— Secure Freedom (@securefreedom) June 6, 2016
The type of plane my father flew (B-24) over N-France up until D-Day, in Calais, to draw enemy positions away from the south.
— Secure Freedom (@securefreedom) June 6, 2016
The type of plane my father flew (B-24) over N-France up until D-Day, in Calais, to draw enemy positions away from the south.
If the SOB apologizes, he does so on his own behalf, not for the hundreds of thousands of US servicemen who would have been killed invading Japan, and certainly not for me.
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave Japanese leaders the excuse they needed to take the absolutely unthinkable action of surrendering. Indeed, the atomic bombings figured prominently in Emperor Hirohito’s unprecedented speech to the nation announcing Japan’s surrender. “The enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization,” the Emperor told a stunned Japanese nation (stunned partly because they had never heard the Emperor speak and partly because they couldn’t believe Japan was surrendering.)
On the occasion of the 69th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings last month, I wrote a piece arguing that the decision to use the atomic bomb had saved countless lives– even if that had nothing to do with why the U.S. dropped the bomb. Last week, The Pacific Realist had the great pleasure of featuring a guest post by Ward Wilson, a fantastic and insightful nuclear expert, which ostensibly refuted my earlier piece.
As it turns out, Wilson and I are largely in agreement on the central point of my initial article. In the article, I had argued that even if the Soviet Union’s war declaration was the decisive event in Tokyo’s decision to surrender, the atomic bombings provided the Japanese leadership with the face-saving excuse they needed to justify surrendering to the Japanese populace. Given the prevailing national sentiments in Imperial Japan, without the atomic excuse the leadership would have had to continue fighting even if they knew it was futile. After all, Japanese leaders had long instilled in the population the notion that surrendering was the ultimate sin, and that honor necessitated that they sacrifice themselves in the name of the Emperor.
Wilson noted in his piece that Japan’s military largely obliged during the war. “Out of 31,000 Japanese soldiers stationed on Saipan, only 921 were taken prisoner after the fighting there,” he points out. I’d add that the few Japanese soldiers who had been taken prisoner during the Pacific War were largely shunned by their friends, families and communities upon their return. Meanwhile, the Japanese populace at home had endured the unprecedented U.S. strategic bombing campaign without calling on their leaders to surrender. In fact, they were shocked and largely in denial when the Emperor did announce Japan’s surrender.
In this context, it’s unthinkable (absent the atomic excuse) that Japan’s leaders could have surrendered to the U.S. and/or the Soviets before the invasion of the Japanese homeland even commenced. Instead, they’d have to continue fighting for (at least) a substantial period of time, if not until the bitter end, which would have ultimately resulted in more deaths than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I remember the chill running down my spine when I came across this Soviet monstrosity in Treptower Park in Berlin, dedicated to Soviet soldiers in the ”liberation” of Germany. An evil power honored for helping to defeat its evil former ally, and continued in the same vein as its fomer ally for the next 5 decades.
Far less familiar, however, is the US-British betrayal of at least two million Soviet-claimed nationals, forcibly repatriated by US and British forces from Europe (also from the US and Britain) in nightmarish episodes of suicide, violence and pathos known as Operation Keelhaul (1944-1947). Those forcibly returned to certain death or the Gulag included nearly one million anti-Communist Russians, German POWs who formed the Russian Army of Liberation against Stalin, under the command of anti-Communist, anti-Nazi General Vlasov. The very existence of such an army — POWs who took up arms against their own country by the hundreds of thousands — is surely unique in history.
Anti-Red Gen. Andrey Vlasov, whose Russian Army of Liberation liberated Prague
Every May it comes around: valedictories to “victory” in the “good” war, as if World War II were all and only about defeating the totalitarian monster Hitler.
That’s the two-dimensional visions of the war that is decked in bunting, marked by parades, endlessly featured in books, movies and miniseries.
But there was another war.
This other war was the Soviet war of deception, corruption and subversion waged from Moscow against the US and GB. While FDR and Churchill embraced “Uncle Joe” Stalin as their indispensable ally against their common enemy Hitler, “Uncle Joe” Stalin was all the while secretly waging a covert war against them, his putative allies, FDR and Churchill, directing intelligence armies of traitors — American and British traitors — embedded in government in Washington and London. These agents of Stalin stole secrets, yes, but, far, far more important, they influenced Allied war and peace councils and beyond. Thus, Communists remade the postwar world in ways we, amazingly, still scratch our heads over.
How? This mechanism of corruption is the crux of American Betrayal.
This same corruption is evident beneath the surface of VE-Day, if we dare to look. Vanquishing Nazism, releasing Europe’s by-then remnant Jewish population, halting the killing — these are great things, of course. (But consider, as I posit in American Betrayal, that there is a strong likelihood that — sans Stalin’s infiltration of Washington and London — Hitler might well have been defeated years sooner, saving millions of lives and much of civlization.) These, however, are not the only things that happened in this anniversay month of victory over Hitler’s 12-year Reich in Europe. May, as readers of American Betrayal know, is also a month of betrayal.
