14 July 2008

Pat Buchanan on History

I just finished Patrick J. Buchanan's Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, his argument that Great Britain and the United States should not have fought Germany in either 1914 or 1939. It's part of Buchanan's polemic against the neocons, and a big part of it is his attack on their idol, Winston Churchill. In it, he seems to say that what the neocons do today, exaggerate foreign threats by equating them with Hitler, Churchill did with Hitler himself, exaggerating the dictator into a would-be world conqueror.

Buchanan echoes an old strain of Germanophilia in American culture that hasn't really had strong expression since the days of H.L. Mencken. He feels that Germany has gotten a bum rap for World War I and didn't deserve the treatment it got in the Versailles Treaty. He blames Britain for prodding Europe toward war before 1914 because it was unwilling to accept Germany's rightful(?) status as the inevitable Great Power of Europe, and faults Churchill in particular for an unexplained lifelong bias against Germany. He thinks Europe should have accommodated Hitler as long as he presented legitimate German grievances, and that Britain was supremely unrealistic in trying to guarantee Polish security in 1939, since they succeeded only in guaranteeing a world war.

The old-school Germanophilia Buchanan hints at usually came with a degree of Anglophobia readily seen in Mencken's writings. This viewpoint portrays Britain as the arrogant busybody of nations, presuming to tell other countries how to conduct themselves while their own actions proved them hypocrites. Buchanan doesn't really share this viewpoint. He isn't Anglophobic, and appears deeply to regret what he considers one of the main consequences of the World Wars: the loss of the British Empire. Nevertheless, there's a messianic element among some Brits, including Churchill, which he sees as a precursor to neocon foreign policy, including an impulse to unite British and American forces into an unstoppable force for good. Buchanan recognizes Britain and America as nations with inevitably differing national interests which should act accordingly, albeit amicably. Instead, Buchanan actually suggests that Churchill sold Britain out to the U.S. in the vain thought that Americans would share his vision of joint dominion.

Buchanan's nostalgia for European imperialism is disturbing. He seems to sneer at Woodrow Wilson's notion of self-determination for all nationalities, noting that the victors of World War I proved themselves hypocrites by denying self-determination to millions of Germans whose territory was given to other countries. But while he's all for German self-determination, he regards the subjugation of Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc. with complacency. To a degree he even blames these nations for their fates, citing instances when they allegedly went out of their way to provoke Hitler.

The main argument for World War II being unnecessary for Britain is the fact that, by 1939, that country could do nothing to save Poland. Buchanan is unmoved by any argument that the principle of the thing should count for something. It was simply foolish to guarantee the security of a country when you couldn't do it. He allows that a stronger stand might have stopped Hitler in Czechoslovakia (which had a modern army, unlike Poland), but he defends the signers of the infamous "Munich" agreement, arguing only that they should have used the time they bought to re-arm, not necessarily to fight, but the better to intimidate Hitler when he tried more mischief.

The war was even less unnecessary, both for Britain and America, as far as Buchanan is concerned, because Hitler wasn't a threat to them. He offers a piecemeal refutation of all the supposed evidence that Hitler wanted to conquer the world, but while some of his own evidence (like Hitler's refusal to build a large-scale navy) is persuasive, too often he relies on second-hand interpretations of Hitler's intentions. Buchanan's book is based mostly on second-hand sources, and is open to criticism on the ground that he might have selected works that already agreed with his own opinion instead of letting the evidence determine his verdict.

Toward the end Buchanan's latent bias against Communism becomes overpowering. Another reason he deems World War II unnecessary and unfortunate is that it allowed Stalin to conquer Eastern Europe. While he shrugs off Hitler's conquests with little more than formal protests against Nazi brutality, Buchanan clearly gets much more worked up over Stalin's tyranny. He thinks that if Britain laid off Hitler, the German would have followed the fall of Poland immediately with a war on Russia that would have bled both regimes white. Strangely, he doesn't speculate on how that war would have turned out, leaving us only his assumption that Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe would have been better off if the war hadn't played out as it actually did. Likewise the fall of the British Empire and its European relations opened doors to Communists all over the world, which to this supposedly cold-eyed realist is an unbearably bad thing.

Buchanan closes with a comment on the current American situation, suggesting that the Bush administration had succumbed to Churchillism, which might be summarized as the belief that it is imperative to wage war on bad rulers because tyrants are incapable of restraint. He contrasts this approach to America's Cold War policy, which was to build up military power as a deterrent against the USSR, but not to attack it or its Warsaw Pact satellites. Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan knew when to pick their battles and when to keep their distance, while the Bushes couldn't stop themselves from going after the "evil" ones. Just as Britain overextended itself out of obsessive fear of an "evil" Germany, and as Churchill was willing to commit any atrocity to destroy the "evil" Hitler, so the younger Bush has tried to bankrupt America's treasury and its honor to crush "evil" terrorists and "Islamofascists."

I don't know if whether anyone "had to" fight Hitler is a question historians can answer. On some level it's a moral question, unless you mean it in terms of national interests. Either way you ask it, Buchanan's answer is no, and I'm not sure if any set of evidence set in front of him would change his mind. It would probably be a good thing if there were a force available to fight any dictator who invaded any other country, as long as that force wasn't itself to any one nation or party of nations, and was prepared to deal equally with any violation of sovereignty. Ideally, the international community ought to be as ready to stop one country from invading another as any person should be to stop a mugging in the street. We shouldn't want to deny this point out of fear that the slippery slope will take us into Iraq with the American army, and we shouldn't let our feelings about Iraq and the neocons lead us to endorse Buchanan's complacent view of Great Power politics. People like Hitler may indeed need to be eliminated, even if by an international assassin's guild out of some people's fantasies. It would be interesting to learn whether Pat Buchanan would endorse a theoretical assassination of Hitler. The answer might make me revise my assessment of a questionably argued but definitely thought-provoking volume.


crhymethinc said...

Although I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Buchanan's beliefs and assumptions, it is very probable that, had England and France not declared war on Germany on behalf of Poland, Hitler would have concentrated on wiping out Russia. After a long and costly war there, it would have been far easier for the Allies to then declare war on Germany and win with less casualties and far less economic destruction.

On the other hand, the war became necessary for the US as soon as Japan declared war on us. Whether that could have been avoided is another topic altogether.

Samuel Wilson said...

Wouldn't there have to be a pretext for declaring war on Hitler after his theoretical early war against Russia, or do you suppose Britain and France (and maybe the U.S.) would just decide to intervene if it looked like Hitler was finally going to win after sufficient attrition? A lot would depend on the pretext Hitler himself might have used for the war, which since this is all hypothetical is up to your imagination.

Anonymous said...

Buchanan is essentially arguing that the communists, not the Nazis, were the real bad guys of WW2. He is correct. What he cannot say and still get his books published, is that Jews were running communism in Russia. He does hint at it in the latter part of his book where he mentions Churchill's famous newspaper article linking Jews with communism. No one wants to publicly discuss the equivalence of Jews with communism because that might cause people to start thinking that Hitler was right. In academic circles, the question is no longer even debated. One can read books like Yuri Slezkine's "The Jewish Century" or Benjamin Ginsberg's "The Fatal Embrace" and find superabundant confirmation of the Jewish control of the pre-WW2 Jewish control of communism. This explains the "Holocaust" (leaving aside the question of whether the "gas chamber" story is true. An increasing number of forensic tests indicate that it isn't.)

Hitler was not always a nice guy but the Germans did have many legutimate grievances from WW1. The Jews played a large role in them. When Germany was devastated by the post-WW1 inflation, it was Jewish speculators who moved in and bought up German assets at a small fraction of their real value. This was the origin of Germany's "Jewish problem". It was Jews who played a very influential role at the Paris Peace Conference which saddled Germany with the Versailles Treaty. The Jews got "minorities treaties" in Central Europe to protect their rights and got the British Empire to assume a "mandate" over Palestine to dispossess the Palestinian Arabs. The mandate over Palestine was, according to David Lloyd George, England's wartime Prime Minister, the payoff to the Zionist Jews for their assistance in bringing the U.S. into the war on England's side, thereby insuring Germany's defeat. This was the real, or alleged, "contract with Jewry". All the communist revolutionaries in Germany after the war were 90% Jewish. Kurt Eisner, Hugo Haas, Ernst Toller, Eric Musham, Gustave Landauer, Rosa Luxemberg, etc. were but a few of the names. Bela Kun's Hungarian communist revolution had 160 Jews out of 200 top commissars. This is why Hitler ent after the Jews.

Buchanan follows in the tradition of American revisionist historians like Charles Tansill, Charles Beard, Harry Elmer Barnes and George Morgenstern in arguing that no legitimate American interest was involved in WW2. He goes about as far in demythologizing the war as possible under current intellectual tyrranies. The book is a good primer but only a primer. Buchanan knows a lot more than he is letting on, including all the facts I have raised in this essay.

Samuel Wilson said...

Anonymous: your notion of Jewish-dominated communism has to account for Stalin's anti-semitic turn after the war. Historians of the so-called "Doctors' Plot" believe that the show trials surrounding that case were meant to preface an anti-Jewish purge that was only thwarted by Stalin's sudden death. Lest you think the Jews engineered that, there remained an element of anti-Semitic hostility in Soviet culture expressed in denunciations of "rootless cosmopolitanism" and a reluctance to allow Soviet Jews to emigrate to Israel.

