Treaty of Versailles – katana17 https://katana17.com Replaces katana17.wordpress.com blog Sat, 02 Aug 2025 03:49:49 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 Joel Davis – What Did the Anzacs Fight For? – Apr 24, 2025 – Transcript https://katana17.com/2025/04/25/joel-davis-what-did-the-anzacs-fight-for-apr-24-2025-transcript/ https://katana17.com/2025/04/25/joel-davis-what-did-the-anzacs-fight-for-apr-24-2025-transcript/#comments Fri, 25 Apr 2025 05:20:32 +0000 https://katana17.com/?p=37393 Continue reading →]]>

 

Joel Davis

 

What Did the Anzacs Fight For?

 

 

Thu, Apr 24, 2025

 

[In this Apr 24, 2025 livestream episode Aussie nationalist activists Joel Davis and Blair Cottrell discuss Anzac Day and its history:

They emphasise the importance of attending Dawn Services on Anzac Day

Blair is wearing sunglasses due to an eye infection

They discuss how the Anzacs fought for a “White Australia” in World War I

“Billy Hughes, our Prime Minister in the First World War, when he addressed the nation and he was basically asking people to sign up to go and fight, he said, ‘I bid thee, go and fight for White Australia in France’.” (10:00)

They talk about Australia’s fears of Japanese expansion in the early 20th century

Australia joined WWI to secure British dominance in Asia and maintain the White Australia Policy

Discussion of Billy Hughes’ role at the Treaty of Versailles in defending the White Australia Policy (20:00)

The RSL (Returned and Services League) strongly supported the White Australia Policy until the 1980s

Debate over whether every individual soldier was consciously fighting for White Australia (30:00)

“White Australia was the central animating concept of Federation. It was the central animating concept of World War I.”

They discuss a quote from Billy Hughes about Australia’s destiny and “banishing” Aboriginal people (40:00)

Conversation about how they developed their views on racial inequality

Discussion of Australia’s involvement in World War II, primarily as a “race war” against Japan (50:00)

Britain’s decisions in WWII led to the decline of the British Empire (55:00)

Criticism of how Anzac Day is commemorated today compared to the past (60:00)

“When we win, Anzac Day is going to be like it used to be again. The people will be inspired again.”

Discussion of a recent incident where Matt Trihey disrupted a political meeting (friends of the ABC) in Melbourne (70:00)

Criticism of media coverage of the incident (75:00)

They discuss the “gynocracy” and how it affects society and politics (80:00)

“We live in a society where emotions rule over reason.” (82:00)

Anecdotes about things being banned in primary school

Discussion of men’s need for competition and outlets for energy

Criticism of men who joke about being “domesticated” by their wives (88:00)

They encourage listeners to protest if there’s a “Welcome to Country” at Anzac Day services (90:00)

Discussion of Gerard Rennick and encouragement to vote for him in Queensland (92:00)

Final encouragement to attend Anzac Day services and treat it as a “religious holiday”

“Make tomorrow venerate tomorrow. Make treat tomorrow like a religious holiday. That’s what it is.”

– KATANA]

 

 

 

https://rumble.com/v6si5mt-the-enemy-is-weaker-than-you-think.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp

 

 

 

 

my social media links: https://bio.link/joeldavis

 

 

follow Blair on telegram: https://t.me/realblaircottrell

 

 

https://x.com/joeldavisx

 

Published on Thu, Apr 24, 2025

 

Description

 

1:34:46
Enable
What did the ANZACs fight for?
Joel Davis
6.08K followers
118
2
Repost
Comments
Streamed on:
Apr 24, 6:35 am EDT
4.31K
News
Republican Politics
Joel Davis Blair Cottrell Thomas Sewell Jacob Hersant National Socialist Network
my social media links: https://bio.link/joeldavis
follow Blair on telegram: https://t.me/realblaircottrell
follow Tom on telegram: https://t.me/tomsewelluncensored
Show less
10 Comments

_____________

 

Following Transcript Quality = 5 Stars

1 Star — Poor quality with many errors, contains nonsense text 2 Stars — Low quality with many errors, some nonsense text. 3 Stars — Medium quality with some errors. 4 Stars — Good quality with only a few errors. 5 Stars — High quality with few to no errors.

NOTE: Readers can help improve the quality of this transcript by putting corrections in the Comment/Leave a Reply section. Don’t be just a consumer, contribute to the cause, however small. Thanks.

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT

(Words: 16,238 – Duration: 95 mins)

  

 

Joel Davis: Okay, we are live. It is Anzac Day, eve, 24th of April, 2024 [2025]. And a stream for you this evening, a regular Thursday night stream. But we’re going to talk a bit about history tonight. We’re going to talk a bit about the history of our great nation, because that’s what we should all be thinking about and preparing ourselves to be focusing upon tomorrow morning when all of you, all of you better be getting up early, before the crack of dawn and getting down to a Dawn Service, whether it be in the city, whether it be your local Dawn Service! One day a year to get out of bed early and get down there and remember and venerate our fallen ancestors who paid the ultimate sacrifice to secure this continent for the White men! Let their sacrifice not be in vain. But it starts with venerating the ancestors in the here and now, if we’re ever going to ensure that. But we’re going to get into that.

 

But first, my esteemed colleague, Blair Cottrell. He’s looking a bit like a rock star from the early 90s. I just hope that he hasn’t gone on heroin or something. He’s looking a little bit heroin chic. I mean, not skinny heroin chic, but the sunglasses on at night, so it’s a good look though, it’s fresh!

 

Blair Cottrell: I wouldn’t usually do this, but a couple of days ago I noticed my eye was irritated. Didn’t think much of it. Then it got worse and then it got worse. And now it looks like this. See that? [take sunnies off] I saw a doctor and apparently it’s some sort of cellulitis of the skin in the eyelid, which is a relatively serious infection. I don’t know how I got it. I don’t remember being bitten by anything. Maybe I just got unlucky somehow.

 

So taking antibiotics, unfortunately. I don’t like to take antibiotics, but there’s some circumstances where it’s necessary to take antibiotics. I know that I’ve had deep tissue infections on a couple of occasions. Really, if not for modern medicine, I would probably be dead because an infection would have got me by now. And I was told that an infection like this, if gone untreated, can actually cause permanent blindness. So thank God that modern medicine exists. Not everything about modernity is bad, I guess. But I’ll be wearing the sunglasses for the rest of the stream because it just looks terrible. I’m not really confident about being on camera with an eye like that, so you’ll have to enjoy the Sunnies, guys. I’m not on cocaine! I haven’t spiralled out of control. Still here. I’m still me.

 

Joel Davis: That was a nice cope story, but, I mean, we all know that Blair’s missus packs a punch. And you know, when you talk back, you better watch out!

 

So we’re feeling for you, Blair, and just remember that you can get help. There is a domestic violence hotline.

 

Blair Cottrell: Not for man! There’s no help for men, bro! Everyone knows it. Even the lawyers know it. You go into court for a domestic violence dispute and you’re a man, you have no rights! [chuckling] Everyone knows that. So why lie?

 

Come on, let’s be honest here!

 

Joel Davis: Anyways, so I guess let’s get into the show. I’m going to try and do this show in a streamlined fashion this evening because we’ve got to get up early in the morning to get down to the Dawn Service. Which I reiterate, if you don’t get up early tomorrow morning and go down to the Dawn Services – this is for the Australians in the audience – and I think in New Zealand, do Anzac Day in New Zealand the same as us? [It’s the same day] I presume that they do.

 

Blair Cottrell: Almost certainly! It stands for Australian, New Zealand Army Corps, so almost certainly they would do it.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I presume that they do. I don’t know if they have a different day. I don’t know enough. Maybe if you’re a Kiwi, maybe you could let us know what you do over there.

 

But if you’re an Aussie, you better be out of bed 5am and you better be down at that Dawn Service! Because think about what they did for us and all you have to do is get out of bed early one day a year. It’s really not that much to ask.

 

But yeah, I want to talk about history tonight and I want to talk about what the Anzacs actually fought for. Because there’s a lot of misrepresentation that occurs at this time of year.

 

On Australia Day, the enemy is willing to openly admit that this country was founded by the White man for the White man and condemn it as such, and go on about colonialism and the poor abos and blah, blah, blah, as we’re all familiar with. But on Anzac Day, they take a different approach, tack. Because they know if they were going to on the sacrifices of the ancestors at wartime that that wouldn’t go down with the population. We are not that demoralised. You know, they’re barely, they can’t even really cancel Australia Day effectively. We talked about that on Australia Day, how Australia Day is having a resurgence in popularity precisely because of the attacks being levelled by our political enemies upon that day.

 

But on Anzac Day, they try to subvert it. They try to present the Anzacs:

 

“They fought for multiculturalism, they fought for against fascism and communism, for freedom. And all this kind of stuff.”

 

But it’s bullshit! It’s bullshit! If you know anything about history, it’s bullshit!

 

And what the Anzacs fought for in World War I, because it’s only really proper to talk about the Anzacs in the First World War, because in the other World Wars we were fighting more as Australia, or in World War II we were fighting as Australians, and in Korea and Vietnam and so on, we were fighting as Australians. But in World War I they were fighting for a White Australia, and in World War II they were fighting for a White Australia. And these are really the decisive wars that everyone is really thinking about.

 

[06:10]

 

And even in these wars against Korea and Vietnam, against communism, they were fighting to preserve a White Australia. We still had the White Australia Policy, and they were trying to put up a defence against the spread of communism in our region.

 

So the men that died in these wars, whether you agree with the overarching politics of these wars, which obviously there’s a lot to discuss in that regard, that’s what they were fighting for! And they said it explicitly. And when it comes to World War I and World War II, the Prime Minister himself said it explicitly! Billy Hughes, our Prime Minister in the First World War, when he addressed the nation and he was basically asking people to sign up to go and fight, he said:

 

“I bid thee, go and fight for White Australia in France!”

 

He didn’t say:

 

“Go fight for Australia in France!”

 

He didn’t say:

 

“Go fight for the British Empire in France!”

 

He said:

 

“Go and fight for White Australia in France!”

 

And that might seem maybe a little bit strange to people. What could he possibly mean by that? Why was White Australia up for, threatened by events in Europe? And there’s a long version of the story, but I’ll start with the shorter version. The basic version is this.

 

Australia at that time, obviously a very young country, but only been federated in 1901. About three years after we federated, the British Empire entered into an alliance with the Japanese. And the Japanese were an emerging power in the Asian region. They started building up a big navy. And the British, which at the time had the best navy in the world, and the best shipbuilders in the world, were actually helping the Japanese to build up their navy. As part of this alliance, the British saw fit to make an alliance with Japan because that would then basically take some of the pressure off them trying to command the seas of East Asia if they were allied with the pre-eminent Asian power. And there was a lot of competition at that time for control in East Asia. The Germans were trying to get established here. You had the French, I’m talking about East Asia or the East in general. The French and other European powers were involved, and the British wanted to maintain dominance.

 

So there was an alliance with Japan. It was widely criticised, but it was ultimately in Australia because of the basically the fear that it would force us to cuck on the White Australia Policy. Because the Japanese did not appreciate the White Australia Policy. They said:

 

“How dare you lump us in with blacks and Indians and these lesser races. We are Japanese, we’re a proud race, we shouldn’t be excluded from immigration to Australia on the account of being an inferior race.”

 

And the response at the time, actually by Deakin, who was a founding father of our country and Prime Minister, second Prime Minister of Australia, was to say that:

 

“Oh, we don’t want you here precisely because we respect you as a race, precisely because we think if we were to let you in, you could take over.”

 

But anyway, we obviously secured the White Australia Policy, but the British made us kind of tone it down basically not to offend the sensibilities of the Japanese. And so there was a resentment on that basis and a fear of Japanese expansion.

 

And then in 1905, the Japanese did what at that time was unthinkable. They defeated a European power in a war. They went to war with Russia and they defeated Russia in 1905! And that shocked the world. It was the first time a non-White country had defeated a White country in a war in all of modern history. And so that sent shockwaves through the world that, well, perhaps the White man won’t just be able to rule the world carte blanche with no resistance.

 

So this struck fear into the hearts of Australians in general because the idea was, well, the Japanese turns expansionist power. A few years later, they conquered Korea. Fears increased.

 

Now, of course, the British Empire had a formal alliance with Japan. But they said:

 

“Well, what happens if the British Empire collapses? Or what happens if that alliance collapses and instead the Japanese ally with the Germans and then they come together to defeat the British Empire, then what will happen to Australia?”

 

The fear was that if the British Empire was to lose its dominance in the region, that we would ultimately fall under the control of these powers and then potentially non-Whites would be able to enter our continent, and the White Australia Policy would collapse.

 

And so all the rhetoric and all of the political machinations at that time was building a defence force in Australia that could defend Australia, but also propping up the British Empire because Australia had such a small population so that the British Empire could defend Australia and therefore defend a White Australia. Because if we were to fall under the control of some other empire, they could force us to open our borders and bring in their merchants and bring in their workers and so on and we would lose the continent to other races, literally. And this was explicitly, I’m not just saying this is what all the newspapers were saying. This is what all the politicians were saying. This was our primary concern politically in this country at the beginning of our history.

 

And there were a lot of elements in Australian politics, particularly in the Labor Party at the time, who were upset at the British Empire, who thought that the British Empire, you know, was basically taken over by jews, bankers and so on. They didn’t give a fuck about Australia. That they had this kind of multiracial, international corporate empire that was ruled by not the almighty dollar at that time, because it wasn’t the dollar but the almighty pound. And that they weren’t concerned about the racial future of Australia. But nevertheless they recognised that because we were of the British race, we were part of the British Empire, that it was our best bet at securing our position in the world.

 

[12:13]

 

 

And so they were willing to go – I mean, Billy Hughes was Labor, he was a Labor man – they were willing to go and fight for the British Empire to ensure they won the First World War, to ensure that the British Empire remained strong, to ensure that it continued dominating East Asia, to ensure that we could continue having a White Australia Policy. That’s why we got involved in World War I. It wasn’t just because of some kind of like British patriotism or loyalty to the Empire. It was a pragmatic decision to secure a White Australia.

 

Of course, people felt good feelings towards the British Empire. We were of the British race, of the British stock. But there was also a strong sense of nationalism in Australia all the way back at that time, a keen sense of what was in our interest as a people.

 

And so that was what was determined that we have to go and fight to secure the future of the British Empire and also to win the Right by participating in that war to have a say about the direction of the Empire. And what Billy Hughes did at The Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I and the during the establishment of the League of Nations, is he pushed very hard against members of the alliance, such as the Japanese and others who wanted to push for, … League of Nations, by the way, was the prototype of the UN. It was the first attempt at creating a UN. And there was a proposal put forward by the Allies that won World War I to establish this prototype of the UN called the League of Nations, to basically establish a principle that racially discriminatory immigration policies would be abolished basically in the world. That this was horrible and racist and so on all the way back then. And Billy Hughes pushed very hard against that. He said:

 

“We came in, we had 65,000 men sacrifice their lives to ensure this victory. We are not giving up our White Australia Policy.”

 

And we successfully won. We convinced the Americans sided with us, the British sided with us and ultimately that provision was taken out. The Japs weren’t happy about it, but they didn’t have enough sway. So Billy Hughes came back to Australia announcing victory:

 

“What a great victory that we’d achieved!”

 

And also New Guinea, today known as Papua New Guinea, was under German control. And this caused a lot of concerns back in those days. We also secured that under our control at that time.

 

So the idea was not simply about defending the British Empire because we loved the King. And we were Anglo Saxons or something. It was a specific concern with Australian national interests and how to secure this continent for the White man. And everyone knew it! And when the soldiers came back and they formed what became known as the RSL, which is the largest body by far to represent veterans that have fought for Australia and fought for the Empire. They came back to Australia, they set up the RSL [Returned and Services League (of Australia)] and immediately became the strongest lobby group in an already very racist country for the White Australia Policy. With the first president, second president, third president of the RSL and so on, making constant statements that their members fought and died or fought and sacrificed because their members obviously were still alive and their comrades who died for a White Australia to secure basically Anglo supremacy in the world, and to secure this continent for the White man. That’s why they fought. And that any kind of acquiescence on the White Australia Policy they would consider a betrayal. And they reaffirmed this after World War II.

 

And in fact, the RSL was the last major public organisation in Australia to abandon explicit advocacy for the White Australia Policy. It wasn’t until the late 80s, the late 1980s, long after the White Australia Policy was abandoned by the government that the RSL finally abandoned its advocacy for the White Australia Policy.

 

So if you see Anzac Day ceremonies tomorrow, they try to tell you that:

 

“They fought for multiculturalism and against Nazism!”

 

They did fight against the Germans, they did fight against the National Socialists. And they were misguided, you could say, ultimately, and putting their allegiance to the Empire, because the Empire in the Second World War ultimately betrayed us and it collapsed. It betrayed itself and collapsed.

 

But that’s why they fought. That’s what their sacrifice was about. Every single man on that battlefield, that’s what he was fighting for. That’s why he went to France, that’s why he went to Gallipoli, that’s why he went to Kokoda*. So that needs to be held in full consciousness and ruminated upon.

 

[* The Kokoda Track campaign or Kokoda Trail campaign was part of the Pacific War of World War II. The campaign consisted of a series of battles fought between July and November 1942 in what was then the Australian Territory of Papua. It was primarily a land battle, between the Japanese South Seas Detachment under Major General Tomitarō Horii and Australian and Papuan land forces under command of New Guinea Force. The Japanese objective was to seize Port Moresby by an overland advance from the north coast, following the Kokoda Track over the mountains of the Owen Stanley Range, as part of a strategy to isolate Australia from the United States. Wikipedia]

 

[16:53]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: Do you think it’s reasonable to assume that every fighting soldier was conscientiously engaging in the war? That whatever it is, they were fighting in World War I, World War II, because they were fighting for White Australia? Every Australian soldier actually was fully aware and conscious of their ethnicity and they were fighting to defend their ethnicity? Or would you say that maybe war propaganda plays a part in the reason for why they’re fighting? They might have been spelled by some series of slogans produced by the government. They might have been made to hate the enemy. They might be in it for glory, for honour. They might just be in it because they’re bored and they want to do something with their lives that’s interesting. I think there’s probably a complex of reasons. I understand what you’re saying. I understand that the Statesmen who were in favour of the war, they obviously had their reasons, which were nationalistic in essence. But I think the individual soldier, he fought for his own reasons a lot of the time.

 

However, it’s my understanding, or it’s my feeling rather, that there was a collective, how should I describe it? Some sort of collective understanding that was unspoken, that the Australians understood that they were a specific ethnic group, that they were a certain type of people, an extension of the British colonies, but still their own kind nonetheless, and that they were fighting to defend their kind, they were engaged in the war for that purpose, collectively.

 

Yet on an individual level, if you were to interview each soldier, if that was possible, for argument’s sake, I’m sure they would give a series of explanations as to why they were fighting.

 

But I think the collective reason why they were fighting would have been in for the maintenance or expansion of their own ethnic presence, power, that kind of thing, defending their own kind I think. What do you reckon?

 

Joel Davis: Well at the end of the day though, like these politicians that were talking about these ideas, they were elected, they were running on these ideas. They were saying:

 

“We must defend a White Australia. This is what we need to do to prepare to fight and defend it.”

 

And they were voted into government, you know, according to those statements they were making to the public.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s funny, isn’t it?

 

Joel Davis: Australians were not forced, Australians were not forced to go and fight. They were not forced. There wasn’t conscription in World War I. They signed up voluntarily to go.

 

Blair Cottrell: What I was saying is, isn’t it curious that the phrase “White Australia” right now would be something that a lot of people wouldn’t be comfortable using in regular conversation because they’ll be accused of racism or something worse. But less than 100 years ago maybe even 50 or 60 years ago, that phrase was just commonly used and understood as an obviously present and correct thing. Like everybody understood that White Australia existed. White Australia was a real cultural, ethnic identity and it was who we are. It’s who we are as a people. In such a short time people are now have been, or people have been made to feel uncomfortable and frightened to even use that phrase. It doesn’t take very long, does it with effective propaganda to turn a people against themselves? To make them too afraid to establish any right to exist, too afraid to fight for their own self-determination.

 

Joel Davis: That phrase White Australia was the central animating concept of federation. It was the central animating concept of World War I. It was a central animating concept of the first half of this federated nation’s existence, in politics. The White Australia Policy was the policy of the government that was most in concern for the people and for the politicians! It was the defining principle of our country. It wasn’t just an idea, it wasn’t just something that people liked or sometimes talked about. It was an obsession!

 

And those men gave their blood. They died for that ideal. Ultimately that was what it was explained to them that the war was about. In all of the, all of the media publications. All these publications that we still know today, like the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age and all these things, they used to be virulently White nationalist racist publications. They used to be! They used to talk, like The Noticer today has tamer language than what the Sydney Morning Herald had in like 1910. That’s just the reality and that’s how the culture was in those days.

 

And the so-called Anzac Myth. People talk about that, how there was a the soldiers were described rather poetically by journalists and other writers in the Australian press during and after the First World War. That ANZAC myth was fundamentally racist. It was describing the Australian soldiers essentially as great eugenic specimens, talking about how they were the superior Anglo Saxon and like, comparing them as a stock to the British in favourable terms and so on, and describing how on the battlefield they showed our racial fortitude was superior to the enemy and this kind of thing.

 

And when Australian politicians were justifying certain policies, like policies to make military training compulsory nationally and things like that, they would come to the people and say:

 

“If you are a proud White man, how could you oppose my policy?”

 

You know, they would literally appeal to you on the basis of White nationalism, on the basis of your, like, Aryan honour to justify their policies to you. That’s how politicians used to talk to the people in those days.

 

[22:49]

 

So when you read Australian history, you realise this country was more racist than like even probably any country in the world at that time. And there was this pressing concern. I just posted on my Telegram this quote from Prime Minister Billy Hughes. He was our wartime Prime Minister in the First World War. And Billy Hughes, by the way, was a full on Darwinist, basically. He had a dog-eat-dog, highly racial, like a kind of view of history as racial competition. You either fight for your survival and assert your supremacy or you get crushed by other races. That’s how he saw the world. It was very Hitlerian, proto-Hitlerian, you could say. And in some, in some ways you could say Billy Hughes was more savage than Hitler in some of his statements and speeches on this, on these issues.

 

But this is a quote from Billy Hughes. This is during a ceremony that was conducted in 1913, a year before the beginning of World War I, when they started building Canberra. Because at the beginning of Australia, Canberra wasn’t built yet. At the beginning of Federation, there was a dispute between Sydney and Melbourne as to who got to be the capital.

 

And so the compromise was struck to build the capital city in Canberra for the purpose of serving as the nation’s capital, to kind of assuage this conflict between the two major cities, right? And Billy Hughes said this at this, at the ceremony where the foundational stone of Canberra was being laid. When they started building Canberra, to quote:

 

“We are here so far as we can to mould the destinies of a nation. The deity has fashioned us out for this purpose from the beginning. We were destined to have our own way from the beginning and America, two nations that have always had their way, for they killed everybody to get it. I declare to you that in no other way shall we be able to come to our own except by preparing to hold that which we have. Now, we are here as visible signs of a continent. We have a great future before us. The people are incapable of nourishing abstract ideals. They must have a symbol. And here we have a symbol of nationality. The first historic event in the history of the Commonwealth we are engaged in today without the slightest trace of that race we have banished from the face of the earth (meaning the Aboriginals). We must not be too proud, lest we should too in time disappear.”

 

This is how the leader of our country thought before World War I. You know, tomorrow if they do a Welcome to Country, that wasn’t what they fought for. The man who led us, who led the Anzacs into the First World War, said:

 

“I bid thee go fight for White Australia in France. We have banished the Aboriginals from the face of the earth. Let us struggle so that we are not banished like them.”

 

That was how this man thought. That’s how this man spoke and addressed our nation. That was the man that we elected to rule us, to run us during that war. And who was celebrated as a hero, a national hero at the time.

 

So that’s what we need to have consciousness of around this. Like this is not up for debate. Like it is black and white. The Anzacs fought for a White Australia!

 

Blair Cottrell: Did you ever believe in racial equality at any point in your life?

 

Joel Davis: I think when I was young, growing up, I did kind of have a default egalitarianism of sorts where I thought:

 

“Okay, well, you know, fairness would dictate that every people deserve a certain dignity or whatever.”

 

But I did, as I started to get into my teens, I did become conscious of the fact that there were relations of supremacy and superiority. And I did remember feeling pride from basically the first time I thought about it, in the fact that my race was clearly such a powerful and strong race in world history and in contemporary history that we were all kind of top of the food chain or it felt like we were top of the food chain. And I did also remember becoming conscious of the jews around that time because there was a lot of discussion of Israel and so on we’re talking about this is during like the Iraq war and zionism. And I kind of became vaguely familiar of like conspiracy theories around the Rothschild banking family and so on.

 

And I remember thinking:

 

“Okay, well that kind of puts the whole Holocaust thing in perspective. Like they said that Hitler was trying to take over the world and the guy, the guys he decided to take on were the jews. And apparently these jews run all these banks. And now we’re our whole like global superpowers are fighting to defend their country, Israel. What is that all about?”

 

And so that did make me kind of start to see, … I remember feeling like, okay, maybe that would justify, like I didn’t at that time I didn’t realise the Holocaust was fake, but I started to think:

 

“Okay, maybe that would kind of justify doing something like that if you felt like that was your main competitor for supremacy.”

 

But these were kind of vague thoughts. Like it took me multiple years to kind of formulate them more ideologically because the conditioning is very strong in our culture to think in terms of egalitarianism and that like supremacy is in a certain sense immoral.

 

I just kind of thought about it at that time more as like a kind of, from a realist, pragmatic standpoint, maybe there are necessary evils that you can sympathise with. And you know, in my late teens I became familiar with like Nietzsche’s philosophy and so on and started thinking about things more in those terms. But it probably wasn’t until I was 19 or so that I really fully internalised that as a worldview and came to that like ultimate kind of conclusion of thinking about the world in terms of that like kind of inequality is just nature and it’s just reality. And that either you’re the top of the chain or you eat shit! And it’s much better to be top of the chain than to be eating shit!

 

[29:01]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: I remember I used to get angry at people for being racist, like in primary school and early high school days.

 

And I thought that was a good thing for me to do because I was standing up for what was right, what was fair. Because as you said, the conditioning was strong. That’s what I had been conditioned to believe was right. But I started to see the obvious realities of racial differences and even genetic differences between people of the same race. And I realised that people aren’t equal. I realised that pretty quickly.

 

But one thing that always, because I went through, so I’m just getting a message from someone. I went through a stage where I actually felt like White people didn’t have culture. I felt like only dark skinned people were cultured. And White people just didn’t really have anything like that. Because I wasn’t thinking about what culture was. I didn’t have a good understanding of culture. To me, culture meant music and family values and doing things together as a family and painting your face and having all of these kind of spiritual, greater meanings to family traditions and shit like that!

 

I didn’t see culture as great stone structures. I didn’t see the kind of culture produced by the race to whom I belonged. And I can recall, I always was curious about the Nazis, because whenever I saw footage of the Nazis, the Germans, on History Channel, I heard how crazy and evil they were, yet so many people followed them! And they looked so polished, they look so good!

 

And so the explanation didn’t really match the aesthetic that was being presented to me on these channels. So I was always curious to learn more about the Nazis. But whenever I tried to, there wasn’t really a lot of information there. It was just like, these guys are evil, these guys are crazy! Especially if you tried to get your information from Hollywood entertainment you weren’t really getting much there.

 

Joel Davis: Well, let’s talk about World War II, actually, because obviously on Anzac Day, we don’t just venerate people from the First World War, but also the Second World War. And I think that’s important because people say:

 

“Well, you know, Joel, you’re a National Socialist, you’re obviously sympathetic towards the Germans, yet you’re venerating men who fought many of them against Germans, a lot of them against the Japanese, who were German allies in the Second World War. And ultimately you think the Second World War was a horrible thing, the way that it went and that the Germans lost and so on.”

 

And that requires an explanation, perhaps, and we’ve talked about it before, but I think on a day like this, it’s important to discuss this.

 

Number one, recall what I was saying about World War I. The animating concern of the First World War for Australians was the Japanese. And the Japanese weren’t even our enemy during World War I. They were our ally. But we saw that the Japanese would expand and become an increasingly powerful force in the world. And that was why we chose to ally ourselves with the British. Well, we were already in the British Empire, but why we chose to commit so intensely to the British Empire to the point that we sent 65,000 of our own sons to go and die for the Empire in the First World War, in the beaches of Turkey and in the trenches of France.

 

And the Second World War vindicated these fears. Right? Because what was the Second World War? Well, the Second World War, it started in Europe, in 1939, but arguably it started in Asia in 1933 when the Japanese invaded China. And the Japanese were rampaging their way through China, through the 1930s. And this was setting off massive alarm bells in Australia. And ultimately, of course, the Japanese ended up forging an alliance with the Germans.

 

And so this very much factored into our enthusiasm to fight in the Second World War, our concern that if, well, if the British Empire was defeated in the Second World War, which ultimately it was, we can get on to that, but it was defeated by the Germans in the Second World War, that basically we would be left defenceless against this radically expansionary Japanese Empire that was allied with what would have been the German victors. That concern is what inspired men to fight.

 

And ultimately, from a bird’s eye view, it was incorrect for us to fight against the Germans. The betrayal happened really in London. The British should never have gone to war with the Germans. The Germans wanted an alliance with the British. And then even after the war began, they also wanted to make peace with Britain and were rejected many, many times.

 

And that ultimately was destructive to the British Empire. The ultimate victors of World War II was not Britain. On paper, it was Britain, but it wasn’t. On paper it says that they won, but look at the practicalities of what happened. The British Empire fell apart immediately after World War II at the hands of the Americans and the Soviets, their so-called allies, during World War II. During World War II, the Americans extended massive loans to the British which they made them repay in full. They extended massive loans to the Soviet Union, their supposed communist enemy in the Cold War. They didn’t make them repay, they didn’t make them pay back one cent in order to fight the Germans.

 

There was an intent by the Americans to use the conditions of World War II and kind of World War I as well, actually, to an extent, but in particular World War II, to basically bankrupt and break up the British Empire and then integrate its remnants into an American led, liberal, democratic international order.

 

Now moving over to the Pacific, the Japanese were a real threat. They did want to take over our region. I don’t think they wanted to invade Australia directly, but they did attack us. They did bomb Darwin, they did send [mini] submarines into Sydney, they did invade Papua New Guinea, or New Guinea, which was actually our protectorate. So they did attack us. And they also attacked the British Empire and Australian soldiers in Singapore and other places.

 

[35:27]

 

 

So what World War II was primarily for Australians was a race war against Japan to ensure the dominance of the White race over the Asia Pacific region. And ultimately our main ally, and that was the Americans, was the British Empire didn’t have the capacity to defend us. They basically abandoned us in World War II. And we kind of abandoned them largely earlier on in the war. In the early years of the war we went and fought the Germans and the Italians in North Africa on behalf of the British Empire.

 

But then once the war with Japan kind of began, we pulled our guys out, we said:

 

“No, we need to bring them home to defend Australia.”

 

We basically pulled out of the European theatre of the World War and stop really participating in it, brought all the guys back home and just focused on fighting Japan for the rest of the war. We weren’t really involved in the ultimate defeat of the Germans.

 

So that needs to be also kind of taken into consideration. When we’re venerating our ancestors, we’re venerating mostly from World War II, our ancestors who fought a race war against the Japanese which was a valid race war and a necessary race war in order to preserve our sovereignty. Unfortunately because of basically the traitorous government in Britain which made decisions to the benefit of their jewish financier backers rather than the British Empire itself, they refused peace with Hitler, they refused alliance with Hitler which would have been in their actual geopolitical interest in order to essentially be complicit in the defeat of all European empires including themselves by the communists from the east and the American, like liberals, from across the pond.

 

And so the British Empire was no more. And now Australia was left even though the Japanese were defeated, we were now left basically dependent upon an American led international order. Basically became part of an American Empire rather than a British Empire.

 

And due to being part of that American Empire we became infected with all of the ideas that ultimately destroyed and unravelled the White Australia Policy and kind of sent our country on the trajectory that it’s now on today, one of suicidal self destruction!

 

And the same thing happened to all of America’s so-called allies in Western Europe. Their so-called allies in Western Europe also have gone on this suicidal trajectory of self destruction as is America itself because it’s ruled by a kind of anti-White jewish oligarchy.

 

So World War II in that sense was a mistake. But at the time America seemed like at that time America was a 90% White country. An America that had millions of members in the Ku Klux Klan, who had a racial restrictive immigration policy, who had segregation in the south, because obviously they had black [post —] slave populations, but they had segregation. No one at that time could have foreseen the trajectory that America was on, except maybe like, a few really philosophically wise individuals. But the average person and the average statesman could not have foreseen what would come of America.

 

And so the decisions that were made at that time by our leadership and the feelings and sentiments of the people and the soldiers at that time, I think, were fundamentally noble and virtuous. These people were not traitors. John Curtin, our prime minister in World War II, he was not a traitor! I think he was sincere, sincerely trying to take the steps that he needed to defend White Australia. And ultimately, when the war with Japan began, he pulled everyone out, all the Aussies, out of the European and African theatre and said:

 

“You got to get back here and fight to defend White Australia here right now and mobilise the whole country to fight Japan.”

 

And we emerged victorious with many great military victories over the Japanese, particularly Kokoda, which was particularly impressive. So that’s worthy of remembrance and veneration. Absolutely!

 

What do you think about that, Blair?

 

Blair Cottrell: God, I don’t know. Which part?

 

Joel Davis: Well, World War II in general. Because obviously you share my sympathies towards the Germans under National Socialism, but at the same time, you’ll be remembering our ancestors. I think you have ancestors who served in World War II? I do.

 

Blair Cottrell: I’m not exactly sure.

 

Joel Davis: Okay.

 

[40:10]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: As I was saying before, though, I was getting at something. I was saying that, yeah, I felt White people didn’t have a culture, but I was always curious about the Nazis. And I started to learn more about National Socialism by reading Mein Kampf. And I learnt a lot about it. And I had to tell everybody! I had this girlfriend, right? And I wouldn’t shut up! I kept talking about the point of life basically being about breeding up, about enhancing your genetic stock and not degrading it through miscegenation or just genetic downgrading. And we talked a lot about that. I chewed her head off about it a lot. And sometime later, she said to me:

 

“Look, I agree with you and I understand what you’re saying, and I’m glad that you have taught me about alternative World War II history. I’m glad that we discussed the reality of race and the point of life, as you call it.”

 

But she said:

 

“I was happier before.”

 

She said to me:

 

“I wish you didn’t tell me these things because I was happier before.”

 

She said:

 

“Now I feel like I can see a giant elephant in the room now. I feel like I’m surrounded by retards, like dysgenic retards, and it’s depressing!”

 

Yeah? And we parted ways a short time later and I never spoke to her again.

 

So this is a regular person, a person who’s intelligent enough, a member of Australian society, to understand the reality of race and how important it is not to throw away what you have genetically, ethnically.

 

But then when she came to understand that, she just acknowledged to me, admitted openly that she was happier before she knew that! The society she grew up in basically pushed the opposite message, and that she felt like an outcast. She felt like she wished she hadn’t been told that. She wished she never had to understand that, because it was depressing for her.

 

Do you think the average person. This is like the question that I’m getting to. Do you think the average person can be a National Socialist? Do you think they’re capable of enduring what they have to endure? Do you think they need to be a National Socialist in order to vote for a party that represents those ideals? Because I don’t feel they are capable. I don’t feel they have the strength.

 

I feel like a small leadership group has the strength, but the ordinary people, the masses, they’re neither capable nor willing to be ethnic nationalists. Has there ever been a time in history where the entire country, any country, has been consciously ethnically nationalist, every single member? Or have they just been more concerned about their own personal lives and misgivings? Are they actually geared to participate in politics and philosophy on the level of being a conscious ethnic nationalist? Do they need to be? What do you think?

 

Joel Davis: Well, I mean, obviously Australia in the first half of the 20th century was a consciously ethnically nationalist people.

 

Blair Cottrell: Was it, though? Was it, though? Was it, though? Because you go through old footage, there’s old ABC footage, and it’s from like the 60s or something, I think. And even then you’ve got people saying:

 

“Oh, I’ve got nothing against this race and that race. And a few of them can come in. That’s okay, as long as they’re not intermarrying.”

 

Joel Davis: That’s in the sixties. So things are starting to change. The television was introduced and the kind of post World War II judeo-American propaganda started getting disseminated and so on, and the culture had shifted quite significantly at that point.

 

But in the early 20th century I think the culture was very staunchly racialist. The media, the clear political will of the people as represented by who they were voting for and what kind of policies were convincing to the Australian people.

 

And also the lead up to the Federation of Australia, the Labor movement in this country the political movements in this country in general all geared towards racial preservation. And labour movement was engaged in a lot of industrial action that was basically geared against the use of coloured labour and so on. The public overwhelmingly supported them. When you had kind of race riots and so on, … Because like look at for example the Eureka Stockade*. The Eureka Stockade was essentially like an armed rebellion against the government at the time. The leaders of the Eureka Stockade ultimately were not thrown in prison, they were basically given a slap on the wrist.

 

[* The Eureka Rebellion was a series of events involving gold miners who revolted against the British administration of the colony of Victoria, Australia, during the Victorian gold rush. It culminated in the Battle of the Eureka Stockade, which took place on 3 December 1854 at Ballarat between the rebels and the colonial forces of Australia. The fighting resulted in an official total of 27 deaths and many injuries, the majority of casualties being rebels. Wikipedia]

 

And then a whole bunch of them entered politics and got elected into the Parliament and one of them became the Premier of Victoria and then they passed a whole bunch of legislation greatly restricting immigration into the colony of Victoria at the time.

 

So the people rallied around violent rebels that were opposing the importation of Chinese labour basically. And these policies were also wildly, wildly popular in New South Wales and Queensland, all the other colonies where they experienced non-White immigration.

 

And then that was the fuel that led to Federation, that was the fuel that led to World War I etc. And the enthusiasm that the people had for these things. When the “Great White Fleet” they called it, which was the American Navy came and toured Australia and visited in a kind of friendly way in 1908 it was greeted by massive crowds. They’re basically described like there’s never been crowds that big in Sydney or Melbourne before to come and see these great ships of the US Navy and then all the speeches that were being given as:

 

“Look at this great White power from the other side of the Pacific Ocean! Look how exceptional their big ships are. We need to be allied with these, with our kind of Anglo Saxon brothers from across the Pacific against you know, the yellow menace! And what proud, what great White men these people are and what testament to area ingenuity, these great feats of technology are!”

 

And people were ecstatic about this and it was like a big deal.

 

[* Great White Fleet – On 20 August 1908 a round the world peace mission by the American fleet arrived in Port Jackson, Sydney. The US navy was on a round the world cruise which had set out eight months earlier on 16 December 1907. The sixteen warships, led by the flagship Connecticut, were painted white to denote peace. They would be known as The Great White Fleet. https://mhnsw.au › stories › general › great-white-fleet]

 

 

 

 

Can you imagine people acting like that today? No, it was a completely different world back then. When they opened the shrine, …

 

[46:49]

 

 

Blair Cottrell: Do we still have people or do we just have pre-programmed goyim? Is that the problem? Well, think about it. That’s a serious question. The people as thinking, feeling, independent creatures as they were pre-television. Do we still have people like that? Do they still exist? Or are they just morons out there waiting to be told what to do and how to vote? And do we need to adjust ourselves to the receptivity of the moron in order to make any sort of political success? Or are we counting on a people support from a people that are no longer there?

 

Joel Davis: Well, I think the television definitely radically degraded the consciousness of the masses. I think you can see a massive shift when the television is invented and widely disseminated in the politics of every Western country. And what comes with that you get second wave feminism, you get mass immigration, etc.

 

Blair Cottrell: And it’s even worse! It’s worse. It’s not just television. Have you, like, Zoomers can’t write. Zoomers cannot write! Have you seen the handwriting? They can’t count money. Like the screen error has made it even worse! Like new generations are even more retarded! They’re kind of more radical because they’re so desensitised, but they’re still more retarded!

 

So we’re dealing with a different type of humanity than the sort of humanity that accepted ethnic nationalism as self evident. We’re dealing with a completely different type of humanity.

 

And so I’m not sure whether ethnic nationalism will fly on a large scale. I think Aussie pride might fly or something really simplistic. And you as the leading force, can be an ethnic nationalist organisation with your own extensive philosophy, but the person that you’re trying to appeal to, the sort of human you’re trying to appeal to, isn’t actually capable of understanding anything about ethnic nationalism. They’re capable of being racist a little bit. And maybe you could make them feel more confident about being racist, less afraid of consequences, because that’s what stops them from being racist.

 

At the end of the day, it’s just fear of consequence. If there wasn’t the applicable or necessary fear of consequence out there in society, people would just be as naturally racist as they’ve always been. It’s fear that stops them from doing that. So you could make them feel more comfortable about being racist. But my gut tells me that the average person out there in society isn’t actually capable of giving themselves over to a conscious ethnic nationalism. But I don’t really think they need to be at the same time.

 

Joel Davis: Well, the masses don’t necessarily need to be because the masses largely get led around by, … I mean, the masses aren’t really in support of what the government is currently doing either. Most people don’t agree with pretty much all the major policies of the government. Most people are sick of the woke stuff, they’re sick of the transgenderism. Immigration isn’t popular. The policies of the government are not popular and they’re getting less and less popular through time.

 

And I think as you said, the younger generation, it’s kind of polarising in both directions. But you know, without the television generation, they are a lot less trusting of authority. They’re a lot more kind of open minded to different ideas.

 

And what we’re seeing in Europe or what we’re seeing in America is that the younger generation is actually extremely Right-wing. So like in America, the younger Zoomers are way more Right-wing than even, than any other generation. Like the age bracket between 18 and, 201 is the most Right-wing of like almost any generation in America at the moment. And also the other thing is that racism and nationalism, these aren’t very complex ideas. Black people, not that smart. Black people are intensely loyal to each other politically.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, but that’s because there’s no consequence for not being loyal to each other.

 

Joel Davis: But that shows that like in principle, like it’s not about the stupidity of the masses or anything, as you said, it’s a social game. So what is going to give White people the confidence to be racist? It’s a real question. It’s not that they’re not capable of racism. It’s actually a natural thing. Or that it wouldn’t be possible.

 

Blair Cottrell: Less consequence.

 

Joel Davis: It’s about how do you inspire them, how do you basically give them a sense of permission, or a sense of inspiration or some kind of how do you attract them to the principles of nationalism and racism? That’s the question. And there is a way to do it. There has to be because it’s inherent.

 

Blair Cottrell: Needs to be something in it for them. They need to benefit from it and not lose. And a result of being racist currently they lose and they lose hard. So if they can benefit from being racist, they’ll do it all day. People are selfish and simple.

 

Joel Davis: We’re not going to be able to get to the point where people can benefit from being racist until we have a critical mass of people that are willing to suffer. Like you don’t need everyone, you don’t need the like 50% plus one to be willing to suffer for it. We do need a much bigger movement that can sustain and grow to a level where you can start to get, where it can start to actually, socially reward its participants more. We have to make racism fun. We have to make it engaging.

 

And that’s part of what we’re trying to do with the organisation. Like one of the ambitions is to have a network of gyms and pubs that we control across all Australian cities where young White people can hang out and have community and enjoy themselves and throw parties and throw events constantly that are fun to attend for our people so that they can have a communal and social basis to participate in the movement. Make the movement fun, make the movement engaging, give them something to be in the movement and then they’re going to actually stay in the movement, participate in the movement.

 

And then on a political level what we’re going to put forward is a whole series of policies that are going to materially make your life a lot better. And the current system is making your life a hell of a lot worse. And it’s only going to get worse and worse! And people are happy to go along with the status quo while there’s a reasonable amount of prosperity and comfort.

 

[53:09]

 

But in 10 years time, you think it’s bad now, it’s not really that bad yet. Wait, in 10, 15 years time it’s going to get really bad! People are going to be more and more open minded to a more radical politics and a more radical solution. Also racism is the only thing that’s actually funny anymore. You know, they used to be able to control the population through really good propaganda.

 

Back in the 80s, the 90s, the quality of Hollywood movies was so high. The quality of, just ZOG slop, music, television, etc., was actually quite high. And so you could just kind of like turn your brain off and just get like sucked into The Matrix of Bread and Circuses so much more easily. The prevailing culture was so much more enjoyable to kind of lose yourself in. It’s no longer the case. They can’t produce good films anymore, they can’t produce good music anymore. They don’t have the same cultural cache or gravitas that they once did.

 

So the ability to kind of prop up the prevailing like Leftist morality is diminishing. Whilst at the same time if we have the fortitude and we have the ambition and the creativity, we have the ability to create a counterculture that can be quite fun and engaging for the younger generation of Whites who are increasingly disaffected and alienated. I do believe there’s a pathway there to making nationalism fun, to making nationalism enjoyable to make, to activating, to making nationalism amenable to people who have selfish rather than simply selfless, romantic reasons to embrace it.

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. I sometimes fear becoming an entertainer, though. I sometimes worry that the content I’m making, the effort that I’m making politically, may just be consumed as entertainment by people sitting on their asses scrolling. They might find it amusing and funny, but then they’re just going to scroll to the next thing and it’s just another 15 to 25 second moment in their lives that they feel amused by. And that’s the only purpose that I’m serving in the lives of ordinary people. That’s very cynical of course. There’s probably greater psychological impacts the content has on people, and that’s why we make it, that’s why we put this sort of stuff out there.

 

But look, I’m especially cranky because I’ve got this eye infection and my whole eye socket’s just throbbing. It’s very painful. So I’m kind of being a cynic tonight. I’m playing devil’s advocate a little bit, so don’t mind me. I’m doing my best not to crack the shits, but Anzac Day tomorrow, we got the Dawn Service in the morning. This is a very significant day for Australians. It’s very special. It’s really helps, or how should I say it, underpins how important ancestral worship is to us. And by us, I don’t just mean Australians, but every member of our race around the world that is related to us in any way, shape or form. That’s if you pay attention.

 

And Tom Sewell was telling me this today, he’s been telling me for a while, ancestral worship, veneration of the ancestors is kind of integral to our traditions as a people. Whatever country you go to that is a majority White, there is a great deal of respect, admiration and even worship of the ancestors that were the precondition for our existence. Now we are here because of them. And on Anzac Day this year, the message I’d like people to take away, or the feeling I’d like people to experience, is how little your life actually means, is how small your life is in the grand scheme of things.

 

The fact that we are mortals and we have to die in quite a short time, but that through our deeds and what we choose to believe in our national community, our race can live forever.

 

And I think that’s the essence of what we’re doing on Anzac Day, when we appreciate the sacrifices that have been made for us in order for us to be here now. Right. We are respecting, venerating, glorifying all of our ancestors that made the greatest sacrifice that serves as the precondition for our presence here now. That’s what Anzac Day means to me.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, absolutely! And ancestor veneration is basically the ancient religion of the Aryans. You know, the ancient Aryans, they practised in different ways, but they fundamentally practised a whole series of rites and rituals venerating their previous ancestors. They had kind of Patriarchal, patrilineal cults and the development of the pantheon of pagan gods kind of spun out of ancestor worship as its foundation. So it’s actually kind of an organic form of our native spirituality of our distant ancestors.

 

And when you think about the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne, which is an incredible building that shrine looks kind of like a pagan temple. It has Christian elements in it, but it looks like a pagan temple, you could say. It looks like something out of like ancient Greece or something. And that temple, which is what it is, was built to venerate the ancestors at. Literally it’s called the Shrine of Remembrance by crowdfunding of the veterans of the First World War.

 

So the Anzacs literally Pooled their cash together and built that. It wasn’t built by the government, it was very carefully designed. And that’s where I’m going to be tomorrow, venerating the ancestors. When that was opened in the early 1930s, over 300,000 people attended!

 

Now, let me look up. What was the population of Melbourne? I don’t know exactly what was the population of Melbourne?

 

[59:26]

 

Blair Cottrell: Only about a million. Less than a million.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. In 1932. Let’s have a look.

 

1932, yeah. It was a bit less than a million. 950,000. So it’s around a million people. So 300,000 people showed up to the opening of the shrine.

 

So that’s like three out of every ten Melburnians showing up, basically.

 

Blair Cottrell: Well, they all. I reckon they all had a personal investment in it because the that wasn’t built by the taxpayer, by the government. It was crowdfunded the funds necessary to build the shrine by RSL, I think. And so everyone who attended those 300,000 people were probably all investors. They probably all put money in for it to be built. So it literally is a structure of the people. Like, this is not something the government built, this is something the people put together themselves.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but not just that it’s such an impressive building. It’s such a powerful, potent building. It shows. I mean, a lot of people would have had family members that fought. Almost everyone would have had family members that fought in World War I. A lot of people would have had family members that died in World War I so obviously it was a big deal to them for those reasons. But the big Union Jacks, I’ve seen the picture they have in underneath the shrine of like, the first. I don’t know if it was Remembrance Day or what, the first kind of big kind of opening, ceremonial opening of the shrine. It was a big event, and it was about venerating those who had given their blood for the Empire. That’s how people used to think back then. It was the biggest deal. Nothing was a bigger deal than that.

 

And that was when we had a country that had a robust White Australia Policy. That was when we had a country that was a real country because those were people that were conscious of their mortality, conscious of the fact that anything you have in this world you have to fight for that. Blood is what binds us and that the blood of sacrifice is what makes possible everything that we have. That was the people that understood that. And the people that were conscious of the greatness of our race that had been achieved through many, many victories, many, many glories in battle.

 

And that’s how a great people think. That’s how a noble people think. Now, who thinks like that now? You know, Anzac Day, when I went last year to the shrine, you know, half the faces there were like, Asian tourists and stuff. And there was like this lame speech about how multicultural the army is now and all the women that get to serve in the army now and how great and how diverse it is and how wonderful that is. And all this bullshit from, like, women in pantsuits that don’t have the first idea what the fuck they’re talking about. It’s fucking disgusting and disgraceful! That’s what it’s become. It’s a farce!

 

So if you go tomorrow, have that content in your heart for these scumbags as well that are up there. You’re standing there for your ancestors, but you’re not there for them. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t go. Some people don’t go to these things because they’re like:

 

“Oh the politicians and everything get up there and sell this cucked shit!”

 

And then you see like a bunch of pajeet army cadets marching around or something. And you’re not there for them, you’re there for the ancestors. They’re there watching down, looking at us. That’s why you’re there. So contempt for the scum that rule over us now and the desecration of their sacrifice. But you got to stay true to what it was. When we win, Anzac Day is going to be like it used to be again. The people will be inspired again.

 

But, yeah, dwindling numbers, dwindling concern. But one thing you’ll notice, the Dawn Service. At your local Dawn Service, there’ll be a lot of White faces, there won’t be too many immigrant faces because the Indians are not going to get out of bed at 5 o’clock in the morning, the fucking Chinese are not going to get out of bed at 5 o’clock in the morning, etc., to come down and venerate our ancestors because it’s our ancestors, not theirs. And they’ll try and say things like:

 

“Oh, the Anzacs were a multicultural fighting force because there were like five Chinese guys that went to Gallipoli or something!”

 

It’s fucking bullshit! Those were White men fighting for a White Australia. End of!

 

Blair Cottrell: I’d like to see any Welcome to Country or whatever bullshit they try to come up with at the ceremonies shouted down personally, you know. Legally, of course, but you have the right to protest. If you’re at one of these ceremonies, you have the rights to voice your protest if you’re not happy with what’s being said by the official bureaucrats on the microphones. This is still your country, you still have a say. So don’t be scared to make your voice heard tomorrow morning. If they try to pull any bullshit!

 

[1:04:26]

 

Joel Davis: Old mate in the chat said:

 

“If there’s any abo shit at the one I go to, I’m not sure how I’ll react. Like, I mean, marching up to the mic and going off about it! I’ll boo at least! Every year I feel it get more tense.”

 

Yeah, well, if there’s a welcome country, Welcome to Country tomorrow and whatever service you’re at, boo that fucking shit! And hopefully the people around you start booing.

 

Blair Cottrell: When you take a few mates. If you go with a few people and they agree to sort of echo your sentiments, you know, it can catch on quite quickly. I think I keep cutting out too. Like, sorry, if I’m cutting out my WiFi signals a little bit off.

