"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

26 November 2010

Communists Still Deny -- While Russian Duma Admits -- Soviet Massacre of Polish Officers

The Russian government is finally officially admitting the massacre by Soviet secret police of thousands of captured Polish army officers in 1940. This is a fact that most of the world, wherever the people were not saturated with war-propaganda, accepted when the Germans discovered it and revealed it to the world in 1943. Yet there are diehard Communists who still deny it. 

While AFP emphasizes the admission, to me the continuing denial by the Communists is more striking, since what the Duma is admitting has been considered beyond dispute throughout most of the world for a very long time. The Communist position on this matter is stunningly unreasonable.

The only Communist mentioned by name, Viktor Ilyukhin, seems to be a Russian counterpart to those Americans for whom "revisionist history" is a dismissive term. The Duma's admission is not based merely, as he purports, on "German evidence" and "Goebbels' claims" but also on newly released Soviet official documents.

Russia admits Stalin ordered Katyn massacre of Poles 

Dmitry Zaks, 26 November 2010


[...]

The statement was agreed at an unusually stormy two-hour session that featured virulent opposition from the minority Communist Party -- whose leaders still say the massacre could have been committed by the Nazis.

"I do not understand how we can make conclusions ... based on German evidence and (Joseph) Goebbels's claims," said a furious top Communist Party official, Viktor Ilyukhin.

[...]

A Piece of "Revisionist History" That Some Conservatives Have Long Accepted

A little while ago somebody who likes to think of himself as a conservative called me a "revisionist" -- which in current U.S. "conservative" political rhetoric amounts to calling me a liar, since these people are sure that all the history ever taught to them was correct -- for saying that  President Franklin Roosevelt provoked the Japanese to attack the USA in 1941. This is an example of how the truth, when revealed, can still fail to eradicate a lie that is emotionally charged. If that "conservative" won't take it from me, maybe he will take it from the bona fide conservative columnist Charley Reese.


How our government started war with Japan
Charley Reese
16 August 1978

Have you ever stopped to think what a bad spot you're in when your own government deceives you?

I'm not talking about the petty lies of a self-seeking individual, but a cold, calculated policy of deliberate deception by the government as a whole.

Suppose, for example, the government tells the people it is attempting to strengthen the value of the dollar when, in fact, it is embarked on a deliberate policy of destroying the value of the dollar. What are the implications of such a deception?

Well, consider the possible motives for deception. One obvious motive is to make the deceiver look better than he would look if the truth were known. It's probably the most common motive for the lying that individual politicians do. But another motive is to prevent the deceived person from protecting himself from harm which he could prevent if he knew the true situation. The first motive is relatively benign, based primarily on the ego and fear of the liar, but the second motive is malicious. It is based on either an intent to cause harm or on a calloused disregard for the welfare of the person being deceived.

It is not a comfortable feeling to think that people who occupy positions of power are capable of such malice or callousness toward innocent people who have done them no harm. We can accept this when we see it in foreign governments, like the Soviet Union, but it is hard to swallow when you are talking about the government of the good old U.S. of A. Yet, in human affairs, anything is possible and in trying to understand our times, we should consider all possibilities.

Have you ever stopped to think, for example, why we went to war with Japan? Pearl Harbor, of course. But Pearl Harbor, as strange as it may sound, was only the superficial reason.

Why do you suppose Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in the first place? Obviously Japan did not believe that she could conquer and occupy the United States. By 1941, she had been fighting China for 10 years and still had not subdued that country.

No, historical research has shown that Japan was forced to fight and hoped that by knocking out most of the U.S. Fleet, she could gain the time to consolidate her position in Asia and then negotiate a peace.

Japan had gone to war with China in 1931. Japan clearly intended to dominate Asia which at that time was dominated by England, France, and Holland. Our government attempted to intervene. From the beginning of the Japanese-Chinese war, we began to apply diplomatic pressure. In April, 1939, we shifted the U.S. Fleet to the Pacific. In July, 1939, we informed Japan we would not renew a trade treaty and would continue to trade only on a day-to-day basis.

In September, 1940, we provided China with $55 million worth of aid and ordered all Americans out of Asia except for the Philippines. That same year we threatened Japan with an oil embargo, imposed a scrap iron and steel embargo on her, moved Marines onto Midway Island, passed the Selective Service Act, and began to build a two-ocean Navy.

