Potocki:

However, I know the American public and the representatives and senators who all have the final word, and I am of the opinion that the possibility that America will enter the war as in 1917 is not great. That’s because the majority of the states in the mid-West and West, where the rural element predominates, want to avoid involvement in European disputes at all costs. They remember the declaration of the Versailles Treaty and the well-known phrase that the war was to save the world for democracy. Neither the Versailles Treaty nor that slogan have reconciled the United States to that war. For millions there remains only a bitter aftertaste because of unpaid billions which the European states still owe America.

the average American was bitter because of unpaid billions still owed or because they lost a father, a brother, or another relative in that war?

this potocki sounds like jew

Czechoslovakian President Emil Hácha signed a formal agreement the next day with Hitler establishing a German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia, which constituted the Czech portion of the previous entity.

It might have had something to do with Hitler’s threat to bomb Prague, if Hácha didn’t give in to his blackmail.

It soon became evident after the proclamation of the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia that the new regime enjoyed considerable popularity among the people living in it.

Lol. Sure, Czechs must have been thrilled at losing their independence and being occupied by a foreign power, at least some of whose representatives eventually developed extremely sinister plans for the future of Czechs (Heydrich during his time in the protectorate thought that about 50% of Czechs had to be “deported”, while 50% could be Germanized, but Czech nationhood had to disappear in any case).
I don’t know why Ron Unz keeps publishing these absolutely retarded “revisionist” pieces which are little more than full-on Nazi apologetics, completely unconvincing in their arguments (the documents cited above are totally unremarkable imo and in no way show Roosevelt “instigated” WW2…it was Hitler’s decision to start a war with Poland).

Take a look at an official US Army document. From my blog:

Oct 19, 2015 – U.S. Army Mobilization began in 1938?

For anyone who still thinks the USA was “surprised” at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 and “thrust” into World War II, read this official U.S. Army document: Highlights of Mobilization, World War II, 1938-1942.

https://history.army.mil/documents/WWII/ww2mob.htm

Here are some highlights of our “peacetime” Army that in 1938 had just 167,000 active enlisted and 190,000 in the National Guard.

“These actions of June-September 1940 were designed to produce a 1,000,000-man Army by 1 January 1941 and 1,400,000-man Army by 1 July 1941 (consist, 500,000 RA, 270,000 NG, and 630,000 selectees). In units: 27 Infantry, 4 Armored, 2 Cavalry Divisions, necessary supporting corps, army, and GHQ troops, and 54 combat air groups.”

And just prior to our being “forced” into World War II, lots of construction began:

“Between summer 1940 and December 1941, provision of 29 reception centers (for receiving and classifying inductees) and 21 replacement training centers.”

“During fiscal 1940-41, about 45 new communities constructed for Army populations of from 10,000 to 63,000; more than half of them on new sites.”

Note that World War II didn’t officially begin until Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, yet we started mobilizing for war in 1938!

Interesting…at least the people contemporary to the happening rightly noted the jewish influence and finance. WW2 was planned and instigated by the jew to make ‘the world safe for communism’ – just like they said in the ‘Protocols’…

The United States historically has seen allowing any single country — such as Germany — to dominate Europe to be a potential threat to the United States. The fear is that they will then come for us.

Lol. Sure, Czechs must have been thrilled at losing their independence and being occupied by a foreign power, at least some of whose representatives eventually developed extremely sinister plans for the future of Czechs (Heydrich during his time in the protectorate thought that about 50% of Czechs had to be “deported”, while 50% could be Germanized, but Czech nationhood had to disappear in any case).

not quite as bad as what jews were planning for Germany prior to WWII

extremely sinister

Excellent article.

Best book about these events is The Forced War by David Hoggan. He goes over many of these same events with a great attention to detail, though certainly from a pro-German stance.

said:
“It might have had something to do with Hitler’s threat to bomb Prague, if Hácha didn’t give in to his blackmail.”

– Except there was no threat to bomb Prague as Goring stated:

“The intention of bombing Prague did not exist, nor had any order been given to that effect … “

– Hacha was supported by his fellow Czechs who were also very concerned about Communism, hence the agreement for a ‘protectorate’ status.

– And from his daughter:

Hacha’s daughter was part of the trip to Berlin and she testified her father freely put his country under German protection when interviewed by Allied interrogators after WW2. As David Hoggan wrote in his definitive work, The Forced War, Hacha’s daughter confirmed after the war that her father was treated courteously and kindly by the Germans, and with all the attention and consideration normally given to a statesman.

– more:
Hacha in Berlin, March 1939: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8342

said:
“Heydrich during his time in the protectorate thought that about 50% of Czechs had to be “deported”, while 50% could be Germanized, but Czech nationhood had to disappear in any case”

– Heydrich said no such thing, there is no proof or you would have presented it.
Please present the original German documents where he supposedly said that. You cannot.

said:
“I don’t know why Ron Unz keeps publishing these absolutely retarded “revisionist” pieces which are little more than full-on Nazi apologetics, completely unconvincing in their arguments (the documents cited above are totally unremarkable imo and in no way show Roosevelt “instigated” WW2…it was Hitler’s decision to start a war with Poland).”

– Facts “apologize” for nothing.
You’re simply upset that your fake Zionist view of “history” is being utterly torn apart.
If anyone is “retarded” then it is you and those like you.

– Hitler did not start a war with Poland.
– Poland seized German land under the forced, illegal blockade mandated treaty of Versailles.
– Poland was brutalizing Germans in the stolen land, Poland got what they started.
– Again: Britain & France did nothing against the Communist USSR who invaded Poland from the east and took 60% of Poland though the treaty with Poland said nothing of exempting the USSR.

And now, with the revelations proven in the article above, please read it, and that have also been covered by CODOH, you are grasping at straws.
Now, shall we call you a Stalin / Communist apologist?

http://www.codoh.com

LOL
How would the Germans have done that?

It is more of a certainty, because they try even without being a hegemon,

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russia-s-venezuela-challenge.

He said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy’s view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt’s urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland

Stalin understood that he was freeing Hitler to strike in the west by making a pact with Hitler. In effect he facilitated it. The British considered the Soviet Union to be the real problem. Stalin had already grabbed the Baltic states plus parts of Finland and Romania. The British were mobilizing against the USSR over the war with Finland even after declaring war with Germany. The British guarantee to Poland originally covered only their independence not territory; the British thought allowing Germany to take Polish land was acceptable and it would make war between Germany and the USSR quite likely (Chamberlain’s strategy was to let Hitler and Stalin into conflict). Only after the Nazi-Soviet Pact was announced was the guarantee extended to Poland’s territory because at that point the British decided war was necessary; Germany and the USSR being friendly was not acceptable as it meant Hitler was going to go West instead of East.

Clearly Stalin wanted to sit the war between the capitalists out and reap the rewards. Neville Chamberlain wanted to see the fighting done by the Germans and Bolshies, we know he thought that because he said so to a meeting of important Tories.With the the Nazi-Soviet pact the powerful Soviet deterrent to any aggression was out of the equation and the British realized the balance of power had moved against them, which was unacceptable in a way that war between the Nazis and Soviets was not. If Hitler didn’t have to worry about the Soviets at his back that suddenly made all the previous calculations obsolete.

Although Stalin may have anticipated territorial demands or military pressure such as border incidents he was astounded when Hitler subjected the USSR to an all out attack with the promethean goal of conquering the Soviet state. Everybody underestimated the effectiveness of the combination of Weimar reforms increasing centralised revenue raising for military purposes, Hitler’s decisiveness and the German army’s fighting power.

As thrilled as the Germans were when Bohemia and Moravia was taken from them (Austria) and over three million Germans forcibly became Czech citizens in a newly created state that never existed before.

This video is banned here in Europe, where the lies are upheld by the law, but it can be viewed in the USA.

1942 – At a mass meeting in Prague, 200,000 Czechs pledge loyalty to their homeland and to the German Reich. Czech Minister Emanuel Moravec addresses the large rally on July 3, 1942, on Wenceslas Square, near the historic statute of St. Wenceslas. He concludes with an expression of confidence in a better future for the Czech people, and of support for the “new Europe,” the “National Socialist revolution,” “our leader, Adolf Hitler,” and “our state president, Dr. Hacha.” Emil Hacha, head of the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia government is present, along with many other officials. The meeting concludes with the crowd singing the Czech national hymn. Three minute newsreel clip, with Czech narration.

“Forrestal died on May 22, 1949 under suspicious circumstances when he fell from his hospital window.”

Which was on the 16th floor of Bethesda Naval Hospital. “Fell” probably doesn’t describe how he went out. You can read the Navy’s report on his death, called the Willcutts report after the Admiral who headed it, here:
http://JamesForrestal.ARIwatch.com

the average American was bitter because of unpaid billions still owed or because they lost a father, a brother, or another relative in that war?

The Wikipedia says that 4,000,000 American soldier were mobilised and 111,000 killed – mostly by disease.

That is absolutely nothing compared to the losses of Imperial Russia (12,000,000), France (8,900,000) and the British Empire (9,000,000). The demographics of France will never recover.

The USA entered the war only 18 months before it ended. Of course, it took months before the troops even got there.

I fear that the average educated American has no idea what war is like when it is fought in their homeland. Putin warned the Americans that the next war will not be fought on Russian soil. The American elites think that he means it will be fought in Europe. LOL

The fact is that WW2 in Europe was a tragic and pointless White On White fratricide that the United States had no business being involved in. The only winners of WW2 were the Jews.

Obviously the average American wouldn’t have much knowledge of WW1 debt, who owed it and who reneged. But it would have provided some nice big numbers for populists to use amongst people suffering from the Depression.

Your point about the relatives of those killed in WW1 has superficial merit, but, even if your implicit view of the psychology of relatives is right I think you might have a problem with the figures. I’ve just looked them up and the number of American deaths in WW1 was about 116,000 out of a population nearly a thousand times as large: not much above one tenth of one per cent were killed. That isn’t a knockdown answer but I think it points to the need to question the strength of your observation.

a German SS brigade led by Freiherr von Kuensberg captured the center of Warsaw ahead of the regular German army

Nonsense. Gruppe Künsberg was sent into Warsaw in October 1939 after the unconditional surrender at the end of September of Warsaw’s defenders.

U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and his advisers played a crucial role in planning and instigating World War II.

Also nonsense. Preparing for a (by that time foreseeable) war is not the same as instigating it. Unless you can show that the US was behind Hitler breaching the Munich Agreement & later attacking Poland, you have no case.

Not really your area is it? That wasn’t “mobilising” for war, as Russia did, critically, in 1914. That was merely preparing a country to fight a war which had pathetically small and underfunded armed forces.

No doubt the Roosevelt administration was agitating for war. Between the Soviets, the Nazis and FDR’s chums what chance did Europe have? Always found the US saving Britain meme particularly offensive.

Contrary to official historians it is well worth remembering how catastrophic FDR’s domestic economic policies were with the US mired in depression until Truman started reversing his bizarre price controls etc.

Your point is in the right direction but your figures are of apples and oranges; American deaths v. total casualties for its allies.

There is a lot of interesting information in the article and reports hitherto not familiar to me but I think the author has too limited a focus and certainly doesn’t justify the big claims that WW2 was aimed for and caused by FDR. You only have to suppose that, in Roosevelt’s judgment Hitler was going to make war and that the US had to be in it for its long term security. He may eell have regarded the Soviet Union as weak and vulnerable enough for their to be no reason to be actively anti Bolshevik. And – maybe alternatively – he would have had the Japanese well in mind and applauded the Soviet Union having recently given them a licking.

Where can one find online this “German ‘white paper’”?

Most of the information in this article was gathered together by Herbert Hoover who wrote it up in long book form in the 1950s. He worked from Polish documents captured in Warsaw as the article says. Hoover’s Ms remained unpublished for many years. After it was published, as Freedom Betrayed a few years ago, I wrote to the editor, Stephen Nash who did not reply. I also called the publisher’s editor who would not discuss it with me. I concluded that they were hostile because my German histories, Other Losses and Crimes and Mercies, by and large confirmed that the tales told by court historians such as Nash, Stephen E Ambrose. “Sir” Michael Howard, Martin Gilbert and so on are sweet-smelling fantasies laid on the rotting corpses of the people who died because of the mistakes made and hatred fomented by leaders on all sides. The leaders included Roosevelt in a gallery of the guilty running from him through Churchill, and Hitler to Stalin and Henry C Morgenthau, deviser of the infamous Morgenthau Plan for the destruction of the German people.

Podcast with Douglas Horne:

FDR and the Attack on Pearl Harbor

Documents and Evidence not your long suit, eh Wiz?

If you’re very careful, you can say quite similar things even in Germany:

The only winners of WW2 were the Jews.

US and USSR emerged as superpowers.
Post-war Europe recovered fast and living standards improved greatly.

Jews lost a great deal in the war. Shoah.

If Jews emerged victorious, it was because they took over institutions in the US. It would have happened even without WWII though, minus the Shoah narrative, Jewish power would have had less of a moral shield.

The zionist control of the US with the zionist privately owned FED starting in 1913 has brought America war after war starting with WWI and right on down and through the mideast , all for the profit of the demonic draconian diabolical FED and its satanic zionist owner!

Wars are a sacrifice to satan from the zionists and a money making formula for the satanic zionist banking kabal and so America is kept in a state of terror from the very same terrorists that the zionist controllers have created ie AL CIADA aka ISIS and all off shoots thereof and thus insures that terror and war go hand in hand, as we goyim are marched towards a zionist NWO!

these absolutely retarded “revisionist” pieces which are little more than full-on Nazi apologetics, completely unconvincing in their arguments (the documents cited above are totally unremarkable imo and in no way show Roosevelt “instigated” WW2…it was Hitler’s decision to start a war with Poland).

These revisionist pieces are 50% kooky but offer up kernels of facts and insights that reveal aspects of the time mostly buried by the Judeo-centric media. It has elements of Nazi apologia, but keep in mind that much of US narrative is Jewish Supremacist propaganda.

Now, there is something to be learned from the Jewish Narrative as it isn’t all lies either.

If we can select the truths from the Jewish Supremacist narrative and truths from the Nazi-sympathizing narrative, we can construct a truer narrative. Of course the lies and distortions of both.

The recent events in Iraq and Syria and the whole Russia Collusion hysteria go to show that the ‘liberal’corporate media can be just as full of BS as any totalitarian press.
Of course, the difference is Putin and Assad are NOT Hitlers whereas Hitler was truly a hitler, a pathological demagogue.

Hitler is mainly to blame for WWII, and one could argue that FDR’s hostility toward Hitler was well-grounded given Hitler’s actions against Poland and then against the USSR, an ally. Also,Hitler was someone with whom diplomacy was often impossible since he regarded the compromise of others as weakness to exploit.

But it’s also true that the US, for ideological, imperial, and tribal reasons of its own, believed Germany must be toppled first before its preferred world order could prevail.

This is another great article and both the author and UR deserve to be highly commended.

Potocki’s reports (according to the translations given) were amazingly perceptive on all points.

The President regards the foreign policy of his country as a means of satisfying his own personal ambition.

That’s a conclusion that, while obvious, is almost never addressed but should be. It also sounds a lot like the doofus, Woody Wilson, and his fake messianic “idealism.” Both of those clowns were amoral narcissistic fools to the max and menaces to world peace. Both were functionally crazy, cunning and downright evil.

