DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Colonial Era
*****************************************************
#Post#: 24194--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
By: antihellenistic Date: November 28, 2023, 8:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
World War I's Belligerents Racial View
[quote]Germany was hardly the only nation to express the
struggle for national defense and freedom in racialized terms
during World War I. Allied, especially British, propaganda
frequently demonized the enemy as the Hun, portrayed as a
bloodthirsty inhuman beast. The British seized in particular
upon the German invasion of Belgium at the start of the war as
an example of bestial cruelty, not stopping at images of Belgian
babies being spitted on German spike helmets.32 One of the most
striking racialized images of the enemy was published by the
United States Army in 1918. Entitled “Destroy This Mad Brute!,”
it featured a growling gorilla wearing a German spiked helmet.
In one hand he held a club labeled “Kultur,” in the other arm he
grasped a prostrate white woman.33 Clearly grounded in American
fears of miscegenation and rape, the poster portrayed the
Germans as a racial enemy. During the war, therefore, both sides
deployed racialized images of each other, illustrating the
absolutist character of the conflict. In a climate of total war,
the enemy had to be dehumanized and treated as the racial
Other.34
The racialization of enemy European nations as savages occurred
concurrently with the mobilization of nonwhite populations for
the war effort and their introduction onto European soil. World
War I was an imperial war, during which the leading nations
mobilized their colonial resources in service to the national
effort. As the masters of the largest empires, the British and
French took the lead in imperial mobilization. One of the most
important of these resources was labor: ever since the era of
African slavery colonial workers had been a key source of wealth
for European empires, but the labor shortages caused by the
mobilization of millions of European men into the military made
this a critical need.[/quote]
Source :
White Freedom The Racial History of an Idea Tyler Edward Stovall
2021 Princeton University Press page 209
#Post#: 24204--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
By: antihellenistic Date: November 29, 2023, 2:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
How the Western Allied Power treated the Colored People during
World War 2
[quote]This pattern of people fighting for national freedom
denied to them as racial outsiders characterized much of the
experience of Allied colonial subjects in general during the
war. In spite of widespread opposition from Indian politicians,
the British government of colonial India declared that questions
of self-rule and independence would have to wait until after
the war was over. The British also used the war to reassert
imperial authority in the Middle East, overthrowing the
government of Iraq in 1941 and the Egyptian regime in 1942.160
The clear message was that, at least until the defeat of the
Axis, colonialism would remain firmly in place. The fact that
imperial and Commonwealth soldiers fought for Britain also did
not shield them from British racism. Black soldiers in
particular received lower pay, worse rations, and far fewer
chances for advancement than their white counterparts. The
British military generally refused (as in World War I), to
deploy them in Europe; they also tried to prevent contacts
between them and African American soldiers for fear that the
antiracist attitudes of the latter would undermine the
empire.161
The French situation was different, since colonial troops did
not enter France until the Liberation. Yet the Gaullist argument
that Free France represented France as a whole tended to mask
the diversity of both the Free French and the Resistance. In
arranging for French troops to liberate Paris in 1944, for
example, De Gaulle bowed to American demands for the exclusion
of Black colonial soldiers, so that the LeClerc Division, which
entered the French capital on August 25, 1944, consisted largely
of Spanish Republican exiles. The liberation of Paris must be a
white liberation.162
The United States during the war also mobilized people of color
to an unprecedented degree while at the same time stubbornly
retaining traditional racial standards. World War II represented
the greatest overseas war effort the nation had ever seen, the
first time America (or any nation) had waged such a massive
struggle on two oceans at the same time. Over 16 million
Americans served in the armed forces during World War II, more
than any other war effort before or since. Moreover, the
tremendous mobilization of production that made the United
States the “Arsenal of Democracy” required vast labor resources,
prompting the migration of millions to new jobs and transforming
the nation’s industrial landscape.163 This massive military and
economic mobilization took place in a new political context, for
America had changed significantly since World War I. The New
Deal represented one of the most progressive regimes, and
political cultures, in US history, and Franklin Delano
Roosevelt’s attitudes toward race were far removed from those
of Woodrow Wilson.164
...
In general, however, racial discrimination and segregation
persisted in America during World War II. Whatever his personal
feelings, Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition depended upon the
support of white southern legislators, who remained adamantly
opposed to policies promoting racial equality. Roosevelt may
have denounced lynching, but the US government never enacted
federal anti-lynching legislation. During the 1930s many New
Deal social programs, such as the Federal Housing Authority,
discriminated against Blacks, and this pattern continued during
the war.175 Most notably, in spite of some Democratic promises
to the contrary, America’s armed forces remained segregated for
the duration of the conflict. As in World War I but to an even
greater extent, the US military fought around the world for
white freedom.176
Racism in World War II was not just a matter of government
policy. During the war race riots erupted in American cities,
usually involving white attacks on Blacks and other peoples of
color. In June 1943 the so-called Zoot Suit Riots (named after a
clothing style made popular by Black jazz musicians and
embraced by minority youth) broke out in Los Angeles, involving
attacks by thousands of white soldiers and sailors primarily
against Latino young men.177 A scant two weeks later Detroit
experienced its own major race riot, prompted by attempts to
integrate the city’s housing and defense industries.178 Public
transportation and
other facilities remained largely segregated, and not just in
the South. At times this went so far as to require Black
soldiers in uniform to give up seats on trains to German
prisoners of war.[/quote]
Source :
White Freedom The Racial History of an Idea Tyler Edward Stovall
2021 Princeton University Press page 250 - 253
#Post#: 24524--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leftist ideological camps in the big picture; Socialism, Mar
xism, True Leftism, etc.
By: antihellenistic Date: December 19, 2023, 8:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hitler and Stalin view each other
[quote]Hitler appreciated Stalin . They respected each other as
enemies and they did not underestimate each other. Stalin showed
less respect openly … Hitler somehow appreciated Stalin in his
private talks… (not in public understandibly) .
He used to say he should have acted like Stalin to deal with
army commanders. He thought himself as civilized and soft
comparing to Stalin. He even mentioned Stalin was the best
candidate to run Slavic rabbit family for Germans once Germany
conquered Russia. Both leaders were similar types and made of
same substance. They both despised each other and at the same
time secretly appreciated each other. It sounds like contrast
but probably that how it was.
Hitler was amazed what Stalin achieved with Slavic rabbit family
in sense of development. He was very surprised to see the real
size of Soviet army, the industrial capacity of Soviets under
Stalin regime. He even analyzed Stalin’s ear lobes to be certain
that he was not a jew.
Actually both men had parallel lives.( Bullock) Their life
stories are amazingly similar. Probably they knew this fact and
appreciated each other. Although Stalin appreciated Hitler,
probably he would turn him into mummified statue and exhibit him
in Red Square if he had the chance as Hitler told people close
to him. … Politics and respect for the enemy are two different
concepts…[/quote]
HTML https://qr.ae/pKa8eK
#Post#: 24528--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
By: 90sRetroFan Date: December 19, 2023, 9:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
From your link:
[quote]Even in war time and under the influence of propaganda ,
19 July 1941 Hitler stated:
“Stalin is one of the most extraordinary figures in world
history. He began as a small clerk, and he has never stopped
being a clerk. Stalin owes nothing to rhetoric. He governs from
his office, thanks to a bureaucracy that obeys his every nod and
gesture.[/quote]
This is a criticism, not a compliment!
HTML https://www.quora.com/What-did-Hitler-and-Stalin-think-of-each-other
[quote]Hitler once summed up Stalin brilliantly: “Stalin started
out as a desk clerk and he is still a desk clerk.” What he
meant, of course, is that Stalin thought and acted like a
mediocre bureaucrat, not a statesman and visionary like
himself.[/quote]
More Hitler quotes that shows Hitler's dislike for Stalin
(rooted in anti-Turanism, not merely anti-communism):
"When Russia barricades herself within her frontiers, it's to
prevent people from leaving the country and making certain
comparisons. That's why Stalin was obliged to introduce
Bolshevism into the Baltic countries, so that his army of
occupation should be deprived of all means of comparison with
another system."
"A people can prove to be well fitted for battle even although
it is ill fitted for civilisation. From the point of view of
their value as combatants, the armies of Genghiz Khan were not
inferior to those of Stalin (provided we take away from
Bolshevism what it owes to the material civilisation of the
West)."
"Stalin pretends to have been the herald of the Bolshevik
revolution. In actual fact, he identifies himself with the
Russia of the Tsars, and he has merely resurrected the tradition
of Pan-Slavism. For him Bolshevism is only a means, a disguise
designed to trick the Germanic and Latin peoples. If we hadn't
seized power in 1933, the wave of the Huns would have broken
over our heads."
"Stalin is half beast, half giant. To the social side of life he
is utterly indifferent. The people can rot, for all he cares."
"Stalin is an anarchist educated in an ecclesiastical college!
Our newspapers ought to ask whether he and Churchill sang psalms
together in Moscow!"
It is only correct to say that Hitler dared not underestimate
Stalin:
"Stalin, too, must command our unconditional respect. In his own
way he is a hell of a fellow ! He knows his models, Genghiz Khan
and the others, very well, and the scope of his industrial
planning is exceeded only by our own Four Year Plan."
When Hitler uses the term 'respect', it is in the sense of
viewing Stalin as a serious threat not to be taken lightly, not
in the sense of viewing him as a rolemodel.
#Post#: 24548--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
By: rp Date: December 21, 2023, 8:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqzK13YNxLU
#Post#: 24566--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
By: rp Date: December 23, 2023, 7:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=90sRetroFan link=topic=40.msg24528#msg24528
date=1703041241]
From your link:
[quote]Even in war time and under the influence of propaganda ,
19 July 1941 Hitler stated:
“Stalin is one of the most extraordinary figures in world
history. He began as a small clerk, and he has never stopped
being a clerk. Stalin owes nothing to rhetoric. He governs from
his office, thanks to a bureaucracy that obeys his every nod and
gesture.[/quote]
This is a criticism, not a compliment!
HTML https://www.quora.com/What-did-Hitler-and-Stalin-think-of-each-other
[quote]Hitler once summed up Stalin brilliantly: “Stalin started
out as a desk clerk and he is still a desk clerk.” [b]What he
meant, of course, is that Stalin thought and acted like a
mediocre bureaucrat, not a statesman and visionary like
himself.[/b][/quote]
More Hitler quotes that shows Hitler's dislike for Stalin
(rooted in anti-Turanism, not merely anti-communism):
"When Russia barricades herself within her frontiers, it's to
prevent people from leaving the country and making certain
comparisons. That's why Stalin was obliged to introduce
Bolshevism into the Baltic countries, so that his army of
occupation should be deprived of all means of comparison with
another system."
"A people can prove to be well fitted for battle even although
it is ill fitted for civilisation. From the point of view of
their value as combatants, the armies of Genghiz Khan were not
inferior to those of Stalin (provided we take away from
Bolshevism what it owes to the material civilisation of the
West)."
"Stalin pretends to have been the herald of the Bolshevik
revolution. In actual fact, he identifies himself with the
Russia of the Tsars, and he has merely resurrected the tradition
of Pan-Slavism. For him Bolshevism is only a means, a disguise
designed to trick the Germanic and Latin peoples. If we hadn't
seized power in 1933, the wave of the Huns would have broken
over our heads."
"Stalin is half beast, half giant. To the social side of life he
is utterly indifferent. The people can rot, for all he cares."
"Stalin is an anarchist educated in an ecclesiastical college!
Our newspapers ought to ask whether he and Churchill sang psalms
together in Moscow!"
It is only correct to say that Hitler dared not underestimate
Stalin:
"Stalin, too, must command our unconditional respect. In his own
way he is a hell of a fellow! He knows his models, Genghiz Khan
and the others, very well, and the scope of his industrial
planning is exceeded only by our own Four Year Plan."
When Hitler uses the term 'respect', it is in the sense of
viewing Stalin as a serious threat not to be taken lightly, not
in the sense of viewing him as a rolemodel.
[/quote]
In India, we see these clerical pen pushers (mainly Brahmins)
being given decision-making powers due to the colonial
bureaucracy. And we can see the utter failure of governance in
the Indian state. Feudal landowners + mercantilistic oligarchs +
clerical bureaucrats are the ones ruling India. In contrast, the
monarchy limited the power of all three.
#Post#: 25599--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Leftist vs rightist moral circles
By: antihellenistic Date: March 23, 2024, 12:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Militarism during 20th Century
HTML https://youtu.be/pTu6WScR5SY?t=166
#Post#: 26170--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
By: 90sRetroFan Date: April 28, 2024, 5:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2024/04/28/champions-of-judea-on-the-supplanting-of-british-foreign-policy/
[quote]Churchill considered Jews (at least as compared to Arabs)
to be racially superior and strove energetically to enable
Jewish colonisation of Manchester and London as well as of
Palestine. He was born in the ambit of Rothschild, de Hirsch and
Cassel, and was unfailingly loyal to Zionists throughout his
life, serving them with outstanding fervour. He helped bring
about the Balfour Declaration. He repeated Disraeli’s dictum
“The Lord deals with the nations as the nations deal with the
Jews”, claiming the sanction of the Christian deity for Jewish
supremacism. Churchill described his devotion to Zionism bluntly
as “a question of which civilisation you prefer.”[/quote]
Of course this is the exact opposite of Hitler's view. And of
course today's rightists follow Churchill, not Hitler.
