The Story Of The Great Axis Rebellion

We will fight them on the beaches…” British Prime Minister Winston Churchill so dramatically declared on the 4th of June 1940, shortly after the Dunkirk Evacuation and days before the fall of France. It was, it seemed, a time of great peril, when Britain stood alone against the monstrous tyranny of Nazi Germany.

Few myths are more enduring than those forged in conflict. Stories of the Trojan War, of the three hundred Spartans, of Genghis Khan and Waterloo and Trafalgar—these are some of the most enduring tales in our culture. Looking at them with a closer eye however, the reputation of these events tends to far exceed the reality.

There were, for instance, not just three hundred Spartans guarding the pass at Thermopylae. Initially there were some 20,000 Greek warriors. After being outflanked by the Persians the “three hundred” were among those who remained as a rearguard—though even they were accompanied by some seven hundred Thespians and four hundred Thebans. Modern estimates put the strength of the Persian army at between 70,000 and 300,000 men, rather than a million.

World War Two has long been depicted with a similar narrative—as a desperate, noble struggle waged against seemingly hopeless odds, fighting a tyranny the likes of which the world had never seen.

It seems it is time however, with the Greatest Generation all but gone, to start setting the record straight.

The Myth of Axis Supremacy

At its heart, the Second World War was a rebellion by the world’s second generation industrial powers—primarily Germany, Italy and Japan, against its already established ones—among them Britain, France, the United States and (with a few caveats) Russia.

Ever since Columbus sailed to the Americas the Great Powers of Europe had been busily sending off expeditions to explore, conquer, pillage and rule every inch of the world they could reach. Over a four hundred year period from 1492 to 1914 some three-quarters of humanity either bowed down before the Europeans, or were annihilated for their refusal.

The native peoples of the Americas and Australia were largely wiped out in the process of their lands being colonized while countless ancient states across Africa, the Middle East, and Asia were gradually brought under heel. Sixty million people died of famines during British rule in India. Millions of Congolese died or had their limbs chopped off working on Belgian rubber plantations. Tens of thousands died digging canals through Panama and the Suez.

By the late 19th century nationalism was a growing movement. In a relatively short period many smaller states unified into a few larger ones. It is no coincidence that Germany, Italy, and Japan were among the most prominent examples.

The First World War is an important chapter here. One may label it an abortive attempt to throw off the stranglehold of the Allied powers. Stalemated on land and blockaded by sea however, Germany eventually lost the war. The few colonies it had gained overseas in the last half century were confiscated by the victors. Its borders were considerably reduced, its national pride forsaken and its economy artificially crippled.

World War Two was a second attempt, though this time formed of a broader coalition including Italy (having gained little in the Versailles Treaty) and Japan (which sought to carve out its own empire in the far east).

While the Axis was able to win a string of stunning victories from 1939-42, this was more due to Allied incompetence and complacency than anything else. Even the casual student of history may wonder at how brief the Second World War was. A conflict that killed some 70-80 million people was over in just eight years (dating it from the Japanese invasion of China in 1937 – as one should).

Most empires take centuries to rise and fall. Once the Allies began truly mobilizing for war however, the tide quickly turned. Despite their tenacity the Axis powers only managed to survive a few short years before succumbing to the overwhelming might of the Allies.

The numbers really speak for themselves. Germany, Italy and Japan, plus their allies, had a population in 1940 of around 250 million. Over the course of the war they were able to call up some thirty million personnel to fight.

The Allies meanwhile, were able to call upon some eighty million soldiers in total. The lion’s share of this came from the Soviet Union, the United States, China and the British Empire.

Allies Axis GDP

Looking at the military production figures, one begins to appreciate the sheer scale of World War Two. In total the Allies produced over 600,000 aircraft, 250,000 tanks, 50,000 ships and a million artillery guns, vastly higher than all comparable Axis figures. They produced twice as much coal and iron ore and over fifteen times as much oil.

This disparity is no accident – the fact that the Allies already possessed these resources is the main reason the war was fought in the first place.

Perhaps the most telling imbalance of all was in sea power. The Allied navies—long their method of controlling the world’s sea lanes—consisted of over 800 major vessels on the outbreak of war. Between them the British, American and French possessed 37 battleships, 12 carriers, 122 cruisers, 433 destroyers and 255 submarines—hardly the armada of a peace-loving coalition. Axis naval strength was only ever a fraction as great, and steadily eroded as the war went on.

When war broke out, Britain began marshaling the full resources of its empire to crush the Axis rebellion. India alone supplied some two and a half million troops, its African colonies over a million and Canada, Australia, and New Zealand some two million more. This is in addition to the nearly seven million men Britain itself supplied, among others.

Oh poor, besieged Britain—able to marshal only fourteen million men to oppose Nazi tyranny!

British Empire

Pictured: Britain stands “alone”

Allied Dissent Ignored by History

This mobilization did not occur without resistance across the empire, particularly in India. Tens of thousands of Indian leaders (Mohandas Gandhi among them) were locked up by the British for opposing the war. Especially following the Japanese advance into Southeast Asia in 1942, the British feared armed insurrection. Indeed, at least 40,000 Indians—mostly captured prisoners of war—took up arms to fight the Allies in Burma and elsewhere, a chapter of history largely ignored in the west.

The worst atrocity of all occurred in India as well. The strain of war soon weighed heavily on the sub-continent. In Bengal Province (centered on modern-day Bangladesh) famine had set in by 1943. War conditions and the indifference of the British authorities contributed to up to 4 million people starving over the next year.

This disaster is similar in scale to the holocaust or the holodomor, yet few people in the west have heard of it. Hitler and Stalin are widely condemned as tyrants and mass-murderers, but Churchill gets off the hook completely for similar brutality.

The Allies also undertook occupations of neutral nations such as Iceland and Iran. These can be viewed along similar lines as the German invasion of Norway in 1940, which was also pre-emptive in nature.

In 1941, as Axis forces advanced through North Africa, Arab forces rose up in revolt against the British—a dramatic reversal of the Lawrence of Arabia-style heroics of a generation earlier. This forced the British to redeploy considerable forces to their rear to crush this latest in a long string of rebellions.

Similarly, when Japanese forces began their lightning advance across the Pacific in 1941, they often met cooperation in the forming of their “Co-Prosperity Sphere.” After all, they were not taking Vietnam off the Vietnamese, Malaysia off the Malaysians, Indonesia off the Indonesians or the Philippines off the Filipinos—they were stealing them off the French, British, Dutch, and Americans respectively.

Thailand had old scores to settle with the British and French, while thousands of Burmese welcomed the Japanese as liberators when they marched into Rangoon. European administrations quickly collapsed in the face of the most determined Asiatic resistance in four centuries of Imperial rule.

In the largest example of all, more than a million Soviets ended up defecting to the Wehrmacht to fight against the Red Army. This included Cossacks, Turkmen, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Azerbaijanis and anti-communists of all kinds.

In Conclusion

We should now see the actions of the Axis nations for what they were—a desperate gamble to overthrow the stranglehold the Allies held on the global economy before they were utterly crushed.

Upon kicking the Axis out, the Allies busily set about re-subjugating the colonies they had lost. Some 200,000 Indonesians died in that country’s revolution against the Dutch from 1945-49. Algeria fought a bloody, decade-long war of independence against the French in which at least 150,000 died.

The British spent most of the 1950s fighting local insurgent movements in locations as far afield as Kenya, Cyprus and Malaya. This same course of events dragged on for a whole generation in Vietnam, with some five million dead.

All this is not to say the Axis powers weren’t generally the “bad guys” of the war. Any holocaust deniers out there—you are still scum. Nor is it to say the Axis had no chance of winning the war in the first place. I also mean no offense to the men and women who fought against them, which include at least three of my ancestors.

It is merely to point out that the Allies were hardly the innocent victims western historians like to portray them as, and that they massively outclassed the Axis in nearly every way at every point in the war.

Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo were unsuccessful rebels against the international order, and for that reason they are cursed by history. This is why we’ve all seen “Schindler’s List” and “The Bridge on the River Kwai” but probably none of us have seen a movie about the Indian Mutiny, the Belgian Congo or any of a hundred other colonial horrors.

It is also a separate argument entirely whether the world would be a better place now if the Axis had won, though given the later horrors of Communism and the gradual degeneration of western culture, this seems an open question.

Even “the good war” was hardly a noble fight between freedom and tyranny, but more a jostling of rival empires. Contrary to every Hollywood movie you’ve ever seen, the line between “good guys” and “bad guys” was actually surprisingly blurred.

It is time to stop pretending otherwise.

Read More: The Humiliation Of A Great Empire

367 thoughts on “The Story Of The Great Axis Rebellion”

  1. It’s quite right there’s too much hypocrisy about WW2 – once you actually find out the facts(as opposed to myths) you have a different take on events. Although I’d say the German Army was the superior in terms of fighting ability.

      1. man for man, it was judged the best fighting force of the war. Best trained, best equipped. The Russians were conscripts and forced labor from soviet conquests, the Brits were half starved, the french woefully undermanned, and the U.S. was pulling in farm boys. Only the Japanese could have argued a better man-for-man fighting force.

        1. As the leader of that band of conscripts, Stalin, once said, though: “Quantity has a quality all its own.”

        2. “Best trained, best equipped.”
          Ha! Tell this to my already passed away grandfather.
          He always complained about having no clothes, no food and no nothing on the front. When he ripped his trousers in combat he had to wait for months until they gave him new one. Same goes for shoes. The only thing he got plenty whenever he wanted was cigarettes.
          Think about a bunch of chain smokers going for Stalingrad (that´s what he did) with half their asses hanging out of their pants and holes in their boots. That´s how the Wehrmacht looked like for most parts of the war (not in Stalingrad only).
          And let´s not talk about the food thing. They had days without any food at all.
          A G.I. back then was way better equipped and spoiled than the average german or russian foot soldier.
          What´s the worth of a powerful tank and rifle when the soldiers operating it don´t get enough to eat?
          In short you could say that it was a men´s war in Europe until America showed up and brought us feminism and homosexuality 😉

        3. The best equipped were undoubtedly the Americans. The Germans were experts in maneuver warfare, but the Americans were ahead of everyone in logistics. They still are.

        4. The number one cause of death for German troops in Stalingrad was starvation. This is a well-established fact not my opinion. The German army was totally unprepared for the climate and suffered greatly for the lack.
          Amateurs talk of tactics, dilettantes speak of strategy, professionals think only of logistics.

        5. An utterly stupid and vain city battle based on Hitlers ego. Just using standard german tactics of bypass and encirclement could have quickly captured STALINgrad. No need for the meat grinder.

        6. i was going to say something like that. i’ve always been under the impression that the germans would have probably defeated the USSR if hitler had let his generals run the war rather than trying to micromanage it himself. hitler was a great corporal, but totally inept as a general.

      2. Three relatively small countries fighting against five bigger and richer country/empires?
        I’d say they put up a hell of a fight

        1. Why did the axis powers ultimately lose?
          Japan- no oil (US stopped selling to them before the war started)
          Germany- not much oil
          Who emerged as the two superpowers? The two countries with the most oil reserves.
          Its all about the oil. No oil, no war machine.

        2. Counting enemies by political geography is very misleading (ie one nation does not equal one nation, ie USSR /= Italy). A more fair comparison is numbers of troops, although any simple comparison can be faulty. Germany had around 18 million troops who ever served in the Wehrmacht (the total size at any given time was far lower, peaking at around 4 million in 1943). The Soviet Red Army alone had far higher numbers (I could not find an exact figure but total Soviet casualties (military and civilian) topped 20,000,000.
          This is without considering the French, who had what many considered the strongest army in the world at the time, but Germany defeated them due to superior tactics and equipment, the British who had the strongest Navy in the world, and Poland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, USA, Yugoslavia, Greece, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Czech, Denmark, India, Rhodesia, and Mongolia. It is simply incredible that the Germans could stand up to such a coalition.
          I have a theory that the current strength of the US is due entirely to the Nazis–it is basically built on our scientific and military (specifically rocket and nuclear) technology, the majority of which came either from Germans fleeing the Reich, or former Nazis in Operation Paperclip. We are coasting on the strengths of the Germans, and as the rest of the world catches up (eventually nuclear fission will be a technology available to all, just as gunpowder was) the US will cease to be a superpower, as it does not have any relative strengths, other than an effective strong federal bureaucracy and a “stable” government.

        3. The rest of the world is catching up because they have managed to either rebuild or build their industrial base combined with strong doses of what used to be capitalism. The problem is that the US defeated the Nazis, and then adopted some of the most inefficient parts of their system, and the defeated the Soviets and adopted the absolute worst parts of their system.
          There will be more parity in the world. It remains to see if that will be a good thing or bad thing for the US, and it is really up to the US as to which it will be.

        4. “The problem is that the US defeated the Nazis, and then adopted some of
          the most inefficient parts of their system, and the defeated the Soviets
          and adopted the absolute worst parts of their system.”
          very well said.

  2. The Germans were experts in maneuver warfare and, for a time at least, held a technological edge over the Soviet Union. Japan held a massive technological advantage over China and were experts (such that could exist in such a new doctrine) at carrier warfare. It was more even than the GDP and population numbers suggest.
    Short war favored the Axis, but long war favored the Allies. And long war was how it shook out, relatively speaking. A Japanese victory at Midway probably would have forced a diplomatic settlement in the Pacific, or set the stage for one. A German victory in the outskirts of Moscow would have seen a general collapse of Soviet resistance. It was a near thing.
    But blind patriotism does no one any favors here. FDR instigated the events that led to Pearl Harbor. He wanted war, and he got it. The Allied settlement at Versailles set the stage for Hitler’s rise to power. And the Soviets were, perhaps, even more morally bankrupt than the Nazis. Certainly they were no better.
    One wonders, however, what Europe might have looked like with a German victory in World War I.

    1. Had the US not gotten involved, there likely would have been a status quo ante bellum resolution, with maybe a few modifications.

      1. For those who like the “what if” history books, there’s the book “Fatherland” by Robert Harris that goes into this possibility…

        1. Another great “what if?” book is “The Man in the High Castle” by Philip K Dick. The Germans and Japanese won the war, the German annexed the east coast, Japan did the same to the west coast; the middle of thecountry is all that remained of the old USA.

      2. Had the US not got involved Stalin would have advanced through Germany and added France to his Western European possessions.

        1. Very, very doubtful. The Soviets likely could not have defeated the Nazis without the US. It would’ve ended in a stalemate, and a 3rd World War would’ve happened by now.

        2. The Battle of Stalingrad was a decisive Soviet victory in February 1943. Hitler made many ridiculous orders which lost him the war (ie never retreat, even to regroup and attack as a tactical move, because Aryans were inherently better than any other troop and should die before they take a step back).
          The Battle of Kursk, the largest tank battle in history, in July 1943, was also a decisive Soviet victory, and opened a 2,000 km front in the east. After these two battles, the German army had effective lost, and began a slow retreat to Berlin.
          The Americans invaded in June of 1944, at which point it was a foregone conclusion that the Germans would lose the war.

        3. One must needs shake off the soviet propaganda and look at the real facts. Read Prof. John Mosier’s
          The Germans would have defeated the Soviet’s hands down without American intervention and lend-lease. They did kill 30 million Soviet combatants, at a loss to themselves on all fronts of 2.5 million.
          Likewise read Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny by Col. R. H. S. Stolfi, professor emeritus at the US Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA.

        4. The Soviets won the war. But America took the credit and commissioned movies to be made about their glorious D-Day victory.

        5. Lend-Lease was crucial during the war, only for a four month period when Russia was regrouping. It never accounted for more than 1 percent of the Russian war effort.

        6. The Soviet Union lost more people in the war than all other belligerent nations COMBINED.
          There’s that famous pic of the Soviet soldiers raising their flag in Berlin first, meaning they won on that front. We won The Pacific Front.
          Yet another detail glossed over in American schooling.

        7. Go back and look at the numbers. Stalin’s military completely dwarfed Hitler’s poorly equipped and obsolete army. It’s an Allied myth that the Germans had a superior military. Even their tank corp was trained by the Soviets in maneuver warfare. The Germans played at Blitzkrieg and then the Soviets showed them how it was really done.

        8. That is ex soviet intelligence agent and author Viktor Suborov thesis, firstly his book “icebreaker” and secondly his latest book “the chief culprit” a refinement and rebuttal of his critics. Suborov claims Stalin was planning an invasion but the equipment was not quite ready (they had over 3000 T34 nearly 1500 KV-1 just gotten into service) the German got wind and launched a preemtive strike(they always claimed ths). Remember the Bolsheviks under Leon Trotsky had lead a massive army to invade all of Europe in 1919/20 that was stopped short of a disarmed Germany by Polish forces. War between Poland and Germany wasn’t inevitable. Germany had lost a lot of land to Poland and some 4000 German had been murdered and many had their land confiscated (well documented by League of Nations) this made relations tense but the ultimate failure was Hitlers desire for a railway and autobahn to be built through Poland at German expense to connect isolated German cities such as Danzig, to keep them economically alive. I’m N return there would be economic cooperation and an anti soviet pact. Because of Chamberlins clumsy guarantee of polish independance (it was mistaken as polish borders) negotiatons broke down, The Polish dictator had no incentive to negotiate.
          Adam Tooze claims it was driven by lack,of foreign exchange to buy food, he spins a yarn of economic mismanagement. A poor case in my opinion given that the Germans had just faught a costly war with France and were blocaded from global export trade. The Nazis had rejected fractional reserve banking and were not part of what is essentially the Rothschild System. They used treasury printed money issued debt free and so bartered with individual nations.