It’s interesting to note that FDR was taken to task for essentially sitting out WW1 at a desk job by Teddy Roosevelt ( another militaristic, blowhard, self stroking fool) while Teddy’s 4 sons were fighting in Europe, so he took a “playtime” tour of the battlefields to bolster his “war” credentials.
He also…

…was enjoying every aspect of being a man of authority in a government at war. Early on he had confided to a friend, “It would be wonderful to be a war president.” – Thomas Fleming, The Illusion of Victory, p254 (2003)

For me, one of the morals of all that is that men cannot be trusted in positions of power and “we” must act accordingly. Another lesson learned is that the US government has long acted against the interests of the American prols, peasants, peons and pissants, and no doubt shall as long as it exists. What to do about it appears to be, at this point, an individual thing.

It might have had something to do with Hitler’s threat to bomb Prague, if Hácha didn’t give in to his blackmail.

Credible source, please.

Now go back and read the article and try to find out who was threatening whom. You could also review the causes of WW1, but that may be asking too much.

Also, it would be interesting to hear your opinion on the report that New York “Jews” declared war on Germany in 1933, years before the Nazis did anything (they were subsequently accused of) to the Jews.

The fear is that they will then come for us.

What’s your assessment of the validity of that fear and how familiar are you with the concept of pretexts?

I concluded that they were hostile because my German histories, Other Losses and Crimes and Mercies, by and large confirmed that the tales told by court historians… are sweet-smelling fantasies laid on the rotting corpses of the people who died because of the mistakes made and hatred fomented by leaders on all sides.

Kindly elaborate on that conclusion, please.

Now THAT makes perfect sense! Kudos!

The Nazi apologism of these pieces is unfortunate (e.g. casually glossing over the German destruction of Czechoslovakia as you cite), but other than that they’re quite valuable. The standard narrative is that America was completely neutral until the outbreak of war, after which it adopted pro-British neutrality.

The reality is that the Roosevelt Administration actively worked to foment war, and once war had broken out its policy was to commit America to the war.

That obviously does not absolve the Axis powers. If the US had maintained its neutrality, perhaps the Poles would’ve accepted German demands. It of course doesn’t follow that this would’ve preserved the peace in Europe.

This also has special relevance for American politics as Roosevelt has long been a despised figure on the American right.

Preparing for a (by that time foreseeable) war is not the same as instigating it.

Duh.

That’s a classic straw man fallacy. Unless you can show that the author claimed what you said he did, you have no case. And since the Dizzard agreed with you, it’s almost certain that you have none.

No doubt the Roosevelt administration was agitating for war. Between the Soviets, the Nazis and FDR’s chums what chance did Europe have? Always found the US saving Britain meme particularly offensive.

somehow you left the belligerent Churchill out of this mix

note that he was on the hook to some jew bankers for the solvency of his entire estate, also note the quip by a Rothschild woman “if my sons didn’t want wars there would be no wars”

Jews lost a great deal in the war. Shoah.

Maybe a few little ones did, but the bigshot moneybag crowd probably did not.

Here’s an anecdote to ponder.

The new [Jewish] prosperity was born in rearmament, and that was begun in the name of anti-Communism and anti-Semitism. Abyssinia, Spain and China have already shown that the new armaments race spells death, not for Jews, but for indiscriminate millions of helpless Gentiles, Africans, Chinese and whatnot. The profits from the armaments race will go largely into the pockets of Jews, because of their preponderant share in retail trade… Such is Hitler’s achievement in the cause of antiSemitism.

I was talking one day to Z, a Jewish journalist expelled from Germany who has settled in Vienna, where he has a pleasant home and a motor car. He talked with bitter resentment of Germany. ‘Ah’, he complained, ‘the Poles murdered us, but the Germans have robbed us’, and it was quite clear from his tone which was the worse thing for him. Then he told me how his son was still working for a big German film company in Berlin and had thrice had his salary raised to induce him not to leave and emigrate, as he desired, wishing to join his father. The Jews. As I write, in Vienna, they are all about me, watching with non-committal, veiled, appraising eyes the comedy that is going on in Insanity Fair. They know that when Hitlerism has passed away they will still be trading in the Kärntnerstrasse.

-Douglas Reed, Insanity Fair (1938), chapter 17

This also has special relevance for American politics as Roosevelt has long been a despised figure on the American right.

more accurate is the other way around – Roosevelt has long been deified by the MSM and the American left.

The American right just notices he was a flawed man

Hitler is mainly to blame for WWII, and one could argue that FDR’s hostility toward Hitler was well-grounded …

Hitler was to blame? Tell us about how blameless the Marxist “world revolution” fanatics and their Wall Street backers were. Then you can enlighten us about the Treaty of Versailles and how that played so little part in the ensuing hostilities. Long standing British imperialistic policies? No problem, eh? Zionist intrigue? Never happened, right? (Ever hear of “rabbi” Stephen Wise? G-wd’s messenger on Earth, right?)

This oughta be depressing…

but other than that they’re quite valuable.

I don’t think so, imo those pieces without exception are so stupid that they’ll actually be counter-productive and reinforce existing narratives.
I actually think there are some areas of WW2 where revisionism might be justified (and you don’t even have to go to kooky “revisionists” for it, the gap between the mythology and the writings even of many quite mainstream historians is often wide)…but Unz review has nothing to contribute in this regard.

The reality is that the Roosevelt Administration actively worked to foment war

I don’t think the article above demonstrated that, tbh the documents cited in it appear to be totally unremarkable to me and don’t support such a thesis.
Maybe someone else has made a better case for it, but that Roosevelt actively wanted a European war seems unlikely to me.

If the US had maintained its neutrality, perhaps the Poles would’ve accepted German demands.

But the US didn’t really do anything in 1939/40, it was just words. iirc even Lend-Lease was only adopted after the fall of France.
The backing of Britain and France (still seen as premier world powers at the time, and in the case of France with a large army with modern equipment) was probably enough for Poland, I don’t think the remote possibility of American intervention (which was years away anyway) was decisive.
A fundamental issue was of course that Hitler had already shown with the destruction of Czechoslovakia (so casually dismissed in the article above) in March 1939 that his ambitions went beyond merely uniting all majority German areas in the Reich and that he wasn’t trustworthy at all.

Historical documents?
“Galaxy Quest” And we are all Thermians.

Bankers Hate Peace: All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars

In the beginning of World War I, Woodrow Wilson had adopted initially a policy of neutrality. But the Morgan Bank, which was the most powerful bank at the time, and which wound up funding over 75 percent of the financing for the allied forces during World War I … pushed Wilson out of neutrality sooner than he might have done, because of their desire to be involved on one side of the war.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/bankers-hate-peace-all-wars-are-bankers-wars/5438849

*All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars*

I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.

from the up-to-date history of the second world war it is now possible to see the utter madness, irrelevance really of white people! from Churchill and the English, to Roosevelt, the Germans, the Russians.. and all others at the top of the white countries..the white elites..what on earth are they, what are they about on planet earth, what do they want?

they smash, beat, poison, blow up, lie all the time, cheat, steal, draw all human profit off into few hands, bring world economy to a standstill then create wars for all and every socially controlling purpose including the reduction of ordinary people..all working people. war is to protect the money grubbers and economic slavers from the mess they make in their own profit taking and exploitation of the people..to reduce the people to easy captivity, their numbers as a fighting force capable of social revolution and on and on, permitting the restart of another profit taking cycle and the same flow of events again and again and again

by new information when properly considered Hitler comes of a relatively sane man who did not want war..but look at the things he did himself!

and over all of this, like mad directors of a horror movie are the fake Jews, the Khazars who collectively must be the devil himself, directing a MADD movie of existence.

LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE ALL COLLECTIVELY DOING -HAVE DONE. IT IS CONSTANT CENTURIES LONG LUNACY, PURE NAKED INSANITY THAT THEY HAVE MANAGED TO PUT OR PULL A CONSISTENT PATINA OVER, THAT ALLOWS THE REST OF US TO TAKE THEIR BEHAVIOR AS SANE AND TO ACCEPT WHITE PEOPLE AS LOGICAL AND RIGHT IN THE WORLD..THE ACTUAL OPPOSITE OF WHO/WHAT THEY ARE

I don know of anything historically like the 19 century. from the Japanese Russian war, the first world war, the Russian revolution, the economic games of the years between 1920-39 they call the great crash, the second world war..all the way to currently when white people appear to be finally tired of themselves and are ready to end it all in another explosion of war with nuclear weapons..we have had such a show of absolutely human insanity there are negative words capable of describing that flow of human time and the people involved.

Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Churchill, Chamberlin, Mussolin, DeGaulle,..all, an endless flow of terrible human beings..and it has not stopped, all the way through the Clintons, Obama, Macron..and on and on and on, the same carnage, the same insanity..it never stops, never ever. nothing depresses me as human history does..the white part of it..the rise of the white man. there is no way out of it..white outlook and socially dominant power, will not allow for anything positive in the human potential to manifest. only genocide, human engineering and the development of social grotesque forms of social organization looms for the human future

and they say some god made this life..a supreme and good god worked all this out and made ot, let it be. and of course that is more grotesque nonsense that leads to more hell for humanity.

I dont see the point to life. the ancient Africans had a point. they developed a life in nature, accepted nature as the template and flowed accordingly. in that way they gave us all a chance by developing the basis of survival, of social organization and spiritual sanity. the white man took that and poisoned it, twisted it into all the insane religious nonsense that drives human suicide currently.

but with the rise of the white male into global power for 500 years now humanity has gone totally insane..impenetrably insane, comprehensively insane. we have all been made nuts by white logic. we have ringed ourselves by that same logic with every conceivable weapon that can kill all humanity. we have actually set the stage for the possible rise out of nature itself organic mutations that may wipe humanity all on their own..mutations changed by what we have routinely thrown into the world as waste for which humanity has no biological defense.

that is the white mans logic..operating on the principle that there is a free lunch, always looking for on and causing existential chaos in the process. I want to cite the obvious stupidity in that approach..a collectively arsine approach..but it is far, far, far, far….. worse than that. the condition of the white man appears to be irreversible, cannot be changed and with the destructive means the white elites now have it is totally unlikely that humanity comes out of the experience of white power, white global domination, alive..or in one piece. we may crawl out alive but we wont be human anymore

SCREW ROOSEVELT. HE WAS THE WORST FROM THE START! I KNEW THAT SINCE I WAS MUCH YOUNGER AND COULD CONSIDER REALITY. ROOSEVELT HAS BEEN BUILT INTO A HERO, HE IS A FAKE HERO!.

I HOPE TO LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO SEE HIS STATUE TORN DOWN AS LENIN’S STATUE WAS WITH THE FALL OF RUSSIAN STATE CAPITALISM

A wonderful article!

The myth that the US and their henceforth junior partner UK- along with the Soviet Union- “liberated” Europe ought to be put to rest. There was no “liberation” of Europe from Germany, unless massive civilian deaths and the unprecedented destruction of property and cultural landmarks equates to “liberation.” As an American, this is disturbing to me, but it is the truth.

FDR was an ignoramus and an ingenue surrounded, in his later years, by communists and their sympathizers. Had he adopted National Socialist economic policies here in the US, he could have ended the depression and brought America to unprecedented prosperity and the ultimate fulfillment of its great providential mission to be an impregnable continental power. Instead, he squandered all that and doubled down on the catastrophically error of his predecessor Wilson.

In both cases- FDR’s and Wilson’s- Europe lost. Disastrously and tragically.

That is an interesting article.

I tend to concetrate on Rosenfeldt’s actions in the Pacific, knew about many non-neutral actions in the Atlantic, non-neutrality of ‘lend-lease’, but most (all )of the content of this article is new to me.

Very interesting.

Changing the subject a little for entertainment, I enjoy reading Charles Bukowski (RIP) at times.

His account of the behaviour of young men post-Pearl Harbour is hilarious, he is drinking (and drunk) on a park bench, suddenly sees them start shouting ‘godawar’ and frantically running around.

I forget the title, but it is a very laconic and funny description.

When seeing Starship Troopers by Verhoeven, I always think that at least one of the scriptwriters must have read Bukowski.

It is so similar.

I actually think there are some areas of WW2 where revisionism might be justified (and you don’t even have to go to kooky “revisionists” for it, the gap between the mythology and the writings even of many quite mainstream historians is often wide)…but Unz review has nothing to contribute in this regard.

thanks to those “kooky” revisionists the liars at Auschwitz had to reduce their claimed number from 4 million all the way down to 1 million

His book is a must read: “The War that Had Many Fathers”.

I dont see the point to life. the ancient Africans had a point. they developed a life in nature, accepted nature as the template and flowed accordingly. in that way they gave us all a chance by developing the basis of survival, of social organization and spiritual sanity. the white man took that and poisoned it, twisted it into all the insane religious nonsense that drives human suicide currently.

good

go back and live in your mud hut then

FDR was an ignoramus and an ingenue surrounded, in his later years, by communists and their sympathizers.

if you assume people were stupid or for some reason were doing something other than what they intended to do, you let them off the hook for their behaviour

hold them accountable instead

In Tansill’s book “Backdoor to war” you find that Roosevelt deliberately supported China against Japan in full knowledge that it would hand China to the USSR. He simply did not see communism as a threat at all, but rather as a complimentary world power. In this of cause he was guided along by the numerous bolshevik agents in his government. So the game was in East Asia as in Eurooe to liberate Communism from the middle sized powers which could have contained it: China and half of Europe for the communists and the whole world scared to death between the two Superpowers.
The Germans up to the last moment hoped that the western powers would help them out. And to this day it is near impossible to grasp that conquering Europe was an American-communist joint venture.

Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible–above all religious persecution

Why does he say ‘religious persecution’ if he’s talking about Jews? Was that how Jews presented it at the time in their propaganda?

said:
“Jews lost a great deal in the war. Shoah.”

More of your impossible Zionist nonsense, as has been demonstrated and you still cannot refute.
You might get away with such absurdities where free speech is banned, but not there.

“There’s no business like $hoah business.”

http://www.codoh.com

Well I hate FDR, and his foreign policy is one reason.

And I’m not alone in that.

Type in search engine : 1933 declaration of war ; make your own conclusions

… but that Roosevelt actively wanted a European war seems unlikely to me.

On what basis?

somehow you left the belligerent Churchill out of this mix

Yes, he sure did. What a piece of work that glory-hound sot was.

said:
“These revisionist pieces are 50% kooky but offer up kernels of facts and insights that reveal aspects of the time mostly buried by the Judeo-centric media. It has elements of Nazi apologia, but keep in mind that much of US narrative is Jewish Supremacist propaganda.”

– Tell us specifically what “50%” of Revisionist research is “kooky”.

– What’s to apologize for?
‘The Nazis” did not do what is alleged of them and you have no proof they did.

– Talk is cheap. Empty, Pavlovian talk is all we get from you.

All that while you “apologize” for Communism & Stalin.

http://www.codoh.com

I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign nations.

Thank you in spades for bringing our attention to that truth.

aaaah Bwoy! that you don’t know how sweet that can be is clear. but of course you are white and stupid as per your response.

surely your superior whiteness permits you some ability to understand what I said and come up with something sensible?

apparently not

well said indeed.

Roosevelt was no incompetent or fool. he knew exactly what he was doing. he was executive and ran his show.

Roosevelt was elite and smart enough to know how to compromise and neutralize the american socialist cat until he had a war to smash all worker opposition, directing it into war and depopulation of the capitalist opposition.

