Category Archives: World War 2

Evil Dictatorship To Release 400,000 Prisoners


Boy I am sure glad we live in the world’s greatest democracy where we lock up more people than the rest of the world combined! It could be worse. I could live in an evil dictatorship that routinely amnesties hundreds of thousands of prisoners, all guilty of minor to moderate offenses!

Dictatorships are evil! They set hundreds of thousands of criminals free!

Democracies are wonderful! They lock up every fourth or fifth citizen!

1 Comment

Filed under Crime, Eurasia, Government, Law, Regional, Russia, War, World War 2

“Hitler’s Pope” – Anatomy of a Calumny – The Case of Pope Pius XII

From Pius XII and the Jews, by David Dalin. Published in the Weekly Standard, February 26th, 2001, pp. 31-39.

Even before Pope Pius died in 1958, the charge that his papacy had been friendly to the Nazis was circulating in Europe, a piece of standard Communist agitprop against the West.

It sank for a few years under the flood of tributes from Jews and gentiles alike that followed the Pope’s death only to bubble up again with the 1963 debut of The Deputy, a play by a left-wing German writer and former member of the Hitler Youth named Rolf Hochhuth.

The Deputy was fictional and highly polemical, claiming that Pius XII’s concern for Vatican finances left him indifferent to the destruction of European Jewry. But Hochhuth’s seven-hour play nonetheless received considerable notice, sparking a controversy that lasted through the 1960’s. And now more than thirty years later, that controversy has suddenly broken out again for reasons not immediately clear.

Indeed, “broken out” doesn’t describe the current torrent. Just recently, nine books that treat Pius XII have appeared: John Cornwell’s Hitler’s Pope, Pierre Blet’s Pius XII and the Second World War, Garry Wills’ Papal Sin, Margherita Marchione’s Pope Pius XII, Ronald J. Rychlak’s Hitler, the War and the Pope, Michael Phayer’s The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930-1965, Susan Zuccotti’s Under His Very Windows, Ralph McInerny’s The Defamation of Pius XII, and, most recently, James Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword.

Since four of these — the ones by Blet, Marchione, Rychlak, and McInerny — are defenses of the pope (and two, the books by Wills and Carroll, take up Pius only as part of a broad attack against Catholicism), the picture may look balanced. In fact, to read all nine is to conclude that Pius’s defenders have the stronger case, with Rychlak’s Hitler, the War and the Pope the best and most careful of the recent works, an elegant tome of serious, critical scholarship.

Still, it is the books vilifying the Pope that have received most of the attention, particularly Hitler’s Pope, a widely reviewed volume marketed with the announcement that Pius XII was “the most dangerous churchman in modern history,” without whom “Hitler might never have…been able to press forward.” The “silence” of the pope is becoming more and more firmly established as settled opinion in the American media: “Pius XII’s elevation of Catholic self-interest over Catholic conscience was the lowest point in modern Catholic history,” the New York Times remarked, almost in passing, in a review last month of Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword.

Curiously, nearly everyone pressing this line today, from the ex-seminarians John Cornwell and Garry Wills to the ex-priest James Carroll is a lapsed or angry Catholic. For Jewish leaders of a previous generation, the campaign against Pius XII would have been a source of shock. During and after the war, many well-known Jews — Albert Einstein, Golda Meir, Moshe Sharett, Rabbi Isaac Herzog, and innumerable others — publicly expressed their gratitude to Pius.

In his 1967 book Three Popes and the Jews, the diplomat Pinchas Lapide (who served as Israeli consul in Milan and interviewed Italian Holocaust survivors) declared that Pius XII “was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands.”

This is not to say that Eugenio Pacelli — the powerful churchman who served as Nuncio in Bavaria and Germany from 1917 to 1929, then as Vatican secretary of state from 1930 to 1939, before becoming Pope Pius XII six months before World War II began — was as much a friend to the Jews as John Paul II has been.

Nor is it to say that Pius was ultimately successful as a defender of Jews. Despite his desperate efforts to maintain peace, the war came, and despite his protests against German atrocities, the slaughter of the Holocaust occurred. Even without benefit of hindsight, a careful study reveals that the Catholic Church missed opportunities to influence events, failed to credit fully the Nazis’ intentions, and was infected in some of its members with a casual anti-Semitism that would countenance — and, in a few horrifying instances, affirm — the Nazi ideology.

But to make Pius XII a target of our moral outrage against the Nazis and to count Catholicism among the institutions delegitimized by the horror of the Holocaust reveals a failure of historical understanding. Almost none of the recent books about Pius XII and the Holocaust is actually about Pius XII and the Holocaust. Their real topic proves to be an intra-Catholic argument about the direction of the Church today with the Holocaust simply the biggest club available for liberal Catholics to use against traditionalists.

A theological debate about the future of the papacy is obviously something in which non-Catholics should not involve themselves too deeply. But Jews, whatever their feelings about the Catholic Church, have a duty to reject any attempt to usurp the Holocaust and use it for partisan purposes in such a debate, particularly when the attempt disparages the testimony of Holocaust survivors and spreads to inappropriate figures the condemnation that belongs to Hitler and the Nazis.

The technique for recent attacks on Pius XII is simple. It requires only that favorable evidence be read in the worst light and treated to the strictest test, while unfavorable evidence is read in the best light and treated to no test.

So, for instance, when Cornwell sets out in Hitler’s Pope to prove Pius an anti-Semite – an accusation even the pontiff’s bitterest opponents have rarely leveled – he makes much of Pacelli’s reference in a 1917 letter to the “Jewish cult” — as though for an Italian Catholic prelate born in 1876, the word “cult” had the same resonance it has in English today and as though Cornwell himself does not casually refer to the Catholic Cult of the Assumption and the Cult of the Virgin Mary. The most immediately helpful part of Hitler, the War and the Pope may be the thirty-page epilogue Rychlak devotes to demolishing this kind of argument in Hitler’s Pope.

The same pattern is played out in Susan Zuccotti’s Under His Very Windows. For example, there exists testimony from a Good Samaritan priest that Bishop Giuseppe Nicolini of Assisi, holding a letter in his hand, declared that the Pope had written to request help for Jews during the German roundup of Italian Jews in 1943. But because the priest did not actually read the letter, Zuccotti speculates that the bishop may have been deceiving him, and thus that this testimony should be rejected.

Compare this skeptical approach to evidence with her treatment, for example, of a 1967 interview in which the German diplomat Eitel F. Mollhausen said he had sent information to the Nazis’ ambassador to the Vatican, Ernst von Weizsecker, and “assumed” that Weizsecker passed it on to Church “officials.”

Zuccotti takes this as unquestionable proof that the Pope had direct foreknowledge of the German roundup. A fair reading suggests Pius had heard rumors and raised them with the Nazi occupiers. Princess Enza Pignatelli Aragona reported that when she broke in on the Pope with the news of the roundup early on the morning of October 16, 1943, his first words were: “But the Germans had promised not to touch the Jews!”

