On August 5th 1944, the #WolaMassacre began.
Around mid-February every year, the media of White Nationalism is replete with stories of the fire bombing of Dresden. As terrible as it was that so many civilians were killed in so horrific a way, and legitimate as it is to question the necessity of it, context or not, it is weird, and to coin an oxymoron, typically weird, unfortunately, of purported White Nationalists to be so overly Nazi sympathetic as to bemoan this tragedy and the Nazi defeat while displaying no empathy in regard to the cities destroyed and civilian deaths in far greater numbers perpetrated by the Nazis. While they demand sympathy and to be unburdened of guilt trips, there is little in the way of concern for victims of the Nazi wrath and that maybe their supremacist, imperialist ideology which perpetrated and precipitated this destruction should be left behind for the sake of our European concordance. No, they believe that they must redeem Hitler and what goes along with it – demeaning and blaming everyone else and all nations that Hitler attacked.
Fucking weird.
White US demographic susceptible to pass false currency that Hitler was WN.
Whether having come into White advocacy within recent years from younger generations, or having come into White advocacy only within recent years despite being substantially older, there is a significant problem with coming into this struggle particularly through the American perspective and particularly if one is of German extraction – these kinds are not going to be as aware or as much concerned that vast over-representation and over-sympathy for the German perspective, to the point of Nazi redemptionism, has plagued White Nationalism for all the decades since WWII. They tend to think that the German and Nazi point of view has not been represented (when in fact it has been a predominant point of view in WN for decades) and re-instantiate a pernicious false either/or between the Nazi worldview and the Jewish world view. But for those of us who have looked to White advocacy as our source of kindred information and with the internet, a primary go to source for news, even; it has been laden, burdened with a predominant German point of view – too much, i.e., to the point of over Nazi sympathy.
Those who’ve come to White advocacy recently do not understand and appreciate the noble struggle of some in previous generations (like TT Metzger) to get beyond Nazism and work toward cooperation among Europeans; they don’t understand this having come to the struggle recently – others do understand, but might not care, being that German chauvinistic – and it terribly obstructs coordination with other European peoples and our sane manifestation of WN on the world stage.
It should be enough for Germans anywhere concerned for their people to say that they are one integral White people among the genus of White people that we advocate, that we advocate German (ethno)nationalism and diaspora, same as with all European peoples; that we are not interested in laying guilt trips on them for what prior generations may have done; and lets use 20/20 hindsight accurately, to facilitate cooperation, not to stir up inter-European conflict again – but absurdly, the obstructions of Nazophile types to this reasonable premise, which would allow for our coordination as European peoples in defense of ourselves, continues.
I am not a historian by specialty but I know enough generally, enough of the perspectives neglected by WN these past decades in combination with the theoretical knowledge that I have to provide necessary speed bumps and redirection into reasonable ethnonationalist coordination as opposed to the imperialist supremacism, viz., the unhinged, over-the top, inhuman, massively destructive, straight backlash reaction of Nazism to Jewish trickery and exploitation.
I hypothesize that the recalcitrant fixation on this reaction (even today) has much to do with the predominantly German make-up of America’s White demographic, along with some other White demographics which might be prone to consume an overly Nazi sympathetic currency that is being circulated from older reactionary right wing generations; some defiant but ignorant true believers, others a bit more disingenuous, opportunistically taking advantage of the market, gaining what limited audience and money they might by pandering to this demographic, beleaguered as it were by PC – those of German extraction might not have quite the perspective of non-guilt of others and be prone to push straight back: “no, the Nazis must be perfectly righteous, only did what was good and necessary. Things said about their atrocities are a hoax,” etc.
Still other sources spreading this false currency of over Nazi sympathy are Jewish, whether more calculating or more intuitive, of their biology, interjecting just enough Nazi sympathy for buffering damage control or in machination to create a stigmatic and divide and conquer effect among European peoples by way of treating Nazism as necessarily associated with White Nationalism.
As I said, it should be enough that we advocate German peoples and nationalism just as we advocate all White people, but there are gate-keepers, pieces of shit like a guy who calls himself Tom Anderson, who do their best to keep me and and a platform like mine out; and to inject old Nazi sympathetic types along with newbie Nazi sympathetic types, like ovfuckyou, Tom White, Melchyzedek …who encourage older German Americans, like Dennis Dale and Jonathan Pohl, in and despite their rationally blinded objectivism – “lets listen to their guidance and work with some Jews and some Nazis” as if their theory serves our side; a naivete which reconstructs the false either/or of Jews or Nazis; with it, the supposed legitimacy of the Nazis, by way of this Jews versus Germanics set framework.
Him being a younger newbie pushing other newbies, including older ones into this false and pernicious either/or, it would be nice to flush a piece of shit like ovfuckyou down the toilet
Ovfuckyou in conversation with Dennis Dale: “I’ll advocate Hitler for the rest of my life.”
Ov added in prior podcasts, that “Hitler did nothing wrong” – he’s ok with this happening to you Polish people and others who would not want to be beholden to Hitler.
I never wanted to address this issue since the last thing that I want is to rekindle fighting between European peoples; and when it comes to this issue, conflict is part and parcel. I had thought that WN had largely moved beyond it having come up through the TT Metzger school, as it were. TT always encouraged putting Hitler behind, promoting 14 and not 14/88 as he knew that Hitler meant inter-European conflict. TT didn’t want that and neither do I. What I found after looking beyond the TT camp, unfortunately, is that a large percentage of WN are still big into Hitler. I’m not a historian but could size things up from my perspective, wrote some articles on the matter, including some more recent articles that I’ve posted addressing the intransigence of the issue…
Though not a historian by specialty I can generally see the perspectives neglected by WN these past decades; in combination with theoretical knowledge this should provide necessary speed bumps and redirection into reasonable ethnonationalist coordination as opposed to the imperialist supremacism, viz., the unhinged, over-the top, inhuman, massively destructive, straight backlash reaction of Nazism to Jewish trickery and exploitation.
I’ll begin with a refurbishing of these articles and a 9 part short audio series that I posted as reference material – again, as I do not like dealing with the issue and I just wanted audio material to point to in order to be unburdened, to put the issue to rest as least as far as where I stand.
Eventually I did come across a friend – Per – who shares the same passionate concern for WN and rejection of Hitler that I have. I put together this podcast series – 9 parts, each about 5 minutes – with his prompting. Though I am not a historian by profession nor even by fancy, but delving into these matters of necessity, for what we need, I can stand by the arguments in the main; there may be some details that can stand improvement, but again, in the main it’s accurate enough and I will be adding whatever corrections, relatively minor though they might be, later.
…and the text:
This is DanielS from Majorityrights Radio, an advocate of White ethnonationalism from America, and I’m going to be setting out a podcast series with the help of my colleague, Per, a fellow White ethnonationalist advocate from Sweden.
This series will provide resource to distinguish and separate White ethno-nationalism from Nazi and Hitler advocacy.
In podcasts to come, we will expose the false claims being made today by the Hitler and Nazi redemptionists.
Claims that they make about the origins of the second world war – that Hitler only wanted peace and had no responsibility for the outbreak of World War II and other related lies.
We will discuss people’s rude awaking to the fact of hostile interests acting against Whites, their sometimes falling into a false either/or – it’s either Hitler or the YKW… something Per’s seen in his native Sweden, but its true of White Nationalism generally, that there has been a susceptibility to this reaction.
There will be some who will not be able to get beyond this reaction. But others may be helped to an ethnonatnionalist, as opposed to a supremacist position, by fleshing out more awareness of the fact that much ethonanationalism that found itself opposed to Hitler in the war, did in fact have a a good sense that the YKW belonged to another nation, that their interests were quite different from those of European nations, including those on the other side of the Axis powers.
But in any case, it’s history. Nobody alive is guilty of any of it and should not be subject to retroactive, collective punishment and violation of their right to survive as peoples – against UN charters.
We are not against Germans, we are for German nationalism as all European Nationalism in alliance against those who would deprive us our ethnonational homelands. We especially do not want fighting between European nations as we need eachother to cooperate in common interests as ethnonationalists against those disregarding and antagonistic to European peoples on the whole; but we do not want to fight any nations, of course, where at all possible, where they are not attacking us.
It’s history. But if we are to go into the history between world wars one and two, the most important fact to underscore is that basically all nations situated between Germany and Russia were against the Soviets; and replete with anti-YKW sentiments – there was large understanding that the YKW were other, that they should not be considered fellow European nationals. These nations knew the situation well enough, but especially, were more than ready to fight AGAINST the Soviets. Furthermore, German nationhood was under no credible threat, especially if it did not antagonize and actively fight against its neighbors, but was willing to deal in the territorial terms that the Versailles Treaty and Treaty of Saint Germain had established with historic and logistic justification – a Germany, by the way, that was huge, including most of what is now western Poland and Kaliningrad.
A German population, speaking of lebensraum, which is the largest European diaspora by far of any White demographic in America – though we are getting ahead of ourselves a bit; that is a factor in the intransigent appeal to Hitler redemption among American WN; and why we are confronted with this situation of having to address egregiously dishonest propaganda that is being used to pander to this, among other White demographics susceptible thus and in particular as they suffer under the destruction of anti-White political correctness.
As we must go into the history then, it is important to address Hitler’s territorial bones of contention and how they were overstated in his mindset – a Frederick the Great 2.0 – that led the Allies to not trust him, especially when he proved to be untrustworthy.
And as we must go into the history then, we need to address a great false either/or that is being presented to ethnonationalsts, between the Soviet and Nazi regimes – when in fact, both were imperialists, and both were terrible regimes largely responsible for massive destruction of property and treasure, the death of tens of millions…
…but also setting forth a chain of association with their horrible misdeeds, lending to overwhelming propaganda to this day for those antagonistic to our ethnonational well being, against necessary ethno national and corresponding socially, ethno-nationally conscientious programs in general. Infact, that is a large reason why, in this podcast series, we will use the term Nazi to refer to Hitler’s regime. Not to guilt trip people, but to separate a rogue, imperialist and supremacist regime from the benign aspects of nationalism and corresponding social accountability.
And so, in days to come, we will unfold a series to redress fundamental points, inaccuracies and dishonesty put out by the Hitler/Nazi redemptionists.
The non-necessity of Nazi larping and Hitler redemption as rhetoric extends to the non-necessity of its once state sponsored political reality in reach beyond the din of hyperbolic liberalism, the Schmittian exceptionalism of Hitler and Nazism as an actualized political program; although we still have some stupid people among generation internet bubble, trying to take this angle… acting like what they are proposing is new and that people who move beyond it to cooperate with other European nations are behind the times.
No, the Hitler redemptionists, in their claim to be after the truth of history, tend to begin history at or about World War I.
And of course, Germany was a sheer victim of the rest of the world, from the Schiff’s backing of the Trotskies, to the Balfour Declaration, to the Treaty of Versailles.
But really, to do enthnonationalism justice, we need to go further back in history…
Hitler was Not White Nationalist Part 2. Audio now online
To commence, we will indicate some of the issues, adding to these issues in the series to come where issues emerge relevant beyond mere detail to be fleshed out and given argumentative support. That is to say, we anticipate an ongoing corrective process.
As we must go into the history, the other side, the side which is subject to a right wing political correctness of its own, needs to be addressed – this quote, alternative media, that sees a niche market in the largest by far White demographics of America – German/Irish – and panders to the fact that they are going to be more susceptible to positive spins on Hitler and Nazi Germany. It is to counter this pandering, that it is necessary to take a corrective postion from an ethnonational standpoint, that does not look upon Hitler and the Nazis as innocent and only acting in accordance to what they should be rightfully entitled.
The map drawn by Versailles and the contentions raised by Hitler are central issues to redress thereupon.
Hermeneutic, that is to say, additional historical perspective is necessary to assess the situation and related contentions over the borders set by The Treaty of Versailles and maintained by The Treaty of Saint Germain in the case of the Sudetenland..
And why should the Allies trust the Nazis, why should they sympathize with their claims and why should they not be aggrieved with what happened in WWI? and in prior Prussian / Austrian expansion?
Contra Allied grievances, Hitler’s mindset of Friedrich The Great 2.0 is key.
Ostensibly justifying excuses were used for his imperial aspirations as such, chief among others, an epistemic blunder failing to assess socially corrective human nature in praxis, taking rather a sheer might makes right naturalistic fallacy, that humans are bound sheerly to struggle in nature’s way; a will to power set in motion in this case by false allegations of mass persecution of German civilians and false threat to the German nation to provide pretext for Imperialist and supremacist expansion Eastward.
His defenders frequently lob the straw man that he was being accused of wanting to take over the whole world, when in fact, he did want Europe eastward up to the Urals, which is way more than bad enough considering he was using the guise of his sheer necessity to fight communism; and when, in fact, all nations between Russia and Germany were anti-Soviet.
Of course these nations weren’t perfect either and yes, the Nazis had a number of things correct, in the quote, N/S idea; and it’s nevertheless understandable how people could get wrapped up and go for broke; but it didn’t work and there was much fundamentally wrong about it, it wasn’t just that the Allies were corrupt, that defending Nazi Germany is bad optics for the “normies”, nothing fundamentally wrong other than that the “normies” are not ready to quote, “understand” – nevertheless, it’s history now, and we can learn from it.
It might also be said of some people on the Allied side, that they can learn too – for example, like many of us since those times, we’ve projected our own reasonableness onto the YKW as a group – we thought, as our Allied forebears might have thought, that the YKW would be ok if we were ok to them – they’d be fair and deserved a chance. How many of you grew up aware of the J.Q.? Well, now the YKW have had their chance and we are aware that we need to be in separate governance.
WN has a pretty good feel of that now, but not so much representation of views apart from what is for it, a politically correct Nazi sympathetic perspective and the false either or thereof YKW or Hitler 88.
With that said. Here are some of the topics we are going to address and more:
As we already mentioned, We will be taking a look at historical events which have been distorted by Nazi propaganda.
Events such as the Bromberg “quote bloody Sunday” incident, the Polish/ Slovak border train station take-over by the Poles, the false so called “peace offers” from Hitler to Britain and Poland and why it was valid for the Allies to reject them.
The claim that Hitler only wanted peace with the neighboring Slavic countries, and only wished to get back lands taken from Germany, where a majority of Germans where then living under non-German governments. And so on.
We will also debunk the claims that Hitler and the Nazis were ok with the Slavic peoples and did not see them as subhumans with less right to life.
We will address the Nazi ideology of imperialism, immoral racism and the concept of “might is right” contra healthy nationalism, ethnopluralistic morality and what we view as the right kind of racism.
(Richard McCullochs racial compact and moral racism: http://www.racialcompact.com/ )
We will address the issue of who has had a worse influence in promoting a false, positive idea of the Nazi regime to Americans after the war – George Lincoln Rockwell or William Luther Pierce?
And a great deal more.
…….
At this point I want/need to digress from the podcast series into some up-to-date commentary.
Draconian though speech restrictions have gotten through means of the internet, the capacity to articulate and have the White ethnonationalist voice heard is nowhere near as restricted as it was in days prior to the internet, when tour de force’s, such as marketing, promotion and advertising specialist Rockwell would use, were almost understandable as means to gain voice.
In those days, there was an argument to be made for a man like George Lincoln Rockwell to use his advertising background skills to contrive the tour de force of presenting Nazism to shock public attention, which, once gained, would allow him to present arguments for White nationalism in calm repose before an audience.
There was even an argument to be made in that circumstance – where Whites were being destroyed and had no voice to object, resist and defend themselves; nor meaningful political means to defend their people by separatism – for violent terrorism, whether by lone wolves (lone wolf violence to be distinguished from lone wolf activism) or by formal organization, including formal declaration of war against ZOG, as in the case of Bob Mathews, David Lane and the Order.
Finally, because there was not the easier access to information and means to its dissemination that we have now with the internet, there was perhaps more of an excuse to not know better than to think that Hitler/Nazism represented White Nationalism, were not legitimately repulsive and divisive against White Nationalist organization.
There is no excuse to promote Hitler and Nazism now, whether to gain attention through “shock” and perhaps with the pretext of moving the Overton window or for the sake of those who stupidly remain true believers in Hitler’s platform – it’s catastrophic epistemic blunder.
We now have the capacity to gather ourselves, to gather our perspective and resource from desperate reaction and speak from the equanimity of the moral high ground from whence our activism on behalf of White ethnonationalism emerges to begin with.
As we regain our balance and equanimity as such with the poise of true knowledge of our systemic patterns and our eminently legitimate interests in them, we are able to see the means out for us, the means to sovereignty and that it is indeed separatism, autonomy and sovereignty that we seek, ultimately; that violence and elimination of the other (or signaling as much by Nazi larping); let alone imperialist supremacism, which added gratuitous exploitation to that infamy for F-sake (as in the perverted program of Nazis) was only a means to this end, where and when our people could see no other (likely under the sway or reaction to the Abrahamic god’s imperialist supremacism). But now there is another way, and with pursuit and establishment of sovereignty, we can allow ostracism to punish traitors as it is likely to when they are cast amidst these aliens; we can prosecute the criminally salient where our moral standing is recognized on the world stage as pursuit of sovereignty and justice, not persecution and exploitation; and finally, we can exercise punishment on those who dare to violate us once our sovereignty is established.
Nevertheless, why we should not try to redeem Hitler and Nazism but need rather to put that aside as history, its attempted resurrection as destructive to White Nationalism, still requires argument to make it clear for the sake of WN advocacy. We also need to address the obstruction to this argumentation coming through the pandering and false currency of Hitler redemption circulated somewhat as tactical misdirection, divide and conquer by Jewish interests; but probably disseminated mostly by the disingenuously opportunistic (likes of David Duke) or true believing boomer right wingers among White American demographics which are predominantly German, second most Irish, sprinkled with other White ethnicities who are susceptible to be overly sympathetic to Hitler; as their motherlands were either on his side, hostile to his adversaries or at very least, not in the path of his wrath; how this false currency is disseminated into the internet bubbles of subsequent generations of these White demographics, taken-up blithely, defiantly, as they are beleaguered even more heavily by political correctness; they are at once more susceptible to take it up and buffered against its reality testing in their internet bubbles – generation internet bubble, millennials as it were.
Siding with him in an eccelux stream, ovfuckyou adopted a mock Jewish voice and laughed in his contrived lol-way to try to put me down as Pohl had the nerve to ask me how I feel about living in a town (Poznan) that “ethnically cleansed its German inhabitants”; as if I’m supposed to feel bad about Stalin’s border shifts 15 years before I was born. How does Pohl feel about …
We’ll get to that in a moment.
This right wing boomer pipeline to subsequent generations in their internet bubbles has the obnoxious consequence of creating instant “experts”, no-it-alls (or so they think) bereft of experience, sufficient knowledge and reality testing.
They wind up thinking the you are the one who is conditioned by anti-Nazi propaganda, not that they are conditioned by Nazi propaganda. They think that you are the one who is old and in the way; they haven’t been around long enough to realize that this shit that they consume and spew is what is old and what has been in the way of White Nationalism for decades.
While they are not, of themselves, important, they manage to highlight the Nazi redemptionist pattern and why it needs to be addressed as some wangle their way into more mainstream appearance and more popular venues, misrepresenting their position as synonymous with WN, while they attempt to obstruct the assent of a platform such as the one on offer here, which is free of Hitler (and other misdiretion, notably by Jesus and Jews).
A flaming asshole going by the name of Tom Anderson, a participant in many stream chats, comes to mind first of all as one who is attempting to marshal this obstructive effect on behalf of Hitler and Nazism: He says that we were on the wrong side of WWII against Hitler as opposed to using 20/20 hindsight to see beyond this false, divisive either or, to allow us to move forward in effective European ethnonationalist coordination.
I had been disappointed by boomer Dennis Dale, who had given a “wrench” (censoring authority in his chats) to this Hitler sycophant, Tom Anderson, but was forced to realized his syndrome (decent logic, insufficient judgment) had taken full hold when he entertained Tom White and especially ovfuckyou, all welcome and warm smiles … even finished his stream with a video of Nazis burning down a village (lovely – was it a Jewish village or Belarusian maybe? Perhaps it doesn’t matter?). I tried, but could not pull Dennis Dale out of the Jewish box. He came into anti-PC through the (((Steve Sailer))) school and is a newbie coming from a liberal mindset with just enough logic to patch up poor judgement and keep him in the box.
I will later detail some of the stupid things that Tom White and “ovfuckyou” have said in their Hitler advocacy against me, but not just yet.
Finally, of these examples, Eccelux, who is actually a late Xer but may as well be a millennial for his minimal experience in the struggle and lack of judgment, provides a few more obnoxious examples of this boomer to bubble transit. Eccelux irritated me a great deal when he tried to suggest that I should calmly allow ovfuckyou to lambast me on behalf of Hitler, as I recognized that ovfuckyou was not worthy of a discussion of the matter.
Eccelux is getting his novice right wing voice out there by means of the commercialized evangelism of “No White Guilt’s pro-White program along with his pompous side-kick, “The Great Order” and Jonathan Pohl, an early Xer Germanophile who unfortunately took ovfuckyou’s side in that episode of senseless antagonism of me in a stream with eccelux – though I had no un-coordinatable disagreement with ecce or Jonathan; even offered to help Jonathan get a teaching job in Poznan – while this episode of antagonism was followed by eccelux being promoted also through Pohls’s streams.
I will detail this history a bit more as I go on below, but let me foreshadow how I see the repugnant nerve of Pohl’s question to me.
Ovfuckyou mocks while Johathan Pohl asks how I feel about Germans being “ethnically cleansed” from the city that I live in, Poznan. He has a lot of nerve to try to make me feel guilty about something that happened 16 years before I was born, by edict of Stalin’s border shifts, which also “ethnically cleansed” Poles from parts east, including my family in this border shift, restoring Poland to its more or less aboriginal form, prior to Frederick the Great’s imperialism – to include Poznan, Poland’s original capital city – a city won back by the Poles after WWI in the Wielkapolska Uprising; incensing young Hitler enough so that his first target of revenge in the onset of WWII were these Polish patriots, killing them largely at Fort 7 Poznan, where the Nazis experimented with their first gas-chambers; in a war that by design would eliminate Polish nationhood and murderously, effectively eliminate Poles as a distinct people, a war that was largely supported by the people of the German nation, some most fervent in these lands conquered by Frederick the Great, as they met with resistance from Poles for over 100 years. And after losing the war composed with this atrocious idea of extending lebensraum at the expense of the peoples and nations to its east, Pohl has the nerve to complain to me about German populations being shifted back over the Oder river, to iis more anciently established boundaries (though even there, in its east, it had destroyed its westernmost Slavic tribe – the Veleti).
Some Table Talk
I see no reason to believe that Hitler changed his mind about conquering Slavic countries and populating them with Germanic people.
The following passages are taken from Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941 – 1944. This book consists of transcripts written with Hitler’s permission of conversations with close associates from 1941 to 1944.
Even if this war costs us two hundred and fifty thousand dead and a hundred thousand disabled, these losses are already made good by the increase in births in Germany since our seizure of power. They will be paid for several times over by our colonies in the East. The population of German blood will multiply itself richly. page 261
In the field of public health there is no need whatsoever to extend to the subject races the benefits of our own knowledge. This would reslut only in an enormous increase in local populations, and I absolutely forbid the organization of any sor of hygine or cleanliness crusades in these territories. Compulsory vaccination will be confined to Germans alone, and the doctors in the German colonies will be there solely for the purpose of looking after the German colonists. page 425
As for the ridiculous hundred million Slavs, we will mold the best of them to the shape that suits us, and we will isolate the rest of them in their own pig-styes; and anyone who talks about cherishing the local inhabitant and civilizing him, goes straight off into a concentration camp! page 617
Any and very nation which fails to exterminate the Jews in its midst will sooner or later finish by being itself devoured by them. page 678
State of the Fart Right: why the bum steers from Jonathan Pohl, STFU James, et. al?
Lately, I have been making the rounds on some of the prominent racialist hangouts and podcasts, trying to get attention to the ethnonationalist platform that would make most sense, be the most viable and with that, to cultivate means for its coordination. As always, I am motivated to take theoretical/epistemic misdirection and help re-direct it to solid theoretical premises for the defense and advocacy of our European peoples.
I have been lured into some hangouts in order to defend myself and this platform against misrepresentations that were happening in real time. That’s what this post is about – to defend this platform as the prominent voices presenting themselves as experts or worthy common sense critics on behalf of European/White interests continue to receive and give terrible misdirection. Recently, I was lured onto a hangout hosted by ‘Babylonian Hebrew’, a young Jewish fellow living in New York but advocating Zionism for Jews and honest, hard criticism of diasporic Jewry.
I joined the hangout in order to correct an egregiuos strawman committed against me/this platform by one of those disingenuous diasporic Jews – Kyle Rowland, an obnoxious kid made infamous in the current racialist conversation by his slathering dissimulations on Luke Ford’s weasil streams – aimed to provide ways out of responsibility for Jews.
Anyway, the world should know by now that I advocate a platform of European/White Left ethnonationalism in order to garner the underlying social organization, accountability and conscientiousness that the concept of unionization provides for, along with other White post modern means to manage our population and stave off infiltration, misdirection into runaway and betrayal – of key importance, the perspective of the union is intent on holding elites to account to our group (union) interests.
Now, Kyle Rowland has been busy peddling the Luke Fraud line that de-emphasizes the hyperbolic ethnocentrism and nepotism of Jewry in its assent to disproportionate if not hegemonic representation in niches of power and influence; at the same time emphasizing argumentation that Jews have achieved this according to objective merit; while Whites have suffered where they have suffered for lack of objective merit.
Predictably, Kyle had tried to strawman me/this platform with stereotypes of this platform being anti-elite so that he could discourage those Whites of powerful resource from taking our side.
I was happy to disabuse the world of this strawman. It is one of the benefits of defining the left for ourselves, viz., a White ethnonational left is not equalitarian, not against private property, relatively free enterprise and people having more according to their merit. It is not against elites, it is about holding all union members, especially including elites, to account – they will not betraý our unionized interests.
Kyle responded that ‘‘your kind always says that’ …‘you are an anti-social right winger.”
Ah, I rejoined, in truth, that I am not anti-social – you want White advocates to be anti-social and that’s why you want them to identify as right wing, paying short shrift to social accountability in futile quest for pure warrant beyond or within nature, below relative human group interests.
At this point Ecce Lux joined-in against Kyle, wanting him to steel-man his argument that race replacement is immoral. Ecce did well, and I pointed out as well that Kyle was making an egregious buyer beware argument – if White people are hoodwinked into accepting race replacement it’s their fault. But I also pointed out to Ecce that anti race replacement is not the strongest angle in America, because Kyle could just hit you, as he already had, with the displacement of native Americans by Whites.
A better tack is to argue carrying capacity and from there segue into human ecology … well, we’re sorry about the history but it is history and we’ve got to manage carrying capacity and human ecology now…
This was when Jonathan Pohl’s cohort, STFU James was encouraged by him and other half wits of the fart right to start attacking …ME…
James was acting as if my adding the word ‘sorry’ was like an offer of reparations along with throwing myself and my people prostrate before the third world.. idiotic straw manning.
To provide some crucial background to the motives for this attack, take a listen the right’s intellectual champion, one ‘Right Ruminations”, on the Praise of Folly’ podcast, repremanding those ‘anti-semites who should rather be grateful to Paul Gottfried and other Jews for conceiving the need for an ‘Alternative-Right’, a revised PaleoConservatism 2.0, moving right along with (((Frank Meyer’s))) incoherent and chimeric fusionism of Judeo-Christian, Abrahamic yoke and Enlightenment objectivist disingenuousness/naiivete – that pitted disingenuously against a marketing campaign of a villainous characterology of ‘The Left’ as oxymoronically liberal (well it is liberal for Whites as it is comandeered by Jewry for internationalist, anti-White coalitions against the would-be conservatism of White unionization). And particularly as Jewish hegemony peaked with the 2008 scam, Jews such as Gottfried and Horowitz were frantically concerned that intersectionality might create a left ethnonational consciousness in Whites – they would organize, unionize and see who was on top, fucking them over – Jewish interests in tandem with White right wing sell outs taking the bribe of no account objectivism and White liberals taking license on similar no account objectivist grounds.
Sure, Right Ruminations! Whites should be grateful for this!
Coming back to our episode, Kyle against the world, where James joined-in.
Clair Khaw, left, a would-be misdirection agent of reactionaries if her proposal of “Secular Koranism” for a European moral order were not so stupid, had said of me:
Posted by Claire Kough on Sun, 15 Mar 2020 15:02 | #
Claire Khaw said in the chat (when I was speaking to Luke Ford recently):
The HardKhaw Prawn
“Is Daniel the biggest intellectual the alt-right can produce? Then it means it is a movement of revolting peasants.” – Claire Khaw
LOL. The woman is absolutely impervious. No matter how clearly or how many times you explain things to her, for example that I NEVER identified as “alt-right.”…
Funny that this Chinese dumpling would be trying pull rank as some kind of elite behind her posh accent, lording herself over the European “peasants.”
Ibid: STFU James started calling me a “Pol;ock”, a moron, saying that Whites don’t and will never think like a group, because they are too individualistic and elite Whites have always sold other Whites out; Whites don’t care about eachother.
He then went into what I now know is his boomer thing about the evils of collectivists, and people supposedly like me, motivated by collectivism in order to take a free ride (not to help my people) while he had picked himself up by his bootstraps and done everything by himself.
Though this only proved to me that he knew nothing about me or what I’ve said on these matters it was clear that there was no reason to argue with this contentious idiot – he was just going to attack, straw man me, my motives and my arguments from the get go. He just wanted to try to discredit me without so much as understanding anything I say or intend.
But before leaving, I did tip my hat to Gandalf for making a cogent argument against James’ self made man against collectivism bullshit.
This becomes more relevant as James would go on to say with Jonathan Pohl that Gandalf and I are alike in being gratuitously complex, pretentious wannabe scholars who really are not worth listening to (and as if Gandalf and I are colleagues, sharing the same platform).
Now, I won’t try to turn the absurdty around on Jonathan Pohl – he is an accredited academic with some insights into history and geopolitics – neither a heavy focus of mine. Even James, one of these guys who hasn’t been to college and so tends to think of those who have as being pretentious and stuck up, needing to be shown by him how much smarter that he is – even he has a thought or two, but nothing that is any good and mutually exclusive to what I say.
But he is too much of a self righteous asshlole to realize that I’m not trying to show off and compete with him.
I had only formed a momentary coalition with Gandalf against James’ bogus anti-collectivist bum steer, but it did illustrate how these temporary coalitons can form between people with ideologies largely at odds – as apparently is happening with momentary coalition formation against me/ this platform by Germanophiles, mutated to imperialists or Nazis as such, Christians and believe it or not, Jews – who are encouraging this right wing nonsense to keep us disorganized, stigmatized, divided and conquered.
Jonathan Pohl (1:33:58): This is the problem with racial problem with racial reductionists. Alright, so, if everything is uh, genetics, then history and culture and language and geography are totally irrelevant.
Who fits this criteria of racial reductionism? Who is recommending it? Certainly not I. Though perhaps Pohl might think so because I do see genetics as one valid and important criteria in stewarding group maintenance.
Pohl continues (1:34:12):
And the first thing is that White people are not going to be at the top of the heap.
Who said it was about being on top?
Human ecology (of which race distinction is a part) is rather about maintaining our kinds in a horizontal sense.
Johnathan Pohl (1:34:20):
The reason Europeans are successful has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture and history.
Is he serious? Is he just trying to run camouflage in order to work his way into the system – either for his own purposes or perhaps to act as an agent infiltrator? That would be about the best one could grant him, but it really does not seem to be his purpose. He seems to be taking a markedly liberal, anti-racial position.
Jonathan Pohl (1:34:26):
Otherwise we’d be back to the lie of HBD people that high average I.Q. determines everything.
You see Pohl making the false equivalent between race + human bio diversity + i.q. which is a red cape advanced by the (((Sailer))) camp.
We defend our people not because we have high i.q. but because it is our responsibility, we are indebted to our people for centuries and recognize the value of our qualities.
Pohl (1:37:03):
if everyone were White, then Whiteness would mean nothing.
But everyone isn’t White. White is a tag given to people of European extraction, the genus European, particularly as it would be awkward to refer to them as European in diaspora.
Pohl (1:37:05):
It would make no sense to study Whiteness in Iceland.
Why wouldn’t it make sense to study Europeans in Iceland?
Pohl (1:37:14):
No, I’m not part Chinese though my daughter is half Kyrgyz
Pohl (1:43:25):
I got to teach a graduate course in race and ethnicity every year (in the six years that he was in Ghana)
Given that, we can presume the emphasis was on European concerns?
Pohl (2:29:58):
(the Pohl position) is super blue pilled.
That might help you get a job at UVA.
Pohl (2:31:27):
I have seen some of Cotto/ Gottfried streams. I like Paul Gottfried.
I’m not particularly impressed with Cotto though.Paul Gottfried should defect to my stream.
I rest my case. Pohl is even worse than I thought. Both Cotto and Gottfried are virulent Jews, with Gottfried been a key misdirection agent behind the Alt-Right.
Pohl (2:41:44)
Paul Gottfried is uh, quite an impressive figure.
Kind of strange, given that his supervisor for his PhD was probably the worst academic in terms of negative influence on society ever. And that’s Herbert Marcuse.
