious quantities of esoteric drugs–“uppers,” “nerve tonics” and heart medications, among others–prescribed for him by his personal physician for symptoms real and imagined? Or could he have developed Parkinsons, which is very debilitating mentally?
Whatever the reason, he destroyed his nation far more deeply than Churchill ever did the UK. This “discussion”. Fyi, as a didactic effort, the preso sucked. Mark Weber did not present a well formed analysis or summary of Buchanan’s book. The host, the self-important Kulchur dude, looked quite annoyed at this, which he doesn’t get means he didn’t prepare or do any production work ahead of time with his guest. But at least he put some base in his voice…
It’s also true that the West had been decolonizing for decades already when WWII began, again, the vapidity of this analysis and missing this crucial fact makes this self-aggrandizing agitprop anything but “intellectual”. Greg at least hews to an intellectually based critical thinking and detailed analyses even when doing polemic. But this crap? You should be embarrassed. Buchanan wrote a good book, no doubt.
Congratulations for this broadcast – these truths need to be exposed, and especially from a British point of view, Churchill needs be exposed as the war-monger, mad man, destroyer of Britain and its Empire whose war might yet in the words of Patrick Buchanan lead to the destruction of the White race and Western civilisation.
I will focus here on just one aspect of Churchill’s wickedness as Britain’s WW II leader. Churchill had a political problem when he became Britain’s Prime Minister on the 10th. May 1940: the British people in their great majority did not want a second world war – their memories of the First were too bitter.
With the utmost cynicism and recklessness Churchill initiated the long-range,-strategic bombing of German cities hundreds of miles behind the fighting-lines with the declared purpose of terrorising their civilian inhabitants, knowing that the Germans would retaliate by bombing London and the other major British cities. That Churchill initiated the bombing of civilians, men, women, children was a war-time secret: all that the beleaguered, bombed every night British knew, was that Hitler’s Luftwaffe was raining bombs down on them. Of course, the cry went up to “bomb the Germans back”. By this means, by this deceit the war-psychosis necessary for Churchill’s Second World War was created.
All this was admitted and confirmed by the Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry, J.M. Spaight in his book, ‘Bombing Vindicated’:
“Hitler only undertook the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly three months after the RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets. Hitler would have been willing at any time to stop the slaughter. Hitler was genuinely anxious to reach with Britain an agreement confining the action of aircraft to battle zones… Retaliation was certain if we carried the war into Germany… there was a reasonable possibility that our capital and industrial centres would not have been attacked if we had continued to refrain from attacking those of Germany… We began to bomb objectives on the German mainland before the Germans began to bomb objectives on the British mainland… Because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic bombing offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May 11th, 1940, the publicity it deserves.” J.M. Spaight, CB, CBE, Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry, Bombing Vindicated, published 1944, London.
The invitation to the German Luftwaffe to bomb London: From the Official History of the Royal Air Force, 1939-1945, Volume I, author Denis Richards, published 1953 by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, comes the admission:
“If the Royal Air Force raided the Ruhr [May 1940], destroying oil plants with its more accurately placed bombs and urban property with those that went astray, the outcry for retaliation against Britain might prove too strong for the German generals to resist. Indeed Hitler himself would probably head the clamour. The attack on the Ruhr was therefore an informal invitation to the Luftwaffe to bomb London”. ‘The Royal Air Force, 1939-1945, The Fight at Odds’, page 122. Denis Richards, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
The well known British military expert, Major General J.F.C. Fuller, commented on the view expressed by the former Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry, J.M. Spaight,in his ‘Bombing Vindicated’ that:
“It may seem a little strange, nevertheless it is a fact, that this reversion to wars of primitive savagery was made by Britain and the United States, the two great democracies… With the disappearance of the gentleman as the back-bone of the ruling class in England, political power rapidly passed into the hands of demagogues who, by playing upon the emotions and ignorance of the masses, created a permanent war-psychosis.”
Quote from page 404, of Fuller’s book ‘The Second World War’, published in London 1948, The “demagogue” was of course, Winston Churchill whose “splendid decision” to initiate the Bombing War “created a permanent war psychosis,…the obliteration of cities by bombing was probably the most devastating blow ever struck at civilisation…, the moral decline which characterised the war.” :Fuller.
The fifty thousand British civilians, men, women, children, killed in their homes by the German Luftwaffe had no idea that Churchill had wanted them bombed and killed, had invited the Luftwaffe to terrorise them, in ordr to produce the war-psychosis; to this day the British people have no idea of the wickedness and madness of the Establishment’s “finest Englishman”.