Somewhat familiar in our collective memory is the betrayal of civilian populations awaiting true liberation from Nazi rule by Americans and British forces, not re-incarceration by the Red Army. The record remains incomplete as to the steps that led to the colossal disaster of General Eisenhower ordering US armies to halt short of Berlin and Prague and elsewhere, permitting Red Army forces to move in and lock down these nations for the next half century. It is a measure of resilience of the surface narrative of World War II that the only thing controversial about Eisenhower today is the shape of his coming monument by the National Mall.
I think George Orwell said it best:
― George Orwell, 1984
In 2012, the AP apologized for firing war correspondent Edward Kennedy for reporting the end of WWII on May 7, 1945 in defiance of military censors accommodating Stalin’s wishes to announce the German surrender on May 8.
Notice the media huzzas for the 69th anniversary of the end of WWII in Europe? Too bad the date is wrong. We celebrate V-E Day on May 8 due strictly to Stalin’s wishes and Truman and Churchill’s fear of “offending the Russians” — the frequent driver, sometimes fueled by bona fide agents of Stalin’s influence, of much US and British policy and strategy.
The war in Europe ended on May 7, 1945.
The story, from Chapter 12 of American Betrayal:
An even cruder, emptier example of this manipulation was the embargo placed at the behest of the Allied leaders, Stalin, Truman, and Churchill (dragging his heels), on the news of the surrender of Nazi Germany in France on May 7, 1945, until the Russians could rig up their own surrender ceremony in Berlin on May 8, 1945. This stupendous act of appeasement, blanked out of national memory, was thankfully circumvented by a wise and bold AP reporter named Edward Kennedy, who believed the news of Germany’s surrender “belonged to the Allied peoples,” as he later wrote, and not to the Soviet propaganda department. Kennedy created a giant controversy for refusing to go along with this blatant political censorship. On learning that Allied military headquarters (SHAEF) had already authorized German radio to broadcast the news of the May 7 surrender, Kennedy filed his story regardless of the embargo, regardless of the Soviet plan. As Kennedy explained his decision (which cost him his job with the AP) in an Atlantic Monthly essay in 1948, “Truman and Churchill—the latter reluctantly and only on pressure from Washington—agreed to hold up the news, which belonged to the Allied peoples, until the time of the Berlin meeting . . . The Russian action was quite in line with the Soviet conception of the press for propaganda, and nothing to get excited about; the fault was ours for falling for it” (emphasis added).
Of course, according to this new way of looking at our history, we fell for it because we were pushed, both from the outside and, more important, from the inside. As a result, Americans at large were left to try to make half-sense of the partial truths doled out by our leaders. Later, Cooper notes, a smaller, book-reading audience would sort through the many war memoirs written by military and political figures, Churchill’s most famous among them, containing “laments” over their authors’ having been “pushed around by the insatiable Russians.” Cooper—the man who coined the phrase “the right to know”— comments acerbically:
An earlier interview by Dr.Manfred Gerstenfeld with Professor Rudi Ekkart, published by the TT, was about stolen art in Dutch government possession. This interview is about such stolen art presently in Dutch museums.
Manfred Gerstenfeld interviews Rudi Ekkart
“In the late 1990s, significant international interest began on the issue of post-war restitution. In 1997, a government-financed pilot investigation commenced regarding art objects in the possession of the Dutch state which possibly originated from theft, confiscation, or forced sale by their owners during the Second World War.
“In 1998, Dutch museums started a similar investigation of their collections. The Organization of Dutch Museums (NMV), established a commission headed by the director of the Rijksmuseum (National Museum) in Amsterdam, Professor R. De Leeuw.”
Rudi Ekkart is a retired Art History professor at the University of Utrecht. Until 2012, he was director of the National Bureau for Art Documentation (RKD). He has played a key role in the Dutch investigations of stolen artwork, both government-controlled and in museum collections.
He says, “For a year and a half, museums participating in the investigation collected much information. It was discovered that a number of museums had housed collections and objects from private owners during the German occupation. Due to that, part of Jewish art possessions survived the war safely.
“The investigation also concerned objects which had been put in custody during the war and had been held outside of official inventories. They included items owned by Jews who did not survive the war, which were given for temporary safekeeping to museums. They were often wrongfully added to the museums’ collections later on.
This is a timely interview by Dr.Manfred Gerstenfeld with prof. Rudi Ekkart. There is at the moment much interest in stolen art due to the Gurlitt affair in Germany and the movie of George Clooney about the “monuments men”.
Manfred Gerstenfeld interviews Rudi Ekkart
“In 1997, I was appointed by the Dutch government as head of a commission to investigate the post-World War II restitution of art. We did a preliminary study to see whether more data could be found about art returned after the war to the Netherlands, which had been stolen by the Germans, or sold to them under duress.
“This so-called National Art Property (NK Collection) initially consisted of
10,000 items. Part of it was gradually returned after the war and another part was auctioned off. Almost half was still managed by Dutch authorities more than 50 years after the war. Our commission had to investigate how many works were stolen from the original owners.”
Professor Rudi Ekkart is a retired professor of art history at the University of Utrecht. He was, until 2012, director of the National Bureau for Art Documentation (RKD). He plays a key role for seventeen years already in the Dutch investigations of stolen artwork, both government controlled and in museum collections.
“A pilot study based on 100 items surprised and shocked me. We came to the conclusion in our April 1998 report that for many works of art in the NK collection, additional information was available. We recommended to investigate the entire collection. In our conclusion, we said that the government’s postwar policy regarding the restitution of art had been unclear, wrong and heartless.
“In 1999, the Deputy Minister of Education, Culture and Science created a second commission named Seeking the Origin. It became popularly known as the Ekkart Commission.
“This new body had a much larger task. We were in charge of ordering research into the origin of all works returned from Germany after the war and still in the possession of the Dutch government. A second assignment was to investigate how the foundation SNK – which dealt with the NK Collection from 1945-1952 – had functioned. We were also asked to recommend to the government what its policy should be concerning the possible return of some works of art.
“In postwar Netherlands, there had been a battle between two interest groups. The Ministry of Finance wanted to sell as much art from the collection as possible, to help the Dutch treasury. On the other side were directors of Dutch museums and the head of the SNK. They believed this was a great occasion to build a national art collection. In the end, they received support from the Minister of Education, Art and Science.
“The third interest group – those to whom the art belonged or their heirs – did not participate in the discussion. Some called for help, like the widow of Jewish art trader Jacques Goudstikker. This story was reported internationally.
“The SNK had to seek out the art and put it in order. They were not expected to deal with claims of those who were entitled to it. However, they often said to these people that they had no chance of recovering the artwork. Some heirs appealed to the Council for Restitution, however, many had been discouraged. The SNK had asked for guidance about restitution, but the government never issued any. It was apparently unwilling to give unsympathetic or even illegal advice. The artworks concerned had been returned to the Netherlands in order to be handed over to those entitled to them.
“A large part of the NK collection had normal origins. We however, reopened a number of claim files which had been closed by the SNK without a decision by, or an agreement with a higher authority. Our commission found that a substantial number of works which had remained in the NK collection had most probably been stolen from Jewish owners, or sold under duress. Some heirs could not be found. We recommended that the items concerned remain in the government collection. If they were to be exhibited in museums, their origin should be mentioned.
“Furthermore, we asked the Dutch government to make a financial grant to Jewish institutions equaling the value of the stolen items remaining in its possession. The Dutch government did so by transferring monies to the famous library of the Portugese synagogue and to the Jewish Historical Museum. It also accepted our other major recommendations.
An exhibition of works whose origins remained unclear was shown in Amsterdam. Two of our employees published a book about the Dutch policy of postwar restitution of art.
“Two cases of restituted works were major. The heirs of the Gutmann family received many stolen pieces back, including silver items from the 16th century. Many works were also returned to the heir of the Goudstikker collection, among which were important antique paintings.
“Our final report published in 2004 said that the Dutch treatment of the restitution of artwork during 1945-1952 had in general been formalistic, bureaucratic, cold and often heartless. The Kordes and Schotten commissions which had investigated other postwar restitution issues came to similar conclusions in their fields.”
The Finnish blogger files the following book review of Diana West’s American Betrayal with the Tundra Tabloids.
UPDATE: Vasarahammer adds:
I did not intend to read Diana’s book, because of the lack of time and the subject matter that was intended for the American audience. I also thought that I could get an adequate overview of the content by reading reviews and following the discussion concerning the book.
However, in the end I just decided that I must get it. The reviews and the discussion around the book had raised my curioisity to the point that there was no other choice left but to get it and read it. After reading the book I’m glad I did. Whether you agree with the conclusions or not, the book provides a coherent picture and explains logically why the WW II in Europe developed as it did. It asks the right questions and provides a logical answer to each question. I don’t have access to the source material, so I cannot say if it has been interpreted in the way it should.
I did not intend to read American Betrayal at all and I would not have read the book, if Ron Radosh had not published his infamous takedown at Frontpage. At that point I knew that the book had hit a nerve somewhere and shattered the comfortable illusions of ”Good War” that America won against a heinous enemy with the help of ”Uncle Joe” and the Red Army.
The Winter War
My home country Finland is mentioned by name a few times in the book and portrayed as a victim of the Soviet Union, which together with Nazi Germany conspired the start of World War II. The same point is made very well in the movie Soviet Story. The USSR leaders should have been among the accused in the Nuremberg trial instead of being on the prosecution side. The USSR invaded Poland the same time as Nazi Germany but somehow escaped any responsibility for starting the war.
At the time the secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not commonly known. In that protocol Finland was assigned to the Soviet ”sphere of influence”. Some Americans may know that the consequence of this pact was the Winter war that started on the 30th of November 1939. When the USSR invaded, Finland received a lot of sympathy from around the world but very little military assistance. The Soviet aggression was widely condemned and the USSR was expelled from the League of Nations. The Finns were left alone to fight against a vastly more powerful enemy.
Even if the Finnish Army had shortage of equipment and military hardware it managed to stall the invasion and achieve some notable victories the most famous of which is the Battle of Raate Road, in which the Finns destroyed the 44th division of the Red Army. In the end, the brave but tired Finnish Army had to yield when the Red Army managed to break the Mannerheim line and advanced towards the city of Viipuri. The resulting Moscow treaty was considered harsh and what was most depressing was the fact that very little help reached Finland and even that arrived late. Nazi Germany, the ally of the Soviet Union, had blocked most of armament shipments.
There is a clip from American propaganda movie Mission to Moscow, which could as well be from a Soviet propaganda movie. The speaker who tells the crowd that the Soviet Union ”keeps its word” is confronted by a sceptical man in the crowd asking ”how about poor little Finland?”. At that point the speaker utters a lie that might as well have come from the mouth of Molotov himself:
”Russia knew she’s going to be attacked by Hitler so Russia asked Finland’s permission to occupy strategic positions to defend herself against German aggression and offered Finland twice as much territory in exchange but Hitler’s friend Mannerheim refused and the Red Army moved in.”
Another man in the crowd continues:
”I wonder why these things are kept from us.”
In reality, Finland’s fate had been sealed in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The goal of the USSR was from the very beginning to make Finland a Soviet vassal and later annex the country to the Soviet Union. The Soviets even set up their own puppet government called ”The People’s Government of Finland” (or Terijoki government as it is mostly called in Finland) on the first day of the war. Unlike Finland, the Baltic states conceded to Soviet proposals and ended up being incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1940. There the Soviets proceeded the usual way. First kill a couple of thousand people and then send the rest to the hostile elements of the Gulag. In the first year of occupation the total number of executed, conscripted or deported was around 125 000: 60 000 in Estonia, 35 000 in Latvia and 30 000 in Lithuania.
Yes, the Soviet Union could be trusted, but not in the way Mission to Moscow implies. If we look at ”Uncle Joe” from today’s perspective, Saddam Hussein by comparison, was a choir boy. The criminal nature of the Soviet regime was well known at the time when the USSR qualified as a recipient of Lend and Lease aid. I wonder why these things were kept from the Americans.
Mission to Moscow was a Hollywood production that was mentioned in American Betrayal. The movie is based on the book by Joseph E. Davies, a former US ambassador to the Soviet Union and also a character who appears in Ms. West’s book. By the time the movie was made in 1943 the true nature of the Soviet regime should not have been a secret, which is why the movie does its best explain away some of the most obvious Soviet crimes by supplanting the truth with a shameless lie.
The Continuation War
The Finnish experience of World War II consists of three separate wars. The Winter War was the first one and was followed by the Continuation war which started at the same time as Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa and ended in 1944 when the Finns sued for peace and had to cede territory to the USSR once again.
The Continuation War is morally problematic for Finland because of the alliance with Nazi Germany as co-belligerents, which is why Finns don’t like to talk about it with foreigners as much as they do the Winter War.
However, small countries rarely have good choices available at the time of crisis, only bad and even worse ones. In 1941 Finland had basically three options: ally with the USSR, ally with Germany or starve and wait for German invasion. The third option is obviously unattractive and impossible, since Finland was dependent on German grain imports at that time. The first option was impossible, because the public would never have accepted it and there would probably have been a German invasion just like in the first option. So the only remaining alternative was to become a German ally and try to have some influence in the eventual fate of the nation. Neutrality was not an option, because Finland did not have any natural resources that either of the warring parties wanted. Sweden could stay neutral as long as they supplied raw materials to the German military industry.
But it is the Continuation War that has most to do with Lend and Lease. Port of Murmansk lies in the inlet of Barents Sea called Kola bay. The port has the advantage of being ice free all year, which is why it became one of the main recipient ports of Lend and Lease aid. The other Russian nothern port Archangelsk lies further away on the shore of White Sea and is not free of ice all year.
There is also a railway called Kirov Railway that connects Murmansk to the city of Leningrad (now St. Petersburg). The port of Murmansk and Kirov Railway were one of the four main supply lines of the Western aid. The others were the Persian route, the Pacific Route and the port of Arkhangelsk. During the first years of the war Finnish troops advanced quickly to the old border and further away to the Soviet territory coming close to the Kirov Railway.
Finnish Army sent patrols behind enemy lines that occasionally managed to cut down the railway line and destroy some of the shipments containing the American aid. However, most of the aid got through and the Finnish soldiers on the frontline discovered that the Red Army soldiers had canned food made in America and that they used American Studebaker trucks to move their troops.
The patrols did not do any lasting damage to the Kirov Railway, which was quickly repaired partly because the Soviets received 90 per cent of the railway tracks they needed through the Lend and Lease program. They also received 2000 locomotives while they managed to produce only 92 locomotives themselves in the period between 1942 and 1945. In the middle of 1930’s the Soviet railways had approximately 20 000 locomotives.
Economics of war
The true effect of Lend and Lease aid on the Soviet war effort is difficult to estimate, but in the wartime logistics the impact was significant and probably decisive. Without Lend and Lease the Soviets would not have been able to march to Berlin so quickly if at all. They would certainly not have conquered such a large part of the Eastern Central Europe as they did.
Post-revolutionary Russia was economically and industrially backward. Within a couple of decades it had become a major industrial power. It is inconceivable that the Soviets could have done this on their own. In decades before World War II it was the Germans first and later the Americans that provided the bulk of industrial and production competencies to the Soviet Union in the form of various economic assistance contracts.
Americans helped to build the GAZ automobile plant in the city of Gorki (now Nizhnyi Novgorod). The plant manufactured copies of Ford trucks in assembly lines very similar to the ones in the US. This was because Soviet engineers visited Ford’s Rogue River plant in Detroit and it was Ford who taught the Soviets the economics behind mass production techniques, which turned out to be very useful during the war.
The Soviet system with central command planning did not encourage innovation, so Russian manufacturing relied heavily on Western designs to be used as a template. Often this resulted in crude copies of Western originals, but those copies turned out to be sometimes more effective in battlefield conditions than their technologically more advanced German counterparts. A perfect example of this is Soviet T-34 tank that had a Christie suspension designed in America.
Ms. West refers to Christopher Andrew’s book Mitrokhin Archive several times. In that book Andrew states that in the Cold War both sides used the same technology. The Soviets copied the Western technology they had obtained either through espionage or civilian economic agreements. The pattern of technology transfer from the West to the USSR remained the same throughout the existence of the USSR.
”Uncle Joe” the sole winner
The economics of war was not the main subject of Ms. West’s book, but the decision-making in the Roosevelt administration, the results of which consistently benefited mainly the Soviet Union. American Betrayal claims that the Soviet infiltration of the Roosevelt administration caused this. I am not an expert and I don’t intend to argue whether Harry Hopkins was agent 19 or not, because it does not really matter if he was a useful idiot or paid Soviet agent. The post war situation speaks for itself with half of Europe in Soviet hands and Germany devastated by Allied bombs.
The one thing in the book that should shock Americans is the fate of the US military personnel that were captured in Soviet-held territory. The US administration tried to plead with Stalin to release these captured US soldiers, but pleas fell on deaf ears, the war was over and the Americans no longer had any leverage to use in negotiations. Stalin was famous for his callous disregard for human life, so the American POWs had to spend the rest of their lives in the Gulag waiting in vain for the US government to help them.
After reading the book it is difficult to regard FDR as a great wartime president and D-Day as a significant event that changed the course of war. It went just like ”Uncle Joe” wanted right to the very end.
This interview by Dr.Manfred Gerstenfeld with Eirik Veum appeared today at Israel National News, and is republished here with the author’s consent.
Manfred Gerstenfeld interviews Eirik Veum
“My three books about Norwegian collaboration with the German occupiers during the Second World resulted in new information about how Norwegians were involved in the persecution of Jews. Male and female Norwegians participated in various German SS and army units. Out of around 5,500 Norwegian volunteers, 852 were killed.
“In The Fallen published in 2009, I reveal names, ages and where those killed fell. Some Norwegians in German units from the Waffen-SS and later in Sonderkommandos (special commands) in Eastern Europe, were watching as Ukrainians and Germans killed Jews. Norwegians were also involved in searching for Jews. I discovered a case where Norwegians found a Jew in a house and brought him into the street. Thereafter he was shot, yet we do not know by whom. Due to my book, Dr. Efraim Zuroff, Director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Israel will try to ascertain whether Norwegians participated in actual murders.”
Eirik Veum is a Norwegian journalist working for the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, NRK.
“This book and the next two sold well. Reactions were mixed however. Several historians claimed that my topics should be dealt with by historians and not by a journalist. One then wonders why no historian had ever investigated this issue in almost seventy years. Some family members of the Norwegian volunteers had no problem with the fact that I disclosed names of their relatives. They believed that the truth should become public, even if it was harsh. They felt that people were only responsible for their own deeds. Others said that we had dishonored their families by identifying relatives by name. Others stated that Norwegian collaborators with the Nazis had dishonored their families’ name. This debate was intense and its pattern returned after my two subsequent books were published. It is interesting to note that more energy was devoted to discussing the issue of the identification of these people, than to their actions.
As much as September 11th will………
By Simon Moya-Smith, Staff Writer, NBC News
Even 72 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor that pulled the United States into World War II, numerous states and organizations are commemorating the “day which will live in infamy.”
More than 2,400 American troops died in the early hours of Dec. 7, 1941 after the Imperial Japanese Navy swarmed on Pearl Harbor in Oahu, Hawaii, hurtling the U.S. into the war.
On Friday, Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie and Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell lead a day of remembrance at the USS Arizona Memorial center near the site of the initial attack.
The Freedom Bell in Washington, D.C. — cast in bronze with metal from the World Trade Center — rang in honor of those who served in the armed forces, NBC affiliate KHNL reports. Skydivers also unfurled American Flags over Pearl Harbor.
On Saturday, the Virginia War Memorial in Richmond, Va., will host Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day with speakers and a laying of a wreath in honor of the fallen members of the military as well as civilians killed.
It’s not just the German Nazis who were viciously murderous, cruel and inhumane during WWII, they had a lot of soul brothers trying to out best them in the cruelty department.
This is the reason why Jews in Europe are uneasy, they know fully well that the atrocities committed against their people in the name of German national socialism during the last century had a lot of non-German support. This story is about Norwegian treatment of Serbs, but in many places under Nazi occupation/control where locals were enlisted to ‘help out’, Jews suffered as bad or worse under the iron fist of their one time neighbors.
NOTE: This year’s release of a controversial film, Pokłosie, or “Aftermath,” about Polish Catholic massacres of Jews formerly their neighbors, now their dead stack of dead victims, serves a reminder of what Jews fear could be possible again.
Published: 06 Nov 2013 13:10 GMT+01:00
Updated: 06 Nov 2013 13:10 GMT+01:00
Norwegian guards working at Nazi prison camps in northern Norway were so brutal to prisoners that it shocked even the German SS soldiers supervising them, a new book on Norway’s Hird organization has revealed.
According to ‘Unforgiven Norwegians – Hird 1933-1945’, published in Norway this week, the German officers were so unnerved that they issued disciplinary warnings to the Norwegian guards, confiscated their bayonets, and briefly jailed some of them.
The German authorities then decided to remove the Norwegian guards from active duty after just 10 months.
Around 400 young Norwegians were employed from June 1942 to guard Serbian prisoners taken to camps in the north of the country, where they were used as slave labour to build roads and railroads.
“Some of them started behaving very brutally, resulting in a lot of killing, torture and violence in the camps in a very short time,” Eirik Veum, the book’s author, told The Local.
“The SS officers said,’hey guys, calm down, you’re too violent, you’re too brutal’, and they took away their bayonets. After 10 months they were pulled from duty, because too many prisoners were killed.”
Remarkably, the Yugoslavs who survived the camps said that their lives improved once the German guards took over.
“They said that once the Norwegians were taken out, things started to get a little bit more normal. They got more medicine, and they started to be treated like humans not animals,” Veum said. “It’s interesting that the German SS guards were more humane than some of the Norwegians guards during the period they were on duty.”
It’s a myth that most Jews refused to leave Europe, when doors are slammed elsewhere as the anvil drops, what was one to do?
That Poles wanted to help Jews emigrate to (then) Palestine wasn’t an act of philosemitism, but stemmed from their deep dislike of Jews. One must remember, that if not for deep seated antisemitism that existed (and still does) in the countries neighboring Nazi Germany, which led to the turning of a blind eye to Hitler’s evil schemes, the history from that period might have been different.
NOTE: As a matter of fact, as my good buddy TINSC always says, ”if not for antisemitism, the War Against Israel (WAI) could not exist.”
Herschel Grynszpan shot the German diplomat Ernst vom Rath in Paris on November 7, 1938. The Nazis claimed that the young man was an agent of the international Jewish conspiracy, and that his act of murder was an early salvo in the “Jewish War” against Germany. In fact, he was a confused and angry teenager who, like thousands of European Jews in late 1938, was unwanted both in Poland, where he was a citizen, and in Germany, which he knew as home. Both Germany and Poland were pursuing policies designed to get rid of Jews, Berlin with deadly but hidden purpose, Warsaw with cynicism and calculation. Anti-Semitism, however, did not unite the two governments but rather ruined their mutual relations. People like Grynszpan were caught in the middle. He was the victim not of German-Polish agreement but of a growing German-Polish conflict.
In Poland in 1938, an authoritarian clique in power had to deal with public anti-Semitism as well as opposition from an anti-Semitic party, the National Democrats, that had never run the state by itself and organized pogroms as a challenge to public order. There were three million Jews in Poland, a tenth of the total population, a third of the urban population. There were about as many Jews in the Polish cities of Warsaw and Łódz as there were in all of Germany, or for that matter in all of Palestine.
In domestic policy the Polish regime copied some of the tactics of the National Democrats, founding a ruling party that did not admit Jews and presenting mass Jewish emigration as a goal of foreign policy. Polish leaders supported the establishment of a state of Israel with the most expansive possible boundaries. In secret the foreign ministry and the ministry of defense supported the right-wing Zionist militants of Betar and Irgun. Young Jewish men were trained on Polish military bases and then sent back to Palestine to make trouble for the British Empire in the hardly hidden hope that the British could be driven out, or at least induced to permit mass emigration of Jews from Poland.
In Germany, Hitler had already made Jews second-class citizens and proclaimed his hatred of them and his intention to eliminate them. The Nazi leadership was far more anti-Semitic than the general population, for whom Jewish matters in general had little salience. Less than 1 percent of the German population was Jewish, and most German Jews would be induced to emigrate by repression and theft. “World Jewry,” the wraith that haunted Hitler’s speeches, was mostly present, even in the Nazi mind, beyond the borders. In 1938 Hitler, Göring, and Ribbentrop confused Polish leaders by proposing to them as common interests a war against the Soviet Union and the deportation of the Jews.
The Poles, though fearful of Soviet power and desirous of reducing their Jewish population, did not see how those two goals could be pursued at the same time. Surely a large-scale continental war would disrupt any plan for Jews to emigrate? The group of Polish “colonels” who ruled the country, though quite cynical after their own fashion, could not begin to anticipate where Hitler’s logic would lead after 1938: toward the mass killing of Jews under the cover of war.
In any event, German policy in 1938 was bringing Jews to Poland rather than drawing them away. After the German annexation of Austria (or Anschluss) in March 1938, some twenty thousand Jews with Polish citizenship living in Austria tried to return to Poland. After humiliating pogroms, Austrian Jews were subjected to a systematic policy of expropriation and forced emigration devised by Adolf Eichmann. As these methods were then applied to German Jews, Polish diplomats feared that the tens of thousands of Polish Jews living in Germany would also seek to return. The foreign ministry decided to exclude Polish Jews abroad from the protection of the Polish state.
More here. H/T Iivi anna Masso
I’ve only managed to translate a portion of the text, once I get my translator of the bulk of it later, I’ll update this post.
