An Historic Counteroffensive

Posted on by

In his latest essay, Nick McAvelly takes a look at events after the German invasion of Poland in the fall of 1939, and relates them to what is happening in the European Union today.

An Historic Counteroffensive

by Nick McAvelly

Germany invaded Poland on 1st September, 1939. The Wehrmacht attacked from Germany in the west, East Prussia in the north and Slovakia in the south. The Polish forces were unable to defend their country on multiple fronts, and the Wehrmacht overran the country in a matter of weeks.[1] The notes of a meeting held at the Nazi complex at Obersalzberg on 22nd August 1939,[2] which were subsequently retrieved from the OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht) archives and presented as evidence at the Nuremberg trials,[3] show that Hitler told his military commanders more than a week before the invasion: “Destruction of Poland in the foreground. The aim is destruction of living forces, not the arrival at a certain line. Even if war should break out in the West, the destruction of Poland shall be the primary objective.” Hitler let everyone know what was expected of them: “Have no pity. Brutal attitude. 80 million people shall get what is their right. Their existence has to be secured. The strongest has the Right. Greatest severity.”[4]

The Wehrmacht was not the only Nazi organisation operating in Poland in late 1939. Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS (Schutzstaffeln), had been appointed Chief of the German Police in June 1936. Himmler had reorganised the German police force, so that it was divided into two sections, the Orpo (Ordnungspolizei) and the Sipo (Sicherheitspolizei). The Sipo was composed of two further components, the Kripo (Kriminalpolizei) and the Gestapo (Geheime Staatspolizei). Reinhard Heydrich, who was already in command of the SD (Sicherheitsdienst), was given command of the Sipo as well.[5]

In May 1939, Heinrich Himmler tasked Heydrich with setting up special units called Einsatzgruppen.[6] These units were to work with the German military to secure the areas between the German border and the military front lines. Heydrich could select candidates for the Einsatzgruppen not just from the SD and the SS, but also from the Kripo and the Gestapo.[7]

According to the historian Alexander Rossino, a meeting took place on 18th August 1939 which was attended by Heydrich and several of his Einsatzgruppen men, including SS-Brigadeführer Dr. Lothar Beutel of Einsatzgruppe IV and his aide Dr. Ernst Gerke.[8] At this meeting, Heydrich spoke about atrocities that were allegedly being perpetrated against ethnic Germans in Poland, then explained that the Einsatzgruppen would be responsible for dealing with anyone who committed such crimes against Poland’s ethnic German population, as well as partisans and saboteurs. As to the measures to be taken against these people, who at that time were still citizens of another country, Heydrich allegedly stated that “everything was allowed, including shootings and arrests”.[9]

The German forces behaved with extraordinary brutality towards native Poles right from the beginning of the war. The British historian Richard Evans, in the final part of his trilogy on the Third Reich, provides a translation of a German soldier’s account of the invasion of Poland. The soldier asserts that his unit set fire to individual houses, and sometimes entire villages, as a matter of course.[10] In his authoritative history of World War II, Martin Gilbert describes an incident that occurred on 6th September near the town of Mrocza, in which Polish officers were shot after they had surrendered, and enlisted prisoners-of-war were locked inside a wooden hut and burned to death.[11] Alexander Rossino, in his account of the Polish campaign, describes an incident that took place near Ciepelów on 9th September 1939. A Colonel in the 15th Motorized Infantry Regiment, who was angry because he had lost 14 men in a firefight, ordered his soldiers to strip approximately 300 prisoners of war of their uniforms so they looked like partisans. The POWs were then machine gunned to death and left in a ditch at the side of the road.[12]

When the invasion began, Einsatzgruppe IV was assigned to support the Fourth Army in the so-called Polish corridor between north-east Germany and East Prussia.[13] Within days, Beutel’s men were fighting in the city of Bydgoszcz alongside the regular military forces. The Polish militia in the city surrendered on 5th September, but German troops continued to be attacked by armed locals.[14] When Hitler learned that armed Polish citizens were resisting German rule, Einsatzgruppe IV was ordered to carry out a reprisal action.[15]

On 10th September 1939, Einsatzgruppe IV pacified the Schwedenhöhe district of Bydgoszcz. The operation was led by SS-Sturmbannführer Helmut Bischoff,[16] a murderous individual described by Walter Hammer, the leader of Einsatzkommando 2/IV, as “an unusually brutal man”.[17] The Einsatzgruppe entered the residents’ houses, and after shooting between 50 and 60 people where they stood, rounded up approximately 900 prisoners.[18] Anyone who was suspected of harming ethnic Germans following the Nazi invasion on 1st September, or whose name was found on the Sonderfahndungsbuch, a wanted persons list distributed to Einsatzgruppen personnel, was separated from the other prisoners. Dr. Beutel and SS-Sturmbannführer Hammer conferred with the military commander in charge of security, Major General Walter Braemer, to decide what should be done with them. Beutel and Braemer agreed that the prisoners should be liquidated.[19] Over the next two days, Hammer and his men took approximately 120 people into the forest beside Bydgoszcz, and shot them beside an anti-tank ditch.[20]

On October 7th 1939, Himmler was appointed Reich Commissioner for the Strengthening of German Nationality.[21] At the Nuremberg Trials, Himmler was quoted as saying that the purpose of establishing the SS was “to create an order which will spread the idea of Nordic blood so far that we will attract all Nordic blood in the world, take away the blood from our adversaries, absorb it so that never again — looking at it from the viewpoint of the grand Policy — will Nordic Germanic blood in great quantities and to an extent worth mentioning fight against us. We must get it and the others cannot have it.”[22]

Himmler was now responsible for “eliminating the harmful influence of those alien sections of the population which constitute a danger to the Reich and German national community” and for “repatriating persons of Germanic race or nationality resident abroad who are considered suitable for permanent return to the Reich”.[23] Under the terms of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, ethnic Germans from the Baltic States could move into the new German districts in occupied Polish territory. These potential carriers of Nordic blood needed Lebensraum, so Poles and Jews had to be put somewhere else.

The territory Germany had taken was divided into new districts. The Reichsgau of Danzig-West Prussia was created in what was the Polish corridor. The Reichsgau of Posen was south of Danzig-West Prussia, reaching east to just beyond the city of Lódź. These two districts were formally incorporated into the Reich on 26th October 1939.[24] The remainder of Nazi-occupied territory, from Warsaw in the north to the river Bug in the east,[25] was known as the General Government.[26]

The Nazis used the General Government as a reservoir for undesirable blood. Tens of thousands of people were dispossessed and transported there during the winter of 1939-1940. Many died in freezing railway carriages that were left to stand on side tracks, sometimes for days at a time.[27] This was not something that would have troubled Himmler, who in Posen on 4th October 1943 told his SS men, “We must be honest, decent, loyal and comradely to members of our own blood and to nobody else. What happens to a Russian, to a Czech, does not interest me in the slightest. […] Whether nations live in prosperity or starve to death interests me only in so far as we need them as slaves for our culture; otherwise, it is of no interest to me.”[28]

It could be argued that the National Socialists descended farther into evil as the war progressed, but the facts show that the Nazis had evil intentions towards the Polish people from the beginning. It is possible for any political power structure, regardless of how many countries it has control over, to be taken over by criminal individuals. If there is no way to peacefully remove them, then the world can go down a very dark path. Throughout history, false prophets have arisen who have claimed to have the “final solution” to the question of how human beings are to live together here on earth. Time and again, we have seen what these individuals and their followers are capable of, as they strive to turn their poisonous fantasies into reality.

If you hand over control of your own country to a foreign entity, then it will always be possible for another criminal gang like the National Socialist German Workers Party to rise to power. If that happens, then you, or your children, or perhaps your grandchildren, will be where the Polish people were in September 1939. For this reason alone, any effort on the part of professional “politicians” to create a European super-state should be resisted.

Poland is getting set to demand reparations from Germany for the crimes committed during the war. Jarosław Kaczyński, the leader of the Law and Justice Party (PiS), has stated that Poland is currently preparing an “historic counteroffensive.”[29] Kaczyński’s use of military terminology serves as a reminder of the context of the proposed claim. However, the Poles are not simply reminding everyone of what happened to their country during the war, they are making a profound statement which ought to resonate with everyone who truly values their own freedom: We know what can happen when you lose control of your own political destiny. And we will not let it happen again!

