Tag Archives: World War II

The World Is Looking At You, by Batiushka

Is Russia the last great hope for civilization? From Batiushka at thesaker.is:

A huge and historic injustice took place in Europe in 1914, which over the next four years left many, many millions dead. Who was responsible? The power-lusting Prussians of Germany, using Austro-Hungarian imperialism as their pawn, or the power-lusting Establishment of Great Britain, using French revanchism as their pawn? Some would say that all were to some extent responsible, though the spontaneous 1914 Christmas Armistice on the Western Front suggests that this was not a War of the peoples, but of the elites. But we shall leave the debate about responsibilities to the academics. We are not concerned by apportioning blame or conspiracies, here we are concerned only by the tragic consequences.

That War, become to some extent worldwide, left millions of dead, the flower of European Youth massacred by sadistic politicians, by greedy arms merchants who also largely controlled the Press, and by heartless generals. Apart from the dead, the forces of evil left behind them a Continent traumatised, tens of millions of shell-shocked, maimed, widows, orphaned and also spinsters, who sixty years after were still dying in lonely and childless old age, as there had been no man to marry. How many hundreds of millions of human tragedies had been caused by human evil, the lust for power and riches. But it was all much worse even than this.

Continue reading→

New Revelations Shed Light on Nazi Roots of House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, by Matthew Ehret

There have been numerous connections between the House of Windsor and Nazis. From Matthew Ehret at strategic-culture.org:

There are certain royal closets which can no longer contain the voluminous skeletons that certain powerful forces have wished be stuffed forever out of sight

Amidst the storm of Orwellian misinformation shaping our current world, up has become down, white has become black and good has become evil.

Despite the fact that the evils of Nazism were defeated primarily by the sacrifices made by the Russians during WWII, it has increasingly become popular to assert the fallacy that the great war’s true villain was Stalin. And despite the fact that unreconstructed Nazis were absorbed into the Cold War Five Eyes-led intelligence machine giving rise to 2nd and 3rd generation Nazis in Ukraine today, we are repeatedly told that Ukraine is a temple of liberty and beacon of democracy upon whose territory we should risk lighting the world on nuclear fire to defend.

Continue reading→

‘Let Them Kill as Many as Possible’ – United States Policy Toward Russia and its Neighbors, by Brian Terrell

Being an enemy of the U.S. is tough, but being it’s friend is no picnic, either, especially if you get roped into fighting one of its wars. From Brian Terrell at antiwar.com:

In April 1941, four years before he was to become President and eight months before the United States entered World War II, Senator Harry Truman of Missouri reacted to the news that Germany had invaded the Soviet Union: “If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible.” Truman was not called out as a cynic when he spoke these words from the floor of the Senate. On the contrary, when he died in 1972, Truman’s obituary in The New York Times cited this statement as establishing his “reputation for decisiveness and courage.” “This basic attitude,” gushed The Times, “prepared him to adopt from the start of his Presidency, a firm policy,” an attitude that prepared him to order the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with “no qualms.” Truman’s same basic “let them kill as many as possible” attitude also informed the postwar doctrine that bears his name, along with the establishment of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency, both of which he is credited with founding.

A February 25 op-ed in The Los Angeles Times by Jeff Rogg, “The CIA has backed Ukrainian insurgents before- Let’s learn from those mistakes,” cites a CIA program to train Ukrainian nationalists as insurgents to fight the Russians that began in 2015 and compares it with a similar effort by Truman’s CIA in Ukraine that began in 1949. By 1950, one year in, “U.S. officers involved in the program knew they were fighting a losing battle…In the first U.S.-backed insurgency, according to top secret documents later declassified, American officials intended to use the Ukrainians as a proxy force to bleed the Soviet Union.” This op-ed cites John Ranelagh, a historian of the CIA, who argued that the program “demonstrated a cold ruthlessness” because the Ukrainian resistance had no hope of success, and so “America was in effect encouraging Ukrainians to go to their deaths.”

Continue reading→

Because of Russia, China and England – and Because Our Men Were Brave, by Martin Sieff

Many Americans are completely ignorant of what the Chinese, Russians, and English did in World War II. From Martin Sieff at strategic-culture.org:

On September 2, U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper delivered a short and unconsciously enormously revealing – speech on 75th anniversary of the Allied victory over Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in 1945.

It was a routine speech for Esper, short and content free with no thought whatsoever in it, let alone any original one, and therefore entirely typical of his storied career. No major American or Western European wire service or other major mainstream news bothered carrying a word of it. Even for them, it was intellectually content free, vacuous.