With this dual standard, recent writers have little trouble arriving at two preordained conclusions. The first is that the Catholic Church must shoulder the blame for the Holocaust: “Pius XII was the most guilty,” as Zuccotti puts it. And the second is that Catholicism’s guilt is due to aspects of the Church that John Paul II now represents.

Indeed, in the concluding chapter of Hitler’s Pope and throughout Papal Sin and Constantine’s Sword, the parallel comes clear: John Paul’s traditionalism is of a piece with Pius’s alleged anti-Semitism; the Vatican’s current stand on papal authority is in a direct line with complicity in the Nazis’ extermination of the Jews. Faced with such monstrous moral equivalence and misuse of the Holocaust, how can we not object?

It is true that during the controversy over The Deputy and again during the Vatican’s slow hearing of the case for his canonization (ongoing since 1965), Pius had Jewish detractors. In 1964, for example, Guenter Lewy produced The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, and, in 1966, Saul Friedlander added Pius XII and the Third Reich. Both volumes claimed that Pius’s anti-communism led him to support Hitler as a bulwark against the Russians.

As accurate information on Soviet atrocities has mounted since 1989, an obsession with Stalinism seems less foolish than it may have in the mid-1960s. But, in fact, the evidence has mounted as well that Pius accurately ranked the threats.

In 1942, for example, he told a visitor, “The Communist danger does exist, but at this time the Nazi danger is more serious.” He intervened with the American bishops to support lend-lease for the Soviets, and he explicitly refused to bless the Nazi invasion of Russia. The charge of overheated anti-communism is nonetheless still alive: In Constantine’s Sword, James Carroll attacks the 1933 concordat Hitler signed for Germany by asking, “Is it conceivable that Pacelli would have negotiated any such agreement with the Bolsheviks in Moscow?” — apparently not realizing that in the mid-1920s, Pacelli tried exactly that.

In any case, Pius had his Jewish defenders as well. In addition to Lapide’s Three Popes and the Jews, one might list A Question of Judgment, the 1963 pamphlet from the Anti-Defamation League’s Joseph Lichten, and the excoriating reviews of Friedlander by Livia Rotkirchen, the historian of Slovakian Jewry at Yad Vashem. Jeno Levai, the great Hungarian historian, was so angered by accusations of papal silence that he wrote Pius XII Was Not Silent (published in English in 1968), with a powerful introduction by Robert M.W. Kempner, deputy chief U.S. prosecutor at Nuremberg.

In response to the new attacks on Pius, several Jewish scholars have spoken out over the last year. Sir Martin Gilbert told an interviewer that Pius deserves not blame but thanks. Michael Tagliacozzo, the leading authority on Roman Jews during the Holocaust, added, “I have a folder on my table in Israel entitled Calumnies Against Pius XII…Without him, many of our own would not be alive.” Richard Breitman (the only historian authorized to study U.S. espionage files from World War II) noted that secret documents prove the extent to which “Hitler distrusted the Holy See because it hid Jews.”

Still, Lapide’s 1967 book remains the most influential work by a Jew on the topic, and in the thirty-four years since he wrote, much material has become available in the Vatican’s archives and elsewhere. New oral-history centers have gathered an impressive body of interviews with Holocaust survivors, military chaplains, and Catholic civilians. Given the recent attacks, the time has come for a new defense of Pius — because, despite allegations to the contrary, the best historical evidence now confirms both that Pius XII was not silent and that almost no one at the time thought him so.

In January 1940, for instance, the Pope issued instructions for Vatican Radio to reveal “the dreadful cruelties of uncivilized tyranny” the Nazis were inflicting on Jewish and Catholic Poles. Reporting the broadcast the following week, the Jewish Advocate of Boston praised it for what it was: an “outspoken denunciation of German atrocities in Nazi Poland, declaring they affronted the moral conscience of mankind.”

The New York Times editorialized: “Now the Vatican has spoken, with authority that cannot be questioned, and has confirmed the worst intimations of terror which have come out of the Polish darkness.” In England, the Manchester Guardian hailed Vatican Radio as “tortured Poland’s most powerful advocate.”

Any fair and thorough reading of the evidence demonstrates that Pius XII was a persistent critic of Nazism. Consider just a few highlights of his opposition before the war:

Of the forty-four speeches Pacelli gave in Germany as Papal Nuncio between 1917 and 1929, forty denounced some aspect of the emerging Nazi ideology.

In March 1935, he wrote an open letter to the bishop of Cologne calling the Nazis “false prophets with the pride of Lucifer.”

That same year, he assailed ideologies “possessed by the superstition of race and blood” to an enormous crowd of pilgrims at Lourdes. At Notre Dame in Paris two years later, he named Germany “that noble and powerful nation whom bad shepherds would lead astray into an ideology of race.”

The Nazis were “diabolical,” he told friends privately. Hitler “is completely obsessed,” he said to his long-time secretary, Sister Pascalina. “All that is not of use to him, he destroys;…this man is capable of trampling on corpses.” Meeting in 1935 with the heroic anti-Nazi Dietrich von Hildebrand, he declared, “There can be no possible reconciliation” between Christianity and Nazi racism; they were like “fire and water.”

The year after Pacelli became secretary of state in 1930, Vatican Radio was established, essentially under his control. The Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano had an uneven record, though it would improve as Pacelli gradually took charge (extensively reporting Kristallnacht in 1938, for example). But the radio station was always good — making such controversial broadcasts as the request that listeners pray for the persecuted Jews in Germany after the 1935 Nuremberg Legislation.

It was while Pacelli was his predecessor’s chief adviser that Pius XI made the famous statement to a group of Belgian pilgrims in 1938 that “anti-Semitism is inadmissible; spiritually we are all Semites.” And it was Pacelli who drafted Pius XI’s encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, or With Burning Concern, a condemnation of Germany among the harshest ever issued by the Holy See. Indeed, throughout the 1930s, Pacelli was widely lampooned in the Nazi press as Pius XI’s “Jew-loving” cardinal, because of the more than fifty-five protests he sent the Germans as the Vatican secretary of state.

To these must be added highlights of Pius XII’s actions during the war:

His first encyclical, Summi Pontificatus, rushed out in 1939 to beg for peace, was in part a declaration that the proper role of the papacy was to plead to both warring sides rather than to blame one. But it very pointedly quoted St. Paul, “There is neither Gentile nor Jew,” using the word “Jew” specifically in the context of rejecting racial ideology. The New York Times greeted the encyclical with a front-page headline on October 28, 1939: Pope Condemns Dictators, Treaty Violators, Racism. Allied airplanes dropped thousands of copies on Germany in an effort to raise anti-Nazi sentiment.

