Ian Kershaw on Britain

In preparation for the debate over British liberalism, I have been reading a number of sources about pre-war Britain and the road to war. I’m working through Ian Kershaw’s Making Friends with Hitler: Lord Londonderry, the Nazis and the Road to World War II at the moment. Here are a few revealing excerpts worth sharing:

Though Hitler in 1936 would certainly have been prepared to reach agreement with Britain on a non-aggression pact for the subsequent twenty-five years (or some other lengthy period of time), or a more limited air pact, the price would have been the free hand in eastern Europe which he had always wanted. . . .

Irrespective of German intentions, the prospects of Baldwin taking Britain into any wide-ranging accomodation with Hitler’s Reich in the summer of autumn of 1936 were as good as non-existent. (Kershaw, 186)

In 1936, Hitler offered his hand in friendship to the British. He was ready to sign a twenty-five year non-aggression pact with them. Kershaw admits that Baldwin spurned the offer.

In the early years of the Nazi regime, Hitler had repeatedly sought to win British friendship, but had met a cool reception. (Kershaw, 202)

Hitler never wanted a war with the British Empire. Even Ian Kershaw admits that Hitler sought an alliance with Britain on several occasions. It was the British who turned Hitler down again and again.

The current moment, following Prague, was however scarcely propitious, and time would have to be allowed for the dust to settle. Whatever negotiations proved possible would then have to be on the basis which the Nazi leadership had always wanted: recognition of German pre-eminence on the Continent and a free hand for Germany in the each in exchange for what he took to be the unthreatened existence of the British Empire. (Kershaw, 282)

Right down to 1939, Hitler was willing to cut a deal with the British: he would guarantee the security of the British Empire in exchange for a free hand to expand eastward. If the British had accepted his offer, and France had backed down, there never would have been a war in the West. As a consequence, America would never have entered the war.

When Hitler did make an offer – in his speech to the Reichstag on 6 October 1939 – to settle Europe’s problems of peace and security, on his own terms of course, it was half-hearted, and was outrightly rejected by the British government. (Kershaw, 300)

Even after the war had started, Hitler continued to make peace offers to the British government. Hitler was turned down yet again by the British who were bent on war. The onus of the war rests exclusively on the shoulders of the British. The war against the Third Reich was a war of choice.

About Hunter Wallace 12366 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. One of the great lies of the official account of WWII is that Germans were simply atavistic, innate racists and war mongers who could only be stopped by total war and annihilation. Thus any prewar reality is irrelevant and essentially sacrilegious. This was a righteous war and an inevitable one. In fact, Germans were reacting as much as initiating.

    Buchanan addresses the failure of the British to navigate this reality responsibly and the appalling consequences for everyone. Of course, Buchanan can’t address the racial aspect of the lie: That German attitudes toward Jews were themselves a reaction against legitimate concerns over Jewish attitudes and behaviors (most notably, but not solely, Bolshevism).

  2. Hitler’s offers of non-aggression pacts were nominal and irrelevant (he broke a non-aggression pact against Poland in the 1939 invasion.)

    The real issue where Britain screwed up concerns the JEWS – the Brits had to clean them out, though 1939 was perhaps already too late.

  3. I think the evidence that he wanted an alliance with England, or at least a non-agression pact, is pretty compelling. What is not compelling is the idea that intra-European slaughter as a result of war with Nazi Germany could have been averted if England had stayed out of the war. Hitler was clearly bent on taking over land (Poland especially) inhabited by MILLIONS of Jews, the removal of which would have required massive barbarism under any circumstances (look how difficult it was for NSDAP to deal with the much smaller proportion of Jews in Germany proper in the thirties). He was also clearly bent on taking over land controlled by large number of Slavs (in Ukraine and elsewhere). A Jewish bloodbath and a grossly destructive war between Germans and Slavs (not just Bolsheviks) would have been inevitable, even if England had stayed out.

  4. My understanding of the matter is that he wanted Poland to become an ally and satellite along the lines of Slovakia. Of course Hitler wanted to expand into the USSR, which was terrible for Russians and Ukrainians, but he ended up doing that anyway.