 

But like I said the if the feeling is there, it should be contagious amongst other people too. I wouldn’t expect too much of ordinary folks because like I said, there have been conditioned by the fear of consequence for voicing any protest against the official social policy of the government and the bureaucracy. But I don’t know, the thing about regular people is they’re fickle, and if they feel enough people are doing something then they’ll join in with it, whatever it is. So, you know. [chuckling]

 

Joel Davis: Exactly.

 

Blair Cottrell: That’s just some advice.

 

Joel Davis: Human beings are herd animals. They go along with what everyone around them is doing.

 

And so in the same way that it seems like everyone around you is a cuck, if there are enough nationalists, if there are enough Nazis or whatever, they would be a Nazi, there would be whatever is around them.

 

And so that’s what our political mission is like giving people the licence to express their instincts. Like the instincts are still in there. But few people have the balls, have the self consciousness to move first. We are the first movers. We are the ones that, we are the trailblazers.

 

And then eventually, if enough follow in our wake and we build enough momentum, then we will give the people at large the confidence to finally express what they really feel inside. That has been repressed for decades. And that’s what the mission is, that’s what we’re doing, that’s the objective. But is there anything else you wanted to say about Anzac Day, Blair?

 

Blair Cottrell: Nah. Look, I’m in a lot of pain, so I’m gonna just let you finish up. If you don’t know if you’re tuning in late. I’ve got this like brutal eye infection. Don’t know how it happened. It’s in the eyelid. It’s cellulitis, but only in the eyelid. It’s not actually in the eye socket, which means I won’t lose my vision, but I need to take antibiotics to kill it because it could spread to the eye socket and if it does, that’s bad for me. But I’m just sitting here in a very bad mood and experiencing a lot of pain.

 

So I’m gonna go.

 

Joel Davis: Listen, you can’t, can you react at least to Matt Trihey his, …

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, that’s gonna cheer me up!

 

I just saw a video of that late. So Matt Trihey is leader of, I think it’s called the National Workers Alliance. He’s been very aggressive and very, very energetic for the last, I’d say 12 to 18 months. Hosting meetings, doing protests. The guy is a true patriot! It’s good to see a real Aussie patriot, salt of the earth, working class builder. Pretty sure he’s a builder too. And he’s out there on the front lines doing what needs to be done. And where was he was at some sort of Teals meeting, wasn’t he? Yes.

 

Joel Davis: So the electorate of Kooyong which is one of the more affluent parts of Melbourne where Toorak and Glen Iris and suburbs like this are located within. Traditionally it’s always been a Liberal seat because it’s a more affluent area. But the last election they voted in a Teal independent by the name of Monique Ryan. And the so-called Teals are a disgusting blend of like the social policies of the Greens mixed with the economic policies of the Liberals.

 

Basically like the most disgusting all mixed together into the most [word unclear] and appeals to rich White women who watch the ABC religiously. It’s like Hillary Clinton basically at the last election in [word unclear] Anyway she had some meeting and they were talking about why we need to give more money to the ABC or some fucking bullshit like that so we can have more communist propaganda more anti-White tax funded communist propaganda pumped out into all these Boomer White women who are the only ones that even fucking [word unclear]. And he confronted them that mass immigration is causing, is exposing our people to increases in crime, rapes, burglaries, violence etc. And then all the Boomer White women at the meeting had a hysterical reaction. One of them even started shrieking. One of these old ladies punched him in the face! [chuckling] But it was on Channel Nine news tonight actually. He made the news so I think he did this stunt. Maybe it was yesterday and then the video went out today. The Noticer posted it. I shared it on Telegram if you want to watch it.

 

But I’m going to play. I haven’t actually seen the clip. I want to see how the news covered it. So it made the news. Let’s see how the news covered it because it’s a pretty interesting story. We’ll watch the news and if they spin it really hard I’ll play the original clip.

 

[Channel 9 news clip]

 

[Reporter] It was meant to be a peaceful community chat until far-Right agitated Matt Trihey loudly barged in and was punched in the face by a woman in the audience.

 

[Dr. Ryan] Fortunately it didn’t really connect. She was much smaller than he was quite a big man.

 

[Reporter] Teal MP Monique Ryan and Labor candidate Clive Crosby shocked by what happened. Dr. Ryan consoled the woman after the incident.

 

[Dr. Ryan] She was sorry that she’d lost control in the way that she did. But she found the whole thing very distressing.

 

[Reporter] Trihey is the leader of the National Workers Alliance. He denies he’s a Neo Nazi, but was once a member of Thomas Sewell’s White nationalist group, the Lads Society.

 

[Rachel Dexter] This individual has been part of groups that are run by neo-Nazis, well publicised Neo Nazis.

 

[Reporter] Tensions have flared across the campaign in the past, 24 hours. Two men charged over separate violent incidents in Sydney.

 

[PM Albanese] There’s no place for violence in our political system. We’re a democracy. It’s important that people engage in a respectful way. That includes people who are candidates, but it includes everyone.

 

[Dr. Ryan] I hope that after this election campaign things will cool down, the temperature will drop a bit, we’ll be able to get back to normal.

 

[Reporter] Whether those inflaming tensions listen is up for debate. Brett McLeod, Nine News.

 

[1:11:32]

 

Blair Cottrell: Do me a favour. Hang on.

 

Joel Davis: Well, I don’t know what just happened to Blair there, but notice how they basically blamed him for some lady punching him in the face. They’re like:

 

“Oh, violence is escalating!”

 

And it’s apparently his fault. They’re victim blaming. Imagine if he went in there and punched someone in the face. It’d be like:

 

“Far-Right, thug beats people up at a meeting!”

 

But if they hit him, … Now, Matt Trihey, by the way, was a professional MMA fighter. He was, he fought in, I don’t think he fought in the UFC, but he fought in, I think Pride. So I think an old lady punching him in the face doesn’t really bother him too much. He’s a pretty tough dude.

 

But yeah, [chuckling] I mean, it’s just kind of ridiculous, the double standard:

 

“Oh, well like we got to give this poor old lady a hug because she sperged out and punched Trihey in the face!”

 

Blair Cottrell: Isn’t that weird behaviour! How the aggressor, the person trying to punch someone, who cares if it’s an old lady, she still tried to punch the guy! She’s hugged. She’s hugged and treated like a victim while the actual victim of the assault is like continuously like pushed out of the building as though he’s the cause for concern.

 

I mean, I realise she’s just an old lady and who cares that she punched someone? I don’t care! I’m sure Matt Trihey doesn’t care. It’s not like he’s at home with some ice on that shiner. He’d just be laughing about it. It’s just still very strange behaviour. You know, we’re told so often that it’s never okay to put your hands on anyone. It’s the you’re a dirty, horrible person if you even think about assaulting another human being!

 

But then when some lady does it:

 

“Oh, the poor thing! Let’s give her a hug!”

 

That’s fucking weird, man! What? Obviously I don’t even know how to interpret it, actually. I can’t comment further than it’s just fucking weird!

 

Joel Davis: Yeah. I can’t be bothered playing the original video. You can go find it on The Noticer. You could find it on my page. I think Tom shared it. I don’t know if you shared it. I think you shared it. So you can go watch it on Telegram or on Twitter.

 

But yeah, like, literally, these women are shrieking. He goes in there. He’s calm. He just starts talking about crime statistics and immigration and asking for an answer.

 

Blair Cottrell: And that’s all he does. That’s pretty much all he does! All he does is list off crime stats about how many immigrants are actually committing crimes, how many immigrants are committing rape, how much rape has increased in certain states and regions in proportion to the increase in immigration. That’s all he does! All he does is list off facts. He just spits facts, and people lose their minds and are now physically attacking him. How insane is that? How retarded are people? How embarrassing it is to be a member of the same race as people like that? Like, do you ever feel like that, Joel? Do you ever feel like you’re born on the wrong planet or something? It’s like, what the fuck, what’s going on here? Who are these fucking cs?

 

Joel Davis: Why are we letting retarded old ladies participate in politics? Like, shut up, grandma! You’re a retard! [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: Why do they even have to participate in politics? I mean, I don’t know. Are they bored? Maybe they feel like they’re making a difference or something.

 

Joel Davis: They are bored. They’re sitting at home watching television all day, and then the news is talking about politics all the time, and they get all hyped up on it.

 

Blair Cottrell: Imagine the story. Imagine the story. Oh, Gladys!

 

Joel Davis: Ingesting so much propaganda. And then someone comes in and says something mean coded.

 

And then they literally start shrieking. One of them was like, fucking shrieking like a banshee! Some old lady punches a man in the face! And they’re trying to drag him out, but he’s like, he’s a strong guy, so he’s just kind of like, whatever. But these old women are trying to drag him out. And then some random, like, soy Jack old dude is like:

 

“How could you do this in here!”

 

Like, just like doing this like weird outrage thing. It’s fucking pathetic! But the reaction on social media was funny. Everyone was kind of just taking the piss out of these retarded Boomers.

 

But then like the news. The news is like, we know about how much bias they have because we play clips of them covering us all the time. You know, they just always frame things in such a ridiculous way.

 

[1:15:55]

 

Blair Cottrell: But I think it’s obvious some craze Leftist attack someone physically. The statement from the relevant statesman, and I think it was from actually Albanese, the Prime Minister himself in this particular instance, is:

 

“Violence from either side it won’t be tolerated!”

 

But then whenever something mean is said by someone on the far-Right, as they call it, the far-Right, well then, it’s always the far-Right that are targeted specifically. And like you’ve got to change laws to stop them offending people. Then you see some actual physical assault or violence and their response is:

 

“Well, both sides need to be careful with what they’re doing.”

 

Joel Davis: It’s so where her outburst was justified because her “feelings” got hurt.

 

But then we get treated, we don’t commit violence, we hurt people’s feelings, therefore we’re the bad guy. And so like:

 

“Women can’t be responsible for the fact that they’re hysterical. It’s obviously the man’s fault because we made them upset. Because female emotions and feelings need to rule over rationality or any other kind of modicum of reasonable, consistent standards for behaviour, that goes out the window because an old lady got upset and started crying and therefore she’s the victim.”

 

And this is what we’re ruled by as a society. I was looking at this study the other day. There was a study that was done, a Meta analysis of basically all forms of literature in the English language. I think they got an AI to assess what’s the prevalence of words that describe rational thought and the prevalence of words that describe emotional predilections, and what’s the ratio. How rational or how emotional is the general language of everything published in the English language. And from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution up to the late 1960s, about 1970, it gets more and more and more rational through time to the point where it’s super majority rational. Then in 1970, after the second wave feminism and women are introduced into the workforce and academia and politics and so on, you get this complete cascade where now everything published in the English language is hyper emotional, more emotional than ever!

 

And that’s what’s happened to our society writ large. We live in a society where emotions rule over reason. Well, that is a society that is going to become deeply dysfunctional. Because that’s the definition of immaturity. That’s the definition essentially of insanity!

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. When “hurt feelings” are the inspiration for crackdown on free speech. Can’t say this, can’t raise your arm in the air.

 

Basically, everything, every change legally, every social standard is built around not “hurting people’s feelings”. I can remember when I was in school, when I was in primary school, everything got banned. Everything the boys were doing got banned! And it got banned throughout my time in primary school. It’s like I was born in the exact right generation to see it all happen. First thing that got banned was Pokemon cards. And it happened on the day that I got my first ever deck on my birthday. I remember this like, I think I was in grade three and Mum bought me a deck of Pokemon cards. First time. I was excited to go to school with my new holographic nine tails and flex on all the boys because no one else had that. I think one other kid might have had it, but he was glorified for it.

 

Anyway, the day I get there, there’s an announcement on the speakers that Pokemon cards have been causing too much conflict amongst the boys and they’re banned. They’re no longer allowed. And if any boys had Pokemon cards on them, they had to leave them in their school bags, take them home and never bring them back. Pokemon cards banned!

 

So then we started playing Australian League football. We used the trees as goal posts. Three months later or so, that was banned! Because some kid got tackled and cried. And it was all banned by a female vice principal. The actual principal of the school was a man named Peter Williams, but he was never around. He was always absent. It seemed like the vice principal, some woman, I can’t remember her name, she was ruling the roost instead of him. She was the one banning everything. You know, we couldn’t play footy anymore, we couldn’t do Pokemon cards.

 

So then we started doing marbles that got banned because someone threw a marble at someone and their parents got called and they were unhappy about it. So no more marbles! Then British Bulldogs in the Marble Pit because there was no more use for the Marble Pit now.

 

So we just started playing British Bulldogs. But some kids shorts, school shorts, got torn a little bit when he got tackled and the parents, the mother called the school and bitched about it. And so that was banned!

 

And I remember we were sitting around once at lunchtime primary school. By the time everything was banned, we were like grade six, the final year of primary school.

 

And I said to the boys:

 

“What are we allowed to do? We can’t even do anything!”

 

We couldn’t even play brandy, throw a tennis ball at each other. And what is, what does Sewell call this? The gynocracy? I think he calls it the “Gynocracy”, where everything’s banned for the sake because someone might get hurt or it may upset someone, you’re not allowed to do it. No one’s allowed to have any sort of fun or do anything for the sake of saving feelings and someone might get hurt. So it’s not allowed.

 

And I witnessed all that in primary school. I witnessed the birth of the gynocracy. And now the gynocracy is in politics, now it’s in Parliament and now it’s bearing down on us from that position, from the position of institutional leadership. And that’s what we suffer, my friends, we suffer the giantocracy! And how do we defeat it? How do we defeat the giantocracy? By just not caring and doing whatever we want. Because the gynocracy has gone so far, there’s not even a lot of capable police officers anymore.

 

So it’s not like there’s any serious consequence waiting around the corner anyway. So I think that’s how you actually get around it. You literally just play whatever game you want to play, say whatever you want to say, make any gesture you want to make, believe what you want to believe, and so long as you’re not actually physically hurting anyone, who cares? Do what you want to do. I guess if enough people do that, then the gynocracy fails, right?

 

[1:22:21]

 

 

Joel Davis: Well, that’s the origin story of an ancient myth in our people, the myth of Percival, or of Parsifal, if you’re a German, who was one of the knights of King Arthur’s knights. One of the knights of the Round Table, who was one of the only ones to actually attain the Holy Grail. And at the beginning, when he was a boy, he was raised in the forest by his mother, and his mother basically kept him away from civilisation because his father and his two older brothers, they went and became knights and they died in battle. And she was all he had left. And so she took him out to the Woods and raised him in the Woods and told him nothing of his of his older brothers and of his father to try and keep him safe. And he’s playing out in the forest one day and he comes across some of the Knights of the Round Table, some of King Arthur’s knights, and they tell him all about what it’s like to be a knight. And immediately he’s like:

 

“I want to be a knight! That sounds awesome!”

 

And he goes back and he says:

 

“Mom, I’m going to go be a knight!”

 

And she has a mental breakdown:

 

“No, you can’t leave me. You must stay here where it’s safe!”

 

And eventually he wins the argument and she realises that there’s nothing that she can say to stop him. And she knits him a sweater to wear at all times and says:

 

“Wear this.”

 

And then he leaves and she dies of a broken heart. And there’s a later time where he’s in a great battle where he has to take the sweater off, take off the comfort of the gynocracy, basically, in order to win!

 

And that’s the beginning, that’s the origin story, is leaving behind security of the womb, the security of the kind of maternal sphere where everything is soft and all the threats are neutralised and everyone has to be nice to each other and sweet to each other and everyone is cared for and nurtured. In order to achieve your destiny, in order to become great, in order to become noble, you have to cast that off and go out. And go on adventures and fight and battle and so on, and find your way to the grail, to the meaning of it all, to be the hero.

 

So that’s a [word unclear] for a reason.

 

Blair Cottrell: Don’t you think that men need to be able to compete? Men need an outlet for the energy that they have as men. They need to be able to Barter and trade and fight. They need to be able to play sport. They need to be able to compete! If they can’t for the sake of people not getting hurt or feelings not getting hurt, don’t you think that’s why you see such radical explosions of rage in society now? That’s why men are so angry, because they’ve got all this repressed energy.

 

I mean, you hear stories about guys just snapping over what seems to be nothing, and you’ve got this domestic violence problem where a lot of the time it’s blamed on men, but really it’s just men are being pushed too far, or they’ve got so much repressed energy because there’s no way for them to actually express that basic competitive element, the desire to achieve something, the desire to build something, to work towards some greater projects. You know what I mean? Like there’s just kind of like no real outlet for a lot of men.

 

And so I think that’s why you’ve got examples or scenarios in society where some guy is setting a car on fire with his whole family inside, or just losing his shit at seemingly nothing. But really it was 20 years of the gynocracy telling him he’s not allowed to do anything because he’s bad because he’s a man! I don’t know. It’s something to think about because you can’t just cancel everything men do and expect men to react in some sort of obedient, passive way.

 

Obviously there’s going to be consequences for that. Men aren’t going to accept that. Men aren’t going to react well to that kind of system. I need to think more about this because the idea just came into my head then I’m so I’m not going to be able to articulate it as well as I’d like to.

 

Joel Davis: Also, everything wrong with our society is downstream from fucking cucked men! Men who adapt their behaviour to make their girlfriend or wife happy. Which means avoiding risk taking, not spending time with the boys, but spending time with her in the security of the lounge suite, watching goy flicks, eating Uber Eats, or taking her to out shopping or something. That’s what she wants to be doing. She wants to be safe. Maybe if she’s a so-called tradition wife, she wants to go move to the countryside and have chickens and shit! And she doesn’t want you getting arrested, she doesn’t want you going to jail, she doesn’t want you getting into fights, she doesn’t want you dying, and like okay, fair enough.

 

But ultimately that’s your destiny if you’re a political revolutionary, that’s your destiny. If you’re a true, if you’re a warrior, if you’re a man of nobility, a man of strength, you want to go and solve your own problems with your own strength. You don’t want to retreat to safety. That’s the pathway of the coward.

 

[1:27:41]

 

Blair Cottrell: I still don’t see it as either, or, though. I don’t see it as either, or. Like you should be able to spend time with women and fight for what you believe in. You shouldn’t have to choose. Why should you have to fucking choose?

 

Joel Davis: Well, I mean you don’t have to choose because women might try and gaslight you and pressure you, but at the end of the day if you just do what you want, they’ll just accept it. [chuckling] Like realistically.

 

Blair Cottrell: It’s nice to make a woman happy. That’s also nice to fight for what you believe in. Like I get reward chemicals from doing both of those things. So I’d like to not in order to do the other. I don’t think it needs to be so two dimensional.

 

Joel Davis: No, I’m not suggesting that it is but ultimately like there’s going to be times where you have to choose one or the other and if you just always choose the cucked safe wife guy option, your life will pass by and you will have been domesticated. And you will not have actually expressed your virility and truly stood for anything. And you will become pacified and you will become neutralised and then you’ll die.

 

Blair Cottrell: Have you seen those dads that actually admit that they’ve been domesticated in an extreme way? And they make a joke out of, they’re like:

 

“Yeah, my wife has my balls in a glass of water next to the bed, ha, ha, ha!”

 

And they like joke about it. What’s with that? That’s nothing to be proud of, bro! It’s not funny at all! [chuckling] You know, if your dad’s like that, if you know someone like that, tell them to wake up to themselves. You know, it’s not funny to not have any sort of sway over your domestic situation. To have no freedom.

 

Joel Davis: That’s what the weak do they do self depreciating jokes as a form of allaying their anxieties be like:

 

“Yeah, I’m a weak piece of shit! Isn’t that relatable? Aren’t you a weak piece of shit too? At least I can like have some kind of common ground with you in my existential dissatisfaction and shame.”

 

I was like:

 

“No, I actually can’t relate to that.”

 

Anyway, let’s do the Superchats and let’s. And let’s end the fucking stream! What do you think?

 

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, well, I was gonna shuffle off anyway because my eye hurts so much.

 

Joel Davis: Just hang out for five minutes and we’ll be done.

 

Blair Cottrell: All right.

 

Joel Davis: Jake 1219 said:

 

“Coming back to what Joel was saying, Winston, with the help of the British political (Winston Churchill), with the help of the British political establishment and the aristocratic establishment’s old money sold the West out for communism. 100%, right?”

 

I wouldn’t say communism. I’d say jewish interests.

 

But yeah, sure, we talked about that before. There was a show we did on World War II revisionism last year that I thought was pretty good. You can go back and watch that.

 

Home of the Brave said:

 

“‘Neo-Nazi boss’ Thomas Sewell, (as in quotation marks). The way the media covered your registering as a political party couldn’t have gone better. Can’t wait to see how you guys roll it all out. Could be the blueprint for us all.”

 

Well, yeah, it’s nice to get the promotion and it was funny. But yeah, it’s gonna be a process. It’s not happening tomorrow. The election is coming up obviously in a week. The next show is going to be about the election. I’m going to do other streams this week about the election and we’re going to have some other, we’ve got some other things planned for election week. We’re going to get Anzac Day over and done with first and then we’re going to focus on that.

 

But I will say it is funny how the Trumpet of Spastics party, how all of a sudden started copying half baked versions of our talking points and ideas in the last [chuckling] couple weeks and it could help sink the Liberal Party. So it’s pretty funny!

 

And as I said on Telegram:

 

“Clive, if you just called me up three months ago and gave me one of like one of the $90 million you’ve already wasted on this failed election campaign, I could have helped you run it much better and you would have got more votes.”

 

But instead of just stealing my ideas with no credit in a half assed way in the second last week of the election campaign. So you missed the boat on that one. Jake1219 also said:

 

“Question for both. 30% of Australia’s population were born overseas. How do you go about working jobs, operating current society socially, cordially with so many migrants in your face?”

 

I don’t personally. [chuckling]

 

Blair Cottrell: With great difficulty and a great amount of selectivity! And not without the urge to headbutt people on the regular. So it’s frustrating! It is, yeah. But when running your own business like I do, you can be selective especially because it’s like word of mouth through people who know people in an area where most people are Aussies, it’s not so bad.

 

But yeah, I could imagine it depends on the field in which you’re working. I know construction is getting pretty bad and you know, I’d probably stay right away from tech. The closer you are to the city, the worse it’s going to be. There’s various factors to consider. But the closer to the city you are, the more patience you’re going to need. I don’t have the patience man to work around these illustrious skilled labourers from overseas.

 

Joel Davis: Fellow Comrade said:

 

“I’m late. I will watch the replay. Thanks guys!”

 

Yeah, cheers.

 

Blair Cottrell: Did you see we had $20 from the Comfy Friend who [chuckling] says:

 

“Gerard Rennick White power!”

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well if you’re in Queensland, give Gerard Rennick a vote. I hope he gets back into the Senate. He did call out the jews, the Mossad and so on.

 

And I think he’s a good man. You know he’s not everything that we would want, but he’s the best of the bunch. So I hope that he gets re-elected And I like him. I think he’s an all right guy. And a few our guys are working in his campaign team so respect to the grind. And yeah, obviously hail Comfy Friend, friend of the show. I think that’s all the Superchats. Let me check. I think that’s all the Superchats for this evening.

 

So yeah, everyone up early tomorrow for Anzac Day. And yeah, make sure you’re down there. And be there for the ancestors. Venerate tomorrow. Treat tomorrow like a religious holiday. That’s what it is, a day to commemorate our national religion of the ancestors who gave blood for our people. That’s what it’s about. And hail White Australia and hail the Anzacs. Why Power! Fellow Comrades said:

 

“One more Superchat for fun.”

 

Well thanks dude and we’ll end it there. See you next time.

 

[1:34:46]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

============================================

 

Rumble Comments

top

(Comments as of 4/25/2025 = 10)

Supporter
6 hours ago
same thing the Americans in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam etc fought for….. Nothing Their lives were wasted
4 likes
Report

‹ Hide 1 reply
TheBeardedIndian
Supporter+
3 hours ago
Top comment. These war memorial events should not be a celebration of sacrifice, they should be annual reminders of not being duped again into dying for no good reason. Celebrating these wars furthers the Jewish plan for Christians to slaughter each other.
0 likes
Report

ThigASteach
Supporter
8 hours ago
Great conversation. Appreciate you guys. #PeaceAndRespect
3 likes
Report

katana17
12 hours ago
[Joel Davis – So Much Has Happened, But We’re Only Just Getting Started – Apr 11, 2025 – Transcript] https://katana17.com/2025/04/12/joel-davis-so-much-has-happened-but-were-only-just-getting-started-apr-11-2025-transcript/ [In this livestream video episode Aussie nationalist activists Tom Sewell and Blair Cottrell have a discussion, followed by a separate Blair Cottrell and Joel Davis discussion. The two separate discussion are a result of severe and unreasonable bail conditions imposed on Tom and Joel as a result of police and court harrassment.
2 likes

Delete
fastnail
5 hours ago
And the British and Irish.
1 like
Report

TheShowgun
SubSupporter+
5 hours ago
prayin for your well health Blair!! although, Blair with an eyepatch would go hard af..
0 likes
Report

BlueNorth88
3 hours ago
Blair’s missus can really bang
0 likes
Report

GlobalistJuice
3 hours ago
Joel would be an awesome teacher of history in Australia’s schools – his storytelling is sublime, a flowing voice that is detail engaging with appropriate inflection while retaining a smooth masculine tone that is easy-on-the-ears.
0 likes
Report

evon626
VerifiedSupporter++
1 hour ago
Blair said something like “The youth are more radical because they’re desensitized,” not because they’re more intellectually curious and open. Sounds correct. I’ll take it though. The masses are a force multiplier for whoever can move them. We just need to be the coolest thing out there and the mindless kids will follow.
0 likes
Report

evon626
VerifiedSupporter++
1 hour ago
Blair is wondering if he’s a “mere” entertainer. He is, but shows like this are crucial to making these concepts cool and normalizing them. So he plays a crucial role in allowing us to eventually instrumentalize the normie to our ends (and for their benefit).
0 likes

==========================

See Also

top

 

 

 

Joel Davis – Mark Collett vs Greg Johnson – The Ukraine Debate – Oct 17, 2022 – Transcript

Mark Collett – Patriotic Weekly Review – with Joel Davis – Apr 27, 2023 – Transcript

Joel Davis – On Australian Nationalism with Matthew Grant – Dec 17, 2022 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The White Australia Policy with Matthew Grant – Jul 27, 2023 – Transcript

Joel Davis – On Activist Politics and White Advocacy – PA Conference Speech – Oct 7, 2023 – Transcript

Slightly Offensive – Debate – Is Diversity Our Strength? – Joel Davis vs Drew Pavlou – Apr 5, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Mass Deportations Enthusiasm, Twitter Politics & Activist Persecution – Jun 6, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The Vibe Has Shifted and the Paradigm is Shifting – Jun 13, 2024 – Transcript

Slightly Offensive – Is America (& the West) Over? – Guest – Joel Davis – May 31, 2024 – Transcript

 

 

Red Ice TV – Nationalism for White People & Activist Persecution in Australia – Joel Davis & Thomas Sewell – Jun 15, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Polarisation Phases – with Blair & Tom – Jun 20, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Conservative Terrorism in Australia as Trump Set to Become New ZOG Boss – Jun 28, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Muslims to Create Their Own Party as “Extremism Experts” Cry About US to the Media – Jul 4, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Trump Inevitable, Blair Censored, Paedo Freaks Destroyed – Jul 19, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – When Will Enough Be Enough? – Jul 25, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Mass Deportations Now! – Aug 1, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Wargaming the Response as Communists Organise Brown Parasites – Aug 22, 2024 – Transcript

 

 

Joel Davis – Activist Reflections with Jacob Hersant – Aug 18, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Analysing the Implications of the Pajeet Hate Surge – Aug 29, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – WWII Revisionism Re-enters the Mainstream – Sep 6, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – One Nation – Ineptitude or Controlled Opposition? – Nov 4, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – ZOG Sends in the Fun Police, Donald Trump White Power – Nov 7, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The Enemy is Weaker Than You Think – Nov 14, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – “It’s Not About Race” – Nov 21, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The Self-Imploding Legitimacy of Our Opposition, Why Are They So Afraid? – Feb 14, 2025 – Transcript

Mark Collett – Patriotic Weekly Review – with Thomas Sewell – Mar 19, 2025 – Transcript

Mark Collett – Can National Socialism Be Resurrected? – with Joel Davis – Mar 23, 2025 – Transcript

Joel Davis – So Much Has Happened, But We’re Only Just Getting Started – Apr 11, 2025 – Transcript

 

 

Joel Davis – What Did the Anzacs Fight For? – Apr 24, 2025 – Transcript

Australians Vs. the Agenda with Joel Davis – Apr 28, 2025 – Transcript

 

 

 

 

 

The World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention — Instauration Dec, 1979

An Open Letter to New Jersey’s Governor

Historians or Hoaxers?

House of Orwell

Misha: Surviving with Wolves or …

Bradley Smith’s Smith Report # 1

The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies

The Plum Cake

 

 

 

Auschwitz: Myths and Facts

Powers and Principalities XI – Ewen Cameron, MK-Ultra, Holocaust Revisionism — TRANSCRIPT

Tales of the Holohoax – A Historian’s Assessment – Part 1

The Holocaust Lie — Made in America

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained — TRANSCRIPT

Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT

Holocaust Eyewitnesses: Is the Testimony Reliable?

Alain Soral – My Homage to Robert Faurisson, Oct 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Inside Auschwitz – You’ve never seen THIS before! — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

Amazion Bans 100s of Holocaust Revisionist Books!

AUSCHWITZ – A Personal Account by Thies Christophersen

Jim Rizoli Interviews Bradley Smith — TRANSCRIPT

London Forum – Alfred Schaefer – Psychological Warfare – TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report Interviews Eric Hunt — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio – Germar Rudolf – Persecution of Revisionists & Demographic Disaster – Part 1— TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio: Nicholas Kollerstrom — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice TV – Ingrid Carlqvist – Scandal in Sweden When Ingrid Questions the Unquestionable — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Carolyn Yeager on Johnson vs Anglin debate — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

 

 

Mark Collett — It’s Okay To Be White — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Christmas Adverts – Multicultural Propaganda — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — What We Must Do To Win — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Assad Didn’t Do It – Faked Syrian Gas Attack — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — The Plot to Flood Europe with 200 Million Africans — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — The jewish Question Explained in Four Minutes — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett at The Scandza Forum, Copenhagen – Oct 12, 2019 — Transcript

Patriotic Weekly Review – with Blair Cottrell – Dec 4, 2019 — TRANSCRIPT

Dangerfield – Talking Tough with Mark Collett – Mar 28, 2020 — Transcript

Mark Collett – Sam Melia Sentencing – with Laura Towler – Mar 1, 2024 – Transcript

Joe Marsh – Sam Melia Going into Court Before He was Sentenced – Mar 1, 2024 – Transcript

 

 

 

911 – The Jews Had Me Fooled: A Jewish Engineered Pearl Harbor

Organized jewry Did 9/11

Organized jewry Did 9/11 — The 16th Anniversary, 2017

Know More News — Christopher Bollyn, The Man Who Solved 9/11 — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Christopher Bollyn – Sep 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

AE911Truth – Exposing Those Who Covered up the Crime of the Century – May 28, 2023 – Transcript

 

============================================

PDF Download

top

Total words in transcript = 16,238

  • Total words in post = xxx
  • Total images = xx
  • Total A4 pages = xxx

Use your browser to download/export a PDF of this post.

 

Version History

top

Version 5: Thu, May 1, 2025 — Transcript now completed = 95/95 mins. Transcript Quality = 5/5.

Version 4: Wed, Apr 30, 2025 — Transcript completed = 82/95 mins. Transcript Quality = 5/5.

Version 3: Sun, Apr 27, 2025 — Transcript completed = 46/95 mins. Transcript Quality = 5/5.

Version 2: Sat, Apr 26, 2025 — Transcript completed = 35/95 mins. Transcript Quality = 5/5.

Version 1: Fri, Apr 25, 2025 — Published post. Transcript completed = 17/95 mins. Transcript Quality = 5/5. Includes Rumble comments (10).

]]> https://katana17.com/2025/04/25/joel-davis-what-did-the-anzacs-fight-for-apr-24-2025-transcript/feed/ 20 Ernst Zundel – Another Voice of Freedom Radio – Why World War II Started – 1994 – Transcript https://katana17.com/2025/04/05/ernst-zundel-another-voice-of-freedom-radio-why-world-war-ii-started-1994-transcript/ https://katana17.com/2025/04/05/ernst-zundel-another-voice-of-freedom-radio-why-world-war-ii-started-1994-transcript/#comments Sat, 05 Apr 2025 06:05:38 +0000 https://katana17.com/?p=37312 Continue reading →]]>

 

Ernst Zundel

 

Another Voice of Freedom Radio

 

Why World War II Started

 

Wed, Jun 15, 1994

 

[In this audio recording Ernst Zundel gives a brief “laymans” summary of why WW2 started. Key points:

Introduction to Voice of Freedom broadcast, hosted by Ernst Zundel

[1:30] Overview of Germany’s situation after World War I, including reparations and hyperinflation:

“Germany was condemned to pay reparations, huge amounts of reparations which were to only run out in the year 1988.”

[3:30] Rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party through democratic means

[5:00] International boycott called against Germany shortly after Hitler came to power

[6:30] Germany’s economic crisis and rumours of potential invasions by France or Poland

[8:00] Reichstag fire and Hitler’s implementation of emergency measures:

“Hitler used this as his means of introducing draconian repressive measures inside Germany ”

[10:00] Comparison to Canada’s use of the War Measures Act in 1970

[12:00] Hitler’s governance and Germany’s economic recovery in the 1930s:

“Hitler made Germany prosper. He made the trains run on time.”

[14:30] Hitler’s opposition to Communism and Bolshevism:

“Adolf Hitler was a strong opponent of Marxism. He considered it almost like an evil religion.”

[16:30] Germany’s actions leading up to World War II, including the invasion of Poland

[18:00] Hitler’s pre-emptive strike against the Soviet Union:

“Hitler knew that he was not strong enough to just merely defend himself against Russia.”

[20:00] Comparison of Hitler’s tactics to Israel’s actions in the 1967 Six-Day War

[22:00] Germany’s initial success against the Soviet Union and subsequent challenges

[24:00] European volunteers fighting alongside German forces:

“Europe’s men, we have to remember that the Hungarians, the Slovakians, the many Polish volunteers, Ukrainian volunteers, Danish, Dutch volunteers…”

[26:00] Framing of Germany’s actions as defending Europe against Bolshevism:

“The Germans defended Europe and European style civilisation against Soviet Bolshevism.”

Closing remarks.

– KATANA]

 

Audio kindly supplied by Jurgen Neumann. His sites:

 

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/pcBHZPgCtR2a

 

 

https://archive.org/search?query=creator%3A%22Researcher_PDF%22

 

 

Audio recorded in 1994

 

_____________

 

Following Transcript Quality = 5 Stars

1 Star — Poor quality with many errors, contains nonsense text 2 Stars — Low quality with many errors, some nonsense text. 3 Stars — Medium quality with some errors. 4 Stars — Good quality with only a few errors. 5 Stars — High quality with few to no errors.

NOTE: Readers can help improve the quality of this transcript by putting corrections in the Comment/Leave a Reply section. Don’t be just a consumer, contribute to the cause, however small. Thanks.

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT

(Words: 4,053 – Duration: 30 mins)

  

 

Ernst Zundel: You are listening to Another Voice of Freedom broadcast financed through the free will donations of listeners like yourself. I’m Ernst Zundel, your host and moderator. The opinions expressed by our guests or in editorials and stories are always those of the originators. We believe that personal opinions freely expressed are not a danger to any democratic society. We don’t have to agree with any or all of the opinions expressed by others. We owe it to ourselves, however, to listen, to evaluate, and to possibly learn something new or different in the process. You may reach us at 206 Carlton Street Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5A 2L1. Telephone 1492-29850 [Note: All contact details out of date].

 

And now we have another interesting program for you.

 

I’m Ernst Zundel with Another Voice of Freedom program. A number of our listeners from around the country, and some even as far away as Europe, have contacted us about our recent programs relating to D-Day and the period in Europe after D-Day, and some of our revisionist viewpoints that we hold on this topic. Well, some of them complained that I, in my programs had not spelled out in more detail what the Second World War was all about and how it came about.

 

So let me try to give it a layman’s overview. Nothing academic, just a layman’s overview. The Germans in the First World War were defeated by a coalition of forces, and the German government under the Weimar Republic was asked to sign a treaty in Versailles. And one of the stipulations of that treaty was that the Germans had to declare themselves solely responsible for the First World War.

 

And of course, with the loss of Germany’s territories in the east, coupled with this slap in the face for the entire German nation, who knew that they had not been solely responsible for this tragedy, which was the First World War. This meant there was a fertile soil for nationalists, or even extreme nationalists to agitate against the existing order of things.

 

Germany, you must understand, was under some form of Allied tutelage, was under military occupation in some regions. Germany was condemned to pay reparations, huge amounts of reparations which were to only run out in the year 1988! I want to repeat that these massive billions of dollars worth of gold marks of reparations the Germans were to pay to the Allies, were to be running till the year 1988. That was reparations the Germans had to pay for the First World War.

 

The reason why I’m stressing that is because, of course, it bankrupted the German nation, led to hyperinflation where people were paid three times a day, mornings, noon and night, because the money devalued between breakfast and lunch, sometimes by millions of marks!

 

And so when men were receiving their paycheck, they didn’t go and bring a wallet at the end of the week, they usually brought a basket.

 

And finally, some of the store and shop owners paid their people every single evening, because hyperinflation was running away with the currency in Germany.

 

My own mother, a very simple young girl, said that she worked for a whole month and at the end of the month, all she could buy with her earnings for that month in 1923, was a stamp with which to send a postcard to her parents. That is what the situation was!

 

In that situation, Adolf Hitler, a very gifted young orator in Germany, started his struggle for power. And he struggled against those who had signed this shameful treaty in Versailles and against those who had imposed it on Germany. And he found increasing resonance amongst the German population. At first the working people, finally an ever increasing number amongst Germany’s students, then amongst the more middle classes, and finally even amongst the intelligentsia, meaning Professors, doctors, dentists, lawyers and so on.

 

Then Adolf Hitler democratically moved into the Reichstag, and because his party was the party that had Garnered most votes in a coalition with other nationalist forces, finally became the government of Germany in 1933, on 30 January.

 

While Hitler was struggling for power, he had said over and over in thousands of speeches and talks and articles in his party newspaper and so on, and many of his Members of Parliament, the Reichstag at that time said to the German population:

 

“Understand that a vote for National Socialism does not mean a change of government in Germany.”

 

In other words, it’s not a change of administration. It’s not the Democrats being replaced by the Republicans, or in the Canadian context, the Liberals replacing the Conservatives. He said:

 

“What you are doing with this election, it is a plebiscite on which way Germany is going to go.”

 

In other words, there are going to be some fundamental changes in German society. And he had outlined them to the German population quite openly and quite freely, what he thought Germany should look like in the 1930s. The Germans were not sucked into or conned into voting for yet another politician who had made all kinds of promises that he wasn’t going to keep.

 

My own mother and my own father, who had been unemployed for four years by the time Adolf Hitler finally did come to power, said that they had tried the Conservatives, they had voted for the Catholic Party, the Christian Center Party, they had even voted for the Social Democratic Party. Other Germans, disgusted by all this party wrangling voted for the Communist Party.

 

And there was a polarization of political opinion and political action and the political spectrum in Germany in the 1930s between the extreme Left and, yes, the extreme nationalist Right.

 

Hitler represented the Right, the forces of the Right, and together with a number of smaller parties, finally did form the government, as I said. And he was hardly in power when an international boycott was called against Germany.

 

And the reason why I’m mentioning this is because in the next few programs, we are going to take a look exactly at what happened in “Nazi Germany”, the way the popular press calls it, or National Socialist Germany, in Hitler’s Germany after he came to power.

 

[07:46]

 

Let me just say to you that in studying this period of time, I found that Germany was in a terribly shocking state! And that, for instance, in the state of Thuringia, which is in the east, the budget for social welfare was two thirds of the state’s budget was eaten up by social welfare. Two thirds. You can imagine, that means so many people were unemployed, were on the dole, were half employed and so on. A state cannot function with this kind of budget. And so a crisis was looming large in Germany.

 

Also, the foreign currency reserves of Germany had gone down to such a level that when the German economics minister mentioned this to the new government, Hitler was alarmed. It was down to some 480 million marks, which, for a trading nation like Germany that depended on financing exports and so on, it was virtually the death knell. Germany was, to all intents and purposes, bankrupt!

 

How to get out of this situation was what dominated the mind of the new government. And during this particular time, there were rumors around the world that they were going to be preventive wars. There was going to be an invasion of Germany either by France or by Poland or by both governments.

 

Now, at the time, these two countries were, in a European context, superpowers. You must understand that the Treaty of Versailles condemned the German government to a force of professional soldiers of 100,000 people, just 100,000 men! That meant the entire German armed forces could fit into the Berlin soccer stadium.

 

Now, picture that. The Berlin soccer stadium. The only weapons that they had were machine guns. When they were practicing with tanks, they were bicycles with cardboard cutouts made to look like tanks. Because Germany was the only totally disarmed country and it was forced to disarm under the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler knew all this. In other words, he was in absolutely no position to threaten anybody! Others were threatening his government.

 

And suddenly there were these news from North America that the jewish community in North America was Calling for an international boycott against Germany! There was a man called Samuel Untermeyer, who had gone to Amsterdam for a conference. And when he returned to the United States, he gave a nationally broadcast radio program in which he called for a holy war against Germany, a national boycott.

 

And naturally, Hitler’s ambassadors and consular officials reported that back to Germany. So did the media. Hitler was alarmed! Here was the threat of military invasion, economic strangulation. Inside Germany the communists were restive. And so Hitler did what other German Chancellors had done before him, perfectly Democratic measure to call out some kind of an Emergency Measures Act. In Canada, we would call it the War Measures Act.

 

Into this period fell a fire that was started by apparently a communist, or a man with communist leadings called Van der Lubbe, who tried to burn down the Reichstag, meaning the German Parliament. Apparently as some kind of a note to other Leftists, to start simultaneously all over Germany similar activities and to try to have an overthrow of the German government.

 

Now, I know that in Allied propaganda, Hermann Goering is supposedly himself having carried a canister of gasoline through some secret tunnels into the Reichstag, and he’s supposed to have had a kind of a hand in burning down the Reichstag. Well, perfectly independent people and historical commissions and inquiries by independent historians during, before, during and after the war have come to the conclusion that, in effect, the Nazis did not torch the Reichstag! That it was a canard put out by communist and Leftist propaganda.

 

Hitler used this as his means of introducing draconian repressive measures inside Germany, outlawing political parties, political movements, arrest without habeas corpus and so on. It was a typical emergency measure act!

 

Now, I want you immediately to understand this is not to excuse Adolf Hitler and him breaking the civil rights of Germans. I am just trying to explain to you that this is nothing new in European history, certainly absolutely nothing new of the period. And in Canada, as late as 1972, we had what they called “the invoking of the War Measures Act”.

 

Actually, it was earlier still, during the FLQ crisis, the Front des Liberation Qui Pequoi, which was a Leftist group that was blowing up mailboxes, the stock market building and so on. And the Canadian government, in perfect peacetime, prosperous, not surrounded by enemies that were trying to invade our country here, imposed a War Measures Act. I lived there during the time in Quebec, and I can assure you here is what happened.

 

Hundreds, many, many, many hundreds of French-Canadian activists who had been politically vocal in wanting to have separation between Quebec and the rest of the country were rounded up at night. 4:00, 5:00, 3:00 o’clock in the morning. And they were arrested without any legal representation. They were put into sports arenas, meaning concentrated into the same kind of area that Hitler would take his dissidents and so on in the early 30s.

 

They were kept in there. Some of them were kept in jails in Canada without having the rights that we normally have to be brought before a judge speedily and so on, because the War Measures act had declared a national emergency, saying that there was imminent danger to the survival of Canada as a society and as a state. And then your civil rights went out the window.

 

Well, that’s exactly what happened to Germans in the Hitler era, as soon as Adolf Hitler came to power, because there was this perceived threat to the German state, the overthrow of the German government. And Hitler invoked what he called the Enabling Act, where he spelled out what his moves were going to be.

 

And so Germany, that moment, became somewhat of a dictatorship. True, there were elections and there were plebiscites later on, but ultimately, Hitler governed Germany under this kind of draconian enabling legislation, which allowed him to forbid parties and movements and seize newspapers, outlaw publishing houses and stuff like this, very much the way the West German state has been doing in the last six to seven months.

 

[15:26]

 

And again, Germany has no threat of invasion. Germany has no threat that the state is going to be overthrown. Yet the ruling clique in power in Germany says:

 

“Oh, we have got political dissidents here that are getting entirely too testy. They are having these big marches of 4, 5, 10,000 people. Our police forces can no longer control them, meaning they cannot cow them into silence. And even 10,000 policemen last fall could not prevent a march in honor of Rudolf Hess, for instance. And so therefore, we are going to pass this draconian legislation.”

 

Which they tried to do recently on the 20th of June with their what they call crime bill. But the German Parliament, at that time, the Upper House, at least voted down this draconian law.

 

Well, in Hitler’s Germany they did not, because National Socialism at that time, as I said, had the superior numbers. And so Germany began to rebuild under those measures with limited freedoms, restricted freedom of expression. And Hitler managed by all kinds of means, which we are going to cover in future programs, to prevent the invasion by France and by Poland, to prevent the boycott from crippling and destroying the German economy. And Adolf Hitler and his government went on and governed Germany in peace time for another six years.

 

And by the year 1936, we are able already to absorb all the millions and millions of unemployed in Germany and the surrounding countries. Two million people worked as guest workers in Germany in 1937 and 38, at a time when the rest of Europe was, and America, may I say, and Canada was still very much suffering under a depression!

 

Hitler’s Germany was like a beautifully tended garden surrounded by a bunch of gardens full of weeds.

 

And of course, the envy of the people who tilled the gardens, meaning the governments of the particular day, was rife everywhere! Not the people. For instance, Hitler had this program where he was going to [actually did] send hard working miners and farmers and so on these cruise ships to distant places in North Africa, in Egypt, in Greece or in Norway.

 

And it was such a hit with the working people of Europe that ordinary people could actually go on cruises that England forbade the landing of these German cruise ships in British ports! Because rather than giving their own working people such a break, they found it much easier just to restrict German ships from landing and not getting British workers envious.

 

What I’m saying to you is Hitler made Germany prosper! He made the trains run on time. Things hummed in Germany. Germany broke all kinds of records on the ground, in the air, with cars, with planes. National Socialist Germany in peacetime was a progressive, thriving country. And the people that lived there during that particular time apparently kind of allowed this restricted freedom that they couldn’t have different opinions and so on. They traded social security, financial security, bread and butter stuff over freedom.

 

It has always troubled me that that’s the way it was, but that’s the way it was. I personally am far more of a believer in individualism and freedom than that particular generation. But the Germans, after all, if the majority does rule by their majority, and by constantly reaffirming Hitler in power and his government decided that was the way they were perfectly willing to live, who am I to say in 1994 that they didn’t have the right to do that?

 

Now, why did the war break out? Because apparently Hitler was a sworn enemy of Marxism, Communism, then called Bolshevism. And Europe had these Bolshevik uprisings, especially in Hungary, Romania. Also in the east, especially in Russia, where a lot of blood was spilled, where hundreds of thousands, millions we know today, tens of millions of people were butchered in the most gruesome way, worked to death in the Gulag, worked to death while building canals through mosquito infested swamps and so on.

 

Today, now that the archives are open and the mass graves are being found in the Crimea and in the Ukraine and in Russia proper. Mass graves that hold 200, 240, 300,000 people and we have only just scratched the surface.

 

So the Bolsheviks who were in the east, armed to the teeth, had always said that they believed in world revolution and they were appealing to the workers around the world in uprising after uprising.

 

I know, I’ve got a book in my bookshelves here about a communist uprising in Brazil. Then we had the communist uprising in Spain. It was known at that time in Europe that communism was a huge threat to Western values and Western civilization.

 

Adolf Hitler was a strong opponent of Marxism. He considered it almost like an evil religion. And when President Ford, and later on much more so President Reagan and President Nixon before them had certain anti-communist statements made, President Reagan was the one that coined the phrase “the evil empire”. Well, let me tell you, Adolf Hitler had called Bolshevism and the Soviet Union “an evil empire” already in 1920s! And had initiated policies to contain the evil empire in the late 1930s. Making what he called the anti-Comintern pact with Italy, Japan and Germany.

 

[22:05]

 

And he also knew from his intelligence services that Russia [Soviet Union], armed to the teeth as they were, were pulling together troops at the Eastern border.

 

And so he knew that they were going to attack Germany and Western Europe. How did he know? Because the German armed forces and the German spy system against communism worked. They had lots and lots of ethnic Europeans in the east who were siding with the German government. And so their information was excellent!

 

But when Hitler finally ended up in this terrible tragedy with Poland, which France and England used as a declaration, as the reason for a declaration of war against Germany, Hitler knew that he had to quickly finish the continental powers in a kind of a pre-emptive quick strike in order to keep his back free, because he knew that the Soviet Union was arming and ready and rearing to go and invade Germany from the East. Germany didn’t have enough land, enough depth, geopolitically speaking, geographically speaking, to absorb the massive invasion forces which were then beginning to build up on her Eastern Frontier.

 

And so, luckily for Germany, France was subdued quickly, Holland and Belgium also. And Hitler could now turn his attention to the east. By now, his air force, using the very latest in technology, high altitude planes, quite similar to the later the very famous U2 spy planes which Francis Gary Powers used to fly over the Soviet Union. Hitler had similar planes, not quite as sophisticated, of course, but he could penetrate with his reconnaissance airplanes, flying at tremendously high altitudes for the first time using pressurized cabins, way into the heartland of Russia.

 

How do we know it? Because we have books about it. One man has been on my mailing list for three decades. His name is George Pemler. George Pemler, P E M L E R. He has written a book called, Der Flug zum Don, published by Drufel publishing house in Germany, in which he details and shows with all kinds of photographs the massive build-up of Soviet forces on the German border.

 

 

And so Hitler knew that he was not strong enough to just merely defend himself against Russia. And so they decided to pre-emptorily strike at the build-up of the Soviet forces very much the way Israel did in a repeat policy. And many people said, using a copycat plan against the Arab world in 1967 with exactly the same results. The Israelis attacked air fields in Egypt, in Syria and in other places, in Jordan, destroying the planes on the ground. They attacked missile batteries, destroying them on the ground.

 

And once they were silenced, then the ground forces, Israel’s tank forces, could sweep through the desert, driving the Arab forces before them into the desert. And ultimately Israel scored a stunning defeat in a very, very short war called the Six Day War.

 

Hitler’s forces did exactly the same thing in 1941 in the east. And the German air force that was opposed by over 14,000 Soviet planes knocked down over 12,500 planes or bombed them underground within the first two weeks of the war. The German air force at that time had less than 4,000 3,750 planes. The same could be said for ground forces, tank forces and so on. It was not German massive armor that won this. It was superior German generalship and planning. And also the elandes, the spirit of the German troops.

 

However, they were unable to deliver a knockout blow against the Soviet Union, which the world had expected. Basically, we know today because of treason in German ranks! Treason was the reason for Hitler not winning the war against the Soviet Union. And this is why Germany got stuck in the east!

 

And this is why these huge battles of attrition in Stalingrad, where over 300,000 German men marched into Stalingrad and where only 6,000 of them came back after the Second World War from Stalin’s Gulag. 96,000 prisoners were taken. About 90,000 of them vanished!

 

And you wonder why there were so few planes, so few troops, so few tanks in the West. Well, I tell you, they were in the east defending Europe, Western Europe against the Soviet onslaught, against the hordes of the evil empire, as President Reagan would have called it.

 

And so Europe’s men, we have to remember that, the Hungarians, the Slovakians, the many Polish volunteers, Ukrainian volunteers, Danish, Dutch volunteers. Alone in Denmark, four times as many people were serving in the SS in the German armed forces of Danish nationality than were serving in the Danish armed forces and police! This is an incredible statistic which very few people know.

 

[See: ]

 

So Hitler’s Germany was defending Europe’s interest in the east. And this is why the Allies had such an easy time in the West. This is why the there were only 270 operational tanks and only 375 planes to meet the Allies’ 12,000 planes in the West. They were bleeding to death in the east for Europe. And so look at it in the context of a German or of Germany. The Germans defended Europe and European style civilization against Soviet Bolshevism.

 

And so this was the reason that I should have given you before we went into Normandy.

 

However, the next series of programs that you’re going to hear have to do largely with Israel and German jewish relations. And I think it is timely because very, very little has been said about this period in history and the German side of it.

 

I am Ernst Zundel speaking for The Voice of Freedom. Yes, I am a son of the Germans using the facilities of North American radio stations and the freedom guaranteed to me by the United States, Constitution, by the Canadian Bill of Rights, or the other way around, to bring you dissident or different information. And all I’m asking you is. You don’t have to believe me. Just open up your mind to our German viewpoint and our Germans.

 

We are located at 206 Carlton street in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Our postal code is M5A 2L1. Our telephone 416-922-9850 [Note: All contact details out of date]. Thank you very much.

 

Ernst Zundel here thanking you for your support.

 

[29:34]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

============================================

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 4/2/2025 = )

==========================

See Also

top

 

 

 

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 1 – Intro – Jun 29, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 2 – Jul 6, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 03 with Paul Fromm – Jul 13, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 08 with Alfred Schaefer – Aug 17, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 09 with Grace Eki Oyama – Aug 24, 2024 – Transcript

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 15 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zündel – Oct 12, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 18 with Jürgen Neumann – Nov 2, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 20 with Kathleen Dudley – Nov 16, 2024 – Transcript

 

 

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 24 – Prof Tony Hall – Dec 21, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 27 – Germar Rudolf – Jan 18, 2025 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 36 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zundel – Mar 22, 2025

 

 

 

 

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 15 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zündel – Oct 12, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 18 with Jürgen Neumann – Nov 2, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 36 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zundel – Mar 22, 2025 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – Another Voice of Freedom Radio – Why World War II Started – 1994 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – 1967-68 Radio Shows in Montreal Discussing Israel and Jewish Topics 1 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – 1967-68 Radio Shows in Montreal Discussing Israel and Jewish Topics 2 – Transcript

Ernst Zundel – Media Tactics 2 – Interview with John Reynolds, CJOR Radio – Aug, 1978 – Transcript

 

 

 

 

The World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention — Instauration Dec, 1979

An Open Letter to New Jersey’s Governor

Historians or Hoaxers?

House of Orwell

Misha: Surviving with Wolves or …

Bradley Smith’s Smith Report # 1

The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies

The Plum Cake

 

 

 

Auschwitz: Myths and Facts

Powers and Principalities XI – Ewen Cameron, MK-Ultra, Holocaust Revisionism — TRANSCRIPT

Tales of the Holohoax – A Historian’s Assessment – Part 1

The Holocaust Lie — Made in America

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained — TRANSCRIPT

Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT

Holocaust Eyewitnesses: Is the Testimony Reliable?

Alain Soral – My Homage to Robert Faurisson, Oct 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Inside Auschwitz – You’ve never seen THIS before! — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

Amazion Bans 100s of Holocaust Revisionist Books!

AUSCHWITZ – A Personal Account by Thies Christophersen

Jim Rizoli Interviews Bradley Smith — TRANSCRIPT

London Forum – Alfred Schaefer – Psychological Warfare – TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report Interviews Eric Hunt — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio – Germar Rudolf – Persecution of Revisionists & Demographic Disaster – Part 1— TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio: Nicholas Kollerstrom — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice TV – Ingrid Carlqvist – Scandal in Sweden When Ingrid Questions the Unquestionable — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Carolyn Yeager on Johnson vs Anglin debate — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

 

 

 

Joel Davis – Mark Collett vs Greg Johnson – The Ukraine Debate – Oct 17, 2022 – Transcript

Mark Collett – Patriotic Weekly Review – with Joel Davis – Apr 27, 2023 – Transcript

Joel Davis – On Australian Nationalism with Matthew Grant – Dec 17, 2022 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The White Australia Policy with Matthew Grant – Jul 27, 2023 – Transcript

Joel Davis – On Activist Politics and White Advocacy – PA Conference Speech – Oct 7, 2023 – Transcript

Slightly Offensive – Debate – Is Diversity Our Strength? – Joel Davis vs Drew Pavlou – Apr 5, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Mass Deportations Enthusiasm, Twitter Politics & Activist Persecution – Jun 6, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The Vibe Has Shifted and the Paradigm is Shifting – Jun 13, 2024 – Transcript

Slightly Offensive – Is America (& the West) Over? – Guest – Joel Davis – May 31, 2024 – Transcript

 

 

Red Ice TV – Nationalism for White People & Activist Persecution in Australia – Joel Davis & Thomas Sewell – Jun 15, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Polarisation Phases – with Blair & Tom – Jun 20, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Conservative Terrorism in Australia as Trump Set to Become New ZOG Boss – Jun 28, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Muslims to Create Their Own Party as “Extremism Experts” Cry About US to the Media – Jul 4, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Trump Inevitable, Blair Censored, Paedo Freaks Destroyed – Jul 19, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – When Will Enough Be Enough? – Jul 25, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Mass Deportations Now! – Aug 1, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Wargaming the Response as Communists Organise Brown Parasites – Aug 22, 2024 – Transcript

 

 

Joel Davis – Activist Reflections with Jacob Hersant – Aug 18, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – Analysing the Implications of the Pajeet Hate Surge – Aug 29, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – WWII Revisionism Re-enters the Mainstream – Sep 6, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – One Nation – Ineptitude or Controlled Opposition? – Nov 4, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – ZOG Sends in the Fun Police, Donald Trump White Power – Nov 7, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis – The Enemy is Weaker Than You Think – Nov 14, 2024 – Transcript

 

 

 

 

Mark Collett — It’s Okay To Be White — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Christmas Adverts – Multicultural Propaganda — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — What We Must Do To Win — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Assad Didn’t Do It – Faked Syrian Gas Attack — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — The Plot to Flood Europe with 200 Million Africans — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — The jewish Question Explained in Four Minutes — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett at The Scandza Forum, Copenhagen – Oct 12, 2019 — Transcript

Patriotic Weekly Review – with Blair Cottrell – Dec 4, 2019 — TRANSCRIPT

Dangerfield – Talking Tough with Mark Collett – Mar 28, 2020 — Transcript

Mark Collett – Sam Melia Sentencing – with Laura Towler – Mar 1, 2024 – Transcript

Joe Marsh – Sam Melia Going into Court Before He was Sentenced – Mar 1, 2024 – Transcript

 

 

 

911 – The Jews Had Me Fooled: A Jewish Engineered Pearl Harbor

Organized jewry Did 9/11

Organized jewry Did 9/11 — The 16th Anniversary, 2017

Know More News — Christopher Bollyn, The Man Who Solved 9/11 — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Christopher Bollyn – Sep 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

AE911Truth – Exposing Those Who Covered up the Crime of the Century – May 28, 2023 – Transcript

 

============================================

PDF Download

top

Total words in transcript = 4053

  • Total words in post = xxx
  • Total images = xx
  • Total A4 pages = xxx

Use your browser to download/export a PDF of this post.

 

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4:

Version 3:

Version 2:

Version 1: Sat, Apr 5, 2025 — Published post. Transcript completed = 30/30 mins. Transcript Quality = 5/5. Includes Odysee comments ().

]]> https://katana17.com/2025/04/05/ernst-zundel-another-voice-of-freedom-radio-why-world-war-ii-started-1994-transcript/feed/ 2 Patriotic Alternative Conference 2021 – Laura Towler – Oct 30, 2021 — Transcript https://katana17.com/2021/11/05/patriotic-alternative-conference-2021-laura-towler-oct-30-2021-transcript/ https://katana17.com/2021/11/05/patriotic-alternative-conference-2021-laura-towler-oct-30-2021-transcript/#comments Fri, 05 Nov 2021 05:32:14 +0000 https://katana17.com/?p=30345 Continue reading →]]>

 

[Deputy Leader of Patriotic Alternative; Laura spoke about the butterfly effect and how our actions today will influence the lives of Britons tomorrow.

— KATANA]

 

 

Patriotic Alternative

 

Conference 2021

 

Laura Towler

 

 

Oct 30, 2021

 

 

 

Click here for the audio:

 

https://www.radioalbion.com/2021/11/patriotic-alternative-conference-2021_81.html

 

Published on Nov 1, 2021

 

Radio Albion Description

 

Patriotic Alternative Conference 2021: Laura Towler – PA 11022106

SL17:56

Mark Collett introduces the final speech of the day by PA deputy leader Laura Towler.

Laura talks about the butterfly effect, beginning by outlining the obstacles being put in our path by the establishment.

How our ability to talk about the situation is hampered by restrictions on our free speech and the law is used to try and outlaw anyone who cares about the situation.

She moves on to the death of George Floyd and the widespread awakening of White people that followed, with the predictable response of the establishment with wholesale censorship of those noticing what is going on.

The statistics show that everything Black Lives Matter and the media are telling us is a lie. Anyone who looks up the figures can see this.

Those that have not, have still seen our statues pulled down and our shops set on fire.

No other event has brought more people to Nationalism than Floyd’s death and the response to it.

The tide is turning and tomorrow we live.

Find out more about Patriotic Alternative HERE

Speech by Laura Towler

Patriotic Alternative Conference 2021: Laura Towler – PA 11022106

Download

Each Sunday we have a new Patriotic Alternative live stream, either the book club, the film club, or the monthly update

See the daily radio schedule for more ethnocentric audio available for download

Join the chatroom and follow the feed

Add this http://audio.radioalbion.com:8777/; to your DAB player to listen to Radio Albion

Click for new Shoutcast player

We can accept donations sent to the bitcoin wallet identifier:

1L8orB31d6Bu1fymUgcWN3ByoedL6bNaM2

We can also accept Etherium at this wallet:

0xDfD578999B6FBc1F9e31574a48096209166F7589

_____________

NOTE: Users can help improve the quality of this transcript by putting corrections in the Comment section. Thanks.

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT

(23:09 mins)

 

[00:00]

 

[Intro music]

 

[00:22]

 

Mark Collett: This conference has probably been defined by two things. Strength in the face of adversity, and the exceptionally high quality of our speakers!

 

[Applause].

 

However I have to say we have probably saved the best to last! Now, we all know who is the last speaker. It’s Laura Towler!

 

[Long applause].

 

And Laura doesn’t really need an introduction. [chuckling] And we are short on time. But she’s going to get one anyway!

 

Laura is the most competent, resilient, and passionate person I have ever met in my life! And during my life I have a long list of mistakes that I have made! But one thing which certainly wasn’t a mistake, in fact, possibly the best decision, or one of the best decisions, I ever made was appointing Laura as my Deputy. Because she truly is the best of what we have to offer!

 

[Long applause]

 

Laura Towler: Wow! I can’t believe you all did that! I’m so embarrassed. [chuckling] Thank you very much. Okay.

 

So my speech today is about the “butterfly effect”. So all of us are here today, because we understand the current trajectory that Great Britain, and the West in general, is on and I’d like to give an overview in a handful of sentences. I apologize that I start my speech with something negative. And I hope you find my speech today to be positive and proactive. But in order to talk about action I must first explain what our action must be in response to.

 

We’ve lived on these islands for thousands of years. But as each day passes in the present, we become a smaller, and smaller percentage of the overall population of our home, as a result of the deliberate demographic replacement of our people! We are discriminated against on a daily basis, being the only race who can advocate for ourselves without being told that we must therefore hate everybody else.

 

 

At best we lose out on careers, opportunities, and pay, due to diversity quotas. And we rarely identify with those we see on TV. At worst the horrific abuse and murder of our people is ignored, or covered up by the State and media. And those of us who highlight atrocities like those of Richard Everett, Ross Parker, Chris Donald, Aaron Doug Mark, Ben Hitchcock, Christopher Yates, or Lucy Law, just to name a few, are labelled “sickening and cynical” for bringing it up.

 

They say we have a Conservative government. But the only thing they care to conserve is global capitalism, the protection of big business, and the continuous import of cheap foreign labour, in order to undercut and undermine the native population.

 

Our ability to organize, or even discuss the crisis we face has been taken from us under the guise of “hate speech” and “extremism”! And whether, or not, the facts we share are labelled a “conspiracy theory”, or not, depends on whether we support, or oppose them.

 

We edge towards a country that will label you a terrorist, if your views sit outside a very narrow list of establishment approved opinions. Perhaps we’re already there? Those in power have already decided without ever asking us, where we’re headed, and what our future will be.

 

But how did we get here? What on earth happened that led us to where we are today? History books tell us that in the summer of 1914 an event took place that would change the course of Europe forever. On the 28th of June a Bosnian Serb student named the Gavrilo Princip, fatally shot at close range, the Heir Presumptive to the Austral-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. Austria-Hungary blamed the Serbian government for the attack. And exactly one month later they declared war on Serbia. (yes please. Thank you.) [chuckling].

 

[05:27]

 

So this was, of course, the start of the First World War. A war that would result in conflict and instability across the continent for many decades to come. Gavrilo Princip could never have known that his bullets would result in such outcomes as the Treaty of Versailles, and the rise of National Socialism in Germany, the outbreak of the Second World War, that would result in around 80 million deaths, Israel’s establishment as an independent State in 1948, the division of Eastern west Germany, and the 45-year Cold War. And ultimately the collapse of communism, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the breakup of Yugoslavia. All events which contributed to the situation we find ourselves in today.

 

We’re told that we can’t be nationalists. And we can’t and there can’t be no collective collectivisation for White people, because remember what happened the last time there was.

 

What I’m referring to here is known as the “butterfly effect”. The theory that one small action, often as delicate as the flutter of a butterfly’s wings, can set off a chain of monumental events that will change the course of history forever!

 

In spring of last year another butterfly fluttered it’s wings, as a black criminal named George Floyd died whilst high on drugs and resisting arrest in Minnesota, USA. Floyd’s death wasn’t swept under the carpet like the deaths of those I mentioned earlier. Instead, Floyd’s death are, to be more accurate the system’s response to Floyd’s death, set off a chain of events that would result in widespread riots, looting, and violence across the Western world, and the mass scale racial awakening of our people in response.

 

Because of censorship there is little discourse left on social media, sites like Facebook and Twitter, apart from the utterly predictable and infantile nonsense of the pawns and devotees of the system. And if you’re anything like me I cannot stand these people!

 

Journalists, independent researchers, and fact checkers, with no urgency to ever scratch below the surface, and whose investigative journey involves being so courageous as to cite a quote from Hope not Hate, FBP midwits educated and cowardly enough to know this to know that they’re supposed to hate themselves, but never quite educated enough to understand how ridiculous they look to the rest of us, when they pretend not to understand what the word “British” means. And Antifa cowards with their Che Guevara T-shirts and Starbucks coffees, calling themselves the “real revolutionaries”, whilst they parrot exactly the same politics as Netflix, Disney, and Burger King!

 

[Applause]

 

But underneath this manufactured facade of fake public opinion, lies the majority, lies common sense, lies decency, lies nature, lies us! If we have one flaw as a people, it’s our kindness! It’s that we are too empathetic, too polite, and too forgiving, often to the detriment of our own safety and success.

 

But whilst many of our people bite their tongues and persevere, a little longer a new paradigm is beginning to bubble and stir below the surface.

 

Because the shameless lies, the downright hypocrisy, and the heartless attacks in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death, are too much for even the least confrontational of our people not to notice.

 

Every apparatus of the system has been telling us enthusiastically for almost a year and a half now that black people are victimized by the police. That systemic racism prevails! Yet the system’s very own statistics tell us a different story. Black people are, in fact, underrepresented in police killings compared to how much crime they commit! White people, on the other hand, are over represented in the same category, despite the majority of police officers being White. The very same figures tell us that you’re twice as likely to be a police officer killed by a black man, then you are a black man killed by a police officer.

 

They tell us in the United States at least 70% of black people who are murdered, are murdered by other black people. And only 10 percent of black people who are murdered by White people. More black people murder White people than White people murder black people. And all of this, of course, is in a country where the White population is five times that of the black population.

 

[10:24]

 

 

The evidence shows us that as a matter of statistical reality, “Black Lives Matter” significantly less to other black people than they do to anybody else.

 

[Applause]

 

Black people are actually safer around White people than they are their own people.

 

[Applause]

 

But every politician, every celebrity, every newspaper, will tell you that the exact opposite of the truth, is true! They feed us lie, upon lie, upon lie! And then censor and deplatform any evidence to the contrary.

 

Even those of our people who haven’t looked up these figures are still aware of the anti-White agenda and the manufactured racial resentment on a more intuitive level.

 

They’ve seen our shops looted, our statues pulled down, and our flags set on fire. They understand by now that Whites must be held collectively responsible for the historical crimes of all Whites, while blacks aren’t even held responsible for the crimes they commit today. They understand that whenever a black person does something bad. Well, that’s the fault of White people and whenever a black person does something good, well that’s definitely his own work!

 

They may even understand that when a White person does something good, that’s probably thanks to black people as well! They built the NHS, and the pyramids, don’t, you know!

 

[Applause]

 

Who can’t forget the Euros of this year when England made it to the final, thanks to diversity and multiculturalism, or so, they said:

 

“Thank god for open borders!”

 

They said:

 

“There’d be no football trophies without immigration.”

 

They said. But then when three black players missed their penalties in the final and questions were asked about whether diversity had now, in fact, lost us the cup, well out comes Amy Sharp at the Sunday Mirror to condemn such vile, racist abuse!:

 

“And why would you even notice what race of football players were anywhere? You racists!”

 

The aftermath following on from George Floyd’s death turned out to be the biggest ever recruitment tool for Patriotic Alternative. We were handed a monumental opportunity that we continue to capitalize on today. We still regularly get new people joining us who tell us that they woke up to race during last summer’s riots.

 

No other event over the last two years has brought more people to nationalism than the event I’m discussing right now. A butterfly surely did flutter it’s wings that day!

 

Each of us are capable of our own butterfly effects. And many of us will already be able to identify ones that we’ve been part of did PA Scotland ever envision, as they climbed to the top of Ben Nevis this summer, just how much they dominate the global press for weeks to come?

 

[Applause]

 

Did Jody Kay, or should I say Gemma from Cambridge, know, as she dialed the phone that day, that her call to Keir Starmer on LBC would cause public disavowals and infighting in the Labour Party? Was I to know that a single tweet about tea [chuckling] could result in successful family business and a source of funding for British nationalism? And how about that leaflet that you posted through the door of that “just can’t help themselves but to virtue signal Lefty”? Did you foretell that it would result in a Twitter meltdown? A statement from their local MP, or the police? And free publicity for Patriotic Alternative in the local, or national press?

 

Each week the fraudulent media and their boring buzzwords, and tiresome clichés, with their recycled quotes from tedious politicians, send thousands of new eyes our way.

 

And it’s the often small acts of each of us that triggers the starting lever each time. There are even people sat in the audience here today who made their way to Patriotic Alternative, because they read about us in the press. What influence will these people have? What decisions will they make?

 

[15:21]

 

Nationalism is greater than the individual! Each of us represents a small part in a much larger engine. A necessary engine that’s working towards a mighty plan! A plan to secure a future for the British! Whether you organized the event, held the banner, took the photo, or informed that journalist, your actions influenced the journey and the end result that day. You are part of a rapidly growing, dedicated, community, whose small actions are influencing the lives of our people tomorrow. Something that you could do this year could have huge consequences for our future.

 

We are men of action! Not men of talk! We will lead by example! Not leave it to somebody else!

 

Patriotic Alternative supporters and activists sit head and shoulders above everybody else. Each month the activity from just one of our regions surpasses the work done by entire organisations. There is so much talent, bravery, integrity, and honour, in this room.

 

And woe betide those of our adversaries who make the mistake of misrepresenting us! Because we are not to be confused with other movements of the past or present. We cannot be bought, and we cannot be threatened, because there is no reward, or caution they could ever offer us that comes close to the feeling of love that we have for our own! Their attempts to bog us down and distract us with petty drama, will be stepped over. Their Endeavours to intimidate and dox, will be met with unwavering resoluteness! Their efforts to inconvenience us will result in no fruition, for our reward is much greater! Therefore we can sit this out considerably longer than they can.

 

No question will ever make us feel uncomfortable, for we shall always respond with the truth! No accusation will ever fill us with guilt for we know our history more than they do! And no matter how good, or bad, our past our present deed, we’re not sorry! And we will never allow it to be used to take our future from us.

 

Their charges of guilt and privilege will never be dignified with a response, for they have no hold over us. And there will never be a moment in the future where we compromise, or where we accept a single hair on the head of one of our people being hurt. There will never be a time when we reconsider the Right of the British to exist as a distinct group of people in our own homeland!

 

And to those who have attacked us, lied about us, and tried to stop us, I ask you only one question. Is that all you have? For we are just getting started!

 

[Applause]

 

So I’ve reached my conclusion.

 

Back in March my husband, Sam, and I discovered that we were expecting our first child [chuckling]. A daughter who we will name Catherine. And she’s expected to join us in about seven weeks. Of course, we were over the moon when we found out. And we told our family members who were equally as excited. Upon hearing the news a couple of family members took me to one side and asked:

 

“If now was the time for me to step away from politics? Leave it to somebody else.”

 

They said. I responded that the news about my daughter had made me more determined than ever! None of us do this job for clout, or money! We do this because we care about the safety, prosperity, and future of our people.

 

And now there’s a very tiny, helpless, and innocent person, on the way who’s dependent on me to keep her safe.

 

I want my daughter to grow up in a country where she can be proud of who she is. I want her success to be based on her hard work and merit. I want her to be able to walk down the street without the risk of ogling taxi drivers and takeaway owners attempting to pick her up. I want her to live in a safe, crime-free, and cohesive, community. I want her to live in a nation that values dignity, self-respect, and long-term happiness. Not a nation that rewards us with followers and fame for degrading ourselves on live TV. I want her to be taught to stay away from predators. And I want her to be able to speak freely, and tell the truth!

 

[20:23]

 

But most of all, I don’t want her to have to do what we have to do! I don’t want her to be attacked in the street, unpersoned by the banks, smeared by the media, targeted by the government, raided by the police, or risk going to prison, simply for advocating for the well-being of her people. That’s our burden! Not hers.

 

I repeat the first line of my speech. All of us are here today, because we understand the current trajectory that Great Britain, and the West in general, is on. Well, I read a cheesy quote on the internet the other day. And it said – I do apologize for the cheese!:

 

“Just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly.”

 

The path that’s been set out for us may often seem hostile and forbidden. But we have the means, and the wings, to change it. Our actions today no matter how small will determine our future. Do not ever allow yourself to be in a position where you have to look your children, or grandchildren in the eye and say anything other than:

 

“I did everything I could!”

 

Patriotic Alternative is the vehicle we shall use to implement real change for the British people. We are the true alternative to a corrupt, perverted, and broken system, that is more than happy to facilitate the replacement and demise of our people.

 

However, I honestly believe that with Patriotic Alternative there shall be no end. With Patriotic Alternative, tomorrow we live!

 

Thank you for listening!

 

[Long applause]

 

[22:31]

 

[Outro music]

 

[23:13]

 

 

END

 

top

 

 

============================================

 

 

ODYSEE COMMENTS

top

 

============================================

See Also

top

 

Patriotic Alternative Conference 2021 – Mark Collett – Oct 30, 2021 — Transcript

Patriotic Alternative Conference 2021 – Jody Kay – Oct 30, 2021 — Transcript

Patriotic Alternative Conference 2021 – Sam Melia – Oct 30, 2021 — Transcript

Patriotic Alternative Conference 2021 – Wesley Russell – Oct 30, 2021 — Transcript

Patriotic Alternative Conference 2021 – Paul Stevenson – Oct 30, 2021 — Transcript

Patriotic Alternative Conference 2021 – Laura Towler – Oct 30, 2021 — Transcript

 

 

Mark Collett – Interview with a Times Journalist – Oct 15, 2021 — Transcript

 

Mark Collett – Patriotic Weekly Review – with Piers Corbyn – Oct 28, 2021 — Transcript

 

 

Mark Collett — It’s Okay To Be White — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Christmas Adverts – Multicultural Propaganda — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — What We Must Do To Win — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Assad Didn’t Do It – Faked Syrian Gas Attack — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — The Plot to Flood Europe with 200 Million Africans — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — The jewish Question Explained in Four Minutes — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

============================================

 

 

xx UNFINISHED TRANSCRIPTS — Volunteers Needed

 

============================================

 

 

PDF Download

top

 

  • Transcript Total words = 3,007
  • Blog Post Total words = 3,497
  • Total images = 7
  • Total A4 pages = xxx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

 

Version History

top

 

Version 5:

 

Version 4:

 

Version 3:

 

Version 2: Nov 10, 2021 — Transcript now complete!

 

Version 1: Nov 5, 2021 — Published post. The first 10/23 mins of transcript complete.

]]> https://katana17.com/2021/11/05/patriotic-alternative-conference-2021-laura-towler-oct-30-2021-transcript/feed/ 3 Horus – Discussing the ‘Russian Pogroms’ with Andrew Joyce – Jan 20, 2021 — Transcript https://katana17.com/2021/02/09/horus-discussing-the-russian-pogroms-with-andrew-joyce-jan-20-2021-transcript/ https://katana17.com/2021/02/09/horus-discussing-the-russian-pogroms-with-andrew-joyce-jan-20-2021-transcript/#comments Tue, 09 Feb 2021 08:00:16 +0000 https://katana17.com/wp/?p=29019 Continue reading →]]>

 

[The Occidental Observer (TOO) contributor and scholar Andrew Joyce on the “jewish problem/question“, has a fascinating discussion with Horus on the so-called “pogroms” against jews in Russia and how they were greatly exaggerated, and often outright fabrications. This propaganda served jewish interests through generating sympathy for the flooding of the West with jewish-Russian immigrants, with disastrous results.

— KATANA]

 

Horus

 

Discussing the ‘Russian Pogroms’

 

with Andrew Joyce

 

Jan 20, 2021

 

 

 

Click here for the video:

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/NwijxJcZzOY2/

 

Published on Jan 20, 2021

 

Bitchute Description

 

Discussing the ‘Russian pogroms’ with Andrew Joyce

First published at 17:49 UTC on January 20th, 2021.

 

channel image

Horus

4052 subscribers

Andrew Joyce and I discuss the so-called pogroms that occurred in the western Russian Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially the events in Kishinev (Chisinau) in 1903 and 1905, the wave of westward Jewish migration occurring at the same time and the consequences of that migration.

Dr Joyce’s series of essays that sparked my interest in this matter:
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/05/08/revisiting-the-19th-century-russian-pogroms-part-1-russias-jewish-question/
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/05/11/myth-and-the-russian-pogroms-part-2-inventing-atrocities/
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/05/13/myth-and-the-russian-pogroms-part-3-the-jewish-role/

A few Jewish perspectives on the same events:
https://news.stanford.edu/press-releases/2018/04/23/separating-fact-myth-1903-anti-jewish-riot/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-a-small-pogrom-in-russia-changed-the-course-of-history/
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/kishinev-moldova
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-kishinev-massacre-judaic-treasures

All comments, feedback, suggestions and requests are welcome.

All my links are here – https://linktr.ee/WarmasterHorus

Any donations will be very gratefully received.

BTC : 3D2YT2QeBHo6VyrZEiyt1NPiTjqdhQhYgJ

My Twitter and YouTube pages are verified for Basic Attention Token (BAT) tips through Brave browser.

 

Sensitivity Normal – Content that is suitable for ages 16 and over

 

_____________

 

 

TRANSCRIPT

(49:51 mins)

 

 

Horus: Thanks for joining me Dr Joyce. And we’re gonna talk about the Kishinev so-called “pogrom”, or riot, depending on how you describe it. And this conversation is particularly triggered by this article that you wrote, or an essay that you wrote, which was one of one of the first things you did on Occidental Observer. And you’d read various books about the events in Kishinev, which is now called Chisinau, I think it’s in Moldova now. Used to be in the Russian Empire when these when these riots happened.

 


[Map of Pale of Settlement and Kishinev (click image to enlarge)]

 

And you particularly based your critique of the prevailing view of that, of the history of those events, on the work of John Doyle Klier, who is not a particularly famous academic. But he seems a more honest and serious one than some of the people who write about this event.

 

I’ve been just doing some reading around it, just in articles that are easily available. One recent writer is Steven Zipperstein*. Have you read his work?

 

[*Steven J. Zipperstein (born 1950) is the Daniel E. Koshland Professor in Jewish Culture and History at Stanford University.]

 

Andrew Joyce: Yeah.

 

Horus: And he wrote a book I believe it’s just called “Pogrom”. But I mean, based partly on what Klier said you would dispute whether it deserves the title of a “pogrom” at all. Is that correct?

 

Andrew Joyce: Yeah. And that applies for most of the so-called “pogroms” that happened in the Russian Empire towards the end of the 19th century.

 

My studies in jewish issues began very, very basically with the “Holocaust”. Because that’s what everyone’s introduced to really at the beginning when they go to school, whether it’s in the United Kingdom, whether it’s in Ireland, whether it’s across Europe, or the United States. That’s your first introduction to the jews. The jews as victims of what you’re told is the most extravagant and most awful and most demonic genocide ever perpetrated. So it began there.

 

 

And it was only much later that I started to sort of snoop around into other corners of jewish history. One of which, of course, was the pogroms, which is presented in a lot of texts as a kind of precursor, or predecessor, to the “Holocaust”. So it sparked my interest, and I read widely on it.

 

And the first series of essays that I did on the pogroms, the myth of the Russian pogroms, sort of charted in a way my exploration through that historiography.

 

Now you mentioned that John Doyle Klier is not a well-known individual, in other words, the public will never have heard of him. And this is one of the problems that we have. A lot of people — and I’ve interacted with so-called normies and Leftists, and what have you, on Twitter at times, or social media, or even in real life — and they all think that they know the history. They all think that they know the history of the “Holocaust”. They all think they know the history of the jews, or at least the rough outlines of it and how it makes sense to them. And always and everywhere that involves a heavy dose of victimhood.

 

 

But they actually haven’t read that much of the actual scholarship. And there is a sizable element within the mainstream scholarship that is very revealing! And which in a way is kind of revisionist, or quasi revisionist. And John Doyle Klier’s work performs that function absolutely, when it comes to the pogroms.

 

For example, if I was to walk down the street and start telling people that the pogroms were a myth invented by the jews, or if I was to write that probably — and post that through people’s letter boxes, and what have you — you’d be liable to some kind of speech legislation I’m sure but the fact remains that that is the truth! And the fact remains that that has been verified without controversy, and to an extent that is not debatable in the work of John Doyle Klier, and people like him.

 

People who went to the original archives who possessed the necessary language skills, and research skills, to go into the archives and pull out all of the original documents and try and see how they matched up. And try and find what actually happened in the Russian Empire and the Pale of Settlement in Ukraine, around the period 1880s to about 1910, when various of these riots actually took place.

 

And John Doyle Klier’s work, I’ll never forget reading him. In particular his 2005 book “Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-1882”, which really laid the groundwork for my understanding of what I’ve later discovered happened in Kishinev. I just remember being just stunned at reading certain sentences within that text! Especially when he said that claims that the pogroms had taken place should be treated, … And this is his wording:

 

“With extreme caution.”

 

Because to cast doubt upon these jewish victimhood narratives is not something that we’re used to. And even today if someone was to come along and say that you should treat, for example, the “Holocaust” narratives, or certain aspects of them, with “extreme caution” you would be looked at as somewhere between a lunatic and a criminal! So you can imagine my reaction on seeing that.

 

Again, it’s a niche text. It’s difficult to get your hands on. It’s very expensive to buy. And not many people have read it. And unfortunately that that allows certain preconceptions and certain myths to be perpetuated.

 

And jews in much of their historiography have ignored Klier’s findings and just continued to write their own narratives about what happened in Kishinev, or what happened in certain of the other towns and cities in the Russian Empire. And just simply allege that these events were the irrational results of bigoted peasants manipulated by government officials, who then undertook to commit wholesale massacres against the jews. To bludgeon women with hammers, and axes, and to throw living babies onto fires!

 

I mean, these are the kind of stories that were coming out, along with women having their breasts hacked off, etc., etc. I mean, the most obscene and caricatured kind of violence imaginable! Which does find it’s echoes in certain of the exposed frauds of the “Holocaust”. I’m thinking of Jerzy Kozinski’s novel “The Painted Bird”, which book for a long time was presented as a kind of semi-autobiographical novel, in which the violence in it is just so obscene, and quasi pornographic, that really one should have known that this was a total and sick fantasy! But in any case all of that is as prefigured in the Russian pogroms.

 

 

Horus: Jerzy Konzinski, it turns out, was actually protected by ethnic Poles during the war, I think, rather than persecuted. Well, I suppose he was in hiding, but yeah.

 

And this is the story of, well there’s a much, much longer historical narrative of essentially, as you pointed out in the article, about these pogroms, or these riots. There’s a much longer narrative of which this, the “Holocaust”, and many other events through the centuries, especially in European countries, are portrayed as like just these eruptions, these irrational incidents of just anti-semitic hate!

 

More recently they’ve started to describe this in terms of a “virus”. Like anti-semitism is a virus that just is sort of endemic in European civilization, and it erupts in certain episodes. Typically just triggered by some lie, like what they call the “blood libel”. What I found looking at, … Which also constitutes a slander against our whole civilization, I would always emphasize that as well. But what I found looking over some of the jewish sources.

 

One was an interview with Zipperstein, another was from the Jewish Virtual Library, another was from the Times of Israel. The consensus narrative among jewish sources at the moment seems to be that 49 people were murdered during this so-called pogrom. Hundreds of people were injured. Thousands were de-housed. And it was all triggered off by just the blood libel. Which I think you said also some gentile professors going on with the same. David Dutton was one, wasn’t it? Go along with the same kind of interpretation.

 

Andrew Joyce: Yeah.

 

Horus: I mean, from what you’ve seen those numbers of people killed are not borne out, right?

 

[08:45]

 

Andrew Joyce: No. I mean, we have a problem of sources, first of all. And where these numbers are derived from. And one of the problems is that a lot of the jewish historical work that’s been carried out, has been based on newspaper reports, either from within Russia, or which were transmitted eventually to the West. And as Klier has very clearly demonstrated these reports were either full of exaggeration, or by Klier demonstrating that certain travel patterns by the journalists involved, were simply impossible. That they were just wholesale inventions!

 

 

On top of that we have official investigations that were carried out by members of the British embassy, for example, who were sent across to conduct an investigation into these so-called pogroms in the Russian Empire, and to bring back at least some kind of information so that certain diplomatic efforts could be put in place. Now this kind of outreach work has some kind of pedigree within the British government.

 

Now there’s a great book, very interesting book, called “The Rise of Modern Jewish Politics” by an academic called, CS Monaco, which I would certainly recommend to anyone. And it basically gets into the question of when did jewish politics become international? Because we know that there were sort of jewish elite groups in Germany and France, going back to medieval times, and earlier, etc., etc.

 

But when did sort of international jewish cooperation really begin to accelerate? And Monaco pinpoints it around the time of the 1840s, when you have the Damascus Affair in 1840. The Damascus Affair being the allegation that, I think it was 15, no, 13 jewish leaders of the jewish community in Damascus had been involved in some way in the murder of a Christian monk. So it was, for all intents and purposes, like a kind of a blood libel accusation. And I’m not going to get into the ins and outs and details of that here, because it’s actually quite a protracted tale. And I just encourage people to look into it in their own time, the Damascus Affair.

 

[11:00]

 

But, because that was ongoing and, because of the growth of the British Empire, certain jewish cliques within the British Empire got Moses Montefiore, who was part of the Anglo-jewish cousinhood, to go across as a diplomat to Syria, to go to Damascus and intervene on behalf of the jews there. And this is the beginning of sort of large-scale government interactions by jewish elites to protect, or overlook, the situation of jews in other lands.

 

So, fast forward 50, 60 years when news starts emerging that there are pogroms ongoing in the Russian Empire. Delegations are sent once again. And they’re not jewish delegations, this is the crucial difference. They send a couple of Brits. I think one was a Scotsman. And these individuals go out and investigate what’s happening with a view to giving the British government a clear-sighted opinion on what exactly was going on.

 

And those reports were unanimous in saying that the entire thing had been exaggerated. That the numbers were ridiculous. That were perhaps there were being 50, or 60 murders claimed, only one verified murder could be confirmed. That whereas whole villages had been said to have been burned to the ground, perhaps one hut managed to lose it’s roof. So just the grossest of exaggerations were being discovered.

 

But only really with Klier do we find that there’s an emphasis on the reports of the latter, the delegates, the ambassadors, and the diplomats, rather than the newspaper reports. Which as Klier pointed out were being compiled dubiously by correspondence from the jewish world. Which were then transmitted to a rabbi called Yitzhak Wolfe in Prussia. Who then sort of gathered them all up and passed them on to people like Lucian Wolfe. I think it was Lucian Wolfe at The Times [newspaper]. He was also involved in quote-unquote “exposing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”

 

Horus: And was jewish himself, right?

 

Andrew Joyce: Yeah. Basically Klier was able to demonstrate the genealogy of this fraud, in terms of tracing it back to its origins. Klier never denied that some riots had taken place. Although he did say that the context of these particular riots deserved a lot of attention. We’ll probably get into that in a minute. But yes, the idea that there were these really brutal and bloody, and irrational, massacres over the blood libel, is a total illusion!

 

Horus: And basically I mean, a lie! I mean, it seems to me anyway, that there are clear reasons which, well I’ve read your essay, I’ve not managed to read Klier’s book yet. But I mean, in your essay you lay out clear reasons [chuckling] why these things happen. There’s no need to, as some writers do — obviously people who are basically, who think it’s their duty to fall in line with a pro-jewish narrative — I think, there’s no need for them to look for ridiculously simplistic, or just, I don’t know, fanciful explanations like, …

 

I mean, the blood libel thing is supposed to be an ever present since many centuries back, right? So what I mean, why on earth would that be the explanation, you know, in a particular time? Why would that ever be a trigger? I mean, are they saying that it’s something, … I’m musing here. I mean, this is not necessary, you can’t speak for other people’s mistakes obviously.

 

But it seems to me that one would only resort to something as sort of simplistic, and kind of blase, as blaming the blood libel, if one was determined to ignore any causes that admitted any fault on the part of any jews. I mean, do you think that’s roughly, right?

 

[15:06]

 

Andrew Joyce: Yeah. I mean, when it comes to the blood libel it’s certainly a tool that’s been used as much by the jews as it has been by non-jews. My own perspective on the blood libels shaped predominantly by the medieval stories, in which it was always clear to me that whereas there might be a real groundswell of underlying resentment towards jews for socio-economic reasons, the blood libel could provide a way of lighting a match, that would basically, you know, finally, set the spark of a kind of a riot, or an action against the jews that would kind of release a lot of this pressure that had been building up. So it was a tool.

 

But there’s no denying that modern historiography produced by jews is always keen to try and tie dissatisfaction with jews, or antagonism involving jews, back to the irrational. And the ultimate in the irrational in jewish eyes is the blood libels. So wherever an accusation like this can be found, all antagonisms are basically attributed to it, even though that’s not the case.

 

I mean, when you look at Kishinev you have the, Kishinev just prior to the riots that occurred there, and they were modest riots, they weren’t severe. But they were a riots. The question is:

 

“Well, why did it happen?”

 

Well it wasn’t a blood libel. I mean, the context there speaks for itself. Between 1860 and 1897 the jewish proportion of the population rose from about 20 percent to 45 percent. That’s a population explosion! In no time at all. And that feeling of being swamped, or surrounded by jews, all of whom you already had a very, very substantial control and certain monopolies within the city. That’s devastating to the other populations that are there.

 

I mean, even Edward Judge who wrote the book “Easter in Kishinev: Anatomy of a Pogrom” which is one of the first books that was written on kishinev, and which actually is sympathetic to the jews. Even Judge wrote that over 80 percent of the merchants were jews. And that the grain trade — which is one of the cities like that, was one of its main industries — was almost entirely in jewish hands. And judge writes that, I’ll just quote from him:

 

“This circumstance not only increased jewish influence and visibility, it also added to the concerns of those who feared that the province’s economy, especially in the cities, was coming increasingly under jewish control.”

 

So there’s a sense of threat there. And then he goes on to say:

 

“In economic terms the jews were even more influential and their numbers would indicate. The majority of Kishinev’s commercial, financial, industrial, enterprises, including three-fourths of the city’s factories, were in jewish hands. Jewish-owned businesses included four mills, wineries, tobacco processing plants, credit loan agencies, trading companies, and the like. The skilled trades especially sewing, tailoring, shoe making, and cabinet making, were likewise dominated by the jews.”

 

In other words, if you wanted a job you were probably going to go to a jew. If you needed money you were going to have to go to a jew. If you required services you were going to be reliant on the jews. I mean, this is a suffocation of your life and a total dependence on a people that you probably correctly view as unremittingly hostile towards you! So, there is a tinder box there just waiting for a match to come along and strike it.

 

Horus: Yeah. One thing that intrigues me about the general narrative, not only in this instance but in many places and times of irrational persecution, is that, … I mean, you gave an example there from Judge who wrote a broadly pro-jewish book but still tries to address the causes. Nothing about him doing that in any way condones any crimes against jews.

 

And yet most scholars would still feel that they can’t go, I mean, increasingly so at present I think would increase, would feel that they can’t go where he went, you know, they can’t even list just material reasons, or reasons that could trigger off anger at jews. I mean, there’s an obvious case there for sort of an ethnic pushback against the sort of jewish stranglehold, if we call it that, over that town that makes it understandable why people would want to push back. That still doesn’t condone any sort of violent crimes against them. It just means getting organized. The native people of that region would have a reason to organize.

 

So it intrigues me that even though most of us would agree that none of that is grounds for crimes, jewish historians generally seem to still want to swerve away from acknowledging — and pro-jewish gentile historians as well — want to swerve away from acknowledging those material reasons. Which are very illuminating! Like it’s illuminating just to know the ethnic, I don’t know what the term is, the ethnographic situation, right?

 

But again, and again we find with so many historical events, not only this one, that nevertheless we have to swerve away to a position of complete exculpation of the jews! And, do you find that?

 

[20:20]

 

Andrew Joyce: Yeah. Look, to put it in the most basic terms, it is, and always has been, in jewish interest to push the narrative, or the theory that prejudice itself is something that is self-generated. I in an article I wrote a few months ago looking at the merits and inadequacies of middle minority theory and explaining the jews, I pointed to the very good comments actually by a jewish Marxist, strangely enough, Edna Bonacich. She was one of the founders of middleman minority theory. And she said that:

 

“Look, all through sociology, and history, and politics, and psychology, you’re basically maligned and ostracized if you suggest that prejudice even against middlemen minorities — who can basically engage in socially, and politically, and economically, antagonistic behaviors — that if you imply that prejudice is in any way other than self-generated, you’ll be ostracized.”

 

But what she was saying is that it’s very, very clear that antagonism is being created in these situations by the presence of two different populations, both of whom have antagonistic, or competing goals, and ambitions, and interests. And you’re right in what you’re saying that we’re not implying that the violence is an answer, or anything else. We’re simply saying that:

 

“Let’s be honest about the real causes of friction here.”

 

Which is something that was also mentioned by Hilaire Belloc in his 1922 book “The jews”. He’s simply saying:

 

“Look, it is clear that anti-semitism is simply a social friction. And we need to understand and be honest about the causes of this social friction.”

 

But jews don’t want that, because when jews say that prejudice is self-generated, then it’s a White problem. It’s something that Whites need to sort themselves out. And the way that jews have always postulated as the solution there is for Whites just to shut up and just accept things how they are. In the best case scenario, that’s what they’re supposed to do. Just shut up and accept things how they are! Because to complain about it is simply to be prejudiced!

 

 

But clearly that’s leaving much unsaid, and it never addresses the fundamental problems that are creating conflict in the first place. Because you can stop people from talking about something. But you can’t stop them from feeling really annoyed about the realities of the situation facing them.

 

So yes, in the vast majority of jewish historiography on the pogroms, or indeed on the origins of the “Holocaust”, or in any of the medieval expulsions, the historians always bring into place something that a term I’ve coined called “the cropped timeline explanation”. Which is you pick a certain point in time, normally just prior to the event itself, and you say that something happened here, which occasionally is a blood libel accusation. You say:

 

“That is the cause of everything! This is where it begins!”

 

And when you do that you ignore the previous 30, 40, 50, or 100 years of economic competition, of exploitation, of money lending, of loan sharking, of the monopoly of the tavern system in the Russian Empire, and so on, and so forth. You cut all of that out! Because what you want to do is you want to say:

 

“It has nothing to do with what jews are doing! It’s entirely self-generated!”

 

And it’s a problem that Whites have.

 

Horus: And to the extent these things are being spoken over a century and so later. I mean, the sort of proponents of that view will obviously find it politically useful now, because it says that this is a reason for us to combat your prejudices now. And to suppress your ethnic consciousness of yourselves now. Because we’ve seen, as with the “Holocaust”, we’ve seen in the past what happens when Whites are allowed to organize as Whites. [chuckling]

 

There are some even quite explicit expressions of that. Some people are quite frank. I can’t think of a clear example right now but some people are quite frank in saying, … Oh well, one example actually, recently, was Constantine Kisin, who’s from the Triggernometry channel on YouTube. And he said it sort of in the midst of a sentence. But you can quite clearly see his meaning. And he says, … He’s talking to a survivor of Muslim rape gangs in Britain. And he says:

 

“One danger about not addressing this issue, …”

 

Obviously this is a question of crimes against Whites, so it’s different in that sense, but:

 

“One danger of not addressing this properly is that it leads to, …”

 

I’m paraphrasing slightly, but he says:

 

“Leads to a rise in a sort of White racial consciousness. And we know where that leads! We know the dark places that leads!”

 

He’s jewish himself. He’s from the Russian Empire. He was from Russia, sorry. And so that was a particularly crystalline example. But it serves a purpose in sort of in establishing basically sort of jewish control of how active Whites are allowed to be in their own cause basically. But would you agree with that? It sort of serves purposes that go on much, much later than the events themselves. Obviously there’s actually a different narrative among jewish historians now than there was at the time. Would you say that’s right?

 

[26:01]

 

Andrew Joyce: Yeah. I mean, one of the problems with our circles, our method of politics, is that it is still steeped in sort of this kind of tendency towards reaction. And we are very reactive. And we’re reacting towards the inauguration of Biden today. And tomorrow we’ll react against something else. And then we’ll react against transsexuals and bathrooms again. And we’ll react against that.

 

We live in this kind of, and it’s one of the critiques that I would have of our movement, is that we live in a constant state of either enduring crisis, waiting for the next crisis, or panicking about an impending crisis. And it’s not healthy. And it’s especially not healthy when you look at the tactics that are employed by so many of our opponents. Which are that they’re always playing the long game.

 

I mean, it ’s not overnight did jews come up with this strategy of a “cropped timeline explanation”, or insisting that prejudice is self-generated these are people who’ve been working for years, and years, and years, before the Second World War, but especially afterwards, and moving into fields like sociology, mass communication, psychology, criminology, you name it! And in all of them becoming influential and adapting “ways of seeing”, as Kevin MacDonald’s phrase goes.

 

In such a way that certain ideas become anathema, and other ideas like this idea of self-generated prejudice, reach the pinnacle of academic respectability. And once those foundations are in place you have a monolithic element within culture that is very difficult to move, or even go around. And one of the problems that we have, as you’ve highlighted, is that every example of basically taking your own side in modern culture is held up as an example of an irrational bigotry.

 

And yeah, the amount of times I’ve had interactions with people, either in real life, or on social media, Leftists, or even normies, and you try and address some of jewish history, and whatever, that they will speak to me, … Who’s invested probably about 15 years of my life reading about this stuff now. About 10 years of very serious research and writing on it, … And have read, … I just I couldn’t even begin to tell you how many books and journal articles, …

 

And someone on the street — probably the last thing they read was Harry Potter. They have no background of either training in history, or literary studies, or are anything serious in terms of analyzing a text, or learning how to research something academically. And they won’t have any background. But they would deem to say to me that I’m completely off the Mark! That I’m an ignorant bigot! Someone yesterday called me, what was it?:

 

“A racist chud! Who believes that Braveheart was a documentary.”

 

No! No! No! So people like that need a very, very serious reality check! Because it’s not even David and Goliath. It’s like they aren’t even coming to the battle. I mean, people like that don’t have a, they’re living in Disneyland! That’s where their mentality is. They have this Disneyland mentality! Completely undisturbed by anything remotely disturbing about the real way in which the world works.

 

And I have no time for people like that. And no sympathy for them. And this phrase that went around after the Joker film came out, of:

 

“You get what you fucking deserve!”

 

There are a lot of Whites in our society, believe you me, that will get what they fucking deserve, because they won’t come out of Disneyland! They don’t want to let go with a comfort blanket. And so be it!

 

[29:34]

 

Horus: Unfortunately though, it seems that our fate is to some extent tied to theirs, right? So that’s why we probably try again, and again engaging with people, even though the chances of any sort of anything productive coming from it are usually low. When people react to you like that, just dismissal of you, who’s actually a scholar, you know, based on literally just sentences that were sent to them years ago. And that would have taken on faith. I presume the psychology there is really based upon the fact that certain conclusions are forbidden. Is that how you see it?

 

Andrew Joyce: Certain conclusions are forbidden. I mean, as I said, at the outset, in terms of how you’re taught things at school, it begins right there, or it begins with the History Channel, or it begins with any other method of mass indoctrination that’s in place.

 

And all of these methods are going to be intensified in the coming years. Because, as I explained in the essay I wrote on Moshe Kantor and this plan for “Secure Tolerance”, diversity propaganda is going to be obligatory for governments. And the uttering of certain things isn’t just going to be criminalized to the extent that if you’re stirring up hatred you get maybe one, or two, years in prison, or a fine, or something. These prison sentences are going to go to around a decade in prison. They’re going to be on a par with terrorism charges.

 

And all of this is due to changes in language, which are themselves accelerating. I mean, look, I was speaking this morning about this Biden inauguration and the aftermath of the Capitol protest, and what have you. And what I said — I was speaking to Nick Griffin about it — and I said to Nick:

 

“The language has changed since Trump came to office, in terms of describing our politics. We used to be bigots, and racists, and just horrible, nasty people. But now we’re terrorists, …!”

 

Horus: They’re using “traitors” against us now, as well.

 

Andrew Joyce: Yeah, traitors, unpatriotic, because they’re redefining what it means to be a “nationalist”, even. And this is an old tactic of jews. Because they would, say there was an “anti-semitism” in France in the early 20th century, the jews there would say:

 

“This is a German import! You’re acting on behalf of the Germans!”

 

Or if it was in Britain, they would say:

 

“You’re acting on behalf of the Germans.”

 

Well, if you’re a jew in Germany you would say:

 

“Ah! This anti-semitic stuff is British propaganda!”

 

You always inflect it back. You always divert it. And you always try and change what it means to be a patriot. So this is an old, old tactic. But it’s revived now and it’s very, very powerful in the United States. And the impact of that has been that it’s much, much easier to ban a “terrorist” than it is to ban a “bigot”. That’s what we’re dealing with here.

 

Horus: Yeah.

 

Andrew Joyce: American free speech, the vulnerability there, is that eventually they reinterpret us, so that whenever lawyers and judges interpret the First Amendment, they interpret it in such a way that there is no exemption for “terrorism”. There is an exemption, … They decide there is an exemption for bigots, there is an exemption for racists, etc., etc. But there will be no exemption for seditionists, for traitors, for terrorists!

 

So that this is the bracket that we will be moved into. This is the bracket that we’re almost fully moved into. This is the bracket which allows the “Prevent” program, for example, in the United Kingdom to shuffle young autistic boys into anti-terrorism programs, etc., etc, because they’ve been going on suspect websites, in their eyes. I mean, this is the nature of what we’re facing.

 

Horus: Yeah I mean, obviously it became especially clear in the last two weeks, since that storming of the capital. Well “storming” might be too strong. But yeah, I noticed the eagerness with which the anti-White front adopted, well calling the woman who died especially, she died as a “terrorist”, she died as a “traitor”. That was the first time I really started noticing people saying “traitor” and obviously they mean “failing to obey the ideology of the ruling class”. That’s apparently what “traitor” means now. I use the word traitor very freely as well. And I did sort of vaguely anticipate that this would happen. But it’s still ugly to see.