References

1.   Richard Evans, The Third Reich at War (London: Penguin, 2012) loc. 257; Roger Moorhouse, The Devils’ Alliance: Hitler’s Pact with Stalin 1939-1941 (London: The Bodley Head, 2014) loc. 976.
2.   John Toland, Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography (New York: Anchor Books, 1992) loc. 2578.
3.   “Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 2, Fifth Day, Monday 26th November 1945,” Yale Law School: The Avalon Project, 2008, 285, accessed 21st January 2017: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/11-26-45.asp
4.   “Donovan Nuremberg Trials Collection: Second Speech by The Führer on 22 Aug. 39. / Translation of Document 1014-PS / Office of U.S. Chief of Counsel,” Cornell University Library: Law Library, 2015, accessed 21st January 2017: http://lawcollections.library.cornell.edu/nuremberg/catalog/nur:00459
5.   “Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 4, Twenty-Third Day, Wednesday 19th December 1945,” Yale Law School: The Avalon Project, 2008, 184, accessed 31st January 2017: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/12-19-45.asp#ss
6.   Alexander Rossino, Hitler Strikes Poland: Blitzkrieg, Ideology and Atrocity (Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2003) p. 10, lines 35-37.
7.   Ibid., p. 10, lines 21-25, p. 11, lines 28-35, p. 12, lines 1-4.
8.   Ibid., p. 15, lines 6-10, p. 43, lines 19-23.
9.   Ibid., p. 15, lines 17-32.
10.   Evans, The Third Reich at War, loc. 572.
11.   Martin Gilbert, The Second World at War: A Complete History (New York: Rosettabooks, 2014) loc. 285.
12.   Rossino, Hitler Strikes Poland, pp. 183-184.
13.   Ibid., pp. 59-60.
14.   Ibid., pp. 63-64.
15.   Ibid., p. 68.
16.   Ibid., p. 69, lines 16-17.
17.   Ibid. p. 61, lines 13-16.
18.   Ibid., p. 70, lines 21 — p. 71, line 6.
19.   Ibid., p. 71, line 8 — p. 72, line 2.
20.   Ibid., p. 72, lines 2-5.
21.   J. Noakes and G. Pridham, Nazism 1919-1945: Volume 3: Foreign Policy, War and Racial Extermination (Liverpool, Liverpool University Press, 2014) pp. 322-323.
22.   Heinrich Himmler, Document 1919-PS, USA-304, quoted in Major Warren F. Farr, “Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 4, Twenty-Third Day, 19th December 1945,” Yale Law School: The Avalon Project, 2008, 178, accessed 31st January 2017: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/12-19-45.asp#ss
23.   Noakes and Pridham, Nazism 1919-1945, pp. 322-323.
24.   Ibid., pp. 316-317.
25.   Moorhouse, The Devils’ Alliance, loc. 1123.
26.   Noakes and Pridham, Nazism 1919-1945, p. 317.
27.   Ibid., pp. 329-330.
28.   “Extracts from speeches concerning the SS and the conduct of the war,” Harvard Law School Library — Nuremberg Trials Project, NMT2 (USA v. Erhard Milch), HLSL No. 2974, accessed 6th February 2017: http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/documents/2974-extracts-from-speeches-concerning?q=Himmler+1919-PS#p.1
29.   Philip Whiteside, “Poland considering demanding WWII reparations from Germany,” Sky News, 2nd August 2017, accessed 5th August 2017: http://news.sky.com/story/poland-considering-demanding-wwii-reparations-from-germany-10970821; Alix Culbertson, “You Will Pay: Poland on Offensive — Germany Ordered to Pay Millions in WW2 Reparations,” Daily Express, 4th August 2017, accessed 5th August 2017: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/836635/Poland-Germany-Second-World-War-reparations-counteroffensive
 

121 thoughts on “An Historic Counteroffensive”

  1. Reinhard Tristan Eugen Heydrich, the “Butcher of Prague”, assassinated in Prague by a special Czech commando sent by the Czech exile government in London.

    The deaths of millions of innocent civilians, mostly European Jews, for which Heydrich was personally responsible, were revenged.

    We always need to learn from Historia Magistra Vitae …

    • True. But the price was high: the village of Lidice was wiped out. I would have to look it up, but I think I read somewhere it was not “only” Lidice.

      But it’s a good thing indeed that this monster perished. Many others escaped that fate however. Hans Kammler comes to mind.

      • Furious Hitler initially demanded to execute 10,000 Czechs. K.H. Frank, who ruled over the Czech lands, convinced him that this would be counterproductive, to disrupt industrial region safe from bombing. In comparison with everyday situation in General Government reprisals, even after the Heydrich’s assassination, were relatively light.

        It got worse as the war progressed, especially before the end of the war, when Germans suppressed local uprisings and partisan attacks.

      • In light of the horrors perpetrated against the helpless people of Lidice I think this assassination was a vy bad idea.

    • The recent film “Anthropoid” is an excellent dramatization of the mission to assassinate Heydrich. Highly recommended.

  2. Correction: it was the Czechoslovak exile government, and the soldiers were both Czechs and Slovaks. Sorry for the imprecision.

  3. I think there are other lessons to be learned, lessons not so palatable to our own current efforts.

    I just got through looking at the Trump speech, where he says we will take the handcuffs off our troops. The Einsatzgruppen had an initial philosophy of race cleansing and murder, but ultimately, they reacted brutally to a Polish guerilla movement that killed German soldiers. Occupying forces in foreign countries will always generate guerilla warfare, and the response is always to brutalize the population.

    Is that necessarily a bad thing? If a US army is occupying a country presenting a physical threat to the US, say an organized, effective movement in Mexico organizing cross-border raids on US towns and cities, then yes: whatever means is necessary to secure the territory and protect US soil.

    But, are our interests in Afghanistan sufficiently important in terms of US security, to justify the killing a Afghan civilians under suspicion, and the blowing up of civilian families with drones? A war has to be important enough to justify the atrocities necessary to win the war.

    The US courts have ruled against a very (VERY) mild Trump ban on entry from completely failed governments into the country. France, England, Sweden, probably many other European countries are allowing into the country citizens who left in order to fight with ISIS in Syria. If you’re allowing known, trained, motivated Muslim fighters back into your country, are you justified in blowing up civilians in Afghanistan to prevent a terrorist safe haven? It seems to me the terrorist safe haven is in their own countries.

    Of course, Germany was not protecting its security. It was trying to create a purely Germanic territory, with deportation and murders of inferior peoples. I find this too close to comfort to the white nationalists, whom I have a sympathy for, who advocate for a white-only homeland. What do they plan to do with the non-White people already in whatever territory they set aside for themselves? Especially if some of the people to be displaced aren’t too thrilled with the idea and carry out guerilla war actions? As I say, I have sympathy with the idea of national and genetic identity, but I follow through ideas to their logical conclusion. The murder of people to achieve a political idea is immoral and criminal. Also, there are non-criminal means of achieving ends. I think the Israelis have done a pretty good job with the Palestinians of dealing with a hostile, murderous population sharing territory with you, while on the whole, maintaining a civilized law.

    • I have no sympathy or understanding for a white-only anyplace. The world is full of variety and as soon as we start down that road we are marching to hell.

      People generally want to live with their own kind, and in peaceful coexistence with those who are different.

      Have you learned nothing from the 20th century history of South Africa??

      I agree with your assessment of Israel’s efforts, but then it is a small homogeneous country. Different nationalities and ethnicities and beliefs but the same sense of history.

      Never have understood why European countries weren’t able to establish peaceful relations with one another. Supposedly they’re high IQ – proving once again how insufficient such a category is for getting along in the world.

      • I don’t know exactly what lesson you’re inferring from South Africa. I’ll link to an interview where the South African talks about how the Africaners had a very civilized society, where the blacks operated under an informal, flexible system of separation. It was actually the English invaders, who fought the Boer War to take over the gold and diamond mines, who mucked things up with legislated separation.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MCuljLgmAw

      • ..”Never have understood why European countries weren’t able to establish peaceful relations with one another.”..
        But they did !!
        Divisions in Europe are going along Limes Sorabicus http://www.wikiwand.com/de/Limes_Sorabicus
        or according to THEM Limes Saxoniae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes_Saxoniae
        Anything East of that lines are 3 World inhabited by sub-humans (barbarians) so over 1000 years Drang nach Osten policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drang_nach_Osten
        later known as : Lebensraum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum
        or Mitteleuropa Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitteleuropa
        So now you know..
        Germans,Dutch,Austrian ,Luxemborgs,Belgians are taught hate against Slavs since they are born ..
        What’s happening right now in “europe” it is is a Harvest of theirs Cultural and Intellectual Superiority..:-))
        We CEE people really don’t care about them anymore ..let them be by subjugated by Blacks and Arabs..

        • “Germans,Dutch,Austrian ,Luxemborgs,Belgians are taught hate against Slavs since they are born …”

          Sorry to say, but you are an *** (insert insult of choice)!

          First of all, none of the peoples of Belgium, Netherlands or Luxembourg care much about Slavs, because they have nothing to do with them, they don`t even have Slavs as neighbours (and Slavs are not a peaceful monolithic block, just look at Russians and Poles or the Balkan Wars).

          Germans and Austrians (btw, we have Slavic minorities as citizens!) on one side and Slavs on the other had complex relationships throughout history.

          And while it`s true that during the 2 WW. Czechs, Poles, Serbs and Russians suffered heavily from our aggression, some other Slavic people were on the same side with the Nazis (Slovakia, Croatia and Bulgaria fe., also Hungary but they are no Slavic folks of course).

          At other occasions it was Slavic nations who were aggressive against us or others.

          Today there is one big difference between our peoples because of the 2. WW. we don`t idealize our history any more, in contrast to most Slavic nations.

          • And the Poles were in the past even so stupid to let the muslim Chechens into their country, because they both hate the Russians.

          • …”First of all, none of the peoples of Belgium, Netherlands or Luxembourg care much about Slavs, because they have nothing to do with them “…
            Oh Dear…Why to lie yourself ?
            Of course They didn’t care …who care about sub-humans from the East ?
            Only think what stops them from to create Congo,West India scenario in CEE was the German.Austrian,Russian Empire..
            But they made up for lost time..EU give them a proper tool to subjugate and colonize CCE in nova-time..

            …”because they have nothing to do with them”..
            Dear..they do ! a lot as a mater of fact..
            Countless banks,Corporate business,factories with locals working for 2 Euro per hour..assembly lines…etc,etc..
            Money transfer from CEE colonies are in Billions per month..

          • ” Slavs are not a peaceful monolithic block, just look at Russians and Poles or the Balkan Wars).”
            Who exactly Poles invaded ,Germany?
            When slavs sans Russians where aggressors?
            Of course Hungary is not slavic state.
            You confuse all middle/eastern europeans with slavs.

          • (and Slavs are not a peaceful monolithic block, just look at Russians and Poles or the Balkan Wars).
            Poles are not peaceful ?
            Please do tell what major war they started.
            (Slovakia, Croatia and Bulgaria fe., also Hungary but they are no Slavic folks of course).
            Since where Hungarians are slavs?
            Do tell

          • max, judging from the [material I deprecate] you are writing about Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg, I doubt, that you are a Pole yourself. And if you are, then maybe just one who had lived most of his life outside of Europe.

            Actually you sound more like a Panslavic-Nationalist to me (or a Russian or Turkish agent provocateur).
            Another of those evil spirits of the past.

            To the others, here you can start with your history lessons…
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Poland
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Poland

          • Hmmm.Is this what you are thought in School ?
            No wander you are [in such dire straits]…

          • re: “Astuga”
            Yeah.Those Wikipedia “raids” lost or won by Poland missing the most important “Tour the France”…
            Wikipedia..why i/m not surprise…

          • My scholl does not teach in English 🙂 and I have not invented the map -just used one available.

            It’s not by concealing facts that one can study, and propaganda was for Goebbels and other totalitarien folks.

            If you refuse facts, you won’ t be able to get along. And Europe must heal but with THE TRUE.