The Oxford academic, Charles Percy Snow commented, “The British plans to destroy the residential districts of the German working-class reveal a deep rooted sadistic impulse to kill thousands of women and children.” C.P.Snow went further, “What will future generations think of us Britons ? Will future generations say that we were wolves in the form of men ? Will future generations think that we Britons abjured, swore off, our humanity ? They will have the right to say so.”
David Irving’s ‘Apocalypse 1945: the Destruction of Dresden’ concludes “the worst single massacre in European history.”
Finally we have the right and duty as Britons to remember and to mourn the fifty five thousand young patriotic British airmen who went to their death in Bomber Command; with an average age of 22, they knew nothing except to steady themselves for the next mission, having been given no reason to believe other than that they were risking all for a better future.
Subject: The invitation to the German Luftwaffe to bomb London and the “splendid” bombing war.
In 1939 the rulings on aerial bombardment as laid down by 1922 Washington Conference on the Limitation of Armaments, Article 22, Part II, “Rules of Warfare”, remained valid and read: “Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorising the civilian population, of destroying or damaging private property not of a military character or of injuring non-combatants is prohibited.” Further, on the 2nd. September 1939, the day after Germany invaded Poland, a declaration was made by the British and French governments that only “strictly military objectives in the narrowest sense of the word would be bombed”, and a very similar statement was made by the German government. Six months later this policy was reinforced by the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, in a statement made by him in the House of Commons on the 15th. February 1940, “Whatever be the length that others might go, the Government will never resort to blackguardedly attacks on women and other civilians for the purpose of mere terrorism.”
This remained the situation til 10th. May 1940 when Winston Churchill became Prime Minister and strategic, long-range bombing was forthwith initiated.
In 1944, the former Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry, J.M. Spaight published his book, ‘Bombing Vindicated’:
“Hitler only undertook the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly three months after the RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets. Hitler would have been willing at any time to stop the slaughter. Hitler was genuinely anxious to reach with Britain an agreement confining the action of aircraft to battle zones… Retaliation was certain if we carried the war into Germany… there was a reasonable possibility that our capital and industrial centres would not have been attacked if we had continued to refrain from attacking those of Germany… We began to bomb objectives on the German mainland before the Germans began to bomb objectives on the British mainland… Because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic bombing offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May 11th, 1940, the publicity it deserves.” J.M. Spaight, CB, CBE, Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry, Bombing Vindicated, published 1944, London.
From the Official History of the Royal Air Force, 1939-1945, Volume I, author Denis Richards, published 1953 by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, comes the admission:
“If the Royal Air Force raided the Ruhr [May 1940], destroying oil plants with its more accurately placed bombs and urban property with those that went astray, the outcry for retaliation against Britain might prove too strong for the German generals to resist. Indeed Hitler himself would probably head the clamour. The attack on the Ruhr was therefore an informal invitation to the Luftwaffe to bomb London”. ‘The Royal Air Force, 1939-1945, The Fight at Odds’, page 122. Denis Richards, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
The well known British military expert, Major General J.F.C. Fuller, commented on the view expressed by the former Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry, J.M. Spaight,in his ‘Bombing Vindicated’ that “The bomber is the Saver of Civilisation”, that:
“It may seem a little strange, nevertheless it is a fact, that this reversion to wars of primitive savagery was made by Britain and the United States, the two great democracies… With the disappearance of the gentleman as the back-bone of the ruling class in England, political power rapidly passed into the hands of demagogues who, by playing upon the emotions and ignorance of the masses, created a permanent war-psychosis.”
Quote from page 404, of Fuller’s book ‘The Second World War’, published in London 1948, The “demagogue” was of course, Winston Churchill whose “splendid decision” to initiate the Bombing War “created a permanent war psychosis,…the obliteration of cities by bombing was probably the most devastating blow ever struck at civilisation…, the moral decline which characterised the war.” :Fuller.
The Oxford academic, Charles Percy Snow commented, “The British plans to destroy the residential districts of the German working-class reveal a deep rooted sadistic impulse to kill thousands of women and children.” C.P.Snow went further, “What will future generations think of us Britons ? Will future generations say that we were wolves in the form of men ? Will future generations think that we Britons abjured, swore off, our humanity ? They will have the right to say so.”
David Irving’s ‘Apocalypse 1945: the Destruction of Dresden’ concludes “the worst single massacre in European history.”
Finally we have the right and duty as Britons to remember and to mourn the fifty five thousand young patriotic British airmen who went to their death in Bomber Command; with an average age of 22, they knew nothing except to steady themselves for the next mission, having been given no reason to believe other than that they were risking all for a better future.
.
Sorry. The second half is a repeat.
Just some points for discussion:
1) No mention of Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia. Mr. Weber says that Czechoslovakia “fell apart,” and that is patent nonsense: Britain & France fed Czechoslovakia to Hitler, which was a complete about-face from WWI Anglo-French assistance to the Czechoslovak Legion to have the Legion draw the Kaiser’s forces from the Western Front.
