Counter-Currents
Sperging the Second World War
A Response to Travis LeBlanc
Spencer J. Quinn
Bolshevism Without a Mask, National Socialist propaganda poster (1937)
2,347 words
Travis LeBlanc dropped a lot of wisdom and perspective on us regarding the Second World War and the Jewish Holocaust in two recent essays for Counter-Currents. Judging from the comments in response to them, it seems the Counter-Currents readership is well aware of this and appreciates his efforts. I certainly do. Although he expressed a fair number of historical opinions regarding the world wars, his main thrust was to discourage what he calls “spergery,” or how the excessive, specialized interest in the Second World War among dissidents can quickly drive a political movement into the weeds. Or even cause it to crack up altogether through absurd purity spiraling:
I don’t begrudge a man his simple pleasures, but I do resent it when people try to shoehorn their hobby into their activism, or worse, try to turn the avowal of their hobby into some kind of litmus test for pro-white activism, or worse, accusing you of being a cuck if you are not openly pro-Hitler.
Our esteemed Mr. LeBlanc is entirely correct about this. One should not be required to worship at the altar of Uncle Adolf to be accepted as a dissident in dissident circles. On the other hand, I did open my three-part review of David Hoggan’s The Forced War at The Occidental Observer thusly:
The best litmus tests for today’s Dissident Right should include only one question: did the right side win the Second World War in Europe?
If you answer yes, most likely you’re not a dissident. If you answer no, most likely you are. In this case, degrees don’t matter — neither does intent. One can profess the saint-like innocence of the Nazis in the face of their genocidal enemies, or one can cop to all the atrocities ascribed to the Nazis and support them anyway. Dissident. On the other hand, one can carefully weigh the actions of both sides conclude that the Nazis were slightly more in the right than the Allies. Doesn’t matter. Dissident.
You can buy Spencer Quinn’s novel White Like You here.
Clearly, there is a circle which needs to be squared, and in this essay I will attempt to do just that.
From what I have seen online, there are many who take an interest in German National Socialism much farther than I ever would — and I’m not even limiting myself to actual Nazis, but also to those who’ll react to news stories about trannies exposing themselves to little girls in restrooms by unfurling a swastika on their Telegram channels. Herr Hitler would not have allowed such abominations. While such people typically don’t offend me, I do detect a “lost cause” effect wherein such folks to varying degrees live in the past.
The American Civil War was a similar historical watershed, albeit much smaller in scale than the Second World War, and also produced a generation of writers who dedicated their energies and intellects to exonerating their beloved Southland after its tragic defeat. Names such as Albert Taylor Bledsoe, Edward Pollard, and Alexander Stephens may not appear often on the lips of modern dissidents, but a parallel can be drawn between the Southern Lost Cause and the profound interest many of today’s dissidents have in National Socialism. Lost-Causism should never be discouraged per se because we all are a product of history in one way or another. But taken too far, it can impede how the inheritors of history — i.e., us — prepare for the future.
LeBlanc does not deny that there are good reasons to study the Second World War. He just doesn’t seem to think the juice is worth the squeeze after a certain point, since there are unrelated current issues which are much more urgent. But he does sum up fairly well why spergs gonna sperg when it comes to the NSDAP:
The argument goes that the Second World War and the Holocaust form the founding mythos of the post-war liberal order. The fable of Hitler and the evil Nazis is integral to the neoliberal state religion that is dominant across the West. Nazi = Bad, and if you oppose white genocide, you are a Nazi — and therefore Bad. If anyone comes around try to stop the decay, he’s Hitler — and Bad. As such, we cannot defeat the liberals until we destroy the idea that Nazi = Bad. If most people stopped thinking that Nazis are bad, it would render ZOG’s guilt-tripping weapons powerless, and the whole neoliberal paradigm that is built atop those lies will come crumbling down. The white race therefore cannot survive without doing this, and thus it is absolutely necessary that we ramble on about Hitler 24/7.
Now, here is where my position diverges from LeBlanc’s. LeBlanc gives us three main reasons why the above argument fails to justify what he calls “Second World War fetishism.” While all three reasons are correct within the parameters he establishes, I will argue that it is the parameters that need to change, not LeBlanc’s anti-sperg thesis. His parameters are too limited; once we broaden them, I believe we can establish a mode of thought which will satisfy both LeBlanc and his pro-Hitler detractors.
First, he claims that a historically correct acquittal of Hitler and the Nazis would take too long and require too much effort to be effective, especially when selling something as hot as White Nationalism. Yes, but that may not be necessary; there is a third option which we’ll explore in the latter half of this essay.
Second, he claims that the Left cares less about the Second World War than spergy dissidents do. Again, he is correct, since just about no one cares more about the nitty gritty of historical Nazism than spergy dissidents with a point to prove. But the Left — especially the Jewish Left — cares about it enough to use it as both a weapon and an excuse as often as they can. Department of Homeland Security director Alejandro Mayorkas recently invoked both the Jewish Holocaust and his Jewish heritage to defend himself from legitimate criticism:
And here is Ben Shapiro recently invoking the Second World War to justify the lopsided death counts in the current war in Gaza:
The examples of Jews doing this are endless, so I don’t need to make the case further here. Yes, people such as Shapiro and Mayorkas may not have information about the Tilea Hoax or the vom Rath assassination at the tips of their fingers, but they don’t need to in order to make use of the Second World War and the Jewish Holocaust as an insidious means to their ends.
Finally, LeBlanc believes that “the power of the Holocaust mythos appears to be dying on its own from natural causes, anyway.” He points to the war in Gaza as proof that the narrative of the Jewish Holocaust is wearing thin. Again, he’s correct. The more Israeli aggression in Gaza appears like ethnic cleansing rather than reprisals for the October 7 attacks, the less seriously people will take the Holocaust-made-me-do-it excuse Jews frequently employ. But this death LeBlanc describes is a slow death. It will be drawn out for decades while wealthy and energetic Jews continue to pump millions into the worldwide church of Jewish victimhood. I predict that every person reading this article will die before it does. We should remember that William F. Buckley made a similar prediction in 1992’s In Search of Anti-Semitism, stating that the power of the Jewish Holocaust “declines over time, as time distances us from the Holocaust.” Like LeBlanc, Buckley was correct, but for all practical concerns in the here and now, not so much.
As for LeBlanc’s first claim, there is a very easy way to thread the needle so everyone walks away happy. The aim should not be to untie the Gordian knot of Nazi guilt and innocence, but simply to demonstrate Nazi moral superiority over the Soviets. Given the Kola Superdeep Borehole depths of Soviet immorality, this is not a difficult task, and certainly won’t require “a captive audience for most of the day,” as LeBlanc puts it. Further, while the Second World War might as well be ancient history to most millennials and younger groups, the Cold War, which ended just over 30 years ago, isn’t. Thus, pinning apocalyptic atrocities onto the Soviets won’t be speaking a foreign language for many of these people.
You can buy Spencer J. Quinn’s Solzhenitsyn and the Right here.