        • Uk is battleground also along pre-Saxon and Frankish influence lines and “EU” . The UK folded late 1800s, revised definitions of nationality, integrated into the continent pre WW , continued since along liberal philosophy, now trying to figure itself out. “EU” has taken strong influence on previous UK allies also, UK foreign policy since 2000 has alienated it globally. Not good.

          • The establishment of a “UK” destroyed England. They need to let the others go, but then they’d lose their power base.. Parliament would empty out.

          • That time is a very complex part of history and certainly interpretable in different ways. The mixture of religious influences, change of monarchic lines, and foreign allegiances combined to send the countries in a new direction. My personal interest is the Nationality Act of 1708 and the guarantee of natural born status by descent in perpetuity. Previously nationality was by being born in England, exceptions were made for those in service and royalty sometimes. In mid 1800s naturalisation was introduced. In 1914, before the war and not to do with it but empire/continent, by descent became a seperate category. There was “influence” on British royalty during this time, who were becoming also ” more continental” . The mutual defense accord with France meant UK was dragged straight into WW1. The plans for a federal Europe were already formed during this period, the later entry into EEC saw UK by law open to continental labour and close out the commonwealth, this combined with new liberal policy, monetary lanes, explains a lot about how the UK became so dysfunctionally “progressive”. At least the population stood up with a sense of identity for Brexit, but again, people know they are being played by government over it now, so a lot of distrust around.

          • When I lived in England in the 1960s, entry into the EEC was a hotly debated topic. The UK was kept out due to opposition by De Gaulle — who wanted to make sure that France remained dominant — so the whole operation had to wait until he was safely dead. It was after my time in England, but I believe Grocer Heath was at the helm when the Brits joined the EEC.

      • “White” is only caused by a few of 23 thousand genes. There are other sets of genes that you might want to be associated with that could incentivise you to avoid genes that you do not like. Eg what if we learned that there were certain groups of genes that caused brutality and cruelty….wouldn’t you want the right to be anti-diverse in your acceptance of these?

        I don’t know enough to be pro-diversity for all subsets if people. It sounds good, but it is an unproven shibboleth. I hate to see us all believing proverbs of the herd….when we don’t need to. Most of us can reach into our tight reasoning area of our brains if need be. Races and skin color and probably a few personality features are the results of about 2 million years of billions of individual breeding and travel choices made by our ancestors. Who am I to say these were not useful to man’s future?

        We have learned a few things: it is not good to inbreed too much. We need sun or Vit D–pick one. Some breeding groups–aka races–have certain genetic diseases, eg Tay-Sachs or sickle cell. Some sexes show more of certain diseases, like rheumatoid arthritis in females or gout in males.

        I definitely do not know if it is better or worse to associate with people who are vastly different from me. I don’t even know enough to reasonably guess.

        • We have learned a few things: it is not good to inbreed too much

          Funny, you are echoing my Dublin mother’s attempt to put a brave face on things when I told her of my pending marriage to the Baron. Knowing he was of English extraction because of his name (she didn’t know about the German, French, and Scots strains running through his DNA), she sighed and said, “It’s a good idea not to marry another Irishman. We’re too inbred as it is”. Puir woman.

          I definitely do not know if it is better or worse to associate with people who are vastly different from me. I don’t even know enough to reasonably guess.

          It’s a good idea to look to historical antecedents to see how that worked out.

      • Hello Dymphna,
        have you not forgotten something?
        At the end of WWII Europe was ethnically cleansed. All germans in one country, all poles in another, etc.
        And we had peace.
        And if you take the long view, please tell me what happened to the multi-states like Yugoslavia?
        Hm, after the bad man died they exploded into violence.
        Have you forgotten why during the colonial era people were divided among many countries (Sykes-Picot, Berlin conference regarding Africa)?
        Power politics. If you force different cultures into one country you can play them off against each other.
        So having mono-cultural states is peace.
        And regarding Israel: TU QUOQUE anybody?
        Hasnt Israel thrown out a lot of afro-americans or forced them into camps in the Negev desert? I dont want to imagine the reaction if Germany would put all its asylum seekers into internationcamps in the Lueneburg Heath.
        Nazis, concentration camps would be the softest words we germans would hear.

        And to South Africa, Rhodesia:
        Rhodesia could feed its own population and more. Their inflation rate was what? 3 per cent?
        And today? Not enough food, inflation sky high, Mugabe cannot pay the pension of the old people – what a success!
        And South Africa?
        According to the singer Steve Hofmeyr during the Apartheid era 1948-1994 less then 23.000 people died.
        From 1994-2015 about 330.000 people died.
        Necklacing is common, raping of babies to cure yourself from AIDS happens, taking a showwer after (you know what) makes sure you dont get AIDS – really progress all around.
        And If you dont believe it, Illana Mercer wrote an article about 2003 about it. How crime skyrocketed etc.

        You see Dymphna, nobody of you takes the long term view.
        Just an example:
        Long ago the german police destroyed the last great german gangster organization, the Nutella gang.
        A few years later they made adocumentary about it and at the end the main police officer blubbered about how a good strike against crime had been made, safer streets – the whole nine yards.
        Then one member of the Nutella gang spoke.
        Yes, they were evil, but what about today? The Nutella gang forced women into prostitution by raping or beating up. Now the foreign gangs (russians, albanians, turkish etc) used gangrapes, torture etc.
        Loansharks no longer used to beaten up people, now it was hammer time – on the hands, or holding a blazing torch at genitals etc.
        So, the Nutella man concluded, was this really a victory against crime?
        While he spoke you could see how the face of the police man crumbled. He killed bad men, yes but with this he allowed even worse crimes to happen.

        As I wrote in another thread:
        I would really like to see what happens, if we would build a totally segregated city with big, medievil-like walls between the various city parts. Every group has its own industrial area, police force, waterworks, powerstation etc. And if someone wants to buy something from this city every order is divided among the various groups.
        Lets wait a few years and then look how the various groups have evolved and how their parts of the city have turned into.

        • There is a reason why the organization you describe: hermetically-sealed ethnic conclaves in a city or province wouldn’t work. Since they have nothing to do with one another, they have no means of common defense or arbitration between different conclaves. Briefly, they are susceptible to foreign invaders, who come in, conquer everyone, tear down the walls, and impose their own nationhood.

          It’s exactly the dilemma facing the framers of the US Constitution: how to maintain the identity of the separate states, but impose enough federalism to resolve disputes between states and protect everyone from foreign intervention. After awhile, the compromise began to break down, was resolved for awhile by military victory in the Civil War, and seems to be breaking down now, with the huge divide between the immigrant (blue) states and the nationalist (red) states.

          And the worst fears of the anti-federalists came true: the separate identity of the states were more or less suppressed under the bloated power of the federal judiciary and the federal government. Every Constitutional block on federal power is minimized or ignored, and every clause granting federal precedence is given scope undreamt of when the Constitution was actually drafted and debated.

      • It is not a question of a white-only anyplace but whether whites can maintain a majority-white nation. We’ve gone from a 90% white majority in 1965 to where the execrable Whoopi Goldberg can crow about whites becoming a minority in the U.S. Whose superior vision does this reflect?

        Coexistence is not possible and this blog ought to know this from years of following the destruction of Europe. S. Africa is the canary in the mine on this point as the continued survival of white S. Africans is far from assured. Thousands of whites have been murdered in hideous ways and good luck finding any determination to prevent such murders in the future.

        Here’s the slogan of the Northeast Antifascists as recorded in a photo I saw recently: “Smash the white man march.” There is no longer any doubt that the black minority (and the satanic left) in the U.S. have sworn bitter enmity toward white culture and are riven with hatred for whites. This is after over 50 years of determined and decent efforts of whites to find a way to undo some of the effects of Jim Crow. A redoubled effort along these lines would fail just as spectacularly. The Shaniquas and Lemonjellos have no intention of stepping up to the plate to make a contribution or clean up their act. The Merkels love to talk of the “contribution” that Muslims are going to make and we know it’s a lie. Complete flapdoodle. They will only take and destroy.

        From here on out it will be flash mobs, ramped up Chiraq and Baltimore levels of violence, BLM viciousness and lies, AntiFa scum running wild, assaults on free speech, Congressional buffoons, destroyed American cities, black-on-white crime, and chivvying, lying Muslims angling for destruction of what remains of our constitutional republic.

        Co-existence is not an option and summary execution isn’t what anyone is advocating. A determination to keep one’s own country and to deny that it belongs to all the world if they can only step across the border does not come close to being described as a white-only U.S.A. At every turn the social, political, media, and economic institutions of this country are implacably hostile to a white majority culture. The decision to make it less than a majority white culture was never made by whites and we have no obligation to accede to the current vile situation as any kind of a new normal.

        Please tell me how you see co-existence working in Europe. Every item you post on this site is stark evidence of gathering clouds of insurrection and violence coming from primitives stupidly granted the right to reside on European soil, once exclusively white.

        • Well put Colonel, could not agree more. White folks need to come to the realization that we are now in a fight – and regardless of wanting that fight or not, such a fight has been deliberate and planned for our own genocide – for our very existence, and just to remain a part of the Human Race.

          Rhodesia and South Africa were simply test countries for what awaits us all.

        • Actually, ideally, I think we can co-exist with a few adjustments that would not materially affect the rights of individuals.

          1) a power-sharing arrangement like that Lebanon used to have before they allowed the destructive Palestinians into the country. In our case, the split would be whites get, say, 70% of the representation and others get 30%. The exact proportions can be subject to negotiation and good sense.

          2) complete freedom of association: sell to whom you wish, buy from whom you wish, hire whom you wish, rent to whom you wish.

          3) dramatic cutback of government to include mainly internal security, defense, border control and foreign relations.

          One-man, one-vote is clearly untenable with an illiterate, low-IQ population segment.

          Anyway, I think different races and ethnicities can get on quite well if allowed to separate themselves in most areas. Of course, those who wish to mingle and interbreed would be free to do so.

      • Israel is only homogeneous because it ethnically cleansed the Palestinians, moslem and christian alike to the point where they’re a small minority today. It then introduced tough immigration laws to favour jewish migration from around the world.