In 1939 and 1940, Pius acted as a secret intermediary between the German plotters against Hitler and the British. He would similarly risk warning the Allies about the impending German invasions of Holland, Belgium, and France.

In March 1940, Pius granted an audience to Joachim von Ribbentrop, the German foreign minister and the only high-ranking Nazi to bother visiting the Vatican. The Germans’ understanding of Pius’s position, at least, was clear: Ribbentrop chastised the Pope for siding with the Allies. Whereupon Pius began reading from a long list of German atrocities. “In the burning words he spoke to Herr Ribbentrop,” the New York Times reported on March 14, Pius “came to the defense of Jews in Germany and Poland.”

When French bishops issued pastoral letters in 1942 attacking deportations, Pius sent his Nuncio to protest to the Vichy government against “the inhuman arrests and deportations of Jews from the French-occupied zone to Silesia and parts of Russia.” Vatican Radio commented on the bishops’ letters six days in a row — at a time when listening to Vatican Radio was a crime in Germany and Poland for which some were put to death. Pope Is Said to Plead for Jews Listed for Removal from France, the New York Times headline read on August 6, 1942. Vichy Seizes Jews; Pope Pius Ignored, the Times reported three weeks later.

In retaliation, in the fall of 1942, Goebbels’s office distributed ten million copies of a pamphlet naming Pius XII as the “pro-Jewish Pope” and explicitly citing his interventions in France.

In the summer of 1944, after the liberation of Rome but before the war’s end, Pius told a group of Roman Jews who had come to thank him for his protection: “For centuries, Jews have been unjustly treated and despised. It is time they were treated with justice and humanity, God wills it and the Church wills it. St. Paul tells us that the Jews are our brothers. They should also be welcomed as friends.”

As these and hundreds of other examples are disparaged, one by one, in recent books attacking Pius XII, the reader loses sight of the huge bulk of them, their cumulative effect that left no one, the Nazis least of all, in doubt about the Pope’s position.

A deeper examination reveals the consistent pattern. Writers like Cornwell and Zuccotti see the Pope’s 1941 Christmas address, for example, as notable primarily for its failure to use the language we would use today. But contemporary observers thought it quite explicit. In its editorial the following day, the New York Times declared, “The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas….In calling for a ‘real new order’ based on ‘liberty, justice, and love,’…the pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism.”

So, too, the Pope’s Christmas message the following year — in which he expressed his concern “for those hundreds of thousands who, without any fault of their own, sometimes only by reason of their nationality or race, are marked down for death or progressive extinction” — was widely understood to be a public condemnation of the Nazi extermination of the Jews. Indeed, the Germans themselves saw it as such: “His speech is one long attack on everything we stand for….He is clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews….He is virtually accusing the German people of injustice toward the Jews, and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals,” an internal Nazi analysis reads.

This Nazi awareness, moreover, had potentially dire consequences. There were ample precedents for the Pope to fear an invasion: Napoleon had besieged the Vatican in 1809, capturing Pius VII at bayonet point; Pius IX fled Rome for his life after the assassination of his chancellor; and Leo XIII was driven into temporary exile in the late nineteenth century.

Still, Pius XII was “ready to let himself be deported to a concentration camp rather than do anything against his conscience,” Mussolini’s foreign minister railed. Hitler spoke openly of entering the Vatican to “pack up that whole whoring rabble,” and Pius knew of the various Nazi plans to kidnap him. Ernst von Weizsecker has written that he regularly warned Vatican officials against provoking Berlin.

The Nazi ambassador to Italy, Rudolf Rahn, similarly describes one of Hitler’s kidnapping plots and the effort by German diplomats to prevent it. General Carlo Wolff testified to having received orders from Hitler in 1943 to “occupy as soon as possible the Vatican and Vatican City, secure the archives and the art treasures, which have a unique value, and transfer the Pope, together with the Curia, for their protection, so that they cannot fall into the hands of the Allies and exert a political influence.” Early in December 1943, Wolff managed to talk Hitler out of the plan.

In assessing what actions Pius XII might have taken, many wish that explicit excommunications had been announced. The Catholic-born Nazis had already incurred automatic excommunication for everything from failure to attend Mass to unconfessed murder to public repudiation of Christianity. And, as his writings and table-talk make clear, Hitler had ceased to consider himself a Catholic — indeed, considered himself an anti-Catholic — long before he came to power. But a papal declaration of excommunication might have done some good.

Then again, it might not. Don Luigi Sturzo, founder of the Christian Democratic movement in wartime Italy, pointed out that the last times “a nominal excommunication was pronounced against a head of state,” neither Queen Elizabeth I nor Napoleon had changed policy. And there is reason to believe provocation would, as Margherita Marchione puts it, “have resulted in violent retaliation, the loss of many more Jewish lives, especially those then under the protection of the Church, and an intensification of the persecution of Catholics.”

Holocaust survivors such as Marcus Melchior, the chief rabbi of Denmark, argued that “If the Pope had spoken out, Hitler would probably have massacred more than six million Jews and perhaps ten times ten million Catholics, if he had the power to do so.” Robert M.W. Kempner called upon his experience at the Nuremberg trials to say in a letter to the editor after Commentary published an excerpt from Guenter Lewy in 1964, “Every propaganda move of the Catholic Church against Hitler’s Reich would have been not only ‘provoking suicide,’…but would have hastened the execution of still more Jews and priests.”

This is hardly a speculative concern. A Dutch bishops’ pastoral letter condemning “the unmerciful and unjust treatment meted out to Jews” was read in Holland’s Catholic churches in July 1942. The well-intentioned letter — which declared that it was inspired by Pius XII — backfired. As Pinchas Lapide notes: “The saddest and most thought-provoking conclusion is that whilst the Catholic clergy in Holland protested more loudly, expressly, and frequently against Jewish persecutions than the religious hierarchy of any other Nazi-occupied country, more Jews — some 110,000 or 79 percent of the total — were deported from Holland to death camps.”

Bishop Jean Bernard of Luxembourg, an inmate of Dachau from 1941 to 1942, notified the Vatican that “whenever protests were made, treatment of prisoners worsened immediately.” Late in 1942, Archbishop Sapieha of Cracow and two other Polish bishops, having experienced the Nazis’ savage reprisals, begged Pius not to publish his letters about conditions in Poland. Even Susan Zuccotti admits that in the case of the Roman Jews, the Pope “might well have been influenced by a concern for Jews in hiding and for their Catholic protectors.”

One might ask, of course, what could have been worse than the mass murder of six million Jews? The answer is the slaughter of hundreds of thousands more. And it was toward saving those it could that the Vatican worked. The fate of Italian Jews has become a major topic of Pius’s critics, the failure of Catholicism at its home supposedly demonstrating the hypocrisy of any modern papal claim to moral authority. Notice, for example, Zuccotti’s title: Under His Very Windows. But the fact remains that while approximately 80 percent of European Jews perished during World War II, 80 percent of Italian Jews were saved.