In July, 1941, President Roosevelt halted all trade with Japan, seized all Japanese assets in the United States, and nationalized the Philippine forces. In August, 1941, Roosevelt delivered what amounted to an ultimatum to Japan.

After all of this, it was not until three months later, on November 7, that the Japanese made the decision to attack Pearl Harbor. As you can see, the U.S. government was clearly pushing Japan into war in an effort to protect French, British, and Dutch interests in the Far East. Yet during all of these preparations for war, the administration was telling the American people the opposite.

"And while I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I shall give you one more assurance," Roosevelt said in a campaign speech in October 1940. "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!"

Think about that as you watch the Carter Administration "defend" the dollar.

[Source: Boca Raton News]
 


More recently, Pat Buchanan has weighed in. Buchanan says that Roosevelt really did not want war but was dragged into it by subordinates in his own administration. (This is a possibility not entirely to be dismissed: FDR was near the end of his life and not in good health. There is also a book [download], My Exploited Father-in-Law, by FDR's son-in-law Curtis Dall, that makes this kind of argument.)

For some reason Buchanan doesn't point out -- although he surely knows it like the back of his hand -- that Owen Lattimore, the State Department employee who blocked negotiations between the United States and Japan, was identified by Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1950 as a key pro-Communist influence on State Department policy. Getting the United States into war with Japan clearly benefited the USSR. Dean Acheson, whom Buchanan also names as playing a key role in forcing war between the United States and Japan -- against FDR's will, allegedly -- was Lattimore's mentor.


Buchanan seems to be trying to keep one foot in the mainstream by not talking about Communists in the FDR Administration -- perhaps also with his somewhat surprising thesis that FDR really didn't want war -- and certainly that is the purpose of including a gratuitous reference to the "Rape of Nanking," which seems to have been, at least to a considerable extent, a creation of Chinese propaganda and Hollywood studios. (You can see evidence of Hollywood's role in creating the "Rape of Nanking" here.) Perhaps Buchanan would have dragged in the Holocaust too if he could have contrived a passable excuse. While Buchanan's historical narrative is consistent with what Charley Reese wrote 33 years earlier, Buchanan  saccharine-coats his Pearl Harbor revisionism with undue reverence for other sacred cows.

It is noteworthy that in 1941 the propaganda about "Neville Chamberlain the appeaser" was already in full swing: according to Buchanan it prevented the United States from accepting reasonable  concessions from Japan lest the President be accused of "appeasement." This form of propaganda amounts to questioning a leader's (or a nation's) manhood, and it has probably greatly increased the willingness of less thoughtful people to support unnecessary wars. While that kind of worry about what will be said may have pushed some politicians into war, there is evidence that Franklin Roosevelt actually wanted war, having even exerted pressure to get the European war started: this is the thesis of a book by Congressman Hamilton Fish published in 1976. Buchanan does not go as far as Fish.



Why Did Japan Attack Us?
Patrick J. Buchanan
11 December 2001

Of all the days that will "live in infamy" in American history, two stand out: Sept. 11, 2001, and Dec. 7, 1941.

But why did Japan, with a 10th of our industrial power, launch a sneak attack on the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor, an act of state terror that must ignite a war to the death it could not win? Were they insane? No, the Japanese were desperate.

To understand why Japan lashed out, we must go back to World War I. Japan had been our ally. But when she tried to collect her share of the booty at Versailles, she ran into an obdurate Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson rejected Japan's claim to German concessions in Shantung, home of Confucius, which Japan had captured at a price in blood. Tokyo threatened a walkout if denied what she had been promised by the British. "They are not bluffing," warned Wilson, as he capitulated. "We gave them what they should not have."

In 1921, at the Washington Naval Conference, the United States pressured the British to end their 20-year alliance with Japan. By appeasing the Americans, the British enraged and alienated a proud nation that had been a loyal friend.

Japan was now isolated, with Stalin's brooding empire to the north, a rising China to the east and, to the south, Western imperial powers that detested and distrusted her.

When civil war broke out in China, Japan in 1931 occupied Manchuria as a buffer state. This was the way the Europeans had collected their empires. Yet, the West was "shocked, shocked" that Japan would embark upon a course of "aggression." Said one Japanese diplomat, "Just when we learn how to play poker, they change the game to bridge."

Japan now decided to create in China what the British had in India – a vast colony to exploit that would place her among the world powers. In 1937, after a clash at Marco Polo Bridge near Peking, Japan invaded and, after four years of fighting, including the horrific Rape of Nanking, Japan controlled the coastal cities, but not the interior.

