195 thoughts on “Alternative Ruminations”

1. People who scoff and sneer at the idea alternative histories have some gaps in their armor through which to insert swords, pikes and other weapons. First of all, alternative history is no different at bottom than what most thinking people do every day when contemplating various possible courses of future action and the probable outcomes of any action (or inaction, as the case may be). The person who reasons about alternative history is likewise engaged in thinking about possible courses of action and their probable outcomes, but this historian is using the benefit of hindsight as a guide. So, the scoffers and sneerers, who are always experts (in their own eyes) about what to do next, are really just denying the probabilistic basis of their judgements concerning the future. They are rejecting also the benefit of hindsight, which is a necessary condition of understanding and wisdom. In short, their scoffing and sneering is their confession that their judgement is no good, which is just what we suspected.

   A second vulnerability of the scoffers and sneerers is that they are neglecting an important feature of the cosmos, which is ironic given their desire to be seen as respecters of The Science. Whether they know it or not, alternate universes are as real as one we subjectively experience. We learned this through developments in physics and cosmology which followed soon after the publication of Maxwell’s two-volume treatise on electromagnetism. People such as Woldemar Voight, Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincaré, Einstein, Hermann Minkowski, etc. helpled to work out the basic ideas rigorously during the following 50 years or so. (Of course, it’s not necessarily true that all of them accepted the implication that presentism is false.)

   Since the lifetimes of those researchers, it hasn’t been radical to believe that the past, present, and future stand together as a unity, whatever our subjective perceptions of them. The Newtonian idea of an exclusively 3D cosmos had to go. Moreover, since we know also that relativity theory contradicts the strict determinism of people who think that there is only one possible future, it follows that the aforementioned unity of moments includes a great multitude of different futures, each of which is as real as any other.

   So when someone is describing an alternative history, that person is, in effect, attempting to describe an alternate universe whose inhabitants have as much a valid claim to reality as do we. This leaves the scoffers and sneerers with no room to object to the practice of describing alternative histories. Their only legitimate objections, if any, are claims of improbability, but we’ve already seen that their judgement is no good.

   • I should add that anti-Revisionists, too, have some problems with their reputations. I’m guessing that most or all of them are hostile to descriptions of alternative histories. If any are not, let them speak up in defense of theirselves. They are political animals, however, and descriptions of alternative histories puts the reputations of their heroes in grave peril. What if Churchill really was a glory hound and bloodthristy fool who ruined both the British empire and the UK?

     Their next problem is that they are simply demanding that we accept their favorite stories as the products of historians who enjoy infallibility, at least when writing about the past. So maybe the anti-Revisionists ought to organize an ecumenical council which produces a dogmatic assertion in print about the infallibility of their favorite historians.

2. Had we not intervened in WWI Britain and France would have probably sued for peace and there would have been no Treaty of Versailles to put the boot to th German people and the Kaiser would have probably kept his position.

   Britain bankrupt from the war and supporting a largely useless empire would have probably withdrawn from some of it’s more costly to maintain possession. France, would probably have just tended to it’s colonies in North Africa.

   Russia would perhaps averted the communist revolution.

   The US without GB goading us would probably keep foreign entanglements in Asia and Europe to a minimum and focus on Central and South America.

   • The United States was already trending toward interventionalism, given its “banana boat” gunboat diplomacy in Central America in the Twenties. The Spanish-American War of 1898 was another example of America stretching its arms.

     — Catxman, catxman.wordpress.com

   • i had to downvote this due to the careless “reasoning”. probably this, maybe that, etc.

     • Probability is real whether or not math unnerves you, but we don’t need much probability theory to figure out that…

       If you set up a populist republic or democracy, it’s probably true that your collective will have bloody borders and a habit of attacking civilian populations as if civilians, too, are frontline combatants.

       If your military capitalism is heavily subsidzed before your wars, it’s probably true that your wars will be very profitable to a politically favored subset of your populace.

       If the German military hadn’t escorted Lenin through Germany during the Great War of 1914-1918, it’s probably true that the Russian empire would have experienced a different end than it did. Likewise, if the stupid czar and his allies had had the courage to execute Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, et al. in 1905, it’s probably true that the Romanovs would not have experienced the deaths which they had earned by 1918.

       It’s probably true, but not necessarily true, that if you are an habitual gambler, you will lose a lot of money. On the other hand, if you are a casino operator, its probably true that your gamblers, when considered in aggregate, will leave your premises with less money than they had upon entering.

       Finally, if a white conservative complains perennially about his political enemies’ ideas and behavior but always expects Sky Daddy and Land Daddy (the state) to be the first men in his life, it’s probably true that nothing much stands in the way of the sissyish kook’s enemies. Granted, most white conservatives want to conserve a Semitic personality cult and a toxic commercial culture, which is amusing. In the USA, the bootlickers want also to conserve some pabulum called the Constitution. So it’s probably a good idea to corrupt or destroy the obstinate kooks’ institutions, to break apart their families into little, unorganized atoms. Maybe its aslo a good idea to overrun the kooks’ territory with migrants who are “natural conservatives”. The madness has to stop somehow, and if lightskinned Caucasians won’t abondon error, then lightskinned Caucasians deserved to be wiped out.

3. Errr.. well not quite the Steppes. Frozen North, let’s say.

4. Here is a novel perspective on AH: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116192/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

   It’s called “The Empty Mirror”. I don’t want to write a review here, but in short, the movie is set in an ambiguous context, where AH expounds on things, especially how his aesthetics were superior in every way to Stalin’s. Very apropos take for the media age. Even shows the scale model for the new Berlin, that AH and Speers actually spent a huge amount of time on. I don’t know if it has been said elsewhere, but to me, Nero is a very close historical antecedent to AH.

5. One of the chosen attempts to ban recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in tiny Silverton, CO, pop. 663.

   https://www.zerohedge.com/political/out-order-colorado-mayor-bans-pledge-allegiance-then-snaps-meeting-attendees-who-recite

   How is it that one of the orange juice ever got elected mayor of Silverton, CO in the first place?

   • Wild Geese – Same way Adler got elected mayor of Austin, TX, or the previous Juice mayor got elected in Charlottesville, VA. Internal migration is just as unregulated and devastating as international immigration. One of the many things missing from the current constitution that must be remedied in any ethnonationalist state will be severely restricting the voting rights of any transplant for 10 years at minimum.

     • FWIW, the ‘pledge’ is a piece of civnattery added after Lincoln’s war, so I no longer reflexively support it. However, the move to ban saying what has become a bit of Americana and patriotism is a clear sign that one is dealing with globalists/non-Whites, so I/we automatically deplore what they’re doing, because their motivation is intrinsically anti-American.

   • No kidding! What is a nose doing in what was an old mining town (now semi tourist trap – population 600) on top of a mountain more or less between Durango and Telluride? Dirty commie. The only thing that’d be a bigger surprise would be a jogger mayor. Clown world “nose” no bounds.

   • Furhman? Didn’t even pay attention until I saw your post. In Silverton,Co of all places. 10,000′ above sea level full of tough westerners and they have this person for mayor. Of course he is against the Pledge. Every damn time.

6. I don’t typically enjoy alternate history TV series and films, because the kind of people who become screenwriters are overwhelmingly not smart enough to pull it off. Same with time travel.

   Ninety-nine percent of the time it simply becomes a vehicle for pushing the author’s particular worldview, not an honest presentation of alternatives. They work from the conclusion. Usually sloppily.

   • Is there a product of Hollywood (film or TV) that doesn’t promote a narrative? I think not.

     • And thus I don’t enjoy very much of what Hollywood produces.

     • Very complicated subjects really reveal their mental deficits, though, so not only is what I’m watching extremely woke, but it’s also even more dumb than usual. It’s just too much.

   • I liked man in high castle.

7. well as long as we are playing “what it”; pontius pilate flips the coin, but it comes up “heads” this time, and JC lives on into obscurity. Christianity never forms as a major religion, and…

8. Anyone else watching this joke session with Fed chair Powell testifying before Congress.

   Total bullshit.

   These people are incompetent jokes.

   Clown world.

9. The British have always been at war to the east. Only when Germany became unified, and productive did France become an ally. When German was defeated a productive Russia became the enemy. Russia destroyed it’s self and a productive China is the new enemy.

   • History proves the British are the biggest liars in history: in 1914 they pushed a narrative that German troops were killing & eating Belgian children. They went on to arm merchant ships with guns – outlawed under the rules of war & then blame the Germans for “unrestricted submarine warfare” (sidebar: that’s precisely the reason Wilson used to engineer us into WWI. After Pearl Harbor, we immediately engaged Japan with the very same). The British lied & said there was no ammo onboard the Lusitania. In 1939 they claimed German U-boat crews machine gunned survivors in the water…etc, etc.

     They’re damn good @ it, have to give it to them. Plus the Germans have always been bloody awful @ PR.

     • unlike every other country, ever. guffaw. time to grow up, elroy.

       • One of the Best grand strategic moves was the rapprochement to the United States.
         Turning a country full of ethic Germans and Irish to fight for the mother country. Conditioned on Civ-Nationalism, English language, and Christianity.

10. I’d say that all politics needs an enemy. And government needs an existential peril to justify its force.

    For our noble rulers, war between nation states has gone a bit out of fashion. That’s why the Bidenoids need the war on climate change and the war on systemic racism.

    It always has to be a war.

11. I wonder if these old Avalon Hill games are still around

    I was never a history buff, but my brother was a huge buff of Roman History, and his best middle/high school friend was a guy who loved the Reich and had a nazi uniform from his German uncle in his bedroom closet with lots of medals. I thought it was pretty cool but found the uniform a bit drab. I do however think the swastika symbol on a button with the correct rich colors was gorgeous. Has to be seen in person to be appreciated.

    So they’d play things like the Third Reich, or was it the Fourth Reich ? All I ever got around to playing with them was RISK

    I think if anyone played the Third / Fourth Reich today they’d be sent to prison

    • too bad your friend’s uncle wasn’t in the SS, then the uniform wouldn’t have been drab…

    • It’s on ebay. Pretty reasonable for an out of print game.

      • i thought you were talking about the uniform, at first!?

12. Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Alternative Ruminations

13. Big fan of alternative history here. I’m in something of a humorous conundrum too because of it. I saw ads up on JewTube for old video games and just fell in love with this one:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Rwzqq_sQUM&list=PLSHdOA4o6T_cf9Qz13OnIvUZgY_LtDGVG&index=31

    In the game America fell to the nazis and after the war, fascism came to America in a big way. Messerschmidt jet fighters soar overhead, cone headed clansmen chat amicably with SS stormtroopers on the street corners, and cheery 1960s toons play in the background. Of course the game itself is a shitlib morality play but lord – it makes for epic irony. I almost died laughing when the token nogger in the game mounts a great, big mud sharking German fatty in the game! 😂👍

    It’s pretty bad when in all seriousness, you wonder if a country like that would be worse than the one we have…

14. I disagree.

    I think fascist, and even more, NS states would have evolved into a kind of Scandinavian social-democracy, economically speaking, just with no private banking control and with racism.

    • The argument for that has to assume no war. I’m not sure there is a good argument in favor of that premise. If you assume that, then you need to look at Spain and Portugal. They settled into a mild authoritarianism that reflected the culture and people. It is possible Germany would have settled into a modern version of Kaiserism, just as modern Russian is modern Tsarism.

15. I will have to utter at least a few squeaks of disagreement today. Re, WW II, I’m willing to accept that the winners and those who did and continue to control our institutions spin history to their advantage. History is written by the winners. That is a universal truth. But the claims of at least some of the revisionists — that Nazi Germany had no deliberate genocidal policy — goes against too much evidence. I’m willing to believe (and indeed, it matches the history I’ve been “taught”) that it is always the fatalities of the Jews that is emphasized, and scant mention of the Christians, the Gypsies, the unfit, and so on. I’m also willing to accept that the casualties are inflated. I don’t think anyone (here) doubts there is a chronic pro-Jewish interests bias in much reporting. But bias is one thing; a blanket denial of inhuman practices is quite another. What is their basis for denying the Holocaust? All the eyewitness accounts of former captives, the films of of the mountains of dead bodies at the camps, the photographs of the “living skeleton” emaciated survivors when the Allies finally arrives, do they really claim all those are fake?

    I have to cry foul on your comments on the Cuban missile crisis. Just give a little consideration as to how vulnerable the US mainland would be if there were batteries of nuclear missiles less than a hundred miles from the mainland. Yes, Kennedy used brinksmanship. But perhaps there was no other choice?

    • You seem oblivious to the fact that the “Cuban Crisis” was merely the second of a play that started with the US planting batteries of nuclear missiles aimed at Moscow, in Turkey, less than 100 miles from the Russian mainland.
      An act of gross aggression ans astonishing recklessness.

    • David Stein, the Jewish WW2 revisionist, argues that there is no evidence of extermination in the camps, or even intent to do so. However, he says that when the Germans were moving through Russia they did not have the resources to house captured soldiers or Jews so they just killed them all. This is hardly unique in the history of warfare.

      If I recall correctly, he estimates these fatalities at about two million.

      I find Stein credible because he has every interest in discrediting the Germans but also has an objective mind.

    • Ben, in regards to the big H “evidence”, I doubt any one wants to touch this here, but there are very reasonable answers for all of your queries if you are genuinely curious and want to know the answers. The thing is, most people don’t want to know the answer. And the answers are being censored and made illegal in certain jurisdictions. This is completely understandable, to be honest I don’t even want to type this reply. And I’m not giving an answer one way or another.

      Also, in an odd way, maybe its more unsettling to think that such a thing could be lied about, hyperbolized or used as a political expedient. Arguing the alternative brings almost no benefit to an individual whatsoever. So again, its only natural for someone not to be interested in seeking out alternative viewpoints on this topic.

      Put it this way, think about what that event does to a persons mind. It stops all rational thinking. Most people would be willing to speak openly and entertain more theories about that time period if not for that event. Imagine that event never occurred. Would you be more willing to accept an alternative view of history in regards to ideology, trade policy, financial systems, alliances etc.? If you’re being honest, its probably the sheer imagery of that one event which stops all rational thinking, all entertainment of an alternative perspective.

      Such a thing can be very beneficial.

      • I could have worded that comment much better, I keep forgetting there’s no edit button anymore.

        And some clarification for the alphabet agents on here: by “the Big H”, I mean the Hamburger, and by “alternative perspective” I of course mean the contention that it is not the healthiest meal in the world, and by “that one event” I am referring to the creation of the veggie burger. Nobody debates whether or not real hamburgers are tasty, that would be ludicrous!

      • Thinking is a shared adventure between two traveling companions, the heart and the mind. The H influences the heart which sways the mind just as the H influences the mind which sways the heart, to meet somewhere in the middle.

    • Regarding Nazi genocide, it’s important to consider that internment camps will always have death, if simply from natural causes, and generally from the deprivations of war. It’s also important to consider that Continental wars have vastly more civilian casualties than American wars, the latter generally being much more gentle on civilians in terms of casualties and deprivations. One would think that the denizens of an interment camp would be much more susceptible to death since they would be the lowest priority for food and medical care. Given Germany’s experience, it wouldn’t be unsurprising for internment camps to have lots of deaths, but what that level would be is hard to say. Obviously, a lot of people died, but it really is impossible to say that way fewer would have died if there was no malice. War is hell, after all, even for non-combatants.

      • My understanding is that, later in the war, Allied bombing of Axis supply lines prevented the necessities of survival from reaching the concentration camps, with lethal results for their inmates.

    • Quit being a sissy and read Arthur R. Butz’s book while you can still get it.

16. Hitler and Stalin signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop non aggression pact, and then both invaded Poland. As a result, the West declared war on Germany but not the USSR. In fact, the United States provided the USSR with massive and critical aid via the Lend-Lease Act. Any narrative about WWII needs to explain this sequence of events in order to be valid.

    • Also, well before WW II, scraps of unsettling news seeped out of the Soviet Union about their labor camps, purges, and so on. For the most part, Western Leftists were perfectly content to dismiss this as anti-communist propaganda or otherwise pretend it couldn’t be true. After all, to admit even the outside possibility of that might call into question cherished ideologies. Some famous Western writers of the period who were sympathizers, after the opportunity to tour the Iron Curtain, even changed their minds and wrote unflatteringly of what they saw.

      Mark Twain had it so right (and applies amply to world history as well as many other fields): “It’s not what you don’t know, it’s what you know that ain’t so.”

      • This is where I recommend “The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin’s Russia” by Tim Tzouliadis. Its the story of Depression-era Americans lured to the Soviet Union w/ the promise of good jobs at good wages. It went very, very, wrong for them. It’s also a page-turner. The guy can write.

17. ” The permanent revolution of communist systems is an effort to institutionalize the creation of enemies around which the system can rally. The current war on white people is very similar. It is an effort to create a permanent enemy of the party that can never be defeated, but must always be opposed.”

    This is indeed what is happening.

    The Ruling Class has a problem, though: it will not work. That’s not to say there will not be intensified state-sponsored political terror and all the other nasty, violent stuff, but although math may be racist it does not lie. The numbers simply do not add up. The new enemy of the people, even with the Great Replacement, greatly outnumber others within the state. Now, yes, Whites have shown they will not fight back or will do so only reluctantly, and enough are fully onboard to avoid outright civil war at the moment. But there will come a hinge point and it is happening faster than any of us thought.

    The other racist ol’ debbil numbers that do not lie are the economics. The United States economy is on a trajectory toward total collapse and this is known domestically as well as internationally. Whether this is by design or not does not matter. Once the crash comes, the Ruling Class is composed of walking dead men no matter how much they think and have planned otherwise. Hungry Bantu do not really care how much gazelle they get to eat in a few months, and hungry Euro-Americans have a range of skill sets that have not been put to use yet. As you wrote a few weeks ago, this will not end well. I would edit slightly: this cannot end well. That’s not hopium. It is reality.

    Plato in REPUBLIC nailed the current state of affairs. All democracies become tyrannies and resort to permanent states of war to maintain power. Eventually that war is lost.

    • A well written, sober comment.

      Well done.

    • I just finished Plato’s Republic. That doesn’t mean I can quote it in detail 😀 But I think you have it correctly. “They” debate several forms of government and (I think) the agreement is that a king and aristocracy is the best. Much discussion is given to what would comprise the ideal City-State, that the “Guardians” who ran it would accept a Spartan lifestyle requiring not only intense training and education, but also forswearing private property and even the traditional nuclear family. All ruled over by a “philosopher-king.” All quite unrealistic, and I think even they admit as much 🙂

      For those unfamiliar with The Republic, probably its most famous story is the allegory of the cave. I’m studying Plato because much of his thought found its way into Christianity as well as much other, later thought. Plato was the origin, or at least the best exponent, of the belief that there is a world of Idea or Form, you could call it pure beliefs, the mental world, and that what I call everyday reality is “appearance” and imperfect. Clearly there is room to argue both ways. Smarter men than me have been such details for over two thousand years. I think we could all agree, however, that a man or a state ruled by democratic principles is better than a tyrant or a tyrrany, but it’s not clear to me that it’s 729 times better 😀 (Plato makes some abstruse examples using arithmetic and geometry to show that one concept is superior to another.) But in all, a fascinating work.

