The Way We Are Now and Where We Are Going
"Nothing doth more hurt a state than that cunning men pass for wise." —Francis Bacon
I finally figured out why so many people admire Obama and his family. They remind TV watchers of the Heathcliffe Huxtables.
I have been practicing "Kumbaya" lately. I want to be ready for Real Change.
Of course, Obama owes a lot to his campaign manager, the brilliant Karl Rove.
The current crop of World War II revisionists seem to be saying that British arrogance and blundering caused the disaster of World War II. All Hitler really wanted was to prevent vicious sneak attacks by Denmark and Luxembourg and save Poland from Communism. Luckily, Switzerland was afraid to attack him.
It seems Mr. Paulson is now in charge of the U.S.A. I don't seem to remember voting in that election. Do you?
Interesting that in a "democracy" the rich can get a tax deduction on the interest paid on a second vacation home but the poor can't even get a deduction for a car necessary to get to work.
According to Obama, his election proves that "the dream of OUR Founders is still alive in our time." (Emphasis added)
From little ACORNs, mighty oaks often grow. (Emphasis added)
American: Any person who claims to believe in "democracy" and is eager to make a buck; especially any foreigner who claims to believe in "democracy" and wants to make a buck.
One possible lesson from the current financial debacle: You can't have a First World economy with a Third World population.
History's verdict on the Bush administration: arrogant incompetence; failed state.
There is agitation that Obama is not a native-born American citizen and his taking office will be in violation of the Constitution. Don't be silly. What makes you think the Supreme Court and Congress care about the Constitution?
My once noble native State, which not long ago elected Sam Ervin and Jesse Helms, has gone for Obama. This is mostly the result of mass immigration. Not from south of the Rio del Norte—from north of the Potomac.
"And now the U.S., like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad. Where now is our last best hope on earth?" —Peter Hitchens
Entries(RSS)
44 John Chris Murphy,
Many have been critical of the Prussian educational system upon which the US system was modeled, but when you look at Prussia's situation and the intent of the system, it wasn't so bad. It was far better than it's American copy cat. It seems that the Yankees adopted all the worst aspects of the Prussian model and discarded nearly all the good aspects.
The comments @45 by Sempronius and @47 by H.F. Wolff are ridiculous and over the board.
I think Southerners and Germans have more in common culturally than either they or you realise, Wolff, and by the way, since you must drag out the tired old subject of slavery, what about that concentration camp labour?
You want racism? How about that ridiculous Nazi garbage that Slavs are supposedly inferior?
52 Allen Wilson:
Hmm, methinks this dialogue is deteriorating into a tit-for-tat situation, but since you raised the point I'll play along for a while...
Concentration camps... USA had them, Canada had them, Britain invented them. At least in Germany the inmates were convicted criminals, or identified as enemy of the state due to their actions or international interests. This latter part was due to the fact that international Judaism had declared war on Germany in 1933. For confirmation you may refer to London and New York newspaper headlines of the day. Then there were communist agitators and saboteurs. Might as well put them all to work to do something useful since there was a shortage of labour.
To compare a temporary concentration camp necessitated by war activities with systemic slavery over hundreds of years indicates to me a shallowness of perception. Now, PLEASE, just mention the holocaust...
As to calling your enemies names... The Brits and Americans are the very worst by far on this issue; may I remind you of the American's names for the Japanese, North Vietnamese, Koreans, and lately the French and the Arabs? And aren't Americans the most supreme beings on the planet, having the God-given right to impose their version of "democracy" on other, unsuspecting people? Even if they don't want it?
Kindly explain why you describe my post #47 as "over the top" when I merely took Dr Wilson's premise and made a factual elaboration. If you care to point out an error I would be pleased to correct it and apologize.
Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on the cultural commonality. I have done business in the American South, the North, Germany, France, behind the iron curtain, etc., thus I'd appreciate your thoughts.
The National Socialist regime in Germany was not a totalitarian regime in the commonly accepted sense such as the communist system. Hitler was appointed and elected in conformance with the laws as established during the Weimar Republic, and he managed to bring practically all of the old guard onto his side. I recently read an analysis on how he pulled this off... very smooth indeed. His methods could have been drawn straight out of "How to win Friends and Influence People", he was that smooth and diplomatic. I know, I know, it's not PC.