I don’t think so, imo those pieces without exception are so stupid that they’ll actually be counter-productive and reinforce existing narratives.
I actually think there are some areas of WW2 where revisionism might be justified (and you don’t even have to go to kooky “revisionists” for it, the gap between the mythology and the writings even of many quite mainstream historians is often wide)…but Unz review has nothing to contribute in this regard.

The stupid thing about these pieces is the Nazi apologism, which in turn reduces their propaganda value.

The information about American policy presented in this piece is useful and generally unknown, even among WW2 buffs. American WW2 buffs generally have good knowledge about how the Roosevelt administration worked to maneuver Japan into war, but have much less knowledge about its European diplomacy.

I don’t think the article above demonstrated that, tbh the documents cited in it appear to be totally unremarkable to me and don’t support such a thesis.
Maybe someone else has made a better case for it, but that Roosevelt actively wanted a European war seems unlikely to me.

Roosevelt worked to gets the Poles to reject all German demands and made an effort to get the French and British to adopt a maximalist position on the German-Polish quarrel by threatening to withdraw economic support if this was not done. That strikes me as seeking to foment war in Europe.

Roosevelt’s aggressive foreign policy was also noted by contemporary observers and objected to by “isolationist” factions in US politics before war broke out. As early as 1937 M. King Hubbert of Hubbert’s Peak fame and Technocracy denounced FDR for turning to “foreign intrigue”. The administration made a determined effort to weaken or eliminate the Neutrality Acts and sought to gain the power to provide arms to only a particular belligerent side in that year.

But the US didn’t really do anything in 1939/40, it was just words. iirc even Lend-Lease was only adopted after the fall of France.
The backing of Britain and France (still seen as premier world powers at the time, and in the case of France with a large army with modern equipment) was probably enough for Poland, I don’t think the remote possibility of American intervention (which was years away anyway) was decisive.

Anglo-French strategy was predicated from the beginning on the ability to access American resources. This is a major reason why there was no French offensive in September, 1939 (with the benefit of hindsight this probably would’ve been decisive). British and French purchasing agents were inspecting American munitions when their export was still illegal. Deliveries of arms to France began before war broke out.

It is also a mistake to only look at American munitions. America also had vast natural resources, capital goods, intermediate goods, and financial resources which were on offer to the Entente.

Lend-Lease, which provided weapons for free, was established in March, 1941 (after the war broke out but none the less indicative of Roosevelt’s policy).

“Just words” ignores the impact the promise of massive economic support must have had on Entente strategy.

Hitler for his part took American policy quite seriously. His infamous 1939 speech announcing that the consequence of war would be the end of Jewry in Europe was directed at Roosevelt, whom he viewed as a tool of the Jews.

A fundamental issue was of course that Hitler had already shown with the destruction of Czechoslovakia (so casually dismissed in the article above) in March 1939 that his ambitions went beyond merely uniting all majority German areas in the Reich and that he wasn’t trustworthy at all.

Of course.

The basic problem with many articles like this is that they tend to just gloss over and excuse Germany’s policy, which is absurd. It’s well-known that Germany intended war. If Poland had caved to German demands that almost certainly wouldn’t have been the end of it.

FDR’s policy is viewed bitterly by elements of the American right who view his administration as a disaster from which America never recovered. That includes WW2.

Excellent advice.:

Type in search engine : 1933 declaration of war ;

But please noooo…!!!! please don’t advocate this…!:

…make your own conclusions

Aside from the fact that they’ve already been brainwashed, most have little to no capacity to even start down that road. Most, in fact would conclude that we “oughtta have a law, er sumpin,” and if not that, then some Messiah like the Hillaryena or da tRumpster, or something along that long parade of loathsome fools.

– Nothing to apologize for. The Nazis did not do what is claimed of them. You simply cannot produce proof that they did, or your would.
– Your apologies for Communism & Stalin are noted however.
– German was wanted in Czechoslovakia, pay attention. Read my comment #9.
said:
“It of course doesn’t follow that this would’ve preserved the peace in Europe.”
– Indeed, Stalin’s planned attack on Germany guaranteed that.
recommended:
Why Germany Attacked the Soviet Union, Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the USSR – Two Historic Documents: http://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-attacked-the-soviet-union/
Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999
said:
“This also has special relevance for American politics as Roosevelt has long been a despised figure on the American right.
– US patriots dislike FDR for dragging the US into war, as shown, and prolonging The Depression, among many other things.

http://www.codoh.com

Jacques sheete has asked for elaboration of this, and here it is: My work shows that all the reasons given to my family and our nation, Canada, for going to war in 1939, were either betrayed or always untrue. The reasons were much more likely to have been the physical and moral destruction of Germany envisaged in about 1895 by Rhodes, Natty Rothschild and the Prince of Wales Edward et al. See Hidden History by Docherty and Macgregor.
The destruction of Germany was being accomplished in 1945-6 according to one of its prime planners, Henry C. Morgenthau. This is chronicled in my book Crimes and Mercies. Millions more Germans were killed after the war by allied action than during the war itself .

you sound like the typical supremacist jew, ben (either that or a dumb ngger)

most of your comments in this thread make no sense, only thing clear is your hatred for whites

awwww boyyyyy!

FDR’s policy is viewed bitterly by elements of the American right who view his administration as a disaster from which America never recovered. That includes WW2.

why do you keep trotting this out there:

“FDR policy viewed bitterly by the American right”

“FDR long been a despised figure on the American right”

you make the right sound like the bad guys for seeing him for who he really was

Agree, Roosevelt knew to the very hour when Japan would attack Pearl Harbor and let it happen, see the book Day of Deceit by Robert Sinnett, it can be had on Amazon. Roosevelt was in with the zionist banking kabal and they wanted a world war to advance their NWO and they are not through , the next war will be with Russia and China.

The zionists believe they can survive a nuclear war in their DUMBs aka Deep Underground Military Bases that they have through out the US and Europe, and the hell with the rest of us, in fact they would like a depopulation event!

Herbert Hoover p. 818 in his long history of the Second World War ‘Freedom Betrayed’
said Kennedy, the Ambassador to Great Britain, told Hoover that FDR lobbied incessantly for Britain to give a war guarantee to Poland, thus steeling the Polish resolve and causing Britain to be drawn into a war that would lose its Empire.

“Kennedy said that after the Germans had occupied Prague and the great cry of appeasement had sprung up in the world and after the Germans had pressed their demands for Danzig and an passage through the Corridor, that Roosevelt and Bullitt were the major factors in the British making their guarantees to Poland and becoming involved in the war. Kennedy said that Bullitt, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the Poles not to make terms with the Germans and that he Kennedy, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the British to make guarantees to the Poles. Kennedy said he had received a cable from Roosevelt to “put a poker up Chamberlain’s back and make him stand up.” Kennedy saw Chamberlain on numerous occasions, urging him in Roosevelt’s name to do all this with the implication that the United States would give the British support. He said that after Chamberlain had given these guarantees, Chamberlain told him(Kennedy) that he hoped the Americans and the Jews would now be satisfied but that he(Chamberlain) felt that he had signed the doom of civilization.”

Roosevelt worked to gets the Poles to reject all German demands and made an effort to get the French and British to adopt a maximalist position on the German-Polish quarrel by threatening to withdraw economic support if this was not done.

If true, that’s indeed interesting, I might have to look into this. The arguments in the article above (referring to a lot of pretty weak sources like newspaper articles or much later reminiscences) don’t seem convincing to me though.
What would have been Roosevelt’s reasoning for pushing for a European war? I know he was pathologically anti-German and soft on communism, but that doesn’t seem like a sufficient rationale.
Commenters here would of course argue that he was a mere puppet of the Jews, but I don’t buy that either (during the war the Holocaust doesn’t seem to have been a central preoccupation for him).

FDR’s policy is viewed bitterly by elements of the American right who view his administration as a disaster from which America never recovered. That includes WW2.

I know about those sentiments…on the other hand his policy made the US the dominant world power, at the cost of the lowest casualties among WW2 combatants.
Personally I’ve come to view US post-war dominance quite negatively (not least because it facilitated the spread of US liberalism with its particularly demented manifestations like Negrophilia, which may well lead to the eventual destruction of the entire pan-European world), but from the point of view of most Americans FDR’s foreign policy must be seen as highly successful imo.

Short article by Chamberlain, who is much more credible than any of the Red and Zio apologists here, listing some of the skunk actions of the warmonger, FDR.

Mr. Roosevelt said at Boston on October 30: “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”
The same thought was expressed in a speech at Brooklyn on November 1… at Rochester, New York, on November 2…at Cleveland on November 3…

So much for presidential words. What about presidential actions? American involvement in war with Germany was preceded by a long series of steps, not one of which could reasonably be represented as conducive to the achievement of the President’s professed ideal of keeping the United States out of foreign wars. The more important of these steps may be briefly listed as follows:

– William Henry Chamberlin, How Franklin Roosevelt Lied America Into War

Jacques sheete has asked for elaboration of this…

Thanks for that highly regarded (by me) info, but I was asking you to elaborate on why you got no response. I am not questioning your veracity, but merely trying to understand what motives they had to snub you.

Anyway, I’m outta here for a few hours.

PS I’m already behind at least 8 books, but I now must add the ones you mentioned to the list; they sound very interesting.

Too bad “Anja” hasn’t shown up to support that one. They and their ilk provide good examples of some of the evil that the Germans were up against which are of the same type and magnitude that we productive ones in the US and the rest of the world have been subject to for too long.

Churchill didn’t become Prime Minister till 1940, Chamberlain is the relevant character, who I thought behaved reasonably and is unfairly demonised now.

Interestingly Reed thought Hitler should have been overthrown or Germany invaded and advocated such. It is possible a coup by the German military could have been instigated in the thirties, certainly in the latter years of the war if unconditional surrender hadn’t been adopted as official policy.

Because I’m part of the American right and despise FDR.

More than four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt told Wiegand: “War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after Britain and France enter it.”[24] When Wiegand said that in the end Germany would be driven into the arms of Soviet Russia and Bolshevism, Ambassador Bullitt replied: “What of it. There will not be enough Germans left when the war is over to be worth Bolshevizing.”

those behind the wars do not serve ideology or democracy. they serve their own interests. then and now. they rule by dividing the rest of the world. by pitting germany against russia, in this case, they worked toward their own domination. their short term goal is the elimination of competitions by all means. their long tern goal is their hegemony and domination of the world. they believe that they are that superior.

‘religious persecution’ . . . Was that how Jews presented it at the time in their propaganda?

(apologies in advance for not tracking the full context of your comment; however —)

Leonard Stein was Chaim Weizmann’s closest assistant as Weizmann maneuvered his way into influential British circles to acquire the Balfour Declaration. Stein wrote a lengthy history of that period, The Balfour Declaration.

Stein also published, in 1933, two very obscure, small booklets, The persecution of the Jews in Germany. by Joint Foreign Committee of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Anglo-Jewish Association. and Supplementary bulletin, no. 1 of the same title.

The booklets are collections of letters written to- and by- persons of influence in British government and institutions. Among the varied complaints voiced, the major complaint constituting “persecution” had to do with limits on Jewish enrollments and/ or positions in German universities.

This is particularly noteworthy in view of a speech by Samuel Untermeyer, “Hitler’s Bitterest Foe,” in August, 1933. http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/untermeyer.htm The audience- and purpose- for that speech was to collect pledges to build Hebrew University in Palestine.

In the midst of the Great Depression, sufficient funds were collected that, by 1936 – 37, Eric(h) Mendelsohn,* “the Jewish architect,” built not only Hebrew University but also luxury residences for Chaim Weizmann and the Schocken family, at Rehovath in Palestine.

As well, as is explained (~1:44) in the Goy Guide to World History, the New School for Social Research was created to provide a resource for disseminating ideologies of Frankfurt school and others; “throughout the pre-war, war and post-war years, degrees were handed out willy-nilly to Jewish immigrants,” who then became the teaching base in the rapidly growing US college education movement instigated by GI Bill.

Unz Forum habitués may be aware that the “neocons” evolved from young Trotskyites who argued from separate corners at City College of New York. It has been said that part of their grievance was that they were not enrolled at Harvard or Columbia. Less often noted is that CCNY charged no tuition. They attended college for free.

*(sidenote: Mendelsohn had hoped to become THE architect for the new Israel, but that didn’t work out. Instead, by the opening of the 1940s he was in USA, teaching at Harvard, and in 1942 he and fellow Jewish architects collaborated with Standard Oil Corp. and US Air Force to design and build “German Village” in the Utah desert. https://www.ksl.com/article/37248295/dugways-german-village-shows-how-far-allies-were-willing-to-go-to-end-wwii

German Village (and also Japan Village) were exquisitely accurate replications of typical German working-class housing, used by US Air Force to refine and rehearse the most efficient means of creating a firestorm that would consume the buildings and their civilian occupants. )

ngger is accurate!

why no sense?

you are prolly right man. I am rappin’ off the top of my head and miss the boat entirely..from the start to now. it is time to seek my mud hut and relax. the white world clearly is too much for me

Actually up till 1939 War Plan Red was still active – American war with Britain specifically the invasion of Canada (which they failed to annex in 1776 and 1812).

WWII enriched Kosher America Inc and empowered the Judeo-Bolshevik USSR.

thanks for the reference.

iirc David Irving recounts that Churchill was deeply indebted to Nattie Rothschild.

you’re not framing things correctly – think like the jew

we are innocent and pure and righteous and anyone who would oppose us is the scum of the earth

What would have been Roosevelt’s reasoning for pushing for a European war? I know he was pathologically anti-German and soft on communism, but that doesn’t seem like a sufficient rationale.

How about you look at the strong sources, for example in the 25 point NSDAP program? I know, its hard to find in German curiously and mysteriously, but english shall do.

1. We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples.

2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.

8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since the 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.

11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

23. [b]We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press.[/b] In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility.

Does it answer your question?

Obviously timeless demands, looking at the situation today.

If true, that’s indeed interesting, I might have to look into this. The arguments in the article above (referring to a lot of pretty weak sources like newspaper articles or much later reminiscences) don’t seem convincing to me though.
What would have been Roosevelt’s reasoning for pushing for a European war? I know he was pathologically anti-German and soft on communism, but that doesn’t seem like a sufficient rationale.
Commenters here would of course argue that he was a mere puppet of the Jews, but I don’t buy that either (during the war the Holocaust doesn’t seem to have been a central preoccupation for him).

It may be down simply to politics.

Roosevelt’s New Deal proved to be a failure, and the Roosevelt Recession was especially damaging to his power and prestige. While it could be a coincidence (or merely a response to increasingly assertive German policy), it’s noteworthy that the aggressive turn in Roosevelt’s foreign policy coincided with the Roosevelt Recession.

It’s forgotten today, but many of the policies of the New Deal were not Keynesian and were actually inspired by WW1 planning. FDR’s prewar budget deficits were on average lower than American fiscal deficits are today. Thus rearmament appeared to offer a way out of the intractable Depression.

That Roosevelt himself was a Germanophobe, an Anglophile, a naval enthusiast, and extremely weak on communism no doubt contributed. Biographers have also noted that FDR always wanted to be a wartime President, comparing himself to Lincoln.

Roosevelt was also influenced by the theories of Alfred Thayer Mahan and Halford John Mackinder. Thus he subscribed to the idea that the US needed to prevent any one power from controlling the “heartland”. Wartime American propaganda reflects these ideas by noting the strategic need to prevent the Axis powers from completely controlling two of the world’s three “industrial regions”.