  5. Six months after Hitler came to power, the Zionist Federation of Germany (by far the largest Zionist group in the country) submitted a detailed memorandum to the new government that reviewed German-Jewish relations and formally offered Zionist support in “solving” the vexing “Jewish question.” The first step, it suggested, had to be a frank recognition of fundamental national differences: 4

    Zionism has no illusions about the difficulty of the Jewish condition, which consists above all in an abnormal occupational pattern and in the fault of an intellectual and moral posture not rooted in one’s own tradition. Zionism recognized decades ago that as a result of the assimilationist trend, symptoms of deterioration were bound to appear …

    Zionism believes that the rebirth of the national life of a people, which is now occurring in Germany through the emphasis on its Christian and national character, must also come about in the Jewish national group. For the Jewish people, too, national origin, religion, common destiny and a sense of its uniqueness must be of decisive importance in the shaping of its existence. This means that the egotistical individualism of the liberal era must be overcome and replaced with a sense of community and collective responsibility …

    We believe it is precisely the new [National Socialist] Germany that can, through bold resoluteness in the handling of the Jewish question, take a decisive step toward overcoming a problem which, in truth, will have to be dealt with by most European peoples …

    Our acknowledgment of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we do not wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we, too, are against mixed marriage and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group and reject any trespasses in the cultural domain, we — having been brought up in the German language and German culture — can show an interest in the works and values of German culture with admiration and internal sympathy …

    For its practical aims, Zionism hopes to be able to win the collaboration of even a government fundamentally hostile to Jews, because in dealing with the Jewish question not sentimentalities are involved but a real problem whose solution interests all peoples and at the present moment especially the German people …

    Boycott propaganda — such as is currently being carried on against Germany in many ways — is in essence un-Zionist, because Zionism wants not to do battle but to convince and to build …

    We are not blind to the fact that a Jewish question exists and will continue to exist. From the abnormal situation of the Jews severe disadvantages result for them, but also scarcely tolerable conditions for other peoples. […]

    Hitler himself personally reviewed this entire issue in early 1938 and, in spite of his long-standing skepticism of Zionist ambitions and misgivings that his policies might contribute to the formation of a Jewish state, decided to support Jewish migration to Palestine even more vigorously. The prospect of ridding Germany of its Jews, he concluded, outweighed the possible dangers. 29

    Meanwhile, the British government imposed ever more drastic restrictions on Jewish immigration into Palestine in 1937, 1938 and 1939. In response, the SS security service concluded a secret alliance with the clandestine Zionist agency Mossad le-Aliya Bet to smuggle Jews illegally into Palestine. As a result of this intensive collaboration, several convoys of ships succeeded in reaching Palestine past British gunboats. Jewish migration, both legal and illegal, from Germany (including Austria) to Palestine increased dramatically in 1938 and 1939. Another 10,000 Jews were scheduled to depart in October 1939, but the outbreak of war in September brought the effort to an end. All the same, German authorities continued to promote indirect Jewish emigration to Palestine during 1940 and 1941. 30 Even as late as March 1942, at least one officially authorized Zionist “kibbutz” training camp for potential emigrants continued to operate in Hitler’s Germany. 31


  6. This remarkable Zionist proposal “for the solution of the Jewish question in Europe and the active participation of the NMO [Lehi] in the war on the side of Germany” is worth quoting at some length:46

    “In their speeches and statements, the leading statesmen of National Socialist Germany have often emphasized that a New Order in Europe requires as a prerequisite a radical solution of the Jewish question by evacuation. (“Jew-free Europe”)

    The evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is a precondition for solving the Jewish question. However, the only way this can be totally achieved is through settlement of these masses in the homeland of the Jewish people, Palestine, and by the establishment of a Jewish state in its historical boundaries.

    The goal of the political activity and the years of struggle by the Israel Freedom Movement, the National Military Organization in Palestine (Irgun Zvai Leumi), is to solve the Jewish problem in this way and thus completely liberate the Jewish people forever.

    The NMO, which is very familiar with the good will of the German Reich government and its officials towards Zionist activities within Germany and the Zionist emigration program, takes that view that:

    1. Common interests can exist between a European New Order based on the German concept and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as embodied by the NMO.

    2. Cooperation is possible between the New Germany and a renewed, folkish-national Jewry [Hebr_ertum].

    3. The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East.

    On the basis of these considerations, and upon the condition that the German Reich government recognize the national aspirations of the Israel Freedom Movement mentioned above, the NMO in Palestine offers to actively take part in the war on the side of Germany.

    This offer by the NMO could include military, political and informational activity within Palestine and, after certain organizational measures, outside as well. Along with this the Jewish men of Europe would be militarily trained and organized in military units under the leadership and command of the NMO. They would take part in combat operations for the purpose of conquering Palestine, should such a front by formed.

    The indirect participation of the Israel Freedom Movement in the New Order of Europe, already in the preparatory stage, combined with a positive-radical solution of the European Jewish problem on the basis of the national aspirations of the Jewish people mentioned above, would greatly strengthen the moral foundation of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.