H.F. Wolff
The Southern national character is Anglo-Celtic. The Northern national character (since the mid-19th centurty) is an unholy mixture of Prussian collectivism, downside Irish, and Puritan self-righteousness.
What is truly pathetic is blaming Southerners for the downfall of the U.S., when we have not had more than marginal power since 1861.
Does any sensible person fail to understand that the U.S. would be in much better shape today if the South had been calling the shots?
@38 Joseph
I think the Prussians were observers only rather than combatants. Take a day to visit Bentonville Battlefield in North Carolina before it gets nationalized. It was one of the last battles fought before Appomattox, and resulted in a stalemate despite better supplied Union forces and fewer Confederate troops. The soldiers expended their energies shifting earth in anticipation of trench warfare in Europe 50 years later.
The English were unofficially allied with the CSA, but the Confederate embassy was in Liverpool, and not London. It was a very good fight to stay away from unless you were in the bond-hawking business.
H. F. Wolff, @53: "At least in Germany the inmates were convicted criminals, or identified as enemy of the state due to their actions or international interests. This latter part was due to the fact that international Judaism had declared war on Germany in 1933. For confirmation you may refer to London and New York newspaper headlines of the day. Then there were communist agitators and saboteurs. Might as well put them all to work to do something useful since there was a shortage of labour."
Sir, isn't it true that in 1933, Dachau, outside Munich, was the first concentration camp established? Wasn't it primarily a camp for political prisoners, including priests? Isn't it also true that 2,700 Catholic priests were imprisoned there (of which 1,000 died), and were subject to the most awful tortures, including the medical experiments of Dr. Rascher? Just asking.
56 Mr Meng:
Indeed the first concentration camp in Germany was opened in Dachau on March 22., 1933, primarily for communist agitators. I suppose one could call them political prisoners but any action detrimental to the state is criminal. Fair comment, criticism, & opinion excepted, of course.
This is the first I have read about the wholesale imprisonment of priests and their torture; perhaps you could point me to a source where I might read more about this?
My information is from the Barnes Review of Jan. 2001, article by Stephen A. Raper, shedding some interesting light onto the operation of German concentration camps. Here is one paragraph:
"...A correspondent for The New York Times (July 27., 1933) was allowed to visit Dachau shortly after it was opened and came away with the impression that the commandant of the camp, Theodor Eicke, and the men under his command took their job of reeducation seriously. "They honestly and sincerely believed that their task was pedagogic rather than punitive.... They felt sincerely sorry for the misguided non-Nazis who had not yet found the true faith."8 Not only had the inmates not yet found faith in the leadership of Adolf Hitler, but they also took part in or supported subversive activities aimed at overthrowing the state..."
Were Catholic priests part of the communist subversive activities? I don't know, but I wouldn't mind reading about it.
H.F. Wolff
57. Mr. Wolff has told us all we need to know about his position: "any action detrimental to the state is criminal." Except for "fair comment, criticism, and opinion" as determined by the state. No wonder he does not understand WW II.
Dr. Wilson, @58: Are you going to lift the moderation placed on my last response (#58) to Mr. H. F. Wolff? Its for his edification, dontcha know?
'Hmm, methinks this dialogue is deteriorating into a tit-for-tat situation, but since you raised the point I’ll play along for a while…' Well, who do you think is responsible for that, Mr Wolff?
Your comment @47 is 'over the top' because it is insulting and rude.
Mr Wolff exposes himself as an apologist for Nazism and tries to justify concentration camps. I suspected this would be the case all along.
The next question, what is a statist like Wolff doing frequenting a website like this?
58 Dr Wilson:
I wrote my piece and I stand by it.
And the best you can do in a rebuttal is to put words in my mouth??? Perhaps you'd care to point out one country where actions detrimental to the state are not criminal?
As for fair comment, criticism, and opinion. You can take this from your war mongering "hero" Churchill who opined after the war that curtailment of criticism and freedom of the press during the war was much harsher in the USA and Britain than it had been in Germany. But you can't let a little fact like that bother you, can you?
But you did get one thing right: I certainly don't understand WWII, that's why I am debating here.
H.F. Wolff
60 Allen Wilson:
"...Your comment @47 is ‘over the top’ because it is insulting and rude..."
Strictly a matter of perception and thin skin. I invited you to point out where I am wrong; Still waiting patiently.
It never fails to amaze me the number of self-proclaimed mind readers that boast about this ability. If you are so good at this why don't you play the stock market? Nazi apologist indeed.
I am sick and tired of being lied to and having war crimes condoned. PERIOD.
And because my ancestry is Austrian and German I have more than a passing interest why these countries, the very epitome of western civilization (according to American, British, and French leaders after the war) are being lied about, even now almost 65 years after the cease-fire.
The more I read about WWI & WWII the more I am led to the conclusion that these two countries, but predominantly Germany, are accused of crimes and activities of which the Allies were the perpetrators. Psychiatrists have a name for this: Transference. On the reasons for this one can speculate; but it seems to me that it is pure and unadulterated hate for a people that achieved so much prior, during, and after the wars. The Allies won those wars due to overwhelming resources, yet what have they got to show for this victory:
Kleptocracy at the highest levels, war crimes committed and condoned at the highest levels, filth and decadence everywhere, an economy and monetary system in a death spiral, morals of an alley cat.
In Britain the last soldiers are lamenting as to why they fought WWII.
H.F. Wolff
@62 HF
WWI made the world safe for communism. WWII made the world safe for socialism, be it the Soviet type or the welfare state type. The Cold War was good for the Military-Indistrial-Congressional Complex. The war on terror has been very good for the police state, and very bad for customers of the court system which will be needed to populate privatized slammers. I've told you where to invest now get out there and earn money!
'The more I read about WWI & WWII the more I am led to the conclusion that these two countries, but predominantly Germany, are accused of crimes and activities of which the Allies were the perpetrators. Psychiatrists have a name for this: Transference. On the reasons for this one can speculate; but it seems to me that it is pure and unadulterated hate for a people that achieved so much prior, during, and after the wars. The Allies won those wars due to overwhelming resources, yet what have they got to show for this victory:
Kleptocracy at the highest levels, war crimes committed and condoned at the highest levels, filth and decadence everywhere, an economy and monetary system in a death spiral, morals of an alley cat.'
You sound much like a Southerner here, Mr Wolff, and in fact I would agree with much of it concerning both Dixie and Germany, but if you're looking for allies, then dont insult the South or it's people, and lay off of Dr Wilson.
64 Mr Allen Wilson:
Thank you for your conciliatory tone, and I apologize if I have offended Dixie. Granted that my personal experiences there are insufficient to condemn all of Dixie because there are good and forthright people everywhere.
But you have to admit that Dr Wilson (a relative of yours, perhaps?) has a bee in his bonnet regarding Germany. I think someone wrote in this thread the Dr Wilson lost a close relative in that meat grinder of WWII and that this fact may colour his views.
I lost two uncles on the western front of WWII after the cease fire, my father's brothers, who had been in mail contact with him after the cease fire. My father spoke very little of this, and not until I read Bacque's "Other Losses" describing Eisenhower's starvation camps for German POW did the connection occur to me.
It is crimes like these that led me to the idea of "Transference" as described bu Psychiatrists.
Mr Mend was trying to provide some information pertinent to this discussion, perhaps you would be good enough to post at least the salient points?
Thank you.
H.F. Wolff
Much has been written in these posts concerning Germany in WWII. Being a Marylander of German-Austrian (Catholic) extraction, I can certainly appreciate the reasoning and emotion on this topic. Hitler and the Nazis came to power in a time and as a result of great economic and political trauma for the German people resulting from "The War To End All Wars". Historically, this scenario is not unusual for nations that find themselves under duress through starvation blockades, occupation, theft of territory, hyperinflation, national humiliation, and so on (the post-war Confederacy comes to mind.) German resentment was rightfully directed at the hubris and stupidity displayed by the British and French. Woodrow Wilson deserves his share of blame for jumping in and tipping the balance against Germany. If the Kaiser had won WWI or fought it to a draw, a settlement could have been reached. American involvement negated that outcome and so the US has its hands dirty in abetting the rise to power of a tyrant. Germany’s defeat in WWII coincided with Britain’s loss of empire and the beginning of the West’s road to disintegration.