2) The argument that Hitler lacked a master plan of conquest overlooks that Hitler was an inveterate opportunist who pushed until he got pushback, then often contrived fresh ways to go on pushing, and his opportunism was characteristic not just of his foreign relations, but also of his domestic politics.
3) No mention of the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact – or of its secret protocol for Germany and the USSR to divide Poland. That pact formed a sound reason for Britain and the U.S. to deny wartime aid to Stalin. To my thinking it was a grave error for Britain & the U.S. to send wartime aid to Stalin, as it put those Western Allies in the position of importuning Stalin to keep the USSR in the war; both Churchill & FDR were wrong to fear that Stalin would make a separate peace with Germany, they failed to grasp that Stalin was in it for all the marbles, to the utter defeat of Germany.
4) Mr. Weber made short but apt mention of Stalin preparing for war on Germany & the rest of Europe.
5) No mention of Japan in Korea & China, or of Japan occupying French Indochina (commandeering rice output, inflicting grievous lethal famine there), or of Japanese barbarism in every land Japan occupied. The entire discussion proceeds as if Germany was the only member of the Axis that the Allies had (chosen, or not) to fight. The Western Allies’ onus of having simultaneously to fight Japan impinged profoundly on their prewar dispositions and on wartime decision-making.
6) Wehrmacht troops, chiefly the German Army, acted far more cruelly than the Kriegsmarine or Luftwaffe, and far, far more cruelly than Allied troops (except for France’s Moroccan units which behaved barbarously); German Army savagery was abundant on the Eastern Front but it was not unknown on the fronts on which the Wehrmacht faced the Western Allies (including the Germans reducing occupied peoples to penury by pegging the currency of occupied countries very low to the German mark), and that leaves out the atrocities committed by the Waffen SS (so far as I know the Western Allies committed nothing like the Germans committed in Oradur sur Glane). Also, the Western Allies had nothing like Germany’s Todt Organization that used masses of slave labor.
7) U.S. & British/Commonwealth troops committed atrocities & crimes (no army is innocent on that score), but on nothing like the scale of the German, Japanese, and Soviet troops, and none of the Western Allies’ atrocities were instances of deliberate or of turn-a-blind-eye policy. (See, for instance, what became of Louis Till.)
8) In 1939 Germany’s economy was actually not in good shape, any slack it had derived from Hitler refusing to put it on a war footing. Hitler and his industrialist and banking cronies played fast & loose with currency manipulation (look up Hjalmar Schact) that made the economy appear to be stronger than it was. Germany also lacked a great many raw materials (especially petroleum, plus several ores necessary for arms manufacture), had poor quality coal, &c. Germany’s economic fragility was also protected by immunity to labor unrest, the Reich having nationalized its labor force to do away with pesky trade unions.
9) The Nuremberg trials were not a shining example of Allied justice, but were far more commendable than any Nazi or Communist trial, and than any of Japan’s outright non-judicial barbarities.
10) Postwar ethnic cleansing of Volksdeutsch & Hungarians: seriously, what would you expect the Czechoslovaks to have done?! The Slovaks’ hatred of Hungarians goes back to when Austria-Hungary put Hungarians to rule Slovakia. Immediately following WWI my grandparents came from Slovakia, and they and their fellow parishioners of that generation all told me of relentless Hungarian oppression & persecution of Slovaks; and until the end of WWI Austrians of the other half of the Austro-Hungarian Empire oppressed & persecuted the Czechs, so that Czech deportation of Austrian and Sudeten Germans was an inevitable and entirely just policy – no less just than the American Revolution’s expulsion of British oppressors
11) From before the First World War the history of Europe is of ethnic/language/cultural groups striving to separate themselves into their own sovereign nations (those struggles go back to Napoléon’s mess and Metternich’s fixes). That’s why Diversity-Multiculturalism in Europe & the U.S. is suicidal, and its why the Visegrad Four are so prudently stalwart in resisting influx of foreigners – those four nations have been through history’s wringer more than enough times for them to have learned vital lessons. Self-determination was one of the precepts of 1941’s Atlantic Charter, yet the West’s Ruling Cla$$ has, by deception and by imposition, arrogantly deprived Americans and Europeans of self-determination – none of that was Churchill’s doing.
12) Mention is due of Germany’s & France’s postwar shortage of male labor which gave impetus to those countries’ importation of foreign labor – so-called “guest workers,” and that was much more an economic than an ideological imperative; but, because demography is destiny, the presence of foreign labor did take on an ideological bent (influenced in part by the “civil rights” agitation & media indoctrination in the U.S.) that grew at least to be on a par with the economic argument for foreign workers.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment