This is an interesting essay and fits in pretty well with my view of Hitler and the Nazis.
Part of my family is American and part is from Europe, so I've had the opportunity to observe this subject matter from a few different angles. I think that Europeans tend to view WW2 from a largely pragmatic lens - mostly related to the destruction it caused, the existential questions it raised, and the impact on their families and societies. The ideology of it is less salient for them.
For Americans, WW2 is part of an ideological structure about how to view the world. It is understood as the largest contemporary example of a morality tale, with a good side and a bad side. Furthermore, it is built into a large network of reasonings, conclusions, beliefs, and moral lessons related to nationalism, ethnicity/race, discrimination, multiracialism, multiculturalism, belonging, tribalism, etc. etc.
It's clear that there is a "folk understanding" or "myth" surrounding World War 2, especially in America, that outgrew the bounds of normal historical understanding, Its clear that this was drip-fed into the population by various historical movies, dramas, and documentaries - and that it gained in power and momentum as people got further out from the conflict.
It's also clear to me that the Left-Liberal consensus used this example of "White people behaving badly" as their main weapon to indict and invalidate any sign of racial consciousness among whites, or any protective or right-wing instincts which anyone may have had, since the 1960s (starting earlier with The Authoritarian Personality, probably). Basically there was a New York immigrant Jew group of intellectuals who wanted to use World War 2 to form the basis of a new moralism, and they were pretty successful.
It seems like all right-wing Americans, myself included, have to have a "Hitler phase" where they invert this morality tale and consider it from the other side. The shock of our racial displacement and being overrun by foreigners, drives people to do this. I was also once vociferously pro-Germany, regarding this conflict.
That being said, the Anglo historical tradition is actually not as biased, or unbalanced, as a lot of revisionist poasters or podcasters would have you believe. The picture painted of Hitler both by anglo historians in general, and also even by popular culture and the popular imagination is, unfortunately, largely true. Reading "Mein Kampf" brought this home for me. I also read his speeches, in the original, long ago. Many people cannot be honest with themselves about this, and I'm glad that you are able to be honest with yourself about this.
Some men are dyed in the wool fanatics. And it's very hard for other men, who are not fanatics, to believe this can be true. Look at how the British government is doubling down on mass immigration right now - their steadfast tenacity in their dedication to the most extreme brinkmanship, is breathtaking to behold - it boggles the mind. What was the early 20th century equivalent of that? Doubling down on war and imperial expansionism within Europe, basically. And Hitler astonished people in just this same way.
Thanks for putting the effort in. We have to find a middle ground between these extremes and I think you've contributed to that.
I grew up in the anti-nazi propaganda we in the USA all did, and hearing somewhat muted arguments that some details of the Holocaust narrative could not be true.
When I discovered that in many countries the Zionist 'truth' of WWII Nazi-camps and all else is protected by law - like France - and to question, research, debate, etc. was punishable by fines, court, reputational damage, prison, maybe torture and death, that law to protect the 'truth' assured me it was a lie. No truth needs a law to protect it unless it was a law. And those political and-or wealth powers that pressured that law's creation are suspect.
Since then, I have learned a lot. I discovered Historian David Icke and his videos that can be found on YouTube. He personally interviewed a number of Nazi Command civilian staff, and he discovered that Hitler wanted to have his military on Soviet front to divide into two advances above and below Moscow and avoiding the head-first direct assault, but he got sick for 3 days and despite giving those orders to his generals, they did a direct assault. We can wonder how their future and our present would have been changed.
David Icke wrote books on the real truth and went to prison in France while traveling through France, his 'crime' of researching and reporting the Zionist lie(s) in his book or books published outside of France.
Great, detailed analysis that hits so many of the critical elements that ignored or distorted by WWII historian. I suspect that most Americans' understanding of WWII is shaped by Jewish Hollywood because history has virtually no place in American education.
On one hand, you have the normies who buy into the national myth, on the other hand you have idiots, fanboys and version 1.0 skinheads who are completely oblivious or excuse away the egregious shortcoming, blunders, and wrongdoings set forth in this treatise.
To begin Southern Europe was treated very well by Germany. Guderian supported encircling Kiev during the war. Hitler wanted to focus Southern Russia to cut the Soviets off from the food and resources of Ukraine and the oil of the Caucus. Hadler disobeyed him and focused on Moscow instead. Focusing the South was obviously the better decision.