        9. Some time before the Stalingrad issue he had promised in a public speech to not retreat, nevertheless he was willing to do so given the encirclement (using the USSRs Siberian Army) Goering told him the Army could be supplied by air. A few days latter Jenkoshenk said that there had been mistakes and miscalculations that meant only half the supply rate was possible. He wanted to tell Hitler but Goering forbade it.
          Soviet agents had penetrated the U.S. state department and helped scuttle a U.S. japan peace treaty. The US Japan war then freed up soviet forces in the east. These agents were the ones Senator Joe McCarthy and the FBI had detected (as had US ARMY Verona decrypts revealed in 1995, see M Stanton Evans bio of McCarthy)
          Some of the “no retreat” orders were to preserve supplies of critical raw materials such as the Nikel Around Finland long enought for new weapons to come into service. Missiles like the Wasserfall SAM, The Me 262 jet might render obsolete the Allies big piston engined aircraft fleets fairly quickly. New U-boats like the Type XXI, the Pazerfaust 150 & 250 (essentially RPG-7) and the V2 and A4b ballistic missile which could economically deliver explosives over ranges from 250-400 miles.
          In his last years Hitlers health began to suffer, probably stress and general health on top of a assassination attempt that severely injured him.

        10. Professor Stolfi’s book is brilliant. A proper understanding of Hitler is not possible without him. It’s not even long. Kershaws books just confuse things with is haughty sarcasm.

        11. No it wasnt.
          We learned all of those details you think were ommitted as well as Eisenhowers camps.
          All in Southern public schools.

        12. I doubt this is correct. Methamphetamine was used widely by both sides in WW2. The typical dose by soldiers was tiny since they were combating fatique . An average line of crystal used by a junke contains 40-50mg of the active ingredient; one dose of Pervitin in Nazi times had only 2.4mg of methamphetamine as opposed to the 50mg or so used by junkies to get a high.
          Military around the world continue to use it without ill effects to combat fatigue in critical situation such as long range combat. The Germans used no more or less than the British and Americans who consumed millions during a battle.
          But of course “Nazi” and “Meth” is a salacious headline.

        13. Analysis of exchange ratios show the Germans were significantly superior to both the Western Allies and Soviets irrespive of whether they were on the defensive or offensive. Sweddish historian Nikolas Zetterling goes into this in his Normandy book. The Germans were simply out numbered and out resourced. They also couldn’t bomb America.

    2. A German victory in WWI would have constituted control over all eastern lands up to Russia proper along with a fair chunk of eastern France.
      It would have merely set the stage for another war 30-50 years down the road anyway.

    3. Untrue. The Soviets held a massive numerical, technological and tactical advantage over the Nazis. That’s why they annihilated the Nazis even after giving them a massive headstart. A German victory in Moscow would have meant nothing. Stalin had massive reserves far too the East.

      1. A German victory in Moscow would have meant nothing.

        Uh, fascism was a response to threats of communist revolution. They had a lot to gain by knocking out their archenemy.

        1. What technological advantage did the Russians possess?
          I am no scholar on ww2, but Ive read repeatedly the Germans were the most advanced, tech-wise, of any country involved in that war. Thanks.

        2. Indeed. Upon initially invading the Soviet Union German panzer commanders were horrified to observe their shells (from 35mm & 50mm tank guns) simply bouncing off the sloped armor of the Soviet T-34 tanks which had been originally deployed in 1940. The Germans eventually began adding 75mm guns in order to counteract the problem.
          However, as the Soviet tanks advancement continued and Soviet tank production began to significantly outstrip German tank production it became nearly impossible to find an answer to it. Keep in mind that the German economy was not placed on a full-war time basis until 1943. This, coupled with an extreme shortage of oil and the perverted national socialist economic system made any German victory completely impossible (the latter point doomed any German victory from the start).
          The Germans, and by extension, Hitler, expected to achieve quick victories and if possible avoid a situation where it became a long-protracted world war. Hitler had no designs whatsoever on world conquest. After the fall of France Hitler desperately attempted, on many occasions, to seek peace with The British Empire whom he greatly admired and considered a a natural ally.
          In his haste to achieve victory and unable to cross the English Channel he foolishly invaded the Soviet Union. He mistakenly believed that all one had to do was “smash in the door and the whole rotten structure would come crumbling down”. Even worse, the vast bulk of his infantry was either on foot or on horseback, essentially nullifying Blitzkrieg beyond a certain distance. For example, after the initially 1941 German encirclement victory at Smolensk Hitler ordered the German panzers to “wait until the infantry caught up”. This took two entire weeks, destroying any attempt at lightening victory in the East.

        3. The proper answer to a tank problem is anti-tank weapons, not other tanks. The real German answer to the T-34 was the Panzerfaust.
          While the T-34 was a great tank, Soviet technology was more generally outstripped by German technology until near the very end of the war. There was a reason, after all, that both the West and the Soviets made finding German scientists and engineers a top priority.

        4. Obviously. However, the original incarnation, the Panzerfaust 30 klein, was not available until August 1943, long after any possibility of a German victory. The most common version, the anzerfaust 60, was not put into production until September of 1944. At this point all Germany could do was engage in a fighting retreat until the inevitable defeat.
          German technological prowess is largely irrelevant given not only the incredibly vast productive capacity of the Allies but also the virtually endless fuel supply they possessed. Meanwhile, the Germans were extremely limited in their offensive capabilities after 1941 due to a shortage of fuel, production capacity, natural resources, and manpower. Furthermore, the Luftwaffe was eventually outnumbered and vastly over-extended across a great arc that Hitler’s conquests had created.

        5. All true. There’s a reason the Axis lost, after all. Again, a short war favored the Axis, a long war favored the Allies, for the reasons you mentioned and more. Since it shook up to a long war… well, the rest is history, as they say.

        6. Indeed. There is simply no method for fully describing the history of the largest and most devastating war in history within this extremely limited conversational medium. The subject is simply too enormous to fully expound here. However, I would state that even a Nazi victory (as implausible as it was) would likely be short lived due to the National Socialist economy the Nazis ran. It was simply not sustainable in the long term.

        7. Englishbob is wrong on this. You are correct. The Nazis were significantly more advanced technologically than the Soviets, and had vastly superior industry. The Soviets got a great deal of their military hardware from the US.
          Although, the Soviet tanks were “better” than the Nazi tanks. Soviet tanks were much simpler, more rugged, and easier to produce.

        8. The Germans didn’t have an air force on the eastern front by late 1942/1943 thanks to the multiple fronts and airwar with the US and UK. This allowed the soviets to employ simplistic overwhelming tactics that would have not be available otherwise. Things like lining their artillery in rows for miles and shelling the German army into oblivion would have been suicide if the Germans would have had functional air support.

        9. ok just wondering. Imagine what couldve happened if they couldve ramped up production of their fighter jets? Could that have turned the tide, or just delayed the inevitable?
          And of course, theres always those mysterious foo fighters 🙂

        10. The Soviets would have invaded anyway. Stalin’s original plan was for an all-out-invasion of Europe, bringing the War to Germany’s industrial heart not in 1944-1945 but in 1941-1942. Suvarov, Bunich among others have stated this fact in their books that take into account evidence gathered from the old KGB files before they were closed.

        11. The T34 wasnt a great tank, but good enough. Even at Kursk , despite being in lage numbers the results were one sided. Follow panzer division daily losses reveal a small but steady attrition in the panzer units.
          Soviet fighters such as the Laag 5 & 7, and yak 3 & 9 were very capable opponents .. moreso than T34s against panzers.
          But what was really devastating was the ormous growth in Soviet artillery deployed in huge bombardments. Also no matter how skilled and formidable the SS units were, they were just ground down and veterans and personnel lost.
          Sheer numbers over the long run.

        12. Wait tho.
          At the begimning of Kursk the Luftwaffe was in co trol and air suppport was effective.
          However the lack of replacement parts nd supplies eventually caught up with them , and available aircraft plummeted.

        13. no, the soviets out produced and had higher tech in many fields. Germans were farther along in aircraft tech, MG, AA, but russians had better rifles, submachine guns, tanks, etc. Lend Lease was highly overrated and the Russians had to pay it all back after the war. No handouts to that country, period.

        14. this was always a war between capitalism (National socialism’s ‘socialism’ was merely handouts to German trusts and war production) and bureacratic socialism. Germany didn’t want to invade England. The Battle of Britain commenced because the germans did not want a two front war and Churchill refused to accomadate the Germans.
          Hitler always had his sights on Russia, to turn it into a slave labor colony. Right in his book.

        15. Hitler never wanted to invade England in the first place. He made many peace overtures to the British and for the reason stated. Of course, neither did he want a two front war either. His designs were never world conquest as has been the conventional wisdom but rather an empire in East. As you correctly stated, he desired a transformation of Soviet Russia into a slave labor colony.

        16. What do you think their economy was? From what I gather it was oligarchial, consisting of giving plush contracts to monopolies, smashing unions for wage suppression, with a large dose of military Kenysianism. In short, not too different than many places today (save the Germans were serious about war). Producation was planned only as a factor in war production.

        17. Also @disqus_ELMd03Uvpt:disqus The Germans had superior mechanical advantage, yes, but The Soviets had the manpower. A neverending wave after wave of Russian and Soviet satellite state soldiers would come at The Germans and overwhelm and fatigue them, not to mention The German could not fight in that level of bitter cold the way The Soviets (even peasants at the front) were accustomed to.

        18. At the beginning of operation Barbarossa the two Main German tanks were the Panzer Mk III which had just been upgraded from a 3.7cm gun to 5.0cm L44 medium length barrel (for use against enemy tanks) and the Panzer IV with a short barrelled 7.5cm gun for lobbing shells at infantry. The soviets had about 15000 older tanks plus 3000 T34 and 1500 KV1 which both had a medium barrel 75mm gun able to attack both infantry and enemy tanks. These tanks were completely unexpected and a shock to the Germans, their armour and fire power was by far the best in the world. they couldn’t penetrate soviet front armour and even side armour was difficult.
          Hitler was ropable because he had after the battle of France ordered all Panzer III 5.0cm gun upgraded to an longer L60 barel and only a dozen were done,,this was much more powerful than the L44.
          The Germans coped by using their expertise. Though the soviet tanks had a fast power driven turret traverse it was only a two man turret. The Germans had a three man turret, less workload loader, aimer, commander and despite slower traverse generally got of the first shot. Better optics helped as well. So did good radios which allowed the Germans to circle around and attack the t34 from the rear often from within the unaware soviet formation. They also ntoduced tungsten core “arrow head” shells for the 5.0cm gun and upgraded to the L60 asap. The short barrelled 7.5cm gun on the Panzer IV was upgraded to a powerfulll long barrelled gun as well extra armour was added. With this the Panzer IV was about as good as a Sherman or early T34 though it took time. The famous FLAK 37 8.8cm gun was used to crack he big soviet tanks. It had been wise to make the guns duel purpose. The Panzer III was degraded to an infantry tank and then turned into the turret less StuG III which became the biggest tank killer of ww2 due to its low profile.
          The Tiger I heavy tank was already nearing production but the solution was the Panther V. This excellent tank took nearly a year to debug as it was rushed into production and due to shortages of gear cutting tools for making anything but straight cut gears.
          German production was actually well organised. They had a labour shortage so couldn’t organise extra shifts, the women were already running the farms and growing the nations food and couldn’t be used Production only picked up in 1942/43 because the massive amount of work and investment in tools, automation, new factories was complete and the labour switched to man those factories. See Tooze.
          The Luftwaffe had some disasterous programs: the Ju 288, Me 210, Jumo 222, He 177. Ultimatly the technical problems of these ambitious projects were all solved but generally too late I the war.
          Their biggest disaster was not securing their ciphers, yet in early 1943 they had solutions which they deployed only piecemeal because they didn’t perceive the penetration.

      2. Numbers, technology and tactics are only aid victory in an effective military force. The Soviets took a long time to get their act together and the war wasn’t over for Germany until after the battle of Kursk.
        It was also Hitlers view that Moscow was unimportant, instead Hitler wanted to capture Russian industry. It seems to have been a bad decision.

        1. The plans were changed. When Hitler came down with dysentery in the week’s leading up to the assault on Moscow, the General staff changed the plans.

        2. They were strategically set up for attack rather than defense. The Germans struck first and cut off large parts of the Soviet army, wiping them out. In the end though it was all for nought.

        3. The average Axis soldier was worth more than the average Allied soldier, but sometimes numbers can be overwhelming.

      3. The soviets didn’t hold technological advances over the Germans. But they did have mother nature of their side. At most stains five year plans brought the soviets up to the early 20th century.

        1. the t-34 was the best tank of the war. katyusha MRL was pretty nifty too. Their submachine gun, anti-tank rifles, il planes, and ak47 were great as well. just off the top of my head.

        2. AK-47 is a post war weapon. The Assault rifle was in fact named by Hitler himself. The StG 44 looks like a ak47 though the mechanism is different.

        3. The ak47 was not designed until 1947. One can argue the finer points of soviet technology, but the factor helping the Russians out was that Stalin had move Russian industry to the Urals in the 30, so the Germans had 1000 moles to Moscow and another 500 or more (don’t know off the top of my head) to the Urals. Distance and winter stopped the Germans not soviet technological superiority. The Germans fell into the same trap as Napoleon.

      4. The Soviets did have a numerical advantage, but certainly not a qualitative or technological one. The primary Soviet advantage was the ability to trade space for time, just as the Russians with Napoleon. Had the German managed to occupy, perhaps just more rapidly, Leningrad, all of Stalingrad, and Moscow the disruption to the Soviet rail network and subsequent materiel shortages, especially oil, would have doomed the any force reserve to the east of Moscow.
        Tactics and strategy only get you so far. What will make or break an Army is it’s nation’s logistical ability to sustain it.
        The main advantage the allies had over Germany, ironically enough, was Hitler. A mad dictator in total control with no functional understanding of tactics above a platoon level, strategy, or logistics.

        1. Go and compare the Soviet tanks to the German ones. You will see that the Germans had obsolete tanks and the Soviets had many classes of tanks that the Germans did not. The Soviets had tanks that the Germans couldn’t even put a dent in. You can read the journal accounts of the German officers in which they describe these tanks. The Soviets also had superior planes.
          The Germans only got as far as they did because of a strategic advantage: they attacked first. However they were already running out of fuel by the time they reached the major Russian cities.

      5. All The Soviets had to do was keep pushing Eastward and scorching the land. This not only served to starved The Germans, they were also acclimated to the extreme Russian Winter and The Germans were not. Many German solider perished from frostbite on their feet because of their ill-equipped boots.

      6. You can argue on whether the germans capturing Moscow would have ended the war. But to suggest that the soviets held a technological and tactical advantage is insanity.

    4. I find it hard to believe that if Germany had won, Europe would be getting swamped with african immigrants and islamic rage boys would proclaim the coming of sharia law. just sayin

      1. The most significant problem the West has faced since The Second World War has not only been increasing economic corporatism (i.e., fascism) but the almost complete conquest of the West by cultural Marxism. In a certain respect one could state that the Soviet Union was the victor of the cold war.

        1. I view the progenitors of (unilateral) multiculturalism differently. There is nothing in Marxism to import unlimited degenerate people to drive down wages to the point of native culture destruction.
          Instead, I see multiculturalism stemming from New Left (social liberals) people, that is Old Left (socialists in the vein of the French Revolution) were pounded by government, corporate media, so the Old Left was abandoned for New Left, that is the New Left are a bunch of sell outs, jettisoning everything the Old Left stood for in exchange of ‘safe’ (for their careers) multiculturalism.

        2. And the jews were the victors of WW2. The only reason I would have had for going to war against Germany in WW2 would be to stop Hitler from deporting all the jews ro Russia and Palestine,to take control of the labor camps, and to personally supervise as each and every one of them was shot in the head until there were no jews left anywhere in Nazi-occupied Europe;which would have amounted to the extermination of some 3 million jews,NOT 6 million. There were barely 6 million in the whole of Europe and America, Nazi and Allied..
          After the war,it’s now obvious that Hitler had no plan to exterminate the jews. His plan was to humiliate them by making them do some physical labor for the Reich and then ship them off to Russia and Palestine to make the jews someone else’s problem. That’s what he meant by “Final Solution”. Adolf Hitler was naive enough to think that this would be the end of it.
          The jews will never stop trying to infiltrate and subvert European civilization for as long as one or the other of them exist.Since the jews are the aggressors,it’s obvious who needs to go.
          What Europe needs is a new Union,not of economic or monetary policy, but one intended to establish a uniform policy on jews across Europe. That policy should be that every jew in every country under European control is to be considered an enemy subversive intent on insidiiously and in a cowardly sneaky fashion, robbing,debasing, and ultimately destroying every European people in existence. And their presence in OUR sphere is to be considered an act of war by one people against another, for which all of the jewish people should be collectively and harshly punished.Further, that anyone attempting to revoke this policy as long as jews exist is to be considered a traitor and collaborator, punishable by summary execution no matter what their reasons for doing so.
          That’s a final solution I can get behind. Nobody can claim that Europa would not be within her rights to dictate what goes on in her borders, nor can anyone claim human rights abuses or a secret program to genocide the jews by the least efficient means ever devised.Instead, it would be openly acknowledged that jews are being shot for espionage,subversion, and economic sabotage, the national pastimes of the hebrew “nation”,in addition to trespassing. I have no doubt whatsoever that the jews would keep trespassing and attempting to cripple,subvert,and debase Europa until they were all shot for doing it and not a soul could reasonably claim that they would not fully deserve it.

        3. History is written by the winners,but the truth is the truth. And the truth it’s out there.
          But we are not being taught the truth.

    5. Ahh, comes the Wermacht, right behind Bring the Jubilee.
      One thing to note, after Versailles, the U.S. was the only country to forgive Germany reparations from the first war. The U.S. thought, and rightly so, that any crushing debt would only foment trouble. The French, in particular, wanted to put the Germans “in their place” as punishment. One must also remember that the U.S. had a large population of German and Irish immigrants who had no love for the UK.
      The uptick to WWII was, as stated here, largely economic. The “lesser” powers didn’t get to play the imperialism game before it was shut down by the League of Nations. However, do not make light of several other things.
      The Germans had excellent designers air, sea, and land. Their biggest problem is the same thing that affects the S Class today: they never knew where to stop. German equipment was horribly complex. Yes it was very reliable, but when it broke down, it was a bear to fix. Some things just never worked quite right either, in particular their planes didn’t have TEL fuel so they suffered a bit in performance. The plane that would have negated the need for TEL (the jet engine really) was about 5 more years from usable production levels. They also had a great, but complex, assault rifle that (in 5 years) could’ve revolutionized warfare. You might never have heard the name Kalashnikov if German soldiers had fielded that weapon during their invasion of the USSR.
      The Germans also had excellent, in many cases, classically educated commanders. Think Patton, Stonewall Jackson, Sherman, and Lee. True students of warfare, and adaptable. Unfortunately, like all militaries, they had a group that always did things ‘by the book’ to the end.
      The Japanese saw (well, they were an island nation) Carrier groups well before anyone put 2+2 together. They had a cultural problem right away, from a military perspective: they revived the Samurai tradition with all the baggage. Instead of sending the enough accomplished pilots home to train the next group, they kept them flying in battle. This meant instead of passing knowledge, they were dying and that knowledge was lost. They also deemphasized safety in many designs where individuals were concerned. This was a calculated decision, but ultimately it cost them battle-hardened personnel.
      Hitler built up too fast. He was half a step of everyone technology wise. Had he waited a couple years longer (the U.S. was experiencing a severe downshift in priority for the military, the UK and France slacked as well) and had the pieces in place to ramp up production of things that were a step and a half ahead of everyone he would’ve slaughtered the opposition in Europe. Had the Japanese baited the carriers to come to them (only in a nationalists wet dream would the U.S. beat a Japanese navy carrier group early in the war) they would’ve been sunk and ended that theater.
      Finally, you must remember that the people’s revolting wasn’t new. The scale of it was, but part of that was the perceived sense of weakness in the oppressor nation. Today it is done with money instead of arms. Imperialism is alive and well, just the method has shifted to bribery instead of bullets. Cheaper too, in the long term. Just look at US and Chinese moves, particularly in Africa, to secure vital resources. Look at what China is setting up Russia for, propping them up now for a price. Russia is going to be China’s bitch, supplying them with whatever they want in resources to keep that money flowing.
      What would Europe look like if Germany (and Italy) had won? Well it would have to include a chunk of the Mediterranean, fascist Spain, parts of Africa, and a crushed USSR. The UK would have had to fall, with the royalty retreating elsewhere (Canada?) to avoid capture.

      1. Note, good sir, that I speculated on what would have happened if Germany won World War I, not World War II. This is a very, very important distinction.

        1. That’s why I stated it Comes the Wehrmact. I actually agree with most of your statement, but the difference being that (for WWII) some technological and time differences would have had to be in place for the Axis to win.

      2. I agree with most of what you wrote, but from a pure quality perspective, Czechoslovakia and France both had better tanks than Germany at the time both nations fell. The primary difference was the inclusion of an AM radio in each German tank that allowed for superior movement tactics to be employed.
        What is also lost is that the Poles did figure out how to fight the Germans and in the last week or so before they were forced to surrender, they inflicted a lot of casualties on the Germans. The French army started listening to the Poles and was fighting effectively before Paris fell and they were sold out by the French politicians.
        The Soviets mostly enjoyed the ability to accept massive casualties to inflict relatively few on the Germans.

  3. I like to think of the two wars as one war focused on Germany (1914-1945) with a peace period. The Pacific war (1937-1945) was a completely separate and unrelated war.

  4. Raise the 2.7 million Poles killed by the Germans in World War Two from the dead, including the estimated 928,000 specifically ethnically cleansed from occupied Poland across those five years. Repatriate the 2.5 million Poles evicted forcibly from their homes during the course of the war, and pay in full the 3 million Poles used as slave labour for the German war machine during those years. Obliterate from existence the Generalplan Ost, the Reischgau Wartheland, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Name and return the estimated 200,000 children kidnapped from Poland for “Germanisation”. Show me any historical atrocity by Poland against Germany that even comes close to matching this program of outright conquest and ethnic cleansing.
    Then, and only then, can you call World War 2 Germany a rebel against the established world order.
    The invasion of Poland was the reason Britain and its allies declared war against Germany. Before that date, Neville Chamberlain had pursued appeasement, and Germany had gained any number of territories “back” without a shot being fired. If Hitler was some sort of rebel against the established world order he had a funny way of going about his rebellion: picking on countries and territories that couldn’t feasibly defend themselves without outside help and not turning to France and Britain until 1940 or so — and who he trounced, forcing England into possibly the most embarrassing retreat in its military history at Dunkirk. There were plenty of Nazi sympathisers back then, too.

      1. And, at the risk of gushing a bit, few behaved with such honour.
        Polish pilots escaping from Poland’s conquest continued to fly against the Germans in France and later in Britain. They served in the 303 squadron and accounted for about 20% of all kills during the Battle of Britain, largely because they had more combat hours in the air (and because they were a bit crazy, routinely engaging German aircraft at point-blank range).
        When word of the Yalta Agreement came through, the Polish II Corps was still fighting in Italy (Polish troops were first to the top of Monte Cassino). They had every reason to throw down their guns and walk away since Roosevelt and Churchill had basically abandoned them to Stalin. They didn’t, and fought along with the rest of the Allies right through to the end. And they weren’t even permitted to march in V-E Day parades because they didn’t want to piss off the Russians.

        1. DC comics has a comic about a squadron of Allied fighter pilots in WW2 whose countries have been conquered by the Axis powers so they fight as part of a no-nation squadron. If I remember, the leader is from Poland.

        2. “And, at the risk of gushing a bit, few behaved with such honour.”
          Don’t you mean criminally stupid naivete to trust distant strangers over iron-clad anti-Bolsheviks like National Socialist Germany?
          I’ve heard that line about Poland being “honorable” a million times, but it sounds an awful lot like making a virtue out of necessity. As well as playing the victim card, which is never inspiring. I’m more impressed with the ability to choose reliable allies. And the ability to exist without depending on one of the most evil treaty systems in history is always appreciated by this Pole.

        3. “Don’t you mean criminally stupid naivete to trust distant strangers over iron-clad anti-Bolsheviks like National Socialist Germany?”
          Given those distant strangers had not been party to the tearing up and elimination of Poland as a nation roughly 150 years prior to World War 2, I’d say no.

        4. Even Churchill lived to regret his actions to egg Poland on against Germany, and I understand that he died a miserable and broken man, haunted by his misdeeds after a lifetime spent as what a German leader called “a drunken poltroon.”
          Here he writes in his memoir The Gathering Storm:
          “And now…Great Britain advances, leading France by the hand to guarantee the integrity of Poland-of that very Poland which with hyena appetite had only six months before joined in the pillage and destruction of the Czechoslovak state…Moreover, how could we protect Poland and make good our gurantee?…Here was a decision taken at the worst possible moment and on the least satisfactory ground, which must surely lead to the slaughter of tens of millions of people.”
          BTW, as Churchill explains, rather than being a paragon of “honor”, Poland tore off a piece of Czechoslovakia just as Germany did. And eliminated Czechoslovakia as a nation. Goose, meet gander.
          Poland’s misrulers were far from honorable, far from self-supporting, and far from able to choose allies that wouldn’t knife them in the back eventually. Not men to be emulated unless one has masochistic tendencies. Even to this day this self-pitying inferiority complex among my fellow Poles disgusts me.

        5. Churchill also is recorded as saying “History shall be kind to me, for I intend to write it.”
          I have no difficulty condemning what the Allies did to Poland at Yalta. Indeed Churchill’s own government condemned him over what had been done to Poland at that conference: there was a vote of no confidence in him, which came within a few votes on the floor of Parliament of victory. That was almost unheard-of: an attempted sacking of a sitting Prime Minister during wartime conditions. It demonstrates how seriously most of the English Parliament took their promises.
          That was a major rebuke to Churchill personally, and I don’t doubt he then spent the remainder of his history-writing career playing up Polish aggression to downplay his role in selling them out entirely.

        6. “I have no difficulty condemning what the Allies did to Poland at Yalta.”
          It is rather ironic that the Allies escalated what should have remained a regional war in Eastern Europe into a world war on the grounds of freeing Poland from tyranny (via so-called “appeasement”) only to proceed to allow an even greater tyrant or just as great a tyrant (Stalin) to rule over the carcass of a beleaguered Poland. So in short, what was it all for?

        7. Screw Poland! It’s not a victim, just a crappy real-politick place, biting off more than it can chew. We have enough crazy right-wing types in Western Europe, we don’t need your input. You aren’t one of us. The virgin losers that go to your country to thank you for fighting the Bolsheviks are not respected in our country. If you want to be Western, get with the progressive tradition.

      2. All one has to ask themselves is why Poland was allowed to be ruled by the soviets after the war. If Germany invading Poland was the “reason” for war, to set Poland free…. then why wasn’t Poland set free after the war? The answer? Britain and France simply wanted any excuse possible to go to war with Germany. They didn’t give a shit about Poland before or after the war. Same as FDR inviting Pearl Harbor just so he could get into the war.

    1. One of the main contributing factors to WWII is that Poland had land control of necessary German grade route and often limited or cut off German supply long before any second war broke out. This repeated behavior eventually resulted in Germany invading Poland.
      Learn from Poland’s mistake. Don’t be a dick to your neighbours.

      1. Yes, because trade disputes justify genocide. Or shall we head right back to the Battle of Tannenberg? Maybe one could learn from Germany’s mistake: don’t start wars with guys who are allied to major industrial powers.

        1. Germany is hardly alone in that regard. Atrocities commited by the allies before WW2 in similar situations are just swept under the rug in the name of the victor. The one true “justice”. What were you saying about revisionism? It has existed since long before the progressives appeared. Noah and the arc, the jews in in Egypt, exodus. You’ll find it in the bible as well.

        2. About the only thing to be said there is that “tu quoque” only gets you so far in arguments of this kind.

        3. Last point is definitely valid.
          Stalin was a bigger mass murderer than the Reich combined, and the Allies banded with them. When there are gaps in the story you have to wonder what the true reason for the war actually was.
          You probably never would.
          History is written by the winners.

        4. The Bolsheviks were more murderous on a numerical level, and furthermore they were the ones who introduced totalitarianism and man-made famine and the destruction of civilization-building incentives into Blessed Europa. IMHO, it is long past time that we started having a little empathy for those Europeans who heard the screams coming from the east and therefore feared the Bolsheviks more than National Socialist Germany.

        5. Unfortunately, the western mind has been thoroughly brainwashed by World War II propaganda, making it exceedingly difficult for the majority of individuals to accept reality.

        6. Patently untrue. Though many died in the Civil War and resistance to collectivization, the revolution increased living standards, mortality plummeted. Even in the worst war years, mortality in labor camps did increase above 5 percent annually, with 50 percent of the prisoners released annually.

        7. We have this conversation daily: government bad, monopoly: good. There is a cottage industry that inflates ‘murder-deaths’ of communism. Tenure track is hard you know.

        8. This is true, the bombings of Frankfurt and Dresden were worse than Hiroshima. Bomber Harris and his civilan carpet bombing was atrocious. Harris was quickly forgotten after the war, and he died in obscurity.

      2. Agreed. Poland was horribly misruled in the late 1930s, and they had no business abusing the German minority within Poland. Don’t be a dick to your neighbors, and don’t trust distant strangers, whether they be in Washington or London. Present-day Poland would do well to tell Washington and London to pound sand. There is a prosperous future in the upcoming Eurasian Trade Zone, and Poland should be a vital and peaceful Corridor between the resources of Russia and the factories of Germany.

        1. Poland had its own fascist goverment then, which was installed by the Kaiser, massacreing any resistance and pro-revolution sympathies. After Lenin gave it independence, it immediately invaded a weakened Russia. Stalin made a deal with Hitler to annex part of the country as a buffer and time-saving device against German invasion. Even now it pokes Russia, and the mess in Ukraine stems from when Polish overlords controlled Western Ukraine as a fiefdom.

    2. It’s fair to say that if my fellow Poles had served as the spearhead of a German-backed anti-Bolshevik alliance to put Stalin and Communism in the ground, Poland would have been much better off than by trusting the distant strangers ruling Perfidious Albion.

      1. You didn’t trust anything. You were a fascist country that was too pathetic to back its bark. Either way, the Germans (which you admired) were taking you down. Your one asset is less Westernized women, but your cheese-sausage diet with Western processed food imports (you were too cool for modern collectivazation/rationalization of agriculture) is putting the pounds on the Polish chicks.

    3. “picking on countries and territories that couldn’t feasibly defend themselves without outside help”
      These countries and territories couldn’t feasibly defend themselves against the aggressive designs of the Bolsheviks to the east. Given what we know about the Bolsheviks introducing insanity and totalitarianism and the destruction of the foundations of civilization into Europe, it’s fair to say IMHO that the best people in Europe did well to build a bulwark against Bolshevism by whatever means available, and if that meant allying with Germany, so be it.

      1. I’m sure the Rhineland, being on the west side of Germany, was in direct peril of a ground war invasion from the Bolshevik hordes of France. Or Austria, for that matter.

        1. You and I both know that France invaded and occupied the Ruhr between 1923 and 1925, so kindly stop with the disingenuous depiction of Britain and France as anything other than militaristic and imperialistic, even towards their European cousins in Germany.

    4. I’d never consider myself a Nazi sympathizer and don’t deny anything they did.
      Poland suffered more than any other country in WW2, but the German actions did not take place in a vacuum. Generalplan Ost was a colonization plan – the planned extermination of maybe 50-100 million people in Eastern Europe and their replacement with German colonists.
      This is the exact same strategy that British, Spanish, French etc had been using for 400 years. Usually they just had the advantage of smallpox, plague and measles to to their dirty work for them, while the Germans resorted to gas chambers.
      Yes, the Nazi’s actions were horrific and inexcusable – but they were just among the worst in a long history of empires expanding and waging war with each other. Unfortunately you can’t just say ‘well empires shouldn’t conquer!’ or ‘small independent republics should not have to fight for their freedom!’ The world doesn’t quite work that way.

      1. For clarification I wasn’t suggesting you were a Nazi sympathise.
        “This is the exact same strategy that British, Spanish, French etc had been using for 400 years. Usually they just had the advantage of smallpox, plague and measles to to their dirty work for them, while the Germans resorted to gas chambers.”
        The difference being that Britain, Spain, and France had well and truly given up genocide as a means of colonisation (indeed colonisation more or less in its entirety) by 1939. As I said further down, “tu quoque” only gets you so far in this debate. North Korea literally has burned dissidents at the stake; is it really a useful argument to say it’s justified or excusable just because the Catholic Church did the same nearly five centuries ago?
        “Yes, the Nazi’s actions were horrific and inexcusable – but they were just among the worst in a long history of empires expanding and waging war with each other. Unfortunately you can’t just say ‘well empires shouldn’t conquer!’ or ‘small independent republics should not have to fight for their freedom!’”
        Poland came back into existence as a small independent republic in 1918, and in the roughly twenty years it had in that existence before being invaded again, it had built its own army and had taken alliances that it saw as advantageous – indeed those alliances started World War 2. Poland did fight, hard, for its freedom, and at least on that same pretext Britain entered the war.

        1. North Korea is a fucking basket case, but the Nazis were not quite as big an anomaly in their time.
          The British had fought the Boer War as recently as 1902 – in which tens of thousands of Boers died in concentration camps.
          The Americans had invaded the Philippines in 1899, and spent the next 15 years subjugating the whole country, killing maybe 250,000 people.
          The Congo Free State was only dismantled in 1908, after millions had died on Belgian rubber plantations.
          Even in the 1920s and 30s, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, thousands of Arabs died in uprisings against the British and French.
          Stalin’s purges, not to mentioned the Holodomor, killed millions in the 1930s.
          If the Nazis were out of their era, it was only by a very fine line, certainly no more than a generation or so.
          Even the Poles weren’t completely innocent. When they revolted in 1918 they moved to seize as much territory as possible, to the point that by the time the state’s borders were finalized in 1922 a third of the country was not ethnically Polish.
          During the Polish-Soviet War (1919-21) the Poles advanced as far as Kiev before being kicked out by the Red Army. They actually hoped they might re-awaken the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with a state stretching from the Baltic to Black Seas –
          About 200 million people died in wars and genocides in the 20th century, about a third of this after 1945 (40 million in Mao’s China alone) – the 20th century was harsh. Nearly all major countries have black spots, the holocaust was just one of the worst.

    5. Do you have even the remotest idea how often Poland has been invaded? If it wasn’t the Germans, it would have been someone else.. Poland was one of the first stops of the huns, the flashpoints of the 50 years war, the home base of the knights of the cross…
      Everyone fucks Poland. Don’t go making more of it than it is. Arguably Poland was treated worse by Russia than it was by Germans.

    6. Did you miss the paragraph at the end? The point of the article was not to deny Axis atrocities, simply to point out how the Allies were in many ways evil empires too, just less evil than the Axis. Whether every single Allied country was one is irrelevant.
      As for Polish atrocities, well, there’s that ethnic cleansing of 9 million Germans from German territories that were transferred to Poland after the war. One which the Polish government claimed to be innocent of on the basis of just carrying out the Potsdam agreement, but showed itself to be happy to carry out. Even the slightest mention of this fact to any Pole elicits knee-jerk plays of the Nazi card in response.

    7. Obviously the invasion of Poland was a belligerent act but for England and France to declare war on Germany and give the USSR a pass reeks of hypocrisy. The Soviets carved up the other half of Poland within 30 days of the German invasion. For that reason alone the US should have stayed out of the war and made all efforts to remain neutral. The truth of the matter the US had a lot of Communist sympathizers who were actively maneuvering the US into the war once the Soviets were invaded by Germany.

  5. While there are grains of truth in this stir fry why dont we leave the revisionist bullshit to the progressives.

    1. Let Truth Prevail. Let it prevail over biased Anglocentric omissions and myths that we are still subjected to 70 years later.

    2. This article is actually a thinly veiled apology for Nazi ideology. The notion that the Axis powers were engaged in some “rebellion” is laughable on its face.

      1. A brainwashed dupe or a shill. Why is it so hard to accept the Allies were mostly monsters as well (with a few exceptions) in view of the record?

        1. “Why is it so hard to accept the Allies were mostly monsters as well (with a few exceptions) in view of the record?”
          Explaining WHY something is “hard to accept” does not impart truth to the lie.
          The article is bullshit.

        2. Notice how these people don’t mention how the French invaded German lands quite often during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. But when the Germans give them a taste of their own medicine – well then! we must stop them!

        3. That’s not why people were calling Germany monster and you fucking know it. The Nazi regime was a monstrosity and a blight upon human kind.
          This needs to be said, there is being skeptical of the standard narrative and then there is reflexively denial for the sake of being ‘counter-cultural’. A lot of people are doing the latter when it comes to this article and it’s tumbleresque dumbfuckery

        4. Hey love, Bring the sandwich will you?
          P.S. You debate like a woman, provide no arguments and uses insults instead.

        5. Most of the people that reject the fact that Allies (specifically uncle Joe) were monsters, even worse than the ones so reviled today. Look, I don’t deny that Hitler was a monomaniac pervert hellbent in genocide, so focused on “cleansing” the East that it backfired resurrecting Russian Nationalism and digging his armies own mass graveyards. However I accept as well that the West’s victory, far from liberating the world, provided fresh supply for Communist dictatorships and allowed the current status quo.

        6. You’re kidding me right? I laughed my ass off at your question. “Why is it so hard”? is close to the astonishment women have when I’m between their legs.
          Usually boys ask your particular question of men in their trials ascending to manhood.
          And you expect me to take you seriously?
          OK, seriously, you’re question is sophomoric in the extreme and article is a collection of conflated opinions. If I were to undertake serious thought, know this fact:
          Communist dictators (Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, etc.) in the 20th century caused the death of 100 million people and that excludes imperial Japan. This apologia to them is obscene.

        7. The Italians were invading Germany too back in the 1st but thanks to some Germanic dude named Arminius, those Italian boys got their assess whooped during an altercation at the Teutoburg forest.

        8. “A brainwashed dupe or a shill. Why is it so hard to accept the Allies were mostly monsters as well (with a few exceptions) in view of the record?”
          Because, africanbob is black.
          The word “nazi” translates to “no white bitches” in africanus criminalus.
          negrorob loves the current madness, as it allows and celebrates his species access to white girls (or asian or anything that doesn’t look like him).
          Do you think the blackteria would be spreading across Europa had the Wehrmacht won? Now, you understand blackslobs motives.
          “Communist dictators (Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, etc.) in the 20th century caused the death of 100 million people and that excludes imperial Japan. This apologia to those monsters is obscene.”
          Hitler and Mussolini were Socialist. There were no Communist governments in the Axis Powers. The Axis Powers were the subject of this article (or apologia).
          You say much but your words have no substance – the opposite of the essence of manliness you’re desperately trying to project.
          Stay pretentious my friend.

        9. Reading comprehension skills lacking. If someone was making apologia for any of the XX century’s mass murderers it was not me.

        10. No, those numbers are inflated by CIA hacks acting as civilians, Right Wing think tanks funding biased research, etc. With the arhives we know how many people died in the protracted civil war violence that was a world revoltion in an undeveloped set of countries.

      2. they were trying to free themselves from the grip of the same banksters that are currently destroying the West.
        If it wasn’t for Nazi Germany, you, englishbob, would most likely be writing this in Russian.

  6. Germany didn’t go down without a raucous fight that’s for sure. Welcome to Europe, Yankees! Taste some of this here MG34 and MG42!

  7. While geeks had a role in the First World War, they became really important in the Second World War. The nerdy guys who grew up reading science fiction, and loved math, science and engineering, actually got their governments to give them the resources to build the superweapons they could only fantasize about before: radar, code breaking machines, rockets, atomic explosives, new fields of applied math like operations research, etc. The Second World War became the first conflict between rival teams of Men of the Mind.

    1. Small bit of trivia: the myth around that carrots make you see better was counterintelligence propaganda. The British said their pilots ate lots of carrots, so they could see well and thus could see German fighters and bombers coming. In reality it was the advantage of radar that let them intercept so effectively.

  8. British India was the crucial place for Brits, if Japanese moved their carries close India and closed the supply lines, war would have turned and Africa corps could have closed out Suez. Instead stupid Japanese went to attack pearl harbor for nothing to gain, but lose the pacific to USA. Axis were no liberators, they enslaved the lands they conquered.

    1. I’ve read that after the Japanese cut off British access to Australia, the Australian government looked to the U.S. as its protector, and it offered Australian ports to American navies and planes so that the U.S. could carry the fight to the western Pacific.

      1. Correct. One of the tipping points was that war had broken out in the Pacific in 1941, and Japanese forces were pushing south. Pearl Harbor was bombed on 7 December; on 26 December, the recently-elected Labor government under John Curtin published the following letter in one of the major newspapers:
        “We look for a solid and impregnable barrier of the Democracies against the three Axis powers, and we refuse to accept the dictum that the Pacific struggle must be treated as a subordinate segment of the general conflict. By that it is not meant that any one of the other theatres of war is of less importance than the Pacific, but that Australia asks for a concerted plan evoking the greatest strength at the Democracies’ disposal, determined upon hurling Japan back. The Australian Government, therefore regards the Pacific struggle as primarily one in which the United States and Australia must have the fullest say in the direction of the Democracies’ fighting plan. Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom. We know the problems that the United Kingdom faces. We know the dangers of dispersal of strength, but we know too, that Australia can go and Britain can still hold on. We are, therefore, determined that Australia shall not go, and we shall exert all our energies towards the shaping of a plan, with the United States as its keystone, which will give to our country some confidence of being able to hold out until the tide of battle swings against the enemy.”
        Two divisions of Australian troops — a significant troop commitment given Australia’s small population and small army — were sailing away towards northern Europe at this stage. Curtin took it upon himself to defy Winston Churchill and order those ships to turn back and head for northern Australia instead. It was the longest couple of weeks of his life – Japanese submarines were all over the Indian Ocean and the stress of waiting for those ships to arrive took a physical toll; Curtin, like Roosevelt, died in office without seeing the war’s end.

    2. The Japanese attack on the U.S. also freed up a lot of Russia to move against Germany. Once the U.S. was Japan’s main enemy, Russia did not have to expend as many resources in the East in fear of a full out invasion.

    3. Captain Hindsight, is that you?
      Pearl Harbour was a pre-emptive strike. Japan needed to seize the East Indies to get a new source of oil after the US had embargoed it. Doing that would mean attacking the territory of several Western powers. The Japanese government believed that such an action would make the USA declare war on it, and thus would benefit from striking first and sinking a significant part of the US Navy. The Japanese government vastly overestimated how close the USA was to going to war against it, but we only know better because WW2 has been under the microscope for 60 years now. What the Japanese government did was not stupid, it was a rational action made based on limited information.

    4. The Axis powers were liberators, if you were fond of real freedom, and didn’t like commies.
      I wish they could come back and liberate my homeland right now so I wouldn’t have to tolerate faggots, transexuals, family destruction, cunty western women, endless wars, islamic child rape paedo gangs, abortion….I could go on.

  9. Allied forces were stronger than the Axis powers. Particularly given the advantage the US conferred in resources and production capabilities which exceeded combined allied production in most cases. Privilege of being part of the 1st generation industrial revolution.

    1. Not to mention living on a continent strategically unassailable by, well, anyone. Hitler couldn’t even get his troops across a 33 kilometre stretch of water. Dunno how he planned to get across one nearly 3,000 km wide.

      1. I’m fine with the narrative that there was substantial propaganda and conditioning employed by the Allies- though that could be levied against both sides. What I find intellectually dishonest is the marginalization of the US production capabilities. Take that Allied benefit out of the equation, as it was before 1942, and the end result could have been very different.

        1. Oh, I agree – see my comments further down about Yalta and Poland and whatnot. But there is no doubt that US industrial capacity and arms were a major factor in the Allies’ win.

        2. And the same US banking and industrial capacity was a major factor in the initial Nazi mobilization. Strange world…

      2. Quick answer. He didn’t.
        He didn’t even want to invade England.
        Aurelius you really need to research some real history, and not just the WW2 propaganda force-fed to you.

  10. Truman should have been brought up on war crime charges for the bombing of nagasaki and hiroshima. The damage was wholesale and far exceeding anything that happened to pearl harbor. Massive civilian casualties in the gross usage of a weapon that they’ve yet to understand the full scale of its destructive capability. Generations were mutated from radiation and the land was likely damaged. But the Germans were being brought up on war crimes for gassing Jews, but the Americans were literally microwaving Japanese civilians and are touted as heroes.
    The irony and hypocrisy of history.

    1. On sheer numbers I’d have to say there was no comparison. The atomic bombs are estimated to have killed 129-246 thousand people at the outside, total. Six million Jews alone died in concentration camps, without counting how many gypsies, Poles, Russians, and other ethnicities succumbed.
      That’s before you get into (admittedly questionable) estimates of how many American servicemen and Japanese military and civilians’ lives were preserved because the atomic bombs basically forced Japan to surrender, thus stopping an inch-by-inch battle for Japan’s home ground.

      1. “the atomic bombs basically forced Japan to surrender, thus stopping an inch-by-inch battle for Japan’s home ground.”
        That presumes that the Allied demand for Unconditional Surrender was written in stone. Good-faith negotiations could have accomplished the same thing.

      2. Even the Western Powers-That-Be downgraded the death toll at Auschwitz alone from 4 million down to 1.5 million in 1990. Again, this number was OFFICIALLY lowered, not by holocaust deniers but by western historians. How many people have even heard of this?
        Interestingly, even though the 1.5 million is the de facto OFFICIAL death count at Auschwitz since 1990, it is actually ILLEGAL to even mention that in several European countries, including Germany.
        It is also illegal in Germany and Austria to write:
        6 million – 1.5 million = 4.5 million
        Get that? Basic math is illegal, even when applied to OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED numbers!!
        Does that even make a lick of sense?!?
        Life in the west marches on…

        1. So by your analysis the atomic bombs killed between one tenth and one quarter the number of people killed at Auschwitz. Thanks. Good to know.

        2. keep sucking on that blue pill rolling round your mouth Aurelius.
          The Red Cross estimate of deaths at Auschwitz during WW2 was around 300,000. Mainly due to death via typhus and starvation (due to supply lines severed by the allies during the final months).
          The Red Cross were impartial and had unrestricted access to the camp. ca. 300,000 was their official report.

        3. The Red Cross was entirely biased. It believed if it gave the true numbers of what it was seeing it would be barred from the camps, so it massively downplayed the actual numbers.

        4. and you know this how?
          If they did do this, for what purpose would they want to remain in the camps?
          Their whole raison d’être is to prevent these things happening. So you are saying that they witnessed mass-genocide and murder, but didn’t say anything, or try to stop it, just so that they could stick around to watch.
          LMAO, you brainwashed blue-pill freaks have to do better than that, your arguments make no sense.

        5. Also, why would they have not officially retracted their ‘bogus’ report as soon as the war ended?
          You’re so full of BS it’s embarrassing.

      3. Wrong. Japan was surrounded – their navy destroyed by Federal submarine fleets. Japan wanted to negotiate a surrender. The Feds demanded an immediate and unconditional surrender and dropped the nuclear bombs.
        Then the Feds claimed “Japan refused to surrender, we had no choice, we had to drop to the bombs to save American lives from a deadly ground war”. That was just a lie to have an excuse to drop the bombs.

        1. The Soviet Union was the dominant power in both the eastern and western wars(Germany and Japan). While the Japanese war was faught primarily between the Japanese and the Chinese and Americans, whereas the vast vast bulk of the fighting on the western front was from the Soviets and NOT the Americans, British, etc., it was the threat of Russian invasion which prompted the Japanese to surrender.
          On August 9, 1945, the Soviets declared war on Japan and invaded Manchuria, where the Japanese suffered a massive and surprising defeat. The Soviets had far more tanks and artillery than the Japanese, and were poised to invade the mainland from Manchuria. The battle was over August 18, and the Japanese, facing invasion and occupation by the enormous Red Army, who could now retreat from the west and fully focus on Japan, surrendered 2 weeks later. The American murder of the Japanese civilians was merely a war crime, and war crimes typically do not motivate the opposition to surrender–if anything they have the opposite effect, and make the war harsher for both sides, as the traditional rules of combat go out the window.

        2. -Then the Feds claimed “Japan refused to surrender, we had no choice, we had to drop to the bombs to save American lives from a deadly ground war”. That was just a lie to have an excuse to drop the bombs. –
          Yeah so what if it’s a lie, I certainly would have applauded had the Feds claimed “We’ll nuke those buck-toothed bowl-legged yellow midgets motherfuckers just for the thrill of it” but I am counting my blessings.

        3. -Japan wanted to negotiate a surrender. The Feds demanded an immediate
          and unconditional surrender and dropped the nuclear bombs.-
          Sigh………..I guess some people will never learn even if they immensely being at the advantageous hindsight of 70 something years after the fact. There was a little incident in which the Japs were giving the impression that they still wanted to negotiate and did not want get into war with United States while the Jap squadrons were en route to Pearl Harbor.
          As history showed, the Japs did, quite hastily, surrender UNCONDITIONALLY after they got nuked twice. You see, the Americans also wanted to negotiate, those 2 nukes were simply meant to help the Japs to quickly make up their minds about their preferred term of surrender which turned out to be, voila! UNCONDITIONAL! LOL

    2. Here we go. The evil atom bomb. Where’s all your handwringing over the fact that just a few months earlier, nearly 100,000 civilians were killed in one night when we firebombed Tokyo? Of is it OK to roast them alive so long as we don’t “microwave” them. Japan could have prevented all of this by not fucking with us in the first place. And by the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the war was obviously lost for them. They could have accepted our surrender terms to prevent the bombs being dropped instead of telling us to fuck ourselves, which is what they did.

      1. Yes, here we go again. Very similar to 911, American intel knew of pearl harbor days before it happened. If I’m correct, pearl harbor was n inactive naval base at the time. The US just needed an excuse to use the atom bomb.
        It’s ok to have differing viewpoints and question age old theories or so called facts that don’t seem to add up. Or question motives.
        Don’t have to be a douche

        1. Inactive Naval base? Dude, the entire Pacific fleet was stationed there! That’s kind of why the Japs attacked it, and why we suffered so much damage. The only reason we didn’t lose our carriers too was that they were out on a training exercise.
          Nothing wrong with questioning conventional viewpoints, but contrary to what every leftist indoctrinator told you in school, some questions are retarded. Asking them makes you seem retarded by the transitive property.

        1. If by this you mean that after Japan invaded its neighbors and started commiting atrocities, and the allies said “maybe we should stop doing business with these people and stop supplying them with war materiel,” then yes, we fucked with them first.

    3. The international treaties that render terror bombing of civilians illegal had been violated by both Germany and Japan years before the nuclear attacks happened, thus voiding any obligations their enemies have to abide by them during the war. Thus, they were not war crimes, legally speaking. The morality of the actions, though, is another topic.

      1. That is BS.
        The British RAF were the first to terror bomb civilian targets during the Battle of Britain. It was a ploy to tempt the Luftwaffe into ceasing their effective targeting of military targets, and divert them into bombing civilian targets.
        Unfortunately it worked. It was a war crime initiated by the Allies…

      2. Wow, this is truly reprehensible logic here. Because one side violated an agreement, you just throw it out the window ?!? So since the Soviet Red Army never signed the Geneva Conventions, I guess anything and everything including outright murder of civilians, burning prisoners alive, and using the medieval “stretcher” were all acceptable options to the allies? Under that rationale it would be perfectly fine for Americans to waterboard their enemies because the Japs committed the war crime of waterboarding American POWs.. oh wait. See where this goes?

        1. No. Because Japan waterboarded American POWs, it becomes legal for the US to torture Japanese POWs, and is so as long as Japan remains in violation of its treaty obligations. The US does not acquire legality for the torture of any and all detainees (Japanese and other) it chooses to consider its enemies.
          It’s not a rationale, it’s the legal reality of the international laws of war. Those laws are not mandated from above by any sovereign entity above that of the modern state, because there is no such thing. The modern state is sovereign, and the laws of war follow from treaties between sovereign states to adhere to them. Treaties that are nothing but contracts between sovereign parties. If one party violates a contract, it forfeits its contractual rights over you.
          If you want to ask “where this goes”, the international laws of war necessitate that every involved party adheres to them, and that if your enemy violates them when fighting you, you are freed from any obligation of adherence as well. Otherwise, only suckers would sign onto such treaties in the first place, if doing so means that should your enemy choose not to adhere to them, you’d have to choose to either be a war criminal or fight with one hand behind your back.
          And what’s more, this regime works to a measurable extent. Why did all the major powers of WW2 stockpile chemical weapons but not use them against each other? Because they knew that chemical retaliation would follow. Japan used them with impunity against China, but abstained from using them against any of the Western Allies for this reason.
          The international laws of war are based on what can feasibly be done to make war less awful for everyone. Morality has nothing to do with it. The legality of a particular action under the international laws of war does not represent any kind of international moral consensus.

        2. There is no legal doctrine I know of that allows laws to be broken by one party just because another party breaks them first. I don’t even know how to respond to such an absurd claim.
          To clarify, the Geneva conventions apply to any nation who agrees to them, and they apply universally, not just to nations who have signed (IE if North Korea has not signed but USA has, it doesn’t mean USA can torture North Koreans).
          As a matter of fact, the current legal environment has gone so far as to take authority beginning in 1993, that even if a nation HAS NOT signed the Geneva conventions, if they engage in armed conflict, the conventions are binding on them anyway.

        3. International law is not law in the usual sense of the word, so legal doctrines and principles applying to national, sovereign law are irrelevant. International law is just a phrase used to refer to the sum total of treaty obligations that countries have, under treaties they have agreed to enter into with other countries. A treaty is a contract, if the other party breaks it it is no longer binding on you either. If we have agreed to not hit each other and I hit you, do I still retain a right not to be hit back by you?

    4. After the capture of Iwo Jima, the prospect of invading mainland Japan looked daunting. The Japanese homeland would have been defended by every available asset. The US military estimated a minimum of 250,000 Allied casualties to take Japan.
      Truman made the right call. Fuck the japs.

      1. And Stalin would not have given two shits about losing that many in an invasion of Japan, even if he took 100% of the casualties. He lost that many in mere hours in battle against the Germans. I do not wish a “fucking” upon any people, and do not advocate the murder of anyone, due to the actions of their government. Isn’t this what justifies Muslim extremist terrorist attacks on the west?

    5. I don’t disagree with the nuking of Japan at all actually. It was definitely a lesser or two evils situation.
      Notice in the article I don’t mention most of the ‘usual suspects’ when it comes to criticizing the Allies – terror bombing (killed about a million civilians even before Hiroshima), unrestricted submarine warfare (used against Japan in 1945), interning of foreign civilians (110,000 Japanese locked up in America alone) etc.
      By and large, these were all fair game. The Allies were usually responding to tactics already used by the Germans/Japanese. You’re demanding they fight with one hand tied behind their backs otherwise.
      My criticism of the Allies is usually beyond the war – both before and after it. Western historians condemn the Germans for waging aggressive wars, genocide, colonization, slave labor, crushing rebellions, etc – things the Allies had been doing for centuries.

      1. How can you morally defend purposely targeting civilians via terror bombing?
        It is a war crime as noted in the Geneva Convention…

        1. Rules are rules only as long as everyone (or close to) follows them.
          If something is an effective tactic, and your enemy uses it against you, acting ‘moral’ by refusing to reply in kind might well be a death sentence for your side. The injustice has already occurred, and you may not have the luxury of sticking to more humane means.
          By the standards of WW2 (before we invented targeted weapons like in the Gulf War) carpet bombing a city was fair game. Out of 70-odd million dead, maybe 2-3 million died in air raids.
          Oddly enough, even in WW2 there were some weapons neither side resorted to – poison gas for instance. It had been used in WW1, but if it were paired with WW2-era bombers the results could have been absolutely devastating.
          A few hundred tonnes of gas might have destroyed a city, much like an atomic bomb. If the Germans had done that to London in 1940 would you still object to the RAF doing the same to Berlin, especially when surrender would probably be the only viable alternative?

        2. It was tactical folly for the Germans to respond in kind and bomb civilian targets back in response to the RAF doing so first.
          The reason gas was never used was that Hitler was dead against the use of it due to his personal experiences of it in WW1.
          So you answered my question, you can’t morally defend the Allies, thanks.

        3. I see, and that same noble sense of morality prevented millions of Jews and other undesirables being sent off to the gas chambers then?

        4. Mad Max is deleting my comments that show him up for the idiot he is.
          About an hour ago I posted:
          “What gas chambers?
          Prove your conspiracy theory..”
          Now it is gone!

        5. It’s not me mate, maybe the page admins. I see no need to censor lunatics. They do it themselves well enough.

        6. When the allies decided to bomb civilian targets, the allies gave up the moral authority to criticize the Germans and the Japanese for the atrocities they committed against civilians. The targeting of many of the cities had no military impact on the outcome of the war. The allies could have won the war without targeting a single city. As for the the atomic bombing of Japan, General Curtis LeMay is quoted as saying the atomic bomb had no effect on the decision of the Japanese to surrender.

      2. I’m not demanding anything. You just proved a point. If the Allied forces were using similar techniques to the Axis , they cannot say they were ‘the good guys’.

    6. You know i understand the horror of what happened there, but that was one of the best decisions any president ever made. Invasion of Japan would have cost the USA over a million casualties, with as many as 5-8 million Japanese casualties (i.e. fire bombing cities)…. Surrender was not in the nature of Japan. It would have dragged WWII on for years.

      1. Why invade at all? Why not sue for peace? The Japanese navy was defeated they no longer posed a threat to the US. The Japanese had forces in China that could keep the Soviet Union from overrunning China and making it Communist.

    7. -The damage was wholesale and far exceeding anything that happened to pearl harbor.-
      That exactly the point of nuking those Japs in the first place, if Truman wants them to suffer as little damage as possible then he would’ve ordered the pilot to drop marshmallows or 2 dirty underwear instead of 2 nukes.
      -Massive civilian casualties in the gross usage of a weapon that they’ve yet to understand the full scale of its destructive capability.-
      That’s why they dropped them there so then they can understand the full scale of its destructive capability, I’d say Truman was quite a clever boy.
      -Generations were mutated from radiation and the land was likely damaged.-
      My bleeding heart sincerely cries a river of blood for them but that’s what you’ll get if you mess with your Uncle – Uncle Sam. It’s akin to a 4′ something cunt who expect not get pummeled into a bloody pulp after instigated violence by slamming a beer bottle onto the head of a 6′ something dude.
      -But the Germans were being brought up on war crimes for gassing Jews,
      but the Americans were literally microwaving Japanese civilians and are
      touted as heroes. The irony and hypocrisy of history.-
      That’s because microwave is kind a cool, even the Japs like to use microwaves.

  11. The Philippines unlike Malaysia or Singapore or Burma did not welcome the Japanese. Our government was usurped by a Viktor Quisling-like government full of treacherous appeasers & forced to march lock-step with what Tokyo dictated.
    The Japs also used our women as whores (comfort women) & imposed overlord chosen race brutality on my ppl.
    & no i dont get this info 2nd hand. I grew up there & unlike in the US, we are forced to learn this history lest we forget it (not that it matters, the ppl there have changed for the worse last time i visited)

    1. “The Philippines unlike Malaysia or Singapore or Burma did not welcome the Japanese”
      What is this nonsense? The only people in Malay and Singapore who welcomed the Japanese were by and large the local Malay dogs.

      1. apologies. i was merely retorting to the OPs info about stating that certain se asian nations were happy to see the Japs. i admit idk malaysian history & could stand to be further educated

      2. -What is this nonsense? The only people in Malay and Singapore who welcomed the Japanese were by and large the local Malay dogs.-
        I don’t blame the Malays especially the dudes, their bitches are short & ugly and accordingly so they fell for Jap propaganda who promised them these:

  12. History is written by winners. If you want to be portrayed as the good guys, stop losing wars and start winning them.
    Geography has been unkind to the Germans. From Europe’s western fringe, the Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch, and English sailed out to conquer vast empires. On the other side, Russia expanded eastward, from the Urals to the Pacific in about fifty years.
    Meanwhile the Germans were stuck in the middle of Europe, plundered and depopulated by armies of religious fanatics from every direction. By the time the Germans recovered, the entire world had been conquered by other European peoples. Germans twice attempted to grab a bigger share of Earth’s dry land, and failed both times. The window of opportunity, when colonizers had fast-firing guns and natives didn’t, had closed.
    Germans finally gave up and renounced imperialism, as the fox renounced the grapes it couldn’t quite reach.

      1. I think a lot of powers were responsible for WW1 but it was the British involvement that made it a World War. Otherwise it might of been remember as the Russo Franco Prussian War.

        1. The British and the Americans should have stayed out of both World Wars it was Churchill both times who pushed the Anglo nations into war and ultimately destroyed the British Empire.

  13. What was interesting was in the early 20th century you had three political ideologies in competition: Communism, Fascism, and Western Democracy. Only one completely prevailed, and we all know that that one was righteous, and the other two were evil governments, right? The good guys always win, right?

    1. Even Churchill himself said democracy is the worst possible system of government except for all the others. He’s hard to fault on that. Me, I prefer the way Agent K formulates it: “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals, and you know it.”

      1. Nor was Churchill the champion of democracy he’s held up as. The only thing he championed was the British Empire, a system in which one quarter of the world’s population were colonial subjects ruled over from London without any vote or representation.

  14. the narrative of 6 million jews gassed to death is a farce. you swallow the red pill and you learn to question everything mainstream society tells you. ive looked into historial revisionism, especially that of the holocaust, and you find some compelling evidence. plus the added fact that if you publicly question the event in some euro countries you can go to jail, tends to hint heavily that things didnt quite go as they did as we were told them…

    1. Have you bothered to see if any mainstream historians have provided refutations of that “compelling evidence”? Because they probably have.
      Take any course of events, or any other entity, which is detailed enough and put it under the microscope, and it’d be a statistical anomaly if you didn’t find some details that look like discrepancies to the non-expert. That’s the basis of all conspiracy theories. It’s the same whether the subject is the holocaust, the moon landings, Kennedy’s assasination, 9/11, or Obama’s birth certificate.

    1. Agreed. Read it a few months ago. It’s an excellent correction to the deluge of Allied propaganda we are exposed to even to this very day. Traditional Americans have much more in common with traditional Germans than with other ethnic groups who manipulate us for their own purposes.
      Another provocative book is USMC Colonel RHS Stolfi’s “Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny”. The recently departed Colonel Stolfi was professor emeritus at the US Naval Postgraduate School and has iron-clad moral authority as a US patriot, and more importantly, he has no fear to criticize and condemn the biased Anglocentrism of all other Hitler biographers. He mercilessly exposes the vicious and vindictive persecution and scapegoating of Germany by Britain and France and the Versailles Treaty. In this context of a siege mentality in a Germany trapped between these enemies to the West and the insane and bloody Bolsheviks to the east, I absolutely do not begrudge any European who sought survival by supporting National Socialism. As the legendary Leon Degrelle put it, Hitler was “Born at Versailles”. And the criminally stupid misrulers of Poland, Britain, and France have only themselves to blame.

  15. good read. i like this more objectionable version of history of where they show both the good the bad and ugly of all parties, instead of the cliche good vs bad like if it was some kids comic book.
    The way we learn about history really rings true of the saying ” the victors write history”, which is usually biased like if it was all victim accounts.
    I dont belive in this good vs evil, its merely conflicting agendas

  16. I want Pirate rules when it comes to war and plunder
    50% of the plunder goes to the finance of the operation (The US)
    50% of the plunder goes to the combatants.
    My cousin fought in Kuwait in the 90s for his niggardly Sergeant’s pay. Those puss little muzzies- who begged the US to save their brown asses- live in 8 bed room houses and drive E-Classes. My cousin should be getting a yearly dividend check.
    The same goes for war reparations. My grand fathers should have gotten an annual check from Germany until the day they die.
    I truly hope their is another “Great” war. So I can ask “What’s in it for me… nahh.. not enough . I’ll sit this one out”?

    1. “My cousin fought in Kuwait in the 90s for his niggardly Sergeant’s pay. Those puss little muzzies- who begged the US to save their brown asses- live in 8 bed room houses and drive E-Classes. My cousin should be getting a yearly dividend check.”
      With all the due respect that the law requires, it sounds like your cousin cast his pearls before swine. I’m happy to say that I’ve never asked him or anyone else to serve in combat to defend the ability of US bankers to seize the world’s resources with currency printed out of thin air.
      All Wars are Bankers’ Wars.

        1. None, because there is no such thing. The “private” nature of central banks is an all too common misunderstood topic.

    1. What is actually “PC” is believing the government school fairy tales of the American noble warriors who saved the world.

      1. There were over 1.5 million casualties in the SINGLE battle of Stalingrad alone. The US had around 450,000 casualties during the entirety of WW2 in both theaters over four years. The Soviets killed 8 Germans for every 1 killed by the west.
        The US involvement had no effect on the outcome of the war, only the speed in which it happened, and more importantly the effects of the occupied countries afterwards.

        1. A little secret. British men and amaerican men were not keen on killing Germans. Some may have sensed that they were cogs in a conspiracy and fired high or wide.

    1. Yaw dawg, ya surely don’t want to deprive a great dude with cool toothbrush moustache of his crowning achievement now do ya dawg? Holocaust did happen, now you may say you’re glad that it happened or whatever but don’t say it never happen cuz dat be insulting to the memory of the living dead! Gnome Saint?

      1. The burden of proof, as in any matter, lies with those doing the accusing.
        Any cursory look at the evidence, or lack of it, combined with the jailing of ‘holocaust deniers’, shows no compelling evidence. The only evidence produced consists of biased eye witness accounts, and confessions gained by the most disgusting torture.
        Even your own Chief Justice and General Patton himself were disgusted with the Allies war crimes and injustice.
        The only real holocaust during WW2 were the war crimes of Dresden and nuking Japan. Both perpetrated on non-military targets in the most disgraceful fashion, by the British and Americans.
        Then you have the filthy crimes of the soviets, lead by their sub-human jewish-bolshevik masters, like Ilya Ehrenberg. Where they encouraged the mass rape of German women, followed by the murder of millions.
        The Americans also purposely starved to death over 1.6 million German POWs in the 2 years 1945-1947.
        This article is PC BS as the main reason for WW2 was the German people, and others, trying to remove jewish financial and cultural control from their lands, amongst other reasons of course.
        The manosphere may be red pill re women, but are complete blue-pill faggots when it comes to race, history etc.

        1. Yeah I’m beginning to think that no way those Nazi boys could subdue 1 of these, let alone put him in the oven.

        2. No refutation with facts of what I said, just silly pictures and juvenile behaviour.
          I win the argument, grow up.

        3. Dude, I’ve checked your “facts” and they are big doughnuts so I guess you win nothing but I concede you get to take those doughnuts home, you win.

        4. -The only real holocaust during WW2 were the war crimes of Dresden and nuking Japan. Both perpetrated on non-military targets in the most disgraceful fashion, by the British and Americans.-
          Dude, please, those buck-toothed yellow midgets raping Dutch women at Indonesian archipelago like there’s no tomorrow! You bet those midgets enjoyed the very fact that those Dutch women were much taller than themselves so those midgets could nib at their nipples while sliding in and out. Aren’t Dutch your fellow whites? Or are you 1 of those whites who got turned on by black on blonde porn? Sheeeeeeeesh…………

        5. a “fact” is also a human construct… the first lesson of history should be that a staggeringly vast majority of humanity (I would say maybe more than 99%) has always been extremely naive and gullible and very very easy to manipulate like a herd of domesticated sheep.

        6. “The only real holocaust during WW2 were the war crimes of Dresden and nuking Japan.”
          If nuking those genocidal slimy jap mother fuckers saved one American life than it was well worth it. I would have liked to see Afghanistan nuked after 9.11.

        7. Who did the Japanese try to genocide?
          You are a truly sick individual if you believe what you say. If so, I would go see a shrink or a priest or something..

        8. you need to use a dictionary and look up the definition of genocide. Rape isn’t genocide, nor are isolated mass-killings.
          On your logic, Moscow should be nuked for the rape of Germany, New York & London should be nuked for Dresden.
          If you truly believe what you say, you need psychiatric treatment. My guess is that you are very young and immature. I hope you develop beyond where you are today.

        9. You need to open a JR Hiigh level history book.
          Rape of Nanking

          December of 1937, the Japanese Imperial Army marched into China’s capital city of Nanking and proceeded to murder 300,000 out of 600,000 civilians and soldiers in the city. The six weeks of carnage would become known as the Rape of Nanking and represented the single worst atrocity during the World War II era in either the European or Pacific theaters of war.

        10. So say if hypothetically the 101st airborne was based near your home city, and they committed a war crime abroad, then your home city, should be nuked?
          Your home city with millions of innocent civilians in, including your mother, siblings, the old lady down the road, friends. People who had nothing to do with a massacre, you think that they deserve to be nuked?

        11. You really are a stupid mother fucker. The Gandhi quote was in response to your asinine statement “On your logic, Moscow should be nuked for the rape of Germany, New York & London should be nuked for Dresden. ”
          The only thing that stopped Japan fro using nukes is the fact that they failed to develop them.
          My grandfathers laughed as those little yellow shits were obliterated. And the laughter continued while yellow babies were born with flippers for the next 50 years.

        12. If nuking the enemy saved 1 American life – which it certainly did- then nuke away. Like I said, I’d have nuked Afghanistan after 9.11 if I had the power to do so.
          Don’t you have an ‘Night to take back’ with the other SJW, pussy liberal?

        13. -So say if hypothetically the 101st airborne was based near your home city, and they committed a war crime abroad, then your home city, should be nuked? Your home city with millions of innocent civilians in, including your mother, siblings, the old lady down the road, friends.-
          If I had known that the soldiers from my side had INSTIGATED & committed war crimes abroad then I would be prepared for retaliations or I’d have abandoned my home city. Would I prefer that those people at the receiving end of my soldiers’ brutalities just accept & enjoy or at least pretend that nothing happened? You bet I would prefer that but who the hell are you kidding? Now if tomorrow a legion of armed-to-their-bucked-teeth bow-legged yellow midgets descended upon SJW-held areas in white countries and then commit orgies of mass rape, you can be rest assured that those white sissies and cunts will NOT only thinking of NOT seeking revenge but also will immensely enjoy each and every ticking second of it whilst thinking “no matter what, this is our own fault somehow because of our white privilege”.
          -People who had nothing to do with a massacre, you think that they deserve to be nuked?-
          An eye for an eye is the only way to go in war. You talked as if those Japs soldiers were honorable men who tried their best not to inflict casualties on civilians, you honestly think those Japs won’t rape white women if they ever conquered Paris or London? Google ‘Issei Sagawa’ he is the embodiment of your average Jap’s obsession towards white women, to the the point that he raped and cannibalized a Dutch girl after he shot her head from behind.
          If we are talking about the Japs civilians who got nuked at Nagasaki & Hiroshima, then IMO yes they deserved to get nuked because they are part of a system who gave rise to those raping murdering Jap soldiers in the first place. It would be idiotic for the Americans to hold themselves back against such ruthless enemy, John Rabe a Nazi office stationed in Nanking was even appalled by the atrocities the Japs inflicted upon the civilians.

        14. “”Marching south, men of the 4th Marines passed a group of some 10
          American soldiers bunched together in a tight circle next to the road.
          They were ‘quite animated,’ noted a corporal who assumed they were
          playing a game of craps. ‘Then as we passed them,’ said the shocked
          marine, ‘I could see they were taking turns raping an oriental woman. I
          was furious, but our outfit kept marching by as though nothing unusual
          was going on””

        15. “” According to Tanaka, close to midnight on April 4, an estimated 50
          GIs arriving in 3 trucks assaulted the Nakamura Hospital in Omori
          Attacking at the blow of a whistle, over the period of one hour they
          raped more than 40 patients and an estimated 37 female staff.
          One of the raped women had a two-day-old baby that was killed by being
          thrown on the floor, and also some male patients who tried to protect
          the women were killed.
          According to Tanaka, on April 11, between 30 and 60 US soldiers cut phone lines to a housing block in Nagoya city, and simultaneously raped “many girls and women between the ages of 10 and 55 years” “”

  17. Interesting you point out the Anglo-Iraq War. Look at who sided with the Iraqis.
    It is all too common today for people to overlook the very strong alliance between Hitler and the moslem world.

    1. Seems like you completely missed the point of the article.
      Yes, various groups chose to align with the Axis, and various other groups who don’t like the first groups have been using it as a talking point ever since. As the article makes clear, the groups that did align with the Axis had no reason to think the Axis was any more evil than the Allies, not at the time. The full extent of the genocidal racism of Nazi Germany didn’t become publicly known until after the war was over.
      Various Arab groups did attempt to cooperate with the Nazis. So? Should they have believed France and Britain when they were telling them what an evil expansionist empire Germany was? Germany, whose source of pre-war infamy was simply to have seized various territories that should have been German to begin with under the basis of ethnic self-determination on which European borders were drawn after WW1. Meanwhile, France and Britain were exercising imperial policy in the Middle East. The Arabs who had rebelled against the Ottoman Empire during WW1 had been promised independence and self-determination. What they got was the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration.

  18. Great article. So true. To the victor goes history. In war there is no good or evil l there are only those who benefit and cogs in the machine. The west has played up Germanys strength for generations. They werent fully mechanized i the beginning of the war and they werent even ready for Barbarossa. They just plain stomped the allies. Aside from the genocidal atrocities, the accomplishments of the German people should be looked at with a certain level of respect.

    1. “To the victor goes history.”
      Which is why American history books of the Vietnam War are written by communist Vietnamese.

  19. The biggest myth of the Second World War is that Germany lost. Of the so called victors only the USA benefitted. The British and the French were spent. Meanwhile Germany is the most successful economy in Europe and effectively runs Europe via the EU and is back to fighting the old enemy in the East for control of Ukraine. They do say history repeats itself.

    1. The reality was that it was a terrible fratricidal war that the Europeans should never have fought. The result of which has destroyed the Western world.
      The USA did rather well out of it economically, but the reason it was brought into the war (jewish media/financial control) are the reasons why the USA is now swirling the toilet of history. The USA is in terminal cultural, spiritual, racial, & economic decay.
      The British lost lives, their empire, and became indebted. Mass immigration started 1948 to fill the labour gaps, amongst other more nefarious reasons. Britain is now also in terminal decline, with her people looking at being genocided within a hundred years or so.
      The French are almost finished, set to become an Islamic state within 30 or so years.
      The Germans recovered well economically post-war, even until this day, but will not continue to do so whilst letting in high birth-rate immigrants with sub 90 IQs. They are also still an occupied country and have been since 1945. What with all the WW2 war propaganda/de-nazification propaganda they have been force-fed, they are also a really mentally f’ed up people. The holocaust lie being the most disgusting lie that you could ever tell a people.
      The Russians, well after the jewish bolsheviks killed the Czar and the middle classes & elite, it was always going to be, and is now a basket-case.
      No, the only true winners of WW2 were the jews, who gained legitimacy for acquiring a homeland in the form of Israel, and a moral get out of jail card for their future and ongoing financial crimes and maltreatment of the Palestinians.

  20. Love the site and most of the work done on here, but never posted before. However I wanted to add on to this topic. I spend a lot of energy trying to enlighten friends, peers, etc. on accurate history.
    One of the biggest problems I have with US pre WW2 lies, is the fact that all throughout the summer and fall 1941 FDR ordered the the US Navy to seize German Merchant vessels in the Atlantic. This is a blatant act of war, just for the seizures alone. On top of that the German Merchant sailors (who are not in any capacity military personnel) were held in secret “camps” (prisons) down south and interrogated for information. Even the slogan the white house came up with right after Pearl Harbor “Loose lips sink ships” was created as a deception to the American people.
    Of course when you try to debunk the myth of FDR to people they look at you like the devil. The man was lying to the American people and only cared about his own agenda.
    If you are ever curious find on youtube Adolph Hitler’s speech to the Reichstag the day after Germany declared war America. Very fascinating.

    1. Not only that, but every competent policy analyst knew that the oil embargo against Japan was an act of war. It was specifically designed to spark an attack.

      1. No, it was not. No country is entitled to be able to freely buy whatever it wants from the economies of other countries. An embargo is not an act of war under any of the international laws of war. An action that is not an act of war under international law does not become one simply because the motivations of the one doing it is to provoke the other side to commit an actual act of war.

        1. -No country is entitled to be able to freely buy whatever it wants from the economies of other countries. An embargo is not an act of war under any of the international laws of war.-
          No woman is entitled to a man’s affection & wealth or whatever the hell she wants from him. A rejection is not an act of oppression or discrimination under any logic of a functioning brain. And those dudes call themselves red-pillers…………….it boggles the mind.

        2. You may be correct about international law, yet at times, perception is reality….. both FDR and Tojo knew that the oil embargo would lead to war. It’s kind of like when Britain drew a line in the sand with their alliance with Poland. Germany knew it was a line in the sand. Didn’t matter whether it was international law or not, invasion of Poland meant war with Britain.

        3. So we were required to sell oil to japan while they raped and killed thousands of Chinese and Koreans? No the US was not obligated to fund a war which the people found immoral, read up on the japense conduct in china and comfort women its disgusting, also it was the will of the people read up on the china lobby, i know its popular to hate the US, but this is one time we didnt start shit we are not obligated in anyway to sell anything to anyone, the japs threwa fit because we wouldnt sell oil and they got exactly what they deserved

  21. Also want to add Hitler and the Nazi party rose to power and they came from nothing. The early party members were just ex soldiers/lower middle class. And what did they do? What did they tear down in Germany, that made them the biggest threat to world? The “Jews”…. no, the BANKING system. And yes the Jews were the banking system of the time. They were also the entire media (as they are today in the US as well). Goebels had a great line in an early speech where he says “they will not be intimated by the lies published in the Jewish newspaper”

    1. I would like to point out that yes at the time the banking
      section in Germany, most of the bankers were of the Jewish decent but in the
      population of the German Jews they represented the minority. It like
      politicians they are the minority claiming to represented the majority. There
      are many dangers of grouping people. Many Germans, Italians and Japanese decent
      in other countries such as the USA and Australia got blame for the actions of
      the Axis leaders and a lot of them had shops and were put in camps.
      This went on both during and after the war. The average Jewish shop owner (such
      as a Boot repair) I very much drought had much influence and power on the
      Banking system and the stupid decisions of the Wiemar republic then any other
      average German citizen. If Hitler were to only blame the elites of society that
      help cause the great depressions than the average German would ask what makes
      the new elites any different but by putting the blame on a lot of the troubles
      to a race, culture or religious group/groups they can point out how they are
      different and why you should be siding with them. It is one of the oldest trick
      in the books for politicians, and unfortunately it still works today.

  22. The underlying cause of world war 2 was germany’s attempt to free itself from the capitalist international bankers (who were predominately jewish) and communist influence (which was championed by alot of jewish intellectuals). collectively, jews are one of the most racist, undermining, arrogant and devious people on earth. you cant really blame germany for wanting its own money supply and banks, industries and destiny in the hands of its own people.
    The frankfurt school of socialism had its fair share of jewish communists, the same organisation that set forward the social decline of modern society and producing cultural marxism. To me it seems these people have a pathological hatred of traditional christian european civilisation and will do what they can to reduce it to nothing.

    1. Typical Nazi apologist rhetoric. Blame the Jews for everything.
      The fact is the German Jews were highly nationalistic and German in every way. German Jews were (always are) highly successful as a class. They did own many of the banks and were predominant in the stock market. They owned newspapers and retail chains.
      The Nazi hatred of Jews was lower middle-class bigotry shared by many at the time, which morphed into murderous hatred. They were blamed for losses in World War 1 and communism in Russia.
      Look in the mirror buddy. I think you have rabid, irrational hatred of Jewish people. Not very Christian of you.

      1. i dont understand how most of you here can be red pill when relating to women, yet be so blue pill when talking about race, history etc.

      2. Jews were in control of the banks and media Germany just like in the US today. Hitler’s paranoia was compounded by the fact that so many of the communists were Jewish also. In the Soviet Union Jews dominated the government and the secret police. Christians suffered horribly in the Soviet Union, Jews on the other hand were in positions of power. The roles of Jews in the Soviet Union is well document by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn dissident and author of The Gulag Archipelago. His book 200 Years Together documents the role of Jews in Russian history which provides some clarification as to the origins of where the antisemitism today and yesterday comes from.
        Antisemitism is not the correct term for someone who points out facts as to the injustices and hypocrisy carried out by Jews. The biggest discriminators out there today are Jewish.

      3. The problem is that if a large group of natives think that about a transnational elite who are lording it over them, see Wiemar Germany (really was a cesspit) then something had has happened to piss them off. Bourgeois people do know the score. Look at Ferguson. We get the same tribe blaming white middle class bigots for dysfunctional black culture. Weimar was just like this.

  23. “outclassed the Axis in nearly every way”? In tank, aircraft and ballistics technology the Germans were way ahead of the Allies. They lost the war on production and numbers…Hitler’s big mistake was to declare war on the US and get involved in a two front war.
    Should have left Russia well enough alone and pressured Britain for peace.

    1. The Germans had no choice but to launch Barbarossa, as intelligence reported that the soviets were massing troops ready for an attack. It was a pre-emptive strike.
      Hitler pressured England for peace for a long time and did everything he could to avoid war with Britain.
      Agree about the Germans outclassing the Allies wrt hardware. Their soldiers were better pound for pound too. The Waffen SS were the best soldiers the modern world has ever seen.

    2. Agreed, yet FDR was actively trying to get the USA involved. Any competent policy analyst knew the oil embargo on Japan was an act of war that would spark retaliation. Whether Hitler wanted to fight America or not, FDR would have made war in Europe.
      PS: Britain wouldn’t sue for peace.

    3. I’m not sure that Hitler was actively doing these things. You don’t realize that much of what he did was reactive. The US was already conducting a war on Germany by proxy.

  24. At last a gradually increasing number of individuals are coming forth and stating real history as opposed to the endless propaganda that one is always likely to encounter from the establishment. History is indeed written by the victors.

    1. “”Gramps was in the occupation and I’ll guaranty he raped more than a few.””
      There you go. I fixed your typo.

  25. Ok, here I go:
    Dear colleagues, this is what a true controversial article looks like, even though the author tries to keep a neutral stand-point we see the direction in which the balance tilts.
    I’ve never done much research on the world wars, only briefly read about them to have some knowledge at hand.
    Seeing is how american and jewish culture always victimize themselves ( including Hiroshima & Nagasaki :,,they attacked us first”) and always transforming Nazy Germany & Hitler into the colocvial boogeyman, well something stank in Denmark. I’m not quite sure where I take a stand between the Allies and the Axis, but one thing’s for sure, what the Allied countries brought us today (corruption be it moral/ financial/ economical/ societal ) don’t make them the preferred winners of the war now do they?
    A fellow commenter asked a few rows up :,, one would simply wonder what would Europe look like if Germany won the war? ”. To answer that question one either needs to live in Europe, or to have profound knowledge about the German culture and way of life.
    I conclude with a compliment on the article.
    Controversial as ever.

    1. hardly controversial, you sat on the fence.
      Come on, if you had to right now, with your life depending on it, would you fight for the Allies or the Axis powers?

      1. Any true alpha man would see the pointlessness of fighting for nationalism or any ideology. Much better to seek out a prosperous and rewarding life for yourself than to risk killing others in the hopes that you will change them. Fighting for the state is a fool’s errand. And true wars of defense or “just wars” as the church calls them, are relatively nonexistent.

        1. you are wrong.
          The state in NS Germany was operating in the best interest of the German people, not like modern day states that operate in the best interests of banks. The NS state removed the power of the banks, and was for the people. This is why the banks had to get rid of NS Germany.
          The state also protected the rights of man, and allowed him the right of a family life, which our modern ones don’t.
          So they were fighting for their lives for everything they held dear, and against the jewish bolsheviks and jewish capitalists, knowing what would happen to Germany should they lose. Knowing that they were fighting against the degeneracy we see in the West now.
          The German soldiers and people as a whole were very clued-up on what they were fighting for and against.

        2. That may all be true, and I agree with much of it. I still wouldn’t sign up at my local army enlistment office, grab a weapon, and start killing my neighbors. The above is assuming that the only way the NS state could continue to be successful for Germans is if it violently expanded to neighboring states and killed its neighbors. In which case, was it ever successful / sustainable in the first place?
          The above premise may be strong, but the conclusion that war was needed is not proven. For a contrary viewpoint, consider War is a Racket by US Marine Smedley Butler, the most decorated military figure in US history. It is fairly short.

        3. Okay they didn’t willy-nilly invade their neighbours just for shits and giggles. They re-unified Germanic peoples that were separated from each other following the very wrong Treaty of Versailles. Up until England & France declared war on them, Germanic territories were the only ones they invaded. E.g. the Sudentenland in what is now Czech Republic.
          Back to the present, nor would I enlist to fight innocent guys in their own homelands, at the behest of Bankers, Corporatism, Israel etc. No f’ing way.

        4. And they were successful in doing so, until Hitler decided to violate the Tripartite agreement and invade the Soviet Union. There was no pro-unification justification for this move. This invasion was based purely on Hitler’s racial beliefs that the Slavic people were inferior (if true, so what?), and in order to take valuable resources from these lesser peoples (might makes right theory).
          [I discount any motives of revenge from WW1 because the Russians were effectively neutralized and essentially defeated when they suffered their revolution during the first war, and Hitler already had his revenge against the French. He was apparently willing to let bygones be bygones with the Brits, although they would not agree to peace.]
          The Reich would likely be prospering today if Hitler never chose to invade the Soviets in 1941. Without losing their scientists, both during and after the war, to the allies (primarily the US but also the Soviets), Germany would likely have had a monopoly on nuclear fission, rockets, space, and many other technologies.