    The cooperation of the Israel Freedom Movement would also be consistent with a recent speech by the German Reich Chancellor, in which Hitler stressed that he would utilize any combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England.”

  7. What the World Rejected
    Hitler’s Peace Offers 1933-1939

    Germany’s enemies maintain today that Adolf Hitler is the greatest disturber of peace known to history, that he threatens every nation with sudden attack and oppression, that he has created a terrible war machine in order to cause trouble and devastation all around him. At the same time they intentionally conceal an all-important fact: they themselves drove the Leader of the German people finally to draw the sword. They themselves compelled him to seek to obtain at last by the use of force that which he had been striving to gain by persuasion from the beginning: the security of his country. They did this not only by declaring war on him on September 3, 1939, but also by blocking step for step for seven years the path to any peaceful discussion.


  8. Fade,

    Before marching into battle with against the intrepid Dan Dare, may I very strongly suggest you make a careful study the following two books, both of which provide very detailed refutations of his positions and both of which were written by people who privileged access to information, Hoggan by means of examining the records of both sides after the fact, and Joyce by means of having been on the ground in England prior to war, deeply involved in BUF politics. Here are links to online versions of both, on the off chance that objective scholarship may not have seen fit to include either in your library.

    Hoggan’s “The Forced War”


    Joyce, “Twilight over England”


    Oh, and drop me a line at the address included. It’s been too long.


  9. Prozium (et al),

    Are you familiar with this book –

    ~ by Captain A.H.M. Ramsay, Member of Parliament

    “The urgent alarm sounded in 1918 by Mr. Oudendyke in his letter to Mr. Balfour, denouncing bolshevism as a Jewish plan, which if not checked by the combined action of the European Powers, would engulf Europe and the world, was no exaggeration. By the end of that year the red flag was being hoisted in most of the great cities of Europe. In Hungary the Jew Bela Kuhn organised and maintained for some time a merciless and bloody tyranny similar to the one in Russia. In Germany, the Jews Leibknecht, Barth, Scheidemann, Rosa Luxemburg, etc., made a desperate bid for power. These and other similar convulsions shook Europe; but each country in its own way just frustrated the onslaughts.

    “In most countries concerned a few voices were raised in an endeavour to expose the true nature of these evils. Only in one, however, did a political leader and group arise, who grasped to the full the significance of these happenings, and perceived behind the mobs of native hooligans the organisation and driving power of world Jewry. This leader was Adolf Hitler, and his group the National Socialist Party of Germany.

    “Never before in history had any country not only repulsed organised revolution, but discerned Jewry behind it, and faced up to that fact. We need not wonder that the sewers of Jewish vituperation were flooded over these men and their leader; nor should we make the mistake of supposing that Jewry would stick at any lie to deter honest men everywhere from making a thorough investigation of the facts for themselves. Nevertheless, if any value liberty, and set out to seek truth and defend it, this duty of personal investigation is one which they cannot shirk.”


    “Those who sup with the devil need a long spoon. Mr. Churchill, the self-styled “constant architect of the Jews’ future,” now found himself playing second fiddle to an even more trusted architect; so eminent, in fact, that he did not make any silly pretensions of respect for the British Empire. The earlier Moses, Karl Marx, had denounced the Empire long ago, and in the year 1941, it was only foolish opponents of Judaism and Marxism, like Herr Hitler, who were anxious to stand by that Empire, because they recognised it as a bulwark of Christian civilisation.”


    Here is another patriotic Anglo-Saxon English gentleman who was imprisoned during WW2 for being, well, a (true) British patriot –

    ~ by Admiral Sir Barry Edward Domvile, Royal Navy



  10. Dare will scoff at Hoggan’s “The Forced War” because of the footnote issue. It’s a great read though.

  11. Hoggan remains a favorite. He got a Ph.D. from Harvard with a thesis that later became his book on the origins of W.W. II. Because of his family background, D.D. has a personal stake in continuing to uphold the post-war conformist narrative on Hitler as madman. What a Brit thinks should be immaterial to Germans.

  12. It is hard to take the Brits seriously when they squawk about how Hitler’s entry into Bohemia and Moravia was the crime of the century when they were holding down 1/4 of the human species at the time.

  13. Hitler should’ve declared war on Britain on the account of its treatment of the long-suffering Irish people.

  14. It’s true that Hitler was not planning to attack the British if they stood aside and allowed Nazi Germany to become the hegemon from the Rhine to the Urals. But if Hitler had succeeded, Germany would be the world’s #1 superpower today (there would probably be at least 300 million ethnic Germans by now, with all that space and with a ruthless government that would have done what it took to keep the birthrate up). Britain would then be at the mercy of Germany forever. Maybe the current Fuehrer would not be so friendly. Maybe Hitler himself wouldn’t have been so friendly with all those resources and no enemies to his East. All we or the British of that time know for sure is, if Germany is kept too weak to threaten Britain, it won’t threaten Britain.

    Also, maybe Hitler can take a little bit of blame for starting a war of choice against Poland which was obviously unwinnable (as proven by the fact that he lost despite a ridiculously good early run of luck) when he had been warned that starting said war meant war with Britain and France.

  15. “Also, maybe Hitler can take a little bit of blame for starting a war of choice against Poland…”

    Why do so many forget he was attempting to get back actual ethnic German territory unjustly taken from the Reich in the criminal Versailles Treaty in 1919???

  16. Why would you think anybody’s forgetting that Danzig was German was German territory? What does that have to do with the fact that Germany was the most powerful country in Europe and a potential threat to other country? Do you think anybody outside of Germany gave a shit, or should have given a shit, about the rights of ethnic Germans in Danzig, as if western leaders were kindergarten teachers trying to make everything fair for everybody instead statesmen advancing their own countries interests? If so, shouldn’t they have noticed that Germany was by then oppressing ethnic Czechs and was quite likely to do so to Poles and other Slavs, as Hitler had always said he intended to do?

  17. It was more than just Danzig.

    How ’bout Silesia, Upper Silesia; Posen; Pomerania; the Warthegau; parts of East and West Prussia; Hultschiner Ländchen; the Memel… .

    You know what, and yes, the rest of the hypocrites around the world should have realized the gross injustice done to the eastern Germans by carving their country up like a turkey, I mean, if the opponants of Germany really had any sense of decency and fair play.

    All the above territories ‘given’ away by the ‘allies’ had ethnic Germans still living there, and they also were oppressed by the ‘majorities’ in these ‘new’ ‘countries’.

    “…as if western leaders were kindergarten teachers trying to make everything fair for everybody instead statesmen advancing their own countries interests?”

    So then Germany, according to your ‘logic’, was JUST AS RIGHT LOOKING OUT FOR THEIR COUNTRY’S INTERESTS like the others were doing, right??

  18. “What does that have to do with the fact that Germany was the most powerful country in Europe and a potential threat to other country?”

    Germany was just a smarter and stronger opponant to the countries around her that posed a collective threat to the German people and to German national interests.

  19. Was Germany just as “right” for looking out for their country’s interests, if by looking out for their country’s interests you mean starting a stupid, unwinnable war that inevitably lead to mass rape of German women, permanent loss of lands east of the Oder, and the demoralization of the Germans into Eurofag National Masochists of today? That’s the wrong question. Why should Britain care whether they’re “right?” The issue was whether they were going to let this potential threat grow any more powerful. The answer was “no.”

    The world did have sympathy for Germany. That’s why Germany was allowed to rearm and take back the Sudetanland (mistake). Then Hitler went and took non-German speaking parts of Czechoslovakia. No more sympathy.

    Maybe if Hitler hadn’t done that, he could have taken German-speaking parts of Poland back without a fight with the West, but he had already proven that he wanted more than a restoration of the old Germany. In fact, he wrote a book (Mein Kampf) about how borders are man-made and can be changed by man, how it wasn’t that important to take back old lands (he specifically wrote off lands that would have caused conflicts with France and Italy), and how he intended to conquer Eastern Europe. Given all of that, of course Germany’s neighbors would want to keep Germany from getting any stronger.

    Of course, his intentions were never just to take back the Polish Corridor. He planned to take all of Poland (except for the part he gave to Russia to get them to stay out of the fight), and so he did.

    Why do you have so much sympathy for Germans under foreign rule, but none for Czechs, Slovaks or Poles? You remind me of how Muslims howl in agony every time somebody draws a cartoon that offends them, while simultaneously oppressing everybody else in areas they control – except that their hypocrisy can at least be explained by the fact that they’re out to benefit themselves. You’re probably not even German.

  20. >Germany was just a smarter and stronger opponant to the countries around her that posed a collective threat to the German people and to German national interests.

    There was no threat to German interests, beyond keeping the status quo at the time (which was offensive but not something you couldn’t live with, certainly far better than the post-1945 status quo). If there was a threat, why didn’t they do something when Germany was weak prior to the rearmament in 1935? You think mighty Poland or Czechoslovakia, or even Russia, who didn’t attack weak Germany in 1934, were going to attack strong Germany in 1938-39?

  21. 1.) Britain declared war on Germany, not the other way around.

    2.) Hitler sought an alliance with Britain on several occasions. It was the British who turned him down.

    3.) Hitler wanted Poland to become a satellite along the lines of Slovakia.

    4.) Czechs, Slovaks and Poles had lived under German rule for centuries.

  22. “Do you think anybody outside of Germany gave a shit, or should have given a shit, about the rights of ethnic Germans in Danzig, as if western leaders were kindergarten teachers trying to make everything fair for everybody instead statesmen advancing their own countries interests?”

    I would like to see you apply that same standard to Jews facing less than full enfranchisement in diaspora. Of course you never would.

    “If so, shouldn’t they have noticed that Germany was by then oppressing ethnic Czechs and was quite likely to do so to Poles and other Slavs, as Hitler had always said he intended to do?”

    Do you mean liquidating them by the tens of millions as Stalin’s Jews did to Slavs? LOL!

    The time has come to expel the Jews.

  23. @ Proz
    1) Sure, in keeping with their promise to Poland, after warning Germany, and arguably in their own national interest.
    2) Hitler wanted Britain to be his junior partner. Excuse the British if they weren’t interested.
    3) Have you read Mein Kampf or the Table Talk? He wanted to colonize the East in a way that could most accurately be described as similar to Spanish colonization of the Americas without the race mixing.
    4) So that means he has some right to conquer the Slavs, and everybody else should step aside, just because some Hapsburg or Hohenzollern had won some war centuries previously? I don’t buy it, and neither did anybody else. I suppose you think Arabs/Turks have a right to conquer Spain and southeastern Europe because they ruled those areas for centuries?

    I don’t see how Stalin’s policies justified Hitler’s. In fact, the Hitler-Stalin pact lead to an increase in Stalin’s sphere of influence. I know an old upper-crust Latvian (of German descent) whose family was mostly killed in 1939-1941 as a result of that pact, which gave her country to the Commies.

    I’m not sure what you’re implying about me and the Jews. I don’t really care if they are enfranchised or not. If the franchise were restricted to white male Christian property owners, that would be fine with me. Not everybody is single-mindedly focused on the Jews like you are.

    >Do you mean liquidating them by the tens of millions as Stalin’s Jews did to Slavs? LOL!

    No, I said “oppressing,” though I wouldn’t rule out liquidations. Hitler wanted land for Germans, so something was going to have to happen to the current occupants. Exactly what, I don’t know.

  24. “coldequation” is an interesting name, calling to mind as it does the old science fiction story The Cold Equations and its reliance upon a contrived and highly improbable scenario to manipulate the emotions of readers…

  25. 1.) It was the British who turned a border dispute between Germany and Poland into the Second World War. Churchill himself admitted that Britain had no material interest in Poland.

    2.) I don’t recall anything about Britain becoming a “junior partner” in the German proposal.

    3.) Yes. Hitler was referring to the Soviet Union. Initially, he sought an alliance with Poland. He wanted Poland to become a satellite like Slovakia. When the Poles refused to negotiate (as they later would over their eastern border), Hitler invaded.

    4.) No, I am just saying that you are making mountains out of molehills. Poland and Czechoslovakia were created in the wake of WW1 to weaken and contain Germany. Poles, Czechs and Slovaks had lived for centuries under German and Hungarian rule. Hitler’s establishment of a protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia wasn’t such a big deal.

  26. It was not the first time the British threatened to interven on Poland’s behalf.

    Polish–Soviet War

    In a telegram, Lenin exclaimed: “We must direct all our attention to preparing and strengthening the Western Front. A new slogan must be announced: ‘Prepare for war against Poland’.”[64] Soviet communist theorist Nikolay Bukharin, writer for the newspaper Pravda, wished for the resources to carry the campaign beyond Warsaw “right up to London and Paris”.[65] General Tukhachevsky’s order of the day, 2 July, 1920 read: “To the West! Over the corpse of White Poland lies the road to worldwide conflagration. March on Vilno, Minsk, Warsaw!”[60] and “onward to Berlin over the corpse of Poland!”[17] The increasing hope of certain victory, however, gave rise to political intrigues between Soviet commanders.[66]

    By order of the Soviet Communist Party, a Polish puppet government,[67] the Provisional Polish Revolutionary Committee (Polish: Tymczasowy Komitet Rewolucyjny Polski, TKRP), had been formed on 28 July in Bia?ystok to organise administration of the Polish territories captured by the Red Army.[17] The TKRP had very little support from the ethnic Polish population and recruited its supporters mostly from the ranks of minorities, primarily Jews.[25] At the height of the Polish-Soviet conflict, Jews had been subject to anti-semitic violence by Polish forces, who considered Jews to be a potential threat, and who often accused Jews as being the masterminds of Russian Bolshevism;[68][69] during the Battle of Warsaw, the Polish government interned all Jewish volunteers and sent Jewish volunteer officers to an internment camp.[70][71]

    General Józef Haller (touching the flag) and his Blue Army.Britain’s Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, who wanted to negotiate a favourable trade agreement with the Bolsheviks[17] pressed Poland to make peace on Soviet terms and refused any assistance to Poland which would alienate the Whites in the Russian Civil War. In July 1920, Britain announced it would send huge quantities of World War I surplus military supplies to Poland, but a threatened general strike by the Trades Union Congress, who objected to British support of “White Poland”, ensured that none of the weapons destined for Poland left British ports. David Lloyd George had never been enthusiastic about supporting the Poles, and had been pressured by his more right-wing Cabinet members such as Lord Curzon and Winston Churchill into offering the supplies. On the 11 July, 1920, the government of Great Britain issued a de facto ultimatum to the Soviets.[72] It demanded the Soviets to stop hostilities against Poland and the Russian Army (the White Army in Southern Russia lead by Baron Wrangel), and to accept what later was called the “Curzon line” as a temporary border with Poland, until a permanent border could be established in negotiations.[17] In case of Soviet refusal, the British threatened to assist Poland with all the means available, which, in reality, were limited by the internal political situation in the United Kingdom. On the 17 July, the Bolsheviks refused[17] and made a counter-offer to negotiate a peace treaty directly with Poland. The British responded by threatening to cut off the on-going trade negotiations if the Soviets conducted further offensives against Poland. These threats were ignored.

    The threatened general strike was a convenient excuse for Lloyd George to back out of his commitments.[citation needed] On August 6, 1920, the British Labour Party published a pamphlet stating that British workers would never take part in the war as Poland’s allies, and labour unions blocked supplies to the British expeditionary force assisting Russian Whites in Arkhangelsk. French Socialists, in their newspaper L’Humanité, declared: “Not a man, not a sou, not a shell for reactionary and capitalist Poland. Long live the Russian Revolution! Long live the Workmen’s International!”[60] Poland also suffered setbacks due to sabotage and delays in deliveries of war supplies, when workers in Czechoslovakia and Germany refused to transit such materials to Poland.[17] On August 6th the Polish government issued an “Appeal to the World”, disputing charges of imperialism, stressing Poland’s determination for self-determination and the dangers of Bolshevik “invasion of Europe”.[73]

  27. Easy there CE with too readily believing the Establishment version of Teutonic-Slav relations –

    “The Many Faces of National Socialism”

    “The much discussed German anti-Slavic policies, which were based on the alleged racial inferiority of Slavs, are nonsense — all the more so since at least one out of three Germans carries the name of Slavic origin. Prior to 1945, well over 15 million Germans were born and lived in the Slavic speaking areas of East Europe, including the third-ranking man in the National Socialist command, the Russian-Baltic born German Alfred Rosenberg. Rosenberg’s face shows Nordic features with a slight Alpine Slavic streak.


    “Some of the highest ranking German generals in the Wehrmacht were of Slavic-German origin. Their family names are clearly Slavic and their skull morphology points to a large variety of all European subracial types, from the Alpine (“ostisch”), the Mediterranean (“westisch”) to the Nordic: Hans Hellmich, Curt Badinski, Bruno Chrobeck, Emil Dedek, Heinrich Domansky, Walter Dybilasz, Erich Glodkowski, Kurt Mierzinsky, Adalbert Mikulicz, Bronislaw Pawel, Georg Radziej, Hans Radisch, Franz Zednicek, Walter von Brauchitsch. So were the other high German officers such as the master of panzer warfare, the round-headed Heinz Guderian, who was of distant Armenian origin, or the tall and big-nosed Wilhelm Canaris, who was of Italian/Greek origin. (See the important book by Christopher Dolbeau — practically unknown in France — Face au Bolchevisme: Petit dictionnaire des résistances nationales à l’Est de l’Europe: 1917–1989. (Against Bolshevism: A Little Dictionary of National Resistances in East Europe: 1917–1989).”


    And, best of all –

    “To assume, therefore, that the Institute for Racial Hygiene in Germany or the Gestapo were checking the names or the cranial index of high German officials, before admitting them to high military positions is academic lunacy. Yet a type of deliberate lunacy is still alive in some influential anti-German conspiratorial circles in the West and in America. The alleged racism of Germans against Slavs was part and parcel of the Allied propaganda and later of the Frankfurt School, whose goal was to whip up Slavs during and after WWII into anti-German frenzy. By accepting more than one million volunteers from Russia, Ukraine, Croatia, Slovakia, etc. in the Wehrmacht and by allowing half a million non-German European volunteers in the Waffen SS, the German high military command thought it could create its own version of united Europe and successfully fight the war on two fronts.”