The logic is simple. Prior to September 1939, the Soviets had murdered close to 20 million people through terror famines, gulags, and internal purges. My favorite sources for this are Aleksander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago and Two Hundred Years Together, and Robert Conquest’s The Harvest of Sorrow and The Great Terror — but there are others. In comparison, the Nazis had killed a tiny fraction of that number prior to the war, many of whom were subversive Leftists of various stripes. As for the war itself, one can even accept the mainstream anti-Nazi narrative at its worst and still fairly easily depict the Soviets as the greater evil. Six million Jews were murdered in cold blood? Fine. I’ll see that and raise you 66 million people murdered by the Soviets from 1917 to 1959 (according to Vol. 2, Part 3, Chapter 1 of The Gulag Archipelago).
Moreover, a highly disproportionate number of the Soviet murderers — wait for it — were Jews! As I have said many times before, at least the Nazis had the decency to wait until England and France — and the United States, behind the scenes — declared war on them before committing any major atrocities. The Soviets, on the other hand, initiated one of the bloodiest periods in human history throughout the 1930s while it was at war with no one. In fact, the US under Franklin Delano Roosevelt decided to officially recognize the USSR during this time.
This strongly implies that the Allies, by having truck with the blood-soaked Soviets during the Second World War, became complicit in their war crimes (and peace crimes) and were therefore on the wrong side of the conflict. Sure, the Nazis were bad — but they were a reaction to the Soviets, who were worse.
That’s all you need to say. By reframing the Second World War in such a way, you’ll have debunked Nazi demonization and made pro-white dissident circles easier to understand and more welcoming to newcomers without having to sperg ad infinitum over whether the Poles were threatening to starve Danzig in August 1939. While proving that the Nazis were in fact “the good guys” requires herculean levels of historical research, proving that they were less evil than the Soviets requires nothing more than what is described in the above three paragraphs.
This is what I refer to as the Weak Claim Paradox, about which I’ve recently written for Counter-Currents. It’s a paradox because the farther we get from a pivotal moment in history, the weaker a claim must be in order to start reversing the impact of that moment. Returning to the parallel of the antebellum South, which argument would better exonerate the land of Dixie: a strong claim utilizing the Bible and race-realism to proclaim the divine justice of plantation slavery, or a weak claim demonstrating the fact that slavery, despite its inherent cruelty and shameful abuses, was actually more humane and less problematic than the capitalist system of worker exploitation in the great Northern cities? The former claim would have gained traction in 1870, but gains none at all a century and a half later. Meanwhile, the weaker claim remains persuasive.
We should take the same approach to the Second World War.
What LeBlanc complains about is not so much that dissidents make claims about the Second World War, but that their claims are too strong. The time for making strong claims about Hitler and the Nazis has long passed, and it is unfortunate that many on the dissident Right passionately disregard this fact. But you know who never disregards this fact? Normies. Normies may not know much about race realism, the Jewish Question, or the Fourteen Words. But they do know that strong revisionist claims about Hitler nowadays is a serious faux pas. It violates social conventions as dictated by the Weak Claim Paradox. When dissidents unwittingly violate these conventions, it becomes a turnoff for the very people we would like to recruit and welcome into our circles.
This is why LeBlanc correctly refers to such people as “spergs” — which is short for Asperger’s Syndrome, as in autism.
I have a sad confession to make, however. Like that sad clown who reveals to the psychiatrist that he is indeed Pagliacci: I am a sperg. I know what it feels like to argue in good faith on the basis of voluminous research only to have people look at you like you’re crazy. I know what it’s like to imbue real passion into a debate only to have people inch away from you like you’re a bristling animal in a cage. It’s no fun. And just as Pagliacci cannot go out and see Pagliacci perform, a sperg cannot unsperg himself without giving up on the extremely important point he needs to make.
It’s a tough choice, because in the final analysis, the spergs are also correct. The Second World War was the pivotal event which began to reverse the ascendancy of the white populations of the world. More than any event which came before it, the Second World War demonized white ethnocentrism and lionized Jewish victimhood. This has become the blueprint for the Great Replacement and the globalist world order we are dealing with today. Had the Second World War gone differently, the modern world would have evolved into something more amenable to whites than what we have around us now. And if we, the Dissident Right, can convince a critical mass of whites that the narrative surrounding this disastrous conflict is just a teensy bit more dishonest than honest — a relatively easy red pill to swallow — then we’ll have a chance to mitigate some of the damage in the long run.
But it has to start with weak claims — not sperging.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
79 comments
Would it help to refer to Nazis as Germans, and Soviets as Bolsheviks?
“Would it help to refer to Nazis as Germans, and Soviets as Bolsheviks?”
I don’t think that will work in this case but your thinking is good. Using the right words is very important. Our antiwhite enemies pay a lot of attention to using the best words and so should we.
A simple rebuttal to the evil Nahtzees narrative is pointing out how WW2 began over Hitler invading Poland but post-war that same country was happily handed over to the totalitarian blood-thirsty Soviets without any suggestion of starting a new war to protect it.
It was all an excuse to crush Germany who had dared to leave the Central Bank system.
Other than by Patton who conveniently “died.”
One weak claim that is always worth making is that in Europe and as of late in Canada it is illegal to have open historical discussions about the treatment of Jews during the war in Europe. There is a growing list of idealistic European men and women, mostly Germans, who have gone to jail because of this. Ursula Haverbeck and Ernst Zundel’s young lawyer Sylvia Stolz are just two names worth mentioning. This is not ancient history but a phenomenon which has spread from Germany since the “triumph of freedom” in 1989. Compelled belief in poorly documented and intrinsically improbable events is state religion, not history or science. These restrictions on free speech are current and getting worse. We would be mad to ignore them.
The religion comparison is pretty much spot-on. In these “liberal democracies” you can tout atheism until you’re blue in the face, and nothing happens to you. On the other hand, expressing doubts about the foundational myth will get you put in jail. It’s like something from the 17th century. At least in Germany, they have a “truth is no defense” rule, so you can’t even try to prove your point.
And also no one wants to remember that when the Jews wanted to leave the Reich, the Nazis released them, but the Anglo-Saxon democrats did not want to accept these Jews, neither into the USA, nor into Palestine, nor into British colonies. And even later, during the war, the Jews were helped by evil far-right dictators like the Spaniard Franco, the Portuguese Salazar, the Latin Americans Batista, Somoza, Peron, the Türk Inönü, but the defenders of freedom and human rights in the USA and Great Britain wanted to give a damn about them. Because for them it was important not even to help the Jews, but simply to destroy Germany as a competitor to the British global empire.
And the second crime of the Anglo-Saxon imperialists is the extradition to Stalin of former Soviet citizens, and even citizens of Tsarist Russia, whom the Bolsheviks later shot or sent to the Gulag, and these victims were Tatars, and Ukrainians, and Caucasians, and Asians, and Cossacks, and Russians and many more.
Why help your enemy to achieve his ‘inhuman’ goals humanely when your plan is to exploit the tales you are going to tell about his inhumanity? An inconplete parallel can be drawn with the reluctance of Arab countries to facilitate the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
According to Revilo Oliver though, there was a neverending stream of Jewish refugees coming into the States on ships returning from the U.S.S.R.