When France capitulated in June 1940, Japan moved into northern French Indochina. And though the United States had no interest there, we imposed an embargo on steel and scrap metal. After Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941, Japan moved into southern Indochina. FDR ordered all Japanese assets frozen.

But FDR did not want to cut off oil. As he told his Cabinet on July 18, an embargo meant war, for that would force oil-starved Japan to seize the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies. But a State Department lawyer named Dean Acheson drew up the sanctions in such a way as to block any Japanese purchases of U.S. oil. By the time FDR found out, in September, he could not back down.

Tokyo was now split between a War Party and a Peace Party, with the latter in power. Prime Minister Konoye called in Ambassador Joseph Grew and secretly offered to meet FDR in Juneau or anywhere in the Pacific. According to Grew, Konoye was willing to give up Indochina and China, except a buffer region in the north to protect her from Stalin, in return for the U.S. brokering a peace with China and opening up the oil pipeline. Konoye told Grew that Emperor Hirohito knew of his initiative and was ready to give the order for Japan's retreat.

Fearful of a "second Munich," America spurned the offer. Konoye fell from power and was replaced by Hideki Tojo. Still, war was not inevitable. U.S. diplomats prepared to offer Japan a "modus vivendi." If Japan withdrew from southern Indochina, the United States would partially lift the oil embargo. But Chiang Kai-shek became "hysterical," and his American adviser, one Owen Lattimore, intervened to abort the proposal.

Facing a choice between death of the empire or fighting for its life, Japan decided to seize the oil fields of the Indies. And the only force capable of interfering was the U.S. fleet that FDR had conveniently moved from San Diego out to Honolulu.

And so Japan attacked. And so she was crushed and forced out of Vietnam, out of China, out of Manchuria. And so they fell to Stalin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh. And so it was that American boys, not Japanese boys, would die fighting Koreans, Chinese and Vietnamese to try to block the aggressions of a barbaric Asian communism.

Now Japan is disarmed and China is an Asian giant whose military boasts of pushing the Americans back across the Pacific. Had FDR met Prince Konoye, there might have been no Pearl Harbor, no Pacific war, no Hiroshima, no Nagasaki, no Korea, no Vietnam. How many of our fathers and uncles, brothers and friends, might still be alive?

"For of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: 'It might have been.'" A few thoughts as the War Party pounds the drum for an all-out American war on Iraq and radical Islam.

[Source: The American Cause]

24 November 2010

Television Under the Swastika



The first regular television broadcasts in the world began in National-Socialist Germany in 1935 and ended in the fall of 1944.

One of the most striking facts shown in this documentary, given no notice at all by the narrator, is that the National-Socialist government had created bureaus to help the German people in many spheres of life, with instruction for example on the best way to garden and even how to succeed as a wife and mother. Government-operated television was used to make the public aware of these services.

In truth, exactly the same kind of dramatized advertisement is used in the United States today, except that instead of revealing where to ask for advice or assistance we are generally encouraged to buy some product. We also have "public service announcements," which sometimes are presented in the form of a short drama.

As always, we can take it for granted that there is a strong negative bias in any presentation about the Third Reich.

At one point we see footage of SS-men marching and the narrator implies that there is something ominous about it. Why? Is there something ominous about similar footage of U.S. servicemen from the same era?

Some of the clips included in this documentary seem to suffer from the smugness of unanimity. For example, some of the Germans who appear in these clips express an intense admiration for Adolf Hitler, wherein they presume -- more or less correctly, in the original time and place -- general agreement among the viewers: surely this did not seem so absurd in the original cultural setting. I get a similar impression from some recent broadcasting in the United States, which, like this programming from the Third Reich, is directed to an audience that is presumed to agree. As examples I could name Fox News, Christian broadcasting, and sometimes PBS when the focus is on racial issues. There is some smugness in some of this material from the Third Reich, but there is also smugness in the assumption that our present-day broadcasters have no such blind-spot. 

Those bad old Nazis were all about propaganda, we are supposed to believe, but there aren't any biases in our news or embedded messages in our entertainment, are there?