I know about those sentiments…on the other hand his policy made the US the dominant world power, at the cost of the lowest casualties among WW2 combatants.
Personally I’ve come to view US post-war dominance quite negatively (not least because it facilitated the spread of US liberalism with its particularly demented manifestations like Negrophilia, which may well lead to the eventual destruction of the entire pan-European world), but from the point of view of most Americans FDR’s foreign policy must be seen as highly successful imo.

This American views FDR’s foreign policy very negatively, and the domestic effects of America’s strategic reorientation must be considered in any assessment. The perceived requirements of WW2 and the subsequent Cold War led to the replacement of America’s “white nationalism” with “civil rights”. It also led to the dismantling of America’s formidable protective barriers and those which existed between the other industrial powers, which in turn allowed them to converge with America’s level of economic development.

FDR simply converted latent potential into military and diplomatic power. What actually turned America into the world’s greatest power was seizing the best parts of the North American continent, populating it with white people, a good legal and economic system, and a consistent pro-manufacturing policy orientation until 1945.

WW2 in fact planted the seeds for the end of America (via the destruction of its racial identity) and its eclipse as the world’s foremost power by China (via its unification).

It’s also worth pointing out that other than the capital expenditures made during the war Americans got nothing out of victory. Just a bunch of vassal states to garrison with troops and propped up with ruinous economic concessions. The only actual gains were German scientists and intellectual property.

This fundamental reorientation of America has persisted for more than seventy years and is destroying the country. It has also had decidedly negative consequences for Europe as you note.

Hitler was to blame? Tell us about how blameless the Marxist “world revolution” fanatics and their Wall Street backers were. Then you can enlighten us about the Treaty of Versailles and how that played so little part in the ensuing hostilities. Long standing British imperialistic policies? No problem, eh? Zionist intrigue? Never happened, right? (Ever hear of “rabbi” Stephen Wise? G-wd’s messenger on Earth, right?)

The problem with such uber-contextual logic is that everyone can blame the world for all his actions. He can say the World made me do it.

Yes, there was Versailles Treaty, communism, and British fears of Germany. All of that is true.

But there was also this. Brits came around to feeling that Germans got a raw deal after WWI. British hostility mostly ebbed away by the time of Hitler’s rise.

It’s true that World Jewry hated the rise of Hitler and tried to hurt Germany. But Jews back then didn’t have the power to force world governments to strangulate Germany.

The fact is France and UK let Germany retake the Rhineland. They allowed the unification of Germany and Austria. And they let Germany take Sudetenland. And when Germany overstepped its bounds and took Crezh territory, UK made a deal with Germany.

But Germans went beyond that and invaded Poland. They didn’t just invade but made a pact with USSR. Now, this was an evil pact but very smart on Hitler’s part. He knew that aggression against Poland could set UK and France against him. So, as backup, it was good to have Russia on his side.
People say World War II began with invasion of Poland but no so. Poland was quickly quelled, and German-French war ended quickly. With most of Western allied with Germany, occupied by Germany, or neutral and with USSR on his side, the smart thing for Hitler was to wait it out in a war of contrition with UK. But Hitler decided to attack Russia, and that set off the real WWII in 1941, esp sealed after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and brought US into the war.

Even if FDR wanted war or hostility, the fact is most American didn’t want war, and FDR had run on peace. He couldn’t bring US to war against Germany UNLESS Germans(and their Japanese allies) did something spectacularly foolish.
If Germany hadn’t attacked USSR and hadn’t emboldened Japan to make a even dumber move against the US, WWII could have been avoided.
Some argue that Hitler invaded USSR because Stalin planned to attack first, and their evidence is offensive Soviet positions against German lines. But knowing Stalin, it’s difficult to imagine he was willing to risk everything. Stalin was more a scavenger than hunter. He looked for weak spots and easy opportunities. He didn’t like to risk all. If Soviet positions had really been placed offensively against Germany, it was likely a bluff to force Germans into defensive position, making them less likely to take the offensive initiative. Stalin was a mind-gamer like Hitler, who was also a mind-gambler.

From the article above, it’s instructive to know that the events that led to WWII weren’t entirely Hitler’s fault and that he was working within the context of larger world politics, but as John Lukacs said, HE was the main driver of events that led to WWII. It wasn’t FDR or Stalin or Churchill even though some of their actions made things worse. A more cautious and sensible Hitler could have prevented the war from turning into a total war.

It’s like events in the Middle East since end of Cold War must be mostly blamed on Jewish Globalists. They were the main drivers. Sure, Iran, Iraq, and etc. did their part to destabilize the region, but the main drivers were Zionists who took the initiative to turn the whole place upside down to serve Zionist supremacism.

This is one of the most informative and interesting presentations I have ever seen. I watched it several years ago. Everyone should watch it.

If Poland had caved to German demands that almost certainly wouldn’t have been the end of it.

How is this hypothetical tested?
What evidence do you have to support your hypothetical? Put it on the table & let the Forum argue it out.

thanks for your work, Mr. Bacque

The Nazis very clearly did dismember Czechoslovakia, which is what destroyed Hitler’s credibility with the British. It’s also what German_reader found objectionable about the original piece.

I’m not a supporter of the Icebreaker thesis, though obviously Bolshevism had aggressive intentions.

He, ben sampson, or she, is also Ilyana_Rasoumova. Check the similarities in the grammar and syntax by these ‘two’ whose first languages are obviously not English. This person pretending to be two different people is Jen the Ukropian Zio-Nazi maggot, who posted anti-Russian, pro-Israeli and pro-US comments under dozens of monikers on RT English.

Take some time to read the quarterly journal published at inconvenienthistory.com before you judge what is truth on this matter. You will likely learn as many of us did that the “kosher” version of WWII history is largely bullshit.

Testing a hypothetical seems difficult to say the least.

Reasons to suspect the outbreak of war regardless:

• Zweites Buch
• Nazi-Soviet tensions
• German-French enmity
• The global arms race (soon to develop to Germany’s disfavor)
• Germany’s economic situation

The bolded points were abandoned by the Nazis themselves because they are very stupid.

The bolded points were abandoned by the Nazis themselves because they are very stupid.

Proof?
How are the bold points stupid? Please elaborate on your stupid assertion.

These points are hitting the bullseye, to this day, they target Wall Street and CoL, the war mongers. The “gimme this, or I hit you on the head” jews, who destroyed Iraq, Libya, and so many other places with democracy bringing wars.

“Fell” probably doesn’t describe how he went out.

defenestration would probably be a more accurate term

Proof?
How are the bold points stupid? Please elaborate on your stupid assertion.

With pleasure.

11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

This means the abolition of capital income. No more dividends, interest, or capital gains. In other words the complete abolition of private ownership of capital and capital markets. This is a call for socialism.

12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

Ex post facto confiscation of profits lawfully earned by government contractors for fulfilling their contracts. That would obviously have a negative impact on the future initiative of contractors.

The contractors are hardly to blame for the Kaiserreich’s disastrous fiscal policies, which were a consequence of the weak federal structure the German princes were willing to agree to in 1871.

13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

Another call for socialism. Globally, socialized industries have consistently demonstrated themselves to be less efficient.

In fairness to the Nazis of 1920 socialism had not yet been tried, and some people had the idea it might work well because of the successes of wartime economic planning.

19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

This is straight up gibberish. I’m reminded of American “sovereign citizens” and other foggy-headed nonsense.

These points are hitting the bullseye, to this day, they target Wall Street and CoL, the war mongers. The “gimme this, or I hit you on the head” jews, who destroyed Iraq, Libya, and so many other places with democracy bringing wars.

This explains why the Soviet Union was such a global force for peace…

Financiers were largely opposed to the breakout of WW1 and suffered enormous losses as a result of the war. Central Powers bond holders and bank depositors were wiped out by hyperinflation (there goes all that “unearned income). Britain partially defaulted to its creditors when it ended the convertibility of Sterling. The only European country that didn’t default on its war debts to American lenders was Finland. Britain did ultimately repay its American creditors, the value much reduced by inflation, almost a century after the fact.

I doubt Wall Street or the City of London care much about Iraq and Libya compared to, say, the American securitized mortgage market.

The Jews didn’t want to destroy Iraq for pecuniary reasons. The Yinon Plan is why.

I am reminded of Solzhenitsyn’s observation: “Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart — and through all human hearts.”

When primitive “low IQ” people, say natives of New Guinea or ancient Africans, express their “good” side they live in harmony and flow with nature, etc. and when they express the “other” side they use rocks, sticks, bows and arrows, to kill each other and eat each other.

When advanced “high IQ” people such as “whites” or “North Asians” express their “good ” side they come up with wonderful art, science, bountiful standards of living with technology for advanced food production, medical science, sanitation, etc. and when they express their “dark” side they come up with maxim machine guns, poison gas, tanks, drones, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc. In other words, the same kind of tribal warfare as the primitives, but at a higher level of technology.

As the once famous philosopher Will Rogers observed, “You can’t say civilization don’t advance…in every war they kill you in a new way.”

Germany. Foreign Office. The German White Paper 1940

Polish originals seem to have disappeared. In 1940 many newspapers world wide published large sections of this white paper.

For millions there remains only a bitter aftertaste because of unpaid billions which the European states still owe America.

the average American was bitter because of unpaid billions still owed or because they lost a father, a brother, or another relative in that war?

You misunderstand Potocki’s point made in a wire to his colleagues/superior and thus expressed somewhat concisely. The average American at that time was well aware of the personal losses that they and people around themselves had suffered to satisfy Woodrow Wilson’s lust for adventure and power. The average American was also well aware of reparations and other war debts owed by Germany and German entities, because these had been exhaustively discussed in the press in connection with the Versailles treaty.

Potocki’s point is that Germany’s war debts – much discussed in earlier years – had not even been paid back in full, while Americans were left to bear their personal losses.

Another key fact – not mentioned in the article – is that at the time of the sinking of RMS Lusitania by a German U-boat in May 1915, FDR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy, while Winston Churchill was his opposite number as First Lord of the Admiralty.

The Lusitania almost certainly carried a secret cargo of armaments bound for Britain, in breach of neutrality rules purportedly followed by the U.S. at the time. The German government had placed advertisements in the New York press warning against travel on the Lusitania. British forces later deployed depth charges in an attempt to put the wreck and cargo of the Lusitania at the bottom of the Atlantic beyond future investigation.

https://www.scribd.com/document/245802357/The-German-White-Paper-Full-text-of-the-Polish-documents-issued-by-the-Berlin-Foreign-Office-1940

Appears to also be readily available at many university libraries.

https://www.worldcat.org/title/german-white-paper-full-text-of-the-polish-documents-issued-by-the-berlin-foreign-office/oclc/3301909

take it easy man. I am not really stressed out at all

you got me wrong man. I am me..Ben Sampson..only Ben and no one else.you ought to be a better linguist anon..you cant tell the difference between me and whoever else you have me compared with

you guys are right. I am out of my depth here. I shud find my own level.
and you know what..I am a nigger but a half white one. so is my wife

all the best anyway! you guys talk the same talk all the time and not even a boycott planned for Facebook for eg

you guys here are full of ability but a self satisfied bunch wallowing in your class, education and race. the more erudite you write, and qualitatively brilliant you analyze all data, the better things will get. right?

so be it

I agree with much of the revisionist argument about this tragic time in history. However, Hitler still didn’t have to invade Poland, inspite of Polish moves against its remaining German minority in Posen/West Prussia, and the small part of Upper Silesia given to Poland after the plebiscite in the early 1920’s. Sure, by invading he temporarily removed the threat to the German minority still in Poland, but at the huge price of war, and all the risks, and the predictable result. Not saying German defeat was inevitable, but any German move to war should have taken in the strong chance of a final defeat in the cost benefit analysis.
Italian foreign minster Ciano in August 1939 offered several rationales for not attacking Poland and at least postponing a conflict. 1) get through 1940 with Europe still at peace and FDR likely doesn’t run again. 2) with every passing month Spain will get stronger and continue its recovery from the civil war. 3) the current British French alliance could weaken with events. 4) Japan may see its way out of its quagmire in China, and if that were to happen would be a stronger factor in the geo political balance in favor of Germany and Italy. I’ve often thought about Ciano’s argument, and other factors such as who would have replaced Chamberlain in 1940 after his death that year had Europe still been at peace (not Churchill in this scenario) and who would the next US president have been, and would he have been at least somewhat less anti-German and less pro-Soviet?

This means the abolition of capital income. No more dividends, interest, or capital gains. In other words the complete abolition of private ownership of capital and capital markets. This is a call for socialism.

No, it does not, it is your conjecture, your red mind reads something into it that is not written there. This is not the communist manifesto, which fails to address these points utterly uhm “surprisingly”. The entire points are based on Gottfried Feder’s Manifesto to breaking interest slavery”. It is about interest free money, not created by private jewish banking consortium such as the FED.

Ex post facto confiscation of profits lawfully earned by government contractors for fulfilling their contracts. That would obviously have a negative impact on the future initiative of contractors.

So in your red mind, those who instigate wars, engineer them, and make enormous profits from it, from arms sales to “reconstruction”, these self serving people are moral and ethic? Amazing, but it fits the red mind.

I find it very tedious to further deconstruct your obvious dogma you peddle here, but the aware reader just giggles about the pathetic line of propaganda you people have so desperately trying to maintain. However, the truth is so obvious, because these bold points could applied to the current US and it would fix not only the rotten US, but free the entire planet from these vampires.

said:
“during the war the Holocaust doesn’t seem to have been a central preoccupation for him”

Of course not, the claims are fraudulent. The claims are scientifically impossible.

Recall that aerial reconnaissance photos of Auschwitz did not show what was laughably alleged.
In fact there have been attempts to alter the photos such as this laughably drawn in ‘Auschwitz Jews being marched to gas chambers‘, ON A ROOF.

Then there’s this aerial photo of Babi Yar at exact time of the absurdly alleged shooting of 34,000 Jews into a huge ravine.

Nothing happening that would necessarily be happening IF the story was factual.

It’s not complicated.

http://www.codoh.com

No, it does not, it is your conjecture, your red mind reads something into it that is not written there. This is not the communist manifesto, which fails to address these points utterly uhm “surprisingly”. The entire points are based on Gottfried Feder’s Manifesto to breaking interest slavery”. It is about interest free money, not created by private jewish banking consortium such as the FED.

If we use Gottfried Feder’s program instead of the actual definition of earned income, then the program is the nationalization of all banks and the elimination of interest.

In other words the complete socialization of banking and the elimination of all private lending. What a great idea. I can’t wait to get a mortgage from HUD and a credit card from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

Historically interest-free money creation has led to large scale inflation there is nothing to limit the issuer’s monetary emissions. The Continental Dollar and Assignat are classic examples. I will grant that responsible interest-free creation of money is theoretically possible by restricting the quantity of money issued by law.

Private money creation allows for the expansion of credit based on the demand of borrowers limited by their creditworthiness. The tendency of the payments system to cease clearing in general crises resulted in the creation of central banks. These are also all not privately owned, though many are.

So in your red mind, those who instigate wars, engineer them, and make enormous profits from it, from arms sales to “reconstruction”, these self serving people are moral and ethic? Amazing, but it fits the red mind.

