:: I'm sure you're aware, Fade, that widely different currents coexisted in British culture and politics.

Yes. After all, I am actually familar with the issue and can cite reputable scholars, unlike yourself, to support my case. So who was in control of British foreign policy in between the wars? Was it warmongerers out to get Germany, as mugwort has argued, or moralising do-gooders, as I have argued? On the British character in between the wars:

"In terms of British society at home, this transformation of national character was wholly beneficent. It was a great achievement of Victorian moralism to have softened British life and manners; to have created British civic virtue and self-discipline, and brought about standards of personal and public honesty unequalled in the world; to have rendered the law virtually self-enforcing; to have given the British their secular sense of the dignity and liberty of the individual, and, as a corollary, their sense of the individual's personal responsibility. Yet it was exactly because British life was now so orderly, gentle, docile, safe and law-abiding, so decent, so founded on mutual trust that the British were less fitted to survive as a nation than their ancestors, whose characters had been formed in a coarse, tough and brutal society. For the British made the fundamental mistake, catastrophic in all its consequences, of exporting their romantic idealism and their evangelical morality into international relations. They forgot that no other nation -- except perhaps for America -- had shared their own transforming religious experience; and that therefore no other nation now shared their world outlook. And so, in applying the qualities of gentleness, trustfulness, altruism and a strict regard for moral conduct to a sphere of human activity where cunning, cynicism, opportunism, trickery and force, all in the service of national self-interest, still held sway, the twentieth-century British stood disarmed and blinded by their own virtues.

In such a climate of opinion as now prevailed in Britain, a characteristic kind of person came to the forefront of national life. Men of hard mind and powerful will were not in tune with the prevailing taste, and, as the inter-war period went on, their prospects in various walks of life suffered accordingly. Even the newspaper cartoonists had replaced John Bull as the national symbol with meek suburban office-clerk figures like Strube's 'Little Man', and Poy's 'John Citizen'.

The home Civil Service, for example, encouraged the steady, safe, orthodox man of academic approach, rather than the man of, in the words of one senior civil servant, 'intense energy, great driving force and devouring zeal', a type of which he had known only four examples in his career in the service. In the Colonial Service too 'duty and chivalry are of more account than ambition and self-seeking'.

It was that demi-monde where political ideas are formulated and preached where flourished the men who above all reflected in themselves the character of the age. There was Lowes Dickinson, for example, a prominent supporter of the ideals of the League of Nations, described by a recent critic as 'politically naive. . . socially kind, and even, in a cautious and docile manner, rather romantic'. His personal qualities were, in the words of the same critic, 'gentleness, generosity and pathos . . . mellowed sentimentalism'. Lionel Curtis, once and imperialist, now an influential propagandist of world order and closer union of the English-speaking peoples, was nicknamed 'the Prophet'. 'It was not a bad appelation,' wrote Vincent Massey. 'He was moved always by a vision of what he thought could and should be done. No man could conceivably have been more sincere. . . .' The high-minded Curtis 'was obsessed with what he conceived to be his mission'. Phillip Kerr, Lord Lothian, was described by a friend and associate, Lord Brand, as being 'very absorbed . . . in trying to live the life of a Christian saint amid an otherwise very busy and active life'. Yet another saint manqué who commanded admiration and attention in the period was the consumptive fanatic of pacifism, Clifford Allen; a man, as the Mancester Guardian put it, 'frail and Shelley-like'.

And the very statesmen themselves who conducted England's foreign policy and imperial policies between the world wars were, if not saint manqués, then at least clergymen manqués. Ramsay MacDonald, for example, leader of the Labour Party, Prime Minister in 1924, and from 1929 to 1935

really was persuaded that 'our true nationality is mankind' . . . he really did believe that men were naturally good, that they could be brought into line though they looked like horses at a starting gate for ever facing opposite ways and savaging each other . . . In short and his own words [sic] he held that we were eternally moving in a great surge towards righteousness. And Arthur Henderson, Foreign Secretary in the second Labour government of 1929-31, 'had the faith of a child in noble dreams, and an unshakeable confidence in the ultimate goodness of a world that might look evil, but yet had something in it of the divine'.

Sir John Simon, National Liberal Foreign Secretary from 1931 to 1935, 'spent a successful life on earth without learning its ways, for he was unworldly though the reverse of other-worldly . . .' Lord Halifax, Foreign Secretary from 1937 to 1940, possessed a 'sweet and Christian nature'. Even Neville Chamberlain, himself perhaps the toughest and most matter-of-fact British politician to hold high office between the world wars, could argue:

Do not forget that we are all members of the human race. There must be something in common if only we can find it. An ancient historian once wrote of the Greeks that they made gentle the life of the world. I can imagine no nobler ambition for an English statesman than to win the same tribute for his country.Correlli Barnett, The Collapse of British Power (New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc, 1972), pp.63-65

:: That means that the facts that some British were "out to get" Germany and others were friendly to Germany are not mutually exclusive.

mugwort continues to make one astonishing claim after another. This last post of his has been a virtual blitzkrieg of unsupported a priori assertions. It would tremendously help mugwort's case and bolster his credibility, I believe, if he was able to cite the works of either reputable scholars or referred articles in scholarly journals to support his case. But I suspect the gallery will long be waiting for such evidence, for mugwort's ludicrous arguments have no basis in either history or reason, as we shall see.

:: Fade, you don't seem to get the fact that all these things you list do not negate facts that are proven.

But you have proven no facts here, mugwort. Do you even know what proof is? It is a process. Proof is not making outrageous claim after outrageous claim, accusation after accusation, suggestion after suggestion, that flies in the face of virtually all scholarship on the issue with no support whatsoever for such insinuations.

:: Yes, elected officials change, appointed officials change, individuals change their minds, or are forced to, or bribed to, or external circumstances change.

Are you suggesting here that British officials were bribed? If so, then SHOW US YOUR EVIDENCE. And lest I forget, cite a reputable source. Irving does not even agree with the tripe you have posted in this thread. You obviously need to be reminded of that. Do not waste our time with trash and conspiracy theories off the internet that no scholar anywhere takes seriously.

:: You could list a thousand things about how many pro-German things England at one point or another did.

Yes. I listed just almost a dozen separate incidents in my previous response that utterly refute your argument that the British were out to get or out to destroy the Germans. You tried to pathetically weasel out of all of that below, but as we shall see, you are not going to get away with your claims so easily here.

:: That kind of information, though, goes only to the sentencing, not the verdict, if certain individuals are found to have been instrumental in deliberately starting WWII.

The verdict of historians is virtually unanimous on this issue: Adolf Hitler was instrumental in inciting the Second World War. The seeds of World War 2 had long been sown in Hitler's romantic fantasy of expanding east at the expense of the Slavs since the 1920s. It was the pursuit of this chimera that led him straight into war with the Western Powers, who refused to stand by and let him abuse his weaker neighbours. He clung to this fantasy until the end of this life:

"The living space that he continually called for was not intended merely to provide food for a surplus population, to insure against "starvation and misery," and to receive a peasantry threatened by industry and trade. Rather, these territorial demands were a prelude to a program for world conquest. Every ambitious nation needed a certain amount of territory, enough to make it independent of alliances and the political alignments of a given period. Historical greatness was intimately connected with geographic extension. To this idea Hitler clung to the very last. Brooding in the bunker shortly before the end, he complained that fate had forced him into premature conquests because a nation without great space could not even set itself great goals."

Joachim C. Fest, Hitler (New York: Penguin Books, 2002), p.214

:: And whatever explanations you give for it, the primary evidence is right in front of us: Britain declared war on Germany over a local dispute

No one disagrees that Britain declared war on Germany, mugwort. Its not exactly like that is breaking news. What is in dispute here is why Britain declared war on Germany. I have shown in this thread (so there is no need for me to be redundant here), thoroughly documenting my argument in the process, that Great Britain declared war on Germany because the British were convinced (after Hitler tore up the Munich agreement) that he could no longer be trusted or reasoned with, that he was a dangerous warmongerer who was pursuing an expansionist policy at the expense of his weaker neighbours. So the British decided that it was best for his potential victims to stand up to him collectively rather than be isolated and singled out for destruction at a later date, as was the case with Czechoslovakia.

:: So you say that Britain made the pact with Poland in order to discourage Hitler from attacking Poland.

Yes. I did make that argument. And I cited the memoirs of Halifax to support it. On the other hand, you have made the insinuation that the guarantee to Poland was given because there was a British conspiracy against Germany. And while this flies in the face of reason (my last post) and contemporary scholarship (my citation of A.J.P Taylor) you have yet to support this argument with anyhing more than your crude accusations. Want more?

"The German occupation of Czechoslovakia finally shook English opinion awake from its beautiful twenty-year-old dream that the world was governed by morality and goodwill, and not by power and ambition. Even those most stubborn in self-delusion -- Lothian, Smuts, The Times -- at last perceived, like flat-earthers converted to Copernican astronomy, that moralising internationalism did not accord with the observable facts. The most notable convert of all was the Prime Minister himself. He announced his conversion to his Cabinet on 18 March: '. . . up to a week ago we had proceeded on the assumption that we should be able to continue with our policy of getting on to better terms with the Dictator Powers, and that although those powers had aims, those aims were limited'.

At the back of their minds, however, Chamberlain continued, there had been a reservation that this might not be the case, although it was right to try out the possibilities. 'He had now definitely come to the conclusion that Herr Hitler's attitude made it impossible to negotiate on the old basis with the Nazi regime.'

The Prime Minister said that he regarded his own Birmingham speech on 17 March -- 'any attempt to dominate the world by force was one which the Democracies must resist' -- as 'a challenge to Germany on the issue whether or not Germany intended to dominate Europe by force. It followed that, if Germany took another step in the direction of dominating Europe, she would be accepting the challenge'.

And in going on to discuss the new fear planted on 16 March by the Premier of Romania, who believed his country was next on Germany's list, Chamberlain argued: 'A German attempt to dominate Romania was, therefore, more than a question whether Germany would thereby improve her strategical position; it raised the whole question whether Germany intended to obtain dominatin over the whole of south-eastern Europe.' It was a demonstration how utterly his way of looking at things had changed since the previous March, when it had been Austria and Czechoslovakia which were in danger.

The Prime Minister therefore proceeded to put forward a new foreign policy -- viz., to see if Russia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Turkey and Greece would join with France and England in resisting any act of German aggression aimed at south-eastern Europe.

And so, in the third week of March 1939, England at last returned to the balance of power as the guiding principle of her diplomacy. Now, at the worst possible time, when the European equilibrium was already steeply tilted in Germany's favour, and tilting more and more every day as the German army grew, England set out to create the grand alliance which she had so bigotedly refused to contemplate since 1933, since the early 1920s indeed. But while she strove during the spring and summer to halt Germany's further expansion, she had also simultaneously to contend with all the other elements that were making for the collapse of British power -- the consequences of past folly and neglect, the competing and irreconcilable demands on England's inadequate strength, the burden and distraction of empire."

Correlli Barnett, The Collapse of British Power (New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc, 1972), pp.557-558

:: in which if you know much about it you know that there was a great deal of provocation on Poland's side

Let me take a wild guess:

"From the beginning of his regime Hitler had minimized the Polish question and in 1934 signed a ten-year non-aggression pact with Warsaw."

John Toland, Adolf Hitler (New York: Anchor Books, 1992), p.522

And we all know how the Führer can be trusted to stick to his word:

"The unexpected abrogation of a treaty he himself had so eagerly sought was followed by an equally devastating attack on Poland and cancellation of the Polish-German non-aggression pact since it had been "unilaterally infringed" by the Poles. Having torn up two treaties, Hitler proceeded to welcome new negotiations so long as they were on equal tersm. "No one," he said, "would be happier than I at the prospect."

Ibid., p.529

That is on top of the Versailles Treaty and the Munich Pact, to name a few. We can also include the Nazi-Soviet Pact, but we will get to that soon enough.

:: enough so that any country in Germany's position (except Germany, of course) would be considered by an objective party to have had ample cause. If you don't know this, it's time to find it out.

What was the cause of the whole brouhaha over Poland, mugwort?

"It was almost as if Hitler had received a license to risk war and the next day a confident Führer gathered the senior Wehrmacht officers in his study at the chancellory. The solution of Germany's economic problems, he explained, had somehow become inextricably tied to her difference with Poland. "Danzig is not the subject of this dispute at all. It is a question of expanding our Lebensraum in the East and of securing our food supplies, of the settlement of the Baltic problems."

Therefore Poland (which would always side with Germany's enemies despite treaties of friendship) must be destroyed. "We cannot expect a repetition of the Czech affair," he warned. "There will be war. Our task is to isolate Poland." He reserved to himself the right to give the final order to attack since battle with Poland would be successful only if the West stayed on the sidelines. "If this is impossible, then it will be better to attack in the West and settle Poland at the same time."

The contradiction puzzled his listeners and, while most were staggered by Hitler's words, faithful Keitel convinced himself that the Führer was only trying to show his commanders that their misgivings were unfounded and that war would not really break out. This despite Hitler's next words: a bald prediction of a "life and death" war against England and France. "The idea that we can get off cheaply is dangerous; there is no such possibility. We must burn our boats, and it is no longer a question of justice or injustice, but of life or death for eighty million human beings." The basic aim was to force England to her knees. "We shall not be forced into a war," he said, but we shall not be able to avoid one."

This was not the irrational ranting of a man possessed by the will to conquer but an admission that Germany could not continue as a great nation without war. Only the limitless resources of the East could save the Reich; and the alternative, accomodation with the West, entailed unacceptable risks. If he exposed to the world that he had been bluffing and shirked from the test of war, German prestige and power would deflate like a leaky balloon."

Ibid., p.531

:: I disagree: I think Britain made the pact so that after Poland, with plenty of encouragement, stirred up a war with Germany Britain would have an excuse to declare the war the Warmasters had been planning for a while.

Well then. SHOW US YOUR EVIDENCE. Who were these 'Warmasters'? Where is your PROOF of their supposed plot to destroy Germany? Were these 'Warmasters' the Chiefs of Staff?

"Contrary to what is sometimes supposed, however, the Cabinet had enjoyed the benefit of the advice of the Chiefs of Staff before offering their guarantee to Poland. The Chiefs of Staff had recommended that the British announcement should make clear that Britain would not intervene unless there had been a definite act of aggression against Polish territory; unless the Poles resisted and asked us for aid; and unless the French were fully committed with us."

Correlli Barnett, The Collapse of British Power (New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc, 1972), pp.561

Oh, I forgot. It was Lord Halifax all along, out to get Germany. :|

"As the summer progressed, the question of German designs on Poland still remained: a continual source of latent tension; thunder grumbling beneath the European horizon. On 4 July, in the Cabinet Foreign Policy Committee, Halifax canvassed the idea that Danzig as a Free City inside the Reich might satisfy Hitler without war."

Ibid., p.568

:: But so what?

The Sudeten Germans were a pretext to destroy Czechoslovakia. Hitler had no intention of negotiating in good faith over the issue either. His word was absolutely worthless and he could no longer be trusted. He proved that when he tore up the Munich agreement, after Great Britain and her statesmen made a noble effort to prevent Hitler from plunging all of Europe into war.

As the gallery can see above, Danzig was nothing more than another pretext for attacking and destroying the Polish state (as Hitler informed his own generals, to their astonishment).This was the suspicion of the British and French as well, which is why they refused to appease an aggressive state at the expense of its victims any longer.

:: That part is interesting, but it's the events of the late summer of '39 that are crucial.

Oh, I agree that that the events of the late summer of '39 are crucial. If we review the record, then we can see that Hitler was already clearly bent on destroying Poland. He made an agreement with the Soviets to do just that, or have you forgotten?

:: If whoever held the reins of British foreign policy in this matter had NOT wanted England to go to war with Germany, the agreement with Poland was no problem, since it had not been ratified by Parliament, and therefore didn't have the status of a treaty.

Why would England have desired to revoke the guarantee? The British conclusion that Hitler was using Danzig as a pretext to destroy Poland was a sound judgment. Mussolini sent Ciano that summer to meet with the Germans, to press for a peaceful solution to the crisis.

"At any rate, he acted like a carbon copy of Hitler as he peremptorily brushed aside all of Ciano's eloquent pleas for a peaceful solution. Finally Ciano asked what Ribbentrop wanted: the Corridor or Danzig? "Not that anymore," was the answer. "We want war."

John Toland, Adolf Hitler (New York: Anchor Books, 1992), p.538

Ribbentrop also told Ciano that the 'merciless destruction of Poland was inevitable'. And this led Ciano to conclude that:

'The decision to fight is implacable. He [Ribbentrop] rejects any solution which might give satisfaction to Germany and avoid the struggle'.

Ciano's Diary 1939-1945, ed. Malcolm Muggeridge, London and Toronto, 1947, p.124

:: If you think Britains's honor was at stake, because she had to keep her word, you're quite wrong; there are a million reasons that could have been proffered for not being bound to keep the agreement.

One of the purposes of this thread is to explain why Britain chose to keep the agreement, not why mugwort thinks the British should have groveled at Hitler's feet and bought into Germany's ridiculous propaganda, which is utterly irrelevent to British foreign policy viz Germany and Poland in 1939.

"Yet in point of fact no general discussion even took place in the Cabinet as to whether it would be expedient to fulfil the British guarantee to Poland. There were no prolonged and anguished debates such as had taken place during the Czechoslovakian crisis. Nor were the Chiefs of Staff asked for an assessment of the military implications of going to war over Poland. For throughout the Polish crisis there had been no doubt whatsoever in Chamberlain's mind, or in the mind of his Cabinet, or in the mind of Parliament and public, that there was only one course of action England could follow should Germany attack Poland: the course of action dictated by moral obligation. On 1 September, as news came of the bombing of Polish towns and the killing and maiming of women and children, Chamberlain told his colleagues '. . . the Cabinet met under the gravest possible conditions. The event against which they had fought for so long and so earnestly had come upon us. But our consciences were clear, and there should be no possible question now where our duty lay'.

Yet even now Chamberlain hoped that Hitler might consent to a conference, and thereby save England from a war which must, whatever its course, inevitably ruin her. The French government too, having seen France's military superiority stripped from her since 1929 epaulette by epaulette and medal by medal, not least owing to the well-meant offices of England, was even less keen to fight for Poland than for Czechoslovakia. While the very last possibilities of a conference were being pursued. England and France therefore delayed their declaration of war."

Barnett., p.574

:: Here are a few off the top of my head--and these are all absolutely factual

Well then. Does this ring a bell?

"He calmed down as if he had let off sufficient steam and quietly assured his guest that he had no desire to fight Britain and France. "I have no romantic aspiration," he said pleasantly, "no appetite for domination. Above all I seek nothing in the West. Neither today nor tommorrow," But he had to have a free hand in the East. "I must obtain a sufficient quantity of wheat for my country." He also needed a colony outside of Europe for timber. That was as far as his ambitions extended. "Once and for all," he said somberly, "it is necessary that your realize that I am ready to negotiate and discuss all these matters."

He reaffirmed that, given freedom in the East, he would happily conclude a pact with the British and guarantee all their possessions. This promise was obviously meant to be transmitted to London, as was the threat that followed. "Everything that I have in mind is directed against Russia; if the West is too stupid and blind to understand this then I will be forced to come to terms with the Russians, to crush the West and then after its defeat, turn with all my forces against the Soviet Union. I need the Ukraine so they can't starve us out as in the last war."

Toland, pp.536-537

:: I could probably come up with a list as long as your lists in this post if I started creating semi-plausible excuses which would be enough to cry off, in a pinch.

Good luck. The notion that Hitler intended to peacefully resolve the crisis is laughable.

"Then he became specific. Relations to Poland, he said, had become unbearable. "We are facing the alternative to strike or to be destroyed with certainty sooner or later." What could the West do? Either attack from the Maginot Line or blockade the Reich. The first was improbable and the second would be ineffective since now the Soviets would supply Germany with grain, cattle, coal, lead and zinc. "I am only afraid that in the last minute some Schweinehund will produce a plan of mediation!"

Ibid., p.543

Here is an excellent snapshot of the character of the two nations and regimes facing each other:

"From 30 January 1933 onwards the English had to deal with a government whose leader poured public scorn of the utmost brutality on the fundamental beliefs by which the English had come to live. In Nazi Germany and post-evangelical England the utterly incompatible products of two different strains of romanticism now confronted one another -- the German, with its mystical and atavistic outlook on race and nationhood, its obsession with power and domination, its neuortic love of violence; and the English, with its faith in the moral law, its vision of the brotherhood of man, its trust in the essential goodness of human nature, its pacific gentleness and compassion. Such a confrontation could only end in a tragedy of misunderstanding."

Barnett., p.386

:: Haha--I don't hold Irving's opinions sacrosanct.

That's not surprising, as you twist and distort history, which you see through the lens of your own political ideology.

:: Obviously he knows a whole lot more than I do on these subjects, but I have caught a few errors as well as what it seems to me may be mis- or perhaps over-interpretations.

Irving is a historian. He is not an ideologically motivated apologist for National Socialism. Irving does not deny what cannot be denied, as you do. Irving does not deny Hitler's ambition to expand to the east. No credible historian anywhere does because the evidence for it is overwhelming.

:: Aside from that, as far as I know, most of Irvin's writing on Hitler is about the period after the war started, at which time der Fuehrer would already have started dranging nach Osten, whether he had had such a policy in peacetime or not.

"Germany cannot hope to come into consideration in any way in this development. The entire mentality of current and future Russia is opposed to it. For Germany, a future alliance with Russia has no sense, neither from the standpoint of sober expediency nor form that of a human connection. On the contrary -- it is fortunate for the future that this development took place in this way, because it broke a spell that would have prevented us from seeking the goal of German foreign policy in the one and only place possible: space in the East."

Adolf Hitler as translated by Krista Smith, Hitler's Second Book: The Unpublished Sequel to Mein Kampf (New York: Enigma Books, 2003), pp.148-154

:: I think it's extremely important to distinguish between his outlook at the two different times, because in the prewar time it has a bearing on whether or not, during the peacetime he was planning to grab land through war and therefore was a threat to Europe, blabla.

I don't think its extremely important at all. He had pretty much the same outlook with respect to expanding east as he did in the 1920s. He made a treaty with Stalin merely for expediency -- to isolate Poland and in the hope it would prevent Britain and France from declaring war. So quite naturally, when France was defeated and Britain was hanging on by a thread, he turned on the Soviets and waged the one war he had always wanted to wage:

"For after so many complications, detours, and reversed fronts, this war in Russia was in every since his war. He waged it mercilessly, obsessively, and became increasingly neglectful of all other theaters."

Fest, p.649

:: I don't buy it . He didn't need it


13th October 1941, midday

"The countries we invite to participate in our economic system should have their share in the natural riches of the Russian regions, and they should find an outlet there for their industrial production. It will be sufficient to give them a glimpse of the possibilities, and they'll at once attach themselves to our system. Once this region is organised for us, all threat of unemployment in Europe will be eliminated."

"The river of the future is the Danube. We'll connect it to the Dnieper and the Don by the Black Sea. The petroleum and grain will come flowing toward us.

The canal from the Danube to the Main can never be built too beig.

Add to this the canal from the Danube to the Oder, and we'll have an economic circuit of unheard of dimensions.

Europe will gain in importance, of herself. Europe, and no longer America, will be the country of boundless possibilities. If the Americans are intelligent, they'll realise how much it will be to their interest to take part in this work.

There is no country that can be to a larger extent autarkic than Europe will be. Where is there a region capable of supplying iron of the quality of Ukrainian iron? Where can one find more nickel, more coal, more manganese, more molybedenum? The Ukraine is the source of manganese to which even America goes for its supplies. And, on top of that, so many other possibilities! The vegetable oils, the hevea plantations to be organised. With 100,000 acres devoted to the growing of rubber, our needs will be covered.

The side that wins this war will have to concern itself only with economic juggleries. Here, we're still fighting for the possession of the soil."

Hitler's Table Talk, pp.52-52

:: he was just gettin up to speed on a lot of the peacetime stuff he was doing. Germany was doing just great for the most part, as you know.

That's not true, at least in Hitler's worldview. He was convinced that for Germany to continue to exist as a great power, it must conquer great spaces. Germany is a very small country. It would not have been able to compete with the rising superpowers like the USA, USSR, and China in the long run without an expansionist war. He notes in The Table Talk, see above, that this policy is directed against America.

:: Troubles of ethnic German minorities beyond the Reich borders were a problem, of course, but that's a different thing.

The ethnic minorities beyond the borders of the Reich were nothing more than a pretext to justify an expansionist foreign policy at the expense of Germany's neighbours. This can be proven as well. For example, while the Sudetenland was returned to Germany and give a seal of international legitimacy, Hitler sent his troops into the rump of Czechoslovakia anyway. Furthermore, both Hitler and Ribbentrop admit above that they were not really interested in Danzig and the Polish Corridor, but acquiring living space for Germany. And finally, if that was not enough, Hitler turned his back on the Germans of the South Tyrol until Mussolini's government collapsed in Italy. He planned to resettle them either in Burgundy or in the East and made a passionate argument against turning Italy into an enemy over the issue in his unpublished foreign policy book, which I have cited above.

:: Plus Hitler was a bona fide vet from the miserable Great War. He didn't like war, lots of his highest officials felt the same, and moreover he knew the German people had just barely emerged from a horrendous two decades, and the last thing they needed was another war.

Night of 19th-20th August 1941

"For the good of the German people, we must wish for war every fifteen or twenty years. An army whose sole purpose is to preserve peace leads only to playing at soldiers -- compare Sweden and Switzerland. Or else it constitutes a revolutionary danger to its own country.

If I am reproached with having sacrificed a hundred or two hundred thousand men by reason of the war, I can answer that, thanks to what I have done, the German nation has gained, up to the present, more than two million five hundred thousand human beings. If I demand a tenth of this as a sacrifice, nevertheless I have given 90 percent. I hope that in ten years there will be from ten to fifteen million more of us Germans in the world. Whether they are men or women, it matters little: I am creating conditions favourable to growth."

Ibid., p.28

:: And he had plans for his European Union project, etc.

His idea of a European Union is a Europe under German jack boots. He was pursuing this fantasy as well:

"It's not tolerable that the life of the peoples of the Continent should depend upon England. The Ukraine, and then the Volga basin, will one day be the granaries of Europe. We shall reap much more than what actually grows from the soil. It must not be forgotten that, from the time of the Tsars, Russia, with her hundred and seventy million people, has never suffered from famine. We shall also keep Europe supplied with iron. If one day Sweden declines to supply any more iron, that's all right. We'll get it from Russia. The industry of Belgium will be able to exchange its products -- cheap articles of current consumption -- against the grain from those years. As for the poor working-class families of Thuringia and the Harz mountains, for example, they'll find vast possibilities there."

Ibid., pp.28-29

:: It's such a waste when all the talk about Hitler is "Drang nach Osten! Ubermensch! We must be ruthless! Survival of the fittest! Untermensch! Achtung!!"[/i]


But its not a waste. And why is that:

1.) It was the basis of his entire foreign policy. In order to truly make Germany a great power, he had to conquer territory in the East at the expense of the Slavs. Otherwise, Germany would decline in power viz Russia and America. Geopolitically, this argument makes perfect sense.

2.) He thought he was justified in this course of action because:

a.) history shows that struggle between peoples is natural and unavoidable.
b.) science has shown that the Slavs are racial mongrels.
c.) he believed that Germany was culturally superior to its Eastern neighbours.
d.) his responsibility is the to the German people, not to either morality or his conscience.
e.) bolshevism was a threat.
f.) panslavism shows that the Slavs are invariably anti-German.

:: It takes up the space that could be used for more nuanced topics. That's one reason I'd like to get some of the persistent propaganda schlock out of the picture, and strip down the person of Hitler to what was actually there, to the degree it's possible--good, bad, or indifferent.

I would say it is a tad hypocritical for one who relies upon the German Ministry of Propanganda to make the pretense that he has a problem with propaganda. As David Irving pointed out, one of the most reliable and fascinating sources that allows us to get a glimpse of Hitler's worldview is the Table Talk (which I have extensively quoted, much to your irritation). I have buttressed my argument with excerpts from the Goebbels' Diaries. So there you have it, straight from the horse's mouth, in their own words. I have cited primary sources wherever possible.

:: Huh? Oh. Please itemise.

Alright. But lets stick with our general theme in the process:

"At the Kroll Opera House Hitler was addressing the Reichstag. He had been greated with tremendous applause, except from the diplomatic section, and his words were received with rapt attention. The UP correspondent, Richard Helms, a recent graduate of Williams College, was watching Hitler "like a hawk." After a long preamble on the inequities of the Treaty of Versailles and the dire need for Lebensraum, the Fuhrer's delivery seemed to slow down."

Toland, p.384

:: Can't comment.

That's what I thought. But I suppose Mein Kampf is a forgery too, right? :|

"The boundries of the year 1914 mean nothing at all for the German future. Neither did they provide a defence of the past, nor would they contain any strength for the future. Through them the German nation will neither achieve its inner integrity, nor will its sustenance be safeguarded by them, nor do these boundries, viewed from the military standpoint, seem expedient or even satisfactory, nor finally can they imporve the relation in which we at present find ourselves toward the other world powers, or, better expressed, the real world powers. The lag behind England will not be caught up, the magnitude of the Union will not be achieved; not even France would experience a material diminuation of her world-political importance."

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf trans. by Karl Manheim(Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999), p.651

:: Written 15 years before the war, in prison after the Beerhall Putsch!

Yet he was of the same opinion in 1942, just as he was in 1927:

"It's absurd to try to suppose that the frontier between the two separate worlds of Europe and Asia is marked by a chain of not very high mountains -- and the long chain of the Urals is no more than that. One might just as well decree that the frontier is marked by one of the great Russian rivers. No, geographically Asia penetrates into Europe without any sharp break.

The real frontier is the one that separates the Germanic world from the Slav world. It's our duty to place it where we want it to be.

If anyone asks us where we obtain the right to extend the Germanic space to the East, we reply that, for a nation, her awareness of what she represents carries this right with it. It's success that justifies everything. The reply to such a question can only be of an empirical nature.

It's inconceivable that a higher people should painfully exist on a soil too narrow for it, whilst amorphous masses, which contribute nothing to civilisation, occupy infinite tracts of a soil that is one of the richest in the world. We painfully wrest a few metres from the sea, we torment ourselves cultivating marshes -- and in the Ukraine an inexhaustibly fertile soil, with a thickness, in places, of ten metres of humus, lies waiting for us.

We must create conditions for our own people that favour its multiplication, and we must at the same time build a dike against the Russian flood.

If this war had not taken place, the Reich would scarcely have increased its population during the next ten years, but the Russian population would have grown vigourously.

The earth continues to go round, whether it's the man who kills the tiger or the tiger who eats the man. The stronger asserts his will, its the law of nature. The world doesn't change; its laws are eternal."

Hitler's Table Talk, pp.37-38

:: I see no reason at all to think that so much later, and dealing with the realities of being a head of state he would have the same ideas.

This is refuted by both:

a.) The Table Talk
b.) His unpublished foreign policy book.
c.) his actions in the Eastern Territories. See Harvest of Despair: Life and Death in Ukraine under Nazi Rule by Karel C. Berkhoff (2004) for the most recent scholarly exposition on this issue.

:: And the proof of it is his actions, which speak louder than words.

There is a positive correlation between his words, his actions, and his policies.

:: If he had seriously planned a great expansion in any direction, he would have begun making necessary preparations--first of all, investing more time, money, and labor in armaments than he in fact did, so as to be halfway ready for such a venture.

But he was planning a great expansion based on his notion that Germany could not survive as a great power unless it conquered enough living space to contain Russia and eventually check unbridled American power. An enormous amount of money and time WAS invested in both labour and armaments.

:: To me this is insurmountable. Talk is cheap.

From the introduction to Harvest of Despair:

"Adolf Hitler and his followers in the National Socialist German Workers' Party wanted to create a united Europe from the British Isles to the Ural Mountains. In this German Reich a national community of common German ancestry would reign supreme and there would be no Jews, no Russians, and no other allegedly harmful peoples. Well before World War II, in pursuit of this racial utopia, Hitler believed that less the Germans acquired additional Lebensraum, or "living space," they would become extinct. To Hitler and his followers, eastern Europe was particularly appealing for expansion, because it held the promise of a rural Germanic lifestyle that Nazi ideology glorified but was disappearing from Germany itself, the most industrially developed country in Europe. In the "East" the German "race" would return to its agrarian roots and regenerate itself. Moreover, the raw materials from these lands would foster the economic independence of the Third Reich. Deeply frustrated by the outcome of World War I, Hitler confided to a representative of the League of Nations, just before he unleashed World War II, that Germany needed Ukraine, or else it could be "starved into submission again."

Other peoples were living in the eastern Lebensraum, but that did not change Nazi plans. Germans were not to go hungry under any circumstances. Ukraine's Nazi Commissar, Erich Koch, consistently ordered his subordinates to obtain the planned agricultural deliveries at all cost and to disregard the predicament of the native population. But famine among the local people was more than just a side effect. The elimination of the native people -- with the exception of the ethnic Germans -- whether in the short or the long term, was an integral part of Hitler's way to provide the German "race" with a clean slate and the German economy with a sound foundation. The task of the Ukrainian peasants was to help the Nazi state win the war through their labour; but meanwhile Germans would start settling the area as farmers, recreating an agrarian Germany and stregthening the German "race." Along the way, the native population somhow had to disappear."

Karel C. Berkhoff, Harvet of Despair: Like and Death in Ukraine under Nazi Rule (Cambridge: The Belknap Press, 2004), pp.1-2

:: I'd have to know when the statements you're talking about were made, as well as the source.

Year: 1928
Source: Adolf Hitler as translated by Krista Smith, Hitler's Second Book: The Unpublished Sequel to Mein Kampf (New York: Enigma Books, 2003), pp.175-274

:: He was perforce involved in the war on the Eastern Front--which was not undertaken to conquer eastern lands, but in defense against Stalin, who indubitably had planned an invasion of Western Europe, wiping out Germany, on the way.

That is utterly false. See post #38 in the Polish Corridor thread, which you utterly ignored. Hitler explains his reasons for launching the invasion of the East. It would appear I need to refresh your memory:

"The struggle for the hegemony of the world will be decided in favour of Europe by the possession of Russian space. Thus Europe will be an impregnable fortress, safe from all threat of blockade. All this opens up economic vistas which, one may think, will incline the most liberal of the Western democrats towards the New Order.

The essential thing, for the moment, is to conquer. After that everything will be simply a question of organisation.

When one contemplates this primitive world, one is convinced that nothing will drag it out of its indolence unless one compels the people to work. The Slavs are a mass of born slaves, who feel the need of a master. As far as we are concerned, we may think that the Bolsheviks did us a great service. They began by distributing the land to the peasants, and we know what a frightful famine resulted. So they were obliged, of course, to reestablish a sort of feudal regime, to tbe benefit of the State. But there was this difference, that, whereas the old style landlord knew something about farming, the political commissar, on the other hand, was entirely ignorant of such matters. So the Russians were jsut beginning to give their commissars appropriate instruction.

If the English were to be driven out of India, India would perish. Our role in Russia will be analogous to that of England in India.

Even in Hungary, National Socialism could not be exported. In the mass, the Hungarian is as lazy as the Russian. He's by nature a man of the steppe. From this point of view, Horthy is right in thinking that if he abanonded the system of great estates, production would rapidly decline.

Its the same in Spain. If the great domains disappeared, famine would prevail.

The German peasant is moved by a liking for progress. He thinks of his children. The Ukrainian peasant has no notion of duty.

There is a peasantry comparable to ours in Holland, and also in Italy, where every inch of ground is zealously exploited -- also, to a certain extent, in France.

The Russian space is our India. Like the English, we shall rule this empire with a handful of men.

It would be a mistake to claim to educate the native. All that we could give him would be a half-knowledge -- just what's needed to conduct a revolution!

It's not a mere chance that the inventor of anarchism was a Russian. Unless other peoples, beginning with the Vikings, had imported some rudiments of organisation into Russian humanity, the Russians would still be living like rabbits. One cannot change rabbits into bees or ants. These insects have the faculty of living in a state of society -- but rabbit's haven't.

If left to himself, the Slav would never have emerged from the narrowest of family communities.

The Germanic race created the notion of the State. It incarnated this notion into reality, by compelling the individual to be a part of a whole. It's our duty to continually arouse the forces that slumber in our people's blood.

The Slav peoples are not destined to live a cleanly life. They know it, and we would be wrong to persuade them of the contrary. It was we who, in 1918, created the Baltic countries and the Ukraine. But nowadays we have no interest in maintaining Baltic States, any more than in creating an independent Ukraine. We must likewise prevent them from returning to Christianity. That would be a grave fault, for it would be giving them a form of organisation.

I am not a partisan, either, of a university at Kiev. It's better not to teach them to read. They won't love us for tormenting them with schools. Even to give them a locomotive to drive would be a mistake. And what stupidity it would be on our part to proceed to a distribution of land! In spite of that, we'll see to it that the natives live better than they've lived hitherto. We'll find amongst them the human material that's indispensible for tilling the soil.

We'll supply grain to all in Europe who need it. The Crimea will give us its citrus fruits, cotton and rubber (100,000 acres of plantation would be enough to ensure our independence).

The Pripet marshes will keep us supplied with reeds.

We'll supply the Ukrainians with scarves, glass beads and everything that colonial peoples like.

The Germans -- this is essential -- will have to constitute among themselves a closed society, like a fortress. The least of our stable-lads must be superior to any native.

For German youth, this will be a magnificent experiment. We'll attract to the Ukraine Danes, Dutch, Norwegians, Swedes. The army will find areas for manoeuvres there, and our aviation will have the space it needs.

Let's avoid repeating the mistakes committed in the colonies before 1914. Apart from the Kolonialgesellschaft, which represents the interests of the state, only the silver interests had any chance of raising their heads there.

The Germans must acquire the feeling for the great, open, spaces. We msut arrange things so that every German can realise for himself what they mean. We'll take them on trips to the Crimea and the Caucasus. There's a big difference between seeing these countries on the map and actually having visited them.

The railways will serve for the transport of goods, but the roas are what will open the country for us.

Today everybody is dreaming of a world peace conference. For my part, I prefer to wage war for another ten years rather than be cheated thus of the spoils of victory. In any case, my demands are not exorbitant. I'm only interested, when all is said, in territories where Germans have lived before.

The German people will raise itself to the level of this empire."

:: Once he was involved in the war in the east, it's natural he might make plans, but that's quite different from having a Drang nach Osten policy before the war took the German troops there.

This argument has been utterly refuted in this thread. I have provided the gallery with overwhelming massive evidence of Hitler's premediated intention to expand to the east from Mein Kampf to the launching of Barbarossa. You have done nothing but make laughable unsupported assertions.

:: Basically, yeah--in that I don't believe he had expansionist plans until circumstances of the war, which was not of his choosing, put the territories in his hands. That's an example of policies changing as circumstances change

You have no basis whatsoever upon which to make this assertion either. Hitler himself refutes it in his essay From Unification of the Reich to a Policy of Space. And before you waste your breath:

Source: Adolf Hitler as translated by Krista Smith, Hitler's Second Book: The Unpublished Sequel to Mein Kampf (New York: Enigma Books, 2003), pp.51-57

"However, the expansion of a people's Lebensraun to obtain bread will, in the future, also always require the commitment of a people's full strength. If it is the task of domestic policy to prepare for this commitment, then it the task of foreign policy to lead it in such a way that the greatest possible success appears assured. But this is determined not only by the strength of the people wishing to act, btu also by the force of the opposition. The imbalance in the strength of the peoples sturggling against each other for land always leads to the attempt, by way of unions, either to conquer or to resist the superior conquerer."

Ibid., p.52

:: Authentic what? What Hitler actually said? The provenance can be authenticated, but unless (and possibly even if) it's a recording, it's virtually impossible to be sure it's what he actually said.

The Table Talk is authenticed in the Preface:

"Rauschning may have yielded at times to journalistic temptations, but he had opportunties to record Hitler's conversations and the general tenor of his record too exactly forestall's Hitler's later utterances to be dismissed as fabrication. It is not to be dismissed like Josef Greiner's book, which I mention tangentially but is now discredted as a source on Hitler's life in Vienna."

Hitler's Table Talk, p.x

Note: The authenticity of Hitler's Table Talk is almost universally accepted amongst historians, David Irving included. See Petr's post for more on that.

:: And does this mean you see no difference between the ones possibly manipulated by Picker and those by Heim, which are most likely accurate?

mugwort engages in suggestion here, a well known propaganda technique. He does not any grounds to assert any 'possibly', so in the absence of support to butress his claim, the gallery can dismiss his suggestion as arbitrary.

:: Two thirds of the deaths in the camps were in the last month or so of the warand the first month or so of the occupation.


mugwort sets up and attacks a straw man. My argument is actually that the United States was not controlled by the Jews because it did so little to save them.

:: Which organized Jewish community?

British and American Jewry. After all, according to mugwort, Franklin Roosevelt was supposedly a 'pawn of the Jews'. So was Lord Halifax and Neville Chamberlain. But anyway, here is some more info on Chamberlain's ZOG government:

"Most appeals for rescue included the call for opening the gates of Palestine. The 550,000 Jews there constituted the only society on earth willing to take in masses of Jewish refugees. But the British government, which held the mandate over Palestine, had all but closed it to Jewish immigration in 1939."

David S. Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-1945 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1984), p.157

Does anyone else see the irony in so-called Jewish puppets slamming the door to Palestine shut in the midst of the greatest crisis in Jewish history?

:: The ones holding the purse-strings of the war?

Is that so?

"Although some signs of despair appeared before April 1943, it was the Bermuda Conference that destroyed hope. The early efforts for government rescue action had failed to breach Washington's "walls of indifference."

Ibid., p.176

:: Anyway, as you see, World Jewry is not monolithic.

I agree.

"Zionism at that time was still a minority movement among American Jews."

Ibid., p.1960

:: Just because some powerful international Zionists wanted a blood sacrifice for Israel doesn't mean all the Jews did by any means.

Please give us the names of the power international Zionists who wanted a blood sacrifice for Israel, the ones who controlled the American government. But that doesn't make sense does it:

"A man of Hitler's political cunning, if he paid more attention to American affairs, or even listened to his often astute ambassador in Washington, Hans Dieckhoff, would have had some idea of the mortal danger that Roosevelt's America, uniquely of all the countries in the world, posed to Nazi Germany. He would then, presumably, have behaved more cautiously. Hitler realised only when he was half way to military defeat and personal physical extinction what a threat to him Roosevelt was and always had been. Hitler's defective political judgment in an area where he was usually very astute was probably aggravated by his contempt for Roosevelt's illness and his preoccupation with the presence of Zionist Jews (i.e. Cohen and Frankfurter) in Roosevelt's entourage and "Negroes" on his domestic staff.

In general Roosevelt was influenced by no one, only by the impact of events upon his idea of the United States as the world's predestined nation, and of himself as recipient of both a divine and popular mandate to lead his country to the pinnacle of benign power, where he had always known it belonged. In addition to his being almost as objectively good in his purposes -- if not always in his methods -- as Hitler was evil in his, Roosevelt was an ambitious visionary and as artistic, if more scrupulous, as Machiavellian as Hitler. In the middle of 1938 these facts were known to, and probably suspected by, no one except the grand and enigmatic occupant of the White House."

Conrad Black, Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom (New York: Public Affairs, 2003), pp.450-452

:: You bet. Though I don't think the clueless asshole necessarily knew what he was doing, or for whom.

Roosevelt was 'controlled by the Jews' but:

1. The American State Department and the British Foreign Office had no intention of rescuing large numbers of European Jews. On the contrary, they continually feared that Germany or other Axis nations might release tens of thousands of Jews into Allied hands. Any such exodus would have placed intense pressure on Britain to open Palestine and on the United States to take in more Jewish refugees, a situation the two great powers did not want to face. Consequently, their policies aimed at obstructing rescue possibilities and dampening public pressures for government action.

2. Authenticated information that the Nazis were systematically exterminating European Jewry was made public in the United States in November 1942. President Roosevelt did nothing about the mass murder for fourteen months, then moved only because he was confronted with political pressures he could not avoid and because his administration stood onthe brink of a nasty scandal over its rescue policies.

3. The War Refugee Board, which the President then etablished to save Jews and other victims of the Nazis, received little power, almost no cooperation from Roosevelt or his administration, and grossly inadequate government funding. (Contributions from Jewish organisations which were necessarily limited, covered 90 percent of the WRB's costs.) Through dedicated work by a relatively small number of people, the WRB managed to help save approximately 200,000 Jews and at least 20,000 non-Jews.

4. Because of State Department administrative policies, only 21,000 refugees were allowed to enter the United States during the three and one half years the nation was at war with Germany. That amounted to 10 percent of the number who could have been legally admitted under the immigration quotas during that period.

5. Strong popular pressure for action would have brought a much fuller government commitment to rescue and would have produced it sooner. Several factors hampered the growth of public pressure. Among them were anti-Semitism and anti-immigration attitudes, both widespread in American society in that era and both entrenched in Congress; the mass media's failure to publicize Holocaust news, even though the wire services and other news sources made most of the information available to them; the near silence of the Christian churches and almost all of their leadership; the indifference of most of the nation's political and intellectual leaders; and the President's failure to speak out on the issue.

6. American Jewish leaders worked to publicize the European Jewish situation and pressed for government rescue steps. But their effectiveness was importantly diminished by their inability to mount a sustained or unified drive for government action, by diversion of energies into fighting among the several organisations, and by failure to assign top priority to the rescue issue.

7. In 1944 the United States War Department rejected several appeals to bomb the Auschwitz gas chambers and the railroads leading to Auschwitz, claiming that such actions would divert essential airpower from decisive operations elsewhere. Yet in the very months that it was turning down the pleas, numerous massive American bombing raids were taking place within fifty miles of Auschwitz. Twice during that time large fleets of American heavy bombers struck industrial targets in the Auschwitz complex itself, not five miles from the gas chambers.

8. Analysis of the main rescue proposals put forward at the time, but brushed aside by government officials, yields convincing evidence that much more could have been done to rescue Jews, if a real effort had been made. The record also reveals that the reasons repeatedly invoked by government officials for not being able to rescue Jews could be put aside when it came to other Europeans who needed help.

9. Franklin Roosevelt's indifference to so momentous an historical event as the systematic annihilation of European Jewry emerges as the worst failure of his presidency.

10. Poor though it was, the American rescue effort was better than that of Great Britain, Russia, or the other Allied nations. This was the case because of the work of the War Refugee Board, the fact that American Jewish organisations were willing to provide most of the WRB's funding, and the overseas rescue operations of several Jewish organisations."

David S. Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-1945 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1984), pp.x-xi

Furthermore, here is an interesting excerpt from Halifax's memoirs on Roosevelt:

"When I did stop, the President said to me "Did you ever see the telegram I sent to Chamberlain at the time of Munich?" I said I supposed I had seen it, but would he refresh my mind? "The shortest telegram I ever sent," said the President, "two words: 'Good man.'" All of which throws a different and good deal less dramatic light on the President's feeling about Chamberlain than that which has been sometimes ascribed to him."

Lord Halifax, Fullness of Days (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1957), p.197

:: For one thing, I think he believed the propaganda about Hitler being mad.

I believe I recall many of his generals later making the same argument. :|

:: Also, he had his own selfish reasons for wanting to be in the war, with the US economy going down the toilet, and him wanting to serve a third term and be a war president..

Is mugwort retreating from his claim that FDR was controlled by the Jews?

:: Not so mysterious once you realize the Zionists didn't want them to--right?

Its very mysterious since Zionism did not become appealing to the majority of American Jews until the '67 war. American Jewry was committed to the rescue effort however, yet European Jewry was not allowed to immigrate to the U.S. en masse.

:: That part is easy--that's how long it took for FDR to drag the American public with him.

Why didn't Jewish controlled America intervene much earlier, mugwort?

:: He'd actully been waging undeclared war on Germany for quite a while, but the people refused to get outraged when he would provoke incidents at sea with the Germans. The US was strongly anti-interventionist, largely owing to the revelations that had come out about WWI and how pointless it had been and how deceitful the propaganda had been. Because of that he finally had to manipulate the Japanese into bombing Pearl Harbor, so there would be enough casualties to get a reaction. But you knew all this, didn't you?

I agree with all of this, but this does not necessitate in the slightest some mysterious ZOG to drag the U.S. into the Second World War, an argument which you have failed to support with any evidence whatsoever. You basically recapitulated my argument there from the other thread.

:: What makes you think anyone in charge gave a **** about the Jews at any point in the conflict. That's not the kind of thing wars are fought for.

So now America wasn't fighting the war for the Jews after all? The gallery should take note of mugwort's utter inability to explain how the U.S. was controlled by the Jews but 'ZOG' did not make any real effort to come to their aid.

:: The evidence of his actions is in the diplomatic records. You'll see. I make no claims of knowing his motives.

I am not seeing this, mugwort. I doubt the gallery is either.

"It was, however, as the records make clear, the particular aim of Chamberlain and Halifax to avoid such a division of Europe into opposing coalitions, no matter whether founded on considerations of power or ideology."

Barnett, p.538

:: It would have been much smarter to have someone with a lower profile do the dirty work, don't you think?

So as part of this Jewish conspiracy, in support of which you have provided not credible evidence, Lord Halifax sought to have Danzig included in the Reich as a free city in order to deter Hitler from war?

"As the summer progressed, the question of German designs on Poland still remained: a continual source of latent tension; thunder grumbling beneath the European horizon. On 4 July, in the Cabinet Foreign Policy Committee, Halifax canvassed the idea that Danzig as a Free City inside the Reich might satisfy Hitler without war."

Ibid., p.568

:: So the impression could be, as it has been, that the failure of diplomacy was just unfortunate, or Hitler was just stubborn, or bent on war, etc. That way no blame would fall on England for the war.

Perhaps there are good and solid reasons in support of this assessment that refute the idea of some sort of Jewish conspiracy controlling Lord Halifax. Jew-controlled Halifax:

"Chamberlain had more hope from direct negotiations with the dictators. On his encouragement, Halifax had already visited Germany and had assured Hitler that Danzig, Austria, and Czechoslovakia could be settled in Germany's favour, provided that there were no 'far-reaching distrubances' -- that is, without war."

A.J.P. Taylor, English History, 1914-1945 (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965), p.422

:: He played a double game, in which he encouraged the Poles not to negotiate with Germany, while he was pretending to Germany that he was encouraging them to cooperate.

Pardon me, but as usual, you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about:

"But even the British government were losing patience with the Poles. Late on the night of 31 August Halifax telegraphed to Warsaw: "I do not see why the Polish Government should feel difficulty about authorising Polish Ambassador to accept a document from the German Government."

A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, p.275

:: I don't see why not.

Who knows, perhaps because there is no a shred of credible evidence that this was the case?

:: You seem to be gravely underestimating the conspirators.

I would like to see evidence of this conspiracy and the role that Lord Halifax played in it. But of course, Halifax was not part of any conspiracy, you are simply delusional.

"On 22 August the government announced that the Nazi-Soviet pact would not change their policy towards Poland. On 24 August parliament met, and passed an Emergency Powers Act through all its stages. On 25 August the Anglo-Polish Treaty of mutual assistance was at last signed. A secret clause extended the guarantee to cover Danzig. Yet Chamberlain, Halifax, and perhaps other senior ministers were still eager to give way. The secret clause was kept secret so as not to annoy Hitler. Chamberlain implored Roosevelt to put pressure on the Poles, since he could not do it himself. Kennedy, the American ambassador reported: 'He says the futility of it all is the thing that is frightful; after all, they cannot save the Poles.' When these approaches failed, Chamberlain and Halifax employed a Swedish businessman, Dahlerus, to spread out before Hitler the rich banquet which he could enjoy if he refrained from war.

Hitler responded. In the first exuberence of the Nazi-Soviet pact, he had fixed the German attack on Poland for 25 August. News of the Anglo-Polish alliance made him call it off. He demanded that a Polish plenipotentiary should come to Berlin. Nevile Henderson thought the German terms for a settlement 'not unreasonable': 'They sound moderate to me and are certainly so in view of German desire for good relations with Britain.' Halifax agreed. His last act before the outbreak of the war was to urge the Poles to negotiate with Hitler. Beck refused. On 31 August Hitler gave the order to attack Poland. At 4-4:45 AM on 1 September German troops crossed the Polish frontier. At 6 AM German aeroplanes bombed Warsaw. The Poles appealed to their ally. They met with a cool response. The cabinet decided that if Germany would suspend hostilities and withdraw her troops, a solution without war would still be possible. A warning to this effect ('not to be considered as an ultimatum') was sent to Hitler in the course of the evening.

On 2 September Halifax had new resources. Mussolini was reported to be on the point of proposing a conference. Bonnet was eagerly seconding this idea. Moreoever, the French generals, fearful of a German air attack, wished to complete mobilisation before declaring war. this gave an excuse for postponement; it was also a cover for the hope that Mussolini's mediation might prevent war after all. The British cabinet was more obstinate. It insisted that German troops must be withdrawn from Poland before a conference could be considered. On the afternoon of 2 September it met again and lost patience: 'Unanimous decision was taken that ultimatum should end at midnight.' No ultimatum was sent. Halifax went on negotiating for a conference with no time limit attached for the withdrawal of German troops. Chamberlain feared to get ahead of the French and was not sorry, until afterwards, to be held back by them.

At 7:30 PM he appeared in the house of commons. Members expected to be told of the ultimatum. Instead Chamberlain entertained them with the prospects of a conference: if the Germans agreed to withdraw their forces (which was not the same as actually withdrawing them), the British government would forget everything had happened, and diplomacy could start again. Chamberlain sat down without a cheer. When Arthur Greenwood, acting Labour leader, rose to speak, Amery shouted from the Conservative benches: 'Speak for England, Arthur!' Greenwood did his best. 'Every minute's delay now means the loss of life, imperilling our national interests' and, as an afterthought, 'imperiling the very foundations of our national honour.' The House broke up in confusion. Greenwood went to Chamberlain and told him that, unless war were declared the next morning, 'it would be impossible to hold the House.' Some ministers set in Sir John Simon's room, and Simon carried their message to Chamberlain: war must be declared at once. Thus the man who had been on the point of resigning in protest against the First World War gave the final push into the second. The cabinet met at 11 PM. Some members of its declared that they would not leave the room until an immediate ultimatum was sent. Chamberlain gloomily agreed. Halifax delayed once more and put off the ultimatum to the next morning -- presumably froma habit, not with any hope of escape."

Taylor, English History, 1914-1945, pp.451-452



:: Either he was part of it, which seems likely to me since he appeared quite single-mindedly focussed on war and obviously did not welcome attempts at peaceful solutions

I refuted this above.

:: --or he did the work of the Warmasters without knowing why; but you can be sure "They" knew what he was doing and why.

Who were 'The Warmasters', mugwort? WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? WHY CAN'T YOU SUPPORT YOUR LUDICROUS ARGUMENT?

:: I can't see why he wouldn't want them to reach an agreement unless he was set on war for a reason outside of the best interests of the two parties.

Maybe Hitler was not interested in an agreement at all, as I have already proven by above by citing numerous sources. Perhaps Halifax sincerely wanted an agreement and worked hard for it, only to become convinced that Hitler could no longer be reasoned with.

:: It's generally acknowledged that Hitler's offer to Poland was a dream of an offer

But this is not generally acknowledged at all, mugwort. Who acknowledges this?

:: when you take a good look at it you realize that even without the danger of war as incentive to settle, Poland would have been much better off with the agreement than without, since she was being asked to sacrifice nothing that would materially affect her, and she would have gained tremendous advantages in wealth and security.

None of Hitler's agreements were worth anything more paper. Speaking of agreements, Hitler had signed a Ten-Year Non-Aggression Pact with Poland, which he subsequently tore up into shreds when it no longer suited him (as I pointed out above). Hitler wanted to destroy Poland. That was demonstrated above.

:: That means that in discouraging Poland from reaching an accomodation with Hitler, Halifax wasn't acting in either Poland's best interest or Germany's best interest.

Why would the Foreign Minister of Great Britain be expected to act in the best interest of Germany? The world does not revolve around Germany, mugwort. Halifax urged the Poles to accept the document from the Germans.

:: that matter, his behavior wasn't in Britain's best interest either--far from it.

Nonsense. Britain's interests were best served by preventing any European power from attaining hegemony over Europe.

:: you aware that Hitler would have offered Britain immense benefits if she only would have consented to be on a friendly footing with Germany?


1.) The British would not stand by and let a predator attack weaker European nations.
2.) The British had no guarantee such a predator would not turn around one day and attack Britain from a position of strength.

"The Cabinet not only ruled out an anti-German coalition, but also the only strategic alternative, which was to seek to divert German expansion eastwards. Eden informed the 1937 Imperial Conference that Germany could expand either by regaining her colonies, by driving down the Danube, or by establishing a colonial empire in the Ukraine. It would be easy for Britain, Eden went on, to reach an agreement with Germany on the basis of a free hand in the east of Europe. The practical drawback to a bargain of this kind was, as Eden had to point out, that while to divert Germany eastwards might life the danger from France, England, and Belgium for a time, there was always the prospect of a Germany grown immensely stronger on a diet of east European conquest eventually turning back to the west. There was another objection too, though not a strategic one: 'In any case Mr. Eden felt that a settlement on these lines would be immoral."

Barnett, p.450

:: So since it wasn't in the best interests of any of the parties concerned, it starts looking like other conflicts that haven't been in the best interests of any of the participants--Iraq comes to mind, and we know for whom that's being fought.

Red Herring. Iraq has no logical relationship to this discussion. You seem to be ignoring the entire point: neither Britain or Poland could trust Germany because Hitler's word was worthless.

:: I remember reading this, but don't know much about it.

Irving discusses the issue at length in Churchill's War.

:: If he was sincere, then maybe he wasn't working for the WarMasters, but was just a crappy diplomat and/or in a bad mood when he started the war; or maybe he changed his mind afterwards.

Or maybe Lord Halifax was neither a crappy diplomat or a warmongerer. Perhaps the real 'Warmaster' was Adolf Hitler who attacked Poland because he needed 'grain' and 'land' for Germans.

"Nothing could be more in the romantic tradition than so to reject what was dictated by knowledge and commonsense, and instead pursue the impossible but ideal. But this was a Cabinet refulgent with high ideals -- high Victorian ideals. By the mid-1930s the direction of English policy had fallen even more completely into the hands of clergymen manqués than during the 1920s and for the most part clergymen manqués now well advanced in middle-age or even into elderliness. In Baldwin's Cabinet in 1936, MacDonald, Runciman, Kingsley Wood, Neville Chamberlain and Simon represented the nonconformist conscience; Halifax and Hoare the High Church; and Inskip the evangelicals. Their approach to world affairs owed no less to Victorian liberalism, for they were deeply imbued with its abhorrence of struggle and its optimistic faith in human reason and goodwill. Indeed four out of twenty-one places in Chamberlain's cabinet in 1937 were occupied by Liberalis in name (National-Liberals), including Simon, a member of the inner Cabinet."

Barnett, p.451

:: Another good possibility is that he knew that even if he urged the British to consider the peace terms there was no "danger" of a peace agreement, so he could afford to appear peaceloving and further cover his butt re: his previous war-making.

But there is no good reason for the gallery to believe this, because not only does it contradict history (as I have shown above), you have no evidence whatsoever to support this ludicrous conspiracy theory in the first place.

:: I don't remember discussing it on this forum, but it was specifically Chaim Weizmann who vetoed this plan, which had been designed by Hjalmar Schacht, approved by Hitler, and, presented by Schacht to a conference of bankers in London, was approved by them. Josef Burg, the courageous German Jewish revisionist relates this.



Please show us evidence that Chaim Weizmann was in control of Great Britain and America's immigration laws.

:: The Zionists didn't want any old trash Jews settling in Palestine, you know;they too had their racial ideals.

That's odd. The Zionists cut a deal with Hitler in order to encourage Jewish immigration to Palestine. See Black's The Transfer Agreement.

:: They also needed plenty of Jews left behind in Europe for the war (I'm guessing that partly by the fact that they did leave them behind. Since the Zionists had enough money to get all the Jews out if they wanted, then logically they either were indifferent, or preferred for the European Jews to stay and suffer through the war).

"The American Jewish Conference took place at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York from August 29 through September 2, 1943. At the main sessions, audiences of up to 3,000 joined the 500 delegates. As expected, the Palestine issue dominated the preceedings. Convinced of the importance of winning united Jewish support for the conference's resolutions, Stephen Wise, Nahum Goldmann, James Heller, and a few other leading Zionists planned to press for a moderate position on Palestine. They recognized that all groups, including the influential American Jewish Committee, could agree on a demand to abolish the White Paper and open Palestine to unlimited immigration. Though fully committed to the Biltmore Program themselves, they believed the controversial Jewish commonwealth idea could wait for a later reconvening of the conference."

Wyman, pp.162-163

:: I knew that. [smile]

The absurdity of your argument defies reason: the Jews were financing Churchill and his associates in order to topple Chamberlain's government whose foreign policy was controlled by the Jews.

:: Jesus, Fade, I didn't say that, but if they had done so I'm sure it would not have been the first time they'd done that. You know they like to cover all the bases, finance both sides of a war, etc.

Simply put, your irrational argument makes utterly no sense whatsoever. Please show us evidence that the Jews were controlling and financing Lord Halifax. I would love to see this. We all would, mugwort.

:: OK--Here's a reference--it's from Lenni Brenner's online book Zionism in the Age of Dictators (Ch.7:

So now mugwort is citing internet trash by Jewish Trotskyites to support his argument. Is mugwort cerberus in disguise? :p

(scratches head)

I did a Google search to locate your source. This is what I turned up:

That fact gives an extra edge of topicality to what would in any case be a highly controversial study of the Zionist record in the heyday of European fascism by Lenni Brenner, and American Trotskyist writer who happens also to be Jewish. It is short (250 pages), crisp and carefully documented.

http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/brenner.htm

:: Who said that? Not I--at least not intentionally.

"You seem to be gravely underestimating the conspirators. Either he was part of it, which seems likely to me since he appeared quite single-mindedly focussed on war, and obviously did not welcome attempts at peaceful solutions--or he did the work of the Warmasters without knowing why; but you can be sure "They" knew what he was doing and why."
--mugwort

:: Why do you keep talking as if it was Chamberlain's government that started the war?

Because Chamberlain's government declared war on Germany? :|

:: It seemed clear to me in that quote you posted that it was the opposition, led by Halifax, who threatened to topple the government if war were not declared. It looks pretty clear cut to me.

Then you did not read carefully enough, as Halifax was a member of Chamberlain's cabinet, not part of the opposition (much less its leader). He simply pointed out to Chamberlain that unless he stood up his government would fall.

:: So you aren't aware that it was only after Hitler came in, and after he began to turn Germany around that she was really felt to be a threat again? There's absolutely no reason the British should have feared Germany before that.

I wasn't aware of that at all. The French certainly still found Germany to be a threat throughout the 1920s. More on the British reaction to the rise of Hitler:

"Simon and Eden both dilated on the political beauty and utility of the League of Nations, without eliciting any enthusiasm from the man who poured scorn on it throughout his political career. When Hitler offered an alliance between Germany and England, Simon replied that the British 'did not wish to substitute one friend for another, because they wanted to be loyal friends to all . . .' In answer to a question from Simon, Hitler made the chilling claim that Germany and now reached air parity with Great Britain."

Barnett, p.404

:: So that gives them, at a maximum, about 6 years to make some general plans and set goals, propagandize the public, build up their military strength, solidify their alliances, get the money together, and plan the starting mechanism.


1.) British rearmament did not begin in earnest until 1936, in response to Hitler's military buildup.
2.) The British stubbornly refused to form an alliance with France for years after Hitler had come to power, for fear of offending the Germans.
3.) Fiscally speaking, Britain was even worse off in 1939 than it was in 1933.
4.) There never was any secret plan to 'get Germany'.
5.) The public was propagandised alright, as I pointed out, by Nazi-sympathizers.

:: Perhaps also you overestimate Germany's military strength at the time war was declared, whereas Britain had been building up like a fiend--the US too, and Stalin, and I assume France.

German power viz Great Britain and France had more or less rose from nothing to eclipse these two powers by 1939. That should give the gallery some clue as to who really was gearing up for war.

:: I don't know much about thse circumstances. Whatever they were, they don't alter the facts of what happened in August of 39.

Well. That's not surprising. You don't seem to know much about the actual events of the period in general. The British were in a far stronger position to attack and defeat Germany during the crisis over the Sudetenland. For starters, the Soviets were willing to come to their aid. German defences against the French army had been hastily built and sorely outnumbered. The Czechs could have bogged the Germans down with their defences in the Sudetenland while the Royal Navy blockaded Germany into submission. Without the Nazi-Soviet Pact and Soviet hostility in the East, not to mention treason within the Wehrmacht, its more likely that not that Hitler could have been toppled.

:: Let Germany leave...

Yes. The British did not use it was a pretext to attack Germany from a position of overwhelming strength. Why didn't they do this if the 'Warmasters' were 'out to get' Germany?

:: Wow--you really have a thing about Britain's assumed sovereignty over Germany.

Straw man.

:: How about the US?

The U.S. was not a military threat to Britain.

:: Did the US have Britain's permission to leave the League of nations?

The British had not reason to go to war with America. America, if not an ally, could at least be considered a friend. War with America was unthinkable for the British by the 1930s.

:: What was Britain supposed to do--declare war?

Sure. Why not? The 'Warmasters' were out to get Germany after all, right?

:: The point is, contrary to their prattling assurances, the Allies were not just making war on Hitler--they were making war on the people of Germany.

That's nonsense. Within ten years of its defeat, West Germany was a key member of the NATO alliance and its citizens enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the world. The British and the Americans never implemented policies upon Germany the likes of which Germany had forced onto its neighbours.

:: Therefore, when key people were asked if Hitler's resignation would avert the war (and there's no evidence that he would not have resigned if necessary to keep the peace)

I have already used Hitler's own words to refute this argument above.

:: the offer was rejected. I suppose that having sunk so much into vilifying Hitler in order to get the people primed for war, it might have been difficult to suddently substitute a new German Bogeyman and have it be as effective.

I am really getting sick and tired of your wild unsubstantiated accusations. I am getting the impression that I am dealing with either a brick wall or gross ignorance here.

"The last half of 1938 saw a major change in the Observer's attitude towards Germany: a change which stands as a monument to Garvin's independence and honesty. In the spring and early summer, no one in the British Press could match Garvin in contumely for Czechoslovakia. He continued to insist that the May Crisis had no basis in fact, but that 'the explosive possibilities of the circumstances' had been seized upon by the Czech Government to involved the Western democracies in Czechoslovakia's racial confusion. Hitler was considered to be pursuing a policy of 'reasoned amendment' to the Czech proposals. At the end of July these proposals were deemd late in coming, and 'more elaborate than satisfying'.

Garvin greeted the Runciman mission as an 'original and handy idea' of Chamberlain's but felt that it would do little to change the situation. The situation was such that it could only be made clearer: the alternatives were a system of racial areas or of mixed provinces. The latter had proved unworkable.

Garvin openly discounted the massive German military manoeuvres in August, and even predicted that 'by the end of this autumn there will be a better chance of establishing world peace than in a generation'. Wadsworth in Berlin seeemed to concur with this optimistic attitude. Garvin set out the Observer's threefold policy: to prevent world war altogether; to postpone it to the utmost; and to win it if it came."

Gannon, The British Press and Germany, 1936-1939, p.223

:: 1. Let her?

Yes. Hitler repudiated the Treaty of Versailles. The so-called 'Warmasters' could have used that as an excuse to march on Germany. But that didn't happen, now did it?

:: You talk as if Britain had sovereignty over the nations of Europe.

Straw man. Britain was not out to attack, destory, and absorb the weaker nations of Europe, unlike Hitler's Germany.

:: Of course, in practical terms, she had just as much sovereignty as she was willing and able to enforce, and if she wasn't ready to enforce it, I guess she'd let it slide. And everyone with any sense agreed that the Versailles Treaty was an abomination that should by rights have been put out of its misery already.

ROFL! The Treaty of Versailles was a slap on the wrist. Compare the Treaty of Versailles to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that Germany imposed on Russia. There is no comparison. It did nothing to cripple German power. Most of its provisions were dependent upon German self-enforcement, which is why the Germans found it so easy to jettison treaty when it became convenient to do so.

:: The Anschluss, was, in fact, following the will of over 90% of the Austrian people, so it's a little hard to pay lip service to democracy and prevent such a prime example from fulfilling itself.

Hitler actually invaded Austria to forestall the plebiscite that Schuschnigg was planning to hold on Austrian independence, although the Austrians would have probably voted to join Germany anyway. He simply could not leave the matter to the Austrians to decide for themselves. So he sent in the tanks. This is a prime example of Hitler having little regard for other nations.

:: Are you aware that Britain herself was breaking the Versailles treaty in building up her arms?

I wasn't aware of that at all. Let us see your evidence.

:: Germany's disarmament was supposed to be just the first step in a general disarmament, which was broken by the other nations long before Germany began her modest buildup.

"Before the two of them could set off, however, the German Government, by a brilliant stroke of tactical opportunism, had even more firmly seized the psychological initiative let slip by the British. On 4 March 1935 the British Government issued a White Paper on Defence, itself a novelty, in which, while announcing a cautious programme of rearmament of its own, it made some feebly condemnatory references to Germany's rearmament, to the anxieties it caused Germany's neighbours, and which 'may consequently produce a situation where peace will be in extreme peril'. The references to German policy were innocuous in the extreme compared to the violence of past Nazi denunciations of other nations' policies they disliked. The British programme of rearmament was both modest and legal, following only at long dealy a German programme that was neither."

Barnett., p.402

:: 20 years before???

So the 'Warmasters' were not out to get Germany in the 1920? Who were the 'Warmasters', mugwort? :p

:: That's supposed to mean something???

Yes, actually it is. Most of the British political elite in the 1930s were already experienced politicans by the 1920s. They tended to be elderly men. Churchill is a good example.

:: What world do you live in?

Reality. You should join it one day.

:: Well, they had obviously resuscitated the alliance recently, which goes to my point that you can't necessarily gauge the foreign policy of today by the foreign policy of yesterday.

But you did not make a point, because as I have shown, the general thrust of British foreign policy was more or less the same from the 1920s up until Hitler's repudiation of the Munich Agreement.

:: They weren't yet ready to start the war.

Sure they were. I have already dealt with this issue above.

:: Czechoslovakia had certainly been considered and positioned as a potential causus belli, but the timing wasn't right.

Right. The British still holding out hope that eventually Hitler would sign a Non-Aggression Pact with the Soviets (neutering a blockade by the Royal Navy in the process) and the destruction of yet another second class ally in the East. That would have made it so much easier for the 'Warmasters' to get Hitler! ROFL!

:: They used it as part of their later justifation based on Hitler's insatiability.

Heh. Who knows. Perhaps Hitler was insatiable after all. :|

:: Never mind that reasonable thinkers had long before said that ALL of the Versailles thefts of German territory should be restored

Who were these 'reasonable' people? Tell us. From the standpoint of British and French power, why would it have been reasonable to return the territories taken away at Versailles? That makes no sense. German power would have outstripped Britain and France combined and they would, strategically, have been in a weaker position viz Germany.

:: 1. Poland, taking advantage of Britains kind assurances went and deliberately provoked Hitler to attack, in order to grab territory for herself (here Britain, if so inclined, produces some--genuine--belligerent memos between Polish officials, or a--genuine--map of a future Poland with most of Germany included).

Please post the genuine and belligerent memos for us as well as the future map of Poland with most of Germany included. Thanx.

:: Britain had made the agreement out of the goodness of her heart, thinking Poland needed defending.

Hitler's intentions toward Poland were made quite clear above.

:: If instead, Poland was instigating a war for plunder, Britain was under no obligation to act as her private army.

Lets see your evidence.

:: 2. Hitler hadn't declared war; it was merely a local policing action to stop the border violations and protect the Ethnic Germans in the area. It was up to Poland to work out this little quarrel with Germany.

This is false. See above.

:: . Poland had not conformed to her treaty obligations

What treaty obligations? Hitler tore up the Non-Aggression Pact he signed with Poland.

:: re: the Ethnic Germans and since emboldened by Britain's promised protection had been perpetrating numerous expulsions, atrocities, etc. Being in breach of treaty, Poland couldn't expect Britain to come in to defend her lawless conduct.

I agree that there were outrages committed upon the ethnic German population. But this also went both ways.

:: 4. Poland had mobilized first--therefore Germany was entitled to defend herself.

Poland mobolised because Hitler had threatened to attack Poland several days before.

:: International law does not require that a country wait like a sitting duck till attacked once another country has demonstratd her intention of making war by mobilizing her armed forces.

Show us your sources.

:: That makes Poland, not Germany, the aggressor; therefore the agreement doesn't apply.

An old legal maxim: the aggressor is not necessarily he who initiates force, but he who renders force necessary.

:: 5. Poland had refused to negotiate with Germany, when the long-suffering Germany--even after Poland's mobilization--requested it.

Neither Germany or Poland had any intention of negotiating in good faith. I think that is quite clear from the records.

:: The Polish government not only did not bother to send a plenipotentiary to receive Germany's offer, which would immediately have defused the situation, as the 2 countries would then have been engaged in an ongoing process of negotiations, but they did not even send a message saying whether they would or wouldn't, or needed more time, or had an alternative suggestion for a meeting place, or anything. This was a clear signal of unwillingness to negotiateas well as a serious breach of etiquette, and Britain was not obligated to help Poland out of the mess she got herself in from her own rudeness and stubbornness.

I went through all of this above. It is quite clear that Hitler's peace offer was not a peace offer at all. It was a tactical measure designed to isolate Poland from the Western powers.

:: 6. Poland had been firing on Germany's ships outside the free city of Danzig, which was not her territorial waters. This was a clear act of war, and therefore Germany was not the aggressor, but the defender.

Show us your evidence.

:: 7. The night of August 31 Polish troops invaded Germany and took over the radio station at Gleiwitz, broadcasting incendiary Polish propaganda. Clearly the advance guard of a full-fledged invasion, the troops were repulsed by Germany, not without casualties, and the radio station recaptured. Germany then counterattacked. Poland being the aggressor, Britain had no obligation to aid her in her aggression.

Ha! This is a long discredited lie. Look up 'Operation Canned Goods'. The Germans faked an invasion of their own territory.

:: . Parliament had not ratified the agreement at the time it was made, so it had no treaty status, and therefore Britain couldn't act without the consent of Parliament, who refused to give it (here you could give any combination of 1-7 as reasons why Parliament refused to give its approval).

I dealt with this all above as well.

:: Et voila! Britains out of the mess with clean hands and a clear conscience, and international reputation unsullied.

"Then he became specific. Relations to Poland, he said, had become unbearable. "We are facing the alternative to strike or to be destroyed with certainty sooner or later." What could the West do? Either attack from the Maginot Line or blockade the Reich. The first was improbable and the second would be ineffective since now the Soviets would supply Germany with grain, cattle, coal, lead and zinc. "I am only afraid that in the last minute some Schweinehund will produce a plan of mediation!"

Toland., p.543

You lose. :/

Conrad Black, Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom

Do you really want to be quoting Conrad Black on the topic of FDR, Fade? Especially on the topic of Jewish influence on FDR?

http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?strwebhead=The+rise+of+Conrad+Black&intcategoryid=2

Black’s wife, Barbara Amiel, writes strongly pro-Israel columns in several of his publications.

Black himself has taken the unusual step of writing to one of his own publications to decry “indefensible hatred for Israel.”

Taki Theodoracopulos, a columnist at Black’s Spectator magazine, wrote in early 2001, “The way to Uncle Sam’s heart runs through Tel Aviv and Israeli-occupied territory.”

Black responded in force.

“He expressed a hatred for Israel and a contempt for the United States and its political institutions that were irrational and an offense to civilized taste. In the process, I am afraid he uttered a blood libel on the Jewish people wherever they may be,” Black wrote.

“In both its venomous character and its unfathomable absurdity, this farrago of lies is almost worthy of Goebbels or the authors of ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’ ”

“The Jews, according to Taki, have suborned the U.S. government, direct that country’s military like a docile attack dog, and glory in the murder of innocent or mischievous children. He presents the universal Jewish ethos as brutish, vulgar, grasping and cunningly wicked,” he added.

Since Black is not even honest about Jewish influence on his newspapers or in his household (he's married to one), and even goes one step further to use his international media empire to cover for his good friend Richard Perle and their mutual friends, why on earth would he tell the truth about FDR's circle?

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j112103.html

Let's start with the board of directors, which includes Barbara Amiel, Conrad's wife, whose right-wing rants have managed to find an outlet in Hollinger publications. And there's Washington superhawk Richard Perle, who heads Hollinger Digital, the company's venture capital arm. Seems that Hollinger Digital put $2.5 million in a company called Trireme Partners, which aims to cash in on the big military and homeland security buildup. As luck would have it, Trireme's managing partner is none other than... Richard Perle. . .

"… There's Gerald Hillman, managing partner of Hillman Capital, which also got a $14 million investment from Hollinger, according to the Financial Times. Hillman is also a partner at Trireme."

Both Perle and Hillman are members of the Defense Policy Board, the nerve center of neoconservative influence in this administration, where policy, ideology, and the pursuit of profits combine to motivate a constant stream of war propaganda. They lied us into war, and now we're finding out that they're thieves as well as liars.



Here you can see the Carlyle group cleaning up after Black, who stands accused of embezzlement at Hollinger:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1091483,00.html

A powerful banking group with close links to the Pentagon, which has also invested money on behalf of the Bin Laden family, is in talks to bail out beleaguered Daily Telegraph owner Conrad Black.

The revelation suggests that Britain's bestselling broadsheet - coveted by rival newspaper barons because of its political influence - may not go under the hammer after all, as Lord Black tries to quell a shareholder rebellion in the face of allegations that he and several acolytes pocketed millions of dollars that was not theirs to take.



Black' misdeed's may sink the whole boat of neocon press, specialists all in reducing or minimizing the responsibility of Jews for current political events:

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.11.21/news3.hollinger.html

A convergence of unrelated financial scandals is threatening to sink the tiny but influential boat of Jewish-flavored conservative journalism.

At the center of the controversy is Hollinger International, a media company that owns dozens of conservative newspapers, including the hawkish Jerusalem Post. An internal investigation into improper payments allegedly made to Hollinger's majority owner and CEO, Conrad Black, and its president, F. David Radler, has triggered a major reorganization of the company.

Radler, who oversaw the Jerusalem Post, has resigned. Black has stepped down as CEO, but will continue to play a role in planning what is expected to be a mass sell-off of the company's media holdings.

Many media insiders are predicting the shakeup will lead to the sale of most Hollinger-controlled newspapers, including The Jerusalem Post, The Daily Telegraph of London and the Chicago Sun-Times. Hollinger also owns a piece of The New York Sun, which was launched in 2002 by former Forward editor Seth Lipsky. Though ostensibly a general interest newspaper, the Sun is best known for its pugnacious coverage of Jewish-related issues, as well as its neo-conservative policy positions.


We cannot rely on someone who is currently decieving the world about Jewish responsibility for foreign wars to be honest about Jewish responsibility for foreign wars in the past.

The whole saga of Lord Black's empire of Jewish disinformation is too long and too sordid to go into now. I would expect someone interested in anti-Jewish activism would refrain from quoting him as a source on anything, most especially Jewish influence on Roosevelt.

And to think you had the nerve to criticize others regarding 'internet sources'. It's plain that the barrel you are scraping has no bottom.

Please show more care with your sources.

WM

2. Authenticated information that the Nazis were systematically exterminating European Jewry was made public in the United States in November 1942.

"Authenticated information" that the Nazis were "systematically exterminating European Jewry" would of course have bearing on current debates on the Holocaust, which up til five minutes ago, you regarded as a nefarious fiction.

Now you are claiming the existence of 'authenticated infomation' that it really did happen!

I feel compelled to ask: if such evidence exists, why has it never been brought forth?

Furthermore, since it was presented to Roosevelt, it would not have been destroyed by carpet bombing, as the alleged German 'evidence' was. I assume, therefore, that you will be able to produce the evidence, which will allow us to stop worrying about the Holocaust, since it is proven by 'authenticated documents'.

We can also use the documents to make the Red Cross stand down on its claims of German innocence.

Or, we can wait an additional five minutes, for when your most deeply help convictions change again -

WM

:: Do you really want to be quoting Conrad Black on the topic of FDR, Fade?

Sure. Why not? I have no problem with using Jewish sources so long as they are properly documented. Most Jewish sources, believe it or not, are quite informative.

:: Especially on the topic of Jewish influence on FDR?

I quote Jewish scholars all the time. More often than not, they are quite frank about Jewish influence. No one has ever objected to this in the past.

:: We cannot rely on someone who is currently decieving the world about Jewish responsibility for foreign wars to be honest about Jewish responsibility for foreign wars in the past.

I have yet to see any convincing evidence that the Jews were behind the Second World War, although in the course of the war they came to play a large part in it. I have spent the last several weeks plowing through the official records of the British Foreign Office (which I have access to). But if you have any, then I would be happy to review it. And if I conclude that I have been mistaken in my judgment, that I will be more than happy to concede my error.

I will say that I have seen overwhelming evidence (from multiple sources) that Adolf Hitler brought down World War 2 upon himself, in pursuit of his romantic fantasy of expanding east at the expense of the Slavs. He lays out his plans quite openly in Mein Kampf, the unpublished foreign policy book, and the Table Talk.

:: The whole saga of Lord Black's empire of Jewish disinformation is too long and too sordid to go into now. I would expect someone interested in anti-Jewish activism would refrain from quoting him as a source on anything, most especially Jewish influence on Roosevelt.

I noted above that I have quoted Jewish authors and scholars all the time and have no problem doing so, provided that they provide a well-documented and convincing case. Some of the best information one will find anywhere about Zionism comes from Jewish authors like Israel Shamir.

:: And to think you had the nerve to criticize others regarding 'internet sources'.

I usually don't waste my time with internet sources and conspiracy theories.

:: It's plain that the barrel you are scraping has no bottom.

How come? I hate the Jews as much as anyone else here but I am not willing to buy into every poorly supported accusation that is made against them. A good example of this is mugwort's assertion that the Jews were attempting to bring down the government of Neville Chamberlain, even though mugwort also asserts that the Jews were in control of British foreign policy at the time. Such ludicrous claims which make no logical sense whatsoever only bring revisionism into disrepute.

:: Please show more care with your sources.

I am not out to mislead others on account of my own personal ideology. I can quote plenty of other biographers of Roosevelt if you wish. The only reason that I quoted that one in particular is because it is a new release.

:: "Authenticated information" that the Nazis were "systematically exterminating European Jewry" would of course have bearing on current debates on the Holocaust, which up til five minutes ago, you regarded as a nefarious fiction.

Now you are attacking a strawman. That was copy and pasted from the other thread where I specifically dealt with the issue. And what did I say there?

"Here is an interesting excerpt from a book that I managed to find today. Although I do not agree with all of the author's conclusions, he does raise some interesting questions of relevance to this debate (e.g., whether or not Jewish hegemony existed over American foreign policy during the Roosevelt Administration)"
-- FadeTheButcher

http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3743&page=6&pp=10

:: Or, we can wait an additional five minutes, for when your most deeply help convictions change again -

My 'most deeply held convictions' have not changed at all:

1.) I have cited Jewish sources for years now on this forum and have never had any problem doing so. Its interesting how no one complained about which such sources can be used to portray the Jews in a negative light.

2.) I am not out to deceive my readers in order to advance an ideological agenda, so I am not going to defend every theory about and every accusation against the Jews which cannot be supported. That's integrity.

3.) I am usually skeptical of atrocity stories. But I find it very interesting how some people here are the most profound skeptics one will ever meet when it comes to 'The Holocaust' yet this skeptical suddenly evaporates when other similar accusations are made.

4.) I am not a National Socialist.

Here is an interesting excerpt from a book that I managed to find today. Although I do not agree with all of the author's conclusions, he does raise some interesting questions of relevance to this debate (e.g., whether or not Jewish hegemony existed over American foreign policy during the Roosevelt Administration)"

Irrelevant. If you don't agree with the author that there was 'authenticated information', then the question has no relevance. This is not a matter of conclusions.

My 'most deeply held convictions' have not changed at all:

That one month ago your only concern was aesthetics, and that you dripped with contempt for anyone who employed 'rights' talk is quite at variance with the almost demagogic concern you now show for the 'rights' of small nations.

I have no problem with using Jewish sources so long as they are properly documented. Most Jewish sources, believe it or not, are quite informative.

You are dodging the information I gave about Black. He is more than hip-deep in Jewish disinformation efforts, and has personally intevened to pour calumny on the head of Taki, who tried to publically discuss the same.

That you ignored my whole post about Black's dishonesty, and then turned around to present the whole case as one of using Jewish sources - which I did not complain about - is flatly dishonest.

:: It's plain that the barrel you are scraping has no bottom.

How come?

Another dodge. My post should give you more than adequate reason for doubting Conrad Black's reliability as a witness. He covers for Jewish involvement in the contemporary world - that's his job. What about that point is so hard for you to understand?

I usually don't waste my time with internet sources and conspiracy theories.

This may come as a surprise to you, Fade, but the whole truth about what happened in the last World War is not going to found in a library, unless you are reading against the grain.

But I find it very interesting how some people here are the most profound skeptics one will ever meet when it comes to 'The Holocaust' yet this skeptical suddenly evaporates when other similar accusations are made.

You will recall, when you accuse us of not showing proper skepticism, that we were not initially skeptics about the Holocaust story - we had to be argued into our current position.

Also, the information we used to deconstruct the Holocaust did not come from the 'new acquisitions' wall of a college library. A person quoting Conrad Black should not cast aspersions on online sources. That it is from the internet does not make it less trustworthy than if it came from your library. Indeed, there are strong reasons to distrust what your library, and the academic apparatus that produces and supports it, produces and holds.

I will say that I have seen overwhelming evidence (from multiple sources) that Adolf Hitler brought down World War 2 upon himself, in pursuit of his romantic fantasy of expanding east at the expense of the Slavs.

And what do those multiple sources say about the 'Holocaust', Fade?

WM

:: Irrelevant.

Its not irrelevent. You set up and attacked a strawman argument in order to misrepresent my position.

:: If you don't agree with the author that there was 'authenticated information', then the question has no relevance.

I specifically pointed out that I did not agree with several of his conclusions in that thread. YOU chose to ignore that. So now you are making a fuss about a NON-ISSUE.

:: This is not a matter of conclusions.

I made sure to note that I did not agree with him on that point. I made that absolutely clear in my last response as well.

:: That one month ago your only concern was aesthetics, and that you dripped with contempt for anyone who employed 'rights' talk is quite at variance with the almost demagogic concern you now show for the 'rights' of small nations.

1.) wintermute makes the false assumption here that a month ago my only concern was aesthetics.
2.) I do not believe in natural rights, wintermute. That is not an argument that rights do not exist. It has long been my position that rights are political constructs.
3.) I take it you have also become an apologist for Hitler's destruction of other nations and attempted extermination of their cultures.

:: You are dodging the information I gave about Black.

I didn't 'dodge' the information you provided at all. You rambled on and on about my citation of Jewish sources and how my views had somehow changed. You seem to have forgotten that I have always quoted and cited Jewish sources.

:: He is more than hip-deep in Jewish disinformation efforts, and has personally intevened to pour calumny on the head of Taki, who tried to publically discuss the same.

I cannot think of a single thing that Black mentioned in that excerpt that is not absolutely true and confirmed by other sources. I cited that book simply because it is the latest biography of Roosevelt available.

:: That you ignored my whole post about Black's dishonesty, and then turned around to present the whole case as one of using Jewish sources - which I did not complain about - is flatly dishonest.

It was flatly dishonest of you to misrepresent my position and attack a strawman argument, on top of your childish little insults in the other thread.

:: And what do those multiple sources say about the 'Holocaust', Fade?

I haven't read anything about gas chambers in Mein Kampf, Hitler's unpublished foreign policy book, Hitler's Table Talk, or the Goebbels' Diaries. I see no reason why a systematic campaign of extermination in gas chambers would not have been mentioned had it existed.

:: Another dodge. My post should give you more than adequate reason for doubting Conrad Black's reliability as a witness.

I don't take illogical and invalid arguments seriously.

:: He covers for Jewish involvement in the contemporary world - that's his job.

And that's a non sequitur.

:: What about that point is so hard for you to understand?

See above.

:: This may come as a surprise to you, Fade, but the whole truth about what happened in the last World War is not going to found in a library, unless you are reading against the grain.

This may come as a surprise to you, but its generally not a good idea to cite the discredited work of journalists with no historiographical training in making one's arguments.

:: You will recall, when you accuse us of not showing proper skepticism, that we were not initially skeptics about the Holocaust story - we had to be argued into our current position.

See above. It is very interesting how you dismiss the MASSIVE amount of work that has been done on the issue of 'The Holocaust' so lightly while so casually endorsing the work of two men who are not even historians.

:: Also, the information we used to deconstruct the Holocaust did not come from the 'new acquisitions' wall of a college library.

Your skepticism of the Holocaust is beginning to strike me as stemming from a sentimental prejudice as opposed to any real concern for the employment of a consistent analytical methodology.

:: A person quoting Conrad Black should not cast aspersions on online sources.

A person who make invalid ad hominem arguments should not be taken seriously.

:: That it is from the internet does not make it less trustworthy than if it came from your library.

That would come as a surprise to historians and political scientists.

:: Indeed, there are strong reasons to distrust what your library, and the academic apparatus that produces and supports it, produces and holds.

Let me guess: there might be material in there that wintermute is ideologically prejudiced against. Because that seems to be the standard he is employing here.

Wow--an eponymous thread; thank you, Fade. I have to get to class now, but will return. Re: your first few sentences, I've already conceded that you obviously know a great deal more than I about English society and politics between the wars.

: Indeed, there are strong reasons to distrust what your library, and the academic apparatus that produces and supports it, produces and holds.

Let me guess: there might be material in there that wintermute is ideologically prejudiced against. Because that seems to be the standard he is employing here.Nope--he's right.

For excellent reasons, mainstream publishers, bookstores and for the most part libraries, won't touch revionist stuff with a ten-foot pole.

[Wintermute:] That it is from the internet does not make it less trustworthy than if it came from your library.

That would come as a surprise to historians and political scientists.

"Historians and political scientists" - an interesting and somewhat ludicrous dodge that is strictly true but deceptive in its premise - as if the referenced element is not ideologically prostituted and contaminated and self-reproductive as such in the mass.

I speak from personal experience in this regard: BA in History, Summa Cum with Honors; Fellow on stipend/scholarship at an elite U. pursuing a doctorate in the History of Science, last I was in the community. The notion that social science academics are exercising some epistemological hygiene, by bathing only in the library where they piss and s(h)it ideologically, is naive (and surprising as a contention offered by our own "Deconstructionist," of all people). They all have an agenda born of prejudice, naivete, and herd mentality which creeps into even trivial monographs. And I was not prepared to have this element, this priesthood, be in charge of my own future, professionally and philosophically.
*

All one has to do is listen to Hitler lay out his case in his own words to grasp that he was willing to bring down World War 2 upon himself so long as he could grab territory from the Slavs. One does not even need secondary sources.

- "#"They all have an agenda born of prejudice, naivete, and herd mentality which creeps into even trivial monographs."


ALL scientists and scholars have an agenda of some sort. The idea of being able to examine some issue with absolute neutrality, applying totally objective reason, is just a silly rationalist daydream.

So don't you think that you are on the CATEGORICALLY higher level than they, NN.

Objectivity (in the full sense of the word) is a DIVINE ATTRIBUTE.


Otherwise, just the usual fancy-schmancy mishmash of cultured words with no real content from NN.


Petr

[Wintermute:] That one month ago your only concern was aesthetics, and that you dripped with contempt for anyone who employed 'rights' talk is quite at variance with the almost demagogic concern you now show for the 'rights' of small nations.

...2.) I do not believe in natural rights, wintermute. That is not an argument that rights do not exist. It has long been my position that rights are political constructs.

But these constructs/rights are merely internal to the state which devises and enforces them and are otherwise as fatuously imaginary and ill-defined as are so-called "human rights". If small nations have rights that are not otherwise, then you must, indeed and as charged, invest those "natural rights" (in which you claim not to believe) with your concession of their objective status - or declare the perverse WWII Anglo-Bolshevik alliance, ex post facto, the (in some bizarre sense) rightful imperial government of the globe, before which the Germans (and Japanese) should have perpetually grovelled amidst chronic disorder and impotence while the Bolshevik monstrosity was allowed to misbehave unmolested.
*

- "... the Germans (and Japanese) should have perpetually grovelled amidst chronic disorder and impotence while the Bolshevik monstrosity was allowed to misbehave unmolested."


Bolshevik experiment was destined to fall on its own incompetence anyway (like its profoundest critics like Solzhenitsyn well realized).

Its threat was not so deadly that it would have justified using ANY means to stop it.

On the other hand, Nazis might have been able, with their usual German efficiency, make their system of oppression much more lasting and penetrating.


Petr

:: But these constructs/rights are merely internal to the state which devises and enforces them and are otherwise as fatuously imaginary and ill-defined as are so-called "human rights".

Nonsense. Sovereign states can enter into pacts and treaties which can in turn be violated.

:: If small nations have rights that are not otherwise, then you must, indeed and as charged, invest those "natural rights" (in which you claim not to believe) with your concession of their objective status - or declare the perverse WWII Anglo-Bolshevik alliance, ex post facto, the (in some bizarre sense) rightful imperial government of the globe, before which the Germans (and Japanese) should have perpetually grovelled amidst chronic disorder and impotence while the Bolshevik monstrosity was allowed to misbehave unmolested.

International law does not have to objectively exist to be real, NeoNietzsche.

All one has to do is listen to Hitler lay out his case in his own words to grasp that he was willing to bring down World War 2 upon himself so long as he could grab territory from the Slavs. One does not even need secondary sources.

Hitler was willing, quite reasonably, to assure the dignified survival of the British Empire which he admired, in exchange for leave to pursue his own colonial ambitions in an area which did not touch upon British possessions.

Germany, as with Japan, was otherwise doomed to perpetual internal disorder failing success in a colonial/imperial campaign to acquire independent access to vital material resources and the politico-economic sovereignty that such acquisition provides.
*

:: Hitler was willing, quite reasonably, to assure the dignified survival of the British Empire which he admired, in exchange for leave to pursue his own colonial ambitions in an area which did not touch upon British possessions.

I agree. Yet the British rejected this proposal because:

1.) They had no assurance that Hitler would not have one day turned right back around and attacked the West from a position of strength when he found it convenient to do so.
2.) They found an alliance on such terms to be immoral (see my post on Eden).
3.) Hitler could not be trusted, as he tore up treaty after treaty, agreement after agreement, whenever it suited him to do so.

:: Germany, as with Japan, was doomed to perpetual internal disorder failing success in a colonial/imperial campaign to acquire material resources and the politico-economic sovereignty that such acquisition provides.

This is more nonsense. Germany and Japan are amongst the wealthiest nations in the world today. There is no proof whatsoever that these societies would have disintegrated had they not turned to expansionism.

But these constructs/rights are merely internal to the state which devises and enforces them and are otherwise as fatuously imaginary and ill-defined as are so-called "human rights".

Nonsense. Sovereign states can enter into pacts and treaties which can in turn be violated.

And such states can be said to have "rights" in certain particulars according to terms. I am concerned that your remarks from another, related, thread suggest that you regard "small nations" as having a "right" - in the more general and moralistic sense - to be exempted (in some sense) from attack by powerful neighbors and to be defended by the efforts of others assuming the righteous mantle of world government. The threads have become so numerous and lengthy, that my attempt to recover your specific statement of principle did not succeed, so please offer a restatement rather than a challenge to produce a quote.
*


[NN:] If small nations have rights that are not otherwise, then you must, indeed and as charged, invest those "natural rights" (in which you claim not to believe) with your concession of their objective status - or declare the perverse WWII Anglo-Bolshevik alliance, ex post facto, the (in some bizarre sense) rightful imperial government of the globe, before which the Germans (and Japanese) should have perpetually grovelled amidst chronic disorder and impotence while the Bolshevik monstrosity was allowed to misbehave unmolested.

International law does not have to objectively exist to be real, NeoNietzsche.

"International law," in order to truly be such in the grand sense and not in the mere form of treaty and pact, has to be comprehensive and consistent. This cannot be realized.

But your remark is non-responsive, in that the point was your alleged non-belief in "natural rights" - not the epistemological/ontological/whatever status of international law.

Though I do understand you to be trying to make much of Hitler's perfidy by thus seemingly moralizing about violations of "international law" which were, in fact, mere treaty-breakings with no larger ethical implication, as I have explained. You would, again, seemingly and following this coloration, have these violations as criminal acts which The Anglo-Bolsheviks righteously redressed. I hope that I mistake you.
*

:: And such states can be said to have "rights" in certain particulars according to terms.

Well. What are you disputing here then? Germany was a signatory to numerous treaties and international agreements that were violated by Hitler. Who denies this?

:: I am concerned that your remarks from another, related, thread suggest that you regard "small nations" as having a "right" - in the more general and moralistic sense - to be exempted (in some sense) from attack by powerful neighbors and to be defended by the efforts of others assuming the righteous mantle of world government. The threads have become so numerous and lengthy, that my attempt to recover your specific statement of principle did not succeed, so please offer a restatement rather than a challenge to produce a quote.

My argument is consistent and crystal clear: rights to do not objectively exist, for they are political constructs. Although rights do not exist naturally or objectively, this does not imply they cannot be created (positive law). And such rights were created, by sovereign nations, who subsequently entered into international treaties and agreements. These treaties and agreements were violated by the German Government, and thus, the German Government violated the rights of other European nations. Got it?

:: "International law," in order to truly be such in the grand sense and not in the mere form of treaty and pact, has to be comprehensive and consistent. This cannot be realized.

Now you are addressing an entirely different issue. International law does not have to naturally and objectively exist TO BE REAL. And while it is true that international norms are often not adhered to, that does not imply they do not exist, much less that the rights accorded to nations under such agreements do not exist either.

:: But your remark is non-responsive, in that the point was your alleged non-belief in "natural rights" - not the epistemological/ontological/whatever status of international law.

You are trying to set up a strawman here, for I did not make a natural rights argument in the preceding pages of this thread or anywhere else for that matter. Please point where I did so if you are arguing otherwise.

:: Though I do understand you to be trying to make much of Hitler's perfidy by thus seemingly moralizing about violations of "international law" which were, in fact, mere treaty-breakings with no larger ethical implication, as I have explained.

1.) Hitler did break numerous treaties and agreements.
2.) Thus Hitler violated the rights of nations under such treaties and agreements.
3.) These agreements and treaties were the legal and codified expression of normative ethical standards of international conduct between European states in the '30s and '40s.
4.) So from the standpoint of such agreements, Hitler's Germany could be said to be conducted an unethical foreign policy.

:: You would, again, seemingly and following this coloration, have these violations as criminal acts which The Anglo-Bolsheviks righteously redressed. I hope that I mistake you.

Now you are once again putting words in my mouth. I have on numerous occasions attacked the legality of the Nuremburg Tribunal.

For the record, I want everyone who has participated in this thread to answer the following questions:

1.) Do you personally endorse Hitler's Ostpolitik?
2.) Was Germany waging an aggressive and expansionist war against its neighbours in order to acquire 'living space'?
3.) Do you agree or that Germany was justified in destroying other European nations and attempting to exterminate their cultures?

For the record, I answer:

1) no
2) yes
3) no


Petr

[NN:] Hitler was willing, quite reasonably, to assure the dignified survival of the British Empire which he admired, in exchange for leave to pursue his own colonial ambitions in an area which did not touch upon British possessions.

I agree. Yet the British rejected this proposal because:

1.) They had no assurance that Hitler would not have one day turned right back around and attacked the West from a position of strength when he found it convenient to do so....

And when did the world ever manifest such "assurances" as between militarily capable states? This is the rationalization from conveniently selective paranoia which has recently been used on Iraq. Hitler's was a reasonable and ideologically consistent offer of fraternal accommodation between the German and the British empires, and the British foolishly, jingoistically insisted upon their traditional preeminence (where the cause of balance-of-power on the Continent was irretrievably lost to the emergence of the Bolshevik monstrosity, overlooked in its dimension due to British vanity and crypto-Communist influence).
*
...2.) They found an alliance on such terms to be immoral (see my post on Eden)....

It is to laugh. Transparent, self-serving rationalization by those who wished to be vindicated and survive in office, no matter the cost in the ultimate destruction wrought.
*
...3.) Hitler could not be trusted, as he tore up treaty after treaty, agreement after agreement, whenever it suited him to do so.

Treaties which were, in the first place, the short-sighted imposition upon Germany of self-asserted British balance-of-power preeminence. If the British had, through the veil of their vanity and alien influences, seen the reasonableness, which I take you to acknowledge, of Hitler's long-established hopes for fraternal accommodation, Hitler would not then have been forced to break any treaties in his pursuit of self-preservative German politico-economic sovereignty and stability.
*

[NN:] Germany, as with Japan, was doomed to perpetual internal disorder failing success in a colonial/imperial campaign to acquire material resources and the politico-economic sovereignty that such acquisition provides.

This is more nonsense. Germany and Japan are amongst the wealthiest nations in the world today. There is no proof whatsoever that these societies would have disintegrated had they not turned to expansionism.

You are young, and there is yet time for you to study comparative history in terms of the logic of political economy. Japan, in particular, is a textbook illustration of chronic disorders as the product of internal contests over national sovereignty dependent upon independent access to vital natural resources. Japan is no longer sovereign in the full sense, for having lost such access and for the destruction of the indigeneous elite elements and culture which properly fought therefor.

Also, the subtext of the discussion over the incipient inflation in inter-war Germany is the implicit necessity for Germany to have acquired material resources which would make good the obligations that the regime was incurring and symptomatically suppressing during the national recovery. A German regime which was to maintain its sovereign independence of Jewish international finance had to have independent sources of vital raw materials (as had the powers that sanctimoniously sought to deny Germany). And Germany, as well, is no longer authentically sovereign - and Germany likewise reasonably and predictably resisted that fate. The former Axis powers live in golden chains, it is true, but chained to the ultimately catastrophic fate established for them by Anglo-Bolshevism they remain, nevertheless.
*

:: Hitler was willing, quite reasonably, to assure the dignified survival of the British Empire which he admired, in exchange for leave to pursue his own colonial ambitions in an area which did not touch upon British possessions.

I agree. Yet the British rejected this proposal because:

1.) They had no assurance that Hitler would not have one day turned right back around and attacked the West from a position of strength when he found it convenient to do so.
2.) They found an alliance on such terms to be immoral (see my post on Eden).
3.) Hitler could not be trusted, as he tore up treaty after treaty, agreement after agreement, whenever it suited him to do so.

All three reasons are bogus, just as almost without exception any apparently rational and moral and/or altruistic excuse for war is bogus; they're used as a screen for the real reasons: greed for wealth and power. If the warmongers acknowledged the real reasons it would be very difficult to get the necessary cannon-fodder to wage the war (which is why, now that there's an internet to make it possible, this important truth should be spread far and wide).

WWII, which is still known as the "Good War", owing to the relentless propagandizing and cover-up which has gone on for over 6 decades, is strategically the most important war-lie to expose at this point, because it's the lynchpin which holds in place much of the present-day ideological war-machinery.

In 1941, after the war-lies of WWI had been exposed, at least 85% of Americans were adamantly against intervervening in the ongoing European war. That's why FDR had to resort to the arch-crime of inciting and permitting Pearl Harbor. Look at how docile Americans are today, kept so by lies on lies: lies used to hide both the lies that started WWII and the further lies used to get enough American citizens to sacrifice themselves and their children so the warmongers could attain their goals. Then yet more lies to cover up the Allies' unprecedented brutality, and the (successful) genocidal aims of the war.
:: Germany, as with Japan, was doomed to perpetual internal disorder failing success in a colonial/imperial campaign to acquire material resources and the politico-economic sovereignty that such acquisition provides.

This is more nonsense. Germany and Japan are amongst the wealthiest nations in the world today. There is no proof whatsoever that these societies would have disintegrated had they not turned to expansionism.
Germany, Italy, and Japan were precisely (coincidentally?) the three economies that followed their own paths and broke the rules of the international money-controllers, and therefore had to be brought under control by whatever means necessary. These means included economic and ideological (propaganda) warfare, as well as military war.

- "Japan is no longer sovereign in the full sense, ..."


You mean it's no longer free to attack its neighbors at will? Or how do you define "sovereignty?"



- "A german regime which was to maintain its sovereign independence of Jewish international finance had to have independent sources of vital raw materials (as had the powers that sanctimoniously sought to deny Germany). "


Not even commenting on the correctness of this idea, what about those pesky Slavs who inhabited the areas where those raw materials were? Did they have any right to object?


In his obsession that Germany had to wage (an aggressive!) war to remain a top-quality nation, Hitler reacted like a genuine heathen without imagination, thinking that only raw force counts.

(the following is going to annoy Winnie)

Hitler was, paraphrasing William Blake, "a silly slave of the Sword."

http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/cgi-bin/nph-1965/blake/erdman/erd/@Generic__BookTextView/9599;pt=9683


Petr

[NN:] [Though I do understand you to be trying to make much of Hitler's perfidy by thus seemingly moralizing about violations of "international law" which were, in fact, mere treaty-breakings with no larger ethical implication, as I have explained.]

1.) Hitler did break numerous treaties and agreements.
2.) Thus Hitler violated the rights of nations under such treaties and agreements.
3.) These agreements and treaties were the legal and codified expression of normative ethical standards of international conduct between European states in the '30s and '40s.
4.) So from the standpoint of such agreements, Hitler's Germany could be said to be conducted an unethical foreign policy.

[NN:] You would, again, seemingly and following this coloration, have these violations as criminal acts which The Anglo-Bolsheviks righteously redressed. I hope that I mistake you.

Now you are once again putting words in my mouth. I have on numerous occasions attacked the legality of the Nuremburg Tribunal.

I refer, rather, to your seemingly implicit moralistic acquiescence in the making of war upon Germany by the Anglo-Bolsheviks as though they were the government of the "ethical" world (the "UN") in pursuit of a "criminal".

Do you not now laugh at the formula to which you have been reduced: "an unethical foreign policy". As I said, this has no implication for action, eo ipso, in principle other than that suggested by the analogy to state-internal "rights" and the rationale for enforcement thereof, which you concede is not applicable. No one forced the British to react to Hitler as they did - treaties and agreements are historically violated with regularity. British indignation over the perfidious German reaction to foolish and unrequited British threats against Germany is ludicrous in the implicit sanctimonious hypocrisy (and alien-influenced duplicity in view of Soviet misbehavior) .
*

I have never, not even in wrangling with Petr, encountered such naked mendacity online as I have in your responses, Fade.

It is plain to me now, that the Phora can never be 'cleaned up', as it is rotten at its core: you.


Conrad Black, Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom

Do you really want to be quoting Conrad Black on the topic of FDR, Fade? Especially on the topic of Jewish influence on FDR?

http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?strwebhead=The+rise+of+Conrad+Black&intcategoryid=2

Black’s wife, Barbara Amiel, writes strongly pro-Israel columns in several of his publications.

Black himself has taken the unusual step of writing to one of his own publications to decry “indefensible hatred for Israel.”

Taki Theodoracopulos, a columnist at Black’s Spectator magazine, wrote in early 2001, “The way to Uncle Sam’s heart runs through Tel Aviv and Israeli-occupied territory.”

Black responded in force.

“He expressed a hatred for Israel and a contempt for the United States and its political institutions that were irrational and an offense to civilized taste. In the process, I am afraid he uttered a blood libel on the Jewish people wherever they may be,” Black wrote.

“In both its venomous character and its unfathomable absurdity, this farrago of lies is almost worthy of Goebbels or the authors of ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’ ”

“The Jews, according to Taki, have suborned the U.S. government, direct that country’s military like a docile attack dog, and glory in the murder of innocent or mischievous children. He presents the universal Jewish ethos as brutish, vulgar, grasping and cunningly wicked,” he added.

Since Black is not even honest about Jewish influence on his newspapers or in his household (he's married to one), and even goes one step further to use his international media empire to cover for his good friend Richard Perle and their mutual friends, why on earth would he tell the truth about FDR's circle?

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j112103.html

Let's start with the board of directors, which includes Barbara Amiel, Conrad's wife, whose right-wing rants have managed to find an outlet in Hollinger publications. And there's Washington superhawk Richard Perle, who heads Hollinger Digital, the company's venture capital arm. Seems that Hollinger Digital put $2.5 million in a company called Trireme Partners, which aims to cash in on the big military and homeland security buildup. As luck would have it, Trireme's managing partner is none other than... Richard Perle. . .

"… There's Gerald Hillman, managing partner of Hillman Capital, which also got a $14 million investment from Hollinger, according to the Financial Times. Hillman is also a partner at Trireme."

Both Perle and Hillman are members of the Defense Policy Board, the nerve center of neoconservative influence in this administration, where policy, ideology, and the pursuit of profits combine to motivate a constant stream of war propaganda. They lied us into war, and now we're finding out that they're thieves as well as liars.



Here you can see the Carlyle group cleaning up after Black, who stands accused of embezzlement at Hollinger:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1091483,00.html

A powerful banking group with close links to the Pentagon, which has also invested money on behalf of the Bin Laden family, is in talks to bail out beleaguered Daily Telegraph owner Conrad Black.

The revelation suggests that Britain's bestselling broadsheet - coveted by rival newspaper barons because of its political influence - may not go under the hammer after all, as Lord Black tries to quell a shareholder rebellion in the face of allegations that he and several acolytes pocketed millions of dollars that was not theirs to take.



Black' misdeed's may sink the whole boat of neocon press, specialists all in reducing or minimizing the responsibility of Jews for current political events:

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.11.21/news3.hollinger.html

A convergence of unrelated financial scandals is threatening to sink the tiny but influential boat of Jewish-flavored conservative journalism.

At the center of the controversy is Hollinger International, a media company that owns dozens of conservative newspapers, including the hawkish Jerusalem Post. An internal investigation into improper payments allegedly made to Hollinger's majority owner and CEO, Conrad Black, and its president, F. David Radler, has triggered a major reorganization of the company.

Radler, who oversaw the Jerusalem Post, has resigned. Black has stepped down as CEO, but will continue to play a role in planning what is expected to be a mass sell-off of the company's media holdings.

Many media insiders are predicting the shakeup will lead to the sale of most Hollinger-controlled newspapers, including The Jerusalem Post, The Daily Telegraph of London and the Chicago Sun-Times. Hollinger also owns a piece of The New York Sun, which was launched in 2002 by former Forward editor Seth Lipsky. Though ostensibly a general interest newspaper, the Sun is best known for its pugnacious coverage of Jewish-related issues, as well as its neo-conservative policy positions.


We cannot rely on someone who is currently decieving the world about Jewish responsibility for foreign wars to be honest about Jewish responsibility for foreign wars in the past.

The whole saga of Lord Black's empire of Jewish disinformation is too long and too sordid to go into now. I would expect someone interested in anti-Jewish activism would refrain from quoting him as a source on anything, most especially Jewish influence on Roosevelt.

And to think you had the nerve to criticize others regarding 'internet sources'. It's plain that the barrel you are scraping has no bottom.

By way of an attempt at a response, Fade says:

I didn't 'dodge' the information you provided at all. You rambled on and on about my citation of Jewish sources and how my views had somehow changed. You seem to have forgotten that I have always quoted and cited Jewish sources.

To the gallery: you can examine my post above. I will happily give a thousand dollars to anyone who finds in the above statement the claim that Fade shouldn't be using Jewish sources.

In fact, it is a logical impossibility that I made this argument, SINCE CONRAD BLACK IS NOT JEWISH .

Anyone who examines my statement can see that I am arguing that Black is dishonest and that he lies about Jewish power in order to minimize it. He is married to a Jew, and is good friends with Richard Perle. He has publicly upbraided Taki for even stating that Jews had anything to do with the Iraq invasion, calling it a 'blood libel'.

I ask simply, is this a person who can be relied upon to give a fair estimate of Jewish power in the Roosevelt administration?

Fade, embarrased at being caught with such a shoddy source, lashes out, claiming that I am 'rambling' about 'Jewish sources'. This is an open lie, and I demand that he retract it.

While I assemble materials regarding Mr. Ambrose, the plagairist that Fade sets up as the ultimate authority on postwar Germany, I am mildly curious to see if Fade can own up to having misrepresented my post, a serious charge since he in other places upbraids me for using Jewish sources, A PRACTICE I HAVE NOT OBJECTED TO.

I don't know what they're teaching you at the University of Auburn, Fade, but it plainly isn't reading comprehension.

Though it is not beyond possibility that you simply lied about my post, either.

Settle the score for the gallery, Fade: did you actually misread my post, or did you willingly misrepresent it?

WM

P.S. Sorry for all the shouting in the post, but I wouldn't want for ol' hard-of-hearing Fade to miss, and thus be able to lie about, my main points - AGAIN.

This Anglophilia is both naïve and outside the historical record. Simon Schama in A HISTORY OF BRITAIN The Fate of Empire, 1776-2000 illustrates how the British Empire was built. There was always a substantial abyss between Britain’s hypocritical and highfalutin rhetoric about international law (which Judeo-Saxon’s repeatedly infringe when it suits their nations’ interests) and bringing the benefits of civilization, peace, free trade, and Christianity to savages and the messy realities on the ground. Let’s just take the example of Ireland a EUROPEAN country. London had been content to let the tiny Anglo oligarchy run Ireland in the worst feudal manner. Schama describes in a harrowing section how the British caused, and saw benefits in, Ireland's famines of 1846 and 1850 -- in which one million White people, 15 percent of the population -- died. Britons explained that these famines would reduce the problem of overpopulation in Ireland (they sure did!). The gradualist, constitutional paths to self-government that some Britons envisioned never took place. Instead what emerged was a raw contest of power.

- “It is plain to me now, that the Phora can never be 'cleaned up', as it is rotten at its core: you.”


Poor little Winnie cannot stand the idea that someone can be properly educated and yet disagree with him. It threatens his entire worldview, based on his intellectual superiority over his lowly opponents.

(Look how presumptiously he wondered whether Fade had ever heard about the Morgenthau plan.)



- “That you ignored my whole post about Black's dishonesty, and then turned around to present the whole case as one of using Jewish sources - which I did not complain about - is flatly dishonest.”


This looks like a really cheap sophistry, a manufactured outrage.

In your thinking, being Jewish and being dishonest (at least on Jew-related issues) are all but synonymous.



- “While I assemble materials regarding Mr. Ambrose, the plagairist that Fade sets up as the ultimate authority on postwar Germany, …”


Why don’t YOU tell us just exactly where Bacque gets his preposterous figures. For example, can you tell us whether he mentions in his book the results of German censuses from the years 1946 and 1950? Dr. Brandt refuses to tell us.


Petr

:: All three reasons are bogus, just as almost without exception any apparently rational and moral and/or altruistic excuse for war is bogus; they're used as a screen for the real reasons: greed for wealth and power.

With a false premise, one can prove anything. For centuries (with the exception of the interwar period up until Munich), British foreign policy had aimed at preventing any single continental power from establishing hegemony over Europe. On the other hand, British foreign policy in the interwar period was sincerely motivated by late-Victorian altruism, as Correlli Barnett and other historians have extensively documented. Waging a war against Germany would make absolutely no sense whatsoever on the basis of the above criteria, as the British knew very well that a prolonged war against Germany would both impoverish the Empire and diminish British power, which is precisely what happened. But this is inexplicable to mugwort because he is making a deduction from his a priori assumption that every statesman in this world must have been a ruthless warmongering cut throat like Adolf Hitler, when in fact, he is the exception, not the rule.

:: If the warmongers acknowledged the real reasons it would be very difficult to get the necessary cannon-fodder to wage the war (which is why, now that there's an internet to make it possible, this important truth should be spread far and wide).

I have made my argument, which I have supported with extensive and meticulous documentation from reputable historians. On the other hand, mugwort continues to make ridiculous a priori assertions about the 'real reasons' motivating British foreign policy (e.g., pursuit of wealth and power) in the interwar period. Well then. What are these 'real reasons' and where is his evidence that they were guiding British foreign policy? Here are mine:

"Nevertheless the diplomats were, by the nature of their profession, closer to the realities of world affairs than the politicians. Growing foreign perils were perceived and promptly and fully reported, first to London and then to ministers. Some permanent officials, such as Crowe in his time and later Vansittart, struggled hard to convince governments of the need for a strong foreign poliyc, and to puncture the prevailing euphoria with a bodkin of realism. They failed. They failed because there was another, competing influence on politicians, a more congenial and therefore in the end more effective influence: a constellation of moralising internationalist cliques, each with its idea-peddlers, its contact-men in high places, and its tame press. These busy romantics -- from Phillip Kerr (Lord Lothian) and Lord Robert Cecil on the Right, through liberals like Smuts and Gilbert Murray in the middle to Kingsley Martin and Clifford Allen on the Left -- not only believed, admirably enough, that morality rather than power ought to govern relations between states but acted as though it did. They conversed, corresponded and combined in their efforts to sway British governments, one whose member they worked by private letter, the telephone and by personal persuasion during the long English country weekend. Their task was made easier because of the smallness and intimacy of the British governing world, with its friendships, kinships, schools and universities in common. The interationalists successively imposed on governments their pretension to speak for the inarticulate and unsounded body of the British nation; that is, to represent public opinion at large. They also occupied the key strongholds of 'informed' public opinion, to which governments paid special deference, such as the League of Nations Union, the Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), the New Statesman, The Times, the Observer, the Manchester Guardian and the News Chronicle, the Common Room at All Souls, the lawns at Cliveden and the parterre at Blickling. It was their counsel, intimate, insidious, bigotedly certain, that prevailed. British policy was therefore the child of their insemination of the politicians -- politicians like Baldwin and MacDonald, the Chamberlains, Simon and Henderson, Halifax, Eden. It was as if the encumbents of quiet early-nineteenth century rectories and nonconformists' ministers' houses had been miraculously transported into the great offices of State of a hundred years later. Instead of the suspicious minds of pre-Victorian statesmen, there was trustfulness; instead of worldly scepticism, a childlike innocence and optimism. And instead of a toughness, even a ruthlessness, in the pursuit of English interests, there was a yielding readiness to appease the wrath of other nations. For the very bedrock of the national character had been crumbled since the eighteenth century. Whereas the pre-Victorian Englishmen had been renowned for his quarrelsome temper and his willingness to back his argument with his fists -- or his feet -- now the modern British, like the elderly, shrank from conflict or unpleasantness of any kind. In Lord Vansittart's speech: 'Right or Left, everybody was for a quiet life.'

How did the rulers of a great and vulnerable power convince themselves that a quiet life was possible? The answer lay in the convenient, congenial but ill-founded assumptions they made about the British place in world affairs, about the nature of the post-war world and about the functioning of international relations in general.

In the first place British statesmen convinced themselves that Britain stood outside, or above, the brawls of nations. They further believed that no national interests were so opposed that they could not be reconciled by mediation and compromise. By means of these beliefs the British were able to find intellectual escape from the inevitability of struggle and absolve themselves from the painful experience of having to take sides. British statesmen enjoyed the pleasant illusion that they could be friends equally with all parties to all the disputes of a distracted world. This assumption of benign impartiality further enabled the British to allot themselves the role of umpire, or honest broker, assiduously seeking to reconcile the irreconcilable. Such an exalted role clearly required high moral authority. The British believed that they enjoyed this moral authority, owing to the altruism of their foreign policy, concerned above all, as it was, for the public weal. As Lord Curzon put it with classical stateliness in 1923:

We have endeavoured to exercise a steadying and moderating influence in the politis of the world, and I think and hope that we have conveyed not merely the impression, but the conviction that, whatever other countries or Governments may do, the British Government is never untrue to its word, and is never disloyal to its colleagues or its allies, never does anything underhanded or mean; and if this conviction is widespread -- as I believe it to be -- that is the real basis of the moral authority which the British Empire has long exerted and I believe will long continue to exert in the affairs of mankind.
Belief in the efficacy of Britain's moral authority is a recurrent strain in the memoirs and documents of the period. It carried with it a devout faith in the potency of moral force. However, what was meant by moral force was not that power of personality that enables one man to impose his will on antoher, but simply the force of the world -- or British -- disapproval of wrong-doing. As late as 1938, for instance, after Hitler's invasion of Austria, but before he staged the Czechoslovakian crisis, it was the conviction of the British Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, Sir Thomas Inskip, that the German dictator 'would be affected by the consequences of world public opinion which would be roused if Germany took action against Czechoslovakia similar to that which she had taken against Austria'.

Barnett, pp.241-242

:: WWII, which is still known as the "Good War", owing to the relentless propagandizing and cover-up which has gone on for over 6 decades, is strategically the most important war-lie to expose at this point, because it's the lynchpin which holds in place much of the present-day ideological war-machinery.

Then feel free to respond to my direct citation of Adolf Hitler's words, from Mein Kampf to the Table Talk. Feel free to support your ridiculous and illogical argument with evidence from reputable historians, as I have done. And lest I forget, I would say its about time that you tell us who these 'Warmasters' were who were out to get Germany and provide overwhelming evidence to support your claims, as I have no problem doing.

:: In 1941, after the war-lies of WWI had been exposed, at least 85% of Americans were adamantly against intervervening in the ongoing European war.

And I agree. But now you are introducing and entirely new issue into this debate. This thread is about the causes of the Second World War, specifically, their relationship to the claims that YOU have made about British foreign policy. The United States did not cause World War 2. It only entered World War 2 after the fact.

:: That's why FDR had to resort to the arch-crime of inciting and permitting Pearl Harbor.

I have no idea where mugwort came up with the notion that it is incumbent upon the United States to trade with other nations.

:: Look at how docile Americans are today, kept so by lies on lies: lies used to hide both the lies that started WWII and the further lies used to get enough American citizens to sacrifice themselves and their children so the warmongers could attain their goals.

You keep telling us that it was the 'Warmasters' who started the Second World War. You continue to make absurd accusation after accusation, which you fail to support with any convincing evidence in support of your position. This is why people do not take you seriously. America entered the Second World War to exploit a European rivalry in order to enhance American power. That is precisely what happened as well. If there was one victor in the Second World War, it was the United States.

:: Then yet more lies to cover up the Allies' unprecedented brutality, and the (successful) genocidal aims of the war.

The United States and Great Britain did not enter World War 2 to conquer and enslave Germany so that it could be colonised by Americans and Brits.

:: Germany, Italy, and Japan were precisely (coincidentally?) the three economies that followed their own paths and broke the rules of the international money-controllers, and therefore had to be brought under control by whatever means necessary.

1.) Who were the 'international money controllers'?
2.) Where is your evidence they were brought under control by the 'international money controllers'?
3.) Why do you continue to waste the time of the gallery with your ridiculous and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories?

My point, in general terms, is that the British response to Hitler cannot be fully explained in terms of the rightly-understood pursuit of British interests or of supposed exigencies attendant upon German violations of what Fade wants to refer to, and to implicitly misrepresent as, "international law".

The balance of the explanation is provided by Judeo-Communist infiltration of the British establishment (and of the Greater Judean regime, as we have discussed with regard to the Jewish entourage-created Communist sympathizer, FDR) which accounts for the duplicitous treatment of Germany as against the Soviet Union.

The infamous work, Spycatcher, by Peter Wright, gives us an account, in summary and in astounding particulars, of the inter-war penetration of the British establishment by Communists, the leading elements of which were, of course, Jewish (Victor and Tess Rothschild). And we have the then-unremarked purchase of Churchill as a later development which suggests the established presence of Jewish influence in British policy, without which we cannot account for seeming British irrationality and duplicity in the conduct thereof.
*

In your thinking, being Jewish and being dishonest (at least on Jew-related issues) are all but synonymous.

You're as malignant a liar, or as poor at comprehending printed materials, as Fade.

CONRAD BLACK IS NOT JEWISH.

Also, for the record, I am not against the judicious use of Jewish sources, especially with antis. Nor am I against the use of Jewish sources to reveal what Jews might think of a particular matter. Obviously, I am not against the use of materials by John Sack, which Fade stupidly called 'discredited'.

You're an eensy bit smarter than Fade, since you know that Sack's work was confirmed by 'legitimate sources'. Fade, knowing nothing about the reception of Sack's work, falsely charges it as discredited, since he has no qualms about lying.

It's not surprising to see the boards least scrupulous members huddling together and running interference for each other. I cannot think of two people who deserve each other more, though you both might consider taking Kikel on as a threesome.

It will make the Jack the Inhuman jealous, of course, with you replacing him as Fade's private Renfield, but this situation probably won't last long. I can't see you doing truly reprehensible things online, such as announcing that His Lordship has successfully completed a genital encounter with his girlfriend. Jack the Inhuman has eagerly done this on occasion - again out of jealousy, one presumes.

Of course I don't know you very well, Petr. I have no idea how low you are willing to step and fetchit, and I do not intend to hang around and fird out. It will take a little time to assemble my response to Fade's posting about Bacque, and then I most definitely intend to leave. To be brutally honest, the Phora is the sort of place where one might reasonably expect to find a person like - you.

Finally, I see that you cannot find fault with my post. I am not bringing Black to task because he is Jewish - SINCE HE ISN'T - but because he is dishonest. Having detailed his dishonesty, I expect Fade to accept that he is a bad source. Instead, Fade refused to acknowledge my post, substituting for it one from his own fancy, where are argue against Jewish sources.

On the basis of this lie, he then goes on to call me a hypocrite for using Jewish sources myself.

This is the voice a genuinely unprincipled person, who - again - I am not surprised to find you shilling for. Water finds its own level, all right.

WM

1) Finland

2) The Baltic States

3) What the Germans did not occupy of Poland.

4) Parts of Hungary and Rumania.

5) 24,000 Armored Fighting Vehicles (3X the rest of the world combined).

6) Millions dead of purges, famines, and the slave-labor construction of the vast war-material factories for the 24,000-strong assault on Western Europe.

7) Civilians stampeded over minefields to clear them.

8) Unarmed soldiers and civilians driven into the teeth of German machine guns.

9) Mongolians in the middle of Europe and the Rape of Berlin.

10) Explicit dedication to the global destruction of civilization.

*********************************************

"Late-Victorian altrusim," you say, sir, that was allied to and in aid of this element?

But you say that they did not want to see?

But why did they want to see the German and not the Bolshevik?

Could it have been Judeo-Communist cultivation of British jingoism for its own purposes, contra authentic British interest in the episode (just like in Greater Judea)?

Nah - must have been late-Victorian altruism, with its notorious blindness to Communist felonies and sensitivity to Fascist misdemeanors.
*

Is not "late-Victorian altruism" merely another term for a variety of that comsyp liberal socialist egalitarian utopianism which was exploited and recruited by the Judeo-Bolshevik infiltrators of the British establishment?
*

In his obsession that Germany had to wage (an aggressive!) war to remain a top-quality nation, Hitler reacted like a genuine heathen without imagination, thinking that only raw force counts Would you please post the evidence that Hitler had such an obsession at the time when he was Germany's Fuehrer? No materials from before he was in office will suffice, I'm afraid. I've been known to change my views on very basic things (for instance, who was responsible for starting WWII?) over the course of a few months of study. Winston Churchill flip-flopped regularly, from admiring Hitler to wanting to take him out, from being properly wary of Communism to being willing to ally with Stalin and back, after the war to saying he thought the Allies had fought the wrong enemy. There are innumerable other examples of politicians changing their minds--it's the condition of the beast. So could I have some clear and timely evidence of this obsession, please? (Also not from after he preemptively attacked Russia, because after that he was already perforce committed to having troops in the East.)

Waging a war against Germany would make absolutely no sense whatsoever on the basis of the above criteria, as the British knew very well that a prolonged war against Germany would both impoverish the Empire and diminish British power, which is precisely what happened.

A very selective account of British perspicacity.

The British evidently failed to "very well" anticipate the inevitable Soviet triumph in defeat of all the supposed goals of the war (those "rights" of small nations/that cherished balance-of-power/Polish independence).

And yet the result is celebrated as a glorious "victory," where only Judeo-Bolshevism realized its aims.
*

...The verdict of historians is virtually unanimous on this issue: Adolf Hitler was instrumental in inciting the Second World War. The seeds of World War 2 had long been sown in Hitler's romantic fantasy of expanding east at the expense of the Slavs since the 1920s. It was the pursuit of this chimera that led him straight into war with the Western Powers, who refused to stand by and let him abuse his weaker neighbours. He clung to this fantasy until the end of this life:..

The "Western Powers" stood by as Stalin did worse. Caution: Jews at Work.
*
"The living space that he continually called for was not intended merely to provide food for a surplus population, to insure against "starvation and misery," and to receive a peasantry threatened by industry and trade. Rather, these territorial demands were a prelude to a program for world conquest. Every ambitious nation needed a certain amount of territory, enough to make it independent of alliances and the political alignments of a given period. Historical greatness was intimately connected with geographic extension. To this idea Hitler clung to the very last. Brooding in the bunker shortly before the end, he complained that fate had forced him into premature conquests because a nation without great space could not even set itself great goals."

Joachim C. Fest, Hitler (New York: Penguin Books, 2002), p.214

I trust that your uninstructed grasp of the logic and history of political economy, and of the specific circumstance of Germany in this regard, is yet sufficient to reject Fest's claim of a Hitlerian plan for "world conquest".
*
No one disagrees that Britain declared war on Germany, mugwort. Its not exactly like that is breaking news. What is in dispute here is why Britain declared war on Germany. I have shown in this thread (so there is no need for me to be redundant here), thoroughly documenting my argument in the process, that Great Britain declared war on Germany because the British were convinced (after Hitler tore up the Munich agreement) that he could no longer be trusted or reasoned with, that he was a dangerous warmonger who was pursuing an expansionist policy at the expense of his weaker neighbours. So the British decided that it was best for his potential victims to stand up to him collectively rather than be isolated and singled out for destruction at a later date, as was the case with Czechoslovakia.

How does one account for this very selective regard for the welfare of weaker neighbors by the British?

Finland/Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia/Poland/Hungary/Rumania/Czechoslovakia/Bulgaria/Austria/Yugoslavia/Albania??????????????????????????
*

page 122

27 December 1945

Played golf today with Joe Kennedy [Joseph P. Kennedy who was Roosevelt’s Ambassador to Great Britain in the years immediately before the war]. I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy’s view : That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt’s [William C. Bullitt, then Ambassador to France] urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn’t fight, Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war. In his telephone conversation with Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain’s backside. Kennedy’s response always was that putting iron up his backside did no good unless the British had some iron with which to fight, and they did not. . . .

What Kennedy told me in this conversation jibes substantially with the remarks Clarence Dillon had made to me already, to the general effect that Roosevelt had asked him in some manner to communicate privately with the British to the end that Chamberlain should have greater firmness in his dealings with Germany. Dillon told me that at Roosevelt’s request he had talked with Lord Lothian in the same general sense as Kennedy reported Roosevelt having urged him to do with Chamberlain. Lothian presumably was to communicate to Chamberlain the gist of his conversation with Dillon.

Looking backward there is undoubtedly foundation for Kennedy’s belief that Hitler’s attack could have been deflected to Russia, but I think he fails to take into account what would have happened after Hitler had conquered Russia. Would he have been content to stop? Nothing in his record indicates that that would have been the case, but rather that having removed the threat to his eastern frontiers he would then have exercised the options open to him to construct a European German-dominated system to which he later gave expression after overrunning France.

[Forrestal, an uninstructed American like Fade, fails to understand that Hitler did not plan to, and could not have, "conquered" Russia. Germany would have been perpetually occupied, to the full extent of its resources, in merely maintaining the planned stop-line from Astrakan to Archangelsk, leaving the vast majority (though least important part) of the Soviet Union in Soviet hands, sustained by a Judeo-Bolshevik Fifth Column in the West.]

Kennedy said that the Russian demand for incorporation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into the U.S.S.R. was the stumbling block, in the spring of 1939, to an understanding between Russia and England. The fundamental difficulty of England, however, was that if they backed Germany . . . they were then faced with a greater Germany, a weakened France, and a relatively defenseless England, whereas an alliance with Russia and the ultimate destruction of Germany would present England with precisely the problem that they now have, namely, a vacuum of power in Central Europe into which Russian influence would flow.
*

- "... the Germans (and Japanese) should have perpetually grovelled amidst chronic disorder and impotence while the Bolshevik monstrosity was allowed to misbehave unmolested."

Bolshevik experiment was destined to fall on its own incompetence anyway (like its profoundest critics like Solzhenitsyn well realized).

Its threat was not so deadly that it would have justified using ANY means to stop it.

On the other hand, Nazis might have been able, with their usual German efficiency, make their system of oppression much more lasting and penetrating.


Petr

The Bolshevik experiment did not "fall" - there was no revolution, no authentic coup, no disorder. Gorbachev deliberately dismantled the ostensible administrative apparatus of the regime, in fulfillment of that aspect of the plan for strategic deception of the deluded West. The definitive account of the event credits the SU with two decades left in it before it might have been forced into what could be called a "fall" or a "collapse" (as the event is most frequently mischaracterized).

The point about crypto-anarchic Soviet incompetence and NS German capacity for the maintenance of order is well taken, on the other hand.
*

neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn’t fight, Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war. In his telephone conversation with Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain’s backside. Kennedy’s response always was that putting iron up his backside did no good unless the British had some iron with which to fight, and they did not. . . .
A perspicacious comment on Kennedy's part. Many people think, and it seems quite possible, though not of earth-shaking importance, that Chamberlain, in making the Munich agreement, was working, in reality, not for peace, but simply to buy time for England to build up her military capabilities to the required pitch. At any rate, upon Chamberlain's arrival home from the Munich conference production of armaments in England escalated to a fever pitch.

if they backed Germany . . . they were then faced with a greater Germany, a weakened France, and a relatively defenseless England, whereas an alliance with Russia and the ultimate destruction of Germany would present England with precisely the problem that they now have, namely, a vacuum of power in Central Europe into which Russian influence would flow. Considering how pro-anglo Hitler's feelings were, the first option would probably have been very advantageous for both parties (at least for his lifetime). Of course the real warmongers concern themselves very little with the advantages or disadvantages of a particular war to the nations which do the fighting.

- "#"They all have an agenda born of prejudice, naivete, and herd mentality which creeps into even trivial monographs."

ALL scientists and scholars have an agenda of some sort. The idea of being able to examine some issue with absolute neutrality, applying totally objective reason, is just a silly rationalist daydream.

So don't you think that you are on the CATEGORICALLY higher level than they, NN.

Objectivity (in the full sense of the word) is a DIVINE ATTRIBUTE.

Otherwise, just the usual fancy-schmancy mishmash of cultured words with no real content from NN.

Petr

The ignorant Brother Petr attributes to science the necessity for the otherwise-catastrophic unflagging maintenance of "absolute neutrality" and "total objectivity" - whereas science is actually practiced imperfectly but self-correctively.
*

For the record, I want everyone who has participated in this thread to answer the following questions:

1.) Do you personally endorse Hitler's Ostpolitik?
2.) Was Germany waging an aggressive and expansionist war against its neighbours in order to acquire 'living space'?
3.) Do you agree or that Germany was justified in destroying other European nations and attempting to exterminate their cultures?

1) Qualifiedly affirmative
2) Ditto
3) Ditto
*

On the other hand, British foreign policy in the interwar period was sincerely motivated by late-Victorian altruism, as Correlli Barnett and other historians have extensively documented. I haven't claimed that many of the politicians themselves were not altruistic, poor saps. That doesn't mean their altruistic goals were the real reasons for any given war.

Waging a war against Germany would make absolutely no sense whatsoever on the basis of the above criteria, as the British knew very well that a prolonged war against Germany would both impoverish the Empire and diminish British power, which is precisely what happened. Sounds kind of like the effects of the US war on Iraq. Is laying waste to Iraq helpful to the US in any way? Of course not! US finances are already in an execrable state, but the billions of dollars sunk in this war could put us over the edge. World opinion of us as a country has never been this bad. The infrastructure of the country is falling apart, with no money for maintenance. A record number of people don't have health-care coverage, unemployment is rampant, mortgages are being foreclosed at an amazing rate, while homelessness skyrockets and families who never knew what it was like to go hungry are now finding out.

So WWII was very bad for Britain, and yet they started it. The Iraq war is very bad for the US, and yet we started it. I wonder what the common denominator might be?

I would say its about time that you tell us who these 'Warmasters' were who were out to get Germany One of them was certainly Samuel Untermeyer.

- "Japan is no longer sovereign in the full sense, ..."

You mean it's no longer free to attack its neighbors at will? Or how do you define "sovereignty?"

The having, among other things, of possession of vital material resources such that one's national policy cannot be dictated by their mere withholding by a possessor upon whom one depends for such.

- "A german regime which was to maintain its sovereign independence of Jewish international finance had to have independent sources of vital raw materials (as had the powers that sanctimoniously sought to deny Germany). "
*
Not even commenting on the correctness of this idea, what about those pesky Slavs who inhabited the areas where those raw materials were? Did they have any right to object?

Yes, presumably as a right granted by the Soviet regime. Your reference to "right" is otherwise the mere metaphysical blather such as that to which your sort are characteristically given.
*

Dunno about anyone else, but when confronted with such thorny questions as those raised in this thread, I always turn to the sage words of that noted thinker Texas Dissident.

On the validity of Internet sources:

Political/activist dialogue here on the internet is skewed way out of line with actual reality because almost all of it is done and/or driven by a handful of blowhards in love with their own rhetoric. The internet and the social interaction it provides is in no way indicative of real-life and should never be confused as such. By its very nature it presents a false reality and we as Christians, who specialize in the real, or true Truth if you will, especially need to remember that distinguishing and important fact.

On the contributions of Petr...especially here at The Phora:

Visiting the pages over there [at The Phora], I'm struck with the same feeling I most recently had when I accidentally stumbled into some kind of voodoo/witchcraft store on a recent visit to the French Quarter a few weeks ago. Many will scoff I'm sure, but it's like there's an oppressive atmosphere that kind of bears down on one's being. Hopefully some of you believing brothers and sisters will know what I mean. All I can say is God bless and keep our brother Petr who is doing the Lord's work over there in that spiritually quite hostile environment. Keep him in your prayers.

You may now resume hostilities. Professor, if you please...!

And a one, and a two...

Die Fahne hoch!
Die Reihen fest geschlossen!
S.A. marschiert
Mit mutig festem Schritt
Kam'raden die Rotfront
Und Reaktion erschossen
Marschier'n im Geist
In unsern Reihen mit

Die Straße frei
Den braunen Batallionen
Die Straße frei
Dem Sturmabteilungsmann!
Es schau'n auf's Hakenkreuz
Voll Hoffnung schon Millionen
Der Tag für Freiheit
Und für Brot bricht an

Zum letzten Mal
Wird nun Appell geblasen!
Zum Kampfe steh'n
Wir alle schon bereit!
Bald flattern Hitlerfahnen
Über Barrikaden
Die Knechtschaft dauert
Nur noch kurze Zeit!

Goodnight, Everybody! :222

*

“It will make the Jack the Inhuman jealous, of course, with you replacing him as Fade's private Renfield, but this situation probably won't last long. I can't see you doing truly reprehensible things online, such as announcing that His Lordship has successfully completed a genital encounter with his girlfriend. Jack the Inhuman has eagerly done this on occasion - again out of jealousy, one presumes.”


If I were as addicted to practising quasi-Freudian psychoanalysis, whenever other arguments fail me, as you are, I could make some observations how naturally these kind of thoughts enter your mind, but nevermind.


Petr

If I were as addicted to practising quasi-Freudian psychoanalysis, whenever other arguments fail me, as you are, I could make some observations how naturally these kind of thoughts enter your mind, but nevermind.

Petr, you will never need to practice quasi-Freudian psychoanalysis whenever your other arguments fail, since you are already so skilled in every other possible strategem to distract readers' attentions from the fact that you've lost: dodging; falsifying; hair-splitting; outright lying.

You have no need of these high-falutin' methods.

WM

The British evidently failed to "very well" anticipate the inevitable Soviet triumph in defeat of all the supposed goals of the war (those "rights" of small nations/that cherished balance-of-power/Polish independence).

Its difficult to blame Churchill for not anticipating FDR's total sell-out of European interests at the Yalta conference (although its also somewhat difficult to say to just what extent FDR's refusal to go along with everything Stalin wanted would have impacted on Stalin's decision-making process, however, FDR did hold the reigns of power in that relationship, i.e. we were the Soviet Union's "arsenal of democracy").

I would really like a response to the following post, and not from Petr either:

I have never, not even in wrangling with Petr, encountered such naked mendacity online as I have in your responses, Fade.

It is plain to me now, that the Phora can never be 'cleaned up', as it is rotten at its core: you.


Conrad Black, Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom

Do you really want to be quoting Conrad Black on the topic of FDR, Fade? Especially on the topic of Jewish influence on FDR?

http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?strwebhead=The+rise+of+Conrad+Black&intcategoryid=2

Black’s wife, Barbara Amiel, writes strongly pro-Israel columns in several of his publications.

Black himself has taken the unusual step of writing to one of his own publications to decry “indefensible hatred for Israel.”

Taki Theodoracopulos, a columnist at Black’s Spectator magazine, wrote in early 2001, “The way to Uncle Sam’s heart runs through Tel Aviv and Israeli-occupied territory.”

Black responded in force.

“He expressed a hatred for Israel and a contempt for the United States and its political institutions that were irrational and an offense to civilized taste. In the process, I am afraid he uttered a blood libel on the Jewish people wherever they may be,” Black wrote.

“In both its venomous character and its unfathomable absurdity, this farrago of lies is almost worthy of Goebbels or the authors of ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’ ”

“The Jews, according to Taki, have suborned the U.S. government, direct that country’s military like a docile attack dog, and glory in the murder of innocent or mischievous children. He presents the universal Jewish ethos as brutish, vulgar, grasping and cunningly wicked,” he added.

Since Black is not even honest about Jewish influence on his newspapers or in his household (he's married to one), and even goes one step further to use his international media empire to cover for his good friend Richard Perle and their mutual friends, why on earth would he tell the truth about FDR's circle?

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j112103.html

Let's start with the board of directors, which includes Barbara Amiel, Conrad's wife, whose right-wing rants have managed to find an outlet in Hollinger publications. And there's Washington superhawk Richard Perle, who heads Hollinger Digital, the company's venture capital arm. Seems that Hollinger Digital put $2.5 million in a company called Trireme Partners, which aims to cash in on the big military and homeland security buildup. As luck would have it, Trireme's managing partner is none other than... Richard Perle. . .

"… There's Gerald Hillman, managing partner of Hillman Capital, which also got a $14 million investment from Hollinger, according to the Financial Times. Hillman is also a partner at Trireme."

Both Perle and Hillman are members of the Defense Policy Board, the nerve center of neoconservative influence in this administration, where policy, ideology, and the pursuit of profits combine to motivate a constant stream of war propaganda. They lied us into war, and now we're finding out that they're thieves as well as liars.



Here you can see the Carlyle group cleaning up after Black, who stands accused of embezzlement at Hollinger:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1091483,00.html

A powerful banking group with close links to the Pentagon, which has also invested money on behalf of the Bin Laden family, is in talks to bail out beleaguered Daily Telegraph owner Conrad Black.

The revelation suggests that Britain's bestselling broadsheet - coveted by rival newspaper barons because of its political influence - may not go under the hammer after all, as Lord Black tries to quell a shareholder rebellion in the face of allegations that he and several acolytes pocketed millions of dollars that was not theirs to take.



Black' misdeed's may sink the whole boat of neocon press, specialists all in reducing or minimizing the responsibility of Jews for current political events:

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.11.21/news3.hollinger.html

A convergence of unrelated financial scandals is threatening to sink the tiny but influential boat of Jewish-flavored conservative journalism.

At the center of the controversy is Hollinger International, a media company that owns dozens of conservative newspapers, including the hawkish Jerusalem Post. An internal investigation into improper payments allegedly made to Hollinger's majority owner and CEO, Conrad Black, and its president, F. David Radler, has triggered a major reorganization of the company.

Radler, who oversaw the Jerusalem Post, has resigned. Black has stepped down as CEO, but will continue to play a role in planning what is expected to be a mass sell-off of the company's media holdings.

Many media insiders are predicting the shakeup will lead to the sale of most Hollinger-controlled newspapers, including The Jerusalem Post, The Daily Telegraph of London and the Chicago Sun-Times. Hollinger also owns a piece of The New York Sun, which was launched in 2002 by former Forward editor Seth Lipsky. Though ostensibly a general interest newspaper, the Sun is best known for its pugnacious coverage of Jewish-related issues, as well as its neo-conservative policy positions.


We cannot rely on someone who is currently decieving the world about Jewish responsibility for foreign wars to be honest about Jewish responsibility for foreign wars in the past.

The whole saga of Lord Black's empire of Jewish disinformation is too long and too sordid to go into now. I would expect someone interested in anti-Jewish activism would refrain from quoting him as a source on anything, most especially Jewish influence on Roosevelt.

And to think you had the nerve to criticize others regarding 'internet sources'. It's plain that the barrel you are scraping has no bottom.

By way of an attempt at a response, Fade says:

I didn't 'dodge' the information you provided at all. You rambled on and on about my citation of Jewish sources and how my views had somehow changed. You seem to have forgotten that I have always quoted and cited Jewish sources.

To the gallery: you can examine my post above. I will happily give a thousand dollars to anyone who finds in the above statement the claim that Fade shouldn't be using Jewish sources.

In fact, it is a logical impossibility that I made this argument, SINCE CONRAD BLACK IS NOT JEWISH .

Anyone who examines my statement can see that I am arguing that Black is dishonest and that he lies about Jewish power in order to minimize it. He is married to a Jew, and is good friends with Richard Perle. He has publicly upbraided Taki for even stating that Jews had anything to do with the Iraq invasion, calling it a 'blood libel'.

I ask simply, is this a person who can be relied upon to give a fair estimate of Jewish power in the Roosevelt administration?

Fade, embarrased at being caught with such a shoddy source, lashes out, claiming that I am 'rambling' about 'Jewish sources'. This is an open lie, and I demand that he retract it.

While I assemble materials regarding Mr. Ambrose, the plagairist that Fade sets up as the ultimate authority on postwar Germany, I am mildly curious to see if Fade can own up to having misrepresented my post, a serious charge since he in other places upbraids me for using Jewish sources, A PRACTICE I HAVE NOT OBJECTED TO.

I don't know what they're teaching you at the University of Auburn, Fade, but it plainly isn't reading comprehension.

Though it is not beyond possibility that you simply lied about my post, either.

Settle the score for the gallery, Fade: did you actually misread my post, or did you willingly misrepresent it?

WM

P.S. Sorry for all the shouting in the post, but I wouldn't want for ol' hard-of-hearing Fade to miss, and thus be able to lie about, my main points - AGAIN.

WM

The having, among other things, of possession of vital material resources such that one's national policy cannot be dictated by their mere withholding by a possessor upon whom one depends for such.


LOL A nice justification for a constantly growing German border, but hardly realistic. Its amusing to me that you don't recognize the territorial integrity of nations which border Germany and which never gave it offense, but seem to believe in some kind of super-sovereignty for Germany itself whereby it DESERVES the resources of its neighbors.

LOL A nice justification for a constantly growing German border, but hardly realistic. Its amusing to me that you don't recognize the territorial integrity of nations which border Germany and which never gave it offense, but seem to believe in some kind of super-sovereignty for Germany itself whereby it DESERVES the resources of its neighbors.

Your amusement is the mere mistaken product of your own assumption as to my belief. I do not claim that Germany deserved/deserves the resources of its neighbors.
*

Your amusement is the mere mistaken product of your own assumption as to my belief. I do not claim that Germany deserved/deserves the resources of its neighbors.
*

Good. After all, Germany is to some other nations as Belgium is to Germany.

Good. After all, Germany is to some other nations as Belgium is to Germany.

Indeed. The Soviets on the way to the Atlantic and beyond will one day be passing through and devastating Germany, thanks to the past and present efforts of elements such as yourself.

Rejoice.
*

Wait a minute. Are you saying that the collapse of the Soviet Union was faked? :p

Wait a minute. Are you saying that the collapse of the Soviet Union was faked? :p

Your premise is false - there was no "collapse".

The ostensible administrative apparatus of the Soviet Union was deliberately dismantled by Gorbachev, under no pressure of necessity, but as predicted by Golitsyn in realization of long-established plans for strategic deception directed toward global geo-political supremacy.

Please just do the assigned reading - you're obviously so uninformed regarding fundamentals that the time wasted in stupid questions is a multiple of what it will take to get an organized account from the books.
*

The Russians cannot even put down the Chechans but they are going to take over Europe? :222

The Russians cannot even put down the Chechans but they are going to take over Europe? :222

The "Russians" could vitrify Chechnya with nuclear devices in a matter of minutes if not constrained by the necessity for maintaining appearances.

Also, a regime which cares not for the welfare of the resident population, except as it serves the larger strategic goal, is not pressed to resolve the issue - if it even is an issue and not itself a device as suggested by some observers.
*

:: The "Russians" could vitrify Chechnya with nuclear devices in a matter of minutes if not constrained by the necessity for maintaining appearances.

Who knows? Perhaps the Russians would rather make enormous profits by selling their oil to the West. This would necessitate not offending Western sensibilities by the use of nuclear weapons ON RUSSIAN TERRITORY AGAINST THEIR OWN CITIZENS! But hey, that's just my opinion. :/

:: Also, a regime which cares not for the welfare of the resident population, except as it serves the larger strategic goal, is not pressed to resolve the issue - if it even is an issue and not itself a device as suggested by some observers.

I would sure like to know where you became privy to such information about Russian grand strategy. It seems to be escaping top U.S. foreign policy makers, as I have read nothing of the sort in Foreign Affairs, much less in the writings of Zbigniew Brzezinski. But hey, that's just another outlet for the international Anglo-Pan Slav-American-Swiss Bank Account-Bolshevik-Luxembourger-Judeo-ZOG conspiracy via Bermuda to destroy the Federal Republic of Germany. Enlighten us laymen, NeoNietzsche! :p

I would sure like to know where you became privy to such information about Russian grand strategy. It seems to be escaping top U.S. foreign policy makers, as I have read nothing of the sort in Foreign Affairs, much less in the writings of Zbigniew Brzezinski. But hey, that's just another outlet for the international Anglo-Pan Slav-American-Swiss Bank Account-Bolshevik-Luxembourger-Judeo-ZOG conspiracy via Bermuda to destroy the Federal Republic of Germany. Enlighten us laymen, NeoNietzsche! :p

Wouldn't be the first time "it" apparently escaped "top U.S. foreign policy makers," if there was not, rather, a secret intent to conceal it, when Stalin turned out not to be the lovely democrat prepared to have merely liberated Eastern Europe in line with the propaganda presentation of the war-time Soviets and the expectations of the newly cretinous, Jew-manipulated Communist sympathizer, FDR (a "top U.S. foreign policy maker," n'est-pas?).

The following works, as listed for "HM" earlier this evening, may, upon comprehension of their implication, diminish your enthusiasm for a repetition of an embarrassing display of pseudo-sophisticate sarcasm, as above, to wit:

*Deception, by Edward Jay Epstein

*New Lies for Old, by Anatoly Golitsyn

*The Perestroika Deception, by Anatoly Golitsyn

*Spycatcher, By Peter Wright

Ultimately, your comprehensive education will be much more involved, since comparative history in terms of the logic of political economy lies before you, and we have yet to see your promised devastating response to the language-as-metaphor issue, so that your correction as to all considerations in regard to the matter might be consummated.
*

NN,

I will tell you what. I will check out and read all of the books you have listed here. If I find myself convinced of an error by these sources, then I will happily retract my claim, although that is highly unlikely, as I am deluged with books and articles about Russian foreign policy all the time (which have convinced me that the claims you are making here are extravagent).

It should also be noted here that while I am graduating in the fall with my degree in political science (international relations), I also took three years of advanced classes in economics (which happens to be my minor). As for the language-as-metaphor thread, I will be more than happy to reply to it. In fact, I got distracted by other threads (which is why I didn't respond). I still have the majority of my response to that thread archived in my forum. I will get to work on it. Expect my reply shortly! I will wrap up wintermute first, however. Then I shall move on to mugwort and finally to that old thread.

Indeed. The Soviets on the way to the Atlantic and beyond will one day be passing through and devastating Germany, thanks to the past and present efforts of elements such as yourself.


[Thou shall not troll and be an @$$hole in the highbrow section! Amen!]

Inquiring minds want to know.

The ostensible administrative apparatus of the Soviet Union was deliberately dismantled by Gorbachev, under no pressure of necessity, but as predicted by Golitsyn in realization of long-established plans for strategic deception directed toward global geo-political supremacy.


Whose plan was this? And what apparatus exists to oversee the return of the USSR?

Whose plan was this? And what apparatus exists to oversee the return of the USSR?

1) The Shelepin Plan.

2) The apparatus whose offices are styled "BUREAU of STRATEGIC DECEPTION of the WEST: Secret Planning for Resurrection of the USSR Division" (the infamous BSDWSPRUSSRD [pronounced "bitchsdownanspreadem"]). How can you have failed to note the existence of this organization? Would you like their phone number?
*

NN,

I will tell you what. I will check out and read all of the books you have listed here. If I find myself convinced of an error by these sources, then I will happily retract my claim, although that is highly unlikely, as I am deluged with books and articles about Russian foreign policy all the time (which have convinced me that the claims you are making here are extravagent).

It should also be noted here that while I am graduating in the fall with my degree in political science (international relations), I also took three years of advanced classes in economics (which happens to be my minor). As for the language-as-metaphor thread, I will be more than happy to reply to it. In fact, I got distracted by other threads (which is why I didn't respond). I still have the majority of my response to that thread archived in my forum. I will get to work on it. Expect my reply shortly! I will wrap up wintermute first, however. Then I shall move on to mugwort and finally to that old thread.

Worthy aspirations all. And I note your academic progress - but caution you that instruction in so-called political science combined with advanced instruction in economics does not sufficiently direct your attention to the historical patterns and ethical difficulties attendant upon the real-life synthesis of politics and economics (the "logic and history of political economy," as I refer to it). Somewhere along the line, you may learn that your academic instructors have a stake, ideologically and professionally, in the implicit pretense that these difficulties are either presently resolved or resolvable in principle, as they, in fact, are not and never will be. It is evident to me that this, their pretense, has been communicated to and affirmed in you in some degree, and that your countervailing grasp of political economy, if that is attained, of the unfortunate realities regarding the insurmountable obstacles to melioristic administration of human affairs, will also inform your estimate of the Russian/Soviet circumstance.
*

- " Somewhere along the line, you may learn that your academic instructors have a stake, ideologically and professionally, in the implicit pretense that these difficulties are either presently resolved or resolvable in principle, as they, in fact, are not and never will be. It is evident to me that this, their pretense, has been communicated to and affirmed in you in some degree, and that your countervailing grasp of political economy, if that is attained, of the unfortunate realities regarding the insurmountable obstacles to melioristic administration of human affairs, will also inform your estimate of the Russian/Soviet circumstance. "


You should see what this is, Fade - occultic blather.


Petr

- " Somewhere along the line, you may learn that your academic instructors have a stake, ideologically and professionally, in the implicit pretense that these difficulties are either presently resolved or resolvable in principle, as they, in fact, are not and never will be. It is evident to me that this, their pretense, has been communicated to and affirmed in you in some degree, and that your countervailing grasp of political economy, if that is attained, of the unfortunate realities regarding the insurmountable obstacles to melioristic administration of human affairs, will also inform your estimate of the Russian/Soviet circumstance. "


You should see what this is, Fade - occultic blather.


Petr

What was it that I was writing in another thread about depths of stupidity yet to be explored?

Surely, proof that intoxication damages brain cells, on parade.
*

[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]:: Who said that? Not I--at least not intentionally.

Fade, I need to take some time off to do schoolwork. Meanwhile, I'll make a general comment. You are obviously very young. You are studying Political Science in an ordinary, reputable University in the US. What that adds up to is that the view you are given of history will be the view the Establishment wants you to have. It's too bad that having founded a forum in which you are given, free of charge, accurate information about an extremely important historical time period, you spend your time arguing about facts that, if you would take the culture-imposed blinders off, you would recognize as facts.

All you would need to do in order to do that is to familiarize yourself with the revisionist literature, in which a lot of accurate history is revealed which contradicts the official version. That way, instead of asking people questions on this forum the answers to which you then reject through ignorance, you would know what the claims of the books or articles are, and what the sources are for them, and you could decide what you think based on knowledge, not ignorance. There's no substitute for doing some reading of sources not corrupted by having been written by "reputable" (i.e. subsidized) historians, who have a clear conflict of interests concerning any information potentially harmful to their golden goose. All the more so if their scholarly reputation is built on affirming the conventional story. Many, many books use material that's since been proven to be a forgery cooked up by the Allies to justify their actions, or even material obtained from that fountain of polluted fakery, "eyewitness" testimony.

For example, your "Schweinhund" quote from Hitler is obviously apocryphal, as well as typical of Allied portrayals of Hitler used to justify mass murder by the Allies. If you post Toland's source for this quote I may recognize the perpetrator. Uncritically citing sources that themselves use later-discredited sources is not a good path to follow if you're genuinely seeking the truth.

Why isn't the conventional literature enough? I think that's been discussed here on the forum recently. In order to find a mainstream market authors must write books that publishers are willing to publish, bookstores are willing to carry, and reviewers are willing to review. In order to get and keep a position in a hisory department of a university it's required that you show your loyalty to the state by not writing or teaching stuff that makes the Establishment look really, really bad. An expose of this or that particular foible is one thing--but to educate people to the fact that the US, Britain, and Zionist Jewry started a war 65 years ago, based on lies, like the Iraq War, but that killed, not just 30,000, but 50 million people, and that the "good guys" in that war committed by far more and worse atrocities than did the country which is accused of starting the war and committing atrocities, is quite another, and obviously not a point of view a university interested in staying afloat financially could afford to tolerate.

You asked about sources for my claims. My discription of what happened is largely based on The Forced War, by Davis Hoggan. In one of the posts that got eaten I told you some reasons that that 716 p. book about the months leading up to WWII is still probably the best source for what really happened then. Harry Elmer Barnes, the respected revisionist historian, under whose auspices the book was written, went to Europe after it was completed, and submitted copies to many of the diplomats and others who had been involved in the book's events, and they confirmed it as accurate.

I've gotten that book in now,and could cite stuff, but I can't right now. While I'm busy with schoolwork, why don't you see if you can obtain a copy of The Forced War Its precursor, Hoggan's Harvard dissertation, is the document that changed Harry Elmer Barnes' mind about the inception of WWII. Before reading it, in spite of having previously thoroughly debunked WWI, he had bought the propaganda that Hitler had caused the war through his expansionist aims; reading it he realized he had been wrong, which is when he encouraged DH to enlarge the dissertation into a full-scale book. In writing this book Hoggan not only used the diplomatic papers of all the countries involved, but also he intereviewed key players.

Well, I have to get off and get to work. Good luck; talk to you later.

1) The Shelepin Plan.


The "Shelepin plan", if I recall, was simply the KGB's plan of attack for the Cold War, using proxies in the third world and armed revolution against pro-Western governments. Can you tell us, please, how this plan has anything to do with the USSR 'pretending' to dismantle itself and hide in secret in what would undoubtedly be the largest conspiracy in human history?

Will you tell us how a nation which couldn't keep its populace fed, pay its army, or keep its military hardware from sinking to the bottom of the ocean manages to pull off this unparalleled feat?


2) The apparatus whose offices are styled "BUREAU of STRATEGIC DECEPTION of the WEST: Secret Planning for Resurrection of the USSR Division" (the infamous BSDWSPRUSSRD [pronounced "bitchsdownanspreadem"]).


So then you know of no apparatus created to complete this grand, overarching conspiracy. The Russian people will simply do it, as if part of a hive mind.

Interesting. When will this next Oliver Stone film be coming out?

Flag to: wintermute, FadeTheButcher

WM:You are dodging the information I gave about Black. He is more than hip-deep in Jewish disinformation efforts, and has personally intevened to pour calumny on the head of Taki, who tried to publically discuss the same.

That you ignored my whole post about Black's dishonesty, and then turned around to present the whole case as one of using Jewish sources - which I did not complain about - is flatly dishonest.

[...] My post should give you more than adequate reason for doubting Conrad Black's reliability as a witness. He covers for Jewish involvement in the contemporary world - that's his job. What about that point is so hard for you to understand?
Exactly.

Fade cited the work of a dishonest shabbos goy (Conrad Black, a friend of superhawk Richard Perle) who's now accused of robbing his own company, and you noticed it, and pointed it out.

Fade then started talking about how Jewish sources are frank and trustworthy. LoL

Flag to: wintermute, FadeTheButcher

WM:
Exactly.

Fade cited the work of a dishonest shabbos goy (Conrad Black, a friend of superhawk Richard Perle)


So wintermute is free to quote Jews, while Fade is out of line by mentioning someone who is a friend of a Jew.

Explain that to me.

Mugwort,

Did you quit LF?

:: Fade, I need to take some time off to do schoolwork.

Same here. I have an essay to write for my Contemporary Political Theory class (not to mention a German test to study for).

:: Meanwhile, I'll make a general comment. You are obviously very young.

I am 24 years old. I will be 25 in November. But no, I haven't encountered any Jew conspiracies in our Political Science department. If anything, Israel is reviled within academia.

:: You are studying Political Science in an ordinary, reputable University in the US.

Which is why I am convinced that most scholars do not take their marching orders from either Israel, AIPAC, ZOG, or the 'Warmasters' you are constantly referring to.

:: What that adds up to is that the view you are given of history will be the view the Establishment wants you to have.

But that makes no sense, mugwort. I can easily locate and read virtually all the titles that NeoNietzsche, wintermute, and yourself have cited. And what's more, most professors would hardly consider themselves to be part of any 'establishment'. More often than not, they are at odds with the political leadership and especially the business community.

:: It's too bad that having founded a forum in which you are given, free of charge, accurate information about an extremely important historical time period, you spend your time arguing about facts that, if you would take the culture-imposed blinders off, you would recognize as facts.

Yet these 'facts' that you continue to cite are not 'facts' at all. I am more than willing to consider your perspective and give it a fair hearing. Most scholars are. On the other hand, you continue to dismiss out of hand the work and research of professional historians on the grounds of your conspiracy theory (which we are still waiting for you to support). I don't even have to read secondary sources to arrive at my conclusions about the causes of the Second World War. Adolf Hitler makes it emphatically clear in his own words on numerous occasions throughout his entire career. So why bother denying it?

:: All you would need to do in order to do that is to familiarize yourself with the revisionist literature, in which a lot of accurate history is revealed which contradicts the official version.

But I am familiar with the revisionist literature, mugwort. I have David Irving's Churchill's War right here and he is able, unlike yourself, to make a convincing case in support of his thesis. On the other hand, you continue to invoke elusive 'Warmasters' and unreasonable conspiracies to destroy Germany, theories that you cannot support with any reliable evidence. That's your problem. The weight of the evidence clearly falls against you.

:: That way, instead of asking people questions on this forum the answers to which you then reject through ignorance, you would know what the claims of the books or articles are, and what the sources are for them, and you could decide what you think based on knowledge, not ignorance.

Now you are arguing that it is incumbent upon others to make YOUR case for YOU in this debate. That is illogical, mugwort. The burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of he who asserts a positive. So defend your claims and reply to my response or have them dismissed as arbitrary.

:: There's no substitute for doing some reading of sources not corrupted by having been written by "reputable" (i.e. subsidized) historians, who have a clear conflict of interests concerning any information potentially harmful to their golden goose.

You continue to assert here that mainstream scholarship is 'corrupted' by this ridiculous conspiracy of yours (e.g., the conclusions of most scholars do not conform to your ideological worldview). Why don't you go read Mein Kampf, Hitler's unpublished foreign policy book, and Hitler's Table Talk for yourself? What credibility do you have here? You continue to make bogus claim after bogus claim, just as you continue dismiss quote after quote from primary sources, simply because you don't like them.

:: Many, many books use material that's since been proven to be a forgery cooked up by the Allies to justify their actions, or even material obtained from that fountain of polluted fakery, "eyewitness" testimony.

That's always mugwort's crutch. If evidence does not conform to mugwort's ridiculous ideological worldview, then it must be, ipso facto, a forgery. On the other hand, mugwort once again provides no evidence to support his claim that many of the materials cited by myself are forgeries. The Table Talk is not a forgery. David Irving does not even deny that. The Goebbels' Diaries are not forgeries. Irving does not deny that either.

:: For example, your "Schweinhund" quote from Hitler is obviously apocryphal, as well as typical of Allied portrayals of Hitler used to justify mass murder by the Allies.

Please prove to the gallery that this quotation is false and has been used by mainstream historians to obscure the truth about the origins of the Second World War. Please show us evidence of this vast conspiracy, mugwort.

Toland's Source: Documents on German Foreign Policy, D, VII, 200-6, 557-59

:: Uncritically citing sources that themselves use later-discredited sources is not a good path to follow if you're genuinely seeking the truth.

mugwort once engages in suggestion here: the sources cited by myself and Toland ARE NOT discredited at all, certainly not by mugwort's a priori speculation and the pseudoscholarhip he accepts as gospel. It was a actually a National Socialist who recommended this biography to me.

:: Why isn't the conventional literature enough?

Because it does not conform to mugwort's ideological worldview and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories? My personal favourite one has to be that the Jews were secretly plotting to overthrow a government the Jews controlled! And don't get me wrong, I hate the Jews as much as anyone else, but you seriously went so far out on a limb with that absurd claim that I literally spit the water I was drinking onto the monitor when I erupted with laughter at having saw that.

:: I think that's been discussed here on the forum recently. In order to find a mainstream market authors must write books that publishers are willing to publish, bookstores are willing to carry, and reviewers are willing to review.

Its all one BIG LIE by THE MAN who controls the WARMASTERS, THE NEW WORLD ORDER, and THE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE to suppress THE TRUTH! Answer me this, mugwort. WHY are you able to procure the sources that you are so familiar with if their is such a huge international worldwide conspiracy to prevent you from doing so? WHY am I am able to so easily procure these sources myself? Perhaps there is no conspiracy at all. Perhaps the ridiculous arguments you have made on this forum are so laughable and illogical that amateur historians such as myself (and even I am a racist antisemite!) cannot take them seriously, much less reputable scholars.

:: In order to get and keep a position in a hisory department of a university it's required that you show your loyalty to the state by not writing or teaching stuff that makes the Establishment look really, really bad.

Yeah. I suppose that is why I have so many Marxist professors who hate the living shit out of George W. Bush and the Republican Party. Where do you come up with stuff like this? Do you seriously believe what you are saying here?

:: An expose of this or that particular foible is one thing--but to educate people to the fact that the US, Britain, and Zionist Jewry started a war 65 years ago, based on lies, like the Iraq War, but that killed, not just 30,000, but 50 million people, and that the "good guys" in that war committed by far more and worse atrocities than did the country which is accused of starting the war and committing atrocities, is quite another, and obviously not a point of view a university interested in staying afloat financially could afford to tolerate.

I have a better theory: no reputable historian anywhere takes such nonsense seriously because it is so illogical, absurd, dishonest, and contradictory to the evidence that it defies the imagination. Adolf Hitler laid out his agenda on numerous occasions in his own words. His goal was to expand east at the expense of the Slavs, to make Germany a great power, to dominate Europe. He had been publically threatening to do it for close to two decades before he finally carried it out. And what's more, when he finally did achieve his goal, he confessed to it and bragged about it to his associates, who in turn bragged about it themselves in their own writings. This material still survives to this day.

:: You asked about sources for my claims. My discription of what happened is largely based on The Forced War, by Davis Hoggan.

I will check out this book ASAP. I promise you. I will read it and give it a fair hearing.

:: In one of the posts that got eaten I told you some reasons that that 716 p. book about the months leading up to WWII is still probably the best source for what really happened then.

I will check it out. In the meantime, what is preventing you from posting massive excerpts from it to support your case?

:: Harry Elmer Barnes, the respected revisionist historian, under whose auspices the book was written, went to Europe after it was completed, and submitted copies to many of the diplomats and others who had been involved in the book's events, and they confirmed it as accurate.

Then lets see your evidence. I would really like to see this.

:: I've gotten that book in now,and could cite stuff, but I can't right now.

Please do.

:: While I'm busy with schoolwork, why don't you see if you can obtain a copy of The Forced War Its precursor, Hoggan's Harvard dissertation, is the document that changed Harry Elmer Barnes' mind about the inception of WWII. Before reading it, in spite of having previously thoroughly debunked WWI, he had bought the propaganda that Hitler had caused the war through his expansionist aims; reading it he realized he had been wrong, which is when he encouraged DH to enlarge the dissertation into a full-scale book. In writing this book Hoggan not only used the diplomatic papers of all the countries involved, but also he intereviewed key players.

I will go check it out if it is available at the library. Its unfortunate you did not post this yesterday, as I made a special trip there yesterday evening to procure wintermute's sources.

So wintermute is free to quote Jews, while Fade is out of line by mentioning someone who is a friend of a Jew.Quoting deceivers kills your own case. Duh.

Quoting deceivers kills your own case. Duh.

You'll have to explain it for me. One is the friend of a Jew, the other is a Jew. Why is friendship with a Jew a disqualifier if being a Jew doesn't discredit the other author?

:: Fade cited the work of a dishonest shabbos goy (Conrad Black, a friend of superhawk Richard Perle) who's now accused of robbing his own company, and you noticed it, and pointed it out.

I quoted Conrad Black's biography because it is the newest title that I could find. It is also over a thousand pages long and extensively documented with footnotes. In short, its a damn good book. That Conrad Black is a 'friend of the Jews' is utterly irrelevent to the claims he has made. It has no necessary logical relationship to his assertions. wintermute responded with a ridiculous invalid ad hominem argument to my post, which was promptly dismissed.

:: Fade then started talking about how Jewish sources are frank and trustworthy. LoL

I agree. That has at least been my experience. For example, most of the claims I have made about Jewish involvement in changing America's immigration laws and support for the Civil Rights Movement are discussed extensively in Jewish sources in which they are not denied. These just happen to be the same sources that have been extensively cited by Kevin MacDonald in his work.

The "Shelepin plan", if I recall, was simply the KGB's plan of attack for the Cold War, using proxies in the third world and armed revolution against pro-Western governments. Can you tell us, please, how this plan has anything to do with the USSR 'pretending' to dismantle itself and hide in secret in what would undoubtedly be the largest conspiracy in human history?

Will you tell us how a nation which couldn't keep its populace fed, pay its army, or keep its military hardware from sinking to the bottom of the ocean manages to pull off this unparalleled feat?

So then you know of no apparatus created to complete this grand, overarching conspiracy. The Russian people will simply do it, as if part of a hive mind.

Interesting. When will this next Oliver Stone film be coming out?

==========================================

"...Angleton wanted to know more about the Soviet apparatus for deception. Why had the KGB moved from being a espionage to deception? Why had it been re-organized?

"Golitsyn suggested that it all began with a Politburo assessment in the mid 1950s that the Soviet Union would be unlikely to prevail in a nuclear war. It followed that if it was to win against the West, it would be by fraud rather than force. For this singular purpose, Soviet intelligence would have to undertake the tricky job of manipulating the information western leaders received.

"This sort of manipulation was not a new role for Soviet intelligence. After all, under the leadership of Felix Dzerzhinskii in the 1920s, it had run sustained disinformation campaigns, such as The Trust, against the West. Aleksandr Shelepin, a top executive of the Communist Party, was put in charge of the KGB in 1959, and given a mandate to return it to a mission of strategic deception.

"Under Shelepin, during this reorganization, Golitsyn worked on an analysis intended to demonstrate how conventional spying could be subordinated to deception goals, without potentially compromising the secrecy of the latter. The intrinsic problem was that KGB officers had to be in contact with western intelligence officers either to recruit them or to pass them disinformation, and this presented the opportunity to defect or otherwise be compromised.

"In fact, scores of Soviet intelligence officers had either defected or offered information to the CIA since the end of the war. While some of these sources could be assumed to be dispatched defectors from the KGB, a large number of the others turned out to be legitimate. How could the KGB sustain deceptions -- if it was probable that some of its officers would defect or otherwise betray its secret.

"Golitsyn explained that the KGB re-organization in 1958-9 was designed to avoid this vulnerability. It effectively separated the KGB into two distinct entities. An outer and inner KGB.

"The 'outer' KGB was made up of personnel who, out of necessity, had to be in contact with foreigners, and were therefore vulnerable to being compromised. It included KGB recruiters and spotters posted to embassies and missions, military attaches, disinformation and propaganda agents and illegal case officers who worked abroad. Since they had to be in touch with Westerners, if only to attempt to recruit them as spies, they were assumed to be 'doomed spies'. A certain percentage would, by the law of probability, be caught. These 'doomed spies' were the equivalent of pilots sent on raids over enemy territory. They were not only restricted from knowing any state secrets (other than what was necessary for their mission), but they were purposefully briefed on what it was useful for the enemy to learn if they were captured.

"The 'inner' KGB was the real repository of secrets. It was limited to a small number of trusted officers, under the direct supervision of the Politburo, who planned, orchestrated, controlled and analyzed the operations. (According to Golitsyn, all potential security risks, which included most of the officers of Jewish descent, were transferred into the outer service in preparation for the reorganization).

"A 'China wall' existed between these two levels. No personnel from the outer service would ever be transferred to the inner service, or vice versa. Nor would any personnel in the outer service ever be exposed to strategic secrets other than what had been prepared for them to divulge as disinformation.

"Angleton realized the implications of this reorganization. If Golitsyn was correct, it meant that the CIA knew virtually nothing about its adversary's capacity for orchestrated deception. To be sure, it had received fragmentary clues from other sources that Soviet intelligence was undergoing shifts in its personnel in 1959 but it had not been able fit these developments into any meaningful pattern. Seen through the new perspective provided by Golitsyn, the KGB turned out to be a different and much more dangerous instrument of Soviet policy. Its principle objective was to provide information to the CIA that would cause the United States to make the wrong decisions. Such information would appear to be credible because it would be fashioned to dovetail with information that U.S. intelligence received from other sources.

"It meant, moreover, that the very targets the CIA was going after as recruits -- diplomats, military attaches, journalists, dissidents and intelligence officers -- were the carriers of this disinformation. They were all in the outer KGB. Even if they were persuaded to work in place as moles for the CIA, their information would be of dubious value. All they would have access to, aside from trivial details about their own espionage apparatus, was disinformation.

"Nor would any microphones the CIA planted in Soviet embassies be of any use. The chatter they would eavesdrop on would come from those excluded from the real strategic secrets of the inner KGB. They would thus only reinforce the disinformation.

"The Golitsyn thesis went further than invalidating the present tactics of the CIA and FBI. It impeached many of their past successes -- at least since the reorganization in 1959. This reassessment would be particularly damaging to double-agents and defectors who claimed to have access to strategic secrets. If they could not have had such access, as Golitsyn asserted, they had to be redefined as either frauds or dupes. In this new light, heroes became villains,and victories became defeats. It was the equivalent for the CIA of stepping through a looking glass."

===========================================

"...According to KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, the collapse of the Soviet Union was orchestrated by various secret structures set up by the late Soviet interior minister, Aleksandr Shelepin. Golitsyn writes of a long-range strategy to deceive and disarm the West. Part of that strategy was a fake split with Communist China. In this context, Golitsyn predicted that once the Sino-Soviet split had achieved its goals, Russia and China would join forces to form 'one clenched fist.' They would then move against the West in unison.

"Now this alliance is a reality."

===========================================

"...Since his defection nearly 40 years ago, Anatoliy Golitsyn has labored with little success to convince Western intelligence agencies and political leaders that they have been taking their nations headlong into a deadly trap. In his pre-Gorbachev book, New Lies for Old (1984), Golitsyn warned that this strategic deception would entail a number of startling steps intended to create the impression of Communism’s demise — including possibly even the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (a sea-change event that took place five years later) and the reunification of Germany. Regarding the Soviet Union itself, he predicted that 'the liberalization would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the communist party’s role; its monopoly would be apparently curtailed. An ostensible separation of powers between the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary might be introduced.'

"These deceptions, Golitsyn revealed, would be unfolding parts of a new, secret, long-range Communist offensive launched in the early 1960s. He revealed that between 1958 and 1960, the Kremlin had carried out a major reorganization of the KGB under General Aleksandr Shelepin in order to implement a fantastically elaborate, long-term strategy of deception against the West.

"The new offensive would be so designed and executed over a period of several decades as to completely deceive the West concerning the very nature of the Soviet regime and fundamental realities of the world Communist Conspiracy, its global apparatus, its structure, goals, strategy, and methods. Fictitious divisions, factions, and splits — both within the Soviet leadership and between Moscow and its satellites — would be fabricated to belie the increasingly unified Communist monolith. Periods of false 'liberalization' would alternate with hardline crackdowns.

"The new offensive coincided with, and was made possible by, another extremely important development that had escaped detection by the West: the solving of the "succession problem" by the Communists. The power struggles in 1924 and 1953, following the deaths of Lenin and Stalin, impressed upon Khrushchev and the Soviet leadership the necessity of devising a form of collective leadership which would obviate another Stalinist dictatorship and the upheaval, weakness, and disunity engendered by a succession crisis. Henceforth, among the leaders comprising the "public face" of the Soviet leadership there would be calculated political tumults and rivalries choreographed for Western consumption, but the actual power would rest firmly in the hands of the Communist Party’s top collective leadership.

"The period of 1957-60 saw intense consultations among the leadership of the Communist Parties inside and outside the Soviet Bloc. 'The process culminated,' wrote Golitsyn, 'in the Eighty-one Party Congress held in Moscow in November 1960. The leaders of all eighty-one parties committed themselves to the program set out in the conference’s statement, or — as it is sometimes described — Manifesto.' All Soviet leadership transfers since have followed the same script, and despite each change of the 'public face,' the collective leadership behind the scenes has followed the same long-term strategy.

Ultimate Goal

"The essence of the strategy is to introduce a calculated and controlled false democratisation and to revive a discredited regime by giving it an attractive aspect and a ‘human face,’ " Golitsyn explained. The probable impact on the West of such a Soviet revival, the Kremlin strategists correctly reasoned, 'would be equal to or greater than that of the October Revolution' — the original Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. In fact, Golitsyn wrote in The Perestroika Deception, the impact would be 'greater and deeper because it would not be alarming but disarming for the West.... It might eventually lead to the realization of the final goal of Soviet strategy, namely the convergence of the capitalist West with the Communist East on Soviet terms and the creation of a World Government as a solution to the arms race and nuclear confrontation.' "

============================================

"Anatoliy Golitsyn, a Ukrainian born in 1926, joined the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1945 as he prepared to become a military officer. He began several years of training in intelligence and acquired a position in the KGB by 1948. By the early 1950s, he had risen to an important enough position to co-author a plan for restructuring Soviet intelligence, which brought him into direct contact with Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and other top officials.

"Four years of study at the KGB Institute in Moscow brought Golitsyn closer to the inner circle of Communist power during the late 1950s. He then worked until 1960 as a top analyst for the KGB in its Moscow headquarters, ultimately reaching the rank of major.

"Golitsyn was one of the youngest officers ever promoted to such a high position, and the discovery of the KGB's innermost secrets rapidly disillusioned him. He managed to have himself reassigned to Finland with his wife and daughter in 1961. Three days before Christmas, he suddenly presented himself at the US embassy to announce his defection. Within 72 hours, the US Air Force evacuated Golitsyn and his family to Frankfurt, West Germany, just before he had to return to Moscow. After lie-detector tests showed he was telling the truth, he was transferred to the United States for a full debriefing.

"Golitsyn's shocking information plunged the CIA, and other Western intelligence services, into a state of turmoil for over a decade. He revealed that the KGB placed the bulk of its resources not on stealing secrets, as the West commonly believed, but on deceiving and manipulating Western nations into gradually surrendering to Communism. Every time our intelligence experts would exploit some source of information from the Soviet Union, the KGB would 'poison' that source with disinformation. By sending false defectors who were secretly working for the KGB, or by leaking falsified documents, or by organizing phony opposition movements inside the Soviet Bloc, the KGB could influence Western policymaking with seemingly reliable information. Using such techniques, the Communists could make the West believe that the Soviet and Chinese Communists were at war with one another. Or that Communism had 'died.'

"The Golitsyn revelations shook the CIA to the core. Much of the intelligence being gathered could no longer be trusted; apparent successes in stealing Soviet secrets were actually Communist victories in deceiving us. Many CIA officials became furious with Golitsyn, and refused to listen.

"To carry out such a huge but delicate operation, the Soviets needed spies in Western intelligence agencies for feedback. These moles would tell the KGB whether the disinformation was being believed, allowing the Soviets to alter the deception to give it more plausibility.

"Because of his former access to KGB intelligence, Golitsyn was able to prove the extent to which Soviet moles had infiltrated sensitive positions. For example, through his ability to recognize a wide array of top-secret NATO documents, he showed that the KGB had agents planted throughout the NATO command structure. His evidence was further confirmed in 1967 by the testimony of Giorgio Rinaldi, an Italian who admitted to being involved with some 300 NATO officers in a massive Soviet spy network--one that was never uncovered or removed. Recent years have seen further confirmation of Golitsyn's allegations. On November 17, 1994, former NATO official Rainer Rupp was convicted in a German court for his role as a Soviet spy. Operating under the KGB code name TOPAZ during the 1970s and 1980s, Rupp and his wife (code-named TURQUOISE) had passed 'strategies, codes and military preparedness plans' from NATO headquarters to the East German secret police, who transferred the secrets to the KGB.

"Golitsyn also had knowledge of secrets from the highest levels of the French government, and said the information had come from a Soviet spy ring operating under the code name SAPPHIRE. His evidence implicated several members of French Intelligence (SDECE), including the chief of counterintelligence and President Charles de Gaulle's own intelligence advisor. Rather than investigating and stopping the ring, however, the French government and SDECE moved to cover up the evidence. Days after one of the spies was identified, he was murdered -- apparently to protect the rest of the spy ring.

"According to Golitsyn, Soviet control over the SDECE was so complete that the French agency was already functioning as a virtual arm of the KGB. Based on reports he had seen before defecting, he predicted that the KGB would soon use the SDECE as a front for spying on American nuclear deployment. French officer Philippe de Vosjoli, who was liaison between the SDECE and the CIA, disbelieved Golitsyn -- until a few months later, when he received precisely such an order to set up a spy ring to monitor US nuclear facilities. De Vosjoli refused to obey the order and, learning that he was targeted for assassination upon his return to France, defected to the United States. The SDECE subsequently carried out the operation against the US under the code name BIG BEN.

"The information supplied by Golitsyn also revealed a powerful spy ring of five Soviet agents operating at the highest levels of the British Ministry of Intelligence. Three had already been exposed, and a fourth -- Kim Philby --was uncovered in subsequent years. Based on additional evidence provided by Golitsyn, some members of the British MI5 conducted an investigation which concluded that the 'fifth man' of the Soviet ring was none other than Sir Roger Hollis, the director of MI5. An MI6 officer, Stephen de Mowbray, tried to warn the prime minister, but was fired. Hollis himself was never fully investigated. Golitsyn's evidence also pointed to at least two close advisors to Prime Minister Harold Wilson as being Soviet agents, but MI5 blocked an investigation.

"Golitsyn was able to show Soviet infiltration in the intelligence services of West Germany, Austria, Canada, Australia, and others. But his most important spy revelations concerned infiltration of the CIA itself. He knew of one mole code-named SASHA; months of investigation finally uncovered a lower-level Soviet spy. But the stolen secrets Golitsyn had seen while in Moscow came from much higher sources, and could not have come from a single agent. To test Golitsyn's claim that many moles had burrowed into the highest levels of the CIA, the Counterintelligence Division issued 'marked cards' -- tiny leaks of information that can be traced. Using this method, the Office of Security and the Counterintelligence Division proved the information was being leaked from within the Soviet Bloc Division, and by multiple spies.

"The next logical step was to conduct investigations to identify the spies. But, as we shall review in part II of this analysis, those probes were blocked --with disastrous results.

"The CIA, and virtually all of Western intelligence, has been thoroughly compromised by networks of Soviet spies. Nor has the 'death' of Soviet Communism changed anything. Aldrich Ames, having worked for years as an agent of the KGB, in 1991 made an effortless transition to the renamed KGB (SVR) without any break in his activities. So, too, have hundreds of thousands of other Soviet agents throughout the world, whose activities are now sharply increasing.

"In Part II: The secret 'inner' KGB, CIA intelligence disasters, suppression of key evidence, and the CIA campaign to discredit Golitsyn."
*

I don't even have to read secondary sources to arrive at my conclusions about the causes of the Second World War. Adolf Hitler makes it emphatically clear in his own words on numerous occasions throughout his entire career. So why bother denying it?

Because you keep insisting that he started a "World War" - when what he started was his promised drive to the East, out of which all Western powers ought to have stayed in their ultimate interest. That the British stupidly failed to take advantage of Hitler's fundamental offer of amity and mutual support is to the account of the British, not the Germans.

Illustration of principle for those who are struggling to grasp the point:

If I threaten to slap the s(h)it out of you if you step into the yard behind your house, which, though remote from my own property, I have declared inviolate property, and then you have the effrontery to go ahead and step into that yard - did you "cause" the fight when I then slap the s(h)it out of you for stepping into the yard behind your house?

Of course not.
*

:: Because you keep insisting that he started a "World War"

Please quote me.

:: when what he started was his promised drive to the East, out of which all Western powers ought to have stayed in their ultimate interest.

The Western powers had three very good reasons (which do not necessitate any Jew conspiracy) not to stand by and let him do that either:

1.) He could not be trusted.
2.) He would have grown immensely stronger.
3.) There was no guarantee he would not have turned around from a position of strength and attacked the West at a later date.

:: That the British stupidly failed to take advantage of Hitler's fundamental offer of amity and mutual support is to the account of the British, not the Germans.

Please give me one good reason why the British should have taken Hitler and his promises seriously, when he tore up treaty after treaty, broke promise after promise, when he violated agreement after agreement. Now Hitler might have been sincere in his offer to secure the British Empire. But that is besides the point, but given his track record, the British had no grounds to believe that to be the case.

:: Illustration of principle for those who are struggling to grasp the point:

Lets take a look.

:: If I threaten to slap the s(h)it out of you if you step into the yard behind your house, which, though remote from my own property, I have declared inviolate property, and then you have the effrontery to go ahead and step into that yard - did you "cause" the fight when I then slap the s(h)it out of you for stepping into the yard behind your house? Of course not.

False analogy. By stepping into someone else's yard (with the intent to take it over for yourself), you have trespassed onto their property and initiated force (violating their rights). When force is used to expel you from the premisses, it is a situation that you have brought down upon yourself. Now sure, one's neighbour does not have to come to one's assistance to expel the aggressor. But anyway. . .

I think a better analogy could be used here. Let us suppose we both live in a neighbourhood with a woman who lives next to us. You decide to enter that woman's house and rape her. While you are entering her house she manages to call the police. The police come and beat you over the head. Then you call Johnny Cochran and claim that YOU are the victim.

==========================================

"...Angleton wanted to know more about the Soviet apparatus for deception. Why had the KGB moved from being a espionage to deception? Why had it been re-organized?

"Golitsyn suggested that it all began with a Politburo assessment in the mid 1950s that the Soviet Union would be unlikely to prevail in a nuclear war. It followed that if it was to win against the West, it would be by fraud rather than force. For this singular purpose, Soviet intelligence would have to undertake the tricky job of manipulating the information western leaders received.

"This sort of manipulation was not a new role for Soviet intelligence. After all, under the leadership of Felix Dzerzhinskii in the 1920s, it had run sustained disinformation campaigns, such as The Trust, against the West. Aleksandr Shelepin, a top executive of the Communist Party, was put in charge of the KGB in 1959, and given a mandate to return it to a mission of strategic deception.

"Under Shelepin, during this reorganization, Golitsyn worked on an analysis intended to demonstrate how conventional spying could be subordinated to deception goals, without potentially compromising the secrecy of the latter. The intrinsic problem was that KGB officers had to be in contact with western intelligence officers either to recruit them or to pass them disinformation, and this presented the opportunity to defect or otherwise be compromised.

"In fact, scores of Soviet intelligence officers had either defected or offered information to the CIA since the end of the war. While some of these sources could be assumed to be dispatched defectors from the KGB, a large number of the others turned out to be legitimate. How could the KGB sustain deceptions -- if it was probable that some of its officers would defect or otherwise betray its secret.

"Golitsyn explained that the KGB re-organization in 1958-9 was designed to avoid this vulnerability. It effectively separated the KGB into two distinct entities. An outer and inner KGB.

"The 'outer' KGB was made up of personnel who, out of necessity, had to be in contact with foreigners, and were therefore vulnerable to being compromised. It included KGB recruiters and spotters posted to embassies and missions, military attaches, disinformation and propaganda agents and illegal case officers who worked abroad. Since they had to be in touch with Westerners, if only to attempt to recruit them as spies, they were assumed to be 'doomed spies'. A certain percentage would, by the law of probability, be caught. These 'doomed spies' were the equivalent of pilots sent on raids over enemy territory. They were not only restricted from knowing any state secrets (other than what was necessary for their mission), but they were purposefully briefed on what it was useful for the enemy to learn if they were captured.

"The 'inner' KGB was the real repository of secrets. It was limited to a small number of trusted officers, under the direct supervision of the Politburo, who planned, orchestrated, controlled and analyzed the operations. (According to Golitsyn, all potential security risks, which included most of the officers of Jewish descent, were transferred into the outer service in preparation for the reorganization).

"A 'China wall' existed between these two levels. No personnel from the outer service would ever be transferred to the inner service, or vice versa. Nor would any personnel in the outer service ever be exposed to strategic secrets other than what had been prepared for them to divulge as disinformation.

"Angleton realized the implications of this reorganization. If Golitsyn was correct, it meant that the CIA knew virtually nothing about its adversary's capacity for orchestrated deception. To be sure, it had received fragmentary clues from other sources that Soviet intelligence was undergoing shifts in its personnel in 1959 but it had not been able fit these developments into any meaningful pattern. Seen through the new perspective provided by Golitsyn, the KGB turned out to be a different and much more dangerous instrument of Soviet policy. Its principle objective was to provide information to the CIA that would cause the United States to make the wrong decisions. Such information would appear to be credible because it would be fashioned to dovetail with information that U.S. intelligence received from other sources.

"It meant, moreover, that the very targets the CIA was going after as recruits -- diplomats, military attaches, journalists, dissidents and intelligence officers -- were the carriers of this disinformation. They were all in the outer KGB. Even if they were persuaded to work in place as moles for the CIA, their information would be of dubious value. All they would have access to, aside from trivial details about their own espionage apparatus, was disinformation.

"Nor would any microphones the CIA planted in Soviet embassies be of any use. The chatter they would eavesdrop on would come from those excluded from the real strategic secrets of the inner KGB. They would thus only reinforce the disinformation.

"The Golitsyn thesis went further than invalidating the present tactics of the CIA and FBI. It impeached many of their past successes -- at least since the reorganization in 1959. This reassessment would be particularly damaging to double-agents and defectors who claimed to have access to strategic secrets. If they could not have had such access, as Golitsyn asserted, they had to be redefined as either frauds or dupes. In this new light, heroes became villains,and victories became defeats. It was the equivalent for the CIA of stepping through a looking glass."

===========================================

"...According to KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, the collapse of the Soviet Union was orchestrated by various secret structures set up by the late Soviet interior minister, Aleksandr Shelepin. Golitsyn writes of a long-range strategy to deceive and disarm the West. Part of that strategy was a fake split with Communist China. In this context, Golitsyn predicted that once the Sino-Soviet split had achieved its goals, Russia and China would join forces to form 'one clenched fist.' They would then move against the West in unison.

"Now this alliance is a reality."

===========================================

"...Since his defection nearly 40 years ago, Anatoliy Golitsyn has labored with little success to convince Western intelligence agencies and political leaders that they have been taking their nations headlong into a deadly trap. In his pre-Gorbachev book, New Lies for Old (1984), Golitsyn warned that this strategic deception would entail a number of startling steps intended to create the impression of Communism’s demise — including possibly even the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (a sea-change event that took place five years later) and the reunification of Germany. Regarding the Soviet Union itself, he predicted that 'the liberalization would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the communist party’s role; its monopoly would be apparently curtailed. An ostensible separation of powers between the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary might be introduced.'

"These deceptions, Golitsyn revealed, would be unfolding parts of a new, secret, long-range Communist offensive launched in the early 1960s. He revealed that between 1958 and 1960, the Kremlin had carried out a major reorganization of the KGB under General Aleksandr Shelepin in order to implement a fantastically elaborate, long-term strategy of deception against the West.

"The new offensive would be so designed and executed over a period of several decades as to completely deceive the West concerning the very nature of the Soviet regime and fundamental realities of the world Communist Conspiracy, its global apparatus, its structure, goals, strategy, and methods. Fictitious divisions, factions, and splits — both within the Soviet leadership and between Moscow and its satellites — would be fabricated to belie the increasingly unified Communist monolith. Periods of false 'liberalization' would alternate with hardline crackdowns.

"The new offensive coincided with, and was made possible by, another extremely important development that had escaped detection by the West: the solving of the "succession problem" by the Communists. The power struggles in 1924 and 1953, following the deaths of Lenin and Stalin, impressed upon Khrushchev and the Soviet leadership the necessity of devising a form of collective leadership which would obviate another Stalinist dictatorship and the upheaval, weakness, and disunity engendered by a succession crisis. Henceforth, among the leaders comprising the "public face" of the Soviet leadership there would be calculated political tumults and rivalries choreographed for Western consumption, but the actual power would rest firmly in the hands of the Communist Party’s top collective leadership.

"The period of 1957-60 saw intense consultations among the leadership of the Communist Parties inside and outside the Soviet Bloc. 'The process culminated,' wrote Golitsyn, 'in the Eighty-one Party Congress held in Moscow in November 1960. The leaders of all eighty-one parties committed themselves to the program set out in the conference’s statement, or — as it is sometimes described — Manifesto.' All Soviet leadership transfers since have followed the same script, and despite each change of the 'public face,' the collective leadership behind the scenes has followed the same long-term strategy.

Ultimate Goal

"The essence of the strategy is to introduce a calculated and controlled false democratisation and to revive a discredited regime by giving it an attractive aspect and a ‘human face,’ " Golitsyn explained. The probable impact on the West of such a Soviet revival, the Kremlin strategists correctly reasoned, 'would be equal to or greater than that of the October Revolution' — the original Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. In fact, Golitsyn wrote in The Perestroika Deception, the impact would be 'greater and deeper because it would not be alarming but disarming for the West.... It might eventually lead to the realization of the final goal of Soviet strategy, namely the convergence of the capitalist West with the Communist East on Soviet terms and the creation of a World Government as a solution to the arms race and nuclear confrontation.' "

============================================

"Anatoliy Golitsyn, a Ukrainian born in 1926, joined the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1945 as he prepared to become a military officer. He began several years of training in intelligence and acquired a position in the KGB by 1948. By the early 1950s, he had risen to an important enough position to co-author a plan for restructuring Soviet intelligence, which brought him into direct contact with Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and other top officials.

"Four years of study at the KGB Institute in Moscow brought Golitsyn closer to the inner circle of Communist power during the late 1950s. He then worked until 1960 as a top analyst for the KGB in its Moscow headquarters, ultimately reaching the rank of major.

"Golitsyn was one of the youngest officers ever promoted to such a high position, and the discovery of the KGB's innermost secrets rapidly disillusioned him. He managed to have himself reassigned to Finland with his wife and daughter in 1961. Three days before Christmas, he suddenly presented himself at the US embassy to announce his defection. Within 72 hours, the US Air Force evacuated Golitsyn and his family to Frankfurt, West Germany, just before he had to return to Moscow. After lie-detector tests showed he was telling the truth, he was transferred to the United States for a full debriefing.

"Golitsyn's shocking information plunged the CIA, and other Western intelligence services, into a state of turmoil for over a decade. He revealed that the KGB placed the bulk of its resources not on stealing secrets, as the West commonly believed, but on deceiving and manipulating Western nations into gradually surrendering to Communism. Every time our intelligence experts would exploit some source of information from the Soviet Union, the KGB would 'poison' that source with disinformation. By sending false defectors who were secretly working for the KGB, or by leaking falsified documents, or by organizing phony opposition movements inside the Soviet Bloc, the KGB could influence Western policymaking with seemingly reliable information. Using such techniques, the Communists could make the West believe that the Soviet and Chinese Communists were at war with one another. Or that Communism had 'died.'

"The Golitsyn revelations shook the CIA to the core. Much of the intelligence being gathered could no longer be trusted; apparent successes in stealing Soviet secrets were actually Communist victories in deceiving us. Many CIA officials became furious with Golitsyn, and refused to listen.

"To carry out such a huge but delicate operation, the Soviets needed spies in Western intelligence agencies for feedback. These moles would tell the KGB whether the disinformation was being believed, allowing the Soviets to alter the deception to give it more plausibility.

"Because of his former access to KGB intelligence, Golitsyn was able to prove the extent to which Soviet moles had infiltrated sensitive positions. For example, through his ability to recognize a wide array of top-secret NATO documents, he showed that the KGB had agents planted throughout the NATO command structure. His evidence was further confirmed in 1967 by the testimony of Giorgio Rinaldi, an Italian who admitted to being involved with some 300 NATO officers in a massive Soviet spy network--one that was never uncovered or removed. Recent years have seen further confirmation of Golitsyn's allegations. On November 17, 1994, former NATO official Rainer Rupp was convicted in a German court for his role as a Soviet spy. Operating under the KGB code name TOPAZ during the 1970s and 1980s, Rupp and his wife (code-named TURQUOISE) had passed 'strategies, codes and military preparedness plans' from NATO headquarters to the East German secret police, who transferred the secrets to the KGB.

"Golitsyn also had knowledge of secrets from the highest levels of the French government, and said the information had come from a Soviet spy ring operating under the code name SAPPHIRE. His evidence implicated several members of French Intelligence (SDECE), including the chief of counterintelligence and President Charles de Gaulle's own intelligence advisor. Rather than investigating and stopping the ring, however, the French government and SDECE moved to cover up the evidence. Days after one of the spies was identified, he was murdered -- apparently to protect the rest of the spy ring.

"According to Golitsyn, Soviet control over the SDECE was so complete that the French agency was already functioning as a virtual arm of the KGB. Based on reports he had seen before defecting, he predicted that the KGB would soon use the SDECE as a front for spying on American nuclear deployment. French officer Philippe de Vosjoli, who was liaison between the SDECE and the CIA, disbelieved Golitsyn -- until a few months later, when he received precisely such an order to set up a spy ring to monitor US nuclear facilities. De Vosjoli refused to obey the order and, learning that he was targeted for assassination upon his return to France, defected to the United States. The SDECE subsequently carried out the operation against the US under the code name BIG BEN.

"The information supplied by Golitsyn also revealed a powerful spy ring of five Soviet agents operating at the highest levels of the British Ministry of Intelligence. Three had already been exposed, and a fourth -- Kim Philby --was uncovered in subsequent years. Based on additional evidence provided by Golitsyn, some members of the British MI5 conducted an investigation which concluded that the 'fifth man' of the Soviet ring was none other than Sir Roger Hollis, the director of MI5. An MI6 officer, Stephen de Mowbray, tried to warn the prime minister, but was fired. Hollis himself was never fully investigated. Golitsyn's evidence also pointed to at least two close advisors to Prime Minister Harold Wilson as being Soviet agents, but MI5 blocked an investigation.

"Golitsyn was able to show Soviet infiltration in the intelligence services of West Germany, Austria, Canada, Australia, and others. But his most important spy revelations concerned infiltration of the CIA itself. He knew of one mole code-named SASHA; months of investigation finally uncovered a lower-level Soviet spy. But the stolen secrets Golitsyn had seen while in Moscow came from much higher sources, and could not have come from a single agent. To test Golitsyn's claim that many moles had burrowed into the highest levels of the CIA, the Counterintelligence Division issued 'marked cards' -- tiny leaks of information that can be traced. Using this method, the Office of Security and the Counterintelligence Division proved the information was being leaked from within the Soviet Bloc Division, and by multiple spies.

"The next logical step was to conduct investigations to identify the spies. But, as we shall review in part II of this analysis, those probes were blocked --with disastrous results.

"The CIA, and virtually all of Western intelligence, has been thoroughly compromised by networks of Soviet spies. Nor has the 'death' of Soviet Communism changed anything. Aldrich Ames, having worked for years as an agent of the KGB, in 1991 made an effortless transition to the renamed KGB (SVR) without any break in his activities. So, too, have hundreds of thousands of other Soviet agents throughout the world, whose activities are now sharply increasing.

"In Part II: The secret 'inner' KGB, CIA intelligence disasters, suppression of key evidence, and the CIA campaign to discredit Golitsyn."
*

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but could you do me a favor and source this so it has the slightest bit of context? :p

:: Because you keep insisting that he started a "World War"

Please quote me.
"The verdict of historians is virtually unanimous on this issue: Adolf Hitler was instrumental in inciting the Second World War. The seeds of World War 2 had long been sown in Hitler's romantic fantasy of expanding east at the expense of the Slavs since the 1920s. It was the pursuit of this chimera that led him straight into war with the Western Powers, who refused to stand by and let him abuse his weaker neighbours. He clung to this fantasy until the end of this life:..."

:: when what he started was his promised drive to the East, out of which all Western powers ought to have stayed in their ultimate interest.

The Western powers had three very good reasons (which do not necessitate any Jew conspiracy) not to stand by and let him do that either:

1.) He could not be trusted.
They were responsible for improvidently placing Hitler in that position.

...2.) He would have grown immensely stronger.
And thus would have made a powerful and effective ally in sustenance of the British Empire.

...3.) There was no guarantee he would not have turned around from a position of strength and attacked the West at a later date.
He had no such interest and would have been fully occupied in maintaining his Eastern dominion. The context of antagonism and its selective paranoia regarding Germany was wholly the product of British threats against Germany going about its colonial and diplomatic business.

In summary, there were no good reasons - all things that should have been considered - for the Western powers to be other than allied with Germany.

:: That the British stupidly failed to take advantage of Hitler's fundamental offer of amity and mutual support is to the account of the British, not the Germans.

Please give me one good reason why the British should have taken Hitler and his promises seriously, when he tore up treaty after treaty, broke promise after promise, when he violated agreement after agreement. Now Hitler might have been sincere in his offer to secure the British Empire. But that is besides the point, but given his track record, the British had no grounds to believe that to be the case.
His offer (laid out at length in two books) long predated his "track record" - the latter a product of British improvidence and Jew-influenced irrationality in doing the opposite of what wisdom dictated with regard to Germany. Your logic is thus faulty in dismissing Hitler's sincerity.

:: Illustration of principle for those who are struggling to grasp the point:

Lets take a look.

:: If I threaten to slap the s(h)it out of you if you step into the yard behind your house, which, though remote from my own property, I have declared inviolate property, and then you have the effrontery to go ahead and step into that yard - did you "cause" the fight when I then slap the s(h)it out of you for stepping into the yard behind your house? Of course not.

False analogy. By stepping into someone else's yard (with the intent to take it over for yourself), you have trespassed onto their property and initiated force (violating their rights). When force is used to expel you from the premisses, it is a situation that you have brought down upon yourself. Now sure, one's neighbour does not have to come to one's assistance to expel the aggressor. But anyway. . .

I did not posit that you had stepped into someone else's yard. I carefully and simply specified "the yard behind your house," because there is no title to property in my appropriate analogy with international relations. There are no "rights" to be violated here. And you make my point by conceding that "one's neighbor [Britain, in this analogy] does not have to come to one's assistance".

I think a better analogy could be used here. Let us suppose we both live in a neighbourhood with a woman who lives next to us. You decide to enter that woman's house and rape her. While you are entering her house she manages to call the police. The police come and beat you over the head. Then you call Johnny Cochran and claim that YOU are the victim.
You have not yet seen past the pretense that there is such a thing as title to land justified as morally/ethically inviolate in international relations. Land belongs to him in history who can hold it, for lack of any consistent formula/code for assigning it that commands its enforcement by rational men. The pretense that the degenerate Allies involved with the primitive Soviet Union were and are, by analogy applied here, some sort of philosophically legitimate global government/police force enforcing something other than a self-serving "international law" as against the Germans, and staging something other than a kangaroo court-cum-witch trial at Nuremberg, is so much sanctimonious hypocrisy in apology for the resultant world-wide advancement of Judeo-Bolshevism. Your analogy is false.
*

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but could you do me a favor and source this so it has the slightest bit of context? :p

Do a Google search with "Shelepin" and "Golitsyn".

Read the Books.
*

In Part II: The secret "inner" KGB, CIA intelligence disasters, suppression of key evidence, and the CIA campaign to discredit Golitsyn.

*************************************************************

Inside Story: World Report September 1995

Soviet Moles in the CIA, Part II: The High-Level Coverup

When KGB Major Anatoliy Golitsyn defected to the United States in 1961, he brought a message that was most unwelcome. Not only did he prove the existence of large networks of Soviet spies operating in all Western intelligence agencies, but he also showed that the Soviets were using our own intelligence apparatus against us. While the CIA and other services were chasing after Soviet state secrets, the KGB was carefully leaking "secrets" that were carefully concocted disinformation. According to Golitsyn, the Communists placed higher priority on deceiving the West into gradual surrender than on protecting their own secrets. In other words, the Soviets were not playing the "Cold War game"; they were fighting to win.

To carry out a successful long-term deception, as Golitsyn explained, the Soviets had to restructure the KGB itself. After all, any disinformation scheme would inevitably be exposed through the very process of delivering the deception. A percentage of those KGB agents in contact with Western agents would defect or otherwise betray the plan. To prevent this from happening, the Soviets had to make sure that only a tiny core of personnel--those not in contact with the West--would actually know the plan. The rest of the KGB would implement the strategy without understanding it.

Golitsyn had not only observed the KGB restructuring first-hand, he had actually participated in it. The process had begun in 1953 upon the death of dictator Joseph Stalin, whose violent purging of fellow Communists had left behind a leadership vacuum. A power struggle ensued, threatening to destabilize the entire Communist system. Stalin's successors quickly decided to reinstitute V. I. Lenin's concept of "democratic centralism," in which no single individual holds the fulcrum of power. If the Communists could be re-united under an all-powerful central committee, the Communist Bloc could launch a long-term offensive against the West.

Party leader Nikita Khrushchev decisively beat all opposing factions in 1957, and immediately began building democratic centralism. Factional infighting was ended, and coordination between Communist governments was re-established. Suddenly the Soviet leadership turned its attentions toward creating a new strategic deception policy. The top intelligence officials began studying the writings of Lenin and ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu.

Quickly the entire Communist structure in the Soviet Union was rebuilt, though in secret. From 1958 to 1960, the Communist Party Central Committee created such new agencies as the Department of Foreign Policy and the Department of Active Operations to coordinate international deception. The Committee of Information, which carried out operation to influence Western political leaders, was shifted to the authority of the Central Committee. And the KGB was put under a new chairman, Aleksander Shelepin.

The KGB underwent the largest and most important rearrangement. Not only did its counterintelligence directorate expand, but a special top-secret new "inner level" was created to coordinate strategic deception. Known as Department D, it was immediately staffed with some fifty or sixty intelligence specialists, all highly experienced and trusted officers of the Soviet secret police. These men had special access to the highest state secrets, and were given the authority to coordinate the most powerful agencies of the Soviet government. Department D was designed to be the high command of the Communist disinformation campaign.

This "inner" KGB has remained so secret that no Soviet defector, other than Golitsyn, has known of its existence. Golitsyn himself was not a member of it, but he was intimately involved in creating it. In 1952 to 1953, he had been appointed to a small team of experts who planned the restructuring of the KGB; Golitsyn's plan was adopted by Shelepin in 1959, by which time the 32-year-old Golitsyn was studying at the KGB Institute in Moscow--and therefore was privy to the details of the KGB reorganization. Later that year, Golitsyn helped implement the deception strategy as a new senior analyst in the KGB's Information Department.

Golitsyn was astonishingly young for his high position, a result of his intellectual acumen. Had the Soviets been more careful, they would not have promoted him so soon, for by 1956 the young Golitsyn had become thoroughly disillusioned with Communism. The launching of the new deception strategy finally convinced him he had to defect to warn the West, and he spent the next few years carefully gathering information that would expose the Communist plans.

Using his position, Golitsyn managed to be assigned with his wife and daughter to the Soviet embassy in Finland. In December 1961, when he received orders to return to Moscow, he realized he had run out of time. He took his family and the few documents he could carry, and defected to the United States embassy. Thus began the controversy that would eventually split the CIA.1

THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS

Golitsyn's message was not popular within the CIA. Although he proved himself by helping expose Soviet spy rings in the highest levels of Western intelligence services [see Part I in the Nov. 1994 issue-Eds.], he was telling the CIA that much of its hard-earned intelligence data was merely disinformation concocted by the KGB's Department D. He also shattered all hopes that Communism might disintegrate spontaneously. According to Golitsyn, the Soviet reorganization after Stalin had destroyed all opposition to the regime while permanently healing all factions, splits, and power struggles within the government. Evidence of infighting among the Communists, of popular resistance against Communism, or even of "democratization" in Communist Bloc nations, was an illusion being created by the KGB.

Golitsyn told his CIA debriefers that the Soviets, knowing that Western agencies would not believe propaganda published in the official Soviet news media, used more clever methods to deliver disinformation. The Soviets might allow rumors to "slip" during off-the-record conversations with Western political leaders. Or they might leak special documents or communiques, allowing Western intelligence officers to believe they had stolen it without Soviet knowledge. Or they might pay phony "dissidents" or create illusory "opposition movements" behind the iron curtain, who would pass along "information" that would seem more credible.

But most startlingly of all, Golitsyn revealed that the Soviets understood well the Western dependence on KGB defectors. Department D played on this vulnerability by dispatching phony defectors--double agents who would pretend to expose KGB "secrets" that would now be wholly accepted by gullible Western intelligence services. Meanwhile, KGB spies inside the CIA or other agencies would quietly monitor Western reactions to specific items of disinformation, thus completing the "feedback loop" for the Soviets.

Thus deception could not only be engineered on a grand scale, but could even be fine-tuned for maximum believability.

None of this was idle speculation. In January of 1962, days after escaping to the West, Golitsyn predicted that his own defection would force the Soviets to send false defectors from the KGB and the GRU (military intelligence) to contradict his information.

Within weeks, he was already proved correct. The KGB dispatched a "diplomat" who tried to defect to the CIA in Paris, followed by a similar attempt at the American embassy in Moscow. The Soviets bungled both efforts. Finally two Soviet agents working at the United Nations--one from the GRU, the other from the KGB--almost simultaneously contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and offered to leak Soviet secrets. The FBI assigned them the codenames TOP HAT and FEDORA; the CIA named them SCOTCH and BOURBON. In June yet another such officer, this time from the KGB's Second Chief Directorate, approached the CIA in Switzerland and also began providing secrets. His name was Yuri Nosenko; he was labeled AE/FOXTROT in CIA files (he subsequently defected to the United States in early 1964).2

"Suddenly, in the spring of 1962, the CIA was awash with penetrations of Soviet intelligence--more at one time than during its entire history," wrote journalist David C. Martin years later.3

And, exactly as Golitsyn had predicted, all three "defectors" began providing information that directly contradicted his own. Where Golitsyn had warned of high-level penetrations of the CIA by Soviet spies, Nosenko instead blamed the leaks of information on a low-level code clerk in the US embassy. Golitsyn's charge that Soviet moles had betrayed CIA spy Petr Popov was also contradicted by Nosenko, who claimed that the Soviets had traced Popov's handler merely by spraying an invisible chemical tracer on his shoes. Eerily, TOP HAT and FEDORA were coincidentally able to confirm Nosenko's key allegations. All three confirmed Golitsyn's less important information, but directly contradicted his evidence of top moles in the CIA.4

If Nosenko, TOP HAT, and FEDORA were right, then the Soviets had failed to infiltrate the CIA, and could not pull off sophisticated deception campaigns. If Golitsyn was right, the CIA was already dominated by the KGB, and these other "defectors" were themselves part of the disinformation. CIA officials rapidly polarized into two warring camps on this issue, precipitating a fight that would tear the agency apart for the next decade.

AGENTS OF DECEPTION

Into the fray stepped James Jesus Angleton, the venerated chief of the CIA's Counterintelligence Division. A brilliant spymaster with a penchant for detecting disinformation, he immediately recognized in Golitsyn a profound source of intelligence. And when Nosenko made his appearance to discredit Golitsyn, Angleton smelled a rat.

Angleton persuaded key members of the Soviet Bloc Division, the branch of the CIA responsible for handling defectors, that Nosenko was a phony defector. By 1963, Angleton had Golitsyn transferred to his authority, and together the two men launched a series of investigations into Nosenko and other suspect defectors, as well as searching for Soviet spies in the CIA.

It was not long before Nosenko's story began falling apart. Although he claimed to be a lieutenant colonel in the KGB with access to high-level secrets, he could not remember important details of his operations. Under interrogation, he admitted the contradiction but then began changing his story repeatedly. When intelligence experts determined that Nosenko could not have held the rank of lieutenant colonel, he admitted having merely been a captain; when confronted with evidence that he had not, as previously claimed, received a particular communication from Moscow, Nosenko again admitted lying. Further interrogation caused him to admit having lied about numerous facts, including his reason for defecting in the first place.

More disturbingly, however, the documents Nosenko had brought from the Soviet Union had themselves been fabricated to back up his false identity. This could mean only one thing: the KGB itself had doctored the items as part of a deception.5

TOP HAT and FEDORA were also caught participating in the game. FBI surveillance convinced Assistant Director William C. Sullivan that both "defectors" were false, although he was unable to persuade his boss, J. Edgar Hoover, who angrily refused to believe that the Soviets had deceived the FBI. Furthermore, FEDORA independently "confirmed" Nosenko's lies about his rank and communications--again proving KGB involvement. The final evidence surfaced in 1978, when the FBI discovered that the KGB had already long known about FEDORA's leaking of information to the West. FEDORA returned to Moscow-and was enthusiastically promoted by the KGB! TOP HAT was exposed in a similar way.

In more recent years, the Soviet embassy itself has recommended Nosenko as a source of accurate information for at least one American journalist.6

The Soviets did not, of course, stop with these double agents. In 1966, the KGB dispatched yet another supposedly important defector, Igor Kochnov. Codenamed KITTY HAWK by the CIA, Kochnov also insisted that the Soviets had no spies in the CIA or FBI, while he again tried to "confirm" the claims of Nosenko. Once Angleton identified KITTY HAWK as a phony defector, the Soviet returned to Moscow and provided no more "information."7

Oleg Gordievsky, an officer in the KGB's First Chief Directorate, joined this growing list of double agents in 1974, when he first began leaking secrets to England's MI6. In 1985, he defected to the West under suspicious circumstances. Although supposedly arrested by the KGB on suspicion of spying for England, he was not executed. "A generation earlier he would simply have been liquidated," writes Gordievsky (with a co-author) of himself. "Nowadays the KGB had to have evidence."8 Starting with this obvious lie, Gordievsky's story becomes even more absurd. Despite his arrest for treason, he claims the KGB nevertheless allowed him enough freedom that he could repeatedly make contact with British agents and even escape the Soviet Union itself--on foot.9 To top it all off, his family was subsequently released from the Soviet Union.10

Unlike Golitsyn, who still remains under deep cover to prevent assassination by the Soviets, Gordievsky maintains a high-profile life in London. Gordievsky insists that the KGB has had no spies in British intelligence since 1961, and ridicules former MI5 officer Peter Wright for fingering over 200 suspects--including former MI5 director Sir Roger Hollis--as a result of investigations under project FLUENCY. Gordievsky also bitterly denies Golitsyn's revelation of the existence of Department D in the KGB, while he staunchly defends Nosenko as a genuine defector. Gordievsky has advised such prominent individuals as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, and his 1990 book, KGB: The Inside Story, has been published widely.11

Desperate to cover up the Golitsyn revelations at any cost, and unable to assassinate him, the Soviets have adopted a saturation approach to drown out his information with a torrent of disinformation. Since 1962, the Soviets have sent at least 15 "defectors" to contradict Golitsyn and support Nosenko, including those listed above. The staggering quantity of such deception tends to obscure the paradoxes in each defector's story.

THE BATTLE FOR THE CIA

Yet despite all the clear evidence of a vast Soviet deception program using false defectors, and despite growing evidence of Soviet spies in the highest ranks of the CIA, Angleton and Golitsyn ultimately lost the struggle to save the agency.

Virtually every investigation Angleton initiated was either blocked, terminated, or undermined. He was never allowed to uncover a single major spy or false defector. Angry CIA officers in every department frantically derailed his probes, and howled protests every time he questioned the reliability of a defector. Gradually Angleton's enemies closed ranks to destroy him.

The purge began in 1969, on orders from above, by phasing out Golitsyn's advisory relationship with the CIA. President Richard Nixon, who in the early 1950s had blocked an investigation by Senator Joseph McCarthy of Communist spies in the CIA [See Part I-Eds.], wanted nothing to interfere with his program of detente.12

Then came William E. Colby, who in 1973 was promoted to Executive Comptroller, the number three position in the CIA. His career had certainly raised eyebrows. He had come from the CIA's covert action wing in Vietnam, rather than involvement in true intelligence work. As chief of the CIA's Rome station in the 1950s, Colby had fought hard to provide covert CIA support to Communist front organizations in Italy--over Angleton's vigorous opposition. During the Vietnam War, Colby vetoed Angleton's plan to use counterintelligence to weed out Communist infiltrators in the South Vietnamese government, thus ensuring that hundreds of Communists would continue to paralyze the war effort from within. Most suspiciously of all, Colby met several times with a Soviet GRU agent in Vietnam--without notifying the CIA. Colby even managed to shut down a CIA program to investigate Communists in American labor unions. Although CIA officials constantly overlooked Colby's actions and promoted him, the Counterintelligence Division had long suspected Colby of being a Soviet mole.13

In January of 1973, Colby issued a new directive to all CIA stations worldwide. These orders permanently changed the operational methods of the CIA, effectively overturning every warning Golitsyn and Angleton had ever given. Any information provided by defectors was henceforth automatically to be accepted, so long as it was basically consistent with the majority of other defectors' stories. Thus Nosenko, FEDORA, TOP HAT, and many other phony defectors were legitimized. The new policy assumed that the Soviets do not send false defectors, and that the Soviets are only interested in stealing secrets, not in carrying out strategic deception. Even the word "disinformation" was redefined as Soviet attempts to place propaganda in the Western news media, not as attempts to deceive intelligence agencies. And all searches for Soviet moles were ended.

In the wake of the 1974 Watergate scandal, Colby became Director of the CIA. Within months, he had carefully severed Angleton's connections in the intelligence world, mobilized most of the agency's personnel in a united front against Angleton, and then fired him. All of Angleton's top staffers departed with him. To make matters worse, Nosenko himself was officially rehabilitated--and brought in as a consultant to help train the new counterintelligence staff. The new CIA policy remains in effect today.14

In the years since the purge of Angleton and Golitsyn, the CIA has been wracked with scandals of Soviet spies and false defectors. The recent case of Soviet mole Aldrich Ames was preceded in the 1970s by William P. Campiles, who gave the Soviets an extremely sensitive spy satellite manual, and in the 1980s by Edward Lee Howard. Presumably these represent merely the tiny tip of the iceberg.

The CIA still refuses to admit that any Soviet "defectors" may be phony, but one case in particular turned into a public relations disaster for the agency. Vitaliy Yurchenko, who had held such top positions as chief of the KGB's counterintelligence department, suddenly defected to the United States in July of 1985. Among other operations against the US, he had been in charge of sending "dangles"--Soviet double agents who would approach the FBI and offer "secrets" so as to mislead American intelligence gathering. One of Yurchenko's CIA debriefers was none other than Aldrich Ames, who would not be discovered as a Soviet spy for another nine years.

Like Nosenko two decades earlier, Yurchenko insisted that the Soviets had no spies inside the CIA. Indeed, he specifically backed up Nosenko as being a genuine defector, and he told the CIA that the Soviets had blown Western spy operations using invisible chemical tracers and ex-agents of the CIA. Officials at the agency, including Director William Casey, enthusiastically promoted Yurchenko to the news media and Congress.

But three months after Yurchenko's defection, he surprised his handlers by redefecting to the Soviets, who welcomed and promoted him. To embarrass the CIA, Yurchenko held a press conference for American reporters, at which he alleged that the CIA had kidnapped and drugged him. In other words, the Soviets were openly laughing at the CIA's gullibility.

Unwilling to admit that Golitsyn and Angleton might have been right in the first place, the CIA planted a phony story in the news media that Yurchenko had been captured and shot by the Soviets; shortly thereafter, Yurchenko appeared live on Soviet television to refute the charge. Nevertheless, to this day the CIA blindly insists that, somehow, Yurchenko really had been a genuine defector. After all, CIA policy dictates that the Soviets do not send false defectors.15

So desperate has the CIA been to cover up Soviet deception operations from the public that the agency has resorted to a full smear campaign against Golitsyn and the now-deceased Angleton. In his 1984 book, New Lies For Old, Golitsyn drew on his personal knowledge from within the KGB to predict that Department D would orchestrate the "death" of Communism, starting no later than 1989. The Berlin Wall would be torn down, Solidarity would be allowed to achieve power in Polish elections, the Soviet Union would break up, and a crisis would be manufactured in Yugoslavia. Point for point, Golitsyn predicted the events of Europe since 1989 with chilling accuracy, and warned that the Soviets would be using the deception to prepare for a takeover of Western Europe.

As if to neutralize Golitsyn's warnings, the CIA has recently planted numerous stories in the media to discredit him. Articles in major national news magazines and a special documentary on PBS in 1990 have been followed by such books as Tom Mangold's Cold Warrior and David Wise's Molehunt, both books savagely attacking Angleton and Golitsyn as "paranoid cold warriors." Both Mangold and Wise masquerade as independent journalists, but both acknowledge that the information for their books came directly from large numbers of helpful CIA officials. As author Edward Jay Epstein has pointed out, the CIA frequently plants its own books in the public domain under false cover. This is done by cultivating certain authors, providing them complete manuscripts (or at least sufficient material to write books), and using connections in the publishing industry to arrange for the books' distribution and promotion by major companies. This method allows the CIA to publish viewpoints that appear to come from independent sources.16

Both the Mangold and Wise books present the Golitsyn/Nosenko debate in a severely lopsided way. Mangold's book even goes so far as to ignore completely Golitsyn's accurate predictions of "change" in Eastern Europe, declaring brazenly that "History has dealt harshly with Anatoliy Golitsyn the prophet.... As a crystal-ball gazer, Golitsyn has been unimpressive." Mangold continues by carefully skipping over Golitsyn's already-fulfilled predictions, quoting a few sentences out of context so as to change their meaning altogether.17

But in light of the evidence that the CIA is riddled with Communist spies, it is little wonder the agency strains so hard to convince Americans that Communism is truly "dead."

NeoNietzsche: Because you keep insisting that he started a "World War
FadeTheButcher: Please quote me.
NeoNietzsche (quoting Fade): The verdict of historians is virtually unanimous on this issue: Adolf Hitler was instrumental in inciting the Second World War. The seeds of World War 2 had long been sown in Hitler's romantic fantasy of expanding east at the expense of the Slavs since the 1920s. It was the pursuit of this chimera that led him straight into war with the Western Powers, who refused to stand by and let him abuse his weaker neighbours. He clung to this fantasy until the end of this life
FadeTheButcher: Once again, where did I say Adolf Hitler started the Second World War?

:: They were responsible for improvidently placing Hitler in that position.

Nonsense. Hitler had no respect whatsoever for treaties.

:: And thus would have made a powerful and effective ally in sustenance of the British Empire

Or a powerful, uncontrollable, and dangerous enemy with utterly no sense of restraint or conscience whatsoever. In short, a threat to Britain and its neighbours.

:: He had no such interest and would have been fully occupied in maintaining his Eastern dominion.

Nonsense. He says quite clearly:

"For me, the object is to exploit the advantages of continental hegemony. It is ridiculous to think of a world policy as long as one does not control the Continent. The Spaniards, the Dutch, the French and ourselves have learnt that by experience. When we are the masters of Europe, we have a dominant position in the world."

Hitler's Table Talk, p.93

So his ambitions were not limited to the East at all. The conquests in the East were simply a stepping stone to a 'world policy'.

:: The context of antagonism and its selective paranoia regarding Germany was wholely the product of British threats against Germany going about its colonial and diplomatic business.

The context of the dispute was that it was Hitler's aim to expand East at the expense of his neighbours. This was a threat to British power because German annexation of the Ukraine would made a nullity out of British naval power. On the other hand, with German hegemony over the Continent, England would have been isolated and cut off from its principal export markets and British power would have been destroyed. Hitler would have been in a position to dictate to the British on his own terms. That was something England was not willing to accept.

:: In summary, there were no good reasons - all things that should have been considered - for the Western powers to be other than allied with Germany.

Lets see. He attacked his ally the Soviet Union when it became convenient for him to do so. Germany was already stronger than both France and Britain combined when Hitler attacked Poland. As Hitler himself points out, the conquests in the East would have been an enormous addition to Germany's strength. He would have been able to dictate to the Western powers. Why would the Western powers have accepted that? Why do you suppose the British were so unwilling to stand by and let Napoleon conquer Europe?

:: His offer (laid out at length in two books) long predated his "track record" - the latter a product of British improvidence and Jew-influenced irrationality in doing the opposite of what wisdom dictated with regard to Germany. Your logic is thus faulty in dismissing Hitler's sincerity.

You are the one making the illogical argument here. Tell me, why is a Jew-conspiracy and British-improvidence necessary to explain England's reluctance to allow any single power to establish hegemony over Europe? With the exception of the interwar period, the entire point of centuries of British grand strategy viz the Continent had been to prevent any great power from becoming so predominant over its neighbours (e.g., Imperial Spain in the 17th century, Bourbon France in 18th century, Napoleonic France in the 19th century, and Imperial and Nazi Germany in the 20th century).

:: Your logic is thus faulty in dismissing Hitler's sincerity.

Chamberlain was convinced of Hitler's sincerity when he signed the Munich Pact. What came of that, NeoNietzsche?

:: I did not posit that you had stepped into someone else's yard. I carefully and simply specified "the yard behind your house," because there is no title to property in my appropriate analogy with international relations.

LMAO what the hell are you talking about?

ARTICLE 10.
The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.

ARTICLE 11.
Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the Members of the League or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole League, and the League shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations. In case any such emergency should arise the Secretary General shall on the request of any Member of the League forthwith summon a meeting of the Council. It is also declared to be the friendly right of each Member of the League to bring to the attention of the Assembly or of the Council any circumstance whatever affecting international relations which threatens to disturb international peace or the good understanding between nations upon which peace depends.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/8920/European/leachart.html

:: There are no "rights" to be violated here.

That's nonsense.

ARTICLE 16.
Should any Member of the League resort to war in disregard of its covenants under Articles 12 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm#art12), 13 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm#art13) or 15 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm#art15), it shall ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other Members of the League, which hereby undertake immediately to subject it to the severance of all trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all intercourse between their nationals and the nationals of the covenant-breaking State, and the prevention of all financial, commercial or personal intercourse between the nationals of the covenant-breaking State and the nationals of any other State, whether a Member of the League or not.

It shall be the duty of the Council in such case to recommend to the several Governments concerned what effective military, naval or air force the Members of the League shall severally contribute to the armed forces to be used to protect the covenants of the League.

The Members of the League agree, further, that they will mutually support one another in the financial and economic measures which are taken under this Article, in order to minimise the loss and inconvenience resulting from the above measures, and that they will mutually support one another in resisting any special measures aimed at one of their number by the covenant-breaking State, and that they will take the necessary steps to afford passage through their territory to the forces of any of the Members of the League which are co-operating to protect the covenants of the League.

Any Member of the League which has violated any covenant of the League may be declared to be no longer a Member of the League by a vote of the Council concurred in by the Representatives of all the other Members of the League represented thereon.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm#art16

:: And you make my point by conceding that "one's neighbor [Britain, in this analogy] does not have to come to one's assistance".

Theoretically.

:: You have not yet seen past the pretense that there is such a thing as title to land justified as morally/ethically inviolate in international relations.

From the Covenant of the League of Nations:

ARTICLE 10.
The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.

:: Land belongs to him in history who can hold it, for lack of any consistent formula/code for assigning it that commands its enforcement by rational men.

Correction: In barbaric societies where the rule of law does not exist (e.g., much of Black Africa), where any brute can force himself onto any other, one lives at the mercy of force.

:: The pretense that the degenerate Allies involved with the primitive Soviet Union were and are, by analogy applied here, some sort of philosophically legitimate global government/police force enforcing something other than a self-serving "international law" as against the Germans, and staging something other than a kangaroo court-cum-witch trial at Nuremberg, is so much sanctimonious hypocrisy in apology for the resultant world-wide advancement of Judeo-Bolshevism. Your analogy is false.

ARTICLE 16.
Should any Member of the League resort to war in disregard of its covenants under Articles 12 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm#art12), 13 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm#art13) or 15 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm#art15), it shall ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other Members of the League, which hereby undertake immediately to subject it to the severance of all trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all intercourse between their nationals and the nationals of the covenant-breaking State, and the prevention of all financial, commercial or personal intercourse between the nationals of the covenant-breaking State and the nationals of any other State, whether a Member of the League or not.

It shall be the duty of the Council in such case to recommend to the several Governments concerned what effective military, naval or air force the Members of the League shall severally contribute to the armed forces to be used to protect the covenants of the League.

The Members of the League agree, further, that they will mutually support one another in the financial and economic measures which are taken under this Article, in order to minimise the loss and inconvenience resulting from the above measures, and that they will mutually support one another in resisting any special measures aimed at one of their number by the covenant-breaking State, and that they will take the necessary steps to afford passage through their territory to the forces of any of the Members of the League which are co-operating to protect the covenants of the League.

Any Member of the League which has violated any covenant of the League may be declared to be no longer a Member of the League by a vote of the Council concurred in by the Representatives of all the other Members of the League represented thereon.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm#art16

Let me expound upon my analogy:

I think a better analogy could be used here. Let us suppose we both live in a neighbourhood with a woman who lives next to us. You decide to enter that woman's house and rape her. While you are entering her house she manages to call the police. The police come and beat you over the head. Then you call Johnny Cochran and claim that YOU are the victim.

You go to trial. At your trial, you correctly point out that throughout history men have beaten women (sometimes, to the point of death). You suggest that the world is ruled not by law, but by brute force (life is a struggle), and that there was nothing physically restraining you from forcing yourself onto your female neighbour. You point out that throughout history men have quite often raped women at will. So thus you argue, on these grounds, that you were entirely justified in beating and raping your female neighbour (in spite of it being unlawful to do so). But not only that, you tell your friends about it and brag about your sick atrocity. You confess to it! Its funny.

You go into a long tirade about how you were set up by the police who were supposedly involved in a massive conspiracy to set you up. The evidence you have of this is spurious at best. Perhaps a catch phrase like "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit."

The jury sits back and wonders: what kind of monster are we staring at?

Oh, so your belief in a secret USSR is based on a websearch?

Have you READ any literature on the subject?

NeoNietzsche: Because you keep insisting that he started a "World War

FadeTheButcher: Please quote me.

NeoNietzsche (quoting Fade): The verdict of historians is virtually unanimous on this issue: Adolf Hitler was instrumental in inciting the Second World War. The seeds of World War 2 had long been sown in Hitler's romantic fantasy of expanding east at the expense of the Slavs since the 1920s. It was the pursuit of this chimera that led him straight into war with the Western Powers, who refused to stand by and let him abuse his weaker neighbours. He clung to this fantasy until the end of this life

FadeTheButcher: Once again, where did I say Adolf Hitler started the Second World War?
Where you evidently endorse the verdict that Hitler was instrumental in inciting it.

:: They were responsible for improvidently placing Hitler in that position.

Nonsense. Hitler had no respect whatsoever for treaties.
Incorrect. He violated those that had to be so in pursuit of Germany's vital interests. His remarkable adherence to a consistent ideological orientation suggests to the fair-minded that he would have been strictly faithful to his longed-for fraternal agreement with the British.

:: And thus would have made a powerful and effective ally in sustenance of the British Empire

Or a powerful, uncontrollable, and dangerous enemy with utterly no sense of restraint or conscience whatsoever. In short, a threat to Britain and its neighbours.
A radically false depiction drawn from the spirit evident in the mendacious Why we Fight.

:: He had no such interest and would have been fully occupied in maintaining his Eastern dominion.

Nonsense. He says quite clearly:

"For me, the object is to exploit the advantages of continental hegemony. It is ridiculous to think of a world policy as long as one does not control the Continent. The Spaniards, the Dutch, the French and ourselves have learnt that by experience. When we are the masters of Europe, we have a dominant position in the world."

Hitler's Table Talk, p.93

So his ambitions were not limited to the East at all. The conquests in the East were simply a stepping stone to a 'world policy'.
You make unwarranted extrapolations from abusive interpretation of Hitler's terminology, again in the spirit of Why we Fight. You would have us believe in Hitler's taking over of the Continent, where Speer noted that Hitler did not want to have to conquer France (and we now know that Hitler was prepared to give large parts of it back in exchange for his accommodation with Britain). This is an old professorial trick: Hitler wanted to "dominate" the Continent (though that doesn't mean conquer, when our professor is called on the point), and to "dominate" the Continent is to "dominate" the world (though that, again, doesn't mean conquer as it is the professor's object to have us believe).

And it is the case that Hitler could have been expected, in prospect, to have been fully and perpetually occupied in the East, whatever the interpretation placed upon Hitler's musings.

:: The context of antagonism and its selective paranoia regarding Germany was wholely the product of British threats against Germany going about its colonial and diplomatic business.

The context of the dispute was that it was Hitler's aim to expand East at the expense of his neighbours. This was a threat to British power because German annexation of the Ukraine would made a nullity out of British naval power. On the other hand, with German hegemony over the Continent, England would have been isolated and cut off from its principal export markets and British power would have been destroyed. Hitler would have been in a position to dictate to the British on his own terms. That was something England was not willing to accept.
Nonsense (to borrow a term). With Germany in command of as much as it had, which was in excess of Hitler's ambition for fraternal accommodation, nothing of what you suggest was in fact the case or in prospect. Your's is, in effect, the ridiculous proposition, in identification with British sanctimony, that if Britain was no longer in a possession of the hegemony and in a position to cut off Germany and dictate to the Germans, then the Germans were the threatening monsters.

:: In summary, there were no good reasons - all things that should have been considered - for the Western powers to be other than allied with Germany.

Lets see. He attacked his ally the Soviet Union when it became convenient for him to do so. Germany was already stronger than both France and Britain combined when Hitler attacked Poland. As Hitler himself points out, the conquests in the East would have been an enormous addition to Germany's strength. He would have been able to dictate to the Western powers. Why would the Western powers have accepted that? Why do you suppose the British were so unwilling to stand by and let Napoleon conquer Europe?
1) The attack on the SU was not one of convenience, but of preemption and fullfillment of his ideologically consistent program.

2) Germany was materially inferior to France and Britain combined when Hitler attacked Poland.

3) Even when Hitler's empire was at its height, in rough equivalence to that which he would have possessed in alliance with Britain, he was in no position to "dictate" to the Western powers.

4) Because, unlike Hitler, Napoleon would have had France and Spain and Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands, in addition to everything eastward. And there was no Soviet monstrosity as the alternative dominant power.

:: His offer (laid out at length in two books) long predated his "track record" - the latter a product of British improvidence and Jew-influenced irrationality in doing the opposite of what wisdom dictated with regard to Germany. Your logic is thus faulty in dismissing Hitler's sincerity.

You are the one making the illogical argument here. Tell me, why is a Jew-conspiracy and British-improvidence necessary to explain England's reluctance to allow any single power to establish hegemony over Europe? With the exception of the interwar period, the entire point of centuries of British grand strategy viz the Continent had been to prevent any great power from becoming so predominant over its neighbours (e.g., Imperial Spain in the 17th century, Bourbon France in 18th century, Napoleonic France in the 19th century, and Imperial and Nazi Germany in the 20th century).
You mistakenly assume that England was effectively reluctant to allow "any" power the "hegemony". Jew-manipulated England was only materially intent upon preventing an enemy of Jewry from having it. Think about it.

:: Your logic is thus faulty in dismissing Hitler's sincerity.

Chamberlain was convinced of Hitler's sincerity when he signed the Munich Pact. What came of that, NeoNietzsche?
The further pursuit of Hitler's long-established program for eastward expansion and of his ideologically-consistent but doomed hope for accommodation with Britain came of it. But you hope to finesse a point by using the context of the reference to "sincerity" in two different senses. You have already conceded the "sincerity" of Hitler's hopes for fraternal accommodation, but would now deviously suggest Hitler's insincerity therein by reference to Munich, wherein Hitler had no alternative to being deceptive in pursuit of the same larger goals regarding which his sincerity is not here in doubt.
*

Oh, so your belief in a secret USSR is based on a websearch?
Incorrect. You requested the context of the pasted material, reproduced in answer to questions that could not be given summary treatment.

Have you READ any literature on the subject?
Have read all of it. The listed books were in my possession before the web existed.

NN

Let me expound upon my analogy:

I think a better analogy could be used here. Let us suppose we both live in a neighbourhood with a woman who lives next to us. You decide to enter that woman's house and rape her.
False analogy between war and rape.

While you are entering her house she manages to call the police. The police come and beat you over the head.
There are no police in the analogy, though there is a nauseating pretense thereto.

Then you call Johnny Cochran and claim that YOU are the victim.
I do not.

You go to trial. At your trial, you correctly point out that throughout history men have beaten women (sometimes, to the point of death). You suggest that the world is ruled not by law, but by brute force (life is a struggle), and that there was nothing physically restraining you from forcing yourself onto your female neighbour. You point out that throughout history men have quite often raped women at will. So thus you argue, on these grounds, that you were entirely justified in beating and raping your female neighbour (in spite of it being unlawful to do so).
Again, the rape analogy is false, and justification is not being argued. There is no law extant, properly speaking, but a pretense thereto, nevertheless.

But not only that, you tell your friends about it and brag about your sick atrocity. You confess to it! Its funny.
I see, at this point, that you are no longer in possession of your intellect - that some ethnic issue has intruded with prejudice.

NN

:: Where you evidently endorse the verdict that Hitler was instrumental in inciting it.


Incite -- To provoke and urge on.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=incite

Start -- To commence; begin. To set into motion, operation, or activity.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=start

You are attacking a strawman. There is a very important analytical difference between inciting a World War (e.g., provoking others into action) and starting a World War (e.g., to actually bring it on).

:: Incorrect. He violated those that had to be so in pursuit of Germany's vital interests

What are you talking about? How was the conquest of lebensraum a 'vital interest' of Germany? That's a myth. The Federal Republic of Germany today has a more prosperous economy than Hitler's Germany. Germans today are far wealthier and can consume far more goods and services than their grandparents. And this was accomplished without expelling the Russians into Siberia in order to set up rubber plantations in the Ukraine.

No. The conquest of lebensraum in the East was never a vital interest of Germany. It was simply Hitler's repudiation of peaceful trade in favour of his fantasy of achieving German autarky. He wanted the Ukraine for he could have a free hand to do whatever he wanted.

:: His remarkable adherence to a consistent ideological orientation suggests to the fair-minded that he would have been strictly faithful to his longed-for fraternal agreement with the British.

A.J.P. Taylor disagrees. From friedrich braun's source:

"There is some ground for these speculations. Hitler was himself an amateur historian, or rather a generalizer on history; and he created systems in his spare time. These systems were day-dreams. Chaplin grasped this, with an artist's genius, when he showed the Great Dictator transforming the world into a toy balloon and kicking it to the ceiling with the point of his toe. Hitler always saw himself, in these day-dreams, as master of the world. But the world in which he dreamt to master and the way he would do it changed with changing circumstances. Mein Kampf was written in 1925, under the impact of the French occupation of the Ruhr. Hitler dreamt then of destroying French supremacy in Europe; and the method was to be alliance with Italy and Great Britain. His Table Talk was delivered far in occupied territory, during the campaign against Soviet Russia; and then Hitler dreamt of some fantastic Empire which would rationalise his career of conquest. His final legacy was delivered from the Bunker, when he was on the point of suicide; it is not surprising that he transformed this into a doctrine of universal destruction. Academic ingenuity has discovered in these pronouncements the disciple of Nietzsche, the geopolitician, or the emulator of Attila. I hear in them only the generalisations of a powerful, but uninstructed, intellect; dogmas which echo the conversations of any Austrian cafe or German beer-house."

A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, p.69

:: A radically false depiction drawn from the spirit evident in the mendacious Why we Fight.

Who would have restrained Hitler? The League of Nations? He left that. Treaties? He ripped up the Nazi-Soviet Pact and the German-Polish Non Aggression Pact. Agreements? He repudiated the Munich Pact in Chamberlain's face. Promises? He said he was committed to maintaining the territorial integrity of Austria. He said that after the Sudetenland he didn't have any further territorial demands. The threat of World War? What did he say to that, NeoNietzsche? "I must obtain a sufficient quantity of wheat for my country." A conscience? What is a conscience when the only thing that matters is success? Who would have restrained this man, this fellow who convinced himself that he had the right to terminate the national existence of other nations at will?

:: You make unwarranted extrapolations from abusive interpretation of Hitler's terminology, again in the spirit of Why we Fight

More nonsense. Goebbels also pointed out that the true goal was a new 'world empire' for Germany in which Russia would serve as the 'New India'. Throughout the Table Talk, Hitler echoes these sentiments. He even layed claim to an immense colonial empire in Central Africa.

:: You would have us believe in Hitler's taking over of the Continent, where Speer noted that Hitler did not want to have to conquer France (and we now know that Hitler was prepared to give large parts of it back in exchange for his accommodation with Britain).

"German ideas on the future of France had fluctuated sharply in the course of the summer of 1940. Initially, they had contemplated large-scale annexation, as is clear from the following official and confidential briefing to the German press by the Propaganda Ministry, dated 12 July 1940:


Quote:
The new order for Europe is to be quite consciously placed under Germany's sole auspices. It was already clear from the directives of the Propaganda Ministry that in future France would only play a role as a small Atlantic state. One must envisage this quite concretely: apart from Italy's territorial demands on France, our demands too will be very large. The Fuhrer has not yet said the final word and one is dependent on guessing as to the size of the German damns which will be contained in the peace treaty with France. It seems certain, however, that, apart from Alsace-Lorraine, we will also add the main parts of Burgundy, with the Plateau of Langres and Dijon as the capital, to the territory of the Reich. People are already beginning to talk of a 'Reichsgau Burgundy'. Also the Channel ports such as Dunkirk, Bologne [sic!] etc. will at least become German naval bases if not Reich territory as such . . .

As far as France is concerned, the maxim will be: the destruction of the Peace of Westphalia. Some people are even talking of a revocation of the partition agreed in the Treaty of Verdun in 843. For this reason, everything which serves to encourage an economic, political, or economic revival of France will be destroyed. We have no faith in any attempts at renewal in an authoritarian direction in France. We consider that all these attempts are simply camouflage and that the ideas of 1789 will soon show through again together with a revived chauvinism. For this reason, we shall have to draw certain sober conclusions which will indeed be drawn. The peace treaty will eliminate France not only as a great power but as a state with any political influence in Europe. As far as the colonial issue is concerned, things are not yet clear. . ..

However, given Britain's refusal to make peace, Hitler had soon come to the conclusion that, for the time being at any rate, it would be better to grant France relatively generous terms in the hope of winning her cooperation in the war against Britain. These included permission for the continued existence of a semi-independent rump French state under Marshal Petain as head of state with its capital in the town of Vichy."

J. Noakes and G. Pridham (ed.), Nazism 1919-1945: Volume 3 Foreign Policy, War and Racial Extermination, A Documentary Reader (University of Exeter Press, 2000), p.272

"In winning converts to the Germanic idea, Himmler's programs were as miserably unsuccessful in Alsace and Lorraine as in all other parts of Europe. His trusted liutenant Gottlob Berger wrote a fitting epitaph for Nazi policies in Alsace in a letter to Himmler of June 21, 1944, after the Allied landings in Normandy: "The Alsatians are swine [ein Sauvolk]," he said. "They had already counted on the return of the French and the English, and were therefore particularly hostile and hateful when the retribution came. Reichsfuhrer! I think we should deport half of them -- anywhere. Stalin will undoubtedly be glad to have them."

Of the territory under the administration of the German military government in France, Hitler left no doubt about his intentions with respect to the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. At the very beginning of the German occupation he had been given orders that these provinces were to be restored to Germany in the shortest possible time, and by 1942 all preparations that had been made for their future incorporation into the Reich.

Equally clear was Hitler's intention to annex the areas of the so-called Closed Zone, that broad strip of border territory from the mouth of the Somme to the lake of Geneva. For strategic purposes he also proposed to retain control over fortifications along the Atlantic coast. There was some talk among Nazi leaders about detaching Brittany from France and making it an independent state, but Hitler seems to have taken little interest in this project.

In speculating about a future of what was to be left of France in a Nazi-ordered world, a question that naturally arises is what Hitler's policies might have been if the Vichy government had cooperated more actively with Germany or had actually joined in the war on Germany's side. In commenting on this problem, Hitler had remarked in May of 1942 that, even if the French threw in their lot with the Axis, they must clearly understand that Germany intended to retain strategic positions it now occupied along the Channel coast and that they must resign themselves to the idea of a satisfying the territorial demands of Germany, Italy, and Spain in Europe and overseas. In fact, all that Hitler apperas to have been willing to concede to the French in return for their cooperation was an extension of French colonial territory in Central Africa at the expense of Britain, and presumably a guarantee of whatever territory remained to France in Europe after the demands of Germany, Italy, and Spain had been met.

After he had embarked on the conquest of Russia, Hitler stated that Germany would now acquire so much territory and so many resources in the east that in the future it would not need France at all. But this did not effect his plans for Alsace, Lorraine, the Closed Zone, and a large part of the French Atlantic coast. Further, as he told his associates in April 1942, Germany ahd legitimate claims to the former kingdom of Burgundy, which had been German territory from time immemorial and which the French had stolen in the period of Germany's weakness.

What Hitler meant by the ancient kingdom of Burgundy and what territories he would have claimed under that title for purposes of annexation to Germany will never be known for certain. There is reason to wonder, however, whether Hitler would have allowed even a French rump state without Burgundy to exist indefinitely. Given Hitler's fear and hatred of France, combined with his insatiable greed, it seems probable that the Nazis would soon have begun to regard rump France, like rump Poland, as a desirable and necessary area for Germanic expansion and that this territory too would have been absorbed into the Germanic empire and subjected to a full-scale program of Germanisation. As, by that time, a large proportion of the "Germanic" elements would have been removed from rump France already, the re-Germanisation of this area would presumably have required its most total resettlement."

Norman Rich, Hitler's War Aims: The Establishment of the New Order (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc, 1974), pp.238-239

:: This is an old professorial trick: Hitler wanted to "dominate" the Continent (though that doesn't mean conquer, when our professor is called on the point), and to "dominate" the Continent is to "dominate" the world (though that, again, doesn't mean conquer as it is the professor's object to have us believe).

"Hitler purportedly replied, "but my party members know and trust me; they know I will never depart from my basic principles, and they will realize that the ultimate aim of this last gamble is to remove the Eastern danger and thus facilitate, under my leadership, of course, a swifter unification of Europe."

Toland, p.542

:: Nonsense (to borrow a term).

LMAO! Is that not PRECISELY what happened, NeoNietzsche, when Hitler overran Western Europe? Yes or no?

:: With Germany in command of as much as it had, which was in excess of Hitler's ambition for fraternal accommodation, nothing of what you suggest was in fact the case or in prospect.

You still have yet to explain to me why Britain would have desired to stand by and look the other way while Germany laid waste to Europe for Hitler could have his lebensraum. How, pray tell, would that have benefitted Great Britain, economically or politically? How comfortable would the British have honestly have been living at the whim of a man like Adolf Hitler?

:: And it is the case that Hitler could have been expected, in prospect, to have been fully and perpetually occupied in the East, whatever the interpretation placed upon Hitler's musings.

Its quite clear that he didn't expect that at all. The conquests in the East were meant to create an autarkic German economy, one that could not be shutdown by any naval blockade, the likes of which Germany experienced at the end of the Great War. The conquests in the east were merely a stepping stone to his 'world policy'. And that right there is precisely what the British feared: that they would be dictated to on Hitler's terms, and given the experience of what had happened to other nations, that was not something they were going to accept.

:: Your's is, in effect, the ridiculous proposition, in identification with British sanctimony, that if Britain was no longer in a possession of the hegemony and in a position to cut off Germany and dictate to the Germans, then the Germans were the threatening monsters.

What a ridiculous proposition. I mean, Hitler only wanted to treat the Russians like Redskins and expel them en masse into Siberia! You given us absolutely no explanation whatsoever why such a situation, such a change in the balance of power, would have been something that Great Britain would have rationally desired.

:: 1) The attack on the SU was not one of convenience, but of preemption and fullfillment of his ideologically consistent program.

That's ludicrous. Hitler lays out in the Table Talk quite clearly the reasons why he set about conquering lebensraum in Eastern Europe.

:: 2) Germany was materially inferior to France and Britain combined when Hitler attacked Poland.

How so? Germany had long outstripped France and Britain combined in terms of industrial strength and population.

:: 3) Even when Hitler's empire was at its height, in rough equivalence to that which he would have possessed in alliance with Britain, he was in no position to "dictate" to the Western powers.

There would have been no equivilance whatsoever between the British Empire, strung out across the entire world and grossly underdeveloped, composed in large part of more or less independent dominions (and illiterate nonwhite savages), and a centrally administrated European empire.

:: 4) Because, unlike Hitler, Napoleon would have had France and Spain and Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands, in addition to everything eastward.

Hitler would have had all of Europe from Germany east to the Urals, the Low Countries, the majority of France, Scandinavia, and a good chunk of Central Europe on top of that. There is no comparison between 19th century and 20th century technology either. Hitler would have had IMMENSE industrial might at has fingertips. Britain would have been easily annihilated from the air. Napoleon had no such resources. He was nothing like the threat that Hitler posed to Britain.

:: You mistakenly assume that England was effectively reluctant to allow "any" power the "hegemony".

How I am mistaken? Did not the Versailles Treaty intentionally attempt to neuter Germany to prevent such an incident?

:: Jew-manipulated England was only materially intent upon preventing an enemy of Jewry from having it. Think about it.

I have thought about and this argument makes no sense. If Great Britain was controlled by International Jewry, then tell me why European Jews were not allowed to emigrate en masse, either to the UK or to Palestine.

:: The further pursuit of Hitler's long-established program for eastward expansion and of his ideologically-consistent but doomed hope for accommodation with Britain came of it.

I would agree with you that Hitler sought amicable relations with the British. But I have pointed out:

1.) The British had no reason to trust Hitler.
2.) He could have always changed his mind.
3.) German hegemony over Europe was not in the interests of Great Britain.

:: But you hope to finesse a point by using the context of the reference to "sincerity" in two different senses. You have already conceded the "sincerity" of Hitler's hopes for fraternal accommodation, but would now deviously suggest Hitler's insincerity therein by reference to Munich, wherein Hitler had no alternative to being deceptive in pursuit of the same larger goals regarding which his sincerity is not here in doubt.

Chamberlain sincerely wanted to accomodate Hitler and Chamberlain felt that Hitler was being sincere about his intentions. He was grossly mistaken. Hitler looked down upon Chamberlain, as I have shown. He wanted a free hand in Europe. He wanted an alliance with the British. But he simply could not have it both ways. That's the bottom line.

:: And there was no Soviet monstrosity as the alternative dominant power.

Backward projection. The British Chiefs of Staff were convinced that the Soviet Union was militarily insignificant in 1938.

:: False analogy between war and rape.

Demonstrate.

:: There are no police in the analogy, though there is a nauseating pretense thereto.

Sure there are: members of the League of Nations bound the the Covenant of the League.

:: I do not.

Many others here are of that point of view.

:: Again, the rape analogy is false, and justification is not being argued.

See above.

:: There is no law extant, properly speaking, but a pretense thereto, nevertheless.

International law did exist in the 1930s, btw. Of course, you are entirely correct when you point out that just because international law exists, there is nothing physically restraining nations from following it. If I wanted to, then at this moment I could repudiate the laws of the United States of America and go out on a killing spree. But that would make me an outlaw, just as Germany was when it repudiated the established norms of international conduct for resolving disputes.

:: I see, at this point, that you are no longer in possession of your intellect - that some ethnic issue has intruded with prejudice.

Hitler talked all about his plans and reasons for expanding East in the Table Talk. It should be noted here that I have no Slavic ancestry whatsoever. I just find his plans to be unethical and disturbing.

- "It should be noted here that I have no Slavic ancestry whatsoever. I just find his plans to be unethical and disturbing."


I also have no Slavic ancestry, as far as I know.

By the way, wasn't Hitler (and Himmler) also planning enforced illiteracy for those Slavs he would allow to stay in his empire? That they were to be turned into dumbed-down helots, fit only for crude menial tasks?

That's something that even Bolsheviks didn't do to people under their yoke - namely, trying to evaporate their reading skills.

Didn't Hitler say that it would be enough for Slavs to be able to interpret German road signs?


Petr

:: Where you evidently endorse the verdict that Hitler was instrumental in inciting it.

Incite -- To provoke and urge on.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=incite

Start -- To commence; begin. To set into motion, operation, or activity.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=start

You are attacking a strawman. There is a very important analytical difference between inciting a World War (e.g., provoking others into action) and starting a World War (e.g., to actually bring it on).
Then I will object to both formulae.

:: Incorrect. He violated those that had to be so in pursuit of Germany's vital interests

What are you talking about? How was the conquest of lebensraum a 'vital interest' of Germany? That's a myth. The Federal Republic of Germany today has a more prosperous economy than Hitler's Germany. Germans today are far wealthier and can consume far more goods and services than their grandparents. And this was accomplished without expelling the Russians into Siberia in order to set up rubber plantations in the Ukraine.
The Germans are completely at the mercy of other powers for the maintainance of this regime. Same with the Japanese. Greater Judean policy with regard to mid-East oil, for example, is economic life or death for them. And they are in eugenic decline where otherwise they would not be, and will be on the frontlines of the impending catastrophe of terminal Sino-Soviet expansion.

No. The conquest of lebensraum in the East was never a vital interest of Germany. It was simply Hitler's repudiation of peaceful trade in favour of his fantasy of achieving German autarky. He wanted the Ukraine for he could have a free hand to do whatever he wanted.
Duh. Hitler wanted politico-economic sovereignty for Germany, a vital national interest.

:: His remarkable adherence to a consistent ideological orientation suggests to the fair-minded that he would have been strictly faithful to his longed-for fraternal agreement with the British.

A.J.P. Taylor disagrees. From friedrich braun's source:

"There is some ground for these speculations. Hitler was himself an amateur historian, or rather a generalizer on history; and he created systems in his spare time. These systems were day-dreams. Chaplin grasped this, with an artist's genius, when he showed the Great Dictator transforming the world into a toy balloon and kicking it to the ceiling with the point of his toe. Hitler always saw himself, in these day-dreams, as master of the world. But the world in which he dreamt to master and the way he would do it changed with changing circumstances. Mein Kampf was written in 1925, under the impact of the French occupation of the Ruhr. Hitler dreamt then of destroying French supremacy in Europe; and the method was to be alliance with Italy and Great Britain. His Table Talk was delivered far in occupied territory, during the campaign against Soviet Russia; and then Hitler dreamt of some fantastic Empire which would rationalise his career of conquest. His final legacy was delivered from the Bunker, when he was on the point of suicide; it is not surprising that he transformed this into a doctrine of universal destruction. Academic ingenuity has discovered in these pronouncements the disciple of Nietzsche, the geopolitician, or the emulator of Attila. I hear in them only the generalisations of a powerful, but uninstructed, intellect; dogmas which echo the conversations of any Austrian cafe or German beer-house."

A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, p.69
Taylor involves himself in the same abuses and liberties in extrapolation as yourself, in speaking of "fantastic empire" and "universal destruction". He does not serve in substance in refutation of my contention.

:: A radically false depiction drawn from the spirit evident in the mendacious Why we Fight.

Who would have restrained Hitler? The League of Nations? He left that. Treaties? He ripped up the Nazi-Soviet Pact and the German-Polish Non Aggression Pact. Agreements? He repudiated the Munich Pact in Chamberlain's face. Promises? He said he was committed to maintaining the territorial integrity of Austria. He said that after the Sudetenland he didn't have any further territorial demands. The threat of World War? What did he say to that, NeoNietzsche? "I must obtain a sufficient quantity of wheat for my country." A conscience? What is a conscience when the only thing that matters is success? Who would have restrained this man, this fellow who convinced himself that he had the right to terminate the national existence of other nations at will?
Hitler had a reasonable and consistent concept of Germany in relation to the rest of Europe, with which the English improvidently interfered.

:: You make unwarranted extrapolations from abusive interpretation of Hitler's terminology, again in the spirit of Why we Fight

More nonsense. Goebbels also pointed out that the true goal was a new 'world empire' for Germany in which Russia would serve as the 'New India'. Throughout the Table Talk, Hitler echoes these sentiments. He even layed claim to an immense colonial empire in Central Africa.
You attempt to misrepresent "world empire" as "world conquest" in familiar deceit regarding the matter. To emphatically remark upon academic claim-laying to a mere colonial empire in Africa evidences this distinction. I would not credit an allegation that Hitler would have soberly acquiesced in thinking of Russia, occupied by Germany to only a territorial fraction thereof and with a vast military frontier, as comparable to India in the minimal commitment of resources to its maintenance.

:: You would have us believe in Hitler's taking over of the Continent, where Speer noted that Hitler did not want to have to conquer France (and we now know that Hitler was prepared to give large parts of it back in exchange for his accommodation with Britain).
[You here paste much material that is not pertinent, as it deals with the unfortunate German conquest, ex post facto, rather than with Hitler's inoffensive orientation to a France that he would not have had to attack but for Anglo-Judean misbehavior.]

:: This is an old professorial trick: Hitler wanted to "dominate" the Continent (though that doesn't mean conquer, when our professor is called on the point), and to "dominate" the Continent is to "dominate" the world (though that, again, doesn't mean conquer as it is the professor's object to have us believe).

"Hitler purportedly replied, "but my party members know and trust me; they know I will never depart from my basic principles, and they will realize that the ultimate aim of this last gamble is to remove the Eastern danger and thus facilitate, under my leadership, of course, a swifter unification of Europe."

Toland, p.542
Where is the passage where Hitler speaks of the "conquest" of Europe? Europe is presently being "unified" but not conquered. That comes later.

:: Nonsense (to borrow a term).

LMAO! Is that not PRECISELY what happened, NeoNietzsche, when Hitler overran Western Europe? Yes or no?
No. Precisely.

:: With Germany in command of as much as it had, which was in excess of Hitler's ambition for fraternal accommodation, nothing of what you suggest was in fact the case or in prospect.

You still have yet to explain to me why Britain would have desired to stand by and look the other way while Germany laid waste to Europe for Hitler could have his lebensraum. How, pray tell, would that have benefitted Great Britain, economically or politically? How comfortable would the British have honestly have been living at the whim of a man like Adolf Hitler?
Maintenance of its own empire and morale, and destruction of Bolshevism would have magnificently benefitted the British.

:: And it is the case that Hitler could have been expected, in prospect, to have been fully and perpetually occupied in the East, whatever the interpretation placed upon Hitler's musings.

Its quite clear that he didn't expect that at all. The conquests in the East were meant to create an autarkic German economy, one that could not be shutdown by any naval blockade, the likes of which Germany experienced at the end of the Great War. The conquests in the east were merely a stepping stone to his 'world policy'. And that right there is precisely what the British feared: that they would be dictated to on Hitler's terms, and given the experience of what had happened to other nations, that was not something they were going to accept.
Hitler sought national politico-economic sovereignty, which would have made Germany a "world power" among world powers, involved in "world policy" with no sinister implication such as you wish to manufacture. The danger evident to those not addled by comsymp Jew influence was the manifestation of the Soviet monster, as turned out to be the actual, predictable history of the event.

:: Your's is, in effect, the ridiculous proposition, in identification with British sanctimony, that if Britain was no longer in a possession of the hegemony and in a position to cut off Germany and dictate to the Germans, then the Germans were the threatening monsters.

What a ridiculous proposition. I mean, Hitler only wanted to treat the Russians like Redskins and expel them en masse into Siberia! You given us absolutely no explanation whatsoever why such a situation, such a change in the balance of power, would have been something that Great Britain would have rationally desired.
Maintenance of empire and morale and the destruction of would-be world-conquering Bolshevism explains it.

:: 1) The attack on the SU was not one of convenience, but of preemption and fullfillment of his ideologically consistent program.

That's ludicrous. Hitler lays out in the Table Talk quite clearly the reasons why he set about conquering lebensraum in Eastern Europe.
It is not evident where we disagree on this point.

:: 2) Germany was materially inferior to France and Britain combined when Hitler attacked Poland.

How so? Germany had long outstripped France and Britain combined in terms of industrial strength and population.
Size and production rate of armed forces. That Germany was as you state does not mean that the vital resource independence was not to be sought.

:: 3) Even when Hitler's empire was at its height, in rough equivalence to that which he would have possessed in alliance with Britain, he was in no position to "dictate" to the Western powers.

There would have been no equivilance whatsoever between the British Empire, strung out across the entire world and grossly underdeveloped, composed in large part of more or less independent dominions (and illiterate nonwhite savages), and a centrally administrated European empire.
True but irrelevant. Germany, as with even mightier Napoleonic France, could not dictate to the British.

:: 4) Because, unlike Hitler, Napoleon would have had France and Spain and Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands, in addition to everything eastward.

Hitler would have had all of Europe from Germany east to the Urals, the Low Countries, the majority of France, Scandinavia, and a good chunk of Central Europe on top of that. There is no comparison between 19th century and 20th century technology either. Hitler would have had IMMENSE industrial might at has fingertips. Britain would have been easily annihilated from the air. Napoleon had no such resources. He was nothing like the threat that Hitler posed to Britain.
Germany would not have had - in proposed alliance with England - France, Scandinavia, and the Low Countries. He would have had no material interest in annihilating a friendly Britain, and would have had an ideological commitment to its support.

:: You mistakenly assume that England was effectively reluctant to allow "any" power the "hegemony".

How I am mistaken? Did not the Versailles Treaty intentionally attempt to neuter Germany to prevent such an incident?
As a threat posed by Germany alone and well before the NS regime aroused Jewry to the influencing of events to Soviet advantage.

:: Jew-manipulated England was only materially intent upon preventing an enemy of Jewry from having it. Think about it.

I have thought about and this argument makes no sense. If Great Britain was controlled by International Jewry, then tell me why European Jews were not allowed to emigrate en masse, either to the UK or to Palestine.
You fail to distinguish between the priorities of Communist/Internationalist Jewry and Zionist/Provincialist Jewry. The Internationalist agenda advances the cause of Communism and Jewry toward the enlightenment/destruction of the Goyim, so that Messiah might set his foot upon none but the rubble of the Goyische kingdoms. The Zionists concern themselves with the immediate circumstance of the Jews themselves and their invasion of the Self-Promised Land, but their leading personnel were not those surrounding the stooges in the contemporary Anglo-American regimes. FDR, for example, was transformed into a Communist, beloved of Jewry, but remained anti-Semitic in attitude and didn't give a damn about Jewish welfare.

:: The further pursuit of Hitler's long-established program for eastward expansion and of his ideologically-consistent but doomed hope for accommodation with Britain came of it.

I would agree with you that Hitler sought amicable relations with the British. But I have pointed out:

1.) The British had no reason to trust Hitler.
2.) He could have always changed his mind.
3.) German hegemony over Europe was not in the interests of Great Britain.
This has been dispositively dealt with, as apparently you've forgotten.

:: But you hope to finesse a point by using the context of the reference to "sincerity" in two different senses. You have already conceded the "sincerity" of Hitler's hopes for fraternal accommodation, but would now deviously suggest Hitler's insincerity therein by reference to Munich, wherein Hitler had no alternative to being deceptive in pursuit of the same larger goals regarding which his sincerity is not here in doubt.

Chamberlain sincerely wanted to accomodate Hitler and Chamberlain felt that Hitler was being sincere about his intentions. He was grossly mistaken. Hitler looked down upon Chamberlain, as I have shown. He wanted a free hand in Europe. He wanted an alliance with the British. But he simply could not have it both ways. That's the bottom line.
You merely repeat your now-lifeless central contention and fail to respond to the demonstration of your derivative error.

NN

- " True but irrelevant. Germany, as with even mightier Napoleonic France, could not dictate to the British. "


Not even with nuclear-tipped V-2 rockets?


Petr

- " True but irrelevant. Germany, as with even mightier Napoleonic France, could not dictate to the British. "

Not even with nuclear-tipped V-2 rockets?

Petr
Nope. Cause the British would have been nuclear-capable first.

NN

:: False analogy between war and rape.

Demonstrate.
The rightly-understood-interest of society regarding rape can be formulated with reasonable consistency and appeal to utility such that this formulation can be enforced with regularity as "law" rather than abused as the selective and potentially arbitrary imposition of mere "policy," for lack of these elements.

War lacks these vital elements, and "legislation" in regard to it concerning other than niceties manifests hypocrisy or fatuity.

:: There are no police in the analogy, though there is a nauseating pretense thereto.

Sure there are: members of the League of Nations bound [by] the Covenant of the League.
Involved in a pretense as to its embodiment of the codified and uniformly enforceable rightly-understood-interest of the community of nations. The nations which had already obtained their own politico-economic sovereignty through prior colonial and imperial adventures were, of course, interested in maintenance of that status-quo favoring themselves, by sanctimoniously and hypocritically pretending that legislation restraining challengers thereto was the ethical and moral thing to have, by analogy with legislation governing proscription of personal aggression. And minor powers would be interested in having the elder hypocrites defend them from being overrun by the upstarts.

Unfortunately, there can be no durable such arrangement commanding the allegiance of rational men, because even the internal arrangement of legislation by the nations cannot be rationalized, and constituent regimes will fall into chaos or inescapable contention among themselves. These considerations imply that "international law" and derivative institutions impose no ethical obligation, and demand no policy resort apart from that indicated by mere self-interest, upon the participants involved in, or exterior to, the pretense.

International law did exist in the 1930s, btw. Of course, you are entirely correct when you point out that just because international law exists, there is nothing physically restraining nations from following it. If I wanted to, then at this moment I could repudiate the laws of the United States of America and go out on a killing spree. But that would make me an outlaw, just as Germany was when it repudiated the established norms of international conduct for resolving disputes.
A proper analogy to the German experience would be your having found your neighborhood taken over by extortion racketeers. You refuse to pay enough protection money according to the established practices of the gang and they bust up your joint and want to stop you from setting up a competing racket.

NN

My personal favourite one has to be that the Jews were secretly plotting to overthrow a government the Jews controlled! Umm--I don't recall saying that; my contention is that Jews successfully got a declaration of war pushed through.

:: In order to get and keep a position in a history department of a university it's required that you show your loyalty to the state by not writing or teaching stuff that makes the Establishment look really, really bad.

Yeah. I suppose that is why I have so many Marxist professors who hate the living shit out of George W. Bush and the Republican Party. Where do you come up with stuff like this? Do you seriously believe what you are saying here? I'm talking really really bad, Fade. As in exposing the US government and/or theZionists for starting a war of plunder, genocide, enslavement and empire-building by lying to the people and fabricating an enemy attack that kills thousands of Americans. Iraq? No--WWII.

And if you think the halls of academia are free, try getting one of your professors to mention that the "Holocaust" might possibly be a fraud, but then don't blink, or you might miss the spectacle of his being booted out of the hallowed halls post-haste.

You've read Mein Kampf, you say? You may want to thumb through and take another look at Hitler's description of the Big Lie. The "Holocaust" and most of our assumptions about WWII are part of what is certainly a contender for "Biggest Lie of All Time", and Hitler's analysis of what makes the biggest lies the hardest to combat is brilliant. His final (as I recall) word on the subject was that Jews are the masters of the Big lie.

:: Then I will object to both formulae.

I have clarified my position and shown how you misrepresented it. Moving on.

:: The Germans are completely at the mercy of other powers for the maintainance of this regime.

Well. When one engages in voluntary trade with other nations and individuals, then yes, I would agree that one is at the mercy of their consent and good will. It is the thief that rejects such terms, who uses force to acquire something at the expense of nothing.

:: Same with the Japanese.

What about the Japanese? Japan is also one of the most prosperous nations in the world. It was able to accomplish this as well without annihilating other nations.

:: Greater Judean policy with regard to mid-East oil, for example, is economic life or death for them.

Yet it was never a goal of the Japanese or the Germans during the Second World War to conquer and colonise the Middle East.

:: And they are in eugenic decline where otherwise they would not be

Nonsense. These nations are in eugenic decline for many reasons:

1.) Abortion
2.) Birth Control since the '60s
3.) Low birthrates

Their low birthrates are in large part caused by their own prosperity. In impoverished agricultural societies, one often has to maintain a large family simply because of economic necessity. In technologically advanced industrial economies, such an incentive does not exist. For starters, modern medicine cuts the infant death rate tremendously. Furthermore, education is often the key to accessing high income levels, so parents defer having children in order to further their education. And why have children anyway when one can support oneself by acquiring a good job in the market or if one is able to survive off of government assistance?

:: . . .and will be on the frontlines of the impending catastrophe of terminal Sino-Soviet expansion.

The Soviet Union does not exist.

:: Duh. Hitler wanted politico-economic sovereignty for Germany, a vital national interest.

Autarky is not a vital interest of the German nation at all. The German nation is able to thrive economically by trading with other nations. The Soviet Union tried autarky and imploded, on the other hand. Oh wait! It conspired to bring about its own downfall!

:: Taylor involves himself in the same abuses and liberties in extrapolation as yourself, in speaking of "fantastic empire" and "universal destruction". He does not serve in substance in refutation of my contention.

A.J.P. Taylor is a reputable historian with the expertise in this field to make such interpretations. He supports his case with massive documented evidence, just as all the other historians I have cited do that you have dismissed. In fact, I acquired this book because it was cited by friedrich braun of all people in this debate. On the other hand, you continue to do nothing more than in engage in a priori speculation and conspiracy theories which you are unable to support with any credible evidence. So as usual, I will simply let the gallery decide the matter.

:: Hitler had a reasonable and consistent concept of Germany in relation to the rest of Europe, with which the English improvidently interfered.

Other Europeans, the English amongst them, might disagree that the function of the European continent is to be a playground for the wild fantasies of the likes of Adolf Hitler. You can't explain this to the German national chauvinists though, who simply cannot conceive of any other nation having legtimate national interests aside from Germany. Ergo, resistance to such schemes must be the product of ZOG.

:: You attempt to misrepresent "world empire" as "world conquest" in familiar deceit regarding the matter.

NeoNietzsche once again sets up a strawman and knocks it over. Where I have argued Hitler wanted to conquer the world?

:: To emphatically remark upon academic claim-laying to a mere colonial empire in Africa evidences this distinction.

He did claim a colonial empire in Central Africa. This demonstrates that his interests were not simply confined to the East, as you have suggested.

:: I would not credit an allegation that Hitler would have soberly acquiesced in thinking of Russia, occupied by Germany to only a territorial fraction thereof and with a vast military frontier, as comparable to India in the minimal commitment of resources to its maintenance.

Yet we are not discussing your own personal interpretation of Germany's interests or Germany's role in the world here. We are discussing Adolf Hitler's. And as I have pointed out, that view of Germany's role in the world was clearly outlined by Hitler himself in the Table Talk. He makes it absolutely clear that expansion in the East was a 'prelude' to a world policy. Amongst other things, this world policy was to include a colonial empire in Central Africa. So please support you arguments with something other than speculation or have them dismissed as arbitrary.

:: [You here paste much material that is not pertinent, as it deals with the unfortunate German conquest, ex post facto, rather than with Hitler's inoffensive orientation to a France that he would not have had to attack but for Anglo-Judean misbehavior.]

Hitler had long believed that France was an 'eternal' enemy of Germany. His policy towards France had been consistent since the 1920s. He hoped to acquire an alliance with England in order to isolate France from her allies. Then he hoped to expand East. Without English support, Hitler did not feel that France would interfere. Once he expanded East and extended German control over the vast resources of the East, he would turn West in which there would be a 'final reckoning' with the French, which was necessary to establish German despotism over the continent.

Hitler's long term plans for the French nation are quite clear: the annihilation of France as a European power and its reduction to a German satellite. I cited extensive evidence from reputable scholars in order to bolster this claim. This included documents from the German government as well, cited above by Rich. Yet NeoNietzsche once again dismisses all of this at will, probably because he cannot respond to it.

:: Where is the passage where Hitler speaks of the "conquest" of Europe?

Cited above.

:: Europe is presently being "unified" but not conquered. That comes later.

He goes on and on about it in the Table Talk. I could post more excerpts, but why bother? Its already obvious that you and mugwort will dismiss anything, even Hitler's own words, provided that it conflicts with your own ideological worldview.

:: No. Precisely.

For an extensive refutation of this I advise the gallery to review Barnett's work which discusses England's isolation from its European markets at length, specifically, the effect this had in bringing on the satellitization of Britain by America under the Lend-Lease agreement. Once again, I could spend the next thirty minutes transcribing all of this material here. But why bother? Why continue to cite the massive scholarship that has been done on the issue when it is dismissed out of hand on the basis of ridiculous conspiracy theories?

:: Maintenance of its own empire and morale, and destruction of Bolshevism would have magnificently benefitted the British.

1.) The Empire could never have been maintained if Hitler conquered or established German hegemony over Europe. Britain's leading trading partners and markets were in Europe, not in the Empire. So if Hitler had done either of the above, the Empire would have imploded. That is precisely what happened as well. Britain become fiscally insolvent during the war and was forced to attach herself like a barnacle to America.

2.) It was not simply Hitler's aim to destroy Bolshevism. He wanted to destroy Russia. Bolshevism was not much of a threat to Britain in 1939 under Stalin, with its 'socialism in one country' foreign policy.

:: It is not evident where we disagree on this point.

So I take it you agree that mugwort if flatly mistaken in his analysis of Hitler's Ostpolitik?

:: Size and production rate of armed forces.

In its economic and demographic strength generally.

:: That Germany was as you state does not mean that the vital resource independence was not to be sought.

It should be pointed out as well that France and Britain were two separate states, whose population and armed forces were not a single unit, unlike Germany. It shows that their ability to constrain Germany was continuing to weaken and would have weakened tremendously had Germany's expanded to the East. France and Britain, in terms of their own national self-interest, had ever reason to prevent Germany from doing just that.

:: True but irrelevant.

Its not irrelevent. It had every revelance to the formation of German, French, and British foreign policy during those times. It was EXTENSIVELY DISCUSSED by the British Foreign Office!

:: Germany, as with even mightier Napoleonic France, could not dictate to the British.

The British most certainly did not see it that way. Had Germany expanded East and overrun Europe, probably no serious scholar anywhere believes that either.

:: Germany would not have had - in proposed alliance with England - France, Scandinavia, and the Low Countries.

Hitler's alliances were about as worthless as the toilet paper Hitler used to wipe his ass. The Poles and Soviets soon discovered that.

:: He would have had no material interest in annihilating a friendly Britain, and would have had an ideological commitment to its support.

We are going off-topic here once again. We are not discussing what NeoNietzsche felt Hitler or the British should have done. We are discussing the British interpretation of Hitler's Germany and the role it played in the construction of British foreign policy.

:: As a threat posed by Germany alone and well before the NS regime aroused Jewry to the influencing of events to Soviet advantage.

The Versailles Treaty was designed to weaken, but not destroy Germany. That makes sense. France and Britain had fought -- and won -- a bloody war against the German Empire. The Versailles Treaty reflects this: they were interested in preventing Germany from growing so strong that it would imperil its neighbours in the future. What this has to do with Jewry eludes me.

:: You fail to distinguish between the priorities of Communist/Internationalist Jewry and Zionist/Provincialist Jewry.

Nonsense. I have argued in many threads here that World Jewry is not a homogenous entity. I have extensively researched this issue.

:: The Internationalist agenda advances the cause of Communism and Jewry toward the enlightenment/destruction of the Goyim, so that Messiah might set his foot upon none but the rubble of the Goyische kingdoms.

LMAO bizarre. I have never argued against Jewry along those lines. On the contrary, the Jewish internationalists (such as the AJC) sought to appease Hitler and reason with him, to deter him from harming the German Jews. They wanted to reach a settlement with him. On the contrary, the Ostjuden that had recently settled in the U.S. were more militant, although they did not become the predominant force in American Jewry until after the Second World War. These were the Jews beyond the boycott of German goods, one which failed because of Jewish infighting and a fundamental difference of opinion with regards to Jewish strategy.

:: The Zionists concern themselves with the immediate circumstance of the Jews themselves and their invasion of the Self-Promised Land, but their leading personnel were not those surrounding the stooges in the contemporary Anglo-American regimes.

Zionism was a minority movement amongst British and American Jewry until after the '67 war in which Israel was almost destroyed. The Zionists even cut a deal with Hitler, one which played a large part in wrecking the anti-German boycott. See Black's The Transfer Agreement.

:: FDR, for example, was transformed into a Communist, beloved of Jewry, but remained anti-Semitic in attitude and didn't give a damn about Jewish welfare.

Was FDR controlled by the Jews? Yes or no? If so, then explain to me why FDR repudiated the Morgenthau Plan in December 1945. You are also going to have a hard time explaining to me why he did not let the Jews flood into the United States, when the leadership of American Jewry appealed to him over and over again to do so. Your tripe about FDR being a Communist is nonsense. He was a Reform Liberal and Keynesian capitalist at heart. FDR wanted to save capitalism, not destroy it. His domestic policies reflect this.

:: This has been dispositively dealt with, as apparently you've forgotten.

Show me where this has been dealt with. If you are referring to some of your earlier posts in this thread, then I will reply to those as well. I have been busy with midterms this week, but rest assured, I will reply to the remainder of your posts.

:: You merely repeat your now-lifeless central contention and fail to respond to the demonstration of your derivative error.

You have not shown any 'derivative error' on my part at all. Instead, you continue to make a priori assertions and conspiracy theories that you cannot support with any credible evidence. On the contrary, I have extensively documented and supported my arguments with overwhelming evidence.

:: The rightly-understood-interest of society regarding rape can be formulated with reasonable consistency and appeal to utility such that this formulation can be enforced with regularity as "law" rather than abused as the selective and potentially arbitrary imposition of mere "policy," for lack of these elements.

Yet it seems to elude NeoNietzsche that the most fundamental national interest of any sovereign state in the world is to maintain its own independence and survival, as well as its own national integrity. The League of Nations, not to mention international law in the period under discussion in this thread, was explicitly designed to ensure just that.

:: War lacks these vital elements, and "legislation" in regard to it concerning other than niceties manifests hypocrisy or fatuity.

False. Germany was an outlaw nation that repudiated established international norms of conduct amongst nations and set about, in an alliance with Italy and Japan, to revolutionize the international system and establish, in its place, a 'New Order'. Likewise, a rapist and a criminal repudiates the established legal norms of the state in which he resides simply by ignoring them. But here is where NeoNietzsche misses the entire point: just because laws are repudiated by outlaws and the criminals who regularly break them, either at the national or international level, this does not invalidate such laws.

:: Involved in a pretense as to its embodiment of the codified and uniformly enforceable rightly-understood-interest of the community of nations.

Yes. The League of Nations was the legitimate political expression and established regulating agent of international norms in the aftermath of the Great War.

:: The nations which had already obtained their own politico-economic sovereignty through prior colonial and imperial adventures were, of course, interested in maintenance of that status-quo favoring themselves, by sanctimoniously and hypocritically pretending that legislation restraining challengers thereto was the ethical and moral thing to have, by analogy with legislation governing proscription of personal aggression. And minor powers would be interested in having the elder hypocrites defend them from being overrun by the upstarts.

These 'upstarts' of yours set about overturning the established ethical norms of behaviour amongst sovereign nations in order to establish a 'New Order' to their liking. They were engaged in revolution against the legitimate international system, just as the outlaw repudiates the rule of law in the nation in which he resides, simply because he does happen to agree with it. How you can try to argue that Germany, Japan, and Italy were not in clear violation of normative international ethics defies reason.

:: Unfortunately, there can be no durable such arrangement commanding the allegiance of rational men, because even the internal arrangement of legislation by the nations cannot be rationalized, and constituent regimes will fall into chaos or inescapable contention among themselves.

This crude repudiation of international law has no basis whatsoever, either on rational or empirical grounds. For starters, you are attempting to ground law, on exceptional as opposed to normative grounds, when law is brutally normative. Furthermore, there are established principles of international law, that govern the interactions of sovereign nation states, that have endured for centuries.

:: These considerations imply that "international law" and derivative institutions impose no ethical obligation, and demand no policy resort apart from that indicated by mere self-interest, upon the participants involved in, or exterior to, the pretense.

NeoNietzsche sets up a strawman (e.g., that international law is premised upon exceptions, as opposed to norms) and then deduces a ridiculous non sequitur from his argument (e.g., that there are no established ethical norms of conduct amongst nation states). Along the same lines, one could just as easily argue that the only law that exists within nation states is the law of the jungle, simply because exceptional criminals and outlaws violate the established legal and ethical norms of the community in which they reside.

:: A proper analogy to the German experience would be your having found your neighborhood taken over by extortion racketeers.

How was Nazi Germany being exploited by the international community? On the contrary, it was Nazi Germany that set out to exploit other nations, by destroying their independence and erecting a despotism upon them.

:: You refuse to pay enough protection money according to the established practices of the gang and they bust up your joint and want to stop you from setting up a competing racket.

I think I will let the gallery be the judge of who were the real gangsters in the Second World War.

:: Umm--I don't recall saying that; my contention is that Jews successfully got a declaration of war pushed through.

You argued that British foreign policy, in Neville Chamberlain's government, was controlled by the Jews. Then you argued that British foreign policy was also controlled by the Jews under Churchill. You agree that Churchill and his associates were trying to topple Chamberlain, that the Jews were financing Churchill and his efforts, so it logically follows, on the basis of your own argument, that the Jews were trying to overthrow a government whose foreign policy they controlled. Having brought this matter up with you earlier, you argued that the Jews were 'trying to cover their tracks'. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever, either on logical or empirical grounds. You have utterly failed to support this argument of yours that the Jews got Great Britain to declare war on Germany. Where is your evidence?

:: I'm talking really really bad, Fade. As in exposing the US government and/or the Zionists for starting a war of plunder, genocide, enslavement and empire-building by lying to the people and fabricating an enemy attack that kills thousands of Americans. Iraq? No--WWII.

You have made, quite possibly, the most ridiculous and illogical argument that I have ever seen. So now the Zionists are behind the war? Are these the same Zionists who wrecked the Anti-German boycott? Are these the same Zionists who cut a deal with Hitler, as Black demonstrates in The Transfer Agreement? So let me get this straight: all along, the Jews were seriously out to have their own people annihilated?

:: And if you think the halls of academia are free, try getting one of your professors to mention that the "Holocaust" might possibly be a fraud, but then don't blink, or you might miss the spectacle of his being booted out of the hallowed halls post-haste.

Perhaps the most critical mainstream institution of International Jewry and Israel that you will find anywhere in the West is academia. Why is this so, mugwort, if academia is 'controlled by the Jews'? I have openly criticised The Holocaust in many of my classes. I have never been 'booted out' out university.

:: You've read Mein Kampf, you say?

I have read Mein Kampf, Hitler's unpublished foreign policy book, Hitler's Table Talk, and most of his speeches in an anthology that I have.

:: You may want to thumb through and take another look at Hitler's description of the Big Lie.

I don't accept Hitler's arguments, much less conspiracy theorists, as if they were the Word of God. I listen to both sides and try to side with whoever I feel has made the best case with the most evidence in support of it.

:: The "Holocaust" and most of our assumptions about WWII are part of what is certainly a contender for "Biggest Lie of All Time", and Hitler's analysis of what makes the biggest lies the hardest to combat is brilliant. His final (as I recall) word on the subject was that Jews are the masters of the Big lie.

Are Norman Finkelstein, Israel Shamir, Noam Chomsky, and Israel Shahak also 'masters of the Big Lie'? What about all the Jews that wintermute cites in his arguments? Is wintermute under the control of ZOG? :p

:: Then I will object to both formulae.

I have clarified my position and shown how you misrepresented it. Moving on.
And a very precious clarification/distinction it was - hence my lack of hesitation in objecting to whichever way you wanted to describe it (as a "starting" or as an "incitement"). So we do not "move on" - the defense has shown that the prosecution has the wrong defendant in the dock.

:: The Germans are completely at the mercy of other powers for the maintainance of this regime.

Well. When one engages in voluntary trade with other nations and individuals, then yes, I would agree that one is at the mercy of their consent and good will. It is the thief that rejects such terms, who uses force to acquire something at the expense of nothing.
Hard to believe that your formulation of trade is so naively incomplete. If one is trading for bon-bons, it hardly matters that one is so denied. But if one is shut off from oil and iron ore, nickel and chrome, tungsten and manganese, rubber and wheat, one is obviously the craven subject and satellite of the power(s) upon whom one relies, monetarily or materially.

:: Same with the Japanese.

What about the Japanese? Japan is also one of the most prosperous nations in the world. It was able to accomplish this as well without annihilating other nations.
Same dependence as with Germany. Japan is likewise a satellite that can be throttled at any moment.

:: Greater Judean policy with regard to mid-East oil, for example, is economic life or death for them.

Yet it was never a goal of the Japanese or the Germans during the Second World War to conquer and colonise the Middle East.
Vital Japanese access to oil was obtained in the Southeast Asian conquests taken from the Dutch. The Germans were driving for Caucasian oil to supplement their otherwise inadequate supplies of Rumanian and synthetic oil production.

:: And they are in eugenic decline where otherwise they would not be

Nonsense. These nations are in eugenic decline for many reasons:

1.) Abortion
2.) Birth Control since the '60s
3.) Low birthrates

Their low birthrates are in large part caused by their own prosperity. In impoverished agricultural societies, one often has to maintain a large family simply because of economic necessity. In technologically advanced industrial economies, such an incentive does not exist. For starters, modern medicine cuts the infant death rate tremendously. Furthermore, education is often the key to accessing high income levels, so parents defer having children in order to further their education. And why have children anyway when one can support oneself by acquiring a good job in the market or if one is able to survive off of government assistance?
The National Socialist regime, as was consistent with its ideology, took and was prepared to take such eugenic measures as it thought proper. The allied Japanese would likely have imitated the Germans in this regard for the sake of military preparedness, given their extraordinary territorial commitments.

:: . . .and will be on the frontlines of the impending catastrophe of terminal Sino-Soviet expansion.

The Soviet Union does not exist.
Close your eyes and it is not there.

:: Duh. Hitler wanted politico-economic sovereignty for Germany, a vital national interest.


Autarky is not a vital interest of the German nation at all. The German nation is able to thrive economically by trading with other nations. The Soviet Union tried autarky and imploded, on the other hand. Oh wait! It conspired to bring about its own downfall!
1) Prostitutes and indentured servants thrive economically by trading with other persons.

2) The Soviet Union did not implode.

:: Taylor involves himself in the same abuses and liberties in extrapolation as yourself, in speaking of "fantastic empire" and "universal destruction". He does not serve in substance in refutation of my contention.

A.J.P. Taylor is a reputable historian with the expertise in this field to make such interpretations. He supports his case with massive documented evidence, just as all the other historians I have cited do that you have dismissed. In fact, I acquired this book because it was cited by friedrich braun of all people in this debate. On the other hand, you continue to do nothing more than in engage in a priori speculation and conspiracy theories which you are unable to support with any credible evidence. So as usual, I will simply let the gallery decide the matter.
Taylor is a reputable historian. His extrapolations take him outside his discipline.

:: Hitler had a reasonable and consistent concept of Germany in relation to the rest of Europe, with which the English improvidently interfered.

Other Europeans, the English amongst them, might disagree that the function of the European continent is to be a playground for the wild fantasies of the likes of Adolf Hitler. You can't explain this to the German national chauvinists though, who simply cannot conceive of any other nation having legtimate national interests aside from Germany. Ergo, resistance to such schemes must be the product of ZOG.
More "extrapolation". I insist upon the having by all nations of national interests - you naively insist upon the mutual reconcilability thereof such that one can speak of something called "legitimacy" and its opposite in that regard.

:: You attempt to misrepresent "world empire" as "world conquest" in familiar deceit regarding the matter.

NeoNietzsche once again sets up a strawman and knocks it over. Where I have argued Hitler wanted to conquer the world?


Where you have written of German/Hitlerian expectations of being a "world power" pursuing "world policy" as if this were something sinister - which we would take it to be, given your characterization of Hitler.

:: To emphatically remark upon academic claim-laying to a mere colonial empire in Africa evidences this distinction.

He did claim a colonial empire in Central Africa. This demonstrates that his interests were not simply confined to the East, as you have suggested.
It demonstrates that he was prepared to do nothing materially/consequentially in that regard. His "claim" was merely academic. I have remarked that Germany was, indeed, to be a world power among world powers pursuing world policy (as do world powers). His material commitment to the East, the Japanese commitment to their Asian empire, the remoteness of America, and sensible British attention to their own imperial affairs in alliance with Germany, would have meant that "world policy" would have meant the mere negotiation of commercial arrangements, in a world minus the Communist monstrosities and their ultimate expansion.

:: I would not credit an allegation that Hitler would have soberly acquiesced in thinking of Russia, occupied by Germany to only a territorial fraction thereof and with a vast military frontier, as comparable to India in the minimal commitment of resources to its maintenance.


Yet we are not discussing your own personal interpretation of Germany's interests or Germany's role in the world here. We are discussing Adolf Hitler's. And as I have pointed out, that view of Germany's role in the world was clearly outlined by Hitler himself in the Table Talk. He makes it absolutely clear that expansion in the East was a 'prelude' to a world policy. Amongst other things, this world policy was to include a colonial empire in Central Africa. So please support you arguments with something other than speculation or have them dismissed as arbitrary.
1) As explained, "world policy" would have involved world commerce, to the extent that comsymp influence was not sustaining insane British/Allied antagonism.

2) As explained, "African colonial empire" was a mere academic claim as to German entitlement. You would disingenuously suggest that it was to be the object of an expansionist military campaign rather than a mere supply source of "Bananen".

:: [You here paste much material that is not pertinent, as it deals with the unfortunate German conquest, ex post facto, rather than with Hitler's inoffensive orientation to a France that he would not have had to attack but for Anglo-Judean misbehavior.]

Hitler had long believed that France was an 'eternal' enemy of Germany. His policy towards France had been consistent since the 1920s. He hoped to acquire an alliance with England in order to isolate France from her allies. Then he hoped to expand East. Without English support, Hitler did not feel that France would interfere. Once he expanded East and extended German control over the vast resources of the East, he would turn West in which there would be a 'final reckoning' with the French, which was necessary to establish German despotism over the continent.

Hitler's long term plans for the French nation are quite clear: the annihilation of France as a European power and its reduction to a German satellite. I cited extensive evidence from reputable scholars in order to bolster this claim. This included documents from the German government as well, cited above by Rich. Yet NeoNietzsche once again dismisses all of this at will, probably because he cannot respond to it.
Again with the deceptive terminology and extrapolation: "the annihilation of France...". Yes, Germany would have been the preeminent Continental power, thus diminishing France. And you quote Hitler with regard to a "final reckoning" - again with the professorial animus and intent to deceive by placing a sinister interpretation upon the phrase. We need not resort thus to interpretation, for we have it from Speer that Hitler had not wanted to conquer France, whatever else he might have had in mind.


:: Where is the passage where Hitler speaks of the "conquest" of Europe?

Cited above.
And where is our young pedant now, artfully distinguishing between "incite" and "start"? You cite Hitler speaking of a "final reckoning" - not "conquest". And, as explained, we know that conquest was not intended.

:: Europe is presently being "unified" but not conquered. That comes later.

He goes on and on about it in the Table Talk. I could post more excerpts, but why bother? Its already obvious that you and mugwort will dismiss anything, even Hitler's own words, provided that it conflicts with your own ideological worldview.
Is this to say that "final reckoning" is the best that you can do? I would say that the prospects for making your case are not good, in that event. But do let us have the full blast of Hitler's bombast, promising, in no uncertain terms, the conquest of all Europe. [And, BTW, my judgment is that Hitler ought to have prepared for and achieved that goal in essence - thus my "ideological worldview" has the opposite of the effect you claim.]

:: No. Precisely.

For an extensive refutation of this I advise the gallery to review Barnett's work which discusses England's isolation from its European markets at length, specifically, the effect this had in bringing on the satellitization of Britain by America under the Lend-Lease agreement. Once again, I could spend the next thirty minutes transcribing all of this material here. But why bother? Why continue to cite the massive scholarship that has been done on the issue when it is dismissed out of hand on the basis of ridiculous conspiracy theories?
Fade does not explain the extent to which British isolation from its European markets was a function of improvidently forcing Germany into unintended conquests, and to what extent the satellitization under Lend-lease was a function of the ruinously expensive hostilities that Britain insisted it must righteously pursue upon Germany's conduct of its own well-precedented colonial pursuits.

Nevertheless, Fade finally makes something of a point: Britain was cut off from export "markets" - rather than having its sovereignty compromised by vulnerability to being cut off from vital imports. The loss of income from diminished exports meant diminished quantity of total imports and a re-proportioning of imports toward those that are vital, but this difficulty thus represented nowhere near the threat to national interest and sovereignty faced by the Axis powers lacking and being cut off from vital imports altogether .

The favorable implication of this point for Fade's case is highly qualified, however, since the British, in any case, depended upon foreign export markets - which could be denied to the British by collusion of such market-makers as well as by German imperialism - but Fade's unreasoning and naive prejudices insist upon German malevolence with regard to Britain, where Hitler wanted fraternity in alliance.

Fade's case at this point is that his British Navy, absent German empire, could have continued to individually strong-arm export markets attempting collusion or making other choices - as well as a Germany thus lacking sovereignty - which in retrospect, of course, illuminates the hypocrisy and pretense involved in having allegedly resisted German aggression based upon some supposed general principles of so-called "international law".

Dispensing, then, with Fade's pretense in this regard, we grant that the British had an interest in maintaining their extant measure of national sovereignty, as properly understood, by hoping for the preservation of the international status quo. But that was not an option, in view of German requirements and the explicit intentions of the Soviet monstrosity. The British position was thus one of choosing how much sovereignty was to be sacrificed under the constellation of circumstances confronting them. That it was greatly sacrificed in vastly benefitting the Soviet monstrosity rather than lost in modest degree in agreeable fraternal alliance with Germany evidences the Judeo-Communist influence, as to which reference and evidence have already been offered.

:: Maintenance of its own empire and morale, and destruction of Bolshevism would have magnificently benefitted the British.

1.) The Empire could never have been maintained if Hitler conquered or established German hegemony over Europe. Britain's leading trading partners and markets were in Europe, not in the Empire. So if Hitler had done either of the above, the Empire would have imploded. That is precisely what happened as well. Britain become fiscally insolvent during the war and was forced to attach herself like a barnacle to America.
Your question was as to why the British should have gone along with Brother Hitler - rather than as to the consequences attendant upon their stupidity in failing to do so.

2.) It was not simply Hitler's aim to destroy Bolshevism. He wanted to destroy Russia. Bolshevism was not much of a threat to Britain in 1939 under Stalin, with its 'socialism in one country' foreign policy.
Emphatically incorrect as to the 24,000-strong reality. That the British did not see the reality was a consequence of Judeo-Communist influence, thoroughly penetrative of the British establishment, exploiting "late-Victorian altru" fatuity. Churchill's venality, despite knowing better, was also an element.

:: That Germany was as you state does not mean that the vital resource independence was not to be sought.

It should be pointed out as well that France and Britain were two separate states, whose population and armed forces were not a single unit, unlike Germany. It shows that their ability to constrain Germany was continuing to weaken and would have weakened tremendously had Germany's expanded to the East. France and Britain, in terms of their own national self-interest, had ever reason to prevent Germany from doing just that.
You attempt to prove that it was in their interest to constrain Germany merely by pointing out that they couldn't do so. Your implicit assumption is thus one of intrinsic German hostility requiring said constraint of German capability, which tension, in fact, was merely derivative of the prior hostility expressed by the Western powers.

:: True but irrelevant.

Its not irrelevent. It had every revelance to the formation of German, French, and British foreign policy during those times. It was EXTENSIVELY DISCUSSED by the British Foreign Office!
As a rationale, not a reason. Saddam is going to attack us - we better conquer Iraq. The Germans and the Japanese are going to shake hands in Iowa, if we don't destroy these world-conquerors. The Germans mutilated Belgian babies and ran human soap factories. Do you imagine that the Anglo-Americans, renowned for their nauseating cant and hypocrisy, only lately started lying to themselves and everyone else regarding their motives and the supportive "facts" regarding geo-political realities?

:: Germany, as with even mightier Napoleonic France, could not dictate to the British.

The British most certainly did not see it that way. Had Germany expanded East and overrun Europe, probably no serious scholar anywhere believes that either.
"Serious scholars," you say?

Oh, to be innocent again.

:: Germany would not have had - in proposed alliance with England - France, Scandinavia, and the Low Countries.

Hitler's alliances were about as worthless as the toilet paper Hitler used to wipe his ass. The Poles and Soviets soon discovered that.
England destroyed Hitler's plans for fraternal alliance, upon which all hope for a healthy development of Germany and Europe depended. Hitler had to maneuver, then, under circumstances which did not permit the forthright pursuit of that objective.

:: He would have had [i]no material interest in annihilating a friendly Britain, and would have had an ideological commitment to its support.

We are going off-topic here once again. We are not discussing what NeoNietzsche felt Hitler or the British should have done. We are discussing the British interpretation of Hitler's Germany and the role it played in the construction of British foreign policy.
An aspect of an analysis of "the British interpretation" is the underlying reality itself, against which we compare the account of the "interpretation" for evidence of ignorance of fact or knowledge thereof, self-deceit or other motivation in service of the participants. An aspect of the underlying reality was as I described it, above.

:: As a threat posed by Germany alone and well before the NS regime aroused Jewry to the influencing of events to Soviet advantage.

The Versailles Treaty was designed to weaken, but not destroy Germany. That makes sense. France and Britain had fought -- and won -- a bloody war against the German Empire. The Versailles Treaty reflects this: they were interested in preventing Germany from growing so strong that it would imperil its neighbours in the future. What this has to do with Jewry eludes me.
The point was that the British, due to Judeo-Communist penetration and influence, failed to appreciate the dimensions of the Bolshevik threat, and came, effectively, to see the issue from a Jewish perspective wherein only a German, and not a Jew-favored Soviet, preeminence was to be energetically resisted (as turned out, immediately, to be the history of the event).

:: You fail to distinguish between the priorities of Communist/Internationalist Jewry and Zionist/Provincialist Jewry.

Nonsense. I have argued in many threads here that World Jewry is not a homogenous entity. I have extensively researched this issue.
You nevertheless fail to properly apply such distinction-making to the present context, in failing to understand the active (Communist) influence of Jewry in manipulating Anglo-America into the war, despite the failure to tend to the immediate (Zionist) needs of Jewish populations.

:: The Internationalist agenda advances the cause of Communism and Jewry toward the enlightenment/destruction of the Goyim, so that Messiah might set his foot upon none but the rubble of the Goyische kingdoms.

LMAO bizarre. I have never argued against Jewry along those lines. On the contrary, the Jewish internationalists (such as the AJC) sought to appease Hitler and reason with him, to deter him from harming the German Jews. They wanted to reach a settlement with him. On the contrary, the Ostjuden that had recently settled in the U.S. were more militant, although they did not become the predominant force in American Jewry until after the Second World War. These were the Jews beyond the boycott of German goods, one which failed because of Jewish infighting and a fundamental difference of opinion with regards to Jewish strategy.
The AJC is Zionist/Provincialist rather than Communist/Internationalist. You confuse the international circumstance of Jewry with internationalist ideology (though the one does tend to the other in certain respects). And, "on the contrary," though the Ostjuden formed a hotbed of Communist sympathy and Party activity which was not yet a dominant force, their elder German-derived tribesmen had already surrounded FDR and transformed him into a Communist sympathizer.

:: The Zionists concern themselves with the immediate circumstance of the Jews themselves and their invasion of the Self-Promised Land, but their leading personnel were not those surrounding the stooges in the contemporary Anglo-American regimes.

Zionism was a minority movement amongst British and American Jewry until after the '67 war in which Israel was almost destroyed. The Zionists even cut a deal with Hitler, one which played a large part in wrecking the anti-German boycott. See Black's The Transfer Agreement.
I think you make my point. The Jewish influence in initiating the war had to do with the Communist interest, rather than with the Zionist interest.

:: FDR, for example, was transformed into a Communist, beloved of Jewry, but remained anti-Semitic in attitude and didn't give a damn about Jewish welfare.

Was FDR controlled by the Jews? Yes or no?
Please pay attention. As I have repeatedly stated, FDR was transformed into a Communist sympathizer, as is confirmed by his own off-hand statements. His actions thus tended to serve the indulgence of Communist interests, as was the history of the event. He was not "controlled" by the Jews in other than this sense, to my knowledge.

If so, then explain to me why FDR repudiated the Morgenthau Plan in December 1945. You are also going to have a hard time explaining to me why he did not let the Jews flood into the United States, when the leadership of American Jewry appealed to him over and over again to do so.
Communist sympathy does not imply any interest in Jewish welfare as such.

Your tripe about FDR being a Communist is nonsense. He was a Reform Liberal and Keynesian capitalist at heart. FDR wanted to save capitalism, not destroy it. His domestic policies reflect this.
Where once he had been as you say, he was not at the end. Wallace's sympathies reflect the terminal reality.

:: This has been dispositively dealt with, as apparently you've forgotten.

Show me where this has been dealt with. If you are referring to some of your earlier posts in this thread, then I will reply to those as well. I have been busy with midterms this week, but rest assured, I will reply to the remainder of your posts.
Since you were not able to deal with the implication of the discussion at that point, you merely repeated your familiar formula, which the pursuit of the discussion had previously dissolved, to wit:

I would agree with you that Hitler sought amicable relations with the British. But I have pointed out:

1.) The British had no reason to trust Hitler.
2.) He could have always changed his mind.
3.) German hegemony over Europe was not in the interests of Great Britain.

:: You [Fade] merely repeat your now-lifeless central contention and fail to respond to the demonstration of your derivative error.

You have not shown any 'derivative error' on my part at all. Instead, you continue to make a priori assertions and conspiracy theories that you cannot support with any credible evidence. On the contrary, I have extensively documented and supported my arguments with overwhelming evidence.
Your "derivative error" is evidenced as follows:

But you [Fade] hope to finesse a point by using the context of the reference to "sincerity" in two different senses. You have already conceded the "sincerity" of Hitler's hopes for fraternal accommodation, but would now deviously suggest Hitler's insincerity therein by reference to Munich, wherein Hitler had no alternative to being deceptive in pursuit of the same larger goals regarding which his sincerity is not here in doubt.

NN

----------------

Samizdat, non-serious-scholar, profile on FDR as "Communist Dictator".

http://www.ety.com/HRP/rev/fdr.htm

Possibly useful as a rap sheet, after checking (which I have not done but invite others to do) and some moderation/qualification of language.

NN

NN, do you know any credible source that would indicate that Roosevelt had Jewish ancestry?


Petr

Does anyone credit the theory of Roosevelt as chief warmonger, due to the pressure he applied to Britain, France, and Poland, both directly and indirectly through his agents?

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p205_Hoggan.html

NN, do you know any credible source that would indicate that Roosevelt had Jewish ancestry?


Petr
None upon which I would rely. I do not think of FDR as a Jew by race - but he was certainly comfortable being surrounded by that element, in its Communist/Internationalist guise.

NN

Does anyone credit the theory of Roosevelt as chief warmonger, due to the pressure he applied to Britain, France, and Poland, both directly and indirectly through his agents?

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p205_Hoggan.html
I'd say that's a fair statement in reference to the period before Churchill's prostitution and elevation.

NN

How they'll do it:

http://www.rense.com/general57/red.htm

NN

How will who do what?


Petr

I will rejoin this debate in a few days, once everything settles back down to normal around here.

Yet it seems to elude NeoNietzsche that the most fundamental national interest of any sovereign state in the world is to maintain its own independence and survival, as well as its own national integrity. , not to mention international law in the period under discussion in this thread, was explicitly designed to ensure just that.

At the risk of being called a cynic, wasn’t the League of Nations another method for the victors to maintain the status quo, and the advantages they held over the vanquished?

Whilst it is certainly true that it is the most fundamental national interest of any sovereign state in the world is to maintain its own independence and survival, not every state in the world joined the League and other nations joined and then left: Brazil (1926), Japan (1933), Italy (1937). Germany was only a member from 1926 to 1933, and the Soviet Union from 1934 to 1940. The League had little authority, as several chapters of its history illustrate.

And after the constitution of the League of Nations was adopted by the Paris Peace Conference in April, 1919, the allies acquiesced to Polish aggression against Germany. I would think the Germans could be forgiven for having so little faith in this kind of organisation.

- " And after the constitution of the League of Nations was adopted by the Paris Peace Conference in April, 1919, the allies acquiesced to Polish aggression against Germany. "


What exactly was this aggression like?


Petr

- " And after the constitution of the League of Nations was adopted by the Paris Peace Conference in April, 1919, the allies acquiesced to Polish aggression against Germany. "


What exactly was this aggression like?


Petr

"Upper Silesia plebiscite
The clause of the Treaty of Versailles demanding a plebiscite in Upper Silesia was next taken in hand. The German government had already declared during the negotiations in London, and indeed at an earlier period, that the possession of Upper Silesia was indispensable to Germany if she was to fulfil her obligations in regard to reparations. After some negotiation the plebiscite was fixed for March 20, and resulted in 717,122 votes being cast for Germany against 483,514 for Poland, the result very different from the last 1910 census, where Poles had clear 60% majority. 42% of votes for Germany was casted by Polish-speaking Silesians. Almost all the towns in the plebiscite territory and many villages gave majorities for Germany. Of the Kreise (districts) only those of Pless and Rybnik in the southeast, Tarnowitz in the east, and Tost-Gleiwitz in the interior showed considerable Polish majorities, while in Lublinitz and Gross Strelitz the votes cast on either side were practically equal. All the Kreise of the industrial district in a narrower sense - Beuthen, Hindenburg, Kattowitz, and Königshütte - had slight German majorities, though in Beuthen and Kattowitz this was due entirely to the town vote, as the country parishes had given Polish majorities.

With the results of the Plebiscite making the ultimate fate of Upper Silesia unclear, fighting erupted in the province between insurgent Polish forces and German militias(The Third Silesian Uprising). The French troops of occupation remained inactive. The Germanophile section of the population made strong complaints, being firmly convinced that the French division of the Upper Silesian army of occupation was favouring the insurrection. Due to the strong presence of German troops from outside the province among the German militias fighting there, a note was sent by the Inter-Allied Military Control Commission and the French government, demanding the immediate prohibition of recruiting for German volunteers outside Upper Silesia, and this was promptly made public. The same demand was not made of Poland, since most of fighters were local. The British, however, took a more pro-German line, and the German "defense force," headed by the invalid General Karl Höfer, an Upper Silesian, several times resisted attacks of Korfanty's Uprising Silesian forces and repulsed them, in some cases in cooperation with British and Italian troops of occupation. An attempt on the part of the English troops to take steps against Polish forces on their own account was prevented by General Jules Gratier, the French commander-in-chief of the Allied troops.

Twelve days after the start of the Uprising Korfanty offered to take his forces behind a line of demarcation, on condition that the released territory would not be occupied by German forces, but by Allied troops. It was not, however, till July 1 that the British troops arrived in Upper Silesia and began to advance in company with those of the Allies towards the former frontier. Simultaneously with this advance the Inter-Allied Commission pronounced a general amnesty for the illegal actions committed during the recent violence, with the exception of acts of revenge and cruelty. The German defense force was finally withdrawn and disbanded and quiet was restored.

As the Supreme Council was unable to come to an agreement on the partition of the Upper Silesian territory on the lines of the plebiscite, a solution was found by turning the question over to the Council of the League of Nations. Agreements between the Germans and Poles in Upper Silesia and appeals issued by both sides, as well as the despatch of six battalions of Allied troops and the disbandment of the local guards, contributed markedly to the pacification of the district. The greatest excitement was caused all over Germany and in the German part of Upper Silesia by the intimation that the Council of the League of Nations had handed over the matter for closer investigation to a commission, consisting of four representatives - one each from Belgium, Brazil, Spain, and China. On the basis of the reports of this commission and those of its experts, the Council awarded the greater part of the Upper Silesian industrial district to Poland. Poland obtained almost exactly half of the 1,950,000 inhabitants, viz., 965,000, but not quite a third of the territory, i.e., only 3,214.26 km² (1,255 mi²) out of 10,950.89 km² (4,265 mi²). This, however, comprised by far the more valuable portion of the district. Of 61 coal mines 49½ fall to Poland, the Prussian state losing 3 mines out of 4. Of a coal output of 31,750,000 tons, 24,600,000 tons fall to Poland. All iron mines with an output of 61,000 tons fall to Poland. Of 37 furnaces 22 go to Poland, 15 to Germany. Of a pig-iron output of 570,000 tons, 170,000 tons remain German, and 400,000 tons become Polish. Of 16 zinc and lead mines, which produced 233,000 tons in 1920, only 4 with an output of 44,000 tons remain German. The towns of Königshütte, Kattowitz, and Tarnowitz, which had voted by large majorities for Germany, were given to Poland, while country side of Tost-Gleiwitz County, Lublinitz and Gross Strelitz, which had voted by large majority for Poland, was given to Germany.

In order to mitigate the hardships likely to arise from the partition of a district which was essentially an economic unit, it was decided, on the recommendation of the Council of the League of Nations, that German and Polish delegates, under a chairman appointed by the Council of the League, should draw up economic regulations as well as a statute for the protection of minorities, which were to have a duration of fifteen years. Special measures were threatened in case either of the two states should refuse to participate in the drawing up of such regulations, or to accept them subsequently."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921_in_Germany#Upper_Silesia_plebiscite

Thanks. I'll look into this.


Petr

At the risk of being called a cynic, wasn’t the League of Nations another method for the victors to maintain the status quo, and the advantages they held over the vanquished?



The League had little authority, as several chapters of its history illustrate.



And after the constitution of the League of Nations was adopted by the Paris Peace Conference in April, 1919, the allies acquiesced to Polish aggression against Germany.


It helped that while the Poles were fighting and resisting the Communists, the Germans were in collusion with the Soviets not just later to rape Poland itself, but previously as they worked to violate the Versailles treaty they signed.

More material from non-serious sources:

Communism & NWO: Wall Street's Talmudic Utopian Hoax

By Henry Makow Ph.D.
March 16, 2003


Bella Dodd was a leader of the Communist Party of America (CPUSA) in the 1930' s and 1940's. Her book, "School of Darkness" (1954) reveals that Communism was a hoax perpetrated by financiers "to control the common man" and to advance world tyranny. Naturally this important book is out-of-print and not in any used bookstores. (I found it through interlibrary loan.)

Bella Dodd was born Maria Asunta Isabella Visono in Italy about 1904. A brilliant and dedicated woman, she graduated from Hunter College and NYU Law School. She became head of the New York State Teachers Union and was a member of the CPUSA's National Council until 1949.

Dodd describes Communism as "a strange secret cult" whose goal is the destruction of Western (i.e. Christian) Civilization. Millions of naïve idealists ("innocents") are tricked by its talk of helping the poor, but it cares only for power. For example, Dodd found there was no social research at party headquarters. "We are a revolutionary party, not a reform party," she was told. (163)

CREATING "HUMAN BEINGS THAT WOULD CONFORM"

The Communist Party operates by infiltrating and subverting social institutions like the churches, schools, mass media and government. Its aim was "to create new types of human beings who would conform to the blueprint of the world they confidently expected to control." (162)

For example, Dodd reveals that the CPUSA had 1100 members become Catholic priests in the 1930's. It also subverted the American education system by taking over the teacher's unions and learned societies. Only people who accepted the "materialistic, collectivistic international class struggle approach" advanced. (98)

Involving women in the war effort fitted the long-range program:

"The party did all it could to induce women to go into industry. Its fashion designers created special styles for them and its songwriters wrote special songs to spur them.... War-period conditions, they planned, were to become a permanent part of the future educational program. The bourgeois family as a social unit was to be made obsolete." (153)

There was to be no family but the party and the state. Dodd helped organize the Congress of American Women, a forerunner of the feminist movement.

"Since it was supposedly a movement for peace, it attracted many women. But it was really only a renewed offensive to control American women... Like youth and minority groups, they are regarded as a reserve force of the revolution because they are more easily moved by emotional appeals." (194-195)

SUBVERSION OF U.S. COMPLETED IN THE 1930's

When FDR recognized Russia in 1933, he deliberately turned a blind eye to the CPUSA's massive program of espionage and subversion. Liberals denied that this took place and complained about a "witch hunt." Guess what? The "loony right" was correct. A new book (The Secret World of American Communism, based on newly opened Kremlin archives, confirms that CPUSA was a puppet of Moscow and the Roosevelt and Truman administrations were practically run by Soviet agents, Alger Hiss, Harry Hopkins and Harry Dexter White to name a few.

The war years saw the CPUSA actually renounce the class struggle and join the so-called "Roosevelt camp of progress" which included "progressive capitalists."

"The Communist Party now assumed the responsibility of establishing a rigid discipline over the working class. No employer was more effective or more relentless in checking strikes among the workers, or minimizing complaints...while wages rose a little during those years, they did not compare with the rise in profits and in monopoly control of basic necessities...war production was chiefly in the hands of ten large corporations...the Communists carefully muted such information." (153)

The war years saw amazing coordination between the Communist Party and America's financial elite. The elite financed a sophisticated propaganda agency called the Russian Institute located on Park Ave. across 68th Street from Rockefeller's Council on Foreign Relations. Here "famous names like Vanderbilt, Lamont, Whitney and Morgan mingled with those of Communist leaders. "(153)

At Roosevelt's insistence, Stalin "dissolved" the Comintern in order to make the CPUSA look like an American party. The CPUSA leader Earl Browder achieved national prominence and consulted with senior Roosevelt cabinet ministers.

The joint US-Russian war effort was to be the basis of the new world order. But, inexplicably, the policy changed and Browder instantly became a non-person. Apparently the financial elite had decided the time wasn't right for world government. A cold war would be much more lucrative. Dodd was told that in the future, the party would often find itself opposed not only to the government, but also to U.S. workers.

"I now saw that with the best motives and a desire to serve the working people... I and thousands like me, had been led to a betrayal of these very people.... I had been on the side of those who sought the destruction of my own country." (229)

Like frightened mice, the CPUSA membership scurried to adopt the new party line. Dodd tried to quit but was told: "No one gets out of the party. You die or you are thrown out." (197)

Eventually Dodd was expelled and smeared as "anti-Negro, anti-Puerto Rican, anti-Semitic, anti-labor and a defender of the landlord." (220). Sound familiar? After more than 20 year of tireless sacrifice, she was without family or friends. The party had been her family. Its "hates had become my hates."

"This is the key to the mental enslavement of mankind. The individual is made into nothing ... he operates as the physical part of [a] higher group intelligence... he has no awareness of the plans the higher group intelligence has for utilizing him." (158)

"A SECRET WELL-ORGANIZED WORLD POWER"

Bella Dodd was circumspect about the people behind the Communist Party. She once was told to phone two multi-millionaires who live in the Waldorf Towers if she lost contact with Moscow. Elsewhere, she refers to "a secret well organized world power." She is obviously afraid to be candid. She suspects that one CPUSA leader's "suicide" was in fact murder. (172)

But she does drop a possible clue. She says that each of the nine floors of the party-owned headquarters at 35 E. 12th St. was devoted to CPUSA business. The Sixth Floor held "the publication offices of the Yiddish newspaper, the Freiheit, and the "Jewish Commission." (162) Indeed Jews were prominent among Communist dupes.

"What now became clear to me was the collusion of these two forces: the Communists with their timetable for world control, and certain mercenary forces in the free world bent on making profits from blood." (229)

As "one piece of the puzzle that finally became a picture," Dodd tells the story of the ship "Erica Reed" typical of "hundreds of other stories." During the Spanish Civil War, Americans donated money to load the ship with medical supplies and food for Spain. The Communists diverted the ship to Russia instead. (89)

Censorship is crucial to Communists, Dodd says. "I have often seen leaders pull books from shelves in homes and warn members to destroy them."(223)

Communism is essentially a deceitful system of international elite control. It was not suppressed during the McCarthy era. Rather it morphed into the New Left, Counter Culture, Civil Rights, Anti War and Woman's Liberation Movements, and later into a plethora of elite-sponsored NGO's, and media, Democratic and Republican party factions, Liberal, Zionist, Labor, and Gay Rights groups. Like the CPUSA itself, these groups are controlled from the top so their memberships are unaware of being used.

To the objection that some of the above mentioned groups oppose globalization, Dodd refers to examples where the CPUSA ostensibly supported causes they wished to sabotage. (205)

In conclusion, Communism was/is a plot designed to substitute a cabal of the rich for the rule of God. It is a utopian fraud hatched by the rich to thwart the dreams of ordinary people and stunt human progress. The same cabal is behind most wars including the impending attack on Iraq.

A precursor to the new world order, Communism espouses brotherhood, peace and equality in order to deceive us. It has taken over society's eyes, ears, mind and spirit. Much of what passes for truth in the media and schools is part of this monstrous con job. The expression "politically correct" in widespread use in America is an old Communist Party term. Our politicians are mostly traitors.

Feminism is Communist both in origin and spirit. It pretends to champion women but in fact neuters both sexes and destroys the basic social unit, the family. The promotion of homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice" for heterosexuals is also part of this brazen elitist fraud designed to "create new types of human beings who would conform..."

Western Civilization is like a ship floundering in a sea of evil, yet the passengers are too duped and distracted to realize it. Bella Dodd had the courage to sound the alarm 50 years ago. It is never too late to begin to resist tyranny.

There are no lifeboats.

NN

Even more material to be dismissed:

"Some of my best friends are Communists." FDR

the Neocons of WWII
.........................

President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Jewish Cabal

by VNN research staff

Some of these Jews were directly responsible for plunging America into WWII by deliberately alienating America from anti-Communist countries such as Germany and Japan long before the outbreak of hostilities. These Jews also pioneered the idea of Big Egalitarian Government in America; some of them were later discovered to have been spies for the Soviet Union.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, president of the United States of America, 1933-1945, was himself partly of Dutch-Jewish ancestry.

1. Bernard M. Baruch -- a financier and adviser to FDR.

2. Felix Frankfurter -- Supreme Court Justice; a key player in FDR's New Deal system.

3. David E. Lilienthal -- director of Tennessee Valley Authority, adviser. The TVA changed the relationship of government-to-business in America.

4. David Niles -- presidential aide.

5. Louis Brandeis -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice; confidante of FDR; "Father" of New Deal.

6. Samuel I. Rosenman -- official speechwriter for FDR.

7. Henry Morgenthau Jr. -- Secretary of the Treasury, "unofficial" presidential adviser. Father of the Morgenthau Plan to re-structure Germany/Europe after WWII.

8. Benjamin V. Cohen -- State Department official, adviser to FDR.

9. Rabbi Stephen Wise -- close pal of FDR, spokesman for the American Zionist movement, head of The American Jewish Congress.

10. Frances Perkins -- Secretary of Labor; allegedly Jewish/adopted at birth; unconfirmed.

11. Sidney Hillman -- presidential adviser.

12. Anna Rosenberg -- longtime labor adviser to FDR, and manpower adviser with the Manpower Consulting Committee of the Army and Navy Munitions Board and the War Manpower Commission.(She indoctrinated the troops - Germany the " Terrorist State " ).

13. Herbert H. Lehman -- Governor of New York, 1933-1942, Director of U.S. Office of Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation Operations, Department of State, 1942-1943; Director-General of UNRRA, 1944 - 1946, pal of FDR.

14. Herbert Feis -- U.S. State Department official, economist, and an adviser on international economic affairs.

15. R. S. Hecht -- financial adviser to FDR.

16. Nathan Margold -- Department of the Interior Solicitor, legal adviser.

17. Jesse I. Straus -- adviser to FDR.

18. H. J. Laski -- "unofficial foreign adviser" to FDR.

19. E. W. Goldenweiser -- Federal Reserve Director.

20. Charles E. Wyzanski -- U.S. Labor department legal adviser.

21. Samuel Untermyer -- lawyer, "unofficial public ownership adviser" to FDR.

22. Jacob Viner -- Tax expert at the U.S. Treasury Department, assistant to the Treasury Secretary.

23. Edward Filene -- businessman, philanthropist, unofficial presidential adviser.

24. David Dubinsky -- Labor leader, president of International Ladies Garment Workers Union.

25. William C. Bullitt -- part-Jewish, ambassador to USSR [is claimed to be Jonathan Horwitz's grandson; unconfirmed].

26. Mordecai Ezekiel -- Agriculture Department economist.

27. Abe Fortas -- Assistant director of Securities and Exchange Commission, Department of the Interior Undersecretary.

28. Isador Lubin -- Commissioner of Labor Statistics, unofficial labor economist to FDR.

29. Harry Dexter White [Weiss] -- Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; a key founder of the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank; adviser, close pal of Henry Morgenthau. Co-wrote the Morgenthau Plan.

30. Alexander Holtzoff -- Special assistant, U.S. Attorney General's Office until 1945; [presumed to be Jewish; unconfirmed].

31. David Weintraub -- official in the Office of Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation Operations; helped create the United Nations; Secretary, Committee on Supplies, 1944-1946.

32. Nathan Gregory Silvermaster -- Agriculture Department official and head of the Near East Division of the Board of Economic Warfare; helped create the United Nations.

33. Harold Glasser -- Treasury Department director of the division of monetary research. Treasury spokesman on the affairs of United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration.

34. Irving Kaplan -- U.S. Treasury Department official, pal of David Weintraub.

35. Solomon Adler -- Treasury Department representative in China during World War II.

36. Benjamin Cardozo -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

37. Leo Wolman -- chairman of the National Recovery Administration's Labor advisery Board; labor economist.

38. Rose Schneiderman -- labor organizer; on the advisery board of the National Recovery Administration.

39. Jerome Frank -- general counsel to the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, Justice, U.S. Court of Appeals, 1941-57.

40. Gerard Swope -- key player in the creation of the N.R.A. [National Recovery Administration]

41. Herbert Bayard Swope -- brother of Gerard

42. Lucien Koch -- consumer division, N.R.A. [apparently-Jewish]

43. J. David Stern -- Federal Reserve Board, appointed by FDR

44. Nathan Straus -- housing adviser

45. Charles Michaelson -- Democratic [DNC] publicity man

46. Lawrence Steinhardt -- ambassador to Soviet Union

47. Harry Guggenheim -- heir to Guggenheim fortune, adviser on aviation

48. Arthur Garfield Hays -- adviser on civil liberties

49. David Lasser -- head of Worker's Alliance, labor activist

50. Max Zaritsky -- labor adviser

51. James Warburg -- millionaire, early backer of New Deal before backing out

52. Louis Kirstein -- associate of E. Filene

53. Charles Wyzanski, Jr. -- counsel, Dept. of Labor

54. Charles Taussig -- early New Deal adviser

55. Jacob Baker -- assistant to W.P.A. head Harry Hopkins; assistant head of W.P.A. [Works Progress Admin.]

56. Louis H. Bean -- Dept. of Agriculture official

57. Abraham Fox -- research director, Tariff Commission

58. Benedict Wolf -- National Labor Relations Board [NLRB]

59. William Leiserson -- NLRB

60. David J. Saposs -- NLRB

61. A. H. Meyers -- NLRB [New England division]

62. L. H. Seltzer -- head economist at the Treasury Dept.

63. Edward Berman -- Dept. of Labor official

64. Jacob Perlman -- Dept. of Labor official

65. Morris L. Jacobson -- chief statistician of the Government Research Project

66. Jack Levin -- assistant general manager, Rural Electrification Authority

67. Harold Loeb -- economic consultant, N.R.P.

68. William Seagle -- council, Petroleum Labor Policy Board

69. Herman A. Gray -- policy committee, National Housing Conference

70. Alexander Sachs -- rep. of Lehman Bros., early New Deal consultant

71. Paul Mazur -- rep. of Lehman Bros., early consultant for New Deal

72. Henry Alsberg -- head of the Writer's Project under the W.P.A.

73. Lincoln Rothschild -- New Deal art administrator

NN

"Anatoliy Golitsyn, a Ukrainian born in 1926, joined the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1945 as he prepared to become a military officer. He began several years of training in intelligence and acquired a position in the KGB by 1948. By the early 1950s, he had risen to an important enough position to co-author a plan for restructuring Soviet intelligence, which brought him into direct contact with Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and other top officials.

"Four years of study at the KGB Institute in Moscow brought Golitsyn closer to the inner circle of Communist power during the late 1950s. He then worked until 1960 as a top analyst for the KGB in its Moscow headquarters, ultimately reaching the rank of major.

"Golitsyn was one of the youngest officers ever promoted to such a high position, and the discovery of the KGB's innermost secrets rapidly disillusioned him. He managed to have himself reassigned to Finland with his wife and daughter in 1961. Three days before Christmas, he suddenly presented himself at the US embassy to announce his defection. Within 72 hours, the US Air Force evacuated Golitsyn and his family to Frankfurt, West Germany, just before he had to return to Moscow. After lie-detector tests showed he was telling the truth, he was transferred to the United States for a full debriefing.

"Golitsyn's shocking information plunged the CIA, and other Western intelligence services, into a state of turmoil for over a decade. He revealed that the KGB placed the bulk of its resources not on stealing secrets, as the West commonly believed, but on deceiving and manipulating Western nations into gradually surrendering to Communism. Every time our intelligence experts would exploit some source of information from the Soviet Union, the KGB would 'poison' that source with disinformation. By sending false defectors who were secretly working for the KGB, or by leaking falsified documents, or by organizing phony opposition movements inside the Soviet Bloc, the KGB could influence Western policymaking with seemingly reliable information. Using such techniques, the Communists could make the West believe that the Soviet and Chinese Communists were at war with one another. Or that Communism had 'died.'

"The Golitsyn revelations shook the CIA to the core. Much of the intelligence being gathered could no longer be trusted; apparent successes in stealing Soviet secrets were actually Communist victories in deceiving us. Many CIA officials became furious with Golitsyn, and refused to listen.

"To carry out such a huge but delicate operation, the Soviets needed spies in Western intelligence agencies for feedback. These moles would tell the KGB whether the disinformation was being believed, allowing the Soviets to alter the deception to give it more plausibility.

"Because of his former access to KGB intelligence, Golitsyn was able to prove the extent to which Soviet moles had infiltrated sensitive positions. For example, through his ability to recognize a wide array of top-secret NATO documents, he showed that the KGB had agents planted throughout the NATO command structure. His evidence was further confirmed in 1967 by the testimony of Giorgio Rinaldi, an Italian who admitted to being involved with some 300 NATO officers in a massive Soviet spy network--one that was never uncovered or removed. Recent years have seen further confirmation of Golitsyn's allegations. On November 17, 1994, former NATO official Rainer Rupp was convicted in a German court for his role as a Soviet spy. Operating under the KGB code name TOPAZ during the 1970s and 1980s, Rupp and his wife (code-named TURQUOISE) had passed 'strategies, codes and military preparedness plans' from NATO headquarters to the East German secret police, who transferred the secrets to the KGB.

"Golitsyn also had knowledge of secrets from the highest levels of the French government, and said the information had come from a Soviet spy ring operating under the code name SAPPHIRE. His evidence implicated several members of French Intelligence (SDECE), including the chief of counterintelligence and President Charles de Gaulle's own intelligence advisor. Rather than investigating and stopping the ring, however, the French government and SDECE moved to cover up the evidence. Days after one of the spies was identified, he was murdered -- apparently to protect the rest of the spy ring.

"According to Golitsyn, Soviet control over the SDECE was so complete that the French agency was already functioning as a virtual arm of the KGB. Based on reports he had seen before defecting, he predicted that the KGB would soon use the SDECE as a front for spying on American nuclear deployment. French officer Philippe de Vosjoli, who was liaison between the SDECE and the CIA, disbelieved Golitsyn -- until a few months later, when he received precisely such an order to set up a spy ring to monitor US nuclear facilities. De Vosjoli refused to obey the order and, learning that he was targeted for assassination upon his return to France, defected to the United States. The SDECE subsequently carried out the operation against the US under the code name BIG BEN.

"The information supplied by Golitsyn also revealed a powerful spy ring of five Soviet agents operating at the highest levels of the British Ministry of Intelligence. Three had already been exposed, and a fourth -- Kim Philby --was uncovered in subsequent years. Based on additional evidence provided by Golitsyn, some members of the British MI5 conducted an investigation which concluded that the 'fifth man' of the Soviet ring was none other than Sir Roger Hollis, the director of MI5. An MI6 officer, Stephen de Mowbray, tried to warn the prime minister, but was fired. Hollis himself was never fully investigated. Golitsyn's evidence also pointed to at least two close advisors to Prime Minister Harold Wilson as being Soviet agents, but MI5 blocked an investigation.

"Golitsyn was able to show Soviet infiltration in the intelligence services of West Germany, Austria, Canada, Australia, and others. But his most important spy revelations concerned infiltration of the CIA itself. He knew of one mole code-named SASHA; months of investigation finally uncovered a lower-level Soviet spy. But the stolen secrets Golitsyn had seen while in Moscow came from much higher sources, and could not have come from a single agent. To test Golitsyn's claim that many moles had burrowed into the highest levels of the CIA, the Counterintelligence Division issued 'marked cards' -- tiny leaks of information that can be traced. Using this method, the Office of Security and the Counterintelligence Division proved the information was being leaked from within the Soviet Bloc Division, and by multiple spies.

"The next logical step was to conduct investigations to identify the spies. But, as we shall review in part II of this analysis, those probes were blocked --with disastrous results.

"The CIA, and virtually all of Western intelligence, has been thoroughly compromised by networks of Soviet spies. Nor has the 'death' of Soviet Communism changed anything. Aldrich Ames, having worked for years as an agent of the KGB, in 1991 made an effortless transition to the renamed KGB (SVR) without any break in his activities. So, too, have hundreds of thousands of other Soviet agents throughout the world, whose activities are now sharply increasing.

"In Part II: The secret 'inner' KGB, CIA intelligence disasters, suppression of key evidence, and the CIA campaign to discredit Golitsyn."

NN

:: At the risk of being called a cynic, wasn’t the League of Nations another method for the victors to maintain the status quo, and the advantages they held over the vanquished?

No, actually it wasn't. It was widely felt in the aftermath of the Great War (and with good reason) that such a tragedy should never be permitted to ever happen again, that nations could peacefully resolve their differences without having to resort to war. The very same sentiments motivated the Kellog-Briand Pact 1928. The League of Nations was not simply another method of 'putting down' Germany. That is a lie. If anything, it was Anglo-American support for the League of Nations that saved Germany. You see, unlike Austria-Hungary, the Russian Empire, or the Ottomon Empire, the German Reich (only recently united under Bismarck) survived the war. Whereas Austria and Hungary were destroyed and Russia ceased to exist, Germany received nothing but a slap on the wrist. It was widely believed at the time that a resurgent Germany would eventually cast off the Versailles Treaty and readjust its eastern borders too. That is precisely why the Locarno Treaty did not address the issue. Likewise, it was also widely believed that the harsher provisions of the Versailles Treaty could gradually be done away with, peacefully, through the League of Nations. As Austen Chamberlain put it, the Polish Corridor was not worth the bones of a single British grenadier.

:: Whilst it is certainly true that it is the most fundamental national interest of any sovereign state in the world is to maintain its own independence and survival, not every state in the world joined the League and other nations joined and then left: Brazil (1926), Japan (1933), Italy (1937).

Yes. The United States did not join the League of Nations either. Its interesting that you should cite Japan and Italy though. For starters, the British made an unnecessary enemy out of Japan because of their high-minded support for the League of Nations. The British had little material interest in Manchuria, put a profound national interest in deterring Japanese aggression away from Singapore and the Eastern dominions. Another example would be how the British drove Mussolini into the arms of Hitler over their high-minded refusal to extend de jure recognition to the Italian conquest of Abyssinia.

:: And after the constitution of the League of Nations was adopted by the Paris Peace Conference in April, 1919, the allies acquiesced to Polish aggression against Germany.

Its true that in the immediate aftermath of the Great War that the Allies were in no mood to appease Germany. But why was the case? Take France for example. For the second time within half a century, France had been invaded and attacked by German militants. France was devastated by the war. An entire generation of her young men had been sent to their graves. So its entirely reasonable that France would be unwilling to sacrifice her security for sentimentality.

On the other hand, Britain and America, isolated from Europe by the sea, drifted away from their bellicose war rhetoric after the war subsided. The American Senate failed to ratify the League of Nations and America retreated into isolationism shortly thereafter. Britain pursued a policy of rapprochement with Germany up until the aftermath of Munich. Britain systematically undermined the efforts of France to punish Germany from the beginning.

:: I would think the Germans could be forgiven for having so little faith in this kind of organisation.

I cannot blame the French for having so little faith in the League of Nations either, having been attacked by Germany twice within fifty years.

...Its true that in the immediate aftermath of the Great War that the Allies were in no mood to appease Germany. But why was the case? Take France for example. For the second time within half a century, France had been invaded and attacked by German militants. France was devastated by the war. An entire generation of her young men had been sent to their graves. So its entirely reasonable that France would be unwilling to sacrifice her security for sentimentality.

I cannot blame the French for having so little faith in the League of Nations either, having been attacked by Germany twice within fifty years.
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.

Franco-Prussian War

or Franco-German War, 1870–71, conflict between France and Prussia that signaled the rise of German military power and imperialism. It was provoked by Otto von Bismarck (the Prussian chancellor) as part of his plan to create a unified German Empire. 1

Causes
The emergence of Prussia as the leading German power and the increasing unification of the German states were viewed with apprehension by Napoleon III after the Prussian victory in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. Bismarck, at the same time, deliberately encouraged the growing rift between Prussia and France in order to bring the states of S Germany into a national union. He made sure of Russian and Italian neutrality and counted—correctly—on British neutrality. War preparations were pushed on both sides, with remarkable inefficiency in France and with astounding thoroughness in Prussia. 2
The immediate pretext for war presented itself when the throne of Spain was offered to a prince of the house of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, a branch of the ruling house of Prussia. The offer, at first accepted on Bismarck’s advice, was rejected (July 12) after a strong French protest. But the aggressive French foreign minister, the duc de Gramont, insisted on further Prussian assurances, which King William I of Prussia (later Emperor William I) refused. Bismarck, by publishing the famous Ems dispatch, inflamed French feeling, and on July 19, France declared war. 3

The Course of the War
Partly because they believed France the aggressor, the states of S Germany enthusiastically joined the North German Confederation—just as Bismarck had hoped. The military conduct of the war was, for the Germans, in the hands of Helmuth Karl Bernhard von Moltke, a military genius. On the French side, Napoleon III took active command, but it soon devolved on Marshal Bazaine.

NN

You see, unlike Austria-Hungary, the Russian Empire, or the Ottomon Empire, the German Reich (only recently united under Bismarck) survived the war. Whereas Austria and Hungary were destroyed and Russia ceased to exist, Germany received nothing but a slap on the wrist.


IGCSE History - Inter-War Period
1919 - 1939
------------------------------------------------------------------

Weimar Republic

Putsches and Murder

Kapp Putsch - March 13, 1920

Wolfgang Kapp was an extreme nationalist who hated the German government for signing the Treaty of Versailles. His aim was to make Germany stronger, to give Germans back their pride and, one day, to take back the land given to Poland by the Treaty. He was supported by the Berlin police, the Freikorps and some for the army. He did not have the workers on his side. The workers staged a general strike and Berlin came to a halt, there was no water, gas or coal. No buses or trains ran. Kapp fled to Sweden and Ebert (the first President of the Weimar Republic) regained control of the country.

'Red Rising' in the Ruhr - March 21, 1920 and the Increasing Violence

Workers stayed out on strike in the Ruhr valley which was the richest industrial area of Germany. The communists formed a Red Army 50,000, but the army was able to defeat them. The 'Red Rising' gave the government reason to treat the communists very brutally. Between 1919 and 1922 there were 356 political murders in Germany. Walter Rathenau, Germany's Foreign Minister, was murdered as part of the escalating violence.

Munich Putsch - 1923

Hitler, supported by the World War One hero General Ludendorff attempted to overthrow the German government. Hitler was able to gain the support of a large number of people and the Putsch started at a Beer Hall in Munich. The government of Bavaria (Munich Area) had Hitler arrested. He was charged with treason and sentenced to 5 years in jail. He only served 9 months and during this time he wrote the book Mein Kampf (My Struggle) which outlined his beliefs and hopes for Germany.

French Invasion

In the Treaty of Versailles, Germany had agreed to pay for war damages, or reparations. The amount was set at 6,600 million pounds. Germany made the first payment of the reparations in 1921 and in 1922 Germany failed to pay the second installment to France and Belgium. The French refused to believe that Germany did not have the money and decided to take what they were owed by force. They invaded the Ruhr valley, Germany's richest industrial area. Within days the French had taken over coal mines, railways, factories and steelworks. The German government called on the Germans to passively resist the French. The shut down of the richest industrial region of Germany brought an economic crisis to Germany by bringing about hyperinflation.

hyperinflation

In 1918 a loaf of bread cost just over half a mark. By 1922 the cost had risen to 163 marks for a loaf of bread. By November of 1923 a loaf of bread cost 201,000 million marks. Millions of people faced starvation as a result of the hyperinflation. People such as pensioners who were living on fixed incomes found that prices rose so much faster than their earnings. Even if they could afford to buy food they could not afford the gas to cook it. It was at this time that Stresemann came to power as one of Germany's most able statesmen and Hitler lead the putsch in Munich.

NN

1.) Cite your sources. I suspect you are pasting more trash off the internet.
2.) What is your point about the Franco-Prussian War? I never said France did not declare war.
3.) Germany could have paid the reparations. It simply did not want to.
4.) Don't post articles that whine about German suffering when you show no consideration for the suffering that Germans inflict upon other nations.

I don't respond to trash from Vanguard News Network.

Its true that in the immediate aftermath of the Great War that the Allies were in no mood to appease Germany. But why was the case? Take France for example. For the second time within half a century, France had been invaded and attacked by German militants. France was devastated by the war. An entire generation of her young men had been sent to their graves. So its entirely reasonable that France would be unwilling to sacrifice her security for sentimentality.

...Thus England was bound to France and Russia by Entente and France and Russia were held together by a firm alliance. This group of three great powers was usually called the Triple Entente. The European powers had now aligned themselves into two rival camps--the Triple Entente versus the Triple Alliance.

Alliance System as a cause of the War

The alliance systems were a cause of the First World War.

Firstly, the alliances were made in secret and so produced much distrust and suspicion among the European powers. Their general suspicion prevented their diplomats to devise a suitable solution to many of the crises preceding the war.

Secondly, the alliances were always made on a war-footing and so heightened the war tension and led to an arms race among the European powers. For example, within four years after the formation of the Triple Entente in 1907, Germany built nine dreadnoughts (battleships) and consequently Britain built eighteen. Thus all the European powers were ready for war in 1914.

Thirdly, since the European powers had made alliances with one another, a small dispute concerning one power might lead to a war involving all powers.

Fourthly, the alliances were originally strictly defensive but by 1910, many alliances had changed their character. The Austro-German alliance of 1879 was so modified that it had become an aggressive alliance after the Bosnian crisis in 1909, the German government promised to give military aid to Austria-Hungary, if Austria invaded Serbia and Russia intervened on behalf of the latter. As alliances had become instruments of national aggression, the chances of war doubled.

Fifthly, after the formation of the Triple Entente, Germany began to feel the threat to her security. The German press loudly talked about "encirclement", i.e. being surrounded by enemies on all sides. This induced the aggressive William II to pursue a more vigorous foreign policy in an attempt to break the unity of the Entente powers. This resulted in a series of international crises from 1905 to 1914.[/b]

NN

:: 1) Finland

Britain almost went to war with the Soviet Union over Finland.

2) The Baltic States

Chamberlain's unwillingness to concede to Soviet absorption of the Baltic States led to the breakdown of Anglo-French talks with the Soviets. On the other hand, your hero Adolf Hitler did not have any problem whatsoever handing the Balts over to Bolshevism.

:: 3) What the Germans did not occupy of Poland.

Your point being? I said that Britain returned to the balance of power principle after Munich.

:: 4) Parts of Hungary and Rumania.

What about parts of Hungary and Romania?

:: 5) 24,000 Armored Fighting Vehicles (3X the rest of the world combined).

Cite your source.

:: 6) Millions dead of purges, famines, and the slave-labor construction of the vast war-material factories for the 24,000-strong assault on Western Europe.

Cite your source.

:: 7) Civilians stampeded over minefields to clear them.

Red Herring.

:: 8) Unarmed soldiers and civilians driven into the teeth of German machine guns.

Cite your source.

:: 9) Mongolians in the middle of Europe and the Rape of Berlin.

You seem to be a tad confused here. It was the Germans who were allied with the Japanese. We well know what the Japanese had in store for Australia as well.

:: 10) Explicit dedication to the global destruction of civilization.

Ridiculous conspiracy theory.

:: "Late-Victorian altrusim," you say, sir, that was allied to and in aid of this element?

I have cited a massive amount of scholarship to support my case. You cite laughable conspiracy theories off the internet.

:: But you say that they did not want to see?

Chamberlain despised Bolshevism. It was Hitler that cut the deal with Bolshevism. Chamberlain could not bring himself to do it.

:: But why did they want to see the German and not the Bolshevik?

Because Nazi Germany was far and away more of a threat to Britain and France in 1939 than Soviet Russia.

:: Could it have been Judeo-Communist cultivation of British jingoism for its own purposes, contra authentic British interest in the episode (just like in Greater Judea)?

No. Great Britain went to war because its own interests were imperiled, not because of any ridiculous conspiracy. You seem to be forgetting here that in 1939 it was Germany that procured an alliance with the 'Judeo-Communists'. Was Germany controlled by the Jews?

:: Nah - must have been late-Victorian altruism, with its notorious blindness to Communist felonies and sensitivity to Fascist misdemeanors.

I wouldn't call attacking or invading almost every country in Europe to be a misdemeanor.

...Thus England was bound to France and Russia by Entente and France and Russia were held together by a firm alliance. This group of three great powers was usually called the Triple Entente. The European powers had now aligned themselves into two rival camps--the Triple Entente versus the Triple Alliance.

England was not bound to France or Russia at all. England only entered the Great War when Germany attacked Belgium, a neutral country. Furthermore, it was Kaiser Wilhelm himself who wrecked Bismarck's accord with Russia. Kaiser Wilhelm was a bellicose moron, simply put.

:: Fifthly, after the formation of the Triple Entente, Germany began to feel the threat to her security. The German press loudly talked about "encirclement", i.e. being surrounded by enemies on all sides.

Funny. I was under the impression that Germany's neighbours felt the belligerent militarists in control of that country to be a threat to their security.

:: My point, in general terms, is that the British response to Hitler cannot be fully explained in terms of the rightly-understood pursuit of British interests or of supposed exigencies attendant upon German violations of what Fade wants to refer to, and to implicitly misrepresent as, "international law".

Sure it can. In fact, it has been explained in precisely those terms by numerous scholars and multiple sources the world over. There is a historical consensus on the issue, which you flatly ignore when you mumble about 'Judeo-Bolshevik' conspiracies.

:: The balance of the explanation is provided by Judeo-Communist infiltration of the British establishment (and of the Greater Judean regime, as we have discussed with regard to the Jewish entourage-created Communist sympathizer, FDR) which accounts for the duplicitous treatment of Germany as against the Soviet Union.

Its not explained by that at all, actually. Please show us some evidence, using reputable scholarship, that the 'British establishment' had been infilitrated by 'Judeo-Communists' who incited World War 2 in pursuit of their own interests.

:: The infamous work, Spycatcher, by Peter Wright, gives us an account, in summary and in astounding particulars, of the inter-war penetration of the British establishment by Communists, the leading elements of which were, of course, Jewish (Victor and Tess Rothschild).

I will check out this book.

:: And we have the then-unremarked purchase of Churchill as a later development which suggests the established presence of Jewish influence in British policy, without which we cannot account for seeming British irrationality and duplicity in the conduct thereof.

Churchill was neither the Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister of Britain in 1939 either now was he.

:: Does anyone credit the theory of Roosevelt as chief warmonger, due to the pressure he applied to Britain, France, and Poland, both directly and indirectly through his agents?

No. The chief warmonger was Adolf Hitler. That is the established historical consensus on the issue as well, as it is supported by massive and overwhelming evidence. The United States did not even enter World War 2 until it was attacked by Japan in 1941.

1.) Cite your sources. I suspect you are pasting more trash off the internet.
But you wouldn't know whether it's trash or an excellent summary of pertinent portions of Epstein's book, since you're absolutely ignorant regarding this astounding and vital matter.

2.) What is your point about the Franco-Prussian War? I never said France did not declare war.
You would paint the French as victims rather than as participants.

3.) Germany could have paid the reparations. It simply did not want to.
Evidently because the regime did not, even by retaining those funds, have the resources and/or the wits to maintain internal order and prevent its own ultimate displacement.

4.) Don't post articles that whine about German suffering when you show no consideration for the suffering that Germans inflict upon other nations.
The point was, of course, that Germany was not merely "slapped on the wrist".

I do not trade in the moral authority of victims and so do not "whine".

NN

:: Does anyone credit the theory of Roosevelt as chief warmonger, due to the pressure he applied to Britain, France, and Poland, both directly and indirectly through his agents?

No. The chief warmonger was Adolf Hitler. That is the established historical consensus on the issue as well, as it is supported by massive and overwhelming evidence. The United States did not even enter World War 2 until it was attacked by Japan in 1941.
Admiral Stark, Chief of Atlantic Operations, admitted that the provocations ordered by FDR before P.H., were acts of war warranting a German declaration.

Admiral Raeder at the time reproached Hitler, asking whether it was "consistent with the honor of a sovereign nation to allow this situation to continue without declaration of war?".

The "White Paper" material, captured by the Germans among Polish documents, proved the pressure and complicity applied by FDR through Bullitt. The FDR regime lied once again and called it a forgery.

NN

:: My point, in general terms, is that the British response to Hitler cannot be fully explained in terms of the rightly-understood pursuit of British interests or of supposed exigencies attendant upon German violations of what Fade wants to refer to, and to implicitly misrepresent as, "international law".

Sure it can. In fact, it has been explained in precisely those terms by numerous scholars and multiple sources the world over. There is a historical consensus on the issue, which you flatly ignore when you mumble about 'Judeo-Bolshevik' conspiracies.
Get a clue, kid. The "historical concensus" is theology - an integral part of a belief system.

:: The balance of the explanation is provided by Judeo-Communist infiltration of the British establishment (and of the Greater Judean regime, as we have discussed with regard to the Jewish entourage-created Communist sympathizer, FDR) which accounts for the duplicitous treatment of Germany as against the Soviet Union.

Its not explained by that at all, actually. Please show us some evidence, using reputable scholarship, that the 'British establishment' had been infilitrated by 'Judeo-Communists' who incited World War 2 in pursuit of their own interests.
Read Spycatcher.

:: The infamous work, Spycatcher, by Peter Wright, gives us an account, in summary and in astounding particulars, of the inter-war penetration of the British establishment by Communists, the leading elements of which were, of course, Jewish (Victor and Tess Rothschild).

I will check out this book.
Good boy - there is much of an absolutely central nature to which your "education" amongst "serious scholars" has failed to expose you.

:: And we have the then-unremarked purchase of Churchill as a later development which suggests the established presence of Jewish influence in British policy, without which we cannot account for seeming British irrationality and duplicity in the conduct thereof.

Churchill was neither the Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister of Britain in 1939 either now was he.
Didn't say he was. He was in a position to end hostilities on an agreeable basis after the fall of France. His job description, however, was shabbaz goy.

NN

:: Taylor is a reputable historian. His extrapolations take him outside his discipline.

Perhaps it is your extrapolations from the evidence, not A.J.P. Taylor's, that put you on the fringes of scholarship on this issue.

:: 1) Prostitutes and indentured servants thrive economically by trading with other persons.

Germany is neither a prostitute or an indentured servant of anyone today.

:: 2) The Soviet Union did not implode.

LMAO whatever. Go tell that to the NSA.

:: Close your eyes and it is not there.

Does this conspiracy happen to involve aliens by any chance?

:: The National Socialist regime, as was consistent with its ideology, took and was prepared to take such eugenic measures as it thought proper.

True. The bizarre and pseudoscientific superstitions that motivated National Socialist eugenics have long been exposed to ridicule as well.

:: The allied Japanese would likely have imitated the Germans in this regard for the sake of military preparedness, given their extraordinary territorial commitments.

Poor persecuted Japan, yet another of the Anglo-ZOG-Chinese-Bolshevik conspiracy. I am sure China was surely out to get Japan too, right?

:: Same dependence as with Germany. Japan is likewise a satellite that can be throttled at any moment.

That is nothing but bullshit. Germany chose not to participate in the Iraq War. Its Chancellor has openly ridiculed American foreign policy. Explain to me why Germany has not been brought to its knees. Or how about Japan? Oh yeah, maybe its because of all that money the Japanese have sunk into U.S. Treasury Securities. Perhaps the Japanese are not a U.S. satellite after all, but a partner of the U.S.

:: Vital Japanese access to oil was obtained in the Southeast Asian conquests taken from the Dutch.

If Japan could simply have taken over Dutch assets in Southeast Asia, then why was it necessary for Japan to attack the U.S.?

:: The Germans were driving for Caucasian oil to supplement their otherwise inadequate supplies of Rumanian and synthetic oil production.

Inadequate to accomplish what? Annihilation of the Russians? To have a 'world policy' directed against the USA?

:: Hard to believe that your formulation of trade is so naively incomplete.

Its interesting that you should lecture me about trade. Economics is actually my minor, after all. But by all means, please continue to lecture me about all the conspiracy theories you have read on the internet.

:: If one is trading for bon-bons, it hardly matters that one is so denied.

How so?

:: But if one is shut off from oil and iron ore, nickel and chrome, tungsten and manganese, rubber and wheat, one is obviously the craven subject and satellite of the power(s) upon whom one relies, monetarily or materially.

Germany was not shut off from oil and iron ore, nickel and crome, tungsten and manganese, rubber and wheat. For some amazing reason, prior to and after the Third Reich, Germany has gotten along just fine. Germany stills buys a lot of wheat from Canada and the Ukraine today. Tell me. Is Germany a satellite of Canada? :p

:: And a very precious clarification/distinction it was - hence my lack of hesitation in objecting to whichever way you wanted to describe it (as a "starting" or as an "incitement").

I see you have retreated from your strawman argument. Good. Now we are moving somewhere.

:: we do not "move on" - the defense has shown that the prosecution has the wrong defendant in the dock.

I think we will let the gallery be the judge of that. Who has cited the more credible evidence, the enormous bulk of scholarship that I have cited in this debate, or the absurd and ridiculous conspiracy theories that you have found on the internet. What methodology have you used in this debate? It goes something like this: if it reflects positively on Nazism and negatively on the Jews, then it has to be true, no matter what the source.

:: More "extrapolation".

(rollseyes)

So what are you denying now? That the Dutch should have readily agreed that their national existence should be destroyed by the poor victimised Germans?

:: I insist upon the having by all nations of national interests

Nonsense. You ditch and/or ignore American and British national interests and instead explain the actions of these nations in terms of bizarre conspiracy theories off the internet.

:: you naively insist upon the mutual reconcilability thereof such that one can speak of something called "legitimacy" and its opposite in that regard.

Yes. We political scientists who specialise in international relations discuss the topic of 'legitimacy' all the time. We really do not know what we are talking about. All is revealed in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. :p

:: Where you have written of German/Hitlerian expectations of being a "world power" pursuing "world policy" as if this were something sinister - which we would take it to be, given your characterization of Hitler.

I have pointed out that Hitler's own words, not to mention his actions, flatly contradicts your notion that his ambitions were limited to the East. I asked you to point out where I ever suggested Hitler wanted to conquer the world. That was because I never made that argument, although you have insinuated, quite wrongly, that I have done so.

:: It demonstrates that he was prepared to do nothing materially/consequentially in that regard.

False. He had made absolutely every preparation to acquire the colonial empire after the war, as a part of the settlement he intended to reach with the British. Rich (cited above) discusses this extensively in his work.

:: His "claim" was merely academic

Rubbish. See Rich's book.

:: I have remarked that Germany was, indeed, to be a world power among world powers pursuing world policy (as do world powers).

That was not his intention at all. It was his intention to dominate the world, to be the pre-eminent power in the world. The means to this was extending German control over Europe and conquering lebensraum in the East.

:: His material commitment to the East, the Japanese commitment to their Asian empire, the remoteness of America, and sensible British attention to their own imperial affairs in alliance with Germany, would have meant that "world policy" would have meant the mere negotiation of commercial arrangements, in a world minus the Communist monstrosities and their ultimate expansion.

Lets see your evidence. Let us see you cite reputable scholars to support you case.

:: 1) As explained, "world policy" would have involved world commerce, to the extent that comsymp influence was not sustaining insane British/Allied antagonism.

Its true that he didn't want to unnecessarily antagonise the British. But it is also true that his idea of a relationship with the British is one in which the British Empire served the role as a satellite or buffer state or his 'New Order'. He has similiar plans for Spain and Turkey.

:: 2) As explained, "African colonial empire" was a mere academic claim as to German entitlement.

This is false. Rich has decisively shown otherwise in his work.

:: You would disingenuously suggest that it was to be the object of an expansionist military campaign rather than a mere supply source of "Bananen".

Please point out to me where I said that. I pointed out that this African Empire was to be part of the price for a peace treaty with the British.

:: Again with the deceptive terminology and extrapolation: "the annihilation of France...".

There is nothing whatsoever deceptive about this. I have cited numerous sources in support of that argument. You have yet to respond. You simply dismiss all of this out of hand and call it 'extrapolation'.

:: Yes, Germany would have been the preeminent Continental power, thus diminishing France.

Germany would not simply have been the pre-eminent Continental power. That is not what Hitler had in mind. Germany was already the pre-eminent Continental power before the war anyway. Instead, he wanted to destroy France and Russia. He wanted to annihilate those nations. Of course, we have seen that is perfectly acceptable in your view.

:: And you quote Hitler with regard to a "final reckoning" - again with the professorial animus and intent to deceive by placing a sinister interpretation upon the phrase.

He spells out himself at some length what the 'final reckoning' meant. He spells it out in the Table Talk and in his foreign policy book. Goebbels discusses what the 'final reckoning' meant as well, at length, in his own diaries.

:: We need not resort thus to interpretation, for we have it from Speer that Hitler had not wanted to conquer France, whatever else he might have had in mind.

He did not want to conquer France in 1940. That's true. He didn't want war with the West in '39 either. He wanted to expand East and then turn against France from a position of strength. France was not going to stand by and let him do so.

:: And where is our young pedant now, artfully distinguishing between "incite" and "start"?

There is a very important difference between 'incite' and 'start'.

:: You cite Hitler speaking of a "final reckoning" - not "conquest".

Yes, I cited The Table Talk.

:: And, as explained, we know that conquest was not intended.

Oh yeah, because NeoNietzsche once again says so. Well. Hitler says otherwise in his own words in the Table Talk. Wait. Isn't that a forgery by ZOG? :P

:: Is this to say that "final reckoning" is the best that you can do?

No. I have done much better than that. I have cited Rich's work throughout these recent threads. I have cited another book as well. On the other hand, you simply reply for the sake of replying. And when you add anything to this discussion, it is more often than not a conspiracy theory of the internet.

:: I would say that the prospects for making your case are not good, in that event.

And you would say that no matter what as well, because you are ideologically motivated, whereas I am not.

:: But do let us have the full blast of Hitler's bombast, promising, in no uncertain terms, the conquest of all Europe.

I have already cited the Table Talk and the foreign policy book. Anyone who wants to pursue those sources should have no problem locating them.

:: [And, BTW, my judgment is that Hitler ought to have prepared for and achieved that goal in essence - thus my "ideological worldview" has the opposite of the effect you claim.]

Thanks for making it clear that you are just another one of the German chauvinists that Nietzsche so despised.

:: Fade does not explain the extent to which British isolation from its European markets was a function of improvidently forcing Germany into unintended conquests, and to what extent the satellitization under Lend-lease was a function of the ruinously expensive hostilities that Britain insisted it must righteously pursue upon Germany's conduct of its own well-precedented colonial pursuits.

LMAO! I have explained all of this, actually, in the Decline and Fall of the British Empire thread. I cited from Barnett at length in that thread, btw.

:: England destroyed Hitler's plans for fraternal alliance, upon which all hope for a healthy development of Germany and Europe depended.

England destroyed Hitler's ambition to destroy other European nations, steal their natural resources, and enslave their populations. England fought in that war for something beyond her own national interests. Germany did not even fight for its own national interests, but to fulfill the fantasy of an out of control dictator.

:: Hitler had to maneuver, then, under circumstances which did not permit the forthright pursuit of that objective.

You keep repeating lie after lie. Chamberlain, in fact, DID offer Hitler an alliance. It was the alliance he always wanted, but it had a price. The price was that he would not annihilate Poland, so he turned it down.

:: "Serious scholars," you say? Oh, to be innocent again.

Absolutely.

:: As a rationale, not a reason.

Then prove it.

:: Saddam is going to attack us - we better conquer Iraq. The Germans and the Japanese are going to shake hands in Iowa, if we don't destroy these world-conquerors. The Germans mutilated Belgian babies and ran human soap factories.

Red Herring. Stay on topic.

:: . Do you imagine that the Anglo-Americans, renowned for their nauseating cant and hypocrisy, only lately started lying to themselves and everyone else regarding their motives and the supportive "facts" regarding geo-political realities?

If you have evidence that they were lying, then lets see it. But speculation and conspiracy theories from pseudoscholars are not going to cut it.

:: You attempt to prove that it was in their interest to constrain Germany merely by pointing out that they couldn't do so.

I pointed out that they could constrain Germany, yet their ability to do so was ever weakening, and would have weakened even further had Germany expanded east.

:: Your implicit assumption is thus one of intrinsic German hostility requiring said constraint of German capability, which tension, in fact, was merely derivative of the prior hostility expressed by the Western powers.

This is false.

1.) There was an intrinsic German hostility. Hitler had been contemplating a premeditated attack against France since the 1920s.
2.) This was not derivative either from prior hostility from the West. As Hitler pointed out numerous times, he was not out rectify the borders of Germany imposed by Versailles.

:: Emphatically incorrect as to the 24,000-strong reality.

Cite your source.

:: That the British did not see the reality was a consequence of Judeo-Communist influence, thoroughly penetrative of the British establishment, exploiting "late-Victorian altru" fatuity.

Support this conspiracy theory.

:: Churchill's venality, despite knowing better, was also an element.

Churchill was simply a pigheaded, narrow-minded fool.

:: Your question was as to why the British should have gone along with Brother Hitler - rather than as to the consequences attendant upon their stupidity in failing to do so.

They had no reason to go along with him. The British could not trust him. The German archives prove that.

:: Nevertheless, Fade finally makes something of a point: Britain [i]was cut off from export "markets" - rather than having its sovereignty compromised by vulnerability to being cut off from vital imports.

LMAO yet Britain was cut off from vital imports as well. As Barnett shows in detail, Britain had been importing all sorts of technology from France, Switzerland, and Germany which were likewise cut off by the war. The same can be said of agricultural imports. Britain had to turn to the U.S.

:: loss of income from diminished exports meant diminished quantity of total imports and a re-proportioning of imports toward those that are vital, but this difficulty thus represented nowhere near the threat to national interest and sovereignty faced by the Axis powers lacking and being cut off from vital imports altogether .

Nonsense. Germany was not cut off at all from vital imports until its own belligerent foreign policy forced other nations to take action.

:: Fade's case at this point is that his British Navy, absent German empire, could have continued to individually strong-arm export markets attempting collusion or making other choices - as well as a Germany thus lacking sovereignty - which in retrospect, of course, illuminates the hypocrisy and pretense involved in having allegedly resisted German aggression based upon some supposed general principles of so-called "international law".

Please show me how Great Britain possessed sovereignty over Germany. Thank you.

:: Dispensing, then, with Fade's pretense in this regard, we grant that the British had an interest in maintaining their extant measure of national sovereignty, as properly understood, by hoping for the preservation of the international status quo.

Now NeoNietzsche is contradicting himself. On the one hand, NeoNietzsche argues that the British wanted to preserve the status quo. On the other, he argues that a Jew-Bolshevik conspiracy forced Britain into launching a war which destroyed its own empire and turned Britain itself into an American satellite.

:: But that was not an option, in view of German requirements and the explicit intentions of the Soviet monstrosity.

The Soviet monstrosity was absolutely nothing in compared to what Hitler had in store for the Slavs. Please see all of the fun comments Hitler made about his plans that I cited above.

:: The British position was thus one of choosing how much sovereignty was to be sacrificed under the constellation of circumstances confronting them.

Suggesting. NeoNietzsche has yet to show how Britain possessed sovereignty over Germany. If Britain had sovereignty over Germany, and if Britain was controlled by a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy, then why did the British not simply have the German generals overthrow Hitler?

:: That it was greatly sacrificed in vastly benefitting the Soviet monstrosity rather than lost in modest degree in agreeable fraternal alliance with Germany evidences the Judeo-Communist influence, as to which reference and evidence have already been offered.

Britain was unwilling to form an alliance with Germany because Britain was not going to sit around and watch such a cut throat, warmonger, and monster destroy nation after nation at will. NeoNietzsche also continues to make an illogical argument here. Britain was under 'Judeo-Communist' influence yet it was Germany, not Britain, that initially cut a deal with the 'Judeo-Communist' Soviet Union.

:: An aspect of an analysis of "the British interpretation" is the underlying reality itself

That 'underlying reality' can be interpreted in all sorts of ways. The only interpretation that matters is how British foreign policy makers interpreted that underlying reality, not how NeoNietzsche personally interprets that 'underlying reality', through the prism of his own ideology.

:: against which we compare the account of the "interpretation" for evidence of ignorance of fact or knowledge thereof,

You are not comparing that account to the evidence at all. You have dismissed all the evidence provided by virtually every scholar I have cited, not to mention the memoirs of Halifax, even Hitler's own words! You are comparing the account to your own prejudices against the Jews and personal ideology.

:: self-deceit or other motivation in service of the participants. An aspect of the underlying reality was as I described it, above.

Once again, I suspect that British foreign policy makers might have interpreted the 'underlying reality' differently than NeoNietzsche. After all, they were not Nazis.

:: The point was that the British, due to Judeo-Communist penetration and influence, failed to appreciate the dimensions of the Bolshevik threat

Rubbish. Why did Judeo-Bolshevik Britain send an expeditionary force to destroy Communism in its cradle? Why did Adolf Hitler form an alliance with the Judeo-Communist Soviet Union, instead of Judeo-Bolshevik influenced Britain? Why did Britain, under Judeo-Communist influence, not come to the aid of Czechoslovakia when Stalin insisted that the Western powers do so? How come it was the Kaiser, not Great Britain, that sent Lenin on his way to Russia in the first place?

:: and came, effectively, to see the issue from a Jewish perspective wherein only a German, and not a Jew-favored Soviet, preeminence was to be energetically resisted (as turned out, immediately, to be the history of the event).

You seem to be a tad confused here. It was Germany, under Hitler's leadership, that cut a deal with the Soviet Union, not Great Britain. It was Germans who trained the Soviet army. LMAO it was even Germans who industrialised the Soviet Union after the Rapallo Agreement.

:: You nevertheless fail to properly apply such distinction-making to the present context, in failing to understand the active (Communist) influence of Jewry in manipulating Anglo-America into the war

What the hell are you talking about? The Communist Party USA had been one of the most voracious advocates of keeping America out of the war when it started! America entered WW2 because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on the United States!

:: despite the failure to tend to the immediate (Zionist) needs of Jewish populations.

Was Hitler a Zionist? It was, after all, Adolf Hitler that cut a deal with the Zionists to transfer the Jews to Palestine, not Britain or America.

:: The AJC is Zionist/Provincialist rather than Communist/Internationalist.

You don't know much about this subject. It is obvious now.

"Thirty-two national Jewish organisations accepted Monsky's invitation to send representatives to a pre-conference planning meeting in Pittsburgh in January 1943. Two did not. The American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Labour Committee, suspicious of Zionist motives and determined not to aid Zionist goals, refused to participate."

Wyman, p.161

:: You confuse the international circumstance of Jewry with internationalist ideology (though the one does tend to the other in certain respects).

I will let the gallery be the judge of who is confused here. You argue above that the AJC was a Zionist organisation, when actually, the AJC was out to stiffle the Zionists.

:: And, "on the contrary," though the Ostjuden formed a hotbed of Communist sympathy and Party activity which was not yet a dominant force, their elder German-derived tribesmen had already surrounded FDR and transformed him into a Communist sympathizer.

Please prove to me, and the gallery, that Roosevelt was a Communist sympathiser.

:: I think you make my point. The Jewish influence in initiating the war had to do with the Communist interest, rather than with the Zionist interest.

What are you talking about? I am still waiting for your evidence that Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax were controlled by the Jews.

:: Please pay attention. As I have repeatedly stated, FDR was transformed into a Communist sympathizer, as is confirmed by his own off-hand statements.

I haven't seen any proof of this. Cite a reputable scholar that says FDR was a Communist sympathiser.

:: His actions thus tended to serve the indulgence of Communist interests, as was the history of the event.

History shows that Roosevelt ditched Henry Wallace and ran for re-election with Harry Truman. Why would Roosevelt do this, if he was a Communist symphatizer?

:: He was not "controlled" by the Jews in other than this sense, to my knowledge.

We finally agree on something.

:: Communist sympathy does not imply any interest in Jewish welfare as such.

I thought the Communists were anti-Zionists.

:: Where once he had been as you say, he was not at the end. Wallace's sympathies reflect the terminal reality.

FDR ditched Henry Wallace, NeoNietzsche.

:: Since you were not able to deal with the implication of the discussion at that point, you merely repeated your familiar formula, which the pursuit of the discussion had previously dissolved, to wit:

I replied to your post about Finland and the Baltic States.

:: Your "derivative error" is evidenced as follows:

Not seeing it.

Get a clue, kid. The "historical concensus" is theology - an integral part of a belief system.
History doesn't look like theology to me. :222

A.J.P. Taylor, Origins of the Second World War (Atheneum: New York, 1962)
Read Spycatcher.
I shall pick it up tommorrow.
Good boy - there is much of an absolutely central nature to which your "education" amongst "serious scholars" has failed to expose you.

I think you are the one who needs the education here. After all, I am simply recapitulating the historical consensus in this debate. You are challenging it.
Didn't say he was.
He was not formulating British foreign policy. Lord Halifax was. I have Lord Halifax's memoirs. I have read them. I missed the part about Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracies.
He was in a position to end hostilities on an agreeable basis after the fall of France. His job description, however, was shabbaz goy.
Lord Halifax actually suggested to Churchill that he should consider it. Why did Lord Halifax do this if he was part of the vast Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy to get Germany?

Admiral Stark, Chief of Atlantic Operations, admitted that the provocations ordered by FDR before P.H., were acts of war warranting a German declaration.
I never argued that Roosevelt did not want to get into the war. In fact, I myself point out just that in the other thread. That does not mean that Roosevelt was the 'chief warmonger' or that Roosevelt is responsible for starting the Second World War.
Admiral Raeder at the time reproached Hitler, asking whether it was "consistent with the honor of a sovereign nation to allow this situation to continue without declaration of war?".
Once again, what is in dispute here is who was the chief warmonger in World War. It obviously was not Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt did not invade, attack, and destroy almost every nation in Continental Europe.
The "White Paper" material, captured by the Germans among Polish documents, proved the pressure and complicity applied by FDR through Bullitt. The FDR regime lied once again and called it a forgery.
What pressure was this? Did FDR ever guarantee Poland's borders? What assurances did Poland ever receive that America would come to Poland's assistance in the event of war? America did not even enter the war after the fall of France.

:: 1) Finland

Britain almost went to war with the Soviet Union over Finland.
Almost - as in - not at all. The duplicity, once again. Hard on Germans, soft on Communists.

2) The Baltic States

Chamberlain's unwillingness to concede to Soviet absorption of the Baltic States led to the breakdown of Anglo-French talks with the Soviets. On the other hand, your hero Adolf Hitler did not have any problem whatsoever handing the Balts over to Bolshevism.
And taking them back again after the initial concession made a final solution to the Soviet monstrosity a realistic prospect.

:: 3) What the Germans did not occupy of Poland.

Your point being? I said that Britain returned to the balance of power principle after Munich.
No, they didn't. No declaration of war on the Soviets and holy crusade, after Poland and the balance of power were lost.

:: 4) Parts of Hungary and Rumania.

What about parts of Hungary and Romania?
"Parts of Romania were incorporated by the Soviet Union in 1940, mostly comprising the present-day country of Moldova with small portions assigned to Ukraine."

:: 5) 24,000 Armored Fighting Vehicles (3X the rest of the world combined).

Cite your source.
Common knowledge among history of armor enthusiasts. Germans captured or destroyed 17,000 during Barbarossa.

:: 6) Millions dead of purges, famines, and the slave-labor construction of the vast war-material factories for the 24,000-strong assault on Western Europe.

Cite your source.
Any of Conquest's discussion of the Ukraine regarding the artificially-induced famine.

Hannah Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism on the purges.

Anthony Sutton's trilogy, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, on the industrialization.

:: 7) Civilians stampeded over minefields to clear them.

Red Herring.
Indicative.

:: 8) Unarmed soldiers and civilians driven into the teeth of German machine guns.

Cite your source.
Get an education in common knowledge regarding the war. I find it telling that you are so ignorant regarding the extraordinary brutality of the Soviet regime.

:: 9) Mongolians in the middle of Europe and the Rape of Berlin.

You seem to be a tad confused here. It was the Germans who were allied with the Japanese. We well know what the Japanese had in store for Australia as well.
And the Germans certainly were dictating the direction of Japanese aggression, now weren't they?

:: 10) Explicit dedication to the global destruction of civilization.

Ridiculous conspiracy theory.
Lothrop Stoddard: The Revolt Against Civilization

:: "Late-Victorian altrusim," you say, sir, that was allied to and in aid of this element?

I have cited a massive amount of scholarship to support my case. You cite laughable conspiracy theories off the internet.
I take this as a non-denial parading as something else.

:: But you say that they did not want to see?

Chamberlain despised Bolshevism. It was Hitler that cut the deal with Bolshevism. Chamberlain could not bring himself to do it.
Hitler made the deal to break the deal. Chamberlain placed Hitler in the position of having to do so.

:: But why did they want to see the German and not the Bolshevik?

Because Nazi Germany was far and away more of a threat to Britain and France in 1939 than Soviet Russia.
False. Then as now, we are the victims of ignorance based upon a fatuous belief system which disguises Marxism/Communism/Bolshevism from meliorists such as yourself and the "late-Victorian altruists".

:: Could it have been Judeo-Communist cultivation of British jingoism for its own purposes, contra authentic British interest in the episode (just like in Greater Judea)?

No. Great Britain went to war because its own interests were imperiled, not because of any ridiculous conspiracy. You seem to be forgetting here that in 1939 it was Germany that procured an alliance with the 'Judeo-Communists'. Was Germany controlled by the Jews?
Are you playing stupid, or has it really yet to register with you that said "alliance" was made, necessarily, to be broken by Hitler, based upon his ultimate ambition. It represented no ideological affiliation and affection such as that which compromised the increasingly comsymp and compromised British establishment.

:: Nah - must have been late-Victorian altruism, with its notorious blindness to Communist felonies and sensitivity to Fascist misdemeanors.

I wouldn't call attacking or invading almost every country in Europe to be a misdemeanor.
I'd admiringly call that Imperium. But the pertinent context involves the duplicity in credibly threatening Germany, alone, prior to Barbarossa, when all that Germany had done was duplicated or improved upon by the Soviets.

NN

But you wouldn't know whether it's trash or an excellent summary of pertinent portions of Epstein's book, since you're absolutely ignorant regarding this astounding and vital matter.
I was looking for something along the lines of a review from the Journal of Contemporary History or some serious academic publication. I was not looking for more conspiracy theory crap off the internet.
You would paint the French as victims rather than as participants.
Umm. It was Bismarck's entire intention to provoke France into declaring war.
Evidently because the regime did not, even by retaining those funds, have the resources and/or the wits to maintain internal order and prevent its own ultimate displacement.
Germany did not pay the reparations because Germany did not want to pay the reparations. That's the bottom line. And you are quite wrong when you argue that Germany did not have the means to pay the reparations. Barnett discusses this matter at some length in his book as well.
The point was, of course, that Germany was not merely "slapped on the wrist".
But that is not a point at all. Germany was given nothing but a slap on the wrist. Most of the provisions of the Versailles Treaty were dependent anyway upon German cooperation. That is why it was so easy for the Germans to cast off the Versailles Treaty in the first place. German strength grew by leaps and bounds from the Versailles settlement to the outbreak of WW2.
I do not trade in the moral authority of victims and so do not "whine".
You go on and on about German suffering. And I would agree, Germans suffered because of the blockade at the end of the war. That does not give Germans an excuse to tyrannise and destroy other nations though at will.

Almost - as in - not at all. The duplicity, once again. Hard on Germans, soft on Communists.Almost. Finland signed an armistace with the Soviets before Great Britain could enter the war. But you knew that right?

"Only the sudden collapse of Finland saved Britain from being at war with Russia, and thus doubly stretched and strained."

Basil Liddel Hart, Churchill Revised: A Critical Assessment (New York: The Dial Press, Inc., 1969), p.207

And taking them back again after the initial concession made a final solution to the Soviet monstrosity a realistic prospect.You seem to be a tad confused here. Great Britain never wanted to see the Baltic states absorbed by the Soviet Union. In fact, Great Britain refused to concede to Soviet hegemony over the Baltic nations in order to procure Soviet assistance in resisting Hitler's ambitions in Poland. By the end of the war, however, Great Britain was exhausted and there was little His Majesty's Government could do about it. Why don't we see you shedding any tears for the Balts? As I pointed out before, it was your cut throat Hitler that bargained away their independence in the first place.
No, they didn't.Yes, actually they did.

1.) A.J.P. Taylor, English History, 1914-1945 (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965)
2.) Correlli Barnett, The Collapse of British Power (New York: William Morrow & Co., Inc., 1972)
No declaration of war on the Soviets and holy crusade, after Poland and the balance of power were lost. Do you ever read my replies? I pointed out in my previous response that Britain was forced to retreat to the balance of power principle after Munich. The Soviet Union was widely perceived at the time to be a military pushover.
"Parts of Romania were incorporated by the Soviet Union in 1940, mostly comprising the present-day country of Moldova with small portions assigned to Ukraine."That was after Hitler concluded his pact with the 'Judeo-Communist' Soviet Union, as you put it. That was after the Munich Agreement as well.
Common knowledge among history of armor enthusiasts. Germans captured or destroyed 17,000 during Barbarossa.I said cite your source.
Any of Conquest's discussion of the Ukraine regarding the artificially-induced famine.Great Britain was not allied with the Soviet Union in the 1930s. What is your point? On the other hand, Germany was actively trading with and industrialising the Soviet Union throughout this era.
Indicative.I am not seeing it.
Hannah Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism on the purges.Do you agreement with what Hannah Arendt had to say about Nazism? :p
Anthony Sutton's trilogy, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, on the industrialization.I have read this trilogy. It is at my university library. In fact, I have commented on it before. Was there a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy by the Nazis to industrialise the USSR?
Get an education in common knowledge regarding the war. I find it telling that you are so ignorant regarding the extraordinary brutality of the Soviet regime.Why do you have such a problem citing your sources? I don't. :p
And the Germans certainly were dictating the direction of Japanese aggression, now weren't they?They were an accomplice to it. Hitler was allied with a Mongoloid regime that was hoping to invade and colonise White Australia.
Lothrop Stoddard: The Revolt Against CivilizationIt was not the aim of the Communists to 'destroy civilisation'. That is ridiculous. They were mistaken, true, but that is about it.
I take this as a non-denial parading as something else.The point is that you continue to avoid citing reputable scholars to support your case.
Hitler made the deal to break the deal.Hitler made the deal to destroy Poland and deter the Allies from coming to her aid.
Chamberlain placed Hitler in the position of having to do so.Chamberlain did not force Hitler to cut a deal with Stalin at all. It was entirely his choice. Chamberlain did not cut a deal with Stalin because he could not turn a blind eye to the fate of the Balts. That speaks volumes about the character of a man like Neville Chamberlain compared to a ruthless monster like Adolf Hitler.
False. Rubbish. The British Chiefs of Staff concluded otherwise.
Then as now, we are the victims of ignorance based upon a fatuous belief system which disguises Marxism/Communism/Bolshevism from meliorists such as yourself and the "late-Victorian altruists".Oh yeah. I forgot. YOU are in possession of the truth. The entire national security apparatus of the United States is not. :p
Are you playing stupid, or has it really yet to register with you that said "alliance" was made, necessarily, to be broken by HitlerHitler said himself in the Table Talk that he had no interest whatsoever in maintaining the independence of the Baltic states. It was never a necessity for him either to broker a deal with Bolshevism. Answer my question. Was it Judeo-Bolshevik influence that made Nazi Germany an ally of the Soviet Union?
based upon his ultimate ambition. His ultimate ambition was to destroy the Baltic nations. What was it to him if Stalin did so?
It represented no ideological affiliation and affection such as that which compromised the increasingly comsymp and compromised British establishment.The British establishment was not 'compromised' at all, certainly not by Stalin. The British would not assist the Soviets in resisting Hitler. That is why Stalin became disillusioned with the Western powers in the first place.
I'd admiringly call that Imperium. Europe is in the process of unifying itself today. It has done this without tanks and German jackboots.
But the pertinent context involves the duplicity in credibly threatening Germany, alone, prior to Barbarossa, when all that Germany had done was duplicated or improved upon by the Soviets.The Soviets never had any crazed plan to enslave the Slavs because they were racially inferior.

:: 1) Prostitutes and indentured servants thrive economically by trading with other persons.

Germany is neither a prostitute or an indentured servant of anyone today.
You hoped to demonstrate that successful trading necessarily meant a healthy circumstance. I proved that it does not. That Germany trades does not make its circumstance salubrious.

:: 2) The Soviet Union did not implode.

LMAO whatever. Go tell that to the NSA.
You refer to yet another element of the intelligence community which has a vital interest in suppressing/ignoring/disbelieving the truth

:: Close your eyes and it is not there.

Does this conspiracy happen to involve aliens by any chance?
Yes. Jews.

:: The National Socialist regime, as was consistent with its ideology, took and was prepared to take such eugenic measures as it thought proper.

True. The bizarre and pseudoscientific superstitions that motivated National Socialist eugenics have long been exposed to ridicule as well.
And early IQ tests were ill-conceived. One makes progress in these areas.

:: The allied Japanese would likely have imitated the Germans in this regard for the sake of military preparedness, given their extraordinary territorial commitments.

Poor persecuted Japan, yet another of the Anglo-ZOG-Chinese-Bolshevik conspiracy. I am sure China was surely out to get Japan too, right?
Your assurance is without foundation in anything I've written. But I see that you are without rational response on the point.

:: Same dependence as with Germany. Japan is likewise a satellite that can be throttled at any moment.

That is nothing but bullshit. Germany chose not to participate in the Iraq War. Its Chancellor has openly ridiculed American foreign policy. Explain to me why Germany has not been brought to its knees. Or how about Japan? Oh yeah, maybe its because of all that money the Japanese have sunk into U.S. Treasury Securities. Perhaps the Japanese are not a U.S. satellite after all, but a partner of the U.S.
1) The pretense of a righteous crusade rather than an oil grab or Zionist influence must be carefully maintained by the Greater Judean administration. It must manipulate, as do its Jews with historic success, rather than appear to dominate.