Probably the most unflattering clip in this documentary is when the host of a "variety show," some German forerunner of Ed Sullivan, briefly comments on the fact that National-Socialist Germany had some political discontents that did not want to stay in harmony with society, and have been sent to a "concert camp" (which is mistranslated as concentration camp, although obviously that is what he meant) to be taught to play along. It is not a funny discourse, but it is not really clear that it was intended to be funny: what events set the context of that commentary? It may well be that there was widespread irritation with these people that the variety-host mentions and that his commentary did not seem ill-tempered at the time. If you consider the very dangerous situation in which National-Socialist Germany existed, with military threats on both sides and the memory of large parts of the country being taken over by Communists, and the much more recent suppression of Ernst Roehm's conspiracy through extrajudicial executions (which were widely applauded, including by President Hindenburg) many viewers probably felt that sending some political troublemakers to a camp for reeducation was letting them off easy, and the vast majority of Germans who supported Adolf Hitler may have felt relieved and proud that Hitler's government by 1936 had acquired the strength and stability to deal with troublemakers humanely. That is a context in which the variety host's monologue could seem reasonable.

Some of the footage is rather inane and is used in an effort to fill time, but we get that in live coverage of events today. It is in the nature of live coverage that there will be periods when nothing is happening. Today, though, instead of panning over the surroundings of an event and discussing  them, today's television broadcasts will fill time with empty chatter between the reporter and the anchor and possibly some third personality brought in to help them fill time.

There is certainly a more obvious explanation for the cessation of television broadcasts in the fall of 1944 than the supposedly poor quality of the programs, which the narrator insinuates as the cause.

It would be interesting to see some samples from the vast footage of Third Reich television that were not selected under mass-media's post-war imperative to present an unflattering portrait.

23 November 2010

Did Hitler Violate the Treaty of Versailles by Rearming Germany?

Regarding events in the six years prior to World War II, the usual interpretation that we are presented is that the passive and ambivalent Allies, who should have been enforcing the Treaty of Versailles and keeping the dangerous German war-machine from rising again, instead allowed a treacherous thug named Adolf Hitler to get away with one transgression after another until he was so emboldened as to undertake a war to conquer the entire world.

This historical interpretation, by the way, has been used over and over to goad U.S. citizens into supporting wars since World War II, on the premise that somebody else is now the new Hitler and that it is imperative not to make the old mistake of attempting to deal with him peacefully.

What has been dropped down the memory hole is that the Allies as well as Germany had been supposed to reduce their armed forces, according to the Treaty of Versailles. They never did.* Hitler's decision to reintroduce German military conscription, and an air force, and to have an army exceeding 100,000 men, followed a decision by France to increase the size of her own army. (Even at the time of her defeat by Germany in 1940, France had a larger tank-force: its fault lay in being designed for the tactics of the previous war.)

Hitler's characterization of the Treaty of Versailles as unjust, imposed as it was on an unwilling but helpless Germany,  is often treated with scorn. Be that as it may, is it not the case that a treaty having been ignored with impunity by one side may legitimately be considered null and void by the other? It seems reasonable to argue that from the viewpoint of justice, at the time that Hitler announced the rearmament of Germany in 1935, the so-called treaty had already been effectively rendered a dead letter.

Read what a former British Prime Minister and a former U.S. Secretary of State had to say about it.





Lloyd George Blames Allies

David Lloyd George, Britain's war-time prime minister, said tonight the former Allied powers were to blame for forcing Germany to re-arm.

"Let us keep our heads," the shaggy-maned old statesman said. "The signatories to Germany's Treaty of Versailles are in no position morally to enforce those parts of the treaty which they themselves have so flagrantly and defiantly broken....

"The British government after the issue of its recent White Paper has no right to complain at Germany's gesture coming before the proposed Berlin conversations. We are now face to face with reality....

"We should regard recent developments, including the white paper and France's decision to increase her army and finally Hitler's declaration as finally giving us a providential opportunity to clear up the whole mess."




Frank B. Kellogg, former U.S. Secretary of State:

I don't believe the nations of Europe are entirely free from from blame in this situation. In the Versailles Treaty, they pledged themselves to disarm. If any of them have done so, I do not recall which and when.

[...]

Of course, that is no excuse for Germany to violate her treaty agreements, but there is some truth in Hitler's statements, if I read them correctly, that the other nations have agreed to reduce armaments and none of them has done so.


