I will post my responses to this thread over at SF here at The Phora for the benefit of our members who may have been following the discussion. Bodewin was participating in that thread so perhaps we can continue our conversation here.
They certainly were - by the Jewish media and their collaborators.
That's a very interesting theory you have there. The actual facts of the matter are quite different. While Jewish penetration of the American mass media without a doubt increased during the 1920s and 1930s, this also coincided with an unprecedented upswing in American antisemitism. In fact, American antisemitism reached its historical peak in 1944. This directly refutes your thesis that Jewish influence in the media is responsible for the decline of American racialism. If that were truly the case, then we would expect to see a decline in American antisemitism as Jewish influence in the media became more pervasive. Far from it. Prior to the Second World War, eugenics and racialism were flourishing like never before.

During the 1920s and the 1930s, American historians thoroughly debunked the atrocity propaganda spread by the Entente against the Central Powers. Americans came to be convinced that their participation in the Great War had been a mistake and that war profiteers had driven America into the war. This is why isolationist sentiment was so pervasive in the 1930s, all the way up until Pearl Harbor. Even well into the war, the American people simply refused to believe much of the War Department's propaganda against the Germans. This all changed when Allied forces entered Germany and came across Hitler's concentration camps. The photographs of the camps, especially the photographs of the mass graves, came as a profound shock to most Americans. It was the smoking gun. Here was the proof that Hitler and the Nazis were the barbarians, cut throats, and monsters that Churchill and FDR always said they were. Most Westerners found themselves wondering what could have driven the country of Goethe and Beethoven to commit such atrocities. And the answer given by the Jews? Racism. It was the racists who did it. Racialism has been politically impotent ever since.
If they had won the war the situation would have been far different.If the Nazis had won the war, then they would have erected a Teutonic despotism over Europe premised on the racial inferiority of non-Germans. Non-Germans would have been second class whites in the New Order. The Russians would probably have been destroyed outright.
I will respond to the rest of your ridiculously long post at a later time.I will be looking forward to it.
Nonsense. It is Germany's defeat by the very people you call liberators who gave us this society.That is a lie. Eugenics and racialism were born in Britain and America. Prior to the Second World War, racialism and eugenics was flourishing in the Western democracies. Most American states had sterilization laws on the books and many had anti-miscegenation laws. Eugenics had been blessed by the Supreme Court of the United States. The National Origins Act of 1924 had cut off mass immigration to the United States. It was the National Origins Act that kept Jews from flooding into America by the millions in the 1930s. Racialism was socially respectable throughout the West. Men like Madison Grant and Charles Davenport were not pariahs.

So what changed all of this? What happened during the Second World War that caused Westerners to turn their backs on racialism? I will tell you. Westerners were disgusted by Hitler's atrocities and blamed racialism for them. Racialism has been permanently associated with Nazism and mass murder ever since.
Was it NS Germany that integrated your state at gunpoint? No. But I have an even better question. Why did Americans come to feel that racial segregation was so morally indefensible? They certainly did not feel that way in the era of Jim Crow. Why were Americans able to pass the National Origins Act in 1924 yet unable to stop the 1965 Immigration Act? What happened in between 1924 and 1965 that caused such a profound change? Hitler's barbarism.
Or was it the ideological heirs of the Allied cause that had incinerated the "racists" of Germany 20 years earlier?How many millions of nonwhites were living in Britain and France during the 1920s and 1930s? Why did the Supreme Court of the United States endorse eugenics if America's political establishment had such a problem with racial progress? Why did Southern Segregationists endorse Franklin Roosevelt for President? Again. Why did Western Europeans and Americans come to believe racialism was so immoral when that was not the case prior to the war?
This does not address my point about "White racism." You've gone off on a tangent here.Sure it does. Prior to the Second World War, few Americans or Western Europeans had ever heard the word 'racism' before, much less did they associate it with evil. It was only after the Second World War when the concept 'racism' became popularised. It was 'racism' which had driven the Nazis to commit their atrocities. Thus 'racists' were evil.
Wrong. The Jews's media campaign against White racialism is the main factor for its marginalisation.This is false. As I noted above, Jewish influence in the American mass media steadily increased during the 1920s and 1930s yet antisemitism increased as well. So whatever the efforts the Jews may have made, they were flatly unsuccessful. They were under constant attack in the 1930s by a powerful racialist revival movement.

Again. What happened to all of this? I will tell you. When Hitler declared war on the United States, FDR was able to successfully portray the isolationists as traitors who were subsequently marginalised. The revelations about Hitler's concentration camps associated racialism with evil and mass murder. Once racialism was successfully associated with evil and mass murder, antiracists were able to seize the moral high ground and beat down their enemies.
Certainly many Norwegians hated National Socialism. I'm not a huge fan of Quisling myself. He meant well but he wasn't the best leader around.He was nothing but a traitor who betrayed his country to grovel at the feet of its enemies. The vast majority of Norwegians were disgusted with Nazism from the very beginning. The revelations of Hitler's crazed schemes to destroy the Slavs and the pictures of the concentration camps certainly didn't help matters.
But for your information, approximately 50,000 Norwegians volunteered for the Wehrmacht and SS. There are a minority of traitors in every country.
But have you forgotten that France was importing Negroes?France was not 'importing' Negroes. They were imperial troops. Neither was Spain, even though Franco relied upon North African troops in the Spanish Civil War.
And all those countries had Jewish populations which, as usual, were influential well beyond their numbers. The Jews were not regarded as being nonwhite at the time. I have already pointed out how the National Origins Act of 1924 pretty much cut off Jewish immigration to the United States during the 1930s.
How does that negate the validity of NS ideology, as you have claimed it does? Because it never gained legitimacy or social respectability in the occupied nations of Northern Europe. It could only be imposed by force at considerable expense.
I'll (once again) turn your reasoning around on you: The White people of America are not only opposed to the idea of White Nationalism, they are hostile to it. They sympathise with the Jews, not the White Nationalists. Therefore White Nationalism is ideologically false. False Analogy. National Socialism was imposed upon Denmark and Norway at gunpoint. On the contrary, White Nationalism has not been imposed upon Americans.
Are you saying the Russians who fought for Jewish Communism were fighting for their survival?Astor Place has already made an eloquent refutation of this argument.
And in what ways were the Ukranians fighting for their survival?Because Hitler intended to destroy them and repopulate their country with German colonists.
It was the Communists who killed millions of Ukranians.And the Nazis would have killed millions of more Ukrainians than the Communists ever did had they won the war. The Ukrainians came to realise this and rose up against the Nazis in common cause with the Bolsheviks.
Which "pseudoscientific" theories do you have in mind?The notion that there is a Germanic race that is superior to an inferior Slavic race.
The Jews had substantial influence in Western Europe, particularly the UK.Please show us how the Jews controlled the nations of Northern Europe. You have made very bold claims. Lets see you people back them up for once.
One is a lemming if one parrots all sorts of nonsense about Hitler destroying nations, commiting mass murder, and being a tyrant. ROFL. In other words, a 'lemming' is someone who tells the truth about Adolf Hitler and Nazism.
No they wouldn't.The guys over at VDARE point that out all the time, actually.
Americans have no will to slam the borders shut. Sure they do. The vast majority of Americans are in favour of immigration reform. It is the American political elites that oppose immigration reform.
They might like to lessen immigration, but they're far too decadent to rigidly enforce it, much less begin rounding up the millions of illegals already here. I would love to have a vote on it. Should illegal aliens be deported from the United States. Yes or no. I am more than willing to bet such a proposition would pass by a landslide if there was ever a referendum on it.
Democracy has been a curse. No. Judicial despotism has been the curse. So has 'representative government' and the two party system. Americans never got to vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 1965 Immigration Act, the Iraq War, Affirmative Action, aid to Israel et cetera. Democracy is not the problem in America.
It relies on the will of the TV-influenced lemmings. Reforms could take care of that.
Not true. The Jews had enormous influence in the American media and government. Bull****. This 'enormous influence' in the media somehow led to an unprecedented rise in antisemitism. More unsubstantiated conspiracy theories from Olympus.
No, the make-believe atrocity videos, showing starved Jews and in some cases showing dead victims of the USSR, all brought to you by the Jewish media, are what discredited racialism. Hitler's concentration camps were not make believe, Olympus. They were very real.
Naturally there was no mention of why the Jews were emaciated or what their role had been in destroying Germany, or that some of the victims on the videos were not Jews at all.Why don't you Nazis go out and convince your fellow citizens that the Nazis were absolutely right to gun down children with machine guns. Let me know if you have any success.
Not to mention that it would be inconsistent to support racialism at home after having just fought against it in Europe.Americans did not fight against racialism in Europe. Americans fought against a nation that had declared war on the United States.
We disagree. I don't consider men who fought against the Jews and against Communism to be traitors, even if the situation was such that they had to fight under another country's banner. They didn't simply fight the Jews or the Communists. If they in Russia to liberate Russia from the Jews and the Communists, then the Russians would have fought shoulder to shoulder with them. As Hitler pointed out, his troops were in Russia to hunt the Slavs down like Redskins.
Let me ask you a question: if you were a Frenchman of combat age in 1942, would you join the French Resistance or the Waffen SS Charlemagne Brigade? I would have fought to liberate my country from tyranny and foreign occupation. I would not have sided with the enemies of my nation in their mad quest to destroy even more European nations.
Could you expand on this accusation that NS committed mass murder of Europeans?There is no need to be redundant.
Do you mean mass murder of Communists, freaks, antisocials, etc.? No. I am referring to all the Slavic men, women, and children were slaughtered by the Nazis while the Russian, Polish, and Ukrainians peoples fought for their right to exist in this world.
Or do you mean that the NS simply killed non-Germans for no reason but that they weren't German?Sure. In many cases, absolutely.
Could you show me an example of Hitler destroying an entire European people, nation, and culture? I can show you his plans to do just that. Thankfully, he was stopped.
Glad you asked. Hitler had some pretty old-fashioned ideas about the Slavs. Those ideas were reinforced by his youth in the multiethnic Austro-Hungarian empire and the fact that the Poles and Czechs were killing members of the German minority. Why didn't Hitler seem to care when the Germans of the South Tyrol were brutalised by the Italians? Why did Hitler say in his Zweites Buch all the hotheads in the party who made such an issue out of mistreatment of this German minority were idiots?
I don't happen to agree with the anti-Slavic rhetoric, but I can see from the perspective of his time how those ideas could be formulated. I see. You can understand why the Slavs might need to be hunted down like Redskins so that Germany can prosper. That's all I need to know.
The Slavs have also traditionally been hostile to Germans, and many still are. Astor Place refuted this.
It's an ancient hostility and I won't fault him for it. I've said before, even if the nonsensical claims are true that Hitler was going to kill every non-German, that would still be preferable to what we have now - a situation where all Whites are headed to extinction. I see. You would rather live in a hypothetical world ruled by Hitler where all non-Germans have been exterminated by him than in the present. Alright. I will make a note of that.
For whose benefit did America and Britain incinerate Germany? For the benefit of the peoples that were being tyrannised by Hitler and the people threatened by his belligerency.
Simply not true. Many, perhaps most, volunteers went east and fought the communists. Several thousand stayed till the bitter end and died in Berlin Hitler describes in detail in the Table Talk what the war in the East was all about. But there is no point in discussing this with you any longer. You have already pointed out how you can understand why the Slavs might have deserved to be exterminated.
I've answered this already. You have posted nothing new on this topic.Where?
But I'll recap: The Allies were in their best position to continue east in 1945.This is false. Demonstrate to the gallery that the U.S. Congress would have declared war on the Soviet Union in 1945.
The US/UK alliance was stronger than the USSR.Neither the British or the Americans had any stomach for yet another war against Soviet Russia.
Instead, they waited and allowed the USSR to take half of Europe. What else could they have done? Public opinion would never have stood for another bloody crusade in '45.
They also held back under Eisenhower's orders and allowed the USSR to take Berlin and eastern Germany. Patton protested this at the time.The U.S. Government is not a military junta that takes no account of public opinion.
As for being "unwilling to fight," they continued their extremely bloody war in the Pacific, and as a result of not annihilating Communism, fought two more bloody wars in Asia in the 1950s and 1960s. The U.S. had been at war with Japan since Japan slaughtered Americans on American soil at Pearl Harbor. Japan ATTACKED the U.S. The Soviet Union DID NOT ATTACK the U.S.
Of course, none of this would have happened if the US and UK had either remained neutral or allied with Germany instead of with the Jews and Communists. 1.) Both the Revisionists and Nizkor acknowledge the fact that Hitler allied himself with Zionist Jews.
2.) Hitler allied himself with Communism in 1939 and left the Balts to die under Soviet tyranny.
I've acknowledged that National Socialists were a small percentage of the liberated countries. I've also said that since I don't have a democratic worldview that it doesn't mean anything to me. What exactly is your point in mentioning it again? That National Socialism was a failure in Northern Europe, even during the occupation.
Actually it was moving somewhere. NS sympathies were strongest in France and the Netherlands. That is nonsense. There was never anything that can be remotely described as a 'national socialist movement' in the Netherlands and France during the occupation.
I'm not surprised that you chose Denmark, the most hostile of the Western countries, as an example of NS not moving anywhere. I could have just as easily pointed to any of the other civilised Western nations that Hitler attacked and desired to destroy.
No, actually Luxemburg is an independent state. It is German and therefore part of the German nation, and should be reincorporated within the German state. ROFL. Umm no. Luxembourg is an independent nation recognised under international law. Luxembourg is a member of the League of Nations. Luxembourg does not desire to join the Federal Republic of Germany either.
Again, Austria was a state. There is no such nation as "Austria." Umm no. Austria was for centuries one of the great powers of Europe. It is also an independent nation recognised under international law today.
A nation is a biological entity, not a line on a map or a government.A 'biological entity'? That is preposterous.
You're confusing "nation" and "state." Hitler did "destroy" its state independence, but he certainly did not destroy its national independence. He returned Austria to its rightful place within Germany. What do you mean returned? Since when had Austria been part of Germany?

Yes, but the masses of people were influenced by Jewish media. Do you deny this?Absolutely. I can prove it too.

"America's limited willingness to share the refugee burden showed clearly in national opinion polls. In 1938, a year when the Nazis had sharply stepped up their persecution of Jews, four separate polls indicated that from 71 to 85 percent of the American public opposed increasing the quotas to help refugees. And 67 percent wanted refugees kept out altogether. In a survey taken in early 1939, 66 percent even objected to a one-time exception to allow 10,000 refugee children to enter outside the quota limits.

Five years later, in the middle of the war, attitudes were no different. Asked in January 1943 whether "it would be a good idea or a bad idea to let more immigrants come into this country after the war," 78 percent of those polled thought it would be a bad idea. At the end of 1945, when the terrible conditions facing European displaced persons was widely known, only 5 percent of the respondents thought that the United States should "permit more persons from Europe to come to this country each year than we did before the war." (Thirty-two percent believed the same number should be allowed as before, 37 percent wanted fewer to enter, and 14 percent called for closing the doors entirely."

American Anti-Semitism. While it is obvious that so many who opposed refugee immigration felt no antipathy against Jews, much restrictionist and anti-refugee sentiment was closely linked to anti-Semitism. The plain truth is that many Americans were prejudiced against Jews and were unlikely to support measures to help them. Anti-Semitism had been a significant determinant of America's ungenerous response to the refugee plight before Pearl Harbor. During the war years, it became an important factor in the nation's reaction to the Holocaust.

American anti-Semitism, which had climbed to very high levels in the late 1930s, continued to rise in the first part of the 1940s. It reached its historic peak in 1944. By spring 1942, sociologist David Riesman was describing it as "slightly below the boiling point." Three years later, public-opinion expert Elmo Roper warned that "anti-Semitism has spread all over the nation and is particularly virulent in urban centers."

David S. Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-1945 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1984), pp.8-9

"The pervasiveness of anti-Semitism in the United States during the late 1930s and the war years was confirmed by national public opinion polls. A series of polls from 1938 to 1946 dealt with the images Americans had of Jews. The results indicated that over half the American population perceived Jews as greedy and dishonest and that about one-third considered them overly aggressive.

A set of surveys extending from 1938 through 1941 showed that between one-third and one-half of the public believed that Jews had "too much power in the United States." During the war years, a continuation of the survey saw the proportion rise to 56 percent. According to these and other polls, this supposed Jewish power was located mainly in "business and commerce" and in "finance." From late 1942 into the spring of 1945, significant Jewish power was also thought to exist in "politics and government."

Other surveys from August 1940 on through the war found that from 15 to 24 percent of the respondents looked on Jews as "a menace to America." Jews were consistently seen as more of a threat than such other groups in the United States as Negroes, Catholics, Germans, or Japanese (except during 1942, when Japanese and Germans were rated more dangerous).

If a threat actually existed, however, it was not from Jews, but to them. An alarming set of polls taken between 1938 and 1945 revealed that roughly 15 percent of those surveyed would have supported an anti-Jewish campaign. Another 20 to 25 percent would have sympathised with such a movement. Approximately 30 percent indicated they would have actively opposed it. In sum, then, as much as 35 to 40 percent of the population was prepared to approve an anti-Jewish campaign, some 30 percent would have stood up against it, and the rest would have remained indifferent. The threat never crystallised into organised action. But even allowing ample room for inadequacies in the survey data, the seriousness of American anti-Semitism in those years is evident."

Ibid., pp.14-15

"At the time, few Americans shared Kallen's views. Scientific racism reached its zenith in the 1920s as a serious of restriction acts ended immigration from Asia and instituted strict national origins quotas against southern and eastern Europeans. Some cultural anthropologists poisted pseudo-scientific theories tying intelligence to race and ethnic origin, while more and more Americans read the xenophobic works of Madison Grant and William Z. Ripley. The Ku Klux Klan reemerged and enjoyed great success in Indiana and Colorado, where it elected scores of candidates to statewide office and prevented the Democratic party from including and anti-KKK statement on its national platform. The Klan's "100% Americanism" motto translated into a reject of both cultural pluralism, since it encouraged immigrant ethnicity, and assimilation, since it demanded the integration of non-Anglo-Saxon traits in native-born American stock. Nativists, whether in the KKK or in the halls of Congress, harbored strong anti-Semitic feelings. The Anglo-Saxon nation they dreamed of creating did not include Jews."

Ibid., p.41

"Unfortunately, Jewish leadres proved mistaken in almost all their wartime analyses. Popular opposition to Hitler did little to stave off domestic anti-Semitism, which took a turn for the worse during the war years. When pollsters asked Americans in 1940 if they heard any criticism or talk against Jews in the last six months, almost half responded in the affirmative. In 1942, that number inched higher and topped out at 64 percent by 1946. In 1945, more than half of those polled believed that American Jews possessed too much power, a steep climb from prewar levels. The war did not, as communal leaders hoped, ease the integration of Jews into the American mainstream."

Dollinger, p.78

Some more information in the footnote:

"In the 1940 poll, 46 percent responded positively to the question, "Have you heard any criticism or talk against the Jews in the last six months?" In 1942, the number rose to 52 percent. A 1945 poll asking whether Jews had too much power yielded a 58 percent "yes" response. Seventy-eight percent of respondents to a 1942 poll asking high school students to list their least favourite roommate listed "Negroes," while 45 percent responded "Jews." None of the other ethnicities surpassed a 9 percent rating. Dinnerstein, Antisemitism in America, 131-121. When asked "what nationality, religious, or racial groups in this country are a menace to Americans," survey respondents first expressed more aversion to Japanese than Jews but later switched. In February 1942, 24 percent labeled the Japanese a menace compared to 15 percent who cited the Jews. In June 1944, however, nearly a quarter listed the Jews while only 9 percent answered the Japanese. A 1945 poll of American high school students about "their last choice as a roommate" ranked Jews second only to blacks. Dinnerstein, Antisemitism in America, 131-132.