        5. The Germans had no choice but to launch Barbarossa, as intelligence reported that the soviets were massing troops ready for an attack. It was a pre-emptive strike.

        6. I don’t think they were actually worried about that. The issue with Barbarossa was treating Russians badly after rolling into town. That got them annoyed.

      2. Controversial for countries like America, England & France. For EE countries the position isn’t that difficult to see. But when you see the winning tide rising up against you, you do make some compromise otherwise your country gets bombed by the Allies and half of your people (not soldiers) die because of your thirst for glory. As the saying goes,, if you can’t beat’em, join’em”.

    2. They sorta did win didn’t they? Ww1 with them winning. Europe would have a similar economic and political organization. The British Empire might still exist though.

  26. WW2 was also an attempt by Germany to get out from under the thumb of the banksters. The banksters were successful in getting the rest of the world to do their fighting for them, to keep Germany in-line and in-debt. 75 years later and the banksters are still in charge. It’s a good thing that most WW2 veterans are gone and can’t see the world they “fought” for.

    1. most of the vets unfortunately could never bring themselves to admit that they were wrong, and fought on the wrong side. Ego gets in the way, having to admit you were duped, and that you helped destroy the world.

  27. People should read “Fighting Power” by Martin van Crevald to get a sense of the differences between the German and American armies.

  28. WWII was the inevitable result of Woodrow Wilson’s lies, stupidity, and arrogance.
    Can anyone explain why the hell we decided to join WWI and get 50k Americans killed for nothing? If we had let the Europeans fight it out in 1917-18, the rest of the 20th Century would have been a lot happier.

    1. Apparently because WW1 was such a significant war that America had to be part of it in order to get a say about on what terms peace would be made. Which Wilson squandered by pulling out instead of standing his ground, after having gotten Germany to surrender by promising that the new, democratic Germany would not be held liable for the actions of the preceding Imperial regime. Had he actually stood by the 14 Points and strong-armed Britain and France into abiding by them (as they had agreed to do as a condition to US war entry, for that matter), the whole rest of the century would probably have been much happier.

    2. Germany would have ordered France and Belgium to suit itself.
      The Germans dominate Europe now anyway.

    3. Good point. Can’t say that Americans weren’t “killed for nothing” in any war since then, however.

  29. “given the later horrors of Communism”
    Some of the greatest horrors of Communism and millions murdered date from 1917 to prior to WWII. It is quite strange that in an article of this type this ignores this factor like ignoring an elephant in the room.
    It is time we also had some more honest exposure and balance on the red terror under the Bolshevik regime and quotes from Trotsky and the openly stated self-interest motivations of both him and his similar colleagues for pushing such ideology. It is really quite unbelievable that the degree of censorship on such facts continues to this day.
    The vast majority of the sneaky and destructive Marxist subversion strategies which are rotting at the West today pre-date WWII, and if we want to understand what has been happening we really need to stop brushing much of this pre-WWII history under the carpet simply due to fighting on a particular side in WWII. I speak as someone whose grandparents fought for the Allies in British regiments in the Mediterranean (though afterwards were extremely sceptical about the point of the whole thing).

  30. The Germans lost the war when Hitler broke his non-aggression pact with Stalin and decided to invade Russia and got caught there in the bitter winter. Hubris lost the war for the Fuhrer.

    1. Their occupation policy in Russia was the problem. They should have posed as liberators. Not as exterminating angels of death.
      Plenty of Russians hated Stalin.

  31. Every side commits bad acts during war, but I accept that Germany had to be defeated, and I believe their defeat was inevitable. They would never have been able to hold onto Europe, even if they’d managed to eke out something resembling victory.
    The real problem is the intellectual trauma inflicted by the horrors of WWII that led people to start toying with all kinds of silly countercultural ideas and led to the mess we have now.

  32. The thing I never understand when people talk of these things is the belief they appear to harbour that things would have somehow been better had “such and such won.”, or that rampant corruption would somehow be less rampant.
    There is never going to be a perfect society or global economic situation. If it weren’t the banks being naughty warmongerers it would be someone else for some different reason.
    On much of the global scale America and western Europe are commonly viewed as the major villains on the set. Western Europe and America see the middle east as the major villains with China and Russia looming behind them. Russians think they’re the good guys. China likewise consider themselves as such.
    It’s all bollocks.

  33. The main reason Japan got in the ’empire business’ was to secure raw materials. Japan has none. When the US, Britain and the Netherlands dropped an embargo and freezing all Japanese assets overseas and denying Japan to get oil and such, engaging in war was the only way to go.

  34. You are right about the rebellion angle. but the war was also ideological: Hyper capitalism (fascism) vs. bureacratic socialism. British and American forces though crucial, played a minor role in Europe (about 20 percent of German forces were on the Western front).
    Also, your figures are wrong for Russia. There were 100,000 defectors (mostly POWs), the Holodomor is not recognized in academia or outside a few E. Euro country’s elite…

  35. The real question is…why do people argue so much about the details of a war fought 70 years ago? What’s done is done.
    This is no different than your average schlub raging over his fantasy football and vidya.

    1. We can avoid these violent conflicts if we ask ourselves who benefits and who has to do the fighting. We can see the situation building in Syria and Iraq today, there are people in the US trying to get us involved but it’s in our best interest to stay out.

      1. I agree with you. WW2 is definitely an important event to learn from, interesting and all that.
        I’m just saying half this comment section is a bunch of grown men arguing like children over meaningless statistics. Hence, the fantasy football comparison with two chubsters arguing over which of their favorite quarterbacks is the best.

    2. The past isn’t over.
      The ideological wrangling over ww2 directly affect policy today. For example women having jobs.

  36. While there is some valid reasoning in this argument for second generation industrialists rising up I assume this article is written by an american? Not to generalise but would it not be more valid to assume that the united states were simply backing economic interests. For example america only entered the war after Hitler declared on it via the defensive alliance he maintained with Japan even though he did not need too. But thats another story.. The main point of this post was that the USA was rather on the same boat as Japan and Germany as an emerging industrialist power… Being one of the only powers untouched at home by war and having vast amounts of natural resources to call upon took dominance in the international arena. Also while you condemn churchill Roosevelt actively pursued strategies that slowed the rate of progress the allies made while in sense finally liberating France many citizens and resistance fighters could have been saved if it was not for allied inaction.

    1. “The main point of this post was that the USA was rather on the same boat as Japan and Germany as an emerging industrialist power… Being one of the only powers untouched at home by war and having vast amounts of natural resources to call upon took dominance in the international arena.”
      Quite correct. The attempt to spin the WWII narrative in favor of Allied innocence and,of course,an attempt to genocide the jews by Adolf Hitler always skews the perspective. This falsehood becomes more evident the finer a point one attempts to put on the subject.
      It wasn’t economic dominance by other European powers the Germans were rebelling against.It wasn’t economic dominance by either the Near East,nor by the Far East.Further, it wasn’t even strictly economic. It was also cultural. There was also a territorial issue, a matter of wounded national pride.
      Hitler laid it out clearly in his own book who it was that was economically and culturally sabotaging Germany,and who coincidentally was in the process of consolidating its grip on Russia and America.Hitler made dozens of peace offers to other European powers,and probably didn’t want to be at war with America.Hitler was at war with one group,who stabbed his country in the back after being warmly welcomed and given a safe refuge from the Russians,who Germany falsely perceived as persecuting them.
      In reality,it was this group who persecuted Russia,persecuted Germany, and who is now persecuting Greece,the United States,and Canada and all European peoples over their fake Holocaust,which all of them miraculously survived and are now double what their population size in the 1940’s was.
      The Allies are guilty of perpetrating a real Holocaust against Ukraine,Russia,and Germany that claimed way more than 6 million lives,not to mention the war crimes of dropping not one,but 2 nukes on civilians, in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.They carved up the world into retarded mish-mashed regions of people with competing religions and languages and historic rivalries that guaranteed future conflicts.
      That is why they always lie about who started WWII,what Hitler’s goals were,and the supposed actions of the Nazis towards the jews. But even with the ability to make up any story they wanted,torture Nazi prisoners into signing confessions,revise it as many times and in whatever ways they want to and brainwash millions of kids into not deviating even one jot and tittle from the latest iteration of this fairy tale, they can’t make it
      stand up to scrutiny.
      The peoples of the powers that made up the Allies in WW2 have been fed a lie by their own governments in an attempt to spin what was in effect a case of the greatest military machines of the day ganging up on Germany out of greed and ethnic prejudice. I don’t know if they knew the gas chamber story was fake when they went in,but they certainly knew it was when they sawed holes into the roofs of showers and pretended that the Nazis were dropping Zyklon B pellets through them to gas jews inside a room with no ventilation and a wooden door with a big glass pane in the middle of it.They cynically smeared an entire nation,occupied them for nearly 100 years, and the jews have actually extracted hundreds of millions of dollars in German currency from them and murdered quite a few 90 year old men for working as guards at camps where jews died because the jews in America had the Allies bombing the German supply lines providing food and medicine to these camps and they starved and died of diseases as a result.
      It really is sick how people have slandered and robbed and occupied the Germans for so long,preventing them from even truly exercising democracy in their own country while hypocritically championing it around the world. Forget Freedom of Speech in Germany. If you even say something that rhymes with a Nazi slogan they put you in jail. If you say that maybe 5,999,999 jews were murdered by the Nazis in wooden gas chambers instead of six million,they put you in jail. Even though the jews’ own tallies at labor camps around Germany of jewish deaths,displayed on plaques at these museums-their OWN numbers mind you,which they have essentially just made up- do not today add up to six million. If you’re accused of so-called Holocaust denial in Germany,your attorney can be put in jail for trying to use the facts of the Holocaust as a defense. Imagine that. Whether or not the Holocaust happened in reality, if you’re a German, you’re going to be imprisoned for saying it didn’t happen.
      This is ridiculous. This is absurd. And it is an injustice that has to stop. We…Americans, Russians,British..we need to have the balls to say it. We fucked up. We were the ones that committed the atrocities,and we need to be prepared to accept the consequences of that. We can’t do anything about what the Germans of the past went through, we can’t apologize to Hitler and restore the Third Reich,but we can stop lying about the Germans and refusing to own up to the blood that is on the hands of the Allied powers and the jewish stranglehold on European legal bodies that happened as a result of us viciously gang-beating the Germans for responding in kind to the jewish aggressors who started the war between Europeans by declaring a jewish war against Germany and enlisting us as first unwitting and then probably witting dupes against her.
      There was no plan to exterminate sixty gazillion jews in wooden gas chambers.That means that everything we did in response to that was morally unjustified,even if our soldiers were honorable heroes who thought they were protecting their countrymen.

  37. Excellent stuff. Yet the war was a bit more complicated if you look at a strong book on Stalin called “The Chief Culprit.” I learned many things from this eye-openner. For one thing, Stalin was in a far better position to launch a surprise attack on Germany any anyone would had thought. All his armies were positioned west of the rivers and other natural and built defensive barriers, a sure sign of a planned invasion, when Hitler attacked first. The surprise was so complete that the Nazi were able to seize many Soviet arms and POWs, including Stalin’s son. However, there were far more armies in the rear with factories, built by the American corporations, working overtime out of the bombing range. Also, Japan’s attitude toward America was far more mixed when you look at The Imperial Cruise about Robert Taft’s sailing on Teddy Roosevelt’s orders.
    As a Polish-American, I am proud of my ancestors but I’m not blind to the sorry fact that Poland was a dictatorship who was busy trying to ethic-clean the Germans out, an issue that consumed many German governments long before the Nazis. The fact is this, the WW2 was the War of Monsters with terrible crimes on all sides. There was really no noble governments anywhere, only noble common people who try to do the best to live a moral life in these awful times.

  38. The holocaust has been proven to be a myth. Sure, Hitler seized the jews assets and sent them to camps, but plenty of catholics, polacks, and opposers of every kind recieved similar treatment. The amount of smoke and ash coming from Auschwitz from burning up thousands of jews should’ve covered the outskirts in a massive fog of darkness. No records of such event exist.
    I’m not saying they weren’t persecuted, I’m just saying that the numbers of dead jews are greatly, greatly exaggerated. And since they control much of the media and are very powerful in the world economy, they take great strides to paint themselves as the only victims of Hitler, though anyone that takes the time to read a little will find out that this is not the case.

  39. Since the the closet Illuminatti Colon traveled to the American continent, the world got screwed and the United States celebrates a special day for him?

  40. “The true narrative behind WW2”, eh?
    Interesting word, narrative. You obviously have one, and are twisting facts in order to fit it.
    “Sixty million people died of famines during British rule in India.”
    According to the same website which you use for citation, famine in India has been recurring for millennia:
    “Famine had been a recurrent feature of life in the Indian sub-continental countries of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and reached its numerically deadliest peak in the late 18th and 19th centuries. Historical and legendary evidence names some 90 famines in 2,500 years of history.[1]”
    When you do the math from that last sentence (2,500 years / 90 famines), you come up with 1 famine in India ever 27.5 years, meaning the vast majority of them were NOT under British rule. By my estimates, that means there were around 73-76 famines in India before the British arrival, or around 83% of them.
    Famine is so common in India that it is actually ENDEMIC to the area and it’s people, and was so long before the British arrived, let alone before they held sway.
    “Indian agriculture is heavily dependent on climate: a favourable southwest summer monsoon is critical in securing water for irrigating crops.”
    The operative phrase here being “is critical”. No favorable monsoon, no favorable harvest.
    Did the British control the weather back then?
    Now, why would famines be deadliest in the 18th and 19th centuries? Maybe British policies were at fault, but your own source says:
    “SOME commentators have identified British government inaction as contributing factors to the severity of famines during the time India was under British rule[citation needed].”
    Note the ‘citation needed’ at the end. Correlation is not causation.
    It could be that the worst famines occurred during those centuries because:
    1-The population had reached such a critical mass (why? see below*), so any famine was bound to be worse because of far more mouths to feed.
    2-Two World wars, particularly the latter, caused major disruptions to supply lines and infrastructure.
    3-Any number of other possible factors.
    Reading further:
    *“Famine LARGELY ENDED by the start of 20th century with the Bengal famine of 1943 BEING AN EXCEPTION RELATED TO COMPLICATIONS DURING WW2. The 1883 Indian Famine Codes, transportation improvements, and changes following independence have been identified as FURTHERING FAMINE RELIEF.”
    So now your own source says that the endemic famines of India STOPPED by the 20th century, with one exception related to a World War. In fact, they stopped in part because laws and transportation, created under British rule, helped, saving countless lives. So, apparently, the increasing British presence and control coincides with DIMINISHMENT of famine for India. This fact makes the following all the more ludicrous.
    It is bad enough that you so badly misinterpret (or is it misrepresent?) history to push your narrative this far. You then take the truth, bend it over a rock, and rape the shit out of it.
    “The worst atrocity of all occurred in India as well.”
    Worst atrocity of all?
    Of all what?
    The entire period?
    If so, you are:
    2-Grossly misinformed
    3-Deliberately and perversely lying to bolster your thesis.
    Your use of the word ‘atrocity’ strongly implies that this famine was a deliberate act perpetuated by the British. That is a bald-faced lie.
    “The strain of war soon weighed heavily on the sub-continent. In Bengal Province (centered on modern-day Bangladesh) famine had set in by 1943. War conditions and the indifference of the British authorities contributed to up to 4 million people starving over the next year.
    This disaster is similar in scale to THE HOLOCAUST OR THE HOLODOMOR yet few people in the west have heard of it. Hitler and Stalin are widely condemned as tyrants and mass-murderers, but Churchill gets off the hook completely for similar brutality.”
    Uhmmm, you DO understand that both the Holocaust and the Holodomor were DELIBERATE policies of extermination, right?
    No, apparently you do not, or you don’t give a shit, because otherwise you would not try to equate them with what you yourself describe as a result of both a raging world war and at worst “indifference” by British authorities, not intentional policies of genocide.
    Even assuming your charge of “indifference” is accurate, then it still does NOT equate with the two former incidents of deliberate genocide. They are not ‘similar’ at all.
    Both the Holocaust and Holomodor were a result of policies whose entire goal was the liquidation of millions of people for political and racial ends. Stalin and Hitler were not “indifferent” to the Jews, Gypsies, Ukrainians and others who were dying. Those people did not die as a matter of negligence, or as a unfortunate by-product of war, or weather.
    Stalin and Hitler both wanted these millions dead, and spent considerable time and effort seeing that they were destroyed.
    The reason Churchill does not get mentioned alongside Stalin and Hitler is because he is not guilty of anything like you suggest, even though your slanted piece attempted to make it appear so.
    To you, and the editors of Return of Kings:
    I am disgusted by this.
    Speaking uncomfortable truths, ie, Red Pill, is one thing. I support that whole-heartedly. We need that when we are surrounded by so much toxic bullshit, choking us.
    However, pushing bullshit narratives with twisted facts and gross misinterpretations is another.
    That’s what the feminists and other related Left wing fanatics do. They have to do it because they are pushing poisonous lies. It is the only way they can sell that poison.
    We are SUPPOSED to be different. We are supposed to tell always the truth even when, especially when, the truth hurts.
    We are not supposed to concoct our own lies to suit our own agenda.
    What the author of this piece, and any editor who let it get by him, has done is NO different than those politicians and SJW’s who keep pushing the bogus “1 in 5 college women are raped” statistic.
    You can’t publish something like this, and then turn around and complain when they distort the truth or openly lie to smear men, Red Pill thought or it’s adherents. You are validating their tactics and diminishing your own credibility.
    Bottom line, guys, you HAVE to do better than this…

    1. Hi there.
      You’ve misinterpreted several things I’ve said, and no, I’m not wrong about the others.
      Yes India has historically experienced famines, and many commentators do attribute many of the worst ones in the 150-odd years of British rule to colonial policies. One of them was no less than Adam Smith –
      I did not say the famine was the worst atrocity of the era, just the blackest mark on the Allies during WW2. Churchill was quite contemptuous of the millions who died.
      “Starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks” – Winston Churchill
      As for the holodomor, most people are unaware that, like India, Russia historically experienced famine as well –
      You say that the Bengal famine can be excused because it occurred during wartime, but the Holodomor also occurred amid a rapid industrial drive in the lead-up to war.
      “We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they will crush us” – Joseph Stalin, 1931
      If Stalin had not imposed the industrialization policies of the 1930s, the Soviet Union would not have stood a chance when Barbarossa was launched – exactly ten years later. This makes the losses at least as justified as those in Bengal in 1943.
      The famine was also not confined solely to Ukraine, making it very hard to label it a deliberate genocide. Most of the world’s countries do not in fact recognize it as such –
      The two events are more or less identical.
      The holocaust was much more deliberate of course, though it varied from gas chambers to starvation. Note that above, I don’t dispute that the Axis generally were worse than the Allies, just that the difference is nowhere near as great.
      The Allies had been using the same tactics as in the holocaust – scorched-Earth policies and concentration camps (though not specifically gas chambers) for centuries, such as the British in the Boer War or the Americans in the Philippines just a generation earlier.
      They were capable of just as much brutality in expanding their own empires as Hitler was, and had been doing so for a long, long time. They then had the balls to try and claim victim-hood the moment the Germans started doing the same.
      This is the myth I wish to puncture.

