web analytics
Categories
2nd World War Correspondence Film Women

‘Cool German ladies’

Yesterday I made a find among the documents my father left behind: a letter written during the Second World War, in Germany, from the combat zone between the Americans and the Germans.

The missive, typed in Spanish, is addressed to my father and lacks a year, although we see the words ‘Abril 9’ (April 9) at the top. A brief note from my father that I didn’t scan for this post attached to the letter reads (my translation): ‘Letter from Nelson Valderrama. Friend of mine in high school’.

I will translate the two sentences marked in pink (the orange is a sticky tape which, I assume, my father put on). On the first page, we read ‘…and I wounded the first German I ever wounded—between neck and shoulder, as I searched him I got his blood on me’. On the back is the second page we read: ‘…a young German girl, I stayed with her most of the night. I don’t understand these people, they’re supposed to hate Americans, and here they are super cool young ladies whose boyfriends we’ve killed, inviting us to spend the night with them…’

Many times I have mentioned my favourite Russian film, Andrei Rublev, where Durochka, a blonde girl, spits in her partner Andrei’s face to leave with a Tartar after these savages massacred, with infinite cruelty, almost all the inhabitants of her village. What I love not only about that scene but about the film in general, is that it makes no value judgements: it just portrays with extraordinary crudeness the reality as it happened centuries ago in director Tarkovsky’s mother Russia.

In one of his videos, the late Gonzalo Lira said that women’s behaviour shouldn’t infuriate us. It is simply their nature. I would add that this is as true for Dúrochka as it is for the German women, as we see in this letter which shocked me yesterday when I read it for the first time in my life. (While I had long heard the name ‘Nelson Valderrama’, I had no idea that this idiot had fought on the wrong side during WW2!)

Not only did the casualties Valderrama describes disgust me as I read it, but his letter sheds light on why Andrew Anglin is right that women’s brains are constituted in such a way that they think radically differently from us. And as a vlogger said, whose text I edited in my anthology On Beth’s Cute Tits (pages 99-116), if power were to pass once more to us, we must never again empower the fair sex.

But I insist: the late Lira was right that we shouldn’t hate women in the least for their behaviour. If anything, we should hate the men who have been tolerating, and still tolerate, all feminist waves. That’s why I so highly recommend the best Russian movie ever made: a film so different from Hollywood that only those who appreciate art cinema will love it.

Categories
2nd World War Third Reich

Blunder

My post for next Monday, the first of January, is being written for new visitors to this site. That will be the new featured post and I will use a metaphor analogous to the one I have been using about the psychological Rubicon: a metaphor that for now can be seen in this year’s featured post, ‘The River Nymph’. The next featured post, which, I reiterate, is for new visitors who are unaware of what the transvaluation of values is, says much the same but in an even more incisive way.

There is something I will say in the forthcoming featured post about which I can advance something for the moment.

Hitler and his inner circle of National Socialists, with whom he discussed the esoteric aspect of NS (his anti-Christianity—cf. Weikart’s book), didn’t have the opportunity to read mature mythicist literature as far as the historicity of Jesus is concerned.

Mythicism only matured in the present century, for example, with the work of mythicist Richard Carrier but also with non-mythicists like Richard Miller (see what we have said about Miller’s work in 2023). With this in mind, the forthcoming featured post will show a theological difference of mine with Hitler and Rosenberg in that, only up to our times, we can already begin to conceive, with recent scholarship on early Christian writings, that Jesus is as fictional a figure as the legendary King Arthur. The relevance of this for a 21st century National Socialism is capital, though this will be the subject of another post.

As far as today’s quote from Simms’ book is concerned (‘It was probably from him that Hitler got his determination that the Germans should not become a people like the [holocausted] Armenians’), I must add something.

While this issue of not realising the fictional nature of Jesus is understandable in Hitler’s biography, the military decision to invade the Soviet Union was Hitler’s mistake that led to what we have called here the Hellstorm Holocaust, the holocaust of Germans from 1945 to 1947 (which very few have heard of). Not all the generals of the Third Reich agreed with Operation Barbarossa, precisely because of the vast expanses of Russian territory and ‘General Winter’. In fact, the same thing happened to Hitler as to Napoleon in the previous century, so the artist ought to have listened to his generals.

Hitler was first and foremost an artist aware of the history of his people, as we saw in the previous day’s post, ‘Hitler 14’, with his books on art and history being the most widely read. Savitri Devi was absolutely right in saying that Hitler was first and foremost ‘Sun’, but that he failed in his ‘Lightning’. Had the solar artist been a little more patient, he would have prepared with the atomic bomb and then he would have become Kalki: the enemies of the Reich would have been incinerated with the Lightning of an Austrian avatar of this Indo-European god, and the Third Reich would now reign from the Atlantic to the Urals.