Yeah, I always thought those stories of “no country accepted the Jews” as likely Zionist propaganda. Why did we receive so many German and Jewish refugees, such as all the Jews who worked on the Manhattan project, then? So far as I can see Jews were as powerful then as they’ve ever been. Why did we enter the war, after all?
The idea is that all the world consigned the Jews to extermination when it counted, so they are forced to seize the land in Palestine as an act of survival, trumping all moral considerations.
Yes, but now that they have Palestine they act like it’s a base for further global control rather than a mere refuge.
One slight quibble. The British did offer them part of Uganda. They weren’t interested – they wanted the big banana, Eretz Israel.
Had they accepted the offer, the results could’ve been interesting. It could be even now a beacon of stability and prosperity in the region. Out of sheer geopolitical necessity, they and their Diaspora kindred abroad would’ve had to back South Africa, Rhodesia, British Kenyans, Portuguese Angolans and Mozambicans, and so forth – whether or not their superlatively sensitive consciences cared for it or not.
Yes Solzhenitsyn often discussed how the allies turned over around a quarter million Russian expats to the Soviets who then slaughtered them. Included in this number was the novelist and general Krasnov, I believe. But I remember reading somewhere that if the allies hadn’t done that the Soviets would not have released a large number of British soldiers or civilians in return. Something like that.
Yes, Solzhenitsyn wrote about this, and also Nicholas Bethell, Englishman, in “The Last Secret”.
I also remember that when the British and Americans handed over soldiers from the Türkic Eastern Legions of the Wehrmacht, they were transported by ships to Odessa through the Bosporus and Dardanelles. These people, when the ships passed by Istanbul, jumped into the water and tried to get to the Türkish shore. But the Anatolian Türks did not give them asylum, although these people were representatives of peoples close to the Türks in language, culture and religion, and handed them over to the Soviets to face certain death. This was one of the reasons why the great Türkish nationalist poet Nihal Atsiz became an outspoken opponent of Türkish President İnönü.
But Stalin did not release American pows or civilians in exchange.
I hope to cover the story of Patton’s possible assassination at CC later this year.
I believe that Target Patton by Robert K. Wilcox would be a good resource for that.
Robert Wilcox from ANCIENT ALIENS?
Sorry, I confused him with David Wilcock. He is from Ancient Aliens.
More than any event which came before it, the Second World War demonized white ethnocentrism and lionized Jewish victimhood. This has become the blueprint for the Great Replacement and the globalist world order we are dealing with today.
This is why I sometimes guiltily think to myself that, in terms of effects, Hitler was the worst thing ever to happen to Europeans and the best thing ever to happen to Jews.
Yes, of course you’re right. Hitler should have never tried to get rid of the Jews and what they were doing to that beautiful country and the beautiful people there. Just like today! We should just all stop “sperging” and shut up and be polite and surely everyone will come to realize how very right and polite we are.
I hate sarcasm. I wish it didn’t feel so fitting here. And it makes me sick to be mad at you people, but seriously; you hope to win this way???
God alone can help me ride out this fun new word (aimed at only the like-minded, I’ve noticed), that makes you all feel so smart. Please, for crying out loud, stop.
Dr ExCathedra did say “guiltily”. Shouldn’t that matter?
Thanks. Weave’s response did not surprise me. The subject is a landmine and I put it in rhetorically blunt language.
I also wrote, “in its effects”, which is the real point. No matter what one thinks of World War II and the men involved, the use to which it has been put through the developing dominant narrative since 1945 certainly shows that it was won neither by the Allies nor the Axis, but by the Jews.
They got a homeland after 2000 years, they got almost impenetrable moral armor via Ann Frank and the Holocaust, etc. and used it to start shaking down and pulling down European civilization*. They and the White liberals (and the White conservatives) taught everyone that there was no force in history more evil, none, than Hitler and the Nazis. Who all just happened to be White men. With Jews in the starring victim role. That frame has been crucial in constructing the anti-White narrative.
*It was the Brit Balfour Declaration that got them their ethnostate. I read today that during the Falklands War, they were selling arms to Argentina. Classic.
It matters only as proof that we have been trained to feel guilty about everything, which keeps us from questioning the narrative. Unearned guilt is what got us here. It’s past time to get over it.
My adverb was not about feeling guilty for being White or WW2 or anything at all like that. Far from it.
It was about feeling conflicted. So much White blood was spilled in that war and yet the post-war years show that neither side came out victorious. Members of my family fought and died in that war, and recognizing the real-world outcome felt like making their efforts, and those of so many Whites, null.
My take is that without the NSDAP, it’s entirely possible that the Spartacists could’ve come out ahead during the Weimar Republic. That would’ve left Europe’s two largest countries as Communist regimes, and well poised to take over the rest of the continent. Even if the Weimar Republic had continued in its existing form, the USSR did have plans to conduct a massive westward invasion in the fall of 1941. If the Austrian painter, much unappreciated these days, hadn’t gotten the drop on them first, the Iron Curtain would’ve begun at the Atlantic coast.
As for how the Jews would’ve fared, it’s rather hard to say. My best guess is that in Europe, they would’ve been sidelined eventually. As for the USA, probably no difference.
I think that Germany would have fared far better against the Russians on defense, though, simply because defense is easier: tactically, logistically, and for morale. I agree that it was important to stop the Communists, and the Nazi party started out doing great things for Germany, but Hitler played a high-stakes game and his war blunders cost us all…
As the great German racial expert Prof. Dr. Hans Günther, known as “der Rassenpapst” (The Racial Pope), wrote in his last book Mein Eindruck von Adolf Hitler (1969), in 1938 with Anschluss of Austria and with annexion of Sudetenland, Hitler still was a nationalist, and it was good, but after the annexation of the rest of Czechoslovakia and much more with invasion into Poland, he became an imperialist, and this was wrong. Günther thought that Hitler should not invade and occupate non-German lands with non-German populations.
Viktor Suvorov wrote a book about all that, and it’s mentioned here in a couple of places. The Wehrmacht’s first strike turned out to be devastating. The only reason the USSR recovered was because dumb old Roosevelt and his comsymp Washington buddies were shipping them massive amounts of supplies (including uranium, ahem…), which I wrote about here early on.
Not the only one, but one of reasons. At least the second important reason was the stupid and brutal politics of the German occupational institutions (not of the Army, but of Party and State) in the occupied territories of the Soviet Union, which brought up the resistance of locals, who were at the beginning mostly loyal to Germans, and also bad treatment of the Soviet PoWs. When we remember, that one of the most cruel German occupation administrators, Erich Koch, a Reichskommisar der Ukraine, was originally a Leftist, and later probably a Soviet agent, we can see more complete picture.
“If the Waffen SS had not existed, Europe would have been overrun entirely by the Soviets by 1944… The people showed deep gratitude to the young men who sacrificed their lives. Not since the great religious orders of the Middle Ages had there been such selfless idealism and heroism.” – Leon Degrelle, The Eastern Front
If anti-white Jews control Hollywood/the entertainment industry/culture and can invent and contort grandiose narratives such as the modern understanding of the Holocaust, why could they not do this with any leader or movement that opposes them? Should we all adopt a neutral or pro-Jewish policy to avoid being slandered by the Jews? They are going to invent all sorts of garish lies and propaganda about anyone who opposes them.
