Posted under Uncategorized
I watched Valkyrie over Christmas weekend I thought it was good movie, but I was wishing for more. Particularly a little more context into why Von Stauffenberg turned against the Nazis more so than was let on in the film. Although Von Stauffenberg’s Catholic background was hinted at, his turn against Hitler and that of the other plotters had more of the “we’re losing, let’s fire the head coach!” mentality one’s finds in American football fans. To turn against Hitler required a deeper motive than just the sense of Germany impending defeat. Certainly the angle of the approaching Red Army and the hopes the plotters had of an armistance with Allies preventing a Communist takeover could have been better pursued as well.
Despite, it was still good film and I recommend seeing it.
Captainchaos on 30 Dec 2008 at 2:13 am #
I’ll not be surprised if this comment isn’t posted: but here goes. Does anyone ever ask the question of non-interventionists concerning America’s participation in the Second World War that, the logical conclusion of their position would have meant a German, “Nazi” victory in Europe? I’ll take it the owner of this blog is not a “Holocaust denier” (as I am) and, if he is supportive of the non-interventionist position of those like Lindbergh, how does he reconcile this with the inevitable result of that position being the extermination of European Jewry; at least consistent with what, for arguments sake, I assume he believes.
A White Nationalist I may be, but an anti-intellectual and a bore I am not; at least not always.
I like your blog and hope to have a fruitful dialogue in future. Cheers.
Ivan on 30 Dec 2008 at 2:08 pm #
Captain, the more likely outcome would have been a Soviet “Pyrrhic Victory”, with a much faster collapse of the Soviet Union. Perhaps the landscape of Europe would have resembled Franco’s Spain more so than Soviet East Germany. Perhaps, with a defeat of the Soviet Union, Liberalism would not have infected Europe, and it still would be (at least nominally) “Fascist”, that is, traditional authority firmly protected by the governments of Europe.
Alas, all of this is pure conjecture…
Dr Bob on 30 Dec 2008 at 7:36 pm #
One of the serious questions overlooked in the two posts above is the fact that we were attacked by the Japanese, who were allies of Germany. Granted Roosevelt knew about the pending attack, and granted that our actions provoked the Japanese somewhat. But that does not negate the fact that we were attacked. How would any of you have kept us out of the war at that moment?
Unlike today, we had a clear enemy we were willing to recognize. (Remember, the “terrorists” who destroyed the world trade center were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. So why did we go after Iraq instead of the Saudis? And, yes, I understand there is evidence that those buildings were “dropped” with inside help, just as there is overwhelming evidence that the truck bomb did not drop the building in Oklahoma City all by itself.)
So my question still remains about World War II and our entry into it. How would either of you two, or anyone else, have kept us out of the war right after the bombing of Pearl Harbor?
Now don’t anyone take my question personally, I am just asking it to provoke conversation and stimulate thought. But, please make your answer plausable, or don’t answer at all.
Thank you.
Ivan on 30 Dec 2008 at 8:38 pm #
“How would either of you two, or anyone else, have kept us out of the war right after the bombing of Pearl Harbor? ”
After that, it was inevitable.
The question should be:
“How could anyone have kept Germany and Austria-Hungary from losing the Great War (Part I), and the Treaty of Versailles being imposed upon them?”
Bill Lussenheide on 31 Dec 2008 at 1:38 am #
If the South had won the civil war, would have Hitler won World War II ?
I guess the argument could be made for that scenario. An empowered agrarian South, and a defeated isolated North might not have built up as much industrially as we did leading up to WWII. A less industrialized North America would not have been as powerful of a help to the allies.
What if questions are fun, but rarely are they ever resolvable to firm conclussions.
Captainchaos on 31 Dec 2008 at 2:18 am #
Ivan: “Captain, the more likely outcome would have been a Soviet “Pyrrhic Victory”, with a much faster collapse of the Soviet Union.”
Sans any American support, of any kind, for the Soviet Union, I believe the German blitzkrieg would have proven victorious.
“Perhaps the landscape of Europe would have resembled Franco’s Spain more so than Soviet East Germany.”
If Germany was defeated, in the counter-factual scenario of non-American intervention, I think the Bolsheviks would have taken all of Europe. In Buchanan’s book on the subject he assesses the main value of the American Amy’s presence on the continent – as things actually played out – as being the bulwark against the Bolshevization of Western Europe. General Patton wanted to take the Bolsheviks when they could have been had, when they were weak. What if…?
Another irony of the “good war”: it has been those areas of Eastern Europe, under communist control, that have been largely spared the ravages of race-replacement immigration. Hmmm.
“Perhaps, with a defeat of the Soviet Union, Liberalism would not have infected Europe, and it still would be (at least nominally) “Fascist”, that is, traditional authority firmly protected by the governments of Europe.”
Liberalism was imposed, top-down, on the defeated German people, they were “re-educated” to masochism. (Interesting note: Julius Strietcher, the notorious publisher of Der Sturmer, was tortured by having a hood put over his head and then being beaten with brass-knuckles – losing much of his hearing in the process. He was tried, convicted and executed for “incitement to genocide”, or some such thing. I wonder what the proper punishment, considering this precedent, is more those in media who purvey their anti-White, genocidalist filth? Hmmm.)
““How could anyone have kept Germany and Austria-Hungary from losing the Great War (Part I), and the Treaty of Versailles being imposed upon them?””
With that I agree, so bad it wasn’t so.
Dr. Bob: “One of the serious questions overlooked in the two posts above is the fact that we were attacked by the Japanese,”
The Japanese were certainly no saints, but they were certainly provoked. An island nation of proud warriors will not look kindly upon a steady supply of necessities, necessities not available on their island, kindly.
“But that does not negate the fact that we were attacked. How would any of you have kept us out of the war at that moment?”
As you implied above, Roosevelt was no patriotic, emotional automaton. What he really wanted was, into the war in Europe; why? It is no secret that the British, much to their dismay, were greeted with indifference by their “ally” to the survival of the British Empire. Roosevelt saw a grand opportunity to see the traditional powers of Western Europe smashed with American global hegemony put in their place. It was a master stroke – America inherited all of what the traditional powers lost. Feeding Eastern Europe to the Bolshevik monster was an acceptable cost.
But on what basis, or by what rationale, would America have been kept out of the war in Europe? By the rationale of none other than Charles Lindbergh whose rationale was: Is the intervention of America in this conflict good for the White race? I do not think it a crude simplification of Lindbergh’s position to state it thusly; that was clearly his position. Now, suppose Roosevelt had been captured by the lofty racial spirit and grounded in the bedrock necessity of preserving what Lindbergh called our most precious inheritance: European blood. Assuming this, no, Roosevelt would have abstained form entering the war in Europe. Germany would have gladly and quickly dispensed with Japan as an ally had Roosevelt so abstained. Nor can it be said that Germany aided and abetted, nor prompted, Japan to take such a course so clearly to the detriment of the German war effort.
That is how it could (should?) have happened.
“Unlike today, we had a clear enemy we were willing to recognize.”
The “threat” of Islam is laughable. The true threat of anything associated with Islam is the swamping of the Mother Continent with racial aliens. Asiatics, Arabs and north Africans have a mean IQ of about 85. It is only a matter of the profound, and abject, weakening of the White man’s will that would see, or tolerate, such a “threat” to give him one night of unsound sleep. It is sheer folly, and ultimately suicide, to think of these things in the miasmic fashion of ideology and foreign religions (Islam) – it clouds the mind as to the true threat; it saps the will. That is manifestly the truth; there can be no argument against it.