 

One thing I wanted to ask about the Kishinev events. It obviously happened, the first one happened, and the one that we mostly talk about as the Kishinev pogrom, as they say, was in 1903, if I’m not mistaken. And then there was a further eruption of violence there in 1905, as well. I’m interested by the fact that in 1905 we also had, well 1904 to 5, there was the war between Russia and Japan, which Russia lost unexpectedly. And in which Japan was supported by Jacob Schiff among other major jewish financiers. But Jacob Schiff seems to have been an important figure in so many different ways.

 

And also in 1905, of course, there was the first revolution against the Tsar, which failed, but helped crack it open, I think. Do you think that either the so-called pogroms themselves, or the narrative that was derived from them, served sort of geopolitical aims, or, I don’t know if this is a word, but “geo-ethnic” aims?

 

[35:04]

 

Andrew Joyce: Geo-ethnic games certainly. I mean, don’t forget that the jews in the Russian Empire at the end of the 19th century were a lot like a young adolescent boy who’s outgrowing his clothes faster than his parents can buy them, more, or less. I mean, their population was booming.

 

And the resources they could obtain from the peasantry were being hindered. One, by the fact that they were having to compete with each other to get gentile clients, but also, because the laws, the structure of Russian society, had changed. I mean, it wasn’t a matter of the serfs anymore, and you had them sort of compelled basically to come to your taverns and borrow money from you, and so on, and so forth. The serfs had been emancipated. So they weren’t as vulnerable as they had been before.

 

And one of the rationales behind emancipating the serfs was in a sense to liberate them from the jews. So this had changed. The profitability of jewish life in Russia had declined at the same time that the Russian [jewish] population was growing larger and larger. So they needed to spread out. So the pogrom narratives in a way provided an international wave of sympathy, manufactured, that would ease the path of these Russian jews to move west, and to settle in a lot of new lands. And basically carry on the same tactics and things there.

 

And, of course, when they go to the United States they set up in money lending and pawn broking. And all of the rest of it. And then the next generation moves into the professions. And then they slowly move into a quite controlling role within the media, and within academia, and politics, and so on.

 

So the primary sort of geo-ethnic role of the “pogroms”, if we want to use that terminology, is that it simply allowed the outspread of the jews. And I would say that it accelerated the development of modern international jewish politics.

 

I mean, I mentioned earlier how it really begins in 1840 with the Damascus Affair. But it really, it disperses the diaspora a bit more. It creates a more diffuse, international, jewish diaspora that’s much more financially capable. It’s much more organizationally well-developed.

 

And very soon, of course, we start seeing that the structuring of formal defense bodies, like the Anti-Defamation League, founded at the start of the 20th century. And the Board of Deputies of British jews undergoes the transformation. And we see some organizations in France and Germany and elsewhere. And these bodies start communicating. This is a vast and important evolution away from the Kahal structure which was in Russia in earlier times, which were certainly intensive and well organized.

 

But we’re still, compared to these other organizations, somewhat primitive. So international jewish politics is the result of the pogroms, as well as the more sort of finite dispersal of the jewish population as a whole.

 

Horus: Yeah. So we are talking about if the pogroms themselves were not a major event in world history, certainly what flowed from them, the effects of them, are majorly important, current in world history, from then on. And I think continuing now, right?

 

I mean, the reason I got in touch with you about this topic. I mean, apart from it just being interesting, is that I’ve begun, and it’s quite a large task it’s going to take me a while, but I’m making a series of videos. The first of which addresses this pogrom and the myths around it. And the fact that it led to immigration westward, especially into Britain.

 

My focus in the video will be on Britain. And I’ve got a list of names of people who ever moved at that time, or descended from those who did. And my sort of thesis in the video will be to say just how different Britain. I mean, you can never quite be sure about how different Britain would have been, were it not for accepting this massive wave of so-called “refugees”, or “immigrants”. Yeah, jewish ones from the Russian Empire.

 

Tell me if you think that this thesis is, or this statement, is overly strong. So in my notes, is it fair to say that the jewish immigration that resulted from this, was a necessary factor in bringing about the Second World War? If people want to see the basis of why I would suggest that, they could watch my video called “The Judean German War”. It’s on my BitChute channel, where I argued that were it not for jewish influence the Second World War probably would not have happened. Especially in America.

 

[40:04]

 

And I also stated sort of a list of things. I had Britain not admitted a huge wave of these so-called refugees Britain probably would have avoided it’s role in causing, or taking part in the Second World War, and thereby the Cold War as well. Although that’s stretching it somewhat. Would have good relations with many countries that hate us now.

 

Would be probably still 99% plus ethnic British. Again that’s maybe that’s a bit tenuous, maybe. Would be virtually unconstrained in free speech. Almost wholly free of self-hatred. Again that’s a bit of a stretch probably. But be far more free and genuinely prosperous. And I’m alluding to central banking and banking in general there. Would be far less indebted, or not at all perhaps that relates to the war, of both the World Wars. Have an education system that put learning over indoctrination. And be governed by political parties that put British people first and didn’t give their loyalty primarily to Israel. A state which, of course, Britain might never have brought into existence, or helped to bring into existence.

 

Do you think that’s going too far?

 

I mean, basically, one, I’m saying that jews — and I’m talking about the Ashkenazi jews who moved in over the sort of late 19th to 20th century — I’m basically saying they had such a huge impact that they’ve transformed our country into something completely different on all those grounds. Do you think that’s going too far?

 

Andrew Joyce: No. I think your general thesis there is absolutely perfect! I mean, even, for example, let’s just take the example of:

 

“Would Hitler have come to power without the Russian pogroms?”

 

And the answer is probably not. Because even though there would have been a dissatisfaction around the Treaty of Versailles, if the First World War itself had gone ahead, the presence of a mass anti-semitic political movement would have been less likely, had it not been for Hitler’s immediate predecessors, like Carl Lugar in Austria. Who was active in the 1880s primarily against in Vienna the mass influx of Russian pogrom, so-called “pogrom” refugees there. The German, or the sort of central European, I suppose also in France as well, these political anti-semitic movements of the late 19th century orbit around the mass influx of the Russian pogrom victims, so-called.

 

So without that impetus you would never have seen the energy and dynamism in those particular movements. And they just, without any kind of raison d’être to exist, without any reason for existence, they would either have been very weak, or they would have been nonexistent in the first place.

 

So you may have had an alternative party come to power pursuing a revision of the Treaty of Versailles, but it may not have had quite the aggressive position of the National Socialist German Workers Party. And without such a party coming to power it’s debatable as to whether the Second World War would have taken place.

 

You’re absolutely correct when you point out that most of the, or imply, that most of the figures who actually introduced hate speech laws and into the United Kingdom, in the mid to late 20th century were all the descendants of jewish pogrom refugees. That’s absolutely correct! From Leon Britain through to what was his name Cohen Frank Sauskus [sp]. What do you call him? Malcolm Rifkind.

 

Horus: Yeah, Anthony Lester, as well.

 

Andrew Joyce: Yeah, Anthony Lester. Yeah, they were all the descendants of these migrants, these Russian jewish migrants.

 

So when you deduct all of those personalities from the equation, absolutely you wouldn’t have had any of those laws! You may not have had some of those wars. You wouldn’t have had a lot of that legislation and activism. And certainly you wouldn’t have had the cultural interference. I mean, even today we’ve got people like Jonathan Freedland of The Guardian, who’s pumping out all kinds of propaganda against White people. And people like him, David Aaronovitch, you know.

 

All of them are simply the grandchildren and great grandchildren of these Russian-jewish fake pogrom migrants. And it’s been nothing but trouble for the British people! And, as I said, if you’d have had, you know, and it’s always in a sense counterfactual to say the “what ifs”.

 

But I think we can say with some clarity that had these people not been allowed to mass migrate to the United Kingdom, and elsewhere, the world would be a very, very different place. Russia might be a shithole however! [laughter]

 

[44:41]

 

Horus: Yeah. So yeah, I might find that actually the video, or the series of videos, that I’ve set out to make is actually too narrow in scope. I might even need to make it more grand in my statement. But I have a tendency to focus on Britain just because I find that so many other people cover America very well. And it’s not uninteresting to talk about America at all. But I just I just feel that I can add some value to people’s understanding by focusing on Britain.

 

So I’m encouraged that you think that thesis is in the Right area. And I’m gonna continue working on that with renewed energy. I’m aware that you’ve got to finish very shortly.

 

I suppose just one quick question to finish this off. Is it true to say that the influx of Askenazis introduced a far more kind of aggressively ethnic and revolutionary, or subversive, or corrosive, element than Sephardis ever had? Because I’m aware of various subversive activities that arise out of Sephardis in Britain. But they seem, you know, there seems to be one for every thousand incidents that that come from Ashkenazis. Do you think that’s correct?

 

Andrew Joyce: Yeah there is a difference between the Sephardis and the Ashkenazis. The Sephardis will have a slightly lower intelligence which makes them less challenging as opponents in various spheres.

 

They also, I would say, the main difference would be a lower level of psychological aggression. So the Sephardis still have the same level of ethnocentrism, I would argue.

 

But they’re more risk-averse, whereas the Ashkenazis, I would argue, as a kind of adaptation to the fact that they’ve always had a really rocky experience in Europe, are almost born gamblers! That they’re quite risk-prone and they’re willing to push the envelope so much further. And when you combine the higher intelligence with that gung-ho, risk-taking strategy, what you get is the recipe for interesting friction with the host population. And certainly an almost sociopathic refusal to learn from mistakes.

 

So you end up seeing patterns throughout history of just repeated behaviors again, and again, and again, often with the stakes rising higher, and higher, and higher. And that certainly has been the history of interactions between Europeans and the Ashkenazi.

 

Whereas at times the Sephardis have been able to exist for long periods without much trouble. I mean, yes the jews were exiled from England in 1290 and weren’t readmitted until Cromwell. But there were Sephardis that we know that were active in London in the interim period. And they’ve seem to have been there without much trouble. There were the odd incidents. I think that one of Queen Elizabeth’s physicians was a Sephardi. I think there was some possible treason on his part. But for the most part they’re much much more low-key. And to some extent less offensive socially, and culturally also.

 

Horus: Yeah. I mean, I immediately think of Benjamin Disraeli. A man who is really quite different from say, I don’t know, Philip Pyritin say. Well, I don’t know! One could name loads of the Ashkenazis. But and also. I mean, I know we’re about to finish, but just the last thing that you said about like the sort of them losing their minds. That just immediately puts me in mind of the ADL tweet from the other day, calling for Trump to be removed from office. I just thought:

 

“You’re going too far! You are going too far there! You’re getting too brazen! If you carry on like that you’ll [chuckling] cause yourself problems.”

 

Andrew Joyce: Yeah. The problem is, there is no limit! There is no “too far” in they’re mental horizons. So the ADL will always push. They will take on anyone! Because part of it is a superiority complex, too. And they literally cannot conceive that they will lose. That’s what part of this is. They cannot conceive a situation in which they will lose!

 

Horus: And the consequences could be terrible for everyone, or we could resolve it peacefully. I’m still not sure. I’ve talked to Gilad Atzmon a few times. And I’ve talked to him about this as well and he says:

 

“Yeah it is possible to resolve all this peacefully, but we don’t see how yet, there’s no obvious way at the moment.”

 

Andrew Joyce: All you all you can do is hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

 

Horus: Yeah. So I’ll bring it to a close now as I know you’ve got to go. But there’s ten different things I could ask you about, you know, off the back of this. So I wanted to mention Douglas Reed The Controversy of zion. I wanted to mention Chabad-Lubavitch, and all sorts of other things.

 

But thank you very much for your time.

 

Andrew Joyce: Yeah. And we’ll do it again. We’ll do this again.

 

Horus: Yeah, that’d be absolutely great! And this as I say, has encouraged me to resume work on this series of videos I’m making. So I thank you for that as well. And yeah, thanks very much for talking to me today Andrew. I look forward to speak to you again.

 

Andrew Joyce: Okay.

 

Horus: Thanks. Bye.

 

[49:51]

 

(Readers: please enter any corrections in the comments section.)

 

 

END

top

 

============================================

 

 

See Also

top

 

 

Luke Ford – Andrew Joyce On The Jewish Question — Apr 17, 2017 — Transcript

David Duke Interviews Dr Andrew Joyce — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio: Dr Andrew Joyce – The History of Jewish Influence — TRANSCRIPT (Part 1)

Red Ice Radio: Dr Andrew Joyce – The History of Jewish Influence — TRANSCRIPT (Part 2)

 

TOO – Andrew Joyce’s Podcast – Talmud and Taboo — Part 01 – Jun 30, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce’s Podcast – T & T No. 1 – The Skype Directory — Jul 15, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – T&T No 2 – And then one day… – Jul 20, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – T&T No 3 – Kicking Over the Bucket – Jul 27, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – T&T 8 – SEMITISM – Aug 28, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – Trumpism, Bidenism, and the System – Nov 9, 2020 — Transcript

Guide to Kulchur – The Protocols of the Elders of Zion – Andrew Joyce – Nov 22, 2020 — Transcript

 

 

Andrew Joyce – BLM – Irish Edition – Dec 31, 2020 – Transcript

Horus – Discussing the ‘Russian Pogroms’ with Andrew Joyce – Jan 20, 2021 — Transcript

Guide to Kulchur – The Merchant of Venice – Abusive Victim-Identity Syndrome – Andrew Joyce – Jan 20, 2021 — Transcript

 

 

Barbara Lerner Spectre

 

============================================

 

 

xx UNFINISHED TRANSCRIPTS — Volunteers Needed

 

============================================

 

 

PDF Download

top

 

* Total words = 8,425
* Total images = 12
* Total A4 pages = xxx
Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

 

Version History

top

 

Version 4:

 

Version 3: Mar 21, 2021 — Added See Also Part 3 image and links.

 

Version 2: Feb 10, 2021 — Added time codes.

 

Version 1: Feb 9, 2021 — Published post.

]]> https://katana17.com/2021/02/09/horus-discussing-the-russian-pogroms-with-andrew-joyce-jan-20-2021-transcript/feed/ 3 Book – The Myth of German Villainy – Part 17 – War with Poland https://katana17.com/2017/03/15/book-the-myth-of-german-villainy-part-17-war-with-poland/ https://katana17.com/2017/03/15/book-the-myth-of-german-villainy-part-17-war-with-poland/#comments Wed, 15 Mar 2017 11:31:21 +0000 https://katana17.com/wp/?p=13825 Continue reading →]]>

 

[Part 17]

 

[Benton Bradberry’s 2012 book, “The Myth of German Villainy” is a  superb, must-read, revisionist look at how the German people have been systematically, relentlessly and most importantly, unjustly vilified as the arch criminal of the 20th century. Bradberry sets out, coolly and calmly as befits a former US-Navy officer and pilot, to show why and how the German people have been falsely accused of massive crimes and that their chief  accuser and tormentor, organized jewry is in fact the real party guilty of monstrous crimes against Germans and the rest of the world.

 

In Part 17, the lead-up to the German invasion of Poland is described and how Germany was provoked into that act by the Polish, who adopted a murderously belligerent and uncooperative policy towards Germany’s offers of a sensible solution to the Danzig and Polish Corridor issues.

Poland was encouraged in adopting that attitude because of the guarantees and promises made by the British and American war-mongers, such as Churchill, Halifax, Vansittart, Roosevelt and Bullitt who were acting as tools of International jewry to create another World War. This was engineered to finish what their World War I had not accomplished, that is, the complete crushing of Germany and its sovereignty.

Hitler, who knew first hand the horrors of armed conflict, never wanted a war, let alone a World War, yet was forced into one on the day that Britain and France, on the orders of international jewry, officially declared war on Germany on Sep 3, 1939 — KATANA.]

 

 

 

 

NOTE: The author has very generously given me permission to reproduce the material here — KATANA.

 The book can be bought at Amazon here: The Myth of German Villainy

 

 

 

The Myth of

 

German Villainy

 

by

 

Benton L. Bradberry

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

[Clicking on a link in the Contents here will take you to that Part, in a separate post]

 

[Part 01]

Preface

Chapter 1 – The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Germany’s Positive Image Changes Overnight

[Part 02]

Chapter 2 – Aftermath of the War in Germany

The Versailles Treaty

Effect of the Treaty on the German Economy

Was the War Guilt Clause Fair?

Did Germany Really Start the War?

[Part 03]

Chapter 3 – The Jewish Factor in the War

Jews at the Paris Peace Conference

Jews in Britain

[Part 04]

Chapter 4 – The Russian Revolution of 1917

Bolsheviks Take Control

Jews and the Russian Revolution

Origin of East European Jews

Reason for the Russian Pogroms Against the Jews

Jews Leave Russia for America

Financing the 1917 Revolution

Jews in the Government of Bolshevik Russia

[Part 05]

Chapter 5 – The Red Terror

Creation of the Gulag

Bolsheviks Kill the Czar

Jews as a Hostile Elite

The Ukrainian Famine (Holodomor)

[Part 06]

Chapter 6 – The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Jews in the Hungarian Revolution

Miklos Horthy Saves Hungary

Jews in the German Revolution

The Spartacist Uprising in Berlin

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Italy

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Spain — The Spanish Civil War

Czechoslovakia in Danger of Communist Takeover

The Comintern’s Aim? World Domination!

[Part 07]

Chapter 7 – The Nation of Israel

History of the Expulsion of Jews

[Part 08]

Chapter 8 – Jews in Weimar Germany

Jews Undermine German Culture

[Part 09]

Chapter 9 – Hitler & National Socialists Rise to Power

The 25 Points of the National Socialist Party

[Part 10]

Chapter 10 – National Socialism vs. Communism

National Socialism

Jews Plan Marxist Utopia

[Part 11]

Chapter 11 – Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Text of Untermeyer’s Speech in New York

The Jewish Persecution Myth

Effect of Boycott on the German Economy

Jewish Exaggerations are Contradicted by Many

[Part 12]

Chapter 12 – The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

The Nuremberg Laws – 1935

The Zionist Movement

[Part 13]

Chapter 13 – Life in Germany Under Hitler

Night of the Long Knives

1934 Annual Nazi Rally at Nuremberg

Hitler Revives the German Economy

Hitler Becomes the Most Popular Leader in the World

[Part 14]

Chapter 14 – Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory

Chapter 15 – The 1936 Olympics

[Part 15]

Chapter 16 – “Anschluss”. The Unification of Austria and Germany

Austrian Economy Revived

Austria’s Jews

[Part 16]

Chapter 17 – Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

[Part 17]

Chapter 18 – War with Poland

The Polish Problem

Hitler’s Proposal to Poland

Kristallnacht

German-Polish Talks Continue

Jews Influence both Roosevelt and Churchill

British and American Political Leaders Under Jewish Influence

Roosevelt’s Contribution to Hostilities

Lord Halifax Beats the War Drums

Germany Occupies Bohemia and Moravia

Roosevelt Pushes for War

Anti-war Movement Becomes Active

Poles Murder German Nationals Within the Corridor

[Part 18]

Chapter 19 – The Phony War

Russo-Finnish War

The Norway/Denmark Campaign

German Invasion of Denmark and Norway

Churchill Takes Chamberlain’s Place as Prime Minister

[Part 19]

Chapter 20 – Germany invades France Through the Low Countries

The Phony War Ends.

Churchill the War Lover

The Fall of France

Hitler Makes Peace Offer to Britain

[Part 20]

Chapter 21 – The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

[Part 21]

Chapter 22 – Germany as Victim

Rape and Slaughter

Jewish Vengeance

The Jewish Brigade

[Part 22]

Chapter 23 – Winners and Losers

Bibliography

 

 

 

Chapter 18

 


War with Poland 

 

 

 

 

The international jubilation over the peace pact between Prime Minister Chamberlain and Chancellor Hitler resulting from the Munich Agreement, did not last for long. Public opinion outside Germany soon began to cool again and turn against Hitler and the Nazis; the result of the relentless anti-Hitler, anti-Nazi propaganda. Propaganda is a powerful weapon and it was used to its fullest potential to turn public opinion against Nazi Germany, and to create pretexts for war, both in Britain and the United States. This hate campaign was controlled and managed mainly by the Jews who spared no effort to undermine the Nazi regime.

 

British historian Nesta Webster wrote in her book, Germany and England, published in 1938, shortly before World War II began:

“Britons in the past have not been easily worked up to hate, but this insane hatred of two men, Mussolini and Hitler, is being instilled in them by the Jews and those who benefit by them, and acting like a poison in the life blood of our people.

Germany is under a visible anti-Jewish dictatorship. We are under an invisible Jewish dictatorship, but a dictatorship that can be felt in every sphere of life, for no one can escape from it.

Already the Jews can make or break the career of any man as they please. Once war breaks out we cannot doubt that they will be found in every key position and will hold us at their mercy. Then the real purpose of the world war will become apparent. As long as the Jews do not hold Germany they can never realize their final aim – world domination. Therefore Hitler must be overthrown and Jewish power restored.” (emphasis added)

 

[Add. image] Nesta Webster’s booklet (33 pp), “Germany and England” (1938).

 

In this atmosphere of hate, distrust and bellicosity created by the anti-Hitler propaganda, the Western leaders were preconditioned to take the worst possible interpretation of any foreign policy initiative by Hitler. He had been made out to be an aggressive psychopath by the Jewish press and was therefore given no credit for having legitimate claims for Germany.

 

After the Munich conference, personal control of British foreign policy passed from Prime Minister Chamberlain to his Foreign Minister, Lord Halifax, who thereafter waged a relentless campaign to provoke a war with Germany. Halifax and certain British leaders on both the left and the right joined together to castigate Hitler and the Nazis and push for war. Principle among these was Sir Robert Vansittart, Chief Diplomatic Advisor to the British Government, who made anti-Nazi radio broadcasts.

 

[Add. image] Robert Gilbert Vansittart, (25 June 1881 – 14 February 1957), known as Sir Robert Vansittart between 1929 and 1941, was a senior British diplomat in the period before and during the Second World War. He was Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister from 1928 to 1930 and Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office from 1930 to 1938 and later served as Chief Diplomatic Adviser to the British Government. He is best remembered for his opposition to appeasement and his strong stance against Germany during and after the Second World War.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Vansittart,_1st_Baron_Vansittart

 

Vansittart’s radio broadcasts were intended to awake the British public to “The Nature of the Beast” ― to the habits of militarism, aggression and blind obedience which, according to Vansittart, had been inculcated into the Germans since the time of Tacitus, and which made them uniquely dangerous to their neighbors. Vansittart used the metaphor of the butcherbird he had observed years before on the Black Sea, ruthlessly eliminating its unsuspecting prey one by one. In Vansittart’s view, Nazism was no aberration but the logical outcome of German history. Vansittart and the others characterized each foreign policy move by Hitler as a new “surprise” and declared that he could not be trusted and had to be “stopped.” Vansittart’s broadcasts were very effective in inflaming British public opinion against Germany.

 

In reality, Hitler had made it clear from the beginning of his chancellorship that he intended to reclaim those territories taken away from Germany by the Versailles Treaty. His plan for a single German state that would include all Germans was also made clear from the beginning. “Ein Reich, ein volk, ein fuhrer,” (one country, one people, one leader) he repeated again and again. So far, he had remilitarized the Rhineland, annexed Austria, and annexed the Sudetenland ― all peacefully. The majority German city of Memel had also been returned to East Prussia from Lithuania. The only remaining pieces of the puzzle were Danzig and the Polish Corridor. It was obvious that they were next on the agenda. Hitler had already made that clear. But he also renounced any claim to the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine which had been returned to France at the end of World War I. Hitler stated his plan clearly and then followed that plan, step-by-step, precisely as he said he would do.

 

Moreover, numerous world statesmen, journalists and academics concurred with Hitler’s demand for reclamation of these German territories, and declared that his demands were both reasonable and just. The Versailles Treaty was based on the “War Guilt” clause which assigned blame for starting WWI to Germany. Revisionist historians had already disproved the war guilt allegation against Germany, so there was no longer any basis for the onerous terms of the Versailles Treaty and it should have been scrapped long before Hitler was elected to office. It was simply disingenuous for Churchill, Halifax, Vansittart, and the other members of the British “war party” to characterize Hitler’s moves as “aggression” or “surprises.” To say that his word could not be trusted was not true.

 

 

The Polish Problem

 

The Versailles Treaty had taken a large swath of German territory, along with its German inhabitants, to create the new sovereign state of Poland. This included a strip of land across Germany to give Poland access to the Baltic Sea, called the Polish Corridor. The main problem of the Corridor was that it split Germany in two, separating East Prussia from the rest of Germany. For Germans to travel back and forth between East Prussia and the rest of Germany, they were required to go around the Corridor by ship. They were not allowed to cross the Corridor. The German City of Danzig had also been taken from Germany and placed under the supervision of the League of Nations as a “free city” for the purpose of providing Poland with her port facilities. Around one and a half million ethnic Germans now lived as second class citizens in this Polish controlled territory.

 

This territory, along with its residents, had been German for centuries and its people made it clear from the start through countless mass demonstrations that they did not want to be separated from Germany. Danzig had been a member of the old Hanseatic League, and was one of the most German of German cities. It’s population was 96 percent German, and in a plebiscite they voted overwhelmingly to be returned to Germany. The ethnic Germans living in this region were now a minority in a hostile Polish state, under Polish rule, and suffered the same kind of discrimination and repression that the Germans had suffered in the Sudetenland. Germany had a just claim for the return of all of the territory taken from it by force by the Versailles Treaty, and many world leaders openly acknowledged that. A prominent British authority on Germany and German affairs, William Harbutt Dawson, wrote in “Germany Under the Treaty,” 1933:

“… no factor in the life of Europe today offers so grave and certain a menace to peace than the Corridor, which cuts Germany into two parts, and severs Danzig, one of the most German of cities, from the fatherland. Can Europe afford to ignore this menace and allow matters to drift? To do so would be tantamount to inviting and hastening catastrophe, for instead of improving, the conditions in the Corridor after and because of 12 years of Polish occupation, are steadily growing worse.

Because it is now abundantly clear that all the needs of Polish trade, present and future, can be satisfied without the corridor, and because good relations between Germany and Poland, which are so essential to the settlement of peace in Europe, will be impossible so long as that political monstrosity continues. The greater part of the territory should go back to the country to which it owes its civilization.”

 

Halifax and the “war party,” however, refused to acknowledge the justification of Germany’s claims, and characterized each of Hitler’s revanchist actions as naked aggression and proof of his intent to take over the world. They claimed that he even had designs on Britain itself. There was no basis in fact for either of these claims. President Roosevelt was at the same time, preposterously warning the American people of a possible German invasion of the United States through South America.

 

 

Hitler’s Proposal to Poland

 

Poland had traditionally harbored hostile feelings towards Germany and for all German people, so Hitler proceeded with caution in attempting to settle this last territorial dispute. He was moderate in his approach and displayed considerable generosity in recognizing Polish interests. British Ambassador to Berlin, Sir Neville Henderson, acknowledged Hitler’s reasonable approach.

“Of all the Germans,” Henderson said, “believe it or not, Hitler is the most moderate as far as Danzig and the Corridor are concerned.”

 

On October 24, 1938, Hitler had his foreign minister, von Ribbentrop, propose the following four step plan to Polish Ambassador Lipski that would have rectified the injustices of the Versailles Treaty and which should also have eliminated all sources of friction between Poland and Germany.

 

1.) The return of the Free City of Danzig to the Reich, but without severance of its economic ties to the Polish State. This offer would guarantee to Poland free port privileges in the city of Danzig, as well as extra-territorial access to the harbor.

2.) Germany would make no demand for the return of its former territory, now called the Polish Corridor, but Germany should be allowed to build a highway and a railroad across the Polish Corridor in order to reunite Germany with East Prussia.

3.) Mutual recognition of the location of the borders between Germany and Poland would be permanently settled. In other words, Germany would not demand return of any remaining territory ceded to Poland by the Versailles Treaty.

4.) The German-Polish Pact of 1934 would be extended from ten to twenty-five years. (In the German-Polish Pact of 1934, both countries pledged to resolve their problems through bilateral negotiations and to forgo armed conflict for a period of 10 years. The pact effectively normalized relations between Poland and Germany, which were previously strained by border disputes arising from the Treaty of Versailles.)

 

In his negotiations with Poland, Hitler could not have been more reasonable.

 

 

Kristallnacht

 

 

[Add. image] Jewish shops damaged during “Kristaslnacht”.

 

While these negotiations were going on an unfortunate event known as “Kristasllnacht” (night of broken glass) occurred in Germany which had the effect of further turning international public opinion against Germany. It could not have occurred at a worse time. The trigger for Kristalnacht was the murder of the German diplomat, Ernst vom Rath, in Paris by a young Jewish man named Herschel Grynszpan, on November 9, 1938. Grynszpan’s family, along with approximately 15,000 other Jews who had entered Germany from Poland after 1914, and who were not German citizens, had been expelled out of Germany back to Poland on October 27, 1938. Seventeen year old Herschel Grynszpan, who was living in Paris with an uncle at the time, shot and killed vom Rath inside the German Embassy in revenge for the deportations, though vom Rath personally had nothing to do with it. News of the murder was in all the German papers.

 

Anti-Jewish feeling was already running high as a result of the Jewish “holy war” against Germany, and the German people reacted angrily over vom Rath’s murder. On the nights of November 9 and 10, gangs of youths roamed through the Jewish neighborhoods breaking windows of Jewish businesses and homes and setting fire to synagogues. Uniformed SA men also participated. The official German position on these events was that these were spontaneous outbursts of angry German citizens over the murder of a German diplomat by a Jew, but the international Jewish press accused Nazi officials, specifically Goebbels, of orchestrating the event.

 

That seems doubtful, however, because early in the morning following the Kristallnacht events, Dr. Goebbels announced in a radio broadcast that any action against Jews was strictly prohibited and warned of severe penalties for disobeying this order. Numerous people were also arrested for violence against Jews. Government and Nazi Party officials were furious over what had happened because of the negative propaganda against Germany which would obviously follow. Hitler was also furious when he first heard about it and ordered a telex message to be sent to all Gauleiter offices, which read:

“By express order from the very highest authority, arson against Jewish businesses or other property must in no case and under no circumstances take place.”

 

Unfavorable international reaction was impossible to avoid, and popular opinion of Nazi Germany declined dramatically as a result of Kristallnacht. The British historian, Martin Gilbert, himself a Jew, writes that;

“no event in the history of German Jews between 1933 and 1945 was so widely reported as it was happening, and the accounts from the foreign journalists working in Germany sent shock waves around the world.”

 

The Times of London wrote at the time:

“No foreign propagandist bent upon blackening Germany before the world could outdo the tale of burnings and beatings, of blackguardly assaults on defenseless and innocent people, which disgraced that country yesterday.”

 

There was no need to exaggerate what had happened. The violent rampage against Germany’s Jews was truly a disgrace. But in typical fashion, the international Jewish press did exaggerate the event out of all proportion to what actually happened, providing their usual “eye witness” accounts. An orgy of brutal beatings, rapes, and murder of large numbers of innocent Jews all across Germany, as well as extensive damage to Jewish property was alleged. These exaggerated reports had the effect of poisoning international public opinion against Germany, as they were intended to do. Yet, it makes no sense that the German government or the Nazi Party could have orchestrated this pogrom, as the negative publicity resulting from it hurt Germany and the Nazis far more than it did the Jews. Already sensitive to the hysterical anti-Nazi propaganda campaign being waged against them, German officials were being very careful not to create incidents, such as Kristallnacht, for which they could be criticized further. It is more likely that Kristallnacht was a spontaneous pogrom against the Jews, caused by the buildup of hostility over the International Jewish “holy” war against Germany, and triggered by the vom Rath murder.

 

[Add. image] A New York Times headline.

 

In the aftermath of Kristallnacht, the world press became overwhelmingly sympathetic to the Jews, and bitterly hostile towards Germany. In France, Britain and the United States, calls for war against Germany became increasingly bellicose as a result of Kristallnacht.*

 

[*] [For an alternative view on who was behind Kristallnacht please see:  ]

 

 

German-Polish Talks Continue

 

On January 5, 1939, Poland’s Foreign Minister, Josef Beck, met with Hitler at Berchtesgaden. Hitler reiterated to Beck a clear and definite guarantee that Germany would make no claims on the Polish Corridor, and reaffirmed that he only wanted to build a railroad and a highway across it. The following day, January 6th, in a meeting with Polish officials in Munich, von Ribbentrop confirmed Germany’s willingness to guarantee, not only the Corridor, but all Polish territory. This friendly, generous offer was repeated again by von Ribbentrop during a state visit to Warsaw on January 23, 1939. During this state visit von Ribbentrop appealed for a final all-inclusive settlement of German-Polish territorial points of contention.

 

A settlement in accord with the “four points” outlined above would have taken nothing away from Poland. Danzig was not a Polish city, but a “free city,” supervised by the League of Nations. Germany’s four point offer would have permitted Poland to continue to use Danzig’s port facilities, as before. Germany did not demand a return of its lost territory, now known as the Polish Corridor, only the right to build a highway and a railroad across it in order to reconnect with East Prussia. There was nothing unreasonable in Germany’s demands.

 

Yet, on March 21, 1939 French President LeBrun and British Prime Minister Chamberlain met in London and proposed a French-British-Polish alliance to contain Germany. This proposal was then sent on to Polish officials, which had the effect of further steeling their resistance to Hitler’s demands. Despite Germany’s best diplomatic efforts, the Poles were now refusing to concede anything.

 

The popular view today is that an overwhelmingly powerful Germany was threatening and intimidating a weak and impotent Poland, but in reality, that was hardly the case. Poland had a long military tradition and maintained a powerful, well trained army. The Polish army had only recently (1920) defeated the Russian “Red” army. Polish military leaders were not in the least intimidated by the power of Germany. It should be remembered that German armed forces had been reduced to only 100,000 men by the Versailles Treaty, and that Germany at the time of the crisis with Poland was still in the process of rebuilding her military forces. Not only was Poland not intimidated by Germany, she was even belligerent.

 

These Polish tanks were the equal of anything in the German army.

 

[Add. image] The Polish tank TP-7, 9 ton.

 

In October 1930, the influential Polish newspaper, Die Liga der Grossmacht, carried the following declaration:

“A struggle between Poland and Germany is inevitable. We must prepare ourselves for it systematically. Our goal is a new Grunewald (The Battle of Tannenberg on July 15th, 1410 when the Teutonic Knights were defeated). However, this time a Grunewald in the suburbs of Berlin.”

“That is to say, the defeat of Germany must be produced by Polish troops in the centre of the territory in order to strike Germany to the heart. Our ideal is a Poland with the Oder and the Neisse as a border in the West. Prussia must be re-conquered for Poland, and indeed, Prussia as far as the Spree.”

“In a war with Germany there will be no prisoners and there will be room neither for human feelings nor cultural sentiments. The world will tremble before the German-Polish War. We must evoke in our soldiers a superhuman mood of sacrifice and a spirit of merciless revenge and cruelty.”

 

At around the same time, Poland’s Marshall Rydz-Smigly said:

“Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to.”

 

Edvard Rydz-Smigly, Marshall of Poland

 

 

Jews Influence Both Roosevelt and Churchill

 

As the result of restrictions placed on them in Nazi Germany, Jews involved in theater and the movie business left Germany en masse for Hollywood where they were quickly made welcome by the Jews who ran the motion picture industry. These German émigré Jews then joined the Hollywood Jews in making anti-Nazi movies (usually with pro-Communist undertones) for American audiences. The stereotype Nazi officer, complete with monocle, cigarette holder, arch aristocratic manner, impeccable uniform, erect, arrogant bearing, and an evil sneer or a sinister smile on his haughty face, became a stock character in these movies.

 

[Add. image] The stereotypical Nazi officer as portrayed by Hollywood Jews.

 

The mass information and entertainment media in Britain and the United states was almost entirely under Jewish control, so a very one-sided picture of events in Germany was presented to the British and American people. Hitler and the members of his Nazi government were relentlessly smeared as guttersnipes, murderers and psychopaths, in total contradiction of the actual facts, thus public opinion in both countries was turned against Nazi Germany.

 

In 1940 and 1941 appeared Jewish made, pro-war films such as Charlie Chaplin’s burlesque of Hitler and Mussolini, The Great Dictator, as well as Man Hunt, directed by German Jewish émigré Fritz Lang, The Mortal Storm, A Yank in the R.A.F., Sergeant York, I Married a Nazi and numerous other such movies. These movies were an integral part of the vigorous campaign by various elements to get the United States into a war with Germany.

 

Once the United States was at war with Germany, the studios churned out one anti-Nazi potboiler after another. An audience today is likely to snicker at such “classics” as Hillbilly Blitzkrieg, Women in Bondage, The Devil with Hitler, I Escaped from the Gestapo, Hitler’s Children, That Nazi Nuisance, Strange Death of Adolf Hitler, Enemy of Women, Hitler’s Madman, The Master Race, The Hitler Gang, Hotel Berlin and Tarzan Triumphs.

[Add. image] Posters for Tarzan Triohphie Des Nazis and Tarzan Triumps starring Johnny Weissmuller. Storyline: “Zandra, white princess of a lost civilization, comes to Tarzan for help when Nazis invade the jungle with plans to conquer her people and take their wealth. Tarzan, the isolationist, becomes involved after the Nazis shoot at him and capture Boy: “Now Tarzan make war!””

 

A summary of the plot of Tarzan Triumphs will illustrate the flavor of these potboilers. Nazi agents parachute into Tarzan’s peaceful kingdom and occupy a fortress, hoping to exploit oil and tin. Johnny Weissmuller, a slightly flabby but still commanding noble savage, rallies his natives (all of whom are white) against the Axis. “Kill Nadzies!” Tarzan commands the natives. They nod eagerly. The Germans are so despicable even the animals turn against them. Tarzan chases the head of the Nazi troops into the jungle, and, just as the fear-crazed German officer frantically signals Berlin on his shortwave radio, Tarzan kills him. In Berlin the radio operator recognizes the distress signal and rushes out to summon the general in charge of the African operation. While Tarzan, Boy, and Jungle Priestess laughingly look on, Cheetah the chimp chatters into the microphone of the transmitter. Ignorant of the fatal struggle in the jungle depths, the general hears the chimp on the radio, jumps to his feet, salutes, and yells to his subordinates that they are listening not to Africa but to Der Führer.

 

The roles of the sadistic, sex-crazed, bullet-headed, Nazi “Krauts” in these Jewish made anti-German movies were played by such Hollywood “heavies” as George Siegman, Erich von Stroheim, Walter Long and Hobart Bosworth. Actor Bobby Watson was kept busy throughout the war playing the part of Adolf Hitler.

 

The American public, inundated with this kind of anti-German propaganda, was brainwashed to hate Germany and the German people. Anything our brave and noble armed forces could do to them was less than they deserved. Bomb their cities, kill their women and children. But destroy evil Germany by all means possible!

 

 

British and American Political Leaders

Under Jewish Influence

 

The political leaders in both Britain and America were also under the controlling influence of the Jews. Both Roosevelt and Churchill had surrounded themselves with Jewish advisors, to the exclusion of almost anyone else, and relied on Jewish money to support their campaigns for office. Jews were 2% of the American population, but of the 15 members of Roosevelt’s “Brain Trust,” 8 of them were Jews. The Jews therefore had control of the political leaders of both Britain and America, as well as control of public opinion in both countries.

 

A partial list of Jews surrounding FDR included: Bernard Baruch, Felix Frankfurter, David E. Lilienthal, David Niles, Louis Brandeis, Samuel I. Rosenman, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Benjamin V. Cohen, Rabbi Stephen Wise, Francis Perkins, Sidney Hillman, Herbert H. Lehman, Jesse I. Straus, Harold J. Laski, Charles E. Wyzanski, Samuel Untermyer, Edward Filene, David Dubinsky, Mordecai Ezekiel, Abe Fortus, Isador Lubin, Harry Dexter White (Weiss), David Weintraub, Nathan G. Silvermaster, Harold Glasser, Irving Kaplan, Solomon Adler, Benjamin Cardozo, Anna Rosenberg, …and numerous, numerous others, almost to the exclusion of Gentile advisors.

 

As a consequence, Roosevelt was enveloped in a milieu of Jewish hate and hostility for Germany, to the extent that he eventually became a part of it himself, habitually making malicious anti-Hitler and anti-Nazi remarks in public. These indiscreet public remarks by Roosevelt foreclosed any possibility of amicable diplomatic relations between Nazi Germany and the United States.

 

Moreover, these Jews were, to a man, sympathetic to Stalin and the Communists and acted essentially as the Soviet Union’s agents within the American government. These Communist leaning Jews proliferated in every branch of Roosevelt’s government and spied routinely for the benefit of the Soviets. Roosevelt warmly regarded Joseph Stalin and referred to him as “Uncle Joe.”

 

Churchill likewise surrounded himself with Jewish advisors. Churchill enjoyed living high on the hog though he had very little money. He was accused more than once during his long career of taking Jewish money in exchange for advocacy of policies which favored them. Churchill supplemented his salary as a public servant by writing as a journalist and by writing books, though these combined amounts were inadequate to finance his lavish life style. During his “wilderness years,” as he called them, between 1930 and 1939 when he was out of government, though still a Member of Parliament, Churchill was supported by a slush fund set up by a secret anti-German pressure group known as “The Focus.” Focus membership was composed of wealthy British Jews, like Sir Robert Mond, a directory of several chemical firms, and Sir Robert Waley-Cohen, the managing director of Shell Oil, who employed Churchill as their Gentile front man. The American Jew Bernard Baruch also made significant contributions to Churchill’s well being. Churchill’s assigned task was to fight Germany; to start warning the world about Nazi Germany. Churchill was a brilliant orator and a superb writer, and he did his job splendidly.

 

Jewish money, primarily through “The Focus,” paid for Churchill’s lavish life style, got him into the British cabinet, and eventually made him Prime Minister. From his position as a Member of Parliament, and subsequently as a member of the cabinet, Churchill, doing the bidding of The Focus, began loudly and belligerently berating Nazi Germany and sternly criticized first Stanley Baldwin’s and then Neville Chamberlain’s alleged blindness to the threat to Britain posed by Nazi Germany. He began to clamor for war. Both Roosevelt and Churchill became Gentile front men in international Jewry’s war on Germany.

 

A German Cartoon of Winston Churchill, depicting him as the paid front man of the Jews. In fact, he was paid lavishly by the Jewish group called “The Focus.”

 

[Add. image] The two faces of the jewish controlled Churchill.

 

Churchill, in a speech before the House of Commons on October 5, 1938, said:

“…but there can never be friendship between the British democracy and the Nazi power, that Power which spurns Christian ethics, which cheers its onwards course by a barbarous paganism, which vaunts the spirit of aggression and conquest, which derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses, as we have seen with pitiless brutality the threat of murderous force.”

 

He was, of course, only repeating the super-heated, hysterical exaggerations and outright lies of international Jewish propaganda against Nazi Germany.

 

Contrary to Churchill’s warnings, Germany had no designs on Britain, whatever. Hitler actively sought an alliance with Britain, which the British rejected. Hitler even offered to provide German military assistance if it were ever needed to protect Britain. Hitler believed, and often stated, that the British Empire, and the Catholic Church, were international institutions which were absolutely essential to world peace and to world stability. Hitler was an open Anglophile who yearned to be accepted by the British and did everything he could to forge an alliance between Britain and Germany. He often said, as many British did also, that the British and German peoples were the same race; the same people actually, divided only by language. Hitler wanted only peace and friendship with Britain.

 

Hitler was dismayed by the steady stream of invective and hate propaganda directed at Germany by these British war mongers. In a speech given in Saarbrucken on October 9, 1938 he said:

“…All it would take would be for Mr. Duff Cooper or Mr. Eden or Mr. Churchill to come to power in England instead of Chamberlain, and we know very well that it would be the goal of these men to immediately start a new world war. They do not even try to disguise their intents, they state them openly…”

 

In the post-World War II world, Churchill has become almost God-like in the common mythology about the war, but the common mythology is so far from the truth that even an ardent Churchill sympathizer, Gordon Craig, felt obligated to write:

“It is reasonably well-known today that Churchill was often ill-informed, that his claims about German strength were exaggerated and his prescriptions impractical, that his emphasis on air power was misplaced.”

 

In “Rethinking Churchill,” 1998, Dr. Ralph Raico wrote:

“For all the claptrap about Churchill’s “far-sightedness” during the 30s in opposing the “appeasers,” in the end the policy of Chamberlain’s government to rearm as quickly as possible, while testing the chances for peace with Germany was more realistic than Churchill’s.”

 

 

Roosevelt’s Contribution to Hostilities

 

The attitude of President Roosevelt and his entourage toward Germany was even more extreme than that of the British leaders. Roosevelt was predisposed from the beginning of his career in public office to a deep antipathy for the German people in general, probably stemming from the anti-German propaganda of WWI, and there is no doubt that he personally despised Adolf Hitler. According to Professor David L. Hoggan (“The Forced War” – 1961):

“Roosevelt’s hatred for Hitler was deep, vehement, passionate ― almost personal. This was due in no small part to an abiding envy and jealousy rooted in the great contrast between the two men, not only in their personal characters but also in their records as national leaders.”

 

The public lives of Roosevelt and Hitler had many similarities. Both assumed the leadership of their respective countries at the beginning of 1933 and then proceeded down parallel tracks. They both faced the enormous challenge of mass unemployment during a catastrophic worldwide economic depression. Each became a powerful leader in a vast military alliance during the most destructive war in history, albeit on opposite sides. Both men died while still in office within a few weeks of each other in April 1945. Though there were many similarities, the contrasts in their lives were enormous.

 

Roosevelt was born into one of the wealthiest families in America, and his life was completely free of economic worry. He, like Hitler, served in the First World War, but in an entirely different way. Roosevelt spent the war in an office in Washington as Under Secretary of the Navy. Hitler was born into a provincial family and grew up in semi-poverty. As a young man he worked as a manual laborer and lived hand-to-mouth. He served in the First World War as a front line soldier in the hell of the Western Front, never higher in rank than corporal. He was wounded several times and was decorated for bravery.

 

Despite his Ivy League education, his confident, aristocratic manner and persuasive rhetoric, Roosevelt was unable to solve the enormous economic problems existing in the United State which he inherited when he became president. Throughout his presidency, he was never able to reduce unemployment or to get the economy moving again. At the end of his first four years as president, millions of people remained unemployed, undernourished and poorly housed in a country rich in all the resources required for incomparable prosperity. Roosevelt’s New Deal was plagued from beginning to end with bitter strikes and bloody clashes between labor and industry.

 

The story unfolded very differently in Germany under Hitler. When Hitler became Chancellor, he was faced with all the problems facing Roosevelt, multiplied many times over. Yet, Hitler rallied his people behind a radical program that transformed Germany within a few years from an economically ruined land on the verge of civil war, into Europe’s powerhouse. Germany underwent a social, cultural and economic rebirth without parallel in history.

 

The contrast between the personalities of the two men was also stark. Hitler tended to be straightforward in his relationship with others and unambiguous in communicating his intentions. He had a conservative sense of Christian morality and was not a liar. Roosevelt put on a front of bon homme, but behind the big smile he was devious and calculating, and he manipulated others by misleading them. He was very probably a sociopath, devoid of a conscience, as many successful politicians are.

 

Hitler, on the other hand, was truly a man of the people who genuinely wished to elevate the German people out of their “slough of despond” to the realization of their full potential as a people and as a nation.

 

In contrast to Hitler, there was much of the cynical politician in Roosevelt who may have cared about the people in an abstract way, but he believed that only he knew what was best for them and that they were incapable of understanding such matters themselves. He manipulated the American people through devious and deceitful means, such as lying about his true intentions about taking America to war. He even admitted his devious and contradictory nature. He once said:

“I never let my left hand know what my right hand is doing.”

 

Roosevelt had worked in the Wilson administration during the First World War and was impressed by Wilson’s boundless idealism, and also by the way he was idolized by people around the world for his high-minded approach to the peace settlement after the war. Like Wilson before him, Roosevelt had an exaggerated, messianic view of himself as uniquely qualified for national leadership, and believed that he had been called upon by providence to reshape the world. He was convinced, as so many American leaders have been, that the world could be saved only by remodeling itself after the United States. Presidents like Wilson and Roosevelt, and George W. Bush most recently, view the world not as a multiplicity of different nations, races, and cultures who must mutually respect each others’ separate collective identities in order to live together in peace. They look at the world from a self righteous missionary perspective which divides the nations of the world into two groups ― those representing “good” on one side (our side), and those representing “evil” on the other (This is known as a “Manichean” world perspective.). They also see America as providentially ordained as the permanent leader of the forces of “good” in the world, with the mission of either destroying or converting the forces of “evil.” (Luckily, this view just happens to correspond to the economic and political interests of those who wield power in the United States.) Nazi Germany, in Roosevelt’s view, represented the forces of “evil,” with whom normal relations were impossible, and with whom one could not even reason; and so, he refused to try. He regarded Nazi Germany with total hostility.

 

Roosevelt most certainly did not see himself as an evil man, though his actions certainly made him one. He sincerely believed that he was doing the right and noble thing in pressuring Britain and France into a war against “evil” Germany. He was St. Michael the archangel leading the world in an existential struggle against the forces of Satan. The result of his vision of himself as the leader of the forces of righteousness, and his view of Germany under the Nazis as the force of evil in the world constantly threatening the forces of righteousness, produced an atmosphere of war hysteria and war psychosis among those who surrounded him and who ran his administration, to the extent that any utterance or action of this “force of evil,” that is, Nazi Germany, was given the worst possible interpretation, and evil designs were imputed to them however benign their actual intentions. The Jews who surrounded him and advised him, and who hated Hitler’s Germany for their own reasons, fed Roosevelt’s delusions about himself and his role in the world, and validated his Manichean view of the world.

 

To illustrate the war psychosis which had seized American political leaders during this time, Assistant Secretary of State F.B. Sayre exclaimed to British Ambassador Sir Ronald Lindsay on September 9, 1938;

“…at such a time, when war is threatening and Germany is pounding at our gates, it seems to me tragic that we have not been able to reach and sign an agreement [against Germany].”

 

To imagine Germany “pounding at the gates” of America in 1938 was totally absurd. Germany lacked the means to pound at the gates of Britain, just across the English Channel. Moreover, Hitler and the Nazis had no motive or reason in 1938 to view America with hostility; only with dismay at America’s baseless bellicosity towards Germany. If anything, it was the United States “pounding at the gates” of Germany.

 

In this atmosphere of false urgency, America’s Jewish secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., telephoned the Jewish French President, Leon Blum, and suggested freezing German bank accounts in France, in hopes of pushing France into war with Germany. Roosevelt, himself, became increasingly belligerent towards Hitler, and repeatedly made personally insulting remarks about him in public. (Rather like the current war hysteria over Iran, but more extreme.)

 

William C. Bullitt was the American Ambassador to France at the time, as well as Ambassador at Large to all other European countries. Like Roosevelt, Bullitt “rose from the rich.” He was born into a wealthy Philadelphia banking family and was descended from Jonathan Horwitz, a German Jew who had immigrated to America. Bullitt was especially close to Roosevelt and shared Roosevelt’s enthusiasm for “Uncle Joe” (Stalin) and the Soviet Union, as well as his enthusiasm for war with Germany. Bullitt was used by Roosevelt to transmit messages to other American Ambassadors, including Joseph P. Kennedy, Ambassador to London (father of President John Kennedy), and Anthony Biddle, Ambassador to Warsaw, and those messages consistently expressed Roosevelt’s belligerence towards Germany.

 

In 1919 Bullitt was an assistant to President Wilson at the Versailles Peace Conference. That same year, Bullitt was sent to Russia to meet with Lenin to determine if the new Bolshevik government deserved recognition by the Allies. Bullitt was impressed with what he saw in Bolshevik Russia, and upon his return to Washington, urged recognition of the new regime. He was very sympathetic to Communist aims. In 1923 Bullitt married Louise Bryant Reed, the widow of American Communist leader John Reed (The movie, “Reds,” starring Warren Beatty, 1981, was about John Reed). When Roosevelt became president in 1933, he brought Bullitt back into diplomatic service. Throughout his career, Roosevelt had consistently maintained close relations with people who were either Communists or Communist sympathizers. In 1938, all U.S. envoys in Europe were subordinated to Bullitt who was based in Paris. Roosevelt bypassed the State Department and frequently spoke with Bullitt directly by telephone, often daily, giving him precisely detailed and ultra-confidential instructions on how to conduct America’s foreign policy.