In my mind both parties of a contract should fulfill their obligations. That includes the obligation of the government to pay defense contractors. Perhaps the Reich should’ve implemented some taxes during the war.

I find it very tedious to further deconstruct your obvious dogma you peddle here, but the aware reader just giggles about the pathetic line of propaganda you people have so desperately trying to maintain. However, the truth is so obvious, because these bold points could applied to the current US and it would fix not only the rotten US, but free the entire planet from these vampires.

You are an idiot.

This video is banned here in Europe, where the lies are upheld by the law, but it can be viewed in the USA.

How funny the video should be censored in Europe. What would the rationale be for doing that ? That the event didn’t happen ? That it was staged? That Europeans are such lemmings, a simple video, or a peak at any nazi parahanaelea is enough to make them jump headlong into Fascism? Or is it that it might undermine the pre-packaged narrative.

… ‘liberal’corporate media can be just as full of BS as any totalitarian press.

except that it’s becoming apparent even to the least amongst us, that it’s not so much the totalitarian press, which in these instances seems to be ‘full of BS,’ as the other kind of press seems to be.

“It might have had something to do with Hitler’s threat to bomb Prague, if Hácha didn’t give in to his blackmail.”

– Except there was no threat to bomb Prague as Goring stated:

“The intention of bombing Prague did not exist, nor had any order been given to that effect … “

Here’s what Goering said immediately before the quote you provide here:

President Hacha arrived and talked first with the Reich Foreign Minister. At night he came to see the Fuehrer; we greeted him coldly. First he conversed with the Fuehrer alone; then we were called in. Then I talked to him in the presence of his ambassador and urged him to meet as quickly as possible the Fuehrer’s demand that trdops be kept back when the Germans marched in, in order that there might be no bloodshed. I told him that nothing could be done about it; the Fuehrer had made his decision and considered it necessary, and there would be only unnecessary bloodshed as resistance for any length of time was quite impossible. And in that connection I made the statement that I should be sorry if I had to bomb beautiful Prague.

It doesn’t matter whether Goering was willing or able to bomb Prague. It matters only that Hacha feared that Prague would be bombed.

– Hacha was supported by his fellow Czechs who were also very concerned about Communism, hence the agreement for a ‘protectorate’ status.

Then why did they form a government in exile?

– And from his daughter:

Hacha’s daughter was part of the trip to Berlin and she testified her father freely put his country under German protection when interviewed by Allied interrogators after WW2. As David Hoggan wrote in his definitive work, The Forced War, Hacha’s daughter confirmed after the war that her father was treated courteously and kindly by the Germans, and with all the attention and consideration normally given to a statesman.

– more:
Hacha in Berlin, March 1939: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8342

That’s curious. This newspaper article from the time seems to say the exact opposite:

https://ibb.co/yd9x71F

Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941. Try to pay attention.

If we use Gottfried Feder’s program instead of the actual definition of earned income, then the program is the nationalization of all banks and the elimination of interest.

In other words the complete socialization of banking and the elimination of all private lending. What a great idea. I can’t wait to get a mortgage from HUD and a credit card from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

whatever Germany was doing it seemed to work quite well you have to admit, no?

they turned their economy around in the teeth of the Great Depression and a worldwide boycott of their products by international jewry

Roosevelt did not invade Poland. That was the Nazis.

Good reference!

Here also a summary from “the Bionic Mosquito” https://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/05/poland-as-pawn-hoover-identifies.html
Regrading the denials after the revelation of the released Polish documents, the Mosquito writes:

When these documents were published, their authenticity was denied by both Bullitt and by the Polish Ambassador to the U.S. The Polish Ambassador later informed Hoover that he denied their authenticity at the request of the State Department.

Certainly.

But Germany did not abolish capital income or nationalize industry.

Germany’s vigorous recovery was due to its public works and (especially) rearmament programs, which were financed with deficit spending.

This is why John Maynard Keynes favorably remarked on the German government in his foreword to the German language edition of his famous General Theory.

I don’t know how effective the Jewish boycott was. In 1933 world trade had already collapsed. Some research here would be useful and interesting.

The Germans recognized “Czecho-Slovkia” for what it was: an artificial state created by the banking scum at Versailles. The fraud fell apart finally in 1993 when the Czechs and Slovaks divorced each other after decades of enjoying the bankers’ Communism.

In 1930, the German component was 22%, so the Versailles criminals should have named their creation “Czecho-Germania” and left the third place Slovaks out of the brand name.

Mr. Unz clearly cares about truth and defending free speech and inquiry. The kvetching of the anti-free speech crowd is educational for a number of reasons.

By the Nazis declaring war on the United States — which they did do. Try to pay attention.

One question I’ve never found a good answer from the pro-German or revisionist side is why Hitler didn’t allow for the creation of an independent Czechia in March 1939 instead of creating the protectorate. IIRC Hacha asked for that as a fall back position once it was clear that Hitler was insisting on an independent (in theory) and separate Slovakia. Perhaps such a move would have forestalled Chamberlains’ guarantee to Poland.

Preparing to fight a war versus mobilizing to fight a war is a distinction mostly of tempo not of intent.

“Nothing happening that would necessarily be happening IF the story was factual. It’s not complicated.”

All true, Wally, but you are overlooking the “geysers of blood” and the “settled science” of “the Holocaust.” Like the “gas chambers,” “the geysers” and “the trembling earth” prove that they happened because they happened, so it’s clearly “anti-semitic” to ask any questions. Perhaps worst of all, it is “deeply offensive.” Please refrain from going on the offensive again.

Geysers of blood at Babi Yar – Dated: January 1, 1972

How many Jews were killed at Babi Yar? Exact estimates are hard to come by. Some say seventy thousand, others a hundred and fifty thousand […]

Eyewitnesses say that for months after the killing the ground continued to spurt geysers of blood.

Source: Elie Wiesel, The Jews of Silence, New York: New American Library, 1972, page 48.

https://www.historiography-project.org/1972/01/01/geysers-of-blood-at-babi-yar/

You are an idiot.

Apparently no, but I find it a bit of fun, how the red mind is scare by the thought of interest free money, issued by a national bank, instead of a private jewish vampire bank, such as the FED or BoE, or the Russian (formerly Soviet) “national” bank.

This is why Marx and the red heros suck so much, and why they have been shills for the usurers. They’ve never targeted these private “national” banks, and they’ve never tried to issue interest free exchange. The only currency is labor, and this is why it is a very bad deal for occupied Germany to export goods for worthless backed-by-nothing Dollars and Euros.
The moronic thought liberated press celebrates this a “hooray, we are export world champion”.

And Keynes, oy veh!

I dislike these endless pilpul attempts and the usual BS you expose here, heard it so often, I could vomit when reading it, because it is plain and simple brain dead repetition.

The celebrated TUI, is a direct successor to the KdF program, and also GDR’s FDGB used what Hitler created, the first tourism affordable not only for the rich.
KdF(Kraft durch Freude), was so successful, normal workers able to afford holidays on cruise ships and recreation facilities, that the UK denied harbor entry. Given the utterly poor Brits with almost no middle class, this would have been a dangerous message.

Another success story, VW Beetle, right? And this after a devastated, corrupted and decadent Weimar period by masonic and jewish forces, who looted German assets.

You are correct,about 8 paper copies in US libraries

Interestingly Reed thought Hitler should have been overthrown or Germany invaded and advocated such. It is possible a coup by the German military could have been instigated in the thirties, certainly in the latter years of the war if unconditional surrender hadn’t been adopted as official policy.

Yes to all.

Reed was not exactly a Hitler supporter and he wrote some good stuff. I am impressed that you brought up the very key issue of unconditional surrender. That was an entirely evil position and both Wilson and FDR advocated and worked for that policy. Utterly disgusting SOBs.

The USA entered the war only 18 months before it ended. Of course, it took months before the troops even got there.

more than 18 months, all of 1942,43,44 plus 5 to 8 months in 1945

Because I’m part of the American right and despise FDR.

I’m neither left nor right and I despise him. So did a lot of Democrats at the time as well as Republicans. he was despicable by any reasonable measure. Wilson, too. I don’t know how either of them could stand themselves, and they probably couldn’t, which explains a lot about their sick behavior.

This is extremely interesting! John Wear’s article is basically an excerpt from his recent book “Germany’s War”, where he exposes well researched revisionist views on WWII – I cannot evaluate all of his claims right now and will be working on that for quite some time.

In his book, he claims that on December, 4th, 1941, various American papers exposed, that the US would invade Europe to defeat Germany in 1943 (which they did!). This would give us the following timeline:

late November 1941: Roosevelt anticipates an imminent Japanese surprise attack (according to Henry Stimsons diary)
Decmber, 4th: Roosevelts plan to enter the war in Europe is published, the text is cabled by the German embassy to Germany by December, 5th.
December, 7th: Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour
December, 9th: Roosevelt claims during a radio adress that Germany and Japan conduct their military and naval operations with a joint plan. He claims that Germany and Italy consider themselves at war with the US without even bothering about a formal declaration (these claims were obviously untrue – indeed it was Roosevelt who had ordered American vessels to shoot at German ships on sight, while the Germans tried to prevent a state of war with the US)
December, 11th: Hitler declares war on the United States – aknowledging a state of war that Roosevelt had been instigating at least since the destroyer deal with Britain.

As Roosevelt wanted to use the state of war with Japan as the backdoor to war against Germany and as Japan had been provoked into attacking Pearl Harbour, the timing of the press leaks of December, 4th make sense as deliberate and timed provocation of Germany.

I have never befor heard of these press leaks, which were published in the Chicago Tribune under the title “F.D.R.’s War Plans” and in the Washington Times Herald. This newspaper’s source was a top secret war plan by the name of “Rainbow Five”.

Can anyone link these documents here?
See John Wear, Germany’s War, pp. 95-100

Yes, the Hitler Fan Club members are so stupid “that they’ll actually be counter-productive and reinforce existing narratives.”

John Wear says: “Conclusion: U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and his advisers played a crucial role in planning and instigating World War II. “

Er, yes, but so what? Is this supposed to be some sort of revelatory, explosive news?

This just in: “War is the health of the state” as former establishment historian Randolph Bourne observed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randolph_Bourne

If you want government in the first place, unless that government is somehow severely restricted as to what it can, and cannot do, wars are what you will always get – either wars on the citizens inside the country [ eg the war on drugs], or wars on the citizens of other countries. [ Or often, both types of wars at the same time.]

In the US the supposed means of controlling/limiting the government and preventing it from starting wars on citizens and/or foreign nations was called “the Constitution and Bill of Rights”.

However by the time FDR came to power, the Constitution and Bill of Rights was obviously a “dead letter”, as evidenced by, among other things the “New Deal”- an enormous, entirely unconstitutional, welfare plan designed to buy off the masses and to further centralize government power in DC.

So the crook FDR could basically do almost whatever the hell he wanted by then, war wise.

This also just in:

“Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”,”improved”, nor “limited” in scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature.” onebornfree

“Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class.” Albert J. Nock

Regards, onebornfree

Apparently no, but I find it a bit of fun, how the red mind is scare by the thought of interest free money, issued by a national bank, instead of a private jewish vampire bank, such as the FED or BoE, or the Russian (formerly Soviet) “national” bank.

The Bank of England has been under public ownership since 1946, and until 1997 monetary policy was set by the elected government.

The Gosbank, for obvious reasons, was under public ownership.

It’s true that the regional Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned. That said any profits earned by the Federal Reserve System are remitted to the United States Treasury.

This is why Marx and the red heros suck so much, and why they have been shills for the usurers. They’ve never targeted these private “national” banks, and they’ve never tried to issue interest free exchange. The only currency is labor, and this is why it is a very bad deal for occupied Germany to export goods for worthless backed-by-nothing Dollars and Euros.
The moronic thought liberated press celebrates this a “hooray, we are export world champion”.

There are quite a lot more reasons why communists suck than their alleged failure to support your demented stance against lending money at interest.

Dollars and Euros are the most demanded currencies in the world and can be used to purchase practically anything–including hard assets. Sounds pretty useful to me.

I used “worthless backed-by-nothing” Dollars this morning to purchase a cappuccino.

Though I do agree that Germany’s trade surplus is excessive and not in the nation’s interest. They should correct that by increasing wages, defense spending, and public capital expenditures. The Bundesbahn could use plenty of investment, as can the good old Autobahn network which isn’t looking so hot these days.

The celebrated TUI, is a direct successor to the KdF program, and also GDR’s FDGB used what Hitler created, the first tourism affordable not only for the rich.
KdF(Kraft durch Freude), was so successful, normal workers able to afford holidays on cruise ships and recreation facilities, that the UK denied harbor entry. Given the utterly poor Brits with almost no middle class, this would have been a dangerous message.

How is the TUI Group a successor to the KdF program? It was founded in 1968 as a private enterprise. Are you suggesting that charter tours for the working class were invented by the KdF?

Package tours were invented in the 19th century, though admittedly I don’t know what working class uptake was. Certainly English workers did visit seaside resorts like Blackpool.

Another success story, VW Beetle, right? And this after a devastated, corrupted and decadent Weimar period by masonic and jewish forces, who looted German assets.

The VW Beetle went on to become a great postwar success, but the Germans who deposited funds into VW Beetle accounts (generating substantial financial savings for Volkswagen) never got their cars and simply lost their savings. The Sparkarte holders went to court in 1950 and the case was only settled in 1961. More on this here: https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=112678

I’m reminded of Elon Musk.

they understood the realities of European politics far better than people who made foreign policy in the United States

If these Polish diplomats really understood European situation so well, how come they did not foresee that Germany will absorb Poland the same year? Something does not jibe here.

But there is no doubt that WWII in Europe was in the best interests of the US. It weakened its Western European competitors and USSR. The results of WWII are quite telling: US $ became international reserve currency, many European countries were (and today, almost 75 years later, still are) occupied by the US, which made Europe a subservient vassal of the US, etc. In addition, Japan was defeated with the help of USSR, was (and still is) occupied by the US, and consistently acts as an obedient vassal. From the US perspective, what’s not to like?

Hitler did not destroy Czechoslovakia, that is complete nonsense.

Czechoslovakia was a Frankenstein monster to begin with.

Czechoslovakia had been created by the Versailles Treaty and consisted of an unhappy union of Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Poles, Ruthenians, and Germans, all under Czech control. Following the Munich Pact the Sudetenland, populated by Germans, was reunited with Germany in Oct. 1938. The First Vienna Award returned lost lands to Hungary and Poland.

In March of 1939 the Slovaks obtained their independence, and Ruthenia was returned to Hungary. The remaining Czech area became, at the request of its president Emil Hacha, the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, governed by ethnic Czechs, and Hacha remained president. The creation of Czechoslovakia was reverse-engineered by diplomatic means.

Thus the monster created by Wilson and the Jews was deconstructed by Hitler, purely by diplomatic means.

WW2 strengthened American’s Western European and Japanese competitors by allowing them to converge with American levels of productivity after the war.

In the 1930s Germany had only half of America’s productivity in manufacturing. Lower still in services and agriculture.

An international reserve currency is not to the issuer’s benefit owing to the Triffin Dilemma. It produces a similar effect to the “Dutch Disease”.

The defeat of Japan resulted in the elimination of a substantial military threat from the USSR’s asian flank and allowed for the unification of China, the only country in the world with the inherent capacity to exceed the United States.

All in all an unparalleled strategic disaster.