        Apartheid failed because it was a minority attempting to remain in power by holding all the power. When finally convinced to give up that power the majority took over and now African tribal politics rules the day.
        If an example of peaceful coexistence is needed then look to Haiti where the majority rule and a small minority of non-blacks have maintained business and technical services since the revolt over 200 years ago.

        The only message to get from history is never give up what power you have, especially if you’re not in the overwhelming majority.

        Compromise has a place but when it comes to national identity you’re on the slide to the original culture being swept away when you start to remove statues, plaques, street names and other evidence of past heroes who are not all heroes to the ‘not your kind’ members of the country.

        • Actually, the Palestinians cleansed themselves mainly. Like the Muslim migration into Pakistan from India, it was tremendously beneficial for the non-Muslims, but more the result of good luck than actual planning.

          Some white supremacists are so anti-Semitic, they are vastly sympathetic to the Palestinians as a persecuted, genocided minority in Israel, while shilling for an all-white country in the US.

          I’ll throw in an observation. You can have an isolated, all-white society, and in a few years, if you don’t take any action, the society itself will deteriorate and destroy itself. The textbook example is Sweden.

          • But Sweden existed as an all-white society for probably a thousand years, then it deteriorated and died. It took a while, not a few years. All societies eventually die. I think Sweden had a good run.

            Are you saying an all-white society is more susceptible to deterioration than any other mono-racial society or that mono-racial societies in general are more vulnerable to deterioration than multi-racial ones?

          • I know you’ll probably not see his reply, but what I’m saying is, the people in an insulated, protected environment without selection pressures deteriorate, black, blond or whatever, for biological and Darwinian reasons.

    • So what you’re saying is that if the US government is “occupying” a country – their own – and a resistance movement starts up within that country, then the state would be justified in wiping them out using overwhelming military force.

      And if you “follow your idea through to its logical conclusion”, then the Dutch government would be perfectly justified in assassinating Geert Wilders, then tracking down anyone who’s made a complimentary remark about Wilders online, or maybe visited a “counterjihad” blog such as this one, and doing a Katyn forest massacre job on them.

      So according to your thinking, you could be hauled off in a train to the middle of a forest & shot in the back of the head, and that would be right and good. Exactly what your government should be doing.

      Well that’s an interesting point of view, I suppose. But I’m afraid I disagree with you.

      • “So what you’re saying is that if the US government is “occupying” a country – their own – and a resistance movement starts up within that country, then the state would be justified in wiping them out using overwhelming military force.”

        Which is exactly what union forces did in the South during the Civil War: Mass population relocations, burning of farms, food supplies and cities. The South looked at itself as a separate country, but the Union saw the South as US territory under threat of being annexed by a foreign (Confederate) government. I think the South should have been allowed to secede, but once Lincoln had a war to win, he did what was necessary to win it. Even worse than an unjust war is a war you are not determined to win.

        Do I like Lincoln? No. But, once Lincoln was in a war, he needed to win it: suspension of habeus corpus, closing of opposition newspapers, arrest of legislative opponents, mass killing of New York draft resisters. I consider the real villain of the Civil War to be Jefferson Davis, who actually started the war. The US actually had a choice in the election of 1864. The Democratic nominee, McClellan, ran on a platform of a negotiated end to the Civil War. He lost decisively. I would have voted for McClellan, but I understand Lincoln’s position: do not shrink from winning a war you are in. Again, the real idiot of the times was Jefferson Davis, who started a war without considering the consequences.

        “And if you “follow your idea through to its logical conclusion”, then the Dutch government would be perfectly justified in assassinating Geert Wilders, then tracking down anyone who’s made a complimentary remark about Wilders online,”

        I’m sorry. To infer this from what I said is [to be deprecated]. I talked about a government protecting its territory from physical attack, not protecting its own vanity and failed policies from criticism.

        • That’s exactly where your idea leads you; if you think logically and follow that idea through to its conclusion.

          Using bad language once you realise where that would leave you, personally, won’t change that.

          • I did not use bad language. This is an example of the faulty conclusions you draw. There is nothing in the deprecation to imply that I used bad language. But, it is an example of the faulty logic used to impute to me a position I emphatically did not take.

            If you have logic to tie the resistance to foreign invaders to suppression of peaceful opposition opinions by citizens, please provide the logic.

          • @Ronald B,

            If you have logic to show that the rulers of a state, any state, care one hoot about such [fastidious attention to detail], please provide the logic.

            PS The assumption that the use of [square brackets] in your previous comment was the blog owner turning an unpleasant turn of phrase from a commenter [yourself] into something more palatable is not unreasonable, since that is the normal practice around here, as I’m sure you are aware. If that is not the case, well whoop-di-do. I’ll go and sit on the naughty step for half an hour.

          • For anon:
            1)

            If you have logic to show that the rulers of a state, any state, care one hoot about such [fastidious attention to detail], please provide the logic.

            Sorry. You made the logical leap. I never said the rulers cared about the rule of law. They may or they may not: I simply made no comment on it one way or another.

            What I said was that justifying the killing of civilians to defend your physical territory is a different matter from persecuting differences of opinions by your own citizens. Do you need a logical chain to prove that statement?

            2)

            PS The assumption that the use of [square brackets] in your previous comment was the blog owner turning an unpleasant turn of phrase from a commenter [yourself] into something more palatable is not unreasonable, since that is the normal practice around here, as I’m sure you are aware. If that is not the case, well whoop-di-do. I’ll go and sit on the naughty step for half an hour.

            You brought the matter up. I didn’t. So now, you denigrate the idea. Good. I never thought it held any water in the first place.

            Look at the rules of posting: The requirements are
            1) civil
            2) temperate
            3) on-topic
            4) decorum (which is where the employment of foul language comes).

            So, a deprecation could involve any of the 4 categories, 3 of which do not involve “bad” language. So, being deprecated does not imply “bad” language, as there are other criteria which also fill the bill.

            I understand your dismissing the idea that you employed faulty logic. But, it was you who accused me first of faulty logic, so our relative use of logic chains does appear to be apropos to the topic.

          • There’s always one, isn’t there.

            Still failed to address the point, I see. Oh well.

        • You over-generalize about the war like many reactionaries. There was no population removal. Atlanta burned after the rebels set fire to ammunition when they retreated. Columbia, SC may have been burned by Sherman’s troops. And your reference to “killing” NY draft resisters is misleading. In truth they were rooting against lawful authority . At least you give Lincoln credit for his unstinting leadership to save this country, which you would have voted to tear asunder by voting for the fool McClellan.

          • Richmond was torched by the Confederates before they departed, in order to deny the Yankees supplies and arms that were left behind.

            My great-great aunt stood on the south shore of the James and watched the city burn.

            Those were different times.

          • For Spencer Warren,

            I plead guilty on most of your charges. I think the current states of the US would be far better off if the Confederacy had remained in existence. I think slavery would have died a relatively quick and bloodless death.

            Your account of the New York City riots and massacre simply makes my point: once people are considered to be the enemy, the government will, and perhaps should, use force against them. I didn’t claim Lincoln was extraordinarily evil; I claimed he would, and did, do what was necessary to win the war he didn’t actually start. I would have preferred if he had agreed to a negotiated settlement, but was well within the appropriate boundaries of his position to pursue the war to victory.

            As far as terming me a reactionary, I don’t react one way or another. I try to look at every position from a view of logic. If you term me as illogical or factually incorrect, and make a real case, you will get a response from me. The only response you’ll get from terming me “reactionary” is a shrug, since I don’t care one way or another.

        • For anon:

          “Still failed to address the point, I see. Oh well.”

          I addressed it several times, but will do so once more.

          It is the job of the government to secure its physical borders. A government under physical threat has the right/duty to protect itself by all means possible, including what we term atrocities. Of course, if they lose, they are subject to trial and execution by the winning party.

          This obligation of government emphatically does not extend to silencing its own citizens who peacefully oppose its policies or even its presence. This idea is pretty clearly codified in the US Constitution itself, and I don’t see any ambiguity on the matter.

          You claim that my toleration of government atrocities to protect its physical security leads logically to the suppression of the rights of free expression of its citizens. This claim goes against not only what I said, but the very clear words of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

          Therefore, if you have logic to back up your claim, it is very much up to you to draw out your chain of logic.

          I don’t know if I can be any clearer than that. If you do not recognize the logic, then it will have to be decided by other readers whose logic is valid.

          • “… once people are considered to be the enemy, the government will, and perhaps should, use force against them …”

            The point.

    • “The Einsatzgruppen had an initial philosophy of race cleansing and murder, but ultimately, they reacted brutally to a Polish guerilla movement that killed German soldiers.”

      That is wrong.

      The truth is, the Einsatzgruppen may have claimed to be reacting to a Polish guerrilla movement, but the problem was that they had a pre-existing philosophy of race cleansing and murder.

      – as evinced by the existence of their death list before the invasion of Poland, as evinced by the meeting cited in the article, which was held before the invasion date, in which Heydrich said that people who at that time were still citizens of another country could be shot, as evinced by the date of Hitler’s meeting at Obersalzburg (22nd – more than a week before the invasion) and of course, we should not forget what Hitler said at that meeting. Et cetera …

        • The assertion that Heydrich’s Einsatzgruppen were “reacting” to something the Poles did, as the Poles strove to resist the invasion of their country, does seem rather strange.

          Especially given the timeline that was laid out in the article. For example, Hitler’s remarks at the Obersalzberg complex were made on 22nd August: “he aim is destruction of living forces, not the arrival at a certain line.” Et cetera …

          http://lawcollections.library.cornell.edu/nuremberg/catalog/nur:00459

          That was the German leader speaking, more than a week before the invasion of Poland.

          Note that the list of atrocities committed by the Einsatzgruppen – and the Wehrmacht – is long and damning.

          There are examples in the article of Wehrmacht units committing what we would now consider war crimes against Polish troops.

          It’s worth remembering that Polish troops were not the only ones to suffer at the hands of the “master race”:

          “At the southern edge of the Dunkirk perimeter, fifty miles from the port itself, there was savage fighting on May 27 [1940] between units of the SS Death’s Head Division, and British troops. In a farmhouse near the village of Paradis, ninety-nine men of the Royal Norfolk Regiment held up an SS company until their ammunition was exhausted.