Ibid., p.246-247

"When the Gallup organisation conducted a survey in April 1938, it discovered that more than half the American public believed the persecution of European Jewry was either partly or entirely the Jews' fault. The next month, 20 percent of the respondents said they wanted to "drive the Jews out of the United States" in order to check their power, while almost one quarter sought Jewish exclusion from the government."

Ibid., p.59

Found some more information in the footnote at the back of the book:

"Breitman and Kraut, American Refugee Policy, 88. In addition, 18 percent favored business restriction of Jews. Twenty-four percent sought Jewish exclusion from government, 31.9 percent though the Jews possessed too much business power, and 10.1 percent believed that Jewish immigrants should face deportation. Nearly a third of the respondents to a July 1939 Gallup poll though that Jews possessed too much business power and recommended action to curtail Jewish influence. As German-Jewish refugees laboured to secure one of the coveted quota spaces, more than 10 percent of Americans indicated that these Jewish immigrants should be deported from U.S. shores."

Ibid., p.242

Here we have clear evidence that anti-Semitism was flourishing in America prior to and during the Second World War. If Jewish influence in the media was so pervasive, then why were so many Americans willing to take part in a campaign against the Jews? Jewish influence in the media cannot explain such sentiments. Americans were much more influenced by the powerful isolationist movement in the United States, which is why Americans were steadfast in their opposition to entering the war all the way up until Pearl Harbor, even in light of the actions Hitler had taken against the Jews.
Source."American anti-Semitism, which had climbed to very high levels in the late 1930s, continued to rise in the first part of the 1940s. It reached its historic peak in 1944."

Wyman., p.9
No it doesn't. Jewish media destroyed White racialism mostly after WWII. But it had also taken a terrible toll during and before the war as well.Nonsense. As the evidence presented above clearly shows, American hostility toward the Jews was enormous in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Never in American history had the Jews been more threatened by a movement to expel them from the United States. So once again I will pose the same question to you. If Jewish influence in the American media was so pervasive prior to WW2, so pervasive that it drove America (yeah right) to declare war on Nazi Germany, then why did so many Americans hate the Jews? The answer is obvious to any reasonable person. You have made ridiculous unsubstantiated claims. Jewish penetration of the mass media did grow in the 1920s and 1930s yet it coincided with a powerful surge in American anti-Semitism and a renaissance of racialism in America.

Well. A curious person may find himself wondering why anti-Semitism in America which was so strong prior to and during the war has since collapsed to nonexistent levels. Can Jewish influence in the media explain this? Obviously not, as Jewish influence in the mass media coincided with a surge in anti-Semitism during the 20s, 30s, and early 40s. By the early 1960s, American Jewry was playing a decisive role in the Civil Rights Movement. This is well documented too. Critics of the Civil Rights Movement were also extremely reluctant to point this out. So by the early 1960s, anti-Semitism had already become taboo in the United States. This even occurred prior to the advent of Holocaust literature which first became prevelant in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It also occurred prior to the widespread distribution of television in the United States.

In short, anti-Semitism was marginalised, discredited, and stigmatized as taboo sometime in between the end of the Second World War and the early 1960s. The critical years are 1945, 1946, and 1947. These are the years when American racialism and anti-Semitism began to taper off and go into serious decline. Actually, we can narrow this down even further. Brown v. Board of Education came down in 1954. It was the most decisive blow to racialism in America since Reconstruction. Eisenhower used forced to integrate Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957. In other words, in between 1945 and and 1954, racialism and anti-Semitism became taboo in America.

How can this be explained? What happened in between 1945 and 1954 that could have caused such an enormous change in racial attitudes. The answer is obvious. It was during the postwar era that the sheer magnitude of Hitler's crimes and atrocities were revealed. It was during this period when the photographs of the concentration camps were widely distributed. The Nuremburg Trials also took place. The British and French Empires also began to collapse as imperialism became morally indefensible after the war. In the aftermath of the war, everyone in the West wanted to know what had driven Hitler to attack so many nations and commit so many crimes. The answer given was that racialism had made him do it. It was Hitler's racial theories that drove him into his war against the Soviet Union, that inspired his persecution fo the Jews, that landed him in a war against the West. Racialism was thoroughly associated with Nazism and thus evil. Thus the 'true American' became the antiracist. The Cold War began in the immediate aftermath of the war. The Soviets began to constantly accuse the Western powers of being 'imperialists' and 'racists' cut from the same cloth as the Nazis. Thus racialism went into severe decline for a second reason, as it became tactically necessary for the West to distance itself from racialism to fight the Soviets. Racialism, imperialism, and anti-Semitism went into serious decline because of Nazi Germany.
And we do see such a correlation. No, actually we don't. Jewish penetration of the mass media increased throughout the 20's, 30's, and early 1940's. Yet anti-Semitism and racialism flourished during this period. Racialism and American anti-Semitism went into decline in the immediate aftermath of the war and had lost all respectability and social acceptance by 1954.
Jews have been continually increasing their media holdings and Whites have become less racially nationalistic.No. Jewish penetration of the mass media cannot explain this. It cannot explain the enormous shift in attitudes that took place in between 1945 and 1954. As I pointed out above, the Holocaust literature and television did not become widespread until the late 1960s at the earliest. The Civil Rights Movement had already triumphed by then. Your theory is bogus. Correlation is not causation. It takes no account of spurious factors either. It was the revelation of Hitler's atrocities immediantely after the war, culminating in the association of racialism with crimes against humanity at Nuremburg that was the decisive factor in discrediting racialism.
Sure, there were some holdouts at the beginning, by people who had grown up pre-Jewish media days, but by and large Jewish media resulted in a lessening of White Nationalism, to the point where White Americans were willing to commit fratricide to establish democracy and equality in Europe.This is simply false. When America entered the war in 1941, it was still sterilizing racial inferiors, imposing segregation on Negroes, and prohibiting interracial marriages. Americans were more anti-Semitic than at any point in the previous history of their country. The National Origins Act of 1924 excluded the vast majority of Europeans Jews that wanted to flee to America to escape Nazism. It kept out the masses of the Third World successfully as well. Racialism was by no means taboo in America, much less anti-Semitism.

This began to change in 1944. It was in 1944 that anti-Semitism in America peaked and went into decline. The Allies invaded Normandy in June of 1944. By 1949, anti-Semitism was thoroughly taboo in America. Jewish influence in the mass media cannot explain this. It was the revelations about Hitler's concentration camps that was the decisive factor in discrediting anti-Semitism in America. It was in this period that we first began to hear about 'genocide' and 'racism'. It was 'racism' that had driven Hitler into conquering his neighbours. It was 'racism' that was the cause of WW2 and the concentration camps. These were the sort of accusations that caused racialism, imperialism, and anti-Semitism to lose social respectability.
This proves what?It proves that your accusations about Jewish influence in the media are unfounded. It proves that Jewish influence in the media, whatever its magnitude, was not having the deleterious effect you have described. Jewish penetration of the media was unable to discredit racialism alone.
The Jewish media have "discredited" racialism and eugenics.False. It was Hitler who discredited eugenics as well:

"Nazi eugenics quickly outpaced American eugenics in both velocity and ferocity. In the 1930s, Germany assumed the lead in the international movement. Hitler's eugenics was backed by brutal decrees, custom designed IBM data processing machines, eugenical courts, mass sterilisation mills, concentration camps, and virulent biological anti-Semitism -- all of which enjoyed the approval of leading American eugenicists and their institutions. The cheering quited, but only reluctantly, when the United States entered the war in December of 1941. Then, out of sight of the world, Germany's eugenic warriors operated extermination centers. Eventually, Germany's eugenic madness led to the Holocaust, the destruction of the Gypsies, the rape of Poland and the decimation of Europe.

But none of America's far-reaching scientific racism would have risen above ignorant rants without the backing of corporate largess. . .

Only after the truth about Nazi extermination became known did the American eugenics movement fade. American eugenic institutions rushed to change their names from eugenics to genetics. With its new identity, the remnant eugenics movement reinvented itself and helped to establish the modern, enlightened, human genetic revolution. Although the rhetoric and organisational names had changed, the laws and mindsets were left in place. So for decades after Nuremburg labeled eugenic methods genocide and crimes against humanity, America continued to forcibly sterilise and prohibit eugenically undesirable marraiges."

Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race (New York and London: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), p.xvii
Strange perception of the events.You are the one with the strange perception of events. The vast majority of civilised people in the West are disgusted by the photographs taken of Hitler's concentration camps, especially the mass graves.
Am I to assume that you believe the Jewish fairy tale known as the Holocaust?No. I remain sceptical about 'The Holocaust'. We only began to hear about the Holocaust in the late 1960s or early 1970s. But it would be foolish to deny that the Nazis exterminated lots of Jews. No one really knows the precise number for sure. I doubt we will ever know.
Let me give you a brief run-down. The Germans imprisoned racial and political enemies.I am entirely aware of this. And many of these racial and political enemies just happened to be Slavs in the occupied territories of the East, many of whom were anti-Communists. I don't believe we should murder other Europeans over ethnic differences. That is what separates me from Nazis like yourself.
The Allies (liberators to you) destroyed Germany's infrastructure to the point where supplies and food could not move. Many people starved to death or died of disease.I am sure that was the case in many instances. But no one denies to my knowledge that the Einsatzgruppen units in the East wiped out an enormous number of Jews.
This caused a lot of inmates to die. The Allies then entered these camps and took those pictures.The Nazis were brutalising the inmates in the camps. Yet this is an entirely irrelevent issue. It does not matter in the slightest why such people were in the camps. The only thing that matters is that the images that were taken were decisive in discrediting racialism.
What the Jewish media failed to report was why the people were in the camps and how it was that they were dead or starving.You continue to rant on and on about a Jewish Media in 1945. Lets see some evidence of this for once. And as I pointed out before, it does not matter why they were in the camps. That is irrelevent. The only thing that matters is the reaction most Americans had to such images.
There are also cases in which photos have been doctored to increase the number of bodies, or in some cases show pictures of the USSR's victims and pretend that they're Jews killed by the National Socialists.According to who? You can make excuses all you want just as you can continue to change the substance of this discussion. The only thing that matters is that the photographs were so utterly repulsive that they caused a decisive change in the racial attitudes of many Americans, not to mention their opposition to the Jews.
The Jewish media deliberately deceived the public. No. Everyone (with the exception of fringe elements) acknowledge how the Nazis felt about the Jews. Hitler himself had threatened numerous times to take revenge on the Jews under Nazi control if the Allies continue to prosecute their war against him.
And you blame the Germans for this and not the Jews?Nazis and Germans are not equivilant. Most Germans were horrified and disgusted by the actions taken by the Nazis against the Jews. That is why Nazism is so unpopular in Germany today, actually.
If the scales were turned and the US lost the war to the same scale that Germany did, German soldiers would have found a lot of dead or dying Japanese inmates in camps in the western states. Why are you trying to change the topic? We are discussing here whether or not Hitler and the Nazis are responsible for discrediting racialism in the West. We are not discussing hypothetical scenarios, of which there is no empirical evidence, which are entirely a product of your own imagination (amongst other things).
Just out of curiousity, do you put part of the blame on the end of segregation on the White policemen and firemen of Birmingham who were seen beating and spraying Negroes with firehoses?No, actually I don't. But unlike yourself, I actually live in Alabama and know precisely why the Birmingham police reacted in the way they did. The ENTIRE incident was staged and planned in advance for the benefit of the audience that was to watch on television. The NAACP DELIBERATELY went to Birmingham to incite a riot and provoke the police. In fact, they selected Birmingham beforehand because they knew that the police there were more likely to crackdown on them. Its unfortunate that I lost my material from the Old Phora, as I had proved this in one of the previous threads.
Or do you blame the Jewish media for selectively showing those scenes, with false editorial? Those scenes are permanently associated with the "barbarism of segregation."There is no equivilence whatsoever between the coverage of the Birmingham riots and coverage of the Nazi concentration camps. The Birmingham police cracked down on a riot planned in advance by the NAACP which went to Birmingham specifically to cause such an incident. The Birmingham police were not rounding up blacks and murdering them either.

No. Judicial despotism has been the curse. So has 'representative government' and the two party system. Americans never got to vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 1965 Immigration Act, the Iraq War, Affirmative Action, aid to Israel et cetera. Democracy is not the problem in America.

Don't kid yourself-- given the chance, Americans would have voted in favor of most of these. The majority of Americans usually have no opinion on issues until those currently in power take a definite stance, after which they defend with fervor the "orthodox" position. I can cite many examples of this.

Aside from that, I am pleased that you have ceased to defend the madman known as Adolf Hitler.

Don't kid yourself-- given the chance, Americans would have voted in favor of most of these.With the exception of the Iraq War, I seriously doubt that a single one of these measures would have been able to pass a popular referendum.
The majority of Americans usually have no opinion on issues until those currently in power take a definite stance, after which they defend with fervor the "orthodox" position. I can cite many examples of this.If I recall, most Negroes do not even support Affirmative Action, much less White Americans. I would love to have a popular referendum on illegal immigration, our insane immigration laws, and the so-called Civil Rights Act. The Equal Rights Amendment was decisively defeated.

Switzerland has more "direct democracy" than other European countries and puts things like that on popular referendum. They just knocked down the recent attempt to change their tight immigration laws, for example.

Food for thought.

German and non-German Whites are second class citizens right now, and as a result of the Allies' victory, which you support.More lies from Olympus. Why are whites such racial nihilists today? Why do they feel racialism is evil whereas they did not prior to the war? The truth of the matter is that Hitler's atrocities associated racialism with evil and mass murder. That is why Germans today are so ashamed of their own country and feel guilty about taking pride in themselves.
This doesn't match your earlier claim that Russians would have only been moved east.They were to be expelled beyond the Urals and treated like Redskins. We know what happened too.
The ancients practiced eugenics.This is false.
"Many" is not enough. Some states didn't even have segregation.And the vast majority of them were overwhelmingly white too, unlike the states of the Southeast. Segregation existed outside of the South as well.
Tell me how this addresses my claim that modern society is a result of the US/UK/USSR defeat of Germany.It shows that prior to the Second World War eugenics and racialism were flourishing in the United States. So it wasn't simply the defeat of Germany that caused the change. It was something else. Racialism had been socially respectable in most Western countries prior to the war. There was, however, a profound change in racial attitudes after the Second World War. That makes sense. It was Hitler's association of racialism with mass murder and evil that caused the change.
You're half right. The Jewish media's portrayal of National Socialism is what destroyed racialism. But I think we're going in circles here.No. National Socialism discredited itself. No conspiracy by a Jewish media is necessary to explain the revulsion most Westerners felt about the excesses of Nazism. Take Norway or Denmark for example. Did the Jews control the media in Norway and Denmark?
I am a bit perplexed though. You call the Allies liberators and patriots, but then you lament that the people in the Allied countries immediately rejected racialism. Of course. It was the profound sense of disgust with Hitler's atrocities and the pseudoscientific racialist theories that motivated him in the immediate aftermath of the war that led to the change in racial attitudes. Hitler and the Nazis are responsible for the marginalisation of racialism in the West. This is just one of the reasons that I am so critical of Nazism.
If the Allies were so great, why did their people give up on racialism so quickly?Because Hitler associated racialism with sheer brutality and mass murder, which utterly disgusted most Westerners. Racialism was blamed for causing WW2. Many Americans and Europeans lost loved ones in the Second World War. Thus they blamed this on Hitler and Nazism, and by extension, racialism.
Fighting a war for democracy and equality was inconsistent with non-democracy and non-equality at home.Thanks Hitler.
Really? Why didn't Europeans lose their stomachs for self-defense after Vlad Tepes impaled Turks on stakes and left them to bleed to death? Or after the Franks tied Moors behind horses and dragged them across the ground until their limbs ripped off? Or after the Teutons hunted down every Hun and mongrel offspring of the Hun they could find and slaughtered them after the main force of Huns had retreated?Red Herring.
Could it be that there was no Jewish media in those days?I have a better explanation. Modernity is not the Middle Ages! Duh!
And what exactly is wrong with barbarism?LMAO. It does not really surprise me that Nazis would ask such questions.
Barbaric races survive.White people don't have to shoot children with machine guns in order to survive in this world. We don't have to slaughter other whites by the millions either.
Soft and decadant races are easy targets. Soft living is killing us.What would you describe as soft living? Living in a technologically advanced society where our fellow citizens don't act on the barbaric impulse to slaughter their neighbours out of jealousy? If you admire barbarism so much, then why don't you move to Black Africa? You will find plenty of it there.
This has nothing to do with my question.Sure it does. You have blamed the Allies for the shift in racial attitudes, yet prior to the war, racialism was socially respectable in the West. Racialism went into decline after the war because Hitler associated it with evil and mass murder.
Why do you keep asking the same question over and over again?To highlight the fact that racialism collapsed in the West after the war, not prior to the war. What happened in the 1940s that could have caused racialism to lose moral respectability? Nazism.
And has it occured to you that the US government during WWII was in favor of integration, but that the people weren't yet ready for it?You seem to be ignoring the fact that FDR had made common cause with the Southern segregationists in the Democratic Party. It was Hitler who associated racialism with anti-Americanism. After the war, Southerners who wanted to preserve segregation were attacked as Nazis by their enemies.
I was talking about Jewish media campaigning after WWII.It was the disgust Westerners felt with Hitler's crimes after the war that caused the decline in racialism. Jewish media influence cannot explain this. This change also occurred in European countries where Jews were practically non-existent.
The increase in anti-Semitism, as I said above, was primarily by those who were either outside the reach of the media (not uncommon in those days) or who had been raised in an earlier generation. It took the Jews only a generation or so to whip everyone into shape.Nonsense. How many Jews were there in Scandinavia after World War 2? Why is Sweden such an antiracist country today? How about Iceland? Did the Jews cause the change in racial attitudes in those nations as well?
Flatly unsucessful? Absolutely. Organised Jewry has no more fundamental goal than fighting antisemitism. Yet antisemitism was notorious during the 1930s and 1940s.
They got the US into a huge war on their behalf, got their enemies arrested, saw the racialist movement nearly collapse in 1941, and then gave us integration in the 1950s and 60s.Nonsense. You people continue to put forth this same lie again and again. You have made the accusation yet you cannot support it. Where is your evidence that American Jewry caused America to declare war on Germany? It was Nazi Germany that declared war on the United States. Once the U.S. was at war with Nazi Germany, it was easy to portray racialists and antisemites in America as Nazis and supporters of Hitler.
So let's blame those awful Germans instead of those who were beating us down!The Nazis are 100% to blame for the decline of racialism and anti-Semitism in the West, not the Western Allies. It was disgust and revulsion with Nazi brutality that caused the radical swing from national chauvinism to the other extreme of racial nihilism.
Yeah, that makes sense. I guess the Germans should have just tip-toed around so no Jew or Communist could have called them or any other racialists any dirty names.Nazism wasn't simply about fighting Communism and the Jews. It was, above all else, about national chauvinism and hating other Europeans over ethnic differences. It was the ridiculous pseudoscientific racialist theories of the Nazis that motivated Hitler to pursue expansionist war in the East at the expense of the so-called inferior Slavs.
I'm amused that your hatred is reserved for the people of our race who fought the Jewish/Bolshevik scourge, while you call the people who actually destroyed our race "liberators."More Nazi propaganda. Had the Nazis truly invaded the Soviet Union to fight Jews and destroy Bolshevism, to liberate Eastern Europe from tyranny, then they would have been outstandingly successful in their efforts. The local population would have rose up in rebellion and Bolshevism would have been destroyed forever.

Yet that never happened. It didn't happen because the Russians and the Ukrainians soon learned that the Nazis were not in the East simply to fight the Bolsheviks, but to destroy the Slavs and steal their land. And that is why they joined the Bolsheviks in resisting Hitler. Prior to the Second World War, Bolshevism had been utterly unable to expand its tentacles into Eastern Europe. Bolshevism only became popular in Eastern Europe during the war when it was associated with antifascism. Tito came to power in Yugoslavia by leading the partisans against the Nazis.

Do you prefer Norway's current government, which promotes race-mixing and non-White immigration to Norway's government of 1940-1945?Actually, I would prefer Norway's government prior to 1940. Before 1940, there was no mass immigration of nonwhites to Norway as there is today. There was no Nazi tyranny either or any plan to destroy Norway's national existence. Norway had passed a sterilization law in 1934. Jon Alfred Mjøen was one of the world's leading eugenicists.

"In Norway, the raceologist Jon Alfred Mjøen endorsed American eugenics from the outset. He propounded his theory from a well-equipped animal and human measurement lab as well as a grand personal library; crammed floor to ceiling with books and files. At the second Congress in New York, Mjøen suggested the resolution that ultimately led to the formation of the American Eugenics Society. In his opening address to the convention, Osborn signaled out Mjøen and Lundborg. "It is largely through the active efforts of leaders like Mjøen and Lundborg," he acknowledged, "that there is a new appreciation of the spiritual, moral, and physical value of the Nordic race."

Davenport toured eugenic facilities in Norway, and Mjøen visited New York on several occasions. Mjøen was also a frequent contributor to, and topic of, Eugenical News. The dapper Norwegian was often pictured arm-in-arm with leading American eugenicists, such as Leon Whitney. Norway passed its sterlization law in 1934, and in 1977 amended it to become a mostly voluntary measure. Some 41,000 operated were performed, about 75 percent on women.

The Swedish Government's State Institute of Race Biology opened its doors in 1922. It was an entire school dedicated to eugenic thought, and it would leave a multilayered movement in its wake. Sweden alternatively shared and coordinated its programs with the IFEO. Sweden's first sterilization law was passed in 1934. It began by sterilizing those who had "mental illness, feeble-mindedness, or other mental defects" and eventually widened in scope to include those with "an anti-social way of life." Eventually, some 63,000 government-approved sterilizations were undertaken on a range of "unfit" individuals, mainly women. In some years women represented a mere 63 percent of those sterilized, but in most years the percentage who were women exceeded 90 percent . . .

Some nations, such as France and Italy, rejected their native eugenic movements. Some, such as Holland, only enacted broadly-based registration laws. Some, such as Lithuania and Brazil, enacted eugenic marriage laws. Some, such as Finland, went as far as forced sterilization.

One nation, Germany, would go farther than anyone could imagine."

Black, pp.244-245
Could you show me any way in which the premise: "The vast majority of Norwegians were disgusted with Nazism from the very beginning." must result in a conclusion resembling: "Therefore National Socialism and/or Quisling were bad and/or treasonous."Vidkun Quisling was tried for high treason and executed by a firing squad after the war. He betrayed Norway during the German invasion and led a short-lived government in its wake.
Your argument sounds very democratic and I've already turned it around on you to show you that by your line of reasoning SF is bad.Its true that you have attacked a straw man argument. I have actually argued that there are two types of destructive extremism, racial nihilism and national chauvinism. White Nationalism falls somewhere in between the two extremes of Nazism and antiracism.
You said hardly anyone volunteered for service. I showed you that in Norway it was 50,000. Do you retract your claim? By the way, in Russia it was nearly 1,000,000, in Lithuania about 15,000, and I'm not sure about the total figures for France, but about 20,000 Frenchmen defended Berlin from their Soviet/Judaic "liberators" in 1945.No. Actually, I don't. And what percentage of their national population did these volunteers make up? I will be however the first to applaud the patriotic citizens of the Baltic nations who were sincerely fighting against Communist tyranny for the independence of their nations.
I don't care if they were troops or not. They were causing the same problems that Negroes always cause. You made a ridiculous claim which you have been unable to support. There were also plenty of Indians who fought in the East for the British Empire. That doesn't mean any Indian could immigrate to the UK if he or she so desired prior to WW2.
Could you show me how this negates my point that the Western countries had Jewish populations which were influential beyond their numbers? Try sticking to the issues here. Sophistry does not impress me.You didn't make a point. Jews were thought of at the time as being white Europeans. Thus Jews were allowed to immigrate to America and Great Britain whereas millions of Black Africans and Chinese were not.
Right, well after massive numbers of Jews had already immigrated.So what? Jews had lived in Germany for centuries. The founders of American Jewry came to the United States from Germany.
And this negates NS ideology how? Because it was not politically viable in Northern Europe, anymore than America's ridiculous effort being made today to impose democracy on Iraq.
That was my question. You haven't answered it, unless you're claiming that it is negated only by its lack of popularity, which does not prove that it is ideologically wrong.It is not incumbent upon me to prove a negative. Actually, you are the one who must prove that National Socialism is ideologically correct. You have yet to do so. If you can make such a case, then lets see it.
No. You said NS is wrong because the people opposed it. I said by your reasoning SF is wrong because the people oppose it. You are attacking a straw man. National Socialism was imposed by force upon Denmark and Scandinavia against the will of their populations. On the contrary, White Nationalism has not been imposed upon Americans or anyone for that matter.
My analogy holds up and you have failed to negate it.You made an invalid argument that rests upon a false analogy. It is a false analogy because it ignores the role force played in imposing National Socialism upon Denmark and Norway.
Whether one or the other was imposed at gunpoint is irrelevant to this issue.It is not irrelevent. It is entirely relevant because it is what essentially makes your analogy into an invalid argument.
Could you show me a quotation by Hitler stating that he is going to exterminate the Ukranian nation en masse?I have already posted such quotations. I guess you did not bother to read them. I am not going to waste my time posting them again. They have been posted several times now, in fact.
Speculation.Its not speculation. See Harvest of Despair: Life and Death in Ukraine under Nazi Rule by Karel C. Berkhoff or Hitler's War Aims: The Establishment of the New Order, Volume 2 by Norman Rich.
This sounds like Soviet propoganda.Yeah right. See Russia's War: A History of the Soviet War Effort, 1941-1945 by Richard Overy or Stalin's War: Tragedy and Triumph, 1941-1945 by Edwin P. Hoyt
I didn't say they controlled the nations of Northern Europe.Of course. You can't demonstrate that at all.
"The Jews had substantial influence in Western Europe, particularly the UK."Then lets see it. Define 'substantial influence'. Then show us the evidence.
Really? The vast majority of Americans want to "slam the borders shut"? I've yet to speak to a single lemming who isn't horrified at the suggestion. I'm willing to bet not. Americans can't stomach the thought of tracking down 12 million or so Mestizos, some who have been living here for years, arresting them, and forcibly deporting them.Paul Craig Robert's An Immigration Dictatorship (http://www.vdare.com/roberts/immigration_dictatorship.htm).

You see, Jewish conditioning has taken its toll. "A CBS News/New York Times poll in January 2004 said no issue upset the public more than Mr. Bush’s amnesty/guest-worker proposal, with only one-third of Americans supporting him. And a CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll that same month said 74 percent of respondents thought the United States should not make it easier for illegal aliens to become U.S. citizens."

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2004/08/illegals_acted.php
Americans were wringing their hands when a single Cuban was arrested and deported four years ago. Remember Elian Gonzales? Times that reaction by 12-17 million.Actually, the vast majority of Americans supported RETURNING Elian Gonzales to Cuba

"This is what divides the devoutly religious Cuban American community from the great majority of Americans who, according to the omniscient polls, want the boy to go back with his father."

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j041900.html
Democracy elected the criminals who gave us those outrages.I recall pointed out to you that representative government, not democracy is the problem. Proposition 187 in California was defeated only by the judiciary. Integration was imposed on the South by the judiciary. AA is imposed by the judiciary. Gay marriage was imposed on Massachusetts by the judiciary.
Democracy relies on the preposterous theory that the masses have any governing sense.The masses defeated gay marriage in every single state where it was on the ballot in 2004. But here is perhaps the most stunning refutation of your argument. In the 2004 election, there was a proposed amendment to the Alabama State Constitution to remove racist language from the Alabama State Constitution.


Proposed Statewide Amendment No. 2

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to repeal portions of Section 256 and Amendment 111 relating to separation of schools by race and repeal portions of Amendment 111 concerning constitutional construction against the right to education, and to repeal Section 259, Amendment 90, and Amendment 109 relating to the poll tax. (Proposed by Act 2003-203 (http://arc-sos.state.al.us/CGI/SOSACT22.MBR/VIEWDOC?P01=B03170AA.BA9&x=68&y=9))

At the moment, the amendment could very well go down to defeat!

Amendment 2 remains too close to call (http://www.al.com/election/coverage/?amendments)at 2:40 a.m., with the no votes edging out the yeses by about 4,800 votes. The Amendment was proposed as a means of changing the language in the Alabama constitution that speaks to segregated education, a tangible reminder of Alabama’s history of slavery and segregation. Opponents claim that the current language is obviously obsolete, and does not practically deny education to anyone. They believe that some of the language changes proposed would go beyond cosmetic changes, and are actually meant to open the door for additional school taxes.
So far, with 54 precincts left to report, the opponents are winning out. I’ll update the count when the final results are in.

http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/cat_alabama.html
It is no wonder the Jews want every Gentile country to have a democracy. We don't need any Latin American or African style military despotism in the modern West.
Even the Jews themselves admit they had enormous influence during that era. If you actually knew anything about the issue, then you would know very well that the Hollywood Jews were so intimidated by domestic anti-Semitism in the 1920s and 1930s that they refrained from using explicitly Jewish themes in their movies.
OK, that's all well and good, but again, that does not address my claim. You claimed that the Western Allies were responsible for the decline of racialism in the West. I have shown this to be utterly false. It was Adolf Hitler and his crimes that marginalised racialism, not the Allies or any Jewish conspiracy.
Stick to what I am saying. I have never denied the camps existed. I denied the outrageous claims about what happened in those camps. Can you address that point?You haven't made a point. In fact, you are attempting to change the subject under discussion. We are not debating what went on in the camps. The debate is over why racialism fell into disrepute in the aftermath of WW2. It was the photographs that were taken of the camps that horrified Westerners and associated racialism with tyranny, mass murder, and immorality. And that is true whether you like it or not.
Have you seen Schindler's List a few times too many?I have seen the photos of Nazis shooting women and children. It doesn't really surprise me either. Just listen to yourself. You even asked me what was wrong with barbarism above.

Its unfortunate that I lost my material from the Old Phora, as I had proved this in one of the previous threads.

It is unfortunate that you don't save your material on your hard drive. :p

Yes. Just imagine what the results of a popular referendum on asylum seekers would be in Great Britain. Proposition 187 was defeated in California only by the courts.

Hitler would have never ruled the world.

The West would be in far better shape if Hitler won, imo. No feminism, no massive turd world immigration, no weakness, no social degeneracy, no Marxism, birth rates would be higher, and people would actually be proud of their European culture. Now we can postulate as to what would have happened to the non-Germans, but I have reason to doubt the Nazis would have imposed any massive restrictions against Nordic non-Germans. In the end, the ends justify the means. A few million Russians getting killed never affected anything before.

On the other hand, Hitler lost. The question could be: would the West be better off if Hitler never existed? To answer this, I cannot say. Germany was a weak, decadent shitpit without him. I wonder if Stalin would have had any problem marching through all of continental Europe.

The United States would probably have been better off if Hitler never existed. As mentioned, Hitler discredited the eugenicist movement and racialism in general. This does not mean, however, that the left would not have picked up steam in America regardless. The culture and the mindset of the South was not altered before they were forcibly integrated. The left/Jews/Jew lovers did not have total control of academia and they could not flaunt media power that early, all they needed were sympathetic people in the Supreme Court. Hitler, of course, had no affect on our Supreme Court or Congress. Civil Rights legislation, the Immigration Acts, et al., were inevitable, but this is just my opinion.

Overall, I think the world, for white people, would be better off if Hitler won.

The hell they didn't. It was widely understood that they were fighting against a racial state and that Germany being a racial state was extremely bad. Bullshit. Nazi Germany was run by a gang of national chauvinists who were waging aggressive wars against their weaker neighbours out of territorial greed. Nazism rested upon the twin pillars of fratricide and ethnic hatred. Absurd pseudoscientific theories were brought in to justify so-called German racial superiority. Nazi eugenics was garbage. The Nazis even repudiated IQ tests and called them Jewish when they did not like their results.
As for Hitler declaring war on America, so what?You have claimed that a Jewish conspiracy drove the United States into declaring war on Germany. In fact, Nazi Germany declared war on the United States and America responded accordingly.
What could Hitler have done to America with no aircraft carriers or long range bombers?That is irrelevent. HITLER declared war on the United States. That is the point that is in dispute here. He hoped to sign an armistace with England for Germany and England could jointly attack America after the war. He points this out in the Table Talk.
And are you completely ignorant of the fact that FDR situated the US fleet in Honolulu so Japan would attack and then he'd have his excuse to wage war against Germany? ROFL. How dare FDR send the Pacific Fleet to the American naval base at Pearl Harbor on American territory! The Japanese were absolutely justified in slaughtering Americans on American soil!
Are you also unaware that the US navy was committing acts of war against German naval vessels as early as April 1941 and the German navy did not return fire?My only regret is that the U.S. did not declare war on Nazi Germany in 1939 alongside France and Britain. Hitler's invasion of Eastern Europe was directed against the United States. Hitler was convinced that Nazi Germany could only pursue a 'world policy' by acquiring the necessary lebensraum in the East to defeat an Anglo-American blockade of Germany.
And are you unaware that the US supplying Britain with military supplies was a violation of neutrality?Yes. I was unaware of how this was a violation of American neutrality. The U.S. Congress had already repudiated the Neutrality Act, Olympus.
Several hundred thousand did. Like who? Vlasov?

Hitler (http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/a/ad/adolf_hitler.html) was very wary of Vlasov and his army. He worried that he could be successful in overthrowing Stalin, which would halt Hitler's dreams of expanding Germany to the Urals (http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/u/ur/ural_mountains.html). Vlasov's forces were thus pulled from direct battles with the Red Army and sent to other fronts. It was only in the final days of the war that Hitler sent the rest of Vlasov's force east, but again they did little fighting against the Soviets. The most important action fought by the Russian Liberation Army was against an SS (http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/s/ss/ss.html) force intending to destroy Prague (http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/p/pr/prague.html). Vlasov was repulsed by the rapine of the SS and attacked the SS, routing them and preserving the Czech city.

Vlasov and the rest of his force, desperate to escape the revenge of the Red Army attempted to head west to join with the Allies. The Allies had little interest in providing aid to Nazi collaborators that would anger an important ally, and thus rebuffed Vlasov's advances. Soon after Vlasov and most of his supporters were caught by the Soviets.

Vlasov and his men were sent back to Moscow and in a trial held in the summer of 1946 Vlasov and the other high officers were sentenced to death. Vlasov was hanged on August 2, 1946.

www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/a/an/andrei_vlasov.html+andrei+vlasov&hl=en (http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/a/an/andrei_vlasov.html+andrei+vlasov&hl=en)
It was the Allies that let the Russians languish under Communism for another 45 years.If Hitler had invaded the Soviet Union in order to liberate Russia from Communism, then he would have easily succeeded. Yet that is not what Hitler set out to do. He invaded the East in order to destroy the Slavs and win territory 'with the sword' for Germany. The Soviet Union soon acquired nuclear weapons after the war and there was nothing the West could have done to stop the Soviets. The Soviet Union was an enemy of the West during the Cold War.
Does this mean you would have joined the French Resistance?I am not from France.
You're one to say that!It is frustrating having to post the same excerpts again and again and make the same points, having already been previously supported massive documented evidence, when they are only subsequently ignored.
Enough for tonight. If I feel like it I'll finish it tomorrow. But I really am getting tired of having to write essays in response to you. From now on I will ignore any question or point that you are repeating and that I have already answered several times.I have responded to each and over single one of your points, even the ridiculous ones that you repeat over and over again simply for rhetorical effect.

Next up: SDY6401

It's ironic how Nazis acted just like stereotypical Jews. Deceptive, aggressive, and ruthless, bound by no morality or decency whatsoever.

Kevin MacDonald hints that National Socialism was a viable German survival strategy, and even one likely to be revived for modern Euro-Americans. After reading that, my opinion of KMacD went down several big notches. Nazism was for Germany the worst thing that has ever happened. It is by far the worst thing ever to happen to the white race.

If you had read The Culture of Critique, you would know that Macdonald called Nazism an "insane nightmare" or something to that effect.

If you had read The Culture of Critique
I have read it three times.
you would know that Macdonald called Nazism an "insane nightmare" or something to that effect.
You should read MacDonald's Separation and Its Discontents. Of special interest is Chapter 5, "National Socialism as an Anti-Jewish Group Evolutionary Strategy."

You beat me to it. Kevin MacDonald argues that National Socialism was basically Judaism for whites. I agree. The Jews and the Nazis have the exact same ghetto mentality. Both feel they are constantly under attack from the dark forces and conspiracies arrayed against them. The Negroes who believe the police are out to get them is another example. I pointed this out before over at VNN:

"There is an eerie sense in which National Socialist ideology was a mirror image of traditional Jewish ideology. As in the case of Judaism, there was a strong emphasis upon racial purity and on the primacy of group ethnic interests rather than individual interests. Like the Jews, the National Socialists were greatly concerned with eugenics. Like the Jews, there was a powerful concern with socializing group members into accepting group goals and with the importance of within-group altruism and cooperation in attaining these goals.

Both groups had very powerful internal social controls that punished individuals who violated group goals or attempted to exploit the group by freeloading. The National Socialists enacted a broad range of measures against Jews as a group, including laws against intermarriage and sexual contact, as well as laws preventing socialization between groups and restricting the economic and political opportunities of Jews. These laws were analogous to the elaborate social controls within the Jewish community to prevent social contact with gentiles and to produce high levels of economic and political cooperation.

Corresponding to the religious obligation to reproduce and multiply enshrined in the Tanakh, the National Socialists placed a strong emphasis on fertility and enacted laws that restricted abortion and discouraged birth control. In a matter analogous to the traditional Jewish religious obligation to provide dowris for poor girls, the National Socialists enacted laws that enabled needy young couples to marry by providing them loans repayable by having children.

As in the society depicted in the Tanakh and throughout Jewish history, the National Socialists regarded people who could not prove the genetic purity of their ancestry as aliens with fewer rights than Germans, with the result that the position of Jews in National Socialist society was analogous to the position of the Nethinim or the Samaritans in ancient Israelite society, or converts in historical Jewish societies, or the Palestinians in contemporary Israel. As with Israel, the state had become the embodiment of an exclusivest ethnic group.

Both groups had a well-developed ideology of historical struggle involving the group; Kren and Rappaport (1980, 208) explicitly make this connection when they note that National Socialism "was founded on militant movements for Zionism, socialism, or Communism - movements than had always provided their members with a strong sense of historical struggle and an indentification with group goals rather than individual satisfaction" - clearly a statement that could apply not only to Zionism but to traditional Judaism as a whole (see PTSDA, Ch. 6). Gordon (1984, 114) states that "it was clearly Hitler's conception that he was working for group goals - those of the 'Aryan people' and that his individual fate mattered little."

In this regard, Hitler's attitude that death was the only honourable fate for himself and his followers was entirely similar to that of the Jewish resistors of the period (Gordon, 1984, 115). Kren and Rappaport (1980, 217) describe a situation in which "the youth - the best, the most beautiful, the finest that the Jewish people possessed - spoke and thought only about an honourable death. . . befitting an ancient people with a history stretching back over several thousand years."

Kevin MacDonald, Separation and its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (Westport, 1998) pp. 162-163

I have read it three times.

http://a1980.g.akamai.net/7/1980/3430/9caa388a2a9b32/www.bookitprogram.com/teachers/images/celebrateallstar.jpg


In that case you should know of the passage which I have mentioned earlier.


You should read MacDonald's Separation and Its Discontents. Of special interest is Chapter 5, "National Socialism as an Anti-Jewish Group Evolutionary Strategy."

C of C was written later, if there is a conflict of opinion, it is reasonably safe to assume that the opinion more recently expressed is more in agreement with Macdonald's present view.

In that case you should know of the passage which I have mentioned earlier.
Please cite the page on which the phrase "insane nightmare" appears.

C of C was written later, if there is a conflict of opinion, it is reasonably safe to assume that the opinion more recently expressed is more in agreement with Macdonald's present view.
MacDonald has never repudiated SAID. In fact, he cites SAID multiple times in C of C.

Please cite the page on which the phrase "insane nightmare" appears. MacDonald has never repudiated SAID. In fact, he cites SAID multiple times in C of C.

I will search all several hundred pages of the the book for a phrase of 3 or 4 words if you can show me any place where Macdonald endorses Nazism as a system people should emulate in the present day.

You beat me to it. Kevin MacDonald argues that National Socialism was basically Judaism for whites. I agree. The Jews and the Nazis have the exact same ghetto mentality.
Exactly. I would argue that Judaism is definitely a sub-optimal survival strategy for Jews. It has a nasty habit of bringing Jews to the brink of extinction. Judaism for Germans is simply insane. An already-flawed small group strategy can hardly be expected to scale up well to a large nation-state. The result was a paranoid, fanatical, conspiracy-obsessed superpower. It should be easy to see why this could never be good for the white race.

Like my beard Raina?

Are you saying that Hitler wanted to destroy the very concept of "France"?Hitler's intentions for France are not all that clear. We do know, however, that he intended to permanently occupy a large portion of the channel coast, annex Alsace and Lorraine, as well a long strip of territory on the East. Goebbels mentions in his diary that Burgundy was to be taken from France after the war. Spain and Italy were also to awarded with a lot of territory at France's expense. A rump French state would have existed in the south, although it would have been nothing more than a satellite under either Italian or Spanish hegemony. The critical difference here is that Mediterranean France would have fell within the Italian sphere of interest, unlike the nations of the North, such as Denmark and Norway, which were to be directly incorporated into Hitler's New Order in Northern Europe. You have also chosen not responded to my point. The debate is actually over whether Hitler's racial nationalism had any precedent in European history. I cited Napoleon's treatment of the German states. Napoleon never had any plan premised upon the racial inferiority of Germans to either enserf, exterminate, or enslave their inhabitants.
You're splitting hairs here. The actions are basically the same.This is false. Hitler's nationalism was unprecedented in modern European history. I cannot think of any other European nation that set out to destroy another European nation and repopulate it on the premise of the racial inferiority of the inhabitants.
If it's done for reasons of religion or economic gain, why would you consider that to be more "moral" than engaging in war for national reasons? Very simple. I stick with the same analogy that I used above. While Napoleonic France engaged in extensive warfare with its European neighbours, including the largely defunct Holy Roman Empire, it never at any point sought to destroy its neighbours because of their so-called racial inferiority. French nationalism did not necessarily entail murdering other Europeans, as did National Socialism. Or better yet, lets use the Roman Empire. At no point did the Romans destroy the Gauls because they were Gauls. The Romans did not believe that intermarriage with the Gauls would bastardize and degrade the Romans. In the National Socialist New Order, the Slavs would have been branded with the permanent seal of racial inferiority. So why wars for religious causes or economic gain not any more despicable than the wars waged by the Nazis? Very simple. The Nazis set out to destroy other Europeans on the basis of their supposed racial inferiority to Germans. If we use the preservation of the white race as a principle from which we can deduce ethical judgements, then it logically follows that destroying other Europeans because they are other Europeans is much worse than simply exploiting or tyrannizing them.
If you look at the various historical maps of Europe from century to century, you'll see a lot of invasions, annexations, and swallowed-up territories. Yes. You certainly will. No one denies that, SDY6401. Yet you will have an extraordinarily hard time finding what we call genocide today. What is genocide?

Genocide - the systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

Give me a precedent. Give us another example of any other European state in modern European history setting out to systematically destroy another European national, racial, political, or ethnic group. You said there were similar incidents. Well. What are they?

It was mentioned earlier that Poland had not even existed as an independent state for 300 years until it was given independence after WW1 (just as Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia became independent; the Ukraine was supposed to be independent too, but they didn't enjoy independence for very long).Since when had an ethnically pure German nation state ever existed? Since when had all Germans been a part of the same polity? The Holy Roman Empire, as noted above, was a loose multiethnic empire seeking to emulate the ancient Roman Empire with its ideal of universality. There was not even a unified German nation-state until Bismarck and even the Second Reich contained significant non-German minorities. Not even Herder associated German nationalism with an ethnically pure German nation state. Its a false analogy to compare Medieval kingdoms to modern nation states anyway, as the former rarely corresponded with any ethnicity.
And while we're on the subject of monarchs, we should note how often monarchs were not even of the same nationality as the people over which they ruled.Very true. Take the Holy Roman Empire Charles V for example. He was also the King of Spain and he could not even speak German. Holy Roman Emperor Otto III had a Byzantine mother and loved the Romans more than the Germans. Frederick II, Holy Roman Empire, was King of Sicily. He spoke Arabic and kept a private harem. Even Otto the Great had children by his Slavic mistress. His son Otto II married the daughter of the King of England. The nationalist identification of 'the people' with 'the state' is nothing more than a figment of the imagination of modern Europeans. But that is my entire point. Search though you may throughout the European past, you are not going to find similar examples in modern European history.
And the peasants in all countries had it pretty bad.I agree. But what European Monarch ever destroyed his peasants on the theoretical basis of their supposed racial inferiority? You would be hard pressed to find a European Monarch who even identified with his subjects. Far from it. All the way up until the French Revolution, the French nobility emphatically denied that they were descended from the Gauls. On the contrary, they claimed to be descended from the Franks, the 'free warriors' who conquered Gaul after the collapse of the Western Empire in the 5th century. The Polish aristocracy also denied it was of Slavic ancestry. I can point to many other similar examples. They are virtually endless. The point however remains the same. You are going to have a very hard time trying to find a Hitler in the Middle Ages or in the Early Modern Era. Such people simply did not exist at the time.
Maybe they weren't treated like "Redskins," but still, it wasn't a picnic for the common man, and it was even worse for those who were ethnic/national minorities.European peasants were never treated like American Indians by European Monarchs during the Middle Ages. If that was ever the case, then I am certainly ignorant of the fact. I am quite familar with the Middle Ages as well so I sincerely doubt it. The only precedent that comes to mind that is even remotely similar to Hitler's actions would be treatment of the Indians by the Americans. Yet even this analogy does not hold, as the American Indians were racially nonwhite and in most cases land was purchased from them by Americans.
The same can even be noted in the American experience, where different White nationalities didn't always get along that well.American law has never recognised any second class whites. There may have been anti-Irish sentiment in some quarters, based upon the theory that Anglo-Saxons were whiter than other Europeans, but the whiteness of the Irish was never disputed, much less recognised. With all of these irrelevent issues we are slowly treading off-topic. The essential point though remains the same. In modern European history, what precedent are there for anything like the actions of Hitler? I can't think of any.
Some were, frankly, treated pretty badly.There is a very important difference. Even the most die hard American Anglo-Saxonists would recognise the Irish were white, albeit less white in their view than the Anglo-Saxons. The Irish were never treated like the Indians or Negroes in America.
Again, none of this makes any of it right, but my only point is that similar situations can be noted throughout history. You have yet to point out any such similar situations. Point out to me another example in which one European people in modern European history committed genocide against another prior to Adolf Hitler.
So let me get this straight. If a leader of a nation-state is motivated by lust, greed, personal glory, or the desire to spread religious tyranny, then that's okay, but if the motivation is love of one's nation, then that makes it the work of a "madman"? Tyranny is not in the same category as mass murder, SDY6401. Yes. It is much worse to murder people because you are convinced of their racial inferiority than it is to steal from them or force them to become Christians. Loving your nation does not necessarily require that you destroy other nations and other peoples. And this is what separates Hitler from his predecessors. It is one thing for Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia over Serbian ambitions in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is quite another for Germany to set out to commit genocide against other Europeans.
On the grounds that they were ethnic Germans.You can't invoke self-determination to justify the annexation of the Sudetenland by Germany and then turn around and deny self-determination to the Czechs and Poles. It was adherence to the principle of self-determination that led the British to rationalise the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, the annexation of Austria, and the annexation of the Sudetenland. This policy clearly changed after Hitler repudiated the Munich Pact and sent his troops into the rump of Czechoslovakia. The British consented to Irish and Indian self-determination as well so don't even go there. The entire colonial policy of the British Empire was premised upon the idea of trusteeship, which is why British colonial policy was so strikingly different from that of the French or Belgian. Trusteeship was the notion that the British should assist their dependent peoples in developing their infrastruture to the point where they could become fully independent nations.
Hitler did not create the situation in Europe that he inherited, and maybe if there was a greater concern for "ethics" on the part of so many other powers of Europe, then I could see they would have a stronger leg to stand on in their condemnations of Hitler.Germany signed the Versailles Treaty. Yet as I pointed out to you before, the British Government had already long ago abandoned any hope that the Versailles Treaty could secure a just and lasting peace. This was made clear to Gustav Stresemann in the Weimar Republic. It is precisely the reason why the Locarno Treaty did not guarantee Germany's eastern borders. It is why Britain stood idly by as Germany casted off the paper chains of Versailles. What the British wanted was what Neville Chamberlain called a 'final settlement with Germany'. This was the intellectual architecture behind his appeasement. It is why Lord Halifax told Hitler that all territorial questions in the East could be resolved so long as force was avoided. That the British were sincere was obvious even to Hitler. He regarded it as the clearest indication yet that the 'decadent' democracies of the West would never go to war with him. He thought Chamberlain was a spineless and ridiculous old man with an umbrella, a gullable fool whom he could take advantage of. He was so confident that the British would not go to war with him that he attacked Poland, even after Chamberlain's guarantee. He was stunned by the British declaration of war. This is not the sort of reaction one would have if one was sincerely convinced that the Western democracies were bent on war against Germany from the get go.
When I see rats accusing the mouse, then I have to take it with a grain of salt.I see. You are arguing here that the United States and Great Britain were engaged in the same sort of activity that Nazi Germany was engaged in so it is thus hypocritical for America and Britain to condemn Germany for its actions. Why don't you tell us then what territory was annexed by America or Great Britain from Germany.
I don't think that amounts to "defending" Hitler's conquests as much as it's acknowledging the historical truth and reality of how nations interact with each other. Most Western Europeans were convinced in the 1930s that the experience of the Great War should never be repeated, that reasonable and civilised men could settle their differences without slaughtering each other by the millions. Neville Chamberlain was such a man. This was the sentiment embodied in the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, Chamberlain's policy of appeasement, and the Charter of the League of Nations.

WHEREAS a Treaty between the President of the United States Of America, the President of the German Reich, His Majesty the King of the Belgians, the President of the French Republic, His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, His Majesty the King of Italy, His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, the President of the Republic of Poland, and the President of the Czechoslovak Republic, providing for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, was concluded and signed by their respective Plenipotontiaries at Paris on the twenty-seventh day of August, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight, the original of which Treaty, being in the English and the French languages, is word for word as follows

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/kbpact.htm
My objection has to do with the hypocrisy of the Allies engaging in the same political intrigue and hegemonic policies that Germany was accused of, while simultaneously portraying themselves as "peace-loving" and "making the world safe for democracy."What political intrique was this? What hegemonic policies were these? Tell us. Give us the names of the nations the Allies intended to destroy and colonise. What German territories were annexed by Britain and France? Are Britain and France occupying the Netherlands today and forcing the Dutch to learn the English language?
I don't believe in the "good guys" vs. "bad guys" version of history. Me either. It depends upon one's perspective. For instance, if one is of the view that the Germans are a superior master race and the sole bearers of culture, then one might not see anything wrong with mass murder of non-Germans and the acquisition of territory from inferior Slavs. On the other hand, if one is of the view that the highest ethical principle one could adhere to is the preservation of the white race, then one might logically find himself horrified by national chauvinists who slaughtered millions of Europeans out of territorial greed.
More often than not, it's "bad guys" vs. "bad guys," and to try to paint it as anything different is hypocritical.You seem to be asserting that the Western Allies were somehow also 'bad guys' and thus morally equivilant to the Nazis during the Second World War? What is the basis of this assertion if you are indeed making it?
Okay, so you might find some obscure, isolated quote from Hitler where he said something about it, but what does that really prove? One will be hard pressed to find any better evidence of a hypothetical motive than a confession. What is there to deny? Hitler himself admitted it. His intentions for Denmark and Norway or well known.

"For the future, Hitler told Hanneken, he definitely intended to abolish the Danish monarchy and the parliamentary system of government. Nor did he have any intention of allowing Denmark to retain its present independent status. That country, like Norway, was essential to Germany for strategic reasons. "Denmark would have to become a German province."

Hitler issued similar instructions to Best, who assumed his duties as minister and Reich plenipotentiary in Denmark on November 5, 1942. He was about to arrange a complete transformation of the Danish government and secure the inclusion of Danish National Socialists in the cabinet."

Norman Rich, Hitler's War Aims: The Establishment of the New Order, pp.111-112

They didn't actually "destroy" those countries, now did they?"The process of amalgamation would presumably have taken a good deal longer than in Austria. But when the stage of the actual annexation of the Scandinavian countries to the Reich had been reached, it can be taken as certain that, as in the case of Austria, they too would have been broken into smaller state and party administrative units, and that a systematic campaign would have been conducted to destroy the very concept of a Denmark or a Norway."

Rich, p.140
Of course, no country wants to be invaded by another, but I remind you that this would never have happened had it not been for the Anglo-French declaration of war. I would agree that it never would have happened in 1939. Whether or not the Third Reich would have ever turned against the West eventually is another matter altogether.

"In contrast to the lands of Eastern Europe, which from the beginning had been his prime territorial objective, Hitler had no immediate plans for the invasion and occupation of the countries of Scandinavia, although there can be no doubt that he intended to bring them into his greater Germanic realm at some time in the future. But until his major adversaries had been crushed, Hitler was primarily concerned with preserving the neutral status of the Scandinavian countries to avoid extending his theater of military operations unnecessarily. It was only after he had become convinced in early 1940 that these countries were about to be occupied by the British, a move that would have dealt a crushing blow to his strategic and economic position, that he resolved to occupy them himself."

Rich, p.106
MuadDib posted an article on this very subject, earlier in this same thread.MuadDib cited an article about a book by Viktor Suvorov called Icebreaker. Yet as anyone who is familar with the books well knows, its central thesis has been subject to devastating criticism. See Gabriel Gorodetsky's Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion for one such notable recent refutation.
It should also be noted that the Ukraine was occupied territory as well, when the Soviets took it over. Occupied by the German military? Which occupation are you referring to here. Be specific.
So, you're saying that he intended to destroy everyone in Europe who wasn't German? No. The Reich made a very important distinction between Germanics and non-Germanics in the territories occupied by Germany. Hitler had no intention of treating the Danes, Norwegians, Belgians, Luxembourgers or the Dutch like the Poles, Czechs, or the Russians. He did, however, plan to absorb the occupied Western nations into his New Order and destroy their existence as independent nations.
If this is true, then why did the Germans leave Paris and Rome as open cities as the Allies advanced? Because Hitler admired the great architectural landmarks in Paris and Rome. This was in clear contrast to his intentions to wipe St. Petersburg and Moscow off the face of the earth, as he notes in the Table Talk. His admiration of great art did not translate into any admiration of the French people, however, many of whom he regarded as racial bastards who bred with Negroes. See Mein Kampf.
They could have entrenched themselves - or else leveled the cities as they were exiting. But they didn't do that. Of course they didn't. Hitler considered himself to be an artist and admired great works of art. He thought the great monuments of Rome and Greece were built by Nordics who had colonised Southern Europe in a prehistoric Volkwanderung.
All of the ancient monuments and cultural places are still standing, even though the Germans could have destroyed it all, if they wanted to.Why would Hitler have destroyed those ancient monuments and cultural places? He was convinced they had been built by the Nordic cultural bearing ancestors of the Germans and were thus part of his cultural heritage.
A national leader who wanted to destroy all the rest of Europe probably would have done that. Hitler did not, even though it would have been very easy for him to do so.Yet this doesn't follow. In Hitler's view, only the Aryan was capable of true culture. As he said himself, 'all human culture, all art, science and technology that we see today, is almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan.' Nordics were the culture bearers of the world. It was Germanic Nordics, in his view, that had overrun Southern Europe during the Greek Dark Ages and built the great monuments and cultures of Southern Europe. So of course he didn't destroy such monuments. He thought they were built by Germans!

"How did Hitler reconcile the cultural ascendancy of the Mediterranean peoples with the notion of Aryan supremacy, the bedrock of everything he believed? Picking up on his old theory of northern peoples dominating southern peoples, he expounded the view -- itself historically respectable -- that the Dorians were northern barbarians who had invaded Greece in the post-Minoan Volkerwanderung. He accordingly argued that Germanic tribes had fallen into two types, a seafaring group which migrated south where it produced 'one eternal art -- Greek Nordic art' and a group that stayed behind in its mud huts: 'The Teuton must go to a sunny climate to develop its capacities. It was first in Greece and Rome that the Teutonic spirit really flowered. . . The Teutons who remained in Holstein were still boorish after 2000 years while their brothers who migrated to Greece rose to culture.'"