If Parteigenossen were not so racially dump and treat people on the occupied territories of the SU, and also Soviet PoWs in camps like normal people and not like Untermenschen, the Soviet Union could have been defeated with the hands of Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Caucasians, Tatars, Qazaqs, Central Asians, i.e. of all peoples of the SU, maybe even Jews, because not all Jews were Bolsheviks.
Just wondering – by any chance have you heard of the “Torch Man” order, which was for Soviet partisans to put on German uniforms and engage in false flag attacks on Russian villages? I’m trying to track that one down and see if there’s anything to that.
I think you mean the Stavka’s Order Nr. 0428 of the 17th November, 1941, so called “scorched earth order”.
I don’t understand this “spergery” claim.
All specialists by necessity must be detail-oriented. I don’t know if this applies to UFO journalism or not. But one merely confronts bad arguments with facts, whether we are talking about the Moon Landing Hoax claim or whether MK-Ultra or fluoridated water killed JFK.
It is part of how to do critical-thinking and how to make arguments, and I have argued in the past that our guys need to learn how to do this better considering all the batshït stupid conspiracy theories out there.
I know a lot about the Moon Landings and the JFK assassination, but I just do not have the patience to discuss Flat Earth Theory.
These things may not be relevant to Racism, of course.
But whenever I get asked about that, I begin by asking what they mean by that term. What is the definition of the R word?
And I discuss History because I am an amateur historian. Details matter in any other context of life, and every propagandist should appreciate this. It is hard to discuss actual Physics without mathematics and recorded measurements. The tabloid style of least-common-denominator journalism only goes so far. Otherwise you don’t know if the CERN experiments are really going to raze the Alps and ignite the atmosphere or not.
Some activists like podcaster Jim Rizoli and the late engineer Friedrich Paul Berg have talked about the “Hitler Test.” Can you pass the Hitler Test? They aren’t saying that he is the next Jesus, and they don’t say that he never did nothin’ wrong.
I don’t think it is irrelevant to treat the question whether the Nazis homicidally gassed anyone. That question is going to come up at some point. This is the pearly gem that keeps on giving and supposedly makes “Hitler’s Evil” unique over that of Stalin, Mao, Tojo, Churchill, and Roosevelt. Nobody cares how many you killed, Pol Pot; ya gotta sell it.
I have never tried to claim that Hitler never did nothin’ wrong. I am even willing to concede for the sake of argument that the late Holocaust doyen Raul Hilberg’s number of 5.1 million Jews perishing in the Second World War might be true.
I’m just not willing to concede that Hitler gassed anybody or shot anywhere close to the numbers commonly claimed. Lots of people perished in WWII ─ my fault, your fault, nobody’s fault. Jews were impressed for forced-labor by the Germans, and that was a special hardship that interned Japanese did not suffer in the United States during the war.
I am not a demographer so I am not an expert on how many Jews really died, let alone do I really care about the Jewish drama. To directly quote David Irving speaking to me in person: “I don’t know. I think the Holocaust is boring.”
We do know that Israeli demographers put the number of Holocaust Survivors in 2003 ( ! ) at about a million. Well, to borrow from Norman Finkelstein’s Mom, a Holocaust Survivor, “then who did Hitler kill?”
We also know that millions died in the postwar expulsions, even though the “United Nations” (as the Allies were calling themselves then) mandated that there be no barbarism involved. And we know that many undocumented refugees were killed in the Dresden firebombing near the end of the war. Less controversial is the forty-thousand or so figure for those killed in the Hamburg firestorms of 1943.
So forgive me if we do not have names and precise fates for missing Jews in World War II. We don’t even know how many are actually “missing.”
When the Latter-Day Saints (who maintain a giant granite vault near Salt Lake City to archive genealogical records) a few years ago tried to systematically catalog genealogical data from Holocaust Jews ─ which would have gone a long way to establishing how many were missing based on comparing records of births, deaths, marriages, parents, grandparents, siblings, etc. ─ that meant collating real documentation existing for real people, and winnowing out the duplication.
The Jewish Lobby went ballistic and accused them of doing forced conversions for the dead. (I am not sure how that is even possible.)
The dead are Holy and easily defamed if they are Jews, I guess.
An early “Final Solution” researcher, Gerald Reitlinger, born in London to a Jewish banker, put the number of dead Jews at less than even Hilberg. But if any Jew or Gentile did that today they would probably risk jail as a Holocaust Denier.
The American Civil War analogy is a good one. I am not a Lost Cause “sperg.” I am not going to try to argue that slavery was ever a good thing. That is a colossal straw dog. And I truly don’t think that slavery ever was a good idea regardless of whether I like Negroes. As far as I am concerned, Negroes and Whites are so different that the only justice possible is if they predominately live under their own governments and among their own kind.
However, I would argue that if the Southern states had to right to voluntarily form a Union, then their state legislatures had the right to leave it.
And these states had the right to defend themselves from invasion even if Mr. Lincoln was not happy with compensation offered for seized Federal properties on Southern soil.
To go even further, considering the hundreds of thousands of Americans ultimately killed in that conflict, if the real reason was to free Negroes, then I would rather have Mr. Lincoln hanged as a traitor.
I do not think the North had the right to wage economic warfare on the Southern states, and the threat of slavery extending to the West was hugely exaggerated by Abolitionists in the North and by the lawyer politician from Illinois. So I think that Secession was justified but not wise.
American Civil War propaganda is if anything worse today than it was forty or fifty years ago, when kids played with race cars having Confederate flags on them and nobody chimped out.
Recently some academics objected to (((Dennis Praeger))) and friends like Charlie Kirk doing some kind of event on the college campus. He was called a White Nationalist in petitions that they signed. Well, Praeger literally wants that history be vetted by the Anti-Defamation League for their Kosher seal of approval. So even if his critics can’t credibly call him a Nazi because he is a member of a certain Tribe, I don’t think that he is a White Nationalist.
Maintaining a Kosher seal of approval didn’t work political miracles for “Conservative” William F. Buckley, either. Maybe it helped his pocketbook.
The bottom line is that the answer to ignorance is not discovered somehow by ignoring the obvious and by hoping that it goes away. Somebody has to take these things on. Baby steps, yes.
🙂
Thank you for this, Scott. That’s a lot to digest for sure. I think however that spergery goes beyond just picking Nazi nits, and involves making autist levels of Hitler/Nazi interest necessary for membership in the movement
I agree that the Hitler Test may go too far, but I don’t disagree with the sentiments either.
I’ll make some additional points that I think are important :
1. Holocaust Revisionism, or Historical Revisionism in general, is not a Movement, per se.
It is a legitimate process of historiography like the Scientific Method itself. Historians don’t necessarily agree, and the same is often true of any other kinds of experts.
Now, all of these things might have profound implications for a White Nationalist or any other Movement, but they are not the same things and should not be confused as such.
2. Nazi Gassings Never Happened. Nobody Was Gassed!
I think that all White Nationalists need to know this basic fact. Learn it. Know it. Live it.