_______________________
* Among the victorious powers of World War I, only Britain and Japan ratified the Treaty of Versailles. The French parliament rejected the treaty, with some members calling it vengeful. The fact that Germany was expected to abide by the terms of the treaty while France was not, and Britain did not, created an untenable situation. On 23 March 1933 Hitler stated before the German pariliament: "Germany has been waiting years for other nations to fulfill their promises to reduce armaments. We would gladly refrain from increasing our own if the others would agree to radical reduction of theirs." (AP, 24 March 1933)

21 November 2010

General Vlasov and the Russian Liberation Army

Little known in the United States is the story of the Russian General Vlasov and the Russian Liberation Army, Russian prisoners of war who became ten volunteer divisions (about 15000 soldiers) assisting Germany in its war against the Bolshevik empire.


It seems from Vlasov's statements that he wished to restore something like the liberal democracy that had existed for only a few months in 1917 between the abdication of Czar Nicholas II and the Bolshevik coup.

Here we see Russian soldiers in Wehrmacht uniforms with the patch indicating Russian Liberation Army (POA in cyrillic letters). Since the narration is in Russian, presumably this was filmed for viewing by Russian audiences, probably prisoners of war.

18 November 2010

Hitler's Policy toward the USSR Justified
(abbreviated version)

Passages from Heinrich Haertle, Freispruch für Deutschland (1965), translated, redacted, rearranged, and somewhat rewritten by Hadding Scott, 2010. (To read a fuller presentation of Haertle's writing go here.)


Hitler's Calculations in 1939

Hitler as chancellor assumed that a clash between National-Socialist Germany and world-revolutionary Soviet imperialism would be inevitable, and that he must do everything to prepare for this danger.

The gathering of all Germans into a Great Germany (Großdeutschland) and Hitler's policy of reconciliation with the West, especially his offers of friendship to England, served this purpose.

However, when England and France had demonstrated through their guarantee to Poland that they were unwilling to tolerate a Germany that would have been strong enough to stand up to the growing Soviet colossus, Hitler began to reorient his foreign-policy overtures from West to East.

In mid-1939 when England and France were trying to complete their encirclement-policy by enlisting even the Soviet Union in an alliance against the Reich, Hitler saw only one escape from the trap: conciliation with Russia. Through that alone, he believed that he would be able to avert a two-front war.


Stalin's Calculations

Meanwhile, Stalin was counting on the certainty of a war waged by England and France against Germany, from which he could at first remain aloof so as to prepare his military might, and at the favorable moment enter the war and win, either with the Reich against the capitalist West or, even more advantageously, with the capitalist West against the national-socialist Reich. It turned out that Stalin had much less time to prepare than he could have expected, because Germany conquered Poland and France with unprecedented speed.

Stalin's calculations in 1939-40 were based on hostility between Germany and France and England. When however Stalin saw Germany making peace-offers to France and England in late 1939 and 1940, the Bolshevik dictator began to ally himself with England and America against the ever-stronger Germany, so as to expand the Soviet dictatorship into Europe and Asia with the help of "democracy" and "capitalism."

Precisely on account of the repeated German peace offers to France and England, Stalin feared the end of Europe's fratricidal war and therefore from fall 1940 directed his aggression  also against Germany, in violation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The American Secretary of State Byrnes writes in his memoirs: "It is obvious that the Soviet Government has concluded this pact with the clear intention of breaking it.” Even [Czechoslovakian President Edvard] Beneš affirms in his memoirs that the Soviet Union concluded the “non-aggression pact” only to gain time, i.e. so as to enter into the war later, when the warring parties had been weakened.

Molotov’s November 1940 extortion attempt in Berlin already practically signaled Stalin’s determination for war. He was pressuring Germany, which was still at war with England and already in a de facto war with the United States, to hand over to the Soviet Union the Balkans, the Baltic Sea, and above all the war-deciding oil supply in Romania, thereby making it clear that he would stab Germany in the back at the first opportunity.

Already in 1940 Stalin had begun negotiations in Moscow with the English representative Sir Stafford Cripps, thus with the enemy of a still allied Germany.

In spring 1941 the anti-German coup in Yugoslavia, which mortally threatened Germany’s position in the Balkans and therewith its oil supply, had been instigated and supported by Moscow together with England.

The Red Army increased its divisions in Germany’s rear from 65 divisions in September 1939 to 153 divisions and 36 motorized brigades in 1940-41.


The Preemptive War

Germany's preemptive war forestalled a gigantic Soviet offensive. The Bolshevik danger was even greater than could even be reported previously. One of Hitler’s enemies, Chief of Staff Franz Halder, demonstrates that. He affirms that Hitler’s conviction “that Russia was preparing for an attack on Germany” was justified, and declares, “We know today from good sources that he was right about that."