I don’t know how either of [Woodrow Wilson and FDR] could stand themselves, and they probably couldn’t, which explains a lot about their sick behavior.

Would be interested to know what kind of (personal) “sick behavior” we know of on the part of Woodrow Wilson?

FDR seems to have knowingly surrounded himself with Communist agents to shore up his reign – classic deal with the devil. FDR probably also received financial and sexual favors and/or was blackmailed along with his wife and cousin Eleanor R.

FDR seems to have knowingly surrounded himself with Communist agents to shore up his reign – classic deal with the devil.

if he surrounded himself with commies how do you know he wasn’t one himself?

Absolutely to the contrary for coming to conclusions or judging plausibility but I wonder what documents or other hard evidence you would need to remind you that, e.g, Roosevelt was rightly conscious of the threat of Japan, the war in China and America’s exposure in the Asia-Pacific. Did you notice the discussion of those in the article? Indeed did you note discussion of my other points, or don’t you think direct documentary evidence about Roosevelt’s thinking might have been relevant and properly qualified reliance on Potocki?

What would have been Roosevelt’s reasoning for pushing for a European war?

Key word, “reasoning.” There was not a shred of reason involved. It was all about satisfying the yearnings of an out 0f control narcissist. The man was sick mentally, physically and spiritually.

One difference between Wilson and FDR was that Wilson’s second wife Edith was against US intervention in WW1. Can’t remember where I read this, but it always stuck out to me. Also read that the US jewish lobby was for US neutrality in WW1 as long as the Tsar was on the throne. Once he was overthrown US declaration of war against Germany came suspiciously soon after.

You’re clueless about Potocki. Potocki was very anti-Jewish, as you could find in comments he made elsewhere.

I.e.

For international Jewry — so intimately concerned with the interests of its own race — President Roosevelt’s ‘ideal’ role as a champion of human rights was indeed a godsend. In this way Jewry was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike camps. The whole problem is being tackled in a most mysterious manner. Roosevelt has been given the power to enable him to enliven American foreign policy and at the same time to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for.

– Potocki, 1939

Confirming quotes. The US pushed UK to give guarantees to Poland w/o which Poland would have made a deal with Hitler and the war would have been postponed.

Hoover would document his conversations with the various people he met with. An example is provided of Hoover’s meeting with Kennedy on May 15, 1945. Kennedy indicated he had over 900 dispatches which he could not print without consent of the U.S. Government. He hoped one day to receive such permission as it was Kennedy’s intention to write a book that would:

…put an entirely different color on the process of how America got into the war and would prove the betrayal of the American people by Franklin D, Roosevelt.

…Roosevelt and Bullitt were the major factors in the British making their guarantees to Poland and becoming involved in the war. Kennedy said that Bullitt, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the Poles not to make terms with the Germans and that he Kennedy, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the British to make guarantees to the Poles.

He said that after Chamberlain had given these guarantees, Chamberlain told him (Kennedy) that he hoped the Americans and the Jews would now be satisfied but that he (Chamberlain) felt that he had signed the doom of civilization.

Kennedy said that if it had not been for Roosevelt the British would not have made this most gigantic blunder in history.

Kennedy told me that he thought Roosevelt was in communication with Churchill, who was the leader of the opposition to Chamberlain, before Chamberlain was thrown out of office….

James Forrestal, Under Secretary of the Navy, documented in his diaries a substantially similar conversation with Kennedy.

This also has special relevance for American politics as Roosevelt has long been a despised figure on the American right.

On the “real” right, perhaps. You and I, and the rest of us. But not the mainstream “right.” Didn’t Reagan celebrate some Roosevelt-themed anniversary?

Of course I completely agree with the rest of your comments. Roosevelt was a pig who lied his way past the America First movement and into the devastating war.

Andrew Mathis is the Rachel Dolezal of WW2 historiography.

This is a major reason why there was no French offensive in September, 1939 (with the benefit of hindsight this probably would’ve been decisive).

Decisive how?

WW2 in fact planted the seeds for the end of America (via the destruction of its racial identity) and its eclipse as the world’s foremost power by China (via its unification).

It certainly aggravated the situation but the seeds were planted in 1913 if not before. Speaking of destruction, note that one of the “benefits” of WW2 was the enslavement of Japan so that they could compete cheaply with American labor. For instance, Toyota was down to making a few trucks a year when the US government “rescued” it from bankruptcy when it contracted with Toyota to build trucks for use in the Korean War. We see the results of such “benefits” with the Detroit of today.

I would only like to add that Thorfinnsson is totally correct.

I recommend Tom Mahl’s book ‘Desperate Deception.’

There was, in the early 20th century, a growing divide already in America, between the Anglo-American “establishment” of the northeast, and, well, the rest of the country. Roosevelt’s electoral coalition relied heavily on certain traditionally Democrat blocs like urban Jews and Irish, and of course the Solid South. But his powerful, moneyed backers were from the “establishment” of the East Coast. That’s who he really represented; that’s who he was.And those people were the only “winners” of America’s imperial victory in World War Two. Everyone else lost. The Constitution was ravaged; our form of government began its final death spiral. It may not have been immediately obvious, but that’s the way it is. The blow-up of the 1960s began with Roosevelt’s moves.

Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941. Try to pay attention.

I’m trying, but please answer my question. I’ll repeat it.:
|

What’s your assessment of the validity of that fear and how familiar are you with the concept of pretexts?

Who cares?

The American state, operating under Roosevelt’s orders, deliberately provoked the Germans by aggressively attacking German military forces in the Atlantic. That, by the way, was totally unconstitutional, but this is FDR we’re talking about.

The Germans did absolutely nothing to threaten American interests. In fall of 1939, 94% of Americans opposed American entry into any war in Europe. They knew better than FDR.

If you believe that the Germans provoked America, then you are either a fool or an ignoramus. Or possibly pretending to be a vintage British spy in American public opinion.

I would want to read much more than Tansill’s “Backdoor to War” before drawing conclusions on a subject on which I can only achieve interested amateur status. Still, I thank you for setting me off on the trail of Tansill. He doesn’t have friendly editors of Wikipedia!

I was hoping to find something on Roosevelt, China and the USSR but at this point have only got to bookmarking

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pearl-Harbor-and-the-back-door-to-war-theory-1688287

which says nothing about your (to me) surprising view that FDR was happy to see a China-USSR block form. Is there a good source you would recommend on the *most influential” Communist agents in Roosevelt’s government?

Nope, the Germans were asked and agreed to protect the Czechs.
Slovakia made it’s own decisions as well. Hence their separation from the Czechs.

said:
“obviously Bolshevism had aggressive intentions.”

There you go. A huge reason why the Czechs desired the protection of Germany.
Germany also made important economic contributions.

Please stop dodging and read my comment #9

http://www.codoh.com

Would be interested to know what kind of (personal) “sick behavior” we know of on the part of Woodrow Wilson?

This isn’t the place to write a book, even if anyone would read it.

Fortunately, however, that’s already been done. It’s full of his crimes, not the least of which was lying about keeping the US out of the war, his (Creel’s) over-the-top hate filled propaganda campaign, and his treatment of American dissenters.

You’re clueless about Potocki. Potocki was very anti-Jewish, as you could find in comments he made elsewhere.

i don’t have time to read all his comments, idiot

what does it say about you that you do?

what he said about the billions$$$ sounds like something a jew would say

Only you care. Why?

Bionic has written some great stuff about the history of the wars. He has an excellent timeline there as well.

By the Nazis declaring war on the United States — which they did do. Try to pay attention.

If you had paid attention, you would not have overlooked the fact that some New York, NY Jews declared war on Germany in 1933.

You also can’t comprehend the easy to grasp concept that FDR had been waging undeclared war on Germany for years prior to Germany’s declaration, so the obvious and correct view is that the Nazis had more respectability than the lying jerk, FDR.

Unfortunately for you , I doubt that paying attention would do you much good, but try to do so anyway.

Re-litigating the past, today, is going to be realized as having been pointless when US intelligence eventually releases to the public what it has on the Holocaust, which will reveal beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is one gigantic lie.

This is what will drive all Jews back to Israel. This is the design.

The US government may effectively collapse for a period of time after this occurs, allowing for a dark period wherein the pieces can reposition themselves in this nation. But, aside from the inevitable death toll, this is somewhat secondary in importance to the resultant Jewish Exodus to Israel that is dictated in Jewish “scripture”.

Yes, this Exodus will be a mythological parallel to the Exodus out of Egypt for the Jews. Similar to the angry Egyptians that were trying to kill the fleeing Jewish subverters in Egypt, the rightfully and inevitably angry Americans who attack fleeing, lying Jews will e named “Amalek” by Judaism and condemned to genocide that is justified by their mythological parallel to Amalek in the minds of the Rabbis.

The Jewish religion is one that depends on a reliving of their myths so that their Messianic period can arrive. Expect the Jews to seek punishment for the “pagan” West on the exact terms that it sought it for Egypt and the Canaanites. This will also be essential to their prophecy fulfillment and, in alignment with those prophecies, during this period is when the Jews will also genocide not only all Palestinians (who they identify as the Philistines) but the rest of the remaining Arabs from the Middle East (per their political instructions to themselves in the Zohar).

After which, the West (the USA and Europe) will attack Israel. Judaic “prophecy” (self political instruction) then states that the West will be destroyed, in-total, leaving Israel-Judaism as the only world power and heralding in the Jewish messianic era of Jewish world rule.

Islam and an unnamed Eastern Nation are also slated to be involved (taking part in the total destruction of the West and its non-Jewish peoples). I assume that the outlook for Blacks is similarly terrible (in the Zohar, the Jews actually state that all non-Jews will be genocided at this point in time).

Cosigning the Big Lie of the Holocaust, and running with it, is what doomed millions of Jews in the quickly approaching future. For gain over only three generations, to include Israel, the Jews essentially gave the gentiles what they needed to bury them in due time. Think about how many Jews, both in power and not, eagerly took to this world destroying lie.

Holocaust truth is the Jewish Achilles heel and a ticking time bomb, but it may have been engineered to be so with the blessing of the Jewish international superstate.

I imagine that the only negotiation now is over time. The general realization of the lie has been steadily increasing in rate and percentage over decades now. In the past two decades, the rate has increased tremendously. For anyone to think that US security services (and maybe even Jewish security services) had nothing to do with that, then you are beyond hope. Study the information and its sources. Study the rate of its release for the most popular outlets. It often has the stink of teamwork all over it, instead of the lone truth teller authorship that they all purport. Though, the anti-Jewish information is less than the anti-minority information; likely as a way to more tightly control the rate of public awareness in regard to Jews vs minorities. The anti-minority information is regularly put out at a clip and with a level of sophistication that defies the logic of one man’s labor.

Last, study the Tanakh and the Zohar.

Welcome to the “End Times”. Brought to you by your local Semitic psychopaths, to include Islam and Christianity. All safety harnesses down. You are not likely to enjoy the ride.

You might be interested in How the Far East was Lost by Kubek. Here is an excellent list of other books:

https://mises.org/wire/books-world-war-ii

The US ostensibly opposed Japan’s aggression towards China in order to preserve the Open Door Policy and thus protect the China trade.

Aside from the fact that the Pacific War cost many orders of magnitude more than the volume of prewar China trade, the outcome in China of the Pacific War was the complete end of the China trade as a result of Chinese communists coming to power in China.

The other major concern was Japanese designs on the Philippines. The Philippines was granted independence along with $800m ($11bn adjusted for inflation) in 1946.

The only advantage gained was the removal of the Combined Fleet. This proved no benefit since postwar defense spending was ten times prewar defense spending as a share of national resources, and the United States shortly became embroiled in a costly land war with China in previously Japanese territory.

Whoops.

Re-litigating the past, today, is going to be realized as having been pointless when US intelligence eventually releases to the public what it has on the Holocaust, which will reveal beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is one gigantic lie.

what if the jews control “U.S. Intelligence”?

The French frontier was held by only 14 German divisions and the incomplete fortifications of the Siegfried Line. A French offensive would’ve broken through, and even if it hadn’t made it to Berlin it surely could’ve taken the Ruhr area.

Game over.

It was this possibility that led German generals to repeatedly oppose Hitler’s aggressive intentions as premature.

I am an idiot because I actually read about the subject of this article before.

It took me no more than 60 seconds to Google “Ambassador Potocki Jews” to find that exact quote. It probably took you longer to write your totally stupid comments.

Grow up, or, preferably, find someone dumber to talk with you.

This is one of my most persistent complaints about the outcome of WW2. In order to maintain our vassal states, we dismantled our protective barriers which had been in place since the age of Lincoln (and, in lesser form, since Washington). This allowed Western Europe and Japan to use our markets and technology to converge and in some cases surpass our producers, something that was simply not possible prewar (as Hitler himself pointed out).

The case of Japan is even more perverse. The US government actively lobbied European countries to reduce their trade barriers against Japanese products! The State Department was literally working to aid the exports of a foreign competitor. During the Vietnam War the Nixon administration declined to protect the ailing American television manufacturing industry in order to maintain Japanese logistical support.

Some empire.

Strangely Germany’s allies in Europe didn’t find it necessary to become occupied German protectorates for their protection from Bolshevism.

I’m not German_reader.

Great comments. All true.

And those [East Coast establishment schmucks] were the only “winners” of America’s imperial victory in World War Two. Everyone else lost.

For sure.

Wrong war.

He and his interlocutors are talking about WWI.

FDR’s warmongering was a farrago composed of many elements:

Jealousy and fear born of Hitler’s wild success at achieving the greatest economic recovery in recorded history without incurring any appreciable international indebtedness – compared invidiously with FDR’s total failure at real economic recovery.

The international barter trade and the issue of currency based upon physical labor- both daggers aimed at the heart of international finance usury based in the City of London and Wall St., the latter having become FDR’s fifedom. One wonders if the so called “Morgan-Mellon coup attempt against FDR was really an inside job or perhaps a threat to FDR to get with the bankers’ program.

FDR was particularly outraged when Hitler replied to FDR’s amateurish telegram asking Hitler to pledge not to invade a multitude of foreign nations, including Palestine (then occupied by British troops) Iran, and Ireland. Although he was clearly exasperated at FDR’s rank ignorance, Hitler’s reply was relatively humorous and almost amicable in parts.

FDR desired the end of the British Empire (and its colonial administration) – not for the sake of “freedom” or “democracy” but so that it could be replaced by the American one. The consequences of this disastrous policy was converting most of what we now refer to as “the Third World” into a shambles and a killing field. How best to accomplish this than to use Britain and its war party as spurs to Polish chauvinism and intransigence?

The other major concern was Japanese designs on the Philippines. The Philippines was granted independence along with $800m ($11bn adjusted for inflation) in 1946.

that’s cheap, should have got rid of puerto rico at the same time

Grow up, or, preferably, find someone dumber to talk with you.

nah, you’re the dumbest i could find

the “New Deal”- an enormous, entirely unconstitutional, welfare plan designed to buy off the masses and to further centralize government power in DC.

But it didn’t work, not the New Deal and not the scheme to buy off the masses so they would approve a war.

Until the day before Pearl Harbor, polling — then a new political institution — consistently showed that 70% of the American people were opposed to war with Germany.
FDR lied and even committed impeachable offenses — he deliberately waged war against Germany without the knowledge or consent of the US Congress or the American people — in order to involve USA in war.