(Left, Vasily Malinin vs. Viktor Savinov—Leningrad). Operation Barbarossa was a serious mistake: a blunder as chess players say, like gambiting the queen and then realising we just cannot checkmate our opponent with a wrong sacrifice! And it bothers me that Hitler’s fans want to rationalise it by claiming that Stalin was about to invade Germany. The truth is that the Diktat the US imposed on Europe after the Hellstorm Holocaust was, as Francis Parker Yockey saw, even worse than if Stalin had invaded Europe. This interview with Srdja Trifkovic, who as a young man suffered under Yugoslav communism, is worth watching (Trifkovic lived on Gran Canaria, the Spanish island next to Africa where I also lived for almost a year).

But what I wanted to get at here is that, while I will continue to admire Hitler for the Sun he represented, it is clear that he didn’t read Sun Tzu when it comes to the point that, if you know your enemy like the back of your hand, you won’t lose any war.

Categories
2nd World War Film

Fantasia

Walt Disney’s Fantasia (1940) is the fourth film on my list of fifty. When I saw it as a child on the big screen it made a big impression on me, and when I saw it again as a teenager, once more on the big screen, it continued to impress me. Today, I am still impressed only by the first segment: the orchestration of Bach’s Toccata and Fugue. At the other extreme, the segment about the hippos dancing with crocodiles is too grotesque and should have been replaced by Debussy’s Clair de Lune segment. This was developed as part of the original Fantasia programme. After being fully animated (watch it here) it was removed from the final film to shorten its length!

In my recent post on the first chapter of Simms’ book on Hitler, I said that young Adolf would go far because he was initiated into art; and that without art it is impossible for contemporary racialists to reach his level. From that point of view, one might think that Fantasia could serve as an initiation to classical music for the Aryan child. But things are a little more complex.

If one looks closely at the festivities of the National Socialists, say in Munich, they were permeated with a paganism that is absent in Fantasia. The segment of the film in which the Disney Studios used Beethoven’s Pastoral Symphony with Greco-Roman mythology would have come across as too cloying and childish to the Teutonic palate, more imbued with the Roman severitas of the Republic than the dissipation of imperial Rome. And while the animation of the amalgamation of Mussorgsky’s Night on Bald Mountain with Schubert’s Ave Maria is artistically very well done, it makes too many concessions to Christianity, including those seconds when the devil Chernabog throws souls into hellfire.

At midnight Chernabog awakes and summons evil spirits
and restless souls from their graves to Bald Mountain.

In other words: both the pseudo-Greco-Roman paganism of Disney Studios’ Pastoral and the Christian motifs of the Mussorgsky-Schubert animation aren’t exactly healthy for the child who is to be introduced to genuine Aryan art.

It is very difficult to pronounce myself on this matter, while in the West there is much splendid art which has the misfortune that has been used as propaganda for unwholesome messages (see for example what I say about Bach and Wagner on pages 149-156 of Daybreak). Bach himself, whom I said above is the only segment of Fantasia that still impresses me and which I openly recommend, I sometimes view with great reserve.

For example, the Philadelphia Orchestra’s orchestration of the Toccata in Fantasia, originally written for organ, is not only truly magnificent but detracts from the ominous charge we hear in churches: something like paganising Christian music. This also happened to me with a piece of Bach’s music we don’t hear in Fantasia, the Partita No. 2 for solo violin, which I find extremely disturbing and ominous on violin but which, when performed on classical guitar, miraculously takes away all that burden of Christian obscurantism, typical of the Reformation ethos in which the Protestants of Bach’s time were still living.

In a nutshell, it is difficult to recommend Disney films without reservation for the education of the Aryan child, including Fantasia. On the internet I have just read the following:

Disney WWII Propaganda Emerges As Part of the War Effort

Walt Disney and his staff were no exception, and with [his] Studios commandeered by the military on December 8, 1941, they soon found themselves entrenched in the ongoing war effort. Of the dozens of training, propaganda, and educational films Walt and his staff made over the next four years of the war, none reached the popularity of the Donald Duck short Der Fuehrer’s Face (1943), in which the irascible duck takes on the role of a munitions factory worker in “Nutzi Land”…

Walt himself would later recall the popularity of the film: “[It] was the most popular propaganda film we had. It was put in all languages. They had it in the Underground. The Underground were running it and were getting a good laugh out of it while they were under the heel of Hitler, you know?”