At Nuremberg General Winter testified under oath: “We had at the time the subjective impression that we were striking into an offensive deployment in progress.” Field Marshal von Rundstedt is also a witness to that.

In a secret session of the House of Commons in 1940, Churchill rationalized his rejection of the German peace offer and his decision to broaden the war, with the affirmation that he had at that time, because of the negotiations conducted by the ambassador Sir Stafford Cripps in Moscow, obtained the explicit pledge that the Soviet Union would enter the war on the English side.

Jewish journalist Alexander Werth, who was a correspondent in Russia and in his heart still stands on the Soviet side, reports about Stalin’s speech of 5 May 1941:

All my sources agree in fundamental features with the most important points of Stalin’s speech: the conviction that the war “almost unavoidably” would be decided in 1942, wherein, if necessary, the Soviets must seize the initiative.

The testimony of Senior-General Jodl at Nuremberg is thereby proven correct on all essential points by the Soviet side.

In his conversation with Hitler, in fall 1940 when the possibility of a preemptive war against the Bolshevik threat first came up, the motive of acquiring Lebensraum was never mentioned.

At Nuremberg Senior-General Jodl testifies: "The Fuehrer has never named in my presence even just one hint of a reason other than the purely strategic." For months on end Hitler continuously repeated to Jodl's face:

"There is no doubt now that England puts her hopes in this last mainland proxy; otherwise she would have already called off the war after Dunkirk....  Agreements have certainly already been made. The Russian deployment is unmistakable. One day suddenly we shall be either coldly blackmailed or attacked."


What Germany Gave Up for the Preemptive War

Jodl himself had placed great hopes in the famous negotiations with Molotov, since with a neutral Russia in the rear -- which furthermore would help Germany with economic supplies -- the D-Day Invasion would never have been possible. No statesman and no field-marshal could sacrifice such a favorable situation without being forced by circumstances. It is a fact that Hitler "for months struggled inwardly in the most serious way with this decision, certainly influenced by the many opposing pictures that both the Reichsmarschall and the Supreme Commander of the Kriegsmarine as well as the Foreign Minister raised."

That the actions of 1941 were a preemptive strike in defense of Germany, permitted under international law, is most strongly proven by the strategic situation. It would have been political and military madness that contradicted all accomplishments of the German leadership up to that point, if one had given up the victory over England, certainly possible at the time [by pushing British forces out of the Mediterranean, which would have caused Britain to sue for peace], in order to attack Russia, if the German leadership had not been compelled first to fight off the threat in the east.

How the Final Decision was Reached

The foreign-backed coup that overthrew the pro-German government of Yugoslavia, the hostile doings of the Soviet Government in combination with England, compelled the final decision. Jodl testifies:

"Until then the Fuehrer still had doubts. On 1 April and no sooner ... his decision to conduct the attack stood firm, and on 1 April he gave the order to expect the launch of Operation Barbarossa for approximately 22 June."

Why Didn't Germany Simply Prepare a Defense?

To his defense-attorney's question, whether later discoveries had proven the military necessity of this decision, Jodl testified:

"It was without a doubt a purely preemptive war. What we later established was in any case the certainty of an enormous Russian military preparation facing our borders. I want to forgo details but I can just say that we succeeded in achieving tactical surprise with the day and hour of attack, but not strategic surprise. Russia was fully prepared for war."

Continuing, Senior General Jodl again named an essential reason for the preemptive war:

"We were never strong enough to be able to defend ourselves in the East; events since the year 1942 have proven it. It may sound grotesque, but in order to cover this front of over 2000 kilometers we would have needed at least 300 divisions, and we never had that.

"If we had waited until we had been caught perhaps in the pincers of a simultaneous Allied invasion and Russian attack, with certainty we would have been lost...."

Nuremberg defense-attorney Dr. Exner argued that a preemptive war was justified:

"The true preemptive war is one of the essential means of self-preservation. It was also indisputably permitted according to the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Thus was the right of defense of all signatory states understood."

15 November 2010

The Jewish Banking Scam



According to the Constitution, the United States Congress is supposed to issue money, but instead that power has been delegated to the Federal Reserve, a private corporation with some ties to the government.