Yeah, Franz (chat commentor), you know that’s my great, great, great grandfather’s name, Gottfried. One of the one’s from around Lodz in Poland, one of these German settlements with Magdeburg law…
Maybe German, but Lodz is notorious for having had a lot of Jews (e.q., Hollywood Mogul Ludwik Meyer was from Lodz).
Not that that small bit of Jewish heritage would be damning, but the rest of this discussion should have advocates of European peoples looking very critically at what Pohl has to say.
Ecce Lux and some other regulars in racial discussion were in the chat to witness this discussion, so they cannot plead ignorance.
Now, I would not be inclined to hold it against Jonthan Pohl that he is fat and ugly – made moreso for the fact that he let his teeth rot, is missing his upper set.
I am not particularly bothered by the fact that he has an Asian wife and mixed kids.
But you put these things together with his unspectacular 111 I.Q. and you start seeing a man who can’t and won’t think outside of the box, because he has a large and disgruntled German American demographic to fall back to; and too much invested in this Jewish framework, as an academic selling point to third world students; his nervous giggle betrays the fact that he is precariously on the fringes of a Nazi German perspective that did things it should not have; and he’d rather have the company of people who stir up blame and hatred of Polish people, rather than the input of a half Italian half Polish man who doesn’t hate Germans, who advocates them and their discreet ethnonationalism.
While your concern about the deportation of Volga Germans from Russia does not set my heart bleeding any more than yours does over similar plights of Poles, I would not expect you to have selfishness to the point of spite, projection and contempt.
So you have mixed Asian kids, therefore curating and defending the European genome – including German, obviously – is not a worthwhile project? It’s made redundant by your going to your German Oompah lounge and stuffing your face with bratwurst and beer?
It is important to note that the DNA Nations is just one criteria offered from this platform and it is optional – voluntary. But even so, it can provide criteria for dealing with mixed kids and other gray areas. It is not only about maintaining purity, though it can and should do that as well.
Do you know that the DNA Nations concept is not only about negotating purity, but also negotiating complexities and gray areas such as your mixed race kids?
You said in chat that I’d have to deport a million Silesian Germans. Why would I have to do that? never even considered it. Why don’t you get over your antipathy and persecution complex?
And you know, prof. Pohl, your buddy James is not the first of your cohorts to subject me to thoughtless, nasty, insantaneous attacks, including the racial epithet, ‘Polock’.
It was only a few weeks ago that I followed you and Ecce to the Hangout of a stream coducted by some cartoonist by trade/ Christian who said that ‘Polocks don’t deserve to be heard’ and that he would block my comment from the chat when I pointed out that Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space (whom he was talking about) may have been Belarusian, not Russian. To compound his willful ignorance, he said that ‘Belarus just means White Russian’….‘basically the same people.’
Never mind that I was defending Belarusians, not Poles….that the name ‘White Russian’ is an artifact of brutal Russification which left millions of what were once Lithuanians dead. That I learned about this and other profound disinctions between them and Russians from Stanislav Shushkevich, the man who drafted and signed the Bialowieza Accords – the dissolution of the Soviet Union signed along with Yeltsin and then President of Ukraine. Shushkevich would go on to be first President of the newly independent Belarus; later deposed by Russian puppet, Lukashenko.
Maybe the friends you keep didn’t want the relevant inference that Belarus, like Poland and all nations between Germany and the Soviet Union, were staunchly against The Soviets, underscoring the lie that Hitler fought a defensive war.
You see, Professor Jonathan, this nasty hatred of Poles (that you’ve countenanced) and the tendency to villify and desparage other European peoples is part and parcel of the Nazi platform – a good reason not to coddle those who traffic in it.
Maybe you are pandering to facile right wing Nazi and Jesus coalitions or perhaps because I don’t focus on Volga Germans and Ghanese, you say that I am not worth listening to. That I have nothing worth hearing or reading. That is worse than stupid, it’s an egregious bum steer for European peoples.
Speaking of the facile right wing coalitions which encourage antagonism of me/ this platform, Ovfuckyou was on a hangout with CoE and none other than Kyle Rowland today. I was invited by Babylonian Hebrew and what did I hear before entering? Ov saying that I (Sienkiewicz) think that all Russians were fighting for Stalin. I NEVER said that EVER and I learned comprehensively in my Theory of Soviet Foreign Policy class at Tufts (taught by prof. Terry, a special advisor to President Reagan on Soviet – Polish relations), that the Russians were fighting mostly for mother Russia, or for the gun at their back; while those Nazis so friendly and kindred to Russians as Ov would like you to believe, were undertaking the killing of millions of Russians at Stalingrad and Leningrad.
But wouldn’t you know that Jewish Kyle Rowland agreed with Nazi Ov’s lie that I think Russians were fighting for Stalin – see what I mean about these right wing coalitions against a platform such as on offer here, one that really centers on defending European peoples in their genus and species?
…….
One last issue that I have to address about an old saw that James seems wont to bring out against me –
That I am trying to obfuscate and misdirect with academic language or that I am ‘trying to impress people’ with academic terms.
This goes to the most fundamental absurdity of James, where a semi intelligent guy really is stupid. He imputes these motives onto me which are totally untrue.
When I use academic terms and concepts it is to help people, viz. White/European people, to understand how they are supposed to be correctly used in their interests.
And in the case of the C.M.M. based posts, while the terms and heuristics are technical and abstract of themselves, I present this material as a resource to help people sort out confusing situations – that’s quite the opposite motive from obfuscation.
I never use words to confuse or for mere decoration, but am rather trying, anyway, to use the word, term, concept that I think serves best.
Posted by Ecceflux on Sun, 01 Sep 2019 07:17 | #
Unfortunately, Eccelux, a newbie to the struggle and very promising as an exponent of White Nationalism, has shown bad judgment in taking right wing misdirection, markedly, by platforming (and without pushback) “Ovfuckyou”….
I started listening to a live stream in which they talked the other day and commented in the chat that Ovfuckyou was not getting any push-back.
Typical of his obnoxiousness, OV remarked that “Daniel Spergowitz” is in the chat and that he (Ov) is willing to talk to him (DanielS) but he has to wait his turn.”
As if I want to talk to him. The only time that I’ve been in any sort of interlocution with him has been by happenstance of a few streams that we both became involved in; or as a result of a trick (getting lured into a “discussion” with him by those who wanted to ridicule me for not loving “the Fuhrer”).
OV did then remark that his emails to me go into my spam-box…
Clearly, I do not want to talk to him let alone would I “wait my turn.”
Note: this great defender of The Third Reich had never even heard of Himmler’s Posen speeches. But I should wait on line to be informed by him?
Rather, I was commenting on the stupidity of people who would platform him.
But the more fundamental reason that I would not talk to him is not his ignorance, but because he is not coming from a position of respect and good will toward all European nations.
He is coming from a position that “Hitler was correct across the board” and all European people should be behind him as “the leader.”
That is not the starting point for meaningful discourse, for discourse that is supposed to meet in a well integrated place of good will for the defense of European peoples. It is rather an expression of the utter hubris and disrespect that is manifest by this fool – manifest in ad hominem attacks and effusive talk-overs in any moment that you might lay out a position that would demonstrate that his attempt to redeem Hitler/Nazism across the board as exemplars of White Nationalism is, in several important respects, off the mark, in many important respects plainly wrong and in perhaps the most important respect, unnecessary.
To say that “Hitler had some things right, that there were reasons why they reacted in epistemic blunder [they weren’t “evil” ex-nihilo] that led to catastrophe and that Jews were a precipitating factor” is enough to pluck out a few things from time to time if an account is requested. But from the standpoint of WN and for the purpose of coordinating good relations, it should be qualified with a rejection of the Nazi platform for its epistemic blunder, its supremacism and imperialism, part and parcel of badly drawn friend/enemy lines and catastrophic epistemic blunder.
This is not about laying guilt trips. Rather, if we are to exercise 20/20 hindsight, it is about using it to make a better effort to cooperate and coordinate European/White ethnonational interests.
Hitler/Nazism do not model ethnonationalism, and do not model leadership that all European nations and other nations can trust and back with moral confidence (whereas coordinated ethnonationalism should be a program we can all endorse).
Alas, the enormity of the Nazi project does not provide a clue, but rather a floodlight to the issue of conflicting interests with Jewry: people aren’t going to be distracted from the seriousness of the J.Q. even though Hitler’s platform is rejected on balance as ill conceived.
– DanielS
In commentary on the post above, I begin by saying:
Ecce Lux is making errors not worthy of double AA, let alone Major League White advocacy by featuring Nazi Ovfuckyou and Jonathan Pohl on his hangout.
I suppose that one might expect better understanding and judgment regarding history from history PhD Jonathan Pohl, but then if one has ANY understanding and judgment of the history, they would see through Jonathan Pohl’s claims as absurdly lacking in understanding and judgment – expressions of absurd German chauvinism.
Specifically, Pohl has the nerve to claim that I live in a city, Poznan, that “ethnically cleansed” thousands of Germans in 1944-45.
Absurdity number one bespeaking an ignorance born of utter German chauvinism and disregard for neighboring Europeans:
This expulsion occured on the heels of Nazi Germany having just killed millions of Poles and other Europeans from neighboring nations – and Pohl has the nerve to complain about Germans being sent to live in Germany proper after the war.
Not only that, but these millions were killed in large part for Hitler’s program of Lebensraum – living space for Germans at the expense of the nations to the east.
In other words, after having killed millions toward this end and losing to them, Jonathan Pohl expects no hard feelings, not even the inconvenience of being moved back into Germany proper.
While the borders established by Stalin at that time had the Germans losing lands in what is now Poland’s west, there is a reasonable accounting for this…
First regarding Poznan:
Pohl and Nazi Ovfuckyou laughed when Pohl said that I think that because Poznan was Polish before 1793 (Frederick the Great homosexual’s imperialism) that it should always be Polish.
Obviously, I could make the same claim – with more force in return – they think that because German imperialism had this land from 1793 to 1919 that it should always be that way – ho ho ho.
But it gets worse for their part…
Poznan is the first capital of Poland, established by the namesake tribe, “the Polane.” The name Poznan comes from Polish, ‘to make acquaintaince’ between the Czech, Russian and Polish man.
Because it is the first capital of Poland, the first kings of Poland are burried here, in its cathedral.
It gets worse for Pohl and Ov…
After Hitler’s idol and model, Frederick the Great Faggot took one third of Poland along with Russia and Austria, the Poles never stopped trying to regain their nation…..
This, despite the fact that Germany tried to destroy Poland’s history, burning its library, with its genealogy and territorial records.
Nevertheless the Poles tried unsucessfully to regain their nation for 123 years.
In World War I, Poles joined the German side up to 8% of fighting forces given the promise of more Polish autonomy following the war.
Holding them to their promise, Pilsudski orchestrated the WielkaPolska uprising which re-took the ancient capital of Poznan for the Poles.
Shortly thereafter, Pilsudski defeated The Soviet Union at Warsaw, when the Soviets were otherwise on their way to attack Berlin.
Endorsing Polish nationhood, The Versailles Treaty confirmed Poznan as Polish again, made Danzig neutral (though it had been Polish at times in history, including in its heyday), along with a Polish corredor, providing Poland logistical access to the sea, much to the chagrin of a young Hitler, whose idol, Frederick the Great faggot, saw controlling Polish sea access as the means to control Poland.
Frederick the Great Faggot hated Poland, by the way, and was full of tricks that would make the YKW blush, such as counterfeiting Polish currency in order to make it go into hyper inflation… ..but anway….
As I said, Hitler was indignant at the insult to his idol, Frederick The Great Faggot, and among his first acts of revenge with the invasion of Poland in World War II was the imprisoning and murder of Poles involved in the WielkaPolska uprising that had re-taken Poznan.
In fact, at Fort VII in Poznan, the Nazis established their first experimental gas chambers.
Now, lets make quick work of the more well known history, that you would expect everyone, especially a PhD to take into sober account – lets talk about the millions of Poles killed by the Nazi war effort; including hundreds of thousands of Polish civilians killed in retaliation for the Warsaw Uprising of 1944. Many more Polish civilians were kllled in Warsaw than Germans in Dresden.
But what does Jonathan Pohl have to say? He complains that Germans were moved over the Oder River according to the borders that Stalin drew…
…says they were “ethnically cleansed.”
Does Jonathan Pohl have any concern that Poles, including my own family, were “ethnically cleansed” according to Stalin’s borders, from their former homes in what was then the east of Poland?
Of course not.
In this shifting of national boundaries westward, the biggest loss to Poland of its east was what is now L’viv, Ukraine.
A maginficent city developed by the Poles and surrounded by some Polish villages…
Now, in this same conversation, Jonathan Pohl mentions the Ukrainian Nationalist, Bandera.
Pohl is not eager to mention that Bandera massacred whole villages of defenseless Polish men, women and children in 1944 for fear that the Poles might try to reclaim L’viv and surrounds after the war.
No, Pohl is not eager to mention this because it might mitigate against his chauvinist sob story about Germans being moved over the Oder River after the war (though Germans being killed during that expulsion process was bad, I would agree).
Speaking of lives lost in expulsion, the Polish population of Wroclaw and surrounds was wiped out by a Mongol invasion in the 1200s.
When the Mongols withdrew back east, the Germans moved in to develop Breslau, which they controlled for 800 years….
While Stalin took L’viv from the Poles, he increased the buffering zone of Poland by giving them back Wroclaw (Breslau) after the war.
This would provide for a much better complaint and argument of injustice for Jonathan Pohl, than does expulsion from Poznan.
And it still doesn’t hold up to provide sympathy to a just understanding.
Given the Poles loss of L’viv and Nazi aggression and atrocities in quest of lebensraum at the expense – ethnic cleansing – of Poles, losing Breslau to the Poles was a just punishment.
Moreover, absent Hitler’s imperialist aspirations modeled after his idol, Frederick The Great Faggot, Germany would still have Wroclaw and most of Silesia, most of what is now western Poland, all of what is now Kaliningrad and neutral access to the free city of Danzig.
That wasn’t enough for Hitler, not even being granted the Sudetenland against the Treaty of St. Germain was enough.
No, Hitler wanted lebensraum up to the Urals and got 50 million plus Europeans, including millions of Germans, killed for his Frederick The Great Faggot 2.0 grandiosty.
But the only sorrow that Jonathan Pohl wants to express is a sob story about Germans being moved back into Germany after the war.
It is mindboggling.
Many complain about the poor quality of academics nowadays.
If Jonathan Pohl were once again to get a job teaching in Ghana it would be too good for him.
Posted by – would love to drop it and move forward on Fri, 13 Mar 2020 07:39 | #
The kidnapping campaign of Nazi Germany | DW Documentary
I’ll be glad to let the issue drop if the fucking Hitler heads will drop it.
If so-called WN are going to invoke 20/20 hindsight, rather than suggesting that America and Britain were on the wrong side of WWII, how about wouldn’t it have been nice if Hitler didn’t start attacking other European nations? because it was clearly NOT a defensive war on his part, despite what Goebbels grossly lying propaganda might have people believe.
To repeat: all nations between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were against the Soviets and were anti-Semitic. It was considered one of Poland’s greatest historical victories to have defeated Soviets aggression at Warsaw in 1920.
Operation Himmler Nazi s false flag to legitimize the invasion.
Posted by Erika on Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:05 | #
Who is silver
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:32 | #
Assuming that you are speaking of Silver, a man who used to comment at Majorityrights ….
He is a man who “never claimed to be White.”
Who claimed affinity for “Anatolia and the Levant” though he seemed to also have significant South Eastern European heritage.
He did not respect my editorial decision to exclude those looking to redeem Hitler/Nazism, deny Operation Reinhard, and so on, because he considered it a “revelation” that “none of this (liberal destruction) would be happening if the Nazis had won the war.”
However, I did not take his position to heart for a few important reasons.
1) Through his commentary, including on that matter, you could gather that the defense and well being of Europeans generally was not his particular concern (witness his lack of regard for those nations and peoples Hitler destroyed) while his angle attempted 20/20 hindsight, that obviously wasn’t 20/20 even though it could have been.
He seemed rather to find an angle to ingratiate himself to the right wingers of England, a place where he liked living as an off-White non-native.
As I recall, he was also defensive of Christianity, which this platform rejects for similar reasons of true European interests.
2) And given his priorities he was a nuisance to my efforts to build this platform, relentlessly trolling and gunking up threads with ad hominum nonsense.
He was not the worst of the nuisances to this platform but near the top
3) When he finally left the ranks of Majorityrights commentators, he went to other right wing sites, such as the former “Alt-Right” to resume attempts to subvert this platform from afar
– notably, we had our Japanese correspondent, Kumiko, here at the time still, and she would venture into battle with the Alt-Righters, because she saw what I saw, that they were being misdirected by Jewish and sellout interests to do their bidding irrespective of ethnonational interests – which would include alliance with Japan and other ethnonational countries if thought out properly, as opposed to their right wing nonsense.
In one notable occasion at Alt-Right, Silver promoted the flagrant lie that “Whites hate Asians” simply, in order to try to subvert this fledgling alliance.
Unfortunately, for all the stupid right wing shit being said, most of it amplified by Jewish interests, Kumiko was a bit too sensitive and prone to believe that WN could not be coordinated with, despite my efforts to explain that Silver was exactly trying to do a divide and conquer op on her, that he was a long time antagonist to this White Left Ethnonational platform which can, in fact, coordinate with Japanese ethnonationalists and other ethnonationalists.
The short answer is that Silver is a piece of shit.
There is more stupidity from the Hitler sycophants that I’ll bring you up on later. For now, I want to get back to the quick as to why treating Hitler and Nazism as a part of White Nationalism is wrong, and then there will be a bit more discussion as to the stupid effect it manifests through some movement figures who cannot manage to see its counterproductivity and move beyond – let me just reiterate briefly regarding this second problem, that much of the stuckness of this Nazi redemptionist quest has to do with the demographic of beleaguered White America – predominantly Germanic. For other Whites (such as myself) to have no interest in laying guilt trips on them for what German relatives may have done a generation or two ago; and for us to treat them, their ethnostate and diaspora as fellow White ethnonational just the same as us, a part of our advocacy group, SHOULD be enough. Some are weird, however, and do not want to take advantage of the perspective and leverage that we can give them now, the perspective of other Europeans which should help alleviate the guilt trips they feel; it should mitigate the desire to push back straight Hitler against the PC guilt trips; and with this perspective, alleviate the nasty requirement of Nazi redemptionism, to try guilt trip other White nation(al)s who recognize Hitler for the colossal fuck up that he was.
Whether the measured tour de force of George Lincoln Rockwell, exploiting the wiles of his advertising background to get shock attention with Nazi imagery so that he could then surprise people again with calm, rational discussion of racial concerns once given the occasion to be heard upon the attention, or The Order’s declaration of war and terroristic means to take on the U.S. ZOG government, both strategies reflect a time when the voice and concerns of White Nationalism were thwarted by the media as it were. However, with the internet, even with draconian attempts of censorship, the fundamental motives of White Nationalism can be heard, and desperate efforts to gain attention can be left behind, especially where people can get themselves past severe reactionary stages and see the possibility for White systemic autonomy – which if reflected upon, is what White Nationalists want most fundamentally.
Our voice heard and the capacity to realize our vision at hand, albeit obstructed, allows us to move to the legitimate by any reasonable standard priority for our sovereignty, not the desperate means once felt to harm without backing of the law or to eliminate other kinds as the only means to be free of them.
Hitler and Nazism were Not White Nationalism, Part 3
Thus we have established a first principle of this discourse, a positive tautology that the World Wars are history, the people of today are not to blame and should not be subject to the collective punishment of losing their peoplehood and corresponding nations.
There is a second principle that we will invoke at this point, one which the internet has provided for in spades, but which White Nationalism has not utilized to anything like its full potential.
That is correctability, the correctability of ideas and understanding through interactive participation, whether through comments or speaking directly to people and engaging correction.
To date, what has been imposed as if correction, has largely been World War II revisionism – which tends to be dishonest excuses and apologetics for Nazi imperialism where not outright recitation of Nazi propaganda that could be falsified rather easily if they cared to do it.
Misrepresentation and omissions of important facts can remain if would-be interlocutors are not of good faith, don’t really want to pursue the truth, such as Nazi apologetics usually claim as their mission.
On the other hand, taking interactive correctability for granted and expecting the voices of correction to chime-in has left me susceptible to allow oversights to linger, because many would-be WN, who’ve accepted the rightist identity and its own political correctness will not say “boo” and alert me to oversights, especially when calling attention to these matters will call negative attention and shoot holes in their pro-Hitler/Nazi position.
There is a third and ancillary tautology to be invoked which is that for whatever grievances that either side had of the times, they were more than made up for.
We will apply this as a third tautological principle then, after ‘it’s history and nobody had anything to do with it’, and after correctability, that is, the tautology that for whatever complaints of the time, “they more than made up for it in retaliation.”
We will take a critical perspective on grievances and injustices alleged by the Nazi apologists, such as allegations made against Polish nationals and partisans, since those allegations have tended to go uncorrected within the philoNazistic PC of so called White Nationalism.
But we need to circle back to our second principle at this point, which is interactive correctability and the fact that so called WN has not been acting in good faith to call matters to attention, especially when they would reflect badly on Nazi Germany.
In previous discussions of Hitler’s complaints over where Versailles borders were drawn, I have made the claim that there were really only three cities of significance lost by Germany – Poznan, Bromberg and Thorn and one made neutral, Danzig (made neutral, not Polish, as in something the Poles could unilaterally return to Germany as misinformed Hitler apologists often claim they should have); and there were some village areas in the corridor and near the Versailles established border where Germans were caught in Polish territory, and we must add that there were Poles caught in German territory. But though Danzig was at the time occupied by Germans, it was a historically disputed city and a strategic city for all concerned, thus justifiably deemed neutral by Versailles. Cities to the south of the corridor, such as Poznan, Gniezno and Leszno, should not have been considered anything remotely but Polish.
While it is true that in previous discussions of this issue I had neglected to mention two cities of significance in the Polish corridor which were inhabited by Germans, Graudenz and Kulm , known in Polish as Grudziądz and Chelmno, it does not change the thesis.
First of all, circling to principle three (mis-spoke; it is “principle two”, correctability that is invoked here) again, that the comment section has been open and feedback of good will is expected to correct oversights such as that.
More fundamentally, these cities being under German political jurisdiction would only extend the salient that would be formed by Bromberg and Torun to obstruct and potentially occlude crucial strategic and economic sea access for Poland.
In addition, Graudenz and Klum were formed of brutal Teutonic and Prussian imperialism on cities that were originally Polish.
Finally, it is a history that only provides more examples of the enormous toll that the Nazis took against impositions of Polish patriotism in these areas; invoking principle three, that they more than made up for it.
Thus, it is no wonder that the Hitler redemptionists didn’t particularly care to take me up on my open offer to correct whatever prior oversights of mine…
Graudenz, Kulm, Thorn and Bromberg, a would-be logistically occlusive salient. To the south of those cities, Poznan and Gniezno are the cradle of Polish nationhood.
Hitler was Not White Nationalist Part 4
That would mean beginning at least at the point where (Germanic) imperialism became a dominant paradigm in and through (central/eastern) Europe, a period issued in by Frederick The Great – when the Polish ethnostate was dissolved, Germanization imposed by the imperial Austro-Hungarian and German/Prussian partitions, while imperial Russia controlled the rest of it.
As far as ethnostatism goes in fact, Germany remained huge following Versailles, retaining a great deal of what is now western Poland, including Breslau (now Wroclaw) and East Prussia, which is now Kaliningrad and parts just south.
We’ll go into the roots of these ethnonational travails, including mistakes on the Polish side, but not focusing there for now, since that’s what you’ve been hearing in the PC of so called WN, in exaggerated form.
Historical examination will show that Danzig and the Sudetenland (there in green) form a crucial historical frame of ethnonational borders.
Nazi Germany understood this, as Britain’s Daily Telegraph* wrote in 1939:
“Today we realise the truth of Bismarck’s saying that he who possesses the Bohemian chain dominates Europe.
Are we to realise soon the significance of Frederick the Great’s words, “Who rules over the mouth of the Vistula, rules over Poland better than the King of Poland himself”?
Herr Hitler received a birthday gift of the freedom of Danzig. It remains to be seen whether this will involve Danzig’s receiving the “freedom” of Herr Hitler”
In fact, Danzig is ground zero both in the framework of World War II and historically, of German / Polish conflict, and international intervention. It is there we need to begin overcoming shallow and mistaken Hitler apologist talk that he just wanted Danzig back -as if it was simply German and rightfully theirs, given to those stubborn Poles, when if fact Poland was merely given a stake in a Danzig made neutral by Versailles for historical and logistical reasons.
Of course these were mere pesky contentions to Hitler, which would one day be made historically incidental when his Plan East was effectively concluded. For the time being, propaganda was necessary to justify this plan and get it underway.
Thus, with regard to allegations made by the Nazis of Polish abuse of German civilians within the the corridor, we absolutely cannot assume the veracity. Even cursory glance at footage of interwar Danzig does not indicate a beleaguered German population under anything like abject duress – on the contrary, it shows as remarkably comfortable and thriving population, commercial well being despite this being during the throes of world wide economic depression.
Whatever cruelties that did in fact come of Polish nationalism toward Germans did not come in a vacuum, as they were responses to having their people and nation subject to cruel repression under the Teutonic Order and Frederick the Great’s Prussia – anti Polinism and programs of Germanification.
Again, its important to note in the abstract, that for whatever grievances the Germans may have had in regard to the response of Polish nationalists in their newly reformed nation upon Versailles, Hitler and Nazism more than made up for it, through policies such as killing 10 times the number of Poles for any German killed by Polish partitions; and retaliations far worse in the overview of their war policy and practice against Poles and Poland – such as the murdering of Polish civilians in the Warsaw ghetto uprising – in far greater number than civilians were killed in the Dresden fire bombing a year later, speaking of more than making up for grievances.
But before we re-animate a German – Polish conflict, as we are ethnonationalists of good will – before adopting the appearance of being motivated to attribute retroactive guilt then – let us reinvoke principle once again.
One of the main reasons why we are confronted with having to deal with this issue of Nazism, so divisive and stigmatic of Whites, is because of PC guilt-tripping of Whites… and a direct backlash against that guilt tripping …particularly by those among groups not of a perspective where Nazi Germany was directly antagonistic…
And again, there has been much pandering to counter that guilt tripping in order to gain audience and backing among American Whites in particular.
It is key therefore to invoke this antidote to guilt tripping to underscore first of all, that it is history, nobody alive should be made to suffer and pay with their lives and nationhood.
__________________________
* Correction, I had accidentally said, “Daily Mirror.” This quote is actually from a Daily Telegraph article, 5 May 1939.
Hitler was Not WN Part 5: Indignant Response to the Greater Poland Uprising
Innocent until proven guilty we are.
Nobody alive should be presumed guilty and made to suffer and pay with their lives and ethnonationhood, even if it is true that forebears may have over corrected, even vastly. Where people manifest traits of prior generations so as to act criminally, as homicidal imperial supremacists, that’s another matter.
Nevertheless, the vast wounds, the gaping chasms of genetic capital that many may vaguely perceive as family and loved ones lost, yearn over, if not feel acutely – these losses in our genetic capital will likely well up through our unconscious and conscious systemically and must be recognized.
That caveat having been issued, having absolved present generations, we will move on to correct the record of imperialist misdeeds of prior generations and attempted cover-ups by a more recent generation.
We will be addressing the notion that Hitler and the Nazis were acting in sheer defense and that they were making bonafide peace offerings, that the Allies were the true aggressors.
To get a more accurate and fair understanding of the sources of the conflict, we need to be fairly comprehensive about the history – will begin with the more recent history and work back into historical origins… reversing the usual Nazi sympathetic order of historical survey, from Versailles to the present, as if history started there.
We will indeed begin with that fairly recent history of the conflict of imperialism and nationalism, The Treaty of Versailles’s division of national boundaries…and then we’ll work back into the relevant histories from there. Most Westerners don’t really know that in addition to the Treaty of Saint Germain’s retention of the Sudetanland for Czech, that there were only a handful relevant cities that Versailles designated for Poland and one neutral – Danzig – that Hitler was disputing or claiming as eminently warranted to recapture.
In addition to that area of Czech and those few cities of Poland, there were only villages and areas occupied by Germans within what would be a necessary corridor to the Polish nation for strategic and economic access to the sea; but there was the additional factor to their having historical claim and value to national morale, issues which we will address as well.
The common idea spread among White Nationalists that the Versailles borders were thoughtlessly drawn, arbitrarily taking land from Germany that Hitler merely and justifiably wanted back for Germany is far from beyond question; nor is it accurate to say that his designs stopped there.
Frederick “The Great”s imperialist and supremacist stance with regard to Poland.
Regarding territory granted to Poland, we are are talking about a handful of cities of appreciable size – Bromberg, Thorn, Posen, Gaudzen, Kulm, Gessen and a smaller one, Lisa, along with one being made into a free city, Danzig, that the Nazis and their sympathizers would dispute as rallying propaganda, as “rightfully German.”. ..and “places where the Poles demonstrated their pugnaciousness against Germans.” We’ve touched upon Danzig, setting it out as a central issue for elaboration later…
Daily Telegraph, “Can German and Polish claims to Danzig be reconciled?” – May 5, 1939
Are we to realise soon the significance of Frederick the Great’s words, “Who rules over the mouth of the Vistula, rules over Poland better than the King of Poland himself”? Herr Hitler received a birthday gift of the freedom of Danzig. It remains to be seen whether this will involve Danzig’s receiving the “freedom” of Herr Hitler.
The answer, of course, was no, Hitler would not grant Danzig its freedom and he thought of it much the same as did Frederick the Great. We’ll talk about the history of Polish Gdansk and the conflict between Germans and Polish in history which seem largely to have been sparked over Danzig to begin with.
Suffice it to say, Roman Dmowski, called the father of Polish nationalism and a representative of Poland at Versailles, thought Danzig should be Polish, as it was in 1793 when Frederick the Great took it away for Prussia.
Having set the issue of Danzig out, lets set forth disputes which should have been more clear to the Polish side – Poznan and Gniezno. 
Poznan is the original founding city of Polish nationhood – in fact, the first Polish kings are buried there; nearby Gniezno represented its consecration into Christendom, which at the time was corollary to the birth of nationhood.
Leszno, another smallish Polish city near Poznan, took in some Czech refugees from the German slaughter of Czechs in the Thirty Years War – which we will discuss as a likely historical factor in the Treaty of Saint Germain’s figuring, logistical and historical calculation that the Sudetenland should remain part of Bohemia. But for now, we just need to mention that these three cities, Poznan, Gniezno and Leszno would be among those audaciously retaken by Pilsudski and the Poles in the Greater Poland Uprising of 1918-19….. and confirmed though correctly by Versailles as Polish, would cause great consternation and will to revenge on the part of Hitler and the Nazis.
In fact, those who were partisans or military intelligentsia in this uprising were targeted by the Nazis two decades later, killed in places like Poznan’s Fort VII.
Fort VII, Poznan, where the Nazis exacted revenge against intelligentsia of the Greater Polish Uprising and experimented with their first gas chambers.
Tour of Poznan’s Old Market Square begins with imagery commemorating The Polish Uprising of 1918/19; then goes up the hill to the castle where the first nobility of Poland lived; then shows Club Dragon; back into the market square and the Ratusz, it’s renaissance salon; the church; archaeological museum; and back into the market square; Pilsudski’s uprising where tour began.
Pardon the labored breathing; it was due to a medical condition that I was unaware of and caught me by surprise; I have since corrected it.
We left off at Poznan’s fort7, the Nazis first concentration camp in Poland, largely organized to imprison and kill Poles of the Greater Poland Uprising (1918, 1919) who’d re-taken rightful Polish cities (a short documentary here). 
Yet we shouldn’t give the impression regarding even cities less disputably Polish, that the matter is quite so straightforward. A few generations would have passed who would not remember Poznan as anything but German; and they put a lot into cities like that.
Valid though the thesis remains to propose that Hitler’s most legitimate bones of contention were few – cities such as Bromberg and Thorn (by contrast to Poznan and surrounds), as these few cites formed a German speaking salient, stress and ultimately flash point amidst the corridor, I must be careful with wording.
If German speaking and considerable demographic percentage, even if not majority, is the bone of contention, you’d have to add Konitz to the cities worthy of contention in the corridor.
Along with Graudzen and Kulm, there were dozens of cities in and about the corridor contestable for their Germanic population and influence since the days of Teutonic Knights and Prussian incursions.
Still they would not alter the general thesis if added to the discussion.
Their histories all pretty much tell the same story, a similar historical narrative:
Whether Konitz, Kulm, Graudzen, Zempelburg, Dirschau, Bromberg or Thorn…
A look into the history reveals why you didn’t bother trying to sympathize with the idea that they should have been German by Versailles, even less so now, and why Nazi sympathizers do not tend to delve into the histories either.
Virtually the same histories.
A mixed Polish German history, usually Polish to begin and yes, there was war, brutality and exploitation in Polish times as well, then followed by brutal and exploitative German take overs (Teutonic/Prussian), followed by Versailles granting them to Poland for historical and strategic access reasons, then brutal Nazi retaliation, usually killing hundreds if not thousands of Poles.
It becomes apparent why those well disposed to ethnonationalism haven’t been inclined to delve into this, as even a cursory glance at the history and the Nazi reaction, leads one to the conclusion that maybe there shouldn’t be too much complaint among our contemporaries and not anything like the kind of reaction drawn by Hitler.