[quote]“I’m wholly for Stalin.”96 In March 1938 he told Maisky
that “I am definitely in favour of Stalin’s policy. Stalin is
creating a strong Russia. We need a strong Russia and I wish
Stalin every success.”97 [/quote]
Hitler wanted Russia wiped off the map. Today's rightists also
want a strong Russia, and thus on this count too follow
Churchill, not Hitler.
See also:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/jews-have-nothing-in-common-with-us!/msg23670/#msg23670
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/western-democracy/msg21454/#msg21454
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/nato-(north-atlantic-treaty-organization)/msg24340/#msg24340
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/nato-(north-atlantic-treaty-organization)/msg20745/#msg20745
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/colonialism-as-viewed-by-westerners/msg18895/#msg18895
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/statue-decolonization/msg16323/#msg16323
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/the-'black'-and-'white'-identity-politics-scam/msg14766/#msg14766
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/blood-memory/msg18168/#msg18168
HTML http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/mainstream-admits-churchill-was-defending-western-civilization/
#Post#: 26594--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
By: antihellenistic Date: May 28, 2024, 10:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It was the United States's Democracy that practiced forced
racialist sterilization of the colored people and enhancing
"Nordic Race Superiority," not Hitler
[quote]Throughout the first six decades of the twentieth
century, hundreds of thousands of Americans and untold numbers
of others were not permitted to continue their families by
reproducing. Selected because of their ancestry, national
origin, race or religion, they were forcibly sterilized, wrongly
committed to mental institutions where they died in great
numbers, prohibited from marrying, and sometimes even unmarried
by state bureaucrats. In America, this battle to wipe out whole
ethnic groups was fought not by armies with guns nor by hate
sects at the margins. Rather, this pernicious white-gloved war
was prosecuted by esteemed professors, elite universities,
wealthy industrialists and government officials colluding in a
racist, pseudoscientific movement called eugenics. The purpose:
create a superior Nordic race.
To perpetuate the campaign, widespread academic fraud combined
with almost unlimited corporate philanthropy to establish the
biological rationales for persecution. Employing a hazy amalgam
of guesswork, gossip, falsified information and polysyllabic
academic arrogance, the eugenics movement slowly constructed a
national bureaucratic and juridical infrastructure to cleanse
America of its “unfit.” Specious intelligence tests,
colloquially known as IQ tests, were invented to justify
incarceration of a group labeled “feebleminded.” Often the
so-called feebleminded were just shy, too good-natured to be
taken seriously, or simply spoke the wrong language or were the
wrong color. Mandatory sterilization laws were enacted in some
twenty-seven states to prevent targeted individuals from
reproducing more of their kind. Marriage prohibition laws
proliferated throughout the country to stop race mixing.
Collusive litigation was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, which
sanctified eugenics and its tactics.
The goal was to immediately sterilize fourteen million people in
the United States and millions more worldwide the “lower tenth”
and then continuously eradicate the remaining lowest tenth until
only a pure Nordic super race remained. Ultimately, some 60,000
Americans were coercively sterilized and the total is probably
much higher. No one knows how many marriages were thwarted by
state felony statutes. Although much of the persecution was
simply racism, ethnic hatred and academic elitism, eugenics wore
the mantle of respectable science to mask its true character.
The victims of eugenics were poor urban dwellers and rural
“white trash” from New England to California, immigrants from
across Europe, Blacks, Jews, Mexicans, Native Americans,
epileptics, alcoholics, pettycriminals, the mentally ill and
anyone else who did not resemble the blond and blue-eyed Nordic
ideal the eugenics movement glorified. Eugenics contaminated
many otherwise worthy social, medical and educational causes
from the birth control movement to the development of psychology
to urban sanitation. Psychologists persecuted their patients.
Teachers stigmatized their students. Charitable associations
clamored to send those in need of help to lethal chambers they
hoped would be constructed. Immigration assistance bureaus
connived to send the most needy to sterilization mills. Leaders
of the ophthalmology profession conducted a long and chilling
political campaign to round up and coercively sterilize every
relative of every American with a vision problem. All of this
churned throughout America years before the Third Reich rose in
Germany.
Eugenics targeted all mankind, so of course its scope was
global. American eugenic evangelists spawned similar movements
and practices throughout Europe, Latin America and Asia. Forced
sterilization laws and regimens took root on every continent.