Frederic Spotts, Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics (Woodstock and Ne York: Overlook Press, 2004), pp.22-23
America is not involved in Iraq for nationalistic reasons. The government has often used nationalistic principles to generate support among the populace, which is why there's such a drive towards patriotism and flag-waving. But it's false. Its not? Did the United States have a mandate to attack Iraq under the Charter of the United Nations? Koffi Annan has already gone on record pointing out that America's invasion of Iraq was a clear violation of international law. I am sure most legal scholars would agree. If American unilateralism is not nationalistic, then what, pray tell, is?
But my point was that nationalism is generally unique to each nation. It's not something which can be typically applied from nation to nation and use the same formula. As I noted before, in the vast majority of instances, nationalism does not necessarily entail murdering other Europeans on the basis of their theoretical biological inferiority. Genocide is not a logical consequent of nationalism alone.
Well, then, you're sixty years too late in your condemnations of Hitler.Not on this forum, it would seem. That is why we are having this discussion in the first place. There is widespread sympathy for Hitler and Nazism here. There is also a profound hostility to the Western Allies and a notable willingness on the part of many posters to rationalise Hitler's treatment of the Slavs.
I'm not here to defend Hitler, but from where I stand, the current "New World Order" is working against the interests of the White race.I would be the first to agree. I am hardly the fan of our contemporary situation either. Yet it is simply wrong to blame the Western Allies for the decline of racialism in the West. That was Adolf Hitler's doing. It was Adolf Hitler who discredited racialism. Nazism bears responsibility for the loss of racialism's moral respectability.
I'm more concerned about what threatens White people today, and I can absolutely assure you that Hitler is no longer a threat to White Europeans - or anyone else for that matter. I agree. I am much more concerned about threats to white people today as well. That is why I am so interested in mainstreaming racialism, regaining its social respectability, and making it politically viable once again. Yet this is impossible so long as racialists continue to be marginalised as Nazis. It was the Nazis who discredited racialism in the first place. Have we learned anything in the last several decades? And if that were not enough, they still linger on this to this day to stiffle every effort that is made by us to break away from our self-imposed marginalisation. Take Olympus for example. He asked me above what was wrong with barbarism! There is a perfect example of why racialists are so ostracised today.
I sincerely hope that you don't. Despite our disagreement on this issue, I still think that you're one of the better posters to this forum, and your contributions are most welcomed and appreciated. even welcome this debate we're having now.Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate it. I am also enjoying our debate. :)
However, I will say, frankly, that there should be nothing about this debate which should lead you to believe that anyone is justifying the murder of millions of Europeans.I don't believe that you are yourself of this point of view. However, I cannot say the same about many of the posters like Olympus in this thread.
Just because someone doesn't see things from your viewpoint doesn't mean that they have no souls or that they justify murder.Are you sure about that? I wouldn't speak too soon.

"I've said before, even if the nonsensical claims are true that Hitler was going to kill every non-German, that would still be preferable to what we have now - a situation where all Whites are headed to extinction."
--Olympus (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1383930&postcount=154), Nazi

There were many things that could have been done to prevent Hitler's rise to power as well. Unlike the monarchs and aristocrats who opposed him, Hitler was elected by popular mandate. Hitler was appointed Chancellor by President Hindenberg. The Nazi Party was never able to secure a majority in the Reichstag on its own accord, even after it was dissolved and new elections were held.
Is there a statute of limitations involved in that? Not to my knowledge. That is one of the oldest and commonly accepted principles of international law as well.
After all, it was the Allies who used force against the Germans to impose the Treaty of Versailles upon them, not just during the war, but in the years following as well. This simply isn't true. The Allies did not force the Germans to sign the Treaty of Versailles. They Germans could have chosen to continue the war if that is what they wanted. And furthermore, the British had already come to the conclusion in the 1920s that Versailles would eventually be done away with and a 'final settlement' would be reached with Germany.
The threat of force was always there; that's how agreements and treaties are forged.Not really. The British refused to join the Belgians and the French when they occupied the Ruhr. The British had also already informed the Germans during the Weimar Republic that Britain would not go to war if Germany decided to take back its lost eastern territories.
It's better to agree than to wipe each other out. But if both sides are intransigent, then there will be war.It was Hitler who was being unreasonable. If the Weimar Government had not fallen, then it is quite probable that Germany would have reannexed the Eastern territories peacefully at a later date, just as the Federal Republic of Germany was later able to pull off German reunification without war.
But in this case, that only applies to Germany and Poland, as they were the two countries with a boundary dispute.But it didn't only involve Poland. Poland was a member of the League of Nations. Thus Britain and France WERE involved by their obligations under the compact.
The only reason that Britain and France were involved is because they were two primary governments which set that boundary to begin with. This isn't true. The British also involved themselves in a quarrel with Italy over Italy's conquest of Abyssinia. And Britain involved itself in this issue for the very same reason that it involved itself in Hitler's dispute with Poland: Hitler's threats against Poland put in jeapordy the principle of collective security embodied in the compact of the League.
They weren't defending their own territory. This ignores the fact that under contemporary international law the territory of Poland WAS the business of Britain and France as members of the League of Nations.
You should also note that they didn't do anything to protect Poland - not really.They declared war on Germany and Britain prosecuted the war against Germany until it was utterly defeated.
The real tragedy of this whole affair is that Poland ended up as just one of many bargaining chips given to Stalin, and they had to live under a communist dictatorship for over 40 years. I agree. That was a tragedy. But keep in mind here that Hitler had already cut a deal with Stalin to take half of Poland in 1939. Why don't those who complain about Eastern Europe falling under the tyranny of communism complain about that? We hear again and again how evil the Communists were for massacaring the Slavs. Yet it would seem that the Nazis lose all concern for the welfare of the Slavs as soon as Hitler's atrocities are pointed out to them.
So, you're now admitting that WW2 was a war of aggression by the Allies against Germany? No. I didn't say that at all. I was actually arguing that Germany was the aggressor even though Britain and France declared war on Germany. It was Germany who committed the initial act of aggression against Poland that made the use of force necessary against Germany.
I'm not so naive as to believe that Britain and France were really all that interested in defending Poland, especially given the fact that they so easily gave it away to Stalin. Its true. The British made an unnecessary enemy of Italy over its conquest of Abyssinia, even though British interests were in no way directly affected by this. Italy violated the compact of the League and thus the principle of collective security necessitated that the British stand up to aggression.
Churchill was a great speech maker. But what "storm" was he referring to, other than the one contrived by British propagandists?He was referring to Nazi aggression against the neutral nations of Europe. Churchill pointed out that the neutral states had each individually sought to appease Hitler in the hope they would be left to live in the peace. In the end, however, this turned out to be a disaster for them, as the 'storm' (to use his metaphor) ultimately engulfed them as well.
Germany lost their land 20 years earlier. They wanted it back. They took it back. End of story.Germany never lost Austria or the Sudetenland after the Great War. Germany did however lose North Schleswig, Alsace, and Lorraine. And Hitler was unwilling to go to war over ANY of these territories.

But no, they have to make it out like it's the end of the world. It's just a very cerebral and erudite way of saying that "the sky is falling."
Churchill noted a pattern of Nazi aggression: Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland. He predicted that more states would soon fall. And not long thereafter Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands fell. France was defeated. Then Hitler turned his guns on the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Greece. And if that were not enough, he declared war on the United States!
Everything that happened since the German invasion of Poland is directly related to the various campaigns which happened as a result of the war. No. Hitler was an opportunist. As I pointed out above, he clearly intended to bring Scandinavia into the New Order, even if he had no plans to immediately do so in 1940.
If not for the declaration of war by Britain and France, Germany's invasion of Poland would have been just a "blip" in most history books - just one of many invasions and border disputes throughout the history of Europe. Nothing new. [/quote]This is utterly false. Hitler had already destroyed Austria and Czechoslovakia before his attack on Poland. Had Hitler gotten his way, he would almost certainly have attacked the Soviet Union. Then he would have built up his resources in the conquered territories of the East and turned against the West with all his might from a position of strength. This is why the British and French chose to go to war with him over Poland rather than sit around with their thumbs up their arse until Hitler took them out in the future.
It was over in a month. That could have been the end of it, right then and there. Yet it never would have been the end. Hitler said that he had no further territorial ambitions after he destroyed Austria. And then what did he do? He started making demands on Czechslovakia. He was appeased again. He destroyed the rump Czech state. Then he attacked Poland. He even brags in the Table Talk, before his declaration of war on America, that Nazi Germany was planning on going to war with the U.S. in the future.

Nights of 8th-9th and 9th-10th August

"If America lends her help to England, it is with the secret thought of bringing the moment nearer when she will reap her inheritance.

I shall no longer be there to see it, but I rejoice on behalf of the German people at the idea that one day we will see England and Germany marching together against America."

Hitler's intentions for France are not all that clear. We do know, however, that he intended to permanently occupy a large portion of the channel coast, annex Alsace and Lorraine, as well a long strip of territory on the East. Goebbels mentions in his diary that Burgundy was to be taken from France after the war. Spain and Italy were also to awarded with a lot of territory at France's expense. A rump French state would have existed in the south, although it would have been nothing more than a satellite under either Italian or Spanish hegemony. The critical difference here is that Mediterranean France would have fell within the Italian sphere of interest, unlike the nations of the North, such as Denmark and Norway, which were to be directly incorporated into Hitler's New Order in Northern Europe. You have also chosen not responded to my point. The debate is actually over whether Hitler's racial nationalism had any precedent in European history. I cited Napoleon's treatment of the German states. Napoleon never had any plan premised upon the racial inferiority of Germans to either enserf, exterminate, or enslave their inhabitants.
This is false. Hitler's nationalism was unprecedented in modern European history. I cannot think of any other European nation that set out to destroy another European nation and repopulate it on the premise of the racial inferiority of the inhabitants.
Very simple. I stick with the same analogy that I used above. While Napoleonic France engaged in extensive warfare with its European neighbours, including the largely defunct Holy Roman Empire, it never at any point sought to destroy its neighbours because of their so-called racial inferiority. French nationalism did not necessarily entail murdering other Europeans, as did National Socialism. Or better yet, lets use the Roman Empire. At no point did the Romans destroy the Gauls because they were Gauls. The Romans did not believe that intermarriage with the Gauls would bastardize and degrade the Romans. In the National Socialist New Order, the Slavs would have been branded with the permanent seal of racial inferiority. So why wars for religious causes or economic gain not any more despicable than the wars waged by the Nazis? Very simple. The Nazis set out to destroy other Europeans on the basis of their supposed racial inferiority to Germans. If we use the preservation of the white race as a principle from which we can deduce ethical judgements, then it logically follows that destroying other Europeans because they are other Europeans is much worse than simply exploiting or tyrannizing them.


National Socialist Germany is not quite unprecedented in European history. Ancient Sparta had much in common with NS Germany, indeed many NS leaders cited Spartan society as a prototype for their own, in terms of subordinating the individual to a military state and placing the power of the Spartan military in the Hellenic world as the chief (and really only) aim of statecraft.

The Spartan treatment of Helots (enslaved fellow Greeks) as servants and slaves that could be killed or abused at whim mirrors Himmler's attitude towards Slavs and other Eastern Europeans. The Helots were not targeted for "extermination" outright, but then neither were Eastern Europeans - the NS goal was to have the subject peoples turn sword to plowshare and serve as farmers and manual laborers for the SS and Wehrmacht.

National Socialist Germany is not quite unprecedented in European history. Ancient Sparta had much in common with NS Germany, indeed many NS leaders cited Spartan society as a prototype for their own, in terms of subordinating the individual to a military state and placing the power of the Spartan military in the Hellenic world as the chief (and really only) aim of statecraft.

The Spartan treatment of Helots (enslaved fellow Greeks) as servants and slaves that could be killed or abused at whim mirrors Himmler's attitude towards Slavs and other Eastern Europeans. The Helots were not targeted for "extermination" outright, but then neither were Eastern Europeans - the NS goal was to have the subject peoples turn sword to plowshare and serve as farmers and manual laborers for the SS and Wehrmacht.I think you missed this part. ;)

"This is false. Hitler's nationalism was unprecedented in modern European history."
--FadeTheButcher

I think you missed this part. ;)

"This is false. Hitler's nationalism was unprecedented in modern European history."
--FadeTheButcher

Fair enough, but the ancient world was already being used as a comparison by you and your opponent in comparing Caesar's treatment of the Gauls with NS Germany's treatment of Slavs. So I thought I'd throw in the Spartan-Helot example for good measure, especially considering the fact that Hitler considered Spartan society as a model for NS Germany (he couldn't very well admit that they were consciously or unconsciously immitating Judaism, after all).

There certainly were elements of Roman society that consider Gauls and other "barbarians" to be subhuman, though this was a cultural rather than a racial designation. A better example than the Gauls might be the de facto extermination of the Carthaginians at the end of the Third Punic War.

Of course, the best analogy in the Ancient World to Nazi Germany comes not from Greece or Rome but from Ancient Israel. The Old Testament is filled with references to "God's Chosen People" (=The Master Race), "The Promised Land" (Lebensraum), and commandments from their tribal deity to exterminated the Canaanites, Ammonites, Midianites, etc. and to treat the Samaritans and others as a caste of serfs.

I will search all several hundred pages of the the book for a phrase of 3 or 4 words if you can show me any place where Macdonald endorses Nazism as a system people should emulate in the present day.

MacDonald never "endorses" Nazism, he simply states that it was the collectivist defense mechanism of a people in a crisis situation. He no more "endorses" Nazism than he "endorses" Judaism, if anything he argues that Nazism ("Judaism for Germans") is in some ways more counter to the individualist nature of Europeans than Judaism and Islam are to the more tribalist natures of Semitic peoples.

His books are descriptions and interpretations, not prescriptions in any form.

"To fight the jews, no matter your opinion of the German nationalists, you are going to have to adopt similar tactics and arguments, as Kevin MacDonald outlines in his books. You must develop a mirror strategy, whereby our White in-group aggressively helps itself internally, while aggressively attacking in every possible way the hostile jew outgroup. Not because I'm a "nazi" but because I objectively believe that jews are the problem and objectively believe that the nazis of all political groups understood how to combat them do we Whites advocate what I do."
-Alex Linder (http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=48869&postcount=10)

Not because I'm a "nazi" but because I objectively believe that jews are the problem and objectively believe that the nazis of all political groups understood how to combat them do we Whites advocate what I do."
Starting the greatest fratricidal war in European history and then losing it does not strike me as the best way to combat the Jews. The Nazis were more interested in hating the living shit out of the Poles and other Europeans than they were in cooperating with other nations to fight Jewish Power. We don't need to become Jews in order to fight Jews. If Western culture is so worthless, then why is it worth fighting for in the first place? I am glad we do not engage in the same sort of barbarism that goes on in Black Africa, although I will be the first to admit that there are Nazis like Olympus who would beg to differ. We have our own racialist traditions in the West and we should fall back on those. We don't have to dress up like Fascist clowns or murder people in order to make a point.

Don't kid yourself-- given the chance, Americans would have voted in favor of most of these.
On what basis do you make this claim? Most Americans are far more conservative than the "liberal elite." Anytime an amendment to ban same-sex marriage is put to the popular vote, the people will support it. This is true even in "liberal" states like Oregon. In states like Mississippi, the bans pass by crushing margins - often 6:1 or more. The same is true of race and immigration. Every poll shows that Americans are overwhelmingly in support of banning affirmative action, closing the borders and deporting illegal aliens.

The last thing the "Democratic" party needs is REAL democracy. The bigger the turnout, the more poorly they do. In the latest presidential election, Bush won by nearly four million votes. He won the largest number of votes of any president in American history. People were saying that the higher turnout would benefit Democrats, but the opposite is demonstrably true.

Starting the greatest fratricidal war in European history and then losing it does not strike me as the best way to combat the Jews.
I agree. The Librul Jews and Neo-Nazis appear to need one another. They have a symbiotic relationship at the expense of normal people.

"To fight the jews, no matter your opinion of the German nationalists, you are going to have to adopt similar tactics and arguments, as Kevin MacDonald outlines in his books. You must develop a mirror strategy, whereby our White in-group aggressively helps itself internally, while aggressively attacking in every possible way the hostile jew outgroup. Not because I'm a "nazi" but because I objectively believe that jews are the problem and objectively believe that the nazis of all political groups understood how to combat them do we Whites advocate what I do."
-Alex Linder (http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=48869&postcount=10)

Those are Linder's words, not Kevin's.

Hitler never attacked the United States. Yes he did. He declared war on the United States after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
As for the other countries you mentioned, they had no reason to declare war on Germany over the invasion of Poland (or Austria or Czechoslovakia, for that matter). Sure they did. Hitler attacked and destroyed fellow members of the League of Nations. Britain and France were entirely justified under the Covenant of the League to expel Germany from its occupied territories.
The Soviet Union was complicit in that invasion.Yes. Stalin cut a deal with Hitler and took advantage of the opportunity of Britain and France going to war with Germany to attack Finland, Poland, and the Baltic States.
Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg were in an unenviable geographic position, given their proximity to Germany, France, and Britain.How come? The Netherlands and Denmark were neutral during the Great War. The Kaiser never felt it necessary to attack the Netherlands. The states listed above did not harm Germany simply by existing in this world, although I suspect many Nazis would beg to differ.
I'm not saying there's any justification for it, but those invasions were related to the overall campaign against France and Britain - which would not have been necessary had they not declared war on Germany. This is false. It was not necessary for Germany to invade any of these nations in order to prosecute its war against Britain and France. It was entirely Germany's decision to do so. Britain went to war with Germany in the Great War over its violation of Belgium's neutrality.
Yugoslavia and Greece were related to Germany's obligations to its allies, namely Italy, as they were already at war in that region.Germany had no obligation to attack Greece under the terms of its alliance with Italy. Italy did not declare war on Poland when Germany invaded it. In fact, Italy only came into the war when it was certain Germany had already won. The attack upon Yugoslavia and Greece was entirely Hitler's choice.
Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria were allied with Hitler, and they were also involved.Hitler also later sent troops into Hungary and Romania if I recall. I am not sure about Bulgaria though. Goebbels talks in his diaries (cited above) about destroying Hungary after the war. Hitler intended to make the Danube into a German river after the West was defeated.
As it turned out, they really didn't have the resources. It took the resources of the USA and the USSR as well. After Hitler had overrun Europe, sure. Yet the collapse of France was not necessarily because of its military weakness, but a series of tactical blunders by the Allies that Hitler was able to take advantage of.
And if the smaller states were that terrified, then why didn't they join with Britain and France?Precisely because they were terrified of Hitler! They also did not possess the military strength to resist his aggression alone. It is quite obvious however which side they sympathised with.
Even though they may have been small, that didn't mean they were totally incapable. They could have stood up to Hitler. True. But then they would have almost certainly met the fate of Poland as well.
Belgium, for example, could have allowed Allied troops in to defend their border with Germany. They refused.Belgium had also be attacked by Germany in the Great War and was utterly determined to repeat that experience.
They could have built up their own "coalition of the willing."Like the Little Entente? That alliance disintegrated rather fast don't you think? France would not even come to the aid of Czechoslovakia. Do you think Yugoslavia would have come to the aid of Belgium? LMAO.
They had nearly a year to do so. If they were so terrified, they would have done so, wouldn't they? It would have been an act of national suicide for Belgium or Holland or Denmark to declare war on Germany. Germany would have decisively defeated them.
Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and "what if" scenarios are always filled with ideas of what they should have done.They should have joined with France and Britain in resisting Nazi aggression to begin with. Yet they obviously did not. And what did Hitler do? He bombed Rotterdamn anyway.
But their actions don't really demonstrate that they were really that terrified.Sure they do. They stood idly by why Hitler attacked and destroyed nation after nation, even when they were utterly opposed to his aggression, simply because they were so afraid of being attacked themselves.
But then, despite all this alleged panic gripping Europe over Hitler, he also had allies in Europe. Not everyone was against him. And many of these Allies were by no means his biggest fans. Many of them cooperated with Hitler in order to deter his aggression elsewhere. The Soviet Union is a great example. Yet Hitler ultimately attacked the Soviet Union too.
Leaving out the role of the Jews for a moment, it is true that our government is responsible for the current racial state of our nation. Not necessarily. We live in a democracy. Racial attitudes in the United States changed entirely on their own accord in the immediate aftermath of World War 2. It was Hitler's disgusting atrocities which disgusted Americans and caused them to reject racialism. Prior to the Second World War, racialism had been taking enormous strides in the U.S. The Supreme Court in 1927 endorsing eugenics is the best example.
We certainly can't blame Hitler for that.Hitler is to blame for discrediting racialism. It fell into disrepute across the entire West, even in neutral countries like Sweden and Switzerland.
Our government was an Allied government, and it's still the same government today.Its the same government that once tolerated segregation and endorsed eugenics too. It is the same government that made whiteness the basis of U.S. citizenship and prohibited nonwhites from ever immigrating here.
There was no outside force used against us. No one invaded us. We were the victors in WW2.Sweden, Iceland, Spain, and Switzerland were neutral during the Second World War. Yet in every single one of these countries, racialism has fallen into disrepute.
So, people have a right to wonder why their nations are currently being given away and turning into the multiculturalist nightmares they've become. Adolf Hitler and Nazism. Prior to the Second World War, racialism was socially respectable in every single Western country. After the Second World War, when the full extent of Hitler's atrocities were revealed to the world, racialism went into serious decline, not just in America, but everywhere in the West.
I think it's a worthwhile study to examine the roots and causes of what threatens our nation and race.I fully agree. I have also done just that, far more systematically that the majority of people who post here on this forum. And I am convinced that the root cause of our racial decline is the loss of racialism's moral respectablity. Prior to the Second World War, racialism was on the march in most Western countries, even in the most liberal countries of the West like Sweden. After the war, racialism went into serious decline. This decline has been across the board, even in countries where Jewish influence is practically nonexistent. There is only one explanation for this: the general revulsion felt by civilised peoples at Hitler's atrocities.
For this reason, it becomes necessary to look back at events like WW2, as well as a frank and honest appraisal of our own governments, since they were the ones who brought us all these "wonderful" ideas of multiculturalism.I agree. Lets take the United States for example. Theodore Roosevelt called hyphenated Americans traitors. The National Origins Act of 1924 was enacted because of concern that the large number of immigrants in the U.S. would not assimilate. The Supreme Court endorsed eugenics in 1927. Yet by the 1960s and early 1970s, multiculturalism had triumphed and racism was considered evil. And what brought this about? Why did racialism fall into such disrepute? Adolf Hitler and Nazism.
It doesn't mean spreading "malicious lies," but sometimes, the truth can be harsher than a lie. But it is a lie to argue that the Western Allies are responsible for the current racial state of the West. It simply isn't true. Winston Churchill himself was a racist. This is well-documented. And most Western Europeans had what we would call today racialist opinions. Racialism was socially respectable in every single Western country before WW2. After WW2, this was not the case. Racialism was discredited by Adolf Hitler.
Well, no, there have been many critical responses. Even here in the Revisionism forum, you'll find many such responses.I agree. I am not alone in my condemnation of Nazism. That's for sure. But I seem to be in the distinct minority here. Its people like Olympus who find themselves wondering what is wrong with barbarism that appear to be the majority in this thread.
However, even despite a fair number of strong condemnations of Hitler, I don't recall anyone here being so partisan in their championing of the Western Allies and Franklin Roosevelt in particular. That's something I do find a bit curious.I am not a fan of either Winston Churchill or Franklin Roosevelt. I have pointed that out in the British forum. In the Winston Churchill thread, I have been quite critical of Churchill in some respects yet have dismissed many of the accusations that were made against him. I do however find myself in admiration of Neville Chamberlain. He was a good man who sincerely wanted to avoid a Second World War. He was also a decent human being. Adolf Hitler was not. Adolf Hitler was willing to destroy entire nations and entire European peoples so long as Germany benefitted. Neville Chamberlain would have been disgusted by such sentiments.
Well, some people don't look at it in the same way that you do. I agree.