Still, what overly Nazi sympathetic WN has done is create a burden of addressing their punctuation and misrepresentation of the history (usually beginning at Versailles), a punctuation and denial of other framworks that require me and others to attend to history pragmatically, where we’d rather be attending to contemporary theoretical matters of White advocacy, such as hermeneutics.
Ah, but hermeneutics does tie-in, as opposed to the a-historical Cartesian perspective of modernity, hermeneutics prompts an interactively engaged, circulating, investigative, corrective process, which will encompass relevant historical perspectives as well as facts; but as a narrative approach it facilitates transcendence of the arbitrary flux that mere data presents, a liberation from that mere facticity – achtung! you overlooked Konitz!, yes, we’ll correct that – it allows for coherence instead of an arbitrary and constant searching fret.
White Post Modernity, its deployment of Social Constructionism and Hermeneutics were devised exactly for protecting group interests against Cartesian runaway and antagonistic ethnocentrisms – we cannot allow the proper deployment of these philosophical instruments to be buried by the YKW obfuscation that right wing reactionaries buy-into. The corrective program of left ethnonationalism works remarkably well to make consistent sense of what our enemies are doing, where they lead us astray, and how we should proceed by contrast. Indeed these methods, including hermeneutics and its liberation from mere facticity into narrative coherence, are a means to the salvation of our people
– allowing ethnonationalism to correct the horrific epistemological blunder committed by Hitler as he took off into the systemic runaway of theoria, with a Cartesian notion of placing people in the fallacy of sheer natural causality, rather than in optimal and flexibly corrective judgement of praxis – a people centric position based in human nature – as an ethnonationalist perspective affords in coordination with others, and not just a German-centric position with them proposed as the paragons of pure nature.
Objectivity and facts are tools to be acknowledged and deployed in our relative group interests for ourselves and for coordination with other groups, whose relative interests are going to be slightly different than ours.
Reactionary, typically STEM types of WN, will tend to misread, where not be deliberately misled by YKW misrepresentations and crass distortions of hermeneutics; in their phobic right wing reactions to YKW academic abuses of social conceptualization and means of group systemic maintenance, they’ll refuse to realize that narrative does not necessarily equate to fiction – on the contrary, it is necessary to non-fictional coherence as well – and a conjoint participation in refinement of knowledge (which is largely descriptive in the end anyway).
Aren’t Nazi sympathizers doing this when they talk about the corridor cities as rightfully German? Not really. And they don’t appreciate that for those looking to WN for news and information, their view is not the alternative, their view has largely been the only view purporting to represent WN.
5 minutes largely destroying Pat Buchanan & David Duke’s Hitler apologetics: Hitler was Not WN Part7
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 05 December 2018 21:28.
Hitler was Not White Nationalist Part 7
In five minutes (36:53 – 41:53), Professor Margaret MacMillan destroys Pat Buchanan and David Duke’s claim that Hitler was bargaining in good faith, and that he only wanted what was “unjustifiably” taken from Germany by Versailles, that he didn’t have imperial supremacist war in mind all along, irrespective of its potential and real destruction to European peoples, including his own, German.
Trinity College Dublin
Published on Nov 1, 2017
Delivered on Thursday, 26 October 2017, Professor Margaret MacMillan
Professor of International History at the University of Oxford, Margaret MacMillen gave the Trinity Long Room Hub Annual Edmund Burke Lecture 2017 which is supported by a generous endowment in honour of Padraic Fallon by his family.
Speakers:
Professor Margaret MacMillan
Professor Jane Ohlmeyer (Director, Trinity Long Room Hub)http://www.tcd.ie/
https://www.tcd.ie/trinitylongroomhub/
https://www.tcd.ie/trinitylongroomhub…
Part 8, concluding introduction to an ongoing series to critique and separate WN from Hitler/Nazism
This part, 8, will conclude the introduction to a series which will be open ended and ongoing as necessary to address issues as they emerge relevant to the purpose of separating ethnonationalism from Nazism and Hitler redemption.
We’ve begun with Poland for obvious reasons, since that’s where World War II started.
But we will defend all ethnonationalism against imperialism, with particular focus on the necessity to defend against Nazi association.
We will address various aspects and any perspective that emerges relevant to removing this albatross from our necks.
Of acute relevance is the fact that all nations between Germany and Russia were against The Soviets. The Poles defeated the Soviets at Warsaw in 1920 when the Soviets were otherwise on their way to Berlin. Stab in the back? how about having your capital, Warsaw, leveled, hundreds of thousands of civilians murdered in thanks by the Nazis.
But all of these nations between Russia, including Ukraine, like Poland, had awareness of the J.Q. while being nationalistic and anti-Soviet; there’s been almost no awareness of Belarus, its entirely distinct ethno-nationalism and consciousness – wise to the J.Q., with a long, bitter history of fighting the Russians for independence, a fight on religious levels too, translating to an extreme ethnonationalist willingness to fight the Soviets.
These facts were ignored by Hitler because he wanted lebensraum and the fertile lands of Ukraine. Thus, he set out propaganda, no matter how absurd, to depict his imperialist eastward aggression as necessary despite the fact that these nations hated the Soviets.
Hitler didn’t have to engage this war. As Professor MacMillan observed, he wanted it. It cost over 50 million European lives, for his quest of imperialist expansion on top of what were already imperialistically expanded lands of Frederick the Great.
His supremacist, imperial war, left Europe prostrate, vulnerable to all that beleaguers us now, jeopardizing the very survival of European people, even in our homelands.
In the context of the lives lost, exploited, land appropriated by the Nazis and forebears, for the fact that it was Stalin who reset the borders and moved the populations back west…the sympathy sought for Germans moved to re-established borders after the war by the millions is eclipsed. I feel sorry for those killed in transit.
Schneidemhul (now Pila, Poland).
But of expulsion, my Polish cousins were moved west too (from what is now Belarus to what was then Schneidemuhl) and I do not play the violin. In fact, the borders of Poland now very much assimilate the lands occupied by Polish tribes prior to some losses in its west, including Breslau/Wroclaw, due to the Mongol invasions in the 1200s.
I’m very glad that the ancient Polish city of Zamosc, next big city to its west, didn’t become Himmlerstadt as proposed, eastern capital of the Third Reich. If Nazi Germany didn’t plan on expanding eastward, why whisk out plans like that? As if this wasn’t a necessary war of defense for ethnonational patriots of these nations adjacent to Nazi Germany.
Consider 110,000 Poles expelled from this region and moved into forced labor camps, over 5,000 Polish children kidnapped for Germanification. While 60,000 Germans were moved into the region for their lebensraum generalplan Ost…
Then take into account the start of the war, surprise attack on Danzig,
the panic of the retreating Polish army, as it was sniped passing through Bromberg three days later. Acting on long standing intelligence, much gathered through its decryption of the enigma cypher (in fact, the chief cracker, Rejewski, was from Bromberg),
seeing that there was fifth column of Nazi activity going on there; they took out and shot any Germans who had guns in their houses (my depiction in the audio/video of the Polish response in the so-called “Bloody Sunday” doesn’t capture some of the imminence of the situation begun in fire fight against Nazi partisans; and the image I show of people being executed was not of exemplary Poles: the Polish mayor and teachers were among those executed in retaliation);
but, as we said, the Nazis more than made up for it, killing exponentially the number of Poles (a policy of retaliation that they’d repeat in other nations); then we can talk about Wielun, where the Nazi aerial bombing started off (Bombing of Wielun on September 1, 1939, three days before the Bromberg incident)… the utter destruction of Warsaw, all the civilians killed there ..
But Pat Buchanan wants you to believe that the Poles were imperialists, full of hubris, exemplified by their taking a small strategic train pass. David Duke wants you to believe Hitler was a man of peace with bonafide offers as such.
We’ve yet to discuss the millions of Russian, Belarusians, Ukrainians, French, Czechs, English and on who were killed (supposedly because of Versailles). Where does the absurdity end? Well, it’s beginning is with imperial supremacism, and its end is with a coordinated ecology of ethnonationalism.
Now we’re dealing with generations of suppressed American reactionaries for whom William Pierce is often the common denominator for his misleading depiction of Hitler, misleading otherwise intelligent, would-be nationalists.
End of text to audio
…….
World War II was an unnecessary war? True, and Hitler shouldn’t have started it.
While the British position was awkward, with their article of faith, seeking a balance of power on the continent, it coincided with a moral position regarding smaller ethnostates.
It didn’t work out strategically for them, but morally, their position in opposition to Hitler was correct; while Hitler turned out wrong on both counts, strategically and morally.
From here on, Per and I will address particular aspects of the war as they emerge relevant, and we’ll address individuals who insist on defending Hitler and Nazism across the board, or at least more than we think they should.. …we’ll also talk to people who are more in agreement with us, or who are coming around.
Posted by Greggy Johnson on Fri, 14 Dec 2018 06:00 | #
Greg Johnson has more recently come around to denounce Hitler and his imperialism while hawking his White Nationalist Manifesto (2018); and he was starting to come around before that in his New Right vs Old Right (2013), contrasting genocidal imperial supremacism as part of “the old right way.”
But as recently as 2015, Greg Johnson, having come through the William Pierce school of the White stuff, made this comment at Majorityrights, under the Lindtner interview thread: referring to Hitler as “the greatest statesman of the 20th century.”
That is jaw-dropping stupidity: hard to have it more backwards than that. A statesman (let alone the greatest one) would never initiate the kind of war that Hitler did over the grievances he claimed (an imperial supremacist would). A great statesman would have found a way to negotiate and resolve international disputes, including those claims regarding Versailles, with a much more allied and defensive war, if not peacefully.
Greg Johnson, like the rest of the Nazophilic Right, Regnery Circus/Alt Right, has been playing opposite day with me, (((what their marketing firm))) calls “counter-signalling” me from the onset of my participation at VoR. I observed that the hippies were a manifestation of the White male need to Be (Being/Dasein – later adding Midtdasein via Michael O’Meara), Johnson then turns around and tries to couple the 60s bohemian counter culture mindset, its protest against imperialist warring, with Hitler, shown in love beads to illustrate his “West Coast White Nationalism”, written in tandem with Robert Stark (mischling destined for (((The Stark Truth))).
While I talked about pervasive ecology as a universalizable underpinning to the coordination of ethnonatioalism, Johnson’s articles on “deep ecology” propose to give a lions share of the credit for ecological thinking to the Nazis, even quite recently posting this image of a swastika formed of yellowed trees, along with an article about “eco-fascism.”
This egregious association with human, and what I have coined in term “pervasive ecology”, is uncalled for.
– DanielS
Posted by Lana’s What?? on Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:24 | #
…more from the William Pierce school of Cosmo-History…
Lana Lokteff critiques anti-White prejudice in TV programming aimed to pander to Mexicans, La Raza – its self-interested and exploitative racial politics, aimed at re-conquista in North America. Fine.
Then she adds this bit at the end (1:14:27):
“Hitler tried to take back German lands in Poland that were annexed by the Soviet Union; and what ultimately happened?”
One may begin by asking why this strange bit of pseudo World War II history was spuriously added to cap-off a discussion of Mexican incursion into The US…
But addressing the claim of itself –
“The world descended upon Germany with bombs because Hitler tried to take back German lands in Poland annexed by the Soviet Union.”
“German lands in Poland annexed by the Soviet Union”
…..????
It’s hard to decipher what this bizarre construction even means or to place it historically – at broadest, she might be talking about the period following the first partition of Poland in the 1790’s, when imperial Russia took a third (and that some of that “should be a part of Germany?”)…or is she talking about the narrow window of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, in which case its hard to tell what “rightful” German territory that the Soviets were claiming in Poland, even then?… Ah, maybe she believes that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania should be German? But they’re not in Poland.
I thought for a moment she might be saying that Molotov had gained the old Prussian area of Konigsberg (now Kalingrad) and areas just to its south in Poland, but I see that the Ribbentrop had even secured that for Germany (that’s where Hitler spent most of the war in his “Wolf’s Lair”).
I’m trying to consider how a Russian woman could be susceptible to Nazi propaganda (the Nazis did rather kill millions of Russians – think of Petersberg alone). My first hypothesis is not flattering. Generally speaking, women prior to socialization into their historical group (I prefer to call them females in this case, reserving woman as an honorary title for those who become socialized largely through the empathy that child rearing inspires), young females, have all the suitors that they need; are prone to incite genetic competition, as they can simply breed with the winner; and therefore it can be convenient to fall in line with right wing politics – the queen bee does not want to be bothered with these excess worker bees, ‘let’s kill off the dead wood’ as Tara McCarthy once said, ‘through nature’s school – war – of hard knocks, or be encouraged “by the fact that these ‘lefty-guys’ won’t be having any children.” ..vulgar natural fallacy can suit the convenience of females who don’t care to penetrate social issues very deeply. Part of Hitler’s popularity came from pandering to this brutal element in puerile, un-socialized female psyche.
"Truth Seeker", "Major Historian" or Maybe..
Ovfuckyou thought that I should talk to this guy, Goodrich, who made a 6 hour film in Hitler redemptionism, composed with wholesale Nazi propaganda. I stopped watching when he had scrolling down the screen the complete lie (wholesale Nazi propaganda) that Poles killed 58,000 German civilians and with that, discussed the Bromberg incident, which happened AFTER the Nazis invaded Poland as if it was a precipitating event of the war.
J.F. Gariepy irresponsibly helps Thomas Goodrich to promote long discredited Nazi propaganda to the detriment of ethnonational solidarity. Not only that, for whatever perceived grievances on the Nazi German side, there is no historical context provided of the other side’s grievances.
Operation Himmler, Part II. J.F. Gariepy interviews “the major historian” Thomas Goodrich:
DEBUNKED: 1939 BLOODY SUNDAY - BROMBERG BLUTSONNTAG
Around mid-February every year, the media of White Nationalism is replete with stories of the fire bombing of Dresden. As terrible as it was that so many civilians were killed in so horrific a way, and legitimate as it is to question the necessity of it, context or not, it is weird, and to coin an oxymoron, typically weird, unfortunately, of purported White Nationalists to be so overly Nazi sympathetic as to bemoan this tragedy and the Nazi defeat while displaying no empathy in regard to the cities destroyed and civilian deaths in far greater numbers perpetrated by the Nazis. While they demand sympathy and to be unburdened of guilt trips, there is little in the way of concern for victims of the Nazi wrath and that maybe their supremacist, imperialist ideology which perpetrated and precipitated this destruction should be left behind for the sake of our European concordance. No, they believe that they must redeem Hitler and what goes along with it – demeaning and blaming everyone else and all nations that Hitler attacked.
While Colin Liddell provides some logistical explanation, ask yourself, if your loved ones, wife, daughter, son, brother, father, dear friends and cousins has been killed – en mass – by the Nazis, if you might be prone to over corrective acts of unjust vengeance. Add to that the legitimate contention that Germany had started BOTH world wars and had committed atrocities against its civilian neighbors, and you might get some understanding of a sick motive of vengeance and will to stop this imperial militaristic urge among the Germans (a people of whom, it might be said, get carried away with a superior logic, at times to the detriment of broader judgment, seemingly not knowing where to stop, in collective correction).
ALT-RIGHT LIES: THE DRESDEN MYTH
ALT-RIGHT LIES: THE DRESDEN MYTH
What the Alt-Right literally believes
by Colin Liddell, 13 Feb 2019:
One of the myths commonly trotted out on the Alt-Right at this time of year is the Dresden Myth.
According to this meme, trope, narrative, or whatever you want to call it, the bombing of Dresden on and around the 13th of February, 1945, was one of the most horrendous war crimes ever. Indeed, it was so bad that it stands right up there with the Holocaust—which, of course, many in the Alt-Right deny—and the atom bombing of the Japanese as some kind of ultimate and delegitimising evil.
Of course it was bad, but in war all sorts of terrible things happen as a matter of course. So, using Dresden in this way is rather a hard sell. The normies just don’t get it. To them it’s just one more example of a bombing raid, hardly a rare occurrence in WWII.
Even when the Alt-Right exaggerate the casualty figures and throw in some colourful details about low flying bombers machine gunning fleeing civilians, etc., the reaction is still pretty much “meh.”
This doubtlessly has something to do with the fact that the Germans were pioneers in the mass bombing of civilian centres themselves. Here’s a screenshot of an interactive bomb map of London from the Blitz.
So, everybody bombed someone. So what?
But this is where the second part of the myth kicks in. In order to make you care about this particular bombing, we are told that the war was already over when Dresden was bombed, so that, unlike Warsaw in 1939, Rotterdam in 1940, and London, the bombing of Dresden was not a “normal” act of war, but instead just an act of gratuitous cruelty and sadism.
Here is a typical anonymous comment from a Facebook group putting forward this point of view:
Dresden was a civilian massacre. Call it what it is man, the war was OVER….germany’s infrastructure was finished a year before Dresden was torched. Germany’s rail system was bombed to shit, they had no resources and the army was done.
Yes, indeed, if the war was truly over by February 1945, that would make Dresden somewhat worse. Although, it could also be argued that even if the war was “effectively over” it would have been quite hard for people to just shrug off years of war conditioning and start acting normally as rational, humane beings in the flick of a switch.
But was the war effectively over as is claimed?
Of course, in the sense that Germany could no longer win against the massive forces arrayed against it, or even achieve some kind of negotiated peace, the war was definitely over. But in terms of brutal fighting and high casualties for both sides, it was still very much an ongoing affair.
This can be proved simply by looking at data—y’know that old-fashioned way of resolving arguments and variant viewpoints.
First here is a map of the military situation in the middle of February 1945. As you can see, the Nazis still control almost all of Germany and large areas of other countries. Millions of men were still under arms, and the Western allies had yet to cross the Rhine.
Now, in case someone thinks this is just a big map of nothing, and that the millions of German soldiers under arms were just wandering aimlessly around looking for someone nice to surrender to, let’s look at the monthly casualty figures just for the US Army. The figures for the Soviet army, if they were available and reliable, would probably paint and even more convincing picture that the war was still very much at its peak.
Starting from June 1944, when the D-Day landings took place, here are the month-by-month casualty figures of the US Army in Europe (including the Army Air Corps). These figures come from the Department of the Army’s final report on “Army Battle Casualties and Nonbattle Deaths in World War II (7th December 1941 – 31st December 1946). A copy of that report is online here.
Note, casualties include killed and wounded at roughly the proportion of three wounded to one killed.
1944
June 49,061
July 61,454
August 49,458
September 54,937
October 47,725
November 65,918
December 80,9941945
January 70,560
February 43,603
March 56,282
April 49,706
May 2,201
June 82As we can see from these figures, US Army casualties were at their highest in December 1944 and January 1945, the months preceding the bombing of Dresden, which occurred in the middle of February. In those months the Western allies had received a nasty shock with a surprise German offensive in the Ardennes (The Battle of the Bulge), when German forces threatened, albeit briefly, to break through to the Channel again.
Also note that US casualties were higher in March and April 1945 than they were in June 1944, the month of the famous D-Day landings and subsequent battles in Normandy, when German forces were at their peak in opposition to American forces. This is so counter-intuitive to what most people know about the war that it needs emphasising: In both the months following Dresden, German military efforts against the Americans were more intense and took a higher toll than they did in June 1944.
The idea that Germany was “militarily finished” when the Dresden bombings happened is thus clearly absurd.
So why does the lying Alt-Right push this retarded myth? The most obvious answer is that they want to evoke sympathy for Nazi Germany. But this raises a further question: Why do they want to evoke sympathy for Nazi Germany?
Knee-jerk hatred of Jews is the obvious answer, but another possible and highly nefarious possibility is that they want to attach White identitarianism, White nationalism, and European self-determination to what is an extremely toxic brand in order to poison it.
They know that people who are attracted to these healthy forms of self-determination are likely to be more open-minded about history and less inclined to believe establishment narratives. Thus they are more likely to be taken in by blatant lies like the Dresden Myth. If that is the intention, then it is clearly an evil one, designed to keep nationalism on its knees as a pathetic victim identity and confined to a Nazi ghetto.
It does not necessarily shut down critique of the Dresden bombing but add to these considerations the insistence by the Soviets that Dresden be incapacitated as it was a transport hub integral to sending Nazi troops to its front line; there was some war industry there (optical devices for guns); the fact that the war was not over, with the possibility still of Nazi Germany developing weapons of mass destruction and delivering them in their death throes; add to that the emotions of millions of family and friends lost at what was perceived as German military aggression through two world wars and the argument indicting the bombing of Dresden is a little less clear.
AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT PODCAST (04): WHAT’S NOT TO LOVE ABOUT THE MORGENTHAU PLAN?
Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki return with another Affirmative Right Podcast to discuss two “historical memes” pushed by the Alt-Right to evoke sympathy and support for Naziism, namely the firebombing of Dresden in 1945 and the Morgenthau Plan to divide Germany into several smaller states after the war.
But was the bombing of Dresden any worse than many of the other atrocities of WWII, and how about the Morgenthau Plan? Was that really any different from what the Confederacy was trying to pull off in 1860s America? Also, what effect did WWII have on the rising tide of degeneracy in the West today?
While blaming Churchill and Britain for the war against Hitler is a veritable cottage industry in Hitleresque WN, Nazi redemptionism requires blaming every nation in opposition to Hitler, in accordance with Nazi propaganda, beginning with Poland.
“OPERATION HIMMLER” – NAZI FALSE FLAG OPERATION TO JUSTIFY INVASION OF POLAND
ALT-RIGHT LIES: THE JEWS "DECLARED WAR" ON GERMANY
Due to the obsessive grip that antisemitism exerts on weak and immature minds, most of the lies that exist in the Alt-Right seem to focus on matters relating to the Jews.
This is pretty odd, especially if you consider the fact that nothing reinforces disappearing Jewish identity better than the kind of ineffectual antisemitism that the present-day Alt-Right specialises in.
In a previous article, I pointed out how limited Jewish control of the Russian Revolution, the Soviet Union, and thus the Holodomor really was. In a supplementary article I then drew attention to the awkward fact—at least for the Alt-Right—that prominent Jews in the Communist Party actually opposed staging the Revolution, regarding it as too violent and risky. It was essentially the headstrong and impetuous “goy brigade” who were all for storming the Winter Palace and putting their fellow goys in the Tsarist regime to the sword.
In this article I want to look at another popular Alt-Right “meme” that is completely fake, namely the quite common idea that WWII was started by the Jews, and that Hitler was therefore just “defending” himself against aggression, and that any Jewish deaths that resulted can be laid at their own feet.
Really, to believe this requires a level of historical illiteracy or arcane solipsism that only morons or autistes are capable of. One such individual is clearly Jean-Francois Gariépy, who, in the post-Spencerian Alt-Right, is probably better thought of than even the likes of Mike Enoch, Greg Johnson, or Andrew Anglin.
While Enoch is tainted by his obvious Jewishness, Johnson by his apparent homosexuality, and Anglin by his low-brow trollish character (along with the obvious Jewishness of (((The Daily Stormer)))), Gariépy is seen as a “rigorous intellectual” with relatively little negative baggage.
This image is maintained by what appears to be his apparent dedication to “logic and facts,” along with a funny French accent.
Don’t underestimate the last point, as I’ve noticed that this especially impresses American alt-righters, who appear to have some sort of “cultural cringe” towards Europeans. As an example, I remember that my ex-associate Richard Spencer was also deeply “smitten” in a kind of school-girlish way by the Gallic charms of Roman Bernard, a once important figure in the Alt-Right, who has now mysteriously disappeared. For my part, whenever I hear such characters with their heavily nasal voices, I am put in mind of a certain comic skunk.But back to Gariépy’s rigorous erm… intellectualism.
In a recent YouTube video he decided to attack Stefan Molyneux of all people. This was done either to make pointless trouble or else to drive traffic to his own site. Molyneux is one of the rocks of the Dissident Right, who, unlike the retards of the Alt-Right, has a keen understanding of moral dynamics, and has created an informative and morally nuanced channel that pushes realistic and politically incorrect thinking to a vast audience.
Some of the criticisms that Gariépy directed at Molyneux had a point, and showed just how effective he can be as a critic. But then he suddenly went and ruined it all—and blew his credibility—by stepping on one of his real blind spots, namely the causes of WWII.
Now, most fake intellectuals can carry things off as long as they stay out of their obvious weak zones. This allows them to speak with assurance on topics, giving their audience a positive impression of their erudition and honesty. But once they stray into a blind spot, as happened here, then, it is almost as if they have stepped on a landmine or are suddenly shot through with an X-Ray-like beam that entirely reveals their inner workings.
This is what happened to Gariépy, who was revealed as little better than a wind-up anti-Semite, seeking to attribute everything bad to his chosen hate object, with reason and logic subordinated to mere tools in order to present this emotionally preconceived notion. Here is the point at which Gariépy’s rationalist mask slip. In the original video it can be found at the 2:14:20 mark, but this has been deleted, so here is a back-up audio recording:
And here is a transcript of exactly what he says:
“Oh boy, we need to talk about World War II, Stefan. World War II was not an intra-white war. World War II was a proxy War involving the international Jewish community. World War II has been declared even before the beginning of World War II. International Jewry declared War against Germany. World War II has occurred because of the desire of Germany to form a society for itself, for its own people. And Jews declared the war. They said we don’t want that, we won’t let you. And this is very well documented. You can Google it. Those are facts, those are not conspiracy theories. Just Google ‘international Jewry declares war on Germany.’ So don’t tell me about World War II as something Whites have done independent of the Jews. The Jews were extremely involved in the question surrounding World War II.”
I have long been aware of this retarded meme that the Jews started the war, as it is an extremely popular one in the increasingly reductionist Alt-Right, but I was actually quite shocked that someone like JF, who affects to be a rigorous intellectual, would push it.
The first point to make in opposition to this erroneous theory is that Jews simply did not have the apparatus to start wars independently until after WWII, when they were granted their own state with war-making powers.
The whole “truth” of this assertion therefore rests on the idea that the Jews somehow pushed other countries into starting a war with Hitler. This meme—because that is all it is—almost always comes with a picture of a front page of a British tabloid newspaper, The Daily Express, dated March 24th, 1933, which I will reproduce here again to save you the trouble of scrolling up to the top:
In fact, this appears to be the main evidence for this “story,” although other quotes are also sometimes mentioned. So, what exactly does this “declaration of war” consist of? In the Express story, the “war” is essentially a few demonstrations and a call for a boycott of German goods:
“Judea Declares War on Germany! Jews of all the World Unite! Boycott of German Goods! Mass Demonstrations!”
“The Israeli people around the world declare economic and financial war against Germany. Fourteen million Jews stand together as one man, to declare war against Germany. The Jewish wholesaler will forsake his firm, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his commerce and the pauper his pitiful shed in order to join together in a holy war against Hitler’s people.”
Similar calls were made elsewhere:
“Each of you, Jew and Gentile alike, who has not already enlisted in this sacred war should do so now and here. It is not sufficient that you should buy no goods made in Germany. You must refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any German-made goods or who patronises German ships or shipping…. we will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends.” – Samuel Undermeyer, in a Radio Broadcast on WABC, New York, August 6, 1933. (Reported in the New York Times, August 7, 1933.)
As you can see, these were mainly calls for an economic boycott rather than an actual war. But it is also not too difficult to find examples of Jews calling for a war against Germany:
“We Jews are going to bring a war on Germany.” – David A. Brown, National Chairman, United Jewish Campaign, 1934 (quoted in “I Testify Against The Jews” by Robert Edward Edmondson, page 188 and “The Jewish War of Survival” by Arnold Leese, page 52).
And:
“There is only one power which really counts. The power of political pressure. We Jews are the most powerful people on earth, because we have this power, and we know how to apply it.” – Vladimir Jabotinsky, Jewish Daily Bulletin, July 27, 1935.
Once war broke out, some Jews, not surprisingly in my opinion, welcomed it:
“I wish to confirm in the most explicit manner, the declaration which I and my colleagues made during the last months, and especially in the last week: that the Jews “stand by Great Britain and will fight on the side of the democracies.” Our urgent desire is to give effect to these declarations. We wish to do so in a way entirely consonant with the general scheme of British action, and therefore would place ourselves, in matters big and small, under the co-ordinating direction of His Majesty’s Government. The Jewish Agency is ready to enter into immediate arrangements for utilizing Jewish manpower, technical ability, resources, etc.” – Chaim Weizmann, Head of the Jewish Agency and later President of Israel, the Times, September 5, 1939, and the London Jewish Chronicle, September 8, 1939.
But the fact remains that none of this “declaring” is proof of the Jews declaring an actual war on Germany. In fact, it is simply proof of a desire not to do business with Nazi Germany and an enthusiasm for the war that was later caused by Germany’s own actions and Hitler’s own pointless declaration of war on the United States.
Also consider the timeline. The initial Jewish “declaration of war” was in 1933, when a widespread Jewish boycott was announced. But no fighting took place until over six years later.
Those who push this meme either want you to believe that this economic boycott made Germany so desperate that it viewed war favourably, or else that the political pressure exerted by Jews made the Allies so aggressive towards Germany that they then “pushed it” into war by being diplomatically aggressive.
Neither of these ideas is supported by any of the evidence. In fact the evidence supports completely opposite conclusions. The economic boycott by the “almighty Jews” was a complete failure. Here is Germany’s pre-war trade stats:
As you can see, exports fell slightly 1933-1934, which might be the boycott or could be due to National Socialism boosting domestic consumption and investing in infrastructure. Even if it were due to the boycott, the trend from 1934 is rising exports. With imports it is a similar story.
So, were the Jews able to isolate Germany and reduce it to an international pariah? To answer that question, merely look at the above economic data and try to remember what the main global event of 1936 was and where it was held.
Hitler in 1936 watching some obscure sporting event called the Berlin Olympics, after Germany had been successfully “isolated” by the all-powerful Jews.
Well, if economic and political pressure failed to realise “Judea’s war against Germany,” how about media power? Maybe Jewish-owned periodicals and movie companies were able to whip up the masses into a frenzy of war fever.
Once again there is no evidence of this. Popular anti-war films made before 1933, like Wings (1927) and All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) continued to enjoy wide audiences, except in Germany where Nazi party members disrupted screenings and then banned such films on coming to power.
While a few Nazi baddies appeared here and there in Hollywood movies, there was no real propaganda push until the war actually got under way. Popular support for a war against Germany stayed in the cellar right up to the outbreak of hostilities.
The American public remained isolationist until President Roosevelt was able to “engineer” the attack on the US Pacific fleet by the Japanese, and even then it was Hitler who had to declare war on America! The French meanwhile were so unenthusiastic for war that they built the Maginot Line so they could avoid it. Even the often jingoistic British public had little relish for war, despite numerous provocations by Hitler.
Classic Nazi-bit-part actor Walter Slezak (right) got his first Nazi part in 1942’s “Once Upon a Honeymoon.” Despite Jewish animosity towards Nazi Germany, the public were simply not interested in Nazi bad guys until Hitler declared war on America. |
In every area of supposed Jewish influence—economic, political, media, and cultural—there is no evidence of the 1933 Jewish “Declaration of War” having pushed Europe into war in any measurable or meaningful way. By contrast, what demonstrably did push Europe into war were the actions of Adolf Hitler. Poland did not just jump up and insert itself under the jackboots and tank tracks of the German army. It was invaded, and this invasion was merely the latest in a long line of German provocations.
It is quite possible to argue that the Treaty of Versailles was unjust, and that Hitler was right to some degree in seeking to extricate Germany from it. But the speed and urgency with with which Hitler pushed his agenda and betrayed subsequent agreements, like the one painfully arrived at over Czechoslovakia in 1938, is a sufficient explanation for WWII.
The direct trigger of WWII was Hitler’s invasion of Poland, combined with Britain’s guarantee to Poland.
Those who wish to excuse Hitler usually say that this British guarantee to Poland was somehow an intrusive act aimed at Germany. It is also absurdly argued that this was just a cynical ploy because Britain subsequently failed to protect Polish sovereignty in the post-war period, when Britain was exhausted by six years of war.
This kind of convoluted self delusion is laughable. The British guarantee to Poland was not an act of aggression, but instead a cautious and conservative response to Hitler’s long list of provocations that contravened the Treaty of Versailles and the subsequent agreements made to maintain peace. If anything, the British guarantee to Poland was an additional reason for Hitler not to invade Poland, not an excuse to attack it, as Alt-Right Hitler apologists like Gariépy believe.
By taking this step, Hitler was stupidly placing Germany in an extremely dangerous position between Western allies finally pushed into war and an aggressive Soviet Union, with no longer any buffer states to cushion Germany on the East. The German High Command were quite rightly deeply concerned about this at the time, as they had no plan for winning such a conflict. Their later success in France, which gave them some breathing space was the result of initiatives by relatively low-ranking commanders like Heinz Guderian.
Hitler’s own reckless behaviour between 1935 and 1939—rearming, occupying the Rhineland, annexing Austria, taking the Sudetenland, annexing the rest of Czechoslovakia, and then attacking Poland, right after an explicit guarantee of protection from the UK—provided more than enough causation for WWII with or without Jewish animosity to Germany.
The fact that Gariépy would promote such a retarded Alt-Right narrative, suggests that he is emotionally heavily invested in hating the Jews personally (elsewhere in the video he mentions how Jews dominated his academic career).
Another very real possibility that should not be discounted is that he might just wish to appear to hate the Jews.
