5 Filters

Everything you know about WW2 is wrong

Politics
#1

This is absolutely dynamite. There is a follow on article too, where even more shocks come. I have absolutely no reason not to believe Ron Unz.

The first comment to the piece is astounding.

1 Like
#2

Thanks for the tip Loke. I prefer to read at my own pace so downloaded the PDF version, which I’ve read the first (of 8) sections of.

I’m wary of Unz myself but the broad hypothesis that the victors write the histories is self-evident.

The follow-up article is here:

1 Like
#3

Hey @LocalYokel . You realise you are now the catalyst of another row with my history teacher daughter-in-law. After I read Hidden History by Docherty and Macgregor, and with a bit of my own research to verify some of the important issues, we finally had to agree to disagree on the causes of World War 1 as she, exactly as Unz describes is steeped in the way it is taught.

Guess I’m going to have to buy a copy of The Origins of The Second World War.

Why? I never found him terribly interesting but never disagreed with most of what he said.

1 Like
#4

I said this on the Lifeboat recently; “Stop me if you’ve heard this before, but there once were a pair of political philosophers called Marx and Engels (both German born), who identified the conditions for revolution that existed in post Industrial Revolution (“capitalist”), Germany as being those closest to an idealised “potential” for communistic revolution and in-fact Marx specifically identified Russia as being a very poor candidate for the genesis of any international worker’s revolution. Basically this exemplifies the two philosopher’s belief that lasting global revolutionary change was only possible if it had its roots in an educated proletariat such that, “the class in itself” (unconscious), may become the, “the class for itself” (conscious), and thus the notion of “class consciousness” entered popular culture. Both the Germans and the international community were well aware of this and thus (also because of her geographical location), Germany became the unfortunate cauldron or “kessel” in which to smelt the steel that would prevent international communist take over. It is, therefore, no accident that it was faux class consciousness that initially emerged from the furnace as Germany desperately tried to balance the forces of capitalism and Bolshevism (wrongly -of-course- popularly known as “communism”), having already found it necessary to enable Lenin to lead the Russian Revolution in order that Germany might have any chance of winning the First World War.
The international community were quite prepared to aid in the deception because they too saw the NAZIS as possibly the only hope they had of preventing a “domino theory” collapse of Western European (and then by extension possibly world), capitalism.
We see in the death camps just how far the global bourgeoisie were prepared to go to “protect their investments”. The lesson of the holocaust not being that “Germans are evil” but that any human interest group is capable of justifying the most heinous crimes for their own selfish ends.
Investment in Hitler’s regime is hugely glossed over (try watching that dreadful piece of neoliberal “shilling” “War Factories” and you’ll see what I mean), as are the consequences of the “Night of the Long Knives” when Hitler shed any cloak of pretence that he was anything other than a Social Darministic racist, though such had its roots in the philosophers who spouted the terrible creed of the “manifest destiny” of both the British empire and revolutionary America (something that we still see exemplified in the dominance of Anglo-Saxon language and the “dollar pound” conspiracy most recently apparent as the “Libor scandal”). I always find it instructive that Hitler turned to the bourgeoisie in order to underpin the Socially Darwinstic NAZI state once he had rid himself of any pretence that he was a “class conscious” politician.
This simple (but crucial), analysis of the dilemma facing Germany over the years following (as a marker), Karl Marx’s publication of “Das Kapital” is, however, never heard on mainstream documentaries concerning the NAZIS and as such represents a prime example of “history being written by the victors”.
Can we be surprised that we now live in a NAZI-fied state?”

Am I in a similar ball-park here?

Black Sun
Black Sun658×662 46.1 KB

Black Sun1

“Did the Third Reich Continue or the Fourth Reich Commence?” Discuss:

2 Likes
#5

“I did not and do not even today, for understandable reasons, wish to reveal that from October 1928 the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith, and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany.”

Heinrich Bruning, former chancellor of Germany from 1930- 1932

1 Like
#6

I’m careful though…yes the WASPs love the Zionists but that don’t mean they love the Jews…as we all know it’s a marriage of convenience…

1 Like
#7

It continued.

So much evidence to prove this. Founder of EU, nazi. Boss of NATO, nazi. Most senior management for companies like IG Farben released almost immediately after sentence. Operation Gladio. Burlesconi (spelling) was a member and he took a lot to his grave. I could go on but I’ll finish with that Mussolini quite about fascism and corporate behaviour. It’s been openly displayed for at least 20 years in the west.

1 Like
#8

Note the assumptions. According to Marx the ‘educated proletariat’ could become a ‘class for itself’ and thus AGREE WITH MARX; The class consciousness of the educated proletarian would by definition AGREE WITH MARX. But…what if they became educated and class conscious and DID NOT AGREE WITH MARX. What then?

Then, with the rise of Marxist political parties, the leaders of those parties faced a dilemma: how to deal with the proletarians who DID NOT AGREE WITH THE LEADERS OF THE MARXIST POLITICAL PARTIES?

Certainly a dilemma! The solution was to define those proletarians who did not agree with Marx nor with the leaders of the Marxist political parties as being, by definition, wrong. Maybe you owned a bakery and did the baking and your wife sold the bread. ‘Petit Bourgeous’. Maybe you were a welder in a union who became a manager on the shop floor and didn’t espouse communism, you were a ‘class traitor’. There were many such definitions. The conceptual framework was intended to equate ‘proletarian consciousness’ with ‘The Party and Only the Party Defines the Correct Proletarian Consciousness’ and thus if you disagree with the Party you had a ‘false consciousness’ or you were a ‘class traitor’ etc.

It was one of the classic conceptual tricks of history. And, when allied with brute enforcement, it worked!

1 Like