Jimmy Dore exposes the lying Anti-Venezuela propaganda of Joanna Hausmann in NYTimes:

https://www.unz.com/video/channel/thejimmydoreshow/

Dore opens the video with clips of a Canadian journalist who traced the process by which George H W Bush involved USA in war against Iraq in 1991: Iraq & Kuwait had a conflict; polls showed that the American people were “split 50 – 50” on waging war in Iraq; then, emotional testimony evoking outrage was presented; it was false, but it moved the American people.
War, deaths of millions ensued.

Dore then points to Bush, Jr., who played out a similar pattern to return to Iraq (Iraq was NOT involved in 9/11).

Someone linked this Douglas Horne interview earlier:
https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-007-fdr-and-the-attack-on-pearl-harbor/

It’s a regurgitation of the standard anti-German cant; Horne is so thoroughly propagandized that he does not realize that he presents evidence that displays precisely the same pattern as the (((Joanna Hausmann))) gambit, the incubator babies, Colin Powell’s test tubes.
Lies, all lies.
Nothing so totally disproves the holocaust narrative as the subsequent repetition of the same pattern of lying to incite the people to hate some designated Other in order to wage an otherwise illegitimate war.

That is an excellent list. Full of heavy hitters such as Beard, Barnes, Chamberlain, Taylor, Veale, and many others including Raico (may he rest in peace), who was a fine man, and Pat Buchanan who has shown himself to be an excellent historian.

In order to maintain our vassal states…

And to crush the labor union movement in the US.

I’m convinced that another subtext to the war was that Germany, despite the tremendous obstacles, actually was ahead of the US in recovering from the great depression and treated its workers very well in marked contrast to the situation of the working classes in the USA, Britain and the USSR, so that’s another reason it had to be stomped.

what if the jews control “U S intelligence”?

IF ?

Yes, definitely an all-star list.

Joyce Carol Oates takes a Gothic hatchet to Wilson’s character in The Accursed:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-devil-and-woodrow-wilson-an-interview-with-joyce-carol-oates

So we tricked that dumbass Hitler into declaring war and then beat him so hard that he killed himself and his bride on their honeymoon?

Awesome.

After trying to follow up a video rant about Einstein as racist from a UR Comment – and concluding that Einstein sounded as many a German upper middle class academic would have in 1922 I wandered on and found

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/08/20/we-knew-the-ship-was-doomed-uss-indianapolis-survivor-recalls-four-days-in-shark-filled-sea/?utm_term=.6bb34150c4

My point is that here is a failure of intelligence in the sense of failing to pass on intelligence *which requires no sinister explanation*.

Grace Poole says: “But it didn’t work, not the New Deal and not the scheme to buy off the masses so they would approve a war.”

A minor point perhaps, but I didn’t say that the New Deal was supposed to buy off the masses so FDR could get into a war. Just that it was an attempt to buy off the masses , and further centralize power in DC. A slight difference .

Obviously , if that had been the case [ it was to buy off the general public so he could get into a war], he/they would not have needed to orchestrate/manufacture the Pearl Harbor event to sway public opinion.

As to the rest of your observations: yes, of course, I already know all that stuff. My original point was that if you want governments in the first place , unless the government can be effectively limited in its scope and actions, then all these wars past and future, are inevitable.

As to FDR’s crimes in perspective, I know, for example that if this author went back and really researched, he’d find [perhaps to his own amazement, but not to mine] that the exact same sort of thing happened with regards to WW1.

I feel it is important to understand the true nature of all governments , so I’ll repeat [yet again]:

“Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”,”improved”, nor “limited” in scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature.”

Until this hard-to -swallow truth sinks in and is fully understood by far more people than currently do [ people don’t like truth], I see little chance in effectively reducing the prevalence of war in this world. Most people [ including your self perhaps],are simply not prepared to accept the fact that they are being controlled/ruled by a 100% criminal organization, and that their beloved [by some anyway] president is merely just another murdering crook who is the fake leader of a very large criminal gang of murderers, thieves and counterfeiters, living off of us all.

Regards, onebornfree

I actually expected better from the know nothing cucks that dispute this excellent article. Only idiots think WW2 was started by Germany and Japan. Assuming they know any history at all.

The general realization of the lie has been steadily increasing in rate and percentage over decades now. ….. It often has the stink of teamwork all over it,

Good Lord, exactly the opposite is true. It’s a truly ragtag penny-less group that has exposed the holohoax, and many have paid dearly for it.

And while there has been some penetration on the internet, I don’t think there is even a hint of awareness anywhere off the internet.

I’d be happy to be wrong.

No strange at all. They didn’t ask to be a protectorate.

I know you are not German-reader, and you did dodge my comment #9.

http://www.codoh.com

said:
“How many Jews were killed at Babi Yar? Exact estimates are hard to come by. Some say seventy thousand, others a hundred and fifty thousand […]”

– Indeed they say all kinds of absurdities about Babi Yar, however there’s ton’s more on the debunking impossible claims about it.

– Excavation Result: No Enormous Human Remains as Alleged at Babi Yar … of course: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11314
– former Einsatzgruppen Members Reject Bizarre Claims of Mass Shootings / Babi Yar, etc.: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11396
– ‘What Happened at Babi Yar?. Fact vs. Myth’, Using air photos and wartime newspapers, Ukrainian writer MICHAEL NIKIFORUK attacks a few myths about a wartime atrocity.: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/BabiYar/Nikiforuk.html
– ‘ Babi Yar: Critical Questions and Comments’: http://codoh.com/library/document/920/?lang=en
– Bodies at Babi Yar, John Gibbons Reporting: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7302
– ‘Babi Yar ‘massacre’ debunked’: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=41

Awright already, I get your point: here’s another way it might be stated:

Because the FED can create money that the Congress can borrow with no risk and no accountability, there is no means of popular or even representative control on the power of government to wage war.

I was going to toss in the argument that the inability of citizens to harness their government is one very important reason why the Charlottesville rally should have been handled better and more focused on the statue of Robert E Lee: in his correspondence with Lord Acton, the two agreed that maintaining states sovereignty was crucial: without the ability of individual states to pressure the Union, the central government could, and has, aggregated so much power that there is no means to curtail it. Robert E Lee stood for the only means he knew of that could limit the power of the central government which otherwise would inevitably use that power to wage war.

Obviously , if that had been the case [ it was to buy off the general public so he could get into a war], he/they would not have needed to orchestrate/manufacture the Pearl Harbor event to sway public opinion.

Could torture this further, but it’s not really the main point.

As to the rest of your observations: yes, of course, I already know all that stuff. My original point was that if you want governments in the first place , unless the government can be effectively limited in its scope and actions, then all these wars past and future, are inevitable.

See Lord Acton correspondence with Robert E Lee.

And dismantle the FED.

A crippled mind in a crippled body.

said:
“Eyewitnesses say that for months after the killing the ground continued to spurt geysers of blood.
Source: Elie Wiesel, The Jews of Silence, New York: New American Library, 1972, page 48.”

Eichmann in his bizarre, conflicting and impossible statements borrowed the ‘geysers of blood’ fantasy from Wiesel.

Eichmann claims at places near Minsk and Lemberg, mass shootings were taking place, including one mass grave from which he said blood was gushing out … like a geyser.

Remember, Eichmann is treated as solid proof of the impossible ‘6M Jews’ by “The Holocaust Industry”.

see more on Eichmann here:
American Pravda: Holocaust Denial, by Ron Unz : http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/
– Comments 1492, 1076, are particularly revealing
and;
‘from Inconvenient History: ‘The Adolf Eichmann Trial’, another farce’ : https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12179
The Adolf Eichmann Trial, By John Wear: https://codoh.com/library/document/6316/?lang=en

Cheers.

http://www.codoh.com

one of the morals of all that is that men cannot be trusted in positions of power and “we” must act accordingly. Another lesson learned is that the US government has long acted against the interests of the American prols, peasants, peons and pissants, and no doubt shall as long as it exists.

Couldn’t agree more.

Not only can men not be trusted in positions of power, but the types of men attracted to positions of power are the types who should be prevented, at all costs, from obtaining power.

This is what he simply won’t and can’t admit without the wiki like “but…” trying to weaken it. It simply does not fit the ideology and what he supposedly learned, it goes counter to programming.
The entire usage of the word “nazi” suggests he hasn’t really done his homework.

James Baker, US foreign minister said in Der Spiegel 13/1992:

We made a monster of Hitler, a devil, therefore we could not say otherwise after the war.

We had personally mobilized the masses nevertheless against the devil. Thus we were forced to play along with this devil scenario after the war.

We could not possibly have made our people clear (to them), that the war was only an economic preventative measure.

In my view, Baker admitted high treason and conspiracy against peace out of extremely low motives. He was speaking for his money masters.

The essence of WWI&II were economic/financial motives, greed, to control the heart of Europe in order to destroy it, which is ongoing.
Just like General Washington exchanged with Lafayette, they dreamed of a “United States of Europe”, which is a terrible illusion and utopian idea by the masons.

An often overlooked player is the french Grand Orient lodge, who love Lenin very much.
They are a driving force behind the entire European state project, which started with the french jewish Robert Schumann plan to access the German steal and coal industry “after” WWI. This has morphed into the vile creature EU we have today.

As Mitterand said to traitor Bnai Brith Helmut Kohl,

the Euro is Versailles without war

Your points are exquisite.

Thanks, Grace, I would have to agree with her assessment of Wilson. He, like so many others in positions of power are little more than privileged 3 year old children in biologically mature bodies.

Form the excellent article, above,

Lindsay reported that Roosevelt “spoke in a tone of almost impish glee and though I may be wrong the whole business gave me the impression of resembling a school-boy prank.”

Ambassador Lindsay was personally perturbed that the president of the United States could be gay and joyful about a pending tragedy which seemed so destructive of the hopes of all mankind. It was unfortunate at this important juncture that the United States had a president whose emotions and ideas were regarded by a friendly British ambassador as being childish.[16]

Glee? Doesn’t that remind one of the Cackling Hyena? Childish? Doesn’t that describe tRump to a tee?

Also, infantilism isn’t merely an American thing; Varoufakis’ highlighted the defect in his perceptive Adults in the Room.. (OT, but the one flaw in his otherwise superb work is Varoufakis’ rather naive faith in “democracy.”)

Unmündigkeit:

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a proportion of men, long after nature has released them from alien guidance (natura-liter maiorennes), nonetheless gladly remain in lifelong immaturity, and why it is so easy for others to establish themselves as their guardians. It is so easy to be immature.

– Immanuel Kant, What Is Enlightenment? (1784)

Unfortunately, the most immature seek to validate themselves by fighting for positions of power over their obvious betters, and too many whose main goal is to remain forever on the teat, support the wretches.

So we tricked that dumbass Hitler into declaring war…

No, dumbass, FDR and the East Coast moneybag international bankster Reds forced him into fighting for his nation’s life, get it? Read the article a couple of times until you get it.

FYI, in this entire article and thread up to your comment, the word “tricked” was used only once and here it is.:

Fish, Hamilton, FDR The Other Side of the Coin: How We Were Tricked into World War II, New York: Vantage Press, 1976, p. 62.

Hitler was not tricked; “WE” were. So who do you suppose were the dumbasses, dolt?

See if you can figure out what this means…

Better to remain silent and be unknown as a fool than write and remove all doubt.

Good comment except for this.:

From the US perspective, what’s not to like?

You should visit this bankrupt, mostly third world political cesspool some time. You’ll quickly find out what’s not to like.

Only a handful of international gangsters, many based in New York, could be realistically viewed as benefiting from the war.

But there is no doubt that WWII in Europe was in the best interests of the US. It weakened its Western European competitors and USSR.

It not only weakened them but enslaved the leading competition. It also put atomic weapons and American money in the hands of the USSR, according to Maj Jordan and D.H. Dubrowsky, How Stalin Steals Our Money, in 4 parts.:

Fraud on an international scale

A vicious racket and how it can be stopped

There’s profit in misery

A racket that never ends

Collier’s Weekly, May 18, 1940, p. 23

The Germans recognized “Czecho-Slovkia” for what it was: an artificial state created by the banking scum at Versailles.

Actually it should have been Suteden-Bohemia-Moravia-Slovakia. It was, as you said, a fraud from the very beginning, but in ways you may not be aware of.

Sure, it was an artificial construct of jews at Versailles, but it goes much deeper than rich banker jews.

The first president of “czechoslovakia” was Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk

Masaryk was given this position as a reward for being a faithful zionist, but more importantly for his role in covering up jewish blood sacrifice.

Anežka Hrůzová was a 19-year-old Czech Catholic girl, living in the village of Věžnička. She worked as a seamstress in Polná, 2 miles (3.2 km) away. On the afternoon of 29 March 1899, she left her place of employment as usual, but did not return to her home. Three days later (1 April) her body was found in a forest, her throat having been cut and her garments torn. Nearby was a pool of blood, some blood-stained stones, parts of her garments, and a rope with which she had been either strangled to death or dragged, after the murder, to the place where the body was found. Because of the little amount of blood found near the body, and the fact that Anežka Hrůzová’s disappearance had taken place during the Jewish holiday of Passover, authorities and population began speculating this was a case of Jewish ritual murder.
…
The prominent Czech nationalist scholar Tomáš Masaryk, professor of the Charles University in Prague, intervened on behalf of Hilsner; he filed an appeal to the supreme court, citing technical errors in the trial. The supreme court ordered a new trial, to be held at Písek

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilsner_Affair

Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin were all high level Freemasons, Roosevelt being 32 degree already in 1930:

There are hundreds of pics of Stalin doing Masonic hidden hand poses, and loads of evidence about Churchill.

The freemasons were pushing these genocidal world wars for Israel already from the prior century. Albert Pike laid it all out. Lloyd George famously said at Versailles that there would be another world war in 20 years.

Aangirfan has a great piece out today:

THE BRITISH MILITARY – SEX AND MASSACRES

It details British military abuse and genocides going back nearly 200 years. It really drives home what kind of sadists the Freemasons really are, since most of the officers were masons. What is incredible is the descriptions of how the British treated their own soldiers:

“In the UK, many soldiers had already heard the stories of betrayal and disappointment from their own fathers, who had returned from World War I only to find their government failing on the promise to support them, their widows, and orphans.

“They’d grown up with the misery of the global economic Depression.

“After the poor treatment of its WWI veterans and survivors, there was widespread mistrust of the state…

“Generals were so worried about dropping morale and the threat of both insubordination and desertion, that they requested the return of the death penalty for deserters.”

The UK military kills its own young people.

Tobruk was one in a series of disasters for the British that included “the retreat from Dunkirk, the botched Norwegian campaign, the shameful fall of Singapore, the sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse, and the doomed raid on Dieppe.”

General Montgomery’s battle at El Alamein may have been just a pointless bloodbath.

Not only did the Freemasons send troops charging to attack German bonesaw MG34’s, they also tortured and murdered their own soldiers:

Lt Colonel S C Marriott wrote:

“The last time we went down for a rest I had as many as 31 men tied to the wheel (the crucifiction punishment) at the same time…

“Even Eckes, my second in command, had his faithful servant strung up for forgetting to put his anti-gas helmet over his shoulder one day…”

During World War I, Britain executed many its own soldiers, some as young as 14 years of age.

(http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/shot-n16.shtml)

From an article by Harvey Thompson at WSWS 16 November 1999:

A typical case is that of Harry Farr, who joined the British Expeditionary Force in 1914 and fought in the trenches.