If Hitler and not these morons had won the war, we can already imagine the kind of animation art that would have captured the imagination of the Aryan childhood.

Categories
2nd World War Hellstorm Holocaust Salvador Borrego

On Allied criminals, 3

by Salvador Borrego

Worse than 5th century Attila
 

When the bombing of German residential areas was at its height, wounding thousands of women and children, Pope Pius XII requested that the Allied powers designate a German city as a ‘hospital city’ where the wounded could be cared for and sheltered from the bombing. Churchill did not deign to reply. By contrast, in 452 the dreaded Attila, king of the Huns, was looming over Rome, and Pope Leo I (called the Great) went out to meet him and said something to him. It is not known what, but Attila retreated unharmed.

Visibly more intractable than Attila, the ‘civilised’ Winston Churchill made decisions without the slightest trace of humanity, one might even say with complacency. For example, on learning that German Red Cross seaplanes were rescuing pilots floating in the waters of the English Channel, he ordered them to be fired upon. The rescue was of German and British pilots, but Churchill felt that the German airmen could return to combat. What about the British? If they were saved, they would be taken prisoner, so that they would be of no further use to Britain. Their lives did not matter.

Savage warfare was also fought at sea. Just one example: the German submarine U-156, commanded by Captain Werner Hartenstein, sank the 20,000-ton British-flagged armed merchant cruiser ‘Laconia’. When Hartenstein realised that there were many shipwrecked survivors, more than 200 Englishmen, including civilians, he began to rescue them and called two more submarines to help him. At the same time, he radioed his position on marine frequencies in English for help from the British Navy. The three submarines would not fire and identified themselves as the Red Cross.

Meanwhile, the castaways continued to swell, crowding the U-boats’ interiors and decks, and the submarines were towing several lifeboats. As the U-boats were struggling to care for the shipwrecked, several American tetra-motors finally appeared, but to their surprise, they were dropping bombs on the three U-boats, which were forced to submerge.

Did London think it was more ‘profitable’ to sink a submarine than to save its shipwrecked sailors? Of the 811 Englishmen on board the Laconia, 800 were saved. And of the 1,800 Italian prisoners on board, only 450 could be saved.
 

Hess’ offering peace—a ‘war crime’

After defeating France and the British expeditionary army, Hitler made two peace offers to Britain, asking for nothing in return. Churchill responded contemptuously. Then Rudolf Hess, head of the National Socialist Party and Hitler’s successor after Goering, made a risky flight to England to give more impetus to a third peace attempt. Churchill would not allow him to speak to the King and imprisoned him as a ‘war criminal’. He was later tried at Nurenberg and sentenced to life imprisonment. At the age of 93, aged and infirm, he was asphyxiated with a wire and it was called ‘suicide’. His remains were buried at an unknown location.

For centuries it had been customary for a white-flagged peace emissary to be listened to and then returned to his home territory, whether anything or nothing was approved. It was more practical for Churchill to declare him a war criminal, even though Hess took no part in the war. His flight took place on the eve of the German attack on the USSR.

Incidentally, Churchill, so ‘gentlemanly’, sympathised with Stalin (whom Roosevelt called ‘Uncle Joseph’), and before the war he watched impassively as the USSR took over fifteen Asian countries, with fifty million inhabitants and five million square kilometres, to subject them to communism. And during Stalin’s mass purges of opponents or mere suspects, Churchill played them down as ‘not entirely unnecessary’. The secret is that in the world there is one entity with two arms: the right one in Wall Street and London, and the left one in Moscow. The two have merged into Liberalism and savage Neoliberalism, heading towards World Government, which in turn is innocently presented as Globalisation.
 

Eleven million inhabitants thrown out of their homes and territory

This happened as a result of German provinces being given to Poland and the USSR, according to Churchill’s decision.

In the Atlantic Charter, signed on 14 August 1941 by Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, it was specified that none of the three belligerents would seek territory from the defeated. But at the end of the war, it was stated that this pact did not include Germany. As a result, several provinces in eastern Germany were to be ceded to Poland and the USSR. Their 15 million inhabitants were to be thrown out, with only the clothes on their backs.

Of those 15 million, four million managed to flee months before the end of the war, due to the invasion of Soviet troops, who had been supplied with extra vodka by the Jewish commissar llia Eherenburg and the slogan to ‘humiliate German women’ using mob rapes.