          Their commanding officer, Major Lisle Ryder, made a final appeal for artillery support, but was told that none was available. Within the cowshed to which they had retreated, it was agreed, by a show of hands, that they should surrender. A white towel was tied to a rifle, and the men filed out, only to be met by a spate of machine gun fire.

          Five minutes later they again tried to surrender; this time the Germans stood up shouting in triumph and waving their rifles. An English-speaking officer ordered the Englishmen across a small road into the adjacent field, where they were told to kneel. Then, five at a time, they were ordered to their feet, to be searched, and a pile was made of their gas masks, steel helmets and cigarettes. Any soldiers who refused to co-operate were struck with rifle butts.

          The prisoners were then marched to the road, where they had to wait for a while as German soldiers drove past, moving westward; then they were ordered into a field, along one side of which was a long brick barn, in front of which was a shallow pit. Two machine guns had been set up, facing the barn. As the head of the columns of prisoners were marched into the pit, and drew level with the far end of the barn, the order was shouted out: ‘Fire!’ As soon as the shooting stopped, the German soldiers were ordered to fix bayonets and to move forward. They did so, bayoneting to death those who were only wounded, while others were killed with pistol shots. Then a whistle was blown, and the German soldiers climbed out of the pit.

          Ninety-seven British soldiers were dead. Incredibly, two had survived: Private Albert Pooley and Private William O’Callagan, who lay among the bodies.

          That night, in heavy rain, Pooley and O’Callagan were able to crawl away. After being sheltered for some days by a French farmer’s wife, Madame Duquenne-Créton, who did her best to tend their wounds, they gave themselves up to the Germans and were made prisoners-of-war yet again. Pooley had been so severely wounded, in the leg, that he was later repatriated to England, via the Sudan, in an exchange of badly wounded men in April 1943. His story was met with considerable scepticism; only after the war, when O’Callaghan returned to Britain, was the savagery of the episode made clear; so much so that their joint testimony was instrumental in having the officer who had given the order to fire, SS Captain Fritz Knochlein, tried by a British military tribunal in Hamburg, condemned to death, and hanged.”

          Gilbert, Martin. The Second World War: A Complete History (pp. 76-77). RosettaBooks. Kindle Edition.

          Were these German soldiers “reacting” to the actions of a French guerrilla movement?

          No.

          I rest my case.

      • The logic is breathtaking.

        You’re accusing me of saying exactly what you are saying.

        The fact that the Germans preplanned murder does not exclude the fact that they reacted brutally to guerilla tactics. One does not exclude the other. Duhhh.

        • “The Einsatzgruppen had an initial philosophy of race cleansing and murder, but ultimately, they reacted brutally to a Polish guerilla [sic] movement that killed German soldiers.”

          Well, let’s examine this idea.

          There were Wehrmacht units who committed atrocities in Poland against regular Polish troops, right from the beginning of the invasion, and it’s not clear how it could be argued that they were “reacting” to the presence of a guerrilla movement.

          There were also German troops who committed atrocities against British troops near Dunkirk in May 1940, and it’s not clear how it could be argued that they were “reacting” to the presence of a guerrilla movement either.

          There were Einsatzgruppen units who acted brutally and without mercy towards Poles during the Nazi invasion and occupation post 1st September 1939.

          Can their actions be understood – ultimately – as a response to the presence of a guerrilla movement?

          Well, no. The bestial actions of German troops – including Wehrmacht soldiers – in similar situations both in Poland and elsewhere, when there was no guerrilla movement involved, indicates that something else was going on.

          I draw attention once more to the notes from the meeting held at the Obersalzberg complex on 22nd August 1939, more than a week before the invasion started. The copy cited in the article was the one retrieved from the OKW archives, and subsequently presented at the Nuremberg Trials. These notes show that Hitler told his military commanders – more than a week before the invasion:

          “Destruction of Poland in the foreground. The aim is destruction of living forces, not the arrival at a certain line.” And so forth ..

          If one looks at the actions of the German forces throughout the war, it does appear that German soldiers committed many atrocities, and it seems important to note that they did so right from the get-go! Right from day one, German troops were machine gunning surrendered troops, locking the soldiers of other nations in buildings and setting fire to them, etc etc. And of course, burning down citizens’ houses left, right and centre.

          They didn’t invade, then hang around to see what the other side did, then “react” to that. They were murdering people and throwing burning torches on to people’s houses right from the get-go, because that is what the software running in their minds told them to do.

          So ultimately their beliefs drove their actions. And those beliefs drove them to do in the Poles not because of what the Poles did, but because of who they were.

          • To Nick,

            I’m good with what you said, including my blunder where it could be inferred I said the German soldiers were simply reacting to the guerillas. Elsewhere, I pointed out there is no contradiction. The Germans acted brutally out of their ideas of racial purity and lebensraum and reacted brutally to any civilian resistance.

            My overall point is that initiating a war of aggression, or indeed a war of resistance, is going to involve civilian casualties and a high probability of atrocities. So, think through any war you get involved in. You think the US can “win” the action in Afghanistan without massive civilian casualties? That’s what “taking the handcuffs off the troops”, which I wholeheartedly support, by the way, means.

          • To Ronald,
            I do have a record (in Rossino’s book, I believe it is) of some fracas in a Polish town, which the lovely Mr. Goebbels made much of, falsifying numbers and so forth. It was something ridiculous, like half a dozen people had been injured or killed and in the Nazi press it was reported as thousands of people. I’m off out just now, appointment with the physio, but I’ll try & get hold of those figures later on.

            This seems to me to indicate that the Nazis had another agenda altogether. Yes, they may have geed the public up by talking (aka lying) in the press about the “atrocities” in Poland. But the fact that they lied about it shows, I think, that they were not really reacting to it. They were using it to promote their own agenda.

            It’s all interesting stuff, and if memory serves Molotov used a similar set of excuses to justify the Soviet invasion on the 17th – saving the minorities from oppression and chaos, and all that.

    • Hi Ronald..
      You trying to compare 1939 German terror War against Poland with USA War on Terrorism ???
      Have you ever hear about ” jus bellum iustum-Just War ” ?
      Just War postulates that war, while terrible, is not always the worst option. Important responsibilities, undesirable outcomes, or preventable atrocities may justify war.
      Under which terms will you describe 1939 German Terror War on Poland ? i/m curious…
      ps. Are you German or Jews ?

      • I’m saying war generates atrocities.

        I’m saying it is the responsibility of a government to not lose control of its territory to a foreign invader. Wars are going to involve the killing of non-combatants. Show me any war that does not include the killing of civilians, intentionally or inadvertently.

        What I ‘m saying is that before you leap off to a merry foreign adventure, you have to decide if your objective justifies the killing of civilians. My position is that your wars should be limited to physically protecting your territory. The Obama administration decided that geopolitical strategy justified the deaths and dislocations of hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees.

        If you think you can have a sanitized war, give me the details.

        You think I justified the Nazi terror of Poland (you didn’t say anything about the Russian terror of Poland). What I said is that the foreign occupation of a territory always generates guerilla activity. Do you disagree with that? Name some instances. Were the Nazis forced to commit atrocities in Poland? No. They could have not invaded Poland.

        Machiavelli advised the Prince to never invade foreign territories unless he planned to move there and live. And example is the Norman invasion of England in 1066. Say what you will about the Normans, they moved to England, lock, stock and barrel. They suppressed and persecuted the Saxons, but eventually learned to live with them.

        Now, you’re inferring that I think any government is justified in any action against its own citizens who oppose that government. Give me specifics where I said that. Actually, I should be addressing that to Anon. I did say that if a country looks to be overrun by enemies, it’s the responsibility of a government to not be defeated. Does that mean killing civilians if necessary? Yes.

        You talk about a just war. I didn’t say no war is just. I said there is no war without atrocities, so you’d better be ready to justify your just war when the dead civilians show up. That sets a high bar, but not an impossible one, when you consider exporting war.

        The British created concentration camps, death camps, for Africaner civilians during the Boer War. What did Britain want? The gold and diamond mines of South Africa. The only way the British could win was through mass murder. The US killed maybe a million Vietnamese during the Vietnam War, probably most of them civilians. Show me a war you can win without mass casualties. If you don’t have the stomach for it, don’t start it. And we stabbed our allies in South Vietnam in the back anyway. We withdrew the supplies and support they needed to fend off the North Vietnamese army.

        So, what did I say? Before you start a war, decide if it’s worth your committing atrocities. Generally, to my way of thinking, the only type of war that justifies that is to protect your own territory. Not protect yourself from criticism, but protect your territory from physical invasion.

        So, referring to the fact that a foreign invasion of Poland resulted in guerilla activities, I’m called a Nazi sympathizer. That’s like saying that pointing out unprotected sex increases the risk of Aids makes me a Puritan.

        What I have been trying to do is point out the logical and real consequences of certain policies and actions. If you don’t want to kill civilians, don’t go to war and don’t try to occupy foreign territory.

        • Not to excuse the civilian deaths in the British concentration camps, but I believe these were due more to ineptitude than malice.

        • @Ronald

          “I did say that if a country looks to be overrun by enemies, it’s the responsibility of a government to not be defeated. Does that mean killing civilians if necessary? Yes.”

          What if your own government believes that you are the enemy?

          You’d be in a bit of a pickle then, eh.

          • See my comment above on the US Civil War, where the Confederates were, in fact, viewed by the Union government as a hostile non-American force, and the resulting atrocities.

        • So, referring to the fact that a foreign invasion of Poland resulted in guerilla activities, I’m called a Nazi sympathizer. That’s like saying that pointing out unprotected sex increases the risk of Aids makes me a Puritan.

          He never said that. This is an example of the faulty conclusions you draw. This would be an example of faulty logic used to impute to others a position they emphatically did not take.

          A straw man, in other words.

  5. Very good text, but incomplete.

    There were recorded strikes on ethnic Germans living in Poland -even before Hitler was in office. So Nazis did not make it up. just used it.

    Germany AND USSR invaded Poland.