 

Bullitt had access to Roosevelt by telephone at any hour of the day or night. Roosevelt and Bullitt were close friends and saw eye to eye on all foreign policy issues, and were especially in consonance in their hostility to Germany. Both were aristocrats and thorough internationalists with a shared view on how to remake the world, and both saw themselves as destined to bring about that grand reorganization. In Europe, Bullitt spoke with the voice and the authority of President Roosevelt himself.

 

President Roosevelt riding in a car with his “agent provocateur” Ambassador William C. Bullitt

 

The Polish Ambassador to Washington, Count Jerzy Potocki, reported back to Warsaw that William C. Bullitt had informed him that President Roosevelt was determined to bring America into the next European war. Bullitt predicted that a long war would soon break out in Europe.

“Of Germany and her Chancellor, Adolf Hitler, he [Bullitt] spoke with extreme vehemence and with bitter hatred,”

 

Potocki reported:

“He [Bullitt] suggested that the war might last six years, and he advocated that it should be fought to a point where Germany could never recover.”

 

[Add. image] William Christian Bullitt, Jr. (January 25, 1891 – February 15, 1967) United States Ambassador to the Soviet Union, 21 November 1933 – 16 May 1936. United States Ambassador to France, 1936–1940. Bullitt was born to a prominent, well-to-do Philadelphia family, the son of Louisa Gross (Horwitz) and William Christian Bullitt, Sr. 

 

Potocki asked Bullitt how such a war might begin, since it was very unlikely that Germany would attack either France or Britain. Bullitt said that it would likely begin with a war between Germany and some other country, and that the Western Powers would then intervene against Germany. Bullitt predicted an eventual war between Germany and the Soviet Union, which Germany would probably win, but would then be so worn out that it would have to capitulate to the Western Powers. Bullitt assured Potocki that the United States would participate in any such war if Britain and France made the first move. When Bullitt asked about the German-Polish problem, Potocki said that Poland would fight rather than give in to German demands, and Bullitt and Roosevelt were both encouraging Poland in this stance. Potocki attributed the belligerent American attitude toward Germany solely to Jewish influence. He reported to Warsaw again and again that American public opinion was merely the product of Jewish manipulation.

 

In a report from Washington back to the Foreign Ministry in Warsaw, dated February 9, 1939, he wrote:

“The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State Department is becoming ever more powerful …

… The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent.

In their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created real chaos: they have mixed together the idea of democracy and communism and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred against Nazism.

This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean of blood.

In conversations with Jewish press representatives I have repeatedly come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be subdued by the ‘democratic world.’ ”

 

 

Lord Halifax Beats the War Drums

 

Britain’s Foreign Minister, Lord Halifax, continued to maintain a hostile attitude toward Hitler and Germany, and was determined to provoke a war with Germany. He circulated rumors both at home and abroad which presented the foreign policy of Hitler in the worst possible light. He would have found fault with Hitler no matter which direction he turned or what he did. Halifax dispatched a message to President Roosevelt on January 24, 1939 in which he claimed to have received;

“a large number of reports from various reliable sources which throw a most disquieting light on Hitler’s mood and intentions.”

 

He falsely claimed that Hitler harbored a fierce hatred for Great Britain. Hitler had, in fact, consistently expressed only admiration for Great Britain and had pursued a goal of Anglo-German cooperation. Regardless, Halifax continued to claim the opposite. Halifax claimed that Hitler wanted to establish an independent Ukraine, and that he intended to destroy the Western Powers in a surprise attack before moving Eastward. He claimed that not only British intelligence but “highly placed Germans who are anxious to prevent this crime” had furnished him evidence of this evil conspiracy. No German had furnished any such thing to him. He made it up. Hitler had not the remotest intention of attacking either Great Britain or France.

 

Churchill and Halifax were determined to have a war with Germany.

 

How to explain the desire of these men to have a war with Germany? These men, Churchill, Halifax, Cooper, Eden, Vansittart, et al, were conservative men devoted to the British Empire and to its dominant position in the world. But they were also nervously aware that British power was waning. Churchill had been one of the most vocal advocates for war against Germany before World War I. He, and the others, were now advocating war with Germany for the same reason as before ― Germany was becoming too powerful, both commercially and militarily, and therefore threatened to eclipse the dominance of the British Empire.

 

These conservative British leaders were devoted to the old balance of power principle worked out after the Napoleonic Wars. Preventing any one power from becoming dominant on the European continent had always been an overriding foreign policy principle of Great Britain.

 

Germany’s defeat in a war would serve the interests of both Britain and International Jewry. Vilifying Hitler and deliberately misinterpreting his actions and intentions served only as pretexts for a war they were determined to bring about for their own reasons. These advocates of war with Germany were well aware that Britain could not defeat Germany without bringing the United States in on her side, as in World War I. At the same time that they were developing pretexts for war against Germany, they were propagandizing President Roosevelt to make sure he was behind them, though little propaganda was needed, as Roosevelt was already in their corner. To fan the flames, Halifax made the most dire, though unfounded warnings to Roosevelt concerning Germany’s intentions. He told Roosevelt in a telegram that Hitler planned to invade Holland and give the Dutch East Indies to Japan. (Japan needed its oil.) Germany had no such plan. He told Roosevelt that he was certain that Germany would soon give Britain an ultimatum. Halifax added that the British leaders expected a surprise air attack from Germany before the ultimatum actually arrived. He claimed to have knowledge that Germany was mobilizing for such an attack as he was composing the telegram and that the attack could occur at any moment. These were preposterous inventions.

 

Hitler was preoccupied at the time with the Polish matter and had not given a thought to attacking Britain. But Halifax was determined. He went on to emphasize “Hitler’s mental condition, his insensate rage against Great Britain and his megalomania.” He confided that Britain was greatly increasing her armament program, and he believed that it was his duty to enlighten Roosevelt about Hitler’s intentions and attitudes;

“in view of the relations of confidence which exist between our two governments and the degree to which we have exchanged information hitherto.”

 

Halifax claimed that Chamberlain was contemplating a public warning to Germany prior to Hitler’s annual Reichstag speech on January 30, 1939, and suggested that Roosevelt should do the same without delay. Chamberlain gave no such warning, but Halifax hoped to goad Roosevelt into making another alarmist and bellicose speech.

 

Halifax had sent Anthony Eden to the U.S. in December 1938 to spread rumors about sinister German plans, and Roosevelt responded with a provocative and insulting warning to Germany in his message to Congress on January 4, 1939. Halifax hoped for a repeat performance from Roosevelt as a result of his most recent telegram. Halifax was preparing a war propaganda campaign for the British public and such a warning from Roosevelt would feed into his purposes. All of these machinations of Lord Halifax amounted to sheer fantasy, but Roosevelt, already predisposed toward war with Germany, swallowed it whole. Halifax only told him what he already wanted to hear.

 

Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, another strident advocate for war, sent a message to Halifax stating that;

“the United States Government had for some time been basing their policy upon the possibility of just such a situation arising as was foreshadowed in your telegram.”

 

This was the Roosevelt administration’s way of informing Britain that it supported the idea of war with Germany despite American public opinion, which was totally against it.

 

Roosevelt wanted a war to distract attention from his failed economic policies. He also wanted war because he cherished the idea of himself as a heroic wartime president. The Jews who surrounded Roosevelt, such as Henry Morgenthau, Jr., as well as all the other officials in the Roosevelt administration, worked themselves into a fever fantasizing about Nazi Germany’s malevolent intentions.

 

Henry Morgenthau, Jr.

 

According to David L. Hoggan, in his paper, “President Roosevelt and the Origins of the 1939 War”:

“…anyone within Roosevelt’s and Hull’s circle who did not declare that Hitler was hopelessly insane was virtually ostracized.”

 

On January 4, 1939, Roosevelt told Congress that U.S. neutrality policy must be re-examined. He wanted a freer hand to act against Germany. At this same time (the next day, in fact) Poland’s foreign minister, Beck, joined Hitler at Berchtesgaden in an amicable meeting during which Hitler stressed German-Polish cooperation in settling the matter of Danzig and the Polish Corridor. Though cordial, the conversations were unproductive and nothing concrete was settled. Hitler made clear, however, that as Danzig was a German city, sooner or later it would have to be returned to Germany.

 

The contrast between Hitler’s calm, diplomatic approach in his talks with Polish officials, and the deranged, hysterical, confrontational manner imagined of him by officials surrounding Roosevelt, could not have been greater.

 

American Charge d’Affaires in Berlin, Prentiss Gilbert, reported back that the situation between Poland and Germany was not as incendiary as Washington officials imagined. He reported to the State Department on February 3, 1939 that Hitler’s basic policy in the East was friendship with Poland. It seemed certain according to Gilbert that Beck would be willing to allow the return of Danzig to Germany in exchange for a 25 year Pact, and for a German guarantee of the Polish Corridor. That is not, however, what Roosevelt and his officials wanted to hear. But had Britain and America stayed out of it, that is most likely what would have happened.

 

 

Germany Occupies Bohemia and Moravia

 

Meanwhile, what remained of Czechoslovakia after the German annexation of the Sudetenland, soon fell apart, as described in the previous chapter. All that remained of the former Czechoslovakia was parts of Bohemia and Moravia, and on March 15, 1939, with the consent of the Czecho-Slovak president, Emil Hacha, Germany occupied Bohemia and Moravia and proclaimed it a German protectorate in order to prevent its being taken over by the Communists. In any case, Bohemia and Moravia had existed under German rule for most of its thousand year history, so this was nothing new. Czechoslovakia was a new, artificial creation of the Peace Conference after WWI, which now had already fallen apart. The entire region had a German character. Mozart premiered his opera “Don Giovanni” in Prague. Pilsen, Bohemia’s fourth largest city, is known worldwide for Pilsner beer, a German beer. Another Bohemian city with a German name, Budweis, is best known for the original Budweiser beer (the European brand).

 

Britain initially accepted the German occupation, reasoning that her guarantee of Czechoslovakia was rendered invalid by the collapse of the Czech state. But Prime Minister Chamberlain had been under attack by Churchill, Halifax, Duff Cooper, and Vansittart, among others, for his “appeasement” of Hitler through the Munich Agreement. After Germany occupied Bohemia and Moravia, the attacks on him intensified, and were egged on even further by Roosevelt. Chamberlain became flustered and defensive. In a speech on March 17, he declared that he wished to correct a misapprehension of weakness on his part. He said that Munich had been the right policy, but now Hitler had broken that agreement by occupying Czechoslovakia (Bohemia and Moravia). From that point on, Chamberlain stated, Britain would strenuously oppose, even to the point of war, any further territorial moves by Hitler, no matter how justified.

 

The occupation of Bohemia and Moravia caused a greater outburst of hostility towards Germany in Washington, D.C., than it did in Britain, or for that matter, in any other capital in the world, though the reason for it is not clear. The occupation in no way affected American interests.

 

Nevertheless, the head of the German Embassy in Washington reported back to Berlin that a violent press campaign against Germany had been launched throughout the United States. President Roosevelt also pressured Lord Halifax to adopt an “outspoken anti-German policy,” in Britain, as well. Halifax replied by promising Roosevelt that the British leaders were “going to start educating public opinion as best they can to the need for action.” In other words, they would launch an anti-German/pro-war propaganda campaign.

 

 

Roosevelt Pushes for War

 

Ambassador Bullitt informed the Poles that both he and President Roosevelt were counting on Polish willingness to go to war over Danzig if necessary. On March 19, 1939, Bullitt informed the Poles that Roosevelt was prepared to do everything possible to promote a war between the British and the French against Germany. Halifax, meanwhile, was attempting to create a broad anti-German front and an encirclement of Germany by proposing an alliance to include Britain, France, Poland and the Soviet Union. The Poles distrusted the Soviets as much as they did the Germans, and backed away from any such agreement that would bind Poland to the Soviet Union.

 

Both Lord Halifax and President Roosevelt began to vigorously encourage the Poles in their refusal to accept the German demands regarding Danzig. Bullitt finally told the Poles that he regarded an alliance between Britain, France and Poland, without the Soviet Union, to be the best possible arrangement. He said that British leaders hoped that there would be a war between Germany and the Soviet Union, and that they were not eager to make commitments to the Soviet Union for that reason. The Soviet Union was also becoming ever more distrustful of Britain and France.

 

On March 26, Bullitt contacted Ambassador to London Joseph P. Kennedy and instructed him to tell Prime Minister Chamberlain that the United States hoped that Great Britain would go to war against Germany in event of hostilities over Danzig. Britain then announced a doubling in size of its army. On March 31, 1939 Prime Minister Chamberlain announced in Parliament a “blank check” guarantee to Poland in event of war between Poland and Germany, that is, that Britain would declare war on Germany if Germany were to invade Poland. France joined Britain and made the same guarantee.

 

Ambassador Kennedy was appalled at the idea of a war with Germany, and only reluctantly carried out his duties as Ambassador when that possibility was involved. To this extent, he was out of step with the Roosevelt administration, as well as with the British government. Both Roosevelt and Bullitt disliked and distrusted Kennedy and Kennedy disliked and distrusted both of them. In a letter to his wife, he wrote:

“I talk to Bullitt occasionally. He is more rattlebrained than ever. His judgment is pathetic and I am afraid of his influence on FDR because they think alike on many things.”

 

 

Anti-war Movement Becomes Active

 

Meanwhile, back in the United States, the anti-war movement was growing in strength. One of the leading voices in that movement was that of Hamilton Fish, a leading Republican congressman from New York. Fish made a series of radio speeches to expose Roosevelt’s march to war while claiming that he only wanted peace. On January 6, 1939, Fish told a nationwide radio audience:

“The inflammatory and provocative message of the President to Congress and the world [given two days before] has unnecessarily alarmed the American people and created, together with a barrage of propaganda emanating from high New Deal officials, a war hysteria, dangerous to the peace of America and the world. The only logical conclusion to such speeches is another war fought overseas by American soldiers.

All the totalitarian nations referred to by President Roosevelt … haven’t the faintest thought of making war on us or invading Latin America.

I do not propose to mince words on such an issue, affecting the life, liberty and happiness of our people. The time has come to call a halt to the warmongers of the New Deal, backed by war profiteers, Communists, and hysterical internationalists [meaning Jews], who want us to quarantine the world with American blood and money.

He [Roosevelt] evidently desires to whip up a frenzy of hate and war psychosis as a red herring to take the minds of our people off their own unsolved domestic problems. He visualizes hobgoblins and creates in the public mind a fear of foreign invasions that exists only in his own imagination.”

 

In another radio address of April 5, 1939, Congressman Fish said:

“The youth of America are again being prepared for another blood bath in Europe in order to make the world safe for democracy.

If Hitler and the Nazi government regain Memel or Danzig, taken away from Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and where the population is 90 percent German, why is it necessary to issue threats and denunciations and incite our people to war? I would not sacrifice the life of one American soldier for a half dozen Memels or Danzigs. We repudiated the Versailles Treaty because it was based on greed and hatred, and as long as its inequalities and injustices exist there are bound to be wars of liberation.

The sooner certain provisions of the Versailles Treaty are scrapped the better for the peace of the world.

I believe that if the areas that are distinctly German in population are restored to Germany, except Alsace-Lorraine and the Tyrol, there will be no war in western Europe. There may be a war between the Nazis and the Communists, but if there is that is not our war or that of Great Britain or France or any of the democracies.

New Deal spokesmen have stirred up war hysteria into a veritable frenzy. The New Deal propaganda machine is working overtime to prepare the minds of our people for war, who are already suffering from a bad case of war jitters.

President Roosevelt is the number one warmonger in America, and is largely responsible for the fear that pervades the Nation which has given the stock market and the American people a bad case of the jitters.

I accuse the administration of instigating war propaganda and hysteria to cover up the failure and collapse of the New Deal policies, with 12 million unemployed and business confidence destroyed.

I believe we have far more to fear from our enemies from within than we have from without. All the Communists are united in urging us to go to war against Germany and Japan for the benefit of Soviet Russia.

Great Britain still expects every American to do her duty, by preserving the British Empire and her colonies. The war profiteers, munitions makers and international bankers [meaning Jews] are all set up for our participation in a new world war.”

 

The hero aviator, Charles A. Lindbergh, was also a leading opponent of Roosevelt’s war aims, and went around the country speaking out against going to war with Germany. In his diary entry of May 1, 1941, Lindbergh wrote:

“The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to it, but the Administration seems to have ‘the bit in its teeth’ and [is] hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and radio and most of our motion pictures. There are also the ‘intellectuals,’ and the ‘Anglophiles,’ and the British agents who are allowed free rein, the international financial interests, and many others.”

 

Roosevelt’s motives for wanting a war with Germany have long been the subject of debate. As America’s interests were not threatened in any way by Germany, nor would they be served by a war, Roosevelt’s determination to have a war made little sense…, that is, unless one takes into account Roosevelt’s intimate ties to organized Jewry. As Jewish historian Lucy Dawidowicz noted:

“Roosevelt himself brought into his immediate circle more Jews than any other President before or after him. Felix Frankfurter, Bernard M. Baruch and Henry Morgenthau were his close advisers. Benjamin V. Cohen, Samuel Rosenman and David K. Niles were his friends and trusted aides.”

 

Roosevelt was totally in thrall to the Jews, owed his political career to the Jews, and had so surrounded himself with Jews, almost to the exclusion of all others, that he essentially became one of them. Their attitudes, motives and goals became his. They hated Germany, so he hated Germany. They were determined to destroy Germany, so he was determined to destroy Germany.

 

In the summer of 1939 Polish ambassador to Washington, Count Jerzy Potocki returned to Warsaw on leave and was astonished at the calm mood in Poland, compared to the war psychosis that had gripped the West. In a conversation with Polish Foreign Ministry Under-Secretary, Count Jan Szembek, about the growing war psychosis that had gripped the West. Potocki said to Szembek:

“In the West there are all kinds of elements openly pushing for war: the Jews, the super-capitalists, the arms dealers. Today they are all ready for a great business, because they have found a place which can be set on fire: Danzig; and a nation that is ready to fight: Poland. They want to do business on our backs. They are indifferent to the destruction of our country. Indeed, since everything will have to be rebuilt later on, they can profit from that as well.” From the diary of Count Szembek.

 

 

Poles Murder German Nationals

Within the Corridor

 

Reports of increased hostilities breaking out between Poles and ethnic Germans in Polish controlled territories created a feeling of urgency in Germany. For several months before Germany’s invasion of Poland, ethnic Poles, protected by the Polish Army, launched a reign of terror against German nationals living within the Polish Corridor. (Formerly part of Germany where Germans had lived for several hundred years.) It is estimated that some 58,000 German nationals were killed during this period by marauding mobs, encouraged by the Polish government. The German government lodged dozens of formal complaint with the League of Nations, but with no results. Hitler became increasingly distressed about it and said to the British Ambassador Sir Neville Henderson on August 25, 1939:

“Poland’s provocations have become intolerable.”

 

Typical of these massacres was that which occurred in the German town of Bromberg, in the Polish Corridor. In this massacre, called “Bloody Sunday,” 5,500 ethnic Germans were slaughtered like pigs. Children were nailed to barns, women were raped and hacked to death with axes, men were beaten and hacked to death. 328 Germans were herded into Bromberg’s Protestant church, after which the church was set on fire. All 328 burned to death.

[Add. image] William Joyce, aka, “Lord Haw Haw” and a book on his radio work for the German war effort.

 

William Joyce, nicknamed Lord Haw Haw by British propaganda, became a German citizen and took up Germany’s cause against Poland. He described the horrible conditions of the Germans who lived in the former German territory which was now a part of Poland, in his book, “Twilight Over England.” The following is his description of what happened in Bromberg:

“German men and women were hunted like wild beasts through the streets of Bromberg. When they were caught, they were mutilated and torn to pieces by the Polish mob… . Every day the butchery increased… . Thousands of Germans fled from their homes in Poland with nothing more than the clothes that they wore.. On the nights of August 25 to August 31 inclusive, there occurred, besides innumerable attacks on civilians of German blood, 44 perfectly authenticated acts of armed violence against German official persons and property.”

 

According to historian John Toland in his book “Adolf Hitler,” when Hitler first learned of the Bromberg slaughter, at first he refused to believe that such a number had been killed, but, when Berndt (the German public official who had brought the matter to his attention) replied that it may have been somewhat exaggerated but something monstrous must have happened to give rise to such stories, Hitler shouted:

“They’ll pay for this! Now no one will stop me from teaching these fellows a lesson they’ll never forget! I will not have my Germans butchered like cattle!”

 

At this point, according to Toland, the Fuhrer went to the phone and, in Berndt’s presence, ordered Keitel to issue “Directive No. 1 for the Conduct of the War.” That may well have been the actual trigger for the war, though the causes of the war were multiple.

 

Murdered Germans before their burial in the Protestant cemetery of Bromberg.

 

German woman weeping over the murder of her husband in Bromberg by marauding Poles.

 

[Add. image] The German Catholic Priest of the Church of the Sacred Heart, Bromberg, in silent prayer before the bodies of murdered Bromberg Germans.

 

On August 24, 1939, a week before the outbreak of hostilities, Sir Horace Wilson, advisor to Chamberlain, went to Ambassador Kennedy with an urgent appeal from Prime minister Chamberlain to President Roosevelt. He wanted Roosevelt to “put pressure on the Poles” to open negotiations with Germany in order to avert a war. Chamberlain was already regretting Britain’s “guarantee” to Poland. Kennedy telephoned the State Department and said that the British;

“felt that they could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that we could.”

 

Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain’s plea out of hand. When Kennedy reported this back to Chamberlain, Chamberlain, according to Kennedy, said:

“The futility of it all, is the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of all Europe.”

 

Kennedy sent a telegram to Roosevelt urging him to intervene on behalf of peace. “It seems to me,” Kennedy wrote;

“that this situation may crystallize to a point where the President can be the savior of the world. The British government as such certainly cannot accept any agreement with Hitler, but there may be a point when the President himself may work out plans for world peace. Now this opportunity may never arise, but as a fairly practical fellow all my life, I believe that it is entirely conceivable that the President can get himself in a spot where he can save the world.”

 

Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., U.S. Ambassador to Britain under Roosevelt.

 

Roosevelt rejected Kennedy’s efforts and called Kennedy’s plea;

“…the silliest message to me that I have ever received.”

 

Roosevelt told Henry Morgenthau that Kennedy was a;

“pain in the neck.” “Joe has been an appeaser and will always be an appeaser,”

 

Roosevelt said:

“If Germany and Italy made a good peace offer tomorrow, Joe would start working on the King and his friend the Queen and from there on down to get everybody to accept it.”

 

Angered by Kennedy’s stubborn attempts to prevent a war in Europe, Roosevelt essentially instructed him to cease and desist, and told him that any American peace effort was completely out of the question. Kennedy resigned shortly thereafter under pressure.

 

Deep distrust was developing between the British government and the Soviets. The British had made strong efforts to create a mutual pact against Germany that would include Britain, France, Poland and the Soviet Union, and had finally obtained the Soviets’ agreement to a joint declaration. But when Chamberlain gave his blank check guarantee to the Polish government, he did it without consulting the Soviets. The Soviets were bewildered that the British would go ahead with a new plan without consulting them, and took it as an insult. The Soviets were already convinced that France and Britain were scheming against them. The Poles, for their part, were deeply distrustful of the Russians, and the British/French guarantee of Poland strengthened Polish resistance to Soviet participation in any kind of alliance in which they themselves took part. The British/French guarantee antagonized the Russians but at the same time did not have the effect of restraining Hitler.

 

Unable to reach a collective agreement with Britain and France against Germany, the Soviets began to fear that they might face a war with Germany alone, so they began searching around for a change of policy. On May 3, 1939, Stalin fired Foreign Minister Maksim Litvinov, who was Jewish and an advocate of collective security with Britain and France, and replaced him with Vyacheslav Molotov, who soon began negotiations with the Nazi foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop. The Soviets, at the same time, continued negotiations with Britain and France, but in the end Stalin decided to reach an agreement with Germany. In so doing, he hoped to avoid a war with Germany until such time that he could re-build the Soviet Military which had been severely weakened by the purge of the Red Army officer corps in 1937. For his part, Hitler wanted a nonaggression pact with the Soviet Union so that his armies could invade Poland without winding up in a two front war. After the Polish matter was settled, Hitler believed that he would then be able to deal with Britain and France from the stand point of a fait accompli regarding Poland. Hitler did not believe that Britain and France would follow through on their guarantee to Poland and actually declare war on Germany. It made no sense to him that they would take such a step when they were manifestly in no position to act upon it.

 

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed in Moscow on August 23, 1939. Formally a nonaggression pact, the agreement also included a secret provision to divide Northern and Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence. Poland was to be divided between Germany and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was to take back the region of Poland that it had controlled since 1772. The Baltic states, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and the Hertza region (on the Romanian border in Southern Ukraine), were ceded to Soviet control.

 

Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov signs the Nazi-Soviet Non-aggression Pact while German Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop and Stalin look on.

 

The news of the Pact was met with utter shock and surprise by government leaders and media worldwide, most of whom were unaware of the negotiations which had been going on between the Soviet Union and Germany. They were aware only of the ongoing negotiations between the Soviets and Britain and France. Jews around the world, who looked upon the Soviet Union as the base of International Jewry, were particularly shocked by the agreement. They saw it as a sell out by the Soviets. In reality it was only a ploy to buy time by both Stalin and Hitler, and neither side saw it as permanent.

 

During the months leading up to the outbreak of war, Polish armed forces repeatedly violated German borders. Numerous altercations occurred between Polish irregulars and regular or auxiliary Germans all along the Polish/German border; in each case, on German territory. Poland in 1939 was highly militarized with an army larger than the German army. Moreover, Poland’s new leaders were military men with an aggressive attitude towards Germany. Poland even underwent a partial mobilization in March, 1939, and on August 30, 1939, ordered a total mobilization. (According to the Geneva Convention, mobilization is equivalent to a declaration of war.) On August 31, 1939, Polish irregular armed forces launched a full scale attack on the German border town of Gleiwitz.

 

The next day, September 1, 1939, German forces invaded Poland. On that same day, Hitler addresses the Reichstag.

“For months we have been suffering under the torture of a problem which the Versailles Diktat created ― a problem which has deteriorated until it becomes intolerable for us. Danzig was and is a Germany city. The Corridor was and is German. Both these territories owe their cultural development exclusively to the German people. Danzig was separated from us, the Corridor was annexed by Poland. As in other German territories of the East, all German minorities living there have been ill-treated in the most distressing manner.

… proposals for mediation have failed because in the meanwhile there, first of all, came as an answer the sudden Polish general mobilization, followed by more Polish atrocities. These were again repeated last night. Recently in one night there were as many as twenty-one frontier incidents; last night there were fourteen, of which three were serious. I have, therefore, resolved to speak to Poland in the same language that Poland for months past has used towards us. This night for the first time Polish regular soldiers fired on our territory. Since 5:45 a.m. we have been returning fire, and from now on bombs will be met by bombs. Whoever fights with poison gas will be fought with poison gas.”

 

The invasion of Poland occurred one week after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed. On September 3, 1939, to Hitler’s great surprise, Britain and France declared war on Germany, though they totally lacked the means of intervening in Poland.

 

On September 3, also, Winston Churchill was returned to the cabinet by Prime Minister Chamberlain as First Lord of the Admiralty, the job he had had in WWI. Churchill’s bellicose warnings against Hitler leading up to the war now made him seem prescient and far sighted to many. On September 17, the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the other side. The Soviet invasion of Poland produced no reaction from Britain and France, though the Soviets had done precisely the same thing the Germans had done, albeit, without Germany’s justification of reclaiming lost territory. This gave the lie to Britain’s reason for declaring war on Germany.

 

Germany’s invasion of Poland provided only Britain’s needed pretext for war. It was not a casus belli. The war with Poland ended on October 6, 1939, after which Germany and the Soviet Union divided and annexed Poland.

 

As in interjection, we shall mention here the reaction of Poland’s Jews to the Russian invasion of Poland. Jews throughout Europe saw the Soviet Union as “good for the Jews,” and were very favorably disposed towards the Soviet Union. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in his book “Two Hundred Years Together,” wrote that when the Soviets invaded Poland:

“Polish Jews, and the Jewish youth in particular, met the advancing Red Army with exulting enthusiasm” (as they had also done during the Soviet invasion of 1919).

 

The enthusiastic welcome of the Soviet invaders by Poland’s Jews angered Polish patriots and became a major aspect of Polish anti-Jewish attitudes in later years. Jews welcomed the Soviet troops in the very same way when they later invade Lithuania, the other Baltic States, and other central and east European countries. After the war when the Soviet Union took control of all of Eastern and Central Europe, all-Jewish regimes were installed in each of these countries.

 

Hitler’s invasion of Poland is known as the beginning of World War II, though that is not what Hitler intended. Hitler did not even want a war with Poland, much less a world war. Hitler had made every attempt to settle diplomatically the dispute with Poland over the return of Danzig and a highway across the Polish Corridor. In fact, Hitler wanted more than to simply settle the dispute with Poland; he wanted an alliance with Poland in his anti-Comintern pact against the Soviet Union, which he had already concluded with Japan. Poland saw the Soviet Union as her enemy and the anti-Comintern pact would actually have served Poland’s interests. They were foolish, indeed, to have rejected it.

 

The Poles had stubbornly refused to negotiate with Germany for a number of reasons. First, the Poles and the Germans had shared a mutual hostility for centuries. The military officers who ruled Poland were a proud lot with an exaggerated confidence in their military power. Britain, France and the United States all pressured Poland to resist Hitler’s demands; and finally, British Prime Minister Chamberlain had insanely given the Poles an unsolicited war guarantee, promising to declare war on Germany if Hitler invaded, and he talked France into doing the same. From March to August, 1939, Hitler did his best to negotiate a settlement with Poland over Danzig, and his demands were far from unreasonable. But the Poles, confident in their British and French war guarantee defiantly refused. Finally, at wits end, Hitler made a deal with Stalin and the two invaded and divided Poland.

 

What would it have cost Poland to have concluded a peaceful settlement with Hitler? The German city of Danzig, which was under the supervision of the League of Nations, and did not belong to Poland, would have been returned to Germany. Germany would also have been allowed to build a highway and a railroad across the former German territory, the Polish Corridor, to reconnect with East Prussia. That’s it! A peaceful settlement of the dispute would have taken nothing away from Poland. But the cost of refusing to settle the dispute peacefully was a world war in which millions of Poles were killed, much of their country destroyed, followed by 50 years of Nazi and Soviet occupation. If Poland had yielded, there would have been no World War II, no Cold War, no Korean War, and no Vietnamese War, and Eastern Europe would have escaped the horrific occupation and domination by the Soviet Union.

 

 

 

[END of Part 17]

 

______________________________

 

 

PDF Notes

 

* Total words = 14,484

* Total pages = 70

*Total images = 22

*Note: Images not in original book are indicated as “Add. image” (Additional image).

*Text in [square brackets] is not part of the original book.

*Special thanks to reader “mblaine” for providing the text for this book.

 

 

======================================

 

Click to download a PDF of this post (3.0 MB).

 

The Myth of Germany Villainy – Part 17

 

 

 

 

 

Click on a link to go to another part:

[Click images to enlarge]

 

 

Part 01 — Cover text; About the Author; Preface; Chapter 1: The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Part 02 — Chapter 2: Aftermath of the War in Germany

Part 03 — Chapter 3: The Jewish Factor in the War

Part 04 — Chapter 4: The Russian Revolution of 1917

Part 05 — Chapter 5: The Red Terror

Part 06 — Chapter 6: The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Part 07 — Chapter 7: The Nation of Israel

Part 08 — Chapter 8: Jews in Weimar Germany

Part 09 — Chapter 9: Hitler and National Socialists Rise to Power

 

 

Part 10 — Chapter 10: National Socialism vs Communism

Part 11 — Chapter 11: Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Part 12 — Chapter 12: The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

Part 13 — Chapter 13: Life in Germany Under Hitler

Part 14 — Chapter 14 & 15: Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory; The 1936 Olympics

Part 15 — Chapter 16: “Anschluss” The Unification of Austria and Germany

Part 16 – Chapter 17: Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

Part 17 – Chapter 18: War with Poland

Part 18 – Chapter 19: The Phony War

 

 

Part 19 – Chapter 20: Germany invades France – The Phony War Ends

Part 20 – Chapter 21: The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

Part 21 – Chapter 22: Germany as Victim

Part 22 (last) – Chapter 23: Winners and Losers

 

 

 

See also:

 

The Myth of German Villainy: Author Ben Bradberry Interview — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

 

 

_____________________

 

 

Version History

 

Version 5: Mar 13, 2021 – Added new Go2 Cover images (3).

 

Version 4: May 5, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

 

Version 3: Apr 9, 2020 — Updated links to other parts.

 

 Version 2: Mar 16, 2017 — Improved formatting. Added PDF of post for download.

 

Version 1:Mar 15, 2017 — Created post.

]]> https://katana17.com/2017/03/15/book-the-myth-of-german-villainy-part-17-war-with-poland/feed/ 19 Book – The Myth of German Villainy – Part 16 – Germany Annexes the Sudetenland https://katana17.com/2017/02/13/book-the-myth-of-german-villainy-part-16-germany-annexes-the-sudetenland/ https://katana17.com/2017/02/13/book-the-myth-of-german-villainy-part-16-germany-annexes-the-sudetenland/#comments Mon, 13 Feb 2017 10:34:58 +0000 https://katana17.com/wp/?p=13482 Continue reading →]]>

 

 

[Part 16]

 

[Benton Bradberry’s 2012 book, “The Myth of German Villainy” is a  superb, must-read, revisionist look at how the German people have been systematically, relentlessly and most importantly, unjustly vilified as the arch criminal of the 20th century. Bradberry sets out, cooly and calmly as befits a former US-Navy officer and pilot, to show why and how the German people have been falsely accused of massive crimes and that their chief  accuser and tormenter, organized jewry is in fact the real party guilty of monstrous crimes against Germans and the rest of the world.

 

In Part 16, the annexation of the German speaking area of Czechoslavakia, the Sudetenland, by Germany in 1938 is discussed. The British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain saw it a justified return of formerly German territory back to Austria/Germany despite the opposition from the British war mongers Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden, Duff Cooper, and Lord Halifax. 

 

Churchill was determined that Britain would eventually go to war with Germany and his fellow alarmists worked feverishly to bring it about.

 

“Was he deliberately channeling British power towards the service of the international Jews who were paying him through “The Focus,” or was he deluding himself that he was serving England?“

 — KATANA.]

 

 

 

NOTE: The author has very generously given me permission to reproduce the material here — KATANA.

 The book can be bought at Amazon here: The Myth of German Villainy

 

 

 

The Myth of

 

German Villainy

 

by

 

Benton L. Bradberry

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

[Clicking on a link in the Contents here will take you to that Part, in a separate post]

 

[Part 01]

Preface

Chapter 1 – The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Germany’s Positive Image Changes Overnight

[Part 02]

Chapter 2 – Aftermath of the War in Germany

The Versailles Treaty

Effect of the Treaty on the German Economy

Was the War Guilt Clause Fair?

Did Germany Really Start the War?

[Part 03]

Chapter 3 – The Jewish Factor in the War

Jews at the Paris Peace Conference

Jews in Britain

[Part 04]

Chapter 4 – The Russian Revolution of 1917

Bolsheviks Take Control

Jews and the Russian Revolution

Origin of East European Jews

Reason for the Russian Pogroms Against the Jews

Jews Leave Russia for America

Financing the 1917 Revolution

Jews in the Government of Bolshevik Russia

[Part 05]

Chapter 5 – The Red Terror

Creation of the Gulag

Bolsheviks Kill the Czar

Jews as a Hostile Elite

The Ukrainian Famine (Holodomor)

[Part 06]

Chapter 6 – The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Jews in the Hungarian Revolution

Miklos Horthy Saves Hungary

Jews in the German Revolution

The Spartacist Uprising in Berlin

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Italy

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Spain — The Spanish Civil War

Czechoslovakia in Danger of Communist Takeover

The Comintern’s Aim? World Domination!

[Part 07]

Chapter 7 – The Nation of Israel

History of the Expulsion of Jews

[Part 08]

Chapter 8 – Jews in Weimar Germany

Jews Undermine German Culture

[Part 09]

Chapter 9 – Hitler & National Socialists Rise to Power

The 25 Points of the National Socialist Party

[Part 10]

Chapter 10 – National Socialism vs. Communism

National Socialism

Jews Plan Marxist Utopia

[Part 11]

Chapter 11 – Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Text of Untermeyer’s Speech in New York

The Jewish Persecution Myth

Effect of Boycott on the German Economy

Jewish Exaggerations are Contradicted by Many

[Part 12]

Chapter 12 – The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

The Nuremberg Laws – 1935

The Zionist Movement

[Part 13]

Chapter 13 – Life in Germany Under Hitler

Night of the Long Knives

1934 Annual Nazi Rally at Nuremberg

Hitler Revives the German Economy

Hitler Becomes the Most Popular Leader in the World

[Part 14]

Chapter 14 – Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory

Chapter 15 – The 1936 Olympics

[Part 15]

Chapter 16 – “Anschluss”. The Unification of Austria and Germany

Austrian Economy Revived

Austria’s Jews

[Part 16]

Chapter 17 – Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

[Part 17]

Chapter 18 – War with Poland

The Polish Problem

Hitler’s Proposal to Poland

Kristallnacht

German-Polish Talks Continue

Jews Influence both Roosevelt and Churchill

British and American Political Leaders Under Jewish Influence

Roosevelt’s Contribution to Hostilities

Lord Halifax Beats the War Drums

Germany Occupies Bohemia and Moravia

Roosevelt Pushes for War

Anti-war Movement Becomes Active

Poles Murder German Nationals Within the Corridor

[Part 18]

Chapter 19 – The Phony War

Russo-Finnish War

The Norway/Denmark Campaign

German Invasion of Denmark and Norway

Churchill Takes Chamberlain’s Place as Prime Minister

[Part 19]

Chapter 20 – Germany invades France Through the Low Countries

The Phony War Ends.

Churchill the War Lover

The Fall of France

Hitler Makes Peace Offer to Britain

[Part 20]

Chapter 21 – The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

[Part 21]

Chapter 22 – Germany as Victim

Rape and Slaughter

Jewish Vengeance

The Jewish Brigade

[Part 22]

Chapter 23 – Winners and Losers

Bibliography

 

 

Chapter 17

 


Germany Annexes the Sudetenland 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Czechoslovakia was a creature of the peace treaties following World War One; a new state cobbled together out of some of the remnants of the now defunct Austro-Hungarian Empire. The population of this new state was made up of 7,450,000 Czechs, 2,300,000 Slovaks, 720,000 Magyars (Hungarians), 560,000 Ruthenes, 300,000 Jews, 100,000 Poles …, and 3,200,000 Germans who comprised nearly a fourth of the country’s entire population.

 

Czechoslovakia was the antithesis of Woodrow Wilson’s concept of “self determination for all peoples,” which, ideally, would have manifested itself in ethnically homogeneous nation states. Combining all of these disparate nationalities into a single state had instability and conflict built into it from the outset. (One wonders why “multiculturalism” is such a popular idea today, since it has proven again and again to be unworkable.)

 

The light brown area surrounding Bohemia and Moravia was the German area of Czechoslovakia, known as the Sudetenland.  

 

A prosperous Sudeten German farm

 

The German population of Czechoslovakia was clustered mainly on its western border adjacent to Germany in a region known as the Sudetenland. These Sudeten Germans or Sudetendeutsche had lived in the region for centuries, and had become very prosperous under the Austro/Hungarian Empire. These industrious, meticulous Germans developed a well ordered society over time, with prosperous farms throughout the region and a highly productive mining and timbering industry. The Sudetenland also became highly industrialized during the nineteenth century and early twentieth century, with huge chemical works, and lignite mines, as well as numerous textile, china, and glass factories. The Sudetenland was the wealthiest and most productive part of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Sudeten Germans were by far the most successful and wealthy ethnic group. This remained true in the new state of Czechoslovakia. Within the Sudetenland, 39 percent of the population was employed in industry with only 31% in agriculture, compared to the rest of the country, where a majority were rural farmers. All the big factories were owned by Germans and controlled by German owned banks.

This region had been ruled for centuries by the German Hapsburgs, so the ruling nationality had always been German and the official language had always been German. Though the Czechs and the Germans had lived together for centuries in this region, formerly known as Bohemia, and Moravia, they had developed separate cultural, educational, political and economic institutions which kept them isolated from each other. The two groups did not mix well, and the region had seen constant strife between the Czechs and the Germans for a hundred years or more. The new artificial country of Czechoslovakia, created by the Treaty of St. Germain in 1919, was now ruled by the majority Czechs, which essentially reduced the 3.2 million Germans to being ruled by their former subjects. The Czechs took great satisfaction in lording it over their former German betters, and conditions for the Germans became very harsh very quickly. During 1919, some 600,000 Germans were uprooted and forced to leave their settlements of centuries, to make way for Czechs who were being moved in by the new government.

 

[Add. image] Austrians receive the Peace Terms at St Germain Chateau. Dr Carl Renner making his impassioned reply to the Allied Delegates after receiving the Peace Terms, 20 July 1919. Monsieur Clemenceau and President Wilson are sitting at the table in the background.

 

The Sudeten Germans never wanted to be separated from Austria and included in this newly created country in the first place. Now, their worst fears were becoming a reality as they became a suppressed minority in essentially a foreign country. Claiming the right of self-determination according to number ten of President Wilson’s Fourteen Points, they demanded that their homeland be re-combined with Austria, which was, of course, also ethnic German. The Czech army (now the Czechoslovakian army) was already moving in to occupy the Sudeten region with large numbers of Czech speaking troops. This region had been solidly ethnic German for centuries, and the sudden Czech occupation produced an explosive situation.

 

On March 4, 1919, almost the entire population of Sudeten Germans staged a peaceful demonstration against the Czech occupation and for self-determination. This demonstration was accompanied by a one day general strike. The Czech army quickly moved in and brutally dispersed the demonstration, killing 54 Germans and wounding 84 others. The Germans were shocked by the brutality of the Czechs, but they were law abiding, so they ended the strike and returned to work, but continued to harbor a seething, smoldering resentment against the Czechs which threatened at any time to explode into violence. These brutal killings of Germans by the Czechs only intensified nationalist and separatist sentiments among the Sudeten Germans. They wanted to separate themselves from Czechoslovakia and re-join Austria or to be annexed by Germany; or barring that, to obtain as much autonomy for themselves as possible. But the Treaty of St. Germain of September 10, 1919 specifically forbade union of the Sudetenland with either Austria or Germany and reconfirmed that it would remain a part of Czechoslovakia. If this decision defies common sense, it must be born in mind that the very purpose of these treaties was to break Germany apart, and to prevent the Germans from re-combining into a European super power. Therefore, the Sudeten Germans would not be allowed to join either Austria or Germany, but would be forced to remain subjects of Czechoslovakia against their will.

 

To make matters worse, a constitution for the new republic of Czechoslovakia was drawn up in 1920 without Sudeten German participation. The new constitution included provisions which were extremely prejudicial to Sudeten German interests, such as measures to redistribute German wealth to its various other ethnic groups. Land was confiscated from the wealthy German farmers and redistributed to other ethnic groups, mainly Czechs. The government also confiscated one fifth of all paper money to pay for other redistributive schemes, and since the Germans were by far the wealthiest, this fell hardest on them. Policies intended to protect the security of the Czechoslovak state and the rights of Czechs also worked to the disadvantage of Germans, which created local hostilities. Border forestland, considered the most ancient Sudeten German national territory, was expropriated for security reasons. The Czechoslovak government settled Czechs in areas of German concentration in an effort to moderate German nationalism, but the policy produced just the opposite effect. Czech schools were built in German districts for the same reason. Sudeten Germans, in possession of a large number of subsidized local theaters, were required to put these at the disposal of the Czech minority one night a week, which produced another cause for hostility. All efforts were made to dissolve the cohesive German society and to promote their assimilation into the other ethnic groups. All of these measures only further alienated the German population from the rest of the country and increased friction and strife between the Sudeten Germans and the Czechs.

 

When the Depression hit Europe in 1931, it hit the Sudeten Germans particularly hard, as they depended more than the rest of Czechoslovakia on international trade, especially with Germany. During the depression, the Czechoslovakian government took measures to protect its Czech citizens at the expense of the Sudeten Germans. As a result, the unemployment rate among the industrialized Sudeten Germans was five times that of the rest of Czechoslovakia. Tension between the two groups increased. Fighting broke out. The Czech army and Czech police sided with the Czechs and numerous atrocities were committed against the German population.

 

In 1931 the Sudeten German Peoples Party was created, led by Konrad Henlein, with the central objective of Sudetenland annexation with Germany. Henlein established communications with the Nazi Party in Germany and sought their support for annexation. After becoming Chancellor in 1933, Hitler openly called for annexation of the Sudetenland and eventually began providing financial support for the Sudeten German Peoples Party to help them towards that goal.

 

[Add. image] Konrad Henlein at his desk. Henlein was the leading Sudeten German politician in Czechoslovakia.

 

Though Henlein’s demand had almost unanimous Sudeten German support, it was vigorously opposed by the Czech government. If the Germans were allowed to secede from the Czech state, what about all the other nationalities? The very idea posed an existential threat to the state of Czechoslovakia. Moreover, the Sudetenland held some of Czechoslovakia’s richest resources, large deposits of coal in particular, and also its most productive industries. The Czech government was ready to fight, if it came to that, in order to prevent the loss of this wealthy region.

 

The Czechoslovakian army was one of the most powerful, well trained and best equipped in Europe at the time and could have withstood a German invasion attempt without outside assistance. The German army had not yet rebuilt itself. Nevertheless, President Benes entered into alliances with France and the Soviet Union as additional insurance, but the Germans saw this as an attempt at encirclement of their country. Even though the Soviet Union had entered the alliance, they asserted that they would not go to war against Germany unless France did also, and France was unprepared for war, so the alliances were essentially worthless.

 

In 1938 both the British and the French people were very opposed to war, though a belligerent faction among British leaders existed who did want war, including Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden, Duff Cooper, and Lord Halifax. This group called for war against Germany in the event of any attempt to annex the Sudetenland. Instead of viewing Hitler’s annexation of German peoples into the Reich as a limited goal of pan-Germanism, as was the case, they accused Hitler of wanting to create a super state in order to dominate the world, yet, there was no evidence that that is what Hitler wanted to do. Chamberlain, who was not a part of this group of British war mongers, happened to believe that the Sudeten Germans’ grievances were well founded and believed that Hitler’s intentions in the matter were limited. Both Britain and France, therefore, advised Czechoslovakia to give the Sudeten Germans the autonomy they sought, and then let them decide what they wanted to do. Czech President Benes, however, strongly resisted this proposal.

 

[Add. image] Czech President Edvard Benes with Czech troops in May 1938.

 

As the political situation worsened, security in the Sudetenland deteriorated. Armed clashes began to occur between bands of Sudeten Germans and the police and border forces. In a few instances, the Czech army was called out to pacify the situation. Leaders in Germany expressed their concern for their fellow Germans in the Sudetenland. Henlein and his Sudeten German Party then presented the Prague government with an eight point demand. Henlein demanded complete autonomy, ideologically as well as politically, and reparations for damages caused by the “injustices inflicted since 1918” on Sudeten Germans. Despite pressure from London and Paris to accept it, the Prague government rejected these demands out of hand. When fighting broke out in the Sudeten area and rumors of German troop movements across the border were passed around (which turned out to be untrue), the Czechoslovak army mobilized on May 20, 1918. Mobilization at that time was universally seen as a provocation, and war between Czechoslovakia and Germany seemed certain. A war between the two states was even egged on by Winston Churchill and his group.

 

Prime Minister Chamberlain stepped in and offered to mediate to try to settle the matter peacefully. He sent Vicount Runciman in to work things out between Germany and Czechoslovakia short of war. Runciman was unable to bring the two sides together in any kind of an agreement, however, so he returned to England. Upon his return to England, he presented the following report to the British government which was very sympathetic to the Sudeten Germans:

 

“Czech officials and Czech police, speaking little or no German, were appointed in large numbers to purely German districts; Czech agricultural colonists were encouraged to settle on land confiscated under the Land Reform in the middle of German populations; for the children of these Czech invaders Czech schools were built on a large scale; there is a very general belief that Czech firms were favoured as against German firms in the allocation of State contracts and that the State provided work and relief for Czechs more readily than for Germans. I believe these complaints to be in the main justified. Even as late as the time of my Mission, I could find no readiness on the part of the Czechoslovak Government to remedy them on anything like an adequate scale … the feeling among the Sudeten Germans until about three or four years ago was one of hopelessness. But the rise of Nazi Germany gave them new hope. I regard their turning for help towards their kinsmen and their eventual desire to join the Reich as a natural development in the circumstances.”

 

Czechoslovakian President Benes proposed a compromise plan, but it was too little, too late, and Henlein turned it down. He then instructed the Sudeten Germans to prepare for self defense in case of attack. On September 15, 1938 Henlein flew to Germany and met with Hitler. He then issued a proclamation demanding Sudetenland annexation with Germany. Riots and clashes with police broke out in the Sudetenland which were brutally put down by the Czech army. German newsreels showed evidence of widespread atrocities against Sudeten Germans. Hitler threatened to send in German troops to protect them.

 

Konrad Henlein, leader of the Sudeten German People’s Party, with Adolf Hitler in Germany.

 

Chamberlain went to Berchtesgaden on September 15 and met with Hitler. During the meeting, Hitler demanded the swift annexation of the Sudetenland by Germany or he threatened to invade in order to protect the Sudeten Germans, whom he claimed were being slaughtered by the Czechs. There was plenty of evidence from outside sources that what Hitler claimed was indeed occurring. Both the British and French governments accepted Hitler’s argument and supported his demand for annexation.

 

Predictably, however, the war mongering element among the British leadership opposed the settlement. Winston Churchill immediately issued a statement to the press denouncing Chamberlain’s policy:

 

“The partition of Czechoslovakia under pressure from England and France amounts to the complete surrender of the Western democracies to the Nazi threat of force. Such a collapse will bring peace or security neither to England nor to France. On the contrary, it will place these two nations in an ever weaker and more dangerous situation. The mere neutralization of Czechoslovakia means the liberation of 25 German divisions, which will threaten the Western front; in addition to which it will open up for the triumphant Nazis the road to the Black Sea.”

“It is not Czechoslovakia alone which is menaced, but also the freedom and the democracy of all nations. The belief that security can be obtained by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion. The war potential of Germany will increase in a short time more rapidly than it will be possible for France and Great Britain to complete the measures necessary for their defense.”

 

But Hitler was not satisfied to simply annex the Sudetenland. He wanted to solve Czechoslovakia’s ethnic instability problem once and for all, and insisted that claims of Poland and Hungary for the return of their ethnic minorities from Czechoslovakia also be satisfied.

 

The Times of London editorialized that Hitler was right and supported the annexation of the Sudetenland by Germany. The editorial also supported the demands of Hungary and Poland.

 

Churchill, of course, took issue with this editorial of The Times. “In this single paragraph,” Churchill wrote:

 

“The Times gave support to the most extreme of Nazi demands, the complete cession of the Sudetenland, a demand which, if met, would have condemned Czechoslovakia to disintegration, and placed a majority of the Sudeten Germans under the grim rigors of Nazi rule.”

 

Churchill ignored the fact that the overwhelming majority of Sudeten Germans demanded annexation with Germany. That same day, the Foreign Office publicly disassociated itself from Churchill.

 

[Add. image] The Munich Agreement is signed on September 29, 1938. From left to right: Chamberlain, Daladier, Hitler, Mussolini, and Ciano pictured before signing the Munich Agreement, which gave the Sudetenland to Germany.