      1. “You’ve misinterpreted several things I’ve said, and no, I’m not wrong about the others.”
        You are wrong, Max. Not about everything, but definitely on the issues I raised.
        Your article asks people to question their assumptions about history, which is not a bad thing, and is in fact something a good historian does. But you need to be equally careful not to jump to other erroneous conclusions.
        My contention is that for a person writing about history, and supposedly getting to the truth of things, you are cherry picking some information, ignoring others.
        In your defense, maybe you are not aware. I am trying to share some insight and knowledge with you.
        Let me also point something out. You seem to use Wikipedia an awful lot for your research, citations, etc.
        Wikipedia is NOT a definitive source, it is not peer-reviewed and has a history of political bias. I hope you are aware of that, Max. I will use it often here to prove that even using your sources, I can poke holes in your claims, but you need to broaden your sources.
        “Yes India has historically experienced famines, and many commentators do attribute many of the worst ones in the 150-odd years of British rule to colonial policies. One of them was no less than Adam Smith –
        First, let me point out that if you only attribute 150 years of rule of the British in India, I am not sure how you then blame them for famines which occurred 173 years apart.
        Second, if you look at the Smith quote cited in that Wiki article, it is not nearly as definitive as you, or Wiki, makes it. Smith does not attribute to the famine in question to British rule. He allows that PERHAPS it made it worse, but that he was basing that on observations of other famines and policy.
        Third, that Smith quote tends to support my previous point regarding India’s particular vulnerability to famine due to it’s staple crop (rice) and weather.
        In any event, in regards to that 1770 famine, Max, how does it apply to this?
        “In Bengal Province (centered on modern-day Bangladesh) famine had set in by 1943. War conditions and the indifference of the British authorities contributed to up to 4 million people starving over the next year.”
        This statement is what I was responding to, and criticizing. Your focus was the “Narrative of World War II”, right?
        Specifically, your contention was that the famine of 1943 was morally equivalent to the Holocaust and Holomodor. They were ‘very similar’.
        “I did not say the famine was the worst atrocity of the era, just the blackest mark on the Allies during WW2.”
        You did not make that clear in your article, which is why I questioned it. Thank you for clarifying.
        However, as we will explore, your attempt to equate this famine with the true atrocities by Hitler and Stalin is ludicrous.
        “Churchill was quite contemptuous of the millions who died.”
        Assuming that is true, that might make him a prick, but it does not make him a mass murderer, does it?
        Someone who says he does not really care about the Holocaust may be a jerk, but he’s not Hitler, nor even a member of the SS, is he?
        “Starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks” – Winston Churchill
        Quotes taken out of context are always a dangerous thing.
        “Any imports would have had to come from Australia, North America or South America. Some supplies from Australia entered the region. [63] The main constraint was shipping. The Battle of the Atlantic was at its peak from mid-1942 to mid-1943, with submarine wolf packs sinking so many ships that the Allies were on the verge of defeat, so shipping could not be spared for India.[64]
        By August 1943 Churchill refused to release shipping to send food to India.[65][66][67] Initially during the famine he was more concerned with the civilians of Nazi occupied Greece (who were also suffering from a famine) compared with the Bengalis,[68] noting that the “starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks”.[69] ”
        Again, this is from your preferred source, Max.
        What we discover is that Churchill’s refusal to release food (and vital ships) for India was not based simply on racial hatred or cruel indifference, but on realistic limitations and risks imposed by wartime.
        Sending ships to India meant weeks of travel, greatly increasing the risks to the supplies, ships and crews.
        It was also based on the fact that OTHER people were starving at the time.
        With limited ships, food and other resources, a war you needed to win, and other famine victims, who would YOU choose, Max?
        Churchill was in the midst of a World War. Wars take hard, difficult decisions, and you never have all the resources you desire.
        Churchill made a decision to focus on the suffering of people closer to home, who contributed more directly to the european war effort, and which entailed less overall risk.
        What’s really strange here, looking at the actual facts behind that statement, is how Red Pill it is in regards to reality. Churchill did not tend to mince words, EVER. He chose to sum up the situation regarding India very succinctly, no bullshit, which we Red Pill guys supposedly laud:
        ‘I can feed the Indians at great risk and little benefit, or the Greeks at little risk and great benefit.’
        BUT, here he is being chastised for it. I find that strange for a ROT article.
        Anyway, we can bicker all you want about the specifics, particularly given your theme of “Axis Rebellion”, but understand the point that Churchill’s very complex decision has been reduced you and others to:
        “He hated Indians, and chose to deliberately starve them to death very much like Hitler and Stalin did.”
        That, as I said before, is utter bullshit, and is not supported by either facts or logic.
        “You say that the Bengal famine can be excused because it occurred during wartime, but the Holodomor also occurred amid a rapid industrial drive in the lead-up to war.”
        The Holodomor was not part of some ‘run-up’ to war. It was just one part of a long, systemic campaign of terror, oppression and mass murder meant to attain complete and utter political control of first Russia, and then all surrounding areas.
        The Red Terror –
        The Great Purge –
        The Great Terror –
        The Bolsheviks wanted complete and uncontested control of the country; absolute and unquestioned power. When Stalin took control, he wanted the same thing, but all for himself. They went about this by creating general terror. It has been in the Communist playbook ever since. North Korea still practices it.
        “The campaign of mass repressions was officially initiated as retribution for the assassination of Petrograd Cheka leader Moisei Uritsky by Leonid Kannegisser, and attempted assassination of Lenin by Fanni Kaplan on 30 August 1918. While recovering from his wounds, Lenin instructed: “It is necessary – secretly and urgently to PREPARE THE TERROR”.[15] Even before the assassinations, Lenin was sending telegrams “to introduce MASS TERROR” in Nizhny Novgorod in response to a suspected civilian uprising there, and “crush” landowners in Penza who protested, sometimes violently, to requisition of their grain by military detachments:[2]”
        Most everything the Soviets did was to instill terror in the populace, including other communists and socialists. They wanted complete and utter obedience to their policies.
        (So, writing this, what suddenly strikes me is that for a person supposedly trying to morally equate the Allies with the Axis, you seem to go out of your way to ignore or downplay Soviet crimes which would make your thesis a whole lot more credible and easy.
        Interesting. And it makes what follows a little more understandable if not less disturbing.}
        “We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or they will crush us” – Joseph Stalin, 1931
        Max, if you actually interested in understanding this period, you need to read the Black Book of Communism and then get back to me.
        Seriously, read JUST the first section dealing with Russia, and let me know if you still think along these lines.
        “If Stalin had not imposed the industrialization policies of the 1930s, the Soviet Union would not have stood a chance when Barbarossa was launched – exactly ten years later.”
        First, these kind of mass murder ‘policies’ began in 1918-1920.
        And all these policies were not only meant to ‘industrialize’ and ‘advance’ the Soviet Union, but to crush all opposition for the ruling party. And in the end, they did incredible damage toward the stated goals.
        Joseph Stalin’s and Bolshevik policies DEVASTATED both agriculture and industry in the Soviet union. Literally millions of peasants and factory workers were systematically imprisoned, exiled and murdered, wreaking havoc on both food output and manufactured goods.
        For example, the Bolsheviks would literally confiscate so much grain from the peasants, they not only left them with nothing to eat that year, but also left them with no grain to plant the NEXT YEARS harvest.
        When it came to industry, workers (the people the Soviets cared the most about) were forced to work like slaves, and any complaints were met with arrest, torture and execution.
        Brilliant scientists, engineers and others were frequently arrested, some killed, just for being of the “wrong political persuasian”.
        The Soviets would then often replace them with political flunkies who often had no idea what they hell they were doing.
        Similar to the farmers, when production fell due to their horrible policies, the Soviets simply cried “sabotage!” and started killing and arresting more people.
        Ditto the military, when many officers and military engineers were imprisoned or executed.
        Money and resources were spent carrying out these policies, often costing MORE than what the government secured in material goods.
        ALL of this contributed to the Soviet Union being much less prepared for the German onslaught than they could have been. For a person who claims Stalin was preparing for a war, he certainly seemed to have been caught with his pants around his ankles when Barbarossa was launched.
        “This makes the losses at least as justified as those in Bengal in 1943.”
        No, actually, it doesn’t. The fact that you even claim that is really disturbing.
        Again, do you not seem understand, or care, that the Holomodor was a DELIBERATE policy aimed at the extermination of millions of people.
        The Bengal Famine was not.
        Period. No debate. Really.
        “The famine was also not confined solely to Ukraine, making it very hard to label it a deliberate genocide.”
        Your statement does not hold up logically.
        It was not confined solely to the Ukraine, yes, because the Soviets imposed the same draconian measures on everyone within their political reach. They targeted numerous undesirable elements in their society in many areas. That does not prevent it from being labeled a genocide, and it certainly does not prevent us from labeling as deliberate. Their actions speak to that, no matter what one labels it.
        But, if you like, we can simply call it mass murder on an industrial scale. Or maybe the Soviet Holocaust.
        “Most of the world’s countries do not in fact recognize it as such –…”
        You are arguing history by consensus now?
        I deal with facts. So should you if history and the truth matter.
        “The two events are more or less identical.”
        No, they are completely and utterly not, and the fact that you continue to claim as much means you are horribly ignorant, or there is something truly dark in you. I hope its the former.
        Again, read the Black Book of Communism, at least the first 200 pages, and then email me.
        [email protected]
        I would love to see if you still see things the same way.
        “The holocaust was much more deliberate of course, though it varied from gas chambers to starvation.”
        The mass-murder of the Soviets was just as deliberate as the Holocaust, and actually very similar apart from gas chambers.
        Millions were sent to their deaths via train, dying enroute, or dying when they were dumped in wilderness without supplies or shelter.
        Millions more were worked to death in camps.
        Millions more were outright murdered.
        “Note that above, I don’t dispute that the Axis generally were worse than the Allies, just that the difference is nowhere near as great.”
        You are attempting to narrow that chasm using dubious comparisons and interpretations, but the facts don’t support it, and you seem intent to trying to do it anyway.
        “The Allies had been using the same tactics as in the holocaust – scorched-Earth policies and concentration camps (though not specifically gas chambers) for centuries, such as the British in the Boer War or the Americans in the Philippines just a generation earlier.”
        If you want to look back into human history, there is a WHOLE lot of terror, oppression, vicious cruelty and murder to go around.
        I don’t claim the British or Americans (and I don’t include the Soviets here. I know they were worse than the Nazis), were unsullied. But they are not ‘similar’ in their overall behavior in regards to atrocity as Japan and Germany, or to their ally, the Soviets.
        And more to the point, you were trying to equate very specific events (Bengal Famine 1943/Holomodor/Holocaust), so this whole “let’s check the whole history” thing does not apply.
        “They were capable of just as much brutality in expanding their own empires as Hitler was, and had been doing so for a long, long time. They then had the balls to try and claim victim-hood the moment the Germans started doing the same.”
        I don’t agree with that statement, but I also was not arguing about it. YOUR focus was the era of World War II. I took you to task for, again, a very specific comparison of certain events within that area, which I have shown does not hold up.
        “This is the myth I wish to puncture.”
        …By perpetuating your own myths.
        Not a recipe for success, Max.
        Keep questioning, Max, but when confronted with facts which do not jibe with your views or your assertions, you have to reevaluate. I hope you do.

  41. “Holocaust deniers are scum.”
    Truly a Cathedral-worthy review of history. The only holocaust to occur in WW2 was Dresden. Anyone who pimps otherwise is either ignorant, or indoctrinated.

  42. >Any holocaust deniers out there—you are still scum.
    …implying a historical opinion is a moral choice rather than an academic hypothesis. Apparently I’m a poopy-head because I’ve noticed the plaque at Auchwitz was changed from 4 million to 1.5 million deaths, or that the “soap and lampshades” myths (google “nazi shrunken heads” while you’re at it) were quietly withdrawn, or that only those trustworthy Soviets ever liberated “death camps.” All the verifiable camps (ie: liberated by our guys) are merely classified as work camps.
    But none of this matters because it is *ILLEGAL* to properly study this historical event in the countries in question. As long as scholars are thrown in jail for debating the holocaust, then by the western tradition of scholarly knowledge, we do not know.
    But yeah, I’m scum for noticing that they lock historians up for coming to the “wrong” conclusion.
    p.s. You forgot to mention the six million Jews killed by extermination in WWI (see attached image).

  43. “Millions of Congolese died or had their limbs chopped off working on Belgian rubber plantations.”
    No. Millions died. A thousand, maye 2 at extreme most, were punished by having a limb cut off. It was an extreme form of punishment and it meant that worker cost you productivity. Consequently it was not widely applied.
    Stop hysterically inflating evil white misdeeds in history like some kind of SJW faqgot with a high school education.
    As you were

  44. This piece almost makes me feel sorry for old Hitler and his band of merry Nazis. If mean old Britain had only allowed him to have more toys the war could have been avoided. Nobody made him invade Czechoslovakia or Poland. Or France. Or the USSR. Actually Germany was doing just fine before the invasions. So was Japan. Call it what it was: utter stupidity. They thought they could win a quick victory against overwhelming odds. They lost. Quit trying to re-write history. Stick to writing about chicks and bubblegum, shit you know.

  45. I am not a Neo-Nazi racist, but I do hate it when Zionist propaganda dishonors even a once trustworthy site like ReturnOfKings. The war is over and the truth needs to be told.

  46. You’ve ignored the major mistake made by Hitler when he turned on the Russians. I always wonder what the outcome would have been if he hadn’t done that and focused on the West.

  47. “Holocaust deniers….you are still scum”
    This seems ironic that your entire article seeks to look at historical programming from a different and more objective standpoint, yet you still cannot shake off the programming you recieved of the holocaust.
    In one breath you wish us all to throw off propaganda and give a fresh look and the next you reinforce the same propaganda you wished to reexamine.
    Its a sad truth that history is always twisted by the victors.
    Questions about the holocaust exist because the official story is a joke.
    There is no proof of six million jews dying.
    I will agree that jews had it real bad, but others did also.
    The holocaust propaganda dismisses all suffering but that of the jews, and I dismiss that outright.
    Even if six million jews died, out of almost 100, 000, 000 worldwide, I would sooner lament the passing of my own countrymen who fought hard, not cowering and begging for help, and then lament the loss of all the Christians who were pitted against each other to the death by the bankers who created the conditions which led to the War.
    We never here of Eisenhower’s death camps for innocent Germans but every six months we get a new lame ass nazi movie that almost no one goes to see.
    To anyone who dismisses the suffering of massive amounts of Christians and others wordwide to whine about the jews ONLY….you are scum.

  48. Japan’s aim was to liberate Asia from European colonialism. In order to
    achieve this they needed the resources the mainland lacked so they
    invaded neighboring countries. The Nanking Massacre is a giant hoax,
    just like the Armenian Genocide, even the Holocaust is somehow
    There are scholars who question the amount of victims. No
    forensic evidence around that can point out the exact amount of victims.
    In Japan’s case, Japan has always been portrayed as the evil force
    during WWII but I suggest you do some reasearch by yourself. Many
    Indonesians dont consider the Japanese as their invaders but liberators.
    Indonesia was under Dutch rule for 4 centuries.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *