‘PC’, ‘Woke’ Orwellian censorship – 1984, official lies, media lies, ‘socialism’ and modern ‘democracy’.

Many from the ‘Left’, progressives, Cultural Marxists and activists keep trying to stymie democracy with their shrill, often illogical, Orwellian and ideological views and variations of mind control. The following articles provide evidence.

Technofascism: Digital Book Burning in a Totalitarian Age

Technofascism, Digital Book Burning in a Totalitarian Age  By John W. Whitehead, Rutherford Institute, 8 May 2020

 “Those who created this country chose freedom. With all of its dangers. And do you know the riskiest part of that choice they made? They actually believed that we could be trusted to make up our own minds in the whirl of differing ideas. That we could be trusted to remain free, even when there were very, very seductive voices—taking advantage of our freedom of speech—who were trying to turn this country into the kind of place where the government could tell you what you can and cannot do.”—Nat Hentoff

We are fast becoming a nation—nay, a world—of book burners.

While on paper, we are technically free to speak—at least according to the U.S. Constitution—in reality, however, we are only as free to speak as the government and its corporate partners such as Facebook, Google or YouTube may allow.

That’s not a whole lot of freedom. Especially if you’re inclined to voice opinions that may be construed as conspiratorial or dangerous.

Take David Icke, for example.

Icke, a popular commentator and author often labeled a conspiracy theorist by his detractors, recently had his Facebook page and YouTube channel (owned by Google) deleted for violating site policies by “spreading coronavirus disinformation.”

The Centre for Countering Digital Hate, which has been vocal about calling for Icke’s de-platforming, is also pushing for the removal of all other sites and individuals who promote Icke’s content in an effort to supposedly “save lives.”

Translation: the CCDH evidently believes the public is too dumb to think for itself and must be protected from dangerous ideas.

This is the goosestepping Nanny State trying to protect us from ourselves.

In the long run, this “safety” control (the censorship and shadowbanning of anyone who challenges a mainstream narrative) will be far worse than merely allowing people to think for themselves.

Journalist Matt Taibbi gets its: “The people who want to add a censorship regime to a health crisis are more dangerous and more stupid by leaps and bounds than a president who tells people to inject disinfectant.”

Don’t fall for the propaganda.

These internet censors are not acting in our best interests to protect us from dangerous, disinformation campaigns about COVID-19, a virus whose source and behavior continue to elude medical officials. They’re laying the groundwork now, with Icke as an easy target, to preempt any “dangerous” ideas that might challenge the power elite’s stranglehold over our lives.

This is how freedom dies.

It doesn’t matter what disinformation Icke may or may not have been spreading about COVID-19. That’s not the issue.

As commentator Caitlin Johnstone recognizes, the censorship of David Icke by these internet media giants has nothing to do with Icke: “What matters is that we’re seeing a consistent and accelerating pattern of powerful plutocratic institutions collaborating with the US-centralized empire to control what ideas people around the world are permitted to share with each other, and it’s a very unsafe trajectory.”

Welcome to the age of technofascism.

Technofascism, clothed in tyrannical self-righteousness, is powered by technological behemoths (both corporate and governmental) working in tandem. As journalist Chet Bowers explains, “Technofascism’s level of efficiency and totalitarian potential can easily lead to repressive systems that will not tolerate dissent.”

Read More @ Rutherford.org



NEW ZEALAND’S DEMOCRATIC VACUUM  By Dr Muriel Newman, NZCPR, 23 April 2020

The Government’s state of emergency has created a dangerous political vacuum. Decisions that profoundly affect everyone’s lives are being undertaken in an autocratic fashion without any attempt at democratic involvement.

Even the typically reserved Law Society has raised concerns about the lack of transparency and consultation associated with the lockdown: “As far as possible, there should be an ongoing attempt to replicate the normal policy and law-making process… People affected should be consulted where feasible. Decisions that affect peoples’ rights should be reviewable in some way.”

As a consequence of the democratic vacuum created by the suspension of our civil liberties and Parliament, New Zealanders have little awareness of the profound implications of the political decision made by our Prime Minister to eliminate COVID-19 from New Zealand.

By attempting to eliminate the virus, New Zealanders will never gain natural immunity to the disease. That means until a vaccine is available, it will not be safe for New Zealanders to travel overseas. And while everyone is very bullish about the prospect of a vaccine being produced before the end of 2021, COVID-19 appears to be a fast mutating virus, with many strains now emerging, which make vaccine development more difficult.

Nor will it be possible to re-open our borders without some form of heavily-regulated quarantine process, since any viral outbreaks could force the country back into a lockdown.

As a result, the international tourism sector, which employed more than 300,000 people, catered for around 4 million overseas visitors, and accounted for 10 percent of our economy, will be decimated.

Instead of trying to eliminate the virus, other countries are managing the outbreak. They are using strategies similar to that outlined in the Ministry of Health’s Influenza Pandemic Plan, which involves protecting those who are vulnerable, and progressively imposing restrictions to ensure the disease does not overwhelm the health system. The aim is to enable the economy to continue operating, allowing natural immunity to be built up in the population as a whole, so that restrictions – including those at the border – can safely be lifted.

New Zealand enacted a similar strategy in January, in response to warnings from the World Health Organisation about the rapid spread of the virus. But the Prime Minister made a unilateral decision to change from managing the virus to eliminating it in mid-March. Exaggerated computer models predicting tens of thousands of deaths, were used to spread the fear and alarm needed to justify a total lockdown of the country – even though such extreme restrictions were not necessary.

Former Reserve Bank economist Ian Harrison found the models used by the Prime Minister “grossly overstated the number of deaths… The decision to lockdown all ‘non-essential’ workplaces was an overaction that was not supported by evidence.”

Pharmaceutical scientist and former New Zealander of the Year Sir Ray Avery also warned of the danger of basing major policy decisions on inaccurate statistical models – and of the folly of trying to eliminate a flu-type virus: “In the history of all humankind, we have only ever eliminated one major infectious disease; smallpox”.

He believes that attempting to eliminate COVID-19 is impossible and, as a result of the Government’s flawed approach, “this virus will have caused more economic damage, loss of livelihoods, increased suicides, disruption to our education system, inhuman treatment of our elderly and irreversible social changes than actual deaths…”

With major questions arising over Jacinda Ardern’s judgement in adopting the elimination strategy and imposing one of the strictest lockdowns in the world, the lack of scrutiny of her decision-making is disturbing.

Treasury has quantified the devastating cost to the economy of the PM’s extremist approach. As a result of four weeks of lockdown, unemployment is expected to rise from 4 percent to 13.5 percent – increasing the number of unemployed from 111,000 to 371,000. It’s anticipated that a further $20 billion in Government support will be needed to cushion the blow – in addition to the $25 billion already spent fighting the virus.

According to the OECD, the Prime Minister’s lockdown will result in New Zealand suffering one of the biggest declines in economic activity in the world – almost 30 percent.

In comparison, Australia’s decline will be lower at around 22 percent, as a result of Prime Minister Scott Morrison adopting the best practice approach of managing the outbreak while preserving the fundamental integrity of their economic system.

Unlike here, Australian families have been able to visit each other, schools have remained open, people have been able to buy food from butchers and greengrocers as well as supermarkets, they’ve been able to have haircuts, public transport has continued to operate, and weddings and funerals have still gone ahead albeit with reduced numbers. Throughout the period, while working from home has been encouraged, businesses have remained open.

The only industry sector that has really been restricted is hospitality, where pubs, casinos and clubs have been closed, with restaurants and cafes only able to operate takeaways.

Despite their more liberal approach, the results in terms of COVID-19 case numbers per head of population and the number of deaths, is about the same in New Zealand and Australia.

While New Zealand faces a greater financial burden as a result of the PM’s lockdown, the cost is far more than economic.

A new report released by Auckland University’s Centre for Informed Futures and co-authored by former Chief Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman outlines the social impact of the lockdown: “Family violence, depression, anxiety and other issues can be expected to rise as people face loss of income, unemployment and simply being in close proximity with others.”

They predict the country’s already high rates of depression and anxiety among young people will increase, along with the suicide rate, and they believe that up to 10 per cent of people affected by income loss, unemployment or ill health during the outbreak are likely to experience post-traumatic stress disorder.

But there’s another consequence of the lockdown that’s worrying health professionals – and that’s the fallout from the disruption of medical services and the cancellation of elective surgery.

Under Government orders, hospital wards were cleared, surgeries left idle, and Emergency Departments emptied ready for the influx of patients predicted by the Prime Minister’s exaggerated computer models – which proved to be as inaccurate as they were terrifying.

While an estimated 30,000 New Zealanders who need surgery have been suffering at home, hospitals have been running at around 50 percent capacity for over a month.

Medical specialist are increasingly concerned the lockdown is costing lives through people failing to seek the treatment they need. A massive drop in pathology testing means serious diseases are going undetected. Patients whose operations were cancelled, risk more serious complications.

And as a result of the Prime Minister’s relentless message that the only way to keep safe is to stay at home, many people who are feeling ill now think they’re not allowed to go to ED because hospitals are only for COVID-19 patients. They also worry that if they did go to hospital, they might catch the virus and die.

International research shows that in Italy, non-coronavirus deaths have been rising at an alarming rate – the total death count was up six-fold from previous years, with coronavirus accounting for barely a quarter of the increase. An analysis from Spain showed that while mortality rates in some regions had almost doubled, only a fraction of the increase was officially attributed to COVID-19.

In 2016 a study reported in The Lancet connected at least 250,000 cancer deaths to the 2009 recession. An investigation of the Ebola epidemic in West Africa found that more people died from the indirect effects of the disease, than from the virus itself.

Without a doubt, the fallout from our Government’s response to the epidemic will be considerably worse than the disease itself. Especially if there are new virus outbreaks, since Jacinda Ardern’s elimination strategy is based on the Government’s on-going ability to order more lockdowns.

The Prime Minister has taken New Zealand down the path to State control so far and so quickly, that there’s now a very real risk that the architecture of a socialist state will underpin the rebuild. As a result, freedoms that have previously been taken for granted are now under serious threat.

The signs are already there. Finance Minister Grant Robertson is on record saying: “We must not allow inequality to take hold in our recovery… We need to take this opportunity to tackle those long standing divisions…”

He sees the state providing strong leadership going forward: “The importance of the role of the state has been underlined by this crisis. It is through a well-funded, highly functional public service, that we have had the ability to coordinate and provide leadership for New Zealanders.”

And while there appeared to be a slight glimmer of hope of much-needed reform, when he indicated that the Government intends changing the Resource Management Act to stimulate economic activity, according to this week’s NZCPR Guest Contributor economic commentator and former local body councillor Frank Newman, sensible reform is unlikely to materialise.

Frank explains that while getting rid of the RMA is the only real way to stimulate economic activity and get New Zealand working, the Government will probably exempt itself and leave everyone else to struggle:

“Although liberating businesses from the RMA is the obvious answer, political self-interest is likely to head the government down a different path. Rather than reform the RMA in a way that benefits business, they are more likely to exempt themselves from its restrictions. This is totally consistent with their view that what they do is for public benefit and what the private sector does is for personal gain.”

Going forward, it’s now clear that just as Jacinda Ardern used the Christchurch tragedy to impose her gun control agenda onto New Zealand, so too she will use this virus crisis to impose her socialist world-view onto our nation.

There are already calls for tax rates to be hiked up to 70 cents in the dollar, to force those who are “better-off” to pay for Jacinda Ardern’s lockdown. And it won’t be long before a capital gains tax, estate duties and other tax instruments everyone thought were long dead and buried are resurrected as well.

This is a very dangerous time for New Zealand.

Parliament should never have been closed down during this period of emergency rule. At times like this, when a democratic government starts acting like a dictatorship, the voice of the opposition becomes more important than ever.