Each local American eugenic ordinance or statute-from Virginia
to Oregon-was promoted internationally as yet another precedent
to be emulated by the international movement. A tightly-knit
network of mainstream medical and eugenical journals,
international meetings and conferences kept the generals and
soldiers of eugenics up to date and armed for their nation’s
next legislative opportunity.
Eventually, America’s eugenic movement spread to Germany as
well,where it caught the fascination of Adolf Hitler and the
Nazi movement. Under Hitler, eugenics careened beyond any
American eugenicist’s dream. National Socialism transduced
America’s quest for a “superior Nordic race” into Hitler’s drive
for an “Aryan master race.” The Nazis were fond of saying
“National Socialism is nothing but applied biology,” and in 1934
the Richmond Times-Dispatch quoted a prominent American
eugenicist as saying, “The Germans are beating us at our own
game.”
Nazi eugenics quickly outpaced American eugenics in both
velocity and ferocity. In the 1930s, Germany assumed the lead in
the international movement. Hitler’s eugenics was backed by
brutal decrees, customdesigned IBM data processing machines,
eugenical courts, mass sterilization mills, concentration camps,
and virulent biological anti- Semitism-all of which enjoyed the
open approval of leading American eugenicists and their
institutions. The cheering quieted, but only reluctantly, when
the United States entered the war in December of 1941. Then, out
of sight of the world, Germany’s eugenic warriors operated
extermination centers. Eventually, Germany’s eugenic madness led
to the Holocaust, the destruction of the Gypsies, the rape of
Poland and the decimation of all Europe.
But none of America’s far-reaching scientific racism would have
risen above ignorant rants without the backing of corporate
philanthropic largess.[/quote]
Source :
War Against the Weak Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a
Master Race page 18 - 20
#Post#: 26603--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
By: antihellenistic Date: May 30, 2024, 7:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It was the United States's Democracy that practiced forced
racialist sterilization of the colored people and enhancing
"Nordic Race Superiority," not Hitler Part 2
[quote]Shoring up his knowledge and enlisting wider consensus,
Davenport traveled to Europe for four months, where he briefly
visited with Galton. The founding eugenicist warned Davenport
that any such effort must be a serious scientific enterprise,
not just “any attempt at showy work, for the sake of mere show.”
Untroubled, Davenport traveled to several European marine life
research centers gathering academic accord for his project.62
Fresh from his European travels, and fortified with the latest
international views on eugenics, Davenport dispatched to the
Carnegie Institution a more detailed letter plus a lengthy
report on the state of human evolution studies to date. The
documents made clear that far reaching American race policy
could not be directed without supportive scientific data based
on breeding experiments with lower species. The results of those
experiments would be applied in broad strokes to humans.
“Improvement of the human race can probably be effected only by
understanding and applying these methods,” he argued. “How
appalling is our ignorance, for example, concerning the effect
of a mixture of races as contrasted with pure breeding; a matter
of infinite importance in a country like ours containing
numerous races and subspecies of men.”63
Davenport hoped to craft a super race of Nordics. “Can we build
a wall high enough around this country,” he asked his
colleagues, “so as to keep out these cheaper races, or will it
be a feeble dam … leaving it to our descendants to abandon the
country to the blacks, browns and yellows and seek and an asylum
in New Zealand.”64
Man was still evolving, he reasoned, and that evolution could
and should be to a higher plane. Carnegie funds could accelerate
and direct that process. “But what are these processes by which
man has evolved,” posited Davenport, “and which we should know …
in hastening his further evolution.” He disputed the value of
improved conditions for those considered genetically inferior.
He readily admitted that with schooling, training and social
benefits, “a person born in the slums can be made a useful man.”
But that usefulness was limited in the evolutionary scheme of
things. No amount of book learning, “finer mental stuff” or
“intellectual accumulation” would transfer to the next
generation, he insisted, adding that “permanent improvement of
the race can only be brought about by breeding the best.”65
Drawing on his belief in raceology, Davenport offered the
Carnegie trustees an example he knew would resonate: “We have in
this country the grave problem of the negro,” he wrote, “a race
whose mental development is, on the average, far below the
average of the Caucasian. Is there a prospect that we may
through the education of the individual produce an improved race
so that we may hope at last that the negro mind shall be as
teachable, as elastic, as original, and as fruitful as the
Caucasian’s? Or must future generations, indefinitely, start
from the same low plane and yield the same meager results? We do
not know; we have no data. Prevailing ‘opinion’ says we must
face the latter alternative. If this were so, it would be best
to export the black race at once.”6[/quote]
Source :
War Against the Weak Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a
Master Race page 78 - 79
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page