2) The Japanese have lots of paper on their hands which can be nullified by emergency Fed reaction, buying it up as needed with an endless supply of fiat money which the Japanese won't spend. Fear not.

:: Vital Japanese access to oil was obtained in the Southeast Asian conquests taken from the Dutch.

If Japan could simply have taken over Dutch assets in Southeast Asia, then why was it necessary for Japan to attack the U.S.?
To preempt the attack by the US which the Japanese had been led to expect.

Please read the pre-war deliberations of the of the Japanese Imperial High Command.

:: The Germans were driving for Caucasian oil to supplement their otherwise inadequate supplies of Rumanian and synthetic oil production.

Inadequate to accomplish what? Annihilation of the Russians? To have a 'world policy' directed against the USA?
To subdue, defend and exploit occupied Russia and to provide power for a burgeoning population.

:: Hard to believe that your formulation of trade is so naively incomplete.

Its interesting that you should lecture me about trade. Economics is actually my minor, after all. But by all means, please continue to lecture me about all the conspiracy theories you have read on the internet.
Poor boy. You think you know something about real-world economics for having studied it at university. I did too, and I know the difference, as you do not.

:: But if one is shut off from oil and iron ore, nickel and chrome, tungsten and manganese, rubber and wheat, one is obviously the craven subject and satellite of the power(s) upon whom one relies, monetarily or materially.

Germany was not shut off from oil and iron ore, nickel and crome, tungsten and manganese, rubber and wheat. For some amazing reason, prior to and after the Third Reich, Germany has gotten along just fine. Germany stills buys a lot of wheat from Canada and the Ukraine today. Tell me. Is Germany a satellite of Canada?
Germany was shut off from these essentials as the war deteriorated, illustrating her absolute dependence upon territory in foreign hands.

:: And a very precious clarification/distinction it was - hence my lack of hesitation in objecting to whichever way you wanted to describe it (as a "starting" or as an "incitement").

I see you have retreated from your strawman argument. Good. Now we are moving somewhere.
What part of "objecting to whichever way you wanted to describe it" didn't you understand?

NN

- "Lothrop Stoddard: The Revolt Against Civilization"


Are you ashamed to tell us the publication year of that book, NN?

I can let you in: it's 1922.


Petr

- "Lothrop Stoddard: The Revolt Against Civilization"

Are you ashamed to tell us the publication year of that book, NN?

I can let you in: it's 1922.

Petr
Which suggests that it has not been compromised.

How old did you say you are? 12?

NN

- "How old did you say you are? 12?"


Ooh! You have a deadly wit!


Petr

You hoped to demonstrate that successful trading necessarily meant a healthy circumstance.
I did demonstrate that. The citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany today are the wealthiest, best-fed Germans to ever live. The Federal Republic of Germany is not a satellite of anyone.
I proved that it does not.
You never proved this at all. By your argument, the Federal Republic of Germany is today a satellite of the countries it imports wheat from. So answer my question: is Germany a satellite of Canada?
That Germany trades does not make its circumstance salubrious.
You will be hard pressed to find people here, aside from maybe mugwort, that are willing to believe that Germany is 'under the thumb' of Canada or the Ukraine.
You refer to yet another element of the intelligence community which has a vital interest in suppressing/ignoring/disbelieving the truth
Sorry. I just find it hard to believe that you are in a better position to judge whether or not the Soviet Union still exists than the professionals who work at the NSA.
Yes. Jews.
So the Jews are going to bring back the Soviet Union now? I thought the Soviet Union persecuted the Jews. I thought the neocons bitterly resented the Soviets for this. Maybe they are just covering their tracks, eh? :p
And early IQ tests were ill-conceived. One makes progress in these areas.
It was actually National Socialist ideology that was ill-conceived.
Your assurance is without foundation in anything I've written. But I see that you are without rational response on the point.
Japan was another nation, like Germany and Italy, governed by militant chauvinists, with no sense of restraint, who destroyed entire nations at will.
1) The pretense of a righteous crusade rather than an oil grab or Zionist influence must be carefully maintained by the Greater Judean administration. It must manipulate, as do its Jews with historic success, rather than appear to dominate
The War Between the States and the Spanish-American War were also portrayed as noble crusades by the Yankees. Perhaps this has nothing to do with the Jews, but instead, the American national character. So once again, explain to us why the satellite state of Germany humiliated the United States and attempted to broker a counter alliance with France and Russia.
2) The Japanese have lots of paper on their hands which can be nullified by emergency Fed reaction, buying it up as needed with an endless supply of fiat money which the Japanese won't spend. Fear not.
The Japanese can also crash the U.S. dollar at will by selling off their dollar reserves en masse. Its the Japanese and Chinese (along with the Germans) that finance America's consumer economy. You have the relationship of dependency ass-backwards.
To preempt the attack by the US which the Japanese had been led to expect.
The Japanese had long had war plans to expel the U.S. from the Eastern Pacific.
Please read the pre-war deliberations of the of the Japanese Imperial High Command.
Japan had been at odds with the United States since the 1920s over China. In fact, the Anglo-Japanese treaty was not renewed by the British for fear of incurring American hostility. So don't pretend for a second here that the Japanese did not long regard America as an enemy and a threat. This was one of the primary motivations behind their alliance with Germany.
To subdue, defend and exploit occupied Russia and to provide power for a burgeoning population.
That's absolute nonsense. Germany's population was not growing at anything remotely like the rate needed to justify such an acquisition of territory at the expense of other nations. What it was really about, in fact, was Hitler's own crude irrational fantasy of acquiring the Ukraine.
Poor boy. You think you know something about real-world economics for having studied it at university. I did too, and I know the difference, as you do not.
I don't recalling ever being taught that it was necessary for a nation to achieve autarky in order to survive. That is ridiculous.
Germany was shut off from these essentials as the war deteriorated
Because of Germany's own reckless political leadership.
. . illustrating her absolute dependence upon territory in foreign hands.
This wasn't demonstrated at all. The only thing that was demonstrated is that Adolf Hitler wrecked his own nation in pursuit of a fantasy about Ukrainian lebensraum. Answer my question. Is Germany a satellite of Canada?
What part of "objecting to whichever way you wanted to describe it" didn't you understand?
You shifted gears, John Kerry. :p

:: I cannot blame the French for having so little faith in the League of Nations either, having been attacked by Germany twice within fifty years.

True enough. How do you find these statements?

Dr. Michael F. Connors, The Development of Anti-German Propaganda p4

"A writer inclined to present France in an unfavorable light relative to Germany would find, in the story of the French invasions of Germany since 1300, a veritable propaganda arsenal. Though there were at least
seventeen major French invasions of German territory in the period between 1300 and 1600, the period of French intervention that is genuinely appalling is that from 1635 to 1815. The French, after Richelieu earlier had kept the Thirty Years' War going through diplomacy, ravished Germany continuously from 1635 to 1648. They also invaded German territory seven times during the concluding phase of their war with Spain which ended in 1659. A few years later during the War of Devolution and again during their encounter with
the Dutch in 1672, the French violated German territory on at least four occasions. Then, between 1678 and 1686, the French, through their reunion policy, committed at least ten major acts of aggression against Germany. The War of the League of Augsburg in 1688 actually began as a French "preventive war" against the German states with the unprovoked devastation of the Palatinate, as well as the destruction of Heidelberg,
Worms, and Speyer. Further French invasions of Germany followed in 1702, 1733, and 1740. Again during the Seven Years War (1756-63) French aggression against German territory was repeated. Finally, during the
periods of the French Revolution and Napoleon, Germany was repeatedly bled white by French invasions and coalition wars. One might reasonably conclude then that an estimate of thirty French invasions of German territory since the Middle Ages is a conservative understatement."

p6

"the French were pathologically obsessed with a desire for revanche upon Germany after their inglorious defeat of 1871."

William L. Langer, European Alliances and Alignments: 1871-1890 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1950), p. 9.

"When the war broke out, Englishmen were almost unanimous in believing that the conflict had been wantonly precipitated by the French Emperor, and that the fundamental cause for the war was the French desire to reestablish French hegemony on the continent by the defeat of Prussia and the
acquisition of German territory."

True enough. How do you find these statements?
I don't find anything significant about them at all. And why is this?

1.) We are discussing the outbreak of the Second World War, not the Middle Ages.
2.) No one denies, much less myself, that France sought to ensure its security against Germany. I have myself made the same argument in numerous threads here.
3.) France was systematically undermined and stifled in its efforts by Britain and America, from Versailles to the outbreak of the Second World War.
4.) The Franco-Prussian War demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the balance of power on the Continent was shifting heavily in favour of Germany.

Britain almost went to war with the Soviet Union over Finland.

I thought this was a pretext motivated by the desire to get to vicinity of Germany's Iron Ore imports from Sweden.

England was not bound to France or Russia at all. England only entered the Great War when Germany attacked Belgium, a neutral country.

And yet during an 1887 war-scare between France and Germany the British where of a quite different mind. The British press openly and unashamedly discussed the advisability of giving the green light to the German army to cross Belgium for the purpose of initiating military operations against France. Finally, the British minister, Lord Vivian, informed the distraught Belgian government that Belgium would have to prepare to act alone in such a contingency.

Arthur Ponsonby, Falsehood In Wartime (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1928), p. 52

Ibid., p. 406.

:: you naively insist upon the mutual reconcilability thereof such that one can speak of something called "legitimacy" and its opposite in that regard.

Yes. We political scientists who specialise in international relations discuss the topic of 'legitimacy' all the time. We really do not know what we are talking about. All is revealed in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. :p
Indeed, as the theologians which, in reality, you are, you discuss vacuous theological pseudo-concepts in defense of radical misconceptions of the possibilities for meliorism.

:: Where you have written of German/Hitlerian expectations of being a "world power" pursuing "world policy" as if this were something sinister - which we would take it to be, given your characterization of Hitler.

I have pointed out that Hitler's own words, not to mention his actions, flatly contradicts your notion that his ambitions were limited to the East. I asked you to point out where I ever suggested Hitler wanted to conquer the world. That was because I never made that argument, although you have insinuated, quite wrongly, that I have done so.
You have already been disposed of on the point.

:: It demonstrates that he was prepared to do nothing materially/consequentially in that regard.

False. He had made absolutely every preparation to acquire the colonial empire after the war, as a part of the settlement he intended to reach with the British. Rich (cited above) discusses this extensively in his work.
"As a part of the settlement he intended to reach with the British." You make my point.

:: I have remarked that Germany was, indeed, to be a world power among world powers pursuing world policy (as do world powers).

That was not his intention at all. It was his intention to dominate the world, to be the pre-eminent power in the world. The means to this was extending German control over Europe and conquering lebensraum in the East.
You have already been disposed of on the point.

:: His material commitment to the East, the Japanese commitment to their Asian empire, the remoteness of America, and sensible British attention to their own imperial affairs in alliance with Germany, would have meant that "world policy" would have meant the mere negotiation of commercial arrangements, in a world minus the Communist monstrosities and their ultimate expansion.

Lets see your evidence. Let us see you cite reputable scholars to support your case.
This is, of course, a reasonable projection which involves a hypothetical displeasing to those whose attitudes are tolerated in the academia of professional employment.

:: 1) As explained, "world policy" would have involved world commerce, to the extent that comsymp influence was not sustaining insane British/Allied antagonism.

Its true that he didn't want to unnecessarily antagonise the British. But it is also true that his idea of a relationship with the British is one in which the British Empire served the role as a satellite or buffer state or his 'New Order'. He has similiar plans for Spain and Turkey.
Quote him from any writing prior to hostilities as to his intentions regarding Britain. Is it "satellite" or "buffer state"? - the latter a perfectly legitimate expectation by one empire of another.

:: 2) As explained, "African colonial empire" was a mere academic claim as to German entitlement.

This is false. Rich has decisively shown otherwise in his work.
That it would have been other than academic if agreed to by the British, i.e., involving no investment in warfare, as is the point.

:: You would disingenuously suggest that it was to be the object of an expansionist military campaign rather than a mere supply source of "Bananen".

Please point out to me where I said that. I pointed out that this African Empire was to be part of the price for a peace treaty with the British.
Only now do you acknowledge this latter. You were previously insinuating/suggesting that Hitler's military ambitions and necessary commitments in that regard were not confined to the East. Hence the previously unqualified reference to colonial Africa.

:: Yes, Germany would have been the preeminent Continental power, thus diminishing France.

Germany would not simply have been the pre-eminent Continental power. That is not what Hitler had in mind. Germany was already the pre-eminent Continental power before the war anyway. Instead, he wanted to destroy France and Russia. He wanted to annihilate those nations. Of course, we have seen that is perfectly acceptable in your view.
The Soviet Union was the actual power before the war. Hitler did not want to destroy France. He did want to exploit Russia. I endorse Imperium, not "annihilation".

:: And you quote Hitler with regard to a "final reckoning" - again with the professorial animus and intent to deceive by placing a sinister interpretation upon the phrase.

He spells out himself at some length what the 'final reckoning' meant. He spells it out in the Table Talk and in his foreign policy book. Goebbels discusses what the 'final reckoning' meant as well, at length, in his own diaries.
I again invite you to reproduce this material.

:: We need not resort thus to interpretation, for we have it from Speer that Hitler had not wanted to conquer France, whatever else he might have had in mind.

He did not want to conquer France in 1940. That's true. He didn't want war with the West in '39 either. He wanted to expand East and then turn against France from a position of strength. France was not going to stand by and let him do so.
Again, quote him contradicting himself. He expected to come to an arrangement with the British which the possession all but French appendages would have excluded from British consideration. Hitler realized that hostilities and confrontation with Britain were materially, burdensomely pointless. You again lack the term "conquest" at your disposal, thus having to write, this time, of "turning against". But you would, characteristically, have us understand what you want us to believe in this regard, employing a bit more of the terminological abuse.

NN

Listen to this. Turns out Wallonia and Northern France belong to Germany as well, not to mention Burgundy.

5th May 1942, midday

This work, published in 1937, further strengthens my conviction that Wallonia and northern France are in reality German lands. The abundance of German-sounding name places, the widespread customs of German origin, the forms of idiom which have persisted -- all these prove, to my mind, that these territories have been systematically detached, not to say snatched, from teh Germanic territories.

If there are territories anywhere which we have every right to reclaim, then it is these.

Hitler's Table Talk, p.460

And yet during an 1887 war-scare between France and Germany the British where of a quite different mind.
What does 1887 have to do with the British entry into the Great War?
I thought this was a pretext motivated by the desire to get to vicinity of Germany's Iron Ore imports from Sweden.
What are you talking about? Britain sent an expeditionary to Norway. Why would Britain have to embroil itself in a war with Russia in order to cut off Swedish iron ore to the Axis?

1.) We are discussing the outbreak of the Second World War, not the Middle Ages.

I bring them up becuase each context has a greater context, and because the subject of German aggression against France was raised in 1870 and 1914.

2.) No one denies, much less myself, that France sought to ensure its security against Germany. I have myself made the same argument in numerous threads here.

Yes, I agreed with you. A point of view on French security here:

"It is, of course, complete nonsense. France has no "right" to any security. No country has. We all live in a dangerous world, and if any nation wishes for security it must arrange that security for itself as best it can; by itself, or in suitable combination if it cannot be achieved alone. But the onus for all of us is on ourselves, little though the babu class which staffs the growing international bodies cares to admit the fact. After all, if the rest of the world is under an obligation to protect France against Germany, it is under an equal obligation to protect Germany against France, so that the logical outcome of gratuitous international protection is international civil war.

France has only one formula for her own protection. It is to put the clock back to the eighteenth century and keep Germany weak by keeping her divided, disarmed, and disunited. It is a formula which shows how stupid an intelligent nation can be. For the natural sequel to an attempt to keep a country like Germany permanently down is a vigorous and inevitable effort on her part to throw off the shackles of foreign control; and the greater the repression, the more violent will be the eventual upheaval in search of national freedom and self-respect."

Captain Russell Grenfell, R.N. - Unconditional Hatred P87

3.) France was systematically undermined and stifled in its efforts by Britain and America, from Versailles to the outbreak of the Second World War.

By Britain yes, but not by America, at least not by the Roosevelt administration.

Indeed, as the theologians which, in reality, you are, you discuss vacuous theological pseudo-concepts in defense of radical misconceptions of the possibilities for meliorism.
So now you are dismissing the entire field of international relations and the scholarship that has been done in this area as theology? And what grounds do you have for this? The same Jew conspiracy you have been trying to sell to the gallery?
You have already been disposed of on the point.
Who anointed you to decide whether or not I have been 'disposed' on this point? I have made an argument that I have supported with all the massive scholarship that has been done on the issue. On the other hand, you have dismissed the entire field of international relations on top of your repudiation of the historical discipline.
"As a part of the settlement he intended to reach with the British." You make my point.
Again, what point would this be? You have argued that his ambitions were limited to the East. Obviously, as I have pointed out, they were not.
You have already been disposed of on the point.
I have yet to see this disposal. Now you are simply repeating yourself.
This is, of course, a reasonable projection which involves a hypothetical displeasing to those whose attitudes are tolerated in the academia of professional employment.
Well. I suppose it is a reasonable projection after all when you dismiss at will whatever conflicts with your own ideology: the entire field of international relations, the discipline of history, not to mention Hitler's own words.
Quote him from any writing prior to hostilities as to his intentions regarding Britain.
See his essay Germany and England in his foreign policy book.
Is it "satellite" or "buffer state"? - the latter a perfectly legitimate expectation by one empire of another.
You seem to be confused here. It is not up to Adolf Hitler to decide what is perfectly legitimate and in the interests of England.
That it would have been other than academic if agreed to by the British, i.e., involving no investment in warfare, as is the point.
If you are trying to say here that this ambition of his never became a reality, then you are a correct. It was part of a deal he envisioned with the British. But he lost the war, so nothing ever came of it.
Only now do you acknowledge this latter. You were previously insinuating/suggesting that Hitler's military ambitions and necessary commitments in that regard were not confined to the East. Hence the previously unqualified reference to colonial Africa.
My position on this issue hasn't changed in the slightest. On the contrary, it would appear that you misinterpreted my argument.
The Soviet Union was the actual power before the war.
Nonsense. No one considered the Soviet Union a great power before the war, much less Hitler.
Hitler did not want to destroy France.
Yes he did. See above.
He did want to exploit Russia. I endorse Imperium, not "annihilation".
He wanted to annihilate Russia and expel the Russians to the other side of the Urals. He says so, quite openly. And what's more, German government documents cited by Rich show he intended to destroy France as well, although France would not have shared anything like Russia's fate.
I again invite you to reproduce this material.
I have already done so in the thread in the Philosophy forum.
Again, quote him contradicting himself.
Where did he contradict himself? It was always his ambition to destroy the eternal enemy, France.
He expected to come to an arrangement with the British which the possession all but French appendages would have excluded from British consideration.
That was his problem. He seems to have forgotten that other nations might disagree with his proposals. He wanted to dictate to others. He didn't want to negotiate.
Hitler realized that hostilities and confrontation with Britain were materially, burdensomely pointless.
I agree. That doesn't mean he wasn't a threat to British power however.
You again lack the term "conquest" at your disposal, thus having to write, this time, of "turning against".
I have already cited the Table Talk. I am not about to plow through it again to find one single word.
But you would, characteristically, have us understand what you want us to believe in this regard, employing a bit more of the terminological abuse.
There is nothing stopping anyone here from checking my sources.

What does 1887 have to do with the British entry into the Great War?

Nothing particularly. I just wished to highlight a flaw in the 1914 idea of the British Knight in shining armour, rushing to the aid of "poor little Belgium".

What are you talking about? Britain sent an expeditionary to Norway. Why would Britain have to embroil itself in a war with Russia in order to cut off Swedish iron ore to the Axis?

It was never the intention of the British to embroil themselves in a large scale war with Russia. It was the intention of the British to cut-off Germany's iron imports from Sweden: There would follow a landing in Norway on a pretext of aiding Finland in her fight against Russia.

A few excerpts from David Irving, Hitler's War.

"Should the British occupy Norway: in winter all Germany’s Swedish iron-ore requirements passed through the ice-free port at Narvik ; German merchant ships and warships would no longer be able to traverse the neutral Norwegian waters ; the British air force could dominate northern Germany from Norwegian bases ; and the Royal Navy would command the Baltic."

http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Hitler/1977/html_chapter/04.html

"The crisis reached its blackest point on March 12, as a torrent of dispatches from Moscow and Helsinki revealed that armistice talks had begun. If the western powers wished to act, it had to be now ; if there was no war in Finland, Britain and France would have no legitimate reason to land in Scandinavia. London began desperate attempts to keep the war alive a few more days. Winston Churchill had evidently flown to Paris on the eleventh to inform the French government that on March 15 his expeditionary force was to sail for Narvik, for at 3:30 P.M. on March 12 the Forschungsamt intercepted an urgent telephone call from the Finnish envoy in Paris to his foreign ministry in Helsinki. The envoy reported that Churchill and Daladier had promised him that if the Finns appealed for help immediately, British and French troops would be landed in Norway ; the Norwegian government would merely be “notified” of this ; Britain and France would then break off diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union at once. (Whether the Forschungsamt intercepted the actual date of the invasion is uncertain.) Thus the fat really was in the fire. Hitler ordered all German invasion plans accelerated, and the forces to stand by for the so-called Immediate Op. emergency. By next morning, however, the Russians had signed the armistice with Finland, and the immediate crisis was over."

http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Hitler/1977/html_chapter/05.html

I bring them up becuase each context has a greater context, and because the subject of German aggression against France was raised in 1870 and 1914.
Yet you went all the back (gasp!) to the fourteenth century. I brought up the Franco-Prussian War and the Great War because both are relevant to the Second World War, which we are discussing. The Franco-Prussian War and the Great War all fall within the same context because they were about the same issue -- the unification and industrialisation of Germany and the disruptive effect this was having on the European balance of power.
Captain Russell Grenfell, R.N. - Unconditional Hatred P87
What is your point? France was unsuccessful in its efforts and had sulked away into retrenchment before Hitler came to power anyway. French diplomacy was directly at odds with French military policy. The Maginot Line was built to keep the Germans out.
By Britain yes, but not by America, at least not by the Roosevelt administration.
You are wrong on this one.

"Nor did the action of the Senate imply a retreat into isolationism. American policy was never more active and never more effective in regard to Europe than in the nineteen-twenties. Reparations were settled; stable finances were restored; Europe was pacified: all mainly due to the United States. This policy of recovery followed the doctrine of Keynes (and of other economists) that Europe could be made prosperous only by making Germany prosperous. The recovery of Germany was America's doing. It was welcomed by most people in Great Britain and even by a certain number in France. It would have happened, to a lesser extent, in any case. Nevertheless, American policy was a powerful obstacle against any attempt to retard the recovery of Germany and a considerable assistance to those who promoted it. What indeed -- a thought which occurred to many Englishmen also -- can you do with Germany except make her the strongest power in Europe? Still, the process might have taken longer if Americans had not been so insistent that Germany was the main pillar of European peace and civilisation. The treaty of Locarno and the admission of Germany to the League won American approval; this was in fact a strong motive for them. The same applied to disarmament. Every step towards treating Germany as an equal and towards dismantling the special securities which France obtained at the end of the First World War received American backing, tempered only by impatience that the steps were slow and halting. . .

. . . All this was dead stuff when Republican rule was brought to an end and Franklin D. Roosevelt became President. His victory was among other things, a victory for isolationism in American foreign policy; and there is no evidence that he disapproved of the isolationist legislation which the Democratic majority pushed through Congress. The British and French were told, in effect, that they must face the German problem unaided. More than that, American policy cut across their efforts. . .

American isolationism reinforced isolationism elsewhere. British students learnt from American historians that the first World War was a blunder and that Germany was a justly aggrieved power. British liberals learnt from progressive American politicians that wars were caused by armament manafacturers. Americans, having repudiated the Treaty of Versailles themselves, were now eager that others should repudiate it also. The effect of American isolationism was felt in more practical ways. It supplied a strong argument for those who hesitated to make collective security a reality.

A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (New York: Atheneum, 1962), vi-vii

Nothing particularly. I just wished to highlight a flaw in the 1914 idea of the British Knight in shining armour, rushing to the aid of "poor little Belgium".
This is a Non Sequitur, an invalid argument.
It was never the intention of the British to embroil themselves in a large scale war with Russia.
It actually came very close to that, as Basil Liddel Hart points out.

"He was oblivious of the fatal consequences of pushing Russia and Germany closer together, and embroiling Russia in war with both -- at at time when she was perilously weak everywhere, especially on the Western front. While Hitler talked of "thinking with the blood," the leaders of the democracies unfortunately acted in accord with such emotional thinking."

Basil Liddel Hart, p.207
It was the intention of the British to cut-off Germany's iron imports from Sweden: There would follow a landing in Norway on a pretext of aiding Finland in her fight against Russia.

That's one interpretation. Sure. Here is another:

"On January 20, in his fourth radio broadcast of the war, Churchill spoke of the Finns, who were still fighting stubbornly to resist the Russian Army. 'Only Finland,' he said, 'superb, nay, sublime -- in the jaws of peril -- Finland shows what free men can do.' He was scathing of the neutral States: 'Each one hopes that if it feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last.' They all hoped that the strom would pass 'beore their turn comes to be devoured. But I fear -- I greatly fear -- the storm will not pass. It will rage and it will roar over, ever more loudly, ever more widely. It will spread to the South; it will spread to the North.' There was no chance of a 'speedy end' to the war except through united action. If at any time Britain and France, 'wearing of the struggle, were to make a shameful peace, nothing would remain for the smaller States of Europe, with their shipping and their possessions, but to be divided between the opposite, though similar, barbarisms of Nazidom and Bolshevism'.

Martin Gilbert, Churchill: A Life (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1991), p.632

I did demonstrate that. The citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany today are the wealthiest, best-fed Germans to ever live. The Federal Republic of Germany is not a satellite of anyone.
The "health" under discussion is national sovereignty, which trade does not grant - as trade does not grant the prostitute and the indentured servant the same in a personal sense.

You never proved this at all. By your argument, the Federal Republic of Germany is today a satellite of the countries it imports wheat from. So answer my question: is Germany a satellite of Canada?
It is a satellite of that power which can prevent the shipment of Canadian wheat. Obviously.

Sorry. I just find it hard to believe that you are in a better position to judge whether or not the Soviet Union still exists than the professionals who work at the NSA.
You are young. There is yet time.

So the Jews are going to bring back the Soviet Union now? I thought the Soviet Union persecuted the Jews. I thought the neocons bitterly resented the Soviets for this. Maybe they are just covering their tracks, eh? :p
Your question was non-specific as to the role played by "aliens".

It was actually National Socialist ideology that was ill-conceived.
Not as compared to its competition in the world of possibilities for a popular ideology.

Japan was another nation, like Germany and Italy, governed by militant chauvinists, with no sense of restraint, who destroyed entire nations at will.
It is yourself who lacks restraint, in your extrapolations. Japan was not governed by bourgeois bumpkins, it is true. [Give us the old Why We Fight pep talk, Sarge.]

The War Between the States and the Spanish-American War were also portrayed as noble crusades by the Yankees. Perhaps this has nothing to do with the Jews, but instead, the American national character. So once again, explain to us why the satellite state of Germany humiliated the United States and attempted to broker a counter alliance with France and Russia.
Because, whoever's national character was involved, the pretense had to be preserved - and Germany, accordingly, could not be squeezed. You make my point, thanks. [Try minoring in logic next time.]

The Japanese can also crash the U.S. dollar at will by selling off their dollar reserves en masse. Its the Japanese and Chinese (along with the Germans) that finance America's consumer economy. You have the relationship of dependency ass-backwards.
Ah, the academic economist - trained to think in terms of paper rather than the physical economy. I don't have time to explain it all to you - but think about the fact that, on balance, they give us goodies and we give them - paper. Who is the master and who is the slave in this house - since the slave has no means to enforce his paper claim upon his well-armed master in terms of real estate, fixed capital, and goods which can be taxed for export? But please invite the Asians to exchange all their dollars and re-inflate the US economy - we need the stimulus. Have them spend all that is permitted on American goodies with my blessing. Think of the wonderful debt relief involved for American consumers.

The Japanese had long had war plans to expel the U.S. from the Eastern Pacific.
Would have been a good idea to leave it to the Japanese.

Japan had been at odds with the United States since the 1920s over China. In fact, the Anglo-Japanese treaty was not renewed by the British for fear of incurring American hostility. So don't pretend for a second here that the Japanese did not long regard America as an enemy and a threat. This was one of the primary motivations behind their alliance with Germany.
You make my point. America gave the Japanese both long-standing and immediate reason to regard America as a hypocritical enemy and a psychotically-motivated threat.

That's absolute nonsense. Germany's population was not growing at anything remotely like the rate needed to justify such an acquisition of territory at the expense of other nations. What it was really about, in fact, was Hitler's own crude irrational fantasy of acquiring the Ukraine.
For bread, for a growing population that did not otherwise have an independent source of bread. And, in general, it was not a question of area, but of resources widely scattered.

I don't recalling ever being taught that it was necessary for a nation to achieve autarky in order to survive. That is ridiculous.
A nation may well "survive," as do many, as a tributary or satellite. But one does not do so willingly where there seems an alternative.

Because of Germany's own reckless political leadership.
The demonstration of absolute German dependence on foreign sources stands as such, nevertheless.

NN

The "health" under discussion is national sovereignty, which trade does not grant
So Canada and the Ukraine possesses sovereignty over Germany because Germany trades with Canada? :p
as trade does not grant the prostitute and the indentured servant the same in a personal sense.
Exchange of goods to the mutual advantage of any two nations is not analagous to 'indentured servitude'. Why you are using such a bogus analogy escapes me. One could just as easily argue that the rape of women is justified because sexual intercourse should not require their consent.
It is a satellite of that power which can prevent the shipment of Canadian wheat. Obviously.
You have not answered my question. Is Germany a satellite of Canada? Yes or no. A simple yes or no will surfice. How about the Ukraine. Is Germany a satellite of the Ukraine?
You are young. There is yet time.
Well. I don't believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. I don't believe in ZOG or your contention that the Soviet Union faked its own death either.
Your question was non-specific as to the role played by "aliens".
Give us the names of the Jewish 'aliens' plotting to revive the Soviet Union. Wait, to unmask the Soviet Union. Is Putin part of this conspiracy? You know, I was getting the impression that he wasn't exactly the best friend of the Jews.
Not as compared to its competition in the world of possibilities for a popular ideology.
National Socialism could be described as 'formulated barbarism', as that was precisely what the National Socialists were engaged in, just as the barbarians would raid the civilised peoples of Greco-Roman Antiquity, taking what they desired by the use of force.
It is yourself who lacks restraint, in your extrapolations.
What extrapolation would this be? That the Japanese sought to impose upon China the yoke of one of the most repulsive despotisms the world has ever seen?
extrapolations. Japan was not governed by bourgeois bumpkins, it is true. [Give us the old Why We Fight pep talk, Sarge.]
I don't suppose you have any objection to the use of 'pleasure women' either. After all, what is the value of consent when you can take what you want by force and feel no remorse about it.
Because, whoever's national character was involved, the pretense had to be preserved - and Germany, accordingly, could not be squeezed.
This makes no sense. Germany is a satellite of 'Greater Judea' yet the United States cannot squeeze Germany and humble its political leadership?
You make my point, thanks. [Try minoring in logic next time.]
I took several classes in logic.
Ah, the academic economist - trained to think in terms of paper rather than the physical economy.
ROFL. Alrighty then. Please give us a lecture in economics, Lyndon LaRouche.
I don't have time to explain it all to you - but think about the fact that, on balance, they give us goodies and we give them - paper.
Think about how the Japanese and the Chinese use this 'paper' to purchase American corporations and hard assets. Silly me. Why I used this 'paper' just today to buy myself a new stereo. :|
Who is the master and who is the slave in this house
So the debtor has enslaved the creditor? :p
since the slave has no means to enforce his paper claim upon his well-armed master in terms of real estate, fixed capital, and goods which can be taxed for export?
So the Japanese and Chinese can't stop selling their consumer goods to Americans?
But please invite the Asians to exchange all their dollars and re-inflate the US economy - we need the stimulus.
The Asians have been propping up the U.S. economy.
Have them spend all that is permitted on American goodies with my blessing. Think of the wonderful debt relief involved for American consumers.
I would like to see your proof that Japan is a satellite of the United States. Thanks.
Would have been a good idea to leave it to the Japanese.
Interesting. NeoNietzsche has become an apologist for a Mongoloid nation with sought to destroy Australia.
You make my point. America gave the Japanese both long-standing and immediate reason to regard America as a hypocritical enemy and a psychotically-motivated threat.
Yes. America was not all that fond of the disgusting despotism that the Japanese were aiming at imposing upon China.
For bread, for a growing population that did not otherwise have an independent source of bread.
Germans are amongst the most well-fed people on Earth today.
And, in general, it was not a question of area, but of resources widely scattered.
Nonsense. It is a matter of Hitler's repudiation of trade in favour of plunder.
A nation may well "survive," as do many, as a tributary or satellite.
Germany is not a satellite or a tributary of any nation.
But one does not do so willingly where there seems an alternative.
A man can rape a woman to take what he wants too.
The demonstration of absolute German dependence on foreign sources stands as such, nevertheless.
Please demonstrate to us that Germany is a satellite of Canada and the Ukraine.

- "America gave the Japanese both long-standing and immediate reason to regard America as a hypocritical enemy and a psychotically-motivated threat."


And why should Europeans care one bit about their precious feelings - or why did Germans had to "jump the bullet" in December 1941 for those ingrateful Japs?

How was USA "psychotically-motivated" against Japan?


Now that we think about it - wasn't Hitler willing to sell out, for tactical benefits, Whites in Australia and New Zealand to the Japs in the same manner as he sold Balts and Finns out for Stalin?


Petr

Now that we think about it - wasn't Hitler willing to sell out, for tactical benefits, Whites in Australia and New Zealand to the Japs in the same manner as he sold Balts and Finns out for Stalin?
Of course.

And let's not forget the White population of Hawaii!

(Also on the Jap hit list)


Petr

"If Germany had won the Second World War, neither Italy nor Turkey, nor any state in the Near or Middle East could have withstood Germany pressure, and the extension of German influence in Asia would have halted only at the boundries of the Japanese sphere of interest. Where these boundries would be drawn was never determined, but if negotiations on this question had ever taken place it is possible that they would have been based on the German-Japanese military agreement of December 1941, which provided for the division of the world into spheres of military operation along the seventieth degree of longitude, an agreement which left Germany and Italy responsible for the territory west of that line, Japan for the territory to the east. This would have meant that Siberia, China, India, and the greater part of Pakistan would have fallen to the Japanese, while the Arab countries, with Africa, Afghanistan, would have gone to the Axis. There is the further possibility that this agreement would have been modified to leave Afghanistan to the Japanese in exchange for an extension of the German sphere of influence in Russia, as the economic office of the OKW had recommended when the December agreement was under negotiation.

Hitler himself speculated on this problem in January of 1941. "Where, in fact, is the frontier between East and West to be laid down?" he asked after the Japanese captured Singapore. To this question he could provide no consistent or satisfactory answer. As the Japanese overran one European territory after another in East Asia, he believed they would conquer Australia too and that the white race would disappear altogether from these regions. For Hitler this representated a turning point in history. "It means the loss of a whole continent, and one might regret it, for it's the white race which is the loser." It was nevertheless an immense relief to him that the Japanese had entered the war, for Japan was the only first-class military power on Germany's side and one on which he was certain he could rely. After the war, too, Hitler believed it would be in Germany's interest if Japan retained the preponderant position it was gaining in the Pacific, for Japan was Germany's chief safeguard against the United States. He could feel no affinity with the Japanese, Hitler said, for their way of life and culture were entirely too foreign, but he felt real hatred and repugnance for the Americans.

Some weeks later Hitler again spoke of the desirability for Germany of preserving its alliance with Japan. When the time came for making peace, he did not think the Japanese would create any serious difficulties if they were given all of Asia. He doubted whether they were capable of digesting India and he now wondered whether they would in fact be interested in taking over Australia and New Zealand. As a result of their alliance with Germany, they would feel a great sense of security and would have no further reason to fear anyone. But for Germany, too, this alliance would be an essential guarantee of tranquility. "There's one thing Japan and Germany have in common," Hitler said. "That both of us need fifty to a hundred years for purposes of digestion: we for Russia, they for the Far East."

Although Hitler was not certain whether Japan would seize Australia and New Zealand, it is obvious that he was prepared to concede these territories, like the rest of East Asia, to the Japanese sphere of interest. If the Japanese had indeed conquered Australia and New Zealand -- and they almost certainly would have attempted to do so, if only for reasons of security -- it may be assumed that Hitler would have offered the Anglo-Saxon inhabitants of these countries sanctuary in his Germanic Reich and would have attempted to recruit them as colonists in the newly won territories of the east. When Germanic settlement had reached the boundries of the Japanese Empire in East Asia, the descendants of these Australians and New Zealanders would have the opportuniy to take their revenge on Japan. But such possibilities lay many decades, perhaps centuries, in the future."

Norman Rich, Hitler's War Aims: The Establishment of the New Order (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1974), p.415-416

So now you are dismissing the entire field of international relations and the scholarship that has been done in this area as theology? And what grounds do you have for this? The same Jew conspiracy you have been trying to sell to the gallery?
The ground is the general lack of instruction in the logic and history of political economy, the grasp of which strictly delimits the scope of non-theological discussion of "legitimacy" to the maintenance of good order amongst the lower orders. Above that level it is a pretense, propaganda, illusion - not principle.

Who anointed you to decide whether or not I have been 'disposed' on this point? I have made an argument that I have supported with all the massive scholarship that has been done on the issue. On the other hand, you have dismissed the entire field of international relations on top of your repudiation of the historical discipline.
When you are non-responsive to a telling point, as in merely going back to an unqualified original assertion which you have been forced to defend, you have been disposed of.

Again, what point would this be? You have argued that his ambitions were limited to the East. Obviously, as I have pointed out, they were not.
Limited to the East as regards any activity (z.B., military) which would otherwise "incite" the Western powers against him - as is the point of the discussion. For example, his ambition with regard to colonial Africa was merely academic except to the extent that the British would (hypothetically) agree to it - and thus not be "incited".

See his essay Germany and England in his foreign policy book.
I have. Quote him for us in support of Hitler proposing to make a satellite of England, as is your contention to the extent that it supports your point.

You seem to be confused here. It is not up to Adolf Hitler to decide what is perfectly legitimate and in the interests of England.
It is a commonplace of political logic that large states/empires, despite themselves, will serve as "buffer states" for those of equal or greater power on either side of them. The Persians did so for the Romans, having no interest in Roman welfare. It is not a matter of reasonable discretion.

Nonsense. No one considered the Soviet Union a great power before the war, much less Hitler.
My statement was that the SU was the "actual" power.

Yes he did. See above.
Your "above" is not evident as to location - I take it, though, that you did you find "conquest".

He wanted to annihilate Russia and expel the Russians to the other side of the Urals. He says so, quite openly. And what's more, German government documents cited by Rich show he intended to destroy France as well, although France would not have shared anything like Russia's fate.
You weasel with words, so we need the quotes.

I have already done so in the thread in the Philosophy forum.
Cut and paste it.

Where did he contradict himself? It was always his ambition to destroy the eternal enemy, France.
As explained, to have entertained plans for "destroying" France in other than the sense of diminishing its relative stature would have placed Hitler directly at odds with his plans (which you credit) for accommodation with the British.

I agree [that Hitler realized that hostilities and confrontation with Britain were materially, burdensomely pointless]. That doesn't mean he wasn't a threat to British power however.
It does have that implication, in that the "threat" was non-existent in terms of Hitler's intentions and of mild dimension in the event. As compared to a Soviet Union realistically viewed past the comsyp haze and jingoist enthusiasm, Germany was a would-be ally and friend.

I have already cited the Table Talk. I am not about to plow through it again to find one single word.
So you have finally slipped up and conceded that you need, and don't have, the term "conquest," in regard to Hitler's intentions toward France.

There is nothing stopping anyone here from checking my sources.
But we have to check everything for something that is not there. So it's your burden to relatively quickly produce the something that supposedly is there.

NN

And let's not forget the White population of Hawaii!
What would it have mattered to Hitler and the Nazis? The only thing that mattered to them was 'Germany Above All'. Goebbels didn't show any remorse while he was salivating over exterminating the national existence of Switzerland, Denmark, and Sweden, much less Russia. Why should Australia and New Zealand have been any different, or Hawaii for that matter?

The ground is the general lack of instruction in the logic and history of political economy
I am about to graduate in December with a degree in political science (international relations). I have taken several courses on geopolitics and international political economy, required by my major. Who are you to sit here and lecture me about a 'general lack of instruction' in my own field? Who are you to dismiss the entire discipline of international relations on the grounds of some absurd conspiracy theory?
the grasp of which strictly delimits the scope of non-theological discussion of "legitimacy"
I am still at a loss of where you got this notion in your head that 'legitimacy' is a theological concept as opposed to an important and useful analytical construct used by political scientists.
to the maintenance of good order amongst the lower orders. Above that level it is a pretense, propaganda, illusion - not principle.
You are once again projecting the barbarism of National Socialism upon others. Most people in this world would object to exterminating the national existence of entire nations at will.
When you are non-responsive to a telling point, as in merely going back to an unqualified original assertion which you have been forced to defend, you have been disposed of.
But you haven't made a point at all. Instead, you continue to misinterpret my arguments and dismiss entire fields of scholarship like flicking the ash off one's cigarette.
Limited to the East as regards any activity (z.B., military) which would otherwise "incite" the Western powers against him - as is the point of the discussion.
Now you are qualifying your argument.
I have.
For some reason I doubt that.
Quote him for us in support of Hitler proposing to make a satellite of England, as is your contention to the extent that it supports your point.
I am not going to sit here and waste my time typing out a twenty page essay in order to make a point to a brick wall. I have cited voluminous material throughout this thread. I have cited my sources. The gallery should have no problem locating them.
It is a commonplace of political logic that large states/empires, despite themselves, will serve as "buffer states" for those of equal or greater power on either side of them.
What 'political logic' would this be? The 'theological concepts' of international relations which you laughably repudiate?
The Persians did so for the Romans, having no interest in Roman welfare. It is not a matter of reasonable discretion.
The Persians and the Romans have nothing logically to do with this discussion.My statement was that the SU was the "actual" power.
It wasn't the 'actual' power at all.
Your "above" is not evident as to location - I take it, though, that you did you find "conquest".
I cited Hitler in my response to Hyperborean.
You weasel with words, so we need the quotes.
*sigh*

I have already posted this material in the other threads. This is why I no longer bother to post such material for your benefit, as its obvious you do not even bother to read it.
Cut and paste it.
Its in the Origins of the Second World War thread. You should not have any problem locating it if you wanted to.
As explained, to have entertained plans for "destroying" France in other than the sense of diminishing its relative stature would have placed Hitler directly at odds with his plans (which you credit) for accommodation with the British.
LOL! The PURPOSE of the alliance with British, in large part, was to isolate France from its major ally for France could be annihilated.
It does have that implication, in that the "threat" was non-existent in terms of Hitler's intentions and of mild dimension in the event.
Actually, it doesn't. The men living at the time did not have the benefit of hindsight.
As compared to a Soviet Union realistically viewed past the comsyp haze and jingoist enthusiasm, Germany was a would-be ally and friend.
Germany was also the 'friend' of the Soviet Union just like Germany was the 'friend' of Poland. The Slovaks were also 'friends' of Germany yet Hitler was using Slovakia as a barginning chip with the Poles after he signed a treaty of friendship with the Slovaks.
So you have finally slipped up and conceded that you need, and don't have, the term "conquest," in regard to Hitler's intentions toward France.
No, actually I haven't. I have pointed out that you obviously do not read the material I post anyway so I am not going to waste my time thumbing through the entire Table Talk in order to locate it.
But we have to check everything for something that is not there.
Non Sequitur.
So it's your burden to relatively quickly produce the something that supposedly is there.
Its only incumbent upon me to cite my sources. I have cited my sources. That is all that is required of me.

- "Goebbels didn't show any remorse while he was salivating over exterminating the national existence of Switzerland, Denmark, and Sweden, much less Russia. Why should Australia and New Zealand have been any different, or Hawaii for that matter?"



Yes, let's follow this line of thought. It will help us to fully comprehend the magnitude of treason that Nazis committed against the Western civilization when they went into cahoots with Nippon.


Hitler made it perfectly clear that it was his intention to make an end of Russia as a state, or as a military factor.

(For the sake of argument, let us not consider here whether he also intended to make an end of Russians themselves...)


Now, with USSR's military might destroyed, and the pathetic, disorganized remnants of Slavic forces driven across the Ural mountains -

HOW EXACTLY WAS HITLER GOING TO PREVENT MONGOLOIDS FROM TAKING OVER SIBERIA?

Its vast natural resources would have been a temptation enough for Japs to attack.

Hitler's victory would have meant quite literally an end of Russia - enslavement (at best) in the West, and annihilation by Mongoloids in Siberia.

Perhaps this thought did not occur to Hitler, or did he not care what would happen to those dirty Siberian Slavs?


Petr

I managed to find a review of one of Anatoliy Golitsyn's books:

"Every agrees that Golitsyn, a Soviet intelligence defector of a quarter of a century ago, has produced a dreadful book. There is, however, some dispute over exactly why. He has conflated and confused together two quite separate things in his study. The first is his useful material on the development of Soviet disinformation policy, techniques and agencies, especially during 1958-61, when he was a well-placed participant. But it is impossible to disentangle his relevant lessons and information on this score from the second and dominant aspect. This is the naive and obsessively monocentric (or is it deliberately provocative?) general theme that the Soviet Bloc is still a totalitarian monolith under Kremlin control. The absurd picture of an all-powerful, all-successful Soviet disinformation strategy, camouflaging this reality, in order to lull the West into a false sense of Soviet weakness and evolutionary liberalism vitiates the value of his case studies entirely. Golitsyn argues that the disputes with Yugoslavia, Albania, China, Romania and the Euro-communist parties were all choreographed and controlled shows which succeeded in blinding the west to the Soviet threat. Equally fantastically, he claims that alleged internal power struggles and domestic crises, such as Czechoslovakia 1968 and Poland 1980-1, developed and were controlled according to long term plans for the same purpose.

Golitsyn is an intellectually limited power technician. At best he reflects the mentality, aspirations and objectives of the older Soviet Intelligence operative. But in the current political context he emerges mainly as an apologist for the stupid and paranoic American far right. The latter can now be seen to have had some justification in the early 1950s in seeking conspiracies in the Roosevelt-Democrat cover-up, however understandable in the context of the time, of the realities of their temporary Second World War Soviet ally; but Golitsyn's simplistic grist to their mill in the 1980s is dangerous and unhelpful nonsense. It hinders and confuses a balanced understanding of the real achievements, strengths and failures of Soviet disinformation strategy.

Corson and Crowley, two ex-American intelligence agents, present a wealth of comprehensive detail on the KGB's operational objectives, techniques and foreign agent recruitment successes since the 1920s. They are a useful guide to its currently primarily political-disinformation and economic-technology espionage drives as well as the 'peace' campaigns. They popularise a complex subject, already covered by the likes of Baron, Conquest, Freemantle, Hingley, Leggett, and Rositzke, using a Reader's Digest type of historical approach. Their concluding warning that a renovated, more efficient and more subtle KGB emerged under Andropov is sound enough. But like Golitsyn they take too static a view of the KGB's weight in the play of Soviet bureaucratic pluralism. The Secret Police remains inferior in political clout to the military, and both normally present only passing challenges to the Communist Party, except in times of general crisis as in 1980s Poland. However both, since Khrushchev, have been better integrated with the communist central apparatus on essentials than is often imagined.

George Sanford, University of Bristol

George Sanford, "New Lies for Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation," Political Studies Mar87, Vol. 35 Issue 1, p146, 2p

Yet you went all the back (gasp!) to the fourteenth century. I brought up the Franco-Prussian War and the Great War because both are relevant to the Second World War, which we are discussing. The Franco-Prussian War and the Great War all fall within the same context because they were about the same issue -- the unification and industrialisation of Germany and the disruptive effect this was having on the European balance of power.

If you cannot see how the period of 1300-1600 is relevent and impresses upon Franco-German relations prior to and including The Franco-Prussian War and the Great War then I cannot help you.

What is your point? France was unsuccessful in its efforts and had sulked away into retrenchment before Hitler came to power anyway. French diplomacy was directly at odds with French military policy. The Maginot Line was built to keep the Germans out. You are wrong on this one.

:confused: I agreed with you, that France had sought to ensure its security against Germany, and never thought otherwise.

"Nor did the action of the Senate imply a retreat into isolationism. American policy was never more active and never more effective in regard to Europe than in the nineteen-twenties. Reparations were settled; stable finances were restored; Europe was pacified: all mainly due to the United States. This policy of recovery followed the doctrine of Keynes (and of other economists) that Europe could be made prosperous only by making Germany prosperous. The recovery of Germany was America's doing. It was welcomed by most people in Great Britain and even by a certain number in France. It would have happened, to a lesser extent, in any case. Nevertheless, American policy was a powerful obstacle against any attempt to retard the recovery of Germany and a considerable assistance to those who promoted it. What indeed -- a thought which occurred to many Englishmen also -- can you do with Germany except make her the strongest power in Europe? Still, the process might have taken longer if Americans had not been so insistent that Germany was the main pillar of European peace and civilisation. The treaty of Locarno and the admission of Germany to the League won American approval; this was in fact a strong motive for them. The same applied to disarmament. Every step towards treating Germany as an equal and towards dismantling the special securities which France obtained at the end of the First World War received American backing, tempered only by impatience that the steps were slow and halting. . .

. . . All this was dead stuff when Republican rule was brought to an end and Franklin D. Roosevelt became President. His victory was among other things, a victory for isolationism in American foreign policy; and there is no evidence that he disapproved of the isolationist legislation which the Democratic majority pushed through Congress. The British and French were told, in effect, that they must face the German problem unaided. More than that, American policy cut across their efforts. . .

American isolationism reinforced isolationism elsewhere. British students learnt from American historians that the first World War was a blunder and that Germany was a justly aggrieved power. British liberals learnt from progressive American politicians that wars were caused by armament manafacturers. Americans, having repudiated the Treaty of Versailles themselves, were now eager that others should repudiate it also. The effect of American isolationism was felt in more practical ways. It supplied a strong argument for those who hesitated to make collective security a reality.

A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (New York: Atheneum, 1962), vi-vii

Thanks, I'll look into this myself.

I agreed with you, that France had sought to ensure its security against Germany, and never thought otherwise.
I was referring to the United States.
If you cannot see how the period of 1300-1600 is relevent and impresses upon Franco-German relations prior to and including The Franco-Prussian War and the Great War then I cannot help you.
It might have something to do with it but you are taking the discussion off on an extreme tangent. The relevant issue in the Franco-Prussian War, Great War, and World War 2 was the German question (e.g., the unification and industrialisation of Germany). Such circumstances did not exist previously.

So Canada and the Ukraine possesses sovereignty over Germany because Germany trades with Canada? :p
As explained, Germany lacks sovereignty because other powers can easily prevent such trade.

Exchange of goods to the mutual advantage of any two nations is not analagous to 'indentured servitude'. Why you are using such a bogus analogy escapes me. One could just as easily argue that the rape of women is justified because sexual intercourse should not require their consent.
You have, conveniently or stupidly, forgotten the actual analogy, which was that of indentured servitude to lack of sovereignty, neither of which does trade relieve.

You have not answered my question. Is Germany a satellite of Canada? Yes or no. A simple yes or no will surfice. How about the Ukraine. Is Germany a satellite of the Ukraine?
Germany loses sovereignty to Canada to the extent that it depends upon Canada/Ukraine for whatever vital resource it gains therefrom. It is not a satellite of Canada/Ukraine, nor was that implied. [Unless you now plan to weasel with the words "sovereignty" and "satellite"]

Give us the names of the Jewish 'aliens' plotting to revive the Soviet Union. Wait, to unmask the Soviet Union. Is Putin part of this conspiracy? You know, I was getting the impression that he wasn't exactly the best friend of the Jews.
I didn't write that Jews were involved in this aspect of the "conspiracy". Please pay attention.

National Socialism could be described as 'formulated barbarism', as that was precisely what the National Socialists were engaged in, just as the barbarians would raid the civilised peoples of Greco-Roman Antiquity, taking what they desired by the use of force.
Uh, no. The civilized Romans conquered the civilized Carthaginians "by the use of force" and razed Carthage.

What extrapolation would this be? That the Japanese sought to impose upon China the yoke of one of the most repulsive despotisms the world has ever seen?
Emphatically so, in view of your ludicrous mischaracterization of the Japanese.

I don't suppose you have any objection to the use of 'pleasure women' either. After all, what is the value of consent when you can take what you want by force and feel no remorse about it.
No value.

This makes no sense. Germany is a satellite of 'Greater Judea' yet the United States cannot squeeze Germany and humble its political leadership?
Not and maintain the pretense of rectitude.

I took several classes in logic.
Sadly, it didn't take.

ROFL. Alrighty then. Please give us a lecture in economics, Lyndon LaRouche.
Will do as time allows.

Think about how the Japanese and the Chinese use this 'paper' to purchase American corporations and hard assets. Silly me. Why I used this 'paper' just today to buy myself a new stereo.
Good boy. But, evidencing your mere university education in economics, you missed the point about real estate, fixed capital, and taxable exports - the Asians can't take them away as would an owner/creditor in microeconomic theory. These factors of production and products can be nationalized/regulated in an emergency just such as you propose. They will continue to produce for American consumption and profit no matter what is done with the paper in or out of Asian hands. And to make the point with the Japanese should they lose their minds, the tankers from the Gulf get diverted and Japan grinds to a halt. China could be selectively vitrified. Like I said, didn't take.

So the debtor has enslaved the creditor? :p
Indeed. The debtor has a gun to the creditor's head.

So the Japanese and Chinese can't stop selling their consumer goods to Americans?
Japanese can't and then buy oil. Chinese can, but they have competitors who will take up the slack.

The Asians have been propping up the U.S. economy.
As the master depends upon the slave.

I would like to see your proof that Japan is a satellite of the United States. Thanks.
You were unaware that Japan is critically dependent upon Mid-East oil and, derivatively, US/GJ policy?

Interesting. NeoNietzsche has become an apologist for a Mongoloid nation with sought to destroy Australia.
As with Hitler, I would sacrifice the Australians for the greater good.

Yes. America was not all that fond of the disgusting despotism that the Japanese were aiming at imposing upon China.
Then you concede my point as to the critical American threat to the Japanese, as opposed to the trivial Japanese threat to America.

Germans are amongst the most well-fed people on Earth today.
As are the inmates of their prisons.

Nonsense. It is a matter of Hitler's repudiation of trade in favour of plunder.
Non-responsive to the immediate point.

Germany is not a satellite or a tributary of any nation.
But you do not prove this by pointing out that autarky is not necessary to survival. It does not follow therefrom that sovereignty is not to be sought so as to avoid satellite/tributary status, as was the point. Your observation is thus non-responsive and unqualifiedly repetitious. We thus dispose of that issue in my favor.

A man can rape a woman to take what he wants too.
So get everyone to revive the Kellogg-Briand Pact. I guess you really will be leaving the Phora - forever.

NN

So get everyone to revive the Kellogg-Briand Pact.
I never said that I personally thought it was the best idea. Actually, I think it was quite foolish.
I guess you really will be leaving the Phora - forever.
The disruptive element has since departed. I guess you can say that I had second thoughts about putting the entire community at an inconvenience (e.g., transferring boards) because of people who obviously have such little regard for others.
As explained, Germany lacks sovereignty because other powers can easily prevent such trade.
You have an interesting definition of sovereignty. I was under the impression that sovereignty referred to the right of ultimate decision. Canada and Ukraine do not make such decisions for Germany.
You have, conveniently or stupidly, forgotten the actual analogy, which was that of indentured servitude to lack of sovereignty, neither of which does trade relieve.
The analogy you have used is an erroneous one, for Germany is not legally obligated to do business with either Canada or the Ukraine. On the other hand, my analogy holds. Germany wanted something in exchange for nothing, just as a rapist is willing to use force to accomplish his ends.
Germany loses sovereignty to Canada to the extent that it depends upon Canada/Ukraine for whatever vital resource it gains therefrom.
This is nonsense, for Canada and Ukraine do not have any control whatsoever over German foreign policy. No one is forcing Canada or Ukraine to trade with Germany. Likewise, no one forces Germany to trade with Canada or the Ukraine. Trade goes on between these countries because it is profitable arrangement to their mutual benefit.
It is not a satellite of Canada/Ukraine, nor was that implied. [Unless you now plan to weasel with the words "sovereignty" and "satellite"]
You have continued to invoke such terminology in this debate. You have argued that Germany has 'surrendered' sovereignty to Canada and the Ukraine, simply because Germany trades with these nations. Where is your evidence of this?
Uh, no. The civilized Romans conquered the civilized Carthaginians "by the use of force" and razed Carthage.
I was referring to the Germanic war bands and the Huns who pillaged throughout the Empire.
I didn't write that Jews were involved in this aspect of the "conspiracy". Please pay attention.
You said that aliens were Jews. Give us the names of the individuals involved in this conspiracy then.
Emphatically so, in view of your ludicrous mischaracterization of the Japanese.
Would you call the Rape of Nanking a mischaracterisation of what the Japanese had in store for China?
No value.
Is it wrong for men to rape women, NeoNietzsche?
Not and maintain the pretense of rectitude.
So all the U.S. efforts to persuade the French and Germans to join the war effort in Iraq were staged? And this is part of a conspiracy in which the U.S. has covered its tracks?
Sadly, it didn't take.
Ever hear of Slothful Induction?

Definition:
The proper conclusion of an inductive argument is denied
despite the evidence to the contrary.

Examples:
(i) Hugo has had twelve accidents n the last six months, yet
he insists that it is just a coincidence and not his fault.
(Inductively, the evidence is overwhelming that it is his fault.
This example borrowed from Barker, p. 189)
(ii) Poll after poll shows that the N.D.P will win fewer than
ten seats in Parliament. Yet the party leader insists that the
party is doing much better than the polls suggest. (The N.D.P.
in fact got nine seats.)

Proof:
About all you can do in such a case is to point to the strength
of the inference.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/sloth.htm
Will do as time allows.
Seriously. I have seen Lyndon LaRouche make pretty much the same argument. Are you familiar with him by any chance?
Good boy. But, evidencing your mere university education in economics
What is a mere university education in economics in comparison to Executive Intelligence Review? :p
you missed the point about real estate, fixed capital, and taxable exports - the Asians can't take them away as would an owner/creditor in microeconomic theory.
So the Asians can't purchase hard American assets with their dollar reserves? This comes as a surprise to me. I would under the impression that they had been doing just that.
These factors of production and products can be nationalized/regulated in an emergency just such as you propose.
Here you go again. Once again you are projecting the barbarism of National Socialism upon civilised nations. Most nations, indeed most people, simply do not take what belongs to others whenever they feel like doing so.
They will continue to produce for American consumption and profit no matter what is done with the paper in or out of Asian hands.
This does not follow. Show us some evidence that China and Japan will continue 'to produce for American consumption and profit no matter what is done'. Are you seriously suggesting here that in America nationalised Japanese and Chinese assets in the U.S. that there would be no retalitation on their part? :p
And to make the point with the Japanese should they lose their minds, the tankers from the Gulf get diverted and Japan grinds to a halt. China could be selectively vitrified. Like I said, didn't take.
NeoNietzsche illogically conflates capacity with foreign policy. Because the U.S. has the capacity to blockade Japan, it thus follows that Japan is a satellite of the United States. This doesn't follow.
Non-responsive to the immediate point.
Once again. You didn't make a point. You continue to ignore a crucial aspect of the world in which we live -- civilisation. I agree though. It would make no sense to the fellow with the bone through his nose to give something in return for something he can simply take. The confusion lies in the fellow with the bone through his nose assuming everyone in the world is like himself.
Japanese can't and then buy oil. Chinese can, but they have competitors who will take up the slack.
Lets see your evidence. Nevermind. We are dealing with floating abstractions here, hypothetical scenarios spun by your own imagination with no basis whatsoever in reality. Rebuttal:

1.) Garten, Jeffrey E. 1992. A cold peace: America, Japan, Germany, and the struggle for supremacy. New York: Times Books.
2.) Friedman, David. 1988. The misunderstood miracle: Industrial development and political change in Japan. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
3.) Encarnation, Dennis J. 1992. Rivals beyond trade: America versus Japan in global competition. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
4.) Dietrich, William S. 1991. In the shadow of the rising sun: The political roots of American economic decline. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
5.) Hart, Jeffrey A. 1992. Rival capitalists: International competitiveness in the United States, Japan and Western Europe. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
6.) Samuels, Richard J. 1994. Rich nation, strong army: National security, ideology, and the transformation of Japan. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

As the master depends upon the slave.
ROFL. The Japanese and Chinese are not 'slaves' of Americans. That is absurd. More on Japanese slaves here:

"These criticisms are not convincing. Although Japan has indeed done much of what America wanted in Afghanistan and Iraq, it has hardly been bullied into it. Mr Koizumi has been as keen to lend a hand as Mr Bush has been to receive one. When their interests have diverged, Mr Koizumi has gladly stood up to his chum from Crawford. The Americans squealed last year when Japan ignored their sanctions on Iran and signed a deal to invest in its Azadegan oilfield."

From Pacifism to Populism - Japan's Foreign Policy The Economist (US), July 10, 2004 v372 i8383 p20US
As with Hitler, I would sacrifice the Australians for the greater good.
I will make a note of this.
You were unaware that Japan is critically dependent upon Mid-East oil and, derivatively, US/GJ policy?
I said I would like to see your proof that Japan is a satellite of the United States. Where is it?
As are the inmates of their prisons.
Germany is not anyone's inmate.
Then you concede my point as to the critical American threat to the Japanese
No. America was an antagonist of the Japanese. America only became a 'critical threat' to Japan after Pearl Harbor.
as opposed to the trivial Japanese threat to America.
Pearl Harbor was not trivial.
But you do not prove this by pointing out that autarky is not necessary to survival.
It is not incumbent upon me to prove a negative. That is ridiculous and illogical. You have argued that autarky is necessary for survival, not me. The burden of proof rests upon your shoulders, not mine.
It does not follow therefrom that sovereignty is not to be sought so as to avoid satellite/tributary staus, as was the point
One does not surrender one's sovereignty (the right of ultimate decision) by engaging in trade with other nations. That is absurd.
Your observation is thus non-responsive and unqualifiedly repetitious.
You are the one here who continues to make illogical, repetitive, and ridiculous arguments which you justify on the basis of conspiracy theories from pseudoscholars -- not me.
We thus dispose of that issue in my favor.
No one annointed you decider of whether or not any issue has been disposed of in this debate.

It might have something to do with it but you are taking the discussion off on an extreme tangent. The relevant issue in the Franco-Prussian War, Great War, and World War 2 was the German question (e.g., the unification and industrialisation of Germany). Such circumstances did not exist previously.

Fair enough, but is it not valid to discuss the reasons for Germany's previous disunity? I see "the German Question" as going as far back as the peace of Westphalia.

Fair enough, but is it not valid to discuss the reasons for Germany's previous disunity?
I am sure that Germany's previous disunity had a lot to do with the growth of chauvinistic sentiment there. One could say the same about Italy.
I see "the German Question" as going as far back as the peace of Westphalia.
That's a bit of a stretch. The Holy Roman Empire had long been in decline prior to the Thirty Years' War. You could just as easily go all the way back to Frederick II. It should also be pointed out that the Holy Roman Empire was composed of many nations. The sort of 20th century national chauvinism that could be found in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany was foreign to the Middle Ages and Early Modern Era. Charles V, probably the best example of such a disjunction, was Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain.

- "As with Hitler, I would sacrifice the Australians for the greater good."


Would you also have sacrificed Siberian Slavs for your nihilistic dream, NN?

I seem to remember you arguing last springtime that "can't make an omelet without breaking few eggs" -attitude is typical to Communist-Christian messianism.


Petr

That's a bit of a stretch. The Holy Roman Empire had long been in decline prior to the Thirty Years' War. You could just as easily go all the way back to Frederick II. It should also be pointed out that the Holy Roman Empire was composed of many nations. The sort of 20th century national chauvinism that could be found in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany was foreign to the Middle Ages and Early Modern Era. Charles V, probably the best example of such a disjunction, was Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain.

I still reckon the peace of Westphalia to be the event from which much destruction was later wrought, but perhaps you are right about a direct relevance.

I've just been reading, Europe: A History by Norman Davies p733

"But the Napoleonic experience, by destroying so many older particularisms, prepared the ground for Germany's unified National Identity... The University of Berlin, founded in 1810 during the French occupation, nourished new thinking. Its first rector was the philosopher J. G. Fichte, author of the Patriotic Reden an die deutsche Nation {1808}. The war of liberation of 1813-1814 proved specially exhilarating. The words of a song, Was Ist das deutsche Vaterland, written by poet and historian Ernst Moritz Arnt(1769-1860), were on everyone’s lips. Arndt, whose Geist der Zeit (1806) had first called for resistance, supposedly answered his own question: 'Germany is there wherever the German language resounds and sings hymns to God in Heaven.' In those same years the exiled Baron von Stein, who had visited St Petersburg and denounced Napoleon as 'the enemy of mankind', was inventing a precocious scheme for the federal union of the German peoples. 'Germany must assert itself', he wrote, in its strategic position between France and Russia.' Here was the kernal of the concepts both of Gross Deutschland and of Mitteleuropa."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/arndt-vaterland.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1806fichte.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1807fichte1.html

I never said that I personally thought it was the best idea. Actually, I think it was quite foolish.
But that is the implication of your insistence upon a blunt analogy between martial aggression and rape. When is the universal prohibition of rape not a "good idea"? You contradict yourself and implicitly concede the point.

You have an interesting definition of sovereignty. I was under the impression that sovereignty referred to the right of ultimate decision. Canada and Ukraine do not make such decisions for Germany.
Sovereignty, as the term is being used in its politico-economic sense of resource independence, is, of course, a matter of degree, not merely "ultimate" rights, black and white.

The analogy you have used is an erroneous one, for Germany is not legally obligated to do business with either Canada or the Ukraine. On the other hand, my analogy holds. Germany wanted something in exchange for nothing, just as a rapist is willing to use force to accomplish his ends.
Again, you are unable to remember the point, which was as to the status with regard to sovereignty of an entity which trades. You claimed that trade conferred sovereignty, and I illustrated that it did not by reference to pimped prostitutes and indentured servants who trade their bodies and yet have not the sovereignty of personal dignity and disposal. The implication is that Germany has not sovereignty in a profoudly meaningful sense. Your non-responsiveness on the point disposes of it in my favor.

This is nonsense, for Canada and Ukraine do not have any control whatsoever over German foreign policy. No one is forcing Canada or Ukraine to trade with Germany. Likewise, no one forces Germany to trade with Canada or the Ukraine. Trade goes on between these countries because it is profitable arrangement to their mutual benefit.
Collusion amongst vendors of a vital commodity in restraint of trade denies sovereignty to a customer and injures him. Elementary principle in ethics and law. Conspiracy in restraint of trade is, in general, illegal or subject to regulation. Such collusion would indeed heavily influence German foreign policy.

You have continued to invoke such terminology in this debate. You have argued that Germany has 'surrendered' sovereignty to Canada and the Ukraine, simply because Germany trades with these nations. Where is your evidence of this?
That Germany trades in vital commodities evidences, in greater or lesser degree ("to the extent") rather than in absolute terms, the measure of its sovereignty and the surrender thereof. You hope to make your point by characterizing the issue in terms of the stark alternatives of having or not having it. This is a simple matter of logic, not a contest as to the evidence.

I was referring to the Germanic war bands and the Huns who pillaged throughout the Empire.
Where the parallel is more appropriate with regard to Rome and Carthage.

You said that aliens were Jews. Give us the names of the individuals involved in this conspiracy then.
The eventual revival of the overt Soviet Union? Putin and Gorbachev, and their political heirs, most prominently. The Communist "conspiracy" in the West would involve a long list of leading Jews, if that is what you'd like to see.

Would you call the Rape of Nanking a mischaracterisation of what the Japanese had in store for China?
In terms of enduring policy, yes. And even were the Japanese to adopt an Assyrian policy, long term, their's would not be a "revolting despotism" by classical standards and certainly not as compared to the Communist regimes which represented the alternative.

Is it wrong for men to rape women, NeoNietzsche?
Where it is illegal to do so, yes.

So all the U.S. efforts to persuade the French and Germans to join the war effort in Iraq were staged? And this is part of a conspiracy in which the U.S. has covered its tracks?
The efforts were not staged, they were constrained - by the obvious necessity for the maintenance of a pretense which you agree characterizes the historic maneuvering of whatever element, Yankee or Jew, is held to be responsible for the policy.

Seriously. I have seen Lyndon LaRouche make pretty much the same argument. Are you familiar with him by any chance?
Yes - and of course we cannot recommend mothers' milk for the health of little babies if one such as Lyndon LaRouche endorses it, now can we. You would discreditably employ a version of the old Marx-or-Hitler-endorsed-or-did-it argument to disparage, as below, the proper resort to physical economy in analysis:

What is a mere university education in economics in comparison to Executive Intelligence Review? :p
A contemptible reference and resort on your part, as explained above.

So the Asians can't purchase hard American assets with their dollar reserves? This comes as a surprise to me. I would under the impression that they had been doing just that.
Are you playing stupid or is this really a problem for you? Jewing me a' la Hitler's description of that tactic isn't going to work. For the gallery, the point, yet again, was that such a purchase doesn't imply that the purchase can be picked up and taken home ("real estate, fixed capital, exports subject to regulation"), thus damaging the American economy by analogy with the microeconomic domestic model of creditor and debtor upon which Fade naively relies.

Here you go again. Once again you are projecting the barbarism of National Socialism upon civilised nations. Most nations, indeed most people, simply do not take what belongs to others whenever they feel like doing so.
Sounds like you learned your kindergarten lessons. Time to grow up. Most nations do take "what does not belong to them" at some point. To whom did and does North America belong, throughout its history, for example?

NN

I.

This does not follow. Show us some evidence that China and Japan will continue 'to produce for American consumption and profit no matter what is done'. Are you seriously suggesting here that in America nationalised Japanese and Chinese assets in the U.S. that there would be no retalitation on their part? :p
1) If nationalized or regulated, Asian-owned capital on American soil would be employed by the Asians under duress or by substitute American employees. Such is the history of domestic labor disputes that reach critical dimensions.

2) There would be no retaliation, because the demonstration of American mastery, and the slavery/lack of sovereignty of the Japanese, would have been effected by the nullification, as above, of their attempt to affect matters to their relative benefit and thus to demonstrate the sovereignty which you impute to the Japanese by virtue of their capacity for the massive disposal of dollars - mere paper.

As said, you, even now, fail to take account of the reality of physical economy behind the reckoning in terms of paper.

NeoNietzsche illogically conflates capacity with foreign policy. Because the U.S. has the capacity to blockade Japan, it thus follows that Japan is a satellite of the United States. This doesn't follow.
Yes, it does - given the unbalanced balance-of-trade as between the two. We get goodies - they get paper - on balance. We thus imperially exploit the Japanese for our having denied them vital resource independence and sovereignty.

Once again. You didn't make a point. You continue to ignore a crucial aspect of the world in which we live -- civilisation. I agree though. It would make no sense to the fellow with the bone through his nose to give something in return for something he can simply take. The confusion lies in the fellow with the bone through his nose assuming everyone in the world is like himself.
I would ask you to define "civilization" in order to illustrate that you don't know what you're talking about - but you would merely adopt the gentleman's pose of purporting to know it when he sees it.

Lets see your evidence. Nevermind. We are dealing with floating abstractions here, hypothetical scenarios spun by your own imagination with no basis whatsoever in reality. Rebuttal:

1.) Garten, Jeffrey E. 1992. A cold peace: America, Japan, Germany, and the struggle for supremacy. New York: Times Books.
2.) Friedman, David. 1988. The misunderstood miracle: Industrial development and political change in Japan. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
3.) Encarnation, Dennis J. 1992. Rivals beyond trade: America versus Japan in global competition. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
4.) Dietrich, William S. 1991. In the shadow of the rising sun: The political roots of American economic decline. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
5.) Hart, Jeffrey A. 1992. Rival capitalists: International competitiveness in the United States, Japan and Western Europe. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
6.) Samuels, Richard J. 1994. Rich nation, strong army: National security, ideology, and the transformation of Japan. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Show us where this is not paper political economy. Compare the size of the Japanese and American navies now. Give us the obvious explanation as to why the Japanese navy was once much more comparable in capability. If you or the above scribblers want to evidence Japanese sovereignty, simply show us the navy that can keep the lanes open to the tankers and the army that can keep it pumping. Of course - you, and they, cannot.

ROFL. The Japanese and Chinese are not 'slaves' of Americans. That is absurd. More on Japanese slaves here:

"These criticisms are not convincing. Although Japan has indeed done much of what America wanted in Afghanistan and Iraq, it has hardly been bullied into it. Mr Koizumi has been as keen to lend a hand as Mr Bush has been to receive one. When their interests have diverged, Mr Koizumi has gladly stood up to his chum from Crawford. The Americans squealed last year when Japan ignored their sanctions on Iran and signed a deal to invest in its Azadegan oilfield."
The point as to "slavery" is with regard to Japan in significant degree, not to China. Satellites do not lack negotiating positions altogether - they take liberties, as do even literal slaves, where it is calculated that it is more expensive for the master to impose sanctions than it is to be reluctantly indulgent. Your example is trivial and even contrary in its implication, in that American interest is not served by such sanctions, and the Japanese can thus disregard them in doing an actual service to Americans who are such. And there is the matter of that pretense of civility to be maintained to fool such as yourself as to the fundamental reality.

Germany is not anyone's inmate.
Again with the stupidity in missing the obvious point. You implied that the Germans were sovereign by virtue of being the best fed. I pointed out that so were the inmates of their prisons. You were thus dispositively contradicted. Looks like Petr's is not going to be the only mommy to get a note.

No. America was an antagonist of the Japanese. America only became a 'critical threat' to Japan after Pearl Harbor.
Simply incorrect. The Japanese were given to understand, by FDR's deceit before P.H., that they would be attacked when in an exposed position.

Pearl Harbor was not trivial.
In terms of its damage to the hypocritical, Judeo-Communist-inspired American assault on Japan by the FDR regime, it was.

It is not incumbent upon me to prove a negative. That is ridiculous and illogical. You have argued that autarky is necessary for survival, not me. The burden of proof rests upon your shoulders, not mine.
Even more stupidity. I argued that significant effective autarky (independent/enforceable access to vital resources) is necessary for sovereignty - not "survival". You introduced the latter as a diversion, and no burden was placed upon you in that regard. The discussion was as follows:

"But you [Fade] do not prove this by pointing out that autarky is not necessary to survival. It does not follow therefrom that sovereignty is not to be sought so as to avoid satellite/tributary status, as was the point. Your observation is thus non-responsive and unqualifiedly repetitious. We thus dispose of that issue in my favor."

Had you paid attention, you would have noted that your diversionary observation that "autarky is not necessary to survival" was taken as a correct premise, thus you were not as you stupidly assert, above, being required to prove anything in that regard. Your problem in that regard was that this correct premise was irrelevant, and did not have the implication ("sovereignty is not to be sought") necessary to sustain your argument.

One does not surrender one's sovereignty (the right of ultimate decision) by engaging in trade with other nations. That is absurd.
If one has to trade for vital resources, one's sovereignty is compromised to that degree.

No one annointed you decider of whether or not any issue has been disposed of in this debate.
The gods of elementary logic have so burdened me, since I'm evidently the only one who came prepared.

NN

Almost. Finland signed an armistace with the Soviets before Great Britain could enter the war. But you knew that right?
Didn't think you'd want make the ludicrous attempt to balance what was done to the Germans (unconditional-surrender/devastation/regime-change/show-trial) with a piddling British expedition in support of the Finns. But now you've done it, thanks.