National’s leader, Simon Bridges, fell into a political trap when he agreed to chair the Epidemic Response Committee. While there’s no doubt it’s engaging in important work, that role has left the Leader of the Opposition less effective in holding the Government to account.

He should never have agreed to the suspension of Parliament. He should have recognised the inherent dangers of autocratic rule and demanded that the House reconvene at 2pm each sitting day for a virtual Question Time. That would have allowed for the proper scrutiny of the decisions being taken by the Prime Minister – especially her plan to eliminate the virus.

Dr Peter Collignon, an infectious diseases physician who advises the Australian government, questions whether eliminating the virus is even possible: “The reality is this virus is everywhere, it’s all around the world. So even if you’re successful for a short period of time, how long do you do this for? Six months? Two years? Invariably, you’re going to get the virus re-introduced.”

He points out that Australia is doing better than New Zealand without extremist measures.

There are two clear dangers for New Zealand.

The first is the virus – or more specifically, the Prime Minister’s strategy of eliminating the virus; how many lockdowns can we endure?

And the second is our Prime Minister, who fundamentally believes in state control, and is being given a free rein to embed her agenda deep into the heart of our democracy.


Churchill’s War: The Real History of World War II

Churchill’s War. The Real History of World War II  By Paul Craig Roberts, 20 April 2020

All truth-tellers are denounced, and most end up destroyed.  Truth seldom serves the agendas of powerful interests.  

The one historian from whom you can get the unvarnished truth of World War II is David Irving.

On the bookjackets of Irving’s books, the question is asked: What is real history?The answer is that real history is history that travels straight from history-maker to the history-maker’s documents and from the document archives to the historian’s book without political input and free of academic and patriotic prejudice.  It is history that cannot be bought.

Irving’s Hitler’s War was published in 1977.  Irving was an archaeologist digging in history who located and dug up previously unknown documents and archives.  He lets the factual record tell the history. He is exact and scrupulous and does not curry favor.  The Board of Deputies of British Jews wrote:  “The book was thoroughly researched . . . It confirmed Irving’s reputation as one of the world’s most thorough researchers and an exciting and readable historian.”

The first volume of Irving’s Churchill’s War was published in 1987.  The second volume in 2001.  The third and final volume is awaited.

These works far surpass all previous histories of the war and all accounts of the agendas and events that produced the war.  Irving is not motivated to curry favour with the ruling establishment, to make us feel self-righteous in our victory by demonizing the opponent or to grind any personal, ideological, or political axe.  He lets the history-makers speak for themselves in their own words, and it is seldom a pretty picture.

Irving’s books sold millions of copies, and he was well-to-do.  But he fell foul of Zionists, oddly enough because he documented actual atrocities against Jews. The problem was the attrocities he found differed from the official holocaust story. He documented a holocaust of a sort, but it is a different one than the Zionists prefer. If I understand correctly, infuriated Zionists with plentiful funds used unethical tactics and brought lawsuits, the defence against which eventually bankrupted him.  Little wonder most historians choose to suck up to powerful interests by validating their claims and explanations. The fake history they write is a self-protective device like a bullet-proof vest.

I previously reported on Hitler’s War and the first volume of Churhill’s War in my most widely read article— https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05/13/the-lies-about-world-war-ii/ .  As I quoted Irving’s account that Jews were killed, but in a more ad hoc than organized way, Zionists rushed to my already defective Wikipedia biography to attribute Irving’s words to me, thereby labeling me a “holocaust denier.”  When I complained of the misrepresentation, I was fobbed off with the reply that I would not have quoted Irving if I had not agreed with him.  In other words, if you report in a book review what a writer says, it means you agree with him.  I am not qualified to agree or to disagree with Irving. Indeed, few people are.