It remained, then, to displace eleven million inhabitants. The Russian writer Solyenitsin writes that ‘the savagery committed by the Soviet troops seemed to be a decoration won in combat’. Some towns occupied by the Red Army were temporarily retaken by German troops, and they witnessed so many crimes against the civilian population that press correspondents from neutral countries such as Switzerland, Sweden, Spain and even France were called in as witnesses. Geneva’s Le Curier reported on 7 November 1944 that there were scenes that were hard to believe if you did not see them. A caravan of women and children trying to escape had been crushed by the tracks of Soviet tanks. The enemy raped girls as young as seven and women as old as 80, and those who put up desperate resistance were hanged and still raped. In small villages, not a woman or girl or old man was left alive. There had been numerous suicides. An estimated 1.5 million girls and adult women were raped.

On 28 December 1944, when the savagery of the Soviets had been fully established, Pope Pius XII publicly condemned it, but no one seconded him. The mainstream press hushed up the whole thing or alluded to it only tangentially in brief notes.
 

Churchill authorised the ‘transfers’

On 15 December 1945, Churchill reiterated in the House of Commons: ‘Expulsion is the method which, so far as we can foresee, will prove most satisfactory and lasting. And I am not concerned with these mass deportations which, under modern conditions, are now more practicable than ever.

Already the Earl of Mansfield had prepared the ground for Churchill in the House of Commons with the following ‘reasoning’: ‘There is no reason why we should look with undue consternation on the inevitable sufferings which may be inflicted on the Germans in the course of these transfers’.

Since such transfers were more difficult in the middle of winter, as there were no vehicles on land and the displaced persons were forced to walk long distances on foot, the German navy wanted to help. On the liner Wilhelm Gustloff, 10,500 people were crammed onto the ship on 30 January 1945. It was a ship identified as a Red Cross ship, as it was carrying women, children and wounded. Yet it was torpedoed and sunk by a Soviet submarine. Almost all died in the icy waters.

Twelve days later the hospital ship Steuben, with 3,608 civilians on board from East Prussia, which the Allies were cutting off from Germany to give to the USSR, met the same fate. Days later, a third hospital ship, the Goya, was also sunk with 6,667 civilians on board. Together, the three sinkings killed 20,000 adults and children, thirteen times more than those who died in the Titanic tragedy of 1912. Captain Marinesko, commander of the submarine that carried out two of the three sinkings, was declared a hero of the Soviet Union.

But, of course, as the English Earl Mansfield had said, ‘There is no reason why we should look with undue consternation on the inevitable sufferings which may be inflicted on the Germans in the course of the transfers’.
 

A dismayed US senator

When the mass expulsion was already in full swing, a group of US senators went to observe what was happening. They saw how people were forced to leave their homes, their furniture and their land. They could only take what they were wearing. Mr Eastland then reported to the US Senate: ‘It is one of the most horrible chapters in human history. Words are incapable of adequately describing what is going on there. The virtue of humanity and the value of human life are the most sacred possessions of civilised man. Yet they are today the most trivial thing in East Germany. Conditions prevail there which defy human comprehension’ (4 Dec. 1945).

Another who was also dismayed was the British MP Evans, who denounced in the House of Commons that the expulsions ‘are a great tragedy, indescribable and revolting. Is it for this that the souls of the brave, of those who did not return, of those who could not grow old, have died in this war?’

Moreover, a British officer, a witness to the expulsion, said: ‘The greatest horror in contemporary history is taking place in East Germany. Many millions of Germans—mostly women and children—have been thrown on the roads and are dying by the thousands on those roads from starvation, dysentery and exhaustion’ (14 Nov. 1946). Summing up what he had seen in turn, US Congressman Mr Eastlan declared: ‘It is a crime of genocide’.

It was remarkable, at the time, how unanimous the international news agencies were in silencing or ignoring the protests in Britain and the United States about the cruelty of the expulsions.

From his point of view as a geographer, the American Isaiah Bowman—who participated in the San Francisco Peace Conference when the transfers were taking place—said: ‘One’s territory evokes personal and group feelings. For a people, it is in its soil that the traces of its past reside. A people endows their territory with a mystical nature where the echo of its ancestors resounds. The authors of old deeds speak to their people from their graves dug in their soil. The landscape is essential to the concept of home’. This is how this scientist saw the tragedy of the millions of Germans forced to lose the soil of their ancestors, and that nine million adults and children could hardly be accommodated in West Germany.

Even in the House of Commons in London there was criticism of such expulsions as inhumane, to which Churchill responded as follows: ‘Since seven million Germans died in the war, there is now sufficient space to receive at least as many displaced people from the eastern territories, thus restoring everything to its former equilibrium’. Not even Attila used to make such ‘transfers’!