"I've said before, even if the nonsensical claims are true that Hitler was going to kill every non-German, that would still be preferable to what we have now - a situation where all Whites are headed to extinction."
--Olympus (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1383930&postcount=154), Nazi

"And what exactly is wrong with barbarism?"
—Olympus
Besides that, it all happened 60 years ago, for crying out loud. Can't we let the dead rest? Hey, I was not the one who started this discussion. And I agree that such debates are a waste of time, yet in the face of such gross historical ignorance, outright lies, and immorality, I felt compelled to respond.
Can we just look at events and say, "Yes, it happened," without going into a bunch of moralistic, self-righteous blather? Whether you condemn it, make excuses for it, apologize for it, or cheer about it - it doesn't change what happened. The only thing that's left is to tell the truth about it and move on. It's all spilled milk anyway. Here is the way that I look at it. Whenever I see self-proclaimed racialists rationalizing mass murder, glorifying fratricide, apologizing for the destruction of entire European nations, lying about the past, and idolizing tyranny I am going to make moral judgements. This is especially true when I see such people calling themselves 'the true White Nationalists'. That what is really the issue here. I personally think all the self-anointed true White Nationalists should ask themselves a simple question. Would they be willing to exterminate Dr.A.Jurievich and his family because they are Russians? I know I wouldn't. NO decent civilised human being on the face of this earth would either. I wouldn't murder Polish Boy, a comrade and fellow European, because he may speak a different language. Can the Nazis say the same? They can't. You know it and I know it.

"I've said before, even if the nonsensical claims are true that Hitler was going to kill every non-German, that would still be preferable to what we have now - a situation where all Whites are headed to extinction."
--Olympus (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1383930&postcount=154), Nazi

"And what exactly is wrong with barbarism?"
—Olympus
And the Allies murdered millions of Europeans, too - all in the name of internationalism.No. There is a very important difference. The Germans could have surrendered at anytime and that would have been the end of it. No more bombs would have been dropped. The Slavs, however, could not surrender. The Allies were fighting to stop Nazi Germany. The Nazis were fighting to destroy other Europeans. And that is a very important moral distinction.
Look at the way they made the world in the aftermath.What about this world? With the exception of the Soviet conquests in Eastern Europe, everything was put back the way it was before. Britain, France, and America did not annex massive portions of Germany and force the Germans to learn the English language.
That still doesn't change the situation that there was a political fallout from the dissolution of multi-national empires and the formation of new states which had not been independent national entities for centuries. Nothing about the political fallout from the dissolution of the Ottoman, Hapsburg, or Russian Empires necessitated the implementation of pseudoscientific racialist theories on an unprecedented scale in Central Europe. And the Nazis are hardly ones to talk about nations that had not been independent in centuries. Who created Slovakia and Croatia?
No, it was Allied (including Soviet) propagandists who did that. This isn't true. All the Allied and Soviet war propaganda didn't even make a dent in racialist and anti-Semitic attitudes in America. See the information from the polls cited above. On the contrary, it was only in the aftermath of the war that racialism was discredited, after hostilities had ceased.
Of course. I fully agree, but not at the expense of historical truth. The historical truth is that Hitler was a fanatic who started the greatest war in European history in order to expand Germany east at the expense of the Slavs. And that remains true no matter how you slice it.
And certainly, I see no political benefit for WN to give validation and praise to the policies and practices of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Political expediency is one thing, but I don't see why we should sanctify every Sacred Cow, or demonize every devil. Roosevelt was an astute judge of character. He knew early on that Hitler was a psychopathic demagogue with utterly no sense of restraint. He knew that Hitler would inevitably find himself at war with the Western democracies. He knew appeasement would fail. And Roosevelt was absolutely right to back the Western Allies against him. Chamberlain claimed to be pursuing peace with honour. Yet as Churchill pointed out, Great Britain would find itself embroiled in a war with Nazi Germany, having shamed itself in the process by abandoning the Czechs.
Well, all I can say is that if I had seen a post like the one you describe, I would have removed it. See SpiralSun's post above about how no Jews were murdered by the Nazis. They all had it coming. Everyone acknowledges, revisionists included, that the Einsatzgruppen did commit such atrocities in the East. Whether this was part of some sort of master plan is debatable.
But are you suggesting that the policies of multiculturalism were introduced into the West as a reaction to Hitler? Not precisely. I am arguing that the resistance to such policies was fatally crippled by the guilt by association tactic of portraying racialists as Nazis after the war.
And they declared war just out of the blue? For no reason? I didn't forget to mention anything. No. Hitler did not just declare war on the United States out of the blue. He declared war on the United States after Pearl Harbor in support of Japan.

Not at all. It's precisely to the point of demonstrating the values of the victors, the ones who you're so quick to defend from "malicious lies," yet still gave us this wonderful global system and multicultural society.It is a Red Herring. It is a Red Herring because we are being distracted into non-issues that have nothing logically to do with the Second World War. So we should settle on some sort of time frame. You have accused the Western Allies of giving us "this wonderful global system and multicultural society." Rebuttal:

1.) The norms of international law existed prior to the Second World War. The Nazis violated them.
2.) The British and Americans did not make territorial gains at the expense of Germany. They did not Anglicize the Germans and colonize German with Anglo-Saxons.
3.) Prior to the Second World War, multiculturalism was practically nonexistent in Britain and America. Multiculturalism is a recent phenomena that gained a following in the sixties and seventies, well after the war. See my quotes on Horace Kallen's theories and the second KKK.
I've spoken to a few Germans who have a different view on that.I have as well. In fact, this is what I constantly told for several years almost every other day.
It's understandable, considering that they've spent their entire lives with foreign troops and bases on their soil.Those foreign troops and bases are also there AT THE REQUEST of the Federal Republic of Germany. And why is this? It is because in the aftermath of the Second World War, West Germany, like Japan, decided to pursue a policy of peaceful economic expansion. So it began to outsource its security concerns to the United States, lest its trading partners fear a revival of militarism in Germany.
They were divided into four different occupation zones, as you well know (but conveniently omitted from your argument), and this included the Soviet-controlled terror-sponsoring state known as "East Germany." Yes. After Nazi Germany lost the Second World War, it was occupied by the Western Allies and the Soviets. Yet the Western Allies never annexed Germany, nor were Germans ever Anglicized by the British and Americans. Germany's sovereignty was returned several years later.
There was certainly mass murder of millions of Germans perpetrated by the Allies, too, so they have their share of blood on their hands, too. I have encountered this argument quite recently. I have also decisively refuted it. So if you would like to argue this point, then feel free to do so.
Well, you know the old saying about people in glass houses? I don't see why it should be so confusing for you. Please identify the ethical principles that you are using to distinguish right from wrong in this argument.
While it might be easy for them to conclude that, it wouldn't be logical.How come? This forum openly associates itself with Nazism. Nazis are able to freely post here. Many members are Nazis. Even more, perhaps a clear majority, defend the Third Reich or admire what it stood for. People like myself are the distinct minority around here.
I can't answer for the whole forum, and my own personal opinion is that people make far too big a deal over it anyway. . It's not just about Hitler, either, but also about those who fall all over themselves in an effort to distance themselves from Hitler. Every thread like this is like a seance, and we're continually summoning the ghost of Hitler. Lets be honest. Nazis are accepted at Stormfront. They are allowed to freely post here. There are Hitler and Swastika avatars all across this forum, even more quotes from Hitler in signatures. Most White Nationalists who post here would probably even consider Nazis to be comrades. Every thread that I have ever seen here about this subject had demonstrated that the vast majority of the posters here are unwilling to formally distance themselves from Nazism. There is widespread sympathy here for National Socialism. Its true. On the contrary, there is outright hostility here towards more moderate posters like JohnJoyTree. Stormfront is associated with Nazism, voluntarily at that. Some would say that is a good thing. Others would say it is a bad thing. This is simply a fact, not a moral judgement.
I don't think that National Socialism is the basis of White Nationalism either. They both may be rooted in similar elements of nationalism, to some extent, but they're not the sameI think there is a clear distinction between the two. White Nationalists are first and foremost racialists. Their racialism is the cause of their separatism. On the other hand, National Socialists are first and foremost nationalists. Their nationalism is the cause of their separatism. They bring in racial theories to justify their nationalism. The roots of White Nationalism can be found in 19th and 20th century Anglo-American racialism. The roots of National Socialism, on the other hand, lie in the ethnic hatreds of the disintegration Habsburg Empire.
That's a very bold assertion, and it completely ignores the methods by which anti-racism and multiculturalism were implemented in the US.I can support this assertion with massive overwhelming evidence. I have researched this issue in depth. See the citations that I posted above. Racialist and anti-Semitic sentiment increased during the war and went into decline after the war.
It was imposed on the White masses through brute force, coercion, intensive propaganda, and conditioning in the public schools - things the Nazis are often accused of doing.This isn't true. It took Brown v. Board of Education to impose racial integration on the South. And Brown v. Board of Education did not come out of nowhere. It came in the aftermath of Hitler's atrocities in Europe, on the back of the wave of disgust that spread over the West.
So? Some people say that Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are "Nazis." People say things like that. Yet when O'Reilly and Limbaugh are accused of Nazism, it doesn't stick. Here is David Duke on this issue:


To Cammie,

Our course we should all stand together as much as possible.

But Cammie, we must discipline our own ranks or we will never be able to fight the enemy effectively.

There are those who call themselves White nationalists who act like a bunch of low-life non-whites or hate-filled, deranged Jewish supremacists rather than responsible White men and women.

Some of these people are so stupid that they watch Jewish television and see White revolutionists portrayed as hateful violent and stupid and they think, by golley, that's what a good White nationalist does.

Cammie, those people do irreparable harm to our Cause. It's one thing for the Jewish media to lie about us, but when we act precisely the way they portray us, the public is repulsed, and rightfully so from our cause.

When I was running for office and getting over 60 percent of the White vote, the most harmful thing that I faced was the actions of some Whites who thought they were supporting me by acting like a Hollywood stereotype. All the Jewish media had to do was interview "Duke supporters" who spoke more ignorantly than Black football players and more hatefully than the most deranged psycho in a horror movie.

That drove more people away from us because people were far more convinced by what they saw as a genuine article than simply by Jewish allegations.

Stormfront has developed a very high quality of postings under the brilliant leadership of Don Black and the clear thinking of men such as James Kelso who works with me now and still aids Stormfront.

We need to keep moving in that direction.

And we should isolate from our ranks those who are the very dregs of everything we despise. Because someone has a White skin and claims that he is a White nationalist is not enough for our Movement. His worth must be based entirely upon what he does. If he goes out and commits senseless acts of violence, talks like a White n------ beats his wife and his kids, please keep him away from us and our meetings, our Cause, for he will only drive all the decent and truly dedicated away!

That's all I have to say on the matter.
I see no reason why we can't try to be objective and dispassionate in our appraisal of Hitler - and history in general, for that matter. I think that it's important to examine our history, particularly the history of this era, in order to get a better picture of how we got to the point we're at today. "His movement glorified fratricide, ethnic hatred, and mass murder. He destroyed entire European nations. He hoped to exterminate entire European cultures."
-- FadeTheButcher

Is this not an objectively true statement?
Maybe some people just admire a strong, no-nonsense style of leadership that Hitler brought to his nation. I can see how some people might admire that. But it not what Hitler may or may not have done in Germany that is the issue here. Hitler's rights stop at the other guy's nose.
When people look at their own leaders and see a bunch of mealy-mouthed marionettes mired in muck and malaise (how's that for alliteration), perhaps there's a bit of the "grass is greener" phenomenon at work. I know precisely the phenomena you are describing here. It causes people who are mired in one extreme (racial nihilism) to swing to the other extreme (national chauvinism). My point is that what gets lost in all of this is the middle position, in between the two extremes, of common decency and self-respect.
How about the principle that the Treaty of Versailles led to another war in which some 50-60 million people lost their lives? The Treaty of Versailles did not lead to the Second World War. This is a false statement. The Treaty of Versailles could have been scrapped if Hitler was willing to agree to a final settlement of territorial questions in Europe. And finally, Nazism was going nowhere until the Great Depression. It was the Great Depression that was more responsible for the triumph of Nazism than anything else, that and the willingness of Germany's conservative elites to align themselves with Nazism.
Is that strong enough grounds for you? No. Hostility to the Treaty of Versailles was not enough to carry Hitler to victory. When he got out of prison, the Nazis actually lost seats.
I know that you think it's all Hitler's fault, but you don't look at cause and effect.I can discuss this matter in detail with you if you would like to do so. The Treaty of Versailles never caused Hitler's rise to power.
In fact, most of your argument stems from what you think Hitler "wanted" to do, not from what he actually did, and you completely dismiss and ignore the messy situation which was existent at the time Hitler rose to power.I have not dismissed, much less ignored, the territorial situation of Germany at the end of the Second World War. Yet it is a fact that the Treaty of Versailles did not cause the Second World War. And I cited MacMillan's Paris 1919 to that effect in my previous response. Face it. Without the Great Depression, Nazism would never have triumphed in Germany. The Treaty of Versailles was not enough. It would have been scrapped anyway.
It can be argued that the Treaty of Versailles created those messy conditions which led to the rise of Hitler in the first place.Sure. One could make that argument, but it is a very weak one. That is my point. The Treaty of Versailles did not cause the conditions that led to the rise of Hitler. The territory that Germany lost as a result of the Treaty of Versailles in no way crippled Germany as a great power. That is a myth. The Treaty of Versailles was simply the boogeyman that German nationalists blamed for all of Germany's ills. The actual facts of the matter are quite different. Germany's economic problems were caused by economic mismanagement by the Weimar Government. West Germany was able to create a stunning economic revival after the war on top of far greater territorial losses.
How do you think he got so popular as to gain power at all? The Great Depression. Nazism did not become a truly powerful mass movement until the Great Depression.
Well, I was just pointing out relevant facts about the Western Allied intervention in the Russian civil war. The Allies intervened in the Russian Civil War to stop Bolshevism. Make of that what you will. It was the Germans who sent Lenin to Russia in the first place.
You're correct that the German government allowed Lenin passage through their territory, and since they were at war with Russia, it was in their interests to do so, as you pointed out.Why don't I hear any condemnation of the Germans for doing this? I have heard scathing criticism of the Allies, however.
The Kerensky government was probably doomed from the start, but the biggest strain upon them was pressure from the Western Allies to stay in the war. Dr.A.Jurievich has addressed this point.
No, it's not. You put so much emphasis on Germany whisking Lenin back to Russia from exile, but their success in toppling the Kerensky regime was not so much due to Lenin.Would the October Revolution had ever happened had not the Germans allowed Lenin to cross their territory into Russia?
My point is that the Allies in WW1 made monumental mistakes for which generations have had to pay. I see nothing wrong with pointing that out. Its very wrong to blame the Allies for the triumph of Bolshevism in Russia when it was the Germans who sent him there in the very first place. And later on, in the 1920s and 1930s, the Germans engaged in extensive trade with the Soviet Union. It was the Germans, above all others, who industrialised the Soviet Union and helped train the Red Army. The Bolshevik monster in the East was overwhelmingly their doing. Even when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, their disgusting Eastern Policy only reinforced a tanking Bolshevik regime that might otherwise have collapsed due to popular resentment.

Am I supposed to be bothered by it? 1.) The Soviet war machine was made in Germany.
2.) The Germans are responsible for the triumph of Bolshevism in Russia in the first place.
3.) The Germans caused resistance to Nazi tyanny to be associated with Bolshevism amongst the Slavs. The Germans are responsible, above everyone else, for the triumph of Communism in Eastern Europe. This was true in the Soviet Union. It was also true in Yugoslavia. It was Tito and his partisans that later exported Bolshevism into Bulgaria and Albania. Communism became popular in Slovakia and Czechia as well by reinventing itself as antifascism.
I never said that Germany didn't make mistakes, too, and this is one mistake for which they paid very dearly. Why haven't you condemned Germany? You have blamed the Western Allies, even when Germany is by far more responsible for the rise of Communism than any other European nation. Communism itself came from Germany. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were Germans.
In hindsight, it was probably a big mistake for them to send Lenin back, but maybe at the time, they thought it was a good idea. Germany also joined the League of Nations. How come? Lenin had precisely the same effect in Russia that the Germans had hoped. His triumph was beyond their wildest explanations. How could the Germans have won a greater victory in the East? How can Brest-Livotsk be called anything but an enormous victory from the German perspective?