People in the Western world have been indoctrinated for 75 years into a white hat/black hat story of World War II that exonerates the “allies” and demonizes Hitler and Germany. To tell people, especially elderly ones whose memory of the war was formed by war propaganda, that the “allies” were as bad or worse war criminals than the Germans brings fire and brimestone down on one’s head.  It nevertheless needs to be done, because our view of ourselves reflects the make-believe story of the war with which we are inculcated. In the false history comes strength for the opinion that we Americans and our country are exceptional and indispensable and that these traits justify Washington’s hegemony over the world.  Our destruction in whole or part of seven countries in the 21st century, our withdrawal from arms limitation agreements, our dangerous demonization of militarily powerful countries such as Russia and China all rest in our self-righteous view of ourselves.  Of course, not all Americans share these self-righteous views, but the views are the basis for both Republican and Democrat foreign policy.  Even the left-wing, or whatever remains of it, believes in war in order to overthrow dictators and “bring democracy and human rights.”

In what follows I am not going to attempt a review of Irving’s second volume on Churchill. Instead, I will report some of the findings that documents reveal, findings that will be new information for most readers.  But first a preface.

Hitler did not start World War II.  England and France launched World War II with a declaration of war against Germany.  Hitler did not want a war with Britain and France and tried to avoid it and then end it with a peace agreement very favourable to Britain and France. Hitler regarded the British Empire as essential to the survival of European dominance. He promised Churchill in exchange for an end of hostilities that Germany would defend the British Empire with the German military anywhere in the world that it was in jeopardy.  Hitler left a large part of France and French North Africa unoccupied.  He left the French fleet in French hands.

Hitler’s aim was to restore the integrity of the German nation which had been torn apart and distributed to Czechslovakia, Poland, Denmark, and France by the Versailles Treaty which had been forced on Germany after World War I by a policy of starvation. Germans in the territories turned over to Czechoslovakia and Poland were being persecuted and murdered. Hitler had no choice but to do something about it.  He recovered German territory from France, Czechoslovakia, and Denmark without war.

The same outcome was likely in Poland except the British interfered. The British gave the Polish military dictatorship a “guarantee” to come to Poland’s aid if Poland refused Hitler’s demands.  Consequently, the Polish dictatorship broke off negotiations with Germany.  Germany and the Soviet Union then split Poland between them.

The guarantee compelled “British honour” to declare war on Germany—but not on the Soviet Union—and the hapless French were pulled along.

The British relied on the “powerful French military” and sent an expeditionary force which was promptly trapped at Dunkirk where Hitler let them go, thinking that an act of magnanimity and his refusal to humiliate the British would bring an end to the conflict. However, Churchill kept Hitler’s overly generous peace terms from the British people and from Parliament. Churchill had wanted war and had worked hard for one and now that he had power and a chance to repeat the military leadership of his great ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, he was determined to keep his war.

With Hitler in control of Europe, Churchill began working harder to get the US into the war. All along the way President Roosevelt had given Churchill war encouragement but without promising any definite course of action from America.  Roosevelt wanted Britain at war. He knew it would bankrupt the British and place them economically in Washington’s hands, which would permit the US to break up the British system of trade preferences that allowed Britain to control world trade, destroy the British Empire, dethrone the British pound and replace it with the dollar.  Roosevelt was an enemy of empire except America’s own. From FDR’s standpoint, World War II was an arrack by the US on British trade preferences that were the backbone of the British Empire.

So Churchill got his war which cost Britain her empire, and Roosevelt replaced the British Empire with an American one.  FDR paid a cheap price—about 300,000 US combat deaths. In her defeat of Germany, Russia lost about 9,000,000 soldiers in combat deaths and 26 million people altogether,

After the Russians stopped the German offensive, the war could have ended, but FDR and Churchill had established a policy of unconditional surrender, which shackled allied wartime foreign policy to two more years of death and destruction.

As Pat Buchanan said, it was The Unnecessary War (https://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War/dp/B001FVJH84/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=Patrick+Buchanan&qid=1587252427&s=books&sr=1-2 ).  The war served Churhill’s path to power and Washington’s empire.

volume 2 begins in 1941. Irving has tracked down and unearthed many documents that permit a better understanding of the war.  Many official papers are still under lock and key and many have been destroyed.  The effort to suppress truth from coming out continues 75 years after the war.

Secrecy is used to hide crimes.  It is reputations that are protected, not national security.