    ** …The alleged racism of Germans against Slavs was part and parcel of the Allied propaganda and later of the Frankfurt School, whose goal was to whip up Slavs during and after WWII into anti-German frenzy. … **


  28. Note that no effort is made to refute Buchanan. There is abundant evidence that Hitler did not want war and went to great lengths to avoid it and stop it once it had started.


    MSNBC removes Buchanan’s Hitler
    column following Jewish complaint

    MSNBC removes Buchanan column defending Hitler
    Jewish Telegraphic Agency Thursday, 3 September 2009

    WASHINGTON — MSNBC took down the Pat Buchanan column
    defending Hitler’s actions hours after a Jewish group urged its

    The National Jewish Democratic Council had released a statement
    Thursday imploring MSNBC to remove the article from its Web site.

    Buchanan, a conservative pundit, had alleged that Hitler did not
    want war and that the Allies’ actions were unnecessary.

    “MSNBC took the responsible action” in removing the column, NJDC
    President David Harris said in a statement.

    “No worthy news organization should employ and promote a
    commentator who engages in such vile fiction,” he said. “This sort
    of historical revisionism is deplorable.”

    Buchanan has been accused in the past of making racially insensitive
    and anti-Semitic comments.

    http://jta.org/ news/article/ 2009/09/03/ 1007639/njdc- urges-msnbc- to-remove- pat-buchanans- column-defending -hitler

    “Did Hitler want war?”
    http://buchanan. org/blog/ did-hitler- want-war- 2068

  29. None of you have even addressed the issue of whether it was in Britain’s interest to allow Germany to become the hegemon in Europe. You’re saying that Germany deserved to be allowed to conquer the East when I’m saying that deserve’s got nothing to do with it.

    Get Real, my information about Hitler’s plans for the East comes from Hitler himself – see Mein Kampf and the table talk. And your quote has nothing to do with anything I was talking about anyway. It shows that Germany did not persecute Germans of Polish or Baltic extraction, which does not indicate that Germany had friendly intentions towards Eastern Europe any more than America’s failure to purge people with names like Eisenhower and Nimitz shows that the US had a friendly attitude towards Germany. Irrelevant.

  30. WWII marked the end of the British Empire, racial liberalism and the beginning of massive non-white immigration. According to Prof. Lynn the indigenous British will be reduced to 30% of the island’s population in ~40 years. Ditto for most of the Anglo-sphere. The destruction of German nationalism poisoned all European nationalism. Does the imminent extinction of the indigenous British in their homeland serve British interest?

  31. ColdE-

    The British did not enter the war to defend the Sovereignty of the people of Hungary or any other eastern peoples. To try to claim this is a lie. The British did not take over the east, they turned it over to Soviet communism which terrorized the people, burned churches and tossed them off their land and forced them into sweat shops, exploited and underpaid. This was not going to be the German National Socialist Policy. The Germans protected the agrarian peasant.

    So the British fought in the defense of International Communism, industrialism, and all the horror that entails, including its lies.

    I guess it was in British “interest” to terrorize, enslave, starve to death, masturbate to endless trials of Hungarian patriots who they tortured and imprisoned based on “eye witness” testimony, and continue to exploit civilian populations, and to continue to do so all over the world. If that is what you mean, then I guess you are indeed correct.

  32. The decision to go to war with Germany did not require that Britain commit suicide. It was Hitler’s behavior and decisions that poisoned European nationalism, because white people are disgusted by things like Auschwitz and cataclysmic wars of choice. If white people had the ethics of machete-wielding Rwandans, maybe that would not be so.

  33. Look, Cold, it is the lies and dogma that people are disgusted with not the truth. The truth is not allowed to be told.

  34. That Hitler made wrong decisions is true as well. He really did not realize the depth of depravity of the Allies, and its willingness to support communism over freedom. That he “poisoned” European nationalism is aa strange comment however, considering almost all of the German revolutionary policies were adopted by the demands of European people post war. From 40 work week (as oppossed to 60), wages, and environmentalism. The only miss was free market exploitation, which rages today and is destroying the planet.

    Strange, we are regressing in terms of rights and freedoms, and while meditating on the past we are finding ourselves in a new Victorian Era with the same fog! Hopefully it will not lead to the same war.

  35. I do not think so Mark, but then agian, why support a war against Iraq? Why die for it? What did it do for Americans, besides open the doors to refugees?