      • When I read the Republic as a young guy, I can remember being struck by this part in Book 1 about old age:

        ‘Are you still able to have intercourse with a woman? And he replied: “mind what you say, my man, I am glad beyond measure, to have escaped this; it’s like escaping from a raving and savage slave master”.’

        I can remember thinking, “so that’s what it’s like not to be horny all the time.”

    • I disagree in one respect: “Whether this is by design or not does not matter.” It matters a great deal. Unless you think “live in the pod and eat bugs,” “you’ll own nothing and be happy” came out of nowhere.

      • To be clearer, it does not matter to the fate of the Ruling Class.

18. Hitler was going to get a war whether he wanted it or not. If revisionists are to be believed, Stalin was building up for war. One of the reasons the Nazis were so successful early on is that Stalin’s entire Western front was configured for offense. Hitler and Goebbels both said that even they were surprised by what the military found as it made it’s way East. Supposedly Stalin was going to invade in 42.

    But Spain, though caught in its own civil war, did manage to stay out of the war and their allegedly fascist system faded away.

    The problem with alternative history is people like to change something really major and big and then just carry everything else they didn’t change forward in time as if that huge change would not have had enormous unforeseen changes throughout the system. Like if WW2 never happened, America would be a very different place today. Our awful influence on the rest of the world would never have happened.

19. I think the Pacific War was inevitable, especially considering the U.S. sanctions that cut off Japan from its largest supplier of oil, scrap metal and other raw materials. If FDR would’ve taken a softer line on Japan, there’s no idea that it would’ve prevented Pearl Harbor, which was a gambit by Yamamoto (he said that either his plan was approved or he’d resign in protest) to exercise control as commander of the Combined Fleet over the Naval General Staff headquartered in Tokyo.

    The irony was Yamamoto knew first hand the size of the U.S. economy and industrial might and knew Japan, which had to use teams of oxen to transport A6M fighter planes from the factory to the airfield for testing, wouldn’t be able to compete. He was against the war and a supporter of disarmament treaties that reduced the world’s battle fleets and headed off several ruinous post-Great War naval arms races

    As for Europe, I’m not convinced that Hitler wanted war with England. His administration’s Plan Z to revitalize the German Navy was not aimed at parity with the Royal Navy as the Germans tried in the great dreadnought race before the Great War. It also was a long-term project that wouldn’t have been complete until 1948 at the earliest.

    I think back on my grandfather, who was grievously wounded in Europe and how he would likely be very angry at what became of his country. I know my other relatives who fought against the Japanese would’ve likely felt the same way as we cower before those who’d destroy us in the hopes they’d inherit our civilization without having us to run it.

    I think our participation in the Great War was a disaster for Western Civilization and ignited the slow fuse of its demise. Imagine if there was no Communism. No fascism. No Frankfurt School nihilism. No World War II which put Europe into a death spiral of self loathing that will end it becoming Eurabia before century’s end.
    Imagine if the cream of the white race wasn’t expended in pointless battles on the Western Front. Think of all the progeny that were never born as their fathers were gassed and machine gunned as, to quote Pink Floyd, the lines on the map moved from side to side.

    • Well said. Perhaps one of the greatest weapons of war – and industrialization spawned from the great wars, is propaganda in the skinsuit of mass media.

      Mass media made the world at once both tiny and vast; a farm boy could know of the offenses of some distant land against another while never having been to the capirtal city of his own state.

      The world was quickly reduced to headlines and his will moved toward infinite exploration beyond the boring confines of the corn fields.

      Those boys of old became ripe for the bridle of a morality tale that would animate them toward unknown sacrifice that echoes to this day; to leave their land and people to join a new and “diverse” nation of brothers in arms.

      What survived was the megaphones of progress; the narrative and the diversity that would seed civic nationalism and thus kneel to globalist progress as “inevitable and “just”. The land and people? Well…

      Our grandpas made newer grandpas, steeped in that inevitable progress and honed over the grindstone of that moral wheel being turned faster and faster.

      Until current year when children of men know little of these great grandpas or great wars but know intimately what is racist and foul of the story of their own people.

      At least when grist went to the mill of globohomo in papas era they could call a jap a jap. And the propagandized savagery of their fated enemies was hyperbole still but miles closer to the truth than anything that passes for politically correct today.

      Papa upon hearing I was going to Germany for vacation in early 2000, “you know Adolf Hitler right?” Me, “of course”. He “well he stole five years of my life and a lot of my friends. I just thought you should know.”

      It seems, until providence brings otherwise, this old uncle will resort to telling the sprouts of my family “you know, its okay to be white. In fact,
      your great great grandpa and many other brave white men fought the same people today who are trying to tell you its not.” Oh I know dear. But your teacher is dead wrong.

    • Entry into WWI ought to have been a wake-up call. It was opposed by an overwhelming majority of the citizenry. Yet it happened.

20. off topic, related to your gab feed.

    You have a blab up about baseballcrank, some nevertrumper. The tweet about Trump’s age…now it’s twitter, so you can’t be sure, but if you click the tweet the responses are all “fuck you fucking republican”

    It’s amusing to me. These people sold out, no doubt hoping that their repudiation of Trump (pbuh) would win them favour among the ‘respectable’ class…and our finding out there are no safe harbours for traitors. Which should have been seen as the obvious outcome for anyone with a modicum of intelligence. But alas, we are talking about country club gopers.

21. Seems to me the wonder shot and the inward turning security state are such betrayals of the public trust they have the potential to kill the civic god. Who steps into the vacuum I have no idea. In a perfect world it would be the old guard. “Oops, that was a tragic wrong turn, but we’re back on course.” They’re either gone or they’ve played by the new rules for so long I’m not sure they have it in them. America doesn’t really have an old guard, so that’s an even more tenuous position.

22. Regardless of any modus vivendi with England, Hitler was going to do everything he could to conquer Europe. Aryan ideology was rooted in the historical fact that the Germanic people, during the volkwanderungen, settled and conquered virtually the whole of Europe. This was what precipitated the collapse of the Roman Empire. That being the case, all of Europe was a German patrimony. Hitler’s plans were nothing more than a revanchist plan to formalize an Aryan Empire that was limned 1500 years earlier by barbarian colonization. Any agreement with Churchill would have been nothing more than a cagey tactic designed to further that objective.

    • Hitler was a lunatic who killed more whites than anybody else in the history of the planet. He had some good ideas but he was crazy. We can learn from his mistakes. China has done so and is following a similar, but more reasonable and measured, policy. Keep the good, remove the bad.

      The correct response was for the USA to simply not fight in the war. It was a European war. Unfortunately thousands of young white men died because of Churchill & Roosevelt’s friendship.

23. Well, if I’m not mistaken, Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on the US, not vice-versa. We may well have stayed out of it for a long time or even entirely. Who knows what would have happened?

    It’s not clear at all from the historical record, to the extent we can trust it, that FDR and the American elites had any overarching pre-war strategy in Europe. (Hitler, in contrast, had an elaborate plan for Eastern Europe as we know from Albert Speer, Adam Tooze’s book (Wages of Destruction) and many other sources.)

    I would argue that the more interesting line of demarcation in the evolution of American foreign policy could be drawn from the Cold War forward. Before the Cold War, we had a reactive, incremental foreign policy in Europe and Asia. Since then, it’s been set-piece planning: find an enemy, isolate them, form a coalition, mobilize domestic support from media/corporations, etc. Foreign policy has been run like a business, complete with “contingency planning” if enemies fail to do their part (see 9/11).

    The main problem with this “foreign policy run like a business” model is that it clashes with the Globalist vision of selling HBO and the NBA to every Chinese and anyone else with disposable income. Beating up foreign black and brown people clashes with the CRT stuff. So this leaves just the evil Russkies…….. we now have a foreign policy engaged in a futile search for a worthy enemy.

    • Not a fan of NAZI’s, but it must be noted that the US—despite neutrality laws—was basically on the side of Britain and suppling support, such as lend/lease. Hitler saw little to lose in declaring war on the US and perhaps much to gain if the US was engaged in fighting Japan and Japan could be enticed to engage Russia. Hitler was nearsighted. 😉

    • Hitler was trying to defeat the Brits via siege but the U.S. was keeping them supplied behind a nonsense veil of “neutrality” (we were never going to sell Hitler whatever he wanted) and Hitler used it as an excuse to start sinking U.S. convoys.

      There are a lot of things both Japan and Germany could have handled better but the issue is (and Z references this) it wasn’t in their nature to do so.

      • One thing is to work as allies. AFAIK, they largely worked largely independently. Why didn’t the Japs attack Russia from the East? It is very likely Russia would have fallen if the Japs had also attacked. With the East secure, Stalin was able to move everything he had to use against the Germans.

        The US played this stupid game of we’re neutral while actively supporting Britain and the Soviet Union. We gave Stalin millions and millions of tons of stuff.

        • “Why didn’t the Japs attack Russia from the East?”

          Google, Bing, or DuckDuckGo the Battles of Khalkhin Gol and the Nomonhan Incident. Both happened before the start of the European phase of the Second World War, and while the Japanese extracted a hefty toll of Soviet troops, they got their asses handed to them by the Russians. So they weren’t eager to try THAT again.

          Also, the Japanese were stretched pretty thin fighting a war in China AND planning offensives against Hong Kong, Singapore, the Dutch East Indies, the Philippines, Guam, Wake, and Burma. Where were they going to get extra troops for a fight they really didn’t want to start against the Soviets?

          • I’m aware of the Russian Japanese war and the results. But they didn’t have the advantage of the Germans keeping the best Russian troops occupied in the West. Had the Germans taken Moscow, I think the Russians would have been entirely happy to follow a puppet Russian government and round up Stalin and his buddies and support public executions of them.

            But really, the point is that from what I can tell, the Axis powers were an alliance of convenience and nothing more. while the Allies worked together (though obviously not without hiccups).

      • Yes but my point was that the very existence of the Lend-Lease Act, a product of bitter debate and compromise, proves there was no broad consensus amongst the US elites about how to deal with the situation in Europe.

      • My gosh, there is some historical ignorance here.

        Check out these books:

        ‘Mr. Roosevelt’s Navy’
        And ‘Twas a Gallant Victory’

        Hitler and Germany showed extraordinary restraint while Roosevelt fought an undeclared war against them for more than a year.

        • Correction, the book is ‘Twas a Famous Victory’ by Benjamin Colby.

    • FDR had been at war with Germany for months before Pearl Harbor,

      • Yeah he was trying like hell to create a Lusitania Part Deux by goading German submarines into attacking American shipping. But the Kriegsmarine were given strict orders never to engage American ships, even if they were attacked unprovoked.

24. >>Using Jews and Slavs as cheap labor is not all that different from what American business does with guest workers.>>

    A bit glib. The appropriate analogy would be rounding up long-standing, internal “enemies” (Jews, Mexican-Americans, Chinese Americans) for extermination.

    And how to explain Cuba’s “hasta la revolucion siempre.” A permanent war footing? With whom? Puerto Rico?

    • Japan ran a glorified internal military dictatorship for almost 300 years. I would have thought that after, say, 100 years people would have started to wonder what the point of all the military training was, but I suppose it’s a Japanese thing.

      • It’s the uniforms. Chicks love the uniforms.

        • Especially German ones!!! ;<)

      • It must have done some good. The Japanese were quite the empire builders pre-WW II: China, Korea…
        Their military forces were well equipped, highly trained and ferocious. Both solider and civilian were quite willing to kill, die, or commit suicide rather than surrender, given a choice. You don’t find that much in our world, then or even less now. Excepting Islamic suicide bombers, perhaps.

25. Of course, another great “what-if” is if Mussolini had sided with the Allies in WWII rather than Hitler. This was actually a distinct possibility before the late 1930’s, and if the British had let Italy over-run Ethiopia without complaint (which, TBH, was no worse than what Britain had done in the Sudan less than forty years earlier), it probably would have happened, since Mussolini disliked Hitler, and actually admired Britain and the US (with this admiration being returned by Roosevelt and Churchill, no less). This would have meant that Allied propaganda would have had to distinguish between the “good” Italian Fascism, and the “bad” Nazi fascism, with unknown consequences. Yeah, Italy would probably have been conquered by the Germans, but the Italians would almost certainly fought harder against the Germans than they did against us, and Mussolini was at least as charismatic as DeGaulle in exile. A reinstated Mussolini ranged with the victors in WWII is certainly a counterfactual worth thinking about, and it could have very easily happened.

    • Good point(s). Is there still a statue or bust of Mussolini in Chicago somewhere?

      It would have been easy to promote “good” fascism. As FDR himself recognized, the New Deal was basically fascist, a la Mussolini. What fascism lacked was anti-Semitism and nutty race theories in general. Needless to say, that would be a plus for the New Dealers.

      A US allied with Italy would also have benefited from Mussolini’s war on the Mafia, and moreover would also not have actually worked with and rewarded the mob for their usefulness in the invasion of Italy.

      • Mussolini presented a serious dilemma for the American ruling class. He was not overtly anti-Semitic by the standards of the day. He was oddly pro-American. His polices fit in neatly with the Progressives. On the other hand, any form of nationalism was considered evil by Hollywood. Duck Soup was an obvious attempt to mock Mussolini in 1933. The Great Dictator and The Three Stooges You Nazty Spy! were made in 1940 and umped all fascists in with the very negative portrayal of Hitler.

        We know who won, of course, but it was probably not as simple as it is presented today.

        • When the Cold War broke out, the American ruling class would have been forced to hold their noses and accept Mussolini, the way that they did (eventually) with Franco. Italy was just too strategically important, no matter who was running the place. It would have helped that a few fairly high up Italian Fascists were Jewish, prior to the alliance with Hitler. This would have doubtlessly smoothed his acceptance by some, Duck Soup notwithstanding, and Mussolini would probably died a hero, once again much like DeGaulle. Mussolini was not the buffoon that he is often portrayed as today, but his alliance with Hitler was a catastrophe, for him and for his country and movement.

26. The only thing historians do is question the official narrative of various historical events.

    History begins a few seconds ago and it gets harder and harder to revise as time passes. Historical revision is also met by fierce resistance from the forces of stability. Interested parties have an investment in maintaining a particular historical record that may or may not reflect reality. This is particularly reflected in the US public education system. Although the country was made up overwhelmingly of immigrants, the schools indoctrinated their pupils exclusively with a US history that included a minimum of information about the background of the immigrants themselves. In communities of made up of Germans, Italians, Dutch, French and so on, the backgrounds of these people, extending back centuries, was ignored in favor of the short span of the American experience. Of course, this was a deliberate attempt to erase the culture of the immigrants and make them into good Americans. It worked. Even those who celebrate holidays like St. Patrick’s Day or make trips back to the “old country” know little about the actual history of their family’s country of origin. They’re assimilated, if that’s the right word for ignoring your heritage.

    There are many Germans in the US, descendants of those that made the trip to the US in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Few of them have any knowledge of Prince Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian who designed many of the social programs in use in the country today.

    To some extent this may be subsiding. The latest immigrants, while quick to adopt many features of American life, retain some cultural factors. Their children, however, educated in US schools, will soon accept Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt as the defining figures in their own history.

    • “In communities of made up of Germans, Italians, Dutch, French and so on, the backgrounds of these people, extending back centuries, was ignored in favor of the short span of the American experience. Of course, this was a deliberate attempt to erase the culture of the immigrants and make them into good Americans. It worked.”

      Don’t you think emphasizing the differences of the ethnicities of the new arrivals would’ve worked against national unity?

      You believe that the treatment of the Indians by the whites was uniquely evil. You wish the differences of the immigrants had been emphasized.

      So what now? Do white people in the USA have a moral right to defend themselves against the other groups that attack them as a single group (not a set of distinct ethnicities)?

      • What is this “national unity” of which you speak?

        I don’t wish for anything. I’m merely making an observation.

    • I think you hit the nail on the head 😀 As just one such American of the Germany ancestry as you mention (hardly unique, something like 40% have ancestry) I can attest that we still retain fragments of our heritage. In my case, it was little more than a love for beer, wurst and doing the “chicken dance” at Drunktoberfest.

27. Churchill did not become PM until May 10, 1940. the day of the German invasion of France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Whatever warlust he had or didn’t have, Churchill had nothing to do with the start of the Second World War. That is not alternative history, it’s actual history.

    • “Churchill did not become PM until May 10, 1940”
      Before that he was named as the first lord of the admiralty, and before that he was forming an anti-Chamberlain coalition. In attempts to gain favor as a potential future PM, he talked a tough game and began criticizing Chamberlain for not being a fellow “tough guy.” In many ways, it was this political expediency which led to Chamberlain feeling forced to declare war in ’39. Churchill was also adamant on not signing any peace offers with Germany, and began riling up the masses with war-propaganda. Things kind of spiraled from there.

      Churchill was more concerned with the old British “Balance of power” foreign policy and was motivated by a long history of German hatred. So his goal was to preserve British hegemony over the continent, and if he could, gain some more territory in the middle east during the conflict.

      Germany had made it more than clear for years that it was no threat to the greater British Empire since Germany was in no position to inherit it if it fell. Hitler feared that even if he were to get into a battle with Britain and win, it would leave a sudden power vacuum in the world which could only be filled by either the US, USSR or Japan. This he did not want, he wanted a (Anglo) European power at the head of such an empire. He was really only concerned about the East.
      Churchill didn’t care, and wanted war. He essentially lost the empire in the process.

      But that’s just like, my interpretation, man.

      • The Anglos are the masters of beneficial colonization.

        Had the Anglos, Spanish, and French continued uplifting the brute Third World,
        had Russians returned to aristocracy,
        and had the Germanics cast Amel Mayer Rothschilds’ offspring from the banks and unified Europe–

        We’d be headed for Alpha Centauri by now.

        • Yeah I usually don’t hair split over geo-politics or whinge about “morals” or “fairness” when it comes to war. But WW2 and the whole current mythology built around it is an entirely different beast for so many reasons.

          I understand that there will probably always be a major power in the world no matter what, and I’d rather it be us. So in regards to current foreign affairs, does China have a sound claim for Taiwan? Probably. Is our treatment of trade in the south china sea unfair? Sure.
          But for the most part I won’t lose any sleep over it. There’s always going to be a strong man forcing everyone’s hand and I’d rather it be us. (all talks of our current culture, “”neo””politics aside)

          • China’s claim on Taiwan is analogous to a hypothetical Spanish claim on Cuba.

28. I don’t like alternative history. There is no way to test any ideas it generates, and the whole thing is usually just overwhelmed by the author’s personal biases.

    The right needs more useless thinking and philosophy like a fat man needs another Twinkie.

    • Agreed. I never bother with that. Could have been better, could have been worse, so what? It’s not what happened.