Churchill used secrecy to protect his war crime of ordering the bombing of civilian residential areas of German cities with his emphasis on bombing the homes of the working class as they were closer together which helped the conflagation to spread. Churchill would first have the civilian areas firebombed, and then when firemen and rescue workers were engaged the British would drop high explosives.  Churchill ignored military targets, preferring instead to break the morale of the German population by bombing civilian areas. He tried to get the British Air Force to include poison gas when dropping incendiary and high explosive bombs on civilian residential areas.

As the British people did not know Churchill was bombing civilians, Churchill hoped Hitler would be provoked into replying in kind.  Hitler refused for three months to take the bait, but finally his military insisted that unless he bombed the British they would keep on bombing German civilian areas.  Hitler gave in but initially insisted that only British industrial targets be bombed.  Once a few bombs went astray, Churchill had his rallying cry that the Nazi barbarians were bombing civilians.  He got away with this, but officials in the know worried that the British Air Force, especially “Butcher” Harris, would face war crimes trials when the war was over. British generals and admirals disagreed with Churchill’s bombing policy.  They regarded it as unprofessional and unprincipled. They complained that it harmed the war effort by denying the army and navy needed air support.

In November 1942 British Air Chief Portal compared the German bombing of Britain with the British bombing of Germany. The Germans had dropped 55,000 tons of bombs, killing 41,000 British and destroying 350,000 homes.  The British had dropped 1,250,000 tons of bombs, killing 900,000 German civilians, maiming one million more, and destroying 6,000,000 German homes.  The UK/US firebombing of Dresden at the end of the war stands as one of the worst war crimes in history. It killed as many or more civilians as the atomic bombs Washington dropped on the two Japanese cities, also at war end.

Churchill was determined to bomb Rome, but was resisted by the British Air Force.  In contrast, Hitler ordered the German military not to risk the destruction of Rome by defending it.

Churchill ordered the bombing of the French fleet, which Hitler had left in the hands of Vichy France, killing around 3,000 French sailors.  Churchill together with FDR and Eisenhower invaded French Northwest Africa which was in the hands of Vichy France. Vichy France Admiral Darlan used his influence to persuade the French not to resist the invasion, thus minimizing British and American casualties.  Darlan cooperated in every way.  His reward was to be assassinated in a plot organized by Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, later one of Britain’s disastrous prime ministers. The assassin protested that he was promised immunity by the British, but was quickly executed to silence him.  Eden, whose ambition was larger than his intelligence, was in DeGaulle’s pocket, and DeGaulle wanted Darlan out of his way to power.

The military schemes that Churchill imposed on the British military, such as his invasion of neutral Norway, always came to a bad end, but he rescued himself with masterful speeches in Parliament.

The British had a poor opinion of Eisenhower, and FDR had a poor opinion of Eden. There was so much conflict between the British and the Americans that it is amazing they were able to agree to any plan of action.  The American people disliked the British for drawing them into “their war.”  The British disliked the Americans for the Negro troops sent to England where they were believed to be responsible for rapes and a crime wave.  A lot of propaganda was necessary to focus the hate on the Germans.

The British did not want to sacrifice Arab interests to Zionists but usually did because Zionist had the money.  Churchill himself was indebted to a multimillionaire Jew who bailed him out when he faced bankruptcy.  Zionists attempted to use their leverage over Churchill to force his approval of both more Jewish immigration to Palestine and for the formation of a “Jewish fighting force,” allegedly to fight the Germans but in reality to drive Palestinians out of Palestine.  Zionists promised Churchill that if he would agree to their demands, they would bring the US into the war against Germany. Such was their power.

The British saw Zionists interests as detrimental to their hold on their Arab colonies. When deportations of Jews and their mistreatment began leaking out, the British Foreign Office saw the reports as the work of the international Zionist campaign to create sympathy and to use the sympathy in behalf of their Palistanian purpose. When 700 Jews found incapable of work were shot in a work camp, the Foreign Office responded, “Information from Jewish refugees is generally coloured and frequently unreliable.”  Eisenhower was pleased with Darlan and was unaware of Eden’s plot against him.  An American newsman told Eisenhower’s staff that the agitation against Admiral Darlan came from “Jews of press and radio who wish to make certain we were fighting a war to make the world safe for Jews.” The Jews cried wolf so often that when he actually showed up they were not believed.