As for Germany, anti-semitism was rampant there well before World War I, while that nation's legitimate post-WW1 territorial grievances were with Czechs and Poles rather than with Jews. Hitler was saturated in anti-semitic notions in both Germany and Austria before the war ended and before he entered politics, distinguishing himself only by his "scientific" approach that ascribed Jewish wickedness to some racial quality that rendered Jews irredeemable.

Any attempt to equate Communism with Judaism founders upon the fact of Marxist-Leninist atheism. Since I don't define Judaism racially, my view is that people of Jewish descent who profess atheism, as Leninists do, cease to be Jews. To call Communism Jewish is like calling Christopher Hitchens a Christian.

Anonymous said...

In response to Mr. Wilson's claims:

It is, of course, true that antisemitism had existed in Germany and Central Europe generally before World War One. But it will not do to engage in the standared Jewish apolgetic defense that Jews who participated in communism had thereby repudiated their Jewishness. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Jews who practiced communism were convinced that their Jewishness and their communism were one and the same. If Mr. Wilson will consult the well-researched volume, "Soviet and Kosher" by Anna Shternsis (University of Indiana Press) he will find abundant documentation of the fact that the masses of Russian Jewry joined the Communist Party en masse following the 1917 revolution. Many Jewish religious rites were incorporated into communist morality plays in order to "sell" communism to Russian Jews already thoroughly pre-disposed toward Marxism. Jews had dominated all the revolutionary parties in Russia prior to the Czars overthrow. That included the Bund (the General Confederation of Jewish Labor of Lithuania-Polans, entirely Jewish and Marxist), the Polish Social Democrats of Rosa Luxemberg, the Social Revolutionaries, both the Menshivik and Bolshevik wings of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party and all the other Marxist splinter groups, such as Poale-Zion and the Fahryenitke (the union of the Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist-Zionist Workers Party). This intense pro-Marxism of the Russian Jews made it easy for Jews to rise to the top of the Soviet state.

Mr. Wilson employs the usual tactic of confusing anti-Zionism with anti-semitism. Many Russian Jews were split between the zionist and communist philosophies, with many subscribing to both philosophies simultaneously. That is, they wanted their communism in Palestine rather than Russia. In 1922, the Soviet Union formally outlawed zionism, forcing many Jews to choose between the two-something which they did not want to do. Two Jews of the early revolutionary days were Nachman Syrkin and Dov Ber Borochov. Both supported communism while remainig sympathetic to zionism. Borochov wrote a little classic called "The National Question and the Class Struggle" in which he attempted to synthesize Jewish national aspirations with class struggle. His opinions were shared by many Jews of the same era. Innumerable Jews boasted that bolshevism was Judaism-a fact which does not jibe with Mr. Wilson's pretense that communists were renegade Jews. One such was Leopold Greenberg, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle of London, the foremost Jewish newspaper of the day. He opined in a famous editorial that "the ideals of bolshevism were consistent with the highest ideals of Judaism". Numerous other Jews, such as Kadmi-Cohen and the journalist Alfred Nossig, opined that the "socialism of the prophets" and the "socialism of Marx" were one and the same. If Mr. Wilson wants further confirmation of the point, he should consult a volume called "From Moses To Marx" where dozens of similar quotations from eminent Jews may be found. From 1880 until 1950 a vast communist press existed published in Yiddish, read by Jews world-wide. Two of the more prominent journals were the "Morning Freiheit", published in Yiddish and "The Hammer". Their circulation exceeded that of the English language "Daily Worker". These facts constitute a sufficient demolition of Mr. Wilson's pretenses. (Again, for confirmation, consult "Dark Times, Dire Consequences: Jews and Communism", edited by Jonathan Frankel and Dan Diner, Oxford University Press.)

Joseph Stalin did, indeed, liquidate a few Jews at the very end of his regime. But for the precedimg twenty years he had used Jews as his "willing executioners". The secret police and gulag administrations were full of them. I will mention only a few names. Mattvei and Boris Berman, Simon Firin, Leonard Reichmann, Naftaly Frenkel, Henrik Yagoda, Elizabeth Zerbin, K.V. Pauker, Lev Inzhir, Gregory Zhuk, Moishe Trilliser, Isaac Rottenberg, Gregory Afanasjew and dozens of others. After WW2 Stalin installed murderous, Jewish dominated regimes everywhere in Eastern Europe. Jacob Berman and Hillary Minc in Poland, Marcus Wolf and Hilda Benjamin in East Germany, Ana Pauker and Jacob Broitman in Rumania, Matyas Rakosi-Roth, Ernest Gero-Singer, Joseph Revai-Moses Kahane, Benjamin Auschpitz in Hungary, etc. They were accompanied by thousands of similar Jewish comrades in bolshevism.

During this entire period of Jewish dominance in Russia, Jews worldwide were flush with enthusiasm toward the Soviet state. Leftist journals, heavily dominated by Jewish scribes such as "The Nation" and the "New Republic", sang the glories of the Stalinist utopia and its "brave new world". The barbed wire, the gulags and the mass murders were carefully whitewashed by Jewish controlled newspapers like the New York Times, which covered up the Ukrainian famine orchestrated by Jewish killers like Lev Kopelev. Walter Duranty wrote that there "was no famine in Ukraine, but only larege numbers of people dying from diseases related to malnutrition". Honest journalists, like Malcolm Muggeridge, had to publish the truth in fictional form, as in his classic "Winter In Moscow" (Muggeridge made multiple references in his unedited narrative to the communist Jews running things.)

I do not claim that all Jews are communists. But it is very true that the Jewish people have a hideous skeleton in their closet, one which they wish to keep covered up at all costs. If the hard facts offend Mr. Wilson, that is regrettable. However, no one can learn from history by covering up the facts. Patrick Buchanan is acutely aware of every fact which I recite. So, in all probability, is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson also errs in saying that Jews are not a race or, more precisely, a nation. Every Jew recognizes his fellows by blood. They do not cease to be Jews merely because they do not practice their religion. (Leaving aside the indelicate question of what the Jewish religion really is.) Jews cannot assert, a la Theodore Herzl, that "Jews are a people, one people", and then pretend that Jews practicing communism are merely renegades for whom the Jewish people have no collective responsibility. The transparent double-think will not wash.

I offer this lengthy response only because the entire subject of Jews and communism has been so thoroughly covered up that an honest exposition of the truth is urgently required. Patrick Buchanan did not weite a book on Jews and communism, but he did write on an "unnececessary war" where the German animus toward Jews and communism had a great deal to do with what happened. (So did Churchill's financing by wealthy anti-Hitler Jews, such as Bernard Baruch, Sir Henry Strakosch and Bernard Whaley-Cohen. These facts were also deleted from Buchanan's account based on the usual sensitivities.) Once again, "The Unnecessary War" is an excellent revisionist history. But it is only the tip of the hidden ice berg which is the real WW2.

Samuel Wilson said...

Anonymous writes: 'Jews cannot assert, a la Theodore Herzl, that "Jews are a people, one people", and then pretend that Jews practicing communism are merely renegades for whom the Jewish people have no collective responsibility.' I say they certainly can, because reasonable people don't believe in collective responsibility. If all of Anonymous's labors are meant to justify a finding of collective responsibility for the crimes of Leninism, and a collective punishment of Jewish people, the writer has wasted considerable effort. The only correct response to any demonstration that Jewish people played a disproportionate role in the Marxist-Leninist movement is, "So?"

In any event, it still doesn't follow from Stalin's employment of Jews as "willing executioners" that the executioners, rather than the Russified Georgian Djugashvili,were "running communism in Russia" or anywhere else, as asserted in the original Anonymous post. Nor does any volume of citations from pro-communist Jewish writers prove what Anonymous perceives as an affinity between communism and Judaism (Orthodox? Reform? Secular?), especially in the absence of any tabulation of Jewish anti-communist opinion. I make these criticisms for Anonymous's benefit, since I don't believe in collective responsibility. Since Anon. seems to endorse that principle, the writer ought to be more careful when prosecuting the Jewish people.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Wilson is engaging in apolgetics. Decisively refuted on the facts, he can only say "So"? in response to the overwhelming demonstration of Jewish collective responsibility for communism. "Quod erat demonstratum." (Because Mr. Wilson says so.) Wilson is extremely disingenuous on the issue of collective responsibility. Apparently he wants collective responsibility for Germans but not for Jews. One presumes, however, that he wants Arab collective responsibility for the bogey of "Islamo-fascism". (As to Jewish collective responsibility for the crimes of Israel against the Palestinians, that is obviously different. Just because Jews in the United States have been subsidizing Israel and its odious behaviours and bullying the politicians into practicing "Israel Uber Alles" does not make American Jews collectively responsible for the crimes of zionism, anymore than Jews were collectively responsible for the crimes of communism.) It is perfectly OK to make Germans of the present pay for the crimes of Hitler, however. That is not "collective guilt".

Mr. Wilson is amusing indeed when he refers to American Jewish "anti-communist" opinion. Such opinion has always been a hoax. American Jews only decided that communism was a bad thing when Jews began losing control of it in the 1950's. Until that point, Jewish "anti-communist" opinion had been so negligible as to be non-existent. Jewish historians, such as Howard Sachar and Yuri Slezkine, are considerably more candid than Mr. Wilson on the real Jewish involvement in communism. Neither man is a communist himself but can apparently deal with the unpleasnt facts more objectively than Mr. Wilson. Jews never did voluntarily purge themselves of communism. They did so only under the glare of the anti-communist investigations of HUAC in Hollywood and the subsequent follow up McCarthy investigations. The communists being exposed were 80% plus Jewish. That Jews became "anti-communist" under the pressure was a public relations stunt, and nothing more.