What you neglected to mention was that the US declared an unprovoked and unconditional naval war on Germany and Italy, the same justification FDR used as acting secretary of the Navy to declare war on Germany in WW1. When Hitler did not take the bait FDR sent Japan an ultimatum.
Rommel was a strategic idiot. He persuaded the Axis to not focus on Malta and instead to focus on El Alamein, a logistics blunder no one else could have made. He also withdrew all the way into Tunisia, to Kesselring's horror (who also wanted to take Malta originally). Tripoli probably could have been held but it wouldn't have really mattered except to delay the allies entering Europe.
Germany tried to make peace with Russia in 1941/1942, allegedly, still working on that one myself. The eastern Slavs were treated better by Germany than by the Bolsheviks. No Hitler was not anti Slavic since he allied with Slovakia, Yugoslavia, Croatia, Serbia, and Bulgaria (who was given land at not Slavic expense).
Stalingrad had nothing to do with the name, it's a massive industrial town that at the time offered the only railway and river port to connect to the oil fields in the Caucus. If the sixth army withdrew too soon half of Army group south would have been destroyed instead of just the sixth army, plus Goering and Manstein assured Hitler it could be saved.
Speer sold out his fellow Germans to try and save his life at Nuremberg, despite being one of the most notorious proponents of slave labor by Germany during the war, his statements can't be trusted. Nero decree is sus and Hitler appears to have had only positive things to say about the German people, even staying with them in Berlin when he had the chance to flee. Granted by 1945 his decision making was getting poorer. His choice of Donitz as his successor suggests some humanitarianism left.
I forget if I missed anything, you need shorter paragraphs.
What you neglected to mention was that the US declared an unprovoked and unconditional naval war on Germany and Italy
You obviously did not read with this essay with any care. Relevant quote:
This author is of course well aware that the United States was “neutral in name only.” Lend-lease policies to both Great Britain and Joseph Stalin after the Invasion of the Soviet Union, loaning destroyers to Britain to help fight the Battle of the Atlantic are just some of the provocations. The incident concerning the USS Reuben James, which attacked a German U-boat without provocation and was happily torpedoed and sunk by a German U-boat is particularly noteworthy, as that incident has informed my denunciation of the Anglo-American alliance generally and the United States particularly for many years.
The rest of your drivel is even less deserving of a response.
Re-read that salient quote, you insufferable twat. PS, your suspension was inadvertently selected as 30 days-it is in fact permanent. You and others will forgive me for not having yet promulgated an official comment policy. Trolling, obviously not reading what has been written, etc will not be counteanced. The key thing to remember is that when someone writes in a comment sections of any publication, they do so as a guest.
An interesting perspective and certainly a complex one. I for one would rather keep my distance from the Nazi's. Co-opt the holocaust narrative and move beyond.
Did you really invoke the flux capacitor? And a 17th century play-write?
Ok, after checking your bibliography, I see why you argue the way you do. And yet, it may do you some good to get it up to 88mph.
You didn't cite Mein Kampf, Leon Degrelle, Otto Ernst Remer, Yuri Bezmenov, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Viktor Suvorov, Henry Ford, V.K. Clark, or David Irving. You didn't know that a million Russians volunteered to fight against Stalin? You didn't know that Stalin ordered the Katyn Forest Massacre? Did you not know that Britain and the Soviets were the ones taking over the world?
I'm no scholar- but truth, honor and courage seem to be lacking in your pursuit of armchair historiography. There's not much point in arguing against your opinion if you think it would have been better for the Cheka, NKVD, Comintern, etc. to run around and through Russia, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Poland, Ukraine, Kazakstan, Mongolia, Italy, Spain, Germany? Did I forget any?Those are just the one off the top of my head that had Communist takeovers and mass murders.
And until you figure out that Patton, McNamara and McCarthy were defeated by those Anti-Americans that had taken over Washington, well I guess you will be too cowardly to admit that the Kennedys and the USS Liberty were sacrificed for believing America was still a sovereign Nation.
Jefferson's American dream is dead. It was murdered by das Capital and the Communist Manifesto, despite our ignorance of Marx. You, sir, are subverting our Republic.