The hegemony which led to a war in which some 50-60 million people lost their lives. They declared war over an issue of hegemony, not in the direct defense of their homelands. I am a political scientist who deals with this issue on an almost everyday basis. And at no point in between the Great War and prior to the Second World War did the British or French exert hegemony over Continental Europe, much less the world. If you have evidence to this effect, then lets see it. It will come as a startling revelation to my profession. The postwar world was multipolar.
Well, they certainly had something to say about it, that's for sure.Like when Italy bucked Britain and France and invaded Abyssinia? Or how about Japan's invasion of Manchuria? Did Britain and France deter America from intervening in Haiti against their interests? Or how about the Dominican Republic?
You're just being coy. You yourself mentioned the League of Nations and international law earlier. Do I need to draw a map? You suggested that Britain and France were hegemonic powers in the aftermath of the Great War. And that would necessarily entail that other nations would find themselves unable to conduct an independent foreign policy contrary to British and French interests.
I don't believe there were any actual agreements, per se, but there were talks and attempts to forge mutual defense pacts between the Western Allies and the USSR, in case of a war with Germany. There wasn't any such agreement between Britain and the Soviet Union. There was, however, such a treaty between France and the Soviet Union. The British were cold on the prospect of such an alliance all the way up until Hitler's repudiation of the Munich Pact. And even then, Stalin held out the prospect of such an alliance until August of 1939, yet the British were so cool on his terms (e.g., destruction of the Baltic States), even when the situation was this serious, that he turned against them.
Those are questions I might ask you, if everyone in Europe was so terrified of Hitler. Why didn't they do anything? Britain and France pursued different policies. Both were afraid of Nazi Germany yet both responded in different ways at different points in time. The British were pursuing a policy of rapprochement towards Germany. The British sought to reach a 'final settlement' with Germany over territorial questions. This was the British attitude towards the Weimar Republic, just as it was the British attitude all the way up until Hitler's troops were marching through Prague.
Which later, obviously, proved to be wrong. No one possesses a crystal ball. Mistakes are always obvious, in hindsight. Well, most of the time, at least.
Yes, and then they sat and waited for nine months until Germany attacked and utterly annihilated them in a month.Yet this does not negate the fact that Britain and France both declared war on Germany over its attack on Poland.
Well, that's very dramatic, the way you put it. Fact is, after the fall of France, Britain stood isolated and alone.And they still stood up to Nazism when they could have cowered down and cut a deal with Hitler. I am glad they didn't.
They were in no position to liberate Poland, which would eventually find the most unlikely "liberators." Sure they were. That was entirely possible in 1940. It was not outside the realm of possibility.
It was the Soviets bombarding Berlin when Hitler put a bullet through his skull, and it was the Soviets who did the bulk of the fighting.Hitler's ignorance of Russia is to blame for that too.
And it was the Soviets who were complicit in the original invasion of Poland which was used as a pretext for Britain and France to declare war in the first place. Poland was not a pretext to declare war on Germany. Britain and France had numerous other much better opportunities to declare war but decided not to. They stumbled into war with Germany.
As it was, it was ludicrous for them to even declare war on Germany.No. Nazi Germany was far and away the greatest menace to British interests. The British made unnecessary enemies out of Italy and Japan. If the Stressa Front had been maintained, Hitler never could have succeeded the way he did.
If not for the English Channel and Goering's bungling, the whole thing might have been over in 1940.The English Channel was a pretty significant obstacle in the way of Hitler's conquest of Britain don't you think? Germany was defeated in the air anyway.
Nevertheless, this still doesn't address the point that they were not in any strategic position to give any real aid to Poland whatsoever. What do you mean? The British later went on to bomb the living shit out of Germany. They were also able to severely obstruct German commercial interests with the Royal Navy.
The declaration of war on Germany was ostensibly a mere symbolic act, without any real practical significance.No. It was entirely within the realm of possibility that Germany would eventually withdraw its forces from Poland and sign an armistace.
The only thing they could have done to aid Poland was to attack Germany from the West, but they didn't do that.The French did attack the Western Wall.
Actually, we've mostly been talking about the countries which declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939. The United States didn't do that. We have discussed everything from the Roman Empire to Abyssinia in this thread. This includes the United States.
Maybe a bit of embellishment, but it's certainly no straw man. I never said the Allies were angels or saints, much less the French.
you speaking of how "desperately" they wanted peace? I was talking about the British, actually.
Haven't you been giving high praise to the Allied governments all along, even to the point of ignoring that which they should be rightly criticized for?What should the Allies be rightly criticised for? Be specific.
For Heaven's sake, you just asked me a few paragraphs ago what was wrong with the Treaty of Versailles, as if you believe that it was some holy, infallible document written by God.I never said I personally supported the Treaty of Versailles. I don't. I was simply wondering on the basis of what principles were you condemning it. On what grounds was the Treaty of Versailles wrong.
If you don't think there was anything wrong with the Treaty of Versailles, then what else can I say?That's not my position. I was simply curious as to why you have tried to relativize the aggression of Nazi Germany against its neighbours while simultaneously denouncing the immorality of the Versailles Treaty. You said above that the Versailles Treaty violated self-determination. If it self-determination that motivates you, then by all means, condemn the Nazi invasion of Poland and all the other nations that Hitler attacked out of naked territorial greed.

No, there's an even bigger picture here.I agree. What really matters is what is going on today in our own countries right now. If I had it my way, then we would not even discuss the Second World War and focus our energies on contemporary issues. It is not I who has chosen to live in the past.
Those who won WW2 have sold out their countries and are destroying their own race and culture.This issue needs clarification. Our race and culture is being destroyed in every single European nation, irrespective of what side they fought on during World War 2. Even the neutral nations that were never occupied by the Allies or the Axis powers have precisely the same problem. There has been a lot of rhetoric blaming Jewish conspiracies in the media for all of this. Yet this change has happened across the board, even in nations where Jews are practically nonexistent, like Iceland. The Western Allies are not responsible for this change. Adolf Hitler and his disgusting atrocities are responsible. You see, its stuff like this that makes racialism lose respectability.

http://www.liberator.net/articles/TremblayFrancois/pic-Holocaust.jpg

Hitler didn't do that, but our own governments have.Hitler didn't do this?

http://www.machinegundealer.com/political_files/image002.jpg
Was Hitler a multiculturalist? Did Hitler force integration and "diversity" upon the United States? Is Hitler responsible for the thousands of illegal aliens which cross the border every day? That's the bigger picture that I see here.I am not seeing this bigger picture. This is because I ask myself why such things are around today when they did not exist prior to the Second World War. The U.S. Government wasn't forcing integration or diversity on Americans in 1939. Millions of illegal aliens were not crossing our border. Multiculturalism was considered to be anti-American. Americans celebrated assimilation, not pluralism. Why was there such a change? And why did the racialist movement collapse in the United States? Better yet, just when did it collapse? When did racialism lose social respectability. I have answered all of these questions above and in detail. In summa, Adolf Hitler is to blame from bringing racialism into disrepute. See the images that I linked to above? That is what most people associate racialism with today. You can thank Adolf Hitler for that.
It was a war against the effete, aristrocratic internationalists, and they are the same ilk as those who rule today.I don't think that is the case. I think our people have been the victims of our own virtues. Its a good thing to treat one's neighbours with respect and kindness. Its a good thing to hope to make the world a better place. This becomes a problem, however, when such sentiments lead to a profound neglect of one's own people, future generations in particular. This is when a virtue becomes a vice.
To blame it all on Hitler gives validation to the New World Order which is destroying the White race.Hitler is responsible for the profound change in racial attitudes in the West. Prior to the war, racialism was flourishing. Racialism was respectable in every single Western European nation. And as I have pointed out, again and again, this changed after the war. So it is essential that we accurately grasp the postwar situation. Europe was in ruins. Millions were dead. The Allies had overrun Hitler's concentration camps and the world was horrified by what they found. Most Europeans demanded an answer. How could such a thing happen. And the answer that was given, time and time again, is that racialism drove Hitler into waging aggressive wars against his neighbours.
It gives validation to internationalism, anti-racism, and multiculturalism.And why do such things exist today? Why is antiracism and multiculturalism so powerful? Better yet, why is the resistance to such movements so impotent, whereas that was not the case prior to World War 2?
It gives validation to the policies which have led to crime, riots, and terrorism against White people here in America. These policies did not come out of nowhere. They arose from a political consensus which was nonexistent in America prior to World War 2. Prior to the war, eugenics and racialism was enjoying unprecedented success in the U.S.
The only possible, practical reason for condemning Hitler is for reasons of political expediency in Western Allied countries, but that may lead us down a slippery slope.I disagree. Hitler started the most fratricidal and destructive war in European history and did more damage to racialism than any man who ever lived. He was a national chauvinist who hated other Europeans over ethnic differences. He believed the Slavs were an inferior race, so he set out to steal their land. If we should sympathize with anyone, then it should be the good white people who were the victims of his tyranny and aggression.
What would be next after condemning Hitler? Condemning the leaders of the Confederacy?No. The Confederacy did not engage in aggressive war against other Europeans. The Confederacy did not destroy other Europeans on account of their hypothetical racial inferiority.
Should we then condemn the Confederate flag? No. Southerners are not Nazis. Robert E. Lee was no Adolf Hitler, by any stretch of the imagination.
Should we also condemn our Founding Fathers for their "noxious racial theories"? Thomas Jefferson believed in the racial inferiority of Negroes. He believed that the Negroes should be repatriated to the African continent. He did not, however, believe that we should murder the Negroes or brutalize them. That is exactly my point of view. We are racialists, not monsters. Thomas Jefferson was no Adolf Hitler. Jefferson would have been disgusted to the very core of his being by Nazi tyranny and immorality.
Should we then genuflect at every statue of Martin Luther King in the vain hope that if we do, more people will support White Nationalism? Where does it all end? There is no slippery slope. Thomas Jefferson did not believe we should destroy other Europeans because of their so-called racial inferiority. Robert E. Lee didn't believe that. Jefferson Davis, Robert Toombs, Alexander Stephens, William L. Yancey, and even Robert Barnwell Rhett didn't believe that. Nathan Bedford Forrest didn't believe that. And neither did George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln or Benjamin Franklin. There is no moral equivalance.
We are not liberals, so we should not use the tactics of liberals. It's lame.I am not a liberal. I consider myself to be a decent civilised human being. Politically speaking, I call myself a racial communitarian. And from my perspective, decent civilised human beings do not make excuses to justify genocide on a massive scale against our own folk. What can possibly be more morally reprehensible, from the white racialist perspective, than for a European to destroy millions of other Europeans out of ethnic hatred and territorial greed?
If we're asserting our national priorities and racial pride as White Nationalists, then that's not the same thing as "tolerance" or "diversity," so it's pointless and incongruent to use the same arguments and ideals as they do. White Nationalism is not Nazism. That is my perspective. Perhaps I shouldn't push it that far. There are certainly a huge number of self described White Nationalists who would say White Nationalism is Nazism after all. In fact, several White Nationalists have called Nazism the basis of White Nationalism in this very thread.

One does not necessarily support idols like 'tolerance' and 'diversity' simply because one does not see the morality in exterminating Dr.A.Jurievich and his family because he is a Russian. I don't have to kill Polish Boy or destroy his people to fight the Jews.
Also, to champion the same aristocratic, monarchistic system that kept Europe in the Dark Ages for a millennium is something that I also can't support.Actually, it was under these monarchies and aristocracies that European culture flowered like never before. There were unprecedented increases in the European standard of living. White slavery was eradicated and life generally improved.

I'm really appalled at all these arm chair White Nationalists who like to sit back and criticize Hitler for rounding up communists and other degenerates in the liberated countries, and then shreaking the Jewish line that he was exterminating every European nationality that wasn't German.Allow me to remind the gallery of your own words.

"I've said before, even if the nonsensical claims are true that Hitler was going to kill every non-German, that would still be preferable to what we have now - a situation where all Whites are headed to extinction."
--Olympus (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1383930&postcount=154), Nazi

Olympus is such a die-hard Nazi, true to form, that he is able to rationalize the hypothetical mass murder of all non-Germans. And this isn't just Communists and degenerates, but non-Germans in general. What can I say to such an individual? How can you reason with a person would can excuse genocide on a massive scale against his own people?
He tried to clean up the gene pool and eliminate the Europeans who supported our enemies.Yeah. I am sure that is what the Einsatzgruppen were doing when they were gunning down defenceless women and children with machine guns.
And he did this under enormously difficult circumstances.Such as? It was his decision to attack the Soviet Union and declare war on America.
Of course he made some mistakes in the process.Like what? Starting the most destructive war in European history? Elevating national chauvinism and ethnic hatred over the fighting the Jews? Murdering other Europeans in order to steal their land? Bringing down ruin upon his country?
But he was still the greatest man our race has ever produced.Lets put this in perspective.

"And what exactly is wrong with barbarism?"
—Olympus

So, are you saying that even if the British agreed to Hitler's offer, he would have made war anyway? Why? The entire purpose of his absurd 'peace offer' was to isolate Poland from Britain. He wanted to destroy Poland without going to war with the West. He told his generals that. He told the Italians that. Yet he was also willing to go to war with the West even if they were willing to honour their obligations to Poland. His 'peace offer' was not made in good faith. They never were. That was demonstrated above. And yes, he would have waged war anyway. He was bent on it. I posted quote after quote above from Goebbels that demonstrate this. Come on. Explain this away.

24 October 1939 (Tuesday)
"The London newspaper's outbursts have the pure and simple aim of sowing distrust between us and Moscow. The Fuhrer has absolutely no thought of peace anymore. He would like to put England to the sword."

Ibid., p.28

7 November 1939 (Tuesday)
"With the Fuhrer. He is of the opinion that England must be given a k.o. blow. Quite right, too. England's power is simply a myth these days, no longer a reality. All the more reason why it must be destroyed. Otherwise there will be no peace in the world."

Ibid., p.41

9 November 1939 (Tuesday)
"And quite rightly so! He sees the general situation in a very optimistic light. England must be forced to her knees."

Ibid., p.44

18 December 1939 (Monday)
"The Fuhrer is fully determined to go for England's throat. I tell him a few anecdotes about characters in the English Information Ministry. He laughs until tears flow. These gentlemen are totally inferior to us. As they will soon learn."

Ibid., p.69

22 January 1940 (Monday)
"The Fuhrer has set his mind on a great war against England. As soon as the weather is good. England must be chased out of Europe, and France destroyed as a great power. Then Germany will have hegemony and Europe will have peace. This is our great, eternal goal."

Ibid., pp.100-101

24 January 1940 (Wednesday)
"Yesterday: Churchill's threatening speech is still going the rounds and arousing the neturals' outrage. We ignore it. Have no intention of helping out these tiny dwarf-states. They deserve to disappear."

Ibid., p.102
Just because the planning was still in operation, it all could have stopped instantaneously if the British had been willing to agree to a peaceful solution. The British were willing to reach a peaceful resolution. Lord Halifax and Chamberlain were not going to stand by and let Hitler brutally destroy yet another European nation, however. The British asked Hitler to withdraw his forces from Poland or else there would be war. Hitler chose not to do so.
It always takes two to tango, and the fact is, Britain really had no business messing in that situation in the first place.Speaking of hypocrisy, you sure are laying it on pretty thick here. One may ask you what business Germany had in destroying Poland? What business did Germany have in Denmark or Norway or the Crimea? You say Great Britain had 'no business' in this situation to begin with. This is false. Great Britain was a member of the League of Nations. So was Poland. Germany attacked a fellow member of the League of Nations, in cooperation with International Communism, to destroy its national existence. And that, via the Covenant of the League, necessarily involved Britain. Ignore all of this though. Blame the British. It is all the fault of the British. What happened to all your cant about self-determination earlier?
It wasn't their territory, and it wasn't their border. It wasn't Germany's territory either. Poland was a sovereign independent nation. Hitler destroyed Poland in order to acquire lebensraum in the east. Yet again you criticize the Allies, however. Yeah. But every nation should just mind its own business, right?

11 November 1939 (Saturday)
"The neutrals fear us. They must be treated more harshly, so that they learn to respect the Reich.

Russia's army is not worth much. Badly led and even more poorly armed. We do not need their military aid. Good enough that we do not have to wage a two-front war. This was England's plan. But the Czechs surrendered their weapons to us voluntarily, and we have taken Poland. Now it will be the Western Powers' turn to feel the touch of steel.

The Finns are whining that we offer them no help. But these marginal states have never helped us, in the League of Nations they always voted against us, and today they are doubled-up with fear."

Ibid., p.46
He went out of his way to make much ado over things which didn't concern his national interests.It didn't concern the national interests of Britain? What had been the fundamental goal of British foreign policy viz Continental Europe for over four centuries? I will tell you: to maintain a balance of power, to prevent any one power from establishing complete hegemony over the continent. You have a rather ahistorical view of British foreign policy.

He would have done well to try to manage his own empire better, rather than interfere in things which would have been better left alone.Why would it have been better for Britain to stand idly by while Hitler established his 'New Order' in Europe? Britain had an enormous economic stake in Europe because of its trade. It would have been nothing short of madness to let the Nazis wrap his tentacles around the independent nations of Europe. Morality? Hitler attacked another European state, for reason of territorial greed, in order to destroy its national existence. No. Let me put this in context. Poland was simply one of his victims. He spewed invective on virtually every single moral principle the British had come to believe in. For strategic reasons? Nazi Germany would have been enormously strengthened by its conquests in the East. Nazi Germany would thus have been an even bigger menace to British national security.
Clearly, the fact that Czechoslovakia and Poland were not independent during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries did not hinder the rise and growth of the British Empire, nor did it affect their national interests in any significant way.Bourbon and Napoleonic France were a serious menace to British interests in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Great Britain's foreign policy was aimed at deterring any one European power from establishing hegemony over all its continental rivals. And in hindsight, in light of the spectacular growth of the Empire, this strikes one as a well-founded policy.

One side claims that whatever National Socialist Germany did was wrong simply because of the “evil” nature of NS. One side claims that Hitler was a man of peace who was forced into war by a Jewish conspiracy which duped the Western Allies into declaring war on Germany. This side claims that the Western Allies are also responsible for the racial decline of our countries. The other side points out that National Socialist Germany was goverened by a gang of national chauvinists who out of ethnic hatred and territorial greed started the most destructive and fratricidal war in human history. This side also claims that the revelations of the disgusting crimes of National Socialism after the war, above all else, is responsible for the collapse of racialism in Europe and America. One side is supported by the overwhelming majority of historians and scholarship that has been done on the issue. The other side chooses to rely upon unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
Other side says that in spite of some mistakes in past, NS is the only ideology that will lead White race to the ultimate victory. The other side points out that not only did National Socialism fail, it successfully managed to morally discredit racialism for an entire generation. And if that were not enough, it left Europe in ruins and tens of millions of Europeans in their graves. National Socialism was a movement that glorified ethnic hatred, mass murder, and fratricide. The National Socialists were more interested in hating the living sh** out of the Poles and Russians than fighting the Jews. They put their own disgusting and immoral territorial greed above the common good of the white race. National Socialism is a prescription for failure, for conflict amongst whites. How, pray tell, can whites cooperate to achieve common goals so long as the National Socialists have them at each others throats? They can't. They won't. They didn't.
The former, blaming Adolf Hitler for all wrongdoing, are trying to descredit National Socialism as an ideology, helping, I hope, unwillingly, the enemies of our race. National Socialism and its atrocities has done more to discredit racialism in this world than all of the efforts of the enemies of our race combined. The National Socialists make outrageous claims they cannot support. They accuse the Western Allies of destroying racialism. In fact, prior to the Second World War, racialism was socially respectable in every single Western country. Prior to the Second World War, the eugenics movement was flourishing and enjoying unprecedented success. Eugenics was blessed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927. Jewish immigration was curtailed by the National Origins Act of 1924. This all changed when Adolf Hitler and his fellow gangsters in the National Socialist party made a mockery out of racialism and its ideals. But National Socialism, despite all the damage it has done to racialism, refuses to die. Sometimes I wonder if the ADL or the SPLC keeps it on life support since it has proven to be so effective in marginalising us.
They don’t accept the single simple fact that National Socialism has always been more than its NSDAP-type German implementation. Because Hitler made it utterly clear that National Socialism was not for export. The spread of National Socialism abroad was only condoned whenever it served German interests. The Party distanced itself from the German-American Bund whereas it attempted to force Fritz Clausen and his stooges onto the Danes.
By vilifying Adolf Hitler, by hand-picking “facts” created by the liberal-judeo-christian elite during the last half of century, they doing the job that “hook-nosed, bow-legged” Near-Eastern tribe could not accomplished by itself: destroying the Aryan unity. Another example of the reductio ad judaeum. If you criticize Adolf Hitler, then by extension, you are "destroying Aryan unity" and "doing the job" of the Jews for them. LMAO. Any rational person can see that this proposition is ridiculous on its face. National Socialism, as a matter of principle, rejected Aryan unity and called it 'cosmopolitanism'. Hitler loathed the Habsburg Empire because he saw it as a disgusting amalgamation of races. In his view, the Germans were being degraded and suffering racial decline by their contact with the inferior Slavs. Vienna was the great example of this. He hated Vienna for the rest of his life.
This thread is about Adolf Hitler. Would we be better off with him or without him? Before Hitler's war, racialism and eugenics was making huge gains across the entire West. As I pointed out above, Norway, Sweden, and Finland all enacted sterilization laws on their own accord in the 1930s. The U.S. also had sterilization laws in many states, not to mention segregation and anti-miscegenation laws. There is a very good chance that racialism would have grown much stronger and peacefully triumphed in Europe and America had circimstances been different.
Germans, yes, no doubts. The rest of whites? -that’s a guess game.Hitler made his intentions for other whites perfectly clear. The Germanic peoples of Northern Europe (with the exception of Britain and Finland) were to be incorporated into his Greater Germanic Reich. Sweden and Switzerland would have been attacked after the war. Their cultures and independent national existence were to be destroyed by Germanisation. The Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe (e.g., Czechs, Poles, Russians) were to be reduced to helots or destroyed outright. Their land was to be seized and colonised by Germans. France was to be destroyed as a great power by Spain, Germany, and Italy which were to gain territorially at its expense. A rump French state might have continued to exist in the south in the Spanish and Italian sphere of influence. Germany was to have absolute hegemony over Europe. A string of client states and satellites would have existed along the southern littoral of the New Order. The economies of these states, notably Romania, were to be restructered to serve German interests. The Danube would have been turned into a German river. Britain, Spain, Finland, and Turkey were act as buffer states for the New Order in the four corners of Europe.
I would ask it differently: would the world be better with National Socialists in power in all White countries? I bet it would.No. If National Socialism came to power in all whtie countries, then the result would be universal ethnic strife and most likely war, just like 1939. What if National Socialism came to power in France and the French considered it necessary to expand to their 'natural frontier' along the Rhine? What if National Socialism reappeared in Germany and the National Socialists decided that Alsace and Lorraine had to be regained. You see my point? National Socialism is a prescription for ethnic hatred and division amongst whites .
Going back to FtButcher, Common, what do you expect from a guy who calls himself as a “political scientist” (?!), having all time in the world to write a thousand-lines post, repeating time and again lies he has learnt in whatever “political” school he attended to.That I know what I am talking about whereas you do not??
Just look at this verbiage, it is going on and on and on, dangerously approaching the size of Talmud and Old Testament combined.You people go around thumping Mein Kampf, as if it were divine revelation. I have noticed that you people operate exactly like the evangelical Christians. You start off your line of reasoning from self-evident ideological truths which are apparent only to yourself. Then you twist and distort history in order to conform to your ideology. All of the words of Hitler and Goebbels are just distortions, mistranslations, or forgeries. The work of countless scholars is one huge conspiracy. Those who are critical of Hitler are in league with the Jews, just like the Christians would accuse their critics of being misled into sin by Satan.
Can anyone seriously think about scrolling though all the pages written by FadedButcher and find the point behind the “smoke screen” of such a ?If you feel you can respond to the points that I have made above, then feel free to respond. If you have hard evidence to present, then I am willing to consider it with an open mind. I have done my research. Have you?
As far as I can see, all his “arguments” are taken from Orwellian history books and liberal newspapers.Like the Goebbels Diaries, the Table Talk, Mein Kampf, and Hitler's Zweites Buch? They were all manafactured by the WARMASTERS who are pushing THE BIG LIE!
Those who bravely continue to defend National Socialism might want to look at the bottom line, which is: the guyOlympus is defending National Socialism. He has pointed out that he would rather live in a world where all non-Germans are dead than the one he lives in today. He also asked me what was wrong with barbarism.
1. does not believe in Jewish involvement in starting WWII The Jews did not start WW2. The Jews actually wanted to topple Neville Chamberlain's government. The White Paper that Chamberlain's government issued on Palestine in 1939 was a repudiation of the Balfour Agreement. The notion that Chamberlain was a Zionist stooge or that he was doing the dirty work of the Jews is preposterous.
2. does believe everything the Jews told him about WWII (he calls this “facts” and “history”A straw man argument. I am quite critical of the Holocaust story, actually. This doesn't mean that I deny that the Nazis killed lots of Jews. No one does, to my knowledge.
3. does believe that National Socialism was (and is) the most vicious, barbaric political movement ever existed (Hm-m, may be he didn’t express it explicitly, but it is obvious from his posts)Well. Hitler probably is responsible for the deaths of more Europeans than any other man to ever live. He started the most destructive war in European history, one that even topped the Thirty Years War in its viciousness. He discredited racialism and obliterated his own country in pursuit of his mad fantasy of rubber plantations in the Ukraine.
Riis-Knudsen once said: As a National Socialist you constantly experience the difficulty in carrying on a meaningful conversation with a Non-National Socialist. You often feel that such a dialogue is outright impossible and that you live in two totally different worlds. – National Socialism: A Biological World ViewVery true. I don't believe in killing other Europeans because they speak a different language. I don't rationalize mass murder either.

The jews are automatically combatants -- much more dangerous than a simple army, they are infiltrators and saboteurs by their very nature. Yes. I have noticed that most Nazis are of that point of view. They start off from the ridiculous a priori assumption (a product of their own ethnic prejudice and ideological superstitions) that immutable biological characteristics invariably make entire populations their enemies forever. This is the reasoning that can drive fanatics into gunning down little girls or into committing mass murder against innocent people on an unprecedented scale. This is the rankest and most primitive form of tribalism. I would expect such things from Black Africans living in the Congo who eat their own grandmothers for breakfast. Its disconcerting to see Europeans express such sentiments, especially from those who are supposed to be racial comrades. Also, what can possibly be more Jewish than hating entire peoples for all time? Kevin MacDonald pointed out the similarities between National Socialism and traditional Judaism in this respect
At least you can fend off an attacker who has a weapon you can clearly see. Sorry. I didn't realize you had already figured that out. I was a little distracted by several Black Helicopters in the area. The fact that The Government is, right now, as we speak, attacking me with microwaves isn't helping matters either.
The Jew uses weapons hidden deep under ground.What can be more Jewish than extreme irrational paranoia about outsiders?
Even though you cannot see a virus, it can still kill you. It is still attacking / enemy by it's NATURE.The Jews you say? Evil.

http://www.hull.ac.uk/history/dept/images/evilpinkyring.jpg
There are no noncombatant jews.I guess I just feel nauseated when I see women and children under attack, especially my own people.
if a person is infected with the Jew virus, they are carriers and therefore also combatants even though they do not know it -- just like cells following viral DNA instructions and making more virus...And let me guess, the West was infected by the 'Jew virus' and so were the Slavs and every other nation that was wantonly attacked by the Nazis. Nazi Germany was the victim of a mass Jewish conspiracy, Hitler was the good guy, and Tojo was Mr. Rodgers. Yeah right. I'm not buying it.

Just like most people and most historians thought 4 million people died at Auschwitz until it was further probed.Saxon88 continues to repeat the same point pedantically, when the issue is not even in dispute in this thread. Cite your sources, btw. You should get in the habit of doing that.
It logical conclusion? Its logical conclusion was the eradication of the PRESENCE of jews from German controlled lands.No one denies that the Einsatzgruppen slaughtered a huge number of Jews in the occupied territories of Eastern Europe. The only thing that remains in dispute is the number of Jews that were killed and whether this was part of any systematic master plan.
Obviously it IS disputable if 3 million jews just vanished out of the equation. If 3 million were found to be lies, than the entire story's credibility is called into question.Non Sequitur. Different historians have come up with different estimates of the Jewish death toll, yet no one denies that the Einsatzgruppen killed a lot of Jews in Eastern Europe. Who disputes that? Cite your source.
Don't you mean sabatours and agitators? No. Its also indisputable that they rounded up and murdered plenty of innocent people. Whether Hitler ever directly ordered this is what is disputed.
I believe many were actually armed, just not in formed units with artillary/tank/air support.Plenty of German officers were well aware of what the Einsatzgruppen was doing. Many were thoroughly disgusted by such atrocities as well. Once again, who denies them?
He declared war on Poland to take back German lands, sought peace numerous times after Poland was split between Germany and Russia. Whether you disbelieve his sincerity or not, he did seek peace after taking back former German lands.No he didn't. He declared war on Poland in order to acquire lebensraum in the East. His peace offers were nothing but lies too, a pathetic attempt to isolate Poland from its allies.

"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."

Toland, Adolf Hitler, p.531
Everything else, was opportunity, not "mulled over", whether they would've been better now with him over what actually happened...........my opinion is.............damn right!Of course. You Nazis are always willing to rationalise the destruction of other European nations and the slaughter of their people so long as Germany benefits. You people have the profoundest doubts about the integrity of the Allied war leaders yet uncritically accept the Nazi party line as gospel.

Some interesting excerpts from the Goebbels Diaries.

Sweden

January 22, 1942
"The Swedes and the Swiss are playing with fire. Let us hope they will burn their fingers when this war is over."

May 19, 1943
"It is a disgrace for Sweden, Denmark, and especially his native country, Norway, that the Scandinavian countries no longer publish his books [Hamsun] because of his friendship for Germany."

April 15, 1942
"The English intended establishing a connection with the eastern theatre of the war via Sweden. But the Swedes are determined to oppose by force of arms anybody who attacks their territory. At least that is what they say today. It would have been better if we had also taken Sweden during our campaign in the north. This state has no right to national existence anyway."

April 21, 1943
"An incident embarrassing to us occurred when a German merchant ship fired on a Swedish submarine. The Swedes are blowing their tops about it. The Swedish press, especially the section hostile to the Axis, is indulging in language that it dares to use only because our military position is not very secure at the moment. But one day there will be a change -- and then we can talk differently to the Swedes."

On the future of Sweden:

"In considering the future of the European states that remained neutral in the Second World War, Hitler said very little about his intentions toward Sweden, except to veto the idea of a union between Sweden and Finland and to include the Swedes in the roster of Germanic peoples who would be encouraged to participate in the colonisation of Eastern Europe. The most obvious explanation for Hitler's reticence about Sweden is that he wished to avoid giving rise to rumours that might stir up Swedish fear and hostility and thereby jeapordize the vital shipments of Swedish iron ore to Germany.

It is of course possible that Hitler would have allowed Sweden, like Finland, to maintain an independent status after the war was an ally of Germany. However, in contrast to his attitude toward the Finns, whom he had accorded the status of honorary Nordics, Hitler clearly regarded the Swedes as Nordics by birthright. It is therefore more likely thathe would have compelled the Swedes to accept membership in his Germanic Reich, and that the model of Nazi policy toward Austria would have served for Sweden, as it was to serve for Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands."

Norman Rich, Hitler's War Aims: The Establishment of the New Order (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1974). p.401

"According to Himmler's doctor-masseur Felix Kersten, Himmler expressed regret that Germany had not occupied Sweden at the same time as Norway, but he obviously believed that Germany would rectify this error after the war; in August 1942 he told Kersten he foresaw a great future for Sweden in the Greater German Reich (The Kersten Memoirs, 1940-1945 (London, 1956), pp.142-43, 146)

Ibid, p.500

@Fade
So what changed all of this? What happened during the Second World War that caused Westerners to turn their backs on racialism? I will tell you. Westerners were disgusted by Hitler's atrocities and blamed racialism for them. Racialism has been permanently associated with Nazism and mass murder ever since.
American public was not even aware of any 'mass murder' before the occupation of Germany. THAN the Americans/Brittish decided conduct a systematic demonization of the German people! It enabled them to continue with anti-German war propaganda during the cold war and even after.
Anti-racism of the American society is only a collateral damage of the Anglo-Saxon anti-German campaign.
The photographs of the camps, especially the photographs of the mass graves, came as a profound shock to most Americans. It was the smoking gun. Here was the proof that Hitler and the Nazis were the barbarians, cut throats, and monsters that Churchill and FDR always said they were.
Like Churchil 'always said they were'?
What a coincidence. :rolleyes:
Americans found only what Churchill expected them to find!

@Fade
American public was not even aware of any 'mass murder' before the occupation of Germany.


Zvaci, I've read a couple of books published in the 1940s that discussed mass deportations and probable mass murders. Before I take the trouble to dig them out and post excerpts, I'm wondering what you'd accept as proof. Here's an example of something I posted before:

http://www.thephora.org/forum/showpost.php?p=206&postcount=8

Note that it was published in September 1942, and was hardly the sort of work limited to the academic elite. Smith was a journalist, and the copy my local library has was from 1943 or so, after several printings. I'm willing to dig it up and post more excerpts as long as the response is not going to be something along the lines that it is all Zionist propaganda.

@Fade
THAN the Saxons decided conduct a systematic demonization of the German people! It enabled them to continue with anti-German war propaganda during the cold war and even after.


Yes, they "demonized" them to the point that West Germany had the second or third biggest economy in the world by the 1970s, and was doing quite well in areas like per capita income as well. Oh those evil Yankee Doodle dandy Zionist puppet scum! :rolleyes:

You might be able to argue that this occurred only because the US needed Germany as a buffer to the Warsaw Pact. And that Morganthau lost out to Kennan et al over this issue on that basis, that "Containment" necessitated a stable if not militarily strong Germany. I'd actually be interested in reading about it, to be honest. However, the fact remains that by the 1960s West Germany was doing far better than most of Europe in economic terms, despite being prostrate in military terms.


Anti-racism of the American society is only a side-effect of the Anglo-Saxon anti-German campaign.


Eh? I think that was Fade's point, wasn't it? :confused:

Zvaci, I've read a couple of books published in the 1940s that discussed mass deportations and probable mass murders. Before I take the trouble to dig them out and post excerpts, I'm wondering what you'd accept as proof. Here's an example of something I posted before:

http://www.thephora.org/forum/showpost.php?p=206&postcount=8

Note that it was published in September 1942, and was hardly the sort of work limited to the academic elite. Smith was a journalist, and the copy my local library has was from 1943 or so, after several printings. I'm willing to dig it up and post more excerpts as long as the response is not going to be something along the lines that it is all Zionist propaganda.
It didn't had such horrifying effect on the masses in any case - like the photos of camps after the American occupation.
If America was such racialist country those 'facts' would be kept as the top secret or destroyed, but they were used against Germany! Germany had to declare the war to US 1941. because of the Americans just couldn't let it go and hat to supply the Churchill's pirates. The only tactical mistake was that the war was declared too early. In the end, German superiority in discovering the new technologies of war would change the bitter outcome.
Yes, they "demonized" them to the point that West Germany had the second or third biggest economy in the world by the 1970s, and was doing quite well in areas like per capita income as well. Oh those evil Yankee Doodle dandy Zionist puppet scum! :rolleyes:
Germany is the economical giant, but a political midget! Breaking the national spirit and pride was the method of bringing Germans to their knees!
Eh? I think that was Fade's point, wasn't it? :confused:
It is not just to blame Germany for trying to dispose the Jews.

It didn't had such horrifying effect on the masses in any case - like the photos of camps after the American occupation.


Because the public was reluctant to believe such a thing was possible.


If America was such racialist country those 'facts' would be kept as the top secret or destroyed, but they were used against Germany!


It is an error to confuse German racial policy with traditional racialism. Even the most zealous Southern segregationist saw a huge difference between keeping certain ethnic groups in their place and slaughtering them en masse.


Germany had to declare the war to US 1941.


Germany saw an opportunity to declare war in 1941. It didn't have to.


because of the Americans just couldn't let it go and hat to supply the Churchill's pirates.


It seems to me that a few transports getting to England was better than risking the crushing weight of American industrial power.

Because the public was reluctant to believe such a thing was possible.
So the motives for the campaign were purely chauvinist in character.
It is an error to confuse German racial policy with traditional racialism. Even the most zealous Southern segregationist saw a huge difference between keeping certain ethnic groups in their place and slaughtering them en masse.
Mass slaughter was already used as the method against Jews, Moors in Spain. True, it was inspired by Christianity but so was the Ku Klux Klan.
American slave owners, and latter the industrialists cared about the eugenics, and not so much about the race. In other words the slave runners, and latter the capitalists were only searching for strong and healthy labor. This can explain the physical superiority of American negroes over their African relatives.
Germany saw an opportunity to declare war in 1941. It didn't have to.
It seems to me that a few transports getting to England was better than risking the crushing weight of American industrial power.

Its easy to be a general after the battle, yet most of people would commit a similar mistake, especially after the encouraging Japaniese assault on Pearl Harbor.

So the motives for the campaign were purely chauvinist in character.


Aren't the worldviews of all peoples chauvinist?


Mass slaughter was already used as the method against Jews, Moors in Spain.


It is impossible to overstate the power of photographs and images. Thats the difference.


True, it was inspired by Christianity but so was the Ku Klux Klan.


(Shrug)


American slave owners, and latter the industrialists cared about the eugenics, and not so much about the race.


The two were seen as the same thing. Of course, from an Anglo-Saxon perspective. But I think you would find that even among eugenicists, the sight of mass murder left a bad taste in their mouths.


Its easy to be a general after the battle, yet most of people would commit a similar mistake, especially after the encouraging Japaniese assault on Pearl Harbor.

You'll notice, however, that the Japanese didn't declare war on the USSR after early German victories in 1941.

Hitler was kept in the dark by the Japanese as to their intentions to attack at Peral harbour , he knew nothing about it.
( He was not well pleased as he thought he was the senior man in the Axis).

The two were seen as the same thing. Of course, from an Anglo-Saxon perspective. But I think you would find that even among eugenicists, the sight of mass murder left a bad taste in their mouths.Galton certainly would have been disgusted by it.