 

Chamberlain requested a conference with Hitler which would also include France and Italy to make a final decision on the matter. On September 29, 1938, Hitler met at Munich with the heads of government of France, Italy, and Britain. The Czechoslovakian government was not invited. From this meeting, the Munich Agreement was signed by all present, agreeing to all of Hitler’s demands. The Agreement stipulated that the Sudetenland be ceded to Germany, effective immediately. By this act, 3.25 million Sudeten Germans then became citizens of the Reich, along with approximately 38 percent of the territory of Bohemia and Moravia. Hungary received 11,882 square kilometers of Southern Slovakia and southern Ruthenia along with their Hungarian populations, and Poland received Tesin and two minor border areas in northern Slovakia along with their Polish populations. This was accomplished peacefully, without firing a shot. British historian A.J.P. Taylor wrote:

 

“The Munich Pact…was a triumph for all that was best and most enlightened in British life.”

 

Hitler greets Chamberlain at the Munich conference of September 29, 1938

 

Chamberlain flew back to London to a hero’s welcome. As he got off the plane, he held aloft an agreement signed by Adolf Hitler which stated the German leader’s desire never to go to war with Britain again.

 

Chamberlain proclaimed that he had secured “peace for our time.” As the jubilant crowd applauded and cheered, Chamberlain expressed his desire to find a peaceful solution to the Fuhrer’s wish to create an enlarged German homeland in Europe to include all Germans. He then read a further passage in the Agreement in which Hitler stated:

 

“We are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe.”

 

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain proclaims “Peace for our time,” after the Munich Agreement permitting the German annexation of the Sudetenland.

 

Winston Churchill, quite expectedly, took the opposite view. He made a speech in the House of Commons in which he stated that the British Government, in approving the Munich Agreement, had “sustained a total and unmitigated defeat,” and that “a disaster of the first magnitude has befallen Great Britain and France.” Churchill had for some time called for a “Grand Alliance” between Britain, France, the United States, and the Soviet Union to “stop Hitler.”

 

[Add. image] Churchill with a Thompson submachine gun. Taken during his visit to the coastal defense positions near Hartlepool on 31 July, 1940.

 

But Churchill was a war monger of the first rank, and his statements about Germany were often inaccurate or gross exaggerations, and intended only to inflame public opinion against Germany. If the cause of World War Two could be pinned on a single person, it should be pinned on him; and if not on him alone, then on him and Roosevelt. He was also an opportunist. Churchill had been an ardent anti-Bolshevist from the start and blamed the Russian Revolution and all that came after it on the Jews. But then, when it suited his purposes, he jumped on the Zionist bandwagon, stating that Zionism ( which advocated the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine) would deflect European Jews away from social revolution to partnership with European imperialism in the Arab world.

 

In 1936, Churchill became associated with the informal London Jewish pressure group known as “The Focus,” (of which, more in the following chapter). The purpose of The Focus was to “open the eyes of the British public to the one great menace, Nazi Germany.” In reality, Germany was never a threat to Britain, and Hitler had done all he could to win Britain’s friendship. The Focus became Britain’s main contributor to the international Jewish propaganda campaign against Nazi Germany, and Churchill became its Gentile front man. Churchill was useful to The Focus in its campaign to destroy Hitler and the Nazis, and The Focus was useful to Churchill in bringing him back to power after years “in the wilderness,” as he put it. The Focus was lavishly funded by these wealthy British Jews and Churchill, as its front man, lived a lavish life as a result. (Churchill also received an excessively large payment from the Czechoslovakian government, which cast doubt on the genuineness of his opposition to the annexation of the Sudetenland by Germany.)

 

[Add. image] Winston Churchill speaking at a munitions factory in Ponders End, 1916.

 

In his role as Gentile front man for the Focus, Churchill began berating the British government for its “blindness to the Nazi threat,” and he especially went after Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain for his efforts to maintain the peace. In his articles and speeches, Churchill greatly exaggerated the extent of German rearmament and distorted the rearmament’s purpose by harping on German production of heavy bombers. In fact, Germany had never focused on heavy bombers, but Churchill used this lie to support his contention that Germany intended to eventually attack Britain. Hitler wanted only peace and friendship with Britain, not war, and said so repeatedly. Moreover, Hitler had made clear that his goal was to reconstitute the German state which had been dismembered by the Versailles Treaty. That plan was no secret to anyone, including Churchill. But Churchill and his fellow alarmists treated each of Hitler’s actions to fulfill that plan as a new and unexpected act of aggression, and further proof of his intent to conquer Europe. Churchill was determined that Britain would eventually go to war with Germany for his own reasons.

 

While others worked feverishly to avoid war, Churchill and his fellow alarmists worked feverishly to bring it about. Was he deliberately channeling British power towards the service of the international Jews who were paying him through “The Focus,” or was he deluding himself that he was serving England? That question will probably never be answered.

 

The British publicist, F.S. Oliver, said this about Winston Churchill’s character:

“From his youth up, Mr. Churchill has loved with all his heart, with all his mind, with all his soul, and with all his strength, three things: war, politics and himself. He has loved war for its dangers, he loves politics for the same reason, and himself he has always loved for the knowledge that his mind is dangerous — dangerous to his enemies, dangerous to his friends, dangerous to himself. I can think of no man I have ever met who would so quickly and so bitterly eat his heart out in Paradise.”

 

 

Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

 

German troops enthusiastically welcomed into Sudetenland, October 1, 1938

 

On October 1, 1938, the German army marched unopposed into the Sudetenland where they were received with jubilation. Czechoslovakia was an artificial and unworkable state created by intellectuals and supported by the victors of WWI. In reality, it had no chance of succeeding, and its demise was no tragedy. The remainder of the country, left over after the Munich Agreement, began immediately to fall apart along ethnic lines. On March 14, 1939, Slovakia declared its independence, followed soon after by Carpatho-Ukraine (Ruthenia). After these areas were gone, all that remained of the former Czechoslovakia were parts of Bohemia and Moravia. The situation was an open invitation for a Communist takeover.

 

The overwhelming threat to Western Christian Civilization at that time was Communist revolution instigated and supported by the Soviet Union. The Jewish Bolsheviks who controlled the Soviet Union had set up the Communist International (Comintern) for the specific purpose of taking control of all of Europe. They tried taking over Germany in the revolution of 1918 but were defeated by the Freikorps. They had even succeeded for a time in establishing the Soviet Socialist Republic of Bavaria, until also brought down by the Freikorps. They took Hungary briefly in 1919 but were thrown back by forces under Nicholas Horthy. They tried taking Italy in the 1920s but were defeated and driven out by Mussolini. They started a civil war in Spain in 1936 and nearly succeeded in creating a Soviet style Communist dictatorship in that country, but with the help of Mussolini and Hitler, the devout Catholic General Francisco Franco, after three years of bloody war, defeated the Communists and drove them out of Spain. Soviet Russia stood ready with a watchful eye to create and support Communist revolution in any European country that seemed vulnerable.

 

Czechoslovakia’s capital city, Prague, had a large Jewish population who had built an active Communist revolutionary party, ready at any time to act as the Soviet Union’s fifth column to take control of what remained of the former Czechoslovakia. Hitler made it known that he would not allow this to happen. The new president of Czechoslovakia, Emil Hacha, was himself concerned about this, and wanted to meet with Hitler. Hitler invited him to Berlin for talks. When he arrived at the train station with his daughter, he was met by Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop, who had a bouquet of flowers for the daughter. Hitler had also sent a box of chocolates. During the late night meeting, Hitler harangued Hacha relentlessly, until he finally signed an agreement making his country a protectorate of Germany.

 

[Add. Image] Emil Hacha meeting with Adolf Hitler.

 

When Hitler came out of the meeting, he was ecstatic. He told his two middle-aged secretaries; “Children, quickly, give me a kiss! Quickly!” The ladies kissed him on both cheeks. Hitler said:

 

“It is the greatest triumph of my life! I shall enter history as the greatest German of them all!”

 

Hitler had every reason to be satisfied with himself. So far, he had brought into Germany the Saar, Austria and the Sudetenland, and now he had made Bohemia and Moravia a protectorate. He had also essentially nullified the Versailles Treaty; and he had done it all through diplomacy, without firing a shot.

 

That same day, March 15, the German army moved in, meeting no resistance. On March 16, Hitler went to Prague and from the Hradcany Castle officially proclaimed that Bohemia and Moravia were now a German protectorate. Bohemia and Moravia were placed under the supervision of Reich Protector Baron Konstanin von Neurath and German officials manned government departments in a similar capacity as that of cabinet ministers. The Gestapo assumed police authority. Hitler was remarkably considerate of the existing Czech civil servants, allowing most of them to remain in their posts and permitting them to retire with pensions.

 

 

[Add. image] German army band playing outside Prague Castle after the German occupation of Czechoslovakia in March 1939.

 

Not to have occupied Bohemia and Moravia (the remnants of the former Czechoslovakia), would have invited disaster. Germany stood as the bulwark for all of Europe against the Communist menace. Only Germany held the Communists at bay and prevented them from sweeping over Europe. A Communist takeover of Bohemia and Moravia was out of the question.

 

Bohemia and Moravia contained 118,000 Jews at the beginning of the German occupation, most of whom resided in Prague. When the Germans moved in, Jews were dismissed from the civil service and placed in an extralegal position. The international Jewish press, of course, reacted with an intensified outpouring of vitriolic hyperbole against the Nazis. But what should Hitler have done? World Jewry was still engaged in a “holy war” against Germany. It would have been idiotic under the circumstances for Germany to retain large numbers of Jews in the Czechoslovakian government who would surely have cooperated with the Comintern to undermine and sabotage German control. Communism was banned and Czech communists, most of whom were Jews, fled the country. Large numbers of Jews who were not overtly affiliated with the Communist Party also left.

 

Hitler saves Czechoslovakia from the Communists by making it a protectorate of Germany. The sign on the marquee in the Czech city of Brno, reads “We thank our Fuhrer.” He gets an enthusiastic welcome.

 

As the victors of World War I, Britain and France assumed the role of enforcers of the Versailles Treaty, as well as all other treaties resulting from the war. The United States had withdrawn from Europe and took no such role. Germany had never willfully accepted the terms of the Versailles Treaty, and only signed it under duress. The Treaty had been imposed upon Germany by force, and Germany therefore acknowledged no moral obligation to abide by it. Moreover, the onerous terms of the treaty had been ruinous for Germany, and continued to have a deleterious effect on the lives of the Germany people by the time Hitler came to power. It would have been unreasonable to have expected that the burdensome terms of the Versailles Treaty would have continued in perpetuity, or to have expected Germany to continue to accept them without protest. Sooner or later, they would have had to come to an end, Hitler or no Hitler. Hitler avowed when he assumed the Chancellorship that he would abnegate the Treaty despite Britain’s and France’s determination to enforce it. He believed that the treaty was unfair and unjust and therefore had no moral force, and he was not alone in believing that. Numerous people of prestige and influence sided with Germany in the matter. George Bernard Shaw, for example, had this to say:

 

“It was evident that Germany needed only a resolute and clear-headed leader to denounce the [Versailles]Treaty; declare her determination to assert her full equality with the Powers, and refuse to be disarmed, plundered and chastised under the pretext of reparations and ‘war guilt’, to rally to him every living soul whose native language was German, and at the same time take a great step towards peace in Europe by proving that neither France nor England nor the United States dare outrage humanity by attempting military occupation of her territory on the model of the old partitions of Poland; in short, that instead of Europe being plunged into war she would be dragged back from the brink of it by Germany.”

 

Britain and France, against common sense, took the position that any violation of the terms of the Versailles Treaty would be a provocation for war. This irrational position was aggressively promoted by the “war party” in Britain, including Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden, Lord Halifax, Duff Cooper, Robert Vansittart, and a few others, but just as many believed there was just cause for Hitler’s actions. Hitler continued his defiance of the Treaty, gambling that neither Britain nor France had the stomach for another bloody war.

 

The intent of the Versailles Treaty was to reduce the size and power of Germany and to keep Germany down. Those clamoring for war with Germany on the basis of justice for Czechoslovakia were being disingenuous and were using the German occupation as a pretext for war.

 

At the same time that the German occupation of the Sudetenland created consternation among the anti-German elements (International Jewry in particular), Poland’s invasion of Cesky/Tesin in Bohemia aroused no concern whatever. These two territories of Czechoslovakia contained majority Polish populations, and Poland occupied them for the same reason Germany occupied the Sudetenland. Likewise, when, at the same time, Hungary occupied southern Slovakia, which contained a majority Hungarian population, it created hardly a stir. Yet, Germany’s actions were promoted as a cause for war.

 

Polish tanks invade Cesky/Tesin in Czechoslovakia in 1938. Though Germany was severely criticized for invading the Sudetenland, Poland was not, for doing the exact same thing.

 

[Add. image] German officers watch as Poland occupies the Czech town of Bohumin.

 

No one in either England or Germany wanted war except for Winston Churchill and his gang of war mongers and the Jewish war hawks who controlled him. When Prime Minister Chamberlain returned from a meeting with Hitler, he announced to the Parliament that “there will be no war.” While the people in both England and Germany were thanking God and celebrating that fortunate outcome, the scheming war mongers, including Churchill, got to work to undermine it. Inside of a week, the Jewish controlled press began smearing Chamberlain and tearing him down.

 

 

[END of Part 16]

 

______________________________

 

 

PDF Notes

 

* Total words = 6,259

* Total pages = 39

*Total images = 18

 

*Note: Images not in original book are indicated as “Add. image” (Additional image).

*Text in [square brackets] is not part of the original book.

*Special thanks to reader “mblaine” for providing the text for this book.

 

 

======================================

 

Click to download a PDF of this post (3.0 MB).

 

The Myth of Germany Villainy – Part 16

 

 

 

 

Click on a link to go to another part:

[Click images to enlarge]

 

 

Part 01 — Cover text; About the Author; Preface; Chapter 1: The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Part 02 — Chapter 2: Aftermath of the War in Germany

Part 03 — Chapter 3: The Jewish Factor in the War

Part 04 — Chapter 4: The Russian Revolution of 1917

Part 05 — Chapter 5: The Red Terror

Part 06 — Chapter 6: The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Part 07 — Chapter 7: The Nation of Israel

Part 08 — Chapter 8: Jews in Weimar Germany

Part 09 — Chapter 9: Hitler and National Socialists Rise to Power

 

 

Part 10 — Chapter 10: National Socialism vs Communism

Part 11 — Chapter 11: Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Part 12 — Chapter 12: The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

Part 13 — Chapter 13: Life in Germany Under Hitler

Part 14 — Chapter 14 & 15: Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory; The 1936 Olympics

Part 15 — Chapter 16: “Anschluss” The Unification of Austria and Germany

Part 16 – Chapter 17: Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

Part 17 – Chapter 18: War with Poland

Part 18 – Chapter 19: The Phony War

 

 

Part 19 – Chapter 20: Germany invades France – The Phony War Ends

Part 20 – Chapter 21: The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

Part 21 – Chapter 22: Germany as Victim

Part 22 (last) – Chapter 23: Winners and Losers

 

 

 

See also:

 

The Myth of German Villainy: Author Ben Bradberry Interview — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

 

 

_____________________

 

 

Version History

 

Version 5: Mar 13, 2021 – Added new Go2 Cover images (3).

 

Version 4: Apr 27, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

 

Version 3: Apr 9, 2020 — Updated links to other parts.

 

Version 2: Feb 14, 2017 — Added 8 more images. Added PDF of post for download.

 

Version 1: Feb 13, 2017 — Created post.

]]> https://katana17.com/2017/02/13/book-the-myth-of-german-villainy-part-16-germany-annexes-the-sudetenland/feed/ 13 Book – The Myth of German Villainy – Part 15 – “Anschluss” The Unification of Austria and Germany https://katana17.com/2017/01/05/book-the-myth-of-german-villainy-part-15-anschluss-the-unification-of-austria-and-germany/ https://katana17.com/2017/01/05/book-the-myth-of-german-villainy-part-15-anschluss-the-unification-of-austria-and-germany/#comments Thu, 05 Jan 2017 12:28:19 +0000 https://katana17.com/wp/?p=13031 Continue reading →]]>

[Part 15]

 

[Benton Bradberry’s 2012 book, “The Myth of German Villainy” is a  superb, must-read, revisionist look at how the German people have been systematically, relentlessly and most importantly, unjustly vilified as the arch criminal of the 20th century. Bradberry sets out, coolly and calmly as befits a former US-Navy officer and pilot, to show why and how the German people have been falsely accused of massive crimes and that their chief  accuser and tormenter, organized jewry is in fact the real party guilty of monstrous crimes against Germans and the rest of the world.

In Part 15, the fulfillment of Hitler’s dream of uniting Austria with Germany; the subsequent revival of the Austria economy; and the situation with Austria’s jews pre and post “Anschluss” are described.

Austria was a creation of the Paris Peace Treaty and subsequent Versailles Treaty that forbade it from joining up with Germany to prevent Germany from becoming too powerful again. As it became more and more clear that Austria was not an economically viable state, popular support for union with Germany steadily increased and by the early 1930s popular support for union among both the German and Austrian populations was overwhelming.

Jews were mainly resident in the capital Vienna and dominated it through the Social Democratic Party in the early 1930s. By 1932 Englebert Dollfuss, the leader of the Christian Social Party, became the Austrian Chancellor and along with the Social Democratic Party opposed “Anschluss”. The Christian Social Party was now in a four way struggle with the Nazis, the Communists, and the Social Democrats and after a brief civil war the Nazi Party was banned and its leaders thrown in jail.

By 1938 Seyss-Inquart, the Nazi Minister of the Interior, became Chancellor, and the Nazi Party now controlled the government in Austria. When rioting broke out all over Austria over the issue of unification with Germany, Seyss-Inquart sent a request to Hitler to send in German troops to restore order. On the morning of March 12, the German 8th Army crossed into Austria. They faced no resistance whatever, but were greeted by crowds of cheering Austrians instead. The Anschluss was made immediately effective, subject to ratification by a plebiscite, which was passed with a 99% “yes” vote.

Prior to the Anschluss (union), Austria’s economy was in a catastrophic condition with nearly a third of Austrians out of work. The economy improved dramatically resulting in the Austrians seeing Hitler as a miracle worker.

Once Austria had been incorporated into the Reich, Germany’s laws automatically became Austria’s laws, including the Nuremberg Race Laws. The intent of the Nuremberg Laws, as well as the other anti-Jewish laws, was to break the Jewish grip on the economic, cultural, and social life of Germany and to encourage Jewish emigration. By 1940 Austria’s jewish population was down to 40,000 from 192,000

 

— KATANA.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE: The author has very generously given me permission to reproduce the material here — KATANA.

 The book can be bought at Amazon here: The Myth of German Villainy

 

 

 

The Myth of

 

German Villainy

 

by

 

Benton L. Bradberry

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

[Clicking on a link in the Contents here will take you to that Part, in a separate post]

 

[Part 01]

Preface

Chapter 1 – The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Germany’s Positive Image Changes Overnight

[Part 02]

Chapter 2 – Aftermath of the War in Germany

The Versailles Treaty

Effect of the Treaty on the German Economy

Was the War Guilt Clause Fair?

Did Germany Really Start the War?

[Part 03]

Chapter 3 – The Jewish Factor in the War

Jews at the Paris Peace Conference

Jews in Britain

[Part 04]

Chapter 4 – The Russian Revolution of 1917

Bolsheviks Take Control

Jews and the Russian Revolution

Origin of East European Jews

Reason for the Russian Pogroms Against the Jews

Jews Leave Russia for America

Financing the 1917 Revolution

Jews in the Government of Bolshevik Russia

[Part 05]

Chapter 5 – The Red Terror

Creation of the Gulag

Bolsheviks Kill the Czar

Jews as a Hostile Elite

The Ukrainian Famine (Holodomor)

[Part 06]

Chapter 6 – The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Jews in the Hungarian Revolution

Miklos Horthy Saves Hungary

Jews in the German Revolution

The Spartacist Uprising in Berlin

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Italy

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Spain — The Spanish Civil War

Czechoslovakia in Danger of Communist Takeover

The Comintern’s Aim? World Domination!

[Part 07]

Chapter 7 – The Nation of Israel

History of the Expulsion of Jews

[Part 08]

Chapter 8 – Jews in Weimar Germany

Jews Undermine German Culture

[Part 09]

Chapter 9 – Hitler & National Socialists Rise to Power

The 25 Points of the National Socialist Party

[Part 10]

Chapter 10 – National Socialism vs. Communism

National Socialism

Jews Plan Marxist Utopia

[Part 11]

Chapter 11 – Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Text of Untermeyer’s Speech in New York

The Jewish Persecution Myth

Effect of Boycott on the German Economy

Jewish Exaggerations are Contradicted by Many

[Part 12]

Chapter 12 – The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

The Nuremberg Laws – 1935

The Zionist Movement

[Part 13]

Chapter 13 – Life in Germany Under Hitler

Night of the Long Knives

1934 Annual Nazi Rally at Nuremberg

Hitler Revives the German Economy

Hitler Becomes the Most Popular Leader in the World

[Part 14]

Chapter 14 – Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory

Chapter 15 – The 1936 Olympics

[Part 15]

Chapter 16 – “Anschluss”. The Unification of Austria and Germany

Austrian Economy Revived

Austria’s Jews

[Part 16]

Chapter 17 – Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

[Part 17]

Chapter 18 – War with Poland

The Polish Problem

Hitler’s Proposal to Poland

Kristallnacht

German-Polish Talks Continue

Jews Influence both Roosevelt and Churchill

British and American Political Leaders Under Jewish Influence

Roosevelt’s Contribution to Hostilities

Lord Halifax Beats the War Drums

Germany Occupies Bohemia and Moravia

Roosevelt Pushes for War

Anti-war Movement Becomes Active

Poles Murder German Nationals Within the Corridor

[Part 18]

Chapter 19 – The Phony War

Russo-Finnish War

The Norway/Denmark Campaign

German Invasion of Denmark and Norway

Churchill Takes Chamberlain’s Place as Prime Minister

[Part 19]

Chapter 20 – Germany invades France Through the Low Countries

The Phony War Ends.

Churchill the War Lover

The Fall of France

Hitler Makes Peace Offer to Britain

[Part 20]

Chapter 21 – The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

[Part 21]

Chapter 22 – Germany as Victim

Rape and Slaughter

Jewish Vengeance

The Jewish Brigade

[Part 22]

Chapter 23 – Winners and Losers

Bibliography

 

 

 

Chapter 16

 


“Anschluss” The Unification

 

of Austria and Germany 

 

 

 

 

 

Beginning with his 25 Points speech of 1919, one of Hitler’s overriding goals was the unification of all German people into a single nation-state. Hitler was an Austrian, but always called himself a German, and he considered Austria to be part of Germany. The giant multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire had been dismembered after World War I by the Paris Peace Conference and Austria was left as a small rump state of 6.8 million people, mostly ethnic Germans. As part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Austria had been an integral part of a relatively self-sufficient economic system, but now, having been carved out of that giant empire and made into a tiny independent state, Austria was no longer an economically viable entity. She had been cut off from sources of raw materials which had been available to her from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and also from markets for export. Austria was a German speaking, German state, and it would have been only logical for Austria to combine with Germany after the Austro-Hungarian Empire no longer existed. Moreover, there was strong support for that in both Austria and Germany, but the Versailles Treaty specifically forbade it. World War I had been fought primarily to reduce the size and power of Germany, and the Versailles Treaty was designed to prevent Germany from ever becoming a super power again. For that reason, the victors of the war were steadfastly opposed to the union of Austria with Germany.

 

As it became more and more clear that Austria was not an economically viable state, popular support for union with Germany steadily increased. By the early 1930s popular support for union among both the German and Austrian populations was overwhelming. It was estimated that at least 80 percent of the Austrian people favored unification with Germany, and nearly as high a percentage of Germans also favored it. As a preliminary measure, an attempt was made in 1931 to create a customs union between Austria and Germany to permit free trade and unrestricted travel between the two countries, but the agreement was blocked by outside forces, notably France and Czechoslovakia, who saw it as an attempt to circumvent the Versailles Treaty. With a 25% unemployment rate and a starving population, Austria was desperate to find a means of increasing trade and productivity, but all such attempts were blocked by these outside forces. Union with Germany would have solved all of Austria’s problems, and it would also have partially fulfilled the aspirations of the National Socialists for a single German state.

 

Austria was politically divided during this period by a struggle between left wing and right wing groups. Traditional, mostly rural Austrians, along with the bourgeoisie, supported the conservative, Catholic Christian Social Party (CS), while the workers and labor unions, mainly in the cities, supported the Social Democratic Party. The Communist Party (KPO) and the National Socialist Party (Nazi) were marginal groups at first. The Communist Party was composed mostly of Jews, but it was small and failed to gain traction in Austria as it had in Germany. Most of Austria’s Jews belonged to the Social Democratic Party, and most of these Jews were avowed Marxists. The leader of the party, Otto Bauer, was a Jew, and Jews filled all of the leadership positions in the party, though the rank and file were mostly Austrian laborers and members of Jewish led labor unions.

 

 

[Add. image — Otto Bauer (5 September 1881 – 4 July 1938), the jewish leader of the Social Democratic Party. Bauer died of heart failure in Paris on 4 July 1938, aged 56, just four months after Austria had become part of the Nazi Third Reich.

His sister, Ida Bauer, was a patient of Sigmund Freud, who published a famous case study about her using the pseudonym Dora.]

 

During the early 1930s, 192,000 Jews were resident in Austria, almost all of them in Vienna. Jews represented 2.8 percent of the Austrian population, but nearly 10 percent of the population of Vienna. The population of Vienna was just under 2 million. Despite their small numbers, Jews totally dominated the capital city. Jews owned two thirds of all newspapers and banks. They owned 60 percent of all large businesses and industries. Over 50% of lawyers, doctors and dentists in Vienna were Jewish, and nearly a third of university professors were Jewish.

Through their control of the Social Democratic Party, Vienna’s largest party, Marxist Jews dominated the city government of Vienna, giving it the reputation of “Red Vienna.” They held a majority of seats on the City Council, and they controlled the labor unions. The Jewish controlled Social Democratic Party was traditionally anti-clerical and given to anti-religious rhetoric, which the Catholic clergy used to label them “godless, Jewish-Bolshevists.”

 

 

[Add. image — Englebert Dollfuss, Chancellor of Austria here in Geneva in 1933. Having served as Minister for Forests and Agriculture, he ascended to Federal Chancellor in 1932 in the midst of a crisis for the conservative government. In early 1933, he shut down parliament, banned the Austrian Nazi party and assumed dictatorial powers.]

 

The conservative Christian Social Party (CS), which had the support of the Catholic Church in Austria, managed to gain control of the Austrian government in 1932 through a coalition with other conservative parties. It’s leader, Englebert Dollfuss, became the Austrian Chancellor. While the Jewish dominated Social Democratic Party (SDP) controlled the government of Vienna, the Christian Social Party (CS) controlled the national government.

 

By this time, a branch of Germany’s Nazi party had established itself in Austria. The members wore the same uniforms as their German colleagues and adhered to the same doctrines of anti-Marxism and anti-Semitism. They were recruited mainly from the lower bourgeoisie and the peasantry and their main political goal was the union of Austria and Germany. The movement grew slowly and no Nazi had as yet managed to get elected to the national parliament. In the provincial elections of 1932, however, the Nazis won a number of seats in several of the local diets.

 

After Hitler became Chancellor in Germany in 1933, the Austrian Nazis, led by Dr. Alfred Frauenfeld, began immediately to concentrate their energies to bring about Anschluss, or union with Germany. The Austrian Nazis considered themselves a part of the Nazi movement in Germany, and took their orders from Hitler.

 

Though Dollfuss had previously favored Anschluss, he changed his mind and decided that the best path for Austria was independence. Dollfuss was a devout Catholic and he wanted to build up an alternative to Nazism — a Catholic, anti-socialist, authoritarian, Austrian movement. He was supported in his opposition to Anschluss by the Social Democratic party under Jewish, Marxist control, but he wanted nothing to do with them either. He was as much opposed to the Reds as to the Nazis.

 

The Christian Social Party was now in a four way struggle with the Nazis, the Communists, and the Social Democrats. In order to assert control, the Dollfuss regime dissolved parliament, banned the Austrian Nazi and Communist parties, and centralized power in the office of the Chancellor who now had dictatorial powers to rule the country. Many of the Nazi leaders were thrown in jail. A brief civil war ensued in which the Dollfuss government was victorious. A concordat was soon announced with the Holy See (the Pope), which essentially made Catholicism the official religion of Austria.

 

Dollfuss didn’t last long, however. He was soon assassinated by the Nazis in a failed coup attempt as the political struggle in Austria continued. Kurt Schuschnigg, who succeeded Dollfuss as Chancellor, made up his mind to destroy the Austrian Nazis and immediately began to initiate actions against them, including rounding them up and locking them up in internment camps. The oppressive Schuschnigg regime was not popular with the Austrian people, the majority of whom actually favored the Nazis because the Nazis supported union with Germany. The Christian Social Party (CS) under Schuschnigg, which now controlled the national government, and the Social Democratic Party (mostly Jewish) which now controlled the government of Vienna, became strange bedfellows as they united in their opposition to union with Germany, though in little else.

 

The Austrian people, on the other hand, were 80 percent in favor of unification with Germany.

 

On February 12, 1938, Hitler summoned Schuschnigg to his villa at Berchtesgaden in Bavaria to discuss Schuschnigg’s problems with the Austrian Nazis. During the meeting, Hitler was very condescending toward the Austrian Chancellor, and virtually instructed him to lift the ban on political parties in Austria, to reinstate full party freedoms, to release all imprisoned members of the Nazi Party and to permit them to participate in the government. When Schuschnigg indicated reluctance to comply with these instructions, Hitler threatened military action. Schuschnigg had no choice but to comply, as Austria’s military power was no match for that of Germany. Moreover, Austrian public opinion was against the Austrian Chancellor.

 

After returning to Austria, Schuschnigg, in compliance with Hitler’s instructions, appointed Arthur Seyss-Inquart, a lawyer and member of the Nazi Party, as Interior Minister. He also removed General Alfred Jansa as Chief of Staff of the Austrian Army, also at Hitler’s instruction, because Jansa had expressed his intention to resist any attempted German entry into Austria by armed force. Hitler wanted to avoid any such confrontation at all costs.

 

But safely away from Hitler’s intimidating presence, Schuschnigg began reverting back to his recalcitrant position on union with Germany and continued to oppose it. He also continued his oppressive measures against the Austrian Nazi Party which advocated union with Germany. The mostly Jewish Social Democrats agreed on very little with the Christian Socialists, but they turned out in force to support Schuschnigg in opposition to union with Germany. Groups of these Social Democrats (mostly Jews) went all around the city of Vienna painting slogans on the sidewalks and on the walls of buildings in support of Austrian independence and against Austrian union with Germany. Austria’s Jews vehemently opposed Hitler and the Nazis, including Austrian Nazis, and they wanted nothing to do with Hitler’s Germany, certainly not union with it. This put them in direct opposition to the Austrian people and served only to inflame the already rampant anti-Semitism in Austria.

 

In contravention of Hitler’s instructions Schuschnigg immediately announced a plebiscite (a national vote) to be held on Austria’s Independence day of March 13, 1938, to determine whether or not Austria would unite with Germany. He then set out on a tour of Austria to try to whip up patriotic feelings and to persuade the Austrian people to vote for an independent Austria, and against union with Germany.

 

Schuschnigg’s plebiscite was to be open to all Austrian voters, but was to be restricted only to those over the age of 24. It was Austria’s youth — those under 24 years of age — who were most overwhelmingly in favor of union with Germany. Various other devices were also to be employed to stack the vote against union with Germany. One device he used to influence the vote was to write the wording of the plebiscite in a confusing way so that the voters would be voting for independence while believing they were voting for unification.

 

 

Arthur Seyss-Inquart, (L) with Hitler, replaces Kurt Schuschnigg (R) as chancellor of Austria.

 

Hitler was furious with Schuschnigg and declared that he would not permit the plebiscite to go forward under those circumstances. Hitler described Austria as:

“A country which for many years had no elections at all, where there were no means of determining who were qualified to vote, and then announces an election which is to take place in less than three and a half day’s time. There are no lists of voters,” Hitler said, “there are no voting cards, there are no means of testing a person’s right to vote, there is no obligation to maintain the secrecy of the ballot, there is no guarantee that the election will be conducted with impartiality, there is no security that the votes will be properly counted – and so on.”

 

Hitler sent an ultimatum to Schuschnigg on March 11, demanding that he step down as Chancellor and hand over all power to the Austrian National Socialists (Nazis), or face invasion. Unable to gain support from either Italy, France or Britain, and with little support from the Austrian people, Schuschnigg resigned as Chancellor. Seyss-Inquart, the Nazi Minister of the Interior, then became Chancellor, and the Nazi Party now controlled the government in Austria.

 

Rioting had broken out all over Austria over the issue of unification with Germany, so the new Chancellor, Seyss-Inquart, sent a request to Hitler to send in German troops to restore order. Whether they were actually needed or not is not clear, but this was the necessary pretext for German troops to enter Austria. The next day, on the morning of March 12, the German 8th Army crossed into Austria. They faced no resistance whatever, but were greeted by crowds of cheering Austrians instead.

 

Hitler entered Austria by car in the afternoon of the same day. His first stop was at Braunau, his birthplace. In the evening he entered Linz where he grew up. At both stops, he received an overwhelming reception.

 

Hermann Goering, who had accompanied Hitler into Austria, made a telephone call that evening back to party officials in Germany, and stated:

“There is unbelievable jubilation in Austria. We ourselves did not think that sympathies would be so intense.”

 

Hitler then made a triumphal tour through Austria which ended in Vienna. A huge crowd totalling more than 200,000 filled the Heldenplatz (Heroes Square) in Vienna to hear him proclaim that Austrian was now a part of Germany.

 

“This is the moment of the greatest accomplishment of my life,” he said. “The German Reich, as it stands today, can never be broken by anyone again.”

 

The Anschluss was made immediately effective, subject to ratification by a plebiscite. Following proper registration of Austria’s voting population, elections were held in both Germany and Austria on April 10, 1938. The Anschluss was approved by the Austrian people with a 99.75% “yes” vote, and by the German people with a 99.2 % “yes” vote.

 

 

[Add. image — Austrian “Anschluss” (union) with Germany, March 12, 1938. The Sudetenland territory was re-united with Germany at the end of  September, 1938.]

 

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, “People of the same blood should be in the same Reich.”

 

 

Austrians cheer as German troops enter.

 

Hitler is warmly greeted as he enters Austria. 

 

Hitler enters Vienna. 

 

Austrians are overjoyed by arrival of German troops.

 

Cardinal Theodor Innitzer, a political figure in the Austrian Christian Social Party (CS) declared on March 12:

“The Viennese Catholics should thank the Lord for the bloodless way this great political change has occurred, and they should pray for a great future for Austria. Needless to say, everyone should obey the orders of the new institutions.”

 

Robert Kauer, President of the Protestants in Austria, greeted Hitler on March 13, as;

“saviour of the 350,000 German Protestants in Austria and liberator from a five-year hardship.”

 

Karl Renner, Austria’s first post-war chancellor in 1918, announced his support for the Anschluss and appealed to all Austrians to vote in favor of it on April 10.

“Hitler had a plausible case to argue when he claimed that the Anschluss was only the application of the Wilsonian principle of self-determination.” —  Alan Bullock. Historian.

“The crisis of March, 1938 (which led to the Anschluss) was provoked by Schuschnigg, the Austrian Chancellor, not by Hitler.” —  A.J.P.Taylor. British historian.

“He (Chamberlain) had no difficulty in recognizing where this injustice lay. There were six million Germans in Austria to whom national reunification was still forbidden by the Peace Treaties of 1919. Three million Germans in Czechoslovakia whose wishes had never been consulted; three hundred and fifty thousand people in Danzig who were notoriously German.” —  A.J.P.Taylor. British Historian.

“The German Army was invading Austria, or rather was marching in to the general enthusiasm of the people.” – A.J.P.Taylor, British historian.

“The pull of sentiment, language and history, reinforced by the material advantages offered by becoming part of a big nation, was strong enough to waken a genuine welcome when the frontier barriers went down and the German troops marched in garlanded with flowers…. there was a widespread sense of relief, even amongst those who were far from being Nazis.” —  Alan Bullock. Historian.

 

As might have been expected, Jewish writers took a different view. The Jewish historian William L. Shirer, in his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, calls the Anschluss “the rape of Austria.”

 

 

[Add. image —  jewish journalist William L. Shirer (1904 – 1993) with his 1960 book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich ]

 

Hitler later commented:

“Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say: even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier (into Austria) there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators.”

 

 

Austrian Economy Revived

 

Prior to the Anschluss, Austria’s economy was in a catastrophic condition with nearly a third of Austrians out of work. Just across the border in Germany, unemployment had been eliminated, living standards and working conditions had vastly improved, and economic, social and cultural life was flourishing again. Before Hitler became Chancellor, economic conditions in Germany had been the same as Austria’s.

 

Following Austria’s incorporation into the Reich, conditions also improved dramatically in Austria. Within six months after Anschluss, the total number of unemployed was reduced from 401,000 to only 99,865. By 1940, the unemployment rate in Austria was only 1.2 percent.

 

By the end of 1938, during which the Anschluss occurred, the weekly income of industrial workers in Austria rose 9 percent. The Austrian GNP experienced a 12.8 percent growth rate in 1938, and 13.3 percent in 1939. Seldom in history has a country experienced such rapid, dramatic economic growth.

 

Shortly after the Anschluss, Germany’s National Labor Law and its comprehensive social security system were introduced in Austria. Basic rights in the workplace were thereby guaranteed, and workers were protected from arbitrary dismissal. By these measures, relief was also quickly provided to more than 200,000 desperately poor people, and health care benefits were extended to the working class. A large-scale construction program was immediately launched to provide affordable housing. Cultural life was greatly encouraged, with energetic promotion of music, the fine arts and literature. The result of all of this was an increase in prosperity and optimism, but also a jump in the Austrian birthrate. The Austrian people believed that union with Germany was the best thing that ever happened to Austria, and they believed that Hitler was a miracle worker.

 

According to Professor Evan Burr Bukey of the University of Arkansas, in his book, “Hitler’s Austria,”:

“Hitler enjoyed a frenzied acclimation among the Austrian people seldom seen since the days of the Caesars.”

 

 

Austria’s Jews

 

In 1938, prior to the Anschluss, 192,000 Jews lived in Austria, almost all of them in Vienna, a city of nearly 2 million. In spite of their relatively small numbers, Austria’s Jews wielded vast and disproportionate wealth and power. For this reason, and all the other reasons that Jews have been universally despised by their host populations, Austrian Jews were extremely unpopular with the Austrian people.

 

Professor Evan Bukey wrote:

“The predominant position of the Jews in an impoverished country only intensified the fear and loathing of the Austrian masses. As we have already seen, Jewish businesses and financial institutions managed much of the country’s economic life. At the time of the Anschluss three-quarters of Vienna’s newspapers, banks and textile firms were in Jewish hands … The extraordinary success of the Jews in the learned professions also inspired jealously and spite. Over 50 percent of Austria’s attorneys, physicians and dentists were Jewish.”

 

Yet, Jews were only 2.8 percent of the Austrian population. Moreover Jews isolated themselves within a closed society in Austria, with intense in-group cooperation and mutual assistance between themselves, at the total exclusion, and expense, of non-Jewish Austrians. Many of them dressed differently. They were regarded by Austrians as an alien, parasitic elite who exploited non-Jewish Austrians for the benefit of Jews alone.

 

They also avoided physical work and treated ordinary Austrians with condescension.

 

According to Professor Bukey, large numbers of Austrians, especially of the Catholic faithful, viewed baptized Jews, as well as all other Jews, with a hatred;

“so tightly woven into the fabric of Austrian society that it constituted a Sorelian political myth, immune to empirical falsification.” (Georges Sorel, a French philosopher averred that “myth” was a powerful motivator in people’s lives.)

 

Jews on the streets of Vienna prior to Anschluss.

 

This seething, barely contained hatred of the Jews boiled over on March 11, 1938, as crowds gathered to welcome Hitler into Vienna where he was to announce the Anschluss. Professor Bukey writes that:

“Untold thousands of Viennese took to the streets of their city like mad persons, dragging anyone who “looked Jewish” from vehicles, clubbing and beating victims, desecrating synagogues, robbing department stores, and raiding Jewish apartments. They compelled rabbis to scrub toilet bowls with prayer shawls and stole whatever cash, jewelry, and furs they could find. An SS correspondent would later write admiringly, ‘The Viennese have managed to do overnight what we have failed to achieve in the slow-moving, ponderous north up to this day. In Austria, a boycott of the Jews does not need organizing the people themselves have initiated it.’”

 

Once Austria had been incorporated into the Reich, Germany’s laws automatically became Austria’s laws, including the Nuremberg Race Laws. The intent of the Nuremberg Laws, as well as the other anti-Jewish laws, was to break the Jewish grip on the economic, cultural, and social life of Germany and to encourage Jewish emigration. After Anschluss, when these laws applied in Austria, the Austrian Jews became disenfranchised overnight. What had taken 5 years to accomplish in this regard in Germany was done within days in Austria.

 

By March 18 the authorities had closed down the offices of the Jewish community and Zionist organizations in Vienna and sent their officers to Dachau. During the first weeks after the Anschluss, Jews were fired from their jobs in theaters, community centers, public libraries, and universities. Throughout Austria, Jews were arrested and imprisoned.

 

Local Nazis rounded up Jews in the city of Vienna and forced them to scrub the streets and walls with brushes. The photo below was widely publicized at the time as an example of the cruelty and pointless humiliation Jews in Vienna were subjected to, but there was also a rational explanation for what took place which is not usually reported. Prior to the Anschluss, when Chancellor Schuschnigg was campaigning against Austrian unification with Germany, the Social Democrats in Vienna turned out in large numbers to support him. Most of Vienna’s Jews belonged to the Social Democratic Party, and as Jews, they were fervently against union with Germany. International Jewry, after all, was engaged in a “holy war” against Germany, which included an economic boycott campaign, and an anti-German propaganda campaign in the international Jewish press. This “holy war” had the enthusiastic support and participation of Austria’s Jews. The last thing Austrian Jews wanted was unification with Germany.

 

In support of Schuschnigg’s campaign, Jewish Social Democrats painted anti-unification slogans on the sidewalks and walls of buildings throughout the city of Vienna. This angered the non-Jewish Austrians, the vast majority of whom supported unification with Germany. It was the Jews who painted the slogans all over the walls and sidewalks, so it was the Jews who were made to scrub them off. That fact was left out of the international anti-German propaganda. The sidewalk cleaning project may well have been humiliating, but it was not without justification; at least an explanation. But it is also true that the Austrian people took unseemly pleasure in the humiliation of these wealthy and formerly powerful Jews as they were being forced to clean up the sidewalks. Crowds gathered, hissed, and spat abuse at them as they scrubbed.

 

 

Jews are forced to clean painted slogans off the sidewalks of Vienna. The slogans had been previously painted on the sidewalks by Jews opposing Anschluss.

 

At the same time, Jewish stores were plundered by SA men who sometimes (cynically but with a pretense of legality) left a receipt. Jewish businesses were Aryanized, that is, Jewish owners were forced to sell their businesses to Austrians, or Aryans, in transactions that were decidedly one sided and invariably a big financial loss to the Jew. The greed in Vienna ran out of control as Austrians stepped on one another to get at Jewish wealth. The American journalist William Shirer, who was Jewish, witnessed all of this and described it as “an orgy of sadism.”

 

 

[Add. image — William L. Shirer (February 23, 1904 – December 28, 1993), left, the bureau chief for CBS radio, at the broadcasting center in Berlin in 1939.]

 

Jews began leaving Austria in massive numbers. In August 1938 the “Reich Central Office for Jewish Emigration” was set up in the Rothschild palace in Vienna, for the purpose of cutting through the red tape and facilitating rapid Jewish emigration out of Austria. SS Captain Adolf Eichmann was assigned there as one of the administrators. By June 1939 the office had aided in the emigration of 110,000 Austrian Jews. An assembly line process was established through which the Jews passed in one day’s time, relinquishing one document (and piece of property) at every step of the way until the end when he and his family received visas out of the country. Eichmann employed the services of the local Jewish leadership to process this emigration — much of it to Palestine.

 

[Add. image — The Palais Albert Rothschild was a palatial house in Vienna, one of five Palais Rothschild in the city owned by members of the Rothschild banking family of Austria, a branch of the international Rothschild family. In 1954 the palace was torn down.]

 

In late June, 1939, the remaining Jews, as well as all non-Jews married to Jews, still working in the private sector, were fired from their jobs and “encouraged” to leave the country. By this time, hundreds of Jewish owned factories and thousands of businesses had been closed or confiscated by the government.

 

The population of Jews in Germany in 1933 was approximately 500,000, and in Austria, 192,000. By 1940 only 160,000 remained in Germany and 40,000 remained in Austria, for a total of 200,000 in Germany and Austria combined. All the rest had emigrated.

 

Anschluss could now be checked off of Hitler’s checklist of things he had avowed to accomplish.

 

 

[END of Part 15]

 

______________________________

 

 

PDF Notes

* Total words = 6,188

* Total pages = 34

*Total images = 16

 

*Note: Images not in original book are indicated as “Add. image” (Additional image).

*Text in [square brackets] is not part of the original book.

*Special thanks to reader “mblaine” for providing the text for this book.

 

 

======================================

 

<

div>

Click to download a PDF of this post (4.2 MB).

The Myth of Germany Villainy – Part 15 – “Anschluss” The Unification of Austria and Germany

 

 

 

 

 

Click on a link to go to another part:

[Click images to enlarge]

 

 

Part 01 — Cover text; About the Author; Preface; Chapter 1: The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Part 02 — Chapter 2: Aftermath of the War in Germany

Part 03 — Chapter 3: The Jewish Factor in the War

Part 04 — Chapter 4: The Russian Revolution of 1917

Part 05 — Chapter 5: The Red Terror

Part 06 — Chapter 6: The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Part 07 — Chapter 7: The Nation of Israel

Part 08 — Chapter 8: Jews in Weimar Germany

Part 09 — Chapter 9: Hitler and National Socialists Rise to Power

 

 

Part 10 — Chapter 10: National Socialism vs Communism

Part 11 — Chapter 11: Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Part 12 — Chapter 12: The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

Part 13 — Chapter 13: Life in Germany Under Hitler

Part 14 — Chapter 14 & 15: Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory; The 1936 Olympics

Part 15 — Chapter 16: “Anschluss” The Unification of Austria and Germany

Part 16 – Chapter 17: Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

Part 17 – Chapter 18: War with Poland

Part 18 – Chapter 19: The Phony War

 

 

Part 19 – Chapter 20: Germany invades France – The Phony War Ends

Part 20 – Chapter 21: The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

Part 21 – Chapter 22: Germany as Victim

Part 22 (last) – Chapter 23: Winners and Losers

 

 

 

See also:

 

The Myth of German Villainy: Author Ben Bradberry Interview — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

 

 

_____________________

 

 

Version History

 

Version 5: Mar 13, 2021 – Added new Go2 Cover images (3).

 

Version 4: May 5, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

 

Version 3: Apr 9, 2020 — Updated links to other parts.

 

Version 2: Jan 6, 2017 — Added one image. Added PDF of post for download.

 

Version 1: Jan 5, 2017 — Created post.

]]> https://katana17.com/2017/01/05/book-the-myth-of-german-villainy-part-15-anschluss-the-unification-of-austria-and-germany/feed/ 17 Book – The Myth of German Villainy – Part 14 – Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory; The 1936 Olympics https://katana17.com/2016/12/31/book-the-myth-of-german-villainy-part-14-hitler-begins-reclamation-of-german-territory-the-1936-olympics/ https://katana17.com/2016/12/31/book-the-myth-of-german-villainy-part-14-hitler-begins-reclamation-of-german-territory-the-1936-olympics/#comments Sat, 31 Dec 2016 05:09:03 +0000 https://katana17.com/wp/?p=12960 Continue reading →]]>

 

 

[Part 14]

 

[Benton Bradberry’s 2012 book, “The Myth of German Villainy” is a  superb, must-read, revisionist look at how the German people have been systematically, relentlessly and most importantly, unjustly vilified as the arch criminal of the 20th century. Bradberry sets out, cooly and calmly as befits a former US-Navy officer and pilot, to show why and how the German people have been falsely accused of massive crimes and that their chief  accuser and tormenter, organized jewry is in fact the real party guilty of monstrous crimes against Germans and the rest of the world.

In Part 14 the process of unwinding some of the injustices of the Versailles Treaty imposed on Germany (Ch. 14) and Germany’s hosting of the 1936 Olympics (Ch.15) are described.

On March 15, 1935 Hitler announced his decision that Germany would openly defy the military limitations set by the Versailles Treaty and re-arm. Then, a year later, three German Army battalions crossed the bridges over the Rhine and entered the industrial heartland of Germany known as the Rhineland. This demilitarized area, the Rhineland, included all territory west of the Rhine River, stretching over to the French border, as well as a section east of the river. The Rhineland included the cities of Cologne, Dusseldorf and Bonn. A few weeks later a plebiscite was held and 98.8% voted approval of the reoccupation of the Rhineland.

In April 1931 Germany won the bid to host the 1936 Olympic Games, but once the National Socialists came to power in 1933 American Jewish organizations immediately demanded that some other venue be chosen or the games boycotted. Fortunately Avery Brundage, President of the American Olympic Committee, saw this attempt as just another “Jewish-Communist conspiracy” against Germany, and to his very great credit, decided, despite this pressure, that America would participate in the Games in Berlin as scheduled.

Germany, at less than half of the population of the United States, won 89 medals to America’s 56 — KATANA.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE: The author has very generously given me permission to reproduce the material here — KATANA.

 The book can be bought at Amazon here: The Myth of German Villainy

 

 

 

The Myth of

 

German Villainy

 

by

 

Benton L. Bradberry

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

[Clicking on a link in the Contents here will take you to that Part, in a separate post]

 

[Part 01]

Preface

Chapter 1 – The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Germany’s Positive Image Changes Overnight

[Part 02]

Chapter 2 – Aftermath of the War in Germany

The Versailles Treaty

Effect of the Treaty on the German Economy

Was the War Guilt Clause Fair?

Did Germany Really Start the War?

[Part 03]

Chapter 3 – The Jewish Factor in the War

Jews at the Paris Peace Conference

Jews in Britain

[Part 04]

Chapter 4 – The Russian Revolution of 1917

Bolsheviks Take Control

Jews and the Russian Revolution

Origin of East European Jews

Reason for the Russian Pogroms Against the Jews

Jews Leave Russia for America

Financing the 1917 Revolution

Jews in the Government of Bolshevik Russia

[Part 05]

Chapter 5 – The Red Terror

Creation of the Gulag

Bolsheviks Kill the Czar

Jews as a Hostile Elite

The Ukrainian Famine (Holodomor)

[Part 06]

Chapter 6 – The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Jews in the Hungarian Revolution

Miklos Horthy Saves Hungary

Jews in the German Revolution

The Spartacist Uprising in Berlin

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Italy

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Spain — The Spanish Civil War

Czechoslovakia in Danger of Communist Takeover

The Comintern’s Aim? World Domination!

[Part 07]

Chapter 7 – The Nation of Israel

History of the Expulsion of Jews

[Part 08]

Chapter 8 – Jews in Weimar Germany

Jews Undermine German Culture

[Part 09]

Chapter 9 – Hitler & National Socialists Rise to Power

The 25 Points of the National Socialist Party

[Part 10]

Chapter 10 – National Socialism vs. Communism

National Socialism

Jews Plan Marxist Utopia

[Part 11]

Chapter 11 – Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Text of Untermeyer’s Speech in New York

The Jewish Persecution Myth

Effect of Boycott on the German Economy

Jewish Exaggerations are Contradicted by Many

[Part 12]

Chapter 12 – The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

The Nuremberg Laws – 1935

The Zionist Movement

[Part 13]

Chapter 13 – Life in Germany Under Hitler

Night of the Long Knives

1934 Annual Nazi Rally at Nuremberg

Hitler Revives the German Economy

Hitler Becomes the Most Popular Leader in the World

[Part 14]

Chapter 14 – Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory

Chapter 15 – The 1936 Olympics

[Part 15]

Chapter 16 – “Anschluss”. The Unification of Austria and Germany

Austrian Economy Revived

Austria’s Jews

[Part 16]

Chapter 17 – Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

[Part 17]

Chapter 18 – War with Poland

The Polish Problem

Hitler’s Proposal to Poland

Kristallnacht

German-Polish Talks Continue

Jews Influence both Roosevelt and Churchill

British and American Political Leaders Under Jewish Influence

Roosevelt’s Contribution to Hostilities

Lord Halifax Beats the War Drums

Germany Occupies Bohemia and Moravia

Roosevelt Pushes for War

Anti-war Movement Becomes Active

Poles Murder German Nationals Within the Corridor

[Part 18]

Chapter 19 – The Phony War

Russo-Finnish War

The Norway/Denmark Campaign

German Invasion of Denmark and Norway

Churchill Takes Chamberlain’s Place as Prime Minister

[Part 19]

Chapter 20 – Germany invades France Through the Low Countries

The Phony War Ends.