The member banks of the Federal Reserve profit from this arrangement. The United States Treasury issues interest-bearing bonds which are purchased with paper bills that the Fed simply prints, and which are backed with nothing. The Federal Reserve is a private corporation with a license to create money out of thin air. It makes its profit by purchasing interest-bearing Treasury bonds. The fact that the Federal Reserve buys those treasury bonds from Goldman and Sachs instead of getting them directly from the United States Treasury makes an already scandalous situation ridiculous. This is real chutzpah.

In his book The Economic Pinch (1923),  Congressman Charles Lindbergh (the father of the aviator) said this:

This is the strangest, most dangerous advantage ever placed in the hands of a special privilege class by any Government that ever existed. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money. They know in advance when to create panics to their advantage, They also know when to stop panic. Inflation and deflation work equally well for them when they control finance. [Congressman Charles August Lindbergh, 1923]

Lindbergh was worried about the potential for profiteering from the manipulation of the currency. Political elections also can be influenced that way.

Under Adolf Hitler the German government reverted to issuing its own currency, and some people believe that this was why that government was marked for destruction. The last U.S. Note was a Series 1963 five-dollar bill that was issued concurrent with Federal Reserve Notes when Kennedy was president. And of course some people argue that this was why Kennedy was killed.

Since the Federal Reserve issues only paper, you can opt out of this scam by using only coins as money, but that would that would be very inconvenient for most transactions.

Here is a United States Note, from the last batch issued in 1963, with a Federal Reserve Note below so that you can see how it is different. Where government-issued money says "United States Note" at the top above Lincoln's head, the Federal Reserve's equivalent says "Federal Reserve Note," and the red numbers and seal on the U.S. Note are replaced with similar green marks. A United States Note is redeemable for precious metal, as stated in the United States Constitution. The almost-identical Federal Reserve Note is not.



I do not agree with every criticism in this little video. In a way it does make sense to make additional money available in an economy that suffers economic stagnation and unemployment.

My criticism is that the money (preferably issued by the government, not by a "federal reserve") should be put directly into the pockets of the people that need it. It can be done as payment for labor in some government project like the WPA or CCC. That is direct creation of jobs, as was practiced in the Third Reich, not keynesian manipulation of the money supply with the hope that at some point jobs will result. Even if the money were simply handed out, just so long as it went to people who otherwise had no money to spend, it would increase buying and cause economic growth.

I would also say that it doesn't have to be newly printed money. If the government taxed the people that have money to put it into the pockets of those that have none, it might work just as well as creating new money. It's a matter of enabling the society to function by putting its resources where they are needed, just as an army makes sure that each member has what he needs.

06 November 2010

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts descibes USA's bad economic policies, sees no hope of correction


On 3 November 2010 Jim Giles had a conversation with Paul Craig Roberts in which Dr. Roberts described the current economic troubles of the United States as resulting from an overdose of the individualist, laissé-faire ideology that has been the quasi-official ideology of the Republican Party since 1980.

While Dr. Roberts' analysis of the current situation and its causes seems impeccable, his use of historical analogies shows the influence of our mainstream liberal propaganda. He seems to believe that the French and Bolshevik Revolutions were popular uprisings caused by the poverty of ordinary people, when in fact, like revolutions in general, they were accomplished by relatively small, well-funded organizations.

Dr. Roberts made a similar error when he likened angry and unreasonable Republicans to "Brownshirts." We should be so lucky! Some kind of White racial impulse surely lurks behind a large number of Republican votes, but it is disguised behind the laissé-faire ideology and not coherently expressed, nor does it get any respect from the GOP establishment.

Furthermore, there really is a socialist aspect to national-socialism which could solve the USA's economic troubles by restoring US manufacturing and economic independence, and by this and other means solving the problem of unemployment. If those angry Republicans with the unstated racial motive would become less ashamed of their motive, and also figure out that the laissé-faire ideology really doesn't serve the race well -- nor even the country as a whole -- then we might have a chance to solve some problems.

National-Socialism could set the USA back into a relatively healthy state. Why, when Dr. Roberts thought of examples of some kind of revolution that could provide relief to the poor, did he not think of the (peaceful) National-Socialist Revolution of  1933? Like almost all Americans, Dr. Roberts has accepted a version of history that precludes consideration of that option. Despite the bad historical analogies, Dr. Roberts' elucidation of our trouble based on his own observation of recent events is quite worthwhile. Listen here to Dr. Paul Craig Roberts.