Given that the most virulently “Nazi-presenting” and anti-Semitic members of the Alt-Right have turned out to be Jews themselves, another possibility to keep in mind is that Gariépy may be Jewish, or partly Jewish, himself, rather than someone of Basque French-Canadian origin as he claims. His untruthful presentation of history is entirely consistent with this.
Originally published at Affirmative Right in November 2018.
Is it really too much to ask of Collett and Enoch to plainly reject Hitler? Forward all Europeans.
The epistemic grounds to reject Hitler should be clear enough to anyone proposing that they are qualified for a leadership role in WN. But these two are apparently carrying-on as if they are pragmatists. How do they propose that their explicitly unapologetic Hitler/Nazi coddling will be anything but terribly divisive of White Nationalism in addition to being epistemologically unnecessary?
If one is to exercise 20/20 hindsight, why not wish that Hitler didn’t attack other European nations; putting efforts instead toward cooperative deportation of non-Europeans?
This is not so much addressed to Enoch-Peinovich, as he has already been quarantined from this platform as an eminently dubious actor. However, Collett…
I won’t elaborate on this much here, as I have an article coming up regarding apparent triangulation against WN in the appeal to Hitler/Nazism, but to address a few absurdities by Collett in this podcast…
First of all, Collett invoked this rule that WN bandies about, which does not make perfect sense: i.e, “never apologize.”
Well, what if you’re terribly wrong? I remember people from the White Voice (guest Heimbach high-fiving host Adams for) refusing to apologize when they mistook Elin Krantz with the actor who posed mounted on top of a black in the mock Swedish National Anthem commercial: therefore “she got what she deserved”. Why not apologize for Elin’s sake?
But this is different. Not asking for an apology from Collett but rather for signs of intelligence enough (or honesty enough) that he can see things better now.
Collett invokes the long ago BBC ambush report which finds him now confirming that he’d still rather his daughter be born in 1930s Germany than some parts of England because she would be “more safe.”
And would his daughter be more safe still, in 1940s Germany, once the Nazi regime got through with murdering millions of people, including millions of civilian women and children, thus provoking revenge and violent retribution upon her?
Would it not be a better idea to find a way to move to a safer part of England while fairly assured that your parenting would give your daughter a better chance to not be groomed, and that you’d have some time for community activism, the kind you engage now, to root-out the problem?
Adding to the foible that he’d rather his daughter be born in 1930’s Germany, while that remark was initiated a long time ago, this one wasn’t: Listing his three favorite books – firstly Mein Kampf. Was that long ago Mark? Sure as reliable Mike Enoch set in motion the whole stiff arm thing that made Richard Spencer Fuhrer for a day…
..now you’ve got Enoch (who thinks he’s proved that he deserves to participate in European advocacy – he thinks so), running interference for you. He says that he’s not going to apologize for his admiration for certain figures of the Nazi era, “they’re going to call everyone Nazis anyway.”….
….“and look at the gun shows”, how the Nazi memorabilia is snapped up (therefore, it’s really ok to see Hitler’s as just another voice in our round table.) He challenges any of us “optics cucks” (the marketing campaign that Enoch is part of calls for him to suggest that there is no profound reason to reject Hitler, that the argument boils down to how Nazi imagery will look to the “brainwashed” normies), he believes that he can out-verbalize any of us in terms of winning over the “normies.” …confident in his kosher verbal skills, he is.
If you are able to articulate public relations manipulation so well, how did you wind up altercast?
If you are able to articulate public relations manipulation so well, how did you wind up altercast?
27 July 2020:
The Absolute State Of Britain #62: The Kosher Sausage-Roll (With MORGOTH)
Morgoth (136:14): I’ve done a few videos on this where the government and every relationship to public relations departments that they use to manage the public mood.
In The Home Office, you can even see The Home Office website, they call it the nudge strategy; and what they mean is that first they’ve got contingency plans for everything that can happen; and then they’ve also got PR departments which roll out PR campaigns in order to get the people thinking the way that they want, so that the population is like being permanently managed by the government itself via these PR departments; and they call it the nudge…
..and nudging people in “the right way” so all those tick-tock videos from the pandemic I mean it’s fascinating because…it, I feel like a fucking guinea pig because we’ve just been in the full lock-down thing .. it’s easing up a bit now; and then it’s as if we’ve been like…you get whiplash where you’re whisked into this now, this whole Black Lives Matter thing…just one straight after the other and I’m like you think that I’m, I, are we like a mouse in a proper maze here.
It’s somehow about how we react and how the population is managed because you know what….
Because here’s the thing and I’ve never seen the kind of individualists like Spike take this on. But the problem that you have (I know it’s a joke, but), in theory, we’re a liberal society and that’s supposed to be made up of a mass of individuals who are all able to get to the truth and formulate their own opinions and then they will vote for the party on that [knowledge] and so on and so on…that’ll be how they view the world.
The problem is, if you’re then in the business of managing, macro-managing the entire population, and we’re seeing that right now with Black Lives Matter, then what does that actually say about your individualistic society?
Because what’s happened is, they’re not able to get to any kind of truth, they’re not able to formulate any kind of opinions because all the information that they’re being fed is bullshit and according to a larger agenda.
So this kind of makes a complete mockery out of the individualist because what are you basing all of this on?
And you can see the results of it. I mean, we spoke about it all night here – the middle chunk, who are the most conformist will all, at the individual level, think of themselves as being individuals who make up their own minds.
And yet they agree with the government PR campaigns. It’s not even a conspiracy. All of these different PR companies have got flashy websites and when you go on the websites they’re all like a bunch of millennial bug-men, with target-charts; and all of that kind of thing.. all right out in the open… they’re just managing the public mood…. and to me, it’s this really dire critique of the liberal society; where everybody is an individual who makes up their own mind, because they’re obviously not.
[…]
Yuro (200:56): “See ya Kyle” (a “funny” way of saying “Seig Heil”, because we all think that’s such a cool salutation, don’t we?).
Now, “The Absolute State of Britain” airs over at Mike Enoch’s TRS Network – which I have long recognized as the main distribution outlet for the kosher marketing campaign devised to take White reaction against neo-conservatism, PC and increasing Jewish power and influence circa 2008, and to direct (nudge) it into a revised (((paleoconservatism))) 2.0 called the Alt-Right (now dissident right/ or neither left nor right as “increasingly meaningless terms” or third positionism) against a characterology of the left.
That is, they were nudging the reaction to stay on the right (anti social, stigmatic, disruptive and divisive of organizational power) and providing voice to White reaction, alt-right tents among the tentosphere (Christians, Nazis, the scientistic, the nutty conspiracy theorists and yet another tent for right wing Jews as proposed allies) if they went along and manifested some anti-social stigma, maintained identity as right wing reaction against hyperbolic inernationalist/anti-nationalist Marxist and Cultural Marxist (anti-White) organization/ coalitions characterized as “THE” Left, characterized as didactically repulsive and absurd so that Whites didn’t get the idea of White Left Ethnonationalism and its concept of broad unionization to delimit and protect the bounds of White people – because then they’d begin to organize their power and set sights on the pervasive pattern of kosher folks who naturally advocated for liberal scabbing of their borders and bounds as a rule; and then they’d look up and see who was on top, fucking them over: Kosher folks in 7-9 power niches in tandem with White right wing elitist sell outs, purity spiralists and Liberals taking the license, licentiousness offered them in the disordered circumstance of their borders and bounds having been flung wide open.
I have elaborated in many places about how and what it means to be right wing and liberal (objectivism at its base as an excuse with ever narrowing, “more pure” warrant as its source of power; minimizing accountability to borders and bounds of one’s people, indebtedness and responsibility thereof) and why the kosher folks want Whites to maintain that identity. Also, a characterology of “The Left” with all the absurdities of the exaggerated abuses of group organization, individual agency and activism, associated even at its base, organizational essence, as something only for anti-Whites.
…a dozen memes perhaps (red pills, normies, optics cucking, social justice warriors, etc) provided by some NY PR firm and placed in the portfolio of a Mike Enoch to deliver to the goyim with an instruction, “Be as anti-Semitic and pro-Hitler as you need.” …“call your show the ‘Daily Shoah’ and make ‘oven’ jokes… you’ll establish the ‘vanguard’ and tell people that the ‘normies’ don’t understand like we do, nor do the ‘optics cucks’, so for the most part we’ll have to wink and nod, knowing that “our Uncle” (Enoch literally refers to Hitler that way in the show below) had it all right, but they won’t understand, so keep it cool, “See Kyle!” (lol) until enough of them are ‘red pilled’, especially given the ‘lefties’ out there, who might not want us to deny ‘the holahoax’….you know how unreasonable and anti free speech THE LEFT is.”
The Absolute State Of Britain #61: Black Riots Matter (With MIKE ENOCH)
Meanwhile we’ve got other tents working the other right wing reactionary angles to direct them against our characterology of “The Left”. We’ve got the Christian tents to keep the goyim yoked under Noahide law.
We’ve got Keith Preston to help them, e.g., Todd Lewis and Right Ruminations to maintain the left as the demon.
Where audience turns for something else, we’ve got a tent for people who say “neither left nor right” so that Whites don’t get any idea of the organizational power of White Left Ethnonationalism.
And if they begin to get the idea, we can subvert it with another tent to appeal to newbies with “Third Positionism”..served up by useful idiots Keith Woods (with Cultured Thug, who was singing the virtues of third positionism, Hitler and Mussolini with Richard Spencer et al, the day before Spencer’s channel got taken down), Thamster, Jefferson Lee and Eric Striker (Mike Enoch there to help, of course), promoting it to provide a back door and means to maneuver our people by exploiting its no account, non socially corrective rigid reaction against our social systemic homeostasis/ self corrective, self governing autonomy (specifically subverted by introducing to this left cover, an option for Christianity, or the rational blindness of scientism and objectivism, which dovetails with Hitler adulation).
To shore up this reactionary position against the left, cooler heads will be directed from that horror show back to the home base Gottfried tent where it all started for good old fashioned paleoconservatism; and now that Richard Spencer took the nudge a bit too far at Mike Enoch’s prompting, we have the still edgy, but not too edgy new paleocon, Nick Fuentes, to retain the Christian, Noahide jurisdictional yoke
“…but in terms of who is going to be a part of this movement, it’s got to be White people and really, Jews should be excluded; and, and if you’re going to let in a mixed Jewish person then they really have to have done something to earn that – you know, and I think that in my case, I did.” – Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich
Here’s How Breitbart And Milo Smuggled Nazi and White Nationalist Ideas Into The Mainstream
Buzzfeed, “Here’s How Breitbart And Milo Smuggled Nazi and White Nationalist Ideas Into The Mainstream”,
Weev: Master Tactician, Semi-Tactful Infiltrator or Tactless Fool?
Germanophilia encouraged to point of Nazi redemptionism as divide/conquer triangulation against WN
Triangulation
One of the advantages that Jews have in altercasting White identity as right wing or somehow in response/reaction to “the left’s social concerns”, is that they can take advantage of the inherent instability of right wing reactionary rigidity, its quest for pure warrant beyond social accountability and correctability, whether in Nazism’s natural fallacy or Christianity’s otherworldly nonsense (kosher diversion). It has been apparent for some time that some Jewish perspectives are using a triangulation strategy against White identity and solidarity, by encouraging singularly focused Germanophilia in WN, even to the point of encouraging ostensible WN advocates to roll around in Nazi redemptionism and Holocaust well, if not denial, then downplaying with “humor”, etc. With White America being largely German, there is going to be enough of a true believers market, people desperate enough given the onslaught of PC liberalism and lacking in time, energy and concern to see beyond an overly German sympathetic perspective (with its background of Jewish interests) – wanting to believe rather that they are in sheer defiance of the anti-White, PC narrative – such that they will go along with this angle, not particularly concerned that they are playing into a divide and conquer triangulation.
Thamster, Josh Neal and Jefferson Lee. Quite articulate of liberalism’s rupture of the organic whole, but what they haven’t figured out is that Hitler and Jesus are not what is needed to keep it together. The day before Richard Spencer’s NPI channel was taken down from Youtube, he was in conversation with these guys extolling the virtues of Mussolini and Hitler (David Duke was doing the same thing the same day and his channel was also taken down after he went on about all the “peace offerings” that Hitler had made. lol). Jefferson Lee invokes the absurd, “they’re going to call you a Nazi anyway” argument (i.e., so you may as well prove them right?). When unavailable for a show, Josh says Jefferson Lee is busy planning the revival of The Prussian empire (funny?).
….
See also, Do Joel Davis and Richard Spencer Want to Suck Jewish Cock? …or would they prefer to take it up the ass?
…….
…. let’s get it underway, starting with the hypothesis.
While he is apparently innocuous, David Cole Stein’s Holocaust revisionism has been enough to ingratiate himself in this Jewish sponsored Germanophilism; a proud German-Jew, he is not above coddling Nazism a bit, apparently for the sake of re-routing animus against other Europeans. Cole-Stein uses the revisionist cred and attention that he gets to promote The Institute of Historical Review and “true historians, ‘Mark Weber and David Irving.”
“Hey! quit fuckin around, come on, we’re trying to teach the people something.”
“So this is the denier side. Here we have the three stooges on the denier side (Faurisson, Graf, and Mentionio).”
“This side is the actual historian side. Mark Weber which is represented by the Journal of Historical Review that he edits. David Irving…and then you got me. So, here we have me, Irving, Weber. We represent real history.”
Comments:
rollo clevich
Why did you ignore Arthur Butz?Daniel Sienkiewicz
It seems to me (Cole-Stein ignores Butz) because Butz is a German name (even if a German American). The classic, shifty pivot. David’s classic shifty pivot is apparently to coddle Germans as much as possible, including Nazi apologists, “true historians” Mark Weber and David Irving, to play divide and conquer against Slavics, especially Russian Slavics, including Russian Jewish Slavics who David Cole Stein admits to disliking.
The observation of this misdirecting pattern is the important issue at this point. There is no urgent need to trace this pattern to a single or few sources, though there are some of the usual suspects, like Regnery publishing and some of its Alt-Right/Dissident Right/ come Third Positionist/ (((Alt-Lite))) orbiters…
Over at Counter-Currents, its proprietor, Greg Johnson is a reactionary right wing elitists, whose over sympathy for Hitler was initiated through the usual means of William Luther Pierce, and then was maintained to some extent by his elitism, whether encouraged by true believers or by the several infiltrators that he has been susceptible to given his lateral, elitist discrimination as opposed to horizontal, qualitative discrimination – which is the proper racial direction of discriminatory qualty control.
While Greg Johnson was quick to include participation from the obviously dubious likes of Rachel Haywire and Vox Day, continued to defend Mike Enoch Peinovich when the evidence against him was damning, he excluded me, banned me from Counter-Currents for questioning the veracity of Mark Dyal.
Criticisms of Johson’s elitism, for example:
In his conversation with Morgoth (prior to one with Laura Towler), he calls the Scottish Nationalist Party the “perfect example of left nationalism.”
Is it really so hard for you to do something like put the word international before the term left?, Greg, or do you insist upon an oxymoron like internationalizing nationalism, which is what you are talking about with The SNP?
Also in this discussion, he wants to contrast aesthetics to counter the avarice of sheer mercantile utilitarianism.
I endorse the essence of the project he’s after, that is, countering radical liberalizing effects of mercantile hegemony…
But the concept of usefulness is not the opposite of the importance of aesthetics. Aesthetics play important, useful functions for people.
And paying attention to what is useful is an under utilized, liberating suggestion in service of orienting the popular understanding and deployment of philosophy. Hence, Greg’s superficial suggestion of aesthetics over utilitarianism just to play opposite day with me is a bum steer.
I guess that snooty right wing elitism is a comfy perch for Greg.
Related at Majorityrights:
Elitism, secrecy, deception … the way to save white America?
In his recent talk with Richard Houck, he discusses an (important) idea that I have discussed for years – including emphasizing its significance in the White Post Modernity (((red caped))) post – that immigration can be treated like a force of nature in the language of our enemies, whereas we do have agency in its regard, and can reverse it. He’s mentioned this before and may have gotten it from me without a hat tip, and maybe it isn’t necessary – it is, after all, a logical inference that he could have made; but it wouldn’t be the first time; again, there was the handing off of the retooled Maslow to Andy Nowicky, less likely to have been a coincidental inference, as I was rather in your face with the idea of re-tooled Maslow at VOR (where Greg published as well), prior to his publishing Andy’s go at the idea.
Also in his talk with Houck, he was apparently defending objectivity against my encouragement of centralizing our relative group interests enough to manage the group and accountability thereof. But Greg says:
Greg (58:20): “Real value is objective, and by objective I mean (subjectively lol) shared by many (relative lol) people.
Add these to the list of Greg’s Gems:
“Hitler was a great statesman.” – lol
On the thread of Dr. Christian Lindtner’s interview:
Posted by Greg Johnson on Sun, 22 Mar 2015 12:39 | #
Graham, I disagree regarding National Socialism and Fascism. They did not fail. They were destroyed by the Allies and international Jewry, who were threatened by them because they showed signs of being fantastic successes.
Hitler was not solely or even largely responsible for World War II. The British and the French started WWII. Hitler started a war with Poland, over German territories held captive by Poland. He started the war after exhausting negotiations for a diplomatic solution.
We now know that the Poles would not make a deal because they believed false promises made by the British to protect Polish territorial integrity.
The bad faith of the British is proved by the fact that they declared war on Germany for invading Poland but not on the USSR, which also invaded Poland. Obviously, Polish territorial integrity did not matter. What mattered was a pretext for war, which the British manufactured merely by throwing Poland into a two front war that caused unimaginable suffering.
In short, Hitler may have started a war with Poland, but the British made sure he had no other choice.
Hitler attacked the USSR, a regime that should have been exterminated on principle by all European powers, just in time to save all of Europe from a massive Soviet invasion. Yes, Hitler had evil colonial intentions toward the Ukrainians and the Russians. But it is a lie of Allied propaganda that he planned to exterminate 30 million Slavs.
On balance, I think that Hitler was the greatest statesman of the 20th century, and a genuine “Great Man” of history. Those who are interested in exploring this further should read my review of Russell Stolfi’s Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/05/r-h-s-stolfis-hitler-beyond-evil-and-tyranny-part-1/
Sorry to hurt your feelings Greggy, but you are making a LOT of mistaken assumptions in your endorsement of “the great statesman.’
I discuss some of Greg’s other antics here.
“West Coast White Nationalism”
Jamming with Greggy
Greg’s image for “eco-fascism”
Greg ought to stop playing opposite day with me; it only serves to reveals his uptight, philosophical doldrums. E.g., he hasn’t grasped social constructionism and hermeneutics, nor the significance of these ideas (and he tried to say that I “failed to see the irony’ when I called him (and J.F. Gariepy) out on that.
Greg banned me from Counter-Currents when I questioned whether Mark Dyal was a trustworthy advocate of Whites.
Is that placing elitism over a friendly suggestion or what? The octaroon Dyal has pedigrees, sure, and reads like a Fed if there ever was one.
Elitists like Greg can be blind to infiltrators and misdirection if their inorganic motives fit the snob criteria better than true White Nationalists without the elitist cred. There are other examples besides Dyal.
Finally, Greg also took me off his Skype contacts when I was actually trying to take his side against Arktos Publishing.
.. oh well. That’s what you get for trying to help a snob. “Try to take away my right wing perch here in hunky Nietzsche heaven will you?”
Rather, The Lies Will Try to Live …by infiltrating our interests ..But They’re Not White, They’re Jewish.
These two (The Truth Will Live/Vivian Veritas and Rachel Haywire) try to pawn themselves-off as ‘Alternative Right, right-wingers”…with upstart they say that “THE Left is the establishment.”
(the White Left is the establishment? don’t think so):
Jews do not want us to be a White Left. The reason that they do not want that is because it is our best outlook – an orientation which, together with sufficient anarchy, allows for our coordination and strategic evasion of their infiltration. This capacity to evade their infiltration is facilitated by coordination not merely by place but by language – that is why the terms are so important. Shared terminology serves to coordinate our people wherever they might be while at the same time allowing for sufficient anarchy to evade infiltration, counter our enemies and counter corruption – especially tactical in the clear terminological position of a White Left, its eye on elite betrayal and “scabbing” – i.e., any attempted entry into our “union” by non-Whites.
Sure, these Jews are “the Right ..like reading Spengler and Evola”…just so wild and crazy…“but we’re appealing to the ‘New Generation”…Haywire says, “we’re so ‘in touch’ with the new cultural zeitgest of THE RIGHT.”…er, Mulatto Supremacism
“The Left is the establishment”…Jews are just such rebellious trend setters..
“I was at a conference with Richard Spencer and Paul Gottfried..
…I’m really not interested in race…
I want to create a ‘new species” – read, Mulatto Cyborg…
Morpheus Mark, “White men are disgusting”, Dyal, nested at Haywire’s site, naturally.
Haywire continues: “I’m not really into the race thing, ‘race’ is a mental thing…
..it’s about people who are on like the same wave length..
…people coming together to form new species..
….it’s psychic, like Evola”
While Greg Johnson has rebounded some from his statement in commentary on the Lindtner thread at Majorityrights, “that Hitler was a greatest statesman of the 20th century and a genuine great man of history” with his “New Right/Old Right”, wherein he has denounced Hitler and the Nazi project as murderous of White peoples and therefore counter to current WN interests, of late he has returned to performing rim jobs on overly Nazi sympathetic perspectives. In a recent podcast featured by Counter-Currents, Frodi Midjord goes along with Mark Weber’s (IHR) endorsement of Patrick Buchanan’s dubious, “The Unnecessary War,” to set in motion a perverted line of “reasoning” that blames everybody but Hitler, but especially Churchill for WWII. Of course David Irving’s pro-Hitler slant also works well enough for them. In fact, there are two recent podcasts with Mark Weber featured at Counter-Currents, here is one, “The War That Destroyed The West”. Here is another.
Besides the pandering of Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents, Regnery Publishing has long been suspect, showing signs of promoting this Jewish/German, Germanophilic perspective to the point of soft peddling Nazism. Along with Germanophilic Regnery, there are apparently Jews involved in its executive decision making. The Regnery circus, as we might call it, was pivotal in orchestrating the Alt-Right Tentosphere, a paleoconservative 2.0 which featured tents not only for Christians and right wing Jews, but also for atheistic Nazophiles.
I post this picture a lot, but it remains central, and telling as these paleocon right wingers (and Spencer derivative), double down on their bullshit. Left, Patrick Buchanan, half Irish and half German with a corresponding bias that panders to the bulk of White American demographic reaction. Center, Paul Gottfried, (((paleocon))) maven and leading exponent of “THE Left” as the problem, a Germanophilic German-Jew, he is wont to distinguish Slavic Jews where Jewish culpability is to be acknowledged at all.
Many people orbiting White advocacy, like Jonathan Pohl, Right Ruminations and “Terminal Philosophy” a friend of queer Pilleater, cite Paul Gottfried as a reliable leading light. While Gilad Atzmon is another Jew who tends to pander to the Germanophilic perspective; and will get some endorsement from the likes of David Duke, as such.
The latest means of introducing Nazi triangulation has been through the promotion of “Third Positionism”….
Mark Collett and Keith Woods have been a party to this, sadly along with Morgoth (who should know better, but I already tried and failed to dissuade him). I initially took a disliking to Angelo John Ganucci because he was both popular and taking the line that the most intellectually penetrating of WN were “National Socialists” (Nazis). Typical of right wingers, he demonstrated the inherent instability of the right by becoming a defacto liberal rebounding into “Third Positionist” anti-Zionist (while diaspora Jews can be fellow nationalists with him). Just before he was disgraced, Millennial Warts made a statement that “World War II shouldn’t have happened” and added, to paraphrase, that ‘anybody who can’t accept that Britain made a mistake in entering World War II, that they took the wrong side, is just going to have to step aside, sorry.’ How about Hitler not attacking other European nations if you want to exercise 20/20 hindsight? Warts is soon to be resurrected by Fudge Johnson for an interview over there at Counter-Currents.
Johnson can be a bad judge of character; recall that Warts was indignant with me and Majorityrights when I criticized his (self admitted) confidante (((Vivian Veritas))) for attempting to define terms for White nationalism, and Warts demanded that his link be removed from our site. the_lies_will_try_to_live_but_theyre_not_white_theyre_jewish
Some flaming asshole going by the name of Tom Anderson is a definite gate keeper – he has a wrench on several podcasts and is decidedly against me for my stance against Nazophiles in particular; but strangely, he will join Christians, such as Melchy Zedech when they antagonize me, even when they side with Jews, such as Vivian Veritas.
Church of Entropy joined Wll2PWR and Ovfuckyou to attack me for not adopting a right wing position when I began talking with Ecce Lux; in CoE’s case (and she has no business in WN circles) her motive might have been a bit different, but she was joining Wll2PWR who was attacking me mainly because I’m not Germanophilic to the point of Nazism and Ovfuckyou, decidedly against me because I maintain a platform which rejects Nazism.
I lost confidence in Ecce Lux not as much because of his Christianity, but because he let Ov attack me for rejecting Nazism, trying to say that I was too sensitive because I didn’t want to entertain it; that he’d “been through that” – “brainwashed” into thinking that “the Nazis were bad.”
Ecce Lux and Faustian Spirit (who I talked to and also should know better) apparently go along with this Right Wing/Third Positionist angle encouraged by Tom Anderson; while Dennis Dale tags along, unwilling or unable to get out of the kosher discourse box.
Millennial Woes says “World War II shouldn’t have happened.”
Daniel Sienkiewicz
7 hours ago (edited)
World War II shouldn’t have happened: Take it to Hitler. He was the one attacking other European ethnonstates. The Nations to his east, which he wanted to take over imperialistically, were all AGAINST the Soviet Union and were All Anti-Semitic – willing to work on deportation plans. I.e, Hitler/Nazi Germany were NOT fighting a defensive war.
Millennial Woes, in his premature assent to e-celebrity, exercises a 20/20 “hindsight” that actually serves the wishful blindness and seeks to gain audience from the large market of America’s beleaguered White demographic – particularly German/Irish – susceptible in reaction to be overly sympathetic to Nazi Germany, circulating false currency through their internet bubble with it’s insulated and instant “historical expertise”…and in Millennial Woes rookie mistake to go with that blindered perspective, he serves Jewish divide and conquer.
MW Ostracises half of Britain
The Lies Will Try To Live But They’re Not White, They’re Jewish
This brings us back full circle to the triangulation that GW observed the articles posted above, featuring this statement above the image of “No White Guilt, Mark Collett and Mike Enoch Peinovich from a podcast of theirs…
The epistemic grounds to reject Hitler should be clear enough to anyone proposing that they are qualified for a leadership role in WN. But these two (Mark Collett and Mike ‘Enoch’ Peinovich) are apparently carrying-on as if they are pragmatists. How do they propose that their explicitly unapologetic Hitler/Nazi coddling will be anything but terribly divisive of White Nationalism in addition to being epistemologically unnecessary?
If one is to exercise 20/20 hindsight, why not wish that Hitler didn’t attack other European nations; putting efforts instead toward cooperative deportation of non-Europeans?
Spencer hails (((Milo))) and (((Milo))) leaks clandestine audio of Richard Spencer
The idiotic Chinese woman, Claire Khaw, panders to Nazophiles with the absurd line that she just wants to promote “real nationalism” and “Hitler just wanted his day in the sun”…. to demonstrate the innocent integrity of Nazi Germany, she brought an Israeli onto her show to talk with Nazi ovfuckyou, and he agreed that the “Nazis were really Ok.”… apparently the argument being that if that’s what it takes to sort people unto their nations [IF].
As I’ve said, Jonathan Pohl is new to the White advocacy scene and that only contributes to his lack of awareness that this struggle has been burdened with Germanophilia to the point of hubris and ignoring other European perspectives for decades. Such that he would side with ovfuckou against me, as if he were a “necessary evil” in order to head in a new direction (rather than reconstruct the same old divisive shit, with sheer concern to exonerate Germans alone).
Posted by Against Pohl’s narrative guilt-trips on Sun, 26 Apr 2020 05:54 | #
Pohl is still up to this destructive angle, pandering to German American reactionaries, proposing a “redemptionist” narrative that there was “no reason for The US to enter World War One and kill Germans.”
He says that toward the end of this podcast:
Creating a US Redemption Narrative between the Civil War and World War One.
It has been an intransigent argument on the part of a pandered-to, largely German demographic of America, to say that America and England should not have gotten into wars with Germany – neither WW I nor WW II.
And it is wrong, especially if you are exercising 20/20 hindsight – why not cast doubt on the justice of Germany attacking other nations, and in truth, observe that they started both wars and should not have?
In regard to “no reason to get into WWI”, the military historian Sir Hew Strachan along with Max Hastings, make a convincing case that the German regime was way out of line in attacking Belgium, murdering civilians and burning down the ancient library of Leuven, among other precipitating factors of the war on the part of the German regime.
“The Necessary War” – a film by Max Hastings
But Pohl wants to “change the narrative” by laying guilt trips on other nations while ignoring precipitating German atrocities – the destruction of Kalisz would be another.
Whether The US or the UK should have gone into the wars is after the fact. Germany started them, should not have, but did – brutally – and without sufficient reason.
Here’s a redemption narrative: we can learn from historical mistakes and not start brothers wars, especially not for the sake of imperialist, supremacist aspirations.
Posted by Kalisz on Mon, 22 Oct 2018 07:05 | #
Massacre of civilian population[edit]
As the situation seemed to calm down, new forces from Saxony arrived, while Major Preusker’s soldiers were withdrawn. Another incident happened on August 7 on Main Market Square, when a lone horse ran free; as a result, German soldiers started shooting in a disorganised way, which led to the death of some of them. Artillery was positioned within the city and the Germans fired at civilian buildings for over an hour. About 100 civilians died in this incident. The Germans searched for survivors and when they found them, they stabbed them to death with bayonets.
During the afternoon, City Hall was set on fire, and officials executed. The Germans retreated and shooting began again, which continued overnight between 7 and 8 August. On Saturday morning, the Germans returned to the city, taking 800 men prisoner and executing 80 of them on a nearby hill. The following day, the Germans started to systematically burn down the city. It is mentioned that in cases where civilians tried to fight the fire, they were murdered by German soldiers.[1]
The shootings, murderers, plunder of shops and homes as well as the burning down of the whole city lasted until 22 August, when the last home was set alight on Nowoogrodowska street.[1]
The Polish press in all territories of Partitions reported extensively on the event, some calling it “monstrous madness, that is unbelievable”.[1] The damage in Kalisz constituted 29,5% of the losses in the entire Congress Poland during World War I. The destruction has been compared to the massacre of Louvain, where a city was destroyed in similar manner by the Germans.[1] Before the war Kalisz had 65,000 citizens; after the war, there were only 5,000 left.[1]
Rape of Belgium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The ruins of the library of the Catholic University of Leuven after it was burned in 1914
The destroyed city of Leuven in 1915
The Rape of Belgium is a phrase given to the mistreatment of Belgian civilians by German troops during the invasion and subsequent occupation of Belgium during World War I.
The neutrality of Belgium had been guaranteed by the Treaty of London (1839), which had been signed by Prussia. However, the German Schlieffen Plan required that German armed forces pass through Belgium (thus violating Belgium’s neutrality) in order to outflank the French Army, concentrated in eastern France. The German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg dismissed the treaty of 1839 as a “scrap of paper”.[1]
Throughout the beginning of the war, the German army engaged in numerous atrocities against the civilian population of Belgium, including the destruction of civilian property; 6,000 Belgians were killed, and 17,700 died during expulsion, deportation, imprisonment, or death sentence by court.[2] Another 3,000 Belgian civilians died due to electric fences the German Army put up to prevent civilians from fleeing the country, and 120,000 became forced laborers, with half of that number deported to Germany.[3] 25,000 homes and other buildings in 837 communities were destroyed in 1914 alone, and 1.5 million Belgians (20% of the entire population) fled from the invading German army.[4]:13
Posted by Rape of Belgium on Mon, 22 Oct 2018 07:29 | #
War Crimes:
In some places, particularly Liège, Andenne and Leuven, but firstly Dinant, there is evidence that the violence against civilians was premeditated.[4]:573–4 However, in Dinant, the German army believed the inhabitants were as dangerous as the French soldiers themselves.[5][6] German troops, afraid of Belgian guerrilla fighters, or francs-tireurs, burned homes and executed civilians throughout eastern and central Belgium, including Aarschot (156 dead), Andenne (211 dead), Seilles (fr), Tamines (383 dead), and Dinant (674 dead).[7] The victims included men, women, and children.[8] In the Province of Brabant, nuns were ordered to strip under the pretext that they were spies or men in disguise. However, there is no evidence that nuns were violated.[4]:164 In and around Aarschot, between August 19 and the recapture of the town by September 9, women were repeatedly victimised. Rape was nearly as ubiquitous as murder, arson and looting, if never as visible.[4]:164–165
On August 25, 1914, the German army ravaged the city of Leuven, deliberately burning the university’s library of 300,000 medieval books and manuscripts with gasoline, killing 248 residents,[9] and expelling the entire population of 10,000. However, contrary to what many believe and write, it was not the books of the Old University of Leuven which disappeared in smoke; indeed, in 1797, the manuscripts and most valuable works of this university were transported[10] to the National Library in Paris and much of the old library was transferred to the Central School of Brussels, the official and legal successor of the Old University of Leuven. The library of the Central School of Brussels had about 80,000 volumes, which then came to enrich the library of Brussels, and then the future Royal Library of Belgium where they are still. Civilian homes were set on fire and citizens often shot where they stood.[11] Over 2000 buildings were destroyed and large quantities of strategic materials, foodstuffs, and modern industrial equipment were looted and transferred to Germany in 1914 alone. These actions brought worldwide condemnation.[12] (There were also several friendly fire incidents between groups of German soldiers during the confusion.[6])
Overall, the Germans were responsible for the deaths of 23,700 Belgian civilians, (6,000 Belgians killed, 17,700 died during expulsion, deportation, in prison or sentenced to death by court) and caused further nonfatalities of 10,400 permanent and 22,700 temporary invalids, with 18,296 children becoming war orphans. Military losses were 26,338 killed, died from injuries or accidents, 14,029 died from disease, or went missing.[2]
Professor John Horne: On the 25th of August, there was the sound of fighting. German soldiers shooting at what they claim was an insurrection. At about 11:00 in the evening, this beautiful university library was broken into by the German soldiers and deliberately set fire. One young Jesuit, Father Dupierreux, had written in his notebook, that he thought that the Germans, in burning down the library, had done something as barbaric as the destruction of the library of Alexandria in antiquity. This notebook was seized by German soldiers and he was summarily executed.