Nonetheless, sympathizing with the German people and looking past Nazi pathologies are two different matters entirely.
I look forward to Dr. Clyde Wilson's commentary as he has much wisdom to offer on a broad range of important topics.
H. F. Wolff, @66, I have been placed under moderation and I am wondering if it is because of the web-link I included. So, I'll copy and paste without the link and see if that gets posted.
"“H. F. Wolff, @57: Well, no, Catholic priests were not part of any communist subversive activities. Priests and monks were shipped off to Dachau because of their promulgation of the papal encyclical “Mit Brennender Sorge” (which can be found on the Internet). The encyclical criticized Nazism and listed the breaches of the 1933 Concordat Hitler had signed with the Vatican. Pope Pius XI wrote, “Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community—however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things—whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds…”
This encyclical was read from every Catholic pulpit on Palm Sunday, 1937, and it brought extreme chagrin to and drastic measures from the misfits in power, like Goebbels. Hitler himself was anti-Catholic."
To know more about it, google "German priests at Dachau" and check out the article in the Seattle Catholic.
My motives have been questioned. I believe, as much as we deplore the current condition of the U.S., the fascist temptation and the celebration of fascist fantasies must be discouraged. For two reasons.
First, fascism embodies all the worst features of post-Christian nihlism. Second, any AMERICAN fascism, should it ever be fully realised, will not be a restoration of old America but an even worse dictatorship of multiculturalism than we have now. And I admit that I am partial to Anglo-Celtic culture, while Germany, since the 19th century, has been a bully without any redeeming virtues to offset its bad character.
P.S. Many of my ancestors came from Germany to America in the 17th century, before the unfortunate Prussianisation that followed the Napoleonic invasions.
P.S.S. Say what you want about the defects of Britain, but it did not produce a Marx, Engels, Freud, Kaiser Wilhelm, Nietsche, Hitler, Goebbels, or Himmler.
Cherusci @ 66
'...sympathizing with the German people and looking past Nazi pathologies are two differenr matters entirely."
Absolutely correct. All nations have war criminals, and every war criminal ought to be brought to book for his atrocities. American, Russian, British, French, German, Italian... nobody should get a pass on a war crime. I myself exposed an American war crime witnessed by my father in 1943.
And there were many sick, illogical, and radical notions in Nazism that I categorically reject.
Nevertheless, what needs to happen, and which I believe is happening right now, is a complete historical reappraisal of World War II, its causes, and its disastrous consequences for the Western world. Some jackrabbit-terrified conformists call this "revisionism," and have tried to make it a pejorative term. I call it historical research, and no one (except those with an political agenda, or something to hide) has any valid reason to oppose historical research.
It's 2009. World War II has been over for sixty-four years. And yet we are still expected to be loyal to simplistic Allied war propaganda? Try to imagine this scenario: Suppose that in 1878, sixty-four years after Waterloo, Englishmen were still expected to be spouting the anti-Napoleonic pieties of 1815, and were theatened with ostracism and legal sanctions if they didn't.
And yet that is the situation today in the Western world regarding the history of the Second World War.
Joseph Salemi, @73: Well said, and I agree, absolutely.
Clyde Wilson @70:
"Say what you want about the defects of Britain, but it did not produce a Marx, Engels, Freud, Kaiser Wilhelm, Nietsche, Hitler, Goebbels, or Himmler"
Could it be that the land that produced Bach, Beethoven, Goethe, Schiller, Gauss, Diesel, and Planck has a proclivity for extremes? (Perhaps opposite tails in a normal distribution curve for good/evil forms of intelligence.)
Incidentally, Marx and Freud being Jewish should perhaps not be included in your list. If they were alive today, they would likely identify with Israel more than Germany. Either way, many Jews throughout history, no matter what country they called home, were notorious trailblazers and revolutionaries.
Look -- every nation produces monsters, mediocrities, and model citizens. It's idle to make comparisons of this sort. The Brits produced a genocidal fanatic called Oliver Cromwell (check out what he did at Wexford and Drogheda) who would have been just as efficient as Hitler if he had had access to modern technologies.
Cherusci,Engels was Jewish too.And Clyde conveniently leaves out the part about how Marx sought and found refuge in merry ol' England from his Continental wanderings(Germany,Belgium,France;I think).And also how the Engels' family fortune,made in England,bankrolled most of his "philosophic" endeavors.
Good point Joe.Honorable mention should be given to the nordic supremicist Houston Stewart Chamberlain.
Oh,one other thing.Anybody who doesnt chuckle at the thought of revising Anglo-Saxon supremacism(yes,you are out there,and you know who you are) might want to read Correlli Barnett's THE COLLAPSE OF BRITISH POWER,published in the early 70's.He says much the same as practically everyone else on the subject,including Buchanan.And he has that magical Anglo-Celtic blood flowing in his veins!
68 Clyde Wilson:
"...while Germany, since the 19th century, has been a bully without any redeeming virtues to offset its bad character..."
Mr Allen Wilson, with all due respect to Dixie... I'm really biting my tongue here and try and leave personalities out of this.
1) "...redeeming virtues...", suffice it to say that the great majority of the world's population disagrees with Dr Wilson on this issue, including a fair number of contributors to this thread. For evidence I merely point out that Germany is the world's greatest exporter of manufactured goods. And NOBODY has ever accused Germany of shipping inexpensive stuff. Further, it doesn't have to borrow money from the far east to finance its government or to wage illegal wars,thereby burdening future generations. Pretty redeeming virtues by most people's standards.
2) "...a bully...", I wonder what criteria or proof Dr Wilson can muster to substantiate this assertion? Mr Allen Wilson, my tongue is bleeding! Because by any criterion you wish to choose Germany/Prussia is the most peace-loving nation that ever existed in Europe, bar none! Not a PC claim but...
I can cite at least 2 non-German books and 2 non-German studies that substantiate my assertion above. I have posted these in another thread in this forum but the individual who requested them was probably too overwhelmed by what he read (sacred cows slaughtered?)and, being struck dumb, was unable to reply.
The conclusions in these references stated clearly that indeed Germany/Prussia are the lowest on the totem pole of war mongering (whichever way defined), and Britain is at the very top of that list with France and Spain close second and third. That's for Europe. On a world-wide basis the king of that dung-heap would be the USA... substantiated by another book.
Mr Allen Wilson, I think my tongue is an inch shorter and bleeding all over the floor but, I will "play nice" as you so politely requested and defer calling on Dr Wilson's origins, antecedents, and academic achievements.
3) Hitler, ah yes Mr Hitler, what would the world and Hollywood be today without long dead Adolph Hitler to kick around. He was a bonafide decorated war hero from WWI. His comrades and his superiors liked him and spoke well of him. Churchill called him the greatest German statesman ever (check Buchanan's book Churchill & Hitler or the reviews thereof). Naturally his changed after Britain declared war on Germany. It just occurred to me that this trait appears to be a characteristic in the Angloshere... great admiration followed by slurs of "Hun" or whatever name-du-jour. (Anglophones appear to have difficulty with geography, also).
Mr Meng, thanks for the references; I shall read them at the next opportunity.
H.F. Wolff
Wolff, I can sympathize with your anger, but be reasonable. Prussia (not Germany as a whole) was most definitely a highly militaristic society. I'm not saying that this was necessarily a bad thing -- Prussia's geographical location and its heritage from the Teutonic Knights made it so. The very highest social status in Prussia was held by military officers.
#71. Mr. Salemi, the War between the States has been over for almost a century and a half and "we are still expected to be loyal to simplistic" Lincolnite war propaganda. And I have been condemned as a "revisionist" (code word for neo-nazi) for questioning that.
So far as the British/German squabble goes, I suppose we are down to a matter of taste. And there is no accounting for taste. However, as an American and a lover of what America was meant to be, I must point out that most of what was admirable about that America was British. Many individuals of German origin made great
contributions to the first settlement of America, but Germany as such made little. And we are still suffering from the work of the militarist, statist, collectivist immigrant 48ers who manned the polls, the mobs, and the armies for Lincoln's war.
Clyde Wilson @ 80
Yes, I take your point about that. But isn't the difference that white southerners NEVER succumbed to the simplistic Lincolnite propaganda, and nobody tried (at least after Reconstruction ended) to make them do so? Many southerners remained fiercely loyal to Confederate principles. It's only lately (i.e. since about 1960) that there has been a conscious, nation-wide attempt to demonize the southern position.