Yet Esper’s speech was also enormously important and revealing – and as light into the mind and soul of the chief civilian executive of the armed forces of the United States, alarming. For in referring to the historic global victories of 1945, he did not mention the contributions of the Soviet Union, or Britain, France, Canada, Australia, Yugoslavia or China once.

“Throughout the war,” Esper said, “millions of our countrymen answered the Nation’s call with great courage and selflessness. Americans of all faiths, races, and ethnicities; from all walks of life and vocation, rich to poor; and from all corners of the country, from cities to suburbs to farms – they left behind their loved ones, men and women alike, to sail across oceans and join allies in a desperate fight for liberty.” Continue reading

Roosevelt’s Fraud at Yalta and the Mirage of the “Good War”, by James Bovard

Liberal historians, which is most of them, love Roosevelt, so they ignore his massive betrayal of Eastern Europe at Yalta. From James Bovard at fff.org:

This year is the 75th anniversary of the end of World War Two. One of the biggest frauds of the final stage of that war was the meeting at Yalta of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and President Franklin Roosevelt. Yalta has become a synonym for the abandonment of oppressed people and helped inspire the 1952 Republican campaign theme, “20 years of treason.”

The American media uncorked a barrage of tributes to Roosevelt on the 75th anniversary of his death in April. CNN, for instance, trumpeted Roosevelt as “the wartime president who Trump should learn from.” But there was scant coverage of one of his greatest betrayals.

Roosevelt painted World War II as a crusade for democracy — hailing Stalin as a partner in liberation. From 1942 through 1945, the U.S. government consistently deceived the American people about the character of the Soviet Union. Roosevelt praised Soviet Russia as one of the “freedom-loving nations” and stressed that Stalin is “thoroughly conversant with the provisions of our Constitution.” But as Rexford Tugwell, one of Roosevelt’s Brain Trusters and an open admirer of the Soviet system, groused, “The Constitution was a negative document, meant mostly to protect citizens from their government.” And when government is the personification of benevolence, no protection is needed.

Harold Ickes, one of Roosevelt’s top aides, proclaimed that communism was “the antithesis of Nazism” because it was based on a “belief in the control of the government, including the economic system, by the people themselves.” The fact that the Soviet regime had been the most oppressive government in the world in the 1930s was irrelevant, as far as Roosevelt was concerned. As Georgetown University professor Derek Leebaert, author of Magic and Mayhem, observed, “FDR remarked that most of what he knew about the world came from his stamp collection.”

Continue reading

Nuclear War or Invasion: The False Dichotomy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by Brett Wilkins

Most of what people were told in 1945 about the necessity of dropping atomic bombs on Japan was wrong. From Brett Wilkins at antiwar.com:

Seventy-five years ago, the United States waged the only nuclear war in history. Among the truths held self-evident by millions of Americans is the notion that the atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives, both American and Japanese. The choice, Americans are told starting as school children and throughout their lives by largely uncritical media, was between nuclear war and an even bloodier protracted invasion of Japan, whose fanatical people would have fought to the death defending their homeland and their divine emperor.

As with so many other dark chapters in US history, the official narrative of the decision to unleash the most destructive weapon humanity has ever known upon an utterly defeated people is deeply flawed.

‘Anxious to Terminate’

The Japanese had in fact been trying to find a way to surrender with honor for months before the atomic bombs were dropped, and US leaders knew it. Japan could no longer defend itself from the ruthless, relentless US onslaught; years of ferocious firebombing had reduced most Japanese cities, including the capital Tokyo, to ruins. General Curtis “Bombs Away” LeMay, commander of strategic bombing, even complained that there was nothing left to bomb there but “garbage can targets.”

After years of war and privation, Japan’s people had had enough, and so had many of its leaders. The Allies, through a secret cryptanalysis project codenamed Magic, had intercepted and decoded secret transmissions from Shigenori Togo, the Japanese foreign minister, to Naotaki Sato, the ambassador in Moscow, stating a desire to end the war.

Continue reading→

Should the United States Have Fought in World War II? No, by John L. Chapman

The argument for the US not fighting in World War II is much stronger than most people believe. From John L. Chapman at antiwar.com:

Should the United States have fought in World War II? Given the remembrances across Europe and here this past weekend evincing the usual trope about the war being a patriotic, heroic, and unavoidable good-versus-evil clash for the United States, it’s a propitious moment to ask this unusual – and in polite society, impertinent – question. But an honest assessment of usually ignored facts yields an unusual answer, in the negative, and the retrospective exercise offers lessons for the current moment.