By the end of the war, however, Great Britain was exhausted and there was little His Majesty's Government could do about it.
Due to their own stupidity and manipulability where it profitably and easily could have been otherwise. No such excuse for the Americans/Greater Judeans. Jews at Work.

I said cite your source.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/ergrenier/Armoured_Vehicles.html

"The campaign of 1940 in France and the Low Countries convinced the Germans that they had the mixture right and that their armour was sufficient to cope with anything that was liable to confront them, as a result of which they opened the war against Russia with 3,350 tanks and high hopes of success, (in spite of their estimate that the Soviet tank strength was about 22,000). To some extent their optimism was justified by events, since in the opening weeks of the campaign the Germans took or destroyed some 17,000 Soviet tanks for a loss of about 2,700 of their own. But this initial euphoria was soon destroyed by the appearance of the Soviet KV and T-34 tanks, much superior in armour and performance to any German vehicle."

Great Britain was not allied with the Soviet Union in the 1930s. What is your point? On the other hand, Germany was actively trading with and industrialising the Soviet Union throughout this era.

I am not seeing it.
You were objecting to the list of Soviet horrors with which the "late-Victorian altruists" were foolishly allied in spirit, ideologically, as induced by Judeo-Communist influence about which you have yet to be educated. Specifically you asked for reference regarding the "famine, purges, industrialization," the first of which Conquest addresses.

Do you agreement with what Hannah Arendt had to say about Nazism? :p
Some of it. Do you disagree with her quantification of the purges, as is pertinent to the discussion?

I have read this trilogy. It is at my university library. In fact, I have commented on it before. Was there a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy by the Nazis to industrialise the USSR?
To the extent that Nazism was a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy.

Get an education in common knowledge regarding the war, [Fade]. I find it telling that you are so ignorant regarding the extraordinary brutality of the Soviet regime.

Why do you have such a problem citing your sources? I don't. :p
Because I have decades of education, as is evident, where you have months - and the commonplaces of specialized knowledge do not warrant the pedantry involved in retaining source references for the instruction of tyros such as yourself. Since you know so little, and otherwise rely upon playing or being stupid in the attempt to respond to points, your requirement for sources is relatively very limited.

They were an accomplice to it. Hitler was allied with a Mongoloid regime that was hoping to invade and colonise White Australia.
They were not an accomplice to it. Hitler wanted the Japanese in Siberia.

It was not the aim of the Communists to 'destroy civilisation'. That is ridiculous. They were mistaken, true, but that is about it.
It is the aim of the Communists to destroy civilization. Communism is not a "mistake" - it is a religion. Whitaker Chambers' Cold Friday and Witness, in addition to Stoddard.

Chamberlain did not force Hitler to cut a deal with Stalin at all. It was entirely his choice. Chamberlain did not cut a deal with Stalin because he could not turn a blind eye to the fate of the Balts. That speaks volumes about the character of a man like Neville Chamberlain compared to a ruthless monster like Adolf Hitler.
The alternatives for Germany were a lasting deal with the British or a temporary arrangement with the Soviets. The British stupidly refused to see reason. Jews at Work (as Chamberlain himself averred to Kennedy).

Oh yeah. I forgot. YOU are in possession of the truth. The entire national security apparatus of the United States is not. :p

=============================================

"The information supplied by Golitsyn also revealed a powerful spy ring of five Soviet agents operating at the highest levels of the British Ministry of Intelligence. Three had already been exposed, and a fourth -- Kim Philby --was uncovered in subsequent years. Based on additional evidence provided by Golitsyn, some members of the British MI5 conducted an investigation which concluded that the 'fifth man' of the Soviet ring was none other than Sir Roger Hollis, the director of MI5. An MI6 officer, Stephen de Mowbray, tried to warn the prime minister, but was fired. Hollis himself was never fully investigated. Golitsyn's evidence also pointed to at least two close advisors to Prime Minister Harold Wilson as being Soviet agents, but MI5 blocked an investigation.

"Golitsyn was able to show Soviet infiltration in the intelligence services of West Germany, Austria, Canada, Australia, and others. But his most important spy revelations concerned infiltration of the CIA itself. He knew of one mole code-named SASHA; months of investigation finally uncovered a lower-level Soviet spy. But the stolen secrets Golitsyn had seen while in Moscow came from much higher sources, and could not have come from a single agent. To test Golitsyn's claim that many moles had burrowed into the highest levels of the CIA, the Counterintelligence Division issued 'marked cards' -- tiny leaks of information that can be traced. Using this method, the Office of Security and the Counterintelligence Division proved the information was being leaked from within the Soviet Bloc Division, and by multiple spies.

"The next logical step was to conduct investigations to identify the spies. But, as we shall review in part II of this analysis, those probes were blocked --with disastrous results.

"The CIA, and virtually all of Western intelligence, has been thoroughly compromised by networks of Soviet spies. Nor has the 'death' of Soviet Communism changed anything. Aldrich Ames, having worked for years as an agent of the KGB, in 1991 made an effortless transition to the renamed KGB (SVR) without any break in his activities. So, too, have hundreds of thousands of other Soviet agents throughout the world, whose activities are now sharply increasing.

"In Part II: The secret 'inner' KGB, CIA intelligence disasters, suppression of key evidence, and the CIA campaign to discredit Golitsyn."

============================================

Hitler said himself in the Table Talk that he had no interest whatsoever in maintaining the independence of the Baltic states. It was never a necessity for him either to broker a deal with Bolshevism. Answer my question. Was it Judeo-Bolshevik influence that made Nazi Germany an ally of the Soviet Union?
Temporarily and derivatively, yes.

The British establishment was not 'compromised' at all, certainly not by Stalin.
You haven't read Spycatcher yet or are playing Jew-stupid.

The British would not assist the Soviets in resisting Hitler. That is why Stalin became disillusioned with the Western powers in the first place.
And neither would the British resist Stalin according to their supposed principles in any meaningful measure. Rather, they promoted his aims in alliance, which resulted only in the realization of Judeo-Bolshevik war gains.

Europe is in the process of unifying itself today. It has done this without tanks and German jackboots.
Only soon to perish when the terminal Sino-Soviet expansion engulfs them. The bill for the Faustian Pact with the Soviet will then have been paid. Jews at Work, bringing down the temple on everyone's head.

The Soviets never had any crazed plan to enslave the Slavs because they were racially inferior.
No, merely because they were available for enslavement.

NN

- "Because I have decades of education, as is evident, where you have months - ..."


In other words, you are a stubborn old man who refuses to admit having been wrong and wasting his life.


- "Sounds like you learned your kindergarten lessons. Time to grow up. "

We youngsters are not as naive as you might think we are, pops. You, on the other hand, are a nice demonstration of G.K. Chesterton's thesis that extreme "rationalism" and madness are closely connected.

"Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world;
they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true."


http://www.engr.uvic.ca/~jrichar1/resources/books/orthodoxy/orthodoxych2.html


Petr

Only soon to perish when the terminal Sino-Soviet expansion engulfs them. The bill for the Faustian Pact with the Soviet will then have been paid. Jews at Work, bringing down the temple on everyone's head.


You see this is where you sound retarded. France has nukes after all thats the only thing I think thats kept us "Yankee-Judeans" from a much deserved punitive expedition into the country... why would Putin invade and see the major cities of Russia nuked. Why would China send help?

Only soon to perish when the terminal Sino-Soviet expansion engulfs them. The bill for the Faustian Pact with the Soviet will then have been paid. Jews at Work, bringing down the temple on everyone's head.


LMAO I never believed anything would eclipse UFO sightings in the realm of absurdity, yet here we are.

- " France has nukes after all thats the only thing I think thats kept us "Yankee-Judeans" from a much deserved punitive expedition into the country... "


You brainwashed fool. America should make a punitive expedition to ISRAEL. ("USS Liberty" would be a cause enough!)

Why should America support Israel, and sink huge sums to its upkeeping?

Is some American Jews want to support Israel, let them do it out of their own pocket.


This hostility between USA and France is entirely artificially manufactured by the Jewsmedia.

So, in effect, by telling White Americans to hate White Europeans, Jews are acting as home-wreckers, sowing grudges where there should be none.


Petr

Only soon to perish when the terminal Sino-Soviet expansion engulfs them. The bill for the Faustian Pact with the Soviet will then have been paid. Jews at Work, bringing down the temple on everyone's head.


You see this is where you sound retarded. France has nukes after all thats the only thing I think thats kept us "Yankee-Judeans" from a much deserved punitive expedition into the country... why would Putin invade and see the major cities of Russia nuked. Why would China send help?
Let's bring you up to speed on military strategy and tactics:

1) The Soviets learned from the British the extraordinary effectiveness of commando tactics in the Judeo-German War.

2) "Red Mercury," the suitcase bomb imploder, is still being sold on the international market at fantastic prices.

3) Soviet strategic deception has arranged the elimination of the military frontier.

4) Stretching our intellectual facilities to the very breaking point, we dimly forsee that, since the Soviets are not retarded, Western installations and weapons around the globe will be destroyed in place, eliminating retaliatory capability.

NN

(I am bending here to your Dr. Strangelovesque nuttiness, for the sake of argument)


- "2) "Red Mercury," the suitcase bomb imploder, is still being sold on the international market at fantastic prices."


Even if "Soviets" (you just won't call them Russians, now do you) would thus manage to eliminate all the capitals of Europe with one swoop, there would still be military structure intact to launch a counter-attack from hidden nuclear silos and nuclear submarines - certainly enough to wipe out all the cities of Russia.


Petr

Let's bring you up to speed on military strategy and tactics
No. Lets bring you up to speed on contemporary history. BREAKING NEWS! The Soviet Union has ceased to exist!

Source: Fred Coleman, The Decline and Fall of the Soviet Empire: Forty Years That Shook The World, From Yelstin to Stalin (St. Martin's Press, 1997)
1) The Soviets learned from the British the extraordinary effectiveness of commando tactics in the Judeo-German War.
I suppose this is why they were humiliated in Afghanistan.

Source: Mohammad Yousef and Mark Adkin, Afghanistan, The Bear Trap: The Defeat of a Superpower (Casemate, 2001)
2) "Red Mercury," the suitcase bomb imploder, is still being sold on the international market at fantastic prices.
Please cite your sources. I am sure the NSA and CIA would love to hear this. Oh wait. They have been taken in by the "Judeo-Bolshevik" conspiracy. :|
3) Soviet strategic deception has arranged the elimination of the military frontier.
According to who? Golitsyn? He defected in 1961, several decades before the collapse of the Soviet Union, so he has utterly no credibility on the issue. And what's more, he is a nutcase who is not taken seriously by anyone (see the book review above). Well. Perhaps I should qualify that statement: except pseudoscholars and lunatic right wing conspiracy theorists on the fringes of cyberspace.
4) Stretching our intellectual facilities to the very breaking point
Yes. One certainly must do just that in order to seriously believe the Soviet Union faked its own demise in the greatest conspiracy in human history. :p
. . .we dimly forsee that, since the Soviets are not retarded, Western installations and weapons around the globe will be destroyed in place, eliminating retaliatory capability.
Whatever.

1.) J.L. Black, Vladimir Putin and the New Order: Looking East, Looking West? (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004)
2.) William Zimmerman, Russian People and Russian Foreign Policy: Russian Elite and Mass Perspectives, 1993-2000 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002)
3.) Cameron Ross (ed.), Russian Politics under Putin (New York: Manchester University Press, 2004)
4.) Brian MacDonald, Grand Strategy of the Soviet Union (Toronto: Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, 1984)
5.) Mike Bowler, Russian Foreign Policy at the End of the Cold War (Brookfield: Dartmouth Publishing Co., 1997)

LMAO I never believed anything would eclipse UFO sightings in the realm of absurdity, yet here we are.
Did you miss his last response? Now he is claiming that Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany were also taken in by the Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy.

Didn't think you'd want make the ludicrous attempt to balance what was done to the Germans (unconditional-surrender/devastation/regime-change/show-trial) with a piddling British expedition in support of the Finns.
You cited Finland as an example to support your ridiculous argument and discredited claim that Barnett's argument about late Victorian moralism was false. In fact, Great Britain was about to join Finland in its war against the Soviet Union yet the armistace Finland signed with the Soviet Union made this unnecessary.
But now you've done it, thanks.
You cited Finland as an example to 'prove' to the gallery that British foreign policy was not influenced by late Victorian moralism. I have shown the gallery otherwise.
Due to their own stupidity and manipulability where it profitably and easily could have been otherwise.
It would have been indefensible for the British to put any faith whatsoever in the word of Adolf Hitler, when he had shown again and again how utterly worthless and meaningless treaties are to him.
No such excuse for the Americans/Greater Judeans. Jews at Work.
Funny how America/Greater Judea would not let the Jews immigrate to the U.S. en masse during the greatest crisis in the entire history of world Jewry.
the Soviet tank strength was about 22,000).
And how was this a threat to Great Britain?
You were objecting to the list of Soviet horrors with which the "late-Victorian altruists" were foolishly allied in spirit
Great Britain was not allied with the Soviet Union in the 1930s. This is another false assertion that you have made which you cannot support with any evidence. On the other hand, Germany had long been cooperating with the Soviet Union ever since the Treaty of Rapallo.
ideologically, as induced by Judeo-Communist influence about which you have yet to be educated.
You seem the be the one here who needs an education. For instance, you believe (amongst other things) that the Soviet Union faked its own demise in the greatest conspiracy in human history.
Specifically you asked for reference regarding the "famine, purges, industrialization," the first of which Conquest addresses.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. No one denies, much less myself, that there were purges and famines in the Soviet Union. The point that is in dispute here is your laughable claim that this had anything whatsoever to do with Great Britain, when in fact, it was Germany that had long been assisting the Soviet Union ever since the Treaty of Rapallo.
Some of it.
Be specific.
Do you disagree with her quantification of the purges, as is pertinent to the discussion?
No. I just find it laughable and amusing that you would cite an anti-Nazi Jewess of all people in this debate.
To the extent that Nazism was a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy.
I thought Sutton (the source you cited above) made the argument that Nazism was a conspiracy by Wall Street capitalists.
Because I have decades of education, as is evident
It is clearly evident that you have decades of education in dubious sources: pseudoscholarship and conspiracy theories. I must say that I am thankful that our policy makers do not take the cranks and charlatans you have cited seriously.
where you have months - and the commonplaces of specialized knowledge do not warrant the pedantry involved in retaining source references for the instruction of tyros such as yourself.
I will be graduating in December with a degree in Political Science (International Relations) along with a minor in economics. So I have every qualification to participate in this discussion, whereas you do not. And no, it is not 'pedantic' to ask you to cite your sources, especially when you repudiate the entire discipline of international relations and contemporary history.
Since you know so little. . .
We will let the gallery be the judge of who really here knows so little.
and otherwise rely upon playing or being stupid in the attempt to respond to points, your requirement for sources is relatively very limited.
You don't make points. You make assertions. Then you try to laughably support those assertions with fallacious reasoning and pseudoscholarship, if you even bother to support them. Most of the time you do not.
They were not an accomplice to it. Hitler wanted the Japanese in Siberia.
Sure he was. He had a formal alliance with Japan. I have also shown (quoting Rich) that he was entirely willing to acquiese in the destruction of Australia and New Zealand. He was quite blunt about it. As he himself put it, it meant for the white race the loss of an entire continent.
It is the aim of the Communists to destroy civilization.
Cite the manifesto of the Communist Party. Show us where it was an official goal of the Communist Party to 'destroy civilisation'.
Communism is not a "mistake" - it is a religion.
What deity did the communists worship, if I may ask?
Whitaker Chambers' Cold Friday and Witness, in addition to Stoddard.
Whitaker Chambers broke with communism and became an anticommunist. So once again, tell us where in the manifesto of the Communist Party (or the Constitution of the Soviet Union for that matter) that it is a goal of communism to 'destroy civilisaton'.
The alternatives for Germany were a lasting deal with the British or a temporary arrangement with the Soviets.
False. There was an alternative that Adolf Hitler rejected in favour of war. Its called peace. There was absolutely no imperative whatsoever forcing him to wage an aggressive war of conquest.
The British stupidly refused to see reason.
This is also false. The British attempted to reason with Hitler for years, as I have shown in my initial posts in this thread, but Hitler was unreasonable and bent upon expanding East at the expense of his weaker Slavic neighbours.
Jews at Work (as Chamberlain himself averred to Kennedy).
There is no direct evidence of this at all. Joseph Kennedy was an antisemite and Anglophobe, so most scholars do not take this claim seriously.
. . .The information supplied by Golitsyn also revealed a powerful spy ring of five Soviet agents operating at the highest levels of the British Ministry of Intelligence. . . .
Please cite the source of this nonsense.
Temporarily and derivatively, yes.
Describe in detail this "Judeo-Bolshevik" influence.
You haven't read Spycatcher yet or are playing Jew-stupid.
I have Peter Wright's Spycatcher right here before my eyes. Flipping through the index I do not see a reference to 'Jew' or 'conspiracy' or 'Jew conspiracy' or 'Judeo-Bolshevik' or 'Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy'. So be a pal and point out to me on what page I can read about the 'Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy'. Even better, tell me why I should take what is said in this book with anything but a grain of salt. There is not a single footnote in this entire book.
And neither would the British resist Stalin according to their supposed principles in any meaningful measure.
The British did not deliver up the Baltic states to Stalin on a silver platter like your hero Adolf Hitler did. The Soviet Union was also an enemy of Great Britain throughout the Cold War.
Rather, they promoted his aims in alliance, which resulted only in the realization of Judeo-Bolshevik war gains.
The British made common cause with the Soviets because the Soviet Union also became embroiled in war with Nazi Germany, not because Great Britain had any real fondness of the Soviet Union. This was after Hitler tore up Germany's Non-Aggression Pact with the Soviet Union in order to wage an aggressive war of conquest.
Only soon to perish when the terminal Sino-Soviet expansion engulfs them
The Soviet Union ceased to exist and the charlatan you have cited above is not taken seriously by anyone except fringe conspiracy theorists. See the book review I posted.
The bill for the Faustian Pact with the Soviet will then have been paid.
There was no 'Faustian Pact' with the Soviets. The Soviet Union legally dissolved in 1991. It is no longer a factor in international relations or American foreign policy.

Source: Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives (Basic Books, 1998)
Jews at Work, bringing down the temple on everyone's head.
What planet are you living on? Jews were being systematically persecuted by the Government of the Soviet Union, to say nothing of other Communist States like Poland.

1.) Robert O. Freedman (ed.), Soviet Jewry in the 1980s: The Politics of Anti-Semitism and Emigration and the Dynamics of Resettlement (Durham: Duke University Press, 1989)
2.) Jaff Schatz, The Generation, The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Communists of Poland (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991)
No, merely because they were available for enslavement.
The Soviet Union never 'enslaved' the Slavs. That is ridiculous. Slavery is the legal ownership of other human beings.

- "I have Peter Wright's Spycatcher right here before my eyes.

...

There is not a single footnote in this entire book."


Are you serious, Fade? Not a single footnote?


Petr

[COLOR=Blue]Are you serious, Fade? Not a single footnote?

Yes. There are no footnotes. There are no works cited either. More later. I am in between classes at the moment.

Coming soon: NeoNietzsche's bogus definition of sovereignty.

Yes. There are no footnotes. There are no works cited either. More later. I am in between classes at the moment.

Coming soon: NeoNietzsche's bogus definition of sovereignty.
And Fade despicably lowers himself yet again by suggesting that Wright's first-person account of all that is recounted is lacking for the absence of footnotes, where there is thus essentially nothing to footnote.

And now that Fade's incompetence in regard to the issue of sovereignty - long-mooted here in the terms initially established - has been exposed in detail, he wants to recoup by changing the definition. There is no such thing as a "bogus" definition, where definitions are simply conventions agreed upon as was done here.

[A rare combination of the ludicrous and contemptible, even for a newly turned-out temple boy.]

NN

- "[A rare combination of the ludicrous and contemptible, even for a newly turned-out temple boy.]"


Aw, don't turn into a wintermutesque prissy primadonna (obsessed with homoerotic metaphors) on us now.


Petr

Did you miss his last response? Now he is claiming that Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany were also taken in by the Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy.
Grasping sarcasm that strikes informed individuals immediately as such seems too much to hope for from one so eager to seize upon any desperate opportunity for a retort not simply repetitious of points already in disposal.

NN

And Fade despicably lowers himself yet again by suggesting that Wright's first-person account of all that is recounted is lacking for the absence of footnotes, where there is thus essentially nothing to footnote.His 'first-hand account' is utterly worthless. He does not present a shred of documented evidence to support his claims, not a single footnote in the entire book. So we have utterly no way of independently verifying his claims by pursuing his sources. And while we are on the subject of Wright, perhaps you could point out the exact page number in Spycatcher where he discusses the 'Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy'. I don't see anything about a 'Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy' in Spycatcher. This seems to be yet another delusion you are trying to spin onto the gallery.
And now that Fade's incompetence in regard to the issue of sovereigntyWho are you to call anyone incompetant? I am a political scientist. You are not. Your pathetic definition of sovereignty has no basis whatsoever, either in political theory or international relations, just as your absurd conspiracy theory has no basis in history or scholarship.
long-mooted here in the terms initially established You didn't establish anything. I know this is difficult for you to grasp, but your unsupported a priori amateur assertions about the concept of sovereignty have not been established at all, either in this debate or in the relevant literature on the subject, which you dismiss entirely.
has been exposed in detailYou were the one who has been exposed here. Your absurd conspiracy theory comes from a discredited charlatan.
he wants to recoup by changing the definition.On the contrary, you are the one here who has changed the definition. Please give us the name of the scholars who accept your definition of sovereignty.
There is no such thing as a "bogus" definition, where definitions are simply conventions agreed upon as was done here.You seem to be under the delusion that I agreed with your definition of sovereignty. In fact, I did not. I challenged it because it is not the commonly accepted definition of sovereignty at all.
[A rare combination of the ludicrous and contemptible, even for a newly turned-out temple boy.]I have to go back to class. In the meantime, I will be sure to give your regards to the ZOG controlled political science department here.

His 'first-hand account' is utterly worthless. He does not present a shred of documented evidence to support his claims, not a single footnote in the entire book. So we have utterly no way of independently verifying his claims by pursuing his sources. And while we are on the subject of Wright, perhaps you could point out the exact page number in Spycatcher where he discusses the 'Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy'. I don't see anything about a 'Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy' in Spycatcher. This seems to be yet another delusion you are trying to spin onto the gallery.


Oh you'll find out, when the Soviet-Sino megaarmy of world domination( spearheaded by Joe Vialls yhiddish commandos) comes for you.

I saw it on the Twilight Zone.

The gods of elementary logic have so burdened me, since I'm evidently the only one who came prepared.Argumentum ad verecundiam

The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion. For example:

"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."

This line of argument isn't always completely bogus when used in an inductive argument; for example, it may be relevant to refer to a widely-regarded authority in a particular field, if you're discussing that subject. For example, we can distinguish quite clearly between:

"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"

and

"Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer"

Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#authority
If one has to trade for vital resources, one's sovereignty is compromised to that degree.Nonsense. NeoNietzsche is attempting to sell a bogus definition of sovereignty to the gallery. With a false premise one can prove anything. Here is a real definition of sovereignty, one commonly accepted by political theorists.

Abstract: This article explores many of the key theoretical and analytical issues attending empirical research on state sovereignty. It reviews recent research on sovereignty, the state, and state-building in an attempt to summarize what we now know or think we know about state sovereignty. Bringing the fruits of that research to bear on the concepts that define state sovereignty, I offer some criteria from which analysts might derive empirically testable propositions about sovereignty's historical status and future prospects. In conclusion, I argue that research on these issues should be (re-) directed to the bedrock of sovereignty: rule making and enforcement authority, or what I call policing.

"Second, sovereignty is best conceptualised in terms, not of state control, but of state authority. State control has waxed and waned enormously over time, regions, and issue-areas while the state's claim to ultimate political authority has persisted for more than three centuries. The conceptualisation of sovereignty I offer here is as an institution which imparts to the state what I call meta-political authority. That is, with the institution of sovereignty states are empowered or authorised to decide what is political in the first place. With sovereignty, states do not simply have ultimate authority over things political; they have the authority to relegate activities, issues, and practices to the economic, social, cultural, and scientific realms of authority or to the state's own realm -- the political. This is not to say that activities are defined as apolitical are not intensely political but only that states will not treat them as political."

Janice E. Thomson, 'State Sovereignty in International Relations: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Empirical Research', International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 2. (Jun., 1995), pp. 213-233.
Even more stupidity. I argued that significant effective autarky (independent/enforceable access to vital resources) is necessary for sovereignty - not "survival"."Whilst it is certainly true that it is the most fundamental national interest of any sovereign state in the world is to maintain its own independence and survival, not every state in the world joined the League and other nations joined and then left: Brazil (1926), Japan (1933), Italy (1937)."
-- NeoNietzsche
You introduced the latter as a diversion, and no burden was placed upon you in that regard. "But you do not prove this by pointing out that autarky is not necessary to survival."
--NeoNietzsche

"It is not incumbent upon me to prove a negative. That is ridiculous and illogical. You have argued that autarky is necessary for survival, not me. The burden of proof rests upon your shoulders, not mine."
--FadeTheButcher

You made an illogical argument. You asked me to prove a negative.
Had you paid attention, you would have noted that your diversionary observation that "autarky is not necessary to survival" was taken as a correct premise, thus you were not as you stupidly assert, above, being required to prove anything in that regard. See above.
Your problem in that regard was that this correct premise was irrelevant, and did not have the implication ("sovereignty is not to be sought") necessary to sustain your argument.Your problem is that your entire argument turns on a bogus definition of sovereignty which you have plucked straight out of the sky. One does not surrender one's sovereignty by engaging in trade. That is ridiculous. Read up on the concept of sovereignty before you give lectures to others.

Daniel Philpott, Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern International Relations (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001)
In terms of its damage to the hypocritical, Judeo-Communist-inspired American assault on Japan by the FDR regime, it was.Why is NeoNietzsche echoing the 'Judeo-Bolshevik' propaganda of Franklin Roosevelt?

"Roosevelt himself revealed his indifference to MacLeish's "strategy of truth." In a fireside chat on February 23, 1942, he solemnly assured the American people that "your government has unmistakable confidence in your ability to hear the worst, without flinching or losing heart." He then proceeded to minimize American losses at Pearl Harbor. Instead of admitting the Japanese had sunk six battleships and damaged two others, plus three cruisers and two destroyers, FDR claimed "only three ships" had been permanently put out of commission."

Thomas Fleming, The New Dealer's War: Franklin Roosevelt and the War Within World War II (New York: Basic Books, 2001), pp.128-129
Simply incorrect. The Japanese were given to understand, by FDR's deceit before P.H., that they would be attacked when in an exposed position.NeoNietzsche seems to have forgotten that Congress, not the President of the United States, is invested with the authority to declare war. FDR was well aware of this. That is why he had to wait for Japan to attack the United States in order to enter the war. So the U.S. really wasn't much of a threat to Japan at all prior to Pearl Harbor. Up until Pearl Harbor the American people were firmly antiwar.
Again with the stupidity in missing the obvious point.You don't win points in this debate by making unsupported assertions. Germany is a sovereign nation. Germany is not a satellite of the United States either.

Source: Jeffrey E. Garten, A Cold Peace: America, Japan, Germany and the Struggle for Supremacy (Toronto: Times Books, 1993)
You implied that the Germans were sovereign by virtue of being the best fed.Now you are setting up a strawman argument. I never accepted your definition of sovereignty in the first place. Germany is a sovereign nation. Willy Brandt was not puppet of the United States. Gerhard Schroeder is not a puppet of the United States either.
I pointed out that so were the inmates of their prisons.Which is a false analogy.
You were thus dispositively contradicted. Looks like Petr's is not going to be the only mommy to get a note.You made an illogical argument, one that you have not supported with the slightest shred of empirical evidence. You say Germany is a satellite of the United States. How is this possible if Germany has an independent foreign policy, one that often obstructs U.S. interests? Better yet, where is your evidence? That's right. You don't have any.
The point as to "slavery" is with regard to Japan in significant degree, not to China.You didn't make a point. You made an assertion that you cannot support. Japan is an ally of the United States, not the slave of Americans.

Source: Yoichi Funabashi, Alliance Adrift (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1999)

From the backcover:

The U.S. Japan alliance is now confronting its most critical test since its inception in 1951. With the current economic crisis in Asia, China's growing power in the international arena, and Japan's economic decline and political immobility, the underlying assumptions that have traditionally guided U.S.-Japan relations are being challenged. The alliance itself will need to be redefined.

Alliance Adrift offers a dynamic and informative overview of this redefining process. It presents in detail four specific case studies: trade frictions between Japan and the United States; suspcions that North Korea was developing a nuclear program; the vehement protests against the alliance triggered by the rape of an Okinawan schoolgirl by U.S. servicemen in 1995; and, finally the strains in Sino-American relations over the issue of Taiwan and Chinese missle tests in 1996, which prompted the U.S. decision to dispatch an aircraft carrier to the region. These events were all part of the process of redefintion, which is likely to continue into the future.

In an in-depth study based on extensive interviews with over 200 U.S. and Japanese government officials, scholars, and others, noted Japanese journalist Yoichi Funabashi explores the historical accounts, social psychology, and organisational forces behind this process. His articulate and thorough examination of events makes Alliance Adrift an indispensible work for anyone interested in the U.S.-Japan alliance.

Yoichi Funabashi is a columnist and Chief Diplomatic Correspondent of the Asahi Shimbun and a leading journalist in the field of Japanese foreign policy. He is also a contributing editor of Foreign Policy. He served as a correspondent for the Asahi Shimbun in Beijing (1980-81) and Washington (1984-87), and as American General Bureau Chief (1993-97). He won the Japan Press Award, known as Japan's "Pulitzer Prize," in 1994 for his columns on foreign policy, and his articles in Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy won the Isibashi Tanzan Prize in 1992. His books include Asia-Pacific Fusion: Japan's Role in APEC (1995 winner of the Mainichi Shimbun Asia Grand Prix Award); A Design for a New Course of Japan's Foreign Policy (1992); Managing the Dollar: From the Plaza to the Lourve (1998 winner of the Yoshino Sakuzo Prise); U.S.-Japan Economic Entanglement: The Inside Story (1987); and Neibu: Inside China (1983). He received his B.A. from Tokyo University in 1669 and his Ph.D. from Keio University in 1992.
Satellites do not lack negotiating positions altogether Satellites do not pursue independent foreign policies. Japan does. Thus your bogus argument has been empirically refuted.
they take liberties, as do even literal slaves, where it is calculated that it is more expensive for the master to impose sanctions than it is to be reluctantly indulgent. Japan is not a satellite or a slave of the United States. You continue to make more unsubstantiated assertions. So once again I ask, where is your evidence? Where is your evidence that supports your ridiculous theory. I have a ton of revelant literature on the U.S.-Japanese alliance right here before my eyes. I don't see anything in here about Japanese slaves.

Source: Ellis S. Krauss and T.J. Pempel, Beyond Bilateralism: U.S.-Japan Relatiosn in the Asia-Pacific (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004)
Your example is trivial and even contrary in its implicationMy example refutes your claim that Japan is a U.S. satellite. Japan pursues an independent foreign policy. Satellites do not have independent foreign policies. This your unsupported assertion has been disposed of.
in that American interest is not served by such sanctions, and the Japanese can thus disregard them in doing an actual service to Americans who are such.Duh! You have just refuted your own argument: Japan's economic power is more than a balance for American military power. Japan is able to pursue an independent foreign policy. Japan is not a satellite of the United States. Japan is an American ally that cooperates with America because its in Japan's interests to do so.
And there is the matter of that pretense of civility to be maintained to fool such as yourself as to the fundamental reality.For the 'fundamental reality' of U.S.-Japanese relations, I advise the gallery to see:

1.) Ellis S. Krauss and T.J. Pempel, Beyond Bilateralism: U.S.-Japan Relatiosn in the Asia-Pacific (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004)
2.) Yoichi Funabashi, Alliance Adrift (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1999)
3.) Jeffrey E. Garten, A Cold Peace: America, Japan, Germany and the Struggle for Supremacy (Toronto: Times Books, 1993)

All of these sources, not to mention the sources cited above, refute NeoNietzsche's allegations about the U.S.-Japanese strategic partnership.
Show us where this is not paper political economy.BREAKING NEWS! Civilised societies abandoned barter centuries ago for more advanced financial instruments and economic systems. NeoNietzsche and Lyndon LaRouche say otherwise!
Compare the size of the Japanese and American navies now. Alright. What is your point?
Give us the obvious explanation as to why the Japanese navy was once much more comparable in capability.Okay. Japan's loss in World War 2 convinced Japan that Japan's interests would be better served through peaceful expansion via trade with other nations. Thus Japan no longer pursues a militant foreign policy.
If you or the above scribblers want to evidence Japanese sovereignty, simply show us the navy that can keep the lanes open to the tankers and the army that can keep it pumping. Of course - you, and they, cannot.What an amazing ad hominem retort from NeoNietzsche! Scribblers! Ellis S. Krauss is a Professor of Japanese Politics and Policy Making at the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, University of California, San Diego. T.J. Pempel is Director of the Institute of East Asian Studies and Il Han New Professor of Asian Studies and Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. Perhaps someone should email these scholars for they can take notes from NeoNietzsche about his unsubstantiated Stone Age theory of international relations.
I would ask you to define "civilization" in order to illustrate that you don't know what you're talking aboutCivilisation -- Cultural or intellectual refinement; good taste; An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.
but you would merely adopt the gentleman's pose of purporting to know it when he sees it.Civilised nations do not operate on the basis of brute force. Neither do civilised peoples. Most civilised people would not push down an old lady and steal her purse simply because she is weaker. I know it is difficult for you to grasp this.
Yes, it does No. Actually it doesn't. Your argument in a non sequitur.
given the unbalanced balance-of-trade as between the two.In which Japan makes enormous profits at America's expense.
We get goodies - they get paper - on balance.They can use that currency to invest in U.S. Treasury bonds too. This is precisely what they do and they have made billions of more dollars in interest in profit.
We thus imperially exploit the Japanese for our having denied them vital resource independence and sovereignty.The Japanese are not being 'exploited' because they take our currency in exchange for their goods. No one forces them to accept our currency, NeoNietzsche. They trade with us because it is enormously profitable for them to do so. They invest their money here for they can make more money. They use this money to buy hard American assets.
1) If nationalized or regulated, Asian-owned capital on American soil would be employed by the Asians under duress or by substitute American employees. Such is the history of domestic labor disputes that reach critical dimensions.You have yet to explain what incentive the United States would have to nationalise Asian assets. That would bring about instant retaliation by Japan or China. Both sides would lose billions of dollars and would be worse off for it. Why didn't the U.S. nationalise Japanese assets when Japan refused to impose sanctions on Iran?
2) There would be no retaliation, because the demonstration of American masteryand the slavery/lack of sovereignty of the Japanese, would have been effected by the nullification, as above, of their attempt to affect matters to their relative benefit and thus to demonstrate the sovereignty which you impute to the Japanese by virtue of their capacity for the massive disposal of dollars - mere paper.You have yet to ground this assertion in any evidence whatsoever. I have cited the revelant literature which makes a mockery of this laughable argument.
As said, you, even now, fail to take account of the reality of physical economy behind the reckoning in terms of paper.I never took lessons in economics from the likes of Lyndon LaRouche, although it would appear you have.

Why are you quoting those puny Internet Infidels, Fade?


Here you've got a nice Creationist baloney-detector instead:

http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm

Its version of "argument by authority":


Authority

Definition: Relying on authority to the exclusion of logic and evidence.
Catch-phrase: A scholar is someone who agrees with me.

Examples:

Aristotle in the Middle Ages
TV commercials - “Four out of five doctors agree . . . ”
Infomercials narrated by “Nutritionist and Medical Doctor So-and-So” “Trust me.”
Assuming peer review weeds out all fallacies in scientific papers.
Dobzhansky says, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
Assertions made without any support whatsoever: “The days of Genesis could have been long ages, you know.” – “This rock is 50 million years old.”
Hiram’s Law: If you consult enough experts you can confirm any opinion.

Note: Use authority as a buttress, not a foundation.
Consider: Is he speaking outside his area of expertise? Are there equally competent authorities who disagree? Has his view been superseded by further research? Is the quote in context? Was it a misprint, corrected in the Errata of the next issue? Is he just plain wrong? (No one is infallible.)


Petr

No. Lets bring you up to speed on contemporary history. BREAKING NEWS! The Soviet Union has ceased to exist!

Source: Fred Coleman, The Decline and Fall of the Soviet Empire: Forty Years That Shook The World, From Yelstin to Stalin (St. Martin's Press, 1997)
Only nominally and ostensibly.

I suppose this is why they were humiliated in Afghanistan.

Source: Mohammad Yousef and Mark Adkin, Afghanistan, The Bear Trap: The Defeat of a Superpower (Casemate, 2001)
Yes, since the advanced facilities (as in WWII German and present-day Western facilities), against which commando tactics are unusually effective, were not characteristic of the rebel positions. Consulting your source did not compensate you for your characteristic ignorance of such matters.

Please cite your sources. I am sure the NSA and CIA would love to hear this. Oh wait. They have been taken in by the "Judeo-Bolshevik" conspiracy.

http://www.rense.com/general57/red.htm

=====================================

Red Mercury - The WMD No
One Wants To Talk About
9-29-4

On Friday, September 24, 2004, British police arrested 4 suspects for allegedly trying to purchase a 'highly powerful, radioactive material, originally made in Russia, known as 'Red Mercury'.

These four supposedly were willing to pay $541,000 a kilogram, on behalf of a Saudi Arabian, (described as 'sympathetic to the Muslim cause'), whose name was not disclosed.

"The News of the World said that the material was developed by Soviet scientists during the Cold War for making briefcase nuclear bombs that could kill people within a few city blocks."

Sam Cohen, the physicist who invented the neutron bomb, sheds a little more light on the destructive power of red mercury. As quoted from a June 15, 1997 http://www.manuelsweb.com/sam_cohen.htm article by Christopher Ruddy of the Tribune-Review, it states:

'Most frightening for Cohen is the relative ease by which neutron bombs can be created with a substance called red mercury. Red mercury is a compound containing mercury that has undergone irradiation. When exploded, it creates tremendous heat and pressure - the same type needed to trigger a fusion device such as a mini-neutron bomb.'

Before, an obstacle to creating a nuclear bomb was the need for plutonium, which when exploded could create a fusion reaction in hydrogen atoms. But red mercury has changed that. The cheap substance has been produced in Russia, Cohen said, and shipped on the black market throughout the world...

====================================

According to who? Golitsyn? He defected in 1961, several decades before the collapse of the Soviet Union, so he has utterly no credibility on the issue.
His credibility is extraordinary by virtue of the 94% accuracy of his predictions.

And what's more, he is a nutcase who is not taken seriously by anyone (see the book review above). Well. Perhaps I should qualify that statement: except pseudoscholars and lunatic right wing conspiracy theorists on the fringes of cyberspace.
Glad you mention that review of the book - with which we may take the measure of your critical faculties:

As can be seen, below, the reviewer counters no factual issue with evidence or logic. He merely characterizes Golitsyn:

===================================

"But it is impossible to disentangle his relevant lessons and information on this score from the second and dominant aspect. This is the naive and obsessively monocentric (or is it deliberately provocative?) general theme that the Soviet Bloc is still a totalitarian monolith under Kremlin control. The absurd picture of an all-powerful, all-successful Soviet disinformation strategy, camouflaging this reality, in order to lull the West into a false sense of Soviet weakness and evolutionary liberalism vitiates the value of his case studies entirely. Golitsyn argues that the disputes with Yugoslavia, Albania, China, Romania and the Euro-communist parties were all choreographed and controlled shows which succeeded in blinding the west to the Soviet threat. Equally fantastically, he claims that alleged internal power struggles and domestic crises, such as Czechoslovakia 1968 and Poland 1980-1, developed and were controlled according to long term plans for the same purpose.

"Golitsyn is an intellectually limited power technician. At best he reflects the mentality, aspirations and objectives of the older Soviet Intelligence operative. But in the current political context he emerges mainly as an apologist for the stupid and paranoic American far right. The latter can now be seen to have had some justification in the early 1950s in seeking conspiracies in the Roosevelt-Democrat cover-up, however understandable in the context of the time, of the realities of their temporary Second World War Soviet ally; but Golitsyn's simplistic grist to their mill in the 1980s is dangerous and unhelpful nonsense. It hinders and confuses a balanced understanding of the real achievements, strengths and failures of Soviet disinformation strategy."

===================================

Upon our inspection, none of this has any value in refutation of Golitsyn and Epstein on the points. The reviewer simply relies upon the pseudo-sophisticate prejudices of his audience to make his appeal to what all intellectually-fashionable people are supposed to believe. Fade thus betrays, once again, his incompetence and prejudice, in relying upon facile material such as this.

NN

Only nominally and ostensibly.What an amazing retort by NeoNietzsche. I was hoping to finally see NeoNietzsche cite something of substance in this debate to support his case. I suspect we will just have to keep waiting. In the meantime, here is something I found today for his benefit:

For a realist, radical systemic change can come only with war, hence it is often claimed that realism is of no use in explaining the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. It is most common also to state that the Soviet Union imploded due to a failure in the economy. The critique of realism is only partly fair, and the economic explanation for the USSR's demise is not the whole of the matter. The Cold War was a war: it was a war of ideas, of opposing, competing systems -- according to Fred Halliday, it was an "inter-systemic war." As with all wars, there are winners and losers, and in this case the Soviet Union was the loser. The economic explanation cannot suffice, for other states have suffered much worse economic crisis and, albeit with difficulty and threats to stability, have pulled through. Why should economic crises threaten the territorial integrity of the state from within? The Soviet economy was in a mess, but not such that it would have prevented from muddling along for many more years. Unemployment was still practically non-existent, and most people had roofs over their heads and food on their tables.

The Soviet Union collapsed because it lost the Cold War. Its identity and legitimacy were linked to a competition with the West. Yet by the 1980s it had become clear to the party leadership that it could not keep up the competition."

Peter Shearman (ed.), Russian Foreign Policy Since 1990 (Boulder: Westview Press, 1995)
Yes, since the advanced facilities (as in WWII German and present-day Western facilities), against which commando tactics are unusually effective, were not characteristic of the rebel positions. Consulting your source did not compensate you for your characteristic ignorance of such matters.
Another amazing retort by NeoNietzsche. Once again, the gallery sees that NeoNietzsche is free to dismiss all evidence whatsoever that conflicts with his own paranoid ideology.

I traced NeoNietzsche's 'source' to this website:

http://www.homelandsecurityus.net/

Jill St.Claire's Homeland SecurityUS.net. This was posted at Jeff Rense's website. There are all sorts of stories about UFOs on there as well. His other source is Sam Cohen. That sounds like a Jewish name, oddly enough. More on Cohen's claims here:

"Cohen said that when U.N. inspectors went to Iraq to examine the Iraqis' nuclear weapons capabilities, the U.N. team found documents showing that they had purchased quantities of red mercury. The material means a neutron bomb can be built "the size of baseball" but able to kill everyone within several square blocks."

So here we have a Jew arguing that Saddam possessed material he could use to create Weapons of Mass Destruction. Funny how the U.S. military never found any of this. Very interesting how George W. Bush hasn't said a word about this either, even in the midst of such a tight election. Once again we see NeoNietzsche relying upon dubious sources in order to make ridiculous arguments.
His credibility is extraordinary by virtue of the 94% accuracy of his predictions.Who says that his predictions have been 94% accurate? Please tell us.
Glad you mention that review of the book - with which we may take the measure of your critical facultiesIt demonstrates that scholars have reviewed (and dismissed) his scaremongering bile.
As can be seen, below, the reviewer counters no factual issue with evidence or logic. He merely characterizes Golitsyn:He dismisses Golitsyn's wild claims because they are grossly out of touch with the comparative evidence amassed by reputable scholars in the field. He is a delusional nutcase and no one takes him seriously. You say that his claims sent the CIA into an uproar. Where is your evidence of this?
Upon our inspection, none of this has any value in refutation of Golitsyn and Epstein on the points.Sure it does. It demonstrates that scholars and professionals in reputable academic publications have reviewed his ridiculous conspiracy theory and dismissed it for the garbage that it is.
The reviewer simply relies upon the pseudo-sophisticate prejudices of his audience to make his appeal to what all intellectually-fashionable people are supposed to believe. The reviewer points out that the only people who take such a charlatan seriously are quacks on the right-wing fringe. An astute analysis, I might add.
Fade thus betrays, once again, his incompetence and prejudice, in relying upon facile material such as this.I cite a book review of NeoNietzsche's source in a professional political science journal. NeoNietzsche charges (LOL!) that this displays my 'incompetance'. On the other hand, he continues to cite worthless internet websites like Jill St.Claire's Homeland SecurityUS.net. I cite over a dozen reputable scholars and professionals in political theory and international relations who refute NeoNietzsche's ridiculous accusations. NeoNietzsche retorts by calling them 'scribblers'. What sort of sources does NeoNietzsche rely upon: discredited charlatans, books without footnotes, quack websites on the internet. What is the point, can someone tell me, of pursuing this debate any further? How can one argue with an individual about topics in international relations when he dismisses the entire field on the basis of a conspiracy theory?

You cited Finland as an example to support your ridiculous argument and discredited claim that Barnett's argument about late Victorian moralism was false.
No, I didn't. Accepting the Barnett argument about LVM, I cited Finland as one in a long list of Soviet enormities with which the LVM elite allied itself in ostensibly inexplicable self-contradiction when comparing the war-criminal measures they took against Germany and their nugatory efforts against the Soviet horror. I then suggested that the ostensible difficulty is explained by the not-unfamiliar affinity of such melioristic fatuities for ignorance and indulgence of - and apology for - Communist activities and ideology.

In fact, Great Britain was about to join Finland in its war against the Soviet Union yet the armistace Finland signed with the Soviet Union made this unnecessary.
This was the very premise of my taking note of your pathetic attempt to portray the British as even-handed and principled. Please pay attention when being instructed.

You cited Finland as an example to 'prove' to the gallery that British foreign policy was not influenced by late Victorian moralism. I have shown the gallery otherwise.
The case regarding my citation, as explained above, is to the contrary.

It would have been indefensible for the British to put any faith whatsoever in the word of Adolf Hitler, when he had shown again and again how utterly worthless and meaningless treaties are to him.
This issue has already been disposed of in my favor, as you confirm by returning to your unqualified original assertion.

Funny how America/Greater Judea would not let the Jews immigrate to the U.S. en masse during the greatest crisis in the entire history of world Jewry.
ADO

And how was this a threat to Great Britain?
22000 AFV (24000, according to some sources) would have put Stalin, rather than Hitler, on the Channel - with far more aircraft. Hitler knocked off France far more quickly than Stalin counted on, and Stalin was not ready to take advantage in time.
You were objecting to the list of Soviet horrors with which the "late-Victorian altruists" were foolishly allied in spirit

Great Britain was not allied with the Soviet Union in the 1930s. This is another false assertion that you have made which you cannot support with any evidence. On the other hand, Germany had long been cooperating with the Soviet Union ever since the Treaty of Rapallo.

As the gallery can read, above, in red, I wrote "allied in spirit," with reference to the LVM. I call upon the youthful pedant to extend himself and distinguish that from diplomatic alliance.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. No one denies, much less myself, that there were purges and famines in the Soviet Union. The point that is in dispute here is your laughable claim that this had anything whatsoever to do with Great Britain, when in fact, it was Germany that had long been assisting the Soviet Union ever since the Treaty of Rapallo.

Be specific.
I'm suggesting that the very LVM upon which you rely in explanation of British motivation with regard to German activities accounts, as explained above, for "the not-unfamiliar affinity of such melioristic fatuities for ignorance and indulgence of - and apology for - Communist activities and ideology."

No. I just find it laughable and amusing that you would cite an anti-Nazi Jewess of all people in this debate.
It would, by an intellectually honest person, be taken as evidence of my objectivity. But your contrary reaction is equably noted.

I thought Sutton (the source you cited above) made the argument that Nazism was a conspiracy by Wall Street capitalists.
Uh, no. He credits that element with financing it - giving, however, too much credit, to judge by the evidence provided by other sources.

It is clearly evident that you have decades of education in dubious sources: pseudoscholarship and conspiracy theories. I must say that I am thankful that our policy makers do not take the cranks and charlatans you have cited seriously.
Is Epstein, for example, a pseudo-scholar, conspiracy theorist, crank or charlatan? Is Wright, the autobiographist and not monographist? [What a ludicrous boo-boo that was in your expecting footnotes of a pure autobiographist - or were you just dishonestly playing to the gallery's ignorance of the contents?]

NN

But that is the implication of your insistence upon a blunt analogy between martial aggression and rape.My analogy to rape dealt with the actions of Nazi Germany.

"I never said that I personally thought it was the best idea. Actually, I think it was quite foolish."
--Brithammer

Here is was referring to British foreign policy.
When is the universal prohibition of rape not a "good idea"?I think rape should be prohibited myself. I have no problem going on the record with that.
You contradict yourself and implicitly concede the point.I haven't conceded any point. Instead, you have confused two entirely different aspects of my argument.
Sovereignty, as the term is being used in its politico-economic sense of resource independence, is, of course, a matter of degree, not merely "ultimate" rights, black and white.Sovereignty is not politico-economic resource independence. We established that above by citing the revelant literature on the subject. Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.

Source: Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985), p.5
Again, you are unable to remember the point, which was as to the status with regard to sovereignty of an entity which trades.You never made a point. You never established that sovereignty has anything to do with resource independence, much less that sovereignty is compromised by engaging in trade with other nations.
You claimed that trade conferred sovereigntyCite me.
and I illustrated that it did not by reference to pimped prostitutes and indentured servants who trade their bodies and yet have not the sovereignty of personal dignity and disposal. You made an invalid argument, a false analogy. Indentured servants are legally obligated to obey their masters by virtue of a contractual obligation. Sovereign and independent nations like Japan and Germany are not.
The implication is that Germany has not sovereignty in a profoudly meaningful sense.One can prove anything with a false premise, in this case, your bogus definition of sovereignty.
Your non-responsiveness on the point disposes of it in my favor.On that contrary, you have made a ridiculous and unsupportable argument: that Germany does not have sovereignty in any profound sense and that the Japanese are slaves of the United States. I have cited the dozens of scholars to refute this a priori assertion. You have been disposed of on this point.
Collusion amongst vendors of a vital commodity in restraint of trade denies sovereignty to a customer and injures him.More accusations. Where have Canada and Ukraine colluded to deprive Germany of any vital commodity? Taking such a wild accusation for granted, where is your evidence that it has the slightest effect whatsoever on German sovereignty?
Elementary principle in ethics and law.Cite the legal principle.
. Conspiracy in restraint of trade is, in general, illegal or subject to regulation.Once again, where is your evidence of this conspiracy theory?
Such collusion would indeed heavily influence German foreign policy.Influencing German foreign policy is not an usurpation of German sovereignty.
That Germany trades in vital commodities evidences, in greater or lesser degree ("to the extent") rather than in absolute terms, the measure of its sovereignty and the surrender thereof. That is not evidence at all that Germany has surrendered an ounce of its sovereignty. You seem to be rather confused here. Sovereignty is simply the right of ultimate political decision. It has nothing whatsoever to do with resource independence.
You hope to make your point by characterizing the issue in terms of the stark alternatives of having or not having it. This is a simple matter of logic, not a contest as to the evidence.You have yet to provide the slightest shred of evidence to support your argument about sovereignty, much less any evidence that Germany has surrendered any part of its sovereignty to Canada or the Ukraine.
Where the parallel is more appropriate with regard to Rome and Carthage.I beg to differ.
The eventual revival of the overt Soviet UnionAbsolutely.
Putin and Gorbachev, and their political heirs, most prominently.Show me proof that Putin is involved in a Jewish conspiracy to revive the Soviet Union. I have checked out several sources just this evening about Putin's government. I haven't seen anything about any Jewish conspiracy.
The Communist "conspiracy" in the West would involve a long list of leading Jews, if that is what you'd like to see. I asked for names. Give me their names.
In terms of enduring policy, yes.LMAO.
And even were the Japanese to adopt an Assyrian policy, long term, their's would not be a "revolting despotism" by classical standards and certainly not as compared to the Communist regimes which represented the alternative.The Japanese did impose a revolting despotism upon the countries that fell under the heel of their guns. That is actually why Japan is the most despised nation in East Asia today, not China.
Where it is illegal to do so, yes.If it is legal for men to rape women, is it wrong to do so, NeoNietzsche?
The efforts were not staged, they were constrained - by the obvious necessity for the maintenance of a pretense which you agree characterizes the historic maneuvering of whatever element, Yankee or Jew, is held to be responsible for the policy.Please show us evidence of this massive conspiracy once and for all or have this argument dismissed.
Yes - and of course we cannot recommend mothers' milk for the health of little babies if one such as Lyndon LaRouche endorses it, now can we. Lyndon LaRouche also believes that the Queen of England controls the United States and that America is engaged in a genocidal conspiracy to kill black people in Sub-Saharan Africa, amongst other things. Quite interesting though how you seem to have co-opted his economic theories. Hasn't LaRouche been saying that the stock market was supposed to crash just about every year now since the 1970s?
You would discreditably employ a version of the old Marx-or-Hitler-endorsed-or-did-it argument to disparage, as below, the proper resort to physical economy in analysisLOL LaRouche was saying just last year that the crash of the DJIA was imminent because of the collapse of the U.S. 'physical economy' which was supposed to happen at any minute.
A contemptible reference and resort on your part, as explained above. How come? You are peddling the economic theories of Lyndon LaRouche on this forum. LaRouche is a nut case who believes the Queen of England controls the United States. I wonder if he believes the Soviet Union faked its own demise. It wouldn't surprise me.
Are you playing stupid or is this really a problem for you? I have a problem understanding how paper money does not possess value. Sorry. I never took lessons in economics from Lyndon LaRouche.
Jewing me a' la Hitler's description of that tactic isn't going to work. For the gallery, the point, yet again, was that such a purchase doesn't imply that the purchase can be picked up and taken home ("real estate, fixed capital, exports subject to regulation"), thus damaging the American economy by analogy with the microeconomic domestic model of creditor and debtor upon which Fade naively relies.Why didn't the U.S. nationalise Japanese assets for Japan's refusal to impose sanctions on Iran, NeoNietzsche?
Sounds like you learned your kindergarten lessons.I don't take lessons in economics from Lyndon LaRouche.
Time to grow up.LOL I am not the one here who reads Executive Intelligence Review, a more sophisticated version of the National Enquirer.
Most nations do take "what does not belong to them" at some point.Why doesn't America just take oil from other nations? Why bother paying for oil, NeoNietzsche?
To whom did and does North America belong, throughout its history, for example?I wasn't aware indian savages had any concept of sovereignty or public policy or international law. North America was 'free space' under international law in the Early Modern Era.

No, I didn't. Accepting the Barnett argument about LVM, I cited Finland as one in a long list of Soviet enormities with which the LVM elite allied itself in ostensibly inexplicable self-contradiction when comparing the war-criminal measures they took against Germany and their nugatory efforts against the Soviet horror. I then suggested that the ostensible difficulty is explained by the not-unfamiliar affinity of such melioristic fatuities for ignorance and indulgence of - and apology for - Communist activities and ideology.Yes, actually you did. But the gallery shouldn't take my word for it:

Brithammer: You cited Finland as an example to support your ridiculous argument and discredited claim that Barnett's argument about late Victorian moralism was false.
NeoNietzsche: No, I didn't
Brithammer: Let me refresh your memory.

1) Finland. . ."Late-Victorian altrusim," you say, sir, that was allied to and in aid of this element? But you say that they did not want to see? . . . Nah - must have been late-Victorian altruism, with its notorious blindness to Communist felonies and sensitivity to Fascist misdemeanors.
--NeoNietzsche

http://www.thephora.org/forum/showpost.php?p=31423&postcount=37
This was the very premise of my taking note of your pathetic attempt to portray the British as even-handed and principled.Notice how NeoNietzsche is now backtracking and retreating from his positions. He cited Finland in his earlier point in order to mock Barnett's claim that British foreign policy was motivated by late Victorian altruism. Now he is suggesting here that he accepts Barnett's argument (most likely because he cannot respond to the evidence I cited from Hart's essay).
Please pay attention when being instructed.You have yet to instruct anyone in this debate. Instead, you have made absurd claims on the basis of the dubious sources and conspiracy theories you are familiar with. I refuted these claims by citing the work of dozens of reputable scholars.
The case regarding my citation, as explained above, is to the contrary.I refreshed your memory above. So we will let the gallery be the judge. It is quite obvious that you cited Finland to mock my claim about altruism in British foreign policy. You were beaten on the point and now you have changed your position.
This issue has already been disposed of in my favor, as you confirm by returning to your unqualified original assertion.I haven't seen any issue in this debate disposed in your favour. On the contrary, I have posted an enormous amount of evidence from primary sources which show your claims to be ridiculous.
ADOYou never responded to this issue either. In fact, you claimed that the AJC was a Zionist organisation when the AJC was actually intent on obstructing the Zionists during the war. This is yet another point you lost in this debate.
22000 AFV (24000, according to some sources) would have put Stalin, rather than Hitler, on the Channel - with far more aircraft.ROFL do you actually think that the Soviet Union could have crossed the British Channel if Nazi Germany was unable to do so? The Royal Navy would tore such an operation to shreds.
Hitler knocked off France far more quickly than Stalin counted on, and Stalin was not ready to take advantage in time.Please cite your source that Stalin was preparing to invade and conquer Britain. Your accusations are only becoming more absurd as this debate progresses.
As the gallery can read, above, in red, I wrote "allied in spirit," with reference to the LVM.Britain was not allied to the Soviet Union, in fact or in spirit, NeoNietzsche. Neville Chamberlain despised the Soviet Union, as a matter of fact.
I call upon the youthful pedant to extend himself and distinguish that from diplomatic alliance.Please show us any evidence whatsoever that you have that Great Britain was allied with the Soviet Union during the 1930s, in fact or in spirit. You are flat out wrong on the issue, actually.
I'm suggesting that the very LVM upon which you rely in explanation of British motivation with regard to German activities accounts, as explained above, for "the not-unfamiliar affinity of such melioristic fatuities for ignorance and indulgence of - and apology for - Communist activities and ideology."You make a lot of accusations. You also fail to support them. This is yet another example.
It would, by an intellectually honest person, be taken as evidence of my objectivity. LMAO your objectivity? We will let the gallery be the judge of that. You employ no consistent objective methodology in making your arguments. You simply cite and dismiss scholars on the basis of your own ideological superstitions.
But your contrary reaction is equably noted.When is one justified in citing a source, NeoNietzsche?
Uh, no. He credits that element with financing it - giving, however, too much credit, to judge by the evidence provided by other sources.We will let the gallery be the judge of that:

http://www.freedomdomain.com/secretsocieties/suttoninterview.html
Is Epstein, for example, a pseudo-scholar, conspiracy theorist, crank or charlatan? Tell me on what page of Epstein's book does he mention the Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy.
Is Wright, the autobiographist and not monographist?His book is worthless. He has no documented evidence to support his allegations.
[What a ludicrous boo-boo that was in your expecting footnotes of a pure autobiographist - or were you just dishonestly playing to the gallery's ignorance of the contents?]I was expecting such accusations to be supported by some kind of evidence. I was disappointed to learn that I was mistaken, although not surprised, in light of your track record in this debate.

I will be graduating in December with a degree in Political Science (International Relations) along with a minor in economics. So I have every qualification to participate in this discussion, whereas you do not. And no, it is not 'pedantic' to ask you to cite your sources, especially when you repudiate the entire discipline of international relations and contemporary history.
1) So another Seminary graduate joins the work force.

2) Not that it reflects all that well upon me, but I already have a degree in History, BA with Honors, Summa Cum, Head of Class. I further have credit, acquired on Fellowship, toward a Ph.D in the History of Science, a non-bullshit discipline. I was a professional Graduate Assistant, instructing classes in various courses.

3) It's not pedantic to ask in the first instance, but it is in the second, when you've been instructed that the fact in question is a commonplace of knowledge, not subject to reasonable dispute (or to any contrary information of yours). [Nevertheless, I went back and found a source for you.]

Sure he [Hitler] was [complicit]. He had a formal alliance with Japan. I have also shown (quoting Rich) that he was entirely willing to acquiese in the destruction of Australia and New Zealand. He was quite blunt about it. As he himself put it, it meant for the white race the loss of an entire continent.
A regretable sacrifice to the larger cause. Hitler wanted the Japanese at the backs of the Soviets.

Cite the manifesto of the Communist Party. Show us where it was an official goal of the Communist Party to 'destroy civilisation'.
The immediate implication of Das Capital and other contributions, in their justification of class war, rationalization of the state as a mere instrument of bourgeois class oppression, the expectation of the "withering away of the state" upon the liquidation of the class enemy, and reliance upon "mysterious material forces of production" to provide sustenance amidst the subsequent anarchy, identify the Marxists as crypto-anarchists, i.e., destroyers of civilization.

What deity did the communists worship, if I may ask?
The god that blesses class war.

Whitaker Chambers broke with communism and became an anticommunist. So once again, tell us where in the manifesto of the Communist Party (or the Constitution of the Soviet Union for that matter) that it is a goal of communism to 'destroy civilisaton'.
You forgot to be responsive to the point by informing us that Chambers pertinently explores the motivation of Marxists/Communists.

False. There was an alternative that Adolf Hitler rejected in favour of war. Its called peace. There was absolutely no imperative whatsoever forcing him to wage an aggressive war of conquest.
ADO

This is also false. The British attempted to reason with Hitler for years, as I have shown in my initial posts in this thread, but Hitler was unreasonable and bent upon expanding East at the expense of his weaker Slavic neighbours.
ADO

There is no direct evidence of this at all. Joseph Kennedy was an antisemite and Anglophobe, so most scholars do not take this claim seriously.
"Scholars" such as are you, I trust would be your meaning.

Please cite the source of this nonsense.

http://edwardjayepstein.com/archived/looking.htm

Epstein:

=====================================

"Stephan De Mowbray handled his case there. Before his defection, Golitsyn had worked at KGB headquarters in the northern European espionage division, which included England. He had prepared his defection by memorizing English as well as French documents. Many of these came directly from the files of MI-5, the British equivalent of the FBI. For example, he quoted verbatim from a secret report on the breaking of a Soviet code by British intelligence. As it turned out, one of his interrogators had written the report. When he rechecked the "bigot list"-- which identifies all those with access to the report, he found that it had been circulated is to only the top executives officers of MI5. How then could have Golitsyn seen it in Moscow?

"The only answer was that one of these executives had provided the KGB with the report. The search for that tainted executive, which would continue for over a decade, began with the setting up of a secret unit, called innocuously "The Fluency Committee". The members included De Mowbray and six other counterintelligence officers drawn from both MI-6 and MI-5. Their sole job was determining who was the mole. As these investigators evaluated the clues from Golitsyn and other sources, they gradually eliminated most of the names on the Bigot list. There remained two prime suspects-- Sir Roger Hollis, the Director of MI-5, and his deputy,Graham Mitchell. Both were put under surveillance."

======================================

Describe in detail this "Judeo-Bolshevik" influence.
FDR was transformed into a Communist sympathizer by the Jews who surrounded him at home and at the office. A destitute Churchill was purchased for service by an ad hoc Jewish committee (the "Focus"). Anglo-American elite culture was increasingly characterized by Marxist/Communist sympathies for the (well-meaning but perhaps a little misguided) "social reformers" over there. You have already introduced the LVM airheads, whose symptoms we seasoned individuals recognize, into evidence.

I have Peter Wright's Spycatcher right here before my eyes. Flipping through the index I do not see a reference to 'Jew' or 'conspiracy' or 'Jew conspiracy' or 'Judeo-Bolshevik' or 'Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy'. So be a pal and point out to me on what page I can read about the 'Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy'. Even better, tell me why I should take what is said in this book with anything but a grain of salt. There is not a single footnote in this entire book.
1) Read the part about Victor and Tess Rothschild, the Venona decrypts and Golitsyn's evaluation of the situation, who placed Wright under Victor's supervision, who the Rothschild's intimate associates were, and see if you can figure out what was and is going on.

2) Because the PM of the UK, understandably in terms of its damaging revelations by a responsible former deputy director of MI5, tried desperately to suppress it.

3) And how many pure autobiographies has our budding prostitute found adorned with footnotes?

The British did not deliver up the Baltic states to Stalin on a silver platter like your hero Adolf Hitler did. The Soviet Union was also an enemy of Great Britain throughout the Cold War.
May the gods grant me an "enemy" such as had the SU in the British.

The British made common cause with the Soviets because the Soviet Union also became embroiled in war with Nazi Germany, not because Great Britain had any real fondness of the Soviet Union.
British principles and interest should then have caused them to desist in the effort against Germany.

The Soviet Union never 'enslaved' the Slavs. That is ridiculous. Slavery is the legal ownership of other human beings.
OK - The SU illegally enslaved the Slavs.

NN

OK - The SU illegally enslaved the Slavs.That's nonsense. No one was ever a slave (the property of another human being) in the Soviet Union.
"Scholars" such as are you, I trust would be your meaning.No. Scholars generally. I have never seen a single reference to this in The Neville Chamberlain Diary Letters.
The god that blesses class war.There is no 'god' that blesses class war. This yet another ahistorical invention of NeoNietzsche.
You forgot to be responsive to the point by informing us that Chambers pertinently explores the motivation of Marxists/Communists. You didn't make a point. You cited a polemic against Communism that was written by a former communist who became an anticommunist.
ADO ADO ADOI take it that these are points you have already conceded in this debate.
http://edwardjayepstein.com/archived/looking.htmOnce again, no footnotes.
FDR was transformed into a Communist sympathizer by the Jews who surrounded him at home and at the office. This is a pretty startling accusation. Not unusual for you. Perhaps you should consider supporting it for once with documented evidence from reputable scholars.
A destitute Churchill was purchased for service by an ad hoc Jewish committee (the "Focus").I have never seen any evidence that Churchill was 'purchased' by The Focus. Churchill had a sincere dislike of Nazism.
Anglo-American elite culture was increasingly characterized by Marxist/Communist sympathies for the (well-meaning but perhaps a little misguided) "social reformers" over there.Another unsupported accusation.
You have already introduced the LVM airheads, whose symptoms we seasoned individuals recognize, into evidence.Please point out a single excerpt that I posted from either the memoirs of Lord Halifax or Correlli Barnett that posit some sort of sympathy for Communism.
British principles and interest should then have caused them to desist in the effort against Germany.That's nonsense. Here you are once again projecting your own interpretations upon others. Nazi Germany was run by murderous cut throats who repudiated everything the Victorian moralists stood for. Furthermore, the British Foreign Office came to the conclusion that Hitler was an out of control fanatic who could not be reasoned with, a danger to Great Britain.
1) Read the part about Victor and Tess Rothschild, the Venona decrypts and Golitsyn's evaluation of the situation, who placed Wright under Victor's supervision, who the Rothschild's intimate associates were, and see if you can figure out what was and is going on.I want the specific page number where I can read about, and I quote, the 'Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy'.
2) Because the PM of the UK, understandably in terms of its damaging revelations by a responsible former deputy director of MI5, tried desperately to suppress it.According to who?
3) And how many pure autobiographies has our budding prostitute found adorned with footnotes?The vast majority that I have read, especially those that make such wild accusations.
A regretable sacrifice to the larger cause.What cause was this? National chauvinism?
Hitler wanted the Japanese at the backs of the Soviets.For he could more easily put down the racially inferior Slavs and steal their land.
The immediate implication of Das Capital and other contributions in their justification of class war, rationalization of the state as a mere instrument of bourgeois class oppression, the expectation of the "withering away of the state" upon the liquidation of the class enemy, and reliance upon "mysterious material forces of production" to provide sustenance amidst the subsequent anarchy, identify the Marxists as crypto-anarchists, i.e., destroyers of civilization.NeoNietzsche fluffs up his non sequitur here. There is nothing in the Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital about destroying civilisation. That is simply an erroneous extrapolation by NeoNietzsche.
1) So another Seminary graduate joins the work force.I don't rely upon articles of faith, pseudoscholarship, or laughable conspiracy theories to make my arguments.
2) Not that it reflects all that well upon me, but I already have a degree in History, BA with Honors, Summa Cum, Head of Class. I further have credit, acquired on Fellowship, toward a Ph.D in the History of Science, a non-bullshit discipline. I was a professional Graduate Assistant, instructing classes in various courses.Do the gallery a favour and upload a photograph of your degree.
3) It's not pedantic to ask in the first instance, but it is in the second, when you've been instructed that the fact in question is a commonplace of knowledge, not subject to reasonable dispute (or to any contrary information of yours). [Nevertheless, I went back and found a source for you.]You have yet to instruct anyone in this debate.

Nonsense. NeoNietzsche is attempting to sell a bogus definition of sovereignty to the gallery. With a false premise one can prove anything. Here is a real definition of sovereignty, one commonly accepted by political theorists.
A definition implicitly agreed upon by exhaustive mooting in the given terms has shown Fade's argument to be defective. He continues boldly to misrepresent (lie about) the issue, if he is not simply stupid as to the understanding of the character of "definition".


-- NeoNietzsche
"But you do not prove this by pointing out that autarky is not necessary to survival."
--NeoNietzsche

"It is not incumbent upon me to prove a negative. That is ridiculous and illogical. You have argued that autarky is necessary for survival, not me. The burden of proof rests upon your shoulders, not mine."
--FadeTheButcher
This is becoming laughable, in Fade's incredible refusal to understand that he quotes me conceding, indeed insisting, that his "pointing-out" is correct - but is the premise of a false conclusion. He has already been emphatically corrected on the point, and I must thus consider myself once again Jewed at his hand.

Your problem is that your entire argument turns on a bogus definition of sovereignty which you have plucked straight out of the sky. One does not surrender one's sovereignty by engaging in trade. That is ridiculous. Read up on the concept of sovereignty before you give lectures to others.
ADO

Why is NeoNietzsche echoing the 'Judeo-Bolshevik' propaganda of Franklin Roosevelt?

"Roosevelt himself revealed his indifference to MacLeish's "strategy of truth." In a fireside chat on February 23, 1942, he solemnly assured the American people that "your government has unmistakable confidence in your ability to hear the worst, without flinching or losing heart." He then proceeded to minimize American losses at Pearl Harbor. Instead of admitting the Japanese had sunk six battleships and damaged two others, plus three cruisers and two destroyers, FDR claimed "only three ships" had been permanently put out of commission."
FDR already had his declarations of war - he was conventionally trying to discourage, as he says, "flinching or losing heart" in the pursuit of his war for the Soviet.

NeoNietzsche seems to have forgotten that Congress, not the President of the United States, is invested with the authority to declare war. FDR was well aware of this. That is why he had to wait for Japan to attack the United States in order to enter the war. So the U.S. really wasn't much of a threat to Japan at all prior to Pearl Harbor. Up until Pearl Harbor the American people were firmly antiwar.
FDR led the Japanese to believe in the threat - and Presidents conduct secret diplomacy, provocations, and acts of war [i]without authority,as did FDR quite flagrantly.

Now you are setting up a strawman argument. I never accepted your definition of sovereignty in the first place.
You debated the point as if accepted - and lost. Now you understandably want to change the terms of the discussion.

You made an illogical argument, one that you have not supported with the slightest shred of empirical evidence. You say Germany is a satellite of the United States. How is this possible if Germany has an independent foreign policy, one that often obstructs U.S. interests? Better yet, where is your evidence? That's right. You don't have any.
ADO

Satellites do not pursue independent foreign policies. Japan does. Thus your bogus argument has been empirically refuted.
Japan does not pursue an independent foreign policy in other than trivial respects. Part of the pretense.

I don't see anything in here about Japanese slaves.
Because "scholars" such as are you are paid to offer acceptable product by the Jew-manipulated/directed foundations which subsidize virtually all foreign policy study in America.

You have just refuted your own argument: Japan's economic power is more than a balance for American military power.
I think I can rest my case that you're an utter intellectual incompetent at this point.

BREAKING NEWS! Civilised societies abandoned barter centuries ago for more advanced financial instruments and economic systems. NeoNietzsche and Lyndon LaRouche say otherwise!
Fade's lack of instruction becomes pathetically evident when he confuses physical economy with barter.

Okay. Japan's loss in World War 2 convinced Japan that Japan's interests would be better served through peaceful expansion via trade with other nations. Thus Japan no longer pursues a militant foreign policy.
Japan had no alternative - there was, of course, no deliberation such as "convinced" the Japanese.

What an amazing ad hominem retort from NeoNietzsche! Scribblers! Ellis S. Krauss is a Professor of Japanese Politics and Policy Making at the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, University of California, San Diego. T.J. Pempel is Director of the Institute of East Asian Studies and Il Han New Professor of Asian Studies and Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. Perhaps someone should email these scholars for they can take notes from NeoNietzsche about his unsubstantiated Stone Age theory of international relations.
If we take it that you are a "scholar" such as these, referring to them as "scribblers" is mild reproach.

Civilisation -- Cultural or intellectual refinement; good taste; An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions. Civilised nations do not operate on the basis of brute force.
Of course they do - more often than not.

In which Japan makes enormous profits at America's expense.
Which are numbers in computers, on balance, not goods and services.

The Japanese are not being 'exploited' because they take our currency in exchange for their goods. No one forces them to accept our currency, NeoNietzsche. They trade with us because it is enormously profitable for them to do so. They invest their money here for they can make more money. They use this money to buy hard American assets.
They trade for currency to purchase, from areas not within their own domain as was their intention, resources upon which they are vitally dependent. They refuse much possible profitable trade and protect much domestic industry for the same reason. They buy "hard" American assets in order to generate more paper with which to plaintively purchase those resources which they can easily be denied by American or other forces. Their exploitation, as already explained to an inapt student, is evidenced by the imbalance in the balance-of-trade.

You have yet to explain what incentive the United States would have to nationalise Asian assets.
It has already been explained, to an inapt student, as the implication of said student's hypothetical dumping of Asian-held American dollars in putative demonstration of Asian sovereignty with respect to the US. [BTW, we are here illustrating, en passant, the implicit acceptance, in the long-running mooting of the point, of the notion of "sovereignty" in politico-economic terms. Fade now wants to pretend that all this was "bogus" on mere terminological, "definitional," grounds.

Why didn't the U.S. nationalise Japanese assets when Japan refused to impose sanctions on Iran?
ADO

I never took lessons in economics from the likes of Lyndon LaRouche, although it would appear you have.
Which is the measure of your judgment and comprehension, since I haven't. It is, rather, telling of the limitations of your instruction, that you regard LaRouche as having some proprietary association with the concepts of physical economy.

NN

His [Wright's] 'first-hand account' is utterly worthless. He does not present a shred of documented evidence to support his claims, not a single footnote in the entire book. So we have utterly no way of independently verifying his claims by pursuing his sources.
Wright is the source. His is the original document.

And while we are on the subject of Wright, perhaps you could point out the exact page number in Spycatcher where he discusses the 'Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy'. I don't see anything about a 'Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy' in Spycatcher. This seems to be yet another delusion you are trying to spin onto the gallery.
Wright is a primary resource, not a secondary commentator and theorist. You evidence having studied bullshit rather than a discipline that requires even a modicum of epistemological sophistication.

Who are you to call anyone incompetant? I am a political scientist. You are not.
I am not a bullshit artist. You are.

Your pathetic definition of sovereignty has no basis whatsoever, either in political theory or international relations, just as your absurd conspiracy theory has no basis in history or scholarship.
ADO

You were the one who has been exposed here. Your absurd conspiracy theory comes from a discredited charlatan.
"Discredited" by your vacuous reviewer-to-the-pseudo-sophisticate.

On the contrary, you are the one here who has changed the definition. Please give us the name of the scholars who accept your definition of sovereignty.
For purposes of argument, Fade the Butcher (also known by various pseudonyms).