In fact, it had become something of a comical topos in American folklore -- the unregenerate southerner, doggedly loyal to Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee, drinking mint juleps and saying "Save your Confederate money, boys... THE SOUTH SHALL RISE AGAIN!"
On the other hand, there has been a frantic, unending attempt since 1945 to prevent ANY questioning of the silliest Allied propaganda from World War II. And nobody takes it as humorous if you do.
Clyde Wilson @ 81
But Dr. Wilson -- surely you don't blame the German-American draftees in the Union Army for the war? They were just poor cannon fodder. Let's at least agree that it was those damned New England abolitionist fanatics who have the blood on their hands.
79 Mr Salemi:
"...a highly militaristic society..."
Let's step back a little and debate what the Prussians taught and valued: Service, honour, duty, initiative (Niall Ferguson: "The Pity of War), a sense of "a job worth doing is worth doing well", pride in being part of a state that did its best to improve the standard of living of the poor and the working man and his family.
Then we have the debatable ones such as universal schooling that was decried earlier, a state-run compulsory medical plan, and retirement pension at the age of 65. All this 140 years ago, setting the standard for civilized society at that time.
Times have changed and many of the services listed above could be better supplied through private businesses. But has this been achieved? Other services it could be argued ought to be left to the individual, and I have no difficulty in accepting this as I believe this too. But over a period of 140 years have any improvements been achieved, and if not why not? I read that the compulsory retirement savings of Americans are down the tube, and that the cost of medical services are out-of-reach for many Americans. Most of the nations of the world have no services for their citizens.
Now then, with the achievement and implementation of the forgoing points, and the state running as well as human endeavour can achieve "with military precision", it is very easy to label that state as being militaristic. And so be it, but it is an intellectually lazy description, or one to incite a certain derogatory image. Take your pick.
If other countries wish to run their state as confused organization or organized confusion, that is their right; but to demean another state for having its s**t together because you won't or can't achieve the same or better, speaks volumes about the criticizer.
I suppose human nature and international politics being what it is, the political class finds it easier to convince the healthy state to swallow the pill to make it as ill as all the others so as not to upset the normal curve.
And I, foolishly it seems, believed that intellectuals of the caliber on this blog and others, would bring a modicum of receptiveness to the truth. "A lie heard 100 times is easier to believe than the truth heard once".
H.F. Wolff
Wolff @ 84
As I said in my original post, I am not trying to denigrate the Prussians. I don't necessarily use the term "militaristic" as a pejorative. The ancient Spartans were militaristic, and the word might well be applied to the Romans for at least part of their history.
All I'm saying is that the art and practice of war were always part of the warp and woof of being a Prussian. I don't see how anyone who knows the history of that nation can deny this.
Were they also pioneers in the development of universal schooling, the welfare state, and the elephantiasis of bureaucracy? Yes, of course. But it is preceisely the value of those things which we are debating here at Chronicles.
85 Mr Joseph Salemi:
Let's agree for the moment that the Prussians were militaristic. But what did the Prussians do with all this military ability? Start wars? Not by any criterion you wish to choose. They used their military abilities and qualities to organize and run their state, and introduce services for their citizens that were leading-edge at that time.
As I stated earlier, Germany/Prussia is the most peace-loving country in Europe. I can cite 4 different works by non-Germans to back-up my assertion.
Since we agree that Prussia did the pioneering work in social services for their citizens and a well-organized civil service to run the ship of state with military precision, all 140 years ago, then why did a mighty country such as the USA not improve upon this pioneering work? Instead we see the civil service, infrastructure, in fact everything that big government has its fingers in, go to hell in a hand basket?
Truly one would think that, with such pioneering work done by the Prussians it would be a cinch to make evolutionary improvements over a period of 140 years given the quality Anglophone personnel (Dr Wilson's position) and resources of the USA?
H.F. Wolff
Pardon me, but I will break the line of discussion here with these observations.
Similarities can be drawn between the actions of two brave men, one an American and the other a German:
John Wilkes Booth rid the world of a war criminal and President turned dictator. Though successful, he was four years late. History tells us he was shot by Federal troops in a Virginia barn (with some controversy surrounding the events).