Churchill the War Lover

The Fall of France

Hitler Makes Peace Offer to Britain

[Part 20]

Chapter 21 – The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

[Part 21]

Chapter 22 – Germany as Victim

Rape and Slaughter

Jewish Vengeance

The Jewish Brigade

[Part 22]

Chapter 23 – Winners and Losers

Bibliography

 

 

 

Chapter 14

 


Hitler Begins Reclamation

 

of Germany 

 

 

 

 

 

One of Hitler’s goals as Chancellor of Germany was to make Germany whole again. He was determined to regain control of lands taken from Germany by the Versailles Treaty but also to bring ethnic Germans living outside the Reich back into Germany. If his plans were to have any chance of succeeding, however, it would first be necessary for Germany to re-arm. The Versailles Treaty had limited Germany to a total of 100,000 men at arms, a pitifully inadequate military force to support his ambitions. After mulling over what to do, Hitler convened a meeting with the Army’s General Staff and members of his Cabinet on March 15, 1935 and announced his decision that Germany would openly defy the military limitations set by the Versailles Treaty and re-arm. Not a single person present objected. All enthusiastically approved.

 

Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels held a press conference the very next day and announced to the world that the Fuhrer had decided that Germany would reintroduce military conscription and build a new Army consisting of 36 divisions, totalling 550,000 men. This was a brazen violation of the Versailles Treaty, and an open invitation for retaliation by France and Britain.

 

The German leaders then waited anxiously to see how Britain and France would react. Some of the more cautious generals were worried that France might attack Germany immediately. After all, France was well armed, with the largest army in Europe and Germany would have been powerless to defend itself. But nothing happened; absolutely nothing. Hitler had gambled and won!

 

Hitler knew that France was struggling with internal political problems and that Britain was still in the depths of the depression. Neither country, he wagered, had the stomach to take military action against him, and he turned out to be right. Hitler also had moral suasion on his side. Any sovereign country, including Germany, has an intrinsic right to the means of self defense and of defending its sovereignty. It was obvious that Germany could not do so with a military force limited to 100,000 men. In a positive light, Hitler’s decision to re-arm Germany could be seen as the “responsible” thing for a national leader to have done.

 

June 1935 – Hitler re-arms Germany. Here, new recruits line up for their enlistment physicals.

But Hitler was smart enough to understand that he needed to follow up his proclamation by being conciliatory. A couple of months after the conscription announcement, he spoke before the Reichstag and declared that, “Germany wants peace…None of us means to threaten anybody.” And surely, he meant it. He wanted to reclaim Germany’s lost lands, but he did not want war.

 

He announced before the Reichstag a thirteen-point peace program. He said that Germany would respect all other provisions of the Versailles Treaty, including the demilitarization of the Rhineland. Germany is ready, he said, to cooperate in a collective system for safeguarding European peace. He further stated that Germany was ready to conclude pacts of non-aggression with her neighbours.

 

This seemed to soothe the nerves of his gun-shy neighbouring countries. This method of diplomacy set a pattern which Hitler was to follow thereafter; a forceful announcement on a Saturday (Hitler’s Saturday surprises), followed by a conciliatory speech. After each such initiative, he permitted time to lapse so that everything could settle back down before making his next move. He knew what he wanted and knew what he was doing, and he played his hand very carefully.

 

He let a year pass before he took his next big gamble; the reoccupation of the Rhineland. Early Saturday morning on March 7, 1936, three German Army battalions crossed the bridges over the Rhine and entered the industrial heartland of Germany known as the Rhineland. This demilitarized area, the Rhineland, included all territory west of the Rhine River, stretching over to the French border, as well as a section east of the river. The Rhineland included the cities of Cologne, Dusseldorf and Bonn.

 

Hitler’s Foreign Minister, Constantin von Neurath, summoned the French, British and Italian ambassadors to his office at 10 A.M. the same morning and handed them a memorandum which stated that the German government had “restored the full and unrestricted sovereignty of the Reich in the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland.” This, of course, was also a violation of the Versailles Treaty.

 

At noon on the same day, Hitler appeared before a hastily called Reichstag assembly and announced what had happened. The totally surprised Reichstag members jumped to their feet in jubilation and began cheering wildly, with shouts of “heil” to the Fuhrer.

 

When they calmed down and returned to their seats, Hitler continued speaking. He said:

“First, we swear to yield to no force whatever in the restoration of the honor of our people, preferring to succumb with honor to the severest hardships rather than to capitulate. Secondly, we pledge that now, more than ever, especially for one with our Western neighbour nations…We have no territorial demands to make in Europe!…Germany will never break the peace.”

 

Saturday, March 7, 1935 – German troops cross a bridge over the Rhine River and enter the Rineland.

 

Hitler and his generals again waited nervously to see how France and Britain would react. The German troops even had orders to immediately abandon the Rhineland and cross back over the bridges if France were to attack. But, as before, nothing happened. The French and the British did nothing. The horrors of the First World War were too fresh in their memory, and the French in particular simply did not have the stomach for another war with Germany. The British did not act because most British leaders had already come around to the belief that the Versailles Treaty was unreasonable in many aspects and most of them sympathized with Hitler’s position.

 

This had been a tremendous gamble for Hitler because the French, with their one hundred division army could easily have overwhelmed the 30,000 lightly armed German troops now in the Rhineland, in which case Hitler could have lost everything. Hitler was later to admit:

“The 48 hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve wracking in my life. If the French had marched into the Rhineland, we would have had to withdraw with our tail between our legs…”

 

Several of Hitler’s generals were extremely fearful of the bold move, but his Foreign Minister, von Neurath, had calmly assured him, “You can risk it. Nothing will happen.” Hitler learned to ignore the trepidations of his generals and use his own judgment in such matters.

 

The German people in the Rhineland welcomed the troops with jubilation. The soldiers were met by German priests who conferred blessings upon them. Women threw flowers in their path. The people in Cologne went wild with joy. Inside Cologne’s magnificent cathedral, Cardinal Schulte lavishly praised Hitler for what he had done.

 

[Add. image — Hitler, Goebbels and Wagner near the radio during the Saarland vote, 1935. Our picture from left to right: Gauleiter of Munich-Upper Bavaria, Adolf Wagner, Reich Propaganda Minister Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler and the Reich Press Chief Otto Dietrich in front of the radio in Hitler’s private apartment at Prinzregentenplatz in Munich during the announcement of interim results of the Saarland vote on 13 January 1935.]

 

A few weeks later, on March 29th, another plebiscite was held. 99% of the registered voters went to the polls, and 98.8% voted approval of Hitler’s reoccupation of the Rhineland. Hitler had become the most popular man in Germany.

 

With this accomplishment securely in the bag, Hitler then went back to Berchtesgaden, his retreat in the Bavarian mountains, to relax while things calmed down, but also to ponder his next move, for he had many more moves to make in implementing his plan of irredentism for Germany.

 

Meanwhile, in Berlin and throughout Germany, preparations were underway to host the coming Summer Olympics. The Berlin Olympics would be a big opportunity for the Nazis to show off the new Germany they had created to people from all over the world.

 

 

 

Chapter 15

 


The 1936 Olympics

 

 

Berlin won the bid in April 1931 to host the 1936 Olympic Games over Barcelona, its number one contender. The bid for the games had been won two years before the Nazis were elected into office in Germany. When the Nazis came to power, American Jewish organizations immediately demanded that some other venue be chosen for the games other than Berlin. The American Jewish Congress and the Jewish Labor Committee staged rallies to oppose America’s participation in the games if the games were not moved out of Berlin.

 

[Add. image — A pedestrian pauses to read a notice announcing an upcoming public meeting, scheduled for Tuesday, December 3, to urge Americans to boycott the 1936 Berlin Olympics. New York, United States, 1935.]

 

Avery Brundage, President of the American Olympic Committee, to his very great credit, decided, despite this pressure, that America would participate in the Games in Berlin as scheduled. International Jewry already had a propaganda campaign under way against the Nazis long before they came into office, and Brundage took the view that the attempted boycott of the Olympic Games was just another “Jewish-Communist conspiracy” against Germany, which, of course, it was. He stated that Jewish athletes were not being treated unfairly in any way by anyone. The Jews were nevertheless relentless.

 

[Add. image — Avery Brundage (born Sep 28, 1887) competed in the decathlon at the 1912 Olympic Games. He became president of the U.S. Olympic Association and Committee in 1929, then served as president of the International Olympic Committee (1952–72).]

 

The story most repeated about Hitler and the Olympic Games in Berlin, is that Hitler refused to shake the hand of the American black athlete Jesse Owens after he had won a race. This myth is widespread, and appears as fact in many journals and publications today, including, for example, in Microsoft’s Encarta Encyclopedia.

 

What actually happened is that Hitler personally attended the first day of the track and field competition on August 2, 1936, and personally congratulated the German athlete Hans Wollke, who was the first German to win a gold medal in the Olympics since 1896. Throughout the rest of the day, Hitler continued to receive Olympic champions, both German and non-German, in his VIP box.

 

The next day, August 3, the chairman of the International Olympic Committee, Comte Bailet-Latour, approached Hitler early in the morning and told him that he had violated Olympic protocol by personally congratulating each Olympic winner. Hitler duly apologized and said that he would hence forward refrain from shaking the hands of the winners.

 

Later in the same day, when Jesse Owens won his gold medals, Hitler did not shake his hand…or anybody else’s, during the remainder of the games.

 

It is, therefore, utterly false to claim that Hitler deliberately chose to snub Owens. In his autobiography, “The Jesse Owens Story,” 1970, Owens recounted how Hitler had stood up and waved to him:

“When I passed the Chancellor,” he wrote, “he arose, waved his hand at me, and I waved back at him. I think the writers showed bad taste in criticizing the man of the hour in Germany.”

 

During the afternoon of the first day, Hitler and his entourage left the stadium early because rain threatened. In fact, it had already begun to sprinkle. Coincidentally, the American black, Cornelius Johnson, had just barely beaten his American teammate in the high jump to win a gold medal shortly before Hitler left the stadium. The anti-German propagandists reported through the International Jewish press that Hitler had “stormed out” of the stadium in a tantrum because a black man had won an event. Hitler was much too sensitive to world opinion to have left himself open to negative publicity by any such inappropriate behavior.

 

But the facts would never stand in the way of a good anti-Nazi story. The Jewish owned New York Times carried on its front page, “Hitler greets all medalists except Americans,” the day after the first competitive events.

 

The headline on the next day’s paper read, “Hitler ignores Negro medalists.” Not by coincidence, the New York Times had earlier led the movement to boycott the Berlin games. Other newspapers picked up the story. “Hitler Snubs Jesse,” read the huge, bold headline of a black Cleveland paper, Call and Post. The Baltimore Afro-American carried the headline “‘Adolf’ Snubs U.S. Lads“. These were deliberate lies. Nothing of the kind had happened.

 

The Baltimore African-American newspaper, August 8, 1936.

 

Another story spread around about the 1936 Olympics by the anti-German press was that Owens’ victory “disproved the Nazi master race theory.” If anything, the Games supported that idea, if, in fact, such an idea even existed. Germany won 89 medals, while the United States, with two and a half times Germany’s population, won 56.

 

That Germany claimed to be the “master race” is another myth with no basis in fact; just more anti-German propaganda from the International Jewish press. The Nazis never made any such claim (though the Jews do claim to be God’s chosen people), and Hitler never used the term, “master race,” or anything close to it to describe the German people. Hitler used the term “Aryan” to represent all the Germanic peoples of Europe, including the British, Dutch, Swedes, Norwegians, Fins, Swiss, and all the other peoples of Europe of Germanic origin. Hitler believed that the Aryan people were culturally superior to most of the rest of mankind as manifested in all their achievements. He wrote in Mein Kampf:

“All the human culture, all the results of art, science, and technology that we see before us today, are almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan…”

 

This idea was generally accepted by all Europeans at the time, and could hardly be disputed given the fact that almost all civilizational advances were accomplished by these people. The British have always considered themselves to be a superior race. The anti-German international Jewish press deliberately misinterpreted these general concepts to mean that the Germans considered themselves alone to be the “Master Race.” In fact, no such claim was ever made.

 

In what was to become an act of extreme irony, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, then running for re-election and concerned about the reaction of the southern states, refused to see Jesse Owens at the White House. Owens was later to remark that it was Roosevelt, not Hitler, who snubbed him.

 

Jesse Owens was the citizen of a country whose racism would have made Hitler blush. In Hitler’s Germany, Jesse Owens could share a bus or tram ride with white people. Treated equally in all respects before the law, he could sit in a movie theater next to whites, use public toilets, dine in restaurants, and stay in hotels without any discrimination being shown towards him. There were many things he could do in Hitler’s Germany that were forbidden at home in the United States. In the United States black athletes were required to eat separately from their white fellow athletes. If they were allowed to share the same hotel at all, which was unlikely, it would be necessary for them to use the service entrance. There were no blacks on any major league baseball team and there were no black swimmers. This was in the enlightened north. In the southern states there was no possibility of a black being allowed to participate in any sport, except to compete with other blacks. For the Jewish press to have smeared Hitler and the German people in general as “racists” was hypocritical in the extreme.

 

Jesse Owens evidently enjoyed his time in Hitler’s Germany immensely. In Germany he received a lot of pre-Olympic media hype and the German people idolized him.

“Once at the stadium, the mere appearance of Jesse Owens’ head from some pit below the stands would cause sections of the crowd to break out in chants of, ‘Yes-sa Ov-enss! Yes-sa Ov-enss!’” — Richard D. Mandell. “The Nazi Olympics.”

“Some mornings at the Olympic village the athletic hero of the hour was awakened by amateur photographers who flocked outside his bedroom window to click at the athlete before he could gather poise for one of his many appearances before the mobs in Berlin.” — Richard D. Mandell. “The Nazi Olympics.”

“Jesse Owens was cheered as loudly as any Aryan.” — Lawrence N. Snyder; Jesse’s coach. Saturday Evening Post, Nov. 7th, 1936.

 

When Jesse Owens first returned to the states, he denied that he had been snubbed by Hitler or that he had been mistreated in any way. But he learned soon enough that he could use the “snub myth” to his own advantage. In his postwar interviews, postwar public addresses, and in his “ghosted” articles and books, he began to claim that Hitler had, indeed, refused to shake his hand, and he also began to repeat the lie that Hitler “left the stadium in a tantrum” when a black athlete won a medal, because that is what people wanted to hear. As he discovered that anti-Hitler stories resonated well with American audiences, he began to exaggerate his “mistreatment” stories even further. Such exaggerations finally became the central feature of his talks as he described how emotionally torn apart he was by the “snubs” and other mistreatment by Hitler and the Nazis. The reality is that Jesse Owens was given the warmest ovation of his life by the German spectators, including Hitler.

 

Yet another myth still commonly believed as the result of the anti-German propaganda is that American blacks “ran away” with the gold medals during the Berlin games. It is true that Owens won four gold medals, but outside of track and field, the Germans dominated the Olympic Games of 1936 by winning more medals than all other participants combined.

 

These are only some of the flagrant distortions about Nazi Germany created by the International Jewish propaganda campaign. Since the victors write the historical accounts of events, Nazi Germany has been permanently smeared with these blatantly false stories.

 

Hitler’s “Film Expert to the National Socialist Party,” Leni Riefenstahl, made a documentary of the 1936 Olympic Games, called, “Olympia”, which nearly matched her earlier film, “Triumph of the Will”, in its propaganda value to the Third Reich. The film won many international awards.

 

Leni Riefenstahl shooting the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin

 

Germany scored a huge propaganda coup with the 1936 Olympic games, despite all efforts of the International Jewish press to denigrate it. The world was able to see firsthand “the new Germany” which had been created by Nazi rule. German hospitality won high praise from visitors from all over the world, and Adolf Hitler was seen as the man of the hour.

 

Despite efforts being made by international Jewry to discredit Nazi Germany in every way possible, most objective reports were favorable to Germany as a result of the Games. Frederick Birchall reported in the New York Times that the Games put Germany “back in the fold of nations,” and even made them “more human again.”

 

Hitler at the opening ceremony of the 1936 Olympic Games.

 

 

Berlin’s Olympic Stadium

 

But Jewish reporters consistently took only the most sinister interpretation of everything occurring in Germany. The Jewish journalist William Shirer, for example, regarded the:

“Berlin glitter on display for the world to see as merely hiding a menacing, racist, militaristic regime, … I’m afraid the Nazis have succeeded with their propaganda,” he wrote. “First, the Nazis have run the Games on a lavish scale never before experienced, and this has appealed to the athletes. Second, the Nazis have put up a very good front for the general visitors, especially the big businessmen.”

 

The most well intentioned and even the most praiseworthy activities of the Germans were seen by Shirer and other Jewish reporters only as a “front.”

 

The Jewish propaganda of that time was designed to smear and discredit Germany and the Nazis, not to present an accurate picture of actual events. Every event was deliberately twisted in the Jewish press to mean something it didn’t. Every word and gesture of Hitler or any Nazi was deliberately misinterpreted to cast them in the worst possible light. Sinister motives were attributed to every act and deed. When Hitler behaved in a courteous, considerate, statesmanlike manner, it was reported in the Jewish press that he was “wearing a false face,” and that he was “cynically manipulating world opinion for his own sinister purposes.”

 

Despite all that is now known to be true about the circumstances surrounding the 1936 Olympic Games, especially the personal conduct of Hitler himself, Jewish writers and historians continue, even to this day, to trot out the same old propaganda lies of the 1930s and 40s.

Shirley Povich, (July 15, 1905 — June 4, 1998) Jewish sports writer for the Washington Post newspaper.

 

A good example of this is an article written by the Jewish sports writer Shirley Povich for the Washington Post on July 6, 1996, titled, “Berlin, 1936: At the Olympics, Achievements of the Brave in a Year of Cowardice.” The article was written to commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games. (It is worth mentioning that the Washington Post is a Jewish owned newspaper, and was an enthusiastic participant in the international Jewish smear campaign against Germany during the 1930s and 40s. The Washington Post also participated in the effort to boycott the Berlin Olympic Games.) He begins his article by writing:

“It is about the 1936 Olympics in Berlin that Adolf Hitler turned into a sickening pageant of Nazi propaganda, supported by submissive U.S. Olympic officials and craven American track and field coaches who, like Nazi cousins, kicked their only two Jewish athletes off the 4 x 100-meter relay team. And it is about Hitler’s snub of America’s victorious black Olympians in their triumph.”

 

Povich’s description of the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin is simply astonishing in view of what is known to be the real story about the Games today. The Nazis were defeated and destroyed in 1945, yet half a century later the preposterous Jewish anti-German propaganda campaign continues unabated.

 

In the article, he repeats the lie that our “own Jewish athletes were kicked off the team, in order to placate Hitler.” He also repeats the lie that Hitler snubbed Jesse Owens and the other black American athletes. He preposterously states that Hitler “already had the killing of six million Jews in mind.” He wrote that Germany did not permit German Jews to participate in the games. That was a lie. The Jewess Helene Mayer, for example, was a member of the German fencing team.

 

In the article, Povich accused Avery Brundage, head of U.S. Olympic Committee, of cowardice for refusing to participate in the attempted boycott of the Olympic Games. Povich claims that prominent Catholic, Protestant, as well as Jewish individuals and groups in the United States, were loudly clamoring for a boycott, as were, he says, trade unions and civic organizations. That was not true. The campaign to boycott the Olympics was a purely Jewish campaign. Catholics and Protestants had nothing to do with it, and did not support it. Trade unions did support it, but trade unions were totally dominated and controlled by Communist Jews.

 

Povich states in the article that Germany was humiliated by the American black athletes. In reality, Germany, at less than half of the population of the United States, won 89 medals to America’s 56.

 

Povich claims that two Jews were removed from the American team simply because they were Jews. Not so! The two Jews that were removed were replaced by two blacks who outperformed them.

 

Povich’s article was a reiteration of the blatant anti-Nazi propaganda spewed out of the Jewish controlled media during the Nazi era, without a word of truth in it. The article totally mischaracterized events as they actually occurred, yet, his version of events has become the official history of the 1936 Olympic Games, the history taught to children in school.

 

 

 

[END of Part 14]

 

______________________________

 

 

PDF Notes

* Total words = 5,575

* Total pages = 32

*Total images = 12

 

*Note: Images not in original book are indicated as “Add. image” (Additional image).

*Text in [square brackets] is not part of the original book.

*Special thanks to reader “mblaine” for providing the text for this book.

 

 

======================================

 

<

div>

Click to download a PDF of this post (3.3 MB).

 

The Myth of Germany Villainy – Part 14 – Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory – The 1936 Olympics

 

 

 

 

Click on a link to go to another part:

[Click images to enlarge]

 

 

Part 01 — Cover text; About the Author; Preface; Chapter 1: The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Part 02 — Chapter 2: Aftermath of the War in Germany

Part 03 — Chapter 3: The Jewish Factor in the War

Part 04 — Chapter 4: The Russian Revolution of 1917

Part 05 — Chapter 5: The Red Terror

Part 06 — Chapter 6: The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Part 07 — Chapter 7: The Nation of Israel

Part 08 — Chapter 8: Jews in Weimar Germany

Part 09 — Chapter 9: Hitler and National Socialists Rise to Power

 

 

Part 10 — Chapter 10: National Socialism vs Communism

Part 11 — Chapter 11: Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Part 12 — Chapter 12: The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

Part 13 — Chapter 13: Life in Germany Under Hitler

Part 14 — Chapter 14 & 15: Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory; The 1936 Olympics

Part 15 — Chapter 16: “Anschluss” The Unification of Austria and Germany

Part 16 – Chapter 17: Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

Part 17 – Chapter 18: War with Poland

Part 18 – Chapter 19: The Phony War

 

 

Part 19 – Chapter 20: Germany invades France – The Phony War Ends

Part 20 – Chapter 21: The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

Part 21 – Chapter 22: Germany as Victim

Part 22 (last) – Chapter 23: Winners and Losers

 

 

 

See also:

 

The Myth of German Villainy: Author Ben Bradberry Interview — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

 

 

_____________________

 

 

Version History

 

Version 5: Mar 13, 2021 – Added new Go2 Cover images (3).

 

Version 4: May 5, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

 

Version 3: Apr 9, 2020 — Added updated links to other parts.

 

Version 2: Jan 5, 2017 — Added PDF of post for download.

 

Version 1: Dec 31, 2016 — Created post.

]]> https://katana17.com/2016/12/31/book-the-myth-of-german-villainy-part-14-hitler-begins-reclamation-of-german-territory-the-1936-olympics/feed/ 12 Book – The Myth of German Villainy – Part 13 – Life in Germany Under Hitler https://katana17.com/2016/12/24/book-the-myth-of-german-villainy-part-13-life-in-germany-under-hitler/ https://katana17.com/2016/12/24/book-the-myth-of-german-villainy-part-13-life-in-germany-under-hitler/#comments Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:20:43 +0000 https://katana17.com/wp/?p=12830 Continue reading →]]>

 

[Part 13]

 

[Benton Bradberry’s 2012 book, “The Myth of German Villainy” is a  superb, must-read, revisionist look at how the German people have been systematically, relentlessly and most importantly, unjustly vilified as the arch criminal of the 20th century. Bradberry sets out, cooly and calmly as befits a former US-Navy officer and pilot, to show why and how the German people have been falsely accused of massive crimes and that their chief  accuser and tormenter, organized jewry is in fact the real party guilty of monstrous crimes against Germans and the rest of the world.

Part 13, starts with an outline of the dire conditions in Germany prior to the National Socialists taking power. After taking power international jewry launched a world-wide trade boycott against Germany and cut off funding from international jewish banks. In part response Hitler asked the German people to give him 4 years of emergency dictatorial power (Enabling Act) to solve the problems that confronted Germany.

What Hitler intended was a total revolution.

“The people,” he said, “were not put here on earth for the sake of the economy, and the economy does not exist for the sake of capital. On the contrary, capital should serve the economy, and the economy in turn should serve the people.”

In the section, “Night of the Long Knives” Hitler finally takes action against the SA’s Chief of Staff, Ernst Rohm and his close associates that were causing the Party to lose support from industry and military leaders, in addition to threatening a possible coup against Hitler. Hitler was praised in a Daily Mail article for saving his country.

In the section, “1934 Annual Nazi Rally at Nuremberg” Hitler proclaimed the “thousand year Reich”. The Nuremberg Rally was held annually in September until 1938 to show the world and energize the nationalistic pride of the German people and their support for National Socialism.

In the section, “Hitler Revives the German Economy” the dramatic and probably the greatest economic turnaround in history is described. The world’s first superhighway system, the “Autobahn,” was a shining example of National Socialism’s economic policies at work. Mass production of the Volkswagen, which literally means “people’s car,” was another. Germany got around the jewish trade boycott and capital strangulation using a barter system that helped the economy flourish.

Finally, in the section, “Hitler Becomes the Most Popular Leader in the World” the praise and admiration of foreign statesmen and prominent personalities for the success of Germany under Hitler and the National Socialists is described. Even that traitorous tool of international jewry was moved to say:

“One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated I should hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.”― Winston Churchill, 1935

— KATANA.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE: The author has very generously given me permission to reproduce the material here — KATANA.

 The book can be bought at Amazon here: The Myth of German Villainy

 

 

 

The Myth of

 

German Villainy

 

by

 

Benton L. Bradberry

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

[Clicking on a link in the Contents here will take you to that Part, in a separate post]

 

[Part 01]

Preface

Chapter 1 – The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Germany’s Positive Image Changes Overnight

[Part 02]

Chapter 2 – Aftermath of the War in Germany

The Versailles Treaty

Effect of the Treaty on the German Economy

Was the War Guilt Clause Fair?

Did Germany Really Start the War?

[Part 03]

Chapter 3 – The Jewish Factor in the War

Jews at the Paris Peace Conference

Jews in Britain

[Part 04]

Chapter 4 – The Russian Revolution of 1917

Bolsheviks Take Control

Jews and the Russian Revolution

Origin of East European Jews

Reason for the Russian Pogroms Against the Jews

Jews Leave Russia for America

Financing the 1917 Revolution

Jews in the Government of Bolshevik Russia

[Part 05]

Chapter 5 – The Red Terror

Creation of the Gulag

Bolsheviks Kill the Czar

Jews as a Hostile Elite

The Ukrainian Famine (Holodomor)

[Part 06]

Chapter 6 – The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Jews in the Hungarian Revolution

Miklos Horthy Saves Hungary

Jews in the German Revolution

The Spartacist Uprising in Berlin

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Italy

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Spain — The Spanish Civil War

Czechoslovakia in Danger of Communist Takeover

The Comintern’s Aim? World Domination!

[Part 07]

Chapter 7 – The Nation of Israel

History of the Expulsion of Jews

[Part 08]

Chapter 8 – Jews in Weimar Germany

Jews Undermine German Culture

[Part 09]

Chapter 9 – Hitler & National Socialists Rise to Power

The 25 Points of the National Socialist Party

[Part 10]

Chapter 10 – National Socialism vs. Communism

National Socialism

Jews Plan Marxist Utopia

[Part 11]

Chapter 11 – Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Text of Untermeyer’s Speech in New York

The Jewish Persecution Myth

Effect of Boycott on the German Economy

Jewish Exaggerations are Contradicted by Many

[Part 12]

Chapter 12 – The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

The Nuremberg Laws – 1935

The Zionist Movement

[Part 13]

Chapter 13 – Life in Germany Under Hitler

Night of the Long Knives

1934 Annual Nazi Rally at Nuremberg

Hitler Revives the German Economy

Hitler Becomes the Most Popular Leader in the World

[Part 14]

Chapter 14 – Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory

Chapter 15 – The 1936 Olympics

[Part 15]

Chapter 16 – “Anschluss”. The Unification of Austria and Germany

Austrian Economy Revived

Austria’s Jews

[Part 16]

Chapter 17 – Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

[Part 17]

Chapter 18 – War with Poland

The Polish Problem

Hitler’s Proposal to Poland

Kristallnacht

German-Polish Talks Continue

Jews Influence both Roosevelt and Churchill

British and American Political Leaders Under Jewish Influence

Roosevelt’s Contribution to Hostilities

Lord Halifax Beats the War Drums

Germany Occupies Bohemia and Moravia

Roosevelt Pushes for War

Anti-war Movement Becomes Active

Poles Murder German Nationals Within the Corridor

[Part 18]

Chapter 19 – The Phony War

Russo-Finnish War

The Norway/Denmark Campaign

German Invasion of Denmark and Norway

Churchill Takes Chamberlain’s Place as Prime Minister

[Part 19]

Chapter 20 – Germany invades France Through the Low Countries

The Phony War Ends.

Churchill the War Lover

The Fall of France

Hitler Makes Peace Offer to Britain

[Part 20]

Chapter 21 – The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

[Part 21]

Chapter 22 – Germany as Victim

Rape and Slaughter

Jewish Vengeance

The Jewish Brigade

[Part 22]

Chapter 23 – Winners and Losers

Bibliography

 

 

 

Chapter 13

 


Life in Germany

 

Under Hitler 

 

 

 

 

When Hitler came to power, Germany was hopelessly bankrupt and deeply in debt. The Treaty of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations requirements on the German people, demanding that Germany pay all the costs incurred by the Allied nations during the war. This was totally unrealistic because the combined costs of the war totaled three times the value of all property in Germany, completely beyond Germany’s ability to pay. At the same time that the Treaty required Germany to pay these unrealistic reparations, other measures in the Treaty, i.e. taking her coal mines, her merchant fleet and her richest farmlands and giving them to other countries, reduced her ability to pay even further. As unrealistic as these demands were, France nevertheless demanded that they be paid, and paid on time, and then sent the French army in to occupy the Rhineland for the purpose of enforcing these reparations payments. The German army was limited by the Treaty to only 100,000 men, too small to resist an invasion, or to even effectively police the country.

 

Germany was in a double bind. She had no choice but to pay the reparations, but pay with what? To meet the scheduled payments, the German government resorted to printing money, which, predictably, created inflation. Once inflation began, private currency speculators jumped in to try to make money off the inflation by selling the mark short. This caused the German mark to plummet in value, setting off an inflationary spiral which quickly zoomed out of control. The Jews totally dominated finance and the financial markets in Germany, and nearly all of these currency speculators were Jews. Their role in setting off the inflation received wide publicity and was therefore well known by the German people. The inflation went out of control, to the point that at its worst, a wheelbarrow full of marks could not buy a loaf of bread.

 

Sweeping up worthless German Marks during the 1923 hyper inflation.

 

The thrifty German middle class who had always been careful savers, were ruined en masse by the inflation, as their life savings simply evaporated before their eyes. The value of the mark decreased so rapidly that prices were adjusted upwards several times a day. To compensate, employers began to pay their employees twice a day. With their pay in hand, these poor German people literally ran to a store, any store, to purchase almost anything of value before the price was adjusted upwards again. Almost any item or real asset was preferable to their handfuls of marks which were losing their value by the hour. This wild consumer spending set off an economic boom in Germany for a time, though that soon deflated. Due to the velocity of the inflationary spiral, prices went up so fast that people could not buy enough food with the wages they earned. They began desperately selling off all their personal possessions just to buy enough food to keep themselves and their families alive as wages and salaries lagged far behind the rapidly increasing prices. Pawn shops proliferated. Countless homes, farms and commercial buildings were lost to private banks. Those with access to foreign capital, especially dollars, began buying up property all over Germany for pfennigs on the mark. The private banks and the pawn shops were owned almost entirely by Jews, and the Jews were the ones who had access to foreign capital.

 

The Jews, as a result, grew rich off the inflation, while ordinary Germans were reduced to living in hovels, and in many cases, starving to death.

 

According to the British historian Sir Arthur Bryant in “Unfinished Victory,” 1940:

“It was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities. They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of the real property in the Reich. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation. But to those who had lost their all this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings they had now been deprived of their last possessions. They saw them pass into the hands of strangers, many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and who cared little or nothing for their national standards and traditions.”

The 1923 inflation resulted in the largest transfer of wealth from one group to another ― that is, from the Germans to the Jews ― in all of German history, and, as might have been expected, feelings of bitter resentment developed toward the Jews because of it.

 

As if this were not enough, the inflation was soon followed by a global depression which hit the already fragile German economy especially hard. Germany’s unemployment rate at the depth of the depression was the highest in Europe at 30%; even higher than that of the United States, which stood at 24%. Germany’s depression was not just worse than America’s Great Depression, it was much worse. Anguished parents in Germany watched helplessly as their children starved to death. People lost their homes. Shanty towns of hovels constructed of shipping crates and the like sprang up all around Germany’s cities and in the forests. To keep alive, they made communal pots of soup out of anything they could scrounge up, such as turnips, potatoes, and even grass.

 

By the beginning of 1933, the misery of the German people was virtually universal. At least six million unemployed and hungry workers roamed aimlessly through the streets looking for anything to eat or any way to earn a few pfennigs with which to buy food. The government paid unemployment benefits, but only for six months, after which, nothing, and what it paid was pitifully inadequate. These unemployed men had families to feed, so that altogether some 20 million Germans, a third of the population, were at the point of starvation.

 

 

Line at the unemployment office in Hanover, Germany in 1930

 

The cost of welfare amounted to 57% of the total revenue taken in by the government. The entire society was at the point of collapse. Those lucky enough to still have jobs were not much better off, as their salaries and wages had been sharply reduced. The intellectuals were hit as hard, or harder, than the working class. The unemployment rate of university graduates was 60%. Well educated people could be seen on the streets of Berlin with signs on their backs saying they would accept any kind of work. But there was no work. Hardest hit of all were the construction workers, 90% of whom were unemployed.

 

Farmers had also been ruined by the two economic disasters; the inflation followed a few years later by the depression. Many had been forced to mortgage their homes and land, but then, when the economy “crashed,” the value of real estate declined to the point that by 1932, to use the parlance of today, they were “under water” in loan to value ratio. Those who could not meet the interest payments saw their homes and farms auctioned off, the result of which was that those with access to foreign currencies (again, mainly Jews) grew rich off the misery of the hapless ordinary Germans. In 1931 and 1932, 17,157 farms, with a combined total of 1.15 million acres, were liquidated in this way.

 

Germany’s industries, once the envy of the world, saw drastic reductions in production. Thousands of factories had closed down, resulting in a 50 percent decrease in gross industrial production compared to what it had been in 1920. Exports had also dropped by an astounding 75 percent. Germany’s central bank, the Reichsbank, was in danger of collapse due to the growing number of outstanding loans going into the red, while at the same time foreign loans were being called in.

 

It was estimated during that time that no more than around 100,000 people in all of Germany were able to live without financial worries. Germany was a nation of 65 million people living in gut-wrenching misery caused by a variety of problems, including the imposed burdens of the Versailles Treaty, industrial stagnation, horrific unemployment, and serious political instability. The situation became so bad that between 1929 and 1933 some 250,000 Germans committed suicide out of despair and hopelessness. The birth rate in Germany dropped from 33.4 per thousand to just 14.7 per thousand. Even this birth rate was achieved only because of the higher birth rate in the countryside. In the 50 largest cities, there were more deaths than births. In Berlin, deaths exceeded births by 60 percent. This morass of misery caused many to submit to the allures of Communism, making a Communist takeover of the country a real possibility. The Weimar government proved itself totally incompetent to deal with this multiplicity of crises, with its various factions squabbling impotently as Germany teetered on the brink of disaster.

 

Germany’s situation was further aggravated by the unrestrained competition of its 25 regional states whose governments were often in direct conflict with policies of the central Reich government. These states, such as Bavaria, Prussia, Wurttemberg and Saxony, had ancient origins, and only a few years before, that is, before the 1871 consolidation of Germany, they had been independent, sovereign monarchies. Not surprisingly, they jealously guarded the power and privileges which still remained. Germany was a federation, with a weak central government and each of the 25 states was still ostensibly sovereign. Getting them to work together for the greater good of Germany was nearly impossible. Germany had become a country that was ungovernable.

 

 

March 21, 1933, Hitler strolls toward the Garrison Church in Potsdam (Suburb of Berlin) for a ceremony to open the new Reichstag session. Hitler became Chancellor in January, 1933.

 

These were the conditions that existed in Germany when Hitler and the National Socialists came to power in 1933. But as if the situation were not bad enough, conditions were made worse by the worldwide Jewish boycott of German goods which immediately followed Hitler’s election to the Chancellorship. The immediate result of the boycott was a precipitous 10% drop in German exports, which were already disastrously low, which then threw even more people out of work. The boycott also attempted to strangle the German economy by cutting off funding from international Jewish banks. International Jewry had declared war on Germany with the intention of undermining and destroying the already fragile German economy in order to discredit and destroy the National Socialists (Nazis) who had just been elected into office. Germany was already at the point of collapse, and the boycott might well have been the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.

 

After assessing the situation, Hitler gave a speech to the German people in which he said that the difficulties facing Germany were so dire that he needed emergency dictatorial powers in order to confront them:

“German people, give us four years time, after which you can arraign us before your tribunal and you can judge me!”

 

Hitler speaks to the German people and asks for 4 years of dictatorial power to cure Germany’s ills.

 

The Reichstag responded overwhelmingly. On March 23, 1933, the Reichstag voted 441 to 84 to pass the Enabling Act into law, which gave Hitler the 4 years of emergency dictatorial powers he said he needed to resurrect Germany’s economy.

“The great venture begins,” Hitler said. “The day of the Third Reich has come.”

 

Hitler knew from the start that the task he had set for himself would be immense and difficult to accomplish. He knew that Germany would have to be transformed from top to bottom, beginning with the very structure of the state. The old class structure would have to go and a new German society, imbued with a new civic spirit would then take its place. He also intended to free Germany from foreign hegemony (the Versailles Treaty) and to restore German honor in the world. But the first and most immediate task would be to put the six million unemployed back to work.

 

Hitler intended not only to put men back to work, but to give prestige and honor to the concept of “work,” itself. Germany had traditionally been stratified by “class,” with a privileged class at the top, including the industrialists, and the working class at the bottom, who were considered by the upper class to be nothing more than “instruments of production.” In the eyes of the capitalists, “money” was the important element in a country’s economy. To Hitler’s way of thinking, that conception was upside down. Hitler believed that “money” was only an instrument, and that “work” was the essential element in an economy. Work was man’s honor, blood, muscle and soul, Hitler believed.

 

“All work which is necessary ennobles him who performs it. Only one thing is shameful ― to contribute nothing to the community.”

“Nothing falls into a man’s lap from heaven. It is from labor that life grows.”

“Social honor recognizes no distinction between the employer and the employed. All of them work for a common purpose and are entitled to equal honor and respect.” Adolf Hitler

 

Hitler wanted to put an end to the class struggle and to reestablish the priority of the human being as the principle factor in production. Germany could do without gold to finance industry, he believed. In any case, Germany was broke and didn’t have any gold. Other things could be used to finance industry, and he would find them, but “work” was the indispensable foundation for industry and for the economy. The worker had been alienated from society in Germany because he had traditionally been treated with disdain and contempt. Hitler believed that to restore the worker’s trust in the fatherland, he would from now on have to be treated as an equal, not as a socially inferior “instrument of production.” Hitler argued that under previous so-called democratic governments, those who ran these governments failed to understand that in the hierarchy of national values, “work” is the very essence of life. Mere matter, either steel, or gold, or money of any kind, is only a tool.

 

What Hitler intended was a total revolution.

“The people,” he said, “were not put here on earth for the sake of the economy, and the economy does not exist for the sake of capital. On the contrary, capital should serve the economy, and the economy in turn should serve the people.”

 

It would not be enough to reopen the thousands of closed factories, put the people back to work and continue with business as usual. Unless things were drastically changed, the workers would remain, as they had been before, nothing more than living machines, faceless and interchangeable. Hitler was determined to establish a new moral balance between the workers and capitalism. He was determined that capital was to be used in its proper function as a tool to facilitate what the workers create with their labor.

“It will be the pride of my life,” Hitler said, “if I can say at the end of my days that I won back the German worker and restored him to his rightful place in the Reich.”

Hitler knew that such a revolution could not be achieved as Germany was presently structured. The 25 different states that made up Germany continued to compete with each other and to initiate policies that conflicted with those of the central government in Berlin. No coherent national program for economic recovery could be initiated as long as this condition existed. The revolution could also not succeed as long as there were dozens of political parties and thousands of deputies of every conceivable stripe, all squabbling and competing with each other. There would have to be centralization and control if the revolution were to succeed. There were also the Communists who continued assiduously in their efforts to undermine the German state and turn it into a Russian style Soviet Socialist Republic. The Communists would also have to be dealt with.

 

Hitler took a series of steps to secure absolute power over Germany which was necessary to impose a coherent recovery program. First, he abolished the independent local governments of the 25 states in Germany and replaced them with Reich Commissioners answerable only to Hitler and the National Socialist regime.

 

Jewish prisoners at Dachau, 1938.

 

Then he cracked down on the Communists. The SA and the SS rounded them up by the thousands and locked them up in the newly constructed “re-education center” at Dachau near Munich ― later called a “concentration camp.” 78% of the membership of the Communist Party in Germany was Jewish. Therefore, to arrest a Communist was almost always to arrest a Jew. It was not that Jews were being singled out for arrest because they were Jewish. They arrested the Communists who almost all happened to be Jews. Hitler saw the Communists as enemies of the German people.

 

By centralizing federal power in Berlin, and by locking up the Communists, Hitler put an end to the constant squabbling and working at cross purposes among the states and began to create rational, consistent policies and programs necessary for national recovery. Step by step, Hitler implemented his plan.

 

On May 2, 1933, Hitler outlawed the trade unions and ordered the SA to arrest the trade union leaders, who also happened to me mostly Jews. These too went to Dachau. Hitler then established the “German Labor Front” as the only labor organization allowed in Germany, and placed Dr. Robert Ley in charge. Ley, an intelligent and industrious man, had been an aviator in the war and worked as a chemist before joining the Nazi Party. Ley confiscated the money of the labor unions and used it to fund his “Strength Through Joy” program, a broad-based program to improve the working and living standards of Germany’s workers. As part of his program, Ley ordered two new cruise-liners to be built which were used to take German workers on foreign holidays. In 1938 an estimated 180,000 people went on cruises to places such as Madeira and the Norwegian fjords. Others were given free holidays in Germany.

 

Hitler with Dr. Robert Ley, new head of the German Labor Front.

 

The Strength Through Joy program also built sports facilities, paid for theatre visits, and financially supported travelling cabaret groups. Although the German worker paid for these benefits through compulsory deductions, the image of people being given holidays and subsidized entertainment was of great propaganda value for the Nazi government. It also vastly improved the lives of German workers.

 

The Strength Through Joy program also subsidized the development of the People’s Car, known as the Volkswagen. The American auto maker, Henry Ford, was an enthusiastic supporter of Hitler in his plan to reshape the German culture in favor of the working man. In fact, Hitler said, in 1931, “I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration.” Hitler’s (and Ley’s) mass production of the Volkswagen car was modeled on Ford’s formula of mass production, low prices, and high wages for workers. Ford also shared Hitler’s opinion of the Jews.

 

By abolishing the labor unions, Hitler was able to hold down wages to give industry a chance to prosper and grow. It has been said that labor unions are in the business of extortion. They extort ever higher wages out of factory owners by strikes and threats of strikes, by slowdowns and often by sabotaging machinery and equipment, all of which is extremely deleterious to industrial growth and development. The aims of labor unions can be summed up by a comment made by the American labor leader, Samuel Gompers. When asked what the labor unions wanted, he said, “More.” Even though self-defeating in the end, labor unions never stop demanding ever higher wages and benefits, until eventually they put the company out of business. By outlawing the labor unions and establishing the government controlled “German Labor Front,” Hitler was able to maintain a fair wage level for all German workers, not just the members of trade unions, and at the same time to end the strangulation effect of the trade unions on German industry.

 

On July 14, 1933 the Communist Party and the Social Democrat Party were banned. Party activists still in the country were arrested and sent to the concentration camp. Hitler decided that while they were at it, they would clean up Germany in other ways, as well. The Gestapo began arresting and incarcerating beggars, prostitutes, homosexuals, alcoholics and anyone who refused to work, or who was “work shy,” as they put it. A law was then enacted banning all political parties except for the Nazi Party.

 

All of these measures were met by hysterical propaganda diatribes in the international Jewish press in which events were exaggerated out of all proportion to their actual significance. Labor unions, the Communist party and all other left-wing movements and organizations had been specifically targeted by Hitler and the Nazis as “enemies of the German people.” As Jews were highly disproportionately represented in the labor unions and all other left-wing movements and organizations, they were disproportionately arrested and incarcerated at Dachau. This was described in the international Jewish press as an attack upon the Jews.

 

The Nazis were accused of specifically singling out and arresting Jews, simply because they were Jews. In reality, there was, at this time, no specific Nazi program to target Jews, per se. Nevertheless, international Jewry made the most of this opportunity in their anti-German propaganda campaign.

 

 

Night of the Long Knives

 

The greatest threat to Hitler’s survival during the early years of the Third Reich came from the SA, a huge and powerful organization within the Nazi Party, around 3½ million strong, led by its Chief of Staff, Ernst Rohm. [The SA (Sturmabteilung), literally Storm Detachment/Assault Division, functioned as the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party (NSDAP). Also known as the “Brownshirts” and “Storm Troopers”.] The SA was largely responsible for putting Hitler into power, but now in power, things changed. If he was to succeed in implementing his programs, Hitler now needed the support of the industrial and military leaders. The German General Staff despised and detested the SA. The Industrialists who had financed Hitler, also detested the SA and saw them as a dangerous bunch of hooligans. Rohm had made matters worse for himself by indiscreet remarks about absorbing the German army into the SA with himself as the commander. The SA was at that time much larger than the Army. This further set the General Staff’s teeth on edge.

 

Several of the SA leaders, including Rohm, had also been vocal about their socialistic, anti-capitalist sentiments, which neither Hitler, the industrialists nor the army approved of. The SA Brown Shirts were also not very popular with the average Germany citizen because of their gangster-like, thuggish behavior. Critical and derisive remarks made indiscreetly by Rohm about Hitler, personally, also got out. Rohm began to be seen as a “loose cannon” whose loyalty could no longer be trusted, and who might even be a threat to Hitler’s leadership. General von Bloomberg and President Paul von Hindenburg advised Hitler that he had to do something about Rohm and the SA or they would no longer be able to support him. The industrialists were telling him the same thing. Both Hermann Goering and Heinrich Himmler had already been warning Hitler of a possible coup by Rohm’s SA against Hitler, himself. Hitler finally decided that he had to act against Rohm and the SA.

 

Hitler began by ordering all the SA leaders to attend a meeting in the Hanselbauer Hotel in the city of Wiesse. There was no explanation of what the meeting was about. Meanwhile Goering and Himmler were drawing up a list of political enemies outside the SA whom they wanted eliminated. On June 29, 1934, Hitler, accompanied by the SS, arrived at Wiesse where he personally arrested Ernst Rohm. During the next 24 hours 200 other senior SA officers were arrested on their way to Wiesse.

 

[Add. image — Hanselbauer Hotel in the city of Bad Wiessee where Rohm was arrested.]

 

Several were shot as soon as they were captured but others were taken into custody for further consideration. Hitler personally liked Rohm and decided to pardon him because of his past services to the Nazi movement, but both Goering and Himmler argued against it, advising Hitler that he was making a dangerous mistake. Hitler finally relented and decided that Rohm must die, but insisted that he be given the chance to commit suicide. When Rohm refused, he was shot by two SS men.

 

Chief of the SA, Ernst Rohm

 

All together, around 77 of these “unreliables,” including Rohm, were “officially” shot, putting an end to all opposition to Hitler and the National Socialists. Unofficial estimates of the number executed range much higher, however. In a speech following the executions, Hitler explained his actions to the German people.

“In this hour I was responsible for the fate of the German people, and thereby I became the supreme judge of the German people. I gave the order to shoot the ringleaders in this treason.”

 

The Night of the Long Knives was a turning point in the Nazi regime, making Hitler the supreme, unchallenged ruler of Germany.

 

An article in the Daily Mail of London was full of praise for Hitler’s actions.

“Herr Adolf Hitler, the German Chancellor, has saved his country. Swiftly and with exorable severity, he has delivered Germany from men who had become a danger to the unity of the German people and to the order of the state. With lightening rapidity he has caused them to be removed from high office, to be arrested, and put to death.

The names of the men who have been shot by his orders are already known. Hitler’s love of Germany has triumphed over private friendships and fidelity to comrades who had stood shoulder to shoulder with him in the fight for Germany’s future.”

Daily Mail, London, July 2nd 1934.

 

Victor Lutze was appointed to head the SA in Rohm’s place. Under Lutze, the SA gradually dwindled and lost its power as the SS under Himmler grew rapidly to take its place as the dominant force in Germany.

 

[Add. image — SA-Stabschef Viktor Lutze (28 December 1890 – 2 May 1943) was the commander of the SA, succeeding Ernst Röhm as Stabschef. He died from injuries received in a car accident. Lutze was given an elaborate state funeral in Berlin on 7 May 1943.]

 

On August 2, 1934, President von Hindenburg died and Hitler took over the office of President and thereby became Commander in Chief of the army. Hitler, thereafter called himself the “Fuhrer,” or leader.

 

On August 19, 1934, an election, called a “plebiscite,” was held in which the German people could express either their approval or disapproval of Hitler and his regime. About 95 percent of registered voters went to the polls, and 90% of them voted for Hitler. The election was internationally supervised, and by all accounts, was a fair and open election without voter intimidation of any kind. Hitler now had the overwhelming support of the German people.

 

 

1934 Annual Nazi Rally at Nuremberg

 

The Nazis held their annual rally at Nuremberg in September, 1934, just two weeks after the plebiscite, during which the Fuhrer’s grand proclamation was read:

“The German form of life is definitely determined for the next thousand years. The Age of Nerves of the nineteenth century has found its close with us. There will be no revolution in Germany for the next thousand years.”

 

The Jewish American journalist William L. Shirer (“Inside the Third Reich”) attended the rally to see what Nazi pomp and pageantry was all about. He wrote:

“I am beginning to comprehend some of the reasons for Hitler’s astounding success. Borrowing a chapter from the Roman Catholic Church, he is restoring pageantry and color and mysticism to the drab lives of 20th century Germans. This morning’s opening meeting…was more than a gorgeous show; it also had something of the mysticism and religious fervor of an Easter or Christmas Mass in a great Gothic cathedral. The hall was a sea of brightly colored flags. Even Hitler’s arrival was made dramatic. The band stopped playing. There was a hush over the thirty thousand people packed in the hall. Then the band struck up the Badenweiler March, … Hitler appeared in the back of the auditorium and followed by his aides, Goring, Goebbels, Hess, Himmler and the others, he slowly strode down the long center aisle while thirty thousand hands were raised in salute.”

 

To Shirer, the intoxicating atmosphere inside the hall was such that;

“every word dropped by Hitler seemed like an inspired word from on high.”

 

The 1934 Nazi rally at Nuremberg during which Hitler proclaimed the “thousand year Reich.”

 

In his speech before the Nuremberg Rally, Hitler absolved the SA Brown shirts from any complicity in the events precipitating the blood purge (Night of the Long Knives) which had just occurred, and acknowledged their unwavering loyalty to him and the party. The 50,000 Brown shirts assembled for the occasion responded with a full throated chorus of “Seig Heils.” There was no longer any question of SA loyalty.

 

The Nuremberg Rally was held annually in the month of September until 1938 when it was suspended. The Rallies were intended to show the world a German nation-state in lock step with its leader and his ideology. They also energized the nationalistic pride of the German people. Hitler obtained the services of the German film actress and director, Leni Riefenstahl, to make a documentary of the 1934 Nuremberg rally.