Seventy five years ago last week, “Victory in Europe” was declared in Londonby British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in a speech broadcast to the nation at 3PM on May 8, 1945, followed by similar remarks before Parliament.  Known ever after as “V-E Day,” at 9PM that same night King George VI addressed the British people by radio. And shortly thereafter in Berlin, the third and final capitulation of all German land, sea, and air forces took place, with the surrender signed on behalf of the German High Command by Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel (Wehrmacht), Colonel-General Hans-Jürgen Stumpff (Luftwaffe), and Admiral Hans-Georg von Friedeburg (Kriegsmarine). Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov signed the document on behalf of the Supreme High Command of the Red Army, and signing on behalf of General Eisenhower was British Air Marshal Arthur W. Tedder, the Deputy Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force.

Continue reading

The Campaign To Lie America Into World War II, by Hunter Derensis

Most wars America has fought in have required lies to get the American people’s approval. From Hunter Derensis at theamericanconservative.com:

Before Pearl Harbor, there was an elaborate British influence operation of forged documents, fake news, and manipulation.

A World War II era poster showing portraits of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill with the title “Liberators of The World”. The poster also shows the flags of the Allies, and the sinking of the Japanese battleship Haruna. (Photo by David J. & Janice L. Frent/Corbis via Getty Images)

Seventy-eight years ago, on December 6, 1941, the United States was at peace with world. The next morning, local time, the Empire of Japan bombed the U.S. Navy base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Four days later, Nazi Germany issued a declaration of war against the United States. The American people were now unalterably involved in a global conflict that would take the lives of over 400,000 of their native sons.

But before Japan opened this door to war, the United States had been the target of an elaborate, covert influence campaign meant to push public opinion, by hook or by crook, into supporting intervention on the side of the British. Conducted by the United Kingdom’s MI6 intelligence service, it involved sometimes witting (and often unwitting) collaboration with the highest echelons of the U.S. government and media establishment.

In the early summer of 1940, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill dispatched intelligence agent William Stephenson to North America to establish the innocuous-sounding British Security Coordination (BSC). The Canadian-born Stephenson was a World War I flying ace and wealthy industrialist who had been a close Churchill confidant for several years. Adopting the codename “Intrepid” during his operations, spymaster Stephenson served as the main inspiration for James Bond (whose creator, Ian Fleming, worked with the BSC).

Continue reading

The Truth About World War II Is Beginning To Emerge 74 Years Later, by Paul Craig Roberts

History is written by the winners, quickly and tendentiously. Only later does the truth come out. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.com:

“The Lies About World War II” (https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05/13/the-lies-about-world-war-ii/) is my most popular column of the year. It is a book review of David Irving’s Hitler’s War and Churchill’s War, the first volumn of Irving’s three volume biography of Winston Churchill. A person does not know anything about WW II until he has read these books.

Historians, and even book reviewers, who tell the truth pay a high price. For reasons I provide in my review, generally it is decades after a war before truth about the war can emerge. By then the court historians have fused lies with patriotism and created a pleasing myth about the war, and when emerging truth impinges on that myth, the truth-teller is denounced for making a case for the enemy.

Wars are fought with words as well as with bullets and bombs. The propaganda and demonization of the enemy are extreme. This is especially the case when it is the victors who start the war and have to cover up this fact as well as the war crimes for which they are responsible. When decades later the covered up crimes of the victors are brought to light, truth is up against the explanation that has been controlled for a half century. This makes the truth seem outlandish, and this makes it easy to demonize and even destroy the historian who brought the truth to the surface.

Continue reading

The Forgotten Media Purges of the Great Depression, by Steve Penfield

If you think the federal government’s effort to control the “narrative” is a recent phenomenon, read on. FDR was a master. From Steve Penfield at unz.com:

Republican Hoover built the federal broadcasting shield in 1927. Roosevelt fashioned it into a weapon in 1934 and Democrats have never put it down since. One might consider the elaborate FCC speech barriers: A Poll Tax on Public Debate

One of the more enduring myths accepted as reality in our modern society is that America has a relatively free press. The ruling authorities and their entrenched accomplices promote that lie as diligently as they work to ensure that it never again becomes true.

America did have a mostly free and independent press until the rise of broadcasting in the 1920s. Within a few years, a small group of Republicans, progressives and corporate interests successfully nationalized the airwaves with restrictive licensing that blocked competition, rewarded insiders and squelched dissent.

Over the next few decades, the increasingly powerful medium of radio and then television drowned out the previously broad spectrum of information and ideas—with often three or more diverse choices of daily newspapers in many U.S. cities—and turned free speech into carefully rationed federal broadcasting privileges, their anointed urban newspaper monopolies and a few approved magazines.

Continue reading→