Shakespeare in fact, in plain language. in black and white, that even someone like you can see and comprehend.
You didn't cite Mein Kampf, Leon Degrelle, Otto Ernst Remer, Yuri Bezmenov, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Viktor Suvorov, Henry Ford, V.K. Clark, or David Irving.
Because they are utterly unnecessary to set forth the contentions outlined in this essay concerning strategic and tactical blunders, etc.
There's not much point in arguing against your opinion if you think it would have been better for the Cheka, NKVD, Comintern, etc. to run around and through Russia, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Poland, Ukraine, Kazakstan, Mongolia, Italy, Spain, Germany?
I never asserted any such thing. And I would defy you to show where i have except no one can because it is not in the text of this essay. I have not yet written formal rules of engagement and comment policy, but consider that you and all commenters are a guest, and as a cursory review of my writings demonstrate, I am not really all that much about free speech values. Straw-manning etc will not be tolerated. Before you think of polluting my humble publication further with such baseless invective, remember I can delete and block "the irretrievably stupid and intentionally obnoxious" far quicker than it takes for you or anyone to type this sort of nonsense.
Ok I think your essay is read worthy. It explains and explores the history behind the World war and also how Hitler took power. I think you’re following the war’s events correctly too. However I think you’re playing a dangerous game because you now find yourself arguing with both leftists (woke libtards, communists and normies) and nazi supporters (because they worship Hitler). By what I have read and observed, since I know you and seen your memes and opinions on certain things, I can say you like Nazi Germany but would prefer another more military competent leader? One that would have had listened to his generals more than Uncle Adolf did and didn’t partake into the “genocidial acts of the german army”. I don’t believe that myself but it’s your opinion and I understand. The massacres and atrocities are wildly exaggerated and even lied. I don’t agree with them being “genocidal conquerors”. Of course there will always exist dumb 14 year olds who will just worship the man and not try to think for themselves, yes. Your point of view should get more attention though.
This is an interesting essay and fits in pretty well with my view of Hitler and the Nazis.
Part of my family is American and part is from Europe, so I've had the opportunity to observe this subject matter from a few different angles. I think that Europeans tend to view WW2 from a largely pragmatic lens - mostly related to the destruction it caused, the existential questions it raised, and the impact on their families and societies. The ideology of it is less salient for them.
For Americans, WW2 is part of an ideological structure about how to view the world. It is understood as the largest contemporary example of a morality tale, with a good side and a bad side. Furthermore, it is built into a large network of reasonings, conclusions, beliefs, and moral lessons related to nationalism, ethnicity/race, discrimination, multiracialism, multiculturalism, belonging, tribalism, etc. etc.
It's clear that there is a "folk understanding" or "myth" surrounding World War 2, especially in America, that outgrew the bounds of normal historical understanding, Its clear that this was drip-fed into the population by various historical movies, dramas, and documentaries - and that it gained in power and momentum as people got further out from the conflict.
It's also clear to me that the Left-Liberal consensus used this example of "White people behaving badly" as their main weapon to indict and invalidate any sign of racial consciousness among whites, or any protective or right-wing instincts which anyone may have had, since the 1960s (starting earlier with The Authoritarian Personality, probably). Basically there was a New York immigrant Jew group of intellectuals who wanted to use World War 2 to form the basis of a new moralism, and they were pretty successful.
It seems like all right-wing Americans, myself included, have to have a "Hitler phase" where they invert this morality tale and consider it from the other side. The shock of our racial displacement and being overrun by foreigners, drives people to do this. I was also once vociferously pro-Germany, regarding this conflict.
That being said, the Anglo historical tradition is actually not as biased, or unbalanced, as a lot of revisionist poasters or podcasters would have you believe. The picture painted of Hitler both by anglo historians in general, and also even by popular culture and the popular imagination is, unfortunately, largely true. Reading "Mein Kampf" brought this home for me. I also read his speeches, in the original, long ago. Many people cannot be honest with themselves about this, and I'm glad that you are able to be honest with yourself about this.
Some men are dyed in the wool fanatics. And it's very hard for other men, who are not fanatics, to believe this can be true. Look at how the British government is doubling down on mass immigration right now - their steadfast tenacity in their dedication to the most extreme brinkmanship, is breathtaking to behold - it boggles the mind. What was the early 20th century equivalent of that? Doubling down on war and imperial expansionism within Europe, basically. And Hitler astonished people in just this same way.
Thanks for putting the effort in. We have to find a middle ground between these extremes and I think you've contributed to that.
I grew up in the anti-nazi propaganda we in the USA all did, and hearing somewhat muted arguments that some details of the Holocaust narrative could not be true.
When I discovered that in many countries the Zionist 'truth' of WWII Nazi-camps and all else is protected by law - like France - and to question, research, debate, etc. was punishable by fines, court, reputational damage, prison, maybe torture and death, that law to protect the 'truth' assured me it was a lie. No truth needs a law to protect it unless it was a law. And those political and-or wealth powers that pressured that law's creation are suspect.
Since then, I have learned a lot. I discovered Historian David Icke and his videos that can be found on YouTube. He personally interviewed a number of Nazi Command civilian staff, and he discovered that Hitler wanted to have his military on Soviet front to divide into two advances above and below Moscow and avoiding the head-first direct assault, but he got sick for 3 days and despite giving those orders to his generals, they did a direct assault. We can wonder how their future and our present would have been changed.
David Icke wrote books on the real truth and went to prison in France while traveling through France, his 'crime' of researching and reporting the Zionist lie(s) in his book or books published outside of France.
God Bless., Steve
Just to be sure, my position on this is elaborated on in footnote two.
David Irving NOT Icke
You said David Icke but I think you may have meant David Irving..?
Great, detailed analysis that hits so many of the critical elements that ignored or distorted by WWII historian. I suspect that most Americans' understanding of WWII is shaped by Jewish Hollywood because history has virtually no place in American education.
On one hand, you have the normies who buy into the national myth, on the other hand you have idiots, fanboys and version 1.0 skinheads who are completely oblivious or excuse away the egregious shortcoming, blunders, and wrongdoings set forth in this treatise.
I discovered Nolte years ago. Viciously attacked by Habermas.
Great analysis that demolishes most of the victors' propaganda.
>My new and unique talking points
>Same old talking points
Bummer.
To begin Southern Europe was treated very well by Germany. Guderian supported encircling Kiev during the war. Hitler wanted to focus Southern Russia to cut the Soviets off from the food and resources of Ukraine and the oil of the Caucus. Hadler disobeyed him and focused on Moscow instead. Focusing the South was obviously the better decision.
What you neglected to mention was that the US declared an unprovoked and unconditional naval war on Germany and Italy, the same justification FDR used as acting secretary of the Navy to declare war on Germany in WW1. When Hitler did not take the bait FDR sent Japan an ultimatum.
Rommel was a strategic idiot. He persuaded the Axis to not focus on Malta and instead to focus on El Alamein, a logistics blunder no one else could have made. He also withdrew all the way into Tunisia, to Kesselring's horror (who also wanted to take Malta originally). Tripoli probably could have been held but it wouldn't have really mattered except to delay the allies entering Europe.
Germany tried to make peace with Russia in 1941/1942, allegedly, still working on that one myself. The eastern Slavs were treated better by Germany than by the Bolsheviks. No Hitler was not anti Slavic since he allied with Slovakia, Yugoslavia, Croatia, Serbia, and Bulgaria (who was given land at not Slavic expense).
Stalingrad had nothing to do with the name, it's a massive industrial town that at the time offered the only railway and river port to connect to the oil fields in the Caucus. If the sixth army withdrew too soon half of Army group south would have been destroyed instead of just the sixth army, plus Goering and Manstein assured Hitler it could be saved.
Speer sold out his fellow Germans to try and save his life at Nuremberg, despite being one of the most notorious proponents of slave labor by Germany during the war, his statements can't be trusted. Nero decree is sus and Hitler appears to have had only positive things to say about the German people, even staying with them in Berlin when he had the chance to flee. Granted by 1945 his decision making was getting poorer. His choice of Donitz as his successor suggests some humanitarianism left.
I forget if I missed anything, you need shorter paragraphs.
What you neglected to mention was that the US declared an unprovoked and unconditional naval war on Germany and Italy
You obviously did not read with this essay with any care. Relevant quote:
This author is of course well aware that the United States was “neutral in name only.” Lend-lease policies to both Great Britain and Joseph Stalin after the Invasion of the Soviet Union, loaning destroyers to Britain to help fight the Battle of the Atlantic are just some of the provocations. The incident concerning the USS Reuben James, which attacked a German U-boat without provocation and was happily torpedoed and sunk by a German U-boat is particularly noteworthy, as that incident has informed my denunciation of the Anglo-American alliance generally and the United States particularly for many years.
The rest of your drivel is even less deserving of a response.
Re-read that salient quote, you insufferable twat. PS, your suspension was inadvertently selected as 30 days-it is in fact permanent. You and others will forgive me for not having yet promulgated an official comment policy. Trolling, obviously not reading what has been written, etc will not be counteanced. The key thing to remember is that when someone writes in a comment sections of any publication, they do so as a guest.
Presumptuous and naive article
An interesting perspective and certainly a complex one. I for one would rather keep my distance from the Nazi's. Co-opt the holocaust narrative and move beyond.
Did you really invoke the flux capacitor? And a 17th century play-write?
Ok, after checking your bibliography, I see why you argue the way you do. And yet, it may do you some good to get it up to 88mph.
You didn't cite Mein Kampf, Leon Degrelle, Otto Ernst Remer, Yuri Bezmenov, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Viktor Suvorov, Henry Ford, V.K. Clark, or David Irving. You didn't know that a million Russians volunteered to fight against Stalin? You didn't know that Stalin ordered the Katyn Forest Massacre? Did you not know that Britain and the Soviets were the ones taking over the world?
I'm no scholar- but truth, honor and courage seem to be lacking in your pursuit of armchair historiography. There's not much point in arguing against your opinion if you think it would have been better for the Cheka, NKVD, Comintern, etc. to run around and through Russia, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Poland, Ukraine, Kazakstan, Mongolia, Italy, Spain, Germany? Did I forget any?Those are just the one off the top of my head that had Communist takeovers and mass murders.
And until you figure out that Patton, McNamara and McCarthy were defeated by those Anti-Americans that had taken over Washington, well I guess you will be too cowardly to admit that the Kennedys and the USS Liberty were sacrificed for believing America was still a sovereign Nation.
Jefferson's American dream is dead. It was murdered by das Capital and the Communist Manifesto, despite our ignorance of Marx. You, sir, are subverting our Republic.
Did you really invoke the flux capacitor?
Yes, I have a sense of humor.
And a 17th century play-write?
Shakespeare in fact, in plain language. in black and white, that even someone like you can see and comprehend.
You didn't cite Mein Kampf, Leon Degrelle, Otto Ernst Remer, Yuri Bezmenov, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Viktor Suvorov, Henry Ford, V.K. Clark, or David Irving.
Because they are utterly unnecessary to set forth the contentions outlined in this essay concerning strategic and tactical blunders, etc.
There's not much point in arguing against your opinion if you think it would have been better for the Cheka, NKVD, Comintern, etc. to run around and through Russia, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Poland, Ukraine, Kazakstan, Mongolia, Italy, Spain, Germany?
I never asserted any such thing. And I would defy you to show where i have except no one can because it is not in the text of this essay. I have not yet written formal rules of engagement and comment policy, but consider that you and all commenters are a guest, and as a cursory review of my writings demonstrate, I am not really all that much about free speech values. Straw-manning etc will not be tolerated. Before you think of polluting my humble publication further with such baseless invective, remember I can delete and block "the irretrievably stupid and intentionally obnoxious" far quicker than it takes for you or anyone to type this sort of nonsense.
Ok I think your essay is read worthy. It explains and explores the history behind the World war and also how Hitler took power. I think you’re following the war’s events correctly too. However I think you’re playing a dangerous game because you now find yourself arguing with both leftists (woke libtards, communists and normies) and nazi supporters (because they worship Hitler). By what I have read and observed, since I know you and seen your memes and opinions on certain things, I can say you like Nazi Germany but would prefer another more military competent leader? One that would have had listened to his generals more than Uncle Adolf did and didn’t partake into the “genocidial acts of the german army”. I don’t believe that myself but it’s your opinion and I understand. The massacres and atrocities are wildly exaggerated and even lied. I don’t agree with them being “genocidal conquerors”. Of course there will always exist dumb 14 year olds who will just worship the man and not try to think for themselves, yes. Your point of view should get more attention though.