Categories
2nd World War Hellstorm Holocaust Salvador Borrego

On Allied criminals, 2

by Salvador Borrego

STRANGE RITUAL IN DRESDEN

 
The bombing of Dresden is a strange case, with no military explanation. It occurred when the Allies had already won the war, two and a half months before the unconditional surrender was signed. All the more so because Dresden had no military objectives at all. The case is all the more inexplicable because Dresden had a population of 600,000 and then became congested with thousands of women and children fleeing the savagery of the Soviet army invading eastern Germany.

It was in these circumstances that it was bombed on 13 February 1945. There were 3,250 Allied tetra-motor flights, involving 33,000 aircrew and mechanics. Squadrons flew 5,500 kilometres and tens of millions of dollars were spent to drop 5,000 explosive and 400,000 incendiary bombs.

Women, with their children, were turned into human flares; some were thrown into the Elbe River, but they still burned because water does not extinguish the fire of liquid phosphorus. According to low estimates, a quarter of a million women and children perished. According to high estimates, such as David Irving’s, it was half a million, far more than the two atomic bombs that killed 155,000 Japanese. Was it a ritual bombing, straight out of the Old Testament? According to Exodus chapter 29, the Jews say that Yahweh asked them to burn animal flesh because the smell of burning flesh was very pleasing to him. In Dresden, the smell of burning meat rose thousands of metres high.

One of the phases of Winston Churchill’s personality was that in the conduct of the war on land, he left Marshals Auchinleck and Montgomery, and General Desmond Young, completely independent. The fighting in the air, on the other hand, was a war of his own, conducted with special care to cause as many casualties as possible among the German civilian population. As soon as the residential area of one German city was devastated, he had already set his sights on achieving ‘victory’ in another city, large, medium or small. Sir Arthur Harris, the bomber commander, was similarly determined.

The English historian Veale considers that Churchill and Harris went from civilised warfare to barbarism. In the House of Commons, Churchill announced on 21 September 1943 that ‘to put an end to Nazism there will be no extremes of violence to which we will not resort’ (F. J. P. Veale, The Crime of Nuremberg, 1954).

Categories
2nd World War Hellstorm Holocaust Salvador Borrego

On Allied criminals, 1

by Salvador Borrego

From the book Alemania Pudo Vencer (Germany Could Have Won, 2009) by the Mexican researcher Salvador Borrego (1915-2018) we present here some translated excerpts in which he talks about the barbarism of the Allies during the Second World War, their criminal leaders, especially Churchill and the psychopathic Eisenhower, against a Germany that was hindering and delaying the implementation of the One World Government, known today as Globalisation:
 

CHAPTER III
: The Advance of Barbarism

In his speech on 21 May 1935 (when there was still no talk of war), Hitler pointed out that years earlier it had been agreed internationally not to use expanding bullets; ordinary bullets were enough to put a soldier out of action without causing painful damage. He also recalled that the Red Cross had once stipulated that prisoners be given medical care, food and shelter. Similarly, he added, it could now be agreed that aviation should not drop bombs outside combat zones. This complemented the 230-year-old tradition that armed forces should only fight against armed forces, not against the civilian population.

In line with his proposal, Germany began to build its wartime aircraft with high-precision aircraft, such as the Stuka, which dive-bombed combat forces.

Meanwhile, plans were being drawn up in Britain to build large four-engine aircraft, capable of carrying up to 4,000-kilogram bombs but lacking the characteristics required to participate effectively in battles of armed forces against armed forces.

The Second World War began on 1 September 1939. The British and French empires lined up against Germany. Churchill took command on 11 May the following year and immediately ordered the German city of Freiburg to be bombed.

The British Air Minister, J. M. Spaight, says in his book that the English began to bomb German cities before the enemy proceeded in the same way against them and adds that this is a historical fact which must be publicly admitted as a splendid decision.

There is strong evidence that the Jew Alexander Lindemann advised Churchill to concentrate bombing preferably on residential areas, as this could cause many thousands of casualties among women and children, i.e. the families of soldiers on the front lines. Churchill rewarded Lindemann for his advice by making him a Lord, later known as Lord Cherwell.

Perhaps such advice was unnecessary, for Churchill had a tremendous hatred of the Germans. He went so far as to say that he was anxious to conquer a piece of German territory to piss on it. The English General Fuller was struck by the fact that massive bombing raids were carried out on cities that had no military objective, as was the case with the city of Hildesheim, a perfect example of a medieval city, which had not the slightest military significance, for even the railway junction was outside the city.

Following the entry of the United States into the war, American commanders began to select German military targets for destruction, but Churchill opposed this tactic. At his meeting in Casablanca with President Roosevelt, he asked that American tetra-motors join British aircraft in intensifying their attacks on German residential areas. Roosevelt agreed. Churchill was delighted. Marshal Harris reports that on the night of 28-29 March they set fire to a whole German town, Lübeck; its buildings were much easier to set fire to, given their nature.

Churchill’s profile was not that of a Genghis Khan; not even of a Cromwell. He was highly educated; he was a good orator and his bearing was that of a gentleman. Yet he had no scruple of conscience when he sat down to dinner and his customary glass of brandy in the evening, knowing that his liquid phosphorus bombs were turning thousands of helpless women and children into burning torches and that other mothers with their children were suffocating in the high heat of the fires.

Sir Arthur Harris, the bomber commander, endorses the following account of the Hamburg bombing claiming that 63.5 per cent of the city was destroyed, including its residential areas, ad that due to the combination of thousands of fires, the air became so hot that it created a vacuum which in turn sucked in the surrounding air with an unstoppable centripetal force. The temperature was 600 to 1000 degrees Celsius. The air circulated with immense force, carrying with it incandescent beams and roofs. A hurricane of flames formed, of a violence never seen before. The next day, a cloud of smoke and dust still hung over the city, completely blocking out the sun. This was a greater catastrophe for the Germans than the two atomic bombs against Japan. In Hamburg, 80,000 apple-bursting bombs were dropped, along with 80,000 incendiary bombs and 3,000 cans of phosphorous to fuel the fires. Trees were uprooted and there were 7,196 tons of bombs from British aircraft, plus those from American tetra-motors. From German sources, 40,000 were reported dead, including 5,000 children, plus 120,000 wounded. The Americans said that such figures were far lower than the reality.

Harris commented that the attack on Hamburg had been one of his greatest successes. And much the same in Berlin, Cologne, Stuttgart, Munich, Nuremberg, Essen and hundreds of other large, medium and small cities. In the preface to a book by Liddell Hart, it is said that several British generals deplored the inhumanity of the bombing ordered by Churchill, but kept silent for fear of damaging their careers.

In short, one million and 350,000 tons of bombs were dropped on living areas in 164 cities. More than half a million civilians were killed and more than a million were seriously injured. 3,600,000 homes were destroyed. Thirteen million inhabitants were deprived of shelter. After each bombing, water, sewage or heating services were reduced or stopped altogether until firemen and civilians rushed to repair them (Hans Rumpf, The Bombing of Germany).

Categories
2nd World War

Why

everything you know about
World War II is wrong

by Ron Unz

Speaking of the System hiding from us, and often reversing, the most important historical truth, it is worth listening to these articles by Ron Unz (originally published as texts).

Categories
2nd World War David Irving Free speech / Free press

The remarkable historiography of David Irving

by Ron Unz

 
I’m very pleased to announce that our selection of HTML Books now contains works by renowned World War II historian David Irving, including his magisterial Hitler’s War, named by famed military historian Sir John Keegan as one of the most crucial volumes for properly understanding that conflict.

With many millions of his books in print, including a string of best-sellers translated into numerous languages, it’s quite possible that the eighty-year-old Irving today ranks as the most internationally-successful British historian of the last one hundred years. Although I myself have merely read a couple of his shorter works, I found these absolutely outstanding, with Irving regularly deploying his remarkable command of the primary source documentary evidence to totally demolish my naive History 101 understanding of major historical events. It would hardly surprise me if the huge corpus of his writings eventually constitutes a central pillar upon which future historians seek to comprehend the catastrophically bloody middle years of our hugely destructive twentieth century even after most of our other chroniclers of that era are long forgotten.

Carefully reading a thousand-page reconstruction of the German side of the Second World War is obviously a daunting undertaking, and his remaining thirty-odd books would probably add at least another 10,000 pages to that Herculean task. But fortunately, Irving is also a riveting speaker, and several of his extended lectures of recent decades are conveniently available on YouTube, as given below. [Editor's note: They have already been censored on YouTube, but can be viewed on BitChute.] These effectively present many of his most remarkable revelations concerning the wartime policies of both Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler, as well as sometimes recounting the challenging personal situation he himself faced. Watching these lectures (here and here) may consume several hours, but that is still a trivial investment compared to the many weeks it would take to digest the underlying books themselves.

When confronted with astonishing claims that completely overturn an established historical narrative, considerable skepticism is warranted, and my own lack of specialized expertise in World War II history left me especially cautious. The documents Irving unearths seemingly portray a Winston Churchill so radically different from that of my naive understanding as to be almost unrecognizable, and this naturally raised the question of whether I could credit the accuracy of Irving’s evidence and his interpretation. All his material is massively footnoted, referencing copious documents in numerous official archives, but how could I possibly muster the time or energy to verify them?

Rather ironically, an extremely unfortunate turn of events seems to have fully resolved that crucial question.

Irving is an individual of uncommonly strong scholarly integrity, and as such he is unable to see things in the record that do not exist, even if it were in his considerable interest to do so, nor to fabricate non-existent evidence. Therefore, his unwillingness to dissemble or pay lip-service to various widely-worshiped cultural totems eventually provoked an outpouring of vilification by a swarm of ideological fanatics drawn from a particular ethnic persuasion. This situation was rather similar to the troubles my old Harvard professor E.O. Wilson had experienced around that same time upon publication of his own masterwork Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, the book that helped launch the field of modern human evolutionary psychobiology.

These zealous ethnic-activists began a coordinated campaign to pressure Irving’s prestigious publishers into dropping his books, while also disrupting his frequent international speaking tours and even lobbying countries to bar him from entry. They maintained a drumbeat of media vilification, continually blackening his name and his research skills, even going so far as to denounce him as a “Nazi” and a “Hitler-lover,” just as had similarly been done in the case of Prof. Wilson.

During the 1980s and 1990s, these determined efforts, sometimes backed by considerable physical violence, increasingly bore fruit, and Irving’s career was severely impacted. He had once been feted by the world’s leading publishing houses and his books serialized and reviewed in Britain’s most august newspapers; now he gradually became a marginalized figure, almost a pariah, with enormous damage to his sources of income.

In 1993, Deborah Lipstadt, a rather ignorant and fanatic professor of Theology and Holocaust Studies (or perhaps “Holocaust Theology”) ferociously attacked him in her book as being a “Holocaust Denier,” leading Irving’s timorous publisher to suddenly cancel the contract for his major new historical volume. This development eventually sparked a rancorous lawsuit in 1998, which resulted in a celebrated 2000 libel trial held in British Court.

That legal battle was certainly a David-and-Goliath affair, with wealthy Jewish movie producers and corporate executives providing a huge war-chest of $13 million to Lipstadt’s side, allowing her to fund a veritable army of 40 researchers and legal experts, captained by one of Britain’s most successful Jewish divorce lawyers. By contrast, Irving, being an impecunious historian, was forced to defend himself without benefit of legal counsel.

In real life unlike in fable, the Goliaths of this world are almost invariably triumphant, and this case was no exception, with Irving being driven into personal bankruptcy, resulting in the loss of his fine central London home. But seen from the longer perspective of history, I think the victory of his tormenters was a remarkably Pyrrhic one.

Although the target of their unleashed hatred was Irving’s alleged “Holocaust denial,” as near as I can tell, that particular topic was almost entirely absent from all of Irving’s dozens of books, and exactly that very silence was what had provoked their spittle-flecked outrage. Therefore, lacking such a clear target, their lavishly-funded corps of researchers and fact-checkers instead spent a year or more apparently performing a line-by-line and footnote-by-footnote review of everything Irving had ever published, seeking to locate every single historical error that could possibly cast him in a bad professional light. With almost limitless money and manpower, they even utilized the process of legal discovery to subpoena and read the thousands of pages in his bound personal diaries and correspondence, thereby hoping to find some evidence of his “wicked thoughts.” Denial, a 2016 Hollywood film co-written by Lipstadt, may provide a reasonable outline of the sequence of events as seen from her perspective.

Yet despite such massive financial and human resources, they apparently came up almost entirely empty, at least if Lipstadt’s triumphalist 2005 book History on Trial may be credited. Across four decades of research and writing, which had produced numerous controversial historical claims of the most astonishing nature, they only managed to find a couple of dozen rather minor alleged errors of fact or interpretation, most of these ambiguous or disputed. And the worst they discovered after reading every page of the many linear meters of Irving’s personal diaries was that he had once composed a short “racially insensitive” ditty for his infant daughter, a trivial item which they naturally then trumpeted as proof that he was a “racist.” Thus, they seemingly admitted that Irving’s enormous corpus of historical texts was perhaps 99.9% accurate.

I think this silence of “the dog that didn’t bark” echoes with thunderclap volume. I’m not aware of any other academic scholar in the entire history of the world who has had all his decades of lifetime work subjected to such painstakingly exhaustive hostile scrutiny. And since Irving apparently passed that test with such flying colors, I think we can regard almost every astonishing claim in all of his books—as recapitulated in his videos—as absolutely accurate.