Much information emerges in the second volume about Churchill’s character, personal habits, excessive drinking—he was dependent on alcohol—and autocratic ways.  He could turn people against him and then with a speech or by taking special notice of them put them back in his pocket.  Churchill had flaws and the ability to survive them. Irving does not excoriate Churchill. He merely shows us what he was like.  There are things to admire and things to disapprove.

Moreover, it is not only Churchill who was ambitious.  All were.  It is a mystery that organization survived ambition. Somehow officers were able to devote time to war against the Germans from the time they spent warring against one another for commands and promotions. The same with cabinet ministers. The same for the military services fightihg one another for resources.  And the same for the Germans.  The Italian and German generals were so jealous of Rommel’s initial successes in North Africa that they worked to undermine him.

And German efficiency also bites the dust.  German intelligence never caught on that the British were reading their codes and knew precisely every shipment to resupply Rommel which the British seldom failed to send to the bottom of the Mediterranean.  One would think that after nothing gets through time and again that a light would come on.

Churchill was frustrated by his inability to come to Stalin’s aid. He tried to compensate by sending supply convoys. The convoys lost half of more of the ships along with escorting Royal Navy warships. British admirals resisted these death convoys, but Churchill, perhaps afraid that WW I would repeat with a Russian separate peace, leaving Britain to face Germany alone, insisted.  He continually sent reassuring messages to Stalin, who was not reassured.

Stalin must have despaired of the fighting capability of his British and American allies.  All the British could do was to sic an entire fleet on a single German warship and bomb French and German civilians.  In North Africa the British failed to push out the outnumbered Germans and called in the Americans.  Eisenhower was far from a good field commander. After Rommel smashed through the Kasserline Pass, delivering to the American army “one of the most resounding defeats ever inflicted on the Americans in war,” Rommel reported to Berlin that despite being outnumbered and without supplies, he could again take the offensive. He attributed success in part to “the low fighting value of the enemy.” Eisenhower’s aide Harry Butcher recorded, “We sent out some 120 tanks and 112 didn’t come back.” Churchill shared Rommel’s dismissal of the American fighting man. “After Kasserline Churchill made little attempt to conceal his contempt for the American forces and their fighting value.”

The Germans, of course, were vastly overextended.  In addition to a 1,000 mile Russian front and being bombed at night by the cowardly British who attacked unprotected civilian residential areas, Hitler had to occupy Europe and to rescue his Italian ally by sending troops to Greece and North Africa. The Germans might have had the will, but they did not have the resources to fight most of the world in a war of attrition.

Germany lost 4 million soldiers on the Russian front. On the Western front, which did not materialize until the Soviets had the war won, Germany lost a few hundred thousand.  The Americans and the British never faced an intact Germany army. They faced understaffed divisions of an army exhausted and worn down by three years of fighting the Red Army. Hitler had 80% of his remaining forces on the Russian front.  To oppose the Normandy invasion in June 1944 Germany had divisions of less than full strength with no reserves and little fuel. Despite the weakness of German forces, it took the Americans six and one-half months to reach the Ardennes, where the invasion was halted for 6 weeks by a German counterattack.

Despite these facts, in recent celebrations of the Normandy Invasion the Americans in a show of extreme pettiness prevented the participation of Russia.  The Americans and British persist in pretending that they all by themselves won the war.

volume 2 has 200 pages of footnote references.  It has a 35-page index. It is the kind of history that only gets written once in a century.  Irving is clearly the master of historical documentation. When you disagree with Irving, most likely you are disagreeing with the documented historical record.


Previous articles

    • pauling-hansons-first-speech-in-the-senate-14-september-2016
    • cairns-post-editorial-201016  Laws of diminishing returns as the ‘nanny state’ takes over control of our freedom, By Julian Tomlinson, Cairns Post, 20 October 2016