By the 29th or 30th, you have to imagine Louvain as an almost empty town. The population that hadn’t been deported gradually straggled back in to find between 1,500 to 2,000 buildings destroyed. Well over 240 of the townspeople killed.
Max Hastings: All armies in all wars can behave very badly. What seems different about what happened in Belgium in 1914? It wasn’t just a question of a few odd soldiers brutally murdering a few civilians. They were systematically shooting them in scores and sometimes in hundreds as hostages.
Professor John Horne: You’re quite right. What we’ve just described in Louvain was a terrible incident, immediately grabbed the international headlines; but it was typical of something that happened across the whole invasion front in Belgium and also in Eastern France. And it wasn’t the worst case in terms of the death rates.
Dinant was destroyed as a town, 674 of its inhabitants executed two days before..
Max Hastings: In cold blood?
Professor John Horne: In cold blood.
DINANT
Professor John Horne has exhaustively researched
0:30:06 0:30:10
and catalogued the German Army’s actions
0:30:10 0:30:12
in Berlin and France during 1914.
0:30:12 0:30:15
John, we are here, in the university library at Louvain,
0:30:17 0:30:21
what happened here?
0:30:21 0:30:22
Well, on 25th August, there was the sound of fighting –
0:30:22 0:30:27
German soldiers shooting at what they claimed was a civilian insurrection.
0:30:27 0:30:32
Round about 11 o’clock in the evening,
0:30:32 0:30:34
this beautiful university library was broken into by the German soldiers
0:30:34 0:30:38
and deliberately set fire.
0:30:38 0:30:40
One young Jesuit, Father Dupierreux, had written in his notebook
0:30:40 0:30:45
that he thought the Germans, in burning down the library,
0:30:45 0:30:47
had done something as barbaric
0:30:47 0:30:49
as the destruction of the library of Alexandria in antiquity.
0:30:49 0:30:53
This was seized by German soldiers and he was summarily executed.
0:30:53 0:30:57
And by the 29th or the 30th,
0:30:57 0:30:59
you have to imagine Louvain as an almost empty town.
0:30:59 0:31:03
The population that hadn’t been deported gradually straggled back in
0:31:03 0:31:06
to find between 1,500 and 2,000 buildings destroyed,
0:31:06 0:31:10
and well over 240 of their own townspeople had been killed.
0:31:10 0:31:15
All armies in all wars can behave very badly.
0:31:15 0:31:18
What seems different about what happened in Belgium in 1914
0:31:18 0:31:22
was that it wasn’t just the question of the odd soldiers
0:31:22 0:31:25
brutally murdering a few civilians,
0:31:25 0:31:27
they were systematically shooting them in scores
0:31:27 0:31:30
-and sometimes in hundreds as hostages.
-You are quite right.
0:31:30 0:31:33
What we’ve just described in Louvain was a terrible incident
0:31:33 0:31:37
and it immediately grabbed the international headlines.
0:31:37 0:31:39
But it was typical of something that happened across the whole
0:31:39 0:31:42
invasion front, in Belgium and also in eastern France.
0:31:42 0:31:46
And it wasn’t the worst case in terms of the death rate.
0:31:46 0:31:49
Dinant was destroyed as a town
0:31:49 0:31:51
and 674 of its inhabitants executed two days before…
0:31:51 0:31:54
-In cold blood?
-In cold blood.
0:31:54 0:31:57
In the first weeks of the war,
0:32:03 0:32:05
nearly 6,500 civilians were executed by German troops
0:32:05 0:32:10
in Belgium and France.
0:32:10 0:32:11
Berlin claimed that they were merely exacting legitimate reprisals
0:32:12 0:32:17
for resistance by civilians, so-called franc-tireurs,
0:32:17 0:32:21
‘but John Horne rejects this.’
0:32:21 0:32:23
You found no evidence at all of franc-tireurs activity, did you,
0:32:23 0:32:26
of guerrilla activity against the Germans?
0:32:26 0:32:28
None, it was… er, apart from the odd
0:32:28 0:32:31
very isolated incident,
0:32:31 0:32:32
but nothing which justified the German accusations,
0:32:32 0:32:34
which was that there had been what they called a “Volkskrieg”,
0:32:34 0:32:37
a people’s war, a mass uprising.
0:32:37 0:32:39
And the Kaiser, already by 9th August, only a week into the war,
0:32:39 0:32:43
is accusing the King of the Belgians of fermenting such an uprising.
0:32:43 0:32:47
It didn’t happen.
0:32:47 0:32:48
But it was the institutional response of the German generals
0:32:48 0:32:52
and right up to the Kaiser that seems striking.
0:32:52 0:32:54
And it does seem to say something about the character of the regime.
0:32:54 0:32:58
That’s right.
0:32:58 0:32:59
Because, very quickly, what starts out as panics
0:32:59 0:33:03
and localised responses by German soldiers
0:33:03 0:33:06
is immediately endorsed by the whole German command structure.
0:33:06 0:33:10
And then what swings into play is a series of very brutal reprisals,
0:33:10 0:33:15
which are justified in terms of German military doctrine
0:33:15 0:33:18
as to what you do when you’re faced with civilian uprising.
0:33:18 0:33:21
For years, apologists for Germany claimed that the Belgian atrocities
0:33:23 0:33:28
were figments of Allied propaganda.
0:33:28 0:33:30
Some of the stories that made headlines in 1914,
0:33:31 0:33:34
for instance, claims that thousands of babies
0:33:34 0:33:37
were maimed by German soldiers, were indeed fabrications.
0:33:37 0:33:40
But a big truth persists –
0:33:43 0:33:45
the German Army behaved with systemic barbarity
0:33:45 0:33:48
during its advance across Belgium and France.
0:33:48 0:33:51
Its actions persuaded many hitherto doubting British people
0:33:52 0:33:56
that they had chosen the right side
0:33:56 0:33:58
in the ghastly conflict that was unfolding.
0:33:58 0:34:01
Some historians today claim that the British government’s decision
0:34:03 0:34:06
to go to war in defence of Belgium’s neutrality was simply a fig leaf,
0:34:06 0:34:11
a pretence, when really, it was all simply
0:34:11 0:34:13
about supporting the French against the Germans.
0:34:13 0:34:16
I’d put it a bit differently.
0:34:16 0:34:18
Yes, it’s true that some key ministers wanted to fight anyway,
0:34:18 0:34:22
but Belgium provided a tipping point –
0:34:22 0:34:24
all sorts of British people who cared nothing for Serbia or Russia
0:34:24 0:34:28
could easily get their minds around the notion
0:34:28 0:34:31
that it was outrageous that the most powerful army in Europe
0:34:31 0:34:34
proposed to crush beneath its boots a small state
0:34:34 0:34:37
simply to serve the convenience of the Schlieffen Plan.
0:34:37 0:34:40
And wasn’t that indeed a decent and honourable reason
0:34:41 0:34:45
for Britain to go to war?
A similar atrocity happened to the Poles in Kalisz:
This sort of thing in addition to conflicts going back to ancient times, and the attempt to wipe Poles and their nation off the map, inspired the The Wielkapolska Uprising.
After the Poles had served (8 percent) in the German forces during WWI, with the promise they’d be given more territorial sovereignty after WWI, they were not leaving anything to chance and took Wielkapolska region by force; this is the setting of Poznan, the first capital of Poland
And perhaps the most salient argument that Hitler was a backstabbing liar that Germany was alone in taking on the Soviet threat:
Battle of Warsaw Anniversary August 12–25, 1920. The Miracle You’ve Never Heard Of.
Pilsudski’s audacity culminated 123 years of Poles fighting to regain their nation and its sovereignty.
Pilsudski’s audacity:
Bezdany raid
Jump to navigationJump to search
Bezdany raid was a train robbery carried out on the night of 26/27 September 1908[note 1] in the vicinity of Bezdany near Vilna (now Bezdonys near Vilnius) on a Russian Empire passenger and mail train by a group of Polish revolutionaries, led by future Polish national hero and authoritarian leader, Józef Piłsudski.
Background[edit]
Piłsudski expected that only a conflict between the powers who partitioned Poland in the late 18th century could restore Poland as a country; he also viewed the Russian Empire as the worst of Poland’s occupiers. Therefore, he decided to temporarily support the Central Powers (the Austro-Hungarian and German Empires).[1]
In 1906 Piłsudski, with the knowledge and support of the Austrian authorities, founded a military school in Kraków for the training of Bojówki (Combat Teams),[2] a military arm of the Polish Socialist Party (or, specifically, its Revolutionary Fraction). In 1906 alone, the 750-strong Bojówki, operating in five-man units in the former Congress Poland, killed or wounded some 1,000 Russian officials.[2] Bojówki were certainly not above robbing Russian authorities to obtain funds for their operations, and by 1908 Piłsudski and his organization were desperately short on cash.[3]
Piłsudski expressed his thoughts about this violent action in a last will[4] or obituary that he wrote to a friend before the raid:[3]
- I am not going to dictate to you what you shall write about my life and work. I only ask of you not to make me a ‘whiner and sentimentalist.’ […] I fight and I am ready to die simply because I cannot bear to live in this latrine which is what our life amounts to […] Let others play at throwing bouquets to Socialism or Polonism […] My latest idea, which I have not yet fully developed, is to create in all parties, and most of all our own, an organization of physical force, of brute force. I have already done much towards its fulfillment but not enough to rest on my laurels. So now I am staking everything on this last card […] I may die in this ‘expropriation’ and I want to explain […] Money […] may the devil take it! I prefer to win it in a fight than to beg for it from the Polish public which has become infantile through being chicken-hearted. I haven’t got money and I must have it for the ends I pursue.[3]
The robbery[edit]
In September 1908, the Bojówki assaulted a Russian mail train near Vilna (Vilnius). The train was carrying tax revenues from Warsaw to St. Petersburg.[2]
Piłsudski personally led the raid; it was the only one he personally took part in, the rule of the bojowka being that each member must take part in at least one armed attack.[4]
The group that took part in the robbery numbered 20 people – 16 men and 4 women[5] Among the members of the Bojówki who took part in that action was his lover and future wife, Aleksandra,[5][6] and three future Polish Prime Ministers: Tomasz Arciszewski,[7] Aleksander Prystor[5] and Walery Sławek,[5] and other notable politicians and activists of the Second Polish Republic era, like PSP activists Edward Gibalski[7] (or Franciszek), Jerzy Sawicki, and W. Momentowicz.[7]
The Bojówki group had known about the train for weeks and took that time to familiarize themselves with the area.[5] On 26 September, six of them were on the train as passengers,[5] the rest assembled at the little train station at Bezdany, in the presence of several guards unaware of their intent.[7] When the train stopped at the station, the revolutionaries sprang into action, dividing into two groups: one assaulted the train, the other took control of the train station offices, cutting the telephone and telegraph wires. The Poles had several bombs; at least two were thrown into the carriage with the escort by Gibalski and Balaga. One Russian soldier was killed and five were wounded[5] in the short firefight[5] before the rest surrendered. Piłsudski with others prepared the final dynamite charge which opened the mail car and destroyed the iron boxes within.[5] After the Poles took control of the station and the train, they put the money in bags and escaped. Piłsudski went with the group that carried the heaviest bags and escaped through the nearby river.[5]
Aftermath[edit]
The loot from that raid was about 200,000 Russian rubles (under the gold standard, equivalent to approximately 5,000 ounces of gold, worth $100,000 in 1908 or 8 million dollars at the price of gold in 2012), a fortune in contemporary Eastern Europe.[note 2] The money was supposed to cover the costs of building a tram system in Vilnius.[8] Piłsudski used those funds to aid his secret military organization. The raid become known in Eastern Europe as one of the most daring and successful train robberies.[3][7]
Tour of Poznan’s Market Square area
Begins with imagery commemorating The Polish Uprising of 1918/19; then goes up the hill to the castle where the first nobility of Poland lived; then shows Club Dragon; back into the market square and the Ratusz, it’s renaissance salon; the church; archaeological museum; and back into the market square; Pilsudski’s uprising where the tour began.
Pardon the labored breathing, too close to the microphone and too out of shape (though breathing has always been a weak point for me, even as a child, was prone to wheezing).
Poznan’s cathedral, where the first three kings of Poland are entombed. Poznan, which derives its meaning from the Polish, “to make acquaintance”, was the place, legend has it, that the original Polish, Czech and Russian men met (made acquaintance); then they set out their separate ways to form their nations. Poznan was a founding city for the Polans as was Gniezno just to its east – Gniezno meaning the “nest”, which “Lech”, the first Polish man made for himself as the primordial seat of Lech, the Polans.
German imperialism sought aggrandizement of Polish lands and imposed harsh policies of Germanicization upon them through tracts of history. In this very area, in Wrzesnia, a famous (for Poles) school strike was initiated in the early 1900’s when Polish school children were beaten by Prussian teachers for not speaking German. Poles resisted Germanicization and fought against it, holding together as a people even when they did not exist as a nation on the map for over a hundred years, but only in interpersonal agreement, language and patriotic narrative. That they persevered so, is one reason why they are warranted in having their nation – despite the fact that Friedrich the Great and his admirer to the death, Hitler, would have been quite comfortable with Poland not existing.
Jonathan Pohl asks how do I feel about Germans having been “ethnically cleansed” from Poznan after WWII? How does he feel about my cousins being “ethnically cleansed” from eastern parts? It’s a history that I had nothing to do with and does not trouble my conscience at all.
Jonathan Pohl asks how I feel about Germans being ethnically cleansed from Poznan? First of all, Bozo, it wasn’t my choice, happened way before I was born.
How does Pohl feel about this?
Vengence for wielka polska uprisign.
Fort VII
Jump to navigationJump to search
The main entrance to the fort, with the Konzentrationslager Posen sign | |
| Date | October 1939 – 1944 |
|---|---|
| Location | Occupied Poland |
| Cause | Invasion of Poland |
| Participants | Gestapo, SS |
| Casualties | |
Minimum of 4,500 Polish civilians including patients and staff of psychiatric hospitals in Poznań and Owińska Part of a series | |
World War II crimes in occupied Poland | |
Fort VII, officially Konzentrationslager Posen (renamed later), was a Nazi German death camp set up in Poznań in German-occupied Poland during World War II, located in one of the 19th-century forts circling the city. According to different estimates, between 4,500 and 20,000 people, mostly Poles from Poznań and the surrounding region, died while imprisoned at the camp.
Camp establishment
The decades-old Fort VII (also known as Fort Colomb from 1902–1918) was one of the ring of defensive forts built around the perimeter of Poznań by the Prussian authorities in the late 19th century, in the second stage of their Festung Posen plan. It was built in 1876–1880 (with improvements in 1887–1888). At present, it stands in the western part of the city, on today’s ul. Polska in the Ogrody neighbourhood, part of Jeżyce district. In the interwar period it was used for storage purposes.[1]
Experimental gas chamber at Bunker No. 17
Following the German invasion of Poland in September 1939, Fort VII was chosen as the site of the first concentration camp in occupied Poland, called Konzentrationslager Posen. It was probably created by decision of the Reichsstatthalter of the Poznań region, Arthur Greiser. It began functioning at some time around October 1939. The prisoners were mostly Poles from the Wielkopolska region. Many were representatives of the region’s intelligentsia, often people who had been engaged in social and political life, as well as known Polish patriots and veterans of the Wielkopolska Uprising (1918–1919) and Silesian Uprisings. In the early stages of the camp’s existence prisoners were generally executed within a week of arrival. In October 1939 an early experiment in execution by gas chamber was carried out by an SS chemist, Dr. August Becker,[2][p. 175] whereby around 400 patients and staff from psychiatric hospitals in Poznań were gassed at Bunker No. 17.[1] The extermination of mentally ill was conducted by SS-Sturmbannführer Herbert Lange, chief of the Gestapo in occupied Poznań. Lange served with Einsatzgruppe VI during Operation Tannenberg.[3] He and his men were responsible also for the murder of 2,750 patients at Kościan, about 1,100 patients at Owińska, as well as 1,558 patients and 300 civilian Poles at Działdowo; the experience gained allowed Lange to become the first commandant of Chełmno extermination camp (until April 1942).[2][4][5]
In mid November 1939 the camp was renamed as a Gestapo prison and a transit camp (Geheime Staatspolizei Staatspolizeileitstelle Posen. Übergangslager – Fort VII). In this period prisoners usually remained in the camp for about six months, before being sentenced to death, a long prison term or transfer to a larger concentration camp, such as Dachau and Auschwitz, or in rare cases being released. Prisoners in this period included political and military activists in the Polish Underground State.[1]
Following Himmler‘s decree of 28 May 1941 the camp was renamed as a police prison and corrective labour camp (Polizeigefängnis der Sicherheitspolizei und Arbeitserziehungslager). In this period some prisoners (called niedzielnicy in Polish, from the word niedziela, “Sunday”) would be held in the camp temporarily between ending work on Saturday and beginning work on Monday.[1]
Prisoner numbers and deaths
View of the main entrance
About 2,000 to 2,500 prisoners were held at the camp at any one time, guarded by approximately 400 members of the SS. There were 27 cells for men and three for women. According to conservative estimates of the Fort VII State Museum, a total of 18,000 prisoners passed through the camp, of whom 4,500 died. Other estimates put the total number of prisoners as high as 45,000, and the number of deaths at around 20,000. Deaths were the result of either to execution: including shooting, hanging or gassing; mistreatment, torture, and contagious disease.[1]
On the 20 October 1939 the first Jewish victims from Posen (Poznań), Benno Rindfleisch and Julius Tychauer, were shot at Fort VII. Several more Jews were shot in the same month in Poznań and in nearby Buk and Kornik. But the majority of the Jewish population of Posen was transported to the Lublin district, most likely ultimately perishing at Belzec or Sobibor. The prison’s documentation was destroyed near the end of the war. According to reports submitted by the prison to the register of deaths, the official number of prisoners who died at Fort VII was 479. Prisoners included citizens of other countries as well as Polish nationals, from the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, France, the United Kingdom, as well as some Germans.[1]
Conditions
The “stairway of death”
Fort VII was known among prisoners as a particularly harsh camp, partly because of the high ratio of guards to prisoners (about one to five). Prisoners lived in cramped, dark, damp and cold conditions. Sometimes 200–300 prisoners were held in a cell measuring 20 by 5 metres. The women’s cells, located below ground level, sometimes remained flooded up to knee height.[1]
Until mid-1942 prisoners slept on the floor or on rotting straw. There was little or no access to washing facilities, and parasites and disease spread easily. Prisoners were subjected to torture and humiliation by the guards. On the “stairway of death” prisoners would be made to run up carrying a heavy stone, and possibly kicked down from the top by a guard. Food rations were minimal, as officially the prisoners were not working. However, some of them were made to work in unofficial workshops. Only one prisoner is known to have escaped – Marian Szlegel, thanks to his work, was able to identify a time when the camp was less well guarded, and took the opportunity to abscond.[1]
Witness accounts speak of 7 to 9 executions by shooting a day, as well as mass hangings, and shootings of larger groups away from the fort itself. There were two typhus epidemics, each of which killed about 80% of the prisoners held at that time. Many prisoners also died after being taken to other concentration camps.[1]
Closure of the camp
From March 1943 the process of gradually liquidating the camp began, so that the site could be used for industrial purposes. Prisoners were made to work on the construction of a new camp south of Poznań, in Żabikowo (called Poggenburg by the Germans), and were then transferred there, the last ones being moved on 25 April 1944. Fort VII became a Telefunken factory producing radio equipment for submarines and aircraft.[1]
After the war the building was used as a storage facility by the Polish army. Plans were made in 1976 to turn the site into a museum in memory of the victims of the camp. The museum opened on 13 August 1979, and is called Muzeum Martyrologii Wielkopolan Fort VII (“Fort VII Museum of the Wielkopolska Martyrs”).
Secondly, in response to Pohl’s question as to how I feel about Germans being “ethnically cleansed from Poznan”, my cousins were moved as well, third, no, it was Stalin’s action and I do not feel the least bit responsible.
Curzon Line – Poles living to the East had their property taken and were moved West after World War II.
My relatives were moved and lost property in the former Eastern extremes of what was Polish territory. That is not a misfortune worth grievance now. Nor is Germans having been moved from Eastward thrusts of their former habitation. By analogy, it is not and would not be cause for grievance for Jews to be recognized as non-European and transferred out of Europe along with other non-Europeans.
Some may not be seeing this because their position increases the efficiency, the logical force of over-identifying with the Nazi point of view.
Causes of the overstated premise and false either/or: Overlapping and underlapping perspectives with the Nazi wrath. The demographic hegemony of those nations and people who were either completely aligned (overlap) with the Nazi point of view or at least not in the path of its wrath (underlap) facilitates currency through lessened obstruction to its way of talking and gives it a backing that gains additional traction by those seeking power, popular assent and perhaps profit. It can also have interest to those seeking identitarian difference, e.g. rebellion by brooking the bad guy image. It will also be promoted by Jewish interests to stigmatize, divide and conquer White organizational efforts.
For example, those not directly in the path of Nazi wrath would be German or Irish or Irish and German American – the largest White demographics of America by far; witnessing the catastrophe of Jewish imposed liberalism, along with the stress and the guilt trips overlapping (as in the case of Germans) or underlapping their concerns (as in the case of Irish) they may not see from their perspective a way out other than overcompensating, rebelliously strict identification in over-agreement with the Nazi point of view; the maintenance of that stigmatized identity; which then in turn, calls for arbitrary, one-sided historical punctuation.
It is also likely to be the case that as these large, overlapping and underlapping demographics can provide currency to this way of talking that it will gain traction through pandering by those looking for popular assent, power or profit; or it may appeal to those rebelling to identitarian difference from victim to victimizer role. Of course it will also be advanced by Jews looking to stigmatize, divide and conquer White/ European nationalist organization.
While the nationalism of some Irishmen may have a view in resentment of the English to include resentment of their position in World War 2, it would of course, be natural recourse for some English, when looking at the current situation to ask, what did we get involved in that war for? For other nations, however, Hitler was offering an even less appealing choice.
While additional National examples can and will be provided, we may suffice with Belarus, Ukraine and Poland to begin: I will focus mostly on Poland because it is the example that I know best and probably most central to the Nationalist aspect of World War II’s conflict.
By looking at the Nationalism of these three countries we can see that they all had significant degrees of anti-semitism and that each were not only resistant to Russian expansion over their territories, but had fought it throughout history, including times relevantly prior to World War II.
These facts refute arguments that the transfer agreement could not have been negotiated between the European nations. They also refute the argument that Germany was exposed to Russian invasion from the east. Hence, speculation about plans of Soviet invasion of Germany (hence, e.g., the “necessity” of Barbarossa) post Molotov-Ribbentrop are after the fact, having forgone the possibility of negotiating alignment of Eastern European countries against Soviet invasion.
These negotiations would have been difficult, but they would not have been more difficult and in all likelihood, enormously less destructive than the Nazi policy that was actually pursued.
The greatest obstacle to such negotiative strategy was Hitler: his worldview shaped by the militaristic means (as opposed to statesmanship) of World War I, and an intractable admiration for Germany’s historical/military conquests (e.g. for the imperialism of Friedrich The Great, the militarism of The Teutonic Knights) rendered mass death and militaristic means a matter of course; finally, of course, with that view, he defined his in-group primarily Germanic, while Slavics were looked upon as hostile/inferior outsiders – a view further torqued in rage by the Treaty of Versailles.
Thus, all 20/20 hindsight has to be qualified with that IF. IF Germany had a reasonable leader at that time, national matters may have been negotiated amicably.
As White Nationalists engage in 20/20 hindsight, we might agree that it can be perfect. As such, we might refrain from laying guilt trips on this generation of Axis descendants and we may kindly request that they and their sympathizers refrain from laying guilt trips on those descended of Allied nations. We may even show understanding for those who did not fully appreciate the J.Q. since from a casual point of view of our interests, Jews make no sense. Hindsight is 20/20 and thus, lets look from the worldview where it is, and was NOT necessary for European nations to fight one another.
It is generally agreed that The Treaty of Versailles was overly punitive. That is true economically, but not very true territorially. I will get to that in a minute.
First, it is necessary to address a very important point here: we cannot allow for portrayals of Germans or Nazis as ex-nihlo evil; but neither can we allow for their staunch advocates to portray The Allies as ex-nihlo evil either.
While our 20/20 hindsight shows that The Treaty of Versailles went overboard, the utter rage and indignation of those who fought and lost millions against German militarism bears consideration as well. Nazi apologists do not often mention the fact of antecedent events – such as the rape of Kalisz and Leuven circa WWI, the destruction of Warsaw, Kiev and Minsk in WWII – which context their own casualties as having been in response. One might proceed infinitely in setting the frame of the context; but with Jews and Nazis being rather uncharitable in recognition of these contextual, antecedent frames, we have to undergo the tedium.
With that, while we might have sympathy for the Germans for the Treaty of Versailles, we need not fail to recognize that they over-corrected in World War II.
Thus, we might sympathize with their indignation with Jews and advise this generation to unburden themselves of guilt trips by the analogy that we all know what it is like to be provoked to the point of lashing-out, for our biology to convulse and wretch in attempting to throw-off a virus. Revising the whether or not or how and the how many of Jews were killed is not especially important from a non-Nazi point of view, nor does it need to be especially important from a German point of view. The more productive (and safe route – because it is more a matter of honest inquiry from the onset rather than trying to fit a rhetoric) is to ask why there was such animus for the Jews and point to illustrations such as the Holodomer, the Bolshevik atrocities, the destruction of the German economy and so on. But as far as distortions and mechanizations of holocostianity, present day Germans and Europeans have no part in what happened – whether particularly accurate or not, it is not now. Cooler heads prevailing, only a fool would say that we would not have been better off negotiating the transfer agreement, along with prosecution of the most culpable Jewish elite, if we could have.
Continuing with our 20/20 hindsight then, I would like to look at another aspect of the Treaty of Versailles, one which was not far off the mark, in fact, quite close to appropriate and fair – on the border with Germany (whereas on Poland’s Eastern border regions, more land and cities probably should have been enforced clearly to Poland’s Eastern neighbors). To see the approximate fairness of the boundaries as they have resulted to date, it is necessary to consider the Polish nationalist perspective.
German territorial losses (in light tan) after World War I, Treaty of Versailles
Josef Pilsudski was an exemplary Polish Nationalist of the times – despite his circumstantial pragmatism (which would not only allow Jews into the state, but encourage their assimilation) he was nevertheless ideological enough to consider his arch enemy to be Felix Dzerzhinsky, Jewish Bolshevik head of the Soviet secret police.
That is, Pilsudski’s Polish nationalism would ultimately place him at odds not only with the Soviets, but also Jewish interests – as Jews simply were not Polish nationalists.
Roman Dmowski was Pilsudski’s chief Polish nationalist opponent. Purged of Dmowski’s social Darwinism and adding a modicum of socialism from Pilsudski’s program, Dmowski’s platform would have ultimately been the more practical version of Polish nationalism, as it sought a strictly homogeneous population while maintaining a prescient anti-semitism. Nevertheless, my contention is that Pilsudski’s situational, federalist, pragmatism – which would unite diverse peoples under Polish nationalism – would inevitably be confronted with the unassimilability of Jewish interests.
Giving Pilsudski’s pragmatism its due, he led an amazing upset defeat of the Red Army at Warsaw, when the Red Army was in fact, on its way to Berlin. This puts the lie to the argument that Nazi Germany was without recourse in its vulnerability against Russia to its East. Unless, of course, they planned to stab Poland along with Belarus and Ukraine in the back, which they did, despite these countries having fiercely anti-Soviet positions (and plenty of anti-Semitism).
The Soviets may not have been at full strength when Pilsudski defeated them. Poland may have been seen as arrogant by the Nazis. But in truth, the Poles did not believe they could defeat the Nazis alone; they hoped for help from the French and British. At any rate, their being “arrogant, overconfident and overly brave” are non-sequiturs – Nazi invasion of Poland does not follow in justification.
As to the extent that Poland participated in “the rape of Czechoslovakia” (1938), and which according to Buchanan signaled the national guilt of Poland, it is in truth barely worth mentioning; I will leave that for the comments.
Nevertheless, Pilsudski was not perfect either and waged campaigns to the East in defiance of The Treaty of Versailles.
The Treaty tentatively designated Lemberg (L’viv) just to the southeast, beyond Poland; and Vilna (Vilnius) to Lithuania, beyond Poland’s northeast border.
From the view of hindsight, and perhaps only with that benefit, Pilsudski may have elected not to wage battle to retain Vilnius and L’viv as Polish. In the case of Vilnius (Pilsudski’s city of birth; my grandfather’s as well), however, he may have had some additional encouragement from the Belarusians (the original Lithuanians) as they saw him as fighting the Soviets for the city and possibly bringing it, their ancient capital, back into their fold eventually by means of this fight. In addition, he was perhaps mistaken not to give The Belarusians their sovereignty to fight the Soviets more of and for their own accord. L’viv would have been still more difficult for the Poles to relinquish entirely. The Poles built that city and put a lot into it. More than that, there was the harrowing complication of atrocities committed between the Poles and Ukrainians in surrounding villages, which would have made not fighting near impossible. Perhaps L’viv should have been negotiated to be some sort of neutral city; but with the benefit of hindsight on that conflict between historical input and logistics, logistics should be favored, as it extends a bit too far into rightfully Ukrainian populated lands.
L’viv’s Grand Theater built circa Paderewski
Now then, lets take the analogy of the fact that Poles were moved from these places after World War II and the fact that neither I nor anybody I know begrudges them to the present day Lithuanians, Belarusians and Ukrainians. Though it is very hard and would have been very hard, especially at the time, to lose a place such as L’viv, a statesmen accepts this for the logistics of Nationalist concordance – particularly with the vantage of 20/20 hindsight.
While Germany/Prussia was not the vast monstrosity that engulfed half of Poland as it had been when Poland was wiped off the map, it was still enormous after the Treaty of Versailles; much larger than it is today. A statesman might have looked at the matter more deeply and with more perspective than that of the imperialist aims of say, Friedrich the Great – who looked upon the Poles as unworthy of governing their own land, who sought economic means to exploit them (in such a manner that Goldman Sachs might admire), who, with the idea of German superiority, would seek to deprive Poles even of one of their foundational cities – Poznan.
Interesting that if one so much as intimates the slightest defense of Poland (e.g., against chauvinism and imperialism) that you will project your mindless German chauvinism (a troll commentor had said that I am a “mindless Polish chauvinist” and that is why MR is unpopular); with a reactionary part of a large demographic under more direct pressure of PC lies, thus going with the pretense that it cares for sheer truth by reaction – it is backed by Jewry as the third default position:
1) Sheer liberalism is their preferred position for Whites (direct betrayal of Whites and White atomization).
2) Christianity as it places Whites mindlessly under the yoke of Abrahamic law (the golden rule is mindless; the gentiles are not ethnicity organized as such).
3) Failing that, they will encourage Nazism – the clear chauvinism – as they know it will repulse most normal people and lead to antagonism among Whites where not otherwise sending us headlong into disaster. ..perhaps take care of some ‘traitorous’ Jews all too intermarried with Germans, Poles, other ‘goyim.’
4) Failing that they will encourage sundry and motley no-account, right wing reactions that help to atomize would-be White organization and coordination:
a) No account scientism and objectivism for the higher I.Q.
b) Conspiracy theories; and ideologies beyond reality and verification for the less intelligent;
or to cover that part of their intelligence that isn’t (lacks judgment).
I am not lonely, but your bubble that appears as camaraderie is based on illusion and lies; along with (((marketing))) of tropes and memes in YKW interest.
Enabling some stupid dude like yourself to absurdly accuse me of “mindless Polish chauvinism”, if I defend ethnonationalism.
Nor am I a chauvinist of any kind. I’m ethnonationalist, defending ethnonationalism of all kinds, but the European kind and its coordination to begin with.
Nazism is the clear imperialist supremacism, programmatic of disaster. And scientism – viz., scientistic reaction – is the mindlessness that lets it be guided headlong to disaster. Get with the reality of praxis instead, get with the ethnonational program.