This writer is not the only one who believes in a Jewish "collective responsibility" for communism. So does Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his yet to be published in English volume, "Two Hundred Years Together". As to the claim that Judaism has nothing to do with communism, anyone who has compared the Talmudic scriptures with communist doctrine knows otherwise. The Talmud teaches genocide and mass murder of non-Jews. It also endorses lying and cheating of non-Jews. This is the mirror image of communist doctrine which teaches murder of the bourgeoise and lying to the capitalist world. Mr. Wilson may forego the effort of pretending that the passages are taken out of context, that they do not really mean what they appear to say, etc. The same tired non-issues have been rehashed, again and again, by Pfferkorn, Donin, Luther Eisenmenger and their antagonists throughout the Catholic centuries. Where the truth lies is only too obvious.

Mr. Wilson does not like facts which hurt. Since the Jewish people invoke collective guilt routinely against the Catholic Church, the German nation, the entire Islamic world and anyone else who displease them, it ill behooves Mr. Wilson to scream when the same standard is applied to Jewry. Mr. Wilson shall not win on the facts because the proof of Jewish complicity in communism is iron clad. Neither will he win any debate with "Anonymous", because "Anonymous" has all the relevant facts and counter-arguments at his instant command. The case against the Jews is indeed damning. If Mr. Wilson is not sufficiently impressed by the facts, he may try reading the works of Kevin MacDonald after he has finished with the books of Patrick Buchanan.

Crime Think said...

Yes, and because a few whites were responsible for slavery, all whites are culpable. And because some whites were behind the attempted genocide of various native American tribes, all whites are therefore guilty. Because some Americans decided they could make more profit by putting their fellow Americans out of work and sending those jobs to third world countries, many of whom are non-democratic, then all Americans are to blame for the high rate of inflation, unemployment and general problems we're looking at right now.

It is very obvious that Mr. Anonymous doesn't understand the fundamental ideas of logic, (All men are mortal. Aristotle is mortal. All men are Aristotle.) then any "argument" put forth by Mr. Anonymous is not based on sound logic, therefore cannot be taken seriously.

Why don't you just put a little Swastika armband on and goosestep around the streets shouting your "theories" to the population in general?

Samuel Wilson said...

Anonymous hasn't read this blog beyond the Buchanan review, or else hasn't read it attentively. That's the only way anyone can claim that I believe in Muslims' collective responsibility for "Islamofascism," a concept I routinely put in scare quotes to show that I consider it a fraud promulgated by neocons and Bushites. Nor have I ever endorsed the principle regarding the Germans. What they suffered in the 1940s wasn't collective responsibility but the fortunes of war. I again quote from the movie Unforgiven: "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

The nearest instance in which I recall myself supporting anything like a finding of collective responsibility is my belief that the Confederates should have been expelled from the South after the Civil War. Even then, it wouldn't have been so much a matter of explicit punishment as a matter of policy, as in my alternate scheme the land would have been given to the freedmen, who would thus have become a landed and loyal population. No doubt Anonymous would object to such an idea, perhaps thinking that blacks actually bore responsibility for that war.

In any event, Anonymous is cracking. Faced with my refusal to accept the premise of collective responsibility, the latest missive shows signs of hysteria, particularly in its analysis of Talmudic and Marxist teachings and the author's third-person claim of invincible omniscience. Who, exactly, is screaming?

Anonymous said...

It is obvious that my critics would rather chase their tail with college philosophy 101 than to do hard historical research and reach reasoned conclusions based on the facts. If any of these gentlemen think that Jews are merely a collection of individuals to be judged as individuals, then they know nothing about either the nature of Jewry or its purely tribal mentality. The world is full of people infected with various ideologies (libertarian, socialist, etc.) who like to reason in terms of their various fixed ideas rather than reason in terms of the facts.

Contrary to the suppositions of one critic, dislike of Jews is not equivalent to espousal of National Socialism as an ideology. There were, in fact, substantial similarities between Roosevelt's New Deal, Hitker's Germany and Mussolini's Fascist Italy. All were run by Fuehrers (either actual and de facto), all used deficit spending and massive public works projects as an alternative to gold standard backed capitalism, all appealed to the emotions of the masses, all used war and foreign advdenturism as instruments of policy.

Mr. Wilson accuses me of hysteria on the subject of the Talmudic scriptures. Not at all. I have studied them verbatim for many years. I have read the arguments against them and the apologetics explaining them. My reasoned conclusion (shared by many Hebraists and learned men down through the centuries, as well as by converted rabbis and present day confessors such as the late professor Israel Shahak in Israel), is that they do indeed contain the odious sentiments ascribed to them. I invite the know-it-alls who inhabit this site to do their own research and form their own conclusions.

I do not know-it-all, as my critics claim. But I know far more than those who are criticizing me. These individuals should spend less time criticizing me and more time doing their homework. May I sugeest that they read: (1) Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald; (2) The Beasts of the Apocalypse by Olivia Marie O'Grady (real author: Jack Tenney, head of the California State UnAmerican Activities Committee and world renowned authority on Jewish subversion); (3) The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against The Presumed Extermination of Eastern European Jewry by Arthur Butz; (4) The Jewish Century by Yuri Slezkine; (5) The Jewish Threat: Antisemitic Politics of the U.S. Army by Joseph Bendersky; (6) While Messiah Tarried: Jewish Socialist Movements in Czarist Russia by Nora Levin; (7) The Prophetic Minority by Gerald Sorin; (8) Prophecy and Politics: Nationalism and Socialism in Russia by Jonathan Frankel; (9) Dark times, Dire Consequences: Jews and Communism edited by Jonathan Frankel and Dan Diner; (10) Fire in Their Hearts : Yiddish Socialists in New York by Tony Michels.

My critics will note that most of these books are by Jewish authors. In legal terms, this is called "admissions against interest". Once again, my critics wish to make the mistake of treating Jews as individuals, rather than as a cohesive international nation dispersed among the populations among whom they live. There are numerous documented statements by Jews themselves testifying to this reality. The existence of the state of Israel itself, with Jews in all countries rallying to its support in time of need, is eloquent testimony to this reality. There is not time to go into the details here but the partition of Palestine vote before the United Nations during Thanksgiving week of 1947 is very impressive evidence of a co-oedinated Jewish agenda at work.

Stop criticizing me, boys, until you have researched the facts like I have. Until then, you are barky like puppy dogs based on your ideological preconceptions. The level of intelligence you display is about the same.

Samuel Wilson said...

That's an eclectic reading list Anonymous has presented, and each volume can stand or fall on its own merits. Even at first glance one can tell that they don't all point in the same direction, and most of them have genuine scholarly credentials. To use them as Anonymous does requires certain preconceptions about Judaism that few will share. Since Anonymous has nothing more useful to say on the question, I invite readers to examine his sources and draw their own conclusions.

On a point raised by Anonymous in passing, I'll recommend a recent book called Three New Deals, by Wolfgang Schivelbusch, which is quite provocative in comparing Germany, Italy and the U.S. in the 1930s without implying as much as Anonymous might.

crhymethinc said...

Bottom line is, when you start preaching hate as facts, you're wrong. It is apparent that Anonymous hates jews for some reason, therefore is bound and determined to convert others to his infantile viewpoint of life. Answer me this: If Jews are behind communism, why isn't Israel a communist state? And again, you haven't answered my early questions on why you don't apply your same twisted brand of logic to prove that Americans are just as bad for the same reasons? Because your hate is illogical and unreasonable. But you cling to it like a drowning man clings to a life preserver. Just because you can't see reality, doesn't mean your hate is true. It just means you're another hate-mongering racist. No better than any other klansman, skinhead, etc.

Anonymous said...

As usual, the puppy dogs are yapping. Mr. Wilson is correct that the Schivilbus book is an excellent one. I have read it many times and compared it with other volumes such as "The House That Hitler Built" by Stephen J. Roberts, Hitler's Beneficiaries" by Goetz Ally, "The Wages of Destruction" and others. As for the claim that I hold "preconceptions about Judaism that few will share" that is patent apolgetics. Professor Kevin MacDonald shares the same "preconceptions" based on substantially the same research. Numerous popes throughtout history shared the same "preconceptions" (as did Martin Luther). Winston Churchill in his World War One days "fantasized" about Jewish threats to civilization the same way as this author. (Consult "Zioninsm Versus Bolshevism: A Struggle For The Soul of the Jewish People", Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920.)

The claim that my reading list is an "eclectic one" is hardly reasonable. The volumes listed show a consistent pattern of Jewish leftism. The documentation is unimpeachable and unarguable. The implications of the "gas chamber" hoax are so obvious as to make the fabled "Protocols of Zion" irrelevant. To respond to the simple-minded correspondent who asks why I do not apply the same reasoning to Americans when some of them do bad things, the answer is obvious to anyone who has an intellect above the level of a child. Americans compose many different ethnic groups, none of which have a reputation of being perpetual aliens and subversives wherever they reside. As William Cobbett, a 19th century pamphleteer wrote in opposing the emancipation of the Jews in England: "Jew has always been synonymous with rogue, cheater and scoundrel. This has been true of no other race of mankind." That this view has had a long and distinguished pedigree throughout western civilization is shown by the fact that Jews, en masse, have been expelled from numerous Catholic countries throughtout Christian Europe during the high Middle Ages and early Rennaissance, culminating in the 1492 expulsion from Spain.