But, But, But ─ You do NOT have to teach it if that is not your cup of tea and can’t do it competently. Being an expert is a pretty high bar as I argued above. Lots of details and such.
3. At the very least, White Nationalists should be skeptical and not bullied. They absolutely should be aware that something is fishy in the proverbial Denmark with the historiography of World War II. Baby steps.
If you don’t want to get into the weeds of historiography, just affirm your skepticism that the Good War wasn’t what Prof. Lipstadt and Steven Spielberg say that it was. And I strongly disagree with the “ecumenical” atrocities claim that Hitler made short work of and wanted to unduly abuse the Slavs.
4. White advocates don’t relish the human costs of wars. No war is entirely Good or Bad. For Hitler and the Germans it was either fight or die.
I’m also not one to disparage Hitler’s generalship. I have read or slogged through practically all of the memoirs of Hitler’s generals. (I say this with confidence, although I frequently get surprised by some hidden biographical treasure from time to time.) And I do know an awful lot about military history.
I would submit that most of Hitler’s generals would have never been allowed to write their memoirs at all without skewing the facts against the Nazis and at least in some manner criticizing their former chief.
It is a big hit amongst most military historians of all throw-weights from academics to gamers (Spergs?) that Hitler and Göring are to blame for everything. This is complete nonsense, of course.
Without actually diving into the weeds, just that it’s nonsense is what you certainly need to know.
I would submit also that memoirs even from tainted sources such as those of Auschwitz Commandant Rudolf Hoess, written under the supervision of his Polish Communist jailers before his hanging next to Krema I in 1947, are enormously valuable for historians and Revisionists. The latest Hollywood movie about the Banality of Evil, not so much.
🙂
The claim that there’s so many white nationalists “sperging out” over WWII is largely a strawman, argued mostly by people obsessed with remaining “respectable” and who seem to discourage any honest and uncensored historical inquiry. How many white nationalists have you actually encountered who wear SS uniforms and goose-step around town screaming “Hitler did nothing wrong”? There might be a few out there but they are a distinct minority. What this article and the articles it cites approvingly seem to really be arguing is “Hey guys, just be nice and respectable and stop reminding normal folks that we’ve been fed a bullshit narrative for the past 60 years about the most major event of the 20th century. The fact is, we are still constantly bombarded with WWII propaganda in movies, books, and TV almost 80 years after it ended. You can say the same thing for the American Civil War almost 160 years after it ended. No other wars in world history have required this level of constant and long-term propaganda campaigns. That’s not an accident, and nobody should be discouraged from figuring out why.
William F. Buckley
William F. Buckley was a member of Skull and Bones, it is enough to know about him.
The Soviets, on the other hand, initiated one of the bloodiest periods in human history throughout the 1930s while it was at war with no one. In fact, the US under Franklin Delano Roosevelt decided to officially recognize the USSR during this time.
Moreover, the West has built hundreds of plants in the SU, sold to the Soviets licences for newest technologies, incl. of weaponry, like Christie and Vickers tanks, DC3 plane, etc. The West supported the Soviet Union with money, credits, technologies and even food till 1991, in summer of 1991 Presdent Bush Sr. told Ukrainian parlamentaries no to break off from the SU (Kiev chicken). It is enough to read some books by Prof. Antony Sutton, like THE BEST ENEMY MONEY CAN BUY, to be informed about this. Or to remember that the West strongly forbade Yeltsin to organize in 1992 the anti-Communist trial like Nuernberg, but against the Communist Party. We just have to accept the simple truth – The Bolshevism, Soviet and not only Soviet, was created, financed and supported by the Western globalist elites from the beginning till the end.
I think it’s a mistake to discuss Hitler at all from the point of view of promoting White nationalism or trying to generate race realism. His name is far too loaded to be useful to open minds or persuade anyone.
If you try to say anything positive or nuanced to the indoctrinated, you will often be seen as a swastika tattooed White supremacist.
I find WW2 very interesting and recognize much has been exaggerated but Hitler was still a terrible person even if Stalin was worse. By the end of 1943 it was clear Germany was going to lose the war and Hitler could have tried to negotiate an ending to the war or surrendered and saved hundreds of thousands of German lives and much destruction of Germany but he kept going to the bitter end.
I used to believe this but it is wishful thinking. Germany was slated for destruction from well before the moment in August 1939 when Poland was goaded by England and the U.S. into provoking her and already in March 1943 had Roosevelt’s explicit unconditional surrender ultimatum. Kaufman’s genocidal tract Germany must Perish was published in early 1941, just one of many Jewish fantasies as to how to destroy Germany, with or without Hitler.
By the end of 1943 it was clear Germany was going to lose the war and Hitler could have tried to negotiate an ending to the war or surrendered and saved hundreds of thousands of German lives and much destruction of Germany but he kept going to the bitter end.
Yes, but the Germans fought to the bitter end, because their enemies wanted an “unconditional surrender” from them, also, because the Western Allies did not want to cooperate with German nationalist anti-Hitler resistance, who wanted to throw out Hitler and to find some kind of peace agreement with the US and UK. And this was because the Soviet agents of influence around Roosevelt brought the idea of the unconditional surrender to him, which was indeed some softer version of the Morgenthau Plan. Maybe the Germans could stop to fight, when the fair peace would be proposed to them, but how could they, if there was no peace prospects, but only their annihilation? Diana West’s book AMERICAN BETRAYAL, ans also STALIN’S SECRET AGENTS, by Romerstein and Evans, tell this story with very interesting details.
It was Roosevelt and Churchill who kept the war going with their insistence on the policy of unconditional surrender. Hitler was prepared to have a negotiated peace but not this. Unconditional surrender meant the Allies could do whatever they liked. You just have to look at what happened in 1945 to realise why it was not acceptable to Hitler – mass rapes, 15 million Germans ethnically cleansed from eastern Europe, show trials of defeated leadership, mass looting of property and patents and loss of territory.
http://www.wearswar.com/2022/01/28/the-mistaken-allied-demand-of-germanys-unconditional-surrender/
Right, it’s a difficult circle to square, perhaps impossible. The opposition has a huge weight of propaganda and indoctrination built up, even with legal prohibitions in some countries. That’s why we are having this discussion, after all.
“His name is far too loaded to be useful to open minds or persuade anyone.”
So were his actions, he used Italian fascism to gain power ten years after it was established in Italy (copying it point to point) and then redirected that power towards other personal goals. He is why fascism failed, and not because of other men who had instituted it into their own governments as did its founder, and Franco, Dollfuss, FDR, along with many others who wanted it like Mosley and even certain Soviet scholars, etc..
No one should confuse their dislike of present or past violent governments, hated political figures,,, “their mother in laws”, etc. as Fascism.
Well, many Fascists would tend to disagree. There are the memoirs of the Belgian Rexist Leon Degrelle, Prince Michel Sturdza of Romania, and many more.
Without the support from the German Condor Legion, Spain might have ended up in Communist hands. The Americans and the British were clandestinely supporting the Republicans and not Franco and his Nationalists.
Hitler was beholden to Mussolini because he had not opposed the German Anschluss with Austria in 1938, where Il Duce easily could have. Hitler willingly dropped the German claim over ownership of the South Tyrol.