Posted by Why your bubble protects an illusion on Mon, 22 Oct 2018 23:05 | #
Interesting that if one so much as intimates the slightest defense of Poland (e.g., against chauvinism and imperialism) that you will project your mindless German chauvinism (a troll accused me of being a “mindless Polish chauvinist” and said MR was unpopular because of it); with a reactionary part of a large demographic under more direct pressure of PC lies, thus going with the pretense that it cares for sheer truth by reaction – it is backed by Jewry as the third default position:
1) Sheer liberalism is their preferred position for Whites (direct betrayal of Whites and White atomization).
2) Christianity as it places Whites mindlessly under the yoke of Abrahamic law (the golden rule is mindless; the gentiles are not ethnicity organized as such).
3) Failing that, they will encourage Nazism – the clear chauvinism – as they know it will repulse most normal people and lead to antagonism among Whites. ..perhaps take care of some ‘traitorous’ Jews all too intermarried with Germans, Poles and other ‘goyim.’
4) Failing that they will encourage motley and sundry no-account, right wing reactions that help to atomize would-be White organization and coordination:
a) No account scientism, objectivism for the higher i.q.
b) Conspiracy theories; and ideologies beyond reality and verification for the less intelligent or to cover that part of their intelligence that isn’t (lacks judgment).
I am not lonely, but your bubble that appears as camaraderie is based on an illusion and lies.
Enabling some stupid dude like yourself to absurdly accuse me of “mindless Polish chauvinism”, if I defend ethnonationalism.
Nor am I a chauvinist of any kind. I’m ethnonationalist, defending ethnonationalism of all kinds, but the European kind and its coordination to begin with.
Nazism is the clear imperialist supremacism, programmatic of disaster. And scientism – viz., scientistic reaction – is the mindlessness that lets it be guided headlong to disaster. Get with the reality of praxis, get with the ethnonational program.
Posted by Warsaw 1938 on Mon, 19 Nov 2018 21:43 | #
Color footage of Warsaw 1938, looked quite good.
Posted by 3 May 1939 on Mon, 19 Nov 2018 21:53 | #
…and 3 May 1939….the Pilsudski parade and surrounds look quite spiffy…the Jewish ghetto not quite so..
Posted by Warsaw before its destruction on Mon, 03 Dec 2018 02:43 | #
More great footage of Warsaw before its destruction.
From an American perspective, its amazing alone to see a White city (there is one African in one scene)
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 23 Sep 2020 10:40 | #
While I am being nice and in due diligence to free speech, I am satisfied that I describe the cross contextual patterns underlying left and right very well – and importantly distinguished as such – whereas Frodi Midjord tries to introduce a description of “the right” as a perspective which “adapts” to the national interests.
To me it is pretty clear that he is trying to spuriously affix a positive word “adaption” to what is more characteristically a reactive function, which at its best, provides feedback to the proactive calibration of praxis – the proactive and corrective group function, i.e., with its accountability to the group praxis (not to pure nature and ideals), thus to its left unionizing function of ethnonationalism.
If Frodi would be talking to Mark Weber and bothering to redeem the Nazi regime, it is not especially surprising that he is not liberated from an emotional, and defensive reaction which would be susceptible to its epistemological blunder; hence his spurious definition of the right, which doesn’t have much in the way of historical evidence, i.e., being characteristically “adaptive” as opposed to reactive.
Speaking of Mark Weber, I’ve noticed that beyond him, i.e., even among mainstream Historians such as Victor Hansen, it is quite taken for granted that The Treaty of Versailles was irrational and unjust in how it drew the borders of the newly re-formed Polish nation; thus, a “border war” was all that should have happened; Hitler was justified inasmuch.
But No he wasn’t. There were historical and logistical reasons, justifications for the way Versailles drew the borders. War was not necessarily justified.
Not that long ago, Norvin requested that I engage in a debate with Hitler redemptionists. I would only bother with such a thing if it was conducted along a professional historian’s levels. Thus, I would bring in Dr. Christian Lindner and Per Nordin. I ventured to test the waters with these proposed interlocutors prior to getting these fine gentlemen involved.
I explained that there was indeed reasonable rationale and historical justice to the way Versailles drew the borders, contrary to the way even mainstream media has portrayed it, as “the Germans having 13% of their territory taken from them” …and I added that that is not to say its not disputed territory, obviously it was and the treaty didn’t work out, but it is far from true that it was completely arbitrary, irrational and unjust, as the Nazis would portray it. I didn’t even say that the borders were necessarily right as they were drawn, just that there was rationale to it.
I barely made these rational and measured points when I was greeted by (what I am now provisionally forced to call) an idiot going by the name of Tom White saying that I’ve talked enough, the likes of Metzger and I would have to take a back seat now, Germans are the heart of Europe and bla bla bla….followed by Ovfuckyou going into his mock Jewish voice in a chorus with the rest of those there, saying they’d heard enough of my “whining” about “my little corridor’ .. ..‘Heinrich Lucas Ford’ calling me a “Pollock” (later reading Carolyn Yeager’s attempted hit piece on me an so forth) and so on…this was not said with any pretense of concern for calm, rational debate, let alone civil discussion of the facts. Just the most crude attempt to bludgeon the point of view which called Hitler’s “justifications” into question.
And to think, I was testing the situation to see if these were worthy interlocutors for Dr. Christian Lindner. Obviously I could not allow that debate to materialize.
Perhaps one begins to get a sense of why I limit the “free speech” of committed Hitler redemptorists here at MR. In order to protect our free speech, in a word. MR provides a haven from this nonsense for nationalists who are both wise to the J.Q. but realize that Hitler’s worldview is obsolete for our purposes.
In a subsequent podcast of my own, after a careful analysis going through the history and influence of Descartes, Locke to the post modern turn of Vico, Nietzsche, Heidegger and Gadamer .. I let Tom White in for discussion because in some ways he is an intelligent guy, anyway, capable enough of providing feedback from a concerned perspective on the ground (viz. in Minnesota) and I was thinking that maybe he could be brought around to a more well rounded position. Nope. He says (after my careful talk) “We’re just talking here” and “Germans are the heart of Europe”, and then he says to me (a guy who is not even German), literally, “the only thing that matters are Germans.”
He adds, “I’m everything you say we shouldn’t be” ..I’m “a supremacist and a Nazi” (for the record, I never said that people shouldn’t be ‘racist’) and this stuff about how objective he is in his preferences and how everyone must agree …
After all I’ve said and done: “The only thing we should care about is Germans” and I should waste our time with this guy’s free speech”?
He’s now doing shows with Ovfuckyou, who subjected me to some of the nastiest and most juvenile attacks (largely in the form of abusive talk-overs which didn’t allow for the point of view that doesn’t see Hitler as wonderful and justified), all allowed for by Ecce Lux, Jonathan Pohl (I’m supposed to feel guilty about Germans being moved over the Oder River after WWII; and I should look upon Gottfried as a leading light according to Pohl) and Melchy Zedek (I’m supposed to be abused because I’m not a Christian and don’t think “Mein Kampf” is a revelaton).
Just a few years ago Ovfuckyou was a “Bernie Bro”… Ecce Lux was a liberal… they have no idea what an ordeal it has been and get a platform together that views both Jews and Hitler as being outside of White interests. They don’t understand that theirs is the shit that is old and in the way.
No, they can have their (distortion of) free speech, somewhere else.
But here is Frodi; he has his free speech here at MR. When he talks to Mark Weber of the “IHR” and endorses Pat Buchanan’s taken for granted (German/Irish American) take on the genesis of WWII, its being unnecessary not having much to do with Hitler’s Friedrich the Great style imperialism and revanchism; reinventing the broken wheel that gets stuck in the mud of World War attrition with the stupidity of a Tom White and Ovfuckyou.
Wouldn’t Claire Khaw see an angle for her self promotion in this, trying to normalize Ov. After all, as a Chinese woman, what does she care for 50 million Europeans needlessly killed for this Austrian corporal’s grandiosity – “he just wanted his place in the sun.”
So, they have their free speech and they will not interfere with the free speech of people who need an alternative from that stupid insanity.
…..
One more thing. There was mention in the posted discussion with Frodi that Jared Taylor had been banned from the Schengen Zone due to a complaint from Poland.
I personally found that strange myself and posted an article about it. However, I do not know who among the Polish nation was responsible for the complaint and the decision.
They added that Richard Spencer has been banned from Poland. This I can understand a little more. Spencer has repeatedly disparaged Polish nationhood, saying “there’s not going to be your little Poland” etc, in course of denouncing nationalism altogether as a “zero sum game” which should give way to imperialism (featuring German leadership in cooperation with Russia, of course).
Posted by Hossbach Memorandum on Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:44 | #
The Hossbach Memorandum PROVES Hitler Wanted to Wage a War of Aggression
Generally speaking, I don’t like to go into World War II, because I view it as a nasty history for Europeans, about which few people alive had anything to do – therefore, I prefer to uncouple the ethnonationalist cause from it – and especially from Nazism – for the sake of Germans perhaps especially. However, because a needless and counterproductive tendency to try to fully exonerate and redeem Hitler and the Nazis persists – e.g., Mark Collette and “ComfyTangent” recommending that people attend to the schlock revisionism of “The Greatest Story Never Told”; David Duke persisting in blaming anyone but Hitler for WWII – there is yet need to address the issue enough to put it to rest for anyone reasonable – not something to expect from the Stormfront crowd, e.g; and many have not yet gotten Dr. Lindtner’s message regarding the disingenuousness of Faurisson and other revisionists. We will be engaging podcasts on the matter with a Swedish colleague, et al. in days to come to straighten-out the record on WWII – why White Nationalism need not and should no be burdened with Hitler/Nazi association, denial, let alone its idealization and idolatry.
In the meantime, while you will hear a great deal from American White Nationalists about the terrible fire-bombing of Dresden, you can expect them to remain irresponsibly silent (or make revolting excuses) regarding events like the quelling of the 1944 Warsaw Uprising.
If anyone has better information to add, they are welcome, but again, because I don’t like going into WWII history, at this point I’ll merely set forth a textual sketch of the event from Wikipedia and this video:
Polish resistance:
15,200 killed and missing[7]
5,000 WIA[7]
15,000 POW (Incl. capitulation agreement)[7]
Berlin 1st Army: 5,660 casualties[7]
Warsaw Airlift: 41 downed aircraft German forces:
8,000–17,000 killed and missing
9,000 WIA
150,000–200,000 civilians killed,[8] 700,000 expelled from the city.[7]
Poland 1944–45: The Warsaw Uprising (Polish: powstanie warszawskie; German: Warschauer Aufstand) was a major World War II operation, in the summer of 1944, by the Polish underground resistance, led by the Home Army (Polish: Armia Krajowa), to liberate Warsaw from German occupation. The uprising was timed to coincide with the retreat of the German forces from Poland ahead of the Soviet advance.[9] While approaching the eastern suburbs of the city, the Red Army temporarily halted combat operations, enabling the Germans to regroup and defeat the Polish resistance and to raze the city in reprisal. The Uprising was fought for 63 days with little outside support. It was the single largest military effort taken by any European resistance movement during World War II.[10]
The Uprising began on 1 August 1944 as part of a nationwide Operation Tempest, launched at the time of the Soviet Lublin–Brest Offensive. The main Polish objectives were to drive the Germans out of Warsaw while helping the Allies defeat Germany. An additional, political goal of the Polish Underground State was to liberate Poland’s capital and assert Polish sovereignty before the Soviet-backed Polish Committee of National Liberation could assume control. Other immediate causes included a threat of mass German round-ups of able-bodied Poles for “evacuation”; calls by Radio Moscow’s Polish Service for uprising; and an emotional Polish desire for justice and revenge against the enemy after five years of German occupation.[11][12]
Initially, the Poles established control over most of central Warsaw, but the Soviets ignored Polish attempts to maintain radio contact with them and did not advance beyond the city limits. Intense street fighting between the Germans and Poles continued. By 14 September, the eastern bank of the Vistula River opposite the Polish resistance positions was taken over by the Polish troops fighting under the Soviet command; 1,200 men made it across the river, but they were not reinforced by the Red Army. This, and the lack of air support from the Soviet base five-minute flying time away, led to allegations that Stalin tactically halted his forces to let the operation fail and the Polish resistance to be crushed. Arthur Koestler said the Soviet disposition will rank on an ethical level with Lidice.”[13]
Winston Churchill pleaded with Stalin and Franklin D. Roosevelt to help Britain’s Polish allies, to no avail.[14] Then, without Soviet air clearance, Churchill sent over 200 low-level supply drops by the Royal Air Force, the South African Air Force, and the Polish Air Force under British High Command, in an operation known as the Warsaw Airlift. Later, after gaining Soviet air clearance, the U.S. Army Air Force sent one high-level mass airdrop as part of Operation Frantic.
Although the exact number of casualties remains unknown, it is estimated that about 16,000 members of the Polish resistance were killed and about 6,000 badly wounded.
In addition, between 150,000 and 200,000 Polish civilians died, mostly from mass executions. Jews being harboured by Poles were exposed by German house-to-house clearances and mass evictions of entire neighbourhoods. German casualties totalled over 8,000 soldiers killed and missing, and 9,000 wounded. During the urban combat approximately 25% of Warsaw’s buildings were destroyed. Following the surrender of Polish forces, German troops systematically levelled another 35% of the city block by block. Together with earlier damage suffered in the 1939 invasion of Poland and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943, over 85% of the city was destroyed by January 1945, when the course of the events in the Eastern Front forced the Germans to abandon the city.
Posted by #WolaMassacre on Mon, 06 Aug 2018 06:03 | #
On August 5th 1944, the #WolaMassacre began.
The bodies were burned on site. Their ashes weighed 12 tons.
Unlike #BabiYar & #RapeOfNanking, the massacre is unknown in the West.
Institute of National Remembrance
@ipngovpl_eng
#WarsawUprising: From 5-7 VIII 1944, 40,000 to 60,000 residents of Warsaw’s Wola district were killed during executions carried out by Nazis. Similar mass crimes were committed in the district of Ochota by Nazis and allied #SS units.#WolaMassacre #OchotaMassacre
Stupid things that ovfuckyou, Tom White et al said...
Ovfuckyou:
Ovfuckyou in conversation with Dennis Dale: “I’ll advocate Hitler for the rest of my life.”
Not only did the idiot tell me that I should tell Poles that Hitler was not so bad….
Tries to insist that I debate Hitler with him and after I’d been lured into this obnoxious situation… calls me a Pollock, uses a mock Jewish voice when I presented the alternative perspective on the Versailles and St Germain borders.
Mocks me in the same mock Jewish voice, when Jonathan Pohl asks how I feel about the “ethnic cleansing of Germans from Poznan.
Repeatedly talked over me and said that I was talking over him. OK, you don’t like talking with me dickhead? How about we not talk at all.
Says ‘Hitler did nothing wrong”: the kid is just obnoxious…
He asked me why I think he’s doing this (probably thinking that I should answer that he’s valiantly moving the Overton window) but I answered accurately instead – yeah, I know why, because you’re stupid.
Claire Khaw and con ops platform this piece of shit because they don’t care that Hitler got millions of Europeans killed and he is never going to be anything but divide and conquer of Europeans.
A few years ago he was Bernie bro. His mother sucks Jewish cock. He’s half Italian, part German, Slovenian… and he tries to tell me that I am not Italian because “Italians have a thick skin” … idiotic reversal of the stereotype of Italians which is that they are hair trigger temperamental.
Starts yelling at me that I should “deal with it” i.e., accept Nazim and his claim that White Nationalism and Nazism go hand in hand rather than being at odds, which, of course, they are.
I told him the truth, that I am dealing with it. He tried to say that no, I wasn’t but what the idiot does not understand is that I do not go to Nazi (or Christian sites) to hassle them.. I was lured in on these few occasions.
What this idiot really doesn’t understand is that I provide a unique and eminently necessary platform in advocacy of Whites – a haven free of stupid pro Hitler shit and lies, free of Jesus and the idea that Jews can be in our advocacy group.
Again, this is an expression of his being new to this, not realizing that his shit is old and in the way, same lack of realization that Tom White.
Burps at me and says that he doesn’t respect me.
Tries to insist that I unblock his email to me. lol.
When discussing the musical appeal of blacks, in order to make an important point, I used the example of the appeal of Jim Hendrix and his music, idiot ovfuckyou changes it to a competition, saying that Hendrix had said that Terry Kath (guitarist) of Chicago was better.
My response was that this was boring.
Norvin Hobbs had sense enough to make the point that the science is on the side of blacks having an advantageous inborn capacity for rhythm and music…
and the point that I would elaborate from there, is that Terry Kath is not going to marshal the appeal of Jimi Hendrix nor be remembered with the same adulation. That is to set up the greater point regarding objectivity, that being that even if Jim Hendrix music is that good, is it worth your beautiful White wife, opening group boundaries to him and his kind? I’d rather have my White wife, thank you very much. I ask further, as Aristotle would, what makes people distinctly human, rhythm and musical ability? No. Ov says that he doesn’t like Aristotle, as if we should care about this idiot’s opinion.
Tom White:
Tom White, apparently determined to pursue Hitler redemptionism, has made himself a side-kick of ovfuckyou.
Among the several triggering remarks, displaying lack of judgment, experience and intelligence on the part of Tom White was his saying, “We’re just talking here”…and “what are we doing here?”… this is after a few hours of discussing important theoretical distinctions, necessary preparation based on years of experience – on a Monday night (how better to “waste this time”), discussing ideas that he’s not going to hear anywhere else and this is the best this idiot’s judgment comes up with.. he goes onto say, literally, “the only thing that matters are Germans”….”Germany is the heart of Europe”… “Germany and North East Europeans are the only thing we should care about.” He says that he’s “just being objective” ..he adds, implying that Germanic women are objectively the most beautiful, asking, ‘what kind of women do yo like?….I answered that I like Italian women and I might have added Slavic women overall would probably score higher. Germans have their beauties and it’s not the only thing that matters, but he asked.
Because I have made it clear that that I am not on the Hitler train, he tries to attribute it to my background, asking:
“You’re a Pollock, right?”
My mother was Polish American.
“You’re 1/8th Jewish, right?”
DNA tests show trace Jewish ancestry, less than 3%
I tell him the truth, that my first reason for hating Hitler was because he got over 50 million European people killed.
He objected, “No, Hitler did not get tens of millions of people killed.”
After having the nerve to tell me that I had said enough when trapped by Norvin into testing the waters with him and ov (not knowing them yet) in a proposed debate with Professional level historians, when I merely rationally presented the counter argument – which I was asked to do…. I focused carefully and calmly on the borders drawn by Versailles and St. Germain, (which indeed had rationale to them), he said that I was “whining” – such an utterly stupid remark. I do not seek to argue with Nazi sympathizers.
Tom said that Metzger and I needed to take a back seat now (to him and ov right?) I could not believe the stupidity I was hearing. A back seat to him. I informed him that he had a long, long way to go. Later, he would try to say that “we have a long way to go”…no, Tom, YOU have along way to go.
Said that I am just jealous of Richard Spencer. That he would be happy to send Spencer money. lol.
That he has the opposite perspective on everything I tell people not to do. I am anti Nazi, supremacist and imperialist, other than that, I don’t say people shouldn’t be racist.. etc.
…….
I had asked an intelligent colleague of mine if he would participate in this proposed debate that I would find was supposed to be with ovfuckyou and Tom White (for f-sake – these guys wanted to talk to intelligent people). Anyway, before I knew how stupid that they were, my colleague wrote me this (which I would read to them in the truncated “debate.”):
I don’t believe I have the depth of knowledge required to be of much use in such a debate. I’m aware that professional historians refuse to debate with revisionists because they know that revisionists are not concerned with genuine historical inquiry. They twist and distort facts and lie to their readers because they have a political motivation. The genuine historians know that they themselves will be doing all the work. It’s far harder to disprove an assertion than it is to make one.You will not be debating revisionist historians but your opponents may well have a stack of revisionist material at hand. Not that they would need that. It is they who want you to oblige them by giving them a platform to air their views and opinions. You will be playing with their cards, which they shall deal. They don’t have to display knowledge, they can use simple one liners eg “The Poles killed 58,000 Germans. Hitler had to act. Hitler really only wanted peace”. The onus is on you to disprove it, for which you will need a truckload of historical facts and when you’ve finished, they’ll throw another at you. “Hitler saved Europe from Communism” and on it will go, “The Bug River camps were transit hubs” etc, etc. Ask them why they feel the need to exonerate Hitler and you’ll know what they’ll say “White guilt” “Jews make shekels from the Holohoax Industry” and so on. Things you’ve heard six million times already. Their fall back position will always be that Jews control the narrative just as Jews can micro-manage world events, organize the universe and still find time to make latkes…. It would never occur to them to look up the date the first Holocaust museum opened in America and then the date that Faurrisson began writing denial letters to Le Monde (four years earlier). Most of the listening audience will likely be sympathetic to the Nazi view.
This is my main concern, however. As you know, there have been a number of recent attacks on the Houses of the Holy (still a great Led Zep number, btw) When I returned from my break I found I had been emailed this linkDangerous? wasn’t that long ago Griffin was a MEP.Then there’s the clown named Corbin Kauffman arrested in the US for the transmission of threats to cause injury to another person and awaiting trial. His online life has been made public. Using the alias “KingShekels” his comments on WN sites include witty remarks like “Murder your local Juden”.Despite Morgoth having cleaned up his site a bit his “Review” has made it into Hope Not Hates annual “watch list” for the first time this year. The far right, at this point in time, is as toxic as fuck. Given that virtual reality is increasingly entering the real world, the kick back from government is only going to get stronger and stronger. In a couple of years there might not be any white advocacy sites at all, however if any survive, they will have a big say in the narrative going forward. I finally gave up trying to help the far right a couple of years ago. I don’t regret it. I believe they have a Manichean mindset and changing someones mindset is incredibly difficult. I certainly don’t feel it is the right time to engage with them or share a platform with them even in opposition. It’s not like they are actually going anywhere, although a few may end up in a six by eight as some inmates bitch.It has occurred to me that an appreciation of the current situation may explain why Kumiko is “lying low”. I would expect her to know when a perfect storm is brewing. Anyhow, I guess you will do as you will but please mull some of my points over.Best Regards
I responded:I agree except that it needs to be made known that they do not represent white nationalism, but rather something quite opposed, adversarial and lethally destructive to our people.
I hadn’t intended that email to be for public consumption, I’d have been more vitriolic if I had
I suppose some of it could be used for something a bit more substantial in the future though.Regarding your second email, I can only make the following observations really ;“Norvin took exception with my taking for granted that Revisionists were typically more politically motivated than motivated by truth”.Well, for many years, David Irving was the leading Revisionist. He sold the most books. “Churchill’s War” was a best seller and received widespread critical acclaim. As he himself would often say, his work was based on primary sources, he had extensive access to German records and access to the Russian archives as well as conducting interviews with eye witnesses to events. When The Times wanted to validate the authenticity of “Hitler’s Diaries” they called in Irving, such was his reputation. Yet Irving lost his case against Penguin Books and Lipstadt because her legal team were able to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that Irving had misled his readers by omissions and distortions in order to shield Hitler. As far as I’m aware, Irving is the only Revisionist to have appeared in court in a country where denial is legal, so it was his own work and the motivations he had which were the issue. All the documents from the trial are on line. I’m not suggesting you read them all as it would be a mammoth task. I’ve read Judge Gray’s deliberations and summary for myself and a friend who is from a legal background has read the whole thing. She told me she would have to agree with Judge Charles Gray’s judgement on the case. You could read the preface to the case notes in the link as it provides a two minute synopsis. Personally, I believe if the entire cast of “Inconvenient History” were put under the same scrutiny, most would be found wanting too.It seems clear to me there is considerable difference between Britain and America. Here, there is no evidence of a move towards the Holocaust taking on religious dimensions, although some secular Jews place greater emphasis on the Shoah as being more important with regard to their Jewish identity than Judaism. In fact, the British government is very upfront as to why the Holocaust and other genocides are a mandatory part of secondary education (and also taught in many primary schools). They use it as a tool to promote tolerance. If there is a new religion here, it is liberalism and political correctness, dressed up as “British Values”. Is it any worse than the “old” religion elevating a Jewish boy and his Mom above everyone and everything?My final observation is that the biggest Jewish concern is that the Holocaust gets forgotten.Best Regards
Bombing of Wieluń
The attack on the town has been described as the first war crime committed by Germany in World War II.[2]
The city was bombed with extreme precision, from low altitude due to the absence of air defenses. After the bombing, the Germans strafed fleeing civilians.[15] The town was captured by the German Army on the first day of the invasion.[20]
Most historians agree that the town contained no targets of military value.[6] Historian Timothy Snyder suggests that the civilian population itself may have been the primary target: “The Germans had chosen a locality bereft of military significance as the site of a lethal experiment. Could a modern air force terrorize a civilian population by deliberate bombing?”[27] This view has also been supported by Polish historians Tadeusz Olejnik and Bogumił Rudawski.[28][29] Another view of a number of historians is that the destruction of the town infrastructure may have been the raids’ aim, in order to test the tactics and firepower of the Luftwaffe, in particular of the new Ju 87B bomber.[8][28] Two weeks before the war began, Germany’s Chief of the General Staff Franz Halder mentioned in his war diary a plan called “Offensive Operation Red in the Wieluń area”. In the first days of the war, the Luftwaffe launched several further attacks in the area, including on the small towns of Działoszyn and Kamieńsk, and produced aerial photographs of the effectiveness of attacks on other towns.[26]
Halder distinguished in his war diary between “terror attacks” and attacks on military targets.[26] German historian Hans-Erich Volkmann notes that, for the German 10th Army, which was the critical military factor in this section of the front, Wieluń would have had no operational, let alone strategic, importance to justify its bombing. The commander responsible for the Luftwaffe, Wolfram von Richthofen, would have personally ordered the attack. Volkmann, like Böhler, observes that while Richthofen might not have intended it as a “terror attack”, he had selected Wieluń as a target close to the border in order to test the capabilities and operational effectiveness of his dive bombers, if possible without losses to his own force. Volkmann characterizes the destruction of Wieluń as an attack on a non-military target and therefore as a war crime.[30] Similar reasons for bombing a defenseless small town are given by historian Norman Davies for the bombing of Frampol two weeks later: “Frampol was chosen partly because it was completely defenceless, and partly because its baroque street plan presented a perfect geometric grid for calculations and measurements.”[31]
Piątkowski, analyzing the bombing from the perspective of aerial bombardment and international law, concludes that the bombing constituted a violation of a number of war norms, in particular relating to humanitarianism and proportional force. He also discusses the applicability of the term “terror bombing” in the light of a never-adopted 1923 draft convention (The Hague Rules of Air Warfare) that introduced the term. He concludes that, in order to describe the Wieluń raids as terror bombing, documents would have to prove that the real reason for the bombing was the terrorizing of the civilian populace and not a misidentification of military targets.[8]
Reprising J.F. Gariepy and whom he calls "the major historian."
J.F. Gariepy: “One of the major historians of World War II” Thomas Goodrich: “From what I’ve read..
..from what I’ve read it was a virtual massacre of German residents living in areas under Polish control.”
J.F. Gariepy: “Alright, so that would be quite shocking.” Thomas Goodrich: “Or maybe”…
The real question is why recycled Nazi propaganda has any sort of currency today and why it should have any credibility beyond your typical Internet lunatic fringe.
For the answer, return to the top of the page and read again (further orienting clue, it’s part and parcel of the YKW’s interest in having Whites identify with right wing reaction).
Is there any evidence about the Danzig massacres and the killing of more than 58000 Germans before the start of WW2?
13 Answers
Andrew Warinner
Andrew Warinner, Code monkey, expat, utility infielder
Updated Jan 20 · Author has 1.4k answers and 6.7m answer views
The killing of 58,000 Germans in the run up to World War II was retailed in a “report” (scare quotes intentional) by one Hans Schadewaldt published in 1940:
More than 58,000 were lost by the German minority in Poland during the days of their liberation from the Polish yoke, as far as canbe ascertained at present. The Polish nation must for all time be held responsible for this appalling massacre consequent upon that Polish reign of terror. Up to November 17, 1939, the closing day for the documentary evidence contained in the first edition of this book, 5,437 murders, committed by members of the Polish armed forces and by Polish civilians on men, women and children of the German minority had already been irrefutably proved. It was quite apparent even then that the actual number of murders far exceeded this figure, and by February 1, 1940, the total number of identified bodies of the German minority had increased to 12,857. Official investigations carried out since the outbreak of the German-Polish war have shown that to these 12,857 killed there must be added more than 45,000 missing, all of whom must be accounted dead since no trace of them can be found. Thus the victims belonging to the German minority in Poland already now total over 58,000. Even this appalling figure by no means covers the sum total of the losses sustained by the German minority. There can be no doubt at all that investigations which are still being conducted will disclose many more thousand dead and wounded. The following description of the Polish atrocities which is not only confined to murders and mutilations but includes other deeds of violence such as maltreatment, rape, robbery and arson applies to only a small section of the terrible events for which irrefutable and official evidence is here established.
Hans Schadewaldt 1940 [the Polish Atrocitites Against the German Minority in Poland]
As you would expect to find in a work of Nazi propaganda, the report is long on outrage, short on substantive evidence and obfuscatory about when, where and who did all this killing.
Setting aside the claim that in 1940 there was no trace of 45,000 ethnic Germans (Schadewaldt provides no details of where, who or how), what about the 12,857 murders (a suspiciously precise number)? Here too Schadewaldt is similarly vague, long on outrage and very short on detail.
We now know that the Abwehr and SS organized clandestine Volksdeutsche groups in Poland prior to the war to provide intelligence and to carry out provocations on orders. When the Wehrmacht invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, they went in with a comprehensive list of Polish politicians, civic leaders, religious leaders and intelligentsia to be arrested, much of which was contributed by Volksdeutsche groups.
In retrospect it is difficult to distinguish what was manufactured wholesale for propaganda, violence resulting from organized provocations and how much real ethnic violence there was against ethnic Germans in Poland before and after the outbreak of World War II.
The real question is why recycled Nazi propaganda has any sort of currency today and why it should have any credibility beyond your typical Internet lunatic fringe.
Posted by …and maybe on Mon, 22 Oct 2018 02:59 | #
Area Pole, Historian (2006-present)
Answered Apr 3 2017One should mention the German nationalist slogan of the 19th: “Drang nach Osten”. Germany since the 19th century appealed to settle Polish lands by German colonistsnp Such views were, for example: ostpreußischen Abgeordneten Carl Friedrich Wilhelm Jordan, Schriftsteller Gustav Freytag, Friedrich List, Friedrich Ratzel.
In 1926 appeared a book written by Hans Grimm – “Volk ohne Raum”. The usage of the slogan is most known for its usage by the Nazis. In Nazi propaganda the slogan was repeatedly used to at least justify or legitimize the German conquest of Poland and the Soviet Union and for the massive territorial expansion into Eastern Europe to ensure Germanic Aryan Herrenvolk (“Aryan master race”) rule over Poles and Russians who the Nazis considered “non Aryan” and subhuman. Slavs as non-Aryans were to be ethnically cleansed and exterminated, and their territories settled by Germans. From the very early days of the Nazi party, the notion that the Germans were people without living space and had a right to expand was widespread among German nationalists and right-wing organisations.
On February 24, 1920, Hitler proclaimed the party program and one of the 25 points of the National Socialist Program stated: “We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.“In order to justify their Drang nach Osten (“desire to push East”).
Adolf Hitler, dictator of Nazi Germany from 1933–1945, called for a Drang nach Osten to acquire territory for German colonists at the expense of central and eastern European nations (Lebensraum). The term by then had gained enough currency to appear in foreign newspapers without explanation. His eastern campaigns during World War II were initially successful with the conquests of Poland, the Baltic countries, Belarus, Ukraine and much of European Russia by the Wehrmacht; Generalplan Ost was designed to eliminate the native Slavic peoples from these lands and replace them with Germans. (source: HITLER’S PLANS FOR EASTERN EUROPE, Selections from Janusz Gumkowkski and Kazimierz Leszczynski POLAND UNDER NAZI OCCUPATION)
Nazi Germany employed the slogan in calling the Czechs a “Slav bulwark against the Drang nach Osten” in the 1938 Sudeten crisis. (source: Edmund Jan Osmańczyk, Anthony Mango, Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements, 2003, p. 579)
Secondly: “The German concept of Lebensraum” – Following Adolf Hitler’s rise to power Lebensraum became an ideological principle of Nazism, and provided justification for the German territorial expansion into East-Central Europe. The Nazi Generalplan Ost policy (the Master Plan for the East) was based on its tenets. It stipulated that most of the indigenous populations of Eastern Europe would have to be removed permanently (either through mass deportation to Siberia, death, or enslavement) including Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, and other Slavic nations considered racially inferior. The Third Reich aimed at repopulating these lands with Germanic colonists in the name of Lebensraum during World War II and thereafter. The entire populations were to be decimated by starvation, allowing for their own agricultural surplus to feed Germany. (source: André Mineau (2004). Operation Barbarossa: Ideology and Ethics Against Human Dignity. Rodopi. p. 180.,André Mineau (2004). Operation Barbarossa: Ideology and Ethics Against Human Dignity. Rodopi. p. 180. / Shelley Baranowski Nazi Empire: German Colonialism and Imperialism from Bismarck to Hitler. Cambridge University Press. 2011, p. 141. / Jeremy Noakes (March 30, 2011). “BBC – History – World Wars: Hitler and ‘Lebensraum’ in the East”).
Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf (1925; My Struggle), presented his conception of Lebensraum as the philosophic basis for the Greater Germanic Reich who were destined to colonize Eastern Europe — especially Ukraine in Soviet Russia — and so resolve the problems of overpopulation, and that the European states had to accede to his geopolitical demands.