Aside from this important historical conclusion, I believe that the most recent coda to Irving’s tribulations tells us quite a lot about the true nature of “Western liberal democracy” so lavishly celebrated by our media pundits, and endlessly contrasted with the “totalitarian” or “authoritarian” characteristics of its ideological rivals, past and present.

In 2005, Irving took a quick visit to Austria, having been invited to speak before a group of Viennese university students. Shortly after his arrival, he was arrested at gunpoint by the local Political Police on charges connected with some historical remarks he had made 16 years earlier on a previous visit to that country, although those had apparently been considered innocuous at the time. Initially, his arrest was kept secret and he was held completely incommunicado; for his family back in Britain, he seemed to have disappeared off the face of the earth, and they feared him dead. More than six weeks were to pass before he was allowed to communicate with either his wife or a lawyer, though he managed to provide word of his situation earlier through an intermediary.

And at the age of 67 he was eventually brought to trial in a foreign courtroom under very difficult circumstances and given a three-year prison sentence. An interview he gave to the BBC about his legal predicament resulted in possible additional charges, potentially carrying a further twenty-year sentence, which probably would have ensured that he died behind bars. Only the extremely good fortune of a successful appeal, partly on technical grounds, allowed him to depart the prison grounds after spending more than 400 days under incarceration, almost entirely in solitary confinement, and he escaped back to Britain.

His sudden, unexpected disappearance had inflicted huge financial hardships upon his family, and they lost their home, with most of his personal possessions being sold or destroyed, including the enormous historical archives he had spent a lifetime accumulating. He later recounted this gripping story in Banged Up, a slim book published in 2008, as well as in a video interview available here.

Perhaps I am demonstrating my ignorance, but I am not aware of any similar case of a leading international scholar who suffered such a dire fate for quietly stating his historical opinions, even during in darkest days of Stalinist Russia or any of the other totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century. Although this astonishing situation taking place in a West European democracy of the “Free World” did receive considerable media exposure within Europe, coverage in our own country was so minimal that I doubt that today even one well-educated American in twenty is even aware it ever happened.

Categories
2nd World War Vladimir Putin

Putin quote


The United States is the only country in the world that has used nuclear weapons twice, destroying the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. And they created a precedent.

Recall that during WWII the United States and Britain reduced Dresden, Hamburg, Cologne and many other German cities to rubble, without the least military necessity. It was done ostentatiously and, to repeat, without any military necessity. They had only one goal, as with the nuclear bombing of Japanese cities: to intimidate our country and the rest of the world.

It actually continues to occupy Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea and other countries, which they cynically refer to as equals and allies. Look now, what kind of alliance is that? The whole world knows that the top officials in these countries are being spied on and that their offices and homes are bugged. It is a disgrace, a disgrace for those who do this and for those who, like slaves, silently and meekly swallow this arrogant behaviour.

_________

Source: here.

Categories
2nd World War Moscow

The Führer’s monologues, 2

For the context of these translations click here,
for this monologue in German, here.

Führer Headquarters 5/6 July 1941, 11.30 a.m. – 1.50 a.m.

Conversation with [Nicolaus] v. Below[1] about whether we wouldn’t do well to publish pictures of the large-calibre gun, which had not yet been shown, now for once, for the moral shaking of the enemy. Long general discussion about car engines: the Führer’s first and later cars. [Hitler also said:]

The beauty of Crimea is made accessible to us by a motorway: the German south. Crete is hot and forestless. Cyprus would be nice, but we reach Crimea by road—Kiev. And our destination: Croatia. ‘I think there will be great joy after the war’.

Better than the railway, which is somewhat impersonal, the motor car will connect the peoples. What a factor on the way to the new Europe! Just as the autobahn [federal controlled-access highway system in Germany] made the inner-German borders disappear, the borders of the European countries will be abolished.

When asked whether it would be enough to have advanced as far as the Urals as a frontier, [I reply that] it will be enough to have advanced the frontier as far as there. Bolshevism must be eradicated; if necessary, to this end we would advance from there to wherever a new centre of resistance is forming. Moscow as the seat of this doctrine will disappear from the face of the earth as soon as the valuable goods are taken away. It won’t be possible for us to work with the Russians in the factories there. St. Petersburg [Leningrad] as a city is incomparably more beautiful than Moscow. This time, the art treasures of The Hermitage [Museum] would probably not have been transferred to the Kremlin—as in the [First] World War—but to houses in the countryside, unless they’ve been taken to the cities east of Moscow or by sea.

________

[1] Nicolaus von Below was Hitler’s Luftwaffe adjutant, last in the rank of Major General.