Graf von Stauffenberg attempted to rid the world of a war criminal and Chancellor turned dictator. He was unsuccessful and at least four years too late. History tells us he was shot by firing squad in a Berlin courtyard.
Today the German is generally hailed as a hero, which he was. In our heavily propagandized society the American is demonized as though he killed Jesus Christ.
Apparently it comes down to whose Dear Leader is being sacrificed.
Mr Wolff, you have brought up many interesting points, and I agree with many of them. It is true that the demonisation of Germany must end, for it is evil, and destructive not only to the German people, but to the West as a whole. The same is true of the demonisation of Dixie.
I first heard about the murder of German solders in POW camps from a book written by an ex-U-boat commander whose name I cant now remember. It was truly a crime and indefensible, and I cant recall how many were murdered. This is why I find the self-righteous treatment of Germany by the establishment media so repulsive.
As for Stauffenberg, with all due respect to Cherusci, I must disagree. Even if we accept the view that Hitler was a demon in human form, just because Stauffenberg tried to kill him doesn't mean that he had good motives in doing so. If memory serves me right, Stauffenberg was an incompetent commander which is why he was put in command of the reserve army. He was a Communist sympathiser in contact with the Kremlin, and his desire, aside from making himself dictator, was to declare Germany a Soviet republic. He also was, if not a child molester, then a homosexual pederast who liked young boys of around 14 or 15 years old. He always had one or more with him everywhere he went, and this is why the members of the German general staff hated him so much, aside form the fact that he wouldn't take a bath and stank like a pig. Forget the silly Tom Cruise movie, it's a whitewash.
Allen Wilson, @90: Sir, I assume you have a worthy source for your remarks (which are scandalous, to say the least) about Colonel Klaus von Stauffenberg. My source, Pierre Galante, in his book Operation Valkyrie published in 1981, describes a man exactly opposite of your profile.
My source was Gregory Douglas, in his 'Gestapo Chief' series. The information came from the records of the Gestapo, which had been keeping tabs on Stauffenberg. They had access to information that no one else had access to, they never released this information to the public and so cannot be accused of defamation, and had no reason to lie about it.
I haven't read the Galante book, so I cannot comment on it.
Even if there are actual Gestapo documents to back up the assertions of Mueller, I don't see why they are trustworthy simply because they were not released to the public. Perhaps they didn't see the need to do so once Stauffenberg was dead, and who's to say evidence wasn't concocted in order to have something handy with which critics of the regime could be tried or eliminated?
89 Mr Meng:
All I have been able to determine about Klaus von Stauffenberg is that "he turned from a rabid National Socialist into a rabid National Communist". Apparently he wished to see Germany become a Communist country. No motivation or other information was given in this reference, although there was much discussion as to the effects on Germany of a successful assassination of Hitler.
There was some speculation of a German civil war, others speculated that the Waffen SS, 600 or 800 thousand strong and well trained and led, would turn on the traitors and execute them.
There was considerable agreement that a successful assassination would have made no difference in the ultimate treatment of Germany by the Allies, and as evidence of this a number of speeches by Churchill were quoted whereby Churchill stated that he was not interested in destroying Hitler, but that the destruction of Germany itself was his goal.
88 Mr Allen Wilson:
Thank you for your positive comments; I am intrigued that you see the demonization of Germany also affecting the whole western world, because I made a very similar assertion in another forum. Indeed I am convinced that a most compelling case could be made supporting this assertion!
H.F. Wolff
@89 Allen Wilson
I have not seen the Tom Cruise movie and I suspect it to be corny, especially with him as the lead. Admittedly I have no extensive knowledge of von Stauffenberg's biography much beyond the fact of his family's nobility. With all due respect, his motivations for attempting to kill Hitler are somewhat beside the point. I do not carry water for communists or pedarists and I do see the ultimate futility of attempting to kill Hitler at such a late date. (That's why I stated the Count was at least four years too late.)
Whatever his motives, it was a positive act by a brave member of the German resistance.
@ 93 H.F. Wolf
Yes, Churchill and Roosevelt were quite the Germanophobes. Intelligent folks appreciate the fact that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes (i.e. Germanic tribes) formed a vital core of England's early bloodlines. So maybe Churchill's loathing of Germany was a form of self-hate?