Another charge leveled against me is that I "hate" Jews for no reason and then selectively distort facts to reach a pre-determined conclusion. In fact, for many years I believed the Jewish propaganda that Jews were victims of unreasoning prejudice. It was only when I started researching the facts that I discovered that Jews were actually guilty of many of the crimes charged against them. A particularly good volume in this regard is Albert Lindemann's "Esau's Tears": The Rise of the Jews and Anti-Semitism". It is moderately written and contains much information supporting anti-semitic charges (as well as rebutting the wilder allegations). Another useful volume is the Catholic Hillaire Belloc's old book from the 1930's "The Jews" establishing that: (1) anti-semitic material is factually well-grounded and (2) that the Jewish prestense to merely being individuals, like everyone else, rather than a separate nation in dispersion, is a hoax and a camoflauge.

For the poor fellow who wants to know why Israel is not a communist nation, the answer is that in many senses, it is. As I pointed out in an earlier essay, the Russian Jews in Czarist times were split between the communist and zionist movements, with considerable overlap between the two. Any who doubt this assertion should get a book, "The Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Dispute" by professor Charles D. Smith of the University of Arizona. Smith makes clear that the left-wing Zionists were ideologically closely related to the communist Jews, preferring to plant their communist paradise in Palestine rather than Russia. David Ben-Gurion was a life-long Marxist. For those he think he was "democratic", it was Ben-Gurion who endorsed "Plan D" during the 1948 war for the purpose of expelling the Palestinians from their homeland. Leon Trotsky would have smiled in approval. For those who think I am making all this up, here is a little quotation from a book entitled "The Formative Years of the Israeli Labour Party" by Jonathan Shapiro, p.160. Shapiro writes:

"There are several explanations for this ideological shift. It was related, in part, to the arrival of immigrants who had left Soviet Russia and Poland since 1922. In their former countries, many of them had been in sympathy with the Russian Revolution and with communism-and, at the same time, had belonged to various nationalist and zionist groups. They had not seen any contradiction between the communist and the nationalist ideals. But these dual affiliations and sympathies were no longer possible after 1922; in that year, the Soviet regime (and the communist parties in other countries affiliated with the Bolsheviks) became strongly anti-Zionist. In Soviet Russia, Zionist activities became illegal. This forced many Jews to choose between communism and Jewish nationalism, particularly Zionism."

Professor Arnold Krammer of the University of Texas A&M has written a book "The Forgotten Friendship" in which he deals with the original support of the Soviet Union of Zionism in the 1948 war. It was the Soviet Union which allowed Czechosolvakia to sell arms to the Zionists thereby turning the tide of battle against the Arabs. For the first five years of its existence Israel wavered between the Soviet and free world blocks before finally deciding to side with the U.S. to gain access to the U.S. Treasury and the wealth of diaspora Jewry. (Incidentally, Jews in the U.S. smuggled huge quantities of arms and ammunition to their fellow Zionists in Palestine when the Jews were assassinating and blowing up English soldiers and officials right and left in 1944-1948. Does this indicate a little transatlantic co-ordination based on ethnic solidarity?) The Soviet Union, still dominated by its Jewish commissars, allowed the hundreds of thousands of Jews who had been hiding out in Russia east of the Ural mountains during the war, to emigrate to Palestine after the defeat of Germany. British intelligence officials were well aware of the "red" colors
of these refugees. The theme resonates in their reports of the era.

Istael has always had a strongly lobour-socialist economy from the days of the first Zionist colonies of the 1880's which had to be subsidized by Baron Rothschild and Baron Hirsch to avopid collapse. Today, Israel has a huge government bureaucracy and one of the highest tax rates in the world. Its collective farms are dotted with portraits of Lenin and Trotsky. This may mot make Israel a communist state but the ideological affinities are certainly there.

Enough. My opinions are well-informed and not based on "hate", "prejudice" and "will-to-believe" in defiance of facts. It is my critics who suffer from these problems, not I.

Samuel Wilson said...

Just a parting word to Anonymous. Consulting any dictionary will show that the word "apologetics" doesn't mean "any opinion that disagrees with mine." If Anonymous would only spell the word right, this would become more readily apparent.

Anonymous said...

If Mr. Wilson wishes to quibble about spelling, I shall leave him to his priorities. As to apologetics, I am not bothered by people whose opinions disagree with my mine. I note, however, that no one wishes to challeng me on the cold, hard facts. I shall end there.

crhymethinc said...

That's because you haven't presented any "facts". You've presented various opinions, some obviously misstated and some presumably written by anti-semites. Why don't you just come out and say it, it will make you feel so much better.

I'll say it with you,
"I hate jews." Now you do it. It will be the first factual thing you've said.

crhymethinc said...

btw...in case you're not aware, there have been marvelous leaps in medication for paranoid/schizophrenics like yourself.

Anonymous said...

The Origins of World War 2
The unexpected views of four key diplomats who were close to events

Just consider the following:
Joseph P. Kennedy, U.S. Ambassador to Britain during the years immediately preceding WW2 was the father of the famous American Kennedy dynasty. James Forrestal the first US Secretary of Defense (1947-1949) quotes him as saying "Chamberlain (the British Prime Minister) stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war". (The Forrestal Diaries ed. Millis, Cassell 1952 p129).
Count Jerzy Potocki, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, in a report to the Polish Foreign Office in January 1939, is quoted approvingly by the highly respected British military historian Major-General JFC Fuller. Concerning public opinion in America he says "Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish hands…when bearing public ignorance in mind, their propaganda is so effective that people have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe… It is interesting to observe that in this carefully thought-out campaign… no reference at all is made to Soviet Russia. If that country is mentioned, it is referred to in a friendly manner and people are given the impression that Soviet Russia is part of the democratic group of countries… Jewry was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike camps…President Roosevelt has been given the power.. to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for." (Fuller, JFC: The Decisive Battles of the Western World vol 3 pp 372-374.)
Hugh Wilson, the American Ambassador in Berlin until 1938, the year before the war broke out, found anti-Semitism in Germany ‘understandable’. This was because before the advent of the Nazis, "the stage, the press, medicine and law [were] crowded with Jews…among the few with money to splurge, a high proportion [were] Jews…the leaders of the Bolshevist movement in Russia, a movement desperately feared in Germany, were Jews. One could feel the spreading resentment and hatred." (Hugh Wilson: Diplomat between the Wars, Longmans 1941, quoted in Leonard Mosley, Lindbergh, Hodder 1976).
Sir Nevile Henderson, British Ambassador in Berlin ‘said further that the hostile attitude in Great Britain was the work of Jews and enemies of the Nazis, which was what Hitler thought himself’ (Taylor, AJP: The Origins of the Second World War Penguin 1965, 1987 etc p 324).
Is all of this merely attributable to antisemitism?

The economic background to the war is necessary for a fuller understanding, before casting judgement on the originators of these viewpoints.

At the end of the First World War, Germany was essentially tricked [see Paul Johnson A History of the Modern World (1983) p24 and H Nicholson Peacemaking 1919 (1933) pp13-16] into paying massive reparations to France and other economic competitors and former belligerent countries in terms of the so-called Treaty of Versailles, thanks to the liberal American President Woodrow Wilson. Germany was declared to be solely responsible for the war, in spite of the fact that ‘Germany did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine efforts, though too belated, to avert one.’ (Professor Sydney B Fay The Origins of the World War (vol. 2 p 552)).

As a result of these massive enforced financial reparations, by 1923 the situation in Germany became desperate and inflation on an astronomical scale became the only way out for the government. Printing presses were engaged to print money around the clock. In 1921 the exchange rate was 75 marks to the dollar. By 1924 this had become about 5 trillion marks to the dollar. This virtually destroyed the German middle class (Koestler The God that Failed p 28), reducing any bank savings to a virtual zero.

According to Sir Arthur Bryant the British historian (Unfinished Victory (1940 pp. 136-144):

‘It was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities.. They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of the real property in the Reich. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation.. But to those who had lost their all this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings they had now been deprived of their last possessions. They saw them pass into the hands of strangers, many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and who cared little or nothing for their national standards and traditions.. The Jews obtained a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned professions (in spite of constituting) less than one percent of the population.. The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a large part of the press – all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country is formed.. The largest newspaper combine in the country with a daily circulation of four millions was a Jewish monopoly.. Every year it became harder and harder for a gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation.. At this time it was not the ‘Aryans’ who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination.. It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed – and lavishly displayed – by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe. Beggars on horseback are seldom popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle.’

Goodness gracious, Sir Arthur! What made you get out of the wrong side of the bed?

Strangely enough, a book unexpectedly published by Princeton University Press in 1984, Sarah Gordon (Hitler, Germans and the "Jewish Question") essentially confirms what Bryant says. According to her, ‘Jews were never a large percentage of the total German population; at no time did they exceed 1% of the population during the years 1871-1933.’ But she adds ‘Jews were over-represented in business, commerce, and public and private service.. They were especially visible in private banking in Berlin, which in 1923 had 150 private Jewish banks, as opposed to only 11 private non-Jewish banks.. They owned 41% of iron and scrap iron firms and 57% of other metal businesses.. Jews were very active in the stock market, particularly in Berlin, where in 1928 they comprised 80% of the leading members of the stock exchange. By 1933, when the Nazis began eliminating Jews from prominent positions, 85% of the brokers on the Berlin Stock exchange were dismissed because of their "race".. At least a quarter of full professors and instructors (at German universities) had Jewish origins.. In 1905-6 Jewish students comprised 25% of the law and medical students.. In 1931, 50% of the 234 theatre directors in Germany were Jewish, and in Berlin the number was 80%.. In 1929 it was estimated that the per capita income of Jews in Berlin was twice that of other Berlin residents..’ etc etc.