In the months Rome was under German occupation, Pius XII instructed Italy’s clergy to save lives by all means. A neglected source for Pius’s actions during this time is the 1965 memoir But for the Grace of God, by Monsignor J. Patrick Carroll-Abbing, who worked under Pius as a rescuer. Beginning in October 1943, Pius asked churches and convents throughout Italy to shelter Jews. As a result — and despite the fact that Mussolini and the Fascists yielded to Hitler’s demand for deportations — many Italian Catholics defied the German orders.

In Rome, 155 convents and monasteries sheltered some five thousand Jews. At least three thousand found refuge at the Pope’s summer residence at Castel Gandolfo. Sixty Jews lived for nine months at the Gregorian University, and many were sheltered in the cellar of the Pontifical Biblical Institute. Hundreds found sanctuary within the Vatican itself. Following Pius’s instructions, individual Italian priests, monks, nuns, cardinals, and bishops were instrumental in preserving thousands of Jewish lives. Cardinal Boetto of Genoa saved at least eight hundred. The bishop of Assisi hid three hundred Jews for over two years. The bishop of Campagna and two of his relatives saved 961 more in Fiume.

Cardinal Pietro Palazzini, then assistant vice rector of the Seminario Romano, hid Michael Tagliacozzo and other Italian Jews at the seminary (which was Vatican property) for several months in 1943 and 1944. In 1985, Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust Memorial, honored the cardinal as a righteous gentile — and, in accepting the honor, Palazzini stressed that “the merit is entirely Pius XII’s, who ordered us to do whatever we could to save the Jews from persecution.” Some of the laity helped as well, and, in their testimony afterwards, consistently attributed their inspiration to the Pope.

Again, the most eloquent testimony is the Nazis’ own. Fascist documents published in 1998 (and summarized in Marchione’s Pope Pius XII) speak of a German plan, dubbed “Rabat-Fohn,” to be executed in January 1944. The plan called for the 8th Division of the SS Cavalry, disguised as Italians, to seize St. Peter’s and “massacre Pius XII with the entire Vatican” — and specifically names “the papal protest in favor of the Jews” as the cause.

A similar story can be traced across Europe. There is room to argue that more ought to have been attempted by the Catholic Church — for the unanswerable facts remain that Hitler did come to power, World War II did occur, and six million Jews did die. But the place to begin that argument is with the truth that people of the time, Nazis and Jews alike, understood the Pope to be the world’s most prominent opponent of the Nazi ideology.

As early as December 1940, in an article in Time Magazine, Albert Einstein paid tribute to Pius: “Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised, I now praise unreservedly.”

In 1943, Chaim Weizmann, who would become Israel’s first president, wrote that “the Holy See is lending its powerful help wherever it can to mitigate the fate of my persecuted co-religionists.”

Moshe Sharett, Israel’s second prime minister, met with Pius in the closing days of the war. Sharett wrote, “I told him that my first duty was to thank him, and through him the Catholic Church, on behalf of the Jewish public for all they had done in the various countries to rescue Jews.”

Rabbi Isaac Herzog, chief rabbi of Israel, sent a message in February 1944 declaring, “The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion, which form the very foundation of true civilization, are doing for our unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of Divine Providence in this world.”

In September 1945, Leon Kubowitzky, secretary general of the World Jewish Congress, personally thanked the Pope for his interventions, and the World Jewish Congress donated $20,000 to Vatican charities in recognition of the work of the Holy See in rescuing Jews from Fascist and Nazi persecutions.

In 1955, when Italy celebrated the tenth anniversary of its liberation, the Union of Italian Jewish Communities proclaimed April 17 a “Day of Gratitude” for the Pope’s wartime assistance.

On May 26, 1955, the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra flew to Rome to give in the Vatican a special performance of Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony — an expression of the State of Israel’s enduring gratitude to the Pope for help given the Jewish people during the Holocaust.

This last example is particularly significant. As a matter of state policy, the Israeli Philharmonic has never played the music of Richard Wagner because of his well-known reputation as “Hitler’s composer,” the cultural patron saint of the Third Reich. During the 1950’s especially, the Israeli public, hundreds of thousands of whom were Holocaust survivors, still viewed Wagner as a symbol of the Nazi regime.

It is inconceivable that the Israeli government would have paid for the entire orchestra to travel to Rome to pay tribute to “Hitler’s Pope.” On the contrary, the Israeli Philharmonic’s unprecedented concert in the Vatican was a unique communal gesture of collective recognition for a great friend of the Jewish people.

Hundreds of other memorials could be cited. In her conclusion to Under His Very Windows, Susan Zuccotti dismisses as wrong-headed, ill-informed, or even devious the praise Pius XII received from Jewish leaders and scholars, as well as expressions of gratitude from the Jewish chaplains and Holocaust survivors who bore personal witness to the assistance of the pope.

That she does so is disturbing. To deny the legitimacy of their gratitude to Pius XII is tantamount to denying the credibility of their personal testimony and judgment about the Holocaust itself. “More than all others,” recalled Elio Toaff, an Italian Jew who lived through the Holocaust and later became Chief Rabbi of Rome, “We had the opportunity of experiencing the great compassionate goodness and magnanimity of the Pope during the unhappy years of the persecution and terror, when it seemed that for us there was no longer an escape.”

But Zuccotti is not alone. There is a disturbing element in nearly all the current work on Pius. Except for Rychlak’s Hitler, the War and the Pope, none of the recent books — from Cornwell’s vicious attack in Hitler’s Pope to McInerny’s uncritical defense in The Defamation of Pius XII — is finally about the Holocaust. All are about using the sufferings of Jews fifty years ago to force changes upon the Catholic Church today.

It is this abuse of the Holocaust that must be rejected. A true account of Pius XII would arrive at exactly the opposite to Cornwell’s conclusion: Pius XII was not Hitler’s Pope but instead was the closest Jews had come to having a papal supporter and at the moment when it mattered most.

Writing in Yad Vashem Studies in 1983, John S. Conway, the leading authority on the Vatican’s eleven-volume Acts and Documents of the Holy See During the Second World War, concluded, “A close study of the many thousands of documents published in these volumes lends little support to the thesis that ecclesiastical self-preservation was the main motive behind the attitudes of the Vatican diplomats. Rather, the picture that emerges is one of a group of intelligent and conscientious men seeking to pursue the paths of peace and justice at a time when these ideals were ruthlessly being rendered irrelevant in a world of ‘total war.’”

These neglected volumes which the English reader can find summarized in Pierre Blet’s Pius XII and the Second World War “will reveal ever more clearly and convincingly” as John Paul told a group of Jewish leaders in Miami in 1987 “how deeply Pius XII felt the tragedy of the Jewish people and how hard and effectively he worked to assist them.”