The Nazi usages of the term Lebensraum were explicitly racist, to justify the mystical right of the “racially superior” Germanic peoples (Herrenvolk) to fulfil their cultural destiny at the expense of “racially inferior” peoples (Untermenschen), such as the Slavs of Poland, Russia, Ukraine, and the other non–Germanic peoples of “the East”. Based upon Johan Rudolf Kjellén’s geopolitical interpretation of Friedrich Ratzel’s human-geography term, the Nazi régime (1933–45) established Lebensraum as the racist rationale of the foreign policy by which they began the Second World War, on 1 September 1939, in effort to realise the Greater Germanic Reich at the expense of the societies of Eastern Europe. (source: Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th Ed., vol. 6, p. 901)
Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf “the Zweites Buch” from 1928: “The National Socialist Movement, on the contrary, will always let its foreign policy be determined by the necessity to secure the space necessary to the life of our Folk. It knows no Germanising or Teutonising, as in the case of the national bourgeoisie, but only the spread of its own Folk. It will never see in the subjugated, so called Germanised, Czechs or Poles a national, let alone Folkish, strengthening, but only the racial weakening of our Folk.” (source: p.26) & “The Folkish State, conversely, must under no conditions annex Poles with the intention of wanting to make Germans out of them some day. On the contrary, it must muster the determination either to seal off these alien racial elements, so that the blood of its own Folk will not be corrupted again, or it must, without further ado, remove them and hand over the vacated territory to its own National Comrades.” (source: p.29)
On 3 February 1933, at his initial meeting with the generals and admirals of the Third Reich, Adolf Hitler said that the conquest of Lebensraum in Eastern Europe, and its “ruthless Germanisation”, were the ultimate geopolitical objectives of Reich foreign policy. (source:Weinberg, Gerhard The Foreign Policy of Hitler’s Germany Diplomatic Revolution in Europe, Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1970 pp. 26–27).Such official racist perspectives for the establishment of German Lebensraum allowed the Nazis to unilaterally launch a war of aggression ( Blitzkrieg ) against the countries of Eastern Europe. Also until 1937 in German rearmament program well under way that he began to speak about the need for living space again. (Source: Richard Weikart, Hitler’s Ethic, p.167)
Posted by also on Mon, 22 Oct 2018 03:31 | #
Ibid
It is worth mentioning that Adolf Hitler had planned to attack the USSR since the 30s. In his secret plans, Hitler also considered Poland as a potential ally as indicated by German diplomatic documents of the times.
The war with Stalin was to Hitler’s realization of the idea of “Drang nach Osten” in order to gain the necessary German “living space” (Lebensraum).
Poland was perceived by Hitler as the “bastion of anti-Bolshevism”, and the best example of this was the war in 1920 by the Polish Army of the Bolshevik offensive on the Vistula.
Hitler stated in public statements that Poland was a key partner of the Third Reich in the Eastern policy – not only because of proximity to the USSR, but also because of ideological differences between the two states. The vision of a future, joint Polish-German conflict with the USSR Hitler opposed the plans of the German generals to attack Poland in the wake of the revisionist concept of fighting the “dictator of Versailles”.
On January 28, 1934, the “Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact” was signed in Berlin for 10 years.
Adolf Hitler in the Reichstag on January 30, 1934 said: “Germany and Poland will have to come to terms with their existence, so it is necessary to shape a state that will give the two nations the greatest possible benefit and which will last for a thousand years.”
In May 1934, a Fuhrer adviser on foreign policy matters Alfred Rosenberg postulated a joint attack by Poland, Germany and the United Kingdom on the Soviet Union, and its division into several spheres of influence. According to this idea Poland would get Ukraine and the British would have secured their oil interests in the area of southern Russia.
One of the greatest advocates of the anti-Soviet German and Polish military pact was Hermann Goering. He said during his visit to Białowieża in January 1935, the Alliance of both states was to be, in Goering’s view, a preventive step to “defend against Russian expansion” to the West.
For months Berlin reiterated the proposals of a military alliance with Warsaw. After the conclusion of the anti-Comintern pact by Italy and Japan on November 25, 1936 (Italy joined him a year later), Hitler hoped that Britain and Poland would also join him in the future.
Shadow on the relations between Germany and Poland, however, were cast by the issue of Gdańsk and the so-called The Pomeranian corridor, whose connections to the Reich demanded Hitler. In return for territorial concessions, he offered to Poland, among others. Prolonging the nonaggression pact for the next 25 years.
In 1939, Hitler joins Austria and Sudetenland to the III Reich and took all of Czechoslovakia and Klaipeda County in 1939 without consulting Poland.
March 26, 1939 Poland rejects German territorial demands.
March 31, 1939, Britain gave Poland guarantees of military aid in the event of a conflict with the III Reich.
April 3, 1939, Hitler ordered preparations for an attack on Poland (a plan codenamed “White Variant” – Fall Weiss).
April 28, 1939, Germany renounce a nonaggression pact with Poland, deciding on a future war.
August 23, 1939. In order to avoid a war on two fronts, Hitler was in contact with Stalin, but the treaty of the Fourth Partition of Poland (the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact) was only temporary, Hitler’s priority was still a future attack on the USSR.
(source: Rolf-Dieter Müller Enemy in the East: Hitler’s Secret Plans to Invade the Soviet Union, 2015)
So the above. Hitler invented the plan called: “Operation Himmler” it was a false flag project planned by Nazi Germany to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which was subsequently used by Nazi propaganda to justify the invasion of Poland. This included staging false attacks on themselves using innocent people or concentration camp prisoners. Operation Himmler was arguably the first act of the Second World War in Europe. (source:Roger Manvell, Heinrich Fraenkel, Heinrich Himmler: The SS, Gestapo, His Life and Career, p.76).
For months prior to the 1939 invasion, German newspapers and politicians like Adolf Hitler had carried out a national and international propaganda campaign accusing Polish authorities of organizing or tolerating violent ethnic cleansing of ethnic Germans living in Poland.
The plan, named after its originator, Heinrich Himmler, was supervised by Reinhard Heydrich and managed by Heinrich Müller. The goal of this false flag project was to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which could be used to justify the German invasion of Poland. Hitler also might have hoped to confuse Poland’s allies, the United Kingdom and France, into delaying or stopping their declaration of war on Germany. (source: Address by Adolf Hitler – September 1, 1939; retrieved from the archives of the Avalon Project at the Yale Law School. / Nazi Conspiracy And Aggression, Volume VI. Office of United States Chief of Counsel For Prosecution of Axis Criminality. United States Government Printing Office: Washington, 1946, p.188 / 20 Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 4; Thursday, 20 December 1945. The Avalon Project. Retrieved 4 August 2007. / Gerald Reitlinger, The SS, Alibi of a Nation, 1922-1945, Da Capo Press, 1989, p.122 / Steven J. Zaloga, Poland 1939: The Birth of Blitzkrieg, Osprey Publishing, 2002, p.39)
Examples:
The German troops, dressed in Polish uniforms, would storm various border buildings, scare the locals with inaccurate shots, carry out acts of vandalism, and retreat, leaving behind dead bodies in Polish uniforms. (source: Martin Allen, Himmler’s Secret War: The Covert Peace Negotiations of Heinrich Himmler, 2005, p.51).
The bodies were in fact prisoners from concentration camps; they were dressed in Polish uniforms, killed (by a lethal injection, then shot for appearance) and left behind. They were described in plans as “Konserve”, i.e. ‘canned goods’ (which also led to the more informal name of the operation, Operation Konserve). (source: John S. Craig, Peculiar Liaisons in War, Espionage, and Terrorism of the Twentieth Century, 2005, p.180 / Christopher J. Ailsby, The Third Reich Day by Day, 2001, p.112)
The strategic railway at Jablunka Pass (Jabłonków Incident), located on the border between Poland and Czechoslovakia (source: Jorgensen, Christer, “Hitler’s Espionage Machine”, Spellmount Ltd., 2004)
The German radio station Sender Gleiwitz (Gliwice) (this was arguably the most notable of Operation Himmler operations, vide: “Gleiwitz incident”) (source: Christopher J. Ailsby, The Third Reich Day by Day, 2001)
The German customs station at Hochlinden (today part of Rybnik-Stodoły) (source: Christopher J. Ailsby, The Third Reich Day by Day, 2001)
The forest service station in Pitschen (Byczyna) (Martin Allen, Himmler’s Secret War: The Covert Peace Negotiations of Heinrich Himmler, 2005, p.51)
The communications station at Neubersteich (“Nieborowitzer Hammer” before 12 February 1936, now Kuznia Nieborowska)
The railroad station in Alt-Eiche (Smolniki), Rosenberg in Westpreußen district
A woman and her companion in Katowice
By mid-1939, thousands of Polish Volksdeutsche had been secretly prepared for sabotage and guerrilla warfare by the Breslau (Wrocław) office of the Abwehr; the purpose of their activities was to provoke anti-German reprisals that could be claimed as provocations by the Germans. Those German agents indeed cooperated with the German forces during the invasion of Poland, leading to some reprisals, which were highly exaggerated by the German Nazi propaganda. One of the most notable cases of such a scenario was reportedly carried out during Bydgoszcz Bloody Sunday. (source: Perry Biddiscombe, Alexander Perry, Werwolf!: The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944-1946, 1998, p. 27 / Richard Blanke, The American Historical Review, Vol. 97, No. 2. Apr. 1992, pp. 580-582.)
From 1 September 1939 massacres of civilians began. The Germans did not spare anyone, killed old people, women and children. (vide: “Operation Tannenberg”) Captured soldiers were stripped of their uniforms and shot as partisans.
During World War II, six million Polish citizens died between 1939 and 1945; an estimated 4,900,000 to 5,700,000 (45% Polish Jews) were killed by German forces and 150,000 to one million by Soviet forces. Jews in Poland suffered the worst percentage loss of life compared to all other national and ethnic groups. The vast majority were civilians. On average, 2,800 Polish citizens died per day during its occupation.
Posted by Bullshit promoted by Linder at VNN on Sat, 08 Sep 2018 08:50 | #
The kind of shit that Linder is promoting at VNN:
VNN:
Poland Lost Millions of People, Billions of Dollars Under Nazi Occupation
Posted by Socrates in communism-as-Jewish, communist brutality, history, History for newbies, Hitler, Poland, Socrates, World War II at 4:54 pm | Permanent Link
Who cares? The Nazi occupation of Poland only lasted 6 years (1939-1945; and it was Poland’s own fault it was occupied, since it wouldn’t give back certain areas of land to Adolf Hitler, e.g., Danzig). Poland was later enslaved by Jewish communists for 44 years! [1]. Why don’t we talk about that, hmmmm? [Article].
[1] Jewish communists such as Jacob Berman, Hilary Minc, Anatol Fejgin, Jozef Swiatlo, Roman Zambrowski and others terrorized Poland after 1945
3 Responses to “Poland Lost Millions of People, Billions of Dollars Under Nazi Occupation”
Zerstorer Says:
5 September, 2018 at 6:46 pmWhat people have forgotten is Poland was carrying out ethnic cleansing in Danzig against the ethnic German population, which prompted Hitler’s invasion of Poland to rescue the German population from being butchered and murdered by the Poles. I have a book on the subject written in 1940, “Polish acts of atrocity against the German minority in Poland.”
Pierre Says:
6 September, 2018 at 8:13 amIn his book, The Myth of German Villainy, Benton Bradberry states that something like 50 000 Germans were killed by the Poles. This is what motivated the German attack of Poland which started WWII. This is after Hitler tried everything possible to negotiate a deal with the poles to have access to their city of Dantzig which was separated from Germany by the Versailles Treaty which ended WWI.
Tim Says:
7 September, 2018 at 9:49 amAnother anti-Hitler hit piece from the (AP) AshkeNAZI Press. What did you expect?
“It was Poland’s own fault it was occupied, since it wouldn’t give back certain areas of land to Adolf Hitler, e.g., Danzig”
It wasn’t Poland’s to give one way or the other. The Versailles Treaty made it a neutral city as it has been at times in history.
“Benton Bradberry states that something like 50 000 Germans were killed by the Poles”
Is that true?
Look at this as an honest person and try not to laugh that people would believe this, from the cited book, “The Myth of German Villainy” by Brenton Bradburry.
It is estimated that some 58,000 German nationals were killed during this period by marauding mobs, encouraged by the Polish government. The German government lodged dozens of formal complaint with the League of Nations, but with no results. Hitler became increasingly distressed about it and said to the British Ambassador Sir Neville Henderson on August 25, 1939: “Poland’s provocations have become intolerable.” Typical of these massacres was that which occurred in the German town of Bromberg, in the Polish Corridor. In this massacre, called “Bloody Sunday,” 5,500 ethnic Germans were slaughtered like pigs. Children were nailed to barns, women were raped and hacked to death with axes, men were beaten and hacked to death. 328 Germans were herded into Bromberg’s Protestant church, after which the church was set on fire. All 328 burned to death.
Operation Himmler. Ok that’s Wikipedia, but at least it puts you well within the ball park, whereas Bradburry buys Goebbels utterly fallacious propaganda.
* Regarding the Bromberg incident, it happened AFTER the Nazis had already invaded – it didn’t happen the way Nazi propaganda alleges; and for better or worse, there were reasons for the executions (e.g., their being suspected of sniping and Nazi partisan fifth column operations); but finally, the Nazis more than made up for it, executing ten times as many Polish civilians there in retaliation.
Posted by …and maybe on Mon, 22 Oct 2018 02:59 | #
Area Pole, Historian (2006-present)
Answered Apr 3 2017One should mention the German nationalist slogan of the 19th: “Drang nach Osten”. Germany since the 19th century appealed to settle Polish lands by German colonistsnp Such views were, for example: ostpreußischen Abgeordneten Carl Friedrich Wilhelm Jordan, Schriftsteller Gustav Freytag, Friedrich List, Friedrich Ratzel.
In 1926 appeared a book written by Hans Grimm – “Volk ohne Raum”. The usage of the slogan is most known for its usage by the Nazis. In Nazi propaganda the slogan was repeatedly used to at least justify or legitimize the German conquest of Poland and the Soviet Union and for the massive territorial expansion into Eastern Europe to ensure Germanic Aryan Herrenvolk (“Aryan master race”) rule over Poles and Russians who the Nazis considered “non Aryan” and subhuman. Slavs as non-Aryans were to be ethnically cleansed and exterminated, and their territories settled by Germans. From the very early days of the Nazi party, the notion that the Germans were people without living space and had a right to expand was widespread among German nationalists and right-wing organisations.
On February 24, 1920, Hitler proclaimed the party program and one of the 25 points of the National Socialist Program stated: “We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.“In order to justify their Drang nach Osten (“desire to push East”).
Adolf Hitler, dictator of Nazi Germany from 1933–1945, called for a Drang nach Osten to acquire territory for German colonists at the expense of central and eastern European nations (Lebensraum). The term by then had gained enough currency to appear in foreign newspapers without explanation. His eastern campaigns during World War II were initially successful with the conquests of Poland, the Baltic countries, Belarus, Ukraine and much of European Russia by the Wehrmacht; Generalplan Ost was designed to eliminate the native Slavic peoples from these lands and replace them with Germans. (source: HITLER’S PLANS FOR EASTERN EUROPE, Selections from Janusz Gumkowkski and Kazimierz Leszczynski POLAND UNDER NAZI OCCUPATION)
Nazi Germany employed the slogan in calling the Czechs a “Slav bulwark against the Drang nach Osten” in the 1938 Sudeten crisis. (source: Edmund Jan Osmańczyk, Anthony Mango, Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements, 2003, p. 579)
Secondly: “The German concept of Lebensraum” – Following Adolf Hitler’s rise to power Lebensraum became an ideological principle of Nazism, and provided justification for the German territorial expansion into East-Central Europe. The Nazi Generalplan Ost policy (the Master Plan for the East) was based on its tenets. It stipulated that most of the indigenous populations of Eastern Europe would have to be removed permanently (either through mass deportation to Siberia, death, or enslavement) including Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, and other Slavic nations considered racially inferior. The Third Reich aimed at repopulating these lands with Germanic colonists in the name of Lebensraum during World War II and thereafter. The entire populations were to be decimated by starvation, allowing for their own agricultural surplus to feed Germany. (source: André Mineau (2004). Operation Barbarossa: Ideology and Ethics Against Human Dignity. Rodopi. p. 180.,André Mineau (2004). Operation Barbarossa: Ideology and Ethics Against Human Dignity. Rodopi. p. 180. / Shelley Baranowski Nazi Empire: German Colonialism and Imperialism from Bismarck to Hitler. Cambridge University Press. 2011, p. 141. / Jeremy Noakes (March 30, 2011). “BBC – History – World Wars: Hitler and ‘Lebensraum’ in the East”).
Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf (1925; My Struggle), presented his conception of Lebensraum as the philosophic basis for the Greater Germanic Reich who were destined to colonize Eastern Europe — especially Ukraine in Soviet Russia — and so resolve the problems of overpopulation, and that the European states had to accede to his geopolitical demands.
The Nazi usages of the term Lebensraum were explicitly racist, to justify the mystical right of the “racially superior” Germanic peoples (Herrenvolk) to fulfil their cultural destiny at the expense of “racially inferior” peoples (Untermenschen), such as the Slavs of Poland, Russia, Ukraine, and the other non–Germanic peoples of “the East”. Based upon Johan Rudolf Kjellén’s geopolitical interpretation of Friedrich Ratzel’s human-geography term, the Nazi régime (1933–45) established Lebensraum as the racist rationale of the foreign policy by which they began the Second World War, on 1 September 1939, in effort to realise the Greater Germanic Reich at the expense of the societies of Eastern Europe. (source: Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th Ed., vol. 6, p. 901)
Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf “the Zweites Buch” from 1928: “The National Socialist Movement, on the contrary, will always let its foreign policy be determined by the necessity to secure the space necessary to the life of our Folk. It knows no Germanising or Teutonising, as in the case of the national bourgeoisie, but only the spread of its own Folk. It will never see in the subjugated, so called Germanised, Czechs or Poles a national, let alone Folkish, strengthening, but only the racial weakening of our Folk.” (source: p.26) & “The Folkish State, conversely, must under no conditions annex Poles with the intention of wanting to make Germans out of them some day. On the contrary, it must muster the determination either to seal off these alien racial elements, so that the blood of its own Folk will not be corrupted again, or it must, without further ado, remove them and hand over the vacated territory to its own National Comrades.” (source: p.29)
On 3 February 1933, at his initial meeting with the generals and admirals of the Third Reich, Adolf Hitler said that the conquest of Lebensraum in Eastern Europe, and its “ruthless Germanisation”, were the ultimate geopolitical objectives of Reich foreign policy. (source:Weinberg, Gerhard The Foreign Policy of Hitler’s Germany Diplomatic Revolution in Europe, Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1970 pp. 26–27).Such official racist perspectives for the establishment of German Lebensraum allowed the Nazis to unilaterally launch a war of aggression ( Blitzkrieg ) against the countries of Eastern Europe. Also until 1937 in German rearmament program well under way that he began to speak about the need for living space again. (Source: Richard Weikart, Hitler’s Ethic, p.167)
Posted by also on Mon, 22 Oct 2018 03:31 | #
Ibid
It is worth mentioning that Adolf Hitler had planned to attack the USSR since the 30s. In his secret plans, Hitler also considered Poland as a potential ally as indicated by German diplomatic documents of the times.
The war with Stalin was to Hitler’s realization of the idea of “Drang nach Osten” in order to gain the necessary German “living space” (Lebensraum).
Poland was perceived by Hitler as the “bastion of anti-Bolshevism”, and the best example of this was the war in 1920 by the Polish Army of the Bolshevik offensive on the Vistula.
Hitler stated in public statements that Poland was a key partner of the Third Reich in the Eastern policy – not only because of proximity to the USSR, but also because of ideological differences between the two states. The vision of a future, joint Polish-German conflict with the USSR Hitler opposed the plans of the German generals to attack Poland in the wake of the revisionist concept of fighting the “dictator of Versailles”.
On January 28, 1934, the “Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact” was signed in Berlin for 10 years.
Adolf Hitler in the Reichstag on January 30, 1934 said: “Germany and Poland will have to come to terms with their existence, so it is necessary to shape a state that will give the two nations the greatest possible benefit and which will last for a thousand years.”
In May 1934, a Fuhrer adviser on foreign policy matters Alfred Rosenberg postulated a joint attack by Poland, Germany and the United Kingdom on the Soviet Union, and its division into several spheres of influence. According to this idea Poland would get Ukraine and the British would have secured their oil interests in the area of southern Russia.
One of the greatest advocates of the anti-Soviet German and Polish military pact was Hermann Goering. He said during his visit to Białowieża in January 1935, the Alliance of both states was to be, in Goering’s view, a preventive step to “defend against Russian expansion” to the West.
For months Berlin reiterated the proposals of a military alliance with Warsaw. After the conclusion of the anti-Comintern pact by Italy and Japan on November 25, 1936 (Italy joined him a year later), Hitler hoped that Britain and Poland would also join him in the future.
Shadow on the relations between Germany and Poland, however, were cast by the issue of Gdańsk and the so-called The Pomeranian corridor, whose connections to the Reich demanded Hitler. In return for territorial concessions, he offered to Poland, among others. Prolonging the nonaggression pact for the next 25 years.
In 1939, Hitler joins Austria and Sudetenland to the III Reich and took all of Czechoslovakia and Klaipeda County in 1939 without consulting Poland.
March 26, 1939 Poland rejects German territorial demands.
March 31, 1939, Britain gave Poland guarantees of military aid in the event of a conflict with the III Reich.
April 3, 1939, Hitler ordered preparations for an attack on Poland (a plan codenamed “White Variant” – Fall Weiss).
April 28, 1939, Germany renounce a nonaggression pact with Poland, deciding on a future war.
August 23, 1939. In order to avoid a war on two fronts, Hitler was in contact with Stalin, but the treaty of the Fourth Partition of Poland (the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact) was only temporary, Hitler’s priority was still a future attack on the USSR.
(source: Rolf-Dieter Müller Enemy in the East: Hitler’s Secret Plans to Invade the Soviet Union, 2015)
So the above. Hitler invented the plan called: “Operation Himmler” it was a false flag project planned by Nazi Germany to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which was subsequently used by Nazi propaganda to justify the invasion of Poland. This included staging false attacks on themselves using innocent people or concentration camp prisoners. Operation Himmler was arguably the first act of the Second World War in Europe. (source:Roger Manvell, Heinrich Fraenkel, Heinrich Himmler: The SS, Gestapo, His Life and Career, p.76).
For months prior to the 1939 invasion, German newspapers and politicians like Adolf Hitler had carried out a national and international propaganda campaign accusing Polish authorities of organizing or tolerating violent ethnic cleansing of ethnic Germans living in Poland.
The plan, named after its originator, Heinrich Himmler, was supervised by Reinhard Heydrich and managed by Heinrich Müller. The goal of this false flag project was to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which could be used to justify the German invasion of Poland. Hitler also might have hoped to confuse Poland’s allies, the United Kingdom and France, into delaying or stopping their declaration of war on Germany. (source: Address by Adolf Hitler – September 1, 1939; retrieved from the archives of the Avalon Project at the Yale Law School. / Nazi Conspiracy And Aggression, Volume VI. Office of United States Chief of Counsel For Prosecution of Axis Criminality. United States Government Printing Office: Washington, 1946, p.188 / 20 Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 4; Thursday, 20 December 1945. The Avalon Project. Retrieved 4 August 2007. / Gerald Reitlinger, The SS, Alibi of a Nation, 1922-1945, Da Capo Press, 1989, p.122 / Steven J. Zaloga, Poland 1939: The Birth of Blitzkrieg, Osprey Publishing, 2002, p.39)
Examples:
The German troops, dressed in Polish uniforms, would storm various border buildings, scare the locals with inaccurate shots, carry out acts of vandalism, and retreat, leaving behind dead bodies in Polish uniforms. (source: Martin Allen, Himmler’s Secret War: The Covert Peace Negotiations of Heinrich Himmler, 2005, p.51).
The bodies were in fact prisoners from concentration camps; they were dressed in Polish uniforms, killed (by a lethal injection, then shot for appearance) and left behind. They were described in plans as “Konserve”, i.e. ‘canned goods’ (which also led to the more informal name of the operation, Operation Konserve). (source: John S. Craig, Peculiar Liaisons in War, Espionage, and Terrorism of the Twentieth Century, 2005, p.180 / Christopher J. Ailsby, The Third Reich Day by Day, 2001, p.112)
The strategic railway at Jablunka Pass (Jabłonków Incident), located on the border between Poland and Czechoslovakia (source: Jorgensen, Christer, “Hitler’s Espionage Machine”, Spellmount Ltd., 2004)
The German radio station Sender Gleiwitz (Gliwice) (this was arguably the most notable of Operation Himmler operations, vide: “Gleiwitz incident”) (source: Christopher J. Ailsby, The Third Reich Day by Day, 2001)
The German customs station at Hochlinden (today part of Rybnik-Stodoły) (source: Christopher J. Ailsby, The Third Reich Day by Day, 2001)
The forest service station in Pitschen (Byczyna) (Martin Allen, Himmler’s Secret War: The Covert Peace Negotiations of Heinrich Himmler, 2005, p.51)
The communications station at Neubersteich (“Nieborowitzer Hammer” before 12 February 1936, now Kuznia Nieborowska)
The railroad station in Alt-Eiche (Smolniki), Rosenberg in Westpreußen district
A woman and her companion in Katowice
By mid-1939, thousands of Polish Volksdeutsche had been secretly prepared for sabotage and guerrilla warfare by the Breslau (Wrocław) office of the Abwehr; the purpose of their activities was to provoke anti-German reprisals that could be claimed as provocations by the Germans. Those German agents indeed cooperated with the German forces during the invasion of Poland, leading to some reprisals, which were highly exaggerated by the German Nazi propaganda. One of the most notable cases of such a scenario was reportedly carried out during Bydgoszcz Bloody Sunday. (source: Perry Biddiscombe, Alexander Perry, Werwolf!: The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944-1946, 1998, p. 27 / Richard Blanke, The American Historical Review, Vol. 97, No. 2. Apr. 1992, pp. 580-582.)
From 1 September 1939 massacres of civilians began. The Germans did not spare anyone, killed old people, women and children. (vide: “Operation Tannenberg”) Captured soldiers were stripped of their uniforms and shot as partisans.
During World War II, six million Polish citizens died between 1939 and 1945; an estimated 4,900,000 to 5,700,000 (45% Polish Jews) were killed by German forces and 150,000 to one million by Soviet forces. Jews in Poland suffered the worst percentage loss of life compared to all other national and ethnic groups. The vast majority were civilians. On average, 2,800 Polish citizens died per day during its occupation.
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 29 Nov 2018 04:06 | #
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 28 Nov 2018 20:35 | #
“Operation Reinhardt”
If I recall correctly it was in vol. 2 of Richard Evans’ history trilogy on the Third Reich that I encountered the claim that hundreds of thousands of Jooooos were gassed to death in rickety wooden sheds in one of the “Reinhardt” camps. Hard to imagine getting much of a hermetic seal on an old wooden shed. But if the Joooze say it’s so, then we must believe – as DanielSperg apparently does.
I’m not very familiar with the book nor the claim, I may have heard some people talking about something like that (wooden “gas chambers” that wouldn’t work) but didn’t consider it interesting as I do not consider it relevant enough to our self defense. I find people who belabor dissimulation of Reinhardt to be creepy; and most normal people probably find people who go the route toward denial to be frightening. I do not consider the Holocaust, Operation Reinhardt or whatever it might be called, to be relevant enough to our self defense. Did you do it? Did the Germans or anyone else of today do it? Should we be punished for it?
Belaboring fallacious claims, e.g., wooden gas chambers, is not most helpful to unburdening of guilt.
From my point of view, it is unhelpful to belabor the issue, to deny that there was a program like that (Reinhardt) or to belabor dispute over aspects or particulars (to centralize some authors’ claim about wooden gas chambers). There is a place for that (particularly inasmuch as it calls-out holocaustianity) but it is topical not categorical of White National defense.
Even if the Nazis were more horrible than Nazi sympathizers claim that they were to Jewry, it could lend to a powerful clue and argument that there may have been instigating factors in Jewish patterns to provoke such malice and thus separatism is all the more necessary.
Nazism As Overstated Premise of White Nationalism and False Either/Or
Border changes after World War II
It is a particularly important preliminary note that there is virtually nobody here who had anything to do with events of World War II. That fact is most relevant. Under that rubric, let us begin:
Hitler and Nazism as an overstated premise in representation of White/European nationalism; and Hitler and Nazism or the international Jew as false either/or.
Method:
Working hypotheses will be advanced
as to why these logical fallacies are being adopted despite their apparent obviousness;
how they are mistaken;
and remedies will be proposed in cooperative nationalism.
Statements will be set out as hypotheses to allow for efficient positioning of historical viewpoints as they emerge practical in argumentative service of cooperative European nationalism. In addition to the practical efficiency of hypotheses for unburdening detail, the modesty of unfinished claims is meant to facilitate participation from the commentariat to elaborate, correct and amend the hypotheses – i.e., to make optimal use of Majority Rights discussion format.
* Note: in comment number 2, I erred in grammatical present tense when discussing Brelsau (Wroclaw). Which, according to the Treaty of Versailles and through World War II, remained German. There would have been no good argument to that point in time for its not being German.
Germany/Prussia 1871 – 1918 – imperialistically expanded into East Europe.
Introduction – Sought premise, significant obstacle, causes, proposed remedy.
The sought premise is a cooperative alliance of sovereign indigenous European nations/nationals, in Europe and worldwide
A significant obstacle is the overstated premise of Hitler and Nazism as being representative of White Nationalism and as a false either/or – either Hitler and Nazism or the international Jew.
It is disturbingly easy to find counter-points to the view that the Nazis were simply right, any misdeeds of theirs simply fabrication and that they were merely victims.
October 1939: Kazimiera Mika, a ten-year-old Polish girl, mourns the death of her older sister, who was killed in a field near Jana Ostroroga Street in Warsaw during a German air raid by Luftwaffe… Suddenly two German planes appeared from nowhere and dropped two bombs only two hundred yards away on a small home. Two women in the house were killed. The potato diggers dropped flat upon the ground, hoping to be unnoticed. After the bombers had gone, the women returned to their work. They had to have food. But the Nazi fliers were not satisfied with their work. In a few minutes they came back and swooped down to within two hundred feet of the ground, this time raking the field with machine-gun fire. Two of the seven women were killed.”
Polish civilians murdered by SS in Warsaw uprising 1944
Righteousness is not a sufficient explanation for a pro-Nazi position being adopted by WN’s. It is likely that people coming from some perspectives may want to see righteousness, or at least unanimity, in its worldview and operations. In that motive, we are coming closer to the causes of its adoption.
An overview of the hypothesized cause of the problem and remedy:
The logical fallacies of overstated premise and false either/or are adopted by those not seeing that European national perspectives which were conceived of by the Nazis as being against Germany were not necessarily against them then and are not now – and if persons in these positions could see that, they could take the balance and flexibility of the alternative perspective (the lack of which is expressed in their overcompensation and false either/or); by sharing in the analogy and gain in perspective, see the legitimacy and innocence at the core of their own nationalism; as well as sense in the cooperative function that this additional flexibility affords in mutual defense of native Europeans wherever necessary. That is the hope in writing this article, but there is risk.
In the very act of discussing historically problematic issues between White/European nationals there is a risk of reanimating and rekindling dilemmas that had led to conflicts originally, rather than achieving cooperative alliance through mutual understanding. Hence my reluctance. However, among White Nationalist discourse, over-representation of the Nazi point of view has been pushed beyond a point where it may be discreetly ignored to where it is an unfortunate necessity to brook potential conflict.
The enunciation here is that just as with all White Nationalisms, German Nationalism is more than valid, it is proper and necessary. However, by contrast, Nazism is not only an overstated premise as it might be proposed to represent an overlapping position of White Nationalisms, it is even an overstated premise as it would be proposed to represent German Nationalism – viz., Nazism is more like German Imperialism. Moreover, it is often proposed among White Nationalists as an either/or – either Nazism or the international Jew – and this is a significantly false either/or: it is counter-productive and unnecessary to cop to the charge of “neo-Nazi;” let alone to insist upon reverence, to follow its book of rules verbatim and adopt its regalia as emblematic of White/ European Nationalisms.
I will endeavor to set-out this platform and argumentation for those White/European Nationalists who might see deliberate association with Nazi identification as pejorative and unnecessary as they would, therefore, not mind dropping it in favor of a cooperative alliance between all White/European nationals. Nazism was a thing of the past, it had its historical circumstances, its strong points and reasons, but was an overcompensation not necessary to associate with and embrace now.
To me, that is fairly obvious and I am sure it is obvious to others as well. However then, why do many prominent White Nationalists over-sympathize, if not identify quite flamboyantly with Nazism? These are the central questions and problems that I will address and for which I will pursue remedy here.
I suppose that in a very real sense that both Jewish elites and faithful Nazis might actually like to believe in the necessity of an either/or and thus overstate their premises – I will endeavor the argument that that is not necessary, identify some of the key reasons why it may be thought to be necessary, while proposing remedy to this overstated premise and false either/or.