Arthur Koestler confirms the Jewish over-involvement in German publishing. ‘Ullstein’s was a kind of super-trust; the largest organization of its kind in Europe, and probably In the world. They published four daily papers in Berlin alone, among these the venerable Vossische Zeitung, founded in the eighteenth century, and the B.Z. am Mittag, an evening paper.. Apart from these, Ullstein’s published more than a dozen weekly and monthly periodicals, ran their own news service, their own travel agency, etc., and were one of the leading book publishers. The firm was owned by the brothers Ullstein - they were five, like the original Rothschild brothers, and like them also, they were Jews.’ (The God that Failed (1950) ed. RHS Crossman, p 31).

Edgar Mowrer, Berlin correspondent for the Chicago Daily News, wrote an anti-German tract called Germany Puts the Clock Back (published as a Penguin Special and reprinted five times between December 1937 and April 1938). He nevertheless notes ‘In the all-important administration of Prussia, any number of strategic positions came into the hands of Hebrews.. A telephone conversation between three Jews in Ministerial offices could result in the suspension of any periodical or newspaper in the state.. The Jews came in Germany to play in politics and administration that same considerable part that they had previously won by open competition in business, trade, banking, the Press, the arts, the sciences and the intellectual and cultural life of the country. And thereby the impression was strengthened that Germany, a country with a mission of its own, had fallen into the hands of foreigners.’

Mowrer says ‘No one who lived through the period from 1919 to 1926 is likely to forget the sexual promiscuity that prevailed.. Throughout a town like Berlin, hotels and pensions made vast fortunes by letting rooms by the hour or day to baggageless, unregistered guests. Hundreds of cabarets, pleasure resorts and the like served for purposes of getting acquainted and acquiring the proper mood..’ (pp. 153-4). Bryant describes throngs of child prostitutes outside the doors of the great Berlin hotels and restaurants. He adds ‘Most of them (the night clubs and vice-resorts) were owned and managed by Jews. And it was the Jews.. among the promoters of this trade who were remembered in after years.’ (pp. 144-5).

Douglas Reed, Chief Central European correspondent before WWII for the London Times, was profoundly anti-German and anti-Hitler. But nevertheless he reported: ‘I watched the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots and daubing on the window panes the word "Jew", in dripping red letters. The Kurfürstendamm was to me a revelation. I knew that Jews were prominent in business life, but I did not know that they almost monopolized important branches of it. Germany had one Jew to one hundred gentiles, said the statistics; but the fashionable Kurfürstendamm, according to the dripping red legends, had about one gentile shop to ninety-nine Jewish ones.’ (Reed Insanity Fair (1938) p. 152-3). In Reed’s book Disgrace Abounding of the following year he notes ‘In the Berlin (of pre-Hitler years) most of the theatres were Jewish-owned or Jewish-leased, most of the leading film and stage actors were Jews, the plays performed were often by German, Austrian or Hungarian Jews and were staged by Jewish film producers, applauded by Jewish dramatic critics in Jewish newspapers.. The Jews are not cleverer than the Gentiles, if by clever you mean good at their jobs. They ruthlessly exploit the common feeling of Jews, first to get a foothold in a particular trade or calling, then to squeeze the non-Jews out of it.. It is not true that Jews are better journalists than Gentiles. They held all the posts on those Berlin papers because the proprietors and editors were Jewish’ (pp238-9).

The Jewish writer Edwin Black notes ‘For example, in Berlin alone, about 75% of the attorneys and nearly as many of the doctors were Jewish.’ (Black, The Transfer Agreement (1984) p58.

To cap it all, Jews were perceived as dangerous enemies of Germany after Samuel Untermeyer, the leader of the World Jewish Economic Federation, declared war on Germany on August 6 1933. (Edwin Black The Transfer Agreement: the Untold Story of the Secret Pact between the Third Reich and Palestine (1984) pp272-277) According to Black, ‘The one man who most embodied the potential death blow to Germany was Samuel Untermeyer.’ (p 369). This was the culmination of a worldwide boycott of German goods led by international Jewish organizations. The London Daily Express on March 24, 1933 carried the headline Judea Declares War on Germany. The boycott was particularly motivated by the German imposition of the Nuremberg Laws, which ironically were similar in intent and content to the Jewish cultural exclusivism practiced so visibly in present-day Israel (Hannah Arendt Eichmann in Jerusalem p 7).

Hitler saw the tremendous danger posed to Germany by Communism. He appreciated the desperate need to eliminate this threat, a fact that earned him the immense hatred and animosity of the Jewish organisations and the media and politicians of the west which they could influence. After all, according to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant, although Jews formed less than five percent of Russia's population, they formed more than fifty percent of its revolutionaries. According to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant in his book The Jews (1977, chapter 8):

‘It must be added that most of the leading revolutionaries who convulsed Europe in the final decades of the last century and the first decades of this one, stemmed from prosperous Jewish families.. They were perhaps typified by the father of revolution, Karl Marx.. Thus when, after the chaos of World War I, revolutions broke out all over Europe, Jews were everywhere at the helm; Trotsky, Sverdlov, Kamenev and Zinoviev in Russia, Bela Kun in Hungary, Kurt Eisner in Bavaria, and, most improbable of all, Rosa Luxemburg in Berlin.

‘To many outside observers, the Russian revolution looked like a Jewish conspiracy, especially when it was followed by Jewish-led revolutionary outbreaks in much of central Europe. The leadership of the Bolshevik Party had a preponderance of Jews.. Of the seven members of the Politburo, the inner cabinet of the country, four, Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Radomsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Sverdlov, were Jews.’ Other authors agree with this:

"There has been a tendency to circumvent or simply ignore the significant role of Jewish intellectuals in the German Communist Party, and thereby seriously neglect one of the genuine and objective reasons for increased anti-Semitism during and after World War 1.. The prominence of Jews in the revolution and early Weimar Republic is indisputable, and this was a very serious contributing cause for increased anti-Semitism in post-war years.. It is clear then that the stereotype of Jews as socialists and communists.. led many Germans to distrust the Jewish minority as a whole and to brand Jews as enemies of the German nation." (Sarah Gordon Hitler, Germans and the ‘Jewish Question’ Princeton University Press (1984) p 23).

"The second paroxysm of strong anti-Semitism came after the critical role of Jews in International Communism and the Russian Revolution and during the economic crises of the 1920s and 30s… Anti-Semitism intensified throughout Europe and North America following the perceived and actual centrality of Jews in the Russian Revolution.. Such feelings were not restricted to Germany, or to vulgar extremists like the Nazis. All over Northern Europe and North America, anti-Semitism became the norm in 'nice society', and 'nice society' included the universities." (Martin Bernal, Black Athena vol. 1 pp. 367, 387).

"The major role Jewish leaders played in the November (Russian) revolution was probably more important than any other factor in confirming (Hitler's) anti-Semitic beliefs." (J&S Pool, Who Financed Hitler, p.164).

Hitler came to power in Germany with two main aims, the rectification of the unjust provisions of the Versailles Treaty, and the destruction of the Soviet/ Communist threat to Germany. Strangely enough, contrary to the mythology created by those who had an opposing ethnic agenda, he had no plans or desire for a larger war of conquest. Professor AJP Taylor showed this in his book The Origins of the Second World War, to the disappointment of the professional western political establishment. Taylor says, "The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all" (p.267), and "Even in 1939 the German army was not equipped for a prolonged war; and in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French in everything except leadership" (p104-5). What occurred in Europe in 1939-41 was the result of unforeseen weaknesses and a tipping of the balance of power, and Hitler was an opportunist ‘who took advantages whenever they offered themselves’ (Taylor). Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Hitler wanted peace with Britain, as the German generals admitted (Basil Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill 1948, Pan Books 1983) with regard to the so-called Halt Order at Dunkirk, where Hitler had the opportunity to capture the entire British Army, but chose not to. Liddell Hart, one of Britain’s most respected military historians, quotes the German General von Blumentritt with regard to this Halt Order:

"He (Hitler) then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but ‘where there is planing, there are shavings flying’. He compared the British Empire with the catholic Church – saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties anywhere.." (p 200).

According to Liddell Hart, "At the time we believed that the repulse of the Luftwaffe in the ‘Battle over Britain’ had saved her. That is only part of the explanation, the last part of it. The original cause, which goes much deeper, is that Hitler did not want to conquer England. He took little interest in the invasion preparations, and for weeks did nothing tospur them on; then, after a brief impulse to invade, he veered around again and suspended the preparations. He was preparing, instead, to invade Russia" (p140).

David Irving in the foreword to his book The Warpath (1978) refers to "the discovery.. that at no time did this man (Hitler) pose or intend a real threat to Britain or the Empire."