      I prefer to live in reality not a fantasy world. Wasting time in Alternate History is no different than the Reagan boomers still thinking it’s 1985 and that Hispanics are natural conservatives.

      Live in reality (even if it’s grim) and work for the future that you want to see.

      • In defense of occasional fantasy, the frequency in which I find myself seeing a could-have-been really pretty young white woman with her lady bits shrink-wrapped and filleted in 4” of lycra exposing a massive thigh tattoo walking astride some nog in sportsball drag is such that my wont for some long expunged aesthetic is profound.

        Given we are already in some fascist hellscape, a few minutes of notsee alt-history where women wear braids and dresses and men are in buttoned up work attire with heads held high is a bit of junk food I allow myself.

        But to your point, it is also a vision I leverage into how I carry myself into the sewer that is “the public” and motivate my own purpose toward some future that embraces the lost courage, grace, and decency of our former peoples.

        • I had to go into one of the shitlibiest areas of shitlib central today and I cannot tell you Screwtape how much that last paragraph resonates. The next arrogant masked-up doughy neckbeard millennial who sasses me will feel the wrath of my disgust at all people who can’t even be bothered to wear clothing that fits. This stuff actually matters.

          Yes, I had an encounter at one of Portland’s commie food markets today. Why do you ask?

        • Well written,sir ! This short exposition highlights the all good and beautiful lost because we fought the wrong enemy in Europe, as General Patton said.
          “the lost courage, grace, and decency of our people”….
          Buried in a sewer remarkably similar to Weimar Germany; that Republic shared many other characteristics as to those who were running the country…

      • I don’t agree. I think in a time of lies and fraud, fiction is an even more relevant a lense through which to understand what’s going on in our culture and politics.

        In some ways, the farther removed it was written in time and topic, the more clear and unbiased its view.

29. The obligatory “Man in the High Castle” comment. I watched that show and literally came away thinking “Boy, the American Nazi aesthetic is amazing. Maybe it wouldn’t have been so bad losing the war and splitting up the USSA between Japan and Germany.”

30. OR What if we had sided with Germany in WWI and defeated France with England left out of the fight. No rise of Hitler, No Communist Russia: No WWII

    • That is one of the amusing bits about alternative history. The only way to avoid the WW2, American would have had to have avoided the Great War. In order to do that, the North would had to made peace with the South before Gettysburg. In order for that to have happened, the Indians would have had to eat the Puritans after they arrived.

      • I take the view that tiny insignificant things would have made a radically different world

        If Lincoln’s father had grabbed his wife 2 seconds later, a different sperm would have fertilized the egg and someone else would have been born.

        That someone else would have had a different life which would likely not involve getting elected President at the critical juncture.

        All events that followed would have been altered in trillions of both subtle and profound ways that are impossible to know.

        • That’s why I say it literally could not have happened any other way. We are all captives of the past. If the past had happened any other way, we wouldn’t be here. Some other people might be here, just not us.

      • “…the Indians would have had to eat the Puritans after they arrived.”

        Ah, what could have been.

      • I can one-up for alternative history. 🙂 I can’t recall the author, but the short story has the protagonist go back in time to Central America just before Columbus’s landing. He’d learnt just enough of the native tongue to be understood. His mission (which he achieves) is to warn the natives of he arrival of the Spanish, whom are killed as soon as they land.

    • Or what if we had stayed the hell out of WWI and the stalemate had resolved itself naturally thus no treaty of Versailles and thus no Hitler? We did not “win” the “War To End All Wars” but we damned sure tilted the scales in favor of GB and France and thus enabled the Treaty of Versailles. Something about avoiding entanglements just seems to ring true to me.

      • Bill – prior to 1914 France was itching for another go @ Germany following their crushing defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. Napoleon III of France saw himself as much a military genius as his uncle; alas, it was quite the opposite.

        Britain was pissed/jealous Kaiser Wilhelm was building up a blue water navy, in effect challenging the “Britannia Rules the Waves” meme. WWI was one huge family feud: Queen Victoria was aunt to Kaiser Wilhelm & Nicholas II of Russia.

31. Alternative history is one of those things that should be more popular in Hollywood, as it opens the door for creativity.

    The problem with Zman’s thesis above is that in the Hollywierd of today creativity is something in extremely short supply. Whether it be behind the camera (executives, writers and directors) or in front of it there are damned few truly creative people making movies and television. Constructing a coherent alternative history requires not only creativity but a broad understanding not only of history but of how human systems operate. Today’s Hollywierd is composed of cultural illiterates who are pretty much the diametric opposite of “creative”. In place of compelling stories we have either woke preaching or “tale[s] told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”. It is no wonder that endless sequels (and “pre”-quels) are the order of the day. Even if my hearing was not so bad as to require subtitles in order to follow what passes for dialog, I’ve seen nothing advertised that was worth the exorbitant price of a ticket – even assuming we could actually enter a movie theater in the era.of Covid!

    • “The Man in the High Castle”, while outlandish, was at least a mildly interesting alternative history with a mild sci-fi bend. Like most Hollywood productions that poz their popular series, at Season 3 the Nazis became more and more cartoonish and they added two homosexual and one lesbian relationship.

      Pass.

      • Speaking of adding two homosexuals, Sesame Street now has introduced two daddies that are fags.

        Talk about trying to get em young….

      • The Man In the High Castle was interesting. The first two seasons were really popular. For me (and I think I’m not alone in this) it was because the German occupied US was just so darn attractive.

        I honestly think the showrunners were aware of and spooked by this, and accordingly went out of their way to make the later seasons ugly and stupid.

      • Note: “The Man In The High Castle” is a Hollywierd adaptation of brilliant, award winning author Phillip K. Dick’s novel of the same title. All Hollywierd did was take Dick’s work and adapt it for the small screen. Dick did the hard work.

        I have always wanted to see some good writer tackle a post-WWII world where Emperor Hirohito’s surrender message failed to get out (it damned near did!) and the U.S. actually had to invade the Japanese home islands. We would have had to have virtually depopulated Japan to win the war. Imagine a post war perion leading up to today WITHOUT Japan! No Sony. No Toyota. No Pacman. No need for the thousands of American troops to garrison the islands. It would be a different world!

    • If modern Hollywood made more alternative histories:

      What if trans warriors led the Crusades?

      What if gay rights had been the 1st amendment to the constitution?

      What if Alexander the Great was born to a Nigerian tribewoman and black people conquered Europe?

      • “What if Alexander the Great was born to a Nigerian tribewoman and black people conquered Europe?”

        On that point, ‘White Man’s Burden’ with Travolta and Bellafonte was a well-done bit of Wakanda. Africans were the Founding Fathers, Travolta was a dumb janitor, a George Floyd with a job. Heh.

    • You are correct Sir. I’m in the industry & I couldn’t concur more ;<)

    • Case in point: Disney just race swapped Snow White for the upcoming movie. They also made the Little Mermaid black. You can’t tell me Hollywood isn’t state media at this point because this stuff is definitely not what the audience wants,

32. It can be done. China is a mature, fascist dictatorship.

    Not a place I would like to live, but I’m not Chinese.

33. “even if the British had not been so willing”.

    Appeasement policy is a myth.

    You start by saying Churchill had a lust for blood even though Chamberlain was in office when the British declared war on Deutschland AFTER they declared war on Poland and then you extend it to all the British. Bit of a greaseball move there. Same with the tactic where you initially talk about the British resposibility for war in the West and then extend it to the war in total. Sly.Sly.Sly.

    The explicitly stated core part of Hitler’s policy was war which is one of the resons
    Germany invaded Poland, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Greece, Yugoslavia, Austria, the USSR and Italy during WW2.

    Hitler broke every agreement he signed and substituted it with war.He planned on eradicating the Poles and Ukrainians because he wanted their land and calories respectively.Even if you surrendered to the dumb they would then gas you, as they did in the East, or starve you as they did to the Dutch,Danes and Norwegians. You lost more men once the Germans conquered you than when you were fighting them.

    Other fascists like Mussolini or Franco considered Hitler to be bloodthirsty and untrustwothy. Both understood that a German victory would only lead to more war. As long as there was a power capable of rivaling Germany there would always be a justification for future war. To have an independent existence meant war to Hitler.

    • Yes, I’m part of an intergenerational conspiracy to slander the Brits.

      • BRITS OUT

        Wait…come back!!

      • Yeah, the US didn’t go ga-ga over the Brits until WWII; Wilson wanted a seat at the global table in WWI, FDR wanted to be a superpower.

        Hell, they burned our capital down in 1812, and damn near intervened in the Civil War on the south side (there’s some alternative history what-ifs!).

        Dems are all European aristocratic wanna be’s. They can’t help it…all the inbreeding and going to the same 3 colleges.

        • What is we had invaded Canada after the Civil War (pay back for British interference). What a country we’d be with the land and resources of Canada. And hell, they speak English already!

          • Quebec from the Yukon to New Orleans… we owe them for Lafayette and the French Navy during the Revolutionary War.

            Heck, that bankrupted Louis XIV and led to the French Revolution.

            Reparations to Napoleon, I say!

          • Maybe back then. In the sector of ‘Canada’ I live, it’s mostly, Arabic, Indian dialects and some variety of pidgin.

          • French were bad-asses. The whole “French surrender monkeys” is some really misplaced US hubris.

            Sorry, NATO. Charles De Gaulle had your number and developed his own nukes. NATO (aka, the “USA” ) is not to be trusted.

            I don’t see large numbers of SERVING US officers signing letters calling their current political leadership into account.

            After you retire, and when you don’t get the Boeing/Lockheed defense department liaison job doesn’t count. Nor does Lt. Col. or below (sorry, no offense <= O-5's. Thank you for your service in 65 years of unwinnable/unwon wars of your political leaderships choice)

            French saved our butts in the American Revolution; their fleet made the revolution possible. They may have been supporting the guerillas fighting their legal sovereign just to spite the Brits, but it was good ju-ju for us (US).

            If anyone is going to reverse the trend in Europe, it's not the British, or the Germans. It's the French.

            Probably not them either, TBH. "We Are Doomed" – JD

    • The UK started WW ll

      Deal with it.

34. The Situation;
    I daresay things will remain on status quo until someone mistakes the Hammers for nails…

    Wherein the Elites pick on the wrong group, that is choose the wrong enemy.

35. you’re a blond haired beach boy in 1960 and you wake up and you are the toast of the town and everyone wants a piece of you and girls are lining up out the beachside motel room to be with you. That same guy in 2021 is considered a domestic terrorist for Pete’s sake and they will send blacks out to burn down the motel with you inside screwing

    Yes, always looking for enemies indeed

    They keep cycling through the various peoples looking for the new bad guy

    Sick people. Sick sick sick.

    • “With you inside screaming”

      Ha ha

      But either makes some sense. Another random auto correct that has unintended comedic results

      • Autocorrect knows best.

    • I’m really worried about our youngest generation of white men.

      They are being taught that it’s shameful to be white, and that the only way they can atone for it is to destroy “whiteness” – aka their families, communities, and nations (and ultimately themselves). Many teens / 20 year olds have a weird attitude that I’ve never seen before, ultra quiet and almost as if they’re embarrassed to exist. How is a 4 year old today going to be in 20 years?

      I’m not sure that the average “non-racist” white Gen X or Millennial parents have the skills or knowledge to teach their kids to overcome this evil brainwashing. The only way to overcome it is through a) devout, muscular Christianity or b) devout racism.

      I’m just immune to Globohomo. I was calling out teachers for bullshit as early as Grade 6 when they were telling us we needed to eat grass and capture cow farts to save the planet. Today “critical race theory” doesn’t work on me, leftist arguments fall flat, I don’t listen to people outside my tribe, I don’t care if somebody sees me as an oppressor (fear = respect etc), in fact I enjoy it and it makes women wet. We make up a small % of the white population though, I fear CRT has been scientifically tailored to mindfuck the general white population.

      • “I’m not sure that the average “non-racist” white Gen X or Millennial parents have the skills or knowledge to teach their kids to overcome this evil brainwashing.”

        I agree with you. And it is most definitely evil. I say as much to many people, and the looks I get are quite interesting. You could be having a normal discussion about, say, the Covid sham, they’ll be nodding along… then you say it’s evil. A lot of people find it difficult to make the mental jump. Perhaps it is too painful to realize. Most definitely when all of us, most of the time, do something to help it. We may not mean to but buying a Coke or a Burger King, using Amazon, probably even using The Internet aids it somehow. But recognition is one thing, then there is following through and being callous to those who hate you.

        Some years ago here on The Isles, a politician or some such was murdered. Such a shame it was. Outpourings of grief. Terrible. Just terrible. So much promise in the young girl. But as usual, on closer inspection this was your rank-and-file globalist. Keen for open borders. Would call you a racist for getting upset that the local Somali gang robbed the shirt off your back. Would loath you for not being onboard with Electric Vehicles. Would sneer and monger rumours that you’re a bigot because a man cannot be woman and no woman can be a man. Would pass ‘hate speech’ legislation because ‘feelings’.

        This person is better off dead. And this is where many I knew stumbled. People should never die. This was too harsh, they’d say. But let’s face it, if you can’t reason with a person who will inflict harm upon you – albeit with a pen and out of view – then there is really only one option. I guess it is the option really when dealing with tyrants.

        I have a feeling our lives are going to get very tough, very quickly. Sigh.

        • People raised atheist, in a high trust and white society, have a hard time understanding the concept of evil. “Just be a good person”, “don’t be an asshole”, “Love is love”, etc. are all modern GoodWhite slogans that prove this. I’ve even had conversations with white people, where they agreed with everything I said, and then told me that they prefer believing that everybody is a good person, anyways.

          “Just be a good person” works until you’re dealing with a bad person. Or, in other words, evil. Evil exists, and always will, because Satan exists, and is active. That’s why “being nice” was never good enough to get into Heaven.

          We lived in an anomalous time, where there are few threats from outside or inside. That time is ending now.

          • “That’s why “being nice” was never good enough to get into Heaven.”

            “Being nice” wasn’t good enough not because “Satan is real” but because the Lutherans taught that “your good deeds are but menstrual cloths” (Romans 10, usually translated as “filthy rags”). I.e., you and everyone are born evil.

            AND that’s why the “I’d rather believe” attitude is itself a product of Christianity: faith not good deeds.

          • B125: You’re absolutely spot on; people think everyone should be ‘nice’ and then we’d all simply ‘get along.’ I believed in the existence of evil before I came to believe in God – my belief in evil helped me come to Christ. And too many Christians today try to pull off that separating the sinner from the sin. But if one gives oneself over to evil, by choice and of one’s own free will, there is no such separation. He is then evil. Even if he openly repents and is forgiven by a merciful God, this does not wipe clean the slate on earth among his fellow men. The only just earthly solution is evil’s destruction – and the destruction of those men given over to evil.

            Most people I know – most Christians – decry this as harsh and unforgiving But they offer no other option other than praying for the evil ones to repent. Such prayer is fine, but does nothing to limit the evil done on earth, nor to make atonement to those harmed. All of this is supposed to be the purview of man’s ‘law,’ but there is no more law, and decades of man’s law have left us isolated and floating in a sea of spiteful mutants.

            I think (and hope and pray) a lot of old ‘wisdom’ will be made new again. We need to insure it is not again forgotten.

        • I tend to.get testy when I hear some leftist going on about wanting to “change the world”. Even though I refrain, there are two questions I want to ask that person.

          1. What makes you so certain the world REQUIRES changing?
          and
          2. What makes you think you have a clue HOW to go about changing/i> it?

          Talk about hubris!

          • “Changing the World” is all part of the Big Lie sold to young ‘uns in the state school system, I’d imagine.

            Whatever happened to having a job because it pays the bills and you may be lucky: you might enjoy it?

            Nowadays everything has a slogan, everything is ‘Amazing’. Today I had a call with a client on which a senior manager was listening. After, he made a point of telling ‘The Team’ (at this point still white) that my presentation was ‘Amazing’. I literally repeated to the rude and clueless Punjab present, everything I had previously mentioned in an email. Maybe it was ‘Amazing’ as I kept my temper with this boob. Everything is over-hyped one billion percent and I don’t think it has always been this way.

            That said, if you ‘world changing’ job is sitting behind a desk, drinking a Frappa-Wogga-Cino, and analysing ‘content’ – perhaps you need the marketing just to get out of bed in the morning. If you are fortunate enough to love your job, that’s great. However, there are a lot of people who depend on work to give themselves some meaning, any meaning; and these people are in for a world of hurt when UBI and other schemes ramp up.

          • Tikkun Olam, baby. It’s right there in the Bible.

          • Very insightful. Hubris dates to at least 375 BC (Plato’s “Republic”.) At least, the dichotomy between the not-quite-satisfactory “apparent” world (the way things really are, I would say) versus his “Idea” or “Form”; for Plato the was one (or even more, per some critics) conceptions of the true, perfect world. Now there’s much validity to these different “worlds.” Many ideas, theories, etc. only exist in the human mind. Mathematics, geometry, or (much later) differential calculus, or for that matter, the Bill of Rights, all have real-world uses, but that doesn’t give them real-world claim to existence. To me, this mental playground invites endless abuse. It should not be hard to see how. Just make up any fantastic crap you like, as elaborate as you wish, and call it reality! If one is intellectually honest (a rarity), one will see this is the foundation of virtually all human belief systems, be they a philosophy, a religion, etc. The mental model itself is not to blame. How well it does — or does not — work in the real world is the acid test.

            Finally, you are so right. For all our accomplishments, it is supreme hubris (the deadly sin of pride!) for humans to invent a fantasy world and then try to escape into it 😀

          • A couple years ago I was having dinner with some former coworkers and one proudly told us how her son quit working at one of the evil megacorps (not how she put it or saw it) so he could go “help make the world a better place”. Preferably doing something about global warming. I said ‘Why not just produce something people actually need and raise some honorable children? That would certainly make the world a better place.’ She was highly offended. I didn’t care. These people and their neverending ego stroking will be the ruin of us all.

      • True. Trained deference to prog.

        Worse is that I think all this critical race pushback is nothing more than narrative shaping. Anti-reality is prone toward extremism and so the weeds get out ahead and must be control burned.

        Anti-CRT in mainstream media would not be covered (and named/branded) if its work was not already done and now requires repackaging as a new chapter of progress.

        “Feminist” has seen a similar evolution. Most young women dont see themselves as feminists. Whats the point when masculinity has been destroyed.

        • Agreed. In true stalinist form, the excesses of the extreme radicals will be cut off from official sanction for going too far, in order to allow retrenchment and establisment of “the conservative case for permanent anti-white apartheid.” They’ll dial back the craziest crazy and leave 80% of the progran.

          Blacks are the new aristocracy.

      • If those kids are anything like me and my classmates, they see the teacher as an old weirdo who couldn’t get a real job and pushing stupid shit from a stupid book and they let it go in one ear out the other

        In fact, the more they push this in schools, probably the better. They are turning this racial stuff into “the way old people think.” It’s the new hippy stuff, where when they were promoting all that in school we all just laughed it off

        Teachers are never good influencers b/c young people intuitively grasp they’re losers

        I run into a lot of young white people, and I have a young daughter so get to see how they’re thinking

        NO ONE is buying into this shit. People forget what it’s like to be young, even by the time you are in your mid 20s and 30s you start forgetting how little respect you gave most teachers, especially the fat weirdos attracted to things like race theory

        Nah, I wouldn’t worry about the attempts at anti white propaganda. It’s what gets older people riled up mostly.

36. Yes, it’s human nature to sacrifice one’s personal interests (or life) in service to the whole when an external existential threat arises. This behavior is often characterized as “heroism or patriotism.” And this proclivity is in our DNA because we are descended from ancestors who practiced this behavior and then thrived well enough to reproduce abundantly. So it works & therefore persists.

    And yes, this proclivity in our nature is being exploited in order to keep the herd marching in lockstep. Create a phony war (or threat of war) and the plebs will become compliant and sacrificial. But how many times can you go to well with this con before it runs dry? If the population is highly intelligent, probably not too often. If they are stupid (or newly minted “citizens” trying to earn their way in), probably quite often.

    But the problem is not with the people, it’s with the con artists. When the con artists are gone, ancestral nature is restored. The pathogen is the con artists.

    • it’s human nature to sacrifice one’s personal interests (or life) in service to the whole when an external existential threat arises. … [T]his proclivity is in our DNA because we are descended from ancestors who practiced this behavior and then thrived well enough to reproduce abundantly.

      Said proclivity conferred absolutely ZERO survival advantage in sub-saharan Africa and thus is essentially totally absent in joggers. The only Blacks who possess the trait are ones for whom there is a honkey or chink in the woodpile somewhere.

37. Gore Vidal once said that Kennedy (and presidents thereafter) were the first to take the USSR and Communism seriously, meaning they actually thought it was a viable political rival and a mortal danger. (Eisenhower in contrast was more worried about the United States’ power than the Soviets’.) So the constant war footing was developed during the Kennedy admin going forward. It had gotten so perverse by George Bush (the first) that we were looking for someone, anyone to curb-stomp. Now that all the tinpot dictatorships are on notice, the US turns its menacing gaze inward to white supremacy. Meanwhile China, which in a more manly age would have been laughed at and left alone, gets to laugh at the limp dicks at the G8.

38. “…if the British cut a deal with the Germans over Poland? If not for Churchill’s blood lust for war, a deal could have been made to avert war in the West.”

    Why do you say Churchill wanted war? If a deal was made over Poland, would Germany not have made war in the West eventually?

    I’m not suggesting you’re wrong. I’m genuinely asking your opinion.

    • These things can be debated, but I’m on the side that says committing Britain to unconditionally defend Poland because they knew Poland would provoke Germany over the Free City of Danzig. That was always a spiteful and rotten clause in the Treaty of Versailles. The city was full of Germans with no connection to Poland. The Polish claims were unreasonable on their face. There was a deal to be made there if the British had wanted to avoid war.

      *Edited to clean up the timeline a bit.

      • A “secret treaty”- what unabashed horsesh*t.

        • For some reason, I find that ‘factoid’ the most galling thing about the Official Version.

    • Churchill was a warmonger. He was pushing for war as soon as the Great War ended. His “wilderness years” were not so much a time out of power as a time refining his call for more war. He was Cato the Elder and Germany was his Carthage.

      As for what would have happened if Churchill had been hanged after Gallipoli, it is anyone’s guess. Could the fascists and Bolsheviks coexisted? That seems unlikely to me, given the way Bolshevism had evolved to that point. Could Fascist Germany coexisted with Republican France? Maybe, but there were many lingering points from the Great War that could have led to a new war.

      In the end, I look at WW2 as inevitable. The forces that brought liberal democracy, fascism and communism into existence in the 20th century were driving all sides to war. If Churchill had not be around, someone else or a group of people would have filled the role.

      • Yes, after the Imperial Germans had made the colossal world-historical mistake of trying to challenge Britain’s mastery of the sea in the early 20th Century, two entire generations of British and anglophilic American statesmen (which meant all the important ones) were obsessed with the threat from Germany. Nothing in history is inevitable, but after the outcome of WWI, WWII was about as historically inevitable as anything can be.

39. The fact the WWII is the Untouchable Good War is why Sean McMeekin is going to get cancelled, and probably sooner rather than later. Up until now, his work has challenged the Establishment in ways that they didn’t like, but did not strike at the basis of their power. I mean McMeekin pretty much proved that Lenin was a German agent, and that Imperial Russia, rather than Germany, was the prime mover behind WWI, which couldn’t have made many in the Uniparty happy, but it was pretty marginal stuff, and much of it was known anyway (Australian journalist Alan Moorehead outed the Lenin-German connection back in the 1950’s). But in “Stalin’s War” McMeekin hits the Good War head on, with Stalin as both the primary instigator and primary winner. The hysterical reviews from Left publications indicates that McMeekin is now on The List. I hope that he didn’t tell any racist or sexists jokes back in grade school…

    One encouraging sign is that the base pillars of the Establishment, WWII and Civil Rights, are now being directly attacked, by figures as mainstream Caldwell and McMeekin. No wonder the Left is getting more and more hysterical.

40. No. The American empire has lasted as long as it has because there is enough productivity that the system can sustain itself even with the parasitical load of the ruling class and empire. This is also the reason why China did not collapse like the USSR and continues to grow to this day. Both empires have enough productivity to sustain themselves. Al though I think our parasites are getting to the point where they are starting to chock off further productivity. This is when empires start to collapse.

    I agree with you as to why the official story of WWII is not allowed to be questioned as well as the reasons why.

41. Last week I had a conversation with a fellow dissident about Father Coughlin, a based version of Rush Limbaugh that had millions of Radio Listeners before WWII. Of course, he got shut down by the government after they went in war footing with Germany, which he vehemently opposed. Now he’s memory holed in history like he never existed.

    A conservative normie was also listening in and chimed. “Well, if he was against the war I can see why he was shut down, the Holocaust was happening.”

    I replied stating the obvious “And so it was right to ally with Communists who killed thirty million?”

    Instant short-circuit. “Well, was there any alternative?”

    Not to play armchair general, but it’s really amazing how WWII is considered The Good War when any cursory look at alliances and the war aftermath makes it clear we would have been better off just letting the Germans and Commies duke it out.

    • I don’t know where I heard this or read this and its probably apocryphal but I like it. At Yalta FDR said to Stalin we’re doing God’s work and Stalin replied we both know that’s not who were working for

    • Sadly ironic that Britain declared war on Germany over the invasion of Poland, then Churchill and Roosevelt handed Poland over to Stalin at Yalta.

      • Churchill pushed for bombing civilians and gas attacks, brought the British Empire to ruins, and betrayed his allies. If Nuremberg wasn’t a farce, he would have been the first to be hanged.

    • ““Well, if he was against the war I can see why he was shut down, the Holocaust was happening.”

      That’s how it goes these days: against getting involved in The Second World War 2 = Wanting to gas the yids good an’ proper.

      These days, my shelves are chock full of history books – but given how much of a sham our institutions have become, I suspect they’re ‘history’ books. Sad. I don’t really like having to double, triple check every (mainstream) publication I read because our world is infested with wokeists.

      Still, I do know that I had an omelette for breakfast this morning, so that’s something. Chicken burger for lunch, too. And that’s a fact!

      • Talking of interesting history: https://archive.org/details/riseofenglishcul00johnrich

      • OrangeFrog: Is there similar revisionism in England today regarding Churchill? I know the woke are rewriting your history and it’s all about evil colonialism etc., but have there been efforts to reconsider WWII? You have a smaller percent of chosen but they’re heavily over represented among the political and media class, just as over here. Totally aside from their personal take on the war, has the average Englishman changed his opinion of Churchill? Of course, Churchill was voted out as soon as the war was over, so I question whether he was ever as ‘honored’ in England as he’s come to be in the US.

        • Yes, the woke are busy on Old Winston. My knowledge of Churchill came from querying very elderly relatives and other oldsters – this I started from the age of 15; and then from statements about him in history books. Above a certain age, and within a certain class, admiration of Churchill seems to be the norm. I don’t think many from this group have changed their view. Perhaps the younger generation have or just don’t care.

          But, nowadays, I know that the woke are doing their wicked work by applying the ‘Churchill Litmus Test’. Upon mentioning Churchill, if any in the company you’re talking too violently disagree and call him a racist/colonialist (he probably was) – I know them to be of the woke. It is a handy tool. Note, this is different from measured criticism: and there is alot about Sir Winston to criticize. My own view? I like the myth. He represents tenacity and boldness, and this is useful. But sure, he no doubt did some very ruthless and selfish things. Put simply: in the propaganda war, an icon like Churchill pays dividends, he is a great rallying beacon. It is worth remembering that during last summer’s black protests, it was rough, working class, beer swilling whites who turned up to ‘defend’ statues outside The House of Sin and Vice (Westminster).

          ” I question whether he was ever as ‘honored’ in England as he’s come to be in the US.”

          I believe he was given a state funeral – which is usually reserved for Royals. He is still routinely mentioned in ‘Greatest Briton’ lists and such. He is proving a difficult man to unseat; because, you know, if worse comes to worst we can say “He saved the Jews!”, and this buys him another 20 years.

    • Maybe so, but what about the Empire of Japan?

      • Japan got what they deserved, and I think even today they know it.

        Still, it was the US that kicked the hornets nest with Admiral Perry’s White Fleet. Otherwise, they would’ve been happy to stay isolated.

        • That raises a question. What did Japan have that we needed so badly?

          Benjos? (open latrines)

    • we would have been better off just letting the Germans and Commies duke it out.

      And we.might well have done so if the Emlpire of Japan hadn’t succeeded in pulling off the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. I have read that there were at least 5 Enigma.machines in DC while there were precisely ZERO at Pearl. Since we know that the EoJ’s declaration of war (which was supposed to have been delivered just before the attack but was delayed due to the incompetence of the Japanese diplomats with sufficient clearance to decode and translate the message) was.decoded and translated long before it was delivered officially, one has to wonder whether an having Enigma in Pearl might not have allowed the U.S. troops to have been on alert and battleship row to have been emptied and thus the attack.to have been blunted. I forget where I read it but supposedly there are three groups in the U.S. that if you can get two of them to agree then the U.S. will go to war. Supposedly the Jalanese attack managed to piss off all three groups thus awakening Yamamoto’s “sleeping giant” and filling “him with a terrible resolve”. Being Asian, the Japanese fell for their own propaganda and believed we were weak and would sue for peace. They forgot that while Whites talk endlessly of peace, we are the junkyard dogs of the planet. We make war with a ferocity the other races cannot believe. Piss us off badly enough and we will freaking climb up your bayonette for.the opportunity to rip out your throat with our dying strength!

      • FDR knew about 24 hours in advance that the japanese were coming for pearl harbor; he let it happen on purpose so he could get war powers, as the New Deal was failing and his court packing had disrupted his domestic mandate for dictatorial powers. Evil does evil. We had broken their admiralty codes already. And enigma was a german cipher, the germans didn’t attack in the Pacific.

        • But the Japanese used enigma machines. Enigma was not merely a cypher it was a whole family of machines for encrypting and decrypting messages. Each model machine came with multiple code wheels which could be inserted in any order and started in any desired starting configuration. But don’t just take my word for it, read about it here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma_machine

42. If war is the natural need of all systems of government, then maybe a system where a large number of small states have a dedicated, but small, number of people who do all the fighting might have the best hope for stability. They’d get paid, of course, but most of the fighting would be limited to these spats between small groups of people who do nothing else but fight. Hell, make it a hereditary group to keep the numbers down.

    That would give everyone else a chance to focus on their own estate, whether that is working or building up the cultural/religious institutions.

    • I’m not sure all systems of government need war. Since the French Revolution, all liberal systems of government have been organized around war. Civic religions, the moral spring of liberal government, seem to be highly intolerant, so maybe that is the reason war has become so all consuming relative to prior ages.

      Total war did not exist until the 18th century. War was a battle between elites and who they could hire. It was the French Revolution that gave birth to total war. Maybe it was the old order that killed God or maybe when we killed God that the older gave way to the liberal order. The link between secular religion and total war, is strong though.

      • The Swiss haven’t needed war.

        • that’s cause Switzerland is the elite hq, that’s where elites & communists coordinated all sorts of revolutions in the past, heck that’s where schwhab coordinates his plandemic.

          • There was a joke National Review types used to tell back in the day. There’s a big Soviet celebration and the Leader announces that “Soon, all nations, except for Switzerland, will be communist.” Cheers, etc. Later, an official cautiously asks the Leader why not Switzerland. The leader looks at him like he’s an idiot, and says “Who else will set the prices?”

        • also, the swiss were renowned ruthless mercenaries, they needed war, but not on their territory.

      • “Total war did not exist until the 18th century.”

        I have to disagree. I studied ancient Near Eastern history (Biblical times/area) and those ancient empires definitely waged as close to “total war” as was possible with the technology of the day. They for sure did not discriminate between combatants and “civilians”. I think that the concept of “limited war” is what is of recent vintage.

        • Bill, you might be right here, depending upon your definition of total—as in eliminating a population. Reich in his book notes some interesting genealogical tracing of ancient populations that simply “disappeared” after invasion—often the male line as the females had other options. 😉

        • Funny you should mention the Near East. I’ve long held that “total war” aka “unconditional surrender” is a Jewish concept. Aryan nations had concepts like chivalry, honor, “worthy opponent,” “loyal opposition” etc. while YHVH taught the Jews to annihilate their enemies. We had a bit of that with Sherman in the Civil War, but the whole “destroy the enemy” mentality arose in the XXth century with the rise of our alien elite. It’s the same with Cancel Culture: either you agree completely, or you’re destroyed. It also makes one suspicious of Hitler; like the Master Race, Nazi exterminationism seems more Jewish than the usual Aryan way of dealing with dissident elements.

          • Oliver Cromwell didn’t give any quarter.

43. I know I’m missing the point, but Nazism did have a plan for an infinite enemy. The drive to the east ended at the Ural. From there Germans would wage forever war on the Slavs.

    Which sounds insane. I mean imagine a state surrounded by racial enemies slowly taking territory one apartment block at a time. Slowly over 70 years and despite numerous wars both hot and cold.

    That would have never worked.

    • the nazis actually had a plan to take over the entire world, and were going to euthanize the nigs in africa along the way. i guess if you are dreaming, you dream big….

      • The Fuehrer sure did like to dream big… just look at his ideas for tanks; which appear to have caused Guderian much amusement and consternation.

        • oh man those giant tank designs are fun to look at 🙂

      • Nazi plans were almost exclusively concerned with the European Steppe. It was only in 1940, after they defeated France in 6 weeks, that they even opened a colonial office. It was a sign of how invincible they felt in that moment.

        The idea that Germany posed a threat to the colonial empires is a fiction to justify Britain’s continued fight.

      • Karl,
        Hitler certainly regarded Africans as an inferior race (as did most whites at the time, TBH), but he never really had much to say about them (at least not that I could find), and the few blacks in Germany at the time were subject to the Nuremberg Laws, but were not sent to camps, and a few Blacks even served in the Wehrmacht! After the 1936 Olympics, Jesse Owens complained of being snubbed by Roosevelt, not Hitler, who saluted him (sitting) when he waved. What makes you say that Hitler was going to genocide Africans? I’m not necessarily doubting it, but I can’t find Hitler saying this anywhere.

    • Did you just describe Israel?

    • Very much on point for this thread: the alternate history novel Fatherland has still-Nazi Germany now a nuclear power (it’s how, in that tale, they defeated Britain), locked in that exact forever war you describe. At least as of the early 60s when the tale is set.

      • It’s a good book. Robert Harris also write another called Archangel, which was not really alternate history, but concerns itself with the concealment of the son of Stalin, who’s a dead ringer for his old man. The plan is to unleash the ‘new’ Stalin. I’ve probably spoiled it for you, but I thought it quite a fun read.

      • “ the alternate history novel Fatherland has still-Nazi Germany now a nuclear power…”

        I’m sure there are some original Star Trek series fans here. Remember “City on the Edge of Forever”? While on a landing party on some previously unexplored planet Kirk, Spock, and McCoy go back in time thru some weird portal. They go back to circa 1930s earth, Chicago or NYC. McCoy changes earth and maybe even galactic history by saving a woman that went on to found and lead an even bigger and more more successful version of Lindy’s America First movement to keep America out of WWII. After saving the girl, the landing party can no longer contact the Enterprise…. because it no longer exists and never did exist. As Spock would say, “Fascinating”.
        Strongly worth a view.
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_City_on_the_Edge_of_Forever

      • $112 on Amazon for the used paperback, no Kindle edition available. *chortle*

44. Wasn’t this all explained very well by Orwell?

45. uhm, ok, so the west makes a deal with hitler (instead of fighting in 1939). didn’t someone else make a deal with AH? how did that work out. wasn’t there a “deal” before the poland incident? hard to keep going on this post when there is such a clanger up front.

    • I think the point is, we should have let Russia and Germany fight it out themselves. Germany would have exhausted itself as all empires do. Russia would have been so spent that the Communist regime might have collapsed too, thus preventing the 40 years of cold war.

      Upside: We wouldn’t have spent hundreds of thousands of American lives on a cause that was none of our concern.

      • was that point made in the post?

    • In hindsight the only forward thinker in Europe at the time, probably accidentally, was Franco who looked at WWII and the Cold War and said “no thanks”. For everyone else we really cannot remove them from their time and the British were not too keen to let Germany dominate the continent even if evil mustache man wasn’t the one in charge (see: WWI).

      • Franco decided to sit it out largely because the country was ready for a rest from the recent events of 1936-39. He did get Uncle Adolf to remodel Guernica, however 🙂

        • The farther away we get from the 1930’s and 1940’s the better Franco looks, for all his faults. Any man who saved his country from both Communist revolution and Nazi/Allied occupation is quite a statesman, regardless of what one might think of some of his methods.

        • Plus he sent the volunteer Spanish Blue Division which saw heavy action on the Leningrad/Volkhov front & acquitted itself admirably.

          • True. They were mostly Falangist volunteers. Franco, royalist that he was, worked hard to bring the Falange to heel after the Civil War. Encouraging Blue Shirts to go attrition themselves on the Steppes was a win-win thing for him.

            Mind you, I like the Falange anthem, Cara al Sol. YouTube hasn’t censored all of the clips yet.

    • Yes, Dolfy made a deal with Steel guy to the east, but he’d also made it clear in Mein Kampf that his military and territorial ambitions were largely eastward. He was a land animal with no proper blue water navy, so there was never for a moment any significant probability of a German invasion of North America. There is no alternate history in which the members of every chamber of commerce are all speaking German and only German.

Comments are closed.