 

Mass gymnastics at the Nuremburg Rally during “Day of Community.” Hitler and the National Socialists promoted unity, discipline, health and vigor for the German “volk.” [Adolf Hitler watched the huge demonstrations given on the Zeppelin Field, Sep 8, 1938.]

 

Leni Riefenstahl had made a name for herself in the German film industry by appearing in a series of so-called mountain films directed by Arnold Franck. In these films, she played the part of a prototypically fit and healthy German girl with a properly Aryan face. This film genre would soon become associated with the nationalistic aspirations of the emerging Nazi party. She went on, in 1932, to write, direct and perform in her own mountain film, “The Blue Light.”

 

Hitler with Leni Riefenstahl at Nuremberg

 

Despite her lack of experience, the film was remarkably sophisticated in its visual effects. In the whiteness of its snow and the robust Teutonic energy of its heroines, The Blue Light was a celebration of the spirit and vitality of the Aryan Volk, a theme which was central to Nazi ideology.

 

It was no accident that Riefenstahl was hand-picked by Hitler to direct a series of documentary films that would cast National Socialism in a favorable light. The first and most influential of these films was Triumph of the Will, which was shot in commemoration of the 1934 rally at Nuremberg. This film has been called the most dazzling and successful propaganda film ever made.

 

 

Hitler Revives the German Economy

 

In a very short period of time, Hitler engineered what was and remains probably the greatest economic turnaround in history. People went from starving to full employment, and became so prosperous that ordinary workers were given vacations abroad, paid for by the German Labor Front, the government’s labor organization. Germany went from hopelessly bankrupt to massively restoring, and even expanding, its infrastructure. The world’s first superhighway system, the “Autobahn,” was a shining example. Mass production of the Volkswagen, which literally means “people’s car,” was another. General Eisenhower was so impressed by the German Autobahn system that when he became president years later, he initiated the superhighway system for American ― a direct replication of the German Autobahns. Hitler also pursued a policy of “autarky,” meaning, national “self sufficiency.” That is, Germany would limit imports and produce its own consumer goods, in so far as possible. Hitler transformed Germany from a seemingly irreversible deep depression into the most vibrant economy in Europe.

 

The Volkswagen (people’s car) begins mass production.

 

Hitler’s government had reduced unemployment from 6,014,000 in January 1933, when he became Chancellor, to less than 338,000 by September 1936. At the same time, wages also dramatically increased. German trade was prospering, and deficits of the cities and provinces had almost disappeared. Contrary to official historiography, expenditures for armaments had been minor up to this point, and played no part in Germany’s economic recovery. That came later.

 

Unemployment was eliminated at first, primarily by increased government spending on public works. Germany’s basic infrastructure, such as railways, roads, and public building projects, were improved and expanded. There was also indirect government support to private works projects. At the same time, taxes were sharply reduced to create an incentive for hiring more workers. The effect was an injection of increased wages into the national economy, followed by increased consumer spending, which itself led to job increases. Hitler’s policy of “autarky” (national self-sufficiency) had the effect of creating “wealth creating” jobs in manufacturing which was necessary to sustain long term economic growth. By 1936 there was a labor shortage, especially in the building and metallurgical trades.

 

[Add. image — Charles Lindbergh in Germany, inspecting German aviation.]

 

Charles Lindbergh and his wife Anne Morrow Lindbergh travelled widely in Germany at this time. In his book Autobiography of Values, Charles Lindbergh wrote:

“The organized vitality of Germany was what most impressed me: the unceasing activity of the people, and the convinced dictatorial direction to create the new factories, airfields, and research laboratories…”

 

His wife drew similar conclusions.

 

“… have never in my life been so conscious of such a directed force. It is thrilling when seen manifested in the energy, pride, and morale of the people―especially the young people,” she wrote in “The Flower and the Nettle.”

 

To counter the effects of the international Jewish boycott of Germany, including the financial strangulation, Hitler simply went around the international bankers by creating a new currency issued by the German government instead of borrowing it from the Jewish owned central bank. This new currency was not backed by gold, but by the credibility of the German government. The new mark was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the government. Hitler said:

“For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark’s worth of work done, or goods produced.”

 

The government paid workers in these new marks and the workers spent them on other goods and services, thus creating more jobs for more people. In this way the German people climbed out of the crushing debt imposed upon them by the international bankers (read, Jewish bankers). Within two years Germany was back on her feet again. It had a solid, stable currency with no debt and no inflation.

 

Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, despite the international bankers’ denial of foreign credit to Germany and despite the global boycott by Jewish owned industries and shipping. Germany got around the boycott and the capital strangulation by exchanging equipment and commodities directly with other countries using a barter system that cut the bankers completely out of the loop. The Jewish boycott actually boomeranged. While Germany flourished ― because barter eliminates national debt, interest on the debt, and trade deficits ― Jewish financiers were deprived of the money they would have earned on these activities. This, of course, only intensified international Jewry’s determination to undermine and destroy the Nazi regime.

“Through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full employment public works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began.” (Henry C.K. Liu, “Nazism and the German Economic Miracle,” Asia Times — May 24, 2005)

 

 

Hitler Becomes the Most Popular

 

Leader in the World

 

The German economic miracle did not escape the notice of foreign leaders who heaped praise on Hitler at every opportunity. David Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Britain wrote:

“I have now seen the famous German leader and also something of the great change he has affected. Whatever one may think of his methods ― and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary country, there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook.”

“He rightly claimed at Nuremberg that in four years his movement had made a new Germany.”

“It is not the Germany of the first decade that followed the war ― broken, dejected and bowed down with a sense of apprehension and impotence. It is now full of hope and confidence, and of a renewed sense of determination to lead its own life without interference from any influence outside its own frontiers.”

“There is for the first time since the war a general sense of security. The people are more cheerful. There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirit throughout the land. It is a happier Germany. I saw it everywhere, and Englishmen I met during my trip and who knew Germany well were very impressed with the change.”

“One man [Hitler] has accomplished this miracle. He is a born leader of men. A magnetic and dynamic personality with a single-minded purpose, a resolute will and a dauntless heart.”

“He is not merely in name but in fact the national Leader. He has made them safe against potential enemies by whom they were surrounded. He is also securing them against the constant dread of starvation which is one of the most poignant memories of the last years of the War and the first years of the Peace. Over 700,000 died of sheer hunger in those dark years. You can still see the effect in the physique of those who were born into that bleak world.”

“The fact that Hitler has rescued his country from the fear of repetition of that period of despair, penury and humiliation has given him an unchallenged authority in modern Germany.”

“As to his popularity, especially among the youth of Germany, there can be no manner of doubt. The old trust him; the young idolize him. It is not the admiration accorded to a popular leader. It is the worship of a national hero who has saved his country from utter despondence and degradation.”

“To those who have actually seen and sensed the way Hitler reigns over the heart and mind of Germany, this description may appear extravagant. All the same it is the bare truth. This great people will work better, sacrifice more, and, if necessary, fight with greater resolution because Hitler asks them to do so. Those who do not comprehend this central fact cannot judge the present possibilities of modern Germany.”

“That impression more than anything I witnessed during my short visit to the new Germany. There was a revivalist atmosphere. It had an extraordinary effect in unifying the nation.”

“Catholic and Protestant, Prussian and Bavarian, employer and workman, rich and poor, have been consolidated into one people. Religious, provincial and class origins no longer divide the nation. There is a passion for unity born of dire necessity.”

“The divisions, which followed the collapse of 1918, made Germany impotent to face the problems, internal and external. That is why the clash of rival passions is not only deprecated but temporarily suppressed.”

“I found everywhere a fierce and uncompromising hostility to Russian Bolshevism, coupled with a genuine admiration for the British people with a profound desire for a better and friendlier understanding of them. The Germans have definitely made up their minds never to quarrel with us again, nor have they any vindictive feelings towards the French. They have altogether put out of their minds any desire for the restoration of Alsace-Lorraine.”

“But there is a real hatred and fear of Russian Bolshevism, and unfortunately it is growing in intensity. It constitutes the driving force of their international and military policy. Their private and public talk is full of it. Wherever you go you need not wait long before you hear the word ‘Bolshevism’, and it recurs again and again with a wearying reiteration.”

“Their eyes are concentrated on the East as if they are watching intently for the breaking of the day of wrath. Against it they are preparing with German thoroughness.”

“This fear is not put on. High and low they are convinced there is every reason for apprehension. They have a dread of the great army, that has been built up in Russia in recent years.”

“An exceptionally violent anti-German campaign of abuse printed in the Russian official Press and propelled by the official Moscow radio has revived the suspicion in Germany that the Soviet Government are contemplating mischief.” ― David Lloyd George, Daily Express, 9/17/1936

 

Winston Churchill, who would later become Hitler’s most obstinate enemy when German economic power began to again challenge that of Great Britain, had this to say in 1935 ― (before he became the front man for the Jewish Focus Group):

“In fifteen years that have followed this resolve, he [Hitler] has succeeded in restoring Germany to the most powerful position in Europe, and not only has he restored the position of his country, but he has even, to a very great extent, reversed the results of the Great War… the vanquished are in the process of becoming the victors and the victors the vanquished … whatever else might be thought about these exploits they are certainly among the most remarkable in the whole history of the world.”

“… and the achievement by which the tables have been turned upon the complacent, feckless and purblind victors deserves to be reckoned a prodigy in the history of the world and a prodigy which is inseparable from the personal exertions of life thrust on a single man …”

“Those who have met Hitler face to face in public, business, or on social terms, have found a highly competent, cool, well-informed functionary with an agreeable manner, a discerning smile and few have been unaffected by a subtle personal magnetism.”

“Nor is this impression merely the dazzle of power. He exerted it on his companions at every stage in his struggle, even when his fortunes were in the lowest depths …”

“One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated I should hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.” ― Winston Churchill, 1935

 

Douglas Reed, British journalist, playwright, novelist and author of many books about Europe between the wars and after World War Two provided the following observation about the economic transformation of Germany under Hitler:

“Germans in their country are not less well cared for than the English people in theirs, but better. You are faced with a country immensely strong in arms and immensely strong in real wealth ― not in gold bars in a vault of the national bank, but industry, agriculture, the thrift and energy of the work people, and the conditions of life they enjoy.”

“In Germany now they have a mighty organization, equipped with full powers, for improving the lot of the work people in factories and workshops. Their engineers and social workers and artists go into the factories and see what needs to be done. They say that a shower room, recreation room, a restaurant, a medical clinic, a dental clinic is needed and these are provided. They have a civic sense, a social conscience, a feeling of the community of German mankind ― in spite of the bestial concentration camps ― which you lack.”

 

John L Garvin, editor of the London Sunday paper, “The Observer,” wrote:

“Last May, I returned, bringing my family for another sojourn, after two years spent in other European countries. I found a Germany which has advanced miraculously from the point of 1933. I found political solidarity, a wholesome tone in the life of city dweller and country dweller alike.”

“I found living costs materially reduced and an unmistakable optimism on every hand. In every quarter I found the same answer to my questioning: Profound belief in the genius of the Leader, love and admiration for him as an individual. My observations have covered a wide range of social classification.”

“I have talked with the humblest type of laborers, with merchants, professional men. I have yet to discover a dissenting voice to the question of loyalty to the Fuehrer. My two young daughters are attending German public schools and are receiving an education which in thoroughness could be equaled in few countries.”

 

And this from Lord Lothian, British Ambassador to Washington, written June 29, 1937:

“I think that it must be admitted that National Socialism has done a great deal for Germany. It has undoubtedly cleaned up Germany in the ordinary moral sense of the word. The defeatism, the corruption so manifest a characteristic in the days after the war has disappeared, at any rate from public view. It has given discipline and order and a sense of purpose to the great majority of young people who in earlier days did not know where to go or what they were living for.”

 

In an article which appeared in the New York Times on July 12, 1935, John H. Holmes, Pastor of Community Church wrote:

“The spectacle of Germany today is a tremendous experience. Fifteen years after the war in which the allied powers thought they had destroyed her, Germany is on her feet again. As compared with 1922 and 1931, when I last saw Germany, the change is miraculous. The people are confident, enthusiastic and courageous. They have recovered their morale. In 1931 the German people were going to pieces. But now they are themselves again, no doubt about that! The masses of the people are increasingly with Hitler. I have been fooling myself all along that this was not so, but now I know it is so.”

 

In his book, Defense of Germany, British scholar G.E.O. Knight wrote:

“Last July, feeling that the Press of this country was willfully lying and conducting a political campaign against Germany, I resolved to go to Berlin and make free and independent investigation. I was determined to do pretty much as I pleased when I got there, and no one interfered with my movements.

I found Germany, comparatively speaking, a free country, much freer than some of its neighbors. My own views were not always acceptable to my many friends, among whom I can count Jews and Gentiles, Nazis and Communists, Democrats and Socialists. Soon I found that being a Nazi does not preclude one holding views that few Labor men in my own country would dare to express to their ‘comrades’ of the national Labor Party.”

 

The general improvement in the standard of living of the German people under Hitler’s regime put Germany well ahead of all other nations at that time, including the United States. The Nazi regime implemented a viable social security program for retirement. The working conditions were drastically improved, and the German people were provided opportunities for leisure and recreation after work. The same level of prosperity and social benefits for all its citizens have rarely been achieved anywhere in the world, either before or since then.

 

German society under Nazi rule was also very democratic, with regular elections of representatives to a legislature. It was not democratic in the same sense as in the United States today. The German form of democracy, as an expression of the popular will, was assured by the right to organize plebiscites to express the desires of the people.

“The result of the revolution [National Socialist revolution] in Germany has been to establish a democracy in the best sense of the word. We are steering towards an order of things guaranteeing a process of a natural and reasonable selection in the domain of political leadership, thanks to which that leadership will be entrusted to the most competent, irrespective of their descent, name or fortune. The memorable words of the great Corsican [Napoleon] that every soldier carries a Field Marshal’s baton in his knapsack, will find its political complement in Germany.” ― Adolf Hitler

 

“In England, under democracy, you do not put experts in charge of your affairs, but distribute favors among men of a small class without especial qualification for the posts they receive. This is the misuse of democracy in the interest of class, the betrayal of democracy, and it is the cause of our woes, past, present and to come.” ― Douglas Reed, in “Disgrace Abounding”

 

“What the German nation has ardently desired for centuries is henceforth a reality; one single, fraternally united people, liberated from the mutual prejudices and hindrances of past times.” ― Adolf Hitler

 

“The will of the people is the will of the government, and vice versa. The new political structure raised in Germany is a kind of ennobled democracy; i.e., the government derives its authority from the people, but the possibility of misinterpreting the peoples will or of sterilizing it by the intervention of parliamentary methods has been eliminated altogether.” ― Dr. Joseph Goebbels

 

“The movement was consolidated together in one Reich a people who were hitherto kept in disunion but various lines of division… religious divisions, class divisions, professional divisions, political divisions and the territorial divisions into the various autonomous federal states. This unification is now an historical fact. Nationalism has founded a genuine folk community.”

“Formerly the votes of the people were distributed among several political parties. Eventually the number of these parties came to thirty-six. They had no great common platform to offer to a people who were struggling to live. They carried on their political campaigns against one another in a quarrel over paltry and selfish issues.”

“Today the people of Germany vote for one leader and one party in a consolidated unity that has never before been dreamed of. Following the disappearance of the political parties, which fought only for their own ends and kept the nation divided, great and common vital problems were presented to the people so that they might understand which ideals were worth striving for and for which sacrifices would have to be made. The whole of Germany was aroused to struggle for these great questions which are of vital importance to a nation’s existence.” ― Rudolf Hess

 

“The parliamentary principle of decision by majorities only appears during quite short periods of history, and those are always periods of decadence in nations and States.” ― Adolf Hitler

 

“… Hitler has repeatedly taken the opportunity of consulting the nation and has each time obtained its wholehearted approval of his policy and methods of government.” ― Cesare Santoro, “Hitler Germany, Vivisection”

 

“I myself was and still am a child of the people. It was not for the capitalists that I undertook this struggle; it was for the German working man that I took my stand.” ― Adolf Hitler

 

 

The following photos show Hitler interacting with the German people, especially children. Hitler is the most popular national leader in the world at this time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Contrary to the propaganda, Hitler was a Catholic and a Christian believer. Here, he is photographed leaving the Marine Church in Wilhelmshaven.

 

It has been made out by those whose intent was to slander and smear Hitler that he was an atheist, an occultist, that he believed in astrology, that he engaged in pagan ritualism, etc., ad nauseam. The History Channel is currently running a documentary asserting these very absurdities. But this is how Hitler described his beliefs in Mein Kampf.

“First, I believe in Almighty God… and I solemnly declare that Almighty God has chosen me for this task.” He said further, “We wish to fill our culture once more with the spirit of Christianity – but not only in theory.”

 

Hitler saw Christianity as an essential cultural institution for Germany:

“The German Government, which regards Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the ethical life of the German nation, attaches the greatest importance to the maintenance and development of friendly relations with the Holy See [The Pope]. The national government regards the two Christian confessions [Protestantism and Catholicism] as the most important factors of the maintenance of our ethical personality. The Government will adopt a just and objective attitude towards all other religions.” ― Adolf Hitler

 

In numerous utterances by Adolf Hitler and about Adolf Hitler, he hardly comes across in the way he was described above. In his 25 Point Speech of 1920 (point 24), Hitler said:

“The Party as such advocates a positive Christianity without binding itself to any particular church.”

“In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that, as in the past, so in the years to come, He would give His blessing to our work and our action, to our judgment and our resolution, that He will safeguard us from all false pride and from all cowardly servility, that he may grant to us to find the straight path which His Providence has ordained for the German people, and that He may ever give us the courage to do the right, never to falter, never to yield before any violence, before any danger.” ― From a speech by Adolf Hitler.

 

“I believe in the Holy German people inside and outside the German frontiers. I believe in Adolf Hitler, who by the grace of God, was sent to give the German people faith in themselves once more.” ― German Faith Movement.

 

“Adolf Hitler gave us back our faith. He showed us the true meaning of religion. He has come to renew for us the faith of our fathers and to make us new and better beings… just as Jesus Christ made his twelve apostles into a faithful band to the martyr’s death whose faith shook the Roman Empire, so now we witness the same spectacle again. Adolf Hitler is the true Holy Ghost.” ― Hanns Kerrl. German Minister for German Affairs.

 

It was international Jewish propaganda that made Hitler out to be an atheistic, murderous monster. His Nazi regime did not persecute the German people, nor deprive them of their rights. On the contrary, as can be seen by the statements and comments of world leaders at that time, Hitler devoted his life and all his energies toward improving the lot of his German people, and the German people responded with an outpouring of love and devotion for their Fuhrer rarely seen in history. The police actions of his regime were directed against the enemies of the German people, which included the Communists and other Leftist organizations whose members were generally not ethnic Germans. Both Hitler and the German people saw what the Jews in Russia had done to that country, and knew that they intended to do the same to Germany if they ever got the chance. Hitler had these leftist revolutionaries rounded up and locked away to make sure they never got the chance. That the vast majority of these people were Jews was only coincidental. They were locked away because they were Communists and revolutionaries, and therefore a dire threat to Germany. Judging by what they did in Hungary, Italy and Spain, he had every justification for his actions.

 

The international Jewish press blew these events all out of proportion and accused the Nazi regime of “persecuting” the Jews in Germany for no reason except that they were Jews. They repeatedly and relentlessly accused the Nazi regime of the intent to “exterminate” the Jews, beginning with the Untermeyer Speech in New York in 1933. That simply was not true. Most Jews lived unmolested in Germany right up until the beginning of World War II, and a great many lived unmolested in Germany right through the war. It was the Communists, who happened to be Jews, who were harshly dealt with. A number of German Army officers, including a couple of field marshals, Field Marshal Erhard Milch, for example, were Jewish. Milch oversaw the development of the Luftwaffe.

 

At the same time that the comments and observations of statesmen, historians and journalists presented above in this chapter were being made describing Germany as a land of happy, prosperous people with a benign government dedicated to their well being, international Jewry continued its virulent anti-German propaganda campaign portraying Germany as a charnel house of repression, brutality, and murder. In March, 1935 the National Council of Jewish Women in New York City proclaimed Hitler a “world menace.” At precisely the same time in Germany, Julius Streicher, publisher of “Der Sturmer” newspaper, was comparing Hitler to Jesus Christ. A professor Hauser made the news by declaring that God had revealed himself to Germany through Hitler, and Dr. Reinhardt Krause declared that Hitler alone had “God’s order” for the Germany nation. The National Socialists claimed that the international hostility toward Hitler was entirely Jewish inspired. While the German people adored Hitler and saw him as the savior of Germany, many outside Germany had been conditioned by Jewish anti-German propaganda to regarded him as a menace to mankind.

 

Hitler had been elected in large part on his promise to reclaim territories taken away from Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and to create a single German state to include all German people. British, French and Soviet leaders refused to recognize Germany’s aims as legitimate, but chose instead to regard Hitler’s revanchist goals as international aggression.

 

Representatives of Britain, France and Italy met at an Italian village (Stresa) on April 11, 1935 to reaffirm their opposition to Germany absorbing Austria or the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. Hitler denounced these reaffirmations as hostile to Germany, declaring that his aims were legitimate and that Germany did not want another war. He spoke of the absurdity of war and of the “follies” of the past. Wars of revenge, he said, were out of date. “A deliberate maker of war may have been a patriot in the old days,” he said, “but today such a person would be a traitor.” “We are not imperialists,” he added, and said that all the German people wanted was “equal rights for all,” and its honor restored.

 

All the German people wanted, he said, was to be treated like everyone else, and among other things, that meant the return of German territory.

 

Despite the dogged anti-German propaganda, there remained support for Hitler’s aims from reflective, thoughtful men. On June 6, 1935, Britain’s leading cleric, the Archbishop of Canterbury, expressed sympathy for Germany’s position among nations, declaring that Germany;

“… must be recognized as a nation entitled to an equal place among other nations.”

 

Yet, the average American or Englishman was made to believe that Germany was a world menace and should be controlled and held in check. They were made to believe through the Jewish controlled media that Germany was an evil, brutish country with an oppressive, totalitarian government that kept a terrified population under strict control with secret police forces and concentration camps. Nothing could have been further from the truth.

 

The “holy war” declared on Germany by international Jewry continued relentlessly, and the propaganda campaign of deliberate lies, smears and misrepresentations was succeeding in turning the world against Germany. The contrast between life inside Germany as it actually was, and the way in which it was depicted in the International Jewish press could not have been greater.

 

Following is a series of photographs taken during the Nazi period showing the Germans to be a clean-cut, handsome, intelligent and civilized people, not unlike those of any other European country at the time.

This was the real face of Germany during the Nazi period

 

A German army officer and a soldier (above). A young soldier (below  left) and a young German officer (below right).

 

A German Officer and his dog

 

Young men of the “Hitler Youth” Movement (like the Boy Scouts).

 

Young women of the Nazi Youth Movement (Girls’ equivalent of the boys’ Hitler Youth).

 

More German Youth Movement Girls

 

German farm girl, 1930s. German city boy of the 1930s

 

A 1930s German street (before it was bombed)

 

German public swimming pool ― 1930s

 

Strolling the children.

 

An elegant German couple of the 1930s.

 

 

Below is the face of Germany as depicted in Jewish propaganda.

 

 

 

 

 

“Propaganda” Nazis

 

 

 

 

[END of Part 13]

 

______________________________

 

 

PDF Notes

* Total words = 11,782

* Total pages = 75

*Total images = 46

 

*Note: Images not in original book are indicated as “Add. image” (Additional image).

*Text in [square brackets] is not part of the original book.

*Special thanks to reader “mblaine” for providing the text for this book.

 

 

======================================

 

<

div>

Click to download a PDF of this post (11.0 MB).

 

 

 

 

 

Click on a link to go to another part:

[Click images to enlarge]

 

 

Part 01 — Cover text; About the Author; Preface; Chapter 1: The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Part 02 — Chapter 2: Aftermath of the War in Germany

Part 03 — Chapter 3: The Jewish Factor in the War

Part 04 — Chapter 4: The Russian Revolution of 1917

Part 05 — Chapter 5: The Red Terror

Part 06 — Chapter 6: The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Part 07 — Chapter 7: The Nation of Israel

Part 08 — Chapter 8: Jews in Weimar Germany

Part 09 — Chapter 9: Hitler and National Socialists Rise to Power

 

 

Part 10 — Chapter 10: National Socialism vs Communism

Part 11 — Chapter 11: Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Part 12 — Chapter 12: The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

Part 13 — Chapter 13: Life in Germany Under Hitler

Part 14 — Chapter 14 & 15: Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory; The 1936 Olympics

Part 15 — Chapter 16: “Anschluss” The Unification of Austria and Germany

Part 16 – Chapter 17: Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

Part 17 – Chapter 18: War with Poland

Part 18 – Chapter 19: The Phony War

 

 

Part 19 – Chapter 20: Germany invades France – The Phony War Ends

Part 20 – Chapter 21: The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

Part 21 – Chapter 22: Germany as Victim

Part 22 (last) – Chapter 23: Winners and Losers

 

 

 

See also:

 

The Myth of German Villainy: Author Ben Bradberry Interview — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

 

_____________________

 

 

Version History

 

Version 6: Mar 13, 2021 – Added new Go2 Cover images (3).

 

Version 5: May 5, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

 

Version 4: Apr 9, 2020 — Added updated links to other parts.

 

Version 3: Dec 26, 2016 — Added 2 additional images. Added my introductory summary. Added PDF for download.

 

Version 2: Dec 25, 2016 — Added missing images.

 

Version 1: Dec 24, 2016 — Created post.

]]> https://katana17.com/2016/12/24/book-the-myth-of-german-villainy-part-13-life-in-germany-under-hitler/feed/ 14 Book – The Myth of German Villainy – Part 10 – National Socialism vs Communism https://katana17.com/2016/11/02/book-the-myth-of-german-villainy-part-10-national-socialism-vs-communism/ https://katana17.com/2016/11/02/book-the-myth-of-german-villainy-part-10-national-socialism-vs-communism/#comments Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:48:46 +0000 https://katana17.com/wp/?p=12099 Continue reading →]]>

[Part 10]

 

[Benton Bradberry’s 2012 book, “The Myth of German Villainy” is a  superb, must-read, revisionist look at how the German people have been systematically, relentlessly and most importantly, unjustly vilified as the arch criminal of the 20th century. Bradberry sets out, cooly and calmly as befits a former US-Navy officer and pilot, to show why and how the German people have been falsely accused of massive crimes and that their chief  accuser and tormentor, organized jewry is in fact the real party guilty of monstrous crimes against Germans and the rest of the world.

In Part 10, the profound differences between Communism and National Socialism are described. Under jewish communism there were no private rights or property and the economy was controlled through “central planning”, while NS supported both private and property rights, upheld Western and Christian values, and guided the economy.

NS was, besides its dedication to the well-being of the German people, a counter-movement against jewish communism. It embodied the philosophical ideas from a variety of popular writers and thinkers of the 19th and early 20th centuries and emphasized the concept of das Volk (the people as a national race), which required the subordination of the individual to the “community,” as well as “faith in the leader”.

In contrast, communism was dedicated to the very destruction of Western, Christian society, murdering upwards of 40 million of Russia’s best people and attempted to carry out similar policies throughout Europe in the name of creating a so-called, “Marxist Utopia”. To create this “Utopia”, Bolshevik Jews unleashed the greatest bloodbath in history, far exceeding anything the Mongols did, and incomparably worse than anything the “notorious Nazis” allegedly carried out —  KATANA.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE: The author has very generously given me permission to reproduce the material here — KATANA.

 The book can be bought at Amazon here: The Myth of German Villainy

 

 

 

The Myth of

 

German Villainy

 

by

 

Benton L. Bradberry

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

[Clicking on a link in the Contents here will take you to that Part, in a separate post]

 

[Part 01]

Preface

Chapter 1 – The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Germany’s Positive Image Changes Overnight

[Part 02]

Chapter 2 – Aftermath of the War in Germany

The Versailles Treaty

Effect of the Treaty on the German Economy

Was the War Guilt Clause Fair?

Did Germany Really Start the War?

[Part 03]

Chapter 3 – The Jewish Factor in the War

Jews at the Paris Peace Conference

Jews in Britain

[Part 04]

Chapter 4 – The Russian Revolution of 1917

Bolsheviks Take Control

Jews and the Russian Revolution

Origin of East European Jews

Reason for the Russian Pogroms Against the Jews

Jews Leave Russia for America

Financing the 1917 Revolution

Jews in the Government of Bolshevik Russia

[Part 05]

Chapter 5 – The Red Terror

Creation of the Gulag

Bolsheviks Kill the Czar

Jews as a Hostile Elite

The Ukrainian Famine (Holodomor)

[Part 06]

Chapter 6 – The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Jews in the Hungarian Revolution

Miklos Horthy Saves Hungary

Jews in the German Revolution

The Spartacist Uprising in Berlin

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Italy

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Spain — The Spanish Civil War

Czechoslovakia in Danger of Communist Takeover

The Comintern’s Aim? World Domination!

[Part 07]

Chapter 7 – The Nation of Israel

History of the Expulsion of Jews

[Part 08]

Chapter 8 – Jews in Weimar Germany

Jews Undermine German Culture

[Part 09]

Chapter 9 – Hitler & National Socialists Rise to Power

The 25 Points of the National Socialist Party

[Part 10]

Chapter 10 – National Socialism vs. Communism

National Socialism

Jews Plan Marxist Utopia

[Part 11]

Chapter 11 – Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Text of Untermeyer’s Speech in New York

The Jewish Persecution Myth

Effect of Boycott on the German Economy

Jewish Exaggerations are Contradicted by Many

[Part 12]

Chapter 12 – The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

The Nuremberg Laws – 1935

The Zionist Movement

[Part 13]

Chapter 13 – Life in Germany Under Hitler

Night of the Long Knives

1934 Annual Nazi Rally at Nuremberg

Hitler Revives the German Economy

Hitler Becomes the Most Popular Leader in the World

[Part 14]

Chapter 14 – Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory

Chapter 15 – The 1936 Olympics

[Part 15]

Chapter 16 – “Anschluss”. The Unification of Austria and Germany

Austrian Economy Revived

Austria’s Jews

[Part 16]

Chapter 17 – Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

[Part 17]

Chapter 18 – War with Poland

The Polish Problem

Hitler’s Proposal to Poland

Kristallnacht

German-Polish Talks Continue

Jews Influence both Roosevelt and Churchill

British and American Political Leaders Under Jewish Influence

Roosevelt’s Contribution to Hostilities

Lord Halifax Beats the War Drums

Germany Occupies Bohemia and Moravia

Roosevelt Pushes for War

Anti-war Movement Becomes Active

Poles Murder German Nationals Within the Corridor

[Part 18]

Chapter 19 – The Phony War

Russo-Finnish War

The Norway/Denmark Campaign

German Invasion of Denmark and Norway

Churchill Takes Chamberlain’s Place as Prime Minister

[Part 19]

Chapter 20 – Germany invades France Through the Low Countries

The Phony War Ends.

Churchill the War Lover

The Fall of France

Hitler Makes Peace Offer to Britain

[Part 20]

Chapter 21 – The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

[Part 21]

Chapter 22 – Germany as Victim

Rape and Slaughter

Jewish Vengeance

The Jewish Brigade

[Part 22]

Chapter 23 – Winners and Losers

Bibliography

 

 

 

Chapter 10

 


National Socialism vs Communism

 

 

 

 

German National Socialism has usually been characterized as a right wing ideology while Communism is said to occupy the extreme left of the socio-political spectrum. This is the traditional view. But there are those today who say that Hitler’s obsessive hatred of Communism was disingenuous because German National Socialism was essentially no different from Communism. Both were totalitarian Socialist creeds. But this is a superficial observation, and the terms, “right” and “left” are insufficient to describe the two systems. It is true that National Socialism contained aspects of socialism, as its name implied, but the differences between National Socialism and Communism were profound.

 

The most obvious difference was that National Socialism supported the concept of private property and a market economy, while Communism abolished private property and the government controlled the economy through “central planning.” Under National Socialism the means of production was for the most part in private hands, albeit, “guided” by the state.

 

Under Communism all private property, including farmland, manufacturing, or the means of production, and even private housing, were seized by the state. The only similarity between the two systems was that both were totalitarian in nature, though, between the two, National Socialism was considerably more benign. Under National Socialism, the private rights of “citizens” were respected and protected, while under Communism there were no private rights.

 

[Add. image — Communism, Capitalism and National Socialism compared.]

 

Hitler had this to say about the meaning of “Socialism” for Germany, as printed in an article in the UK’s “Guardian, Sunday Express,” December 28, 1938:

“‘Socialist’ I define from the word ‘social’ meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term ‘Socialist’ has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not.

 

Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, or efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” Adolf Hitler.

The two systems were also different in their aims. National Socialism under Adolf Hitler was a revolutionary movement in “defense” of Western, Christian civilization, while Communism was a revolutionary movement dedicated to its “destruction.” Harold Cox, Member of Parliament in Britain at the time, and a classical liberal scholar, wrote:

“What Socialists (Communists) want is not progress in the world as we know it, but the destruction of that world as a prelude to the creation of a new world of their own imagining…Their ethical outlook is the direct reverse of that which has inspired all great religions of the world…and they deliberately make their appeal to the passions of envy, hatred and malice.” Harold Cox.

 

[Add. Image — Harold Cox (1859 – 1936).]

 

The Communist Jews who took control of Russia did their utmost to destroy the traditional Christian culture of Russia and they murdered upwards of 40 million of Russia’s best people. It has been said that the average IQ for Russia was lowered several points by this slaughter of the “intelligentsia” and all the other successful, achieving people in Russia.

Through their “Communist International” (Comintern), they intended to do the same to all of Europe. The long term goal of International Jewish Communism, which had established its base in Russia, was to destroy the existing political regimes throughout Europe, and replace them, one by one, with Soviet Republics on the Russian model. Once in power, they intended the obliteration of the “possessing classes,” that is, to kill them, as they had done in Russia. Europe had every reason to shudder in horror at the prospect of a Communist takeover.

 

National Socialism (Nazism) developed after 1918 as a counter-movement to the Bolshevik revolution, and to a lesser extent, against the democratic parliamentary system, as manifested in the Weimar Republic. In an article in the Nazi newspaper, “Völkischer Beobachter,” May 11, 1933 ― soon after becoming Chancellor ― Hitler wrote:

“For fourteen or fifteen years I have continually proclaimed to the German nation that I regard it as my task before posterity to destroy Marxism, and that is no empty phrase but a solemn oath which I shall follow as long as I live. I have made this confession of faith, the confession of faith of a single man, that of a mighty organization [National Socialism]. I know now that even if fate were to remove me, the fight would be fought to the end; this movement is the guarantee for that. This for us is not a fight which can be finished by compromise. We see in Marxism the enemy of our people which we will root out and destroy without mercy … We must then fight to the very end those tendencies which have eaten into the soul of the German nation in the last seventeen years, which have done us such incalculable damage and which, if they had not been vanquished, would have destroyed Germany. Bismarck told us that liberalism was the pace-maker of Social Democracy. I need not say here that Social Democracy is the pace-maker of Communism. And Communism is the forerunner of death, of national destruction, and extinction. We have joined battle with it and will fight it to the death.”

 

 

National Socialism

 

National Socialism did not spring fully formed out of Adolf Hitler’s head alone, though he made enormous contributions to its formation. It’s detractors (Jewish propagandists) characterized Nazi ideology as the shallow fantasies of bigoted psychopaths, but in fact, National Socialism was a coherent, well grounded social philosophy worked out by highly regarded thinkers and scholars. Contrary to his popular image, Hitler, himself, was a thinker and a philosopher of first rank.

 

History Professor Lawrence Birken of Ball State University in Indiana claims that Adolf Hitler was the most philosophical of all historical leaders.

“Hitler had a gift for presenting his message in an attractive, accessible form.”

 

Writes Birken:

“The most attractive feature of Hitler’s ideology was thus its optimism. It was not merely his mood but his message that carried an infectious excitement. He was a secular messiah proclaiming a Germanic version of the “good news.”

 

[Add. Image — “Birken challenges the conventional wisdom that Hitlerism was a revolt against Western values. Utilizing Adolph Hitler’s major writings, speeches, and recorded conversations, this path-breaking study in intellectual history delineates the relationship of Nazism to other European ideologies, both past and present. National Socialism, Birken maintains, was nothing less than an attempt to create a metaphysical foundation for the German nation-state after both the Frankfurt Assembly and the Bismarckian pseudo-Reich had failed to do so. In this context, Hitler can be seen as the last great exponent of the Enlightenment tradition that glorified fraternity.” Amazon description.]

 

The possibility of class reconciliation, the plans for a national revival, the identification of a universal enemy whose elimination would usher in the millennium, all stirred his audiences to the very depths. Hitler spoke the language of the [Enlightenment] philosophers, a language that had almost passed out of existence in the rarefied strata of the grand intelligentsia.

 

National Socialism’s intellectual roots grew out of the philosophical ideas of a variety of popular writers and thinkers of the 19th and early 20th centuries, including the following:

 

Friedrich Nietzsche’s theory of “will to power,” the components of which were, achievement, ambition, and striving to reach the highest possible position in life. Nietzsche believed that “will to power” was the main driving force in man.

 

Arthur de Gobineau’s racialist theory of the “Aryan master race.” Gobineau was a French aristocrat, novelist, and man of letters who became famous for developing the racialist theory of the Aryan master race in his book, “An Essay on the Inequalities of the Human Races” (1855). Gobineau believed that the white race was superior to other races, manifested by its achievements in developing a civilized culture and in maintaining ordered government. He believed that “race mixing” would result in decline and chaos. Gobineau’s views were by no means unusual at the time. They were generally shared by the entire white race.

 

Houston Stewart Chamberlain, British author of books on political philosophy and natural science. Chamberlain generally supported Gobineau’s ideas on the superiority of the Aryan race and also became an advocate of racial “purity.” He believed that the Teutonic peoples had profoundly influenced Western civilization, but that other European peoples had also done so. He included not just Germans, but Celts, Slavs, Greeks, Latins, and even Berbers from North Africa into the “Aryan race.”

 

Richard Wagner’s “faith in destiny.” Wagner, a friend of Nietzsche, developed the idea that the German people should have faith in their destiny for greatness. He also saw the Jew as a parasite on the host populations they lived amongst and the natural enemy of Germany.

 

Gregor Johann Mendel’s theory of genetics and heredity. Mendel was an Austrian scientist and Augustinian friar who was the founder of the science of genetics. He demonstrated that inheritance of certain traits in pea plants follow particular patterns. He developed the laws of “inherited traits” by experimenting on plants, which was then extrapolated to work the same in human beings.

 

Alfred Ploetz and Harvard Professor Lothard Stoddard both espoused social Darwinism, which led to the development of the science of Eugenics, or race cleansing. Eugenics was widely popular in the early decades of the twentieth century, both in the United States and in Europe. The First International Congress of Eugenics in 1912 was supported by many prominent people, including its president Leonard Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin, honorary vice president Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell, et al.

 

Karl Haushofer, a German general, geographer and geopolitician who advocated lebensraum as the remedy for overcrowding in Germany. (The British, for example, had a similar overcrowding problem which they alleviated with their own version of lebensraum, large scale emigration of Britons to the colonies.)

Other influences of Nazi ideology were the ideas of Machiavelli, Fichte, Treitschke and Spengler.

 

The National Socialist (Nazi) ideology contained these basic points: nationalism, anti-Semitism, anti-Communism, and militarism. Jews were considered racially alien to Europe and the source of most of Europe’s troubles, especially as the source of Communist revolution. Hitler called for the defense of the “Blood and Soil” of the German people by, expelling the Jews from Germany, by limiting immigration into Germany only to those of German blood, and by maintaining a strong military.

 

[Add. Image — One difference between jewish communism, where workers are enslaved to work for its rulers and National Socialism, where the both the leaders and the led work together for the common good.]

 

National Socialism emphasized the concept of das Volk (the people as a national race), which required the subordination of the individual to the “community,” as well as “faith in the leader (Fuhrer).” Hitler believed that Germany, as the largest and most powerful nation state in continental Europe, should be the leader of an economically unified Europe (something like the European Union of today, which, incidentally, is led by Germany). National Socialism emphasized the community of the German Volk, and glorified the comradeship of men in arms as defenders of the German nation. The Nazi movement became a magnet for those who had become disillusioned by the chaos in Germany under the Weimar Republic.

 

Although he is endlessly castigated as “the most notorious racist of the twentieth century,” Hitler’s racial views were in perfect harmony with mainstream 19th and early 20th-century European thinking. Far from being aberrant or bizarre, his views on race were consistent with those of most prominent Westerners in the decades before the Second World War, such as those of Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill, for example.

 

Contrary to popular belief, Hitler never supported any program of breeding a homogenous blond “hyper-Aryan” race. That was just propaganda. He fully accepted the reality that the German population consisted of several distinct sub-racial groups, and stressed the German people’s national and social unity. A certain degree of racial variety was desirable, he thought, and too much racial blending or homogeneity could be harmful because it would homogenize and thus eliminate superior as well as inferior genetic traits.

 

Alfred Rosenberg, Ph. D

 

The most influential Nazi guidebook, after Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” was Alfred Rosenberg’s “Myth of the Twentieth Century” (1935). Rosenberg, who held a Ph.D. in architectural engineering, was one of the principal ideologues of the Nazi Party and editor of the Nazi paper “Volkisher Beobachter.” Rosenberg believed that every people, culture and nation has a set of beliefs, or a national “myth,” and if and when that myth ever dies, the nation too will die. (A great many comparisons can be made between the period at the end of the Weimar Republic and America today.

 

The American myth, based on Christian belief and the ideals of our founding fathers is under constant attack today, and is being corrupted on a daily basis.) The German national “myth,” according to Rosenberg, was in danger of dying, and he made it his mission to resurrect it.

 

Rosenberg makes a distinction between the “nation,” or the “Volk,” and the state. The nation is the people or the Volk. The state is the apparatus of government.

“The state,” he wrote, “is nowadays no longer an independent idol, before which everything must bow down; the state is not even an end but is only a means for the preservation of the “Volk”…. Forms of the state change, and the laws of the state pass away; the Volk remains. From this alone follows that the nation (Volk) is the first and last; that to which everything else has to be subordinated.”

 

“No ‘Volk’ of Europe is racially pure,” he wrote, “including Germany. In accordance with the newest researches, we recognize five races, which exhibit noticeably different types. It is unquestionably true that the Nordic race primarily has borne the genuine cultural fruits of Europe. The great heroes, artists, founders of states have come from this race…. Nordic blood created German life above all others. Even those sections, in which only a small part today is pure Nordic, have their basic stock from the Nordic race. Nordic is German and has functioned so as to shape the culture and human types of the westisch, dinarisch, and ostisch-Baltisch races. Also a type which is predominantly dinarisch has often been innerly formed in a Nordic mode. This emphasis on the Nordic race does not mean a sowing of ‘race-hatred’ in Germany, but on the contrary, the conscious acknowledgment of a kind of racial cement within our nationality.” (Emphasis added.)

 

“… On the day when Nordic blood should completely dry up, Germany would fall to ruin, would decline into a characterless chaos. That many forces are consciously working toward this, has been discussed in detail.”

 

“Europe’s states have all been founded and preserved by the Nordic man….. In order to preserve Europe, the Nordic energies of Europe must first be revitalized, strengthened. That means then Germany, Scandinavia with Finland, and England.”

 

“… Nordic Europe is the fated future, with a German central Europe. Germany as racial and national state, as central power of the continent, safe-guarding the south and southeast; the Scandinavian states with Finland as a second group, safe-guarding the northeast; and Great Britain, safe-guarding the west and overseas at those places where required in the interest of the Nordic Man.”

 

It is clear from Rosenberg’s writings that the Germans, including Hitler, never considered themselves the Master Race, and never referred to themselves as such. That accusation was nothing more than Jewish propaganda. The attitude of the British on this matter was identical to that of the Germans. The British were equally as nationalistic as the Germans, and the British considered themselves to be a part of a superior race. Moreover, both the Germans and the British openly acknowledged that the two nations, Britain and Germany, were of the same race and of the same blood. (Yet, Rosenberg was hanged after the Nuremberg Trials for his views, as expressed above.)

 

 

Jews Plan Marxist Utopia

 

While Hitler and the Nazis were busy resurrecting Germany on the basis of the national myth of the German Volk whom they considered the foundation of Western, Christian civilization ― in Russia, the Jews were busy destroying the traditional Russian, Christian culture. Moreover, the very first program initiated whenever Jewish-led Communists took over a country, i.e., Russia, Hungary and Spain, was to try to eradicate the Christian church. They rounded up the priests, nuns and monks by the thousands and shot them, and then burned down the churches and cathedrals. Hitler and the Nazis considered the Jewish Communists as the destroyers of Western, Christian civilization, and they dedicated themselves to Communism’s eventual destruction.

 

The “Communism” which these Marxist Jews who now controlled Russia dreamed of, and intended to impose on Russia ― and the rest of the world, if they could ― was a strictly theoretical (and completely unproven) system imagined by Karl Marx in which all of society, all of economics and all politics would be combined into one perfect, classless, culture-less, government-less system based on common ownership of all economic means of production (meaning government ownership), with complete social and economic equality, which would, in the end, run itself without the necessity of having a government. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (both Jews) wrote the “Communist Manifesto” for the purpose of inspiring violent revolution everywhere in order to bring about this Utopian dream.

 

[Add. Image — Friedrich Engels (left) and Karl Marx.]

 

Marxist theory called for the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie, followed by a preparatory stage of socialism, alternatively called “The Dictatorship of the Proletariat.” Pure Communism, the end goal of Marxist Socialism, would then follow, and would be the theoretical state of “statelessness” in which an un-governed, classless society would live in perfect order.

 

The remarkable thing about this ideology from the perspective of today, or perhaps any day, is that it was so clearly and obviously stupid that it simply astounds the imagination that intelligent, educated people could have believed in it. But belief in Communism was not limited to these so-called “intellectuals.” Marxist Communism became the Jewish secular religion. Communism was a Jewish invention, which sprang naturally out of the collectivist Jewish culture, and was generally accepted at some level by almost all Jews worldwide. Obviously there were non-Jewish adherents to Communism, but Communism was a Jewish movement, created by Jews, led by Jews and propagated by Jews. It would be inaccurate to aver that all Jews accepted Communism as a belief system, but surely the vast majority did.

 

[Add. Image — (left to right) Marx, Angels, Lenin and Stalin.]

 

The obvious flaw in Communist ideology was that it defied human nature. Moreover, it defied common sense. Man simply does not behave in the way required for Communism to work. Yet, Lenin, Trotsky, and all the other Jewish, Marxist revolutionary thinkers and leaders were convinced that they could implement it. The key to doing so, they said, was to kill off the bourgeoisie (“bourgeoisie”, for their purposes, was an all inclusive term meaning all those above the peasant and proletariat, or working, class). In the actual application of Communism, they never got beyond the “socialism” stage, or the dictatorship of a Jewish elite. The “dictatorship of the proletariat” never occurred.

 

Jews considered themselves to be God’s chosen people, and innately superior to the Gentiles they lived amongst, yet, over the centuries, they had long been held down, or even expelled by the Gentiles. For that reason, among others, they nourished an intense burning sense of injustice and resentment against Gentiles of all classes, but in particular, the bourgeoisie who had lorded over them. They also despised the ignorant, superstitious, fervently religious Russian peasants, who despised them in return, and who had carried out repeated pogroms against Jews. But now in control of the state, the Jews treated the ethnic Russians as a conquered people, against whom they intended to take their revenge. Vengeance seeking is a basic imperative of Jewish culture:

“You kill my cousin; I’ll kill your cousin!”

 

Their goal was to remake Russia into the Marxist Utopia they had long dreamed about. These ideological Bolshevik Jews saw the vast population of Russian peasants and proletarians as a malleable, culture-less mass who could be molded into a “New Soviet Man,” through which they could bring about their dream of a communist “heaven on earth,” provided, that is, that those wherein the traditional Russian culture resided ― the monarchy, the aristocracy, the educated, the Orthodox Church (collectively, the bourgeoisie) ― could be eliminated. The Jews were not Russians, but an alien people, and they felt no kinship nor compassion for the Russians they intended to kill. They felt only hatred.

 

[Add. Image — 1931 demolition of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow.]

 

In order to create their Utopia in Russia, their first task was to destroy the culture that already existed, including Christianity. To do this, these Bolshevik Jews unleashed the greatest bloodbath in history, far exceeding anything the Mongols did, and a thousand times worse than anything the notorious Nazis did. As an illustration of the bloody mindedness of these Bolshevik Jews, Grigory Zinoviev (real name Hirsch Apfelbaum), as head of the Communist International, wrote in an article in the “Drasnaya Gazeta” in Moscow, September 1, 1918:

“We will make our hearts cruel, hard and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. We will let loose the floodgates of that sea. Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands; let them drown themselves in their own blood! For the blood of Lenin [shot but survived in 1918] and Uritsky [shot and killed in 1918], Zinoviev [shot but lived in 1919] and Voladarsky [shot and killed in 1918], let there be floods of blood of the bourgeois ― more blood! As much as possible.”

 

[Add. Image — Grigory Zinoviev – Bolshevik revolutionary and a Soviet Communist politician. He was  the longtime head of the Communist International.]

 

These Bolshevik Jews murdered upwards of 40 million ethnic, Christian Russians. The precise number will never be known. This was so horrific that it terrified the traditional ruling classes in the rest of Europe, as they saw the possibility of the same thing happening in their own countries. This was especially true in Germany, still unstable as the result of losing the war, but also with the largest Communist party outside of Russia. The German Communist party [leadership] was 78% Jewish. Is there any wonder that Hitler and the National Socialists saw Jews and Communism as the mortal enemy of Germany and Western, Christian civilization?

 

The wonder is that Britain and the United States did not. By allying themselves with the Jewish-led anti-Christian, atheistic, Communist Soviet Union to destroy Christian Germany, Britain and the United States must bear the burden of responsibility for the decline of Western Civilization following World War II.

 

 

 

 

[END of Part 10]

 

______________________________

 

 

PDF Notes

* Total words = 5,408

* Total pages = 31

*Total images = 10

 

*Note: Images not in original book are indicated as “Add. image” (Additional image).

*Text in [square brackets] is not part of the original book.

*Special thanks to reader “mblaine” for providing the text for this book.

======================================

 

Click to download a PDF of this post (2.1 MB).

 

The Myth of Germany Villainy – Part 10 – National Socialm vs Communism

 

 

 

 

Click on a link to go to another part:

[Click images to enlarge]

 

 

Part 01 — Cover text; About the Author; Preface; Chapter 1: The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Part 02 — Chapter 2: Aftermath of the War in Germany

Part 03 — Chapter 3: The Jewish Factor in the War

Part 04 — Chapter 4: The Russian Revolution of 1917

Part 05 — Chapter 5: The Red Terror

Part 06 — Chapter 6: The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Part 07 — Chapter 7: The Nation of Israel

Part 08 — Chapter 8: Jews in Weimar Germany

Part 09 — Chapter 9: Hitler and National Socialists Rise to Power

 

 

Part 10 — Chapter 10: National Socialism vs Communism

Part 11 — Chapter 11: Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Part 12 — Chapter 12: The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

Part 13 — Chapter 13: Life in Germany Under Hitler

Part 14 — Chapter 14 & 15: Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory; The 1936 Olympics

Part 15 — Chapter 16: “Anschluss” The Unification of Austria and Germany

Part 16 – Chapter 17: Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

Part 17 – Chapter 18: War with Poland

Part 18 – Chapter 19: The Phony War

 

 

Part 19 – Chapter 20: Germany invades France – The Phony War Ends

Part 20 – Chapter 21: The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

Part 21 – Chapter 22: Germany as Victim

Part 22 (last) – Chapter 23: Winners and Losers

 

 

 

See also:

 

The Myth of German Villainy: Author Ben Bradberry Interview — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

_____________________

 

 

 

Version History

 

Version 3: Mar 13, 2021 – Added new Go2 Cover images (3).

 

Version 2: Mar 24, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

 

Version 1: Nov 2, 2016 — Created post. Added PDF for download.

]]> https://katana17.com/2016/11/02/book-the-myth-of-german-villainy-part-10-national-socialism-vs-communism/feed/ 21