But mostly Hitler found Mussolini’s immodest ambitions disruptive. Mussolini’s maladroit attack on Greece in 1941, which came as a surprise to Hitler, nearly ended up in the Soviet annexation of the Balkans. Historians dispute how badly this sabotaged the German Barbarossa campaign in Russia launched later in June of that year.
If the Soviets had been able to annex Romania proper, and not just Bessarabia/Moldovia, then historians today would be remarking about (nonexistent) “Secret Protocols” from the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact for this.
The Baltics were far beyond German reach in 1939 when the issue was Danzig, but Romania could not fall into Soviet hands because of its oil reserves ─ and other Balkan states were necessary to keep out of Allied hands to vouchsafe German trade with Turkey.
The Italians weren’t the best coalition partners, either. I think a fair assessment is made by Field Marshal Albert Kesselring in his memoirs.
Unlike GFM Erwin Rommel, GFM Kesselring was not an Italophobe and was an Italian-language speaker. And unlike Rommel, who was a lone wolf and largely a product of Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda, Kesselring was a diplomatic supreme commander in the Southern theater of the war. Italy made an enormous contribution to the Axis. And Italians often fought very well. But their leaders were not exactly the best.
I am not a Christian Fascist ─ nor even a Christian, to be fair. I am somewhat suspicious of Christian anti-Semitism or “Christian Nationalism.” Both Hitler and Dr. Goebbels were often critical of the Romanian Iron Guard and Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, who had been executed in prison by the Entente-sympathizer King Carol’s minions in 1938.
🙂
A minefield of information as ever Scott! Do you have references for the animosity of the German leadership towards Codreanu? Sturdza, in his two works on the diplomacy of the 1930s, was an uncritical supporter of the Iron Guard but also very sympathetic to Romania’s eventual ally, Germany.
Thanks, Antipodean. I don’t recall anything very serious. Just some sarcasm about the “Ghost of Codreanu” or something like that. The source may have been Irving, probably in the Goebbels Diaries. I don’t recall any criticism coming from Sturdza and don’t any longer have a copy of his book, although he was critical of Antonescu and the unfortunate propensity of the Germans favoring Hungarian revanchism at Romanian expense.
😉
Despite historical evidence there will always be perspectives.
By the same claims many fascist would tend to agree, there is a difference between fascism and nazism despite our educational programing. Some “fascist” or leaders in other lands did not follow the fascist doctrine; Some “fascists” were not “fascist”, and still today are not fascists. Fascism was a new social economic (semi-socialist) system of government, not just a nationalist entity of master races declaring war, on what others here call their “white neighbors”,, although makes no difference to me or fascist conception what color they were. The fascist doctrine did not incorporate race inferiority, superiority, racial cleansing or genocide.
As for the game board of war which seems to be where your concentration focuses,
We can say without the help of the “Regia Aeronautica” and “Corpo Truppe Volontarie CTV” (80,000 men), Spain may have ended up in communist hands. Franco a friend of Mussolini was intuitive enough to stay out of the war after Hitler called off Operation Sea lion, something Mussolini admitted to him was correct, with regret in their last meeting in Genoa.
Greece was part of a compulsive Italian land grab, after war exploded in Europe, (against Mussolini’s wishes) and Hitler’s later decision to expand into Russia, again without discussing this with his ally. Hitler’s generals reached out to Mussolini to talk to their fuhrer realizing that they themselves could not. Italy was not prepared for war at this time. As for disruptive immodest ambitions, Adolf is king hands down from land invasions to race survival decisions and god himself. Although I try not to make absolute judgements, there was something wrong with him. My belief is that if not for the severe desperation of the German people, caused by the Versailles treaty and all its intricate ills, Hitler would have remained where he started. His own top brass tried to assassinate him.
There is a source of concentrated information on a site called commandosupremo.com. One piece of information (another perspective) regarding “best coalition partners” was written by Dr. James Sadkovich, European History Professor, University of Wisconsin. (War in history 1994) The following is a tiny fraction.
“In the Spring of 1943, Vittorio Ambrosio compiled a list of German deficiencies. It was a long list which included their failure to invade Britain in 1940; their botched effort to bring Spain into the war and seal off the Mediterranean by taking Gibraltar; denying Italy the use of Tunisian ports in 1941-42; postponing the invasion of Malta until it was too late; foolishly attacking the Soviet Union in 1941 and resisting Italian attempts to obtain a separate peace; woefully inadequate intelligence and finally, for provoking war in 1939 despite Hitler’s promises and Italian warnings not to do so before 1942. Moreover, from 1940 to 1943, the Italians were constantly repeating to the Germans after each of their fiascoes a belated “I told you so”. In fact it was Mussolini who had a better grasp of the grander international environment than Hitler, whose strategic view of the world was parochial and provincially Austrian.”
Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939 left a bitter taste in the mouths of Mussolini and Ciano, who realized early on that here was a ally they couldn’t trust. Ciano considered the Germans “arrogant and reckless” scoundrels. It was Mussolini who displayed a keener understanding of the British than the generally clueless Germans. For example, while they were at a loss to explain British reactions, the Italians correctly predicted British reactions in the Mediterranean. The Italian diplomatic corps considered the Germans amateurish newcomers, wreaking havoc wherever they went. The Italian ambassador in Berlin, Bernardo Attolico was generally disgusted by their “absolute lack of any moral sense”. – Sadkovich
Operation Barbarossa was a mistake from the start for every reason to include facts of history which repeated themselves to a German command that seemed oblivious to any of the lessons of history, logistics, and even specific old details documented by Von Clausewitz.
In Africa two thirds of Rommel’s victorious forces which pushed to El Alamein before exhaustion were Italian infantry and armored divisions. During their unavoidable retreat, it was the actions of General Messe which saved the Afrikacorp on more than one occasion along with Special Forces like the 136th Giovanni Fascisti. After retreating to Tunisia, The depleted Italian 5th and 7th Bersaglieri Regiments along with 131 Centauro armored division was praised by Rommel and complimented for their élan by General Bulowius, commander of the DAK Assault Group, who sighted their actions as the instrumental event of the Axis victory when in the Battle of kessarine Pass they broke the U.S. 1st army and allied components routing most of their forces along with the Afrikacorp over an 80 mile retreat and handing them their first defeat.
As you say there are different perspectives. In regards to Operation Barbarossa Hitler launched this to prevent a Soviet invasion of Germany. The code name was Operation Thunderstorm – Operatsia Groza. If you read Hitler’s Barbarossa Proclamation he explains in detail why he launched the attack. Stalin himself gave a speech in May 1941 to Soviet officers stating that the Soviet Union was going on the offensive.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/04/Stalin_plans.html
Franco very much wanted to join the war on the side of Germany and Italy. But he was repeatedly talked out of it by several of his generals who were secretly on the payroll of the British. In other words they were bribed to keep Spain out of the war.
https://jailingopinions.com/realhistory/2023/01/21/the-cavalry-of-st-george/
Franco a friend of Mussolini was intuitive enough to stay out of the war after Hitler called off Operation Sea lion, something Mussolini admitted to him was correct, with regret in their last meeting in Genoa.