His position was repeatedly shelled, and in May 1915 he collapsed with strong convulsions.

In hospital, his wife Gertrude – who was denied a widow’s pension after the war – recalled, “he shook all the time.

“He couldn’t stand the noise of the guns.

“We got a letter from him, but it was in a stranger’s handwriting. He could write perfectly well, but couldn’t hold the pen because his hand was shaking.”

It is now thought that Farr was possibly suffering from hypacusis, which occurs when the eardrums are so damaged that the auditory nerve becomes exposed, making loud noises physically unbearable.

Despite this, Farr was sent back to the front and fought at the Somme.

After several months of fighting, he requested to see a medical orderly but was refused.

In Farr’s Court Martial papers, the Sergeant Major is quoted as saying “If you don’t go up to the f*****g front, I’m going to f*****g blow your brains out” to which Farr simply replied “I just can’t go on.”

The Court Martial was over in 20 minutes. Harry Farr had to defend himself.

General Haig signed his death warrant and he was shot at dawn on October 16, 1916.

Ditto World War 1, which was also used as a pretext to nationalize the railroad industry, a long-held dream of centralizing Progressives.

There were two types of Progressives when it comes to concepts of the nature of the American state in the industrial age

On the one hand were the Progressives, et al, who generally believed in government at the state and local level. Think Battlin’ Bob La Follette. The sort of people who viewed “Bigness” – concentration of power – in business or government as being a source of evils. These guys are at least somewhat amenable to our interests as Europeans and Christians. Time has shown that the industrial age Popes were all correct to condemn bigness – economic concentration is obviously why Ron Unz had to start this site in the first place, for example!

On the other hand were people like Herbert Croly, who was a very articulate spokesman for what became FDR’s super-state. Croly and other centralizers explicitly thought the American form of government outmoded. If there was really any one true “fascist” in America in the 1930s, it was Rex Tugwell, who worked for – you guessed it – the Roosevelt administration. These people were the enemies of freedom, who dreamed of completing what Wilson could not.

Also, John Dewey was a turd.

People might want to look a bit closer at Edvard Benes, whose Benes decrees are still in place today.

He was responsible for this

The ethnic cleansing and mass killings of Germans.

“American losses in World War I were modest compared to those of other belligerents, with 116,516 deaths and approximately 320,000 sick and wounded of the 4.7 million men who served. The USA lost more personnel to disease (63,114) than to combat (53,402), largely due to the influenza epidemic of 1918”.

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_losses_usa

See also “Day of Deceit”, Robert Stinnett’s exhaustive, compelling account of how FDR planned secretly to provoke the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, while making sure the naval and military commanders on the sport knew and suspected nothing. Once the US government’s dead hand was removed from the records, and once survivors felt able to speak honestly of their experiences, Stinnett was able to accumulate a vast mass of evidence, all pointing one way.

While the Japanese task force was heading directly towards Pearl, not only did FDR know their plans and the time of the attack – he was even seeing transcripts of their intercepted radio traffic.

Robert Stinnett also states that FDR was already preparing to order vast numbers of warships and aircraft as early as 1940. Among them 100 aircraft carriers – Japan started the war with about a dozen, and gradually lost them all, while the USA ended the war with well over 100.

That led inevitably to one-sided naval battles such as the Battle of the Philippine Sea, referred to by Americans as “The Marianas Turkey Shoot” because of the numbers of Japanese aircraft they shot down.

It’s striking that Potocki, the Polish ambassador to Washington, was just as outspoken in his denunciation of the Jewish influence as Ribbentrop, Goebbels or any of the top Nazis.

Incidentally, it’s doubtful if any of them could have rivalled Joe Kennedy in the fanatical extremism of his remarks about the Jews. Before 1941, that is.

“Well I hate FDR, and his foreign policy is one reason.

“And I’m not alone in that”.

It does seem to be the case that, the more you learn about such “great” men, the more you come to dislike and despise them.

Your comment reminded me of this famous paragraph from 130 years ago:

“I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it”.

– Lord Acton (Letter to Bishop Creighton, 1887)

“Lend-Lease, which provided weapons for free…”

That turns out not to be the case. As a British citizen, whose father spent 1941-5 fighting in Persia, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Sicily and Italy, and whose mother was prepared to go to the hills of Scotland with a rifle and take at least one German with her before she died, I bitterly resent American lies about how the USA “saved Britain”. To be told that the USA “saved Britain” free of charge adds insult to injury.

The American insistence on repayment of every penny lent resulted in Britain having austerity until 1954 – long after other European nations (even Germany) had returned to something resembling peacetime conditions. You might like to consult one of the books about the period of austerity from 1940-54; you would learn something. During all those years food was rationed rigorously; in 1945, after VE Day, rations were actually reduced yet again.

Generally speaking, the USA has never done anything free of charge, or without making a considerable return on its investment. Wikipedia:

‘Congress had not authorized the gift of supplies delivered after the cutoff date, so the U.S. charged for them, usually at a 90% discount. Large quantities of undelivered goods were in Britain or in transit when Lend-Lease terminated on September 2, 1945. Britain wished to retain some of this equipment in the immediate post war period. In 1946, the post-war Anglo-American loan further indebted Britain to the U.S. Lend-Lease items retained were sold to Britain at 10% of nominal value, giving an initial loan value of £1.075 billion for the Lend-Lease portion of the post-war loans. Payment was to be stretched out over 50 annual payments, starting in 1951 and with five years of deferred payments, at 2% interest. The final payment of $83.3 million (£42.5 million), due on December 31, 2006 (repayment having been deferred in the allowed five years and during a sixth year not allowed), was made on December 29, 2006 (the last working day of the year). After this final payment Britain’s Economic Secretary to the Treasury formally thanked the U.S. for its wartime support.

‘Tacit repayment of Lend-Lease by the British was made in the form of several valuable technologies, including those related to radar, sonar, jet engines, antitank weaponry, rockets, superchargers, gyroscopic gunsights, submarine detection, self-sealing fuel tanks, and plastic explosives as well as the British contribution to the Manhattan Project. Many of these were transferred by the Tizard Mission. The official historian of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, James Phinney Baxter III, wrote: “When the members of the Tizard Mission brought the cavity magnetron to America in 1940, they carried the most valuable cargo ever brought to our shores.”‘

“America will be in the war soon after Britain and France enter it”.

Yeah – two years, three months after they entered it. After Poland, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia and Greece had been conquered, Britain had had a near-death experience, and the Wehrmacht had reached the Moscow tramlines.

Of course time is a relative concept, especially to lying politicians. And Washington never intended to join the war until Germany had shot its bolt. December 1941 was the moment: well-informed military analysts could predict that the Third Reich had reached its maximum extent, and would be rolled back by the huge latent power of the USSR. And that was the time for the USA to enter the fray. Three years to prepare, and they would be ready to invade Europe and stab Germany in the back as she was fighting for her life against the Soviets.

Even then, the USA did not declare war on Nazi Germany: it waited until Hitler declared war on it.

As Robert A Heinlein, a fanatical American patriot, frankly admitted, “…the American Eagle eats carrion, never tackles anything its own size, and will soon be extinct”.

The really striking thing about the fine article is how little things have changed since 1939. The White House is still stirring up hatred of imaginary enemies for two reasons: 1. to distract attention from the catastrophic situation at home; 2. to feed the armament manufacturers’ lust for money.

And Washington is still pursuing the Big Lie policy – which Goebbels and Hitler copied from the USA.

I am reminded of the words of that much-maligned (but tuneful) march, the Horst Wessel Lied.

“Der Tag der Freiheit und der Brot bricht an”.

(“The day of freedom and bread is breaking”).

What ghastly totalitarian sentiments.

“So we tricked that dumbass Hitler into declaring war and then beat him so hard that he killed himself and his bride on their honeymoon?”

No, you didn’t. Although your comment is absolutely typical of the crass, ignorant, prejudiced, arrogant American stereotype.

It wasn’t US troops who were a mile or so away when Hitler committed suicide. It was Soviet troops. The Soviets killed 80% of the German forces who died in WW2. The Battle of Kursk was by far the biggest tank battle in history, and the Soviets won it. Operation Bagration was a far bigger battle in every way than the Normandy landings, and effectively destroyed an entire German army group.

If Germany hadn’t gone to war with the USSR and the USA had invaded Europe, the Americans would have been utterly wiped out. (Not that they could have invaded Europe if three-quarters of the best German forces hadn’t been pinned down in the East).

I am delighted to see your mention of Lord Acton – I quoted his “power corrupts” passage in a different comment.

General Lee was one of the good guys.

Not only can men not be trusted in positions of power, but the types of men attracted to positions of power are the types who should be prevented, at all costs, from obtaining power.

I have also reached that conclusion.

Damned awesome comments there, sir, and thanks for naming a few of the criminals.

I consider your comments of extremely high value, and I thank you. You are a real asset to this site.

The essence of WWI&II were economic/financial motives, greed, to control the heart of Europe in order to destroy it, which is ongoing.

There can be no question about that. None whatsoever. Marxism and Bolshevism were no doubt created toward that end. In fact, if they had not been useful tools, they would never have seen the light of day; no one would have heard of Marx and he would have slithered off into the dustbin of history with nary a peep out of anyone.

But back to your point; agreement sometimes comes from astonishing sources.:

Why, my fellow citizens, is there any man here or any woman, let me say is there any child here, who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry…and the reason why some nations went into the war against Germany was that they thought Germany would get the commercial advantage of them. The seed of the jealousy, the seed of the deep-seated hatred was hot, successful commercial and industrial rivalry…
This war, in its inception was a commercial and industrial war. It was not a political war.

-Woodrow Wilson, Address at the Coliseum in St. Louis, Missouri, September 5, 1919

Wars are inevitable, Dickinson declared, for they arise out of commercial competition between nations…

Overall, from 1915 to 1917, the export department of J.P. Morgan and Co. negotiated more than $3 billion of contracts to Britain and France. By early 1915, Secretary McAdoo was writing to Wilson hailing the “great prosperity” being brought by war exports to the Allies, and a prominent business writer wrote the following year that “War, for Europe, is meaning devastation and death; for America a bumper crop of new millionaires and a hectic hastening of prosperity revival.”

Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy
By Murray N. Rothbard
This first appeared in World Market Perspective (1984)
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/41125186/

All of the above apply in spades to the continuation of “WW1” known as “WW2.”

Without exculpating FDR, there was nothing particularly sinister about the Two-Ocean Navy Act. Japan gave notice it would withdraw from the London Naval Treaty in 1934, and withdrew at the end of 1936 while Britain and Japan remained in the treaty. In the late 1930s a global naval arms race broke out, and when war broke out the treaty was a dead letter.

In this strategic context it was completely appropriate to commence a naval building program, and this was also supported by most members of the America First Committee who supported armed neutrality.

Charles Lindbergh for instance supported either heavily fortifying the Philippines (in contravention of the treaty) or withdrawing from the islands completely.

Tom,

Many years after the war, Winston Churchill’s son Randolph recounted a moment in 1940 in which his father called him into his room while he shaved and got dressed for some function. Winston told Randolph that he was thinking of a way to defeat the Germans.

Randolph writes that he, at the moment, thought it was “credible” that Britain could stop the Germans – that is, stop them from invading the island and possibly force a negotiated peace – but totally “incredible” that Britain could win decisively.

He asked his father if he really believed Britain could “beat the bastards,” and, if so, how.

Winston paused his shaving, looked at Randolph, and said, “I’m going to drag the United States in.”

This was in 1940, in the summer.

If you’d like, I can dig into my collection of books and find the exact quote.

The point is: The British leaders themselves knew that they could not defeat Germany without America. End of discussion. Whether or not that’s the same thing as “saving” Britain is a different train of thought, I suppose.

“General Robert E. Lee freed the slaves.”

– Bol, from ‘Lonesome Dove’

British technological transfers and, to a lesser extent, “Reverse Lend-Lease” were obviously useful. Their value was however much lower than that of Lend-Lease (or, if we want to account for it, American combat forces once America entered the war). Accepting “repayment” at a 90% loss was an obscene waste of American resources.

The British Loan was not Lend-Lease, and because it was granted by the newly Republican Congress thankfully repayment at least a somewhat attractive interest rate was insisted upon.

My general objection to FDR’s foreign policy is that he pursued an expensive, interventionist foreign policy which was not intended to advance America’s material or territorial interests. All America got out of it was some British technology and a 99 year lease on bases.

Some of the things America might have asked for, but didn’t:

• Sovereignty over Newfoundland, Bermuda, Jamaica, and other British colonies in the Western Hemisphere (and perhaps the Pacific as well)
• Tariff-free access to all markets in the British Commonwealth
• Ownership interests in prominent British corporations like Vickers, John Brown, Avro, de Havilland, Austin, GEC, Marconi, etc.
• British acquiescence to the annexation of the disgusting Canuckist Entity

You seem to be resentful that America insisted on any repayment at all. That’s ridiculous. The entire purpose of an expansionist foreign policy to to strengthen your own state at the expense of other states. If Britain objected to paying a hefty price for aid to a non-cucked America then peace with Germany was always an option.

Likewise after the war neither America nor Britain got much out of Germany and Japan. Why, for instance, are Daimler-Benz and Siemens still under German ownership? Why does Japan, which had no significant motor vehicle industry before the war, today have one of the largest in the world? Logically ownership of these valuable assets should’ve been transferred to the victors. All we got was some scientists and patents.

If you’re not willing to insist on gains for intervention because you’re a cuck, then the best approach is armed neutrality unless there is an existential security threat. That clearly wasn’t the case for America owing to geography. Britain of course was in a more difficult situation so refusing to make peace with Germany was understandable.

In this strategic context it was completely appropriate to commence a naval building program, and this was also supported by most members of the America First Committee who supported armed neutrality.

Hence why I roll my eyes at my more extremist libertarian friends who insist against pretty much any form of military defense.

As some of us discussed at length in one of Karlin’s open threads, the American Civil War showed the truth of this.

If Britain had intervened on behalf of those black-drivers down South (whose shortsighted goal in life was to hamper real white nationalism by importing blacks onto the rich prairies – only by understanding this can modern right-wing people understand how racist Northern whites were so pissed off by Kansas-Nebraska), our navy of “white nationalist” Anglo officers and formerly-starving Irish enlisted men, on their outnumbered boats, would have been wiped off the seas by the RN. And then, as even the Confederate-at-heart Pat Buchanan admits, our hemisphere would have been troubled, and we would not have become the strong white nation that we were before the Second World War.

The America First people instinctively understood the crucial importance of our nation being able to blast anything out of the waters around us.

America, in its ideal state, should be isolationist and heavily, heavily armed. This is truly the American ideal. It is even captured by our popular culture, like when the character Shane, from the famous Western, says, “A gun is a tool, Miriam – no better or worse than the man using it.”

Otherwise those [Scottish accent] English bastards [/Scottish accent] can too easily meddle in the affairs of our hemisphere.

Oh, and as for the Philippines, wasn’t there a segment of the American military that thought the islands indefensible even if well-fortified?

FDR wanted to enter the war as soon as possible.

He was not able to owing to public opinion being overwhelmingly opposed to it and the presence of powerful political forces in favor of neutrality.

He did what he could to aid Britain in other ways, up to and including violating US law and concealing this from Congress.

And why exactly should America have entered the war earlier? Because it would have made things easier for Britain?

If you’re not attacked by someone else the entire point of going to war is to get something out of it.