The Silesians in the Southwest, the Vistula in the Southeast, the Mazurians in the Northeast, the Pomeranians in the Northwest and the Polans in the West are five aggregate Slavic tribes that have come together as the Poles. The Polans established Poznan as their initial capital.
After the Prussians took Poznan in 1793, three generations of Germans lived there. It would have been understandably bewildering, dismaying for a generation born when there was nobody alive who could remember its not being a German city – to then have the city restored to Poland through a Polish military uprising which was then confirmed by The Treaty of Versailles. Nevertheless, hard decision though it was imposed by The Treaty of Versailles, it was a correct in historical justice and logistics.
Every bit as much the loss to the Germans according to the Treaty, if not more than Poznan, were two cities located just to its northeast – Bromberg (Bydgoszcz) and Thorn (the German Copernicus’s town now called Torun). A militarist looking for a crisp argument could take advantage of examples such as that to inflame his people and rally them to militaristic action.
Torun, German, Thorn) a tough loss for Germany.
But hard as these losses were to Germany, embarrassing perhaps even, to have Thorn sat in the lap of Poland (as L’viv might be for Ukrainians), a statesman would recognize them as logistically valid concessions as they extended far into Polish lands and would make access to the sea circuitous and precarious. Former German bastions such as these and Malbork had come with Prussian and then Teutonic violence and cruelty to such an extent that it was denounced even by the German, Copernicus.
Lets not mince words – following World War I, German historical pugnaciousness was not in doubt and what might serve as militaristic outposts far into Polish land or even the highway through it that Hitler so kindly requested, were rather something that sane negotiators would prefer to buffer.
Thus, while it would have been a very hard concession for a statesman and very easy inflammatory source for a militarist, these places were properly given to Poland from both logistical and historical consideration.
Perhaps I am making this sound easy, but that is the point – it was not. These were hard choices that sufficient cooperative nationalism would have made. Irrespective of the history pro or con, practical logistics would cede these cities to Poland.
Breslau (Wroclaw), on the other hand, was still German after The Versailles Treaty. As Germans had been there for 800 years after its brief foundation by Czechs and alternating habitation with Poles, there should not be dispute over its having remained German at that point. How far Germany still extended into Silesian territory was more debatable but not worth dispute if it would have kept the peace.
The matter of Danzig is a bit more subtle: Versailles left it as a neutral city. The Germans could and did inhabit the city – did in vast majority. The Poles did have a historical imprint on the city, including its heyday; thus, to award them access to the city was reasonable. Germanics lived there in ancient history and Poles lived there at different points in history; a mixed German/Polish breed known as Kashubians emerged but disputes continued with the Poles being ousted at times, violently when by the Teutonic Knights. Nevertheless, after World War I Germans could and did live there – having access by sea and air.
But where I might have drawn the Versailles borders differently is to put Polish sea access to the East side of Gdansk/Danzig, extending eastward to Elbing. Although Poland may have had historical ties to the west coast of Danzig – viz. Gydynia – and invested hugely there from 1920 until the war – logistics should have prevailed over history and put Polish access to the east side of Gdansk/Danzig. A highway might have proceeded along the coast to allow Germany road travel to East Prussia. Draw bridges beneath it would allow Poland access to the sea.
That is of course, IF Hitler was not who he was. Germany did have access to Danzig, was allowed to dock a ship there and proceeded by sneak attack to bomb Polish defenses at Gdansk/Danzig. That more than flies in the face of Nazi propaganda about this being a defensive war on their part. It is also quite a different opening to World War II than the (I now know) Nazi propaganda footage we were always shown as the commence of the war, with dashing Nazi panzers going up against hapless Polish cavalry.
The Poles had struggled 120 years to regain their nation only to have the Nazis move to take it away from them just 20 years later.
Those overly disposed to sympathize with the Nazi point of view might like to believe Goebbels propaganda, to believe in the false flag operations such as Gleiwitz, that the Germans were under attack. There were Nazi black ops going on in Poland prior to the war and at its onset of which the Poles were aware; in the shock and horror three days after the attack on Danzig/Gdansk, a retreating Polish army or Polish irregulars (or Polish and/or Jewish locals gone rogue) may have over-reacted by killing German civilians in Bromberg (Bydgoszcz) upon reports of sniping – or perhaps it was a bit more justified than what might be characterized as a mere panicked over-reaction, as German civilians there were noted as early as 1935 pledging allegiance to the Nazis; advanced Nazi agents may have been there as well. Whatever the case, Nazi propaganda and their present day sympathizers tend to use the event as evidence of the ex-nihlo evil of the Poles – not even granting the context of the start of World War II against them two days before! ..let alone subtle considerations: perhaps there was Nazi partisan activity, black ops and sniping going on there. Whatever the case, Goebbels capitalized on it to propagandize it as justification for further incursion against Poland. And of the particular killings of Germans in Bydgoszcz, Nazi propaganda and direct consequent action more than made-up for it, killing ten times the number of Polish civilians in response.
That is an analogy that I would tend to extend regarding whatever complaints Nazi Germany had with Poland. They more than made-up for it.
And extending this analogy, importantly, that the Jews have more than made-up for whatever grievances they have had.
6,000,000 would be a very small fraction of the number of European/White people killed-off as a result of Jewish policy, power and influence.
Coming back to the concrete context of the war: Poland knew that Hitler did not only want Gdansk/Danzig. Anybody who does not want to simply believe in Nazi propaganda recognizes that. And that is why talk of negotiation in minutiae over the Versailles borders is an exercise merely in what should have been, for the sake of proper understanding now.
They saw – all in violation of The Treaty of Versailles – German: re-armament, re-militarization of the Rhineland, taking over Austria, taking all of Czechoslovakia after appeasement was attempted by ceding the Sudetenland. But really, one had to look no farther than Mein Kampf to see that Hitler had designs to take over East Europe.
That he would take Zamosc, a city never, at any point in history, German, and rename it “Himmlerstadt”, to be the Eastern capital of the Third Reich, provides a clue that being satisfied to stop at Danzig and leave Poland alone after that was not exactly a priority of their agenda.
I don’t know what the hell so called White Nationalists are thinking when they would propose to have us all rally behind Hitler and Nazism. But it is not reasonable to expect people from countries who had their people lined up and shot, their women strafed by the Luftwaffe, their cities bombed to hell by the Nazis to rally behind and with you. Diversity in WN is good, but Nazism is necessarily divisive. If you want people to share in sympathy over the bombing of Germany and its deaths, then you ought to share in sympathy for the bombing and deaths of the rest of Europe. You should not expect WN’s to rally behind the swastika any more than expect them to rally behind another symbol of particular European nationalism transformed into violent aggression against neighboring White peoples.
In that regard, given Nazi Germany’s overcompensation, it is not wrong that Poland was granted Wroclaw (Breslau) again after an 800 year absence. The Germans had moved in originally only after the Poles there were wiped out by a Mongol invasion. But of relevant importance now, by transferring it and surrounding Silesia back to Poland, the fight over L’viv and (now) western Ukraine was ended as the Poles who were there, along with those who had lived in Grodno and Vilnius, were moved to Wroclaw; and to the surrounding Silesia region; as well as to the region of Pomerania in the Northwest, also restored to Poland.
Gdansk is four lovely streets with some ornate buildings, the widest street comprising the market square; anyone who wants to have a war over this city is need of a mental health check-up. Let it be a part of Poland now and forget about it. Why not rather look toward Montana, etc. for living space?
Wise statesman would seek cooperation of European nationalists to secure their native populations, to work to remove citizenship from Jews and other non-native Europeans. The best way to do this is to declare the nations anew and void non-Europeans from consideration of citizenship. Our nations would be reformed in the virtual sphere first and then efforts made to retake them on their actual grounds. To fight about whether Pomerania should be a part of Poland now? No. We cooperate against non-Europeans and use that cooperative European nationalism to seek additional, sacrosanct European nationalist living spaces on other continents as well.
Thus, if we are looking with 20/20 hindsight into an unnecessary war, it was for lack of the statesmanship that could have conceived and implemented things in that manner.
It is unfortunate to have to address this matter now, as I might have hoped it was more clear that identification with the swastika was negative, divisive and unnecessary. I have been forced to consider why it is not more obvious for others and I hypothesize that it has largely to do with the following factors: too complete a genetic overlap with the Nazis or too little genetic overlap with those in the path and wrath of the Nazi juggernaut; resulting overcompensation; arbitrary historical punctuation in order to throw-off overbearing guilt trips and to confidently address the catastrophe that has befallen the west as a result of Jewish imposed liberalism. That is, it is all too easy for some, there is a very strong logical force from some perspectives to adopt the position that the Nazis were simply right.
If, as I hypothesize, that unanimity with the Nazi position stems from overlap/underlap of guilt trips and results in an overwhelming need to overcompensate for that, particularly in the wake of Jewish imposed liberalisms’ vast destruction, which then sets about conveniently serving arbitrary historical punctuation – and if it is agreed that this unanimity is unnecessary if not destructive, including self destructive for its tactlessness – what may remedy look like?
Remedy would borrow perspective from the relative innocence of other European countries and White Nationals wherever they might be. This would provide analogy that allows for the tracing of innocence in not only German but all White Nationalisms. What I mean by innocence in this context is not purity and certainly not innocence of anti-Semitism – just the opposite. In fact, that neighboring European countries sought to maintain their borders, populations and were deeply troubled by Jewish power and influence as well.
The Wodanist admiration for war bravery would be a quaint culturalism were it not for its potential for wreaking and having wreaked havoc on what could have been statesmanship. A Wodanist might look upon these things as a joke.
Nevertheless, if we are to indulge in 20/20 hindsight, we might theorize potential agreement of mutual sovereignty for European Nationalisms, which does not recognize Jews as European but nationals of some non-European place. In mutual recognition of the European nations’ mutual aims there might be a cooperative effort to effect the control and population of European Nations to their native own.
In pursuit of balance, we will take the most relevant examples of historical European Nationalism from both sides, and from different sides, so that correction to the overstatement and false either or might be shown – providing perspective on innocence in normal parameters of European nationalism; while additional perspective (not necessarily at odds, nor either/or) may also provide flexibility for cooperation.
………..
In the very act of discussing historically problematic issues between White/European nationals there is a risk of reanimating and rekindling dilemmas that had led to conflicts originally, rather than achieving cooperative alliance through mutual understanding. Hence my reluctance. Specifically, there is a risk of reciprocally escalating diatribe, as one group, say the Nazis, feels strongly obligated to put forth justifications for what are taken to be their misdeeds and then the opposing group must put forth justifications for what are taken to be its misdeeds; and back and forth ad infinitatum until it goes beyond negotiation and into war.
It is another noteworthy matter that Polish service in World War I was largely contracted with the agreement that they might regain their national sovereignty upon conclusion of the war
Polish vs Nazi anti-Semitism: Poles sought nationalist separatism; Nazis sought nationless race war.
27:10: It is Poland’s explicit policy after 1935 to rid itself of 90% of its Jewish population. Given that there were more than three million Jews in Poland that’s a very large number. ..but from their point of view, the way to get rid of the Jews was to support right wing Jewish terrorists who are going to make a lot of trouble in Palestine so there could be a Jewish state.
…from the Nazi point of view, anti-Semitism is part of [their concept of] racial anarchy. The Nazi point of view is that Jews are the ones who are in the way of a racial struggle, which is non-political.
The Polish point of view is different. The Polish point of view is attached to the state. They don’t understand that the Nazis are about racial anarchy. …the[y think rather that the] way to handle whatever problem they’re defining, even what they see as the struggle against Jews, is by way of states. So, you either negotiate with the British or behind their back you find a way to create a state in Palestine and then you can get the Jews sent off there.
…to emphasize the point that there are different kinds of anti-Semitism, it’s not just a matter of turning up the dial or turning down a dial ..or who is more anti-Semitic the Poles or the Germans.. there are issues of quality here which matter, especially when the quality has to do with the state. ..but where we’ve gotten to in history is the moment where Germany starts to destroy states. Where this theory of state destruction actually becomes practice.
30:40: Poland is where Hitler finally gets his war. It’s not the war that he wanted; it’s not a war that he had planned; it’s not a war that he expected. But when he made war against Poland it was the first war that he prosecuted while actively destroying the state.
When he talks to his high officers in July/ August 1939, before the war… early September 1939, what he tells them is that this war is not like other wars. It’s not about territory. It’s not about victory. It’s not about seizing a certain amount of land. It’s about destroying Poland as a state and as a nation.
In other words, it’s not just about destroying the Polish army; but about coming into the country, declaring that the civil code no longer functions; the Polish state does not exist; (this is where it gets interesting) the Polish state has never existed.
So, the claim that they make when they enter Poland is basically the same kind of claim that European imperialists made beyond Europe; that the territory we’re entering is uninhabited, at least in the sense of being uninhabited by political beings.
So, Poland is treated colonially in the sense that the Polish state is not acknowledged as an institution; actively not acknowledged. And the people who are thought to represent it, whether they are military officers, whether they are civilian politicians, whether they are Roman Catholic priests, are physically eliminated – killed: in the tens of thousands. That’s not an accident. That’s part of the idea of destroying the Polish state.
Jan Opletal
Heritage of Czechia
@CzechiaHeritage
17 November 1939 – After the funeral of student Jan Opletal killed during manifestation, Czech people’s demonstrated against German occupation of #Czechia. Hitler suppressed it by military force. Czech universities were closed, the heads of students were executed
In World War II, in Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia, the Lidice massacre was a complete destruction of the village of Lidice, in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, now in the Czech Republic, in June 1942 on orders from Adolf Hitler and Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler.
In reprisal for the assassination of Reich Protector Reinhard Heydrich in the late spring of 1942, all 173 males over 15 years of age from the village were executed on 10 June 1942. Another 11 men who were not in the village were arrested and executed soon afterwards, along with several others already under arrest. The 184 women and 88 children were deported to concentration camps; a few children considered racially suitable for Germanisation were handed over to SS families and the rest were sent to the Chełmno extermination camp where they were gassed to death.
The Associated Press, quoting German radio received in New York, said: “All male grownups of the town were shot, while the women were placed in a concentration camp, and the children were entrusted to appropriate educational institutions.” About 340 people from Lidice died because of the German reprisal (192 men, 60 women and 88 children) and after the war ended, only 153 women and 17 children returned.
European peoples, especially of these subsequent generations, might rather share in the relative innocence of Polish ethnonationalism, for an example, legitimately insistent, as it were, after its persecution, ostensible elimination for a hundred years and then resurrection to the map as a sovereign nation.
In this sharing of perspective, our European brothers can take the ownmost innocence of their nationhood to coordinate among a brotherhood of European nations and peoples.
And they should partake in the perspective that the non guilt over ethnonationalism has to share, which I try to share.
I have a problem, however, in trying to get this message across. Even though I am only half Polish, my mother was Polish American, father Italian American, and I live in Poland, the truth is, having been born and grown up there, I am culturally and of my worldview a White American. Despite the fact that I could not be a Polish chauvinist if I tried, blaming Poland and anti-Polinism (and anti-any nation that opposed the Nazis) is so integral to the pro-Hitler, pro Nazi platform and perspective, that it makes it impossible for some people to share in this perspective of ethnonational legitimacy and relative innocence.
No, the Treaty of Versailles did NOT lead to hyperinflation OR the Nazis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR-4RTSJ_yo
9 Nov 2021 Correction. For some reason I mistook the name of A.P. Taylor as the one who was guilty of retelling Goebbels propaganda that Poles killed 58,000 German civilians interwar… it was actually Benton L. Bradberry who did this with his “The Myth of German Villainy.”
14 September 2021
(((Curtis Yarvin))), a.k.a. Mencius Moldbug is back; of “Dark Enlightenment” and “NeoReactionary” (((false opposition))) notoriety, Yarvin has recently appeared on Tucker Carlson and has even had a podcast posted at Mike Enoch Peinovich’s TRS (surprise, surprise – Not).
Annoyed by the rather obvious controlled opposition, I never delved deeply into Mencius Moldbug (((Curtis Yarvin))). Fortunately, he’s made his strategy clear, albeit not deliberately, but with a not very clever means of obfuscation.
Like all people following the script of the (((marketing agenda))) against “The Left”, as it serves Jewish power and influence in tandem with White right wing sell outs and liberals eager to take the license of pseudo objectivism, Curtis Yarvin is purporting to be objective and honest in his analysis of history and philosophy. It is basically the same angle generated by (((David Horowitz))) and particularly by (((Paul Gottfried))), as “the Left” that their (((tribe))) had been stewarding into a myriad of anti-White hyperbole, was intersecting potentially disastrously for them if Whites could figure out a White Left Ethnonational position in war of position against them and their right wing and liberal cooperators.
((Curtis Yarvin (mencius moldbug)))’s whole “Dark Enlightenment” was effectively an op against STEM types, to misdirect them as they were in the dark as to how White Post Modernity was supposed to work and were thus susceptible to the (((red caped))) misdirection of Post Modern ideas, wanting to grasp white knuckle to “scientific objectivity” in reaction, “neo reaction.”
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 14 Sep 2021 07:05 | #
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 14 Sep 2021 04:17 | #
Yes Daniel S . My mea culpa , mea maxima culpa . Lethargic Pole yokelry v Germanic IQ was WW 1
Ah yes, lethargic Poles and Belgians too, just let the high I.Q. Germans burn down their ancient libraries, cities and kill civilians, etc. Poor Germans, the eternal victims… so aggrieved in the condition of their I.Q., they, the others just cannot understand.. a good selling point if one wants to pander to the predominant White demographics of the USA, anyway.
(((Curtis Yarvin))) will give you an “unbiased” perspective that The Germans were just doing what they had to do, what was normal, or so his German wife, blonde mischling kids, and divide and conquer strategy of kissing German ass would have it (Yarvin, who claims to be White, a divide and conquer strategy of Germanophilic (((pandering))) shared by (((Paul Gottfried)))(Mr. “we need an Alternative Right” to counter “The” left (i.e. to disorganize and divide would-be White Left Ethnonationalism in its potential war of position against Jewish hegemony and complicit White right wingers and liberals); (((David Horowitz))) (Mr. I am no longer one of those horrible “Leftist” Cultural Marxists); (((David Cole Stein))) (((Mr. I am a proud German Jew and I hate Slavic Jews; and there is no Prussian blue colors on the walls at Auschwitz) and to some extent (((Gilad Atzmon))) (Mr. I hate Israel, sympathize with Germans and basically think the world should be a borderless liberal jazz fest against a veneer of pseudo Heideggerism).
But you know, (((Yarvin))) “proves” that he is unbiased in his take by suggesting that Hitler was gay, and that he has nothing to gain in taking that “bold’ position.
It is rather the case that Hitler’s idol, Frederick the Great, was a homo… maybe sought to prove his manhood by stealing the Polish land that Hitler was aggrieved to have seen returned by the Versailles treaty; while an entire Jewish media, operating in an indifferent market abets the myth that Germany necessarily suffered injustice in the way Versailles drew the borders; veritably always beginning history at 1919.
Yes, the lethargic Poles, it took their cryptographers until sometime in the early 1930s to crack Enigma, the Nazi secret coding machine.
Related Story:
Here’s How Breitbart And Milo Smuggled Nazi and White Nationalist Ideas Into The Mainstream
……
anina@Ojdadana
·
Hitler’s Obersalzberg Speech
22 August 1939 – a week before the German invasion of Poland, Adolf #Hitler addresses Wehrmacht commanders at his #Obersalzberg home. The speech details in particular the pending German invasion of #Poland and a planned extermination of Poles. #WW2
In this episode of “Modern Politics” by Warren Balogh and Emily Youcis July 18th 2021
They discuss the changes that Vatican 2 made which disrupted the Catholic church’s capacity for ethnocentric resistance to Jewry and liberalism more broadly
https://www.bitchute.com/video/6KK6d65tfAd8/
While Warren and Emily are quite intelligent and logical in many respects in their advocacy of White people and criticism of non-White opposition, their subscription to the redemption of Hitler and Nazi Germany rests on a significant error in judgment. At this point in the discussion – 37:10 – they discuss the liberal changes that came not only with Vatican 2 but with other significant law and cultural changes around 1965 to rupture White ethnocentrism.
Warren goes along with the natural fallacy of the Nazi argument for war along with their other pseudo justifications (and Emily agrees) in misrepresentation and vilification of the other European nations to say::
Warren Balogh; “People say that politics is downstream from culture, I emphatically, categorically, completely, utterly reject that. Everything, culture, runs downstream from politics; in this case, geopolitics, in this case the outcome of the Second World War. Everything can be traced back to the outcome of the Second World War” [Emily Youcis – “Yeah”]
Baloch continues: “What our job is to do is to basically to reverse the outcome of the Second World War in geopolitical terms.”
ALT-RIGHT LIES: HITLER’S DEMANDS AGAINST POLAND WERE “FAIR AND JUST”
https://affirmativeright.blogspot.com/2021/04/alt-right-lies-hitlers-demands-against.html#more
…..I’ve also heard that the Poles originally proposed a highway from Germany to Danzig.
…. While the Poles did not get their way either, in that Danzig was made A NEUTRAL CITY by Versailles – where Germans were free to live, as they did in majority AT THAT POINT IN HISTORY – the Poles took it upon themselves to develop the port city of Gynia for themselves.
The Hossbach Memorandum PROVES Hitler Wanted to Wage a War of Aggression: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N8nuPdV5Ow
TIK, Oct 12, 2020
99IronDuke gives a detailed, honest and accurate discussion of who was most responsible for starting WWII. Very much a relief by contrast to the pro-Nazi nonsense coming out of America. His point that Germany had only been a nation since 1871 is particularly enjoyable compared to the kind of things that Nazi assholes like Carolyn Yeager will say to smear the historical integrity of other European nations in order to try to redeem Hitler and Nazi Germany.
The Origins of WWII
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwcYOj1YN6c
Did Poland bring on her own Destruction in 1939 because of her Aggressive Foreign Policy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DV20f1d6hI
The traditional western narrative suggests that Poland was beset on both sides by two aggressive powers. Whereas, two other narratives (including the Soviet one, which Vladimir Putin champions) attempt to claim that Poland’s aggressive foreign policy resulted in her own destruction. In today’s question, I’m going to explain why the traditional western narrative makes more sense than the other two. Thanks to Rene Malmgren for today’s question!
In listening to recent podcasts that Tom Sunic and Mark Weber participated in, it occurred to me that they share heavily in belaboring two focuses which are in fact the last thing that WN needs.
They are historians with a Germanophilic perspective.
To tell them that to get caught up in history and Germanophilia spilling over to over-Nazi sympathy is not what we need – given its way over valued currency for decades now in a heavily Germanic population of the US – is to tell them to not do what they’ve devoted their lives to doing.
Nevertheless, history, especially from the angle that they’re pursuing it – in redemption of German esteem, even if it means focusing blame on the Allies and not Hitler for WWII and its aftermath – is the last thing that we need. It has been the hegemonic currency of the reactionary, predominantly German American audience for the (semblance of) WN perspective as it seeks defense from PC persecution.
…
A recent gay podcast by Greg Johnson, Millennial Woes, fawning after hunky right wing Nazism as they would included Frodi Mijord and Nazi redemptionist Mark Weber to their round table.
Mark Weber made the fallacious argument that The US and USSR’s victory of over Nazi German was a victory, the first victory, for universalism over European particularism.
Weber is, of course, a hack, whose concern to redeem Nazi Germany has him framing things an a way convenient to him.
In fact, universalism and Jewry’s use of it goes back millennia, to the hijacking of our moral order and replacing it with Christianity, a universal religions and also to the Enlightenment, Cartesian thinkers who’s universalizing can be said, accurately, to be in response to Jewry but nevertheless, long predate the defeat of Nazism.
Mark Weber quotes somebody to say that western civilization died at Stalingrad. Well, if so, take it Hitler.
Was Hitler’s concern really the protection of European particularity against universalism? Obviously not. In fact, he was a German supremacist and imperialist.
Weber shares a problem with Tom Sunic, a problem for our requirements as European peoples.
And the problem is this, firstly, that they are both historians.
But telling Weber and Sunic the truth that looking back on history is 20/20 hindsight and that we should not be so preoccupied with it is like telling them to be done with their profession, their life’s work; nevertheless, there isn’t so much that we need to learn from history that remaining in history in our imaginations should occupy us. On the contrary, there are are a few essential lessons to be learned if we are to move forward in coordination if not cooperation as European peoples. Hitler redemptionism is the opposite of one of those lessons; ethnonational coordination as opposed to his epistemological blunder which spawned his unhinged, over the top imperial supremacism, and not to do it, is the lesson.
But the fact that the last thing we need to do is to be mired in history and epistemological blunder, dovetails with the second problem with these men committed to Historical review. They are both coming from not merely a German, but a Nazi sympathetic perspective. Sunic is of Croatian background. The Croatians were the last of the Axis coalition to surrender the Nazi cause.
Compounding with whatever predilection that Sunic has for admiring the poodle architecture, poodle music and so on of Frederick the Great Faggot, then, Sunic has found a market for his predilection in the predominantly German population of America, which is going to be happy to hear his editing of history; belaboring the losses of Germany and editing out the fact that in significant respects, this might be a just penalty for the injustice and damages done to other Europeans in their military campaigns though the past few hundred years.
Weber, a German American, is less sophisticated than Sunic, but pretty much the same in feeding two things that WN doesn’t need, a mire in history and Germanophilic wining.
Four times I tried to post this comment on a Youtube channel called “Exploring the Dark Side of Human Behavior”
I guess that she does Not really want to EXPLORE the dark side.
I believe that she claimed to want to open discussion; instead she is reconstructing the same old right wing misinformation and half information with this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rmehI9T2eY
Anyway, I tried to say, and I believe that I was fair enough:
There is a problem with newcomers to White advocacy which is that they often think that they are merely representing the untold, other side of the story that never gets told as opposed to the side of the YKW and their media which is only concerned with their victimization. But for those of us who have been looking for news and accounts through the perspective of White interests for decades, this “untold” story of the wonderfulness of the Nazis and of German victimization coupled with victimizer status attributed to all nations opposed to them is pretty much what you get from so-called White advocacy. You’ll hear a great deal about the fire bombing of Dresden and the Soviet rapes of German women; the expulsions of Germans from where they lived in the east prior to the war, with many being killed and dying in that process. And in the WN context there is almost nothing said to make even a show of balancing this off, discussing the cities that the Nazi Germans bombed to oblivion, the people, vast numbers of civilians included, that the Nazis murdered, in far greater numbers. How they were not the only people moved after the war and that it might be considered a nerve to complain, given that they started that horrific war in quest of “lebensraum” at other people’s expense.
And so I wonder if you think that you are doing a whole lot of good by reading such a passage without a little more balance and understanding of the decades of White Nationalist whining about German victimization only.
Now,I don’t need to doubt the truth of the story that you read. It is horrible and I cannot imagine enacting such sadism. The deaths of German civilians in Dresden are tragic as well and those who died while being expelled from the east, also terrible. It is terrible, but I will only add that maybe you would not yourself act with such sadistic revenge had your own family, friends and loved ones been killed by the Nazis, perhaps sadistically also.
True though lets assume that it is, it is a bit unfortunate that you focused on an episode where two Polish men (so called, and may be) enacted such horrific acts of sadism. I would not put it past a rogue element in Poles drunk with vodka and a will to revenge for their own loved ones murdered. However, for the sake of balance and truth just the same, you should know
Blaming Poland (and their alleged sadism toward German civilians) – to the point of insanely untrue propaganda, with wildly exaggerated numbers of German victims – was a critical feature of Nazi “justification” for the war. I probably shouldn’t call blaming Poland a cottage industry now, but it was then and some people, such as Thomas Goodrich, have adopted it – Nazi propaganda wholesale. Hitler asked for a survey of how many Germans were alleged to have been killed by Poles in the years prior to WWII and he was given a figure of 5,800 (some particular number, like 5,843 apparently to make it sound like a very precisely true tabulation). First of all, I don’t know where they came up with that number (which would be a lot); I might guess that they are counting Germans killed in the “WielkaPolksa Uprising” to take back Poznan (Poland’s ancient capital) and vicinity after WWI. But I don’t know. What I do know is this: Hitler told Goebbels to multiply the number by ten – 58,000 – and put it into the German/Nazi press in the weeks before the war in order to justify the Nazi invasion to the German public. In his “Greatest Story Never Told”, Thomas Goodrich slowly scrolls that number – 58,000 – down the screen for his audience to seethe in the Nazi propaganda. He even couples that “justification” for the invasion with the Bromberg incident which happened three days AFTER the Nazis invaded Poland. For which the Nazis enacted a policy of ten times the deaths of Poles in revenge – doesn’t mention that, nor the fact that the Nazis got exponential revenge for whatever grievances they may have had.
Enough revenge from both sides of the war.
And this is the concern that I bring to you – a newcomer to White advocacy. Do you think that you are doing good in promoting such a source as Goodrich or is this stirring up inter-European animosity? It seems to me the last thing that we need: so MUCH of this “untold” side of the story. It’s all you get for those of us looking for a White side of the story; i.e., we get the Nazi German side only.
Now, regarding the Polish sadists in this episode, lets assume that they were Polish and that the event was true as told. I wouldn’t say that there are no bad people in Poland, no people capable of such an act (although I cannot relate to such sadism, speaking as a half Pole from my mother’s side); as you said, there are good and bad people in all groups, even some evil people in all groups.
But in fact, to give you some orientation as the newbie that you are, I would, for example, like to discuss some bad experiences that I’ve had with Polish people (in addition to many good experiences) to provide balance – and I intend to do that, but it is very difficult given the Germano come Nazophilia of WN and the necessity its perspective requires of its advocates of blaming everyone else but the Nazis; and the WEIRD way these Nazi redemptionists carry on as if the Nazis could do no wrong and everyone else, The British, certainly the Poles, are to blame for everything. The fact that they are willing to lie, and with such unanimity, makes it difficult; one has to double down in defense of the other nations and it thus becomes difficult to join in the criticism of other nations, not because “you don’t want to realize that your people have bad members as well”… but because you cannot rely on them to be at all fair in return – the Nazi redemptionists are the weird ones who do not want to own up to the things that people of their nationality had done under the Nazi auspices. Even if (like myself) you have NO INTEREST WHAT SO EVER IN BLAMING GERMANS OF THIS GENERATION FOR THINGS THAT THEY HAVE NOT DONE AND ADVOCATE THEM AND THEIR NATION THE SAME AS ALL EUROPEAN PEOPLES.
Adding these paragraphs to the end of this piece:
Some Whites are going to ridiculous and tactless extremes of dishonesty in order to unburden themselves of guilt trips. And they want others to share in their stigmatic poofs and denials of Hitler’s innocence, to become hideous ghouls, fellow phantoms of the opera as they make of themselves.
If Jews are the every problem then Hitler was ostensibly justified, but if Jews are the every problem then it would also mean that we are not taking much inventory of our agency. Maybe they like not being human agents, that ostensibly justifies them too. The cost of taking us out of praxis will not work out, as it did not for Hitler after just a few years.
I talked with a fan of “No White Guilt” who said to me (and I doubt that No White Guilt would agree, but this guy said to me…)
… “everybody knows that Anti Whites means Jews”
I responded that actually, the good thing about the term Anti White is that it covers a lot of the White people and non-Jewish non-Whites who are against us, which is the harsh reality – it is not only Jews (our traitors, as it were, are the worst anti-Whites).
But Hitler idolaters often remain intransigent because if Jews are the every problem, THE mortal threat, that would apparently explain and unburden them of all guilt trips laid upon them; and by this ostensible exoneration of Hitler they ostensibly legitimize anything he’d done in order to find a solution.
Hence, they make themselves comfortable using a term like “holohoax” whereas people retaining their sanity recognize that association with that kind of terminology is hideously stigmatizing as being insanely dishonest and with creeping genocidal intent.
German and other prone White Americans can lack perspective, particularly under the duress of the PC onslaught (it isn’t funny), and be prone to take the false currency, which by itself pushes aside other European perspectives that they could otherwise share in to leverage their ethnonational innocence, instead blaming them also (putting them in adversarial position) and pushing straight back, over the top in doubled-down commitment to Nazi vindication.
The Nazis had a concept and they went for it; it didn’t work out well but they were of a previous generation with less knowledge and perspective than we might have, and we do not need to lay guilt trips on subsequent generations (nor do we need guilt trips from them in accordance with Nazi propaganda).
European peoples, especially of these subsequent generations, might rather share in the relative innocence of Polish ethnonationalism, for an example, legitimately insistent, as it were, after its persecution, ostensible elimination for a hundred years and then resurrection to the map as a sovereign nation.
In this sharing of perspective, our European brothers can take the ownmost innocence of their nationhood to coordinate among a brotherhood of European nations and peoples.
And they should partake in the perspective that the non guilt over ethnonationalism has to share, which I try to share.
I have a problem, however in trying to get this message across. Even though I am only half Polish, my mother was Polish American, father Italian American, and I live in Poland, the truth is, having been born and grown up there, I am culturally and of my worldview a White American. Despite the fact that I could not be a Polish chauvinist if I tried, blaming Poland and anti-Polinism (and anti-any nation that opposed the Nazis) is so integral to the pro-Hitler, pro Nazi platform and perspective, that it makes it impossible for some people to share in this perspective of ethnonational legitimacy and relative innocence.
I still have editing to do on this post. However, it is a personal idiosyncrasy of mine to need the potential embarrassment or approval of a live audience to inspire my vigilance with regard to corrections and improvements.