    The two totalitarian governments did the same to Poland: kill(ed) the literate; terrorise{d} the people; ma(d)e them(Poles) work for you.

    So, both persecuted the Catholic church that upheld The Polish nation for 2 centuries -when there was no state; both murdered everyone that was not a blue collar -Kayin and police raids in Polish cities under German control were a two-faced coin of that.

    So, if Poland demands reparation from Germany it should make the same towards Russia. Before that, I think Poles are awakening demons among Europeans.

    If Poland is just saying «Merkel/ EU shut up» -I’m totally with Poland.

    DNA proves that +/- half of Poles are Germanic -oops! So, racism, is…

    • …”There were recorded strikes on ethnic Germans living in Poland -even before Hitler was in office. So Nazis did not make it up. just used it.”..

      Sources for this Historical account please !

      • My paternal grandmother was a blond blue eyed tiny lady from Pomeria, German. Her 13th C. ancestors were Prussian and her granddad was a body guard to one of the Kaisers. Her family left Pomerania in 1905 when some changes in the govt. put her family at risk. Got out bythe skin of their teeth she used to say. XCame tyo the great Germanic area of Pittsburgh,Pa. Where she met an good business POLISH man traveling to start s bottle making business in Pa. His brothers already worked for a coal company as bookkeepers bt one was a dairy farmer.

        She married that Pole glass maker from Krosno Poland who was also considered a Carpatho-Rus or Lemko. He was fluent in Polish, Ukrainan and German. Over the years from 1910 he owned several companies and had two children who bother served in WWII fighting NAZIS.

        Now I do not know who is the real SLAV in the family but my dad towered at 6 foot 5 just like his FATHER’S AND HIS MOTHER’S BROTHERS AND SOME COUSINS. He LOOKED Slavic to me AND HAD THE ” SLAVIC TOED FOOT”! lol the men had black hair And green or brown eyes.

        I am the only red head in the entire group Green eyes and standing 5 ft 10 in my pre-old lady 2 inch droop.

        One of my dad’s paternal uncles was a Polish officer at the start of WWII and was captured and spent 3 hellish years at Auschwitz. Then transferred to other slave labor camps in the West of Germany.He was liberated by Americans and joined the rest of the family in Pa.

        All hated Nazis and COMMIES!! But my old uncle, Polish officer POW had a great admirartion for the bravery of Russian POWs. He said he always prayed for their souls. He was a a grand old gent.

        • Great story and history.

          The Poles were consistently betrayed and stabbed in the back by the allies during WW2. You can read many details in American Betrayal

          The Polish government was not totally blameless, though, as they held tough on the Danzig corridor and dragged France and England into what turned out to be WW2 through treaty guarantees. It’s quite possible that Germany, in collaboration with Russia, was determined to find and excuse to invade Poland regardless of any concession.

          But, it’s a huge mistake to be inflexible with a powerful, even if predatory, neighbor. The Baltic states, using the shield of NATO, are doing that right now with Russia, which I predict will be a possibly fatal mistake for them.

          • Diana West’s book is the definitive story on America’s corrosion by Communism during WWII – at the very highest levels of government, including FDR’s advisers in the Oval Office.

            She paid a high price for writing the truth… Now one of her biggest critics, Ron Radosh, a former Red Diaper baby, has reconverted from Conservatism Inc to his original Leftist beliefs.

            I will try to write up the latest on it – am not well right now, but I’m going to write her and ask for her help with this…got an email from the person who served as *our* adviser when we were moving over to a monetized system with no ads….

          • Dymphna,

            We owe you thanks for your work and dedication in maintaining the site as a center of information and debate on events, particularly information on Europe which is just not available elsewhere. I’m very sad to hear you are not well.

            “Now one of her biggest critics, Ron Radosh, a former Red Diaper baby, has reconverted from Conservatism Inc to his original Leftist beliefs. ”

            I tried looking up the current essays of Radosh, and it seems to me he’s still a pretty typical neocon. https://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/ I don’t see a further leftward movement from when he savaged West’s book. Of course, what West skewered him on was his use of imaginary and nonexistent quotes and claims concerning her book, in order to criticize her. But even a neocon can cut corners and try to coast on his laurels when acting as an authority on a subject which has long since passed him by.

          • RonaldB:

            The news about RR came in my email. IIRC, the essay appeared on Front Page (“front” is a good name for anything Horowitz does), written by Daniel Greenfield. By the time I got word was too sick to attend fully to it. But I did notice Horrorwitz in the comments defending (and prevaricating about) what he did to Diana West. The man has no shame.He and Radosh were RD babies together, but DH can hardly leave his lucrative biz gulling the unwary.

          • I did access the article.
            http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267588/never-trump-drives-former-communist-back-his-roots-daniel-greenfield

            I also looked at Horowitz’s comments.

            My impression is that Horowitz is dumping Radosh. Also, Horowitz seemed to be perplexed that West didn’t accept his offer of unlimited space for rebuttal, and forget it.

            “You’re forgetting. I offered her all the space in Frontpage she might need to reply to Radosh’s review and she denounced me as a “book burner”.”

            Now, Horowitz not only carried the Radosh review, but referred to West’s book as terrible, without providing any details. (I’m going on memory here).

            I have studied West’s book several times, and feel it is a valuable contribution. I do think there’s a point of debate to be made, and might bring it up if she engages in these pages. Her account of the compromises, prevarications and outright treachery by US officials and agents is invaluable. I’ll say right now that some of the events she described in her book cannot be justified by any rationalization, particularly after the actual defeat of the Nazi government.

          • Here’s a comment from that page

            That David Horowitz is repeating and ratifying the disgusting, documented, flat-out lies he had Radosh write about Diana West four years ago is more than troubling.

            His calculated attempt to destroy her work was Orwellian. To anyone who reads his description of American Betrayal after reading the book, Horowitz destroys his own credibility. If you think I’m exaggerating, read her book and his words about it. It’s not a close call. Intellectual dishonesty of the very worst kind. Classic, textbook libel. False FACTS, not opinions. Intellectually indefensible LIES. In plain sight. It’s really ugly, really disillusioning and really disheartening. Because it’s so obvious once you know the facts.

            And that Daniel Greenfield supports those lies is a terrible discovery. Et tu, Daniel?

            American Betrayal is a great book. Horowitz has no honor and no shame. Front Page has no credibility. And that’s a real shame, because this is a Civil War.
            ________________________

            I like Greenfield’s work as Sultan Knish; his analyses are excellent. But he is paid by Horowitz’s foundation and I suppose occasionally has to carry water for them.

            And when Horowitz himself gets into the comments to smooth over his attacks against West, he is the same smarmy person who even showed up on our comment threads once – ONCE – to defend himself. And then he despoiled his excellent compendium of Leftist sites, “Discover the Networks” (which lists a vast array of the evil Left) by having a special page on there for Diana West. As if she were comparable to Soros or Theresa Heinz Kerry. Horowitz is unhinged on this subject.

            Because of the growing number of calumnies in print about “American Betrayal”, Diana West published another book, taking up each and every lie, omission, smear, etc.

            The Rebuttal: Defending ‘American Betrayal’ from the Book-Burners

            http://amzn.to/2vqRTA6

            The rabid reaction of Conservatism, Inc. to “American Betrayal” was to be but the opening salvos in the war against the rest of us, which showed up during Trump’s campaign.

          • Ok. For what it’s worth, I accessed Horowitz’ comments on Betrayal on the Greenfield page, and I think I know what’s going on.

            West’s book actually has two theses, or parts, although they are intertwined.

            One part is a masterful job of documenting the Communist penetration of the institutions, government, and military offices of the West. She gives details and names, backing up her account with contemporary sources, the translated Venona papers, and purloined documents from Soviet intelligence.

            If my reading of the Radosh-Horowitz events is correct, Horowitz assigned Mark Tapson to review Wests book, who was highly impressed with it. Apparently, Radosh had a fit, ostensibly based on the fact the reviewer was not a professional historian and didn’t have the fund of knowledge that, say, someone like Radosh had.

            So, Horowitz pulled the review and let his friend Radosh write a review.

            Radosh chose to try to discount West’s facts, using his memory traces rather than actual research. He tried to show mistakes in Wests accounts, but in rebuttals, she sliced and diced him, grinding him into small pieces. Wests facts were firmly based on research, and Radosh apparently went by the seat of his pants and his very faulty memory.

            Horowitz, in the meantime, called Wests book “terrible” but never seemed to have much when pressed for details.

            But, in the comments on Greenfields page, Horowitz at least let us know what he was thinking.

            I mentioned Wests book had two parts. The first was a well-documented account of specific Communist penetration by acting Soviet agents. There is no question they passed information and even materials, such as U-235 to the Russians.

            The second part of Wests book was more speculative. She tried to make a case that the Communist penetration was not only on the level of getting information and materials, but actually affected, or even dictated, the major decision-making process. Her thesis was that many, or all, of the strategic military decisions under Roosevelt were dictated by Communist agents and were taken with the interests of Russia, rather than the US, in mind.

            An example of such a decision was the withdrawal of US troops from Italy, where they were poised to push over the alps into Germany itself, and the transfer of the troops to the D-Day attack. West speculates that that decision was made with Russian, not US, interests as the first priority.

            The thesis that Communists influenced or dictated strategic decisions is necessarily speculative, and actually most subject to criticism. Horowitz makes such a criticism in the Greenfield comments, but his criticism is more a “point and sputter” type.

            Footnotes yes. Good judgment no. Read her chapter claiming that D-Day was a Soviet plot, which makes Eisenhower and the American general staff Communist dupes.
            …
            Not to mention the British General staff, and Canadian General staff, who were also participants in the planning for D-day.

            Horowitz’ indignation is not an argument, which he doesn’t seem to realize. First of all, although Eisenhower agreed with D-Day after first opposing the transfer of troops from Italy, he, like the British General staff, were not the final decision-makers on D-Day. It was the political command, like Roosevelt and Churchill. Staff and even command military officers were only advisers on decisions of that scope.

            Second, who says Eisenhower and the other military commanders weren’t dupes? They may or may not have been, but that is an area for discussion, not point and sputter.

            I think the biggest weakness in Wests book is that, having presented a ground-breaking thesis and inference, she needed to take the most likely competing theory and compare the merits of both.