The Talmud teaches that “whosoever preserves one life, it is accounted to him by Scripture as if he had preserved a whole world.” More than any other twentieth-century leader, Pius fulfilled this Talmudic dictum when the fate of European Jewry was at stake. No other Pope had been so widely praised by Jews, and they were not mistaken. Their gratitude, as well as that of the entire generation of Holocaust survivors, testifies that Pius XII was, genuinely and profoundly, a righteous gentile.


Filed under Anti-Semitism, Catholicism, Christian, Christianity, Europe, European, Fascism, France, Germany, History, Israel, Italy, Jews, Journalism, Left, Marxism, Middle East, National Socialism, Nazism, Netherlands, Poland, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, War, World War 2

India as an Imperialist, Expansionist Settler-Colonial State

Eurasia E Zine writes:

Its not well known that British India comprised only about half of the sub continent at the time of Independence. During partition of India, a murderous civil war was unleashed between the Hindus and Muslims when the British agreed to the creation of the Islamic state of Pakistan and what is now Bangladesh. After Independence from Britain (mostly the former Mughal states) the Indian Union spearheaded a war of territorial expansion during which it forced, coerced or invaded the more than 550 independent Princely states including Kashmir and Hyderabad, as well as Goa and Pondicherry.

The Nizam of Hyderabad, the largest state in the subcontinent, appealed to Britain to become an independent nation within the Commonwealth but his request was refused by the Viceroy Lord Mountbatten whose wife Edwina was reputedly having an affair with Jawaharlal Nehru. The invasion of Hyderabad state by Operation Polo was on par with Hitler’s invasion of Poland and Czechoslovakia. India is a mosaic of culture and language that has been homogenized by Hindutva or Hindu fundamentalism.

Even now, Indian troops are occupying Kashmir against the will of the people. Indian nationalists were pro German and supported the Axis powers during WW2 and Hindutva and RSS brown shirts are ideologically fascists whose agenda is modeled on that of the Italian fascist Mazzini.For this reason, India should not be allowed to buy uranium or develop nuclear weapons.

So India is a settler-colonial state, an expansionist and imperialist state that likes to wages wars of aggression and expansion to conquer other states, steal their land, annex them to itself, and then settle them with Indians. Wars of expansion are now called Nazi-type wars. They were frequent in the old days, but since WW2, they have been banned. You are no longer allowed to seize territory in any war, even if the other side started it. Wars of territorial expansion no matter who started are banned by the UN Charter and international law.

The resemblance with Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy and Tojo’s Japan are instructive. All of these were fascist and militarist states that sought to have empires or expand their national territory in one way or another by conquering other lands. These lands and peoples were to be exploited for their resources and labor an settled with settler-colonists. But the main principal is “Lebensraum” – living room – the desire for more territory, for territorial expansion. Although it is dubious whether India is a fascist country and I doubt if it is a racist fascist (National Socialist or Nazi) country, the similarities with other ultranationalist states that waged wars of aggression and expansion is most disturbing.

The fact that the vast majority of Indians apparently see nothing wrong with being an expansionist imperialist country that wages wars of aggression, territorial acquisition and expansion is possibly even more disturbing.

What the heck is wrong with these people?


Filed under Asia, Asian, Britain, Colonialism, Europe, European, Fascism, Germany, History, Imperialism, India, Italy, Japan, Kashmir, Law, National Socialism, Nationalism, Nazism, NE Asia, Political Science, Regional, Settler-Colonialism, South Asia, Ultranationalism, War, World War 2

It Was 70 Years Ago, But It Could Have Been Yesterday

Painting from World War 2 Liberation of Debaltsevo.

Painting from World War 2 Liberation of Debaltsevo.

70 years ago, the great Red Army antifas liberated the city of Debaltsevo from the Nazi beasts who had invaded Holy Rus from the west. The painting above commemorates that event.

History will soon repeat itself, as the Novorussian antifa forces are liberating Debaltsevo once again from Nazi barbarians who invaded Holy Rus from the West, the way they always do.

Leave a comment

Filed under Art, Eurasia, Europe, European, History, Russia, Ukraine, USSR, War, World War 2

Why the “Stalin Killed 20-40 Million People” Line Is Not True

Sam writes:

The Macon Telegraph says,”…It is estimated that between 20 to 40 million people, mostly Russians, were killed by Stalin during his dictatorship (1924-1953)…”

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin
By Timothy Snyder

“…unlike the Germans, the Soviets killed a greater number of civilians during peacetime than during war…”

Museum of Communism FAQ

“…So many millions perished within the Gulag Archipelago for so many reasons, or for no reason. With a minimum of 5,000,000 slave laborers from 1931 to 1950, and a minimum death toll of 10% per year – both improbably low figures – one can conclude that Stalin’s camps claimed a minimum of 10,000,000 victims, and easily two or three times as many….”

“…grain in 1932 in the Ukraine was for the first time taken from the peasants and stored in urban granaries: officials realized that once starvation set in the peasants would try to eat the seed grain. The Ukrainian-Russian border was carefully guarded to keep Russian grain out of the famine-stricken Ukraine and starving Ukrainians out of Russia. Government grain stockpiles were available, but unused.

This mixture of ruthless methods resulted in the starvation deaths of about 7 million people: 5 million in the Ukraine, 1 million in the North Caucasus region, and 1 million elsewhere. On top of this, a similar collectivization campaign carried out against the nomads of Kazakhstan led to 1 million further deaths…”

So 17 million not counting executions.

Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Primary Megadeaths of the Twentieth Century

Estimates high and low. Scholars beginning to rest on 20 million at lowest.

Everything written above about the Holodomor is not true. Anyway the death toll was just as high in the staunchly pro-Soviet Rostov and Lower Don District. Did the USSR deliberately starve its own staunchest supporters. 1 million died in Siberia. Did the USSR deliberately starve 1 million people in Siberia. Many died in Soviet cities, including Moscow. Did the USSR starve its own urban citizens? What for?

Less grain actually taken in 1932 than in the previous year! So much for stealing all the grain. More grain was actually requisitioned back in 1932 than in the previous year! So much for the “they would not give them any food” argument. All over the USSR, people were moving around here and there, trying to escape famine conditions and get to a place where the food was more plentiful. They tried to stop all of this internal migration by putting checks at the borders, but it didn’t work very well. They especially wanted to stop people from migrating out of Ukraine, as then they would have no rural population in their grain belt to grow grain.

The next year, 1933, was a bumper harvest. If they were trying to starve people, why have a famine one year and a bumper harvest the next? Makes no sense. In the previous five years, the kulaks had killed half the livestock in the USSR. This was a big reason for the famine right there. And in Ukraine, people were setting their mature grain fields on fire. They would harvest all of their grain and pile it in a big pile in a field until it got rained on, and then it would mold.

The Ukrainians had an insurgency where they were attacking collective farms, killing the workers, raping the women, killing all the livestock and setting the crops on fire. In early 1932, there were 20-30 armed attacks occurring every day in the Ukraine. So as you can see, this was all happening in the background of a civil war.

Bloodlands is a terrible book, and Mr. Snyder is a hardline anti-Communist. His statement that Stalin killed more in peacetime than he did in wartime while Hitler killed more in wartime than he did in peacetime is irrelevant. Hitler didn’t kill many people before he went to war. So what? Is there something special about peacetime killings versus wartime killings? What’s  the difference. Stalin killed more in peacetime than Hitler, so he’s worse? That’s an argument?

The Macon Telegraph is wrong. There were no 20-40 million killed. Megadeaths is wrong. There were no 20 million minimum killed. Caplan the libertarian is wrong. There were no 17 million+ deaths.

Here are the figures for peacetime deaths from 1926-1953:

Executions:          900,000
Deaths in the gulag: 1.2 million
Anti-kulak campaign: 390,000

How do we know those figures are correct? Because they are from the Soviet Archives, that’s why. With the fall of the USSR in 1991, the Soviet Archives were opened for the first time and available to historians. For the next decade, historians argued about the figures in the archives, which are listed above. Yes, the Soviets kept track of every execution and every death in gulags. Or at least deaths per month or deaths per year. Like the Germans, they wrote it all down.

There have been many arguments against the figures above. Most of them boil down to, “Commies lie. The Soviets were Commies, so they lied. Therefore the figures are no good.”

There are some better arguments that the figures do not include the population transfers during World War 2. Another interesting argument is that the gulag figures are not good because the gulags tended to release people, if at all, when they were in very bad shape, and they often died soon after and were not counted.

I have not kept up on the debate.

The people throwing around the figures of 17+, 20+, and 20-40 million do not know what they are talking about. All of those figures were calculated by the West before we had access to the Soviet Archives. It turns out that the earlier Western figures were wild exaggerations, basically untruths, which were written up and used by the West as Cold War propaganda. The West had no idea how many people were killed by Stalin or the USSR, so they just came up with one wildassed guess after another. All of the figures above are discredited because those people are not the experts who are studying the matter.

The only place where rational people are discussing how many died during the USSR is among Sovietologists in the history journals. The debate began in the early 1990’s and may be ongoing for all I know, but I do not think the Archives figures have been successfully challenged yet.


Filed under Agricutlure, Asia, Caucasus, Cold War, Death, Eurasia, Europe, European, History, Modern, NE Asia, Near East, Regional, Russia, Siberia, Ukraine, USSR, War, World War 2

Who Was a Bigger Killer – Stalin or Hitler?

Shawnomatic writes:

Serious question: Stalin killed more people & was more evil than Hitler, so why is having a “Stalin” mustache okay but a “Hitler” one is bad?

Stalin didn’t kill more people than Hitler.

For the Stalin years, the following figures are recorded for peacetime deaths:

Executions:          900,000
Deaths in the gulag: 1.2 million
Anti-kulak campaign: 390,000

Total:               2.49 million

Half of the gulag deaths occurred during World War 2 when there was also a high death rate in the general population due to food and medicine shortages.

Now those figures do not count the figures for those killed during World War 2, some of whom were civilians. They also do not include the deaths during the population transfers of entire nationalities during World War 2. But those numbers cannot possibly be very large.

Stalin killed those people over a period of 28 years, so that is 2.3 million over 28 years, or ~88,4561/year.

Hitler killed many more than that.

Hitler directly killed 15 million people during his death camp and other extermination policies. Only 6 million of those were Jews. Others were other nationalities. 3 million people, or 10% of the population of Poland, were killed. 1/3 of the population of Belarus was killed. 1/4 of the population of Ukraine was killed. 10% of the German population itself was killed due to the wars he started. 27 million Soviets were killed. Among young Soviet man aged 18-24, 95% of them were killed. Furthermore, Hitler did this in a brief period of time – 1940-1945 – 5 years. Hitler killed at least 15 million over a 5 year period, for a figure of 3 million/year.

So it is 3 million/year versus 80,000/year, so Hitler killed 37X more people per year than Stalin did. Even using conservative estimates, Hitler killed 6.52X more people than Stalin and he did it over a much shorter period, in only 20% of the time Stalin took.


Filed under Belarus, Death, Europe, European, Germany, History, Modern, Poland, Regional, Ukraine, USSR, War, World War 2

Another View of Putin

Here is another view of Putin coming from those who oppose him. I will say that most of what is written here is simply true. The part that I disagree with is that of the 27 million Russian casualties in WW2, 19 million of them were Soviet citizens murdered by Stalin. That cannot possibly correct. As I said earlier, in geopolitics there are no good guys. There are bad guys and worse guys and that’s it. You pick your poison. Original here.

Is Vladimir Putin, the undisputed ruler of the Russian Federation for the past 15 years, the antidote to the lethal US-Israeli imperium? Will Putin rescue the Middle East from ever-more brash Israeli and American imperialists bent on the subjugation of the Muslim world?

Many people seem to think so, and they zealously advance skewed and myopic “analysis” to suit the ludicrous image of Putin as the second coming of Christ. “Putin can do no wrong,” these fantasists say with stubborn vigor, insisting that the former KGB chief is playing a master-class “chess match” on the global stage, setting up his adversaries for a big fall.

All of Putin’s outwardly gestures of complicity with Israel and Zionists, for instance, are casually brushed off as a carefully calculated ruse designed to deceive his enemies. Apparently, these lowbrow analysts can read Putin’s mind, assuring us that the Russian strong-man has good intentions for the Arab/Muslim peoples of the Middle East despite his genuflecting at the Wailing Wall, luncheons with Netanyahu and security agreements with the regime in Tel Aviv.

Recently, Putin has made several other displays of solidarity with the Zionists. In May of 2014, Putin passed legislation that outlaws any revision of World War II historiography vis-à-vis ‘the holocaust’ and even makes it illegal to bring attention to the savage misconduct of Stalin’s ‘glorious’ Red Army, which terrorized and brutalized whole nations. “The law signed Monday makes denial of Nazi crimes or misrepresentation of the Soviet Union’s role in World War II punishable by up to five years in jail or a $14,000 fine,” reported the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

At the close of WWII, marauding Soviet troops conducted the largest campaign of mass-rape in human history, sexually abusing two million German and Eastern European women in a wild carnal frenzy. These unspeakable atrocities against women were fully sanctioned by the Soviet Union’s war propagandists, principally Ilya Ehrenburg whose genocidal hatred of Germans was legend. Ehrenburg routinely exhorted Soviet troops to “kill the German!” in propaganda leaflets.

Thanks to Putin’s new freedom-busting law, these things cannot be openly discussed, much to the liking of Global Zionism whose casus belli for Israel’s existence rests upon the ‘holocaust’ mythos.

In a similar vein, Russian officials advanced a UN resolution in late November 2014 condemning the “glorification of Nazism” and “denial of German Nazi war crimes.” Considering Russia’s Communist past, the conspicuous resolution is an exercise in unreserved hypocrisy. Russian historian Nikolai Tolstoy places much of the blame for the 25-30 million Russian casualties during WWII on Stalin and the Soviet regime itself.

He argues that Stalin, taking advantage of the ‘fog of war,’ executed a brutal campaign of repression against his own citizenry to bolster the position of his regime. Eliminating homegrown opposition to Stalinism was his primary concern, not the advancing German army, Tolstoy explains in great detail in his 1981 book Stalin’s Secret War. According to Tolstoy’s research, Stalin liquidated 18-20 million Soviet citizens during WWII in a “secret war against his own subjects.”

Despite Moscow’s fairy tales, Soviet Bolshevism took the lives of far more people than Hitler and National Socialism. So where is Russia’s resolution condemning the glorification of Communism and Stalinism? Not only is Putin’s Russia not concerned with attempts to glorify Communism, it is now illegal in that country to criticize Sovietism and its barbarous legacy.

Unbeknownst to his slavish groupies in the West, Putin solidified his power base in Russia by way of a false-flag terrorist attack on his own people.

“In 1999,” writes Canadian journalist Eric Margolis, “Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer and point man for Russia’s military industrial complex, emerged from the shadows to become prime minister under ailing President Boris Yeltsin. Putin claimed the [1999 Russian apartment] bombings were the work of Chechen ‘Islamic terrorists financed by Osama bin Laden,’ though he offered no proof.”

No Chechens were ever detected in connection to the wave of terror, which leveled multiple apartments in Moscow and other Russian cities, killing hundreds and wounding thousands. On the other hand, three Russian FSB agents were caught red-handed planting a large bomb in the basement of an apartment building in Ryazan, unveiling the Kremlin’s hand behind the previous explosions elsewhere in Russia. The whole sordid affair is detailed lucidly in the documentary entitled “Assassination of Russia,” based on the extensive research of historian Yuri Felshtinsky and former FSB insider Alexander Litvinenko.

As hundreds of Russians were blown to bits as they slept in their beds, Putin took the opportunity to seize dictatorial control of the largest country on earth. “The public is reacting correctly to the events taking place in our country today,” Putin declared in reference to the apartment blasts, adding that the attacks induced the “correct response” from the public. Putin further pontificated: “No panic, no sympathy for the bandits. This is the mood for fighting them to the very end. Until we win, and we shall win.” (Yuri Felshtinsky and Alexander Litvinenko, Blowing Up Russia, p. 51)

Using the attacks as a pretext, Putin launched a mini “war on terror” in Chechnya. He quickly turned Chechnya’s capital Grozny into a massive burial ground. To justify his murderous campaign against the downtrodden Chechens, Putin employed all of the phraseology of the US-Israeli imperium’s post-9/11 “Global War on Terror,” announcing that Russia was being assailed by an “international Islamic conspiracy” and that unrelenting force was the only cure for nihilistic terrorists.

Eric Margolis, in his 2002 article titled The Apartment Bombing Mystery, explained:

Putin promised to ‘liquidate all terrorists.’ He proclaimed Russia was facing a war between ‘good’ and ‘evil.’ ‘It’s our boys,’ said Putin, fanning war fever and hysteria, ‘against terrorists’ belonging to an ‘international Islamic conspiracy.’ Putin’s alleged evidence of Chechen guilt was never forthcoming. Chechen leaders denied any responsibility for the bombings.

Why they would seek war with Russia after gaining independence was never explained. Thousands of ‘swarthy-looking’ (meaning Muslim) men from the Caucasus and Central Asia were arrested, brutally interrogated, and held without charges. …

The Kremlin kept insisting ‘Islamic terrorists’ did the bombings. A few months later, a wildly popular Putin, whose approval ratings hit 80%, was swept into the presidency of Russia on a wave of patriotic fervor, jingoism, xenophobia, and anti-Muslim hysteria.

Perhaps President George W. Bush’s “they hate us for our freedoms” lunacy after 9/11 was a throwback to Putin’s “evil Muslim terrorists vs. civilized Russians” spiel in 1999. No wonder Putin was the first person to call Bush on 9/11, pledging Russian support for the US war in Afghanistan. Is it also any wonder that Putin publicly decries “9/11 conspiracy theories” considering his own use of the Machiavellian false-flag tactic to achieve his political ends?

Putin’s bloody onslaught against Chechnya cost 57,000 Chechens their lives and made 200,000 more into refugees, reported Margolis in the same article. He continued: “Human rights organizations accuse Russian forces in Chechnya of ubiquitous brutality: mass murders and reprisals, arson, looting, torture, running concentration camps. Moscow rejects all such criticism, saying that rough methods are justified against ‘terrorists.’”

When armed Chechen fighters took hostages in a Moscow theatre in 2002, demanding Russian forces unilaterally withdraw from Chechen soil, the belligerent Putin reacted by ordering Russian Special Forces to pipe a toxic gas into the theatre which killed all 40 Chechen militants and also claimed the lives of 130 Russian civilian hostages.

When, in 2004, Chechen rebels seized thousands of hostages in a school in Beslan, South Russia, Putin once again refused to negotiate, ordering Russian special services to raid the facility and “shoot to kill,” causing hundreds of deaths that could have otherwise been averted through mediation. Many people, including the advocacy group “Mothers of Beslan” which is comprised of mothers whose children perished in the tragedy, contend the Beslan incident was an inside job and that Russian security forces instigated the bloodbath by firing rocket-propelled grenades into the school before the militants initiated any force.

All of this dirty business is not enough to cause any dissent within the ranks of Putin loyalists. Whitewashing Putin’s dirty laundry is paramount for these ideological zealots posing as “analysts.”

However, many astute people not tied down by fan-boy cultism see Putin for what he is: a corrupt, power-hungry and self-interested politician, no different than the West’s beguiling leadership who are likewise steeped in political evil.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.


Filed under Caucasus, Chechnya, Eurasia, Europe, Fascism, Germany, Islam, Israel, Left, Marxism, Middle East, National Socialism, Nazism, Near East, Political Science, Regional, Religion, Russia, Terrorism, US War in Afghanistan, USA, USSR, War, World War 2, Zionism

Traitors, Race, National and Otherwise

Jason writes:

That article of yours seems to imply betraying White people is the way to go (as most Whites are supporting reactionary politics). I don’t understand. No offense to Robert, but needing clarification.

Voting progressive is not betraying the Whites because Whites are not a persecuted class in the US, so it is not possible to betray them. I do not think voting for either party, Democrats or Republicans, is supporting or opposing the Whites because neither party is attacking White people. There is no need to support the Whites in the US as no one is oppressing, harming or discriminating against us unjustly.

  1. What I mean about supporting your people is:
  2. Oppose those who try to harm your people.
  3. Oppose those who discriminate against and persecute your people unjustly
  4. Defend the homeland against the foreign enemy invaders.

However, if one’s people or nation is objectively wrong or behaving unjustly, it is right and proper to betray your own land and people.

One should always oppose persecutions on your people. Those Blacks who support Jim Crow restrictions at the voting booth to the keep the niggers from voting are simply race traitors. By being Republicans, they are race traitors because they support a party that disenfranchises their people.

In the Indian Wars, the Indians were being persecuted by the White imperialist invaders. The  invaders had many Indian scouts who were fighting with enemy against the Indian people. That was some very serious treason.

In WW2 in the Ukraine, there were two types of Jews. One type was called Karaim and the other were called Krymchak. The Nazis came in and with their Ukrainian pals killed some Jews. Then they figured out that there were two types of Jews here, and the Karaim were saying that they were not really Jewish. So the Nazis called in some actual university anthropologists to determine who was Jewish and who was not. They studied the issue for a bit and then decided that the Karaim were not truly Jewish because they practice a different form of Judaism but the Krymchak were.

Some of the Karaim actually helped the Nazis round up Krymchaks for the slaughter. That is the utmost in treason.

The Palestinians are being badly persecuted. For various reasons, some Palestinians are spies and informers for Israel, even during wartime. Those are pretty bad traitors.

When your country is wrong or your people are wrong, you need to go against them. In fact, in these cases, it is noble to be a turncoat and fight for the enemy. I do not think it would be treason for a German or a Jap to support the Allies during WW2. The Germans and Japs were not being persecuted. They were persecuting others.

However, I will respect any man who fights to defend his homeland and his people from the foreign invaders. So I had a lot of sympathy for those Iraqis that fought us in the early days of the last Gulf War. Even the initial resistance was probably right and proper for a number of years as it was trying to drive the American foreign enemy invaders out of their homeland. I would even respect a Nazi who fought on German soil to defend the Homeland against the Allies or the Soviets. Really it is never really wrong to defend your homeland against the enemy invaders. I would not mind the ones who surrendered either. I think both options were noble.

There really is no way to be a White race traitor in the US, despite the blatherings of White nationalist idiots. The only way to be a White race traitor today is to go to South Africa and cheer on or assist the oppression of Whites there. White are simply not a persecuted race in the US.

But sometimes I think that these Whites ally with non-Whites and go on and on about how Whites are the worst race on Earth are pretty near race traitors. There are some Whites like that. We have had them on the blog here. Whites are not the worst race on Earth and to say we are is to state a vicious lie. It is pretty much treason against your people.


Filed under Arabs, Blacks, Democrats, European, History, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Jews, Palestinians, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Republicans, Traitors, Ukraine, US Politics, USA, War, Whites, World War 2

It Is Up to Russia to Save the World from Nazism Again

GGGGG writes:

Love the Fuhrer with all your heart and soul, and love other Aryans as yourself.

All Xtian countries are fascist countries, when the money runs out. You never read Lenin?

It sounds like a crazy thing to say, but the West is so extreme in its support of fascism in all of its forms since World War 2, and honestly we strongly supported fascism even before WW2. Scarcely was the ink dry on the VE-Day documents and the US was recruiting Nazis left and right to form armies to fight the USSR. US support for anti-Soviet and anti-Russian Nazism started on that day in 1945 and honestly has never stopped. What do you think the NATO stay-behind Gladio Network was/is? It was a grouping of armed fascists and Nazis run by NATO itself.

Hmmm well almost all of the Christian West is now supporting the Ukrainian Nazis at an extreme level to where they are nearly threatening to go to war for their Nazi buddies. Only Russia stands in the way of the Nazi Horde. World War 2 all over again. This time it is so much worse though. Last time around we could count on much of the West joining Russia to fight the Nazi Beast. Now almost the entire Left has lined up alongside the Nazis!

I think I am going to start calling the West the Nazi West. It is not that we are Nazis ourselves but that we are arming, funding and going to extreme levels to support Nazism in the Ukraine. We are threatening war against the only nation on Earth that has stood up and said no to Nazism.

Maybe this will be like WW2 all over again when it was up to Russia to save the world from Nazism.


Filed under Eurasia, Europe, European, Fascism, History, National Socialism, Nazism, Political Science, Regional, Russia, Ukraine, USSR, War, World War 2

National Socialism in the Ukraine

Every single thing that this brilliant author says in this video is 100% true. Ukraine is a fascist country, and it has been one ever since it was independent in 1991, although most of the fascism was covered up and underground as opposed to being explicit.

One can argue that there are two fascisms. There is nonracist fascism and racist fascism. A good argument can be made that not all fascism is explicitly or overtly racist. For instance, Mussolini’s regime in Italy was not explicitly racist, although it was very much fascist. You might possibly be able to say the same thing about Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal.

On the other hand, there is another fascism that is explicitly racist in character and that is fascism that is similar to the Nazi type that prevailed in Germany under the National Socialist regime. Just for the sake of shorthand, let us call this National Socialism since that is what the Nazis called themselves.

There were similar National Socialist type regimes during WW2 in Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, Poland, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania and notably in Croatia, Ukraine, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

The Nazism was particularly acute in Hungary, Romania, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland and Croatia, where National Socialism was quite popular among the masses. We could call this Popular Nazism or Nazi Populism.

In other countries such as France, Italy, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Czechoslovakia and Poland, there were simply Nazi occupation regimes in place, possibly with local collaborationist administrations, however these occupation-collaborationist regimes were not very popular among the people and resistance was significant at the base or ground level.

Based on the definitions elaborated above, the present Ukraine government is racist-fascist or a Nazi/National Socialist regime. It would also be classed as Popular Nazism or Nazi Populism since this Nazi government is very popular with the masses.

It also appears based on figures cited in the video that 80% of Ukrainian nationalists are Nazis. We base this on a survey that found that 80% of Maidan activists regarded Bandera as a hero. So those Maidan demonstrators that all of you Westerners were cheering for were nothing but a bunch of Nazis. You guys feel good about yourselves now?

Maidan protestors were simply typical Ukrainian nationalists. Notice I said Ukrainian nationalists and not Ukrainians. It is not known how many Ukrainians could also be called Ukrainian nationalists, but the figure it doubtless quite high as Ukrainian nationalism is popular in Ukraine.

And with that background, we leave you with the video. You can see why the Russians in the east voted to split away and then took up arms to liberate themselves from the Nazi regime. How can you blame them?


Filed under Ethnic Nationalism, Eurasia, Europe, European, Fascism, Government, History, National Socialism, Nationalism, Nazism, Political Science, Racism, Regional, Russia, Ukraine, War, World War 2