NN

A definition implicitly agreed upon by exhaustive mooting in the given terms has shown Fade's argument to be defective.Now NeoNietzsche has resorted to distorting the record. Nowhere did I implicitly agree to his definition of sovereignty. Actually, I emphatically and explicitly rejected it, as the gallery can see. In its place, I gave the gallery a definition of sovereignty commonly accepted and used by political scientists.
He continues boldly to misrepresent (lie about) the issue, if he is not simply stupid as to the understanding of the character of "definition".Explain how I have 'misrepresented' the issue. You argue that the definition of sovereignty was 'implicitly agreed upon'. This makes no sense whatsoever. I rejected your definition of sovereignty and provided the gallery with one of my own (which I took from an international relations journal). Notice how NeoNietzsche yet again offers absolutely no response whatsoever to the material I take my time to post, mostly for his own benefit.
This is becoming laughable, in Fade's incredible refusal to understand that he quotes me conceding, indeed insisting, that his "pointing-out" is correct - but is the premise of a false conclusion. Here NeoNietzsche makes the illogical argument that I should prove a negative:

"But you do not prove this by pointing out that autarky is not necessary to survival."
--NeoNietzsche

IMHO NeoNietzsche should brush up on his logic before lecturing others about it.
He has already been emphatically corrected on the point, and I must thus consider myself once again Jewed at his hand.Actually, it was just the other way around. You responded to my post. Then I responded to your post and pointed out your own words to the gallery. And now you have no response, other than to waste the gallery's time by pointing out you responded previously. We see NeoNietzsche is being nonresponsive. :p
Speaking of stunts, it sure is interesting how NeoNietzsche self-anointed himself judge of what points have been dispensed with in this debate (in his favour, of course).
ADOAnother nonresponse to the scholars ('scribblers', as NeoNietzsche calls them)I have cited.
FDR already had his declarations of war - he was conventionally trying to discourage, as he says, "flinching or losing heart" in the pursuit of his war for the Soviet.NeoNietzsche makes another unsubstantiated accusation, this time that Roosevelt was pursuing a war against the Axis powers 'for the Soviet'. That the United States of America was attacked at Pearl Harbor by Imperial Japan and that Adolf Hitler declared war on the United States of America doesn't seem to figure into NeoNietzsche's equation.
FDR led the Japanese to believe in the threat - and Presidents conduct secret diplomacy, provocations, and acts of war [i]without authority,as did FDR quite flagrantly.We are not discussing whether the Japanese believed that Roosevelt was a threat, NeoNietzsche. We are discussing whether or not America was a threat to Japan. And this is obviously not the case, for it took an all out attack on American territory by Japan to nudge Congress into declaring war. Antiwar sentiment was that strong in America, as Thomas Fleming eloquently points out. Fleming also points out that FDR did not think he could get into the war if the Japanese attacked British possessions in Southeast Asia.
You debated the point as if accepted - and lost. This is false. You argued above that I implicitly accepted the definition (e.g., I never explicitly stated that I did). What you are actually doing here is misrepresenting my position, in a rather crude attempt to dig yourself out of the hole you have buried yourself in with your own bogus definition of sovereignty (as I have demonstrated).
Now you understandably want to change the terms of the discussion.I haven't tried to 'change the terms' of the discussion at all. Actually, you simply misinterpreted my argument and now you have descended to the level of putting words in my mouth, even when I never took such positions.
ADONeoNietzsche once again opts out of responding to the voluminous scholarship that I cited above which handsomely refutes his argument.
I think I can rest my case that you're an utter intellectual incompetent at this point.Those are some bold words coming from someone who conceded the point. I pointed out to you that Japan has been doing business with Iran, in spite of U.S. sanctions. Then I asked you why the U.S. did not blockade Japan, along the lines of your laughable enslaved Japan theory. You responded by pointing out that if the U.S. imposed a blockaded Japan, then the U.S. would suffer too much economically. You thus demonstrated that Japan's economic weight could balance U.S. military power. So review your own points before you misrepresent and attack others.
Japan does not pursue an independent foreign policy in other than trivial respects. Part of the pretense.And your source for this is? Here are my sources which refute your claim, sorry the 'scriblers', as you call them. :|

1.) Ming Zhang and Ronald N. Montaperto, A Triad of Another Kind: The United States, China, and Japan (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999)
2.) Yoichi Funabashi, Alliance Adrift (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1999)
3.) A Cold Peace: America, Japan, Germany and the Struggle for Supremacy (Toronto: Random House, 19993)
4.) Ellis S. Krauss and T.J. Pempel, Beyond Bilateralism: U.S.-Japan Relations in the New Asia-Pacific (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004)

Hmm. Nothing about Japanese slaves in here, a lot of information that utterly refutes your argument though. I await your next non-response, your next arrogant, nonchalant, and irrational dismissal of such meticulous professional studies of the U.S.-Japanese strategic alliance. :|
Because "scholars" such as are you are paid to offer acceptable product by the Jew-manipulated/directed foundations which subsidize virtually all foreign policy study in America.Note to self: When all else fails, follow the example of wintermute and make baseless and unsubstantiated accusations of Jewish conspiracies. Mix with pseudoscholarship, logical fallacies, and essays from charlatans like Lyndon La Rouche hosted on crackpot internet websites. Rinse. Repeat. :p
[/quote]
Is that Lyndon LaRouche speaking? Sure sounds like it.

LaRouche PAC has just printed a first run of 200,000 copies of a 32 page pamphlet, "It's the Physical Economy, Stupid!". By now, this pamphlet is in the hands of LaRouche Youth Movement organizers in Ohio and other swing states, as part of a massive mobilization, directed by Lyndon LaRouche, to defeat Bush-Cheney and put John Kerry in the White House. More than one million copies of this pamphlet will be circulating across the nation by the time the election is held on November 2.

http://www.nex.net.au/users/reidgck/LL-PHYSIC.HTM

Who is Lyndon LaRouche?

"Rather than punchy campaign themes, LaRouche likes to use phrases such as "reforming the floating exchange rate monetary system" on the campaign trail.
Some of his past proposals have included a quarantine of AIDS victims and the colonization of Mars. He has charged that Queen Elizabeth II is a drug dealer, and that Henry Kissinger and Walter Mondale are Soviet agents."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/02/politics/main552063.shtml

A high school graduate, and a repeated college attendee, LaRouche calls himself a "world's leading economist". His conspiracy theories have implicated Queen Elizabeth, "British bankers," the Pope, narcotics producers, Jesuits, Yale University's Skull & Crossbones Society, environmentalists, and many others. Originally a Trotskyite political organizer in the Socialist Workers Party in the 1960s, he formed the now-defunct and neo-fascist US Labor Party, then registered as a Democratic in 1979. LaRouche was convicted and imprisoned on felony fraud charges in the late 1980s related to the fundraising activities of his political organization.

http://selectsmart.com/president/LaRouche.html
If we take it that you are a "scholar" such as these, referring to them as "scribblers" is mild reproach.NeoNietzsche describes the following scholars as 'scribblers', pawns to the all-powerful ZOG. The gallery should make a note of this:

"Ellis S. Krauss is a Professor of Japanese Politics and Policy Making at the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, University of California, San Diego. T.J. Pempel is Director of the Institute of East Asian Studies and Il Han New Professor of Asian Studies and Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley."
Japan had no alternative - there was, of course, no deliberation such as "convinced" the Japanese.More unsubstantiated accusations. Where are your sources? I have not had any problem citing mine? Oh wait. I forgot. ZOG controls them all. :(
Of course they do - more often than not.I am not seeing it.
Which are numbers in computers, on balance, not goods and services.NeoNietzsche does not seem to be familiar with the concept of credit. You see, one can use credit to purchase goods and services, NeoNietzsche.
They trade for currency to purchase, from areas not within their own domain as was their intention, resources upon which they are vitally dependent.Yes. Japan is an industrial society and uses the money it makes off manafacturing to purchase raw materials and agricultural products. Does this make Japan a satellite of the Congo? I don't think so.
They refuse much possible profitable trade and protect much domestic industry for the same reason.Japan protects its domestic industry because it is profitable for Japan to do so, not because of any absurd conspiracy.
They buy "hard" American assets in order to generate more paper with which to plaintively purchase those resources which they can easily be denied by American or other forces. NeoNietzsche argues here that the raw materials that Japan purchases from other nations can 'easily be denied' by the United States. Actually NeoNietzsche is mistaken. If the U.S. did blockade Japan, then the U.S. would would lose countless billions of dollars in trade. It would not be 'easy' for the United States at all. It is, in fact, politically inconcievable. Furthermore, his accusations about Japanese slaves have no basis whatsoever in the literature on the issue. NeoNietzsche argues that such scholars are under the control of a Jew conspiracy. He provides no evidence to this effect.
Their exploitation, as already explained to an inapt student, is evidenced by the imbalance in the balance-of-trade.LMAO you call me an inept student when you give credence to the absurd economic theories of a charlatan like Lyndon LaRouche?
It has already been explained, to an inapt student, as the implication of said student's hypothetical dumping of Asian-held American dollars in putative demonstration of Asian sovereignty with respect to the US.NeoNietzsche did not give an explanation at all. He simply made another baseless accusation which has yet to support with any credible evidence. On the other hand, I have cited six scholars in this response above, with professional expertise in U.S.-Japanese relations, which utterly refute his ridiculous and ignorant argument about the U.S.-Japanese strategic partnership.
[BTW, we are here illustrating, en passant, the implicit acceptance, in the long-running mooting of the point, of the notion of "sovereignty" in politico-economic terms. You are not 'illustrating' any 'implicit acceptance' of your definition of sovereignty on my part. On the contrary, you are once again deliberately misrepresenting my argument.
Fade now wants to pretend that all this was "bogus" on mere terminological, "definitional," grounds.NeoNietzsche continues to put words and my mouth and suggest to the gallery that I made arguments that I never made. He argues that I accepted his definition of sovereignty. A reasonable person should expect NeoNietzsche to point out where I did so. Of course, he cannot, because I never accepted his definition in the first place. I explicitly rejected it, numerous times.
ADONeoNietzsche concedes the point.
Which is the measure of your judgment and comprehension, since I haven't.It's the physical economy, stupid. :p
It is, rather, telling of the limitations of your instruction, that you regard LaRouche as having some proprietary association with the concepts of physical economy.Why can't NeoNietzsche simply admit that he plagarised LaRouche's theory of physical economy and presented it as his own in this debate? Perhaps it is because LaRouche is a nut case conspiracy theorist who believes the Queen of England is a drug dealer who controls the United States?

What an amazing retort by NeoNietzsche. I was hoping to finally see NeoNietzsche cite something of substance in this debate to support his case. I suspect we will just have to keep waiting. In the meantime, here is something I found today for his benefit:

For a realist, radical systemic change can come only with war, hence it is often claimed that realism is of no use in explaining the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. It is most common also to state that the Soviet Union imploded due to a failure in the economy. The critique of realism is only partly fair, and the economic explanation for the USSR's demise is not the whole of the matter. The Cold War was a war: it was a war of ideas, of opposing, competing systems -- according to Fred Halliday, it was an "inter-systemic war." As with all wars, there are winners and losers, and in this case the Soviet Union was the loser. The economic explanation cannot suffice, for other states have suffered much worse economic crisis and, albeit with difficulty and threats to stability, have pulled through. Why should economic crises threaten the territorial integrity of the state from within? The Soviet economy was in a mess, but not such that it would have prevented from muddling along for many more years. Unemployment was still practically non-existent, and most people had roofs over their heads and food on their tables.

The Soviet Union collapsed because it lost the Cold War. Its identity and legitimacy were linked to a competition with the West. Yet by the 1980s it had become clear to the party leadership that it could not keep up the competition."

Peter Shearman (ed.), Russian Foreign Policy Since 1990 (Boulder: Westview Press, 1995)
1) The SU did not "implode" - it was dismantled by Gorbachev, under pressure of no necessity, with decades of life left in the old girl.

2) The Soviet economy was in a state of chronic, rarely-relieved, "failure" throughout its existence - and thus accounts for nothing as a "failure".

3) There was no consistent ideological point on which the SU "lost," in their terms.

4) So the author resorts to mere blather in repetition of the original observation (they lost the Cold War), thus nullifying, a' la Fade, his own argument.

Yes, since the advanced facilities (as in WWII German and present-day Western facilities), against which commando tactics are unusually effective, were not characteristic of the rebel positions. Consulting your source did not compensate you for your characteristic ignorance of such matters.

Another amazing retort by NeoNietzsche. Once again, the gallery sees that NeoNietzsche is free to dismiss all evidence whatsoever that conflicts with his own paranoid ideology.
I think we are supposed to take this as a contradiction my characterization of the rebel positions, without holding the weasel, Fade, to it as such - since he didn't exactly say it.

I traced NeoNietzsche's 'source' to this website:

http://www.homelandsecurityus.net/

Jill St.Claire's Homeland SecurityUS.net. This was posted at Jeff Rense's website. There are all sorts of stories about UFOs on there as well. His other source is Sam Cohen. That sounds like a Jewish name, oddly enough. More on Cohen's claims here:

"Cohen said that when U.N. inspectors went to Iraq to examine the Iraqis' nuclear weapons capabilities, the U.N. team found documents showing that they had purchased quantities of red mercury. The material means a neutron bomb can be built "the size of baseball" but able to kill everyone within several square blocks."

So here we have a Jew arguing that Saddam possessed material he could use to create Weapons of Mass Destruction. Funny how the U.S. military never found any of this. Very interesting how George W. Bush hasn't said a word about this either, even in the midst of such a tight election. Once again we see NeoNietzsche relying upon dubious sources in order to make ridiculous arguments.
The Iraqis are so stupid that they can't take a little powder outdoors in a remote area and let the wind dispose of it.

Who says that his predictions have been 94% accurate? Please tell us.
Do you not have at your disposal the absolutely vital (and non-vacuous, non-pseudo-sophisticate) denunciation of this published contention? If Golitsyn proves 94% accurate in his predictions of major events, he is emphatically vindicated, and your ignorance of his work is inexcusable in view of its implications.

Glad you mention that review of the book - with which we may take the measure of your critical faculties.

It demonstrates that scholars have reviewed (and dismissed) his scaremongering bile.
Thank you for making my point about you and your "scholars" in general, by associating them with, as is immediately evident upon examination, a vacuous and pseudo-sophisticate hatchet job on Golitsyn. Keep it coming.

He dismisses Golitsyn's wild claims because they are grossly out of touch with the comparative evidence amassed by reputable scholars in the field. He is a delusional nutcase and no one takes him seriously. You say that his claims sent the CIA into an uproar. Where is your evidence of this?
Multiple PBS/Nova/"Frontline" documentaries on the well-known fact, aside from the listed works and passing references in the literature all over the place. Your ignorance would continue to astound but for the performance you have put on here already. Are you not, at long last, beginning to get the idea that you have been systematically deceived?

Sure it does. It demonstrates that scholars and professionals in reputable academic publications have reviewed his ridiculous conspiracy theory and dismissed it for the garbage that it is.
Where are your ready-to-hand quotations of them in substantial refutation of Golitsyn regarding these absolutely vital matters of which you should long have been aware.

The reviewer points out that the only people who take such a charlatan seriously are quacks on the right-wing fringe. An astute analysis, I might add. I cite a book review of NeoNietzsche's source in a professional political science journal. NeoNietzsche charges (LOL!) that this displays my 'incompet[e]nce'. On the other hand, he continues to cite worthless internet websites like Jill St.Claire's Homeland SecurityUS.net. I cite over a dozen reputable scholars and professionals in political theory and international relations who refute NeoNietzsche's ridiculous accusations. NeoNietzsche retorts by calling them 'scribblers'. What sort of sources does NeoNietzsche rely upon: discredited charlatans, books without footnotes, quack websites on the internet. What is the point, can someone tell me, of pursuing this debate any further? How can one argue with an individual about topics in international relations when he dismisses the entire field on the basis of a conspiracy theory?
Incompetently, since he is correct in so doing.

NN

Wright is the source. His is the original document.He has no documented evidence to support his claims. His claims cannot be independently verified. Thus there is little reason to take him seriously.
I am not a bullshit artist. You are.Did I mention that I am a Freemason and a member of the New World Order? :p
For purposes of argument, Fade the Butcher (also known by various pseudonyms).Point out to the gallery where I accepted your definition of sovereignty. I can cite myself explicitly stating otherwise on numerous occasions.
Wright is a primary resource, not a secondary commentator and theorist. Duh! We know that. I asked you we could find 'Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy' in the book. I don't see it.
You evidence having studied bullshit rather than a discipline that requires even a modicum of epistemological sophistication.What sort of epistemological discipline have you employed in this debate, NeoNietzsche? What sort of consistent methodology have you used? You dismiss all the scholars I have cited as being under the thumb of this massive international Jewish conspiracy. This same conspiracy, of course, precludes all of your own sources. Interesting how NeoNietzsche's own personal ideology so strongly correlates with the claims he chooses to cite.
Discredited" by your vacuous reviewer-to-the-pseudo-sophisticate. Was he also a pawn of the Jewish conspiracy? :p

1) The SU did not "implode" - it was dismantled by Gorbachev, under pressure of no necessity, with decades of life left in the old girl.Nonsense. In addition to ALL of the sources that I have previously cited, I also refer the gallery to:

1.)David Pryce-Jones, The War That Never Was: The Fall of the Soviet Empire, 1985-1991 (London: Phoenix Press, 2001)
2.) Brian Crozier, The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire (Rocklin: Prima Publishing, 1999)

I also refer the gallery back once again to Peter Shearman's Russian Foreign Policy Since 1990. The gallery can clearly see that yet again NeoNietzsche is nonresponsive. He simply regurgitates the discredited claims that were made above.
2) The Soviet economy was in a state of chronic, rarely-relieved, "failure" throughout its existence - and thus accounts for nothing as a "failure".This is even more bullshit. You do not even have a clue as to what you are talking about. For detailed statistical analyses of the Soviet economy from 1945 until its collapse see:

1.) Geoffrey and Nigel Swain, Eastern Europe Since 1945 (New York: Palgrave, 2001)
2.) Adrian Karatnycky, Alexander Motyl, and Amanda Schnetzer, Nations in Transit: Democratization in East Central Europe and Eurasia (New York: Freedom House, 2003)

I actually studied this issue in depth in the spring during my Eastern European Politics class.
3) There was no consistent ideological point on which the SU "lost," in their terms.Umm. The Soviet Union dissolved itself and abandoned communism. :/
4) So the author resorts to mere blather in repetition of the original observation (they lost the Cold War), thus nullifying, a' la Fade, his own argument.They did lose the Cold War. And how, pray tell, does that 'nullify' my argument. I am not the one here that has suggested the Soviet Union faked its own demise.
I think we are supposed to take this as a contradiction my characterization of the rebel positions, without holding the weasel, Fade, to it as such - since he didn't exactly say it.NeoNietzsche makes yet another non-response to the source I cited which refuted his claims about the war in Afghanistan. Oh wait. I suppose the Soviet Union faked its own loss there too!
The Iraqis are so stupid that they can't take a little powder outdoors in a remote area and let the wind dispose of it.Answer my question: did Saddam Hussein possess materials which he could have used to make Weapons of Mass Destruction? ROFL your own source argues that he did. So if you stand by your source, then it must logically follow, from your vantagepoint, that Bush was correct in his assessment of Saddam Hussein!
Do you not have at your disposal the absolutely vital (and non-vacuous, non-pseudo-sophisticate) denunciation of this published contention? Who published the contention that his predictions have been 94% accurate?
If Golitsyn proves 94% accurate in his predictions of major events, he is emphatically vindicated, and your ignorance of his work is inexcusable in view of its implications.Once again, who is the source that he has been 94% accurate in his predictions? Better yet, how did they arrive at such a measure?
Thank you for making my point about you and your "scholars" in general, by associating them with, as is immediately evident upon examination, a vacuous and pseudo-sophisticate hatchet job on Golitsyn. Keep it coming.LMAO. No problem. Your source was exposed as a charlatan in a professional political science journal and his accusations were summarily dismissed. Thus the basis of NeoNietzsche's entire argument has collapsed. Or has it?

whispers

It is just a ZOG hatchet job. The New World Order cannot let this information get out.
Multiple PBS/Nova/"Frontline" documentaries on the well-known fact, aside from the listed works and passing references in the literature all over the place.Lets see you link us to the multiple PBS/NOVA/"Frontline" documentaries. Point out to us where the "Judeo-Bolshevik" conspiracy was exposed by the media? Oh wait. I thought the Jews controlled that. Hey, maybe they are just covering their own tracks again! Fucking Jews. They are always thinking 100 steps ahead! LMAO.
Your ignorance would continue to astound but for the performance you have put on here already.Yes. I am ignorant of the enslavement of the Japanese by the Americans. I am also ignorant of the fact that the Soviet Union faked its own demise. Whereas pretty much the entire world has come to just the opposite conclusion, including the CIA and NSA, you alone are in possession of the truth! To hell with what all those 'scribblers' say! They are just pawns of the international Jew conspiracy!
Where are your ready-to-hand quotations of them in substantial refutation of Golitsyn regarding these absolutely vital matters of which you should long have been aware.We have already dispensed with Golitsyn. As the book review pointed out, only nut case conspiracy theorists on the fringes of the far right take him seriously. He defected from the Soviet Union in 1961. Thus he played no role in the demise of the Soviet Union itself, so he is not an authority on the subject, by any standard.
Incompetently, since he is correct in so doing.Another nonresponse. I suppose we can expect more.

My analogy to rape dealt with the actions of Nazi Germany.
Thus selectively, rather than in principle, and so illustrating your prejudice and hypocrisy

I think rape should be prohibited myself. I have no problem going on the record with that.
Then, by your own analogy, war should be outlawed - but you have explicitly refused to endorse that measure - once again evidencing your characteristic hypocrisy and self-contradiction.

Sovereignty is not politico-economic resource independence.
You agreed that it was for the sake of argument.

Cite me.
In view of your inaptness, I am not motivated to trace the matter back that far. Nevertheless, I understand your position to be that trade in vital resources does not diminish sovereignty in the meaningful terms adopted for the discussion.

You made an invalid argument, a false analogy. Indentured servants are legally obligated to obey their masters by virtue of a contractual obligation. Sovereign and independent nations like Japan and Germany are not.
Legality is not the issue - disposal over one's vital circumstance is.

More accusations. Where have Canada and Ukraine colluded to deprive Germany of any vital commodity?
In imaginative illustration of the potential for the denial of sovereignty.

Cite the legal principle.
As mentioned in the previous post, "Conspiracy in restraint of trade is, in general, illegal or subject to regulation."

Influencing German foreign policy is not an usurpation of German sovereignty.
Whatever you want to call it, where access to vital national resources is in jeopardy, the nation in question has an aggressive interest in rectifying that circumstance, as had Germany, and as is the point.

That is not evidence at all that Germany has surrendered an ounce of its sovereignty. You seem to be rather confused here. Sovereignty is simply the right of ultimate political decision. It has nothing whatsoever to do with resource independence.
Fine. Re-label the concept under discussion - you have still lost on the merits.

Show me proof that Putin is involved in a Jewish conspiracy to revive the Soviet Union. I have checked out several sources just this evening about Putin's government. I haven't seen anything about any Jewish conspiracy.
Show me proof that I said that Putin is involved in a Communist [The term should be "Jewish" - now that my error has been brought to my attention] conspiracy. I do not believe that he is.

I asked for names. Give me their names.
Have you read Behind Communism? I suspect not, given your intellectual insularity.

The Japanese did impose a revolting despotism upon the countries that fell under the heel of their guns. That is actually why Japan is the most despised nation in East Asia today, not China.
Your ignorance of comparative history showing again. Imperial powers throughout history have, understandably, been so regarded by their captives. Genuinely sophisticated individuals, as opposed to bourgeois bumpkins, anarchists, libertarians, and other intellectual provincials, admire rather than disparage such regimes for their elevation of culture, subsidized by the conscription and tribute of the conquered.

If it is legal for men to rape women, is it wrong to do so, NeoNietzsche?
It may be contra-indicated in certain circumstances, but, as an absolute rule, it is not wrong. Rape and pillage in war may, on balance, be advantageous to the invader.

Please show us evidence of this massive conspiracy once and for all or have this argument dismissed.
How have you missed the discussion of neo-con and kosher-con activities?

Lyndon LaRouche also believes that the Queen of England controls the United States and that America is engaged in a genocidal conspiracy to kill black people in Sub-Saharan Africa, amongst other things. Quite interesting though how you seem to have co-opted his economic theories.
I wouldn't know. Seems you are much more familiar with LaRouche than am I.

Hasn't LaRouche been saying that the stock market was supposed to crash just about every year now since the 1970s?
I wouldn't know. Sounds like you're a subscriber.

LOL LaRouche was saying just last year that the crash of the DJIA was imminent because of the collapse of the U.S. 'physical economy' which was supposed to happen at any minute.
Do tell.

How come? You are peddling the economic theories of Lyndon LaRouche on this forum.
As if an analytical technique were the property of an individual. Who owns anthropology? Geophysics? Anyone here want to claim analytical geometry?

I have a problem understanding how paper money does not possess value. Sorry. I never took lessons in economics from Lyndon LaRouche.
It lacks intrinsic value - it is a fiction agreed upon or an illusion, and requires enforcement for its acceptance in extemity. If the enforcement agency turns against it, as in our hypothetical, it is mere paper.

Why didn't the U.S. nationalise Japanese assets for Japan's refusal to impose sanctions on Iran, NeoNietzsche?
AOD

I don't take lessons in economics from Lyndon LaRouche.
Seems you're doing no better for having minored in economics.

LOL I am not the one here who reads Executive Intelligence Review, a more sophisticated version of the National Enquirer.
I would say that, relatively speaking, based upon your testimony indicating far greater exposure, you are. I read one copy of EIR years ago when LaRouche was controversial.

Why doesn't America just take oil from other nations? Why bother paying for oil, NeoNietzsche?
That would be in the interest of the goyim, not the oligarchic/oligopolistic elite who profit from collusion in favor of a certain margin, no matter the basic expense of the crude. Ownership of the oil is thus irrelevant to their interests. Minored in Economics, you say?

I wasn't aware indian savages had any concept of sovereignty or public policy or international law. North America was 'free space' under international law in the Early Modern Era.
Not as far as the indian nations were concerned. You claimed that nations do not take what is not theirs to take. The European nations repeatedly did so. But under your wonderful concept, of course, any political entity or combination can set itself up as the hypocritical and selective arbiter of who is or is not within the "law" and proceed accordingly with righteous conviction as to its own rectitude. Pardon me while I lose my dinner to nausea over the psychotic self-deception involved.

NN

A final note for the evening:

I note with some sadness, but not surprise, that the owner of the venue has taken to rank lying about my remarks in regard to the point concerning the Finns and LVM in the next of his messages to be disposed of, #202 - despite his having been repeatedly corrected on the point. His behavior is not merely personally despicable - it disgraces the arena in view of his position therein.

The limitation of this sort of venue is that each point cannot indefinitely be maintained in view for reference, thus the unprincipled such as Fade are at liberty to respond nonsensically, irrelevantly, and mendaciously when a certain thread length is reached, as is presently the case to Fade's great relief in his increasingly desperate and contemptible efforts at mere face-saving.

Thus I will have to evaluate the propriety of continuing, as did Wintermute with unfortunate result when confronted with the same behavior.

Whatever my decision, I am happy to have had the opportunity to resist the contemptible besmirching of the activities of worthy men.

NN

Thus selectively, rather than in principle, and so illustrating your prejudice and hypocrisyThe only thing that has been illustrated here, actually, is your inability to follow this discussion, as you have utterly confused two separate arguments I have made about two separate issues. So no, we haven't seen any 'prejudice' and 'hypocrisy' on my part. Great Britain didn't destroy and terminate the independence of the nations of Continental Europe. Germany did.
Then, by your own analogy, war should be outlawedNeoNietzsche sets up a strawman argument. I never said war should be outlawed.
but you have explicitly refused to endorse that measureProbably because I never made that argument, nor does my analogy imply that.
once again evidencing your characteristic hypocrisy and self-contradiction.The only thing that has been demonstrated in this response, so far, has been your:

1.) Inability to follow the discussion.
2.) Misrepresentation of my position.
You agreed that it was for the sake of argument. Rubbish. I will let the gallery observe:

"Sovereignty is not politico-economic resource independence."
--Brithammer

Notice how NeoNietzsche inverts the entire meaning of my very explicit and direct statement.
In view of your inaptness, I am not motivated to trace the matter back that far. That's probably because you can't. Well. That figures. I never made that argument. In fact, as the gallery can see above, I made a very different one.
Nevertheless, I understand your position to be that trade in vital resources does not diminish sovereignty in the meaningful terms adopted for the discussion.My position is that sovereignty has nothing whatsoever to do with trade in vital natural resources. I pointed that out to you in several of my previous replies. So why should I have to repeat myself? Oh yeah! Duh! You haven't been following the course of the discussion.
Legality is not the issue - disposal over one's vital circumstance is.Yes, actually it is. It is because you have made a false analogy. Indentured servants are legally obligated by contract to serve their masters. On the other hand, Japan is not legally obligated by any contract to serve the United States as if the United States was the master of Japan.
In imaginative illustration of the potential for the denial of sovereignty.Finally. An honest response from NeoNietzsche. Yes, I agree. You have been using your imagination. You see conspiracies everywhere. I asked you for your evidence. Now for the last time, where is it?
AODNeoNietzsche lost this point.
As mentioned in the previous post, "Conspiracy in restraint of trade is, in general, illegal or subject to regulation." I asked you to cite the legal principle. I did not ask you to waste our time and recapitulate your previous response.
Whatever you want to call itIts not an usurpation of sovereignty, despite your insinuation.
where access to vital national resources is in jeopardyAccess to the vital national resources were not in jeopardy.
the nation in question has an aggressive interest in rectifying that circumstance, as had Germany, and as is the point.I agree that Germany had an interest in waging aggressive war against its neighbours. That has been my argument all along.
Fine. Re-label the concept under discussion - you have still lost on the merits.Notice how NeoNietzsche capitulates in his entire argument about sovereignty. Somehow this gives him the bizarre impression that *I* have lost on the merits. In fact, NeoNietzsche made a bogus argument about sovereignty and was soundly beaten on the point.

Brithammer: Show me proof that Putin is involved in a Jewish conspiracy to revive the Soviet Union. I have checked out several sources just this evening about Putin's government. I haven't seen anything about any Jewish conspiracy.
NeoNietzsche: Show me proof that I said that Putin is involved in a Communist conspiracy. I do not believe that he is.
Brithammer: !!!!! I didn't say Communist conspiracy !!!!!
Have you read Behind Communism? I suspect not, given your intellectual insularity.I asked for names. I have asked for names over and over and over again. Why can't NeoNietzsche give us the names? Why do you continue to evade my request for names?
Your ignorance of comparative history showing again.Please show me my ignorance. Actually, you can start by showing us that all the Chinese and Japanese scholars that I have cited are under the thumb of this huge Jewish conspiracy you continue to prattle on about.
Imperial powers throughout history have, understandably, been so regarded by their captives.Here NeoNietzsche tries to relevatise the issue.
Genuinely sophisticated individuals, as opposed to bourgeois bumpkins, anarchists, libertarians, and other intellectual provincials, admire rather than disparage such regimes for their elevation of culture, subsidized by the conscription and tribute of the conquered.I suppose NeoNietzsche considers the mass barbaric rape of women to be an elevation of culture. Yes, NeoNietzsche is one truly sophisticated individual. Perhaps one day we will rise to his level.
It may be contra-indicated in certain circumstances, but, as an absolute rule, it is not wrong.Alright. The gallery just heard it. NeoNietzsche does not believe the rape of women is wrong.
Rape and pillage in war may, on balance, be advantageous to the invader.This is so sick and repulsive that I am at a loss looking for the words to express my disgust.
How have you missed the discussion of neo-con and kosher-con activities?I ask NeoNietzsche for evidence of his conspiracy. Once again he totally evades my request. So why bother with his?
I wouldn't know. Seems you are much more familiar with LaRouche than am I. I wouldn't know. Sounds like you're a subscriber. Do tell.Its quite obvious that NeoNietzsche has plagarised Lyndon LaRouche's theory of physical economy. The similiarites are too profound for this to just be a coincidence.
As if an analytical technique were the property of an individual. You have plagarised his theory without giving him credit.
Who owns anthropology? Geophysics? Anyone here want to claim analytical geometry?See above.
Seems you're doing no better for having minored in economics.LOL! Its the physical economy, stupid! C'mon, admit it. You stole the theory from LaRouche. Why deny it?
It lacks intrinsic valueMarxists also believe in intrinsic value. Most economists accept the subjective theory of value.
it is a fiction agreed upon or an illusion, and requires enforcement for its acceptance in extemity. If the enforcement agency turns against it, as in our hypothetical, it is mere paper.See Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk and Carl Menger.
I would say that, relatively speaking, based upon your testimony indicating far greater exposure, you are.It didn't take that long to track down your source over at conspiracy theory central.
I read one copy of EIR years ago when LaRouche was controversial.I think you have read more than one copy of EIR, personally.
That would be in the interest of the goyim, not the oligarchic elite who profit from collusion in favor of a certain margin, no matter the basic expense of the crude. This does not follow from NeoNietzsche's theory. If force governs international relations, then it would be much easier for the U.S. to simply take all the oil it wants from poor countries without paying them a dime. It certainly would be much more profitable. Yet that isn't the case, now is it?
Ownership of the oil is thus irrelevant to their interests. Minored in Economics, you say?Answer the question. Why don't they just take the oil? Why do they even bother to pay the nations of OPEC for it? You can't explain this. Your theory is bunk.
Not as far as the indian nations were concerned. You claimed that nations do not take what is not theirs to take. The European nations repeatedly did so. It was not illegal under international law to colonise the New World. In fact, it was sanctioned by the Catholic Church and codified in international law. Carl Schmitt discusses the issue in detail in his The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum.
But under your wonderful concept, of course, any political entity or combination can set itself up as the hypocritical and selective arbiter of who is or is not within the "law" and proceed accordingly with righteous conviction as to its own rectitude. NeoNietzsche once again misrepresents my argument. Please show us where it was illegal for Europeans to colonise the New World under contemporary international law? On the contrary, the entire New World was regarded as free space after the Treaty of Tordesillas.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/modeur/mod001.htm
Pardon me while I lose my dinner to nausea over the psychotic self-deception involved.Familiarize yourself with the history of international law before you give me anymore lectures on the subject.

Would you like me to close the thread?

Would you like me to close the thread?
In a significant sense, you have already done so, with the behavior described above now constituting all but the smallest portion of your contribution.

I cannot be credited with comprehensive or dignified responses, when I either have to ignore all but that smallest portion of your otherwise dishonest messages or ridiculously repeat denials of false allegations and explanations you conveniently refuse to comprehend.

I would like, however, to respond to any questions from the gallery offered in good faith. Otherwise the matter seems effectively closed, with the impending, if not already effected, complete exhaustion of anything you might have to offer in that spirit.

NN

In a significant sense, you have already done so, with the behavior described above now constituting all but the smallest portion of your contribution.There is nothing quite like the pot calling the kettle black. Lets examine the message you posted above:

"I note with some sadness, but not surprise, that the owner of the venue has taken to rank lying about my remarks in regard to the point concerning the Finns and LVM in the next of his messages to be disposed of, #202 - despite his having been repeatedly corrected on the point. His behavior is not merely personally despicable - it disgraces the arena in view of his position therein."
--NeoNietzsche.

NeoNietzsche accuses me of lying about his remarks above. He condemns such behaviour, in the most emphatic terms, as 'personally despicable'. He maligns my posts in this thread as a disgrace. But lets leave aside the entire issue about the Finns for a moment. Lets take a look at how NeoNietzsche has misrepresented, over and over again, about my position on the subject of sovereignty.

NeoNietzsche: A definition implicitly agreed upon by exhaustive mooting in the given terms has shown Fade's argument to be defective.
Brithammer: Now NeoNietzsche has resorted to distorting the record. Nowhere did I implicitly agree to his definition of sovereignty. Actually, I emphatically and explicitly rejected it, as the gallery can see. In its place, I gave the gallery a definition of sovereignty commonly accepted and used by political scientists.
NeoNietzsche: He continues boldly to misrepresent (lie about) the issue, if he is not simply stupid as to the understanding of the character of "definition".
Brithammer: Explain how I have 'misrepresented' the issue. You argue that the definition of sovereignty was 'implicitly agreed upon'. This makes no sense whatsoever. I rejected your definition of sovereignty and provided the gallery with one of my own (which I took from an international relations journal). Notice how NeoNietzsche yet again offers absolutely no response whatsoever to the material I take my time to post, mostly for his own benefit.
NeoNietzsche: For purposes of argument, Fade the Butcher (also known by various pseudonyms).
Brithammer: Point out to the gallery where I accepted your definition of sovereignty. I can cite myself explicitly stating otherwise on numerous occasions.
NeoNietzsche: You agreed that it was for the sake of argument.
Brithammer: Rubbish. I will let the gallery observe:

"Sovereignty is not politico-economic resource independence."
--Brithammer

So there you have it. I explicitly take one position. NeoNietzsche accuses me of agreeing to an entirely different one. I asked NeoNietzsche to point out where I ever took the position he attributes to me. He is unable to do so.

Now back to the Finns. Here is NeoNietzsche's reply that started the entire issue. As the gallery can clearly see, the initial thrust of NeoNietzsche's initial post about Finland was to mock my claim about late Victorian altruism influencing British foreign policy. Now follow along in the responses. Notice how he reverses himself and then accuses me of lying about his position.

1) Finland

2) The Baltic States

3) What the Germans did not occupy of Poland.

4) Parts of Hungary and Rumania.

5) 24,000 Armored Fighting Vehicles (3X the rest of the world combined).

6) Millions dead of purges, famines, and the slave-labor construction of the vast war-material factories for the 24,000-strong assault on Western Europe.

7) Civilians stampeded over minefields to clear them.

8) Unarmed soldiers and civilians driven into the teeth of German machine guns.

9) Mongolians in the middle of Europe and the Rape of Berlin.

10) Explicit dedication to the global destruction of civilization.

*********************************************

"Late-Victorian altrusim," you say, sir, that was allied to and in aid of this element?

But you say that they did not want to see?

But why did they want to see the German and not the Bolshevik?

Could it have been Judeo-Communist cultivation of British jingoism for its own purposes, contra authentic British interest in the episode (just like in Greater Judea)?

Nah - must have been late-Victorian altruism, with its notorious blindness to Communist felonies and sensitivity to Fascist misdemeanors.http://www.thephora.org/forum/showpost.php?p=31423&postcount=37

Brithammer:

:: 1.) Finland

Britain almost went to war with the Soviet Union over Finland

NeoNietzsche: Almost - as in - not at all. The duplicity, once again. Hard on Germans, soft on Communists.
Brithammer: Almost. Finland signed an armistace with the Soviets before Great Britain could enter the war. But you knew that right?

"Only the sudden collapse of Finland saved Britain from being at war with Russia, and thus doubly stretched and strained."

Basil Liddel Hart, Churchill Revised: A Critical Assessment (New York: The Dial Press, Inc., 1969), p.207
NeoNietzsche: Didn't think you'd want make the ludicrous attempt to balance what was done to the Germans (unconditional-surrender/devastation/regime-change/show-trial) with a piddling British expedition in support of the Finns. But now you've done it, thanks.
Brithammer: You cited Finland as an example to support your ridiculous argument and discredited claim that Barnett's argument about late Victorian moralism was false. In fact, Great Britain was about to join Finland in its war against the Soviet Union yet the armistace Finland signed with the Soviet Union made this unnecessary.
NeoNietzsche: But now you've done it, thanks.
Brithammer: You cited Finland as an example to 'prove' to the gallery that British foreign policy was not influenced by late Victorian moralism. I have shown the gallery otherwise.
NeoNietzsche: No, I didn't. Accepting the Barnett argument about LVM, I cited Finland as one in a long list of Soviet enormities with which the LVM elite allied itself in ostensibly inexplicable self-contradiction when comparing the war-criminal measures they took against Germany and their nugatory efforts against the Soviet horror. I then suggested that the ostensible difficulty is explained by the not-unfamiliar affinity of such melioristic fatuities for ignorance and indulgence of - and apology for - Communist activities and ideology.
NeoNietzsche: [Brithammer: In fact, Great Britain was about to join Finland in its war against the Soviet Union yet the armistace Finland signed with the Soviet Union made this unnecessary.] This was the very premise of my taking note of your pathetic attempt to portray the British as even-handed and principled. Please pay attention when being instructed.
Brithammer: Yes, actually you did. But the gallery shouldn't take my word for it:

Brithammer: You cited Finland as an example to support your ridiculous argument and discredited claim that Barnett's argument about late Victorian moralism was false.
NeoNietzsche: No, I didn't
Brithammer: Let me refresh your memory.

1) Finland . . ."Late-Victorian altrusim," you say, sir, that was allied to and in aid of this element? But you say that they did not want to see? . . . Nah - must have been late-Victorian altruism, with its notorious blindness to Communist felonies and sensitivity to Fascist misdemeanors.
--NeoNietzsche
Brithammer: Notice how NeoNietzsche is now backtracking and retreating from his positions. He cited Finland in his earlier point in order to mock Barnett's claim that British foreign policy was motivated by late Victorian altruism. Now he is suggesting here that he accepts Barnett's argument (most likely because he cannot respond to the evidence I cited from Hart's essay). . . You have yet to instruct anyone in this debate. Instead, you have made absurd claims on the basis of the dubious sources and conspiracy theories you are familiar with. I refuted these claims by citing the work of dozens of reputable scholars. . . I refreshed your memory above. So we will let the gallery be the judge. It is quite obvious that you cited Finland to mock my claim about altruism in British foreign policy. You were beaten on the point and now you have changed your position.
NeoNietzsche: I note with some sadness, but not surprise, that the owner of the venue has taken to rank lying about my remarks in regard to the point concerning the Finns and LVM in the next of his messages to be disposed of, #202 - despite his having been repeatedly corrected on the point. His behavior is not merely personally despicable - it disgraces the arena in view of his position therein.
I cannot be credited with comprehensive or dignified responses, when I either have to ignore all but that smallest portion of your otherwise dishonest messages or ridiculously repeat denials of false allegations and explanations you conveniently refuse to comprehend.We shall let the gallery judge from the above correspondence whether or not I misrepresenting your position. It is quite clear that you originally cited Finland to mock my claim about late Victorian altruism. Then you reversed yourself. Then I called you on it. And finally you accuse me of lying, when in fact, you simply could not follow the discussion.

- "Show me proof that I said that Putin is involved in a Communist [The term should be "Jewish" - now that my error has been brought to my attention] conspiracy. I do not believe that he is."

- "I asked for names. Give me their names."


Good luck at that. I have already asked NN to provide me the names of the REAL rulers of today's Russia. He did not grace me with any personal names.

Perhaps he is afraid that should he ever mention their unspeakable names in the public, the-hidden-USSR stringpullers would sent a KGB squad to whack him.


- "Have you read Behind Communism? I suspect not, given your intellectual insularity."


NN impresses us once again with the freshness of his sources.

"Behind the Communism," written by pseudonymous "Frank Britton," was published circa 1950 and contains nothing whatsoever about the voluntary dismantlement of the USSR to deceive the West.

It does chronicle the considerable Jewish involvement in the Communism, but that's about it.

This 97-pages PAMPHLET used to be online, but I cannot find it right now.

Here you have some info about this work:

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes%3Bread=26308



- "If it is legal for men to rape women, is it wrong to do so, NeoNietzsche? "

- "It may be contra-indicated in certain circumstances, but, as an absolute rule, it is not wrong. Rape and pillage in war may, on balance, be advantageous to the invader."

Then what are you moaning about the fate of Germans in 1945? They lost. Big Darwinist boo-hoo for those losers, right?

Does your wife (Avalanche) share these sentiments of yours?




- "Imperial powers throughout history have, understandably, been so regarded by their captives. Genuinely sophisticated individuals, as opposed to bourgeois bumpkins, anarchists, libertarians, and other intellectual provincials, admire rather than disparage such regimes for their elevation of culture, subsidized by the conscription and tribute of the conquered."


"Bourgeois bumpkins..." What a great anti-Marxist warrior you are.

Bolsheviks often justified their massacres by saying that they had no time for "bourgeois sentimentality."

You haven't yet answered my query whether you had also thrown Siberian Whites at the hands of Japanese, like you said you were ready to do with Oceanians.

And did you or did you not scold me last springtime that "can't make an omelet without breaking few eggs" attitude was typical for messianic utopism?


And I don't think you are "genuinely sophisticated," or that this position of yours is primarily based on rationalist calculations.

Instead, I think you simply imitate Nietzsche in his NERDY infatuation with BIG BAD EMPIRES THAT KICK A#S.

(Comparable to otto von bismarck's gushing how cool Mongols were)


Both philosophy and technology were in a chronically static state in the Roman Empire.

"As the noted British archaeologist, Sir Mortimer Wheeler summed it up, after a lifetime of work in the field:

"I suffered from a surfeit of things Roman. I felt disgusted by the mechanistic quality of their art and by the nearness of their civilization at all times to cruelty and corruption"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/corrigan/corrigan61.html


Petr

- "Would you like me to close the thread?"


NO, NO, NO, Fade!

This is a hilarious thread! I want this complete humiliation of NN's pretensions to continue.


Petr

Also, NN, can you comply with Fade's request and tell us whether Wright talks about any "Judeo-Bolshevik" plot in his book "Spycatcher," and if so, on what page(s)?


Petr

And did you or did you not scold me last springtime that "can't make an omelet without breaking few eggs" attitude was typical for messianic movements?"As with Hitler, I would sacrifice the Australians for the greater good."
--NeoNietzsche

- "If force governs international relations, then it would be much easier for the U.S. to simply take all the oil it wants from poor countries without paying them a dime. "


I don't know how easy this would be, Fade. In that scenario, the whole Middle Eastern area might erupt into the same kind of furious jihad against infidel imperialists as the French encountered in Algeria and Israelis in Lebanon.

The oilpipes would be bombed out all the time.


Petr

It is quite obvious that you cited Finland to mock my claim about altruism in British foreign policy.
Thank you for quite succinctly formulating the matter.

It is quite obvious that I mocked your claim (though not with particular regard to Finland), since it was quite obvious from my listing of Soviet enormities, with which perpetrating regime the LVA elite was allied in spirit and later in fact, that "late-Victorian altruism" was not altruistic. Its pretensions and its actual agenda, as you have likewise been instructed regarding Marxism, were/are quite distinct and contrary.

As I insist that something called Marxism, with pretensions to being "scientific socialism," exists (most unfortunately), I also insist that something called "late-Victorian altruism," with pretensions to being altruistic, was extant as described. But I, indeed, mock the pretension that Marxism is scientific socialism and that, as nicely formulated above, that altruism was other than nominally/minimally involved in British foreign policy.

NN

http://www.markriebling.com/predictions.html

The Golitsyn Predictions

by Mark Riebling

Even if one rejects Golitsyn's overall thesis -- viz., that Gorbachev's changes comprised a long-term strategic deception -- one must still acknowledge that Golitsyn was the only analyst whose crystal ball was functioning during the key period of the late 20th century.

When the Soviet Empire collapsed in 1989, the CIA was chastised for failing to foresee the change. "For a generation, the Central Intelligence Agency told successive presidents everything they needed to know about the Soviet Union," said Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "except that it was about to fall apart."

Sovietologists both inside and outside CIA were indeed baffled, for their traditional method of analysis had yielded virtually no clues as to what Gorbachev would do. When Mikhail Gorbachev took power in February 1985, after the death of Konstantin Chernenko, analysts like Roy Medvedev preoccupied themselves with trivial details in the Soviet press, and gained no larger view. "The black mourning frame printed around the second page where the deceased leader's picture was run] looked rather narrow," Medvedev observed. "It was still, however, a millimeter broader than the frames used for the second-page announcements of the death of senior Politburo members like Marshal Ustinov, who had died a few months previously." There was nothing in the measurement of picture frames to suggest liberalization in the USSR; therefore, no one suggested it.

CIA's leadership acknowledged that fell short in predicting Gorbachev's reforms, but could provide no real excuse. "Who would have thought that just five years ago we would stand where we are today?" Acting Director Robert Gates told Congress in late 1991. "Talk about humbling experiences." Gates could have said: Our reporting was poor because our Moscow network was rolled up, coincidentally or not, precisely as Gorbachev was coming into power. Gates did not say this, however. Instead, he suggested that "We're here to help you think through the problem rather than give you some kind of crystal ball prediction." This anti-prediction line was echoed by the Agency's deputy director, Robert Kerr, who told Congress: "Our business is to provide enough understanding of the issue ... to say here are some possible outcomes.... And I think that's the role of intelligence, not to predict outcomes in clear, neat ways. Because that's not doable."

Yet someone had predicted glasnost and perestroika, in detail, even before Gorbachev came to power. This person's analysis of events in the communist world had even been provided to the Agency on a regular basis.

In 1982, KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn had submitted a top-secret manuscript to CIA. In it, he foresaw that leadership of the USSR would by 1986 "or earlier" fall to "a younger man with a more liberal image," who would initiate "changes that would have been beyond the imagination of Marx or the practical reach of Lenin and unthinkable to Stalin."

The coming liberalization, Golitsyn said, "would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the Communist Party's role; its monopoly would be apparently curtailed.... The KGB would be reformed. Dissidents at home would be amnestied; those in exile abroad would be allowed to take up positions in the government; Sakharov might be included in some capacity in the government. Political dubs would be opened to nonmembers of the Communist Party. Leading dissidents might form one or more alternative political Censorship would be relaxed; controversial plays, films, and art would be published, performed, and exhibited."

Golitsyn provided an entire chapter of such predictions, containing 194 distinct auguries. Of these, 46 were not soon falsifiable (it was too early to tell, e.g., whether Russian economic ministries would be dissolved); another 9 predictions (e.g., of a prominent Yugoslavian role in East-Bloc liberalization) seemed clearly wrong. Yet of Golitsyn's falsifiable predictions, 139 out of 148 were fulfilled by the end of 1993 -- an accuracy rate of nearly 94 percent. Among events correctly foreseen: "the return to power of Dubcek and his associates" in Czechoslovakia; the reemergence of Solidarity" and the formation of a "coalition government" in Poland; a newly "independent" regime in Romania; "economic reforms" in the USSR; and a Soviet repudiation of the Afghanistan invasion. -Golitsyn even envisioned that, with the "easing of immigration controls" by East Germany, "pressure could well grow for the solution of the German problem [by] some form of confederation between East and West," with the result that "demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated."

Golitsyn received CIA's permission to publish his manuscript in book form, and did so in 1984. But at time his predictions were made, Sovietologists had little use for Golitsyn or his "new methodology for the study of the communist world." John C. Campbell, reviewing Golitsyn's book in Foreign Affairs, politely recommended that it "be taken with several grains of salt." Other critics complained that Golitsyn's analysis "strained credulity" and was "totally inaccurate," or became so exercised as to accuse him of being the "demented" proponent of "cosmic theories." The University of North Carolina's James R. Kuhlman declared that Golitsyn's new methodology would "not withstand rigorous examination. Oxford historian R.W. Johnson dismissed Golitsyn's views as "nonsense." British journalist Tom Mangold even went so far as to say, in 1990 -- well after Golitsyn's prescience had become clear -- that "As a crystal-ball gazer, Golitsyn has been unimpressive." Mangold reached this conclusion by listing six of Golitsyn's apparently incorrect predictions and ignoring the 139 correct ones.

Golitsyn's analysis was as little appreciated within CIA as it was in the outside world. "Unfortunate is the only term for this book," an Agency reader noted in an official 1985 review. A CIA analyst took Golitsyn to task for making "unsupported allegations without sufficient (or sometimes any) evidence," and for this reason would be "embarrassed to recommend the whole." Golitsyn's case, other words, was deductive: He had no "hard evidence," no transcript of a secret meeting in which Gorbachev said the would do all these things. Perhaps most fundamentally, as the philosopher William James once noted, "we tend to disbelieve all facts and theories for which we have no use." Who had any use, in the end, for Golitsyn's belief that the coming glasnost and perestroika would merely constitute the "final phase" of a long-term KGB strategy to "dominate the world"?

Even if one rejects Golitsyn's overall thesis -- viz., that Gorbachev's changes comprised a long-term strategic deception -- one must still acknowledge that Golitsyn was the only analyst whose crystal ball was functioning during the key period of the late 20th century.I really don't see how this interpretation is justified at all. Just because one event happens after another event, that does not imply the preceding event was the cause of it. That is an invalid post hoc argument. Ludwig von Mises also predicted that Soviet socialism would collapse, btw.

Posted for your reading pleasure by special request:


=======================================

Is there a RACE left in England? Has it ANY will left to survive? You can carry slaughter to Ireland. Will that save you? I doubt it. Nothing can save you, save a purge. Nothing can save you, save an affirmation that you are English.

Whore Belisha is NOT. Isaccs is not. No Sassoon is an Englishman, racially. No Rothschild is English, no Strakosch is English, no Roosevelt is English, no Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Khan, Baruch, Schiff, Sieff, or Solomon was ever yet bom Anglo-Saxon.

And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you have murdered your empire, and it is this filth that elects your politicians.

You have lost your tradition. You have not even learned what Lord Byron told you. You are, as even that foul rag the Times tells you, a little late in making a start.

In the year 1942 Anno Domini, there is only one start you can make. And that is a start toward being England. A refusal to be a province of Israel, or an outpost of Yankee-Judaea.

=======================================

Thank you for quite succinctly formulating the matter.You're welcome.
It is quite obvious that I mocked your claim (though not with particular regard to Finland), since it was quite obvious from my listing of Soviet enormities, with which perpetrating regime the LVA elite was allied in spirit and later in fact, that "late-Victorian altruism" was not altruistic.This, of course, does not follow. I systematically went through your *list* and pointed out your errors. Furthermore, you were illogically attacking a straw man argument anyway. I pointed out in the course of the discussion that Great Britain returned to the balance of power principle (half-heartedly) after Hitler repudiated the Munich agreement. I cited Barnett to that effect in my massive riposte to mugwort. You would have grasped this if you were actually following the discussion.

"The German occupation of Czechoslovakia finally shook English opinion awake from its beautiful twenty-year-old dream that the world was governed by morality and goodwill, and not by power and ambition. Even those most stubborn in self-delusion -- Lothian, Smuts, The Times -- at last perceived, like flat-earthers converted to Copernican astronomy, that moralising internationalism did not accord with the observable facts. The most notable convert of all was the Prime Minister himself. He announced his conversion to his Cabinet on 18 March: '. . . up to a week ago we had proceeded on the assumption that we should be able to continue with our policy of getting on to better terms with the Dictator Powers, and that although those powers had aims, those aims were limited'.

At the back of their minds, however, Chamberlain continued, there had been a reservation that this might not be the case, although it was right to try out the possibilities. 'He had now definitely come to the conclusion that Herr Hitler's attitude made it impossible to negotiate on the old basis with the Nazi regime.'

The Prime Minister said that he regarded his own Birmingham speech on 17 March -- 'any attempt to dominate the world by force was one which the Democracies must resist' -- as 'a challenge to Germany on the issue whether or not Germany intended to dominate Europe by force. It followed that, if Germany took another step in the direction of dominating Europe, she would be accepting the challenge'.

And in going on to discuss the new fear planted on 16 March by the Premier of Romania, who believed his country was next on Germany's list, Chamberlain argued: 'A German attempt to dominate Romania was, therefore, more than a question whether Germany would thereby improve her strategical position; it raised the whole question whether Germany intended to obtain dominatin over the whole of south-eastern Europe.' It was a demonstration how utterly his way of looking at things had changed since the previous March, when it had been Austria and Czechoslovakia which were in danger.

The Prime Minister therefore proceeded to put forward a new foreign policy -- viz., to see if Russia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Turkey and Greece would join with France and England in resisting any act of German aggression aimed at south-eastern Europe.

And so, in the third week of March 1939, England at last returned to the balance of power as the guiding principle of her diplomacy. Now, at the worst possible time, when the European equilibrium was already steeply tilted in Germany's favour, and tilting more and more every day as the German army grew, England set out to create the grand alliance which she had so bigotedly refused to contemplate since 1933, since the early 1920s indeed. But while she strove during the spring and summer to halt Germany's further expansion, she had also simultaneously to contend with all the other elements that were making for the collapse of British power -- the consequences of past folly and neglect, the competing and irreconcilable demands on England's inadequate strength, the burden and distraction of empire."

Correlli Barnett, The Collapse of British Power (New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc, 1972), pp.557-558

http://www.thephora.org/forum/showpost.php?p=30701&postcount=1
Its pretensions and its actual agenda, as you have likewise been instructed regarding Marxism, were/are quite distinct and contrary.You have yet to instruct (much less convince) anyone in the course of this debate. I will continue to rely upon the mainstream interpretation of A.J.P. Taylor and Correlli Barnett with regards to the actual agenda of British foreign policy makers prior to the Second World War.
As I insist that something called Marxism, with pretensions to being "scientific socialism," exists (most unfortunately)I don't believe anyone has denied that Marxism exists in the course of this debate.
I also insist that something called "late-Victorian altruism," with pretensions to being altruistic, was extant as described. Then go on insisting.
But I, indeed, mock the pretension that Marxism is scientific socialism and that, as nicely formulated above, that altruism was other than nominally/minimally involved in British foreign policy.And that would be why the League of Nations was widely considered to be the foundation of British security throughout the interwar era. :|

Is there a RACE left in England? Has it ANY will left to survive? You can carry slaughter to Ireland. Will that save you? I doubt it.The English did not carry on any 'slaughter' in Ireland. Ireland was granted its independence, even though the uprising had more or less been squashed. And why was this? Perhaps it was because the moralising English no longer had the will to hold the Irish down anymore. Oops. I must have forgotten. NeoNietzsche has instructed us that altruism was only "nominally/minimally involved in British foreign policy." :rolleyes:
And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you have murdered your empire, and it is this filth that elects your politicians.More fucking nonsense. England fought in the First and Second World War because it felt its own interests were imperiled. See A.J.P. Taylor's English History, 1914-1945 (1965) and The Origins of the Second World War for more on this.
You have lost your tradition. You have not even learned what Lord Byron told you. You are, as even that foul rag the Times tells you, a little late in making a start.The Times was for years one of the leading advocates of appeasement.

"During the last six months of 1938 the Sunday Times carried to the greatest extremes what is today thought of as the classic prototype of the policy of 'appeasement'. Lord Kemsley was convinced that if he could talk to Hitler personally, war could be averted. Pending this conversation, it was incumbent upon his paper to smooth the troubled European waters with printer's ink instead of oil. In the editor, Hadley, he found aa generally like-thinking and at any rate agreeable agent. But it was Scrutator who set the pace for the paper's policy, which was a kind of modern optimism basically sympathetic to Germany."

Franklin Reid Gannon, The British Press and Germany, 1936-1939 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), pp.218-219

I agree that England did lose its tradition. It lost its tradition because of moralists and romantics like Baldwin, MacDonald, Chamberlain, and Churchill ran the Empire down into the dirt. Any solid 18th century English Prime Minister would have wiped Hitler off the face of the earth when it was easy to do so and never have a second thought about it.

Some more ZOG history from mainstream historians. :cool:

"In a variety of ways, then, Britain in the thirties showed distinct signs, outside the older industrial areas, of being a land at peace with itself, and enlivened by some cultural imagination But the mood began to change abruptly in 1937, not through any immediate domestic disunity or reappraisal, but through the external impact of foreign affairs. Much of Britain's internal harmony during the twenties and thirties had been founded on a quiescent foreign policy. The mood dictated by Keynes in 1919, the mood that dislodged Lloyd George in 1922, had permeated the whole society. Right-wing reluctance to engage in overseas military adventures were countered by a profound belief on the left that the 1919 peace settlement was in any case vindictive and morally indefensible, the product of national and imperial rivalries rather than a yearning for a more harmonious world. In the twenties, Britain's defences were gradually run down, with little public protest, based on the 'ten year' premiss that no major war would be fought within the next decade. The battle fleet was especially cut back in this period, most enthusiastically by Churchill himself while at the Treasury. The giant new naval base at Singapore, recently completed, already seemed an anarchronism. The main military commitment was to the Raj in India, but a gradual, partial accomodation with Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress movement enabled the British garrison in the subcontinent to be reduced sloly from 57,000 in 1925 to 51,000 in 1939. Equally, the increasing harmonious relations with the Irish Free State, culminating in the 'agreements' of 1936 and the virtual wiping out of all debts owed to Britain by Ireland minimised another potential source of military or naval difficulty.

The public mood in the early thirties remained a passive one, even after the advent of Adolf Hitler as chancellor of Germany in January 1933. The British labour movement was pacifist-inclined, with a few exceptions such as Ernest Bevin of the Transport and General Workers. It opposed voting arms estimates on behalf of a right-wing National Government. On the socialist left, there were advocates of a Popular Front such as Sir Stafford Cripps, who urged the need for an alliance with the Soviet Union and argued that socialism alone was the true remedy for international discord. Conversely, most Conservatives had no wish for an adventurous foreign policy, especially since Baldwin had assured the people that there was no real defence possible in a future war which would be determined largely by air power. The bomber would always get through. There was scant Conservative enthusiasm for upholding the authority of the League of Nations in crisis in Manchuria in 1931 and Abyssinia in 1935. There were those on the right, notably some press lords, who declared that there was common ground between Great Britain and Hitler's Germany, bound together by Teutonic racial origins and anti-Communism. A miscellaneous group of politicians and journalists found a haven in Lord and Lady Astor's mansion at Clivedon, by the Thames, near Marlow to be turned the mind of the Foreign Office in these fellow-travelling directions."

Kenneth O. Morgan, The Oxford History of Britain (Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press, 2001), pp.616-617

"Given therefore Chamberlain's absolute mastery of his Cabinet and party, given the state of opinion in the opposition parties and the national press, there is no substance in the claim made by Chamberlain and some of his colleagues in the Cabinet meetings during the Czech crisis and by his apologists later that to threaten Germany with war if she moved against Czechoslovakia would have been so unpopular as to be politically impossible; or in the parallel claim that to go to war over Czechoslovakia would split the nation. On the contrary, the conversion of the Labour and Liberal parties from pacifistic appeasement to militant anti-Fascism since 1935 had offered Chamberlain the opportunity, had he wished to take it, of organising an anti-German coalition under the guise of 'collective security'; and of pursuing a balance-of-power foreign policy in the chic costume of a crusade against dictatorship -- exactly as Palmerston in his time had dressed up his opportunist pursuit of English interests as the promotion of liberal ideals. It was, however, as the records make clear, the particular aim of Chamberlain and Halifax to avoid such a division of Europe into opposing coalitions, no matter whether founded on considerations of power and ideology. By the time of his return from Godesberg, therefore, Chamberlain was, except for his docile senior colleagues and obedient backbenchers, very much a lone man, blindly pursuing his vision against the general tide of national feeling.

The Prime Minister, therefore, did not feel Bad Godesberg to have been a final and humiliating defeat; on the contrary, as he remarked to the Cabinet, in view of how Hitler valued British friendship, there was a possibility of a turning-point in Anglo-German relations. 'He thought that he had now established an influence over Herr Hitler, and that the latter trusted him and was willing to work with him. If this was so, it was a wonderful opportunity to put an end to the horrible nightmare of the present armament race. That seemed to him to be the big thing in the present issue.

Insidiously he asked the Cabinet to consider whether the difference between the previous and the present proposals justified us going to war. Then, to help them make up their mind, he played on all their deep Victorian peaceableness and love of peace, their horror of conflict and violence, and their humanitarian concern:
That morning he had flown up the river over London. He had imagined a German bomber flying the same course. He had asked himself what degree of protection we could afford to the thousands of homes which he had seen stretched out before him, and he had felt we were in no position to justify waging a war today in order to prevent a war hereafter.He repeated much the same argument later, in touching almost for the first time in the entire course of the crisis, and then only in passing, on the crucial question of whether it would be better to fight now or later.

Barnett, pp.537-539

IT MAY NOT BE TOO LATE

by Professor Revilo P. Oliver (Liberty Bell, June 1988)

...In January, under the rubric "The Business of Deception," I commented on the furor excited in England by the publication in Australia of Peter Wright's book, Spycatcher, which will shortly be published in this country, and which I have not yet seen.

The government of Prime Ministress Maggie had viewed with complacency the publication of Chapman Pincher's Their Trade is Treachery, in which the journalist, on the basis of information supplied by Peter Wright, merely added a fifth Englishman, the late Roger Hollis, to the list of four who had already been identified as traitors and Soviet agents at the time they served in MI5, the heart of British Military Intelligence, during and after the war that resulted in the destruction of Germany and the liquidation of the British Empire. The same government, however, had hysteria and made frantic efforts to prevent the publication of Peter Wright's book in Australia; to suppress it after it was published; and to prevent copies from reaching Little Britain, where its revelations might start some Englishmen to thinking. The efforts failed, and evidently left Maggie and her bosses in a frenzy of frustration.

I commented on an article by an anonymous former member of MI5, who declared that Chapman Pincher's book had been produced to divert suspicion from Lord Rothschild, a Jew who had been given a title that was honorable when it was restricted to British noblemen. And I pointed out that, whatever the author professed as his purpose, the net effect of his article in Private Eye was to show that Rothschild had not only been a power in MI5 at the time Hollis was its head, but had openly and with impunity threatened to disclose to the Soviets Britain's most vital military secrets, thus exposing the absurdity of expecting a Jew to feel loyalty to any nation but his own.

...What is important in Pincher's story is what he reveals obiter:

...2. When Sir Martin Furnival Jones became Director General of MI5, he found that "very many members of Parliament were in contact with Soviet bloc intelligence officers." The nationality of those Members of Parliament was unstated, so you will have to guess whether most of them were Jews or Judaized Englishmen. But this opens an entirely new area of treason in Britain.

3. Lord Rothschild, long before Wright made any disclosures, was exercised by the danger of letting a man who knew so many vital secrets live in far-away Australia, where his silence could not be assured by hustling him off to Soviet-style imprisonment under the Official Secrets Act.

4. When a Member of Parliament, Jonathan Aitken, having been given information by the C.I.A., and having confirmed it by consulting two former members of MI5 and MI6, warned Maggie of the danger that Hollis's treason might be exposed, she snubbed him, and Rothschild tried to discourage further inquiry.

5. When the efforts to throttle Wright in Australia failed, Sir Michael Havers was "branded" (unjustly, according to Pincher) "as the most dishonorable Attorney General [in] this century," and Maggie promptly and blithely promoted him to Lord Chancellor.

All these details add up to something, don't they?

Pincher, although disputing one or two of Wright's statements, had to admit that Wright disclosed a mass of evidence that proved that "much treachery and incompetence inside both MI5 and MI6 had been concealed."

Admitting the truth of almost everything in Wright's book, Pincher tries to prove that it should have been suppressed, and his argument merits notice. In 1985, an agent of MI6, Oleg Gordievsky, who had attained high rank in the Soviet KGB, was "spirited out of Russia" when the KGB began to suspect that he was a double agent, and if a man who knows the details of this operation were to write a book about it, he "could make millions" but would probably "threaten the lives" of some of MI6's spies who are still in the Soviet Union and unsuspected. That would be awful, wouldn't it? And it's got to be prevented.

That, mind you, is adduced as the reason why Wright's book, which deals with treason that took place in England many years ago and was covered up by more treason, should have been suppressed -- and why Maggie's government was justified in trying to protect Rothschild et al. from embarrassment by making every possible effort "to pursue Wright and his publisher to the limit of the law, depriving him of all profit, if possible." A man who tells the truth about the extent of treason in Britain is a "renegade" who must be given "relentless treatment." Pincher stops short of suggesting assassination.

The extracts from Pincher's forthcoming book published in the Sunday Express are clear evidence of frantic efforts to cover up and conceal from Englishmen the scabrous character of the alien government under which they have lived and suffered for decades. If a journalist who has presumably read Wright's book is correct, it proves that there were more than two hundred enemy agents, aliens or British traitors, ensconsed in British Military Intelligence during and following Britain's suicidal war against Germany.

Maggie's gang now has even greater woes. Publishers in Great Britain and the United States agreed that the stupid Aryans should not be permitted to learn the truth about the vicious old drunkard, Winston Churchill, who served as Roosevelt's patsy to destroy Germany, make the Soviet a world-power and supreme in Europe, and abolish the British Empire; they accordingly broke contracts to prevent the publication of David Irving's thoroughly documented study of Churchill's filthy and disgusting career. All other major publishers in both countries evidently agreed that the book should be suppressed, since truth is bad for Aryans. But the eminent historian found a publisher in wicked Australia, and no legal method is yet available to prevent copies of it from reaching England. (2)

...As the panic over Peter Wright's book makes patent, Maggie's gang is desperately afraid of the effect on the surviving English men of belated disclosures about the war in which Britain ruined herself. When the creatures who now rule Britain learned of Gorbachev's plan, they knew they could not veto it. Britain has reduced itself to the status of a country like Greece or Morocco, and it no longer has real influence in the counsels of the rulers of the United States and Soviet Russia, who are leaving Britain to rot in her own filth. A secret murder of Hess was the only alternative, and the arrangements for it were kept secret from the Russians, who would have prevented it rather than lose the anticipated triumph of propaganda, and kept secret from the "American" government until the murderers were at their stations and the necessary permission requested from the C.I.A. (and, of course, Mossad), who felt under no great obligation to enhance Gorbachev's prestige.

The foregoing account of the murder was given some corroboration by the pointed refusal of the Soviet to join in the announcement of the death of Hess and the hurriedly trumped-up explanation of it. Gorbachev was evidently vexed by the act that spoiled his planned gesture, which he had probably intended to associate with the Christmas that means so much to Christians.

Now this, of course, directly impugns the thesis of Dr. Thomas's book. Dr. Thomas's theory about the fate of Rudolf Hess has now been conclusively refuted. In the first volume of Churchill's War, which the enemies of our race were unable to suppress, the most eminent and trustworthy historian of the calamity called the Second World War has proved from incontrovertible documents that Rudolf Hess did indeed reach Britain, lured by British Intelligence with a treachery of which civilized nations and even prudent barbarians would have been incapable; that Hess did indeed bring an offer from Hitler of a peace that would have saved the British Empire and saved the British people from the demoralizing hardships, disasters, and great slaughter that prolongation of the war inflicted on them; and that Hess was arrested and held incommunicado at the order of Winston Churchill, the half-English drunkard, who had to conceal Hitler's generous offer from the British people in order to prolong the war, ruin England, and kill many men, women, and children to gratify his monstrous egotism and to earn his stipend from the Jews who had hired him.

===================================

NN

"The German occupation of Czechoslovakia finally shook English opinion awake from its beautiful twenty-year-old dream that the world was governed by morality and goodwill, and not by power and ambition. Even those most stubborn in self-delusion -- Lothian, Smuts, The Times -- at last perceived, like flat-earthers converted to Copernican astronomy, that moralising internationalism did not accord with the observable facts. The most notable convert of all was the Prime Minister himself. He announced his conversion to his Cabinet on 18 March: '. . . up to a week ago we had proceeded on the assumption that we should be able to continue with our policy of getting on to better terms with the Dictator Powers, and that although those powers had aims, those aims were limited'.

At the back of their minds, however, Chamberlain continued, there had been a reservation that this might not be the case, although it was right to try out the possibilities. 'He had now definitely come to the conclusion that Herr Hitler's attitude made it impossible to negotiate on the old basis with the Nazi regime.'

The Prime Minister said that he regarded his own Birmingham speech on 17 March -- 'any attempt to dominate the world by force was one which the Democracies must resist' [unless, of course, enacted by Communists self-declaredly intent upon exactly that and expending millions of lives at slave labor building the world-conquering military force designed to achieve it] -- as 'a challenge to Germany [but not the SU] on the issue whether or not Germany [but not the SU] intended to dominate Europe by force. It followed that, if Germany [but not the SU] took another step in the direction of dominating Europe, she would be accepting the challenge'..."

=================================

Thus does the court historian present, as previously explained and now betrayed by Wright's revelations in expression of itself in outright treason: Parlor Bolshevism (a.k.a. "late-Victorian moralism/altruism") - to parallel the same phenomenon in the US enveloping the comsymp convert, FDR, and "the Old Bolshevik," Frankfurter's, 200-odd "Happy Hotdogs" laced with Soviet agents, apologists, traitors, pinkos, comsyps, and various Fifth-Amendment cases. ["The extracts from Pincher's forthcoming book published in the Sunday Express are clear evidence of frantic efforts to cover up and conceal from Englishmen the scabrous character of the alien government under which they have lived and suffered for decades. If a journalist who has presumably read Wright's book is correct, it proves that there were more than two hundred enemy agents, aliens or British traitors, ensconsed in British Military Intelligence during and following Britain's suicidal war against Germany."]

NN

"I [Fade] pointed out in the course of the discussion that Great Britain returned to the balance of power principle (half-heartedly) after Hitler repudiated the Munich agreement. I cited Barnett to that effect in my massive riposte to mugwort. You would have grasped this if you were actually following the discussion."

==================================

"Given therefore Chamberlain's absolute mastery of his Cabinet and party, given the state of opinion in the opposition parties and the national press, there is no substance in the claim made by Chamberlain and some of his colleagues in the Cabinet meetings during the Czech crisis and by his apologists later that to threaten Germany with war if she moved against Czechoslovakia would have been so unpopular as to be politically impossible; or in the parallel claim that to go to war over Czechoslovakia would split the nation. On the contrary, the conversion of the Labour and Liberal parties from pacifistic appeasement to militant anti-Fascism since 1935 had offered Chamberlain the opportunity, had he wished to take it, of organising an anti-German coalition under the guise of 'collective security'; and of pursuing a balance-of-power foreign policy in the chic costume of a crusade against dictatorship -- exactly as Palmerston in his time had dressed up his opportunist pursuit of English interests as the promotion of liberal ideals. It was, however, as the records make clear, the particular aim of Chamberlain and Halifax to avoid such a division of Europe into opposing coalitions, no matter whether founded on considerations of power and ideology. By the time of his return from Godesberg, therefore, Chamberlain was, except for his docile senior colleagues and obedient backbenchers, very much a lone man, blindly pursuing his vision against the general tide of national feeling.

===================================

The Parlor Bolshevik is best understood as a long-suffering mother with a serial-killer of a son. All of his felonies - the megacidal Bolshevization of Russia, the attempt to do the same in Germany, the westward creep of territorial aquisitions, the monstrous militarization and barracks society, the explicit world-conquering, revolutionary ideology - are inwardly rationalized as his being "misunderstood" - the Bolsheviks are simply well-intended but misguided "social reformers". Naturally, mother is not basically disturbed in her ("twenty-year") fatuous, rose-colored, utopianist ("internationalist moralizing") view of the world by these, the felonies of her "heart" - but is outraged, of course, by the Hitlerian misdemeanors of one who has not so captured her. Thus, the measures which she is prepared to take in control of her poor, misunderstood-but-inwardly-good boy are minimal to non-existent at best (as in a theroretical expedition to Finland) - but the full (World War) weight of the ostensibly disinterested ("international") "law" must be ("late-Victorian-moralistically") applied to others who can be granted no such extentuation [hence the "half-hearted"-ness, as above, of the post-Munich pursuit of self-interest].

But the "militant anti-Fascism" with which the deluded but otherwise honest mother Chamberlain refused to hypocritically engage, as above, evidences a going over to an authentic, unprincipled, mendacious Bolshevism.

So - the Jews and their Stooge enter - stage left - with Judeo-Bolshevist interests to be realized (as somehow, utterly incomprehensibly, turned out to be the case) and gloriously celebrated - all of the self-interested aims of the war having been lost.

[Curious that, wouldn't you say, Old Chap?]

NN

And the answer is:

Lindbergh and Chamberlain.

NN

I really don't see how this interpretation is justified at all [Golitsyn vindicated by the 94% accuracy of his startling predictions]. Just because one event happens after another event, that does not imply the preceding event was the cause of it. That is an invalid post hoc argument. Ludwig von Mises also predicted that Soviet socialism would collapse, btw.
Since I long ago read all 800-900 pages of Human Action, I'm prepared to explain to you the basis of von Mises' expectation, which merely theoretical and contingent basis does not compare in the provision of specificity with that of Golitsyn.

And I'll also remedially explain the distinction between "intrinsic value," as was earlier written here in regard to paper money, and intrinsic value theory, in relation to Marxism and objective/subjective value theory as you impertinently and prejudicially introduced it - if you like.

BTW, if you'll check earlier in the thread, I gave the obvious explanation why the "Americans" don't just go over and seize the oil - the first time you asked.

NN