            To my mind, the strongest competing thesis was the idea that the Western leaders were terrified at the idea that Stalin would make a separate peace with Hitler, and require the Allied armies to take the millions of casualties being suffered by the Russian army. There’s quite a lot of justification to bend over backwards to pacify Stalin if you’re looking at saving millions of your own soldiers.

            West does mention that idea briefly, but dismisses it immediately because of an essay by Hanson Baldwin, “Great Mistakes of the War”.
            https://www.amazon.com/Great-Mistakes-War-Baldwin-Hanson/dp/B0000CHRHB

            But what Baldwin said was, the belief that Stalin could pull out was a false belief. Yet, it was believed by Western leaders, and could account for many of the actions that West cited to support her thesis. In other words, if Roosevelt and Churchill and their staff believed it was possible for Stalin to make a separate peace, it would be that, and not the Communist agents, that accounted for the decisions seeming to benefit Russia at the expense of the US.

            There’s lots of room for argument, and Wests book Rebuttal contains a lot of arguments. But, as I said, Horowitz seemed to react on an emotional level towards the book.

            There are a lot of incidents described in the book that are absolutely necessary to know, and which cannot possibly be explained by wanting to prevent a separate peace by Stalin. Operation Keelhaul, after the end of the war, the specific abandonment of US prisoners held in Russian prisoner of war camps within sight of US forces, and later on, the abandonment of US prisoners of war in Vietnam.

    • And many Austrians and Germans have a Slavic heritage.
      Even Angela Merkel herself (polish)…
      Maybe that`s why she hates the Germans (just joking).

      • Thank you for remanding me this whoever you are !
        Ethical and Moral Relevance,Dialectics killed the West..
        No lessons learned…

        • You’re welcome. It was just when I read this new article, I thought: you know what, it goes rather well with one of my old ones.

          The underlying theme of both is not all this blah blah blah about the Nazis, who cares about that at the end of the day?

          The point I keep trying to make, which some people tend to miss, is that we need to take on some political responsibility, and keep a check on our elected representatives.

          And the further away we are from the seat of power, the harder that is to do …

          Something like that, anyway …

          • Thanks for your kind replay.
            I can’t agree with you more enough !
            Author of this essay see..clearly : “they are making a profound statement which ought to resonate with everyone who truly values their own freedom: We know what can happen when you lose control of your own political destiny. And we will not let it happen again!”..
            WE White Race are on the edge of extinction..
            There is a reason for that..West (Europe) instead to do soul search is” burying head under the sand” not able to comprehend what led to this outcome..
            Thanks God ! Americans (USA White population) is up to the challenge. (D.Trump doesn’t appear from nowhere).. First time in History they find partners in Europe..where ? CEE…
            I remember time when the words New Europe come to existence in American political playground..
            Were they Prophetic..Today we have USA -CEE Geo-political alliance… and more to come..
            “Old Europe” is dead like cucumber in my salad..
            Yes! there will be “reconquest “of Europe like in the time of Charles Martel ,Queen Isabel, King Saint Stephan or Casimir III the Great…it will come from New Europe-USA-UK alliance…
            For those who already forgot once again :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLZKYl2sOKs
            “does the West have the Will to Survive ? “..We CEE,Americans Do!!! and WE Will!
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbPI1l2mTR4

          • @max,

            Thanks for that link.

            President Trump’s speech in Poland certainly makes better viewing than his predecessor’s “apology” speech in Cairo – that’s for sure!

    • So you germans depend war reparations to Poland from Poland receiving reparations first from Russia?
      How Poland deals with Russia is Polish problem not yours.
      You destroyed that country and have to pay own bill.
      Also return stolen art at the same time ,please.

  6. Last time Germany was forced to play reparations for a war it resulted in another war. People never learn.

    • …”Last time Germany was forced to play reparations for a war it resulted in another war. People never learn.”…
      Oh dear Ragnir..We Learn !…Germans are not able to change…They can’t help themselves…next time around there will be no Germany and Germans anymore…just brown people…( I have noticed your German obsession with Brown color)

      PS: Reparation from murderous Germans and their offspring are much entitled to the Germans victims like a bone to the hungry dog..

    • It`s especially stupid because we really have other problems and enemies on us.
      But it seems the puppet masters in the background want to play divide and rule.
      Trying to stir up hatred against each other.

      • …” stupid because we really have other problems and enemies on us”

        O dear…YOU brought a problems on Yourself..in a process YOU make Yourself our Enemies..
        Countless millions of Us killed without any sense by YOU from 18 to 20 Century..
        There will be NO another Vienna rescue…WE learn Our History lesson..
        Your Rome,Berlin,Vienna ,Paris will fall…is already falling..
        You are landing where you belong..on the garbage of History ..I have to say you deserved this Faite .. Look on this http://www.catholicapologetics.info/library/onlinelibrary/martyrs.htm
        ..”. Sister Charlotte of the Resurrection, who was seventy-eight and could barely walk, was tossed to the ground by one of her guards”…or perhaps this : https://gdb.rferl.org/40DD9295-CBE3-4952-B982-B37AC9811FFD_w987_s_s.jpg

        That’s where your Progress and Enlightenment led you..
        WE wont anything of that !
        East is the Future of Europe..
        “Puppets Masters” ???
        Yeah, that was a case impose on us by You for to long..Today we CEE are Masters of Our Destiny..
        “Hatred” ???
        Yeah [redacted]
        USA will do well..they are waking slowly but surely from the “numb”..

      • Correct, and an even more dangerous one, as it is not afraid of dying to achieve it’s objective.

        • Afraid of dying? Au contraire, Moslems yearn to die (as shahids) to glorify their allah. Nihilism is at the heart of muhammad’s fraudulent teachings.

          Thus, Iran must never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. But, who has the will to prevent it, especially if it requires defying the Russians? MAD will not work as a deterrent with the Iranians. How Pakistan has been constrained thus far is a mystery to me.

  7. “We must be honest, decent, loyal and comradely to members of our own blood and to nobody else” – Himmler.
    Muslims are “merciful to each other and ruthless to the unbeliever” – Koran 48:29.

    “Islam’s world view is very similar to ours” – Himmler.

  8. Hi Ronald,

    The incident I was thinking of earlier was “Bromberg Bloody Sunday”, or Bromberger Blutsonntag. According to Alexander Rossino’s account in “Hitler Strikes Poland: Blitzkrieg, Ideology and Atrocity” there were “armed clashes” between Polish troops and members of the Volksdeutsche between 1st and 5th September 1939. The estimate given by Rossino is that approximately 1, 100 of the Volskdeutsche fighters were killed during this period. Rossino goes on to say:

    “Soon after the news of these casualties broke in Germany, however, Joseph Goebbels’s Progpaganda Ministry launched a press campaign to inflate public opinion against the Poles. Reports in the press soon inflated the total number of ethnic Germans killed to over 5, 400, thus giving birth to the legend of the so-called “Bromberg Bloody Sunday.””

    In the notes for this book, Rossino asserts that “by February 1940, this estimate was raised tenfold in German newspapers to over 50,000 Volskdeutsche killed.”

    This blatant lying about events on the ground do appear to indicate that the German forces were not merely reacting to those events. After all, if those events, in and of themselves, were a sufficient condition for the Nazis to take the steps they did, then there would be no reason to lie about what happened. The events themselves could simply be reported, factually and correctly, and that would do.

    So there does appear to be more to the story.

    Your point about war inevitably involving atrocities and deaths of non-combatants is well taken. However, I must agree with Sam Harris here, who wrote about this years ago, insofar as some parties go into a military enterprise with the intent of minimising noncombatant casualties, while other parties are doing everything in their power to maximise those casualties, to the extent of deliberately launching operations against “soft” targets.

    However, as you know, that analysis is too “black and white” because history shows that even those parties who engage in wars for “just” reasons, and who adopt a moral stance & claim to be fighting a “good” war almost inevitably end up doing things that are morally indefensible.

    It’s Machiavelli’s “dirty hands” problem. As it says in Chapter 15 of The Prince:

    “But since my intention is to write something useful for anyone who understands it, it seemed more suitable for me to search after the effectual truth of the matter rather than its imagined one. Many writers have imagined republics and principalities that have never been seen nor known to exist in reality. For there is such a distance between how one lives and how one ought to live, that anyone who abandons what is done for what ought to be done achieves his downfall rather than his preservation. A man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good. Therefore, it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain himself to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it according to necessity.”

    Machiavelli, Niccolò; Peter Bondanella; Maurizio Viroli. The Prince (Oxford World’s Classics) (Kindle Locations 1547-1552). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

    So I agree with your overall point: If you are going to go to war, you’d better be prepared to do things that are “not good”. If you’re not prepared to do that, and the other side is, then you’re going to be in for a hard time. An unpleasant truth, but there it is.

    • Hi Nick,

      Thank you for your reply and observation. I read not only this essay carefully, but the essay of yours, referenced here, on the Katyn massacres and the (necessary?) coverup by the allies for the sake of solidarity with the Russian allies.

      https://gatesofvienna.net/2016/05/dirty-hands-past-present-and-future/

      You summarized my point well: wars are not to be taken lightly and will require you to engage in actions you would normally consider to be immoral.

      I completely understand your point that the German atrocities were planned ahead of time, and the bulk of them were not simply reactions to partisan activity. They were part of the German philosophy of racial exclusion and the willingness to commit mass murder to establish a Germanic superstate.

      I use the term “racial exclusion” because the willingness to murder members of another race is entirely different from the desire to separate from them or even the view that one race is different or even superior to, another race.

      In line with the very excellent quote from Machiavelli you provided, it might be time to reconsider the idea of one man – one vote. Clearly, some people are more qualified to participate in government than others. We have to view the world as it is, and not as we would like it to be.

      • Thanks Ronald for your statement !
        I judge you wrong.
        After what you said here,a see there is a chance for historical reconciliation between East and West Europe..
        Without that Reconciliation we are done forever as a White Race.. sooner or later..
        EU in new form has to made again..
        Today statement European Commission president Antonio Tanjani just confirm my case : http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/844483/france-germany-eu-dominate-europe-brexit-news-italy-spain-antonio-tajani
        Regards Max Sch….

        • Well, thank you max. I always try to be clear, but don’t always succeed.

          I do have a point of disagreement with you and the article you referenced.

          The article advocates more influence by countries other than France and Germany on the central EU administration and decision-making. This, to me, is taking an obvious mud pie and trying to shine it up.

          The fact is, any centralized government, structure, or government-in-waiting in Europe is fatal. It will kill Europe deader than a door nail. The only way the countries, or any country, in Europe will survive is through a national autonomy. The EU steadily works to erode national autonomy and any independent rights of its citizens. One of the latest EU initiatives was to fine one of the European countries for allowing its citizens too much access to firearms.

          The EU might claim to save a few pennies on currency conversions (which is doubtful in light of the availability of computers) or facilitate trade a bit, but the EU will destroy the national character of European countries and the motivation of nations to maintain their identity.

          European Commission president Antonio Tanjani is obviously reacting to the growing realization of Europeans how dangerous the EU is to their independence and existence. Under no circumstances whatsoever should any European be fooled that the EU can be turned into a benefit. The sooner the EU is dissolved and destroyed, the safer Europeans will be.

          • Agree.
            Italy and Club-Med feel they are “second-divison” and far away from the spoils of the War :-))
            As A.M Remarque said “nothing new on Western Front” :-)) but there is a self-realization that something is wrong with EU..Hi is talking about a new Treaty..new EU concept…that’s why i sent you a link..

        • As long as we demand a WHITE “race” reconciliation we’re doomed. Many factions of whites hate and loathe one another. Or haven’t you been reading the Poles vs the Germans, etc?? I have only to look at my extended family to know that reconciliation is a dim prospect, esp between the atheists and believers.

          • Dear Dymphna..
            I/m talking about “reconciliation” between West and East Europe .. as a first steep to find solution to save a White Race..
            Come to CEE..you will have first hand experience,what a life looks like among only White People :-))
            Something you and countless millions probably forgot or never see in their life :-))
            Quite extraordinary experience.. like being on the different Planet..You will like it !

          • I like my rural life among blacks who have lived here since before the Civil War and have built solid extended families. Some of them are retired military vets. I like our mixture of long-settled white people, too, some of whose ancestors were slave holders. And everyone knows who was who; ain’t that hard to figure out.

            Living only among white people, esp. those with a long bitter history of animosity against other white people doesn’t interest me in the least…my mother did it and she left as soon as she could. She often said that arriving in America felt as though she was shedding the ghosts of the past which haunted her land.

            I especially like going into shops where people know one another but not well enough to spread gossip about one another.

            None of the fights occurring of late on these comment threads make me want to visit the places of the original sins. Y’all are weighted down with inescapable evil, passed on from generation to generation. I’ve often wondered if the hatred of Jews didn’t originate in the refusal of the Ottomans to take Jewish boys from their families to fill the ranks of the Janissaries. The bad feelings of parents whose boys were taken are understandable.

            For 15 years I lived in white-only Wellesley, Massachusetts. Very wealthy town that didn’t let in black people, at least not to live there. Fortunately there was an Italian working class section (probably priced out of existence by now) and it was there I learned to cook Italian and Greek cuisine. Those were hard-working people; my landlady there was Greek before we bought our home from a couple moving back to Italy.

            I feel particularly sorry for Greece and Italy; they are among the PIIGS countries that bought the EU lies.

      • Interestingly, Chapter 15 of The Prince, from which that key section of the book is taken, begins as follows:

        “Now, it remains to be considered what should be the methods and principles of a prince in dealing with his subjects and allies.”

        Machiavelli, Niccolò; Peter Bondanella; Maurizio Viroli. The Prince (Oxford World’s Classics) (Kindle Locations 1544-1545). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

    • Superb commentary, Nick!

      Regarding Sam Harris, he reminds us–after acknowledging that atrocities are inevitable in war–to examine the moral difference(s) between adversaries in a conflict: ask what each side would do if they had the power to do it.

  9. I/m profoundly thankful to Author of this Essay for well measured approached to show sources and insides of European problems going thru Europe last 1500 years …
    If there will be no sincere reconciliation attempt and strong admission of wrongdoings from West ,their Homeland without our East help, will be gone forever…
    There is a geo-political shift in Europe.American economical,political interest is on the stake.
    Sooner or later Putin and his Commie-Fascist Khazar friends will disappear ..There will be political consensus reached between Russian people and rest of CEE people…after all we are the same Slavic family
    Americans are already in Poland…America has Strong interest in Russia and CEE..
    Uncle Sam doesn’t need Germans intermediaries anymore..Particularly when present Germany wants American out of Europe..
    Conflict of interest is obvious..Germany wants unchallenged access to Russian resources and Market..If that happen Western World will be dominated by Germans on unprecedented scale… What Germans are able to do 2 World War show clearly enough..
    Most imported principle is to destroy Germanic EU IV Reich ! With help of UK and USA we are able to achieved that .
    After that we will start II Reconquest of the Europe.

    • I am with Solzhenistyn that Russia is NOT a part of Europe, but is apart from Europe: an identifiable and separate civilization (much like China). A profound and admirable civilization (in all but politcs)–but, a separate civilization nevertheless, between West and East.

      Who among the central and eastern europeans wants anything to do with Russia (beyond trade in energy resources)? They are distrusted and despised!

      And, who are Putin’s “Commie-Fascist Khazar friends” that will “disappear”?

  10. Dear “Steven”..
    You can be with everyone you like…but whom you choose as a”friend” may determinate your future & who you became ..
    For me,Solzenicyn is no authority on anything at all..Just poor delusional Jew soul in the Gulag having his fantasy.utopia concept of “Russian Soul”..
    Your understanding CEE-Rusia “relation” are based on CNN or FOX “reality” ?
    I place your knowledge on this issue on level of Amateur..
    “Putin Commie-Fascist Khazar friends”..you have opportunity to educate yourself on the subject.. if you are interested about ..DNA..Thanks

    • Solzhenitsyn was not Jewish. That’s a gratuitously inserted descriptive. Why did you include it? If you have some evidence that none of the rest of us are aware of, please cite sources.

      • Yes..you are right..i was thinking about someone else with Jew background.
        If you wish you can erase my comment.Regards..

        • Max may have been thinking of the many great Jewish writers who joined Solzhenitsyn in contributing significantly to Russian (and world) literature during the Soviet age: Babel, O. and N. Mandelstam, Ilf, Brodsky, Ehrenburg, Pasternak…just to name a few off the top of my head.

          He’s obviously also familiar with Yehuda Halevy (the Kuzari; 13th c.) and Arthur Koestler (The Thirteenth Tribe). No amateur is he! As for Koestler, I recommend Darkness at Noon as a far greater and more respectable book!

          @Nick: I haven’t seen the film version of One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich. The book had a profound effect on me as a young man when I read it in the early-80s. (I’m sure it was a lousy translation!) From there I immersed myself in Russian and Eastern European (Samizdat) writing for the next decade. Since…I’ve had no illusions about the boundless human capacity for self-enslavement.

          Steven

      • Side note: I remember the night before my first day at work (I served an apprenticeship as a marine engineer) I was a bit wound up & couldn’t sleep, so I put on the TV and watched a movie … it was One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich. It was a bit much, watching that the day before starting work, LOL

    • Your “knowledge” of Solzhenitsyn leaves the rest of your opinions open to question. Not even rising to the level of an amateur since an amateur would have read him and could say specifically what he/she disagreed with about his work.

      DNA doesn’t interest me nearly as much as epigenetics. I’d guess from your remarks that you didn’t major in human biology, Max. At least not in this century.

  11. D.N.A….”do not answer”…please..nothing else
    Dear Dymphna..Your judgement about me has different dimension that my memory “glitch” on Solzhenitsyn..Just for the sake of your comfort i will remove myself from commenting you..I will advise my CEE friends to do the same..
    No doubt you like your WASP , comfort zone and have Segregationist life (coll with me ) which leaves the rest of your opinions open to question at least for me….there is no much commonality between you & me ,and me alike..
    ps. If it is your wish i will avoid Gates of Vienna site..
    Regards

    • Don’t be so sensitive, mac. Stick around and argue with people; just keep it civil.

      • Dear Baron..
        II War Experience once again knocking on the door..We here in Europe are little edge because of that.. Some more (like myself) some less.
        After all ,everything is a matter of Perspective..
        I understand position of your beloved wife and her perspective..
        But you are little more “matured” in yours comprehension of “reality” ..
        You now very well how fast this cosy and comfy, illusionary multicultural Universe corner of your wife can turn in something very nasty to say at least..You already have some test of it in USA..
        Here, your sweet,Black or Brown neighbor you now for a years ,or his sweet and respectful son you know from time hi was born, can cut your throat at no time :-))
        in a process they both in the same time will joy raping your 17 years daughter and wife..other neighborhood friendly enrichment events not worth to be mention.. they become a usual thing like by car smashing a few bystanders or blowing up Theater.. par excellence..
        Awareness not a compliance we need ..Regards and sorry for a lack to be “civilized” in my opinions sometimes to come if you want me in the future on your blog. :-))

    • @Max,
      Personally I find the comments on a site like GoV to be quite fascinating. There are people from all over the world on a site like this, with different perspectives on subjects like the ones addressed in the original article, and it’s always interesting to see what other people, from other parts of the world, are thinking. You hear some great stories, personal histories, and so forth. It’s one thing for someone like myself to write about what has happened in Poland, but someone from that neck of the woods will have a different understanding altogether. And I always enjoy reading everyone’s comments, so I agree with the Baron. Stick around and keep commenting. It can be semi-brutal at times, but them’s the rules of the game, my friend … (don’t take it personally, it’s the same for everyone.)

      • Dear Nick..Agree ! That’s why i come here..
        Vlad is highly recommending GoV in CEE and his opinions are equally highly respected..as yours and Baron after i become acostumed with them..
        English is not my first language.. there will be some “roughness” ans “semi-brutality” than i apologize for them in advance..
        Yes ! quality of essay and comments are indeed one of the best i account on internet blogs.. Regards. Max Sch…

Comments are closed.