Oslo, 1942: Vidkun Quisling sends the Norwegians to the eastern front. Police company of the Norwegian legion is on parade on Palace square before leaving, and Quisling inspects. Photo: Scanpix
The fact that Norway has not taken issue with what the Norwegian front fighters in the 2nd World War II did, has weakened our preparedness against injustice today, feels the philosopher.
-It has dawned on us very slowly what Norwegians have actually been involved in. Therefore, I also think that the emergency response against racism and violence has been relatively low in Norway. We accept too much, “said Espen Søbye.
The focal point of the NRK documentary shown on Tuesday “In Himmler service” was the seriousness of what Norwegian young men, who fought on the German side in the 2nd World War, went through. They were volunteers in the German elite forces Waffen SS, and allowed themselves to enlist to fight the USSR on the infamous Eastern Front. Some war crimes happened there during World War II.
The documentary is based on new research at the Center for Studies of Holocaust and Religious Minorities (HL center). In the book “Himmler Norway” researchers Terje Emberland and Matthew Kott uncover how Norwegians took part in the genocide.
This research marks a watershed in terms of the story of the war, feels Søbye.
First up. – The earlier literature in this field was written by fighters on the front themselves. There no one had seen anything and no one helped. Front line soldiers were portrayed as idealists who believed in a cause. Now we have the first research-related documentation in which the Norwegians have been and how they actually participated in the war. This is what we need, says Espen Søbye.
– We need to know what the Norwegians have been through.This is necessary to make the closure of the war. Today we tolerate too much injustice in Norway. If we look however to Germany, we see that there are far more aware of the different forms of racism. They know what this has led to earlier. Therefore, they are also more wary of such in our days, says Søbye.
Heroic tale. Professor of history at the University of Oslo, Øystein Sørensen, calls Soby’s reasoning “speculative”:
– I think it is too easy. Germany as the example is in a unique position. Their handling of natural history is for very special reasons, says Sorensen, who works at the University of Oslo.
He says, however, the going Norwegian tale of the war has changed a lot compared with before:
– The usual heroic tale of the Norwegian resistance movement is impaired. There has been more emphasis on the “wrong side”. Including NS children and foreign prisoners who were in prison camps in Norway. And not least for the Jews. After jødeboutvalget and debate about compensation, we clearly saw that the responsibility for that Norwegian Jews who were deported and killed more than lay on the German occupiers and on the condemned treason of the National Assembly.
Keeping the flame hot.
Andy Bostom, stalwart friend and colleague of Diana’s, steps up to the plate and lends his expertise as only he can, and applies the pressure exactly where it’s needed. The facts mentioned here by Bostom, courtesy of Diana West as Andy attests, knocks the third leg from the three legged stool occupied by Ron Radosh and his ‘unassailable knowledge’ of U.S. history during the Rooselvelt years of WWII.
NOTE: Great work Andy, Diana’s book is a treasure trove of facts and knowledge, ready to use for those who actually read her work and understand what they’re reading, without the weight of preconception, arrogance and massive ego.
Suvorov’s meticulous 2008 assessment of Stalin’s machinations for a quarter century, before and during World War II—which, again, validates Baldwin’s immediate post-World War II observations—opens with this ironic comparison of the Soviet Communist dictator, and his German Nazi counterpart, Hitler:
Hitler’s actions were seen by the world as the greatest of crimes, while Stalin’s actions were considered by the world as a struggle for peace and progress. The world hated Hitler, and commiserated with Stalin. Hitler conquered half of Europe, and the rest of the world declared war against him. Stalin conquered half of Europe, and the world sent him greetings. To ensure that Hitler could not hold on to the conquered European countries, the West sank German ships, bombed German cities, and then landed a massive and powerful army on the European continent. To enable Stalin to conquer and hold on to the other half of Europe, the West gave Stalin hundreds of warships, thousands of war planes and tanks, hundreds of thousands of the world’s best war vehicles, and millions of tons of its best fuel, ammunition, and supplies…For me, Hitler remains a heinous criminal. But if Hitler was a criminal, it does not all follow that Stalin was his innocent victim, as Communist propaganda portrayed him before the world.
Hanson W. Baldwin (d. 1991), was a military-affairs editor for The New York Times, who authored over a dozen books on military and naval history and policy. Baldwin, a graduate of the United States Naval Academy, joined The Times in 1929, and in 1943 won a Pulitzer Prize for his World War II reporting from the Pacific.
Before retiring from The Times in 1968, Baldwin reported on the strategy, tactics and weapons of war in Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East and other theaters. Earlier, after covering the European and Pacific battles of World War II, as well as the immediate postwar transition period, so astutely, Hanson Baldwin had already earned recognition as one of the nation’s leading authorities on military and naval affairs.
In 1950, Baldwin published a pellucid World War II post-mortem strategic assessment monograph of 114 pp., entitled, Great Mistakes of the War. Baldwin’s summary analysis identifies the four “great—and false—premises, certainly false in retrospect and seen by some to be false at the time,” as the following:
1. That the Politburo had abandoned (with the ostensible end of the Communist International) its policy of a world Communist revolution and was honestly interested in the maintenance of friendly relations with capitalist governments
2. That “Joe” Stalin was a “good fellow” and we could “get along with him.” This was primarily a Rooseveltian policy and was based in part on the judgments formed by Roosevelt as a result of his direct and indirect contacts with Stalin during the war. This belief was shaken in the last months of Roosevelt’s life, partly by the Soviet stand on Poland.
3. That Russia might make a separate peace with Germany. Fear of this dominated the waking thoughts of our politico-strategists throughout all the early phases of the war, and some anticipated such an eventuality even after our landing in Normandy.
4. That Russian entry into the war against Japan was either: a) essential to victory, or b) necessary to save thousands of American lives. Some of our military men clung to this concept even after the capture of the Marianas and Okinawa.
Leftists love to lie.
While it’s absolutely regrettable that so many people were killed and wounded in the dropping of two nuclear bombs on Imperial Japan, what would have been worse however, was an invasion by hundreds of thousands of US troops of the Japanese mainland. The carnage that would have ensued would have quadrupled the amount of those who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
In the event that the US would have opted instead for the continued carpet bombing of Japanese cities involved with its military industrial complex, the result would have been the same. There would have been far more numbers of civilian dead than what took place in those two ill-fated cities. So the next time you see footage of memorials for Hiroshima and Nagasaki on TV, mull over what you read here, and thank the daring men who flew the Enola Gay and dropped its payload over Japan.
NOTE: Oliver Stone is flake with too much time and money on his hands..
World War II is unique for many reasons. One of those reasons is that it revealed the duplicity of the left and its utter lack of consistency. Before John Kerry was for the Iraq War before he was against it, the left was for World War II before it was against it, before it was for it, until it was once again against it.
The left was for war before Stalin signed a pact with Hitler. It was vociferously against war once Hitler and Stalin were playing on the same team. When Hitler launched a surprise attack on the USSR, then they were even more loudly for war. And when the war drew to a close and Stalin stopped thinking of survival and began looking for ways to maximize territorial gains from the war, then the left, with the predictable rhythm of a weathervane blowing in the cold wind from Moscow, turned against the war.
Or rather against the occupation of Europe, the Marshall Plan and the atom bomb. That attitude of the old left, with its deep red veins of Communist sympathies, pulses through Oliver Stone’s propaganda series, “The Untold History of the United States.”
The third episode of the series, “The Bomb,” labors to make the case that using atomic weapons on Japan was unnecessary because a Soviet invasion would have forced Japan to surrender in any case leading to a lesser loss of life.
Supposing we take that assumption at face value, it is at best unclear whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki or a Soviet invasion would have led to a higher civilian death toll. Certainly an atomic bomb, unlike the Red Army, did not rape several million women. And looking at Communist Asian countries like China and North Korea, it is not difficult to imagine that a Soviet occupation of even part of Japan would have led to a far higher civilian casualty rate than dropping the bomb.
But Oliver Stone, like the rest of the left’s historical revisionists, doesn’t really care about Japanese civilians. Stalin had killed far more people, Russian and non-Russian, than every atom bomb combined. When it came to cynical power plays, the Soviet Union starved millions and would have starved millions more in the name of the same dominance that Stone and Kuznick accuse Truman of.
This is the handiwork of German National Socialism during WWII. Marxist Communist (internationalist) Socialism has claimed yet even more lives than their hated rival siblings, the Nazis. This is the full flowering of genocidal mayhem that can only flourish within ranks of the statists. Why anyone would join a party in the present age with the word socialist attached to it, or even a party that promotes it under a different name is beyond me. KGS
NOTE: Warning, this video contains every grisly scene you could imagine.
Description: In 1945, the American, Canadian and British armies entered the Rhineland. In it they faced the grisly horror of the Nazi Concentration camps. Hidden by the BBC for decades and deemed unsuitable and unfit for viewing by the general public. Recently released, and kept alive by a short few people for audiences around the world, no one can forget this happened, lest if we forget history, we forget humanity.
A special thanks to Weasel Zippers for this story: A Story Filled With Heroism: The Four Chaplains who gave their lives on Feb 3rd, 1943. Told By Michele Bachmann On The House floor.
And the four chaplains without skipping a beat, removed their own life vests that they had on their bodies, and they handed them to the young troops who had none. And as the ship went down, the four chaplains linked arms, and witnesses say they saw the four chaplains as young soldiers fighting against the cold, swimming in the water. The saw the four chaplains who had linked arms, who had embraced each other in a circle in the waters, they prayed for the troops who had lost their lives and for those who had survived, and they prayed until the chaplains were no more.The four chaplains were a Catholic, two Protestants, and a Jewish Rabbi. Their names were Father John Washington, Catholic, Reverend Clark Polling, Dutch Reformed, Rabbi Alexander Good, Jewish, Reverend George Fox, a Methodist. These four chaplains gave more than their spiritual guidance to the troops, they gave their lives Febuary third, 1943. It was a decade later that president Dwight Eisenhower remarked, he said and I quote:And we remember that it was only a decade ago on board the transport Dorchester, four chaplains of four faiths, together wilingly sacrificed their lives so that four other Americans might live. In the three centuries that separate the pilgrims of the Mayflower from the chaplains of the Dorchester, America’s freedom, her courage, her strength and her progress have had their foundation in faith.