Thursday, September 30, 2010 248 Comments

Slow history and the mysterious 20th century

As any Alice Waters devotee will tell you, one heirloom Arkansas Black picked by eye and plucked by hand, wiped on your shirt and bitten in a single motion, weighs more than a climate-controlled tractor-trailer full of Red Delicious. It's the same with history. Slow food is easy to find these days. Slow history - not so much.

There is nothing intrinsically foul about commercial bulk apples. Theoretically, a mechanical system could be constructed that grew Arkansas Blacks in Chile, scanned their peels with machine vision and sniffed them with gas spectrometers, picked them at their perfect peak, and transferred them immediately to ballistic launchers that sent them arcing, cushioned and heated, through space to the Safeway in Walnut Creek. Could this super space apple be just as good as the one you just picked? Why not? In practice, however, a commercial apple travels through far more mundane processing steps, each of which does its small part to reduce fruit to flavored styrofoam.

Consider Franklin D. Roosevelt. Like Red Delicious apples, information about the first president of USG 4 is not in short supply. But what is the quality of this information? Who has processed, filtered, packed and shipped it?

Just as Chilean space apples would eliminate our need for slow food, a time machine - even one which could only observe - would eliminate our need for slow history. Suppose some physicist could plant a retroactive bug on FDR, so that we could hear everything "that man" said from 1933 to 1944. Would the 20th century have any secrets left? Not many, I suspect.

As it turns out, we actually have 8 hours of FDR tapes. These were made inadvertently, so they are of the highest historical quality - like the time-machine bug, not processed for any audience. Here is the real FDR:



That was not a Red Delicious apple. Can you taste the difference? You can, can't you?

Even the difference between the actual audio and a mere transcript matters, for interesting things can happen between the tree and the hand. (If you're curious about John Dean and the true history of Watergate, I strongly recommend this work despite its slightly overstated title.)

Hence slow history. The student of slow history, who has no faith at all in consensus wisdom, official truth, and "everybody knows" chestnuts, is willing to rest enormous judgments on a single, indisputable, authentic primary source.

For instance, when I state that US foreign policy in the 20th century is historically rooted in post-millennial Protestant theology, I can link directly to my favorite primary source - this TIME Magazine article from 1942.

It is simply a fact that in 1942, TIME's writers and its readers knew what a "super-protestant" foreign policy was, because it is a fact that this article was written, edited, and read. It could have been inserted in the TIME archive by crafty anti-Protestant hackers, or for that matter by aliens, but the student of history need not give these fantasies much weight. And without them, globalist foreign policy is the work of "organized U.S. Protestantism." Believe it or not, the YMCA is an important actor in the period. Now, it might be that some even more sinister group was behind the "Y" - the aliens, the Jews, the Ogpu, etc - but when we write the YMCA out of 20th-century history, we are writing bad history. And I can prove it, because I have that link.

Today I want to perform another such feat of "slow history." I'll be explaining the entire 20th century from a few fragments of text in the diaries of Ulrich von Hassell. I do not read German, so I am subject to the translator's whim, and of course one never knows what has been done to a document before it hits the presses. Aliens, Jews, government historians, etc, could be involved. But still, my trust in this document is only slightly lower than in the TIME archives. And these diaries are diaries, so not written directly for publication.

I trust the author, too. In my view, there is no group or faction without blame in the tremendous tragedy of World War II. But it is widely acknowledged that some of the most meritorious actors were the aristocratic German nationalists of the July 20 plot, and so far as it goes I agree with this consensus - which certainly fits my own ideology. Hassell, a German diplomat of the best breeding and education, was picked as the Foreign Minister of the post-Hitler Germany. After Hitler survived Tom Cruise's bomb, Hassell was naturally shot, but his diaries were in a safe place. He comes about as close as possible to the stereotype of the "good German," and his diaries display a cultivation and clarity rare in any era. They are far superior to the Ciano diaries, and the Ciano diaries are pretty good.

Hassell, who occupied no position of serious responsibility during the war (the Nazis, not being entirely stupid, did not trust him) was extremely well plugged-in to diplomatic reality across the New Order. For instance, his information on the Holocaust is excellent. December 1942, p. 277:
Frauendorfer, SS man and wearer of the gold Party badge, was most impressive in his boundless despair about all he had lived through in Poland. It was so terrible that he could not endure it. Now he wants to go to the front as a simple soldier. Continual, indescribable mass murder of Jews. SS people rode around in the ghetto after the curfew hour for Jews and used automatic pistols on anybody who was still out, for example, children who lingered playing in the streets.
May 15, 1943, p. 302:
Shocking reports come from the good Frauendorfer in Poland. While Frank publicly declares he wanted to give Poland a dignified and free existence... the SS in Poland carries on most shamefully. Countless Jews have been gassed in specially built chambers, at least 100,000... Meanwhile the unhappy remnants of the Jews prepared to defend themselves, and there is heavy fighting which will certainly lead to their complete extermination by the SS. It is Hitler's achievement that the German has become the most loathed animal in the whole world.
Sorry, Nazis. This is hardly the only or even the best attestation of the Holocaust; what it shows is simply that in 1943, Hassell through his social contacts was (a) aware of this tightly held military secret, and (b) reports it both correctly and conservatively.

But there is nothing surprising here. The mysterious 20th century? Comrades, we understand the 20th century completely! After all, we just lived through it, didn't we? And the good guys won, and good guys tell the truth. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Did the good guys win? The guys who lost were certainly bad. But there is a leap of logic here. We certainly have a lot of facts about the 20th century; here is one we have that Hassell didn't. My first ellipsis above conceals a rather interesting error. Let me restore it:
Shocking reports come from the good Frauendorfer in Poland. While Frank publicly declares he wanted to give Poland a dignified and free existence, and while the gang tries in vain to befuddle world opinion about the Katyn murders, the SS in Poland carries on most shamefully. Countless Jews have been gassed in specially built chambers, at least 100,000...
Hassell, one breath before accurately reporting the Holocaust, is completely suckered by Allied propaganda. He quite naturally assumes that Goebbels ("the gang") is lying here as well.
In fact, if you were a student of history at any time before 1950, and you wanted to know the truth about Katyn, your only choice was the Ministry of Public Enlightenment.

Here, from Wikipedia itself, is how our own Dear Leader handled this matter:
In the United States, a similar line was taken, notwithstanding that two official intelligence reports into the Katyn massacre were produced that contradicted the official position. In 1944 Roosevelt assigned his special emissary to the Balkans, Navy Lieutenant Commander George Earle, to produce a report on Katyn. Earle concluded that the massacre was committed by the Soviet Union.

Having consulted with Elmer Davis, the director of the Office of War Information, Roosevelt rejected the conclusion (officially), declared that he was convinced of Nazi Germany's responsibility, and ordered that Earle's report be suppressed. When Earle formally requested permission to publish his findings, the President issued a written order to desist. Earle was reassigned and spent the rest of the war in American Samoa.

A further report in 1945, supporting the same conclusion, was produced and stifled. In 1943, two US POWs – Lt. Col. Donald B. Stewart and Col. John H. Van Vliet – had been taken by Germans to Katyn for an international news conference. Later, in 1945, Van Vliet submitted a report concluding that the Soviets were responsible for the massacre. His superior, Maj. Gen. Clayton Bissell, Gen. George Marshall's assistant chief of staff for intelligence, destroyed the report.
FDR: accessory after the fact (at the very least) to genocide. Uncontroversial consensus history. Scroll back up and listen to the man with the cigarette holder. Don't you think he's capable of it? Americans were certainly capable of voting for him. "It is Hitler's achievement that the German has become the most loathed animal in the entire world." Collective guilt: not only for Germans.

But why is Ulrich von Hassell fooled? He is anything but a Communist, or even a liberal. But he knows that (1) murdering Polish intelligentsia was the policy of the SS, the "black pirates" as he calls them; and (2) Goebbels is capable of lying about anything. The sins of the Allies are relatively distant from his mind. The sins of the Nazis obsess and devour him. Shouldn't they?

What Ulrich von Hassell is: a traditional European Anglophile diplomat. He can be under no illusions as to the Nazis; he is surrounded by Nazis. But his England is distant and idealized. His America is even more distant and idealized. The closer to Berlin we get, the more reliable a time machine we have in Hassell. Farther away, it is his errors that become interesting.

Here is Hassell on a mystery that remains controversial. July 20, 1943, p. 312:
There is absolutely no foundation for the assertion that Russia wanted to attack, or would have attacked later... Russia would never have attacked Germany, or at least never have attacked successfully, so long as Germany possessed an unbroken army.
May 27, 1944, p. 345:
An incident which took place recently at the Beuths' seemed significant to me. Someone expressed the opinion that we had indeed been forced to attack Russia, otherwise the Soviets would have attacked us. I burst out with: "I am absolutely convinced of the contrary!" Whereupon there was a very obvious, embarrassed, and frightened silence. At last someone said: "But it would be terrible if you were right!"
What is Hassell talking about? The Icebreaker controversy. Briefly, the early events of Operation Barbarossa, in which German forces captured enormous Soviet formations utterly unprepared to defend themselves, are attributed by consensus historians to Soviet carelessness, incompetence or even naivete. Wikipedia:
In August 1940 British intelligence had received hints of German plans to attack the Soviets only a week after Hitler informally approved the plans for Barbarossa. Stalin's distrust of the British led to his ignoring the warnings, believing it to be a trick designed to bring the Soviet Union into the war. In the spring of 1941, Stalin's own intelligence services and American intelligence made regular and repeated warnings of an impending German attack. However, Stalin chose to ignore these warnings. Although acknowledging the possibility of an attack in general and making significant preparations, he decided not to run the risk of provoking Hitler. He also had an ill-founded confidence in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which had been signed just two years before.

Despite the Axis failure to achieve Barbarossa's initial goals, the huge Soviet losses caused a shift in Soviet propaganda. Before the onset of hostilities against Germany, the Soviet government had said its army was very strong. But, by autumn 1941, the Soviet line was that the Red Army had been weak, that there had not been enough time to prepare for war, and that the German attack had come as a surprise.
In 1941, Stalin says: Hitler attacked peace-loving, naive, incompetent, Stalin. In 2010, does the Soviet party line of 1941 ring true to you? It still rings true to Wikipedia, and to most Western historians. It also rings true to Ulrich von Hassell - but so did FDR and Stalin's line on Katyn. That lie did not hold past the '50s. But others could have.

Suvorov, whose work I find plausible if not completely overwhelming, has a different explanation: Soviet forces were defenseless because they were positioned not for defense, but mobilized for their own surprise attack, possibly scheduled as little as a few weeks later. Hence, as Wikipedia puts it:
At the time, 41% of stationary Soviet bases were located in the near-boundary districts, many of them in the 200 km (120 mi) strip around the border; according to Red Army directive, fuel, equipment, railroad cars, etc. were similarly concentrated there.... Enormous Soviet forces were massed behind the western border in case the Germans did attack.

However, these forces were very vulnerable due to changes in the tactical doctrine of the Red Army. In 1938, it had adopted, on the instigation of General Pavlov, a standard linear defence tactic on a line with other nations. Infantry divisions, reinforced by an organic tank component, would be dug in to form heavily fortified zones. Then came the shock of the Fall of France. The French Army, considered the strongest in the world, was defeated in a mere six weeks. Soviet analysis of events, based on incomplete information, concluded that the collapse of the French was caused by a reliance on linear defence and a lack of armored reserves. The Soviets decided not to repeat these mistakes. Instead of digging in for linear defence, the infantry divisions would henceforth be concentrated in large formations. Most tanks would also be concentrated into 29 mechanized corps, each with over 1031 tanks.
If Suvorov is right (and Hassell wrong), it is not hard to see the reality behind this rather transparent cover story. "Enormous Soviet forces were massed behind the western border in case the Germans did attack." Certainly, the German invasion forces were massed into large formations of mechanized corps. Had the Soviets thrown the first punch (as Suvorov points out), the German panzer spearheads would have been no less defenseless.

The student of history is also suspicious when he sees multiple, contradictory explanations of the same phenomenon. Stalin trusted Hitler, except that he didn't trust Hitler. So he prepared his defenses, but he prepared them wrong. He abandoned his linear defenses, one year after having his ass beaten black and blue by the Mannerheim Line. Instead, he moved the Red Army up to the border and organized it into offensive formations, strictly for counterattacking of course.

The task of history is the comparison of alternate pictures. Why do I believe in the consensus explanation of the Holocaust? Because I cannot form a picture of the 1940s in which the Jews of Central Europe simply disappear, and nobody explains where and why they went. If the Holocaust revisionists of the world stopped playing "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit," and spent a tenth of the time explaining what happened to the shtetl Jews who weren't gassed by the SS, they might have a chance of convincing me. If they could, wouldn't they? Whereas, in my true history which contains the Holocaust, all the pieces seem to fit together.

The story of Stalin the innocent, peace-loving klutz, as purveyed by Stalin, fits awkwardly at best. The story of Stalin who was about to launch a blitzkrieg against the Third Reich fits quite well. Of course, this would have been a military secret at the time, and of course military secrets remain military secrets by default. Thus, the secrets of 1941 remain controversies in 2010. The 20th century: still mysterious, comrades.

What do we learn from Hassell here? Hassell does not believe in Stalin's invasion. He doesn't believe in Katyn, either. Moreover, by his disbelief, he illustrates the fact that officials of the Third Reich generally did believe in Stalin's invasion. It was not just the Nazi line, though it was the Nazi line; it was also the confidential, cocktail-party truth. "But it would be terrible if you were right!"

To non-Anglophile Germans, the reality of 1941 was that Hitler, who had always argued against a two-front war, invaded the Soviet Union as a desperate act of self-defense against the Bolshevik hordes. Who, when they got into Europe, behaved almost precisely as Hitler predicted. Could it be true? My magic 8-ball says: more likely than not. A very different history, comrades.

The most interesting question about the hypothetical Soviet invasion of Europe, one I have never seen broached, is what FDR knew. Certainly, he would have welcomed such an attack. If one was scheduled, did Harry Hopkins know about it? Was it planned, even, in Washington? Was the entire Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact a gambit to set up this endgame? Certainly, FDR had no qualms about his sponsorship of Stalin in any other context.

The possibility is not at all unthinkable. It is neither beyond the intellectual or practical capacity of the actors, nor outside their moral horizons, nor would have been disclosed by now if true. In fact, such an arrangement might never have been committed to paper - much as Hitler never put an order for the Holocaust on paper. We might never know. The 20th century: still mysterious.

But still, there is more. March 29, 1943, p. 296:
Meanwhile, Mr. Wallace, Vice-President of the United States, made his address on the three ideologies. The "Christian-democratic" view had to prevail over the "Prussian-militaristic" view (in spite of its unquestionable qualities which were used to advance a wrong purpose). The third ideology, the "Marxist," would have to be rejected. Except for the usual identification of Hitlerism and Prussianism (which I reject), the speech shows the deep-seated differences between the eastern and western allies, and indicates what opportunities there would be for a different German regime.

In this connection Gerstenmeier had a highly interesting conversation in Sweden with clergymen and ------- about the secret Germany. The same question always comes from abroad: "Is there a secret Germany? Why does it put up with all that goes on?"

On the occasion of Wallace's speech, the Neue Züricher Zeitung for the first time takes sides unmistakably with Germany's enemies. A speech by the Turkish Prime Minister is clearly pro-Anglo-Saxon.

A grotesque byplay: Old Prince Chigi, Italian and fascist, visits the American Archbishop Spellman in Vatican City in order to confer on him the Cross of the Order of Malta (certainly not without Mussolini's permission!) The Osservatore Romano treats bolshevism as a thing that must be completely rejected, but emphasizes that it is an indigenous European growth which by chance has matured in one country (Russia). Consequently there was no reason for the Pope to take sides against this nation.
We see clearly how Hassell's reliability diminishes as we move away from Berlin. Of all figures in the world, he has just allowed Henry Wallace to convince him that there is a fundamental difference between Eastern and Western Allies - between communism and liberalism.

Henry Wallace, of course, was perhaps America's most distinguished anti-communists of the '40s. Wallace, who later became one of Alger Hiss's principal persecutors, would later be influential in founding the John Birch Society, and most famously charged that President Eisenhower was secretly in cahoots with the Bolsheviks... oh, sorry! I was thinking of Robert Welch.

As for the real Henry Wallace, who a year later would set out with Owen Lattimore on the Great Siberian Gulag Tour of 1944, Wikipedia tells us:
In 1950, when North Korea invaded South Korea, Wallace broke with the Progressives and backed the U.S.-led war effort in the Korean War. In 1952, Wallace published Where I Was Wrong, in which he explained that his seemingly-trusting stance toward the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin stemmed from inadequate information about Stalin's excesses and that he, too, now considered himself an anti-Communist. He... advocated the re-election of President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956.
This is the great thing about the Cold War. Any liberal, even Henry Wallace, can be an anti-communist at any time. He can be a communist, then an anti-communist, then a Communist again, then an anti-communist again. In a word, he's pragmatic. He is not to be confused, of course, with a dogmatic red-baiting paranoid fanatic - like Robert Welch. Who thought Dwight D. Eisenhower was a communist. But how could Dwight D. Eisenhower be a communist, when he was supported by a famous anti-communist - like Henry Wallace?

Thus the student of history finds himself confronted with two kinds of anti-communist: the Henry Wallace kind and the Robert Welch kind. They do not appear to much associate with each other. If Robert Welch is an anti-communist, what is Henry Wallace? The short answer is: a liberal. And what is the relationship between liberalism and communism? Well, whatever it is, simple it ain't.

The division between Henry Wallace and Joseph Stalin, assuming for purposes of argument its reality, is a classic case of sectarian conflict on the left. Leftism is riddled with sects; Trotskyists versus Stalinists versus Maoists, and the like. There is no denying that American liberalism was broadly allied with Moscow in 1944, and broadly in conflict with Moscow in 1948. This is best seen as a sectarian schism in a single church; the "Cold War" is not an existential conflict of Left and Right, like the war on Hitler, but a fracture in a single global movement. As we speak of the Sino-Soviet split, we might speak of the "Anglo-Soviet split."

This is certainly not a point of view that leads us to agree with Hassell's Osservatore Romano, in its judgment that Bolshevism is "an indigenous European growth which by chance has matured in one country (Russia)." The opposite hypothesis is suggested: that Bolshevism is an exotic, non-European growth. Ie, an American growth. Ie, when America infects Russia with liberalism, the spore (lacking native enemies) grows into its malign form of Bolshevism. Contra Hassell, democracy and communism are two forms of the same disease.

This explanation of the 20th century is held by... no one. Well, hardly anyone. Stanislav Mishin might give it the time of day. And, of course, it also reminds us of Hitler's explanation - but without that awful, anti-Semitic edge.

In truth, when we see that even a sophisticate like Hassell understands America so poorly that he can fall for Henry Wallace as a staunch anti-Communist, we find it easier to explain if not excuse Hitler. How on earth was Hitler to know that FDR wasn't a puppet of the Elders of Zion? Hassell was a jet-setter avant la lettre, comfortable in all European capitals; Hitler was a rube, who had never been west of Ypres. What basis would he have for distinguishing the YMCA from the Elders of Zion, messianic Protestantism from messianic Judaism, liberalism from freemasonry, Anglophilia from Hebrolatry? Zero.

And certainly, the Allies spared little effort in reinforcing his fears. Whatever the psychological motivation for his merciless Teutophobia, FDR's forces displayed exactly the same ruthlessness and energy we'd expect if the Elders of Zion were out to conquer the world and Germany had just pissed in their Cheerios. Again: how was Hitler to know he wasn't fighting a race war against the Jews? Who should he have asked?

If we accept this theory, the entire basis of the July 20 rebellion, which postulated that Germany would continue to fight for an honorable peace and resist Bolshevism, was entirely flawed. If Tom Cruise had blown up Hitler, the Third Reich would have suffered exactly the fate of Badoglio's Italy (or, for that matter, Ebert's Germany). Within days, weeks or hours, peace negotiations would instantly have morphed into conditional surrender, which would have morphed into unconditional surrender. Certainly by 1944, insane Nazi fanaticism was the only thing that could have kept Germany fighting.

And the future of a defeated Germany? Again, it's hard not to think that Hitler's predictions of 2010 might be more accurate than Hassell's. The differences between the EU and the late USSR are increasingly difficult to define. It appears that revolutionary communism and peaceful liberalism are very different roads to a very similar destination - a sort of Western Brezhnevism. And isn't it the goal, not the methods, that define the ideology? By this standards, you will search hard for any definition of the differences.

Which leads us to the most provocative section of the Hassell quote above:
The same question always comes from abroad: "Is there a secret Germany? Why does it put up with all that goes on?"
"Is there a secret Germany?" Now, imagine this question is coming from, say, Sweden. If you were from Sweden, under what condition would this be a natural question? If there was a "secret Sweden?" Or if there was no "secret Sweden?"

Suppose you were from a country where there were prostitutes, and you visit Germany. You might ask: "are there German prostitutes?" This would be a very natural question. If you were from a country with no prostitutes, however, it would be an unusual question.

Sweden, of course, is a minor case of "abroad." What Hassell really means by "abroad" is the Anglophile world - the world Nazi Germany is rebelling against. Thus, when interlocutors from England and America ask about the "secret Germany," we can at the very least suspect the existence of a "secret England" and a "secret America."

Conspiracy theorists unite! Which leads us to the famous Carroll Quigley quote:
The radical Right version of these events as written up by John T. Flynn, Freda Utley, and others, was even more remote from the truth than were Budenz's or Bentley’s versions, although it had a tremendous impact on American opinion and American relations with other countries in the years 1947-1955. This radical Right fairy tale, which is now an accepted folk myth in many groups in America, pictured the recent history of the United States, in regard to domestic reform and in foreign affairs, as a well-organized plot by extreme Left-wing elements, operating from the White House itself and controlling all the chief avenues of publicity in the United States, to destroy the American way of life, based on private enterprise, laissez faire, and isolationism, in behalf of alien ideologies of Russian Socialism and British cosmopolitanism (or internationalism). This plot, if we are to believe the myth, worked through such avenues of publicity as The New York Times and the Harold Tribune, the Christian Science Monitor and the Washington Post, the Atlantic Monthly and Harper’s Magazine and had at its core the wild-eyed and bushy-haired theoreticians of Socialist Harvard and the London School of Economics. It was determined to bring the United States into World War II on the side of England (Roosevelt's first love) and Soviet Russia (his second love) in order to destroy every finer element of American life and, as part of this consciously planned scheme, invited Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, and destroyed Chiang Kai-shek, all the while undermining America’s real strength by excessive spending and unbalanced budgets.

This myth, like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth. There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies....but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.
Please do not run out and buy a copy of Tragedy & Hope on the basis of this quote. Quigley is in fact turgid and quite unreadable, and not at all informative. You would do much better to read Flynn, Utley and Budenz.

Quigley's first paragraph above is in fact more or less the truth about the 1940s, although stated in pejorative terms to discredit itself. Connoisseurs of 20th-century propaganda will be very familiar with this technique. Straight-up ridicule is the propaganda equivalent of running the ball up the middle: it's a play you can call when you can't think of any other play. Think of all the proposition that ordinary propaganda consumers believe, for no other reason but that they consider the converse ridiculous. Or possibly evil. Or maybe just insane.

I personally have read more 20th-century anti-communist writing - genuine anti-communist writing, not Henry Wallace anti-communist writing - than, perhaps, any person living. If you own a book published between 1945 and 1975 by Devin-Adair or Western Islands (publishing arm of the JBS) or the old Regnery or Arlington House, the odds are at least 50-50 I've read it. This material is hard to find, in the sense that you are unlikely to find it unless you look for it; but fortunately, a lot of it was printed, so it tends to be quite cheap used. The Western Islands "Dozen Candles" paperback box set, with covers by Peppino Rizzuto, is a particular favorite. After the '70s, the quality of anti-communist writing deteriorates sharply. The better material is almost invariably the product of a prewar education.

My personal prediction is that all writing in English not part of the anti-communist tradition will eventually, however long it takes, be discarded and left to specialists. We can see this process clearly in the fall of Nazism and, somewhat less clearly, Bolshevism. The path of intellectual history, sub specie aeternitas, flows through the honest and independent and the successful careerists. As Edith Hamilton said to Freda Utley: "don't expect the material rewards of unrighteousness, while engaged in the pursuit of truth." The canon will one day be reconstructed, and a lot of reconstructing it will take.

We may still criticize the anti-communist tradition, however, even in its golden age. While generally engaged in the pursuit of truth, American anti-communism remained a democratic endeavor. It could not avoid seeking power through control over public opinion. Thus it was led, if unconsciously, to tell Americans what they wanted to hear - and not what they didn't.

What is the truth about the "secret America?" The truth, which no one wanted or wants to hear, is that communism is as American as apple pie. Communism is a form of American liberalism, or progressivism. It is not, as so many anti-communists liked to suggest, an exotic foreign import. When imported from exotic lands, it's because we exported it there in the first place. In America it may speak with a Russian accent; in Russia, it speaks with an American accent.

By the 1930s, communism with a strong Protestant flavor had become the dominant religion of American high society - the wealthiest and most fashionable Americans. But it was not yet the dominant religion of the American population, and America was a democracy. Thus the strong flavor of secrecy and intrigue, often frankly anti-democratic, that we find in the progressives of the early 20th century.

With a figure like Colonel House, for instance, the conspiracy theorist cannot find much else to ask for. Was Colonel House a free agent? Or did he report to some committee of bankers? How would we ever know? Frankly, in the Colonel's world, the Elders of Zion hardly seem necessary.

Thus, as Quigley himself pointed out, the crusade of anti-communism was doomed from the beginning. Rather than attacking a foreign infection, anti-communism was attacking the host: the American social establishment. For this purpose it was a little short of lymphocytes. No surprise, thus, that it should fail and be consigned to historical ignominy.

Moreover, this social mismatch has been entirely rectified. What the bohemians of Greenwich Village believed in 1923, everyone in America (and the world) believes now. The beliefs of an ordinary Calvin Coolidge voter would strike the ordinary John McCain voter as outlandish, ridiculous, insane, and often downright evil. America has no surviving intellectual tradition besides progressivism - which is no more than a synonym for communism. (My own grandparents, lifelong CPUSA members, used "progressive" as a codeword all their lives.) Communism is as American as apple pie, and America today is a completely communist country. As Garet Garett put it 70 years ago, the revolution was.

So when we read Hassell and think, "is there a secret America?", the answer is: yes. There was a secret America. There was also a secret Germany, and those of its conspirators who were not shot in '44 and '45 later became its rulers - its establishment. It is no secret that the governing classes of 2010 are not terribly concerned with nations and nationality. Culturally, they are all descendants of the fashionable conspiracies of the early 20th century - Quigley's Round Table Group, the Coefficients, the Fabians, the Inquiry, and so on, down to our own dear CFR. Even the CFR, as late as the '50s, retained a certain "Fight Club" mystique. Now, even the dogs in the street know all about it. The Hassells of the world, and there were some in every country, were the ancestors of the global governing establishment of our own era. Secrets it retains, but its existence is not among them.

The liberal regimes of the early 21st century still keep secrets. But they no longer can be classified as conspiracies. With the elimination of any serious competition, they have become bureaucracies. By definition, any regime is a conspiracy in its youth and a bureaucracy in its maturity. Was the collaboration of the New Deal state, USG 4, with Stalin morally culpable? Certainly. Was it secretive? It was extremely secretive. Do some of those secrets repose still in its files? Are new diplomatic secrets born every day? Of course they are.

But by the 1950s, this conspiracy was also quite firmly in charge. It could no longer be described as a conspiracy. A conspiracy is something that hides, that sneaks, that can be smashed by a superior establishment. After World War II, the "secret America" was the establishment itself - a bureaucracy.

The match is not to be mistaken for the fire. It may even continue burning along with it. Once the house is on fire, however, you can't put it out by putting out the match. Hence the problem with conspiracy theory. Even when its history is 100% true, its relevance is deceptive. Our New World Order may have been founded by the YMCA, but abolishing the YMCA is no longer sufficient to abolish the New World Order.

For the American bureaucracy, the attempts of the "McCarthyist" period to purge Washington of communists was as pointless as it was painful - so what if high civil servants had collaborated with Stalin? Even if Stalin was evil? If anyone was guilty, everyone was guilty. Did McCarthy have another State Department to replace the one we had? If not, what was the point? When Dean Acheson refused to "turn his back" on Alger Hiss, I'm quite confident that it was because he knew Hiss had informal, high-level authorization for every time he slept with Moscow. If so, Hiss was punished for his loyalty; he was purged because he refused to rat on his "secret America."

So what we see in American anti-communism is an attempt to produce salt-free salt. And, fundamentally, a cop-out. If we take communism as an exotic pest, an intruder into the American myth, Americans can restore Americanism simply by expelling communism.

But if communism - which killed 100 million people, at least, and is nowhere near dead - is fundamentally American? We face a far more difficult question: the question of national guilt. Real guilt; for the American communist excels at nothing so much as inventing false crimes to repent for, typically the crime of not being communist enough. He thereby avoids any repentance for his actual offenses.

And Americans of both sides must experience this national guilt, exactly as all Germans have. For the Germans either supported Hitler, or did not oppose him enough to get the job done. Likewise, Americans of the left supported and exported communism; Americans of the right, due to their failure to truly search their consciences, carped at, complained, and tolerated it.

Or if they did something, what was the result? Nothing. What happened to American anti-communists? They lost. Where can I find a street named after Robert Welch? Freda Utley? Louis Budenz? Nowhere, which is a pretty good sign that a figure has been defeated. Instead, the historical mainstream runs straight through the anti-anti-communists: the Henry Wallaces. (Indeed, Henry Wallace was finally elected in 2008.)

So, for failing, the American right is just as guilty as the left. If they were bound to fail, should they have fought at all? And they failed, we see, because they fooled themselves and those they wrote for. Without these enemies, the "secret America" might have found it easier to come to its senses. In statecraft, as Fouché put it, a crime can be worse than a mistake.

This is the 20th century in a nutshell: behind the secrets, unspeakably vile in every way. All are guilty; the entire era is damned. No faction finds any redemption. There is only the mystery of human life, which by some miracle survived and for the moment continues.

248 Comments:

Anonymous coldequation said...

Re: Hitler's invasion of Russia - I don't claim to know his immediate motivation for invading in June 1941, and I haven't read Suvorov, but conquering and colonizing the East had always been his main goal. Given that Russia had performed poorly in WWI and in Finland, had recently purged its officers, and had been a little too secretive, thus preventing the Germans from knowing its true industrial strength, he wasn't completely insane to think he could pull it off. That's enough of a reason to invade.

September 30, 2010 at 5:52 PM  
Anonymous B said...

The problem with Suvorov is that he's dishonest and stupid. The Red Army proved itself incapable of conducting ANY kind of cohesive operations both when it attacked Finland and during the initial year of the war. The basics just weren't there. The stuff we take for granted (orders are followed, colonels and generals don't just pick up and leave their units and go drive off when things are looking bad, or sit there paralyzed refusing to make a decision, stuff kind of gets where it's needed more or less when it's needed there, communications work, etc.,) was absent. The US Army's worst day at Kasserine Gap looks like the fucking Nutcracker Suite compared to the Red Army at it's actual best until about fall 1942 (with a couple of exceptions like the 1st Tank Division stomping a mudhole in the Waffen SS's asses up north in the summer of 1941.)

Finland was even worse. Suvorov explains away the former by saying that the Soviets had trained for offense and couldn't make the transition to defense; presumably, the commanders who froze up or ran off, leaving their units, would have turned into regular Manteuffels, had the Soviets only attacked; comms and logistics work a lot different on the offensive, right? Suvorov doesn't mention that the Germans were able to transition smoothly from offense to defense in the winter of 1941, holding pockets like Demyansk against overwhelming numerical superiority, despite lack of logistics and horrible weather.

With Finland, it's even worse. He seriously tells a story about going out and spending a night up a tree with a bottle of vodka in -40 temps (seriously,) just to see what it was like in 1940. Conclusion: it was cold. Really cold. So cold, that it was a miraculous feat of military heroism that the Russians eventually "won" the winter war with losses an order of magnitude greater than those of the Finns; no other army could have fought in such cold conditions, against the dread Mannerheim Line. This is such bullshit that I don't know how the paper his books are printed on stands it. The Mannerheim Line covered the extreme southern part of the huge front line between the USSR and Finland, and was no big whoop by the defensive standards of the day; up North, the Russians got their asses handed to them just as badly for three months. The idea that the Red Army being untrained and unequipped for winter survival and operations in an arctic environment, despite having the northern half of the USSR to play in and near unlimited funds (they built tens of thousands of tanks in the 1930's, for instance) is anything but a sign of pure organizational incompetence is ludicrous.

If German intelligence didn't know that the Red Army couldn't find its ass with both hands and a flashlight before the Winter War, it sure did afterwards. This all makes me doubt that Hitler invaded the USSR out of fear and desperation.

September 30, 2010 at 7:42 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

> It could have been inserted in the TIME archive by crafty anti-Protestant hackers, or for that matter by aliens

It could also have been inserted into TIME by its author, who could've been about as smug and dirty sounding as FDR in the tape - or earnestly deluded, or biased. Citing one and the same article for a year, or years, doesn't engender huge confidence on this particular point.

September 30, 2010 at 8:06 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

B your Nutcracker joke was the best I've seen in a few weeks, but I don't understand how your demonstrations refute Suvarov. I admit I have very little of him under my belt, and I'm not saying he's right, but doesn't he just claim that Stalin prepared for offensive war? Did he say that it necessarily worked well? I mean, in general, stuff planned by the Bolshies didn't necessarily work well. Why can't it be logically possible both that Suvarov is right, and that the project he describes was simply abandoned after the Winter War travesty.

September 30, 2010 at 8:20 PM  
Anonymous Paul Milenkovic said...

OK, riddle me this.

Didn't the Japanese get their backsides handed to them in some border skirmish on the Manchurian/Russian border contemporaneously with all of this? And were not the backside handers the Red Army? Were the WW-II Japanese somehow even more incompetent than the Soviet Russians? What gives?

September 30, 2010 at 9:00 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

The Time article would normally be classified as a "secondary" source, as it is presenting excerpts from the original primary document produced by the council of churches. Seems hard to find the original, I think Indiana University has a copy.

The one holocaust denier I'm aware of who presented any explanation for the drop in the European jewish population is "denierbud" who says they emigrated.

Greg Cochran bashed Suvarov's theory here.

Ulrich didn't seem to take a position on the staunchness of Wallace's anti-communism. He said there were deep-seated differences between the east & west, and I would say post-war history vindicated that assessment.

I'm having trouble finding it now, but I tried to give my explanation of WW2 alliances at a different blog. It's striking the similarities to WW1, despite the very different regimes. I conclude ideology had far less to do with it than we are taught, and geography is under-discussed. After the decline of Spain & France, Germany was the nearest & most powerful rival to England. After Germany was occupied, Russia was the largest threat and we saw the cold war pivot. I don't think it makes sense to view it in terms of an "Anglo-Soviet split", the allies sent troops into Russia during their civil war to assist the Whites. Henry Wallace may not have anti-commie credentials, but Churchill was plain about the communist menace from the beginning and explained his WW2 alliance with "I would put in a good word for the Devil if Hitler invaded hell".

I'm curious about the claim that Russia was infected with liberalism. It was generally regarded as among the least liberalized countries of Europe under the tzars. I suppose there was the brief "liberal" period under Kerensky.

September 30, 2010 at 9:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We're not Holocaust "deniers."

We reject Holocaustianity.

Holocaustianity is the faithful acceptance of the dogma of the Holocaust as the proper mythic narrative of 20th century history. You may be counted among the faithful if you accept the following:

1. 6 million Jews were deliberately exterminated by the Nazis during WW II.
2. The choice of this event as the dominant mythic narrative of the 20th century, relegating to obscurity other events, such as the deliberate starvation of 8 to 15 million Ukranian farmers by a largely Jewish Soviet the year before Germans hysterically elected Hitler to power, is not an affront to reason and decency.

You may judge your acceptance of these dogmas by your gut reaction to actions of people who are compared to Nazis vs your gut reaction to people who are compared to Commies. This "still small voice" of within you is your guide.

September 30, 2010 at 9:34 PM  
OpenID eumaios said...

Arthur Budz, by my recollection, makes the modest suggestion that the missing Jews were, according to plan, actually transported East. And that the Soviet reports of their subject populations are not to be trusted. You side with the Soviets?

September 30, 2010 at 10:12 PM  
Anonymous B said...

Whoo, it got crazy early up in this bitch!

Rob, it's naturally very difficult, without digging up something like the Roosevelt tapes, to say what somebody would have done had something happened which actually didn't happen; it's possible to claim anything. "If we hadn't been mean to Germany in the 1920's, Hitler would never have come to power! If we'd been nicer to Hitler once he came to power, he would have gotten a sex change and started the Berlin Love Parade sixty years early!" Who's to say otherwise? Like the Russians say, if Grandma had had a dick, she would have been Grandpa. However, when in the course of somebody's alternative world history narrative, they say stuff about events which DID happen that's obvious bullshit, I'm going to doubt the rest of it. And the Soviet Army of 1941 as an unstoppable offensive juggernaut is bullshit.

Paul-the border skirmishes were a series of alternating ass whippings handed out by relatively small contingents of the Red Army and the Japanese Army, lasting for years until both sides decided to pack it in. No institutional (as opposed to individual) lessons seem to have been learned by the Red Army. Its Japanese Army opponents, judging by the rest of the war, seem to have been fairly proficient at bayonetting babies and raping civilians; I don't see a lot to brag about in their performance in other fields, Singapore and the Phillipines aside. Hell, even there the Allied leadership seemed determined to lose. So, the Lake Hassan and Khalkin Gol battles don't shed a lot of light on anything.

All of this is not to say that Hitler didn't see an immediate existential threat in the Soviet Union of 1941; Hitler was a master at deciding that he wanted to believe some crazy shit, then finding somebody willing to sling it to him; look up Ultima Thule, the Hollow Earth, Deutschefizik, or even the idea that if the Ardennes offensive led to the capture of Antwerpen, the Allies would take their ball and go home. When you run a country and have its strategic bullshit reservoir at your beck and call, it's easy to unintentionally marshall the finest and most credentialled bullshit artists in the country to convince you of what you would like to believe. If we hadn't invaded Iraq in 2003, would the Iraqis have made aircraft carrier groups out of baked bean cans glued together with sewage and burned plastic, sailed them across the Atlantic and bombarded the Eastern Seaboard with their weapons of mass destruction until not even the lizards were left alive?

September 30, 2010 at 11:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Official Auschwitz figures:

http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/history/auschwitz-figures.htm

October 1, 2010 at 12:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Official Auschwitz figures

http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/history/auschwitz-figures.htm

12/31/1945
French Investigation Panel on Nazi-War-Crimes
8,000,000

8/19/1998
Chief Rabbi from Poland (Süddeutsche Zeitung)
6,000,000

4/20/1978
Le Monde (French daily paper)
5,000,000

1/23/1995
Die Welt (German daily paper)
5,000,000

4/20/1989
Eugen Kogon, Der SS-Staat (famous book of holocaust survivor, pg176)
4,500,000

12/31/1952
Der Neue Herder (Enzyclop., Germany) 7th edition (p. 214)
4,500,000

10/1/1946
IMT-Document 008-USSR (Nuremberg Military Tribunal)
4,000,000

5/2/1997
USA-Today (daily paper USA)
4,000,000

11/24/1989
Chief Prosecutor, Mr. Majorowsky, Wuppertal, Germany (indictment 12 Js 1037/89)
4,000,000

7/26/1990
Allgem. Jüdische Wo.Ztg. (Jewish weekly, Bonn)
4,000,000

10/8/1993
ZDF-Nachrichten (German TV, ZDF-News Magazine)
4,000,000

1/25/1995
Wetzlarer Neue Zeitung (German daily paper)
4,000,000

10/1/1946
IMT-Document 3868-PS (Nuremberg Military Tribunal)
3,000,000

1/1/1995
Damals (official monthly magazine on history, sponsored by Bonn gov)
3,000,000

7/18/1990
The Peninsula Times (daily paper, S.Francisco, USA)
2,000,000

7/25/1990
Hamburger Abendblatt (daily paper Germany)
2,000,000

1/27/1995
Die Welt (German daily paper, quoting Chancellor H. Kohl. Minimum of 2 million)
2,000,000

5/2/1997
USA-Today (daily paper USA)
1,500,000

6/11/1992
Allgem. Jüdische Wo.Ztg (Jewish weekly, Bonn)
1,500,000

October 1, 2010 at 2:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10/8/1993
ZDF-Nachrichten (German TV, ZDF-News Magazine)
1,500,000

1/23/1995
Die Welt (German daily paper)
1,500,000

5/3/2000
Die Welt (German daily paper)
1,500,000

9/1/1989
Le Monde (French daily paper)
1,433,000

2/2/1995
BUNTE Illustrierte (German weekly magazine)
1,400,000

1/22/1995
Welt am Sonntag (German daily, Sunday edition)
1,200,000

1/27/1995
Die Welt (German daily paper)
1,100,000

1/27/1995
IfZ (Institut for Contemporary History, München, a government institution)
1,000,000

5/3/2000
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (reputed German daily)
1,000,000

12/31/1989
Pressac, Auschwitz, Technique ... (official report on Auschwitz, commissioned by the Jewish Beate Klarsfeld Foundation)
928,000

9/27/1993
Die Welt (German daily paper)
800,000

1/22/1995
Welt am Sonntag (German daily, Sunday edition)
750,000

5/1/1994
Focus (German weekly magazine)
700,000

1/23/1995
Die Welt (German daily paper)
700,000

12/31/1994
Pressac, Die Krematorien ... (2nd official report on Auschwitz, commissioned by the Jewish Beate Klarsfeld Foundation)
470,000

1/8/1948
Welt im Film (British news reel, nbr. 137)
300,000

1/6/1990
Frankfurter Rundschau (German daily paper)
74,000

5/31/1994
Hoffmann, Stalins Vernichtungskrieg (Book on Stalin's war by a renowned German historian, p.302 f.)
74,000

8/17/1994
Intern. Red Cross Arolsen - Department of holocaust investigations (Ref. nbr.: 10824)
66,206

October 1, 2010 at 2:56 AM  
Blogger Jeff Burton said...

Had the Soviets thrown the first punch (as Suvorov points out), the German panzer spearheads would have been no less defenseless.

You need to read more about the Eastern front, esp. '41-'42. A lot more.

October 1, 2010 at 4:45 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

"The Time article would normally be classified as a "secondary" source,"

If used to demonstrate the truth of the statements about the conference contained in the article, it is a secondary source. If used to demonstrate that their was popular perception of "super-protestant"ism, it is a primary source. A bit like legal issues dealing with hearsay evidence.

October 1, 2010 at 5:26 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

"It was generally regarded as among the least liberalized countries of Europe under the tzars."

And then it became COMMUNIST. I was going to post an article with a statement by narodnaya volya claiming to be a part of the same tradition as Garibaldi (though more advanced of course) when I came across this tangentially related article, that I thought was much more interesting.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F40F12FD3B55147B93C7A91783D85F478584F9

October 1, 2010 at 6:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I haven't read this yet, but I love these "red pill" posts. Great to see you blogging again, MM.

October 1, 2010 at 7:40 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

I love this blog for generating so much oh so finely powdered, and neurologically stimulating, intellectual crack.

But...

Contra Moldbug, the origins of revolutionary and mainstream socialism do not come from Anglo-Saxonry. He is so wrong that I am beginning to wonder whether Moldbug is using his hyper-Anglo ancestry as a cover for some sort of French "ethnic genetic interest” strategy.

Quickly:

1: MM is confusing progressivism with socialism. Socialism – and all of the mainstream and non-mainstream forms it has taken since 1789 – is a product of 18th and 19th century European class war tensions. These class war tensions were most potent in the European kingdoms and empires that delayed giving their rapidly expanding middle classes full legal, political, and property rights and weakest in the states such as Britain, America and Switzerland where their middle class was most content with their political position.

Progressivism, on the other hand, evolved independently of events on the Continent. Progressivism developed as a “technocratic” approach to attacking governmental corruption in the mid to late 19th century and it’s pre-1972 political temperament is better described as “Nanny Statism” (e.g. Prohibition, smoking bans, mass public education, child labor laws, regulation of railroads, “I will teach them to elect good men”, etc) than revolutionary socialist.

And Progessivism/Nanny Statism is not at all unique to the Anglo-Saxons. Nanny Statism is in reality the main form of secular Protestantism and this particular strain can be observed in most non-Anglo Protestant nations such as Sweden where the government also loves to micro-manage their citizens with regulations as much as FDR and his descendents did and do.

While it may be easy to confuse contemporary Nanny-Statism with socialism, when considering the historical record one should never confuse them and always keep in mind that the two did not arise from the same source.

2) On the whole, the WASPs never embraced Communism during the 1930’s. In fact, the WASPs were slower than most other demographic groups to embrace FDR and only a minority of WASPs were Progressives. New England was the region of the country where FDR was at his electoral weakest; not something we would expect if Moldbug were right and WASPs were (on average) enthusiastic for the New Deal.

So the evidence that the WASPs were quite as enthusiastic as FDR was for Uncle Joe is, um, lacking.

October 1, 2010 at 1:59 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

3) Outbreaks of Radical leftism were always more violent on the Continent than the Anglo-Sphere. The French revolution was much more destructive than the American Revolution; and the War of Independence which wasn’t even technically a revolution proper. Rather it was simply a war of secession that replaced a distant Anglo-Saxon form of governance for a new, locally based, one.

Further, mainstream and radical socialist political parties have always been weaker and less popular in the Anglo-Sphere than Continental Europe. Whereas the Communist Party USA was, much like the modern Green and American Libertarian parties, always an irrelevant 0.5% - 1% crank at best party (Robert LaFollette’s run on the Socialist party ticket notwithstanding) the socialist party could never gain traction (even during the depression when Socialist and Communist Americans should have been at their strongest).

In contrast, the revolutionary left in Europe enjoyed much more support among working class Europeans than they ever did in America.

4) The EU was not and is not a vehicle for American geopolitical interests. The founders of the EU (led by the French and, less overtly, the post-war Germans) envisioned a European unification project that would be able to keep America out of Western Europe. The idea that the EU is in any way an American (or Zionist) project is absurd since EU Federalists such as Romano Prodi, Valery Giscard D’Estaing, “Monetary Union” Founder and economist Jacques Delors, EU Commissioner Jose Manuel Barroso, and Francois Mitterand (who made French acceptance of German unification conditional on the Germans surrendering the Mark to Monetary Union) have openly boasted about how “Europe” will displace the United States as the preeminent world power.

In fact, the reason DeGaulle resisted British entry into the EEC for so long was because the Continental Federalists feared Britain would act as an American proxy state and work with the USA to undermine European centralization.

October 1, 2010 at 2:00 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

> a crime can be worse than a mistake

I believe you mean the reverse. Up too late, again? One would think you must've been, to assert that Bolshevism came from America, based solely on the evidence that America allied with Stalin against the Nazis, and was willing to work with him on the world order (where it may have considered continued anti-fascism to be indispensable), for some years after the war. But in fact you've said that before.

We can agree that secular Protestantism existed, as a leftest sect. (Apparently you deny that Marxism also existed in its own right.) But one article from a popular magazine (TIME) can't show that atheist/agnostic/nondivine-Christ Protestantism was the *one true sect* of world leftism.

For your American communism thesis, you obviously need to show that the Bolshies were influenced by American William Blake-ish bohemians and Protestant agnostics in their underground, midground, and overground phases, and not that much by Marxism, Kropotkin, and so on. The absence of this makes the post laughable, but it is generally fascinating. You are certainly totally engrossing and erudite but seem to be regularly riven by these severe fundamental faults. I love reading you, and when underinformed I always consider you right and the consensus wrong unless I can get more or less replete information to the contrary - but it happens not rarely.

I await your identification of pre-1917 American antecedents (in practice or in theory) of collective agriculture, executing/reeducating kulaks, the dictatorship of the proles as opposed to democracy. Maoism did have all those things, which is why people justly speak of a Sino-Sov split. The only Marxian things that seem to not be found in Bolshevism (that I can think of) are the hilarious ones like the state eventually withering away.

Finally, your case for Wallace's conversion being cynical is that he claimed not to know of Stalinist excesses. Do you know that he knew about Katyn? Do you know that he didn't know about the much larger massacres by the Nazis, in light of which FDR's BS about Katyn could be seen as a noble lie to protect the US-USSR alliance against the Nazis? I don't know when Americans first learned about the holocaust but I do have an authentic 1 Aug '44 NYT right here in my hands (same year as the first suppressed American Katyn report that you mention). Text of an article on p17 begins "Declaring its fear that by the time the war has been won the largest part of the Jewish populations of Europe will have been extinguished, a mass meeting of 40,000 American Jews gathered [...] [telegram to the meeting from Candidate Dewey:] The Jewish people are not alone the victims of the present war, but the Jewish people have been singled out for wholesale slaughter by a maniac dictator and the whole world is outraged [...]." With knowledge of these things, regardless of how much or little he cared about them, the Katyn massacre of 20,000 could justly seem small to FDR - well, a whole lot smaller.

October 1, 2010 at 3:57 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

> Rob, it's naturally very difficult, without digging up something like the Roosevelt tapes, to say what somebody would have done had something happened which actually didn't happen; it's possible to claim anything.

Agreed, but it's not like Suvorovism is a claim/assertion and nothing but an involuted claim with no reference to anything outside. Maybe some parts of it are like that, but at least some parts make externally-falsifiable statements: for example, the statement that the arms built by Stalin were largely of an offensive nature and their use in defense was problematic. We can independently assess, using other sources, whether this be true.

I'm interested in all of Suvorov's claims, each by each. You think Suvorov is a dolt and want to dismiss about anything that was espoused by him. Maybe that makes sense to some people. Personally I consider every single point of Icebreaker to be hugely important, which is why I'm willing to take them each by each; if the first four key points of Icebreaker are wrong I remain interested in the fifth. Whereas if the points were not so extremely crucial, I might say 'the heck with the rest of this book/author/school' as you are saying.

That said, I do rather doubt that it's true. And (since I don't want to be mistaken), I don't have prior reasons for hoping it is true, since I have always been very anti-Hitler and have argued with partial-apologists/extenuators of Hitler. (Despite being a White preservationist who places a fairr amount of emphasis on Jewish-Gentile conflict in the postwar period.) I'm simply curious. And I don't deny that you may be right about the Mannerheim Line being unimportant.

October 1, 2010 at 4:36 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

> Were the WW-II Japanese somehow even more incompetent than the Soviet Russians? What gives?

Possibly just way less thoroughly industrialized. It was claimed in the comments here, maybe 18 months ago, that the Japanese had not just a lot less metal arms compared to the US, but many, many times less.

The best illustration of the Red Army's competence is simply that it defeated the Nazis, and was doing well enough against them prior to D-Day. Sure, it had a lot of arms and money from the US. But still. It appears that their abilities rose between the Finland war - the rough beginning of Barbarossa even - and the middle of Barbarossa when they started holding their own.

Of course, they did use a lot of very strong 'motivational techniques'. A lot of techniques have been used by others too, but my impression that they (and the Nazis) used them more than Imperial Germany, or WWI France. Wikipedia says the men were threatened with the slaughter of their family in the case of their surrender to the Germans - before a number of crucial battles. But anyway, whatever the method, they did finally manage to get it on in a real way.

October 1, 2010 at 4:53 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

> And (since I don't want to be mistaken)

Misunderstood, I mean.

October 1, 2010 at 4:53 PM  
Anonymous B said...

Rob,

The whole idea of defensive vs. offensive arms is also dumb at best and intentionally dishonest at worst. If the TB-7, to use Suvorov's example, was a defensive weapon, then what was the Enola Gay, the flying equivalent of the Mannerheim line?

October 1, 2010 at 6:28 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Couldn't have said it better myself, TUJ.

Anonymous holocaust denier: what if we accept claim 1 but not 2?

Good to see a "white preservationist" who is anti-Hitler. By any reasonable account, Hitler was terrible for white people. On the other hand, a lot of white racialists may not give a damn about Slavs.

October 1, 2010 at 7:06 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

you know mencius is BACK when you cant even attempt reading his post until you have time and energy.

October 1, 2010 at 8:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But it is widely acknowledged that some of the most meritorious actors were the aristocratic German nationalists of the July 20 plot, and so far as it goes I agree with this consensus - which certainly fits my own ideology.

There is the slight problem that many of the July 20 plotters were involved with war crimes in the USSR (see chapter 6 of this book).

It was so terrible that he could not endure it. Now he wants to go to the front as a simple soldier.

Ironically, that would be no escape from the requirement to commit atrocities, especially if he were a simple soldier in the East.

The sins of the Allies are relatively distant from his mind. The sins of the Nazis obsess and devour him. Shouldn't they?

The sins of the Allies ought to concern him, inasmuch as the Allies are incinerating German women and children.

The most interesting question about the hypothetical Soviet invasion of Europe, one I have never seen broached, is what FDR knew.

And Churchill. It puts the decision to send British troops to Greece in a different light.

Hitler was a rube, who had never been west of Ypres.

I am stunned that TGGP has not reminded you that Hitler went to Liverpool in 1912.

October 1, 2010 at 9:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem with Suvorov is that he's dishonest and stupid.

Yeah, that must be why he was recruited into the GRU and why British intelligence accepted him as a defector.

The Red Army proved itself incapable of conducting ANY kind of cohesive operations both when it attacked Finland and during the initial year of the war.

Yet they thrashed the Japanese but good.

October 1, 2010 at 9:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And yet you will note that Stalin nevertheless ordered attack after attack, even in 1941, and even after repeated attacks failed. Stalin was simply incapable of recognizing that the Red Army was unsuited to attack (until late 1942, when it had learned to attack properly in the hard school of war). Therefore, we cannot say that the actual reality of the Red Army's unpreparedness to attack means that Stalin would not have ordered the Red Army to attack Germany before the Germans attacked, because Stalin did not live in that reality. He lived in his own reality, in which he ordered attacks and the attacks were carried out... or else!

October 1, 2010 at 10:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That previous post was in response to "The Red Army proved itself incapable of conducting ANY kind of cohesive operations both when it attacked Finland and during the initial year of the war. The basics just weren't there."

For some reason it left out the quote.

October 1, 2010 at 10:09 PM  
Anonymous B said...

I take it that you believe that stupid or dishonest people are a rarity in national intelligence organizations. And that the British would screen GRU defectors for IQ and kick back those who didn't live up to their standards. It is possible that Suvorov was honest with his debriefers; having read his books (even the ones about the Soviet Army in the 70s and 80s,) I can tell you that they're either dishonest or honestly stupid.

Yes, the Russians beat the Japanese that one time. Looking at their record in Finland two years later, it would seem that no ORGANIZATIONAL lessons were learned.

It is entirely possible that Stalin too had a whole country's worth of bullshitters telling him about how awesomely prepared his armed forces were to crush the enemy. On the other hand, I don't see Kim Jong Il or his dad, who certainly have no shortage of sycophants, storming across the DMV. Stalin ordering counterattacks and counteroffensives was not necessarily a sign of anything one way or the other-he may have seen the failure of the French strategy and availed himself of the other option, which ultimately kind of worked-the winter counteroffensive did fuck the Germans up but good, though this was mostly due to the Germans' own poor intelligence and preparation, and general exhaustion. In any case, I think that in order to stay on top of the USSR for a quarter of a century, Stalin had to have some kind of contact with reality, and if he labored under major illusions about the organizational competence of the Red Army, I can't imagine how the Winter War wouldn't have cleared those up.

October 1, 2010 at 11:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I take it that you believe that stupid or dishonest people are a rarity in national intelligence organizations.

They are. And in the USSR, the intelligence organizations got to pick the absolute cream of the crop. You didn't pick them, they picked you.

And that the British would screen GRU defectors for IQ and kick back those who didn't live up to their standards.

If Suvorov were completely stupid and worthless, he wouldn't have had anything worth offering the Brits in the first place, and they wouldn't have accepted him.

having read his books (even the ones about the Soviet Army in the 70s and 80s,) I can tell you that they're either dishonest or honestly stupid.

I've read most of his books. I don't agree with every word they say, and some are better than others.

In any case, I met Suvorov in person when he came to Washington a while ago to discuss his most recent book, "The Chief Culprit". He did not strike me as stupid, and as for dishonest, I think the man genuinely believed what he was saying.

It is entirely possible that Stalin too had a whole country's worth of bullshitters telling him about how awesomely prepared his armed forces were to crush the enemy. On the other hand, I don't see Kim Jong Il or his dad, who certainly have no shortage of sycophants, storming across the DMV.

Then you are left with the problem of explaining why the orders that the border forces had in June 1941 were entirely offensive in nature.

Stalin ordering counterattacks and counteroffensives was not necessarily a sign of anything one way or the other

It certainly is. It is a sign of his manifest military unrealism. It is illogical to argue that Stalin would have been restrained from ordering an attack on Germany because the Red Army was unready to attack, when Stalin repeatedly ordered the Red Army to attack, from June 22 to December 1941, when it was clearly unready to attack. Stalin had much better evidence to think the Red Army was incapable of attacking after June 22, 1941, than he did before then, but he ordered the Red Army to attack anyway. Therefore we cannot exclude the Suvorov thesis on the grounds that "Stalin knew the Red Army was unready to attack".

in order to stay on top of the USSR for a quarter of a century, Stalin had to have some kind of contact with reality,

The man who crippled his own army and country in the purges? The man who ordered second-rate troops, even by Soviet standards, to attack the Finns in winter? The man who trusted Hitler? The man whose bad decisions got 5 million troops killed or captured in 1941? The man who thought the US would sit back and do nothing while his North Korean lackey conquered South Korea? The man who, in the end, thought the Jews were out to get him?

There is a lot of good evidence that Stalin was out of touch with reality, so we can't exclude the Suvorov thesis on that grounds.

if he labored under major illusions about the organizational competence of the Red Army, I can't imagine how the Winter War wouldn't have cleared those up.

Then again you are left with the problem of explaining why the Red Army was deployed forward with orders to attack, instead of deployed on the 1939 Soviet border with orders to defend. One must also wonder why Stalin repeatedly ordered the same incompetent army to attack from June to December 1941, when a more realistic approach would have been defensive.

October 2, 2010 at 6:43 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

It is frequently mentioned that New England was on average less pro-New Deal than other regions. This is not relevant to whether or not modern leftism came out of new England. I would argue that the two post civil war elite groups, the intellectual elite and the old merchant elite (both Yankee) were once opposed to one another. Now, they ain't. Which is the ancestral group of today's ruling class?

The theory is that the messianic protestants were still around, particularly in academia, they just didn't take complete control of the state until the New Deal.

Now, I have no idea if communism is as American as apple pie, but the theory is not disproved by the existence of New England conservatives.

October 2, 2010 at 6:43 AM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Political donations of the Forbes 400:
231 people donated to the Democratic party from 2006 --2010 totaling $6,169,360

-- 247 people donated to the Republican party from 2006 --2010 totaling $7,284,882

They are still more Republican than Democrat, but it's a leftward shift from the past, perhaps related to the finding that old rich are more right-wing than new-rich.

Here is some data on the political donations of academia. Overwhelmingly liberal.

October 2, 2010 at 7:58 AM  
Anonymous PA said...

On the other hand, a lot of white racialists may not give a damn about Slavs.

Admittedly, my most hardcore ventures into online white nationalism is race threads at Roissy's because the more WN'ish sites like Mangan's, not to mention AmRen, depress the hell out of me with their commenters' pessimism.

But the impression I get is that WNs by and large vest a great deal of hope and even affection in Slavs.

There is a sense that the more advanced western European nations are written off as either swamped by third worlders or addled with feminism/PC. Slavs, in contrast, are seen as less demoralized by multiracialism, more traditionalist, with more homogeneous homelands. And with better women.

October 2, 2010 at 2:35 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Regarding Hassell's diary entry, I would merely point out that the gas chamber stories were circulating around the world in 1943 and even '42, I think. This is not really hard evidence, any more than the Katyn propaganda he believed is. I would hope this isn't the "best evidence" of gas chambers.

I was unable to find anything online about "Frauendorfer," he doesn't even seem to have a wiki entry. Was he really in a position to be aware of 100s of 1000s of gassings, etc., or was he merely regurgitating Allied black propaganda?

David Irving is definitely familiar with the Hassell diaries, and this did not prevent him from becoming doubtful of the traditional Holocaust narrative, especially the mass gassings.

Does Mencius really think he's a better authority on German wartime policy, documents, primary sources, etc., than Irving?

Speaking for myself, I would echo Joe Sobran (R.I.P.), from his address to he IHR (who Mencius calls "Nazis," complete BS). Mencius should take note:

"Here I should lay my own cards on the table. I am not, heaven forbid, a "Holocaust denier." I lack the scholarly competence to be one. I don't read German, so I can't assess the documentary evidence; I don't know chemistry, so I can't discuss Zyklon-B; I don't understand the logistics of exterminating millions of people in small spaces. Besides, "Holocaust denial" is illegal in many countries I may want to visit someday. For me, that's proof enough. One Israeli writer has expressed his amazement at the idea of criminalizing opinions about historical fact., and I find it puzzling too; but the state has spoken.

Of course those who affirm the Holocaust need know nothing about the German language, chemistry, and other pertinent subjects; they need only repeat what they have been told by the authorities. In every controversy, most people care much less for what the truth is than for which side it's safer and more respectable to take. They shy away from taking a position that is likely to get them into trouble. Just as only people on the Axis side were accused of war crimes after World War II, only people critical of Jewish interests are accused of thought-crimes in today's mainstream press.

So, life being as short as it is, I shy away from this controversy. Of course I'm also incompetent to judge whether the Holocaust did happen; so I've become what might be called a "Holocaust stipulator." Like a lawyer who doesn't want to get bogged down debating a secondary point, I stipulate that the standard account of the Holocaust is true. What is undisputed -- the massive violation of human rights in Hitler's Germany -- is bad enough.
"

http://www.ihr.org/conference/14thconf/sobranconf.html

October 2, 2010 at 3:50 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

I like girls as far Northwest as you can get em. The only Russian girls I like the looks of could semi-pass for Western or Zentral. Anyway it could just be my genetic biases, and obviously large numbers of far-Westers love the way Russian girls look.

I care about Slavic preservation almost as much as Germanocelt preservation. The main reason is awesome art (and philosophy/worldviews) equal to that of Germanocelts - which could never be made by Germanocelts, I believe, for genetic reasons, and nor could Slavs make Germanoceltic art.

And third, I'd like to see NE Asian preservation since they have the next-best art. And South Euro preservation.

Contra TGGP, I don't think an overwhelming majority of explicitly White pres types dig Hitler. But I admit, the amount those types is pretty surprising. I guess I'm a big left-o-fag of a White pres, practially a Trotskyite on the White pres scale, since I'm OK with ceding very significant amounts of land to others (not in Europe itself), and so on. (I don't even care about homos doing their thing either, insofar as they jointly or severally stop attacking our civilization.) But some notable writers are into that relatively softer, war-avoiding line, such as Matt Parrott or Richard McCulloch. In fact, I think many people are.

[...]

October 2, 2010 at 4:34 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

I have a somewhat harder time excusing Hitler than Mencius seems to, though it seems clear that Mencius does consider Hitler the worst of the very bad. Germany had many grave security and prosperity problems after the Great War which were partly the fault of other nations, but I feel that Hitler had totally resolved them, years before he started the war. In fact he resolved them magnificently, beyond anyone's dreams, if you include things like the Anschluss and the Sudetenland. He should have been deeply satisfied. As far as I know, Prof. Tooze is right; Britain did not want a war, since she correctly divined that the US and USSR would emerge stronger (relatively) and all others much weaker. The Western Allies wanted to meet with him to cede some colonial territory, and so on, and generally seem to have tried to let him make it damned hard for them to ever invade his Germany. I'm pretty seriously sure they would also have joined with him if the Soviets were to march West - though it is hard to be totally certain, and maybe that was part of his calculation. Naturally the Sovs had plenty of land and of many (almost all?) kinds of raw materials, as they still do, so I don't really see them invading, especially on the Stalinist as opposed to the deranged Trotskyist path. Overall I find it tough to see how Hitler was significantly 'forced', overall, to start a world war.

Besides, the war was unwinnable. According to Tooze, Hitler started the war because he thought (correctly) that the balance of power would worsen for him after 1938-40 or so, and because he thought Jews controlled the Western Allies' societies to some amazing extent. He started it because he thought Germany was totally doomed in the future, not because he necessarily thought the odds of winning were clearly above 50%. Anyway, as is made clear by MacDonald, Jews tended to pillory Charles Lindburgh in the media after his isolationist speech pointing to separate (I mean, particularly Jewish) interests of American Jews. But it's clear that they did not have as much clout as Hitler imagined - *today* they might have that kind of clout, but that does not mean I would wish to resolve such a Semito-Gentile conflict in any way violently.

[...]

October 2, 2010 at 4:35 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

Mencius seems to let Hitler off the hook too easily for his Hebeological delusions (or whatever the hell else could have made him start the war), asking 'how could he have known that the Elders of Zion picture *wasn't* true?' Well, if you ask me, he could have figured it out pretty darn fast in the same way people investigate such questions today, such as me or Sailer, not that I compare myself to Sailer or that either of us is remotely interested in Hitler's profoundly evil way of doing things. I have zero interest in revenge or something against the Jews, who have basically just been acting in their own interest, and, at that, in reaction to a horrid crime done against them. I'm glad (would that it were my prerogative) to cede them generous amounts of fine recently-Nord-occupied land if they should want it, well-defensible in size, with respectable amounts of fertile soil, ores, coal, and whatever. And give them money to start things up.

So, he pretty much started the war for nothing, for a delusion, for a small chance at extirpating the Bolshevism or 'Judeo-Bolshevism' that *everyone* already wanted contained in Russia. And I accept the view that what he did is the chief cause of the fateful racialization of leftism (I don't believe that non-immigrationized, non-racialized leftism is likely to ever destroy a nation - or even cause severe problems, if it stops short of Stalinism). He may have singlehandedly sealed the fate of the West, but I hope not.

Consider these two pages of very interesting ethnonationalist expression by Fichte, just shown to me today - which, minus the theism (mostly), are my thoughts exactly. He doesn't mention anything in there about attacking or harming foreign peoples. He barely touches on innate traits of ethnies. Yet, today, he would immediately, reflexively be compared to Hitler in numerous articles and essays, and few would dare question it. Since Sarrazin is not grandfathered-in like Fichte is, comparing him to Hitler was not enough, as someone at Alt Right explained it: it was necessary to compare him to Hitler, Himmler, and Goebbels all at once, as some magazine did. As I wearily tell my mother, my views are exactly identical to Hitlerism as far as 95% of my fellow-national contemporaries can tell. So, I seek to influence the minds of my contemporaries.

October 2, 2010 at 4:36 PM  
Anonymous B said...

>They are.

Not my experience. Credentials do not equal intelligence or integrity. For a book discussing this, you can look up Ishmael Jones.

>And in the USSR, the intelligence organizations got to pick the absolute cream of the crop. You didn't pick them, they picked you.

Often based on being connected politically through family, etc. If being an analyst in the GRU was anything like being an all-source analyst in our IC, out of the box thinking and a willingness to take risks were probably more of a minus than a plus.

>If Suvorov were completely stupid and worthless, he wouldn't have had anything worth offering the Brits in the first place, and they wouldn't have accepted him.

Back then, even the dumbest defector had a lot to offer in terms of an insight on current enemy SOP and propaganda value.

>In any case, I met Suvorov in person when he came to Washington a while ago to discuss his most recent book, "The Chief Culprit". He did not strike me as stupid, and as for dishonest, I think the man genuinely believed what he was saying.

The Tom Clancyesque masturbatory descriptions of Spetznaz guys with their magical assault shovels and Stalin as an evil genius are enough to prevent me from taking him seriously. Of course, that was in the original-I haven't read him in translation.

>Then you are left with the problem of explaining why the orders that the border forces had in June 1941 were entirely offensive in nature.

I don't know. What does David Glantz say? I know that counterattacking at any opportunity is entirely consistent with post-war Soviet defensive doctrine, but am not sure about that period.

October 2, 2010 at 8:39 PM  
Anonymous B said...

>It certainly is. It is a sign of his manifest military unrealism. It is illogical to argue that Stalin would have been restrained from ordering an attack on Germany because the Red Army was unready to attack, when Stalin repeatedly ordered the Red Army to attack, from June 22 to December 1941, when it was clearly unready to attack. Stalin had much better evidence to think the Red Army was incapable of attacking after June 22, 1941, than he did before then, but he ordered the Red Army to attack anyway. Therefore we cannot exclude the Suvorov thesis on the grounds that "Stalin knew the Red Army was unready to attack".

Of course, it's circumstantial, like any argument here short of tapes/archival evidence.

>The man who crippled his own army and country in the purges? The man who ordered second-rate troops, even by Soviet standards, to attack the Finns in winter? The man who trusted Hitler? The man whose bad decisions got 5 million troops killed or captured in 1941? The man who thought the US would sit back and do nothing while his North Korean lackey conquered South Korea? The man who, in the end, thought the Jews were out to get him?

>There is a lot of good evidence that Stalin was out of touch with reality, so we can't exclude the Suvorov thesis on that grounds.

Since the Suvorov thesis is that Stalin was an evil genius whose purges made the Red Army an unstoppable force and targeted exclusively incompetent Trotskyites in order to elevate brilliant commanders like Zhukov, Rokossovskiy, Apanasenko, etc., who had the best grasp of intelligence EVAH, to the point where he preferred raw unprocessed source material (hahaha,) who played the Allies like a violin, etc., here we are forced to, in the Russian vernacular, "either take off our crucifix or put our underwear back one."

>Then again you are left with the problem of explaining why the Red Army was deployed forward with orders to attack, instead of deployed on the 1939 Soviet border with orders to defend.

I dunno. Because their defensive doctrine was unevaluated and shitty, as opposed to the alternative doctrine, which was proven to be crap by the French and British? Because defense in depth wasn't yet popularly accepted?

>One must also wonder why Stalin repeatedly ordered the same incompetent army to attack from June to December 1941, when a more realistic approach would have been defensive.

That approach, again, got the Brits and French effed in the a. So there's a major disincentive to copy it. Note that the "not a step back" defensive doctrine used by Stalin in 1941 was also used by HITLER that winter and subsequently.

October 2, 2010 at 8:39 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

It is frequently mentioned that New England was on average less pro-New Deal than other regions. This is not relevant to whether or not modern leftism came out of new England.

Progressivism is WASP/Protestant. Where I disagree with Moldbug is whether American progressivism created European revolutionary leftism.

It seems to me that the confusion over whether progressivism and Euro-Socialism came from the same source arises from failing to defining progressivism as distinct from socialism. The two do not share a common origin.

The progressive movement and New Deal were really secular Protestant Nanny State politics whereas revolutionary socialism sought to bring down the old European aristocratic priviliges.

To clear things up:

Progressivism = Bicycle helmet and seat belt laws.

Socialism = Labor strikes and Anarchist assassinations of heads of state.

October 3, 2010 at 11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Socialism and communism are as old as humanity. Spartans, Essenes, and a gazillion other cults and cultures before and since.

They both go back to pretty much the beginning of written history, and there is therefore no reason to think they don't go back all the way.

October 3, 2010 at 2:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not my experience. Credentials do not equal intelligence or integrity.

I've never met anyone stupid who works for a national intelligence organization. And yes, I have met a lot of them. And I have met Suvorov in person and talked to him, and he is not stupid. Nor can a stupid man write as many books as he has, which convey complex ideas (however much you may disagree with them).

Often based on being connected politically through family, etc.

No evidence this was the case for Suvorov.

Again, he wouldn't have enough material to make him interesting to the Brits if he were just a stupid son-of-someone-important.

If being an analyst in the GRU was anything like being an all-source analyst in our IC, out of the box thinking and a willingness to take risks were probably more of a minus than a plus.

Suvorov's thesis about WW2 is the opposite of "in the box" and no-risk.

Back then, even the dumbest defector had a lot to offer in terms of an insight on current enemy SOP and propaganda value.

A walk-in who was a complete idiot would have nothing to offer and would be regarded as a probable provocation. Give the Brits credit for looking at him carefully before they let him defect.

What does David Glantz say?

He hates the Suvorov thesis but doesn't have a convincing explanation for why Soviet forces were crowded up against the border.

October 3, 2010 at 5:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Progressivism was not "WASP/Protestant." It began with a bunch of heterogeneous gentiles and was quickly co-opted by Jews.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FHgM9NjYQ6EC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA91#v=onepage&q&f=false

Jews and Progressivism

"The political system that had emerged in the United States at the turn of the century was one that deprived Jews of access to economic and political power and to social standing. Not surprisingly, Jews were attracted to political movements that opposed that regime. Working-class Jews espoused socialism. Many middle- and upper-class Jews, on the other hand, supported Progressivism. The Progressives were a heterogeneous group of politicians that included diverse individuals as Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, Hiram Johnson of California, Albert Cummins of Iowa, William U'Ren of Oregon, Woodrow Wilson of New Jersey, and Theodore Roosevelt of New York, tied together by a network of organizations such as the National Municipal League and publications such as the National Municipal Review.

As Martin Shefter has noted, Progressives were united less by ideology than by a common place in the political system. In the wake of the election of 1896, the great majority of states and the national government, as well, came to be governed by one-party systems. The Progressive movement linked politicians who found their careers blocked by the leadership of the dominant party, with groups and forces that did not enjoy the favor of or access to the locally dominant party - shippers in states where that party was tied to a railroad, firms that sold in national markets in cities where the party machine was tied to businesses that sold in local markets, and so forth."

...

"Because it not only attacked a regime that excluded them but also advocated the principles of merit, rule by experts, and careers open to talent, and sought the creation of a powerful state that could enforce these norms, Jews supported the Progressive movement."

October 3, 2010 at 5:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As for the WASPs/Protestants/Brahmins:

http://books.google.com/books?id=FHgM9NjYQ6EC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA78#v=onepage&q&f=false

Patrician Anti-Semitism

"For the New England brahmins, the Jew served as a symbol of the greed and corruption of the new order. By assailing Jews, they attacked the industrialists, financiers, and railroad barons who were displacing them in the nation's political and economic life. This fear was expressed in a stream of anti-Semitic writings and speeches on the part of New England's leading public figures and intellectuals during the late nineteenth century."

...

"These themes were echoed by other New England patricians, including Henry James who used Jewish characters to symbolize greed and the decline of society. Similarly, Henry Adams's brother, Brooks, in his 1896 work, The Law of Civilization and Decay, demonstrated that throughout history Jews had used their money and financial acumen as instruments of exploitation, domination, and oppression. In the United States and Britain, productive industrial capitalism had been replaced by parasitic finance capitalism, symbolized by the Jewish usurer. This became a common theme in the literary and scholarly works of the New England patricians and other upper-class intellectuals. The Jew was attacked as the representative of a materialistic society with no values or culture."

Immigration Restriction

"From the patrician perspective, not only was the Jew was a symbol of the corruption of America's new ruling class, but the Jew symbolized the decay of American values in another was as well. To the patricians, Jewish immigrants, along with other newcomers from Southern and Eastern Europe, represented a threat to American culture, society, and the Anglo-Saxon race."

...

"One major vehicle for this aspect of the patrician attack on the industrialist regime was the Immigration Restriction League. The League was founded in 1894 by a trio of New England bluebloods - Charles Warren, Robert Ward, and Prescott Farnsworth Hall - and a group of their Harvard classmates. The League quickly promoted the creation of affiliates throughout the nation, often making use of the Harvard alumni network and other organizations of transplanted New Englanders."

...

"Among the League's most important intellectual spokesman was Edward Ross, one of the pioneers of American sociology. In his widely read 1914 work, The Old World and the New, Ross explains the importance of protecting Anglo-Saxon Americanism against pollution through immigration."

cont.

October 3, 2010 at 5:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course, it's circumstantial, like any argument here short of tapes/archival evidence.

Putting an entire army up against the border when it didn't have to be there, and when a defensive plan existed that kept the main Red Army force well back from the border, is pretty goddamn strong evidence for offensive intent.

Since the Suvorov thesis is that Stalin was an evil genius whose purges made the Red Army an unstoppable force and targeted exclusively incompetent Trotskyites

That does not accurately describe his thesis.

Because their defensive doctrine was unevaluated and shitty, as opposed to the alternative doctrine, which was proven to be crap by the French and British? Because defense in depth wasn't yet popularly accepted?

If they spent many years developing an offensive doctrine at the expense of a defensive doctrine, then logic suggests they planned to attack, not defend (duh). And it doesn't matter what was "popularly accepted", it only mattered what was "Stalin accepted".

The Soviets had a plan for keeping their main force back on the 1939 frontier, letting the Germans strike covering forces in eastern Poland, and then counterattacking the overextended German spearheads. That this plan was rejected should indicate Soviet intentions were not, at bottom, defensive.

That approach, again, got the Brits and French effed in the a

The USSR is not France (duh). France had no space to trade for time. The USSR had a crapload of space to trade for time, particularly after occupying Poland. This isn't hard!

Note that the "not a step back" defensive doctrine used by Stalin in 1941 was also used by HITLER that winter and subsequently.

Oh fer chrissake, "not a step back" was the rule when major Soviet cities were threatened. The order made sense then. Such an order made no sense with respect to the buffer zone in Poland.

October 3, 2010 at 5:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

cont.

Populist-Patrician Alliance?

"The initial support for immigration restriction was provided mainly by the political spokesman of the Northeastern upper classes. However, the vague outlines of an alliance began to develop around the issue of immigration--and on opposition to the industrialist order more generally--between the Brahmins and the political representatives of the South and rural West."

...

"For a brief moment at the turn of the century, what might have seemed to be an improbable alliance between agrarian radicals and patricians, an American coalition of the top and bottom, was a possibility. The two groups were divided by an enormous cultural chasm, but, nevertheless, shared a common hatred for the new capitalist order and the forces that it was bringing to power. "

October 3, 2010 at 5:25 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

An essay by a leftist on conservatism linked at MR.

"The political system that had emerged in the United States at the turn of the century was one that deprived Jews of access to economic and political power and to social standing."
Sounds like tsarist Russia, not America. Recent immigrants from eastern europe tended to be low on the pole, but long-settled Germans & Sephardics (like Judah Benjamin) were not. Kuhn, Loeb & Co was founded in 1867 and very successful during that time of "deprivation". Franz Boas rose to prominence a few decades later, though he primarily identified as (and W.H. Holmes criticized him as) German.

October 3, 2010 at 5:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds like tsarist Russia, not America. Recent immigrants from eastern europe tended to be low on the pole, but long-settled Germans & Sephardics (like Judah Benjamin) were not.

Sounds like you need to read that book. A major reason that "the political system that had emerged in the US at the turn of the century was one that deprived Jews of access to economic and political power and to social standing" was because there was somewhat of a backlash against those "German & Sephardic" Jews that naturally affected the Eastern European Jews as well.

October 3, 2010 at 6:14 PM  
Anonymous B said...

>I've never met anyone stupid who works for a national intelligence organization.

Lucky you. I've met a fair amount. The intel shops are like any other government organization in this respect.

>No evidence this was the case for Suvorov.

All I'm saying is, the GRU isn't the organization of near-genius ninjas he makes it out to be.

>Again, he wouldn't have enough material to make him interesting to the Brits if he were just a stupid son-of-someone-important.

Even a stupid connected guy can offer a lot of insight into the network he's connected with.

>Suvorov's thesis about WW2 is the opposite of "in the box" and no-risk.

What risks is he taking by publishing something sensationalist and controversial?

>and when a defensive plan existed that kept the main Red Army force well back from the border, is pretty goddamn strong evidence for offensive intent.

What defensive plan was that? Who was its main proponent?

>That does not accurately describe his thesis.

Depends which book you read. Ochischeniye was pretty much 300 pages of that.

>If they spent many years developing an offensive doctrine at the expense of a defensive doctrine, then logic suggests they planned to attack, not defend (duh).

So they had no idea that the enemy has a say?

>plan for keeping their main force back on the 1939 frontier, letting the Germans strike covering forces in eastern Poland, and then counterattacking the overextended German spearheads. That this plan was rejected should indicate Soviet intentions were not, at bottom, defensive.

Who was the proponent of the plan? What happened to him?

>TThe USSR is not France (duh). France had no space to trade for time. The USSR had a crapload of space to trade for time, particularly after occupying Poland. This isn't hard!

Again, where in 20th century military thinking did the idea of trading space for time become popular and accepted?

October 3, 2010 at 8:43 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

I think the documentary record is clear that AH had planned to invade the SU, preferable after wrapping up the involuntary detour in the west, which he def did not want.

The question is whether the hasty preparations and timing of Barbarossa was determined by Soviet troop movements, forcing Hitler's hand, despite the failure to bring the western campaign to a close.

From memory, in Hitler's War Irving doesn't play up this angle, and considers the Eastern campaign as purely voluntary. I think. He might have changed that view in later years. The Soviet documentary record and Russian language are outside his area of expertise, unlike the German and British area. But lots of German and Russian scholars believe the decision to invade Russia was partly the result of apparent Russian intent to launch their own offensive. It isn't just Suvorov. He just fleshes out that hypothesis with lots of evidence and detail. But he didn't come up with the idea. Most people who weren't anti-Axis and pro-Ally partisans a least accepted the possibility all along. The proof as always are in the documents and diaries, and other hard evidence. This should be at least somewhat accessible since the fall of the SU.

October 3, 2010 at 9:22 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

For examples of pre- or non-Suvorov proponents of the German pre-emptive invasion, browse these book reviews...

Examining Stalin's 1941 Plan to Attack Germany

* Unternehmen Barbarossa und der russische Historikerstreit ("Operation Barbarossa and the Russian Historians' Dispute"), by Wolfgang Strauss. Munich: Herbig, 1998. Hardcover. 199 pages. Illustrations. Source references. Bibliography. Index.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p40_Michaels.html

New Evidence on the 1941 'Barbarossa' Attack: Why Hitler Attacked Soviet Russia When He Did

* Stalins Falle: Er wollte den Krieg ("Stalin's Trap: He Wanted War"), by Adolf von Thadden. Rosenheim: Kultur und Zeitgeschichte/Archiv der Zeit, 1996. (Available from: Postfach 1180, 32352 Preussisch Oldendorf, Germany). Hardcover. 170 pages. Photos. Bibliography.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n3p40_Michaels.html

Revising the Twentieth Century's 'Perfect Storm'
Russian and German Historians Debate Barbarossa and Its Aftermath
* Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia, by Gabriel Gorodetsky. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999. 408 pages.
* Samoubiystvo (Suicide), by Viktor Suvorov. Moscow: AST, 2000. 380 pages. Illustrations.
* Upushchennyy shans Stalina (Stalin's Lost Opportunity), by Mikhail Meltiukhov. Moscow: Veche, 2000. 605 pages. Illustrations, maps.
* Stalin's War of Extermination, 1941-45: Planning, Realization, and Documentation, by Joachim Hoffmann. Capshaw, Ala.: Theses and Dissertations Press, 2001. 415 pages. Illustrations.

http://ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n6p59_Michaels.html

A Thoughtful Look at the German-Soviet Clash Reassesses the Second World War
Could Hitler Have Won?

* Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted, by Russell H.S. Stolfi. University of Oklahoma Press, 1991. Hardcover. 280 pages. Photographs. Maps. Notes. Bibliography. Index.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n6p38_Bishop.html

Stalin's War

* STALIN'S WAR: A RADICAL NEW THEORY OF THE ORIGINS OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR, by Ernst Topitsch. Translated by A. and B.E. Taylor. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987, 160 pages, $19.95, ISBN: 0-312-0989-5.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p222_Smith.html

Suvorov's main works are also reviewed at IHR.

October 3, 2010 at 9:31 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

More recently, two prominent European historians, one German and one Austrian, have presented further evidence of Soviet preparations for an attack against Germany. The first of these is Joachim Hoffmann, who for many years was a historian with the renowned Military History Research Center in Freiburg. He lays out his evidence in Stalins Vernichtungskrieg, 1941-1945 ("Stalin's War of Annihilation"), a work of some 300 pages that has appeared in at least three editions. The second is Heinz Magenheimer, a member of the Academy of National Defense in Vienna, and an editor of the Österreichische Militärische Zeitschrift. His detailed book has recently appeared in English under the title Hitler's War: German Military Strategy, 1940-1945 (London: 1998).

Von Thadden also reviews a series of articles in the German weekly Der Spiegel about Soviet plans, worked out by General Georgi Zhukov, to attack northern Germany and Romania in early 1941. Commenting on this, Colonel Vladimir Karpov has stated:

Just imagine if Zhukov's plan had been accepted and implemented. At dawn one morning in May or June thousands of our aircraft and tens of thousands of our artillery pieces would have struck against densely concentrated enemy forces, whose positions were known down to the battalion level -- a surprise even more inconceivable than the German attack on us.

...

To shore up the beleaguered "establishment" view of the Hitler-Stalin clash, a group of concerned scholars met at an international conference in Moscow in 1995. Historians from Europe, Israel, the United States and Canada met with their Russian counterparts to coordinate the "official" line, in both Russia and the West, on the German-Russian clash and its origins. These historians simply ignored most of the abundant and growing body of evidence for the revisionist view of this chapter of history, including the Stalin speeches and other evidence cited by von Thadden, or the recent substantiating findings of Russian historians.

To show that even "establishment" scholars can change their view about this chapter of history, von Thadden cites French historian Stéphane Courtois. (note8)

I work for a reevaluation of Stalin. He was the greatest criminal of this century. But at the same time he was the century's greatest politician: its most competent and most professional. He understood best of all how to utilize all means in the service of his goals. From 1917 onwards, he had a global vision, and sticking to his project, he achieved it ... Of course, one can easily say that Hitler unleashed the war. But the evidence of Stalin's responsibility is shattering. Stalin wanted to eradicate anyone who opposed the Marxist-Leninist social order.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n3p40_Michaels.html

October 3, 2010 at 9:45 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

For many people it might just be plain interesting, for historical reasons, to actually read Hitler's extensive declaration of war against the US, Dec. 11, 1941.

Germany’s Declaration of War Against the United States
Hitler’s Reichstag Speech of December 11, 1941

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.html

How many Americans, even politically unconventional and well educated, have actually read stuff like this? This is valuable historical information. Naturally its not all true, but it's also not ALL false.

October 3, 2010 at 9:54 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

As for the idea of Jewish influence around Britain's war party leading to the outbreak of the war, espec. Churchill, it's so well documented by Irving that it's ridiculous MM doesn't know about this. Has he never heard of "The Focus"? MM should stick to his area of expertise, whatever it is. It's surely not Europe during the 20th century.

October 3, 2010 at 9:58 PM  
Anonymous Edmusan said...

@ TGGP and UJ:

Guess you'll like the text by Rothbard stating the case for the first communist enterprise in America by the early 1600s, a Pilgrim enterprise nonethless!

http://mises.org/daily/2395

Communism is always and everywhere a Christian Heresy, perhaps it spread like Lactose Tolerance did, by multiple geographical foci of mutations...

October 4, 2010 at 6:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Lucky you. I've met a fair amount. The intel shops are like any other government organization in this respect."

None of which establishes that Suvorov is stupid.

"What risks is he taking by publishing something sensationalist and controversial?"

The risk is obvious - if you contradict every other expert in the field, they automatically feel obliged to attack you.

"What defensive plan was that? Who was its main proponent?"

Shaposhnikov's defense plan of 1940.

"So they had no idea that the enemy has a say?"

The Germans planned to attack, too, and their doctrine was accordingly offensive. As long as you win, people don't ask what the enemy thinks about your doctrine.

"Who was the proponent of the plan? What happened to him?"

Shaposhnikov. Stalin rejected his plan in favor of moving the main forces up to the frontier.

"Again, where in 20th century military thinking did the idea of trading space for time become popular and accepted?"

Countries that have lots of space, and nothing too important close to the frontier, DO accept that logic. And it was accepted in the USSR until the death of Tukhachevskii.

October 4, 2010 at 8:44 AM  
Anonymous totalesturns said...

TUJ nails it. The encounter between Anglo-American democratic radicalism and the Continental revolutionary tradition is a complicated story that started in 1789 and can't be reduced to an unambigous identification. In the Thirties, some members of the Anglosphere intelligentsia believed that the Soviet Union was advancing their own cause through other means, and there were enough of these people in the State Department that Robert Welch really was on to something. But that's not the same thing as claiming that Communism was nothing but an American-made export.

It's worth noting that from the perspective of the Soviet leadership, American Communism in its first decade *wasn't American enough.* Leadership positions went with Moscow's blessing to native-born Anglos, but the majority of the rank and file consisted of recent immigrants, most of whom wanted to maintain newspapers and party bureaucracies in their own native languages. (Some of them were Jooooooooos, but there were also Slavic and Scandinavian factions in the industrial Midwest.) Trying to get these factions to play nice with each other and appear "American" enough to recruit native-born workers gave the Comintern fits.

I wish MM would abandon this ridiculous line of argument, because his basic thesis that "modern-day progressivism = secularized Protestant universalism" is irrefutable. Cathedral priests are the lineal descendents of the clerics who made Hester Prynne wear an "R" for "Racist" and banished Roger Williams for persisting in the heresy of biologically innate gender differences. (Or do I have that chronology wrong?) That's a bad enough heritage already; no need to drag Stalin into it.

October 4, 2010 at 2:46 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

Blast, I had a longer post providing context but lost it.

But, have a look at the plan/analysis for conquering the USSR, after the Nazi surrender, which Churchill commissioned from his boys (it's online). The finding is that the Russian industrial machine was highly mobile over a vast area of the USSR, and that there were no strategic objectives whose capture could end the putative war. (You can't really move agriculture, but I guess they could just import food.) Conclusion was that only the defeat of the Red Army (on the order of 10 million), out in the field, could do the job.

I take it that Churchill hoped that top strategic minds would find some way in which Russia had been deeply weakened by the Nazi fight, and hence could be easily smacked around, as the Deutsch smacked it after those failed WWI negotiations with Trotsky. But, no.

October 4, 2010 at 2:52 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

BTW this is what I was responding to:

>> Again, where in 20th century military thinking did the idea of trading space for time become popular and accepted?

> Countries that have lots of space, and nothing too important close to the frontier, DO accept that logic. And it was accepted in the USSR until the death of Tukhachevskii.

October 4, 2010 at 2:54 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

so jkr,

> But he didn't come up with the idea. Most people who weren't anti-Axis and pro-Ally partisans a least accepted the possibility all along.

Do you think that plan was aborted at least partially at some point, or that it was adhered to until the very bullets of Barbarossa?

That's what I was going on about above - there's more'n one possible version of this. To me, while the 'all the way' version is not implausible at all, the 'abort' after the war on the Western continent version may make slightly more logical sense. One would expect that Germany would be highly exhausted on the Western Front, win, lose, or draw. Since Hitler snapped up France and 'BeNeLux' with ease, and probably made a net gain of armaments, from capturing loads of arms, you would think Stalin would then be like 'oh $*&$*!!'.

Well, even after that piece of bad luck, it's possible he could have planned for preemptive attack. But why not launch it in time, then, when he had received so, so much indication of when Germany planned to start shooting?

October 4, 2010 at 3:09 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

Ain't this David Irving guy just a little extreme?

October 4, 2010 at 3:38 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

I think Irving's pretty balanced, honestly. He was always considered a half-revisionist by the revisionists. Of course he's extreme from the standpoint of the history channel.. I personally think his writing is impeccable, his research is extremely rigorous, and he is genuinely honest. That said, we all have our biases, and they sometimes become more pronounced over time. But Irving is even open about his biases. I think Irving is an excellent anti-historian. He's the opposite of a court historian or state sponsored historian. And they really hate him for it. Quite a personality and sense of humor, too.

Rob S., to answer your question, I really have no idea about the Soviet plan or non-plan to invade. Lots of theories or plausible. Hopefully it can all be established from genuine records, (if it hasn't already been.) All you can do is defer to the experts of all perspectives, and try to separate the propaganda narrative from the genuine data. Hitler's Barbarossa proclamation is just as plausible an account of what happened as the traditional US-British-Soviet narrative of what happened. Or both could be total propaganda, with the truth in the middle. I tend to believe its somewhere in the middle; Hitler planned to invade the SU for economic reasons, and was forced into a rearguard action by an increasingly hostile Soviet Union looking to open the second front once AH had failed to wrap up the western campaign. AH definitely tried hard to avoid war w/ Britain and France, and wanted to extend Germany's economic and political influence throughout central and eastern Europe, consolidated under a 'German sphere of influence,' as it had been traditionally for centuries... I think the timing and nature of Barbarossa was forced by circumstances. It's a complex subject, for sure. And waaay too much bias and emotion involved for most people to examine all perspectives clearly.

October 4, 2010 at 4:44 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Anyway, as a literary sidenote, THE FORGOTTEN SOLDIER by Guy Sajer is a deeply moving and disturbing portrait of life for a common German soldier on the eastern front in WW2. Some awful, and eye-opening stuff about war. Its been compared to All Quiet On the Western Front, which I have not read.

October 4, 2010 at 4:48 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Its ridiculous to think this debate is gonna be resolved here. There's a huge dispute going on mainly in the German and Russian language historical journals and press. It's not just Suvorov. There are dozens of revisionist Russian and German historians, and plenty of German establishment historians and Soviet-apologist Russian (and one Israeli) historians on the other side. The links I posted above extensively document and review this literature, and I think the impartial reader will have to conclude that the evidence supports and aggressive and prepared Russia. Again, it's not just renegade Suvorov with an iconoclastic theory... Of course there are gonna be naysayers propping up the establishment line in Germany and a few Soviet apologist Russians. The English speaking historians are as usual completely ignorant.

October 4, 2010 at 6:04 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Kevin Carson says the problem with the common libertarian account of communist Pilgrims is that it just ain't so.

A bloggingheads diavlog on British colonialism in India. Since it was (I think) the largest colony, I'm surprised Mencius has said so little about it.

October 4, 2010 at 6:10 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

too many different things are being umbrella'd under the term communism... its ridiculous how we allow modern designations and words to confuse our understandings... american progressivism, european socialism, radical bolshevism, cultural critique (political correctness, cultural marxism)... etc. etc. lots of different phenomenon going on here, different groups, different motivations... some class based, some ideological, some ethnic, some religious... if people can't see a different between, say, spartan "communism," a hippie commune, a kibbutz, and paul krugman, are f%cking too stupid to help.

October 4, 2010 at 7:02 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

> Socialism and communism are as old as humanity. Spartans, Essenes, and a gazillion other cults and cultures before and since.

Commies with slaves? The Spartans remind me much more of the fascists and Nazis.

But, part of the left exists in most people, intrinsically, and was freed by the close of the Malthusian life that had been able to justify damn near anything. (You know, whoever's little daughters and sons are undernourished, so they mull over getting out there and catch up with whomever - and they do it.)

I doubt whether there is any halfway likely alternative history wherein Brits, Americans, once they make $5,000 a year and aren't hungry in the least, still feel proud to enslave. Emancipation is natural, feeding starving fellow nationals is natural.

There is some mercy in the soul, which used to be more in check in the hungry world, and is now released. Nor is this even a bad thing, really, until it extended to things like universal-suffrage democracy and immigration.

October 4, 2010 at 10:39 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

The biggest difference is that the Spartans semi had to act how they did; Mussolini and the Nazis didn't have to.

October 4, 2010 at 10:40 PM  
Blogger Studd Beefpile said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

October 5, 2010 at 12:35 AM  
Blogger Studd Beefpile said...

Re the Japanese

The Japanese Army in Manchuria was the cream of the IJA, and it got it's ass handed to it repeatedly by second rate soviet divisions. The reason was that they were woefully, massively, under equipped. They had few tanks, almost all of which were obsolete, almost no anti-tank weaponry, not nearly enough artillery, no mechanized transport, lousy machine guns, and more.

Some of the reason for this was institutional. The Japanese army in 1939 wasn't what it had been in 1906, and they had spent two years fighting the Chinese and learning all the wrong lessons. That said, even if they had realized their deficiencies, Japanese industrialization simply wasn't deep enough to build and supply a modern land army. My favorite story is this. The first Zero fighter prototype, which was probably the most advanced aircraft in the world at the time, was transported from the factory to the test airfield in a horse drawn cart.

There is an excellent summary of the situation below. They are mostly focused on naval comparisons with the US, but make the point clearly enough.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

The wikipedia page on the subject is also pretty stark. Canada produced twice as many tanks during the war as the Japanese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

October 5, 2010 at 12:36 AM  
Blogger Studd Beefpile said...

As to explaining Hitler's invasion, I see no reason not to accept the conventional narrative. In Mein Kampf, Hitler said he wanted to repudiate Versailles, unify all the German speaking people, get revenge against France, then seek Lebensraum in the east. Once he got into power, he did exactly that. In exactly that order. 3 cheers for the only politician in history to live up to his campaign pledges!

As for the Russian side, Stalin seemed to spend most of the 30s trying not to get caught in a serious war. He was convinced that the democracies wanted to get him to fight the fascists so they wouldn't have to, because that is what he would have done in their situation. For his part, he was explicitly interested in getting his enemies (and he saw both groups as his enemies) turn on each other. Having finally achieved this goal, I see little reason for him to reverse this rather sensible policy in 1941, especially given the recent disaster of the winter war.

As to why his forces were all at the border, Stalin wasn't exactly a military genius. I have no doubt he was paranoid about a Hitler attack(he was paranoid about everything) and felt that arrangement to be the best way to defend himself. Plus, the the creation of a large mobile reserve army might be domestically dangerous.

October 5, 2010 at 12:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Commies with slaves? The Spartans remind me much more of the fascists and Nazis.

Oy vey, there are none so blind as those who will not see. The USSR and PRC had millions and millions of slaves - extracting free labor was a major purpose of the gulag system. How did gold get mined in Kolyma and nickel in Norilsk and coal in Vorkuta? How did the White Sea Canal and Trans-Siberian Railroad get built? Not voluntarily, I assure you.

October 5, 2010 at 3:43 AM  
Anonymous P.M.Lawrence said...

"Theoretically, a mechanical system could be constructed that grew Arkansas Blacks in Chile, scanned their peels with machine vision and sniffed them with gas spectrometers, picked them at their perfect peak, and transferred them immediately to ballistic launchers that sent them arcing, cushioned and heated, through space to the Safeway in Walnut Creek".

Not so theoretically; the first part of that is already established technology, e.g. that of Colour Vision Systems, developed years ago in Forth.

October 5, 2010 at 7:09 AM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

Fair point. The Nazis had slaves too, though, and treated 'em worse. I guess I was thinking more of the ideal of communism - the poster I was responding to may also have been thinking of the ideal.

I've read some knowledgeable guy say that not many were actually killed in Nazi death camps - they were almost all killed in labor camps, eating 500-1,000 calories a day. I'm not sure if that is true or not.

October 5, 2010 at 12:50 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

Rob:

re: always been with us

yeah--progressivism/conservatism is related to exogamy and endogamy.

October 5, 2010 at 12:59 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

> As to explaining Hitler's invasion, I see no reason not to accept the conventional narrative. In Mein Kampf, Hitler said he wanted to [...]

I think the problem is that he also wanted to ally with Britain and not fight in the West.

He controlled a lot of stuff before Barbarossa, not just France + BeNeLux. Had Norway. Had Sweden as basically a crypto-ally, and Finland. Plus, he had a lot of power over SE Europe. He didn't have an enemy in Franco.

Unfortunately for him, he was in the middle geographically.

If there are three or more comparable powers, you shouldn't be eager to fight. The two who fight are weakened and the third gains power. This is why most monogamous animals don't really fight: even the winner will often be injured, and hence the surrounding others will be in a position to take some of his territory. Consequentally, the monogamous birds in your yard just get up in one another's faces and show their moves (basically speed and precision of movement) in order to assess the balance of power. Then they basically draw up a treaty, possibly involving a partial cession of territory.

So, with three (or more) powers, what you really want to do is cement a strong, really powerful alliance with one of the other two, and prevent the other two from making an alliance. Other than that you might just want to sit, not start something.

I think part of the thing is that there was only one power for USSR to attack: Hitler. Stalin certainly couldn't attack Anglomerica. And, actually, it was basically impossible for Hitler to attack Anglamerica, though Anglomerica could attack him or anyone because of its muscular navy. So Hitler and Stalin were kind of alone together, how romantic. When there are two comparable powers, which was semi the case for the two, it often serves best to just attack pre-emptively.

There's more. If Hitler had taken all of the arms and factories of the USSR, (and enslaved as many people as he wanted, on as few calories as he desired), then Anglomerica would surely have left him alone, I think. ALl the moreso if he did it without much in the way of losses. He did say that he thought USSR was weak and that everyone there opposed the regime. I don't think you can generally assume that he believed every single thing he said, but maybe he believed that. Therefore, I think his incentive to get the USSR was huge, if he believed it would have been remotely easy to do.

Then too, maybe Stalin realized that Hitler was probably thinking the above. If so, and if he also thought that offense was generally better in this war than defense, then the only sensible idea would be preemptive attack. On the other hand, if he was as doubtful about the Red Army as Cochran suggests, then maybe he was torn.

October 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

>> As to explaining Hitler's invasion, I see no reason not to accept the conventional narrative. In Mein Kampf, Hitler said he wanted to [...]

> I think the problem is that he also wanted to ally with Britain and not fight in the West.

I forgot to explain my point. My point is basically that he wound up going off-script. And the plan had been pretty complex. So, my feeling (partly introspective or intuitional) is that he mostly ad-libbed ever after. Or, at the very least, anything and everything was on the table.

October 5, 2010 at 1:19 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

jkr I am willing to give him a try - especially since some of his books are online.

It's hard to see what the documentation is, though, online, if there are endnotes rather than footnotes. I have that problem with reading some of Abir Taha's book on Amazon but it is interesting enough, true or not, that I'll just buy it.

October 5, 2010 at 1:35 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

You should definitely read at least Churchill's War volume i and ii, and Hitler's War. They seem to be the broadest of his works covering the whole war, from the two perspectives. It would be great if he could have done the same from the perspective of Roosevelt and Stalin, but a person can only do so much in one life time. As far as the footnotes, if you're reading in .pdf format, you can just use the built in search engine.

Pretty much all of Irving's works are available online.

So is Icebreaker, btw. I haven't read that.

October 5, 2010 at 2:02 PM  
Anonymous Pals said...

May I direct the esteemed readers of this blog to what I had written a while ago about Moldbug's take on Nazism:

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2010/02/from-mises-to-carlyle-my-sick-journey.html#7554770922659324220

I think Moldbug has basically invented a new ideological category purely for himself: He is a self-loving-Jew and a self-hating Nazi

October 5, 2010 at 4:32 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

Pals,

I really don't see how MM is a Nazi. He is not a nationalist, he is not a socialist (in the 'people own the state' sort of way). He doesn't believe in lebensraum. He thinks all people can be governed by a sane government. He is just sympathetic to the German position dating back to well before the Nazis that the international community was out to destroy them, because it, in fact, was.

October 5, 2010 at 4:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

josh,

the nazis weren't classical nationalists either. they were pan-germanic and pan-european, aiming for some new europe-wide political order to succeed the democratic-capitalistic system... admitedly they did not include russia in this idea of europe, (or jews) and considered the dozens of mixed slavic, germanic and other ethnic groups formerly subject to the habsburgs to be an area subject to german authority. which of course it naturally would be without america and the british empire meddling. but they didn't desire inter-european conflicts renewed and a replay of ww1. that was the decision of britain and france. hitler abandoned all territorial claims west and south of germany, and all colonial ambitions that might rival england, for just this reason.

and besides using the word, they didn't adhere to any of the basic doctrines of socialism, whether egalitarianism or abolition of property, etc. it's not easy to define the state set up by national socialism, but it wasn't democratic or marxist. it was almost like a restoration of the guilds under a national system, with everything re-organized under a fuhrer-prinzip (leadership principle), i.e., a restoration of the traditional idea of authority, hierarchy. but without eliminating the market, private property, and market pricing. (during the war they rationed, used price controls, but consider the circumstances).

how it would have played out in the long run, no one knows. but i don't agree with those who imagine it would have collapsed quickly like the USSR. i think there's a chance it would have had more long-run stability than the current democratic-bureaucratic systems of the usa and uk, where, clearly no one is even remotely in the driver's seat or minding the store, as it were.

October 5, 2010 at 5:50 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

jkr,

Just read Hitler's declaration of war. That was interesting. Thanks.

October 5, 2010 at 7:09 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

josh,

Yeah, no prob.

I enjoyed this passage,

"In August 1940 a joint military policy for the United States and Canada was established. In order to make the establishment of a joint American-Canadian defense committee plausible to at least the stupidest people, Roosevelt periodically invented crises and acted as if America was threatened by immediate attack. He would suddenly cancel trips and quickly return to Washington and do similar things in order to emphasize the seriousness of the situation to his followers, who really deserve pity."

Reminded me of McCain canceling his trips and returning to DC to try to get TARP passed.

The 20th century is truly frightening to look back on with open eyes. Amazing how horrible it was, and how completely oblivious the survivors of it are of how horrible it was. The sheer contrast in perceptions, and between perceptions and reality, is frightening. What can be said of humanity, and all its lofty notions of itself, of democracy, of progress, after this experience?

I guess its as Mencius says; this experience hasn't actually been experienced yet, not by the society as a whole. Because an accurate history hasn't yet been written. It calls to mind what Nietzsche said at the end of his "Madman parable" announcing the death of God,

"There never was a greater event, and on account of it, all who are born after us belong to a higher history than any history hitherto!" Here the madman was silent and looked again at his hearers; they also were silent and looked at him in surprise. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, so that it broke in pieces and was extinguished. "I come too early," he then said, "I am not yet at the right time. This prodigious event is still on its way, and is travelling, it has not yet reached men's ears. Lightning and thunder need time, the light of the stars needs time, deeds need time, even after they are done, to be seen and heard. This deed is as yet further from them than the furthest star, and yet they have done it!"

October 5, 2010 at 9:07 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

It's enough to make a person wish (29,000 times) that Napoleon had united Europe.

October 5, 2010 at 10:42 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

It's a very awkward feeling, for me at least, when Hitler makes me snicker. In the declaration he references Roosevelt's ridiculous appeal to himself and Mussolini from 1939 and his own reply. Ever read that reply? I read it a few years ago, and had to suppress laughter less somebody ask me what had me cracking up ("Oh, just a couple of great zingers from Adolph Hitler!"). I can see why people don't read this stuff.

October 6, 2010 at 6:31 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

yeah, i did read that at one point. the feeling almost makes you nauseous, when you consider the bloodbath that followed. these weren't exactly things to make light of, in retrospect. it's definitely eye opening to see the comedy that preceded the tragedy.

October 6, 2010 at 1:54 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

The impressive power and funding of the interwar YMCA and its role in promoting a "Protestant", progressive American foreign policy abroad deserves further exploration.

I would recommend to the interested reader "Many Worlds: A Russian Life", the memoirs of White Russian refugee Sophie Koulomzin.

Koulomzin, a devotee of reactionary philosopher Ivan Ilyin, played a role in what we nerds would today call a truly moby hack: she and some collaborating Americans co-opted the progressive operations of the massive YMCA among Russian refugees and turned them to supporting traditionalist Russian Orthodoxy and its very different worldview. The "YMCA Press Paris" went on to strike a real blow against communism by being the first to publish Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago".

Meanwhile, in the USA of 1926-27, it was the Roaring Twenties, Coolidge was in and Progressivism was out, so naturally YMCA figures Sherwood Eddy and Jerome Davis were praising Lenin and communism. In a telling passage, Eddy admits that he didn't care about the truth of the situation in Russia, but just wanted to strike a blow for Lenin's Progressive allies in the USA. From Koulomzin, p. 129:

And then you have men like Sherwood Eddy who visit Russian and come back and tell [people] what to think. The day before yesterday I went to his lecture. It was the same old "rigamarole":... He had witnessed himself "the passionate, burning love for humanity consuming those men that call themselves atheists, a passion for humanity that must shame our Christian government."

Koulomzin, many of whose friends were executed by the Bolshevisks and herself narrowly escaped being shot by them, told Eddy

that I thought he was giving an unfair picture of what is happening in Russia. He was very nice to me... and we talked for almost an hour... He answered: "I have no interest in Russia, I am interested in saving America, for I believe it is beginning to commit the same mistakes the czarist regime committed in Russia. I am using my visit to Russia as a weapon to this end-- to awaken, to sting the American public to see its faults."

This, in a nutshell, is how Progressive "history" gets written: carefree lies to serve the Progressive agenda.

October 7, 2010 at 11:40 AM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Interview with Goldwater from 1986. Doesn't seem he was really cut out for politics. Surprised he retained friendship & loyalty to Nixon so long if he considered him thoroughly dishonest throughout his life.

October 9, 2010 at 1:17 AM  
Blogger TGGP said...

I forget if I've referenced Patrick Deneen here before. Like Mencius he argues that American "conservatives" are just an offshoot of liberalism. Unfortunately, as with Larison on patriotism & populism, he is reluctant to relinquish the talisman of "democracy".

October 9, 2010 at 2:53 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

TGGP,

that's one of the most amazing things, the religious-like faith in democracy. an idea that's been logically demolished repeatedly by so many thinkers, for ages.

one person, one vote, and the dumber, the better for the political class. the further we slide into democracy, the larger this parasitic class grows, including journalists, bureaucrats, and all recipients of government largess, grants, subsidies, etc. -- who MUST all sing the praises of democracy.

the worse it gets, the further we spiral down, the more interested parties who must praise democracy.

back when we had a limited republic, with the electorate restricted to the property owning males in a relatively small, tight-knit locale and community, with the larger bodies composed of representatives of the smaller bodies, and "democracy" worked a lot better, there were far, far fewer persons singing its praises as the exclusively valid form of government.

so many millions of people depend on a stupid electorate and the "democratic process" (broadly defined) for their existence and livelihood. the last thing america needs is an "efficient government." millions of assholes would lose their jobs.

October 9, 2010 at 8:00 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

jkr

It's hardly amazing.

Democracy slices up the power cake into tiny pieces and distributes it to all.

As most humans are power fiends, this strategy works well, especially if you figure out a way to shape public opinion.

October 9, 2010 at 8:15 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

the present government system desires and requires "managed chaos," not efficiency. that's part of the reason for the drive for diversity. the more diversity, the more chaos to manage, the less chance of small, efficient governments of a few people. the state has its own complete motivation for increasing ethnic diversity, apart from the additional motivation of massive pressure and propaganda from the usual suspects in hollywood, the ny times, etc., for multiculturalism and ethnic diversity.

October 9, 2010 at 8:16 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

GM,

what's amazing about it is that logical people have understood the inferiority of democracy for a long time, and articulated them. democracy is not hard to take apart on logical grounds. like i said, 200 years ago, it wasn't a sacrilege to discredit democracy. it has only become sacrosanct since the word came into common usage in the 30s. i think FDR was the first to really emphasize the word. probably the public schools created this civic religion from around that time. but the worship of democracy, despite its logical vulnerability, is a recent phenomenon. before 1933, the american revolution was regarded more as an independence movement than as the enshrining of "democracy," in the national ethos. the new civic religion of democracy worship seems to have taken root no earlier than the 1930s.

i guess some critical mass was reached in the society, a certain # of state functionaries and dependents on the system (probably during the new deal through ww2), which made the system and its civic religion self-perpetuating and irreversible by lawful political means.

October 9, 2010 at 8:34 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

America wasn't particularly democratic at the founding, but it was by the time Jackson was president and de Tocqueville was writing. The founders though "faction" was one of the greatest dangers and responsible for the terrible behavior of Parliament. Today competing parties are considered essential for preserving liberty within democracies. North, Wallis & Weingast's "Violence and Social Order" has a good account of that change.

I should note that in the link Deneen argues against identifying democracy with elections. Like Larison, he has very low regard for what most associate with certain terms ("democracy" for him, "patriotism" and "populism" for Larison) but wants to retain the term with his own preferred meaning. What exactly he wishes it to mean, I do not know.

October 9, 2010 at 8:42 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

One of my favorite Nietzsche quotes...

THE JOYFUL WISDOM

V. WE FEARLESS ONES

356. In what Manner Europe will always become "more Artistic."

Providing a living still enforces even in the present day (in our transition period when so much ceases to enforce), a definite role on almost all male Europeans, their so-called callings; some have the liberty, an apparent liberty, to choose this role themselves, but most have it chosen for them. The result is strange enough. Almost all Europeans confound themselves with their role when they advance in age; they themselves are the victims of their "good acting," they have forgotten how much chance, whim and arbitrariness swayed them when their "calling" was decided and how many other roles they could perhaps have played: for it is now too late!

Looked at more closely, we see that their characters have actually evolved out of their role, nature out of art. There were ages in which people believed with unshaken confidence, yea, with piety, in their predestination for this very business, for that very mode of livelihood, and would not at all acknowledge chance, or the fortuitous role, or arbitrariness therein. Ranks, guilds, and hereditary trade privileges succeeded, with the help of this belief, in rearing those extraordinary broad towers of society which distinguished the Middle Ages, and of which, at all events, one thing remains to their credit: capacity for duration (and duration is a thing of the first rank on earth!).

But there are ages entirely the reverse, the properly democratic ages, in which people tend to become more and more oblivious of this belief, and a sort of impudent conviction and quite contrary mode of viewing things comes to the front, the Athenian conviction which is first observed in the epoch of Pericles, the American conviction of the present day, which wants also more and more to become a European conviction: whereby the individual is convinced that he can do almost anything, that he can play almost any role, whereby everyone makes experiments with himself, improvises, tries anew, tries with delight, whereby all nature ceases and becomes art. . . .

What I fear, however, and what is at present obvious, if we desire to perceive it, is that we modern men are quite on the same road already; and whenever a man begins to discover in what respect he plays a role, and to what extent he can be a stage-player, he becomes a stage-player. ... A new flora and fauna of men thereupon springs up, which cannot grow in more stable, more restricted eras, or is left "at the bottom," under the ban and suspicion of infamy; thereupon the most interesting and insane periods of history always make their appearance, in which "stage-players," all kinds of stage-players, are the real masters. Precisely thereby another species of man is always more and more injured, and in the end made impossible: above all the great "architects;" the building power is now being paralysed; the courage that makes plans for the distant future is disheartened; there begins to be a lack of organising geniuses.

October 10, 2010 at 7:10 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

cont.

Who is there who would now venture to undertake works for the completion of which millenniums would have to be reckoned upon? The fundamental belief is dying out, on the basis of which one could calculate, promise and anticipate the future in one's plan, and offer it as a sacrifice thereto: that in fact man has only value and significance in so far as he is a stone in a great building; for which purpose he has first of all to be solid, he has to be a "stone." . . . Above all, not a stage-player!

In short, alas! this fact will be hushed up for some considerable time to come! that which from henceforth will no longer be built, and can no longer be built, is a society in the old sense of the term; to build that structure everything is lacking, above all, the material. None of us are any longer material for a society: that is a truth which is seasonable at present! It seems to me a matter of indifference that meanwhile the most short-sighted, perhaps the most honest, and at any rate the noisiest species of men of the present day, our friends the Socialists, believe, hope, dream, and above all scream and scribble almost the opposite; in fact one already reads their watchword of the future: "free society," on all tables and walls! Free society? Indeed! Indeed! But you know, gentlemen, sure enough whereof one builds it? Out of wooden iron! Out of the famous wooden iron! And not even out of wooden.

October 10, 2010 at 7:12 AM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

Suvorovers have a potential problem in the important German-Soviet trade continuing up to Barbarossa. But maybe not an insurmountable one.

According to Tooze, there were no few honchos in Berlin who wanted to stay pals with Stalin, in a trans-Eurasian anti-Anglomerican axis that would reach right to Japan. But they were never a majority. The problem is that Germany would be second fiddle to the USSR, just as they had been rather junior in the anti-Bolshie alliance with the Western Allies before '33. The fact is that BeNeLux France and Poland weren't worth much. Poland was not too industrial, the west was. But the economy of the west started falling like a rock from 1940. French steel output fell 40% over 1940-4, in tandem with Frnech coal consumption.

There were a lot of problems. Britain had previously supplied 40% of France's coal. There was theoretically enough coalface in the Nazi empire but a low amount of labor (eating poor food rations) plus and inadequate transport meant that there was in reality a massive coal deficit - and western industry was 80% fueled by coal (German industry was similar I assume). The food shortage could be remedied with more nitrogen fertilizer but nitrogen was also needed for explosives. The military took up all the best German men from labor positions.

In brief, the Nazi empire, amazing-looking in theory, was actually a piece of crap, and American and Britain were making huge amounts of weapons, especially planes, totally outclassing the Germans. The Nazi empire was entirely dependent on Soviet raw materials gotten by trade - food, fuels, ores - because the trade with SE Europe and Italy did not come close to sufficing. Well, the USSR was waxing strong on German machine tools, etc, received in trade. Germany on the other hand, in its trade with the Soviets, was not approaching arms parity with Anglomerica and knew that it never would. Thus, Germany was gradually losing power to the USSR. To take out the USSR, and in the same stroke seize the materials that could give it hope for parity with Anglomerica, was for Germany two birds with one stone. As it was, they were just not making the grade, so they had fairly little to lose.

October 10, 2010 at 7:42 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Re Ice Breaker,

There is another reason beyond military considerations Stalin seemed reluctant to launch an invasion of Western Europe.

Seeing how the Red Army could not even take down tiny Finland easily, Stalin probably knew that a war with Germany would most likely end badly and that a second failed war would weaken his hold on power thus increasing the odds other Communist party members would (literally) give him the hook for military incompetence.

October 10, 2010 at 5:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I think Moldbug has basically invented a new ideological category purely for himself: He is a self-loving-Jew and a self-hating Nazi"

I don't know if that's really true of Moldbug. But, since Zionism is National Socialism for Jews, it is true for millions of Zionist Jews today who don't like the way Zionism actually works in practice; no idea why you think this category of yours is either new or unique to one person, though. It isn't new and it isn't rare. Even if you restrict the term 'Nazi' to German National Socialism, you'll find Jewish crypto-admiration/love-hate relationship to be quite common.

October 10, 2010 at 5:21 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

TUJ:

Seeing how the Red Army could not even take down tiny Finland easily, Stalin probably knew that a war with Germany would most likely end badly and that a second failed war would weaken his hold on power thus increasing the odds other Communist party members would (literally) give him the hook for military incompetence.

Isn't this statement belied by the fact that Stalin won?

You can say this is all because of America, but that won't do... The war in the east had turned in favor of the Russians well before the first American soldier landed in mainland Europe. American material aid made some impact, but of course Stalin fully anticipated complete support from the Allies in the decisions he made.

Secondly, you say "re: icebreaker" as if this was restricted to one book, or even one author.

Why have an opinion if you haven't even familiarized yourself with the evidence?

October 10, 2010 at 5:38 PM  
Blogger Studd Beefpile said...

Rob>

An excellent point, mostly. While highschool history likes to talk about panzers and blitzkrieg, the truth is the Germans were always the least mechanized army of WWII. The army that invaded Russia had 600k motor vehicles, but 750k horses.

Why were they so successful then? Because the German army in 1940 was an exceedingly elite force. Prestige, high pay (roughly 6x what french soldiers got) and the Versailles limits ensured a lot of competition for relatively few openings, even among the rank and file. The small size also probably kept down bureaucratization and staff bloat. Standards, of course, dropped when expansion started in earnest in the late 30s, but by then there was a large corps of very well trained officers and NCOs to lead and train the mass army.

That said, in 1939 the continent had something like 25% of global industrial capacity and 300+ million people while the USSR had about the same industry and about 200million people. Other than oil, Hitler's empire had plenty of natural resources. Nazi Europe's relatively poor production totals from the war were a result more of bad management than lack of capacity. So why the bad management? Because the demands of the war were constantly pressuring the regime to prioritize the short term over the long term. If instead of plunging into Barbarossa almost immediately after the fall of France they had paused for a time, even just 6 months or a year, a lot could have been gained. New factories could have been built and old ones could have produced more. There would have been time to design newer model tanks and planes convert factories to produce them. Producers could have adjusted to gains and losses of raw materials. Of course, in 1941 Russia was also getting rapidly stronger, but on the whole I would say that an extra year would have helped Hitler more than Stalin.

October 10, 2010 at 5:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Fair point. The Nazis had slaves too, though, and treated 'em worse."

Worse? Worse than Communist slaves? Really?

This illustrates nicely the fact that, as Mencius and others have noted, 'progressivism' or liberalism has triumphed so totally that even the worst excesses of Communism are dismissed or ignored, while similar, and not necessarily worse, regimes that are opposed to the liberal/progressive/'radical protestant' type have their crimes amplified, publicized, and often exaggerated.

So therefore we see this reflex to ignore the Communist or Allied Democratic crimes, and, when called on it, to still insist that the other side was necessarily worse - by definition. It's a faith based historical belief.

I doubt an inmate at a Soviet gulag would feel that he was getting better treatment than his Nazi equivalent. The Communists killed more people, their own people, in peace time, whereas the Nazi crimes were mostly against non-Germans, in war time. And yet this continuing need to let the Communists off the hook and make the Nazis appear worse.

And contra Mencius, we do need better evidence for gas chambers than some German diplomat repeating Allied black propaganda. If a German is gullible enough to believe Allied propaganda about Katyn, then he is also gullible enough to believe Allied propaganda about gas chambers - propaganda the Allies were quite good at getting Germans to repeat.

The point of the gas chambers stories is precisely to get the Nazis to appear worse than, rather than similar to, the Communists. That's why it is illegal in many countries to question it. Germans shooting, imprisoning, working to death large numbers of Jews and others? There's no doubt about it and plenty of supporting evidence.

But gas chambers? In subterranean morgues with holes cut in the roof using a delousing agent? Or using a submarine diesel engine that doesn't produce enough carbon monoxide to kill (which is why diesels were used in submarines in the first place)? If the Germans were going to design machinery of mass death, why do their 'designs' in these stories look so cobbled together and makeshift?

And if you believe the gas chamber stories, why not believe other stories from 'holocaust eyewitnesses', ie, mass murder by electrocution, mass murder by steam, or mass murder by burning in open pits? Why not believe in the geysers of blood spurting out of the ground for days or weeks on end? Why not believe in the different colored smokes varying according to nationality of Jew being burned? Why not believe in the lampshade and soap stories, which even the official holocaust historians no longer believe in? Because if 'historical texts' and 'eyewitness reports' are your idea of 'slow history', well, I can prove anything with evidence of that sort; to truly be slow history you have to test and sift all evidence equally, not just some of the evidence.

If you want to establish that fact that the Nazi regime was bad, why isn't the well established facts of mass murder not enough? Why the need to invent extra-special horror stories?

Well we know why. Mencius' own writings demonstrate why. He just can't let the gas chamber stories go, because they aren't only convenient for liberals, but for others as well.

October 10, 2010 at 5:59 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Isn't this statement belied by the fact that Stalin won?

Stalin didn't know he would defeat Hitler in advance. In fact, as the Panzers closed in on Moscow, he was preparing to flee the city because he was not sure the Red Army would be able to withstand the hammer blows of German armored formations.

What Stalin did know was that the Red Army could barely overpower tiny Finland in an operation that was both strategically and (more importantly) logistically vastly less complex and resource consuming than what a pre-emptive invasion of the Third Reich would have involved.

The war in the east had turned in favor of the Russians well before the first American soldier landed in mainland Europe. American material aid made some impact,

Even with American resources, the Germans came surprisingly close to defeating Russia.

Further, had Stalin attacked first Russia would not have received all of the life saving American aid that kept the Red Army on its feet in 1941 and 1942.

Additionally, Hitler would not have had resources tied up occupying France and launching air attacks against Britain had Stalin made the first move. Instead, all of the steel used to make AA artillery for use against the RAF would have been directed towards making Panzers and anti-tank artillery.

I'll concede there is some non-zero possibility Stalin might have successfully invaded the Reich, but the odds of such an operation ending in victory would have been massively stacked against the Soviets.

October 10, 2010 at 6:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.whitenationalism.com/rj/rj-32.htm

In an attempt to get answers I began re-reading Anatoly Sudoplatov's "Other Tasks." Sudoplatov was in charge of the assassination of Leon Trotsky, an inner party competitor of Stalin's who had been exiled to Mexico. Ideally, there should be no better source of insight than an insider who participated in the events of the time.

But like the first time through, Sudoplatov disappointed. He and his co-authors, a son entitled through his mother to Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return, and Jerrold Schecter, the inner party Moscow bureau chief for Time Magazine, obviously feel no obligation to provide a convincing explanation of the events which set the stage for the anti-semitic purges of the inner party nomenclatura from 1948 to 1953. He attributes it all to Stalin's personal ambition and insecurity, giving no special note of the near uniform ethnic identity of those purged prior to 1940.

In frustration, and as if by fateful accident, I picked up Walter Sanning's revisionist classic "The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry," a book I have owned for some time but never read, to see if it contained any clues.

Sanning's essential thesis is that, because of the well documented evacuation of Jews from Western Soviet territories prior to their occupation by Germany following Germany's attack in 1941, Germany never had more than about 3.5 million Jews under its control from 1938 through 1945. Given the 900,000 to one million Jews alive in the camps at the end of the war, the maximum number that could have been killed appears to be about 2.5 million and not six million. Sanning then goes on to produce a number of very complex estimates and calculations in an attempt to show that the number unaccounted for after the war was far less than 2.5 million.

To my surprise, I found buried within Sannings work the "holy grail" - hard statistical evidence of how communist society actually worked - its very core and essence exposed for all to see! Surprisingly, Sanning himself apparently missed its true significance.

In preparation for war with Germany, Stalin build huge factories in Siberia - half of them empty - to supply his war effort if Germany should thrust into Russian territory and capture it. In addition, he developed plans for the movement of manufacturing equipment and the evacuation of key industrial personnel in the event that the industrial cities in Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, the Baltic republics and Western Russia should be captured. The publicly stated idea was to preserve Soviet industry in the event of successful attack and to deny that industrial capability to the Germans if the Western Russian territories and republics should be overrun.

But, of course, there was a second unspoken purpose to this evacuation program as well. In this evacuation approximately 55% of the urban or city population was evacuated along with the industrial machinery.

The entire rural or agricultural population was left for the Germans to capture along with about 45% of the urban population.

Ok, so who stays and who goes?

Answer that question and you have captured the essence of communist society - its actual deeds and not its words. From page 81:

"Ukrainians were a minority in their own cities; only 47.4% of all city people in the SSR Ukraine were Ukrainians and the remaining 52.6% were largely accounted for by Russians (25%) and Jews (23%). Both of these latter two nationalities occupied most of the important positions in industry, party and administration; in the eyes of the Ukrainians they represented the long and heavy hand of Moscow. The entire grotesque situation is depicted in the professional structure of the Ukraine's pre-war population:"

October 10, 2010 at 6:32 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

TUJ...

you're disappointing me.

obviously stalin didn't know he would win after june 22. my question was, isn't the soviet victory, despite the massive german initial gains, evidence of state very prepared for war?

second, why would you think a soviet attack on whatever pretext would have prevented US aid to russia? the US was damn near at war with germany even before barbarossa. what is your justification for this statement?

your statement about hitler's resources being tied up in france belie your total ignorance of what we're even discussing. the evidence is that stalin planned to attack in july '41, after france was wound up... you aren't even familiar with the arguments, let alone the evidence. for christ sakes.

why are you even in this discussion?

i posted like 10 links above summarizing the literature on this subject. hit the books, buddy!

October 10, 2010 at 6:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mencius is right, Communism is American, if by American you mean New York Jews:

http://www.whitenationalism.com/rj/rj-32.htm

When the Germans "liberated" the Ukraine, they found a decapitated society, largely incapable of producing the essentials of civilized life, or indeed, of feeding themselves. In the words of a German officer responsible for performing a quick census [page 62]:

"The Russian and Jewish upper classes withdrew together with the Red Army. The leading Ukrainians have been partially deported and, if they held leading positions in administration and industry, they were also forced to move east of the Dnieper. Numerous tractor and other specialists on the countryside met the same fate. In June, many young men were called up and put in garrison in the interior of the USSR.... Because of this development there is a tremendous scarcity of people capable of assuming responsible positions in administration, industry and agriculture in the Ukraine..."

Similar patterns of packing minorities into the upper middle classes of the ethnic republics can be seen in the Baltic Republics (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) as well as Belarus.

Indeed, it appears that the very essence of Communism is ethnic manipulation and population transfer. It is a pattern that holds true even at the top of the communist party structure. In the early days following the revolutions of 1917-1918, none of the top officials in Moscow were ethnic Russians. In fact, a large number grew up in New York. Most of the top leaders felt compelled to change their names to conceal their ethnic origins. Among the first politburo, inner party members like Leon Bronshtein (Trotsky), Hirsch Apfelbaum (Zinoviev), and Lev Rosenfeld (Kamenev) felt compelled to change their names. Lenin himself was a mix of German, Swedish, Jewish, Kalmyk (Asian) and Russian ancestry - the very poster boy for a world in which nationality had been abolished - or so it would seem. Nevertheless, the inner party had a compelling need to cover up his ancestry and paint him a pure-bred Russian (instead of the grandson of a well-to-do Jewish Doctor).

At the center in Moscow it was Georgians (Stalin, Beria), Latvians (Berzin) and Ukrainians (Kruschev) supported by a large cast of inner party members who shape party decisions by controlling the information flow. In the ethnic provinces the local administration consisted of ethnic Russians along with the inner party members.

The entire Communist system was based on manipulation of race and national origin for control - and the central mechanism for maintaining that control was decapitation - the extermination or the mass transfer of the leaders of an ethnic group, and the total dependence of the remaining native population upon imported or native minorities who managed the government and the business enterprises and dominated the learned professions.

The important point is that all forms of inner-party communism, the violent Bolshevik variety and the newer "democratic socialist" variety invented by the Frankfurt school, direct their demographic engineering effort at the elites - not the ordinary working people.

The sine-qua-non of inner party power is a multi-cultural elite alienated from its tribal and racial kinsmen.

It is the native elites - the indigenous leaders who might resist the inner party's drive for power - that are always the target.

To the inner party, the masses of any nation are at all times totally irrelevant to their goal of acquiring and keeping power. The masses of the nations were important in the Soviet Union as labor, a fungible factor of production in an economic system focused on output. The Marxist concept that each hour of their labor was of equal value tells you all you need to know about the inner party's regard for them.

And in war time, the masses were readily abandoned, as the real nation proved to be a relatively small and mobile alliance of minorities and uprooted majority careerists.

October 10, 2010 at 6:49 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Once again...

The links below are all pre- / non-Suvorov works reviewed. The articles are short a detailed. You can also find reviews of the 5-6 of Suvorov's works on this subject in the archive, reviewed by people competent in the Russian language and documents.

It's important that we realize this isn't a new idea; there have been historians who supported the Axis claims about the Soviet Union all along, since the 1941. The official story is just propaganda, not history. It's no more valid on it's face than the German version of events; you might say it's less valid, depending on your inclination. You can't treat the claim of an aggressive Soviet Union as some new outrageous claim by a headline seeking amateur and try to lay it all on the 'amateur' Suvorov. It's just not the case.

Outside the Allied-sphere echo chamber of lies between London and NY, lots of people in Europe and America understood the reality and nature of the Soviet Union, and just assumed the Axis claims to be closer to the truth than the incapable-of-not-lying Allies.

* * * * *

Examining Stalin's 1941 Plan to Attack Germany

* Unternehmen Barbarossa und der russische Historikerstreit ("Operation Barbarossa and the Russian Historians' Dispute"), by Wolfgang Strauss. Munich: Herbig, 1998. Hardcover. 199 pages. Illustrations. Source references. Bibliography. Index.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p40_Michaels.html

New Evidence on the 1941 'Barbarossa' Attack: Why Hitler Attacked Soviet Russia When He Did

* Stalins Falle: Er wollte den Krieg ("Stalin's Trap: He Wanted War"), by Adolf von Thadden. Rosenheim: Kultur und Zeitgeschichte/Archiv der Zeit, 1996. (Available from: Postfach 1180, 32352 Preussisch Oldendorf, Germany). Hardcover. 170 pages. Photos. Bibliography.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n3p40_Michaels.html

Revising the Twentieth Century's 'Perfect Storm'
Russian and German Historians Debate Barbarossa and Its Aftermath
* Grand Delusion: Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia, by Gabriel Gorodetsky. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999. 408 pages.
* Samoubiystvo (Suicide), by Viktor Suvorov. Moscow: AST, 2000. 380 pages. Illustrations.
* Upushchennyy shans Stalina (Stalin's Lost Opportunity), by Mikhail Meltiukhov. Moscow: Veche, 2000. 605 pages. Illustrations, maps.
* Stalin's War of Extermination, 1941-45: Planning, Realization, and Documentation, by Joachim Hoffmann. Capshaw, Ala.: Theses and Dissertations Press, 2001. 415 pages. Illustrations.

http://ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n6p59_Michaels.html

A Thoughtful Look at the German-Soviet Clash Reassesses the Second World War
Could Hitler Have Won?

* Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted, by Russell H.S. Stolfi. University of Oklahoma Press, 1991. Hardcover. 280 pages. Photographs. Maps. Notes. Bibliography. Index.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n6p38_Bishop.html

Stalin's War

* STALIN'S WAR: A RADICAL NEW THEORY OF THE ORIGINS OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR, by Ernst Topitsch. Translated by A. and B.E. Taylor. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987, 160 pages, $19.95, ISBN: 0-312-0989-5.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p222_Smith.html

October 10, 2010 at 7:01 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

obviously stalin didn't know he would win after june 22. my question was, isn't the soviet victory, despite the massive german initial gains, evidence of state very prepared for war?

I never claimed Stalin wasn't stockpiling weapons. I was disputing whether Russia was ready prepared for large scale offensive operations in June-July 1941

I wrote that Stalin would have been reluctant to launch a preemptive strike against Germany because his forces proved to be incompetent in the war with Finland, an operation which on paper should have been a strategic and logistical cakewalk compared to what would have been needed to successfully invade the Third Reich itself in 1941.

second, why would you think a soviet attack on whatever pretext would have prevented US aid to russia?

America sent all of the aid it could to Russia in 1941 because Russia was losing ground to Germany and was fighting defensively. But if Russia had attacked first Stalin could not have been sure American aid would be as generous as it was because American aid would have been used to help Russia push offensively into Western Europe.

the evidence is that stalin planned to attack in july '41, after france was wound up

I was talking about more about the chances of success for a Soviet invasion anytime between the start of the Winter War and Barbarossa because Russia was obviously not ready to invade in July 1941.

Stalin clearly was not preparing to invade in July 1941 because the Red Army was caught off guard by the Wehrmacht. If the Russians were putting the finishing touches on an invasion plan then they would have been closely monitoring the positions of German formations months in advance and have been much better prepared for Barbarossa than they actually were.

Since Russia seemed oblivious to the months long positioning of ~4 million German troops on their border we can conclude Russia was not on a firm enough war footing in June-July 1941 to have any prayer of conquering Germany.

Had Russia wanted to invade, the best time to do it would have been in mid-1940, and not mid-1941, when Germany's Eastern border was most vulnerable to invasion because of operations in France.

Since Stalin didn't attack when Germany was most vulnerable to an invasion from the East the evidence supports the idea that Stalin wasn't confident an offensive invasion of Germany was within the capabilities of the Red Army.

October 10, 2010 at 7:29 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

TUJ...

Stalin clearly was not preparing to invade in July 1941 because the Red Army was caught off guard by the Wehrmacht.

How is this 'clear'? This is precisely what is being debated. How is being caught off guard evidence against a planned Soviet offensive? They were pe-empted, prepard for attack, not defense.

If the Russians were putting the finishing touches on an invasion plan then they would have been closely monitoring the positions of German formations months in advance and have been much better prepared for Barbarossa than they actually were.

Both sides were monitoring the other side's formations. This is not a coherent argument. If Stalin was planning to open a second front in the war, as is contended, then the German attack would have been unexpected, a surprise. Or at least the strength of it was underestimated. The Soviet Union had been engaging in hostile and aggressive actions in the Balkans, and violating the non-aggression pact, while amassing offensive troops on the frontier.

Since Russia seemed oblivious to the months long positioning of ~4 million German troops on their border we can conclude Russia was not on a firm enough war footing in June-July 1941 to have any prayer of conquering Germany.

Instead of theorizing from your limited base of knowledge, and then arguing for your pre-conceived biases, why not become familiar with the opposing arguments and evidence?

October 10, 2010 at 7:54 PM  
Anonymous buy runescape gold said...

For this matter, once I discussed with one of my friends, not only about the content you talked about, but also to how to improve and develop, but no results. So I am deeply moved by what you said today.

October 10, 2010 at 8:05 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

How is being caught off guard evidence against a planned Soviet offensive? They were pe-empted, prepard for attack, not defense.

-snip-

Both sides were monitoring the other side's formations. This is not a coherent argument. If Stalin was planning to open a second front in the war, as is contended, then the German attack would have been unexpected, a surprise.


If Stalin was preparing to open a second front then the Soviets would have been better prepared for Barbarossa because they would have been monitoring German positions like a hawk well in advance of a preemptive invasion.

And if Russia was closely following German troop buildups in the months before Barbarossa then the Russians should have responded by either (A) launching their own invasion of Germany months earlier than July 1941 before Germany could position her forces for Barbarossa or (B) repositioned Soviet forces in better defensive formations.

Let me put it like this: Does the performance of the Red Army from June 1941 to the end of the Battle of Moscow indicate that the Soviets was ready for major combat operations with Germany in July 1941 or does it indicate they were caught largely unprepared?

October 10, 2010 at 8:16 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

TUJ...

if the SU was prepared for an offensive, they would have been very vulnerable to a german attack. they would have lost lots of men and material amassed at the front to the german offensive. that's precisely what happened. barbarossa was a surprise. stalin didn't expect hitler to open a second front. he thought he had the upper hand and initiative, as indicated by many things. this is the argument laid out by the revisionists and backed up with evidence. you don't seem to have examined the arguments or the evidence and are arguing ad hoc. i don't think we're gonna make any progress here, and i don't want to quote large extracts from the relevant literature. i would just again suggest you review the arguments and evidence yourself, in order to understand what's being discussed, so you can at least voice a coherent argument, not just your assumptions and hunches.

October 10, 2010 at 8:41 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

the SU was prepared for an offensive, they would have been very vulnerable to a german attack. they would have lost lots of men and material amassed at the front to the german offensive.

How could the Russians have been "preparing for an offensive" if they didn't notice 4.5 million German troops were right in front of them?

October 10, 2010 at 9:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How could the Russians have been "preparing for an offensive" if they didn't notice 4.5 million German troops were right in front of them?

They did notice them. The Soviets knew exactly what the Germans had.

October 11, 2010 at 12:29 AM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

> Of course, in 1941 Russia was also getting rapidly stronger, but on the whole I would say that an extra year would have helped Hitler more than Stalin.

According to Tooze, Hitler was worried about the Anglophones and their ungodly amount of airplanes (mostly being made in the USA). He spoke of an approaching war of the continents, meaning America, contra what Mencius has always maintained about Hitler not wanting the entire world. Well, I don't know... maybe there's a distinction between wanting America and preparing to be 'forced' to conquer America.

In any case, Tooze says that he didn't want to fight the Reds and Anglophones at the same time, which certainly makes abundant sense - hence the rush to do the Sovs right on up. Tooze is my first actual book, as opposed to Wik and blog readings, so I can't do much synthesis on my own; I can mainly just report what Tooze says.

He agrees with you, about there being enough coal in the ground, but not enough (well-fed) labor and transport to maintain the pre-war levels of coal consumption... enough arable land, but not enough well-fed labor, not enough nitrogen for fertilizer after using much of it for explosives. Enough steel ore but not enough coal or labor to smelt it or whatever it's called.

He also agrees with you that Hitler laid out all his chips for both the western attack and Barbarossa - was in need of winning fast in both situations, because he was outgunned in the long term.

He also says the Western Allies did not really fear losing. They did fear bankruptcy, but he says that despite that, they planned on a war of long attrition, because they felt like their forces were superior. Why, then, they would commit all their forces in the north, falling hard for Hitler's "fake right, push left" is a mystery to me - especially when all of us have faked right gone left 500 times in our soccer and basketball lives.

October 11, 2010 at 3:45 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

"Not so well known is the story of Roosevelt's enormous responsibility for the outbreak of the Second World War itself. This essay focuses on Roosevelt's secret campaign to provoke war in Europe prior to the outbreak of hostilities in September 1939. It deals particularly with his efforts to pressure Britain, France and Poland into war against Germany in 1938 and 1939. [. . .]

"This paper relies heavily on a little-known collection of secret Polish documents which fell into German hands when Warsaw was captured in September 1939. These documents clearly establish Roosevelt's crucial role in bringing on the Second World War. They also reveal the forces behind the President which pushed for war. [. . .]

"When the Germans took Warsaw in late September 1939, they seized a mass of documents from the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. [. . .]

"The German Foreign Office chose Hans Adolf von Moltke, formerly the Reich's Ambassador in Warsaw, to head a special Archive Commission to examine the collection and sort out those documents which might be suitable for publication. [. . .]

"An American edition was published in New York by Howell, Soskin and Company as The German White Paper. Historian C. Hartley Grattan contributed a remarkably cautious and reserved foreword. [. . .]

"The German government considered the captured Polish documents to be of tremendous importance. On Friday, 29 March, the Reich Ministry of Propaganda confidentially informed the daily press of the reason for releasing the documents:

These extraordinary documents, which may be published beginning with the first edition on Saturday, will create a first-class political sensation, since they in fact prove the degree of America's responsibility for the outbreak of the present war. America's responsibility must not, of course, be stressed in commentaries; the documents must be left to speak for themselves, and they speak clearly enough.

The Ministry of Propaganda specifically asks that sufficient space be reserved for the publication of these documents, which is of supreme importance to the Reich and the German people.

We inform you in confidence that the purpose of publishing these documents is to strengthen the American isolationists and to place Roosevelt in an untenable position, especially in view of the fact that he is standing for re-election. It is however not at all necessary for us to point Roosevelt's responsibility; his enemies in America will take care of that.[3]"


"Leading U.S. government officials wasted no time in vehemently denouncing the documents as not authentic. [. . .]

"These categorical public denials by the highest officials had the effect of almost completely undercutting the anticipated impact of the documents. [. . .]

"After all, if the documents made public to the world by the German government were in fact authentic and genuine, it would mean that the great leader of the American democracy was a man who lied to his own people and broke his own country's laws, while the German government told the truth. To accept that would be quite a lot to expect of any nation, but especially of the trusting American public. [. . .]

"Representative Hamilton Fish of New york, the ranking Republican member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called for a Congressional investigation and declared in a radio address: "If these charges were true, it would constitute a treasonable act. If President Roosevelt has entered into secret understandings or commitments with foreign governments to involve us in war, he should be impeached."

October 11, 2010 at 6:10 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

continued...

"The New York Times headline read: U.S. BRANDS AS FALSE NAZI DOCUMENTS CHARGING WE FOSTERED WAR IN EUROPE AND PROMISED TO JOIN ALLIES IF NEEDED. [. . .]

"It is particularly important to keep in mind that these secret reports were written by top level Polish ambassadors, that is, by men who, though not at all friendly to Germany, nonetheless understood the realities of European Politics far better than those who made policy in the United States. [. . .]

"The Polish envoys held the makers of American foreign policy in something approaching contempt. President Roosevelt was considered a master political artist who knew how to mold American public opinion, but very little about the true state of affairs in Europe. As Poland's Ambassador to Washington emphasized in his reports to Warsaw, Roosevelt pushed America into war in order to distract attention from his failures as President in domestic policy. [. . .]

"There is now absolutely no question that the documents from the Polish Foreign Ministry in Warsaw made public by the German government are genuine and authentic.

Charles C. Tansill, professor of American diplomatic history at Georgetown University, considered them genuine. "... I had a long conversation with M. Lipsky, the Polish ambassador in Berlin in the prewar years, and he assured me that the documents in the German White Paper are authentic," he wrote.[8] Historian and sociologist Harry Elmer Barnes confirmed this assessment: "Both Professor Tansill and myself have independently established the thorough authenticity of these documents."[9] In America's Second Crusade, William H. Chamberlain reported: "I have been privately informed by an extremely reliable source that Potocki, now residing in South America, confirmed the accuracy of the documents, so far as he was concerned."[10]

More importantly, Edward Raczynski, the Polish Ambassador in London from 1934 to 1945, confirmed the authenticity of the documents in his diary, which was published in 1963 under the title In Allied London. In his entry for 20 June 1940, he wrote:

The Germans published in April a White Book containing documents from the archives of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, consisting of reports from Potocki in Washington, Lukasiewicz in Paris and myself. I do not know where they found them, since we were told that the archives had been destroyed. The documents are certainly genuine, and the facsimiles show that for the most part the Germans got hold of originals and not merely copies.

THE DOCUMENTS

"Here now are extensive excerpts from the Polish documents themselves. They are given in chronological order. They are remarkably lucid for diplomatic reports and speak eloquently for themselves.

continued below...

October 11, 2010 at 6:12 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

So how do we know these Polish documents are indeed real? Surely, there is no shortage of fake documents, fake art, fake antiquities. I know that our regime has its lies just as the NS one did. Nevertheless, I'm not going to believe in a document if it was authenticated only by the NS gov.

Heck, there's a notable fake document quite nearby this particular field of debate. It was diaries by Hitler, or I don't remember what; in any case, Trevor-Roper authenticated these, and it turned out that he was mistaken.

Of course, you didn't actually assert that these Polish documents are real, but it seems implied.

October 11, 2010 at 6:33 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

continued...

Regarding the first point, it must be said that the internal situation on the labor market is steadily growing worse. The unemployed today already number twelve million. Federal and state expenditures are increasing daily. Only the huge sums, running into billions, which the treasury expends for emergency labor projects, are keeping a certain amount of peace in the country. Thus far there have only been the usual strikes and local unrest. But how long this kind of government aid can be kept up cannot be predicted. The excitement and indignation of public opinion, and the serious conflict between private enterprises and enormous trusts on the one hand, and with labor on the other, have made many enemies for Roosevelt and are causing him many sleepless nights.

As to point two, I can only say that President Roosevelt, as a clever political player and an expert of the American mentality, speedily steered public attention away from the domestic situation to fasten it on foreign policy. The way to achieve this was simple. One needed, on the one hand, to conjure up a war menace hanging over the world because of Chancellor Hitler, and, on the other hand, to create a specter by babbling about an attack of the totalitarian states against the United States. The Munich pact came to President Roosevelt as a godsend. He portrayed it as a capitulation of France and England to bellicose German militarism. As people say here: Hitler compelled Chamberlain at pistol-point. Hence, France and England had no choice and had to conclude a shameful peace.

The prevalent hatred against everything which is in any way connected with German Nazism is further kindled by the brutal policy against the Jews in Germany and by the émigré problem. In this action, various Jewish intellectuals participated: for instance, Bernard Baruch; the Governor of New York State, Lehman; the newly appointed judge of the Supreme Court, Felix Frankfurter; Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau; and others who are personal friends of President Roosevelt. They want the President to become the champion of human rights, freedom of religion and speech, and the man who in the future will punish trouble-makers. These groups of people who occupy the highest positions in the American government and want to pose as representatives of 'true Americanism' and 'defenders of democracy' are, in the last analysis, connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.

For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the interests of its race, to portray the President of the United States as the 'idealist' champion on human rights was a very clever move. In this manner they have created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and hostility in this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile camps. The entire issue is worked out in a masterly manner. Roosevelt has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy, and simultaneously has been procuring enormous military stocks for the coming war, for which the Jews are striving very consciously. With regard to domestic policy, it is very convenient to divert public attention from anti-Semitism, which is constantly growing in the United States, by talking about the necessity of defending religion and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.


* * * * *

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html

There are extensive excerpts from the Polish documents and related secret documents. Read in full! Very informative!

October 11, 2010 at 6:34 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Rob S.,

According to the author of the article there is no longer any doubt about the authenticity,

"There is now absolutely no question that the documents from the Polish Foreign Ministry in Warsaw made public by the German government are genuine and authentic.

Charles C. Tansill, professor of American diplomatic history at Georgetown University, considered them genuine. "... I had a long conversation with M. Lipsky, the Polish ambassador in Berlin in the prewar years, and he assured me that the documents in the German White Paper are authentic," he wrote.[8] Historian and sociologist Harry Elmer Barnes confirmed this assessment: "Both Professor Tansill and myself have independently established the thorough authenticity of these documents."[9] In America's Second Crusade, William H. Chamberlain reported: "I have been privately informed by an extremely reliable source that Potocki, now residing in South America, confirmed the accuracy of the documents, so far as he was concerned."[10]

More importantly, Edward Raczynski, the Polish Ambassador in London from 1934 to 1945, confirmed the authenticity of the documents in his diary, which was published in 1963 under the title In Allied London. In his entry for 20 June 1940, he wrote:

The Germans published in April a White Book containing documents from the archives of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, consisting of reports from Potocki in Washington, Lukasiewicz in Paris and myself. I do not know where they found them, since we were told that the archives had been destroyed. The documents are certainly genuine, and the facsimiles show that for the most part the Germans got hold of originals and not merely copies.

In this 'First Series' of documents I found three reports from this Embassy, two by myself and the third signed by me but written by Balinski. I read them with some apprehension, but they contained nothing liable to compromise myself or the Embassy or to impair relations with our British hosts.[11]

In 1970 their authenticity was reconfirmed with the publication of Diplomat in Paris 1936-1939. This important work consists of the official papers and memoirs of Juliusz Lukasiewicz, the former Polish Ambassador to Paris who authored several of the secret diplomatic reports made public by the German government. The collection was edited by Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, a former Polish diplomat and cabinet member, and later Professor Emeritus of Wellesley and Ripon colleges. Professor Jedrzejewicz considered the documents made public by the Germans absolutely genuine. He quoted extensively from several of them.

Mr. Tyler G. Kent has also vouched for the authenticity of the documents. He states that while working at the U.S. embassy in London in 1939 and 1940, he saw copies of U.S. diplomatic messages in the files which corresponded to the Polish documents and which confirmed their accuracy.
"

October 11, 2010 at 6:39 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Rob S.,

Yes, Trevor Roper... that was the press conference David Irving crashed, announcing that they were fraudulent. These documents are not fake. You should peruse the complete link I provided above, if you're interested. I haven't read it all, but I've been familiar with the dispatches of Count Potocki for quite a while, and they're interesting. They're in a similar vein as Joseph P. Kennedy's private statements. This is the stuff real history is made of.

October 11, 2010 at 6:43 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

David Irving comments on one of Potocki's infamous dispatches,

"THIS 1939 dispatch by the Polish ambassador is notorious; the Germans published it in a White Book after they captured it in Warsaw files in 1939; Potocki indignantly called it a fake when challenged by Bernard Baruch on its anti-Semitism (Baruch's letter ande the reply are in his papers at Princeton). But I also found the carbon copy of the original in Potocki's papers in the Hoover Library!

For more about this, see Mark Weber's essay, "President Roosevelt's Campaign To Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents," Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983.


http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Potocki/papers.html

Weber's lengthy essay with extensive translations,

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html

October 11, 2010 at 6:49 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

It's pretty funny how the media is all indignant about gang violence and Latin King "thugs" all of a sudden because the latino victim is a queer (and a 17 year old shacking up with an old man, at that...) Between this non-story, and the outed gay kid who committed suicide, the press is in full-out gay frenzy mode. And with NY gov. candidate Paladino's mild remarks on homosexuals, there's nothing else in the press in NY, it's in your face Gay all day. So obviously contrived and coordinated. I hate the press.

October 11, 2010 at 7:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem with royalists, conservatives, reactionaries who are atheists like Moldbug is that they are not really getting the religious fever behind communism, fascism, humanism, progressivism, secularism etc. They can have many great insights but the real beef is lost on them. As someone said here already Communism is a Christian heresy. This is partly true. Gnosticism, which is another name for this heresy, is found inside and outside of Christianity. It boils down to Luther saying that man left to himself will always prefer to worship himself instead of God. What irony that Luther was such an important stepping stone towards this worship of man in our nihilistic times. And as Davila said: "The worship of men is always accompanied by the sacrifice of men."

October 12, 2010 at 5:20 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

Anon:

Please refrain from misusing Gnosticism.

Mencius' "ultra-calvinism" or "atheistic protestantism" is a much more accurate term.

October 12, 2010 at 5:26 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

jkr

that's because the 11th was national coming out day. Didn't you see all the posts by your facebook friends?

October 12, 2010 at 5:27 AM  
Blogger Thomas Fink said...

„Please refrain from misusing Gnosticism.“
Thanks for the link. Interesting, that so far this was Cassandras last essay.
But I am not convinced. There is a history of ideas and movements which lead to this nihilistic nightmare we find ourselves in. Gnosticism is part of it. There are not only Voegelin and Auster. Try Davila. And there is a german historian (Franz Wegener) who did extensive research into the gnostic roots of national socialism. I think you got stuck with the ultra transcendental and ultra peaceful image some old gnostic movements seem to have. But if you follow some ideas and some movements through the centuries in slow motion, you can see how they can switch from ultra transcendent to ultra materialistic and from ultra peaceful to ultra violent and back again. And one of the most important switches here is the transformation or burn out of messianism into the „austere doctrine of progress“ in the 18 Century.

October 12, 2010 at 7:19 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

Thomas,

I think that movement you detect is a co-opting of so-called gnosticism by protestant sects:

the Devil being the first Whig and all that.

The would certainly be served by Manichean proclivities--though at the time applied to them v the Romans--and so perhaps that is where the comingling occurs.

October 12, 2010 at 7:26 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

that's because the 11th was national coming out day. Didn't you see all the posts by your facebook friends?

Palmer, what's with the drive-by insults?

October 12, 2010 at 4:37 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

How is that a drive-by insult?

Half the damn people I know on facebook posted some crap about "today is national coming out day and i'm coming out because queers are awesome" or some other crap.

October 12, 2010 at 5:36 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

oh. thought you were callin my friends gay. this beef is deaded, good sir.

October 12, 2010 at 5:50 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Has anyone heard of the Tyler Kent case? It was a big thing during the war. Sheds some more light on the real Roosevelt.

-

The Roosevelt Legacy and the Kent Case

Tyler Kent

There are those who would have us believe that to dust off the mildewed pages of history is an exercise in futility. Those especially believe this who consider the events of forty years ago "ancient history." Many such persons are motivated by a wish to conceal from the rest of us the relatively recent events which have created the world as it is today. There can be no question that the events which led to World War II, and that war itself, have shaped the lives of all of us alive now. In the United States, the political figure who looms largest on the scene as creator, through this war, of the world we live in today is of course Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

[. . .]

In 1940, an obscure cypher clerk at the American Embassy in London came across documents which, in his judgment and that of many reputable historians subsequently, proved conclusively that Roosevelt both directly and through his agents was engaged in activities designed to foment a war and eventually to compel American participation in it.

I was that cypher clerk.

I was born in 1911, the son of a member of the United States Foreign Service who was stationed in China at that time. After returning to the United States, I pursued my advanced education at Princeton and then in various European universities.

In 1933, I joined the staff of the new American Embassy in Moscow which had just been established as a result of the establishment of diplomatic relations with Bolshevik Russia by President Roosevelt.

I already had some knowledge of the Russian language and as I have always been blessed with a natural aptitude for languages my tour of duty in Russia enabled me to become quite fluent very rapidly.

I took the opportunity to meet and mingle with the ordinary Russian citizens in Moscow and learned first hand the beastly nature of Bolshevism, realizing what it would mean if this oriental barbarism were to spread further.

My awareness grew also of the worldwide ideology of the soi-disant "liberals," who gushed over what they called the "new civilization" of the Soviet Union.

I began to see, dimly, the power of Jewish propaganda in the United States which harped constantly on the alleged brutalities of the new National Socialist regime in Germany while simultaneously completely ignoring the far worse brutalities in the USSR. Yet the latter had antedated the Nazi regime by more than a decade.

The reasons for this distorted and lop-sided picture soon became clear. In Germany, the burden of state action was falling upon Jews whereas in the Soviet Union, the secret police (NKVD) was almost entirely in Jewish hands until the very late 1930s. The administration of the gulags ("labor camps" which were virtually extermination camps) was wholly Jewish and thus the Jews could wreak their vengeance on their age-old adversaries among the Russian people."

Very long and informative article with great background intro.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p173_Kent.html

October 12, 2010 at 8:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Recent book on the Tyler Kent case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Clough
(...)
Clough’s book State Secrets: The Kent-Wolkoff Affair (2005) took advantage of privileged access to Government files and also the release of others under the Freedom of Information Act. Sixty-five years after the event, Clough finally revealed the ‘real reason’ for Kent’s arrest and imprisonment - which was very different from the earlier versions in officially-inspired publications.
(...)

October 13, 2010 at 10:59 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

While I (and TGGP) have beaten up MM pretty badly for suggesting the pre-New Deal WASPs were liberals, I want to take some time to help Moldbug further advance ZioNazi revisionist history, which will no doubt greatly energize this blog's most intelligent and insightful posters.

While it is not true that the pre-1945 WASPs were, as a whole, liberal, I want to point out to Moldbug that elite American Jews were ALSO conservative.

As TGGP pointed out, pre-1945 elite American Jews were German, not Russian, Jews and the German Jews such as Colorado Senator Solomon D. Guggenheim supported the Republican back in an age when the GOP was a country club for wealthy WASPs. According to John Sarna, 8 or 9 out of 11 Jewish American congressmen and senators were Republican in the early 20th century.

And while is true that the Russian Jews, who outnumbered and outvoted the German Jews in the early 20th century, voted Democrat, the Russian Jews were not elite American Jews.

As was pointed out by TGGP, Russian American Jews were in many ways looked down upon by the more bourgeoisie and upscale German American GOP supporting Jews.

And the reason German Jews supported the Republican party was because, pre-FDR, the GOP was the INNER party and the Democrats were the OUTER party in the way that rabbi MM has defined inner and outer parties.

The pre-FDR inner party, the Republican party, inherited the political hegemony of the victorious Abraham Lincoln and was therefore was the pre-1933 party of the upwardly mobile, the upper middle and upper classes, and the intelligentsia. The GOP was the establishment party whereas the early 20th century Democrat party was the party of the defeated CSA and thus the outer party of Moldbergian terminology.

Of course, after FDR, the WASPs shifted to the left and embraced progressivism more thoroughly than before.

And as the WASPs shifted left, they took the establishment, and the Jews with them.

That is why American Jews are no longer Republican - because the party of the establishment, the Inner Party, became the Democrats.

You see, Jewish political behavior simply follows the Inner party.

Assimilated Jews simply follow the lead of the inner party wherever we live in a country whose establishment is not too antisemitic.

In Victorian England, the inner party were the Victorian Imperialists and so the Jews such as Disraeli were Victorian Imperialist Jews.

In the the old Confederacy, the Inner Party was the Southern slavery supporting "aristocracy" and the assimilated Jews, such as Judah Benjamin, were also slave supporting Jews.

I hope this will clear up Moldbug's understanding of early 20th century America because he seems to be under the impression that the Democrats before FDR were the establishment party, when quite the opposite is true.

October 13, 2010 at 11:53 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

Anon,

Cliff hanger comment? WTF? Do you have some kind of financial interest in my buying this book?

UJ,

I don't think MM has the beliefs you attribute to him. He has mentioned mugwumps as the ancestors to the brain trust.

October 13, 2010 at 12:05 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

I don't think MM has the beliefs you attribute to him. He has mentioned mugwumps as the ancestors to the brain trust.

That wasn't the issue I was addressing.

Moldbug has tried to explain why Jews are Democrats by claiming the pre-1933 WASPs were liberal and corrupted the Jews.

My argument is that BOTH Jewish elites (who German, not Russian) and WASP elites were conservative prior to the New Deal and that Jewish political behavior is - in many ways - merely a reflection of what the Inner Party does.

Since the inner party is Democrat party the Jews today are New Deal Jews because the Democrats are the heirs of FDR whereas in the early 20th century, the elite Jews were GOP because the GOP was the establishment party and heir to Abe Lincoln's political empire.

So assimilated Jews are not pursuing an "outsider" agenda but rather an insider agenda which keeps being confused with an outsider agenda because everyone asssumes that the Jews must have motivations that are completely different from every other white person, which is of course not true. Assimilated Jews simply are adapting to the social mores of the elite gentiles.

October 13, 2010 at 12:16 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Btw, Robert LaFollette ran for POTUS on the Progressive party ticket, not the socialists. So the electoral history of socialist parties is even weaker in the United States than I thought when compared to much wider support socialist parties have enjoyed in Continental Europe.

October 13, 2010 at 1:48 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

TUJ, I don't have much objection to your foregoing analysis. It makes sense that the normal, pragmatic business-oriented Jews simply lined up with the "inner party," as you described. As you say, your description applies mainly to the numerically very small population of upper class western European Jews who had lived in America for centuries. But of course, America never had a "Jewish problem" or an anti-Semitic movement to speak of, at least not until the numerically large eastern European Jews began to settle in America. This group of Jews most definitely behaved as if it was in conflict with the American establishment and American culture. How do you categorize these later Jews who held strongly radical ideological positions and made a strong impact in mass media, popular culture, the press, the universities, radical politics, etc.

Were they simply carrying over their traditional outsider attitude and mentality which developed in the eastern European setting? What about the large proportion of Jewish radicals in post-WW1 central Europe, including Germany? The Frankfurt school types? It seems that when Jews come into conflict with the surrounding culture and establishment, as in the political and economic chaos following WW1 in central Europe, they can be particularly vicious and effective opponents of the established order. When there is a settled equilibrium in which Jews are in support of the existing order, such as in the Hapsburg empire or 19th century America, they pursue pragmatic and lawful business and make fine citizens. What are your thoughts on this duality? Or do you deny that there is such a duality?

October 13, 2010 at 2:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://books.google.com/books?id=FHgM9NjYQ6EC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA91#v=onepage&q&f=false

Jews and Progressivism

"The political system that had emerged in the United States at the turn of the century was one that deprived Jews of access to economic and political power and to social standing. Not surprisingly, Jews were attracted to political movements that opposed that regime. Working-class Jews espoused socialism. Many middle- and upper-class Jews, on the other hand, supported Progressivism.

A major reason that "the political system that had emerged in the US at the turn of the century was one that deprived Jews of access to economic and political power and to social standing" was because there was a backlash against German & Sephardic Jews that naturally affected the Eastern European Jews that subsequently came over.

October 13, 2010 at 2:29 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

I've linked to it before, but this piece of praise for Izzy Stone contrasted with Walter Lippmann is a great example of eastern european Jewish animus toward elite German Jews, though it's written by a woman named "MacPherson"!

I'm no expert on the area, but I think in Bismarck's Germany Jews tended to support liberal parties (Eugen Richter at that time, comparable to the FDP today).

I'd like to hear more details about how turn-of-the-century America restricted Jews. I mentioned before that numerous examples seem to have attained high positions at that time.

October 13, 2010 at 5:08 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

My impression is that the Sephardic Jews from Spain to England, Holland, France etc., mixed with and mingled with the nobility and royalty of their respective countries and were by and large "at peace" with the establishment.

I'm sure they participated to a degree in both the anti-monarchical and anti-Catholic movements, but after these movements succeeded, these small, civilized Jewish populations settled down with the resulting order and did not disturb society.

A similar situation seems to have prevailed in the multi-ethnic Hapsburg state, where even despite the Catholic and monarchical order, Jews were able to exist and fulfill their niche without disturbing the order of society. This may be due in part to the multi-ethnic nature of the society, in which no heterogeneous majority could restrict access and curtail economic competition by the Jewish population.

The situation seems to have been markedly different in Russia, later Weimar Germany and post-WW1 central Europe, and later still the US from the 1930s on, where the disruption was cultural rather than political.

It seems that where an established political order is tolerant of Jewish economic participation, and Jewish interests are not threatened by potential anti-Semitic actions or movements, (where the Jews "feel safe" and are economically comfortable), Jews accept the established order and at least outwardly assimilate.

Where the situation either restricts Jewish economic activity or threatens anti-Semitic policies or actions (generally in places with a relatively large, or quickly growing Jewish population) Jews become violent opponents and disturbers of the established order and culture; the latter especially since the age of mass media. Outward assimilation or not, the Jews reveal their inward separation when threatened or when they feel threatened (as in the Cold War, red-baiting era).

I think the mass hysteria following WW2 and "the camps," coupled with the anti-communist backlash in America, with the influence of the Holocaust on the Jewish mindset, contributed to the increasingly disruptive stance of American Jewry to he established order in America from the 1950s onward. This in addition to the radical politics and outsider mentality brought over from Russia and eastern Europe, helps to explain why, in the historically least anti-Semitic place, America, Jews became disruptors by and large, rather than supporters of the established order and culture.

Also contributing to this was likely the fear among Jews (and WASPs, too) of the growing Catholic population in America and its cultural attitudes, ethnic cohesion, in the first half of the 20th, with its potential to transform America into a less welcoming place for Jews.

Just some thoughts!

October 13, 2010 at 8:00 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

It may be possible that Zionism, with its huge emphasis on the Holocaust and the constant threat of anti-Semitism, has unintentionally contributed to the continued sense of Jews of being outsiders in America and their continued support for disruptive and radical policies, such as unrestricted immigration, multi-culturalism and political correctness, etc. They fear an anti-Semitism that isn't there and behave more like the Jews in czarist Russia than the Jews if 19th century England. I think the events of the 20th century and their impact on Jewish consciousness is preventing Jews in America from settling in and supporting the traditional political order and culture of America.

I think TUJ also has a point though. The American establishment was already a little fruity (PBS type progressivism) even before the Jews became its most influential and elite group. But we have to realize there's a difference between PBS progressives and MTV leftists. There's a marked difference between Christian progressivism and Jewish leftism, and the more virulent strand is the latter. The progressives transformed America in the 20s and 30s; Jewish leftists transformed America in the 60s and 70s, and 90s, and so on, as the core of the left, of the democratic party, of the mass media, etc.

October 13, 2010 at 8:20 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Jew, Jew, Jew.
Jewity Jew.
Jew, Jew, Jewity, Jew, Jew, Jew.
Jews!

October 13, 2010 at 8:43 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Via a commenter at Unqualified Offerings/highclearing just came across some interesting Nixon/Watergate revisionism. The journalist Jack Anderson is referenced there, Jack Schafer explains what kind of character he was here.

October 13, 2010 at 8:48 PM  
Anonymous G. M. Palmer said...

That last jkr comment was really me.

October 13, 2010 at 9:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd like to hear more details about how turn-of-the-century America restricted Jews. I mentioned before that numerous examples seem to have attained high positions at that time.

Read Chapter 2: Jews, State Building, and Anti-Semitism in Nineteenth-Century America in The Fatal Embrace by Benjamin Ginsberg.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FHgM9NjYQ6EC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA59#v=onepage&q&f=false

Nobody said it was like the Third Reich. Yes, many did attain high positions. What part of "there was somewhat of a backlash" don't you understand?

October 14, 2010 at 12:35 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

TUJ,

I generally agree with your main point regarding Jewish political behavior, though I have a couple of reservations I will mention is a second.

I was responding to this:

"I hope this will clear up Moldbug's understanding of early 20th century America because he seems to be under the impression that the Democrats before FDR were the establishment party, when quite the opposite is true."

The outer-party inner-party stuff didn't just flip like a switch in 1933. There was a transition, possibly starting with the mugwumps. The Wilson administration should probably be seen as "inner-party". Of course, the intellectual elite joining the democrats meant that progressivism (ie, the movement of the intellectual elite) was going to pick up some populist gobbledy-gook from the Bryan side and maybe tone down the anti-catholic stuff a bit.

What's my point? If the alignment between the business elite (conservatives) and the intellectual elite (progressives) breaks down as it did in the late 19th century. Apparently Wilson garnered 55% of the Jewish vote per wikipedia (of course it climbed as high as 90% for FDR). While I think your observations the basic rules of Jewish assimilation are reasonable, I would argue that from the late 19th century to 1933 there was more than one WASP elite group and the later Jewish immigrants were already moving left before FDR.

I also think its quite obvious that many Jews brought socialist ideals with them from eastern Europe; Sidney Hillman and the like. Whether those ideals originated in America or England or were just Puritanism for export, I couldn't say.

Also, per your comment that Jews did not pursue a different agenda, but merely assimilated dominant white beliefs. I largely agree; however, it may be worth noting that even German Jews of the Jacob Schiff mold demonstrated quite a bit of ethnocentricity. This may have been an adaptation to discrimination, and may even have been unimportant or unrelated to all of the complaints of the jew haters; nevertheless there it is.

October 14, 2010 at 5:37 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

What the Hell.

Is someone really posting as me?

Please note that the above comment that links to "jewcy" is not by me.

I'll email mm to see if he'll take it down.

October 14, 2010 at 7:29 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

I'm no expert on the area, but I think in Bismarck's Germany Jews tended to support liberal parties (Eugen Richter at that time, comparable to the FDP today).

I don't know either, but the German Jews in Germany and Austria funded the "Committee for the East" which distributed pro-German WWI propaganda in Poland and were loyal to both the Hapsburgs in Austria and the Kaiser in Germany and identified as German citizens because both country's aristocracies treated their Jews well. John von Neumann's family for one was given some sort of aristocratic title by the emperor of Austria and the German upper middle and aristocratic classes were more philosemitic than than the German lower classes.

Interestingly, during WWI German American Jews (including the pacifist Franz Boas) were accused of being more loyal to the German war effort than to American national defense interests.

So if the Jews support German militarism we are accused of advancing a "Jewish" agenda and if the "Jews" oppose German militarism we are accused of advancing a Jewish agenda.

I'm sure that somewhere right this very moment in an alternate universe where the Kaiser won WWI there is a community college professor in California is desperately blogging away about how 21st century Imperial Germany and Prussian militarism are a "vehicle for Jewish ethnic interests".

October 14, 2010 at 1:35 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Apparently Wilson garnered 55% of the Jewish vote per wikipedia (of course it climbed as high as 90% for FDR).

That's because the rapidly growing population of Russian Jewish immigrants were voting for the Democrats.

The established German Jews still leaned Republican.

While I think your observations the basic rules of Jewish assimilation are reasonable, I would argue that from the late 19th century to 1933 there was more than one WASP elite group and the later Jewish immigrants were already moving left before FDR.

The Russian Jews were NOT the elite Jews and they weren't in a position to influence American policy.

What "other" elite group was there but the WASP business/bourgeois elite from the 1865-1933?

Also, per your comment that Jews did not pursue a different agenda, but merely assimilated dominant white beliefs. I largely agree; however, it may be worth noting that even German Jews of the Jacob Schiff mold demonstrated quite a bit of ethnocentricity.

What did Schiff do that was ethnocentric and how do you define "ethnocentrism"? I'm not being cute, I'm genuinely curious what you mean by demonstrating "ethnocentrism" because ethnocentrism seems to be thrown around a lot without people seeming to agree on what it means, sort of like how the elite used to use the word "gravitas" a few years ago.

October 14, 2010 at 1:43 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

While I think your observations the basic rules of Jewish assimilation are reasonable, I would argue that from the late 19th century to 1933 there was more than one WASP elite group and the later Jewish immigrants were already moving left before FDR.

I misunderstood what you wrote.

The other "WASP elite" would be the progressives but they were still a minority among the old money WASP elite.

The Russian Jews did and still vote Democrat but I'm not sure if this is evidence Russian Jews would still have remained leftist had FDR not pulled the WASPs to the far left.

In the early 20th century, the Democrats were the party preferred by surviving Confederate War veterans and the KKK. For the most part, the Dems were a respectable white worker rights and populist party before FDR hijacked the Democrat party and covnerted it into a vehicle for elite progressivism.

October 14, 2010 at 1:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So if the Jews support German militarism we are accused of advancing a "Jewish" agenda and if the "Jews" oppose German militarism we are accused of advancing a Jewish agenda.

I know. What a controversial notion. Jews try to pursue their interests in various ways in various circumstances and situations. Ridiculous!

October 14, 2010 at 2:03 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Me:

So if the Jews support German militarism we are accused of advancing a "Jewish" agenda and if the "Jews" oppose German militarism we are accused of advancing a Jewish agenda.

Anonymous:

I know. What a controversial notion. Jews try to pursue their interests in various ways in various circumstances and situations. Ridiculous!

Anonymous, you think the Kaiser's militarism helped advance"Jewish interests" in WWI?

October 14, 2010 at 2:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous, you think the Kaiser's militarism helped advance"Jewish interests" in WWI?

You seem to miss the point. It's impossible to predict the future.

In various times in the past, it was "good for the Jews" (or at least good enough, or as good as they could get) to support absolutism.

October 14, 2010 at 3:31 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

> So assimilated Jews are not pursuing an "outsider" agenda but rather an insider agenda which keeps being confused with an outsider agenda because everyone asssumes that the Jews must have motivations that are completely different from every other white person, which is of course not true.

So, how do you explain that prominent pro-HBDers (and White preservationists) are almost all Gentile, going back to WWI, while great anti-HBD exponents are almost all Jewish? We know that about 1/3 of premier minds in the US are Jewish.

I'm not trying to put you in a bad mood. I ask because I think you are pretty honest, and I'm curious what your response would be.

Of course, you might (but probably not) believe these backroom geeks have nothing to do with politics. I believe pretty much the opposite. For instance I find it hard to imagine Nazism or Italofascism as we know them, without Nietzsche.

October 14, 2010 at 4:14 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

So if the Jews support German militarism we are accused of advancing a "Jewish" agenda and if the "Jews" oppose German militarism we are accused of advancing a Jewish agenda.

lol, and you believe Jews should be exempt from suspicion of having an agenda? Germans pursue a German agenda, English an English agenda, Russians a Russian agenda. But jews, never. You gotta be kidding.

October 14, 2010 at 5:23 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

What did Schiff do that was ethnocentric and how do you define "ethnocentrism"? I'm not being cute, I'm genuinely curious what you mean by demonstrating "ethnocentrism" because ethnocentrism seems to be thrown around a lot without people seeming to agree on what it means, sort of like how the elite used to use the word "gravitas" a few years ago.

TUJ, again and again you betray a stunning ignorance of basic history, even in your professed area of expertise. It's charming.

October 14, 2010 at 5:25 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Skimming through what's available on Google Books, it depicts the rise of Populists and New England patricians as emblematic of the backlash against Jews. But the quoted statement which sparked my interest was this claim:
""The political system that had emerged in the United States at the turn of the century was one that deprived Jews of access to economic and political power and to social standing. Not surprisingly, Jews were attracted to political movements that opposed that regime".
Did the Populists or Patricians manage to accomplish that? They did succeed in eventually restricting immigration, but one of the most notable backers of that legislation was the Jewish trades unionist Samuel Gompers!

Ginsberg's book contains the claim "Before Jews were expelled from the nations political and social elite, Brandeis had been an important corporate attorney, an associate of the Northeast's most powerful industrialists, and a member of the most exclusive clubs." Reading up on Brandeis life, I see nothing about him being expelled from anywhere. He was a millionaire who had set up a very successful law firm with a wealthy Bostonian (gentile) classmate from Harvard. After they had made a success of their firm that partner retired and Brandeis shifted to public interest work, working with philanthropists & persuading a number of legislatures to adopt laws embodying his ideas for reform.

The book claims the backlash inspired him to support the Zionist cause. But his Zionism seems to have been motivated more by the problems of Russian & European Jews. In his speech "The Jewish Problem and How to Solve It" from 1915 he mostly discusses the great discrimination against Jews and Russia and the lesser amount in western Europe. Of the United States he only mentions a "Saratoga incident" from "long ago". That was an incident from 1877 in which the financier Joseph Seligman was not permitted into a Hotel, and as far as I know the Progressive movement didn't change that. I find it much more plausible that Jews favored Progressivism for the same reason many WASPs did: they thought it was a good idea.

October 14, 2010 at 6:33 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Some random links that may be of interest to UR readers:
The State Department is now releasing a bunch of papers from the Vietnam era. I recall MM speculating at Abu Muquwama that a Wikileak of State cables would be more interesting than anything from the military.

A certified bad man has the following opinion:
"We Americans have spawned our own version of the eunuchs of old, who flourished inside the walls of the Forbidden City or Topkapi/Dolmabahçe Palace. Their counterparts now practice the arts of the courtier within the Beltway at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. (It is said that Afghanistan has jirgas to make village-level decisions and loya jirgas to decide things at the national level, while Washington now makes decisions in circle jirgas.)"

Michael Brendan Dougherty described the Time "American Malvern" article as presaging the arrival of Will Wilkinson & his fellow travelers. Will half-agrees and pays some respect to the principled cosmopolitanism of communism, a vacuum MBD thinks has been amply filled by neo-liberals & neo-conservatives. Twitter is stupid and you have to click the "in reply to" text at bottom to see what someone's responding to, the latest entry was here.

Recently Scott Sumner has been discussing how Keynes misrepresented Pigou & the other folks he called "classical" economists (who "New Keynesians" have basically returned to today, while "Post Keynesians" actually follow Keynes). Mencius wrote about Keynes-Fisher macro and said it displaced the older (Austrian) version. But because Keynes didn't read German he didn't really know much of what the Austrians thought (nor would most of his audience). Fisher had brought some Austrian ideas to America, he didn't displace some Austrian edifice. In fact, the importance a quasi-monetarist like Sumner places on nominal shocks dates back to Hume & Mill, before there was even a marginal revolution.

October 14, 2010 at 7:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They did succeed in eventually restricting immigration, but one of the most notable backers of that legislation was the Jewish trades unionist Samuel Gompers!

Right, and the most vigorous opponent of that legislation was the Jewish Congressman Emanuel Celler. Gompers of course got a lot of flak from Jews who said that the legislation was based on anti-Semitism.

I find it much more plausible that Jews favored Progressivism for the same reason many WASPs did: they thought it was a good idea.

Jews came to virtually unanimously support Progressivism and drive it, whereas Gentile support for it was quite heterogeneous.

Yes, I agree that it's likely that Jews thought it was a good idea. People tend to think that things they think are in their interests are good ideas.

October 14, 2010 at 7:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the alignment between the business elite (conservatives)

The business elite in this country is by no means meaningfully "conservative". Who do you think demands that the government flood the country with cheap foreign labor. I have worked for several large corporations, and let me tell you, the leadership is by no means conservative. Personally, they pretty much all accept liberal premises, and as a matter of business, they all do their best to get the gummint to tilt the playing field in their favor. Is there a major corporation in America that doesn't have a "government relations" department (i.e., lobbyists)?

Germans pursue a German agenda, English an English agenda, Russians a Russian agenda.

There might have been a time when that was true, but today, the American elite does not pursue an "American agenda" nor does the English elite pursue an "English agenda" (in the sense that everyone in the country benefits). The elites are out for themselves, not for the benefit of the country as a whole.

October 14, 2010 at 9:08 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

Anon,

The comment was in regard to the post Civil War business elite. I agree that conservative, with all its modern connotations, may not be the best term to describe even this group. I use it because TUJ uses it, and I'm pretty sure these are the people he is talking about when does.

I think you won't find much disagreement here on the existance of a post-New Deal liberal consensus or a general leftward trend.

October 15, 2010 at 5:43 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

The power of the Jews, their elite status, coincides with the rise of the mass media, radio, television, the major newspapers and publishers, etc. The mass media didn't come into being until the 20th century. But when it finally did, Jewish business elites automatically became the single greatest center of influence over the political process, as compared to railroad or steel magnates, or union bosses, etc. The prestige of Jewish intellectual movements from academia depended on the Jewish dominance of the mass media. Maybe TUJ denies this Jewish dominance of the mass media throughout the 20th century, but if he does so, it's at the risk of his own credibility. Same goes for MM.

October 15, 2010 at 5:04 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Larison comments on the Time "American Malvern" article.

Jews are almost uniformly in favor of gay marriage & abortion today, I don't see how it serves any distinctly Jewish interest. The Progressive movement tended to increase the power of the government, which in turn increased the power of governing elites that Jews came to form a significant portion of. But I don't know of where they reversed of the supposed restrictions against Jews that are claimed to have driven them to anti-establishment politics. One example in Ginsberg's book of the backlash against Jews is the first "Red Scare" under Palmer. He was a Progressive Democrat appointed and supported by Wilson, an important Progressive president who received plenty of Jewish support.

October 15, 2010 at 6:41 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

TGGP,

You don't see how social and ethnic pluralism and diversity, tolerance of minorities, alternative lifestyles, such as homosexuality, and coalition-building with other discriminated-against minorities, is a Jewish interest? Do you think homosexuality and abortion are promoted in Israel, the national socialist ethnostate? Serious question. I don't watch MTV-Israel.

October 15, 2010 at 7:15 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

Freeing the slave didn't promote jewish interest and neither does importing millions of mexican immigrants. If jews really control this country in their own interests, they are very short sighted. I know you have a fable for this, but fables don't exactly convince me.

Isn't it just possible that American progressive jews favor gay marriage and open borders because they have have bought into an American tradition that goes back even before the jews arrived? The tradition that basically is still trying to fuck over King James. I don't see how a person can actually read Locke and not think of Ezra Klein. Not just in the content of the bullshit, but there is something deeper about the mental processes by which the bullshit is formed. Anyway, there is plenty of history tying the two together, so I have to conclude that they are part of the same tradition.

Jews occupy high positions in the cathedral, and that fact has no doubt influenced the direction it has taken, but a new deal state could exist without jews and could look a lot like our modern one. House, Hopkins, Charles R. Crane, and a guy named Hazard ( not that important, he was a guy who was paid by Crane's agency the institute for current world affairs to go study Soviet Law, and I happend to be in the middle of is letters), were not controled by the jews or even the jewish media. Maybe the jews took over an existing tradition, but the don't run it for international jewish interest, they run it in their own individual interest as social climbers and power-mongers.

Your conception of jewish interest is very, very broad. Is there anything that jews could reasonably do that couldn't be shoehorned into some conception of national interest?

October 16, 2010 at 4:58 AM  
OpenID Joseph Dantes said...

Josh wrote: "Your conception of jewish interest is very, very broad. Is there anything that jews could reasonably do that couldn't be shoehorned into some conception of national interest?"

Considering this is a people that includes circumcision among their vital national interests, I'd say we have to keep it pretty broad.

October 16, 2010 at 5:21 AM  
OpenID Joseph Dantes said...

I just hope that particular one wasn't shoehorned.

October 16, 2010 at 5:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Freeing the slave didn't promote jewish interest and neither does importing millions of mexican immigrants."

Sure they do, because they weaken the power of the white proles whom Jews think are straining at the leash to restart the pogroms.

"If jews really control this country in their own interests, they are very short sighted."

We'd all be better off (including them) if they treated America like a car they owned, not like a rental. But one is perfectly rational to treat a rental car differently from a car one owns.

October 16, 2010 at 5:25 AM  
OpenID Joseph Dantes said...

E.g., before there was Odysseus' Trojan horse, there was Dinah's Trojan haircut.

I could be wrong about the dates.

October 16, 2010 at 5:31 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

"I just hope that particular one wasn't shoehorned."

it was at least kind of funny.

October 16, 2010 at 6:48 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

josh,

lots of things aren't in jewish interests, including certain aspects of genuine progressivism. for example, the creeping pro-palestinian sympathies among some segments of the coalition of called them democratic party back in the 70s. hence the migration of some leftist jewish intellectuals to the republican party, and the rise of neoconservatism. neoconservative attitudes gradually became the mainstream, PC attitudes. if american opinion were directed and lead by genuine progressives of the jimmy carter stripe, then it would be PC to be pro-palestinian and anti-israel. of course, it isn't. the entire superstructure of the mass media has always been very strongly pro israel and remains so, as do both political parties. this is not progressive ideology, its jewish interests.

October 16, 2010 at 8:41 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Is there anything that jews could reasonably do that couldn't be shoehorned into some conception of national interest?

Of course not. Even when the Jews supported German military expansionism during WWI we are accused of pursuing "group evolutionary interests" to destroy European civilization.

Predictable.

No doubt that as Moldbug regenerates his occult powers inside a compression chamber he is snarking at how jkr is as clumsy as he is stupid.

October 16, 2010 at 10:23 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

"Freeing the slave didn't promote jewish interest and neither does importing millions of mexican immigrants."

Sure they do, because they weaken the power of the white proles whom Jews think are straining at the leash to restart the pogroms.


The Sephardic/Southern European Jews* (who are genetically identical to the Ashkenazim, the Ashkenazim are simply a smaller segment of Sephardic Jews who migrated into Eastern Europe in the ~10th -12th centuries) supported the South and by extension slavery in the 1860's.

One of the few Jewish military cemeteries outside of Israel is in America and that cemetery is Confederate.

More clumsiness and stupidity...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_P._Benjamin

October 16, 2010 at 10:28 AM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

> The business elite in this country is by no means meaningfully "conservative". Who do you think demands that the government flood the country with cheap foreign labor.

Yeah, but you are talking about jocks there, not geeks. They are following intellectuals who if they didn't tell em what to think, at least told them that it was OK to flood the country with foreigners if that's what they want to do. OK in all ways: it would not hurt the economy or criminality rates, and it would not reduce civic well-being or the meaningfulness of life.

> and neither does importing millions of mexican immigrants. If jews really control this country in their own interests, they are very short sighted. I know you have a fable for this, but fables don't exactly convince me.

I agree fully. Excepting the Orthodox, they aren't very ethno-preservationist either. At all.

However, you need to consider revenge as a motive - revenge, probably not fully conscious, for the 1940-45 crimes, on top of other injustices. I haven't come close to concluding this, but I'm considering it.

The revenge theory doesn't apply to Boas. In his case, his actions can be considered rational. Just as it could also be rational today, on that perspective, to make the US 20% Mestizo, hence about 70% White. This would involve going maybe 14% Mest and letting differential fertility take you to about 20%. Obviously that is not what has happened, so the lack of a rational strategy must go back to at least 1995. Bout the same applies in Europe.

Note that UJ doesn't hit my question to him about the largely Gentile pro-HBDers and largely Ashkenazi ant-HBDers, both traditions going back to the early 1900s. Not trying to insult him (I like reading him), I'm just sayin.

If you know Nietzsche well you know that he literally believed that the ancient Hebrews created and distributed Christianity as a vengeance for the Imperial revolt-suppression atrocities and disruption of religious life (I believe this is most prominent in 'Genealogy'). Some I think this makes sense, and sometimes not.

To repeat, I don't consider myself a hata, just someone who thinks separation of Jews and Gentiles necessary; and I would certainly be happy to see a second, ample Jewish land taken from the territory of 'the West'.

October 16, 2010 at 12:58 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

I use it because TUJ uses it, and I'm pretty sure these are the people he is talking about when does.

To clarify, I, and I assume other posters here, consider the pre-1933 WASPs on balance to be conservative because they were bourgeois. Obviously, they weren't by any means conservative in the modern Evangelical conservative sense, but just because they don't fit our current understanding of conservative doesn't mean they can't be classified as being on the right.

October 16, 2010 at 1:24 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Isn't it just possible that American progressive jews favor gay marriage and open borders

Jews don't support open borders much more than gentile whites. TGGP has an old post up where he analyzed whether there were large differences between Jews and whites on racially charged issues and the largest difference between Jews was not on racial issues like bussing and AA but on religious issues, which would make sense because the persecution of Jews in Europe and the Middle East before Hitler was largely motivated by religion, not race.

October 16, 2010 at 1:27 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Jews occupy high positions in the cathedral, and that fact has no doubt influenced the direction it has taken,

I don't even agree with the idea that Jewish participation in leftism much influenced the direction leftism would have take without Jewish political emancipation in the 19th century.

The reason I believe this is because there is no difference between the policies that elite Jews and elite gentiles were pursuing.

Therefore, the participation of assimilated Jews in any leftist (or conservative) political movement did not significantly alter the outcome of any intellectual movement because for every assimilated Jewish leftist there were more leftist gentiles advocating essentially the same policies to take their place.

The Western Europeans saw their Jewish population largely exterminated in the 1940's and all that happened was that Jewish leftists were replaced by elite gentile leftists.

The assumption by certain quarters is that elite Jews, merely because of their having Jewish ancestry, must have motivations that are completely different from the motivations of other elite whites when in fact what we see are assimilated Jews parroting ideas that are already in circulation in elite gentile quarters.

The illusion that Jews cause political movements is further magnified by the fact that Jews seem to always be ahead of political changes than gentiles are.

But in reality, Jews only appear to be moving faster than gentiles as a whole when you compare to Jews to non-elite gentiles.

When you compare the positions of elite Jews and elite gentiles what one finds is that the Jews are moving in tandem with elite whites faster than non-elite gentiles simply because Jews are concentrated in urban areas and live amongst high-IQ gentiles.

Since we are both more intelligent and live closer to elite whites than non-elite gentiles we create the impression that we are somehow driving events, which is an illusion. For the most part we just follow ideas that are already in circulation among elite gentiles.

October 16, 2010 at 1:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Freeing the slave didn't promote jewish interest and neither does importing millions of mexican immigrants."

Sure they do, because they weaken the power of the white proles whom Jews think are straining at the leash to restart the pogroms.

The Sephardic/Southern European Jews* (who are genetically identical to the Ashkenazim, the Ashkenazim are simply a smaller segment of Sephardic Jews who migrated into Eastern Europe in the ~10th -12th centuries) supported the South and by extension slavery in the 1860's.

One of the few Jewish military cemeteries outside of Israel is in America and that cemetery is Confederate.

More clumsiness and stupidity...


I notice you don't address the second part of the original statement, which I have bolded. The attitudes of pre-Civil War Southern Jews have no relevance to the issue of flooding the country with Mexicans in the late 20th century.

Anyway, regardless of what the pre-Civil War Southern Jews did, the fact remains that freeing the slaves was in the long-term Jewish interest. Not, of course, that this necessarily means that they orchestrated it.

October 16, 2010 at 2:08 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Rob S, the absence of Nietzsche's would not have prevented Hitler's creation of Nazism anymore than the absence of Hugh Hefner and Dr Alfred Kinsey would have prevented the sexual revolution.

So, how do you explain that prominent pro-HBDers (and White preservationists) are almost all Gentile, going back to WWI, while great anti-HBD exponents are almost all Jewish? We know that about 1/3 of premier minds in the US are Jewish.

First of all, pre-1945, by overwhelming margins both Europeans and Jews person believed in some sort of HBD/Hereditarianism.

So even among Jews, only a tiny minority could be considered extreme environmentalists before 1945 (by environmentalists I mean those who believe social intervention can greatly alter in a positive way intelligence, personality and other important psychological traits).

Regarding Boas, Boas was neither hostile to European civilization nor was he any sort of cultural relativist.

Boas wrote that European civilization had reached the most advanced stage of human development and that the European standard of civilization was what all other races should strive to reach.

Additionally, Boas and the social scientists who listened to his ideas were not the most radical environmentalist social scientists in early 20th century America.

Throughout his career, Boas (who was trained in physical anthropology) and other social scientists inclined to support his ideas conceded that the smaller cranial volume of African Americans indicated blacks did not have the same mean level of intelligence as Europeans and therefore could probably not be expected to produce as many "men of high genius" as Europeans.

Boas' argument was that American blacks had enough overlap with whites that they could be made to better assimilate into Anglo-American culture with social intervention.

In the book In Search of Human Nature one social scientist favorable to Boas argued that while black men didn't appear to have the same capability as whites, they should still be expected to be "the best black they can be".

Also, per In Search of Human Nature the most extreme environmentalist field of social science was not pre-1945 Boasian anthropology but behaviorist psychology of John B Watson (a non-Jew) which argued that human nature was much more malleable than even Boas contended.

And even before Watson and Boas, there was already a strong progressive movement towards improving the social fabric of American society through state intervention (even though eugenics was in vogue among many progressives). Prohibition and mass public education being prime examples of progressive environmentalist sympathies.

After WWII, Boasian anthropology did become as blank slatist as Behaviorist psychology, but this was not the fault of Boas who is only guilty of being overly optimistic rather than being hostile to Anglo-American civilization.

Nor was elite anti-HBDism caused by Jews since the Jewish population of Western Europe was mostly exterminated by Hitler.

The reason belief in heredity collapsed among Western elites was because of not only the excesses of the Hitler regime but because 19th century racial science had been directed against other gentile Europeans such as lower class British, Serbs during the racially motivated state terrorism of Ante Pavelic, and ethnic nationalism was blamed for being a major cause of WWI.

October 16, 2010 at 2:40 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

The attitudes of pre-Civil War Southern Jews have no relevance to the issue of flooding the country with Mexicans in the late 20th century.

There isn't a large difference between Jews and gentile whites in terms of attitudes towards race and immigration as TGGP showed.

Anyway, regardless of what the pre-Civil War Southern Jews did, the fact remains that freeing the slaves was in the long-term Jewish interest.

Then why did the Jews "act against their interest" by fighting for the Confederacy if freeing the slaves was "Jewish interest"?

October 16, 2010 at 2:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't even agree with the idea that Jewish participation in leftism much influenced the direction leftism would have take without Jewish political emancipation in the 19th century.

Anyone who thinks that we'd be in exactly the same position today had Jews not participated in their Gentile host societies is delusional.

Note that the people who tend to argue along these lines are the same people that are vigorously opposed to any possibilities of setting up experimental conditions via expulsion, segregation, etc. and observing their results.

Of course these very same people are often those who most vociferously attack induction, experiments, the scientific method, etc. (e.g. Mencius Moldbug) and engage in sophistry to try to impose their dogma.

October 16, 2010 at 3:07 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Anyone who thinks that we'd be in exactly the same position today had Jews not participated in their Gentile host societies is delusional.

Sure it's true because intelligent gentiles were pushing essentially the same policies and because Western Europe destroyed its Jewish population and their EU governing elites are now more leftist than American governing elites.

The "counter-semite" position against Jews can only be true if Jewish and intelligent gentile policies were in opposition to each other rather than in agreement.

If they were, as I assume you believe, in opposition then please list the major policy differences between

1) elite SCOTUS justices such as gentiles such as David Souter and John Paul Stevens and elite Jews such as Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan?

2) elite economic policy makers such as the gentiles Tim Geithner and Hank Paulson and elite Jews such as Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke?

October 16, 2010 at 3:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Freeing the slave didn't promote jewish interest and neither does importing millions of mexican immigrants.

A theory of Jewish virulence put forth by James Bowery is that it evolves from horizontal transmission of Jews between nations, in the form of repeated migration, since at least Babylonian times.

Moreover, since diaspora Jews have become dependent on virulence for survival they promote immigration and naturalization laws that are friendly to horizontal transmission more generally – resulting in virulence evolving in other populations.

This makes Jewish virulence more analogous to immunosuppression virulence, such as HIV. This theory of Jewish virulence is complementary to both Kevin MacDonald's thesis documented in The Culture of Critique (and his other works) and to Richard Faussette's Niche Theory.

Under Bowery's hypothesis, Jewish virulence evolved from the following horizontal transmission cycle (see Richard Faussette's Niche Theory for a possible starting point):

1. Hyper centralization of net assets (communist, capitalist, monarchy—doesn’t matter)
2. Social breakdown as middle class (Yeomen) are unable to afford subsistence
3. Grab and convert wealth in easily transported forms (gold historically, diamonds more recently, etc.)
4. “virulent antisemitism” breaks out
5. Emigrate leaving behind less “savvy” Jews to take the heat
6. Cry out for help to elites at destination nation while offering concentrated wealth to enter new cycle (see step 1).

October 16, 2010 at 3:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Richard Faussette's "Niche Theory, Population Transfer, and The Origin of the Anti-Semitic Cycle" is available here:

http://www.toqonline.com/archives/v6n4/FaussetteV6N47x10.pdf

October 16, 2010 at 3:38 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

This makes Jewish virulence more analogous to immunosuppression virulence, such as HIV.

You're not answering my question, but perhaps I can translate it into medical terms you can understand.

What are the major differences between the illness caused by the "David Souter virulence" and the "Stephen Bryer virulence"?

If these two "viruses" cause the same "illness" then why should we expect the Jewish version to have been any worse than the elite gentile version?

October 16, 2010 at 3:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the persecution of Jews in Europe and the Middle East before Hitler was largely motivated by religion, not race.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limpieza_de_sangre

October 16, 2010 at 3:57 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Even when the Jews supported German military expansionism during WWI we are accused of pursuing "group evolutionary interests" to destroy European civilization.

First, stop using stupid-people terms like military expansionism. Do you really think anyone who reads this site still thinks about WW1 as a battle between militarism and democracy? Get with the times.

Second, stop treating simple obvious statements as controversial. Of course there were Jews in America and elsewhere, of German background, people like Jacob Schiff, who were anti-Russian and mildly pro-German. Jews were influential bankers and industrialists in 1914 Germany. Jews had a long history of hostility to the Czar and Russian empire. This is not controversial.

It's also true that after Russia was knocked out of the war, and after the British declaration to support a Jewish state in Palestine after the war, lots of Jews in America and elsewhere shifted their support to the Allied Powers.

So what? Why is this controversial. Jews are a national group with primary loyalty to fellow Jews. It's normal for them to be conscious of their interests and pursue them with whatever tools they have. Denying this just makes you look stupid, not anyone else. And lying about it or calling names makes you look shifty and dishonest.

October 16, 2010 at 4:18 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

One of the few Jewish military cemeteries outside of Israel is in America and that cemetery is Confederate.

More clumsiness and stupidity...


Nobody in this thread said anything about Jews having anything to do with slavery or the civil war. Stop playing stupid with the straw man arguments.

October 16, 2010 at 4:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Note that UJ doesn't hit my question to him about the largely Gentile pro-HBDers and largely Ashkenazi ant-HBDers, both traditions going back to the early 1900s. Not trying to insult him (I like reading him), I'm just sayin.

UJ rarely replies to any valid arguments, just straw men and misconstrued versions of what someone said.

October 16, 2010 at 4:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're not answering my question, but perhaps I can translate it into medical terms you can understand.

Your original "question" was the following:

The "counter-semite" position against Jews can only be true if Jewish and intelligent gentile policies were in opposition to each other rather than in agreement.

If they were, as I assume you believe, in opposition then please list the major policy differences between

1) elite SCOTUS justices such as gentiles such as David Souter and John Paul Stevens and elite Jews such as Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan?

2) elite economic policy makers such as the gentiles Tim Geithner and Hank Paulson and elite Jews such as Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke?


This is a ridiculous question. The implicit claim here is that nothing can be considered "Jewish" so long as there is at least one Gentile somewhere.

This is a good example of why some attack induction, experiments, "counting," the scientific method, etc., and elevate sophistry and deploy long-winded verbiage to try to impose their dogmatic interpretation of history.

Not only does it play to their strength of verbal disputation, it allows them to set up these absurd counterfactuals that are somehow supposed to go against very nuanced hypotheses.

October 16, 2010 at 4:29 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Prof. MacDonald quotes a remarkable passage from Charles Silberman: "American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief – one firmly rooted in history – that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse 'gay rights' and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called 'social' issues."

He is saying, in effect, that when Jews make the diversity-is-our-strength argument it is in support of their real goal of diluting a society's homogeneity so that Jews will feel safe. They are couching a Jewish agenda in terms they think gentiles will accept. Likewise, as the second part of the Silberman quotation suggests, Jews may support deviant movements, not because they think it is good for the country but because it is good for the Jews.

Prof. Silberman also provides an illuminating quote from a Jewish economist who thought that republicans had more sensible economic policies but who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate anyway. His reason? "I'd rather live in a country governed by the faces I saw at the Democratic convention than those I saw at the Republican convention." This man apparently distrusts white gentiles and voted for a racially mixed party even if its economic policies were wrong. What is good for Jews appears to come before what is good for the country.

Earl Raab, former president of heavily Jewish Brandeis University makes the diversity argument in a slightly different way. Expressing his satisfaction with the prediction that by the middle of the next century whites will become a minority, he writes, "We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country." He is apparently prepared to displace the people and culture of the founding stock in order to prevent the theoretical rise of an anti-Jewish regime. Prof. Raab appears to see whites mainly as potential Nazis, and is willing to sacrifice their culture and national continuity in order to defuse an imagined threat to Jews. This passage takes for granted the continued future existence of Jews as a distinct community even as gentile whites decline in numbers and influence.

In the same passage, Prof. Raab continues by noting that, "We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible..." – just as it tends to make the ultimate displacement of European culture also irreversible.

October 16, 2010 at 4:51 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Above quotes from American Renaissance review of CofC, written by Stanely Hornbeck

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/208640-The-Culture-of-Critique-reviewed-by-Stanley-Hornbeck

October 16, 2010 at 5:01 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

"This is a ridiculous question. The implicit claim here is that nothing can be considered "Jewish" so long as there is at least one Gentile somewhere."

You're being obtuse. Do you think John Paul Stevens is an anomaly? The liberal tradition in America existed before there were many influential American Jews and continues to exist among elite gentiles today.

Go to ICWA.org. Register for free to read the archive. Look at some of the pre-WWII corespondents. Check out the letter of recommendation before moving into the actual writings. You will be left with the following conclusions; you are looking at the establishment, the section of it is large, WASP, and quite well connected, this network has old roots, and these people are fucking communists.

Or read their ancestors.
http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/pfaffs/people/individuals/

What do Jews have on these guys?

"This is a good example of why some attack induction, experiments, "counting," the scientific method, etc., and elevate sophistry and deploy long-winded verbiage to try to impose their dogmatic interpretation of history."

Seriously, who does this besides moldbug? Does anyone openly attack the scientific method? And its Jews of all people you accuse of this?

October 16, 2010 at 7:02 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

josh, You have to recognize that there is more than a single tradition operating simultaneously.

Probably more than 3, just on what we call the "Left."

One of these traditions is copiously documented and analyzed in The Culture of Critique.

There is also an indigenous anglo-American, or Protestant variant, which you can call Progressivism, or Fabianism.

TUJ has pointed out that there's an indigenous European socialism, the Rosseuas and Saint-Simonists...

The far right has had strong ethnic or racial overtones during the past half century, for obvious reasons. The most ominous threat is multiculturalism, open immigration, and the anti-white PC/cultural marxist system. This is the clear and present danger and is most closely related to the Culture of Critique strain of "Leftism."

Most of us who think of ourselves as on the Right are much more concerned with this strain of leftism, seeing it as the most dangerous and pressing issue. Understandably we're not as concerned with or threatened by he New Deal or Social Security in the year 2010. Times have changed.

If we could roll back our society's problems to the year 1920, we would be might worried about the Fabians or Progressives. If we could roll back our problems to the year 1720, we could be worried about the political issues and radicals of that era.

Times change, the actors and motivations change, the issues change.

Most of the people marginally on the Right don't have the time or the capacity to worry about what kind of ideal government we could establish if we didn't have all these other more pressing problems. We could debate the finer points of political economy or the Stuarts vs. the Tudors.

That's not the situation. The average white person on the Right is going to feel threatened by the policies and ideas described in the Culture of Critique, rather than the stuff John T Flynn wrote about, or the stuff Mencius Moldbug writes about today.

The Left is not a single unified movement originating in England x centuries ago based on dissenting Protestants, or whoever, and developing on down the ages, to be responsible for every revolution and ideology in Europe, American and world history.

There's a lot more going on than that.

October 16, 2010 at 7:25 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Likewise, there's an equal or greater number of separate traditions or ideologies operating under what we broadly call the "Right" across America and Europe.

Not everything is reducible to our own individual perspective or stock of knowledge, as Mencius seems to assume in his writings.

A person like Tom Sunic, or Kevin MacDonald, or Auster, have completely different perspectives, priorities, stocks of knowledge, etc., than Mencius, or you, or me, or TGGP, or E Michael Jones, or Pat Buchanan, or Paul Gottfried.

Or Paul Krugman, or Noam Chomsky, or, or...

The European New Right, the American Old Right, the traditional Conservative or Reactionaries of the ancien regime, etc., all have different center-points and top priorities, totally different lines of argument and points they're trying to make. Totally different ultimate goals desired. Totally different ideas they consider the most important.

Nietzsche, Spengler, Carlyle, Mises, on and on. Different ideas, different top priorities.

We have to respect each other's differences and acknowledge that we come from different points of view, different stocks of knowledge, different concerns and priorities. Therefore we also have different opponents, different traditions which we consider most hostile to our own interests and ideas...

It's not simply a matter of right or wrong. There are genuine differences which we must respect and try to understand. The only way to do that is to be honest, be open to other ideas, and not assume the other person is mistaken or evil or dishonest. We have to get beyond our own limited point of view and storehouse of ideas and facts and recognize that every other serious thinking person has his own separate perspective, experience, stock of knowledge and so on.

And we have to stop allowing words and phrases like Right, Left, etc., to get in the way and hamper and confuse discussion of the things we're actually trying to discuss.

October 16, 2010 at 7:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seriously, who does this besides moldbug? Does anyone openly attack the scientific method? And its Jews of all people you accuse of this?

It's true that it's done more implicitly than explicitly.

And it's done implicitly every time Jews are against Euro societies that exlude Jews physically from their ecologies, and exclude Jewish influence (cultural, social, political, etc.) transmitted into their ecologies via sound, light, etc. waves (i.e. all of the time). They are impeding the establishment of experimental conditions.

October 16, 2010 at 9:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hitler speaking about barbarossa, with amazing color footage and subtitles... pretty interesting vid on this subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd_CA9dVTnI

October 16, 2010 at 9:51 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home