Canaris, who was a personal friend of Franco, said him confidentially that Germany would not win the war and it is better to stay out. Noting that the Spaniards then mostly have had no hostility to the British, despite of Gibraltar, Franco was wise enough not to involve into the new war. If Mussolini would also have done so, he maybe also could die in his own bed sometimes in 1960’s.
Canaris, according to Revilo Oliver, was a traitor in the employ of the British. If I recall correctly Miles Mathis contends in one of his imaginings that Germany’s failure to force Spain’s co-operation and take Gibraltar in 1940 suggests that Hitler too was an agent!
It is a shame that we will never see any of this on the History Channel. Their new documentary to the unknowing public will probably consist of the heroic warriors who defeated the dreaded orcs of middle earth Gaza.
Wilhelm Canaris was most definitely a traitor – not just to Hitler but also to Germany. He was part of a viper’s nest of treason inside the Third Reich.
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/worminapple/wa00.html
Both Italians and Romanians fought very brave and came to Stalingrad, where they were defeated with big losses.
During the fights to the river Volga (Edil) and during the advance to the Caucasus the German forces were supported by local peoples (Qalmaqs, Karachays, Balkars, Chechens, Ingushians and others), who were later punished by Stalin and deported to Northern Qazaqstan and Siberia.
My uncle was part of the axis drive to the Don River and one of 25,000 that returned after 3 very bad years as a POW out of 125,000 captured. They had reached the Don river before the counter offensive. They realized after a long battle that the Russians were relentlessly throwing their soldiers into the field of battle while losing incredible numbers to bombardment. The Italians later realized they were using them as canon fodder to consume their ordnance, this was determined after realizing the massive dead Russian soldiers being sacrificed were mostly from the Asian / middle eastern borders of the south.
A.H. was not a White Nationalist at all. He fought againt White French, English, Poles, Greeks, Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Ukrainians, Russians, Belorussians, Georgians, and another White peoples. Yes, I know, that he was not alone guilty in the war, but even so he was just a GERMAN Nationalist, and, alas, since 1938 he became a German IMPERIALIST instead.
The “reframing” proposed by this article is actually the normal way of seeing history in most of Central and Eastern Europe, regardless of political ideology. We have been waiting so long for the West to drop its Anglocentric narrative of WW2 together with its implied pro-Soviet sympathies.
May I ask whom central Europeans conceive as the ultimate aggressors in the war? Is Charpeleu/Prince Michel Sturza’s analysis widely accepted?
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (especially its secret protocol) is identified as the main event launching World War II and the blueprint for aggression. The conferences of Tehran and Yalta are often paired with it, suggesting that the Western Allies were just as willing to divide Europe with Stalin as Hitler was, and thus share responsibility for aggression as well.
I am not familiar with Sturza’s analysis, this might be a question for someone with knowledge of current Romanian historiography.
Yes. I don’t think Hitler had much patience with the newly emergent small states, perhaps because they depended on the patronage of larger states for their security and were weapons which he felt could be aimed at Germany.The idea of a ‘liberal world order’ was a little over a hundred years old in the West but proved to be unworkable in the East until the Soviet Union was quashed.
The supposedly somewhat bowdlerized English translation of Sturdza’s post-war Suicide of Europe and the oringinal 1944 La Bete sans Nom which he wrote in French under the Charpeleu pseudonym, provide a Romanian Christian nationalist perspective on the slide to war which is sympathetic to the Germans and does not pander to modern pieties. I have not yet read the works of Annalies von Ribbentrop nor do I know of any good reviews of her works.
The value of questioning the WW2 narrative in particular is that the mainstream narratives there are so egregiously wrong (both factually and morally) that it inevitably leads one to look for what else they’ve been brainwashed about. If one is going to get worked up about any particular narrative it should be that one, because it’s tactically important ground. The same cannot be said for the narratives about the Vietnam War or the Federal Reserve Act.
I cannot wholly agree with the whataboutism tactic to point to the soviets because doing so plays to the liberal ethic of killing as such being wrong, when we are trying to establish a particularist ethic that our people should mean more to us.
I also disagree about the social faux pas surrounding Hitler. People in the mainstream love him way more than ever. The comments sections of most mainstream social media websites are often full of Hitler praise.
To make the correct weak claim you still have to know your history very well.
Ben Shapiro succeeds with his argument but only because the opponent is a Muslim that is woefully ignorant about WW2. Otherwise I find Ben’s argument very weak: he went for the British being the good guys when they were killing innocent civilians.
To make the correct weak claim you also have to make a good estimation of where your interlocutor stands, what he or she thinks the truth is. Discovering the lies we were told can be a long process. It helps me to remember how I was thinking back when I was still believing scores of lies, and I sometimes wonder how many lies I still believe in.
I’ve been making the “but the Soviets” argument for 20+ years to no effect. Maybe I’m a poor debater.
Nobody in the West knows much about Stalin, but another Left dictators and mass murderers like Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Che Guevara are still popular, at least recognizable. I think if Pol Pot would be not overthrown, he would be popular too.
I remember as I at first time visited West Berlin, and went to the Türkish neighborhoods, so I was stunned seeing everywhere there big posters with Mao Zedong and Che Guevara. No Atatürk, no Türkeş, no Atsiz, only Mao and Che.
National Socialists live in the past, with the truth.
Marschieren im Geist in unseren Reihen mit…
My take is that Red Pilling takes multiple stages to accomplish. If some people on our side are engaging in advanced counterpropaganda, while others are putting out “101 course” level information, then so much the better. I’m for whatever approach ends up working. Fortunately, our side doesn’t have to take a single approach; we can do a lot more simultaneously than chew bubble gum and walk straight. Hopefully this all makes sense.
If I may, and having admittedly only read part of this essay (which I will read further tomorrow), I’d like to offer two alternative events, as pivotal moments and better “dissident litmus tests”, that are at once more relevant to 1) Modern dissidents and 2) Heritage Americans, than the European war that we got sucked into.
Ruby Ridge and Waco
From my historical perspective, those were two defining moments that were catalysts for even “normal” and “average” Americans to question who the good guys and bad guys REALLY are. No, they didn’t shape the politics of an entire generation, but they definitely led to the formation, in the late 90s and early 2000s, of the internet subcultures that question the legitimacy of our government, the motives behind actors in the government, created awareness of the antagonism the government has toward white, straight, (and yes Christian) men.
And as we all know, 9/11, which led to the Patriot Act, was was used as an excuse to crack down NOT on immigrant Muslims and other bad actors, but rather, the militia movements, the gun owners, and iii%ers, the Oathkeepers, etc (as well of course as nationalist groups) who were growing as a REACTION to the travesties of the 90s and and who were the REAL patriots. (We can nitpick the wisdom of various groups, but I think most can agree that their hearts have always been centered around the values of freedom loving, rural, white Americans).
Interesting. Yes those were two watershed moments for Americans in the 90s
When the subject of the two world wars is brought up, I’ve said to people, “The official narratives of WWI and WWII do not stand up to scrutiny. You should investigate.” And left it at that, and walked away.
I have also referred to the 1917 revolution as the “Jewish Revolution” not the “Bolshevik Revolution” or “Russian Revolution.”