This gives a completely different complexion, not only to the war, but to the successful suppression of this information during the war and afterwards. Historians today know only too well where the boundaries lie within which they can paint their pictures of the war and its aftermath, and the consequences of venturing beyond those boundaries, irrespective of the evidence. Unfortunately, only too few of them have been prepared to have the courage to break out of this dreadful straitjacket of official and unofficial censorship.

E-mail comment received:

I worked and studied in Berlin for three years, have an MA in International Relations and a BA in Government with a minor in History. I am embarrassed to say that until I read this article, I had no idea of the scope and cause for the anti-Semitism in Germany before WWII. The Halt Order at Dunkirk was never mentioned in my studies, nor was the ownership of the media, banks and businesses.

Thank you for the excellent article. It certainly gives me a new perspective. I have always questioned the actual numbers of Jewish victims of the concentration camps, as the numbers didn't make sense based upon Germany's population. Perhaps it was fear of failing or being labeled an anti-Semite by my history professors (all but two were Jewish) and classmates that I refrained from demanding an honest discussion during my classes. I once said that the only reason Israel existed was out of Holocaust guilt, and I was immediately labeled a terrorist sympathizer.

I see what is now happening in Israel and I am aghast. The parallels to WW II are frightening. Even today, one cannot bring up this subject without being labeled a Holocaust denier or white supremacist.

Thanks again for an excellent article. I am forwarding it to several friends.


Anonymous said...

Churchill and Hitler and History..

Winston Churchill was knighted after World War 2 and buried from Westminster Abbey, perhaps the highest tribute that could be paid to him, while Adolf Hitler has been accorded the status of perhaps the most evil politician in human history.


"When I look around to see how we can win the war I see that there is only one sure path. We have no Continental army which can defeat the German military power.. Should [Hitler].. not try invasion [of Britain].. there is one thing that will bring him back and bring him down, and that is an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland. We must be able to overwhelm them by this means, without which I do not see a way through. We cannot accept any aim lower than air mastery. When can it be obtained?" [Extract from Winston S Churchill The Second World War (Volume 2 Their Finest Hour Appendix A), Memo from Prime Minister to Minister of Aircraft Production, 8.July 1940].

ADOLF HITLER in May 1940

Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Hitler actually wanted peace with Britain, as the German generals admitted (Basil Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill 1948, Pan Books 1983) with regard to the so-called Halt Order of 24 May 1940 at Dunkirk, where Hitler had the opportunity to capture the entire British Army, but chose not to. Liddell Hart, one of Britain’s most respected military historians, quotes the German General von Blumentritt with regard to this Halt Order:

"He (Hitler) then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but ‘where there is planing, there are shavings flying’. He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church – saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties anywhere.." (p 200).

According to Liddell Hart, "At the time we believed that the repulse of the Luftwaffe in the ‘Battle over Britain’ had saved her. That is only part of the explanation, the last part of it. The original cause, which goes much deeper, is that Hitler did not want to conquer England. He took little interest in the invasion preparations, and for weeks did nothing to spur them on; then, after a brief impulse to invade, he veered around again and suspended the preparations. He was preparing, instead, to invade Russia" (p140).

David Irving in the foreword to his book The Warpath (1978) refers to "the discovery.. that at no time did this man (Hitler) pose or intend a real threat to Britain or the Empire."


A major awkwardness concerning Churchill’s conduct of the war lies in the secret British policy of so-called ‘area bombing’, adopted early in 1942 and outlined by (Lord) CP Snow in the 1960 Godkin Lectures at Harvard University (published in his book Science and Government, Oxford University Press 1961). Snow had an insider’s view of the development of this policy. He outlines how the sinister Professor FA Lindemann (later to become Lord Cherwell, Churchill’s chief scientific adviser), persuaded the British Cabinet to adopt the policy of directing bombing campaigns primarily against German working-class housing. ‘Middle-class houses have too much space around them, and so are bound to waste bombs; factories and "military objectives" had long since been forgotten, except in official bulletins, since they were much too difficult to find and hit’ (p 48). Snow asks, 'What will people of the future think of us? Will they say.. we were wolves with the minds of men? Will they think that we had resigned our humanity? They will have the right.' (p 49). Fortunately, Snow needn't have worried. There have been and remain such powerful vested interests committed to preserving the myths of World War II that even the history departments of universities have in most cases assisted with the cover-up.

The respected British military historian Martin Middlebrook says, ‘In some ways, Area Bombing was a three-year period of deceit practiced upon the British public and on world opinion. It was felt to be necessary that the exact nature of R.A.F. bombing should not be revealed. It could not be concealed that German cities were being hit hard, and that residential areas in those cities were receiving many of the bombs, but the impression was usually given that industry was the main target and that any bombing of workers’ housing areas was an unavoidable necessity. Charges of ‘indiscriminate bombing’ were consistently denied.. The deceit lay in the concealment of the fact that the areas being most heavily bombed were nearly always either city centres or densely populated residential areas, which rarely contained any industry.. The vital links in the dissemination of this view were the press and the radio upon which the public depended for all wartime news.. Neutral reports [of the campaign against the residential areas of the German city of Hamburg, for example] that 20,000 or 30,000 people had been killed were dismissed as ‘Nazi-inspired stories’.. The military historian Sir Basil Liddell Hart [after the Thousand Bomber Raid on Cologne with its claim of so many acres of city destroyed] wrote: "It will be ironical if the defenders of civilization depend for victory upon the most barbaric and unskilled way of winning a war that the modern world has seen." ’ (Middlebrook, The Battle of Hamburg (1980) pp 343-4]. In his foreword, Middlebrook notes ‘I am likely to be criticized.. for choosing a series of raids which produced such extremes of horror on the ground. But I must point out that a large proportion of the raids carried out by R.A.F. Bomber Command in the Second World War were devoted to this type of bombing. What happened at Hamburg was when Bomber Command ‘got everything right’ (p 12). In reality many of these raids consisted of initial attacks using high explosive bombs to break up the buildings, followed with attacks using thousands of incendiary bombs to set alight all the fabrics, furnishing and upholstery exposed by the explosives. In this way firestorms were created under the right conditions which burned tens of thousands of people alive, especially the women and children at home while the men were at the front.

Churchill himself ordered the firebomb raid on the city of Dresden (David Irving The Destruction of Dresden (1966) pp. 96-100), Alexander McKee Dresden 1945 (1982) p 300, 306, 310) in the last months of the war, producing the most spectacular deliberate firestorm in the history of Europe. This action was probably the major war crime committed in Europe – Dresden was not in any way a military target, and was packed with refugees fleeing the advancing Russians, mainly women and children and the elderly who were unfit to fight. It is therefore understandable that it has been necessary to distract attention away from this viciously and appallingly barbaric act by fabricating war crimes afterwards and attributing them to the other side, a procedure that is finally starting to come unstuck. The Bush-Blair attack on Iraq at the behest of Zionists in the US administration such as Paul Wolfowitz has demonstrated before a world audience the lies that can be used to start wars, and in fact usually do. The transparency and scale of Bush Administration lies, together with the support given to the lies by a diverse array of other governments, is producing a revulsion for professional politicians and their handlers and spin doctors and sponsors.

While Churchill has been given titles such as "the greatest Englishman who ever lived', this does not stand up to any intelligent, unbiased scrutiny. He unfortunately had unquestioned gifts of oratory - he may have been one of the most bombastic Englishmen who ever lived - he used his gifts for stinky, smelly, shitty purposes. His ego was awesome. At a time when he and his wife were short of finance:

"Clemmie (Mrs Churchill).. told me that Winston was most extravagant about his underclothes. They were made of very finely woven silk (pale pink) and came from the Army & Navy Stores and cost the eyes out of the head. This year according to her calculations he spent something like eighty pounds on them. When I taxed him with this curious form of self-indulgence he replied: 'It is essential to my well-being. I have a very delicate and sensitive cuticle which demands the finest covering. Look at the texture of my cuticle - feel it (uncovering his forearm by rolling up his sleeve). I have a cuticle without blemish - except on one small portion of my anatomy where I sacrificed a piece of skin to accommodate a wounded brother-officer on my way back from the Sudan campaign'." - [quoted from Paul Johnson, The Oxford Book of Political Anecdotes (1989) p215.]

Churchill was also quoted as having the belief that ‘in wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.'

Just what truth was he referring to - the British guarantee to Poland, which turned out not to apply to FDR's Yalta-agreed Communist control of not only Poland but the whole of Eastern Europe, for instance, nullifying the whole argument for the war?

Anonymous said...

Now that my documentation has been ably seconded by a like thinker, would "erhymethnic" care to retract the absurd allegations regarding my alleged schizophrenia and incurable "Jew hatred"? Or would he like to level the same charge against honest Jewish scholars and others who deal with the same unmentionable, but provable, information?

As I said previously, I do not take the position that all Jews are evil. But Jews who refuse to come clean about the seamier side of their history only lend credence to those who maintain that "all Jews are in it together". Perhaps it would be wiser to reflect on this fact than to accuse me of irrational Jew hatred.

Charles Lindberg once wrote in his diary that a "few Jews were beneficial to a society, like a spice or seasoning. But too many Jews quickly became a problem." Much the same idea was once expressed by the famous Zionist leader and eminence grise behind the famous Balfour Declaration, Chaim Weizmann, in his autobiography, "Trial and Error". Weizmann stated, describing a conversation he had with the English immigration restrictionist, Captain Gordon-Canning, that "whenever the number of Jews in any society exceeded the saturation point, that said country inevitably reacted against the Jews". Weizmann described this process as an "iron-clad rule of history, which could not be considered anti-semitism in the ordinary or vulgar sense". The point expressed is substantially the same.

No one can deny that the Jews are, in many cases, remarkably gifted. Their commercial abilities are well-known. They might easily be a blessing to society if they would assimilate and devote their undoubted abilities to the enrichment and progress of their own lands. It is only when they put alien ideologies like communism, socialism and zionism first that they represent evil. Presently, the U.S. government is gearing up for an unprovoked attack on Iran soley because Israel's geo-political necessities require it. Said attack will devastate the dollar, drive oil prices to unaffordable levels and make the U.S. the most hated country on earth. Unfortunately, such an attack carried out on Israel's behalf, will make all American Jews the scapegoats. That would be tragic, as it is undeniably true that 80% plus of Jewish opinion in this land is opposed to such an attack. But it will be no different than it was in Germany, where all Jews got the blame for Jewish communism.

Jews suffer from hypersensitivity toward criticism. If they could get past the hypersensitivities and listen to well-justified criticism, they might avoid many of the afflictions which shall surely befall them if they pursue anti-national policies based on overseas loyalties. Unfortunately, the Jews as a group prefer to attack their critics rather than say "mea culpa". That has been the age-old habit, and it is not likely to change this time.

Samuel Wilson said...

I was going to have nothing further to do with this thread, but Anonymous's latest effusion of borrowed writing requires a response. I regret to say that crhymethinc brought this down upon us. The problem with Anon has never been a lack of facts, but that they are marshalled to support an unsustainable premise. But let's review the literature.

Given that this thread began with a review of Pat Buchanan's book, I would have expected that the latest essays would attempt to discover Jewish culpability in the decision Buchanan considers crucial: Britain's guarantee of Polish independence. The first July 18 post has nothing of the kind. The four diplomats' opinions are subjective and impressionistic, and the rest of the article reverts to the Jewish-Bolshevik association as a reason for war without demonstrating that it was a cause. The author finds it objectionable that an ethnic or religious minority achieves disproportionate success in a national economy, but to take the free-market perspective for a moment, the Nazis and other anti-semitic movements in Weimar Germany seem to be a bunch of crybabies trying to compensate for their lack of competitiveness. The second post offers nothing to back Anonymous's thesis, instead criticizing Churchill, often rightly, for his conduct of the war. In the third post Anonymous claims vindication and presents his views on Jews as moderate. However, the equation of Lindbergh's views with Weizmann's strikes me as inaccurate. The Lone Eagle seems to be saying that too many Jews equals an objective problem for any given society, a point that is not implicit in Weizmann's statement. I doubt he would concede that the type of reaction he describes as an ironclad rule of history was ever a justified one. Anonymous closes with another call for Jewish atonement for association with communism and other alien ideologies, but that ought to wait upon an ultimate discussion of the merits and faults of socialism in all its permutations.

Anonymous's latest merited a civil response from me, not least because, however abhorrent I find some of the judgments expressed here, Anon has been a much more stimulating sparring partner than that imbecile Evangelicorp who was haunting the blog a few weeks ago. Thanks for your participation.

Anonymous said...

First, let's clear up a little confusion. The anonymous who posted the quoatations from the diplomats and other materials was not me, who published the Weizmann quote. The problem with Jews is not their success, but the fact that they use their influence and wealth to make war on the traditions and values of the societies they inhabit. Groups such as the Irish and the Germans, who have also succeeded in America, have provoked no such reaction because they are not making war on the rest of society. It is quite easy to show that Jews have been and still are engaged in these activities. The Jewish disproportion in pornography, sex slavery, abortion and other social ills is well-known and factually unarguable.

Jewish success does not stem soley from Jewish ability but also from Jewish networking and the deliberate effort to exclude non-Jews. This kind of behaviour provokes a reaction-and justifiably so. The basis for this behaviour is indeed laid out in the teachings of the Talmudic scriptures which Mr. Wilson so strenuously denies. Jews throughout history have been associated with many unsavory practices, such as tax farming for medieval monarchs for a percentage of the taxes collected. This was paericularly the case in medieval Spain and Poland. Numerous indeed were the riots by the enraged and gouged citizens. Jews also specialized in getting peasants into debt and then destroying them with interest charges as high as 40-50%. Jews, traditionally, have not made their money through "free enterprise". Quite the contrary. Jews have preferred, throughout history, to establish a "special relationship" with the state and then use state monopoly and privelege to get the jump on everyone else. Historical examples would be the aforementioned monopoly on tax collecting for kings. Others would be acting as military contractors supplying the monarchs wars and the alcohol and tobacco monopolies in Czarist Russia, also dominated by Jews. This explains why super-rich Jewish capitalists, like George Soros, can bankroll the American Bund, the Democratic Party, while practicing capitalism for himself.

Mr. Wilson wants to pretend that Jewish behaviour has nothing to do with why Jews are disliked. In fact, Jewish behaviour is the sole cause of anti-semitism-a fact which Jews have never been willing to concede and never will concede.

Anonymous said...

A few further thoughts on Britain's gurantee to Poland and the reasons for it. The British Empire has always been afflicted with incurable Germanophobia. The British have never been able to concede that any other power, least of all Germany, should be entitled to a slice of the globe. This "balance of power" consideration played a very large role in the guarantee to Poland. However, the Jewish angle dove tailed with the British action. Chamberlain told Joseph Kennedy, the American ambassador to England, that "world Jewry" had forced England into the war. That may strike Mr. Wilson as another "subjective assessment" by a diplomat, but I believe it does accord with the facts. Much the same thing can be said of FDR, who certainly needed war to bail out his botched "New Deal", but whose objectives dove tailed very nicely with the desire of his Jewish cabinet members (Morgenthau, Frankfurter, etc.) to go to war with Hitler. As usual, there is a multiplicity of motives in these matters.

Mr. Wilson cannot be taken seriously whrn he derides the Nazis as "losers" in a free market economy. In actual fact, the German people were victimized after WW1 by: (1) the ruinuous inflation of their own government and (2) wealthy Jewish investors outside the country moving in and buying up German firms and real estate for a pfennig on the mark. That is an undisputed historical fact. It is also hypocritical in the extreme for Jewish dominated civil rights organizations in the United States to constantly preach the line that white males succeed only because they "discriminate" against blacks and women, whereas Jews succeed only because of their superior abilities. (Jews never discriminate against anyone, just ask any Arab in a refugee camp looking across the Jordan river at his stolen farm and house.)

Jews do not control everything which goes on in the world but the influence which they do exert is very much greater than most people realize. When one exaines the disasters of communism in Russia, the Jewish role in bolshevism and the German reaction against it, it is obvious that the Jewish influence on the events of the past century has been far from beneficial. That is the subliminal message which Patrick Buchanan is only hinting at in his book on Churchill.

Samuel Wilson said...

In response to the last two Anonymous posts. I apologize for any confusion, but it would help if you guys were pseudonymous rather than anonymous. On history, considering only the U.S., the Irish did indeed generate a hostile reaction in the form of the Know-Nothing movement, on the exact same premise of alien loyalty, the Irish being believed loyal to the Vatican above all. It may be argued that the reaction in this case was unjustified, but that throws any reaction to any successful ethnic influx into question. Finally, it may be presumptuous of me to ask Joe Kennedy to ask Neville Chamberlain to back up his assertion with facts, but unless he did, an assertion it remains. The Prime Minister would have been in a position to present such facts, but maybe it's Kennedy's fault that he didn't relate them.

Anonymous said...

I shall henceforth call myself Anonymous 1. That should clear up the confusion. It is true that the Irish were at one time accused of precisely the loyalty to the Vatican which Mr. Wilson describes. However, they long ago overcame that charge (although they were accused of pro-German sympathies during the First World War, and with justice.) Jewish assimilation has been much more superficial. A particularly good study of this question has been made by the Irish sociologist, John Murray Cuddihy. I do not recall the name of his book off-hand. But his point, basically, is that the Jewish movement out of the age old ghettos into the mainstream of western civilization which began in the mid-eighteenth century is not yet complete. Jewish assimilation is only on the surface. To a very real extent, Jews are still living and thinking in the ghetto, public appearances to the contrary. A related point made by Cuddihy is that when Jews moved out of their Talmudically controlled ghettos into the general society, they created new "ideologies" for the dual purpose of: (1) making war on gentile society and remolding it in a Jewish direction and (2) camoflauging essentially Talmudic doctrines as something new and revolutionary which they could fob off on the gentiles. Cudihy does not put it quite so crudely, but that is the essence of his argument. Thus, Marxism is a camoflauged form of the Talmudic distaste for the non-Jewish world dressed up as justice for workers.

As to documentation for the claims of Jewish pressure to get the British and Americans to fight Hitler, I think that has been documented beyond reasonable dispute.In addition to the material supplied by my namesake, I will point out that Chamberlain's charges were seconded by Charles Lindberg in the U.S. Chaim Weizmann and Samuel Untermyer both declared war on Germany on behalf of world Jewry. The number of Jews screaming for war was legion. Samuel Rosenman, Felix Frankfurter, New York governor Herbert Lehman and others, all of whom were close to Roosevelt, were all out for war. To give just one example of the practical pressure these gentlemen were able to exert on the course of events, Harry Dexter White, the communist Jew and agent of Joseph Stalin, was the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Henry Morgenthau, Jr. (another pro-war Jew). It was White who wrote the famous telegram of November 26, 1941 which Secretary of State Cordell Hull forwarded to Japanese ambassador Nomura, making war between Japan and the U.S. inevitable.