  36. But then again in matters of War and Peace us plebeians do not have to be consulted, our government never had to answer or ask us about the war in Iraq or Afghanistan or reveal the cost of it and who exactly would benefit. Thos are only matters for “experts” in various nameless “councils.” We do not get a say in our own fate, only “international” committees have a say, and pass along the orders.

    In all matters that effect our lives, livelihood, psychological happiness and security we do not get a vote. I guess these are the policies the allies sought to defend. Great.

  37. >the question becomes why was “Communism” in “British” interest?

    Churchill to SAS man Fitzroy Maclean, after Maclean questioned the wisdom of supporting Communist partisans:

    “Do you intend to live in Yugoslavia after the war?”

    “No, Sir.”

    “Neither do I.”

    >That he “poisoned” European nationalism is aa strange comment however, considering almost all of the German revolutionary policies were adopted by the demands of European people post war.

    The socialist ones, sure. The nationalist ones, not so much.

    >If they knew then what we know now, would whites around the world still have supported a war with Germany?

    Yes – more than they actually did. They would know for sure that Germany could be defeated, there would be a whole new class of atrocity propaganda (the Holocaust) to motivate Westerners, and they would know that the Communist threat would never amount to more than a Cold War, and would go away by itself in 60 years.

    If you really want to know if whites of that era would support the war in hindsight, some of them are still alive and still sharp. I could ask my grandmother, for whom the 60s never happened, if she would oppose the war given what has happened since then, but she would probably get mad at me just for suggesting that the decision was questionable.

  38. ” It was Hitler’s behavior and decisions that poisoned European nationalism, because white people are disgusted by things like Auschwitz and cataclysmic wars of choice.”

    Oh boy sounds like someone needs to read some Historical Revisionist Literature!

    For one thing the Holocaust is a hoax (why jail so many Revisionists if they are wrong? Just prove them wrong and move along. It appears there is something to hide….)

    Also even if one believes in the Jew-stream version of the Holo-hoax, it didn’t get started until like 1943 so why start a war in 1939 over something that has yet to happen??? Hello mcfly!

    And when it comes to wars of choice, well we just have to look at patriotards supporting the current adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan… Why is one ok, but not the other?!?!?

  39. ColdE-

    Your response is weak as to exactly how the allies supporting communism was in the interest of the “British” meaning the British people. Who cares that Churchill did not have to live there? Are trying to insinuate that the British chose to fight on behalf of Communism, exploitation, church burnings and torture, starvation, mock “trials,” dispossession of property, and all the blessings that were bestowed upon the poor souls of the east including the Germans thanks to the bogus Allies? That would make them pretty sick fuckers. I can not claim to know what the people in the various eastern countries wanted, but I can certainly look at the outcome and it certainly does not meet the standards of decency, does it? I am getting the impression that for you it becomes the argument of the lesser evil? It is not that for me. To me, the wrong side won and the state of the world today makes my claims self evident, at least to me.

    Doesn’t authentic “socialism” require a Nation? What is the difference between nationalism and socialism and how are they not symbiotic?

    As far as I can tell America can use some National Socialism today, where many are being disposed and forced into exploitation. I just read an article by Paul Craig Roberts who writes,
    “Will Americans see the disconnect between their interests and the interests of “their” government? In the small town of Vassalboro, Maine, a few topless waitress jobs in a coffee house drew 150 applicants. Women in this small town are so desperate for jobs that they are reduced to undressing for their neighbors’ amusement.”
    This is a humanitarian tragedy. Women, sisters, mothers should not be forced out of need for warmth, shelter, and food to undress for the amusement of men just because they can afford to pay them to do so. This is why Socialism is a necessity, the safety net to protect women from such desperation. Perhaps you can share this with your grandma for whom the 60’s never happened! The statistics of brutal beatings and rapes of the elderly at the hands of negro’s might also enlighten her about the sixties and its repercussions.

    Many people misunderstand the purpose, of the “myth” if you will, of the Authoritarian, his coming and his purpose: it is the restoration of economic order and justice for the nation and its historical natives who have found themselves unable to participate in the nation in any meaningful way – the NATION not the universe. It is not vague and it is not insincere. This is why so many Germans were motivated and loved Hitler, they were not brainwashed.

  40. It was not Hitler or the Germans that poisoned Nationalism or Socialism, but the Allies and their propaganda that persists today. And who does it serve?

  41. 1.) Britain set itself up for a catastrophic war by anointing itself arbiter of the status quo in Eastern Europe.

    2.) Germany’s eastern border was none of Britain’s business. Should Germany have declared war on Britain over its occupation of Northern Ireland?

Comments are closed.