Allen Wilson, @92: "Gestapo Chief", by Gregory Douglas (who goes by other names, by the way), is a fraud according to the Institute of Historical Review's Mark Weber who wrote a review of Douglas's book. He is supported by another expert of German history during the Hitler regime, David Irving, who is also an expert on German documents of the period. I recommend you read the review, which can be found at the IHR website. When you get there, search for an article by Weber titled, "Not Quite the Hitler Diaries." Let me know what you think about it. A really noble man, Col. Stauffenberg, has been smeared by Douglas.
H. F. Wolff, @94: thanks for the info, but I am inclined to believe his wife Nina (she died in 2006), who said in an interview that many thought her husband was a spirited Nazi and others thought he was a Socialist, but he was neither. He was a German patriot. Being a Catholic, he was very upset about the rounding up and jailing of Catholic priests, and this was a factor in his resolve to topple the Nazis.
Tom Cruise does not strike me as appropriate for the role of Stauffenberg. I haven't seen the movie and I don't plan on it. Beneath all the Hollywood hype, its just another tiresome propaganda piece in a long list of anti-German movies, such as the recently released Defiance with Daniel Craig.
My 96: it looks as if I conducted the interview with Nina Stauffenberg, but no, I read it.
95 J Meng
Speaking of anti-German movies, "Saving Private Ryan" was a real stinker in terms of its blatant bias against Germans - another chance for Speilberg to show his true feelings. The Germans depicted in that movie are either cowards or psychopathic killers - take your pick. Those aren't the human qualities that enabled the German military to overrun most of Europe, or to seriously threaten North Africa and Allied Atlantic shipping. Indeed it was largely Hitler's blundering interventions and Slavophobic policies that prevented a total German defeat of the Western allies and Soviet Russia.
Cherusci, @98: Yes, I agree. The Wehrmacht was a superb military organization. You hit on the key that determined success or failure in the East: the insane slavophobia of the Nazi misfits (it was this fanatical racism which Pope Pius XI condemned in his 1937 encyclical Mit Brrennender Sorge). If Hitler had had the sense to truly liberate those Russians and Ukrainians who greeted the German Army as liberators, Stalin would have fallen. Even Solzhenitsyn acknowledges this. With victory in the East, the Brits and Yanks would not have made a dent in the German defenses, and for the first time, the Brits would have had to acknowledge a new hegemon in Europe.
Say, were you involved with Arminius in the Teutoberger Forest ambush?
The name is an honorary acknowledgment of Arminius and his victory.
The image of Claus von Stauffenberg as power hungry, incompetent, communist pervert is sharply at odds with the portrait drawn by Dr. Peter Hoffmann in his book, "Stauffenberg: A Family History, 1905-1944," Cambridge University Press, 1995. This book has 53 pages of citations and a 55 page bibliography, most of it in German. Read the book yourselves, but if I understand Professor Hoffmann, Stauffenberg was generally apolitical, and had planned to install General Ludwig von Beck, not himself, as head of state after Hitler's assassination. He not only did not want Bolshevik domination of Germany, he considered the Soviets to be the greatest threat to Germany, and he even hoped that after getting rid of Hitler, Germany might join the Allies to fight the Soviets. Stauffenberg's military skills were highly regarded enough for him to have become the senior staff officer of a panzer division in North Africa (where in combat he lost his right hand, two fingers of his left hand, and his left eye), and to be appointed to a position high enough to have access to Hitler. Stauffenberg's apparent early loyalty to the Reich was primarily actually loyalty to the German military and a confidence in direction given by this institution. I don't know if he should be faulted for this. I am aware of the stereotype of Prussian militarism, but in the several decades preceding World War I, Germany was not as militarily aggressive as the United States and Great Britain (read Smedley Butler on American military activity in this time period). However, Stauffenberg was appalled by the November, 1938 pogrom, and from that time on, at great risk to himself and his family, he became vocally opposed to Hitler, and he finally took the momentous steps of July 20, 1944. That Stauffenberg provided highly competent service to the Reich up to that time can be explained on pragmatic, realist grounds, not least of which is that his country was fatally threatened by the Soviet Union. Citing the Gestapo as support for the allegation that Stauffenberg was a pervert does not impress me.
Joe Porreca, @101: Well said, and thanks for the reference.