In the previous war, WW1, it was Zionist Jews like Chaim Weizmann, Supreme Court Justices Brandeis and Frankfurter, among many others, who persuaded the British that they could use their influence over President Woodrow Wilson to get the U.S. into the war in exchange for a British "quid pro quo" to promise a Jewish "national home" in Palestine. This was the famous "contract with Jewry" testified to by David Lloyd George in his "Memoirs of the Peace Conference". No one can establish that it was specifically Jewish pressure which led to the gurantee to Poland and the war declaration of September 3, 1939 but the knbown facts of Jewish influece listed above and the Jewish induced pledges of the previous war leave little doubt of the general factors at work.

It is a documented fact that Churchill was being financed by Bernard Baruch, Henry Strakosch and Bernard Whaley-Cohen. This fact surely had nuch to do with Churchill's refusal to entertain Hitler's peace overtures following the fall of France. WW2 was surely not all the Jews fault. But that they were an agitating force behind the scenes is a provable fact.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 1 shall now expand on his point that a great many contemporary ideas are essentially Talmudic in character, camoflauged as something else. Abortion, which was once considered a deadly crime against an unborn child, but which is now considered a property right of a woman over her body, is a good case in point.

Abortion as anyone can tell, has been basically promoted and converted into law by Jewish pressure. The doctors promoting abortion are predominately Jewish, the feminists demanding the right are overwhelmingly Jewish, the media which are blatantly pro-abortion are heavily infested with Jews. All this is well-known. What is not so well-known is what the Jewish religious position on abortion really is. The Jewish tradition is that an unborn child is to be regarded, more or less, as an invader of the woman's body, which she has the right to expel if she does not want it. According to this tradition the unborn child does not acquire fully human, or nefesh status, umtil it is born. Even after birth, if the child dies before its seventh day, it is not accorded a funeral because it still lacks fully developed status, even though it now qualifies as human. Given these well-established teachings of the rabbis, it is clear where the abortion movement is really coming from. Abortion is precisely a Jewish religious doctrine, camoflauged as a secular religious concept.

Since this discussion began with an anaysis of Patrick Buchanan's book on "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War", it is worth pointing out that Buchanan is also an opponent of abortion-and probably realizes, like anonymous1, where it is really coming from. I would hardly claim that every defender of abortion is aware of these facts, anymore than I would claim that every interventionist liberal or every post-war conservative realises how WW2 was used to serve essentially Jewish aims. But it is always well to understand what lies beneath the surface. WW2 supposedly was about defeating the greatest menace which humanity ever faced-Adolf Hitler. It was also supposedly about protecting both Great Britain and America from a threat which is now known not to have existed. Since these claims have now been demonstrated to be false, the question inevitably arises: What was WW2 really all about?

To answer this question one must apply the ancient test of: Cui Bono? (Who benefits?) The main beneficiaries of WW2 were the communists and the zionists: the Jews, for short. Communism expanded over half the globe, if China and the far east are taken into account. Zionism launched an invasion of Arab Palestine, using the camoflauge of a purported Jewish extermination as an excuse. The zionists ressurected the Leauge of Nations, which they had created at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, in the new form of the United Nations. The United Nations showed its subservience to zionism by voting for the partition of Arab Palestine during Thanksgiving 1947, the same way that the old Leauge of Nations had shown its subservience to zionism by sponsoring the British Mandate in violation of the rights of the Palestinian Arabs.

Some will say that this is all "conspiracy theory". Actually, it is reasoned inferences from the facts. The great value of "The Unnecessary War" is that it is a guide, a preamble, to all the things discussed. By all means read Patrick Buchanan's book-and then read all the esoteric,arcane reference works previously alluded to. Then, the hidden history of the world shall come into full view-as well as its architects and their real agenda.

Anonymous said...

Statement by Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus
University of Ulster, December 5, 2005:
"I've checked out Churchill's Second World War and the statement is quite correct - not a single mention of Nazi 'gas chambers,' a 'genocide' of the Jews, or of 'six million' Jewish victims of the war.
Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill's Second World War total 4,448 pages; and De Gaulle's three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages.
In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi 'gas chambers,' a 'genocide' of the Jews, or of 'six million' Jewish victims of the war."

It's official - there is no actual shortage of Holocaust survivors.
'The Israeli Prime Minister's office recently put the number of "living Holocaust survivors" at nearly a million' (extract from The Holocaust Industry by Norman G. Finkelstein of the City University of New York, published by Verso, London and New York, 2000, p.83).

Samuel Wilson said...

The problem with conspiracy theory and with the "cui bono" approach to history generally, is that it fails to account for unanticipated consequences. The assumption seems to be that whoever won willed the game. There's no need to assume this. History is never as neat as some would like.

On another issue, isn't it true that there is no specific condemnation of abortion in any of the "Abrahamic" scriptures -- in the old or new testaments or in the Qur'an? If so, what does A1 (pardon my abbreviation) make of that?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous1 is happy to respond. I will begin by quoting a man who knew something of politics: Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt stated: "In politics nothing happens by coincidence." He should know-after all, he is the man who set up the fleet at Pearl Harbor to take that attack which all reputable historians just know was the product of a failure of co-ordination among the intelligence agencies.

Sarcasm aside, Mr. Wilson has a point, although not as strong a one as he imagines. Things do indeed go wrong-and we have the naive English expectation that they could crush the Germans in two wars to prove it. That, however, does not get around the very clear evidence of Jewish behind the scenes manipulation of events. The cause and effect is there, however much Mr. Wilson may deny it. As to abortion, the relevant data is found in the passages of the Talmud and the various rabbinical commentaries. I suggest that Mr. Wilson consult: "Kosher Slaughter of The Unborn" by Jayne Gardener where the appropriate data is laid out in detail.

Finally, to re-enforce the allegations of Jewish leftism which Jewish wealth has not cured, I reccomend an excellent study, "Fire In Their Hearts: Yiddish Socialists In New York" by Professor Tony Michels. The documentation is consistent with everything which is already known but I offer the following choice quotations for the readers:

"The March revolution iniated a small exodus of socialists from the United States. The Forverts labor editor and the Jewish Socialist Federation leader, Max Goldfarb, left for Russia in 1917, only to be emerge several years later as a Red Army general. On a single day in June a departing ship carried Shakhne Epshtyn, Moshye Terman, A. Litvak, the Marxist Zionist theoretician Ber Borokhov, the future historian of Jewish socialism Eliyohu Tsherikover, and other intellectuals and activists representing the gamut of Jewish political parties. The future Soviet leaders Trotsky and Nikolai Bukharin also left New York for Russia in early 1917... the March revolution lured more than 850 Jews and 7,557 Russian nationals (which probably included numerous Jews who chose not to identify themselves as such) back to Russia." (p.218.)

"...Jewish socialists (and, to some extent, Jewish public opinion generally) grew more pro-Soviet into 1918 and 1919. The civil war, the mass slaughter of Jews by czarist forces, and the release of pent-up utopian aspirations drew all but a few die-hard opponents closer to Moscow." (p.219.)

"...more Jewish socialists, including those initially hostile to the Bolsheviks, turned to Communism over the next few years. From the perspective of Communist Party leaders, the success of Communism in the United States depended on Jews." (p.221.)

From the above quotations it is clear that Jews did, indeed, leap with enthusiasm into the joys of bolshevik revolution. By their reference works ye shall know them.

Samuel Wilson said...

It's never been part of this exercise for me to deny that there have been Jewish leftists, or that the left has had appeal for many Jews. The point in dispute is whether Jewish people have some special responsibility for the emergence of socialism and the excesses of Bolshevism. The Anonymii seem more interested in having Jews apologize for Marxism- Leninism than having Leninists apologize generally. If so, why is that?

I ought to add that I don't take Franklin Roosevelt's aphorisms as statements of historical law. No matter what authority you ascribe to any individual, an opinion is only an opinion. The relations of effects to causes in the political realm remain a matter of interpretation.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous1 says:

Mr. Wilson wishes to concede the facts but avoid their implications. In other words, yes, it is true that Jews have been disproportionately involved with the political left-but it is the political left, rather than the Jews per se, who bear the responsibility. Sorry, but the left cannot be dissociated from its founding people.

Nor is it true that Jews have repudiated the left. They have merely transmuted their doctrines into more up to date forms. Instead of advocating communism as in days of yore, they now advocate liberalism, neoconservatism ("Israel uber alles"), feminism, civil rightism, bogus "wars on terrorism", globalism, ad nauseam. The poison is still operating.

As for politics they are a matter of interpretation but the interpretation must be based on facts. No one is presently arguing the facts. The fact is that there is a Jewish international which has had, and still is having, extremely deleterious effects on American society. The destruction of the US as a white country is now an all but accomplished fact. This tearing down of the racial homogeneity of the US has been accomplished entirely by Jewish efforts to change the immigration laws. I refer those interested in the facts to the relevant chapter in "Culture of Critique".

Patrick Buchanan has written extensively on all these subjects in his other books-without, of course, pinning the donkey's tail on the Chosen People. But he knows-and so does Anonymous1.

Samuel Wilson said...

Since the original post in this thread is no longer on the current posts page, I've decided to continue the discussion with a new post for July 23, titled "The Anonymous Debate Continues." Please attach any further comments to that post.