I have also referred to the 1917 revolution as the “Jewish Revolution” not the “Bolshevik Revolution” or “Russian Revolution.”
That’s someway correct, but the Revolution is Russian, not because the Russians did it, but simply because it was on the territory of Imperial Russia. The French Revolution is French, because it happened in France, and practically should be called the Freemasons’ Revolution.
Completely off topic, but fantastic news!
The condition of 16 year old St. Louis high school student Kaylee Gain has vastly improved. Having regained consciousness and some speech, along with partial mobility, Kaylee is having to wear for the time being a temporary safety helmet, following her assault at the beginning of last month by a physically much larger and stronger black female student. The back of Kaylee’s head was repeatedly smashed into the pavement during what amounted to an anti-white race attack which was reported on by Jim Goad.
Hope she finds her way out of there
Another excellent Quinn post, with a devastating final paragraph. I, too, am a sperg, though about immigration and Replacement, not WW2, but I get it.
A comment I made to an earlier Quinn essay is relevant here:
That the Germans knew about the horrors of what Churchill called the Judeo-Bolsheviks (horrors vastly greater than even the worst attributed to the Nazis, by the way) has been well established. That the would be German Bolshevik Revolutionaries, as well as the leadership of the postwar Bavarian Marxist “Raterepublik”, were heavily Jewish was also well known among the German populace, as historian Gordon Craig makes clear in Germany: 1866-1945 (his contribution to the Oxford History of Modern Europe).
Decades ago, I attended a John Randolph Club meeting at which the rightist German libertarian, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, during the question and answer session following his lecture, discussed extensively the role that awareness and fear of Bolshevism among the post-WW1 German people (which included his own parents, and other family and friends he knew growing up in the 1950s-60s) played in building support for the Nazis, the only group that seemed willing really to challenge the Communists (think about that in today’s American context: how many white/conservative Americans might electorally support a really kick ass bunch of morally imperfect street rightists willing to go blow for blow with the antifa filth?).
Without German awareness and fear of the Soviet Revolution, and the attempted soviet revolution in Germany following the Kaiser’s abdication, it is unlikely the Nazis would have been able to come to power (notwithstanding the Parliamentary trickery by which the minority Nazi Party actually gained the Chancellorship).
The white race is the chief victim of World War 2.
What do you mean by “Parliamentary Trickery”?
Yes, the NSDAP was a minority party. No party had a majority.
The NSDAP had the plurality (largest number) of seats in the Reichstag by 1932, and Göring became the Reichstag President (Speaker). No other party came close, including the Communist KPD. Full Stop.
Once the Zentrum (Center) coalition (of parties) was discredited by the latest War Reparations refinancing scheme having fallen through after the 1929 Stock Market Crash, the NSDAP electoral fortunes skyrocketed.
A party leader from the plurality party (i.e., the one with the largest number of seats in the Reichstag) would be the best candidate for Chancellor (head of government).
But Hitler actually ran for German President (the Head of State) against von Hindenburg twice and did respectably. However, it took Hindenburg many moons to appoint Hitler to be his Chancellor.
Hindenburg wanted his favorite and former Chancellor Franz von Papen, who had been trained as an Army General Staff officer, as his new Chancellor ─ with Hitler as the Vice Chancellor. Hitler wisely refused this offer because it would have tied the hands of the NSDAP and not ended the de facto civil war with the Communists. Hitler accepted the reverse arrangement, with himself as Chancellor and von Papen as the Vice Chancellor, in January of 1933.
It is important to note that Chancellor von Papen largely ruled by decree, i.e., dictatorship ─ but without the cooperation of the NSDAP, let alone the KPD.
Franz von Papen was never a true Nazi, but Göring had great respect for him. He served as the German ambassador to Austria before the Anschluss, and von Papen was eventually sinecured as the German ambassador to Turkey. He was put on the dock by the Victors at Nuremberg after the war just the same. Franz von Papen was one of the few who was acquitted at the International Military Tribinal show-trial that condemned Göring to death, although he ran afoul of the later German denazification kangaroo court system.
🙂
You seem to know far more about WW2 era issues than I do, so perhaps I must stand corrected. Once I can finally retire I intend to plunge into study of all areas related to the decline and extinction (?) of the white race, and that will, of course, include a more detailed study of the Third Reich and WW2.
By “Parliamentary trickery” I simply meant that Hitler in my recall had not come to power as a function of normal electioneering, even though I have long known that the Nazis were the plurality party in the Reichstag when Hitler did attain the Chancellorship. I read a library copy of the first volume of liberal historian Ian Kershaw’s 2 vol. biography of Hitler a quarter century ago (I purchased the second volume when it came out a few years later), so my memory is too hazy to supply any precision to that last stage of Hitler’s path to power, though it seemed convoluted to me at the time. I do recall that his victory was not purely democratic , but a matter of political maneuvering. Perhaps such maneuvering is merely standard in Parliamentary systems, and I was revealing my American mentality and bias in my phraseology.
Canaris, according to Revilo Oliver, was a traitor in the employ of the British.
Wilfred von Oven, during the war the press referent of Dr. Goebbels, wrote about this in his last book Wilhelm Canaris. Der Admiral und seine Mitverantwortung am Verlauf des Krieges, Deutsche Verlags-Gesellschaft, Preußisch Oldendorf, 2001.
Not to beat the horse, but the Germans never had any serious plans to invade England in World War II.
Hitler hoped that by (somewhat overstating) the case that he had allowed the British Expeditionary Force to escape Dunkirk, and by making generous offers of peace, that the war could be ended amicably and without any further appeasement of the Soviets.
When these offers were rebuffed, it became obvious to Hitler that the Entente (or at least the dominant perfidious Albion wing of it) wanted war all along and would have no peace without Germany resuming its place as an economic colony. More than likely the Soviet Iron Curtain would have ended up being drawn across the Rhine in the event of that scenario.
So Hitler set up invasion barges for diplomatic show, as if preparations for an invasion were on the table. But the enemy leaders knew that with the weak German Navy this was out of the question.
They also did not fear the Luftwaffe, which had been setup for short land campaigns between partial demobilizations and not for long-term strategic operations. In fact, only about a third of the country was in German medium bomber range, and the BF 109 fighter at best could only provide air support for about fifteen minutes over London, even with French air bases under German control.
The German Kreigsmarine rarely got any air support during the war, which became most acute when the mighty Bismarck was crippled by British torpedo planes and then sunk on its maiden voyage after sending the HMS Hood to the bottom.
When the RAF’s Arthur “Bomber” Harris sent bombing raids to destroy the German invasion barges, he took credit for spoiling the German invasion, and then confidently sent them on to Berlin to take the fight to the enemy.
Most honest military historians today admit that Operation Sealion was always a bluff that got called, and that Churchill who had access to military intelligence and signals decrypts knew it.
Churchill saw Albion integrating into a global financial empire chained to the American behemoth. He had some misgivings, however, after playing third fiddle with the Soviets at Yalta and Potsdam ─ borrowing Goebbels’ term Iron Curtain in his famous 1946 address at Fulton, Missouri that launched the Cold War.
🙂
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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