The Sea Lion that couldn’t swim

1 Comment

H/T Beyond The Band Of Brothers.

Operation Sea Lion was the Nazi Plan to invade England that they Nazi’s could not have been able to pull off.

The Sea Lion that couldn’t swim
After the fall of France, Hitler turned towards Britain. The defiant nation had to be brought to its knees so the invasion of the Soviet Union could commence without the threat of British attacks in Europe. Hitler would have preferred a British surrender to an actual fight, but had to be ready to follow up on his threats in the middle of the second half of 1940. The plans drawn up for the invasion became known as Unternehmen Seelöwe (Operation Sea Lion). A sea lion is a kind of seal, but the name probably also referred to the lions in the English coat of arms and to the very first version of the plan, called “Operation Lion,” which was described as a river crossing along a wide front.
Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring and other officers gazing across the English Channel
Lacking a unified command for the various branches of the military (like SHAEF HQ for the Allies during the planning of Overlord), the Wehrmacht, the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffehad unrealistic expectations of one another. The Wehrmacht wanted the Luftwaffe to act as aerial artillery in support of the landings and the Kriegsmarine to conduct a landing on a wide front, dropping two entire Army Groups along the coast of Southeast England from Ramsgate to the Isle of Wight. Meanwhile, the Kriegsmarine assumed that the first wave of troops would be able to wait 8-10 days for heavy weaponry, supplies and reinforcements.  The army wanted to cover the beaches in artificial fog to provide cover; the navy didn’t, as it would have made landing maneuvers difficult. As a “compromise,” the army was given the authority to decide whether fog should be deployed but it was the navy’s job to do so, if it was practicable.
Map of Operation Sea Lion
The Luftwaffe was to simultaneously keep the RAF away from the Channel, provide ground support to landing troops, bomb British warships threatening the invasion fleet, bomb railroads to stop British supplies and attack London to make the population flee and jam the roads. This multitasking job was based on the assumption that the RAF only had 200 planes available for combat against the Luftwaffe’s 750 bombers and 600 fighters. In actual fact, the RAF had 672 planes ready for combat in the area.
Testing a modified Panzer III. Such vehicles were waterproofed and were to be released into deep water so they could roll to shore on their own.
The Kriegsmarine was facing even worse odds. At the time, it had 1 capital ship, 1 cruiser, 10 destroyers and 20-30 submarines in the region, facing the Royal Navy’s local force of 5 capital ships, 10 cruisers and 53 destroyers and countless smaller craft that could wreak havoc on the transports. In order to protect the fleet, the Channel was to be closed by submarines in the west (maneuvering in shallow waters and somehow stopping all the fast-moving British warships that were going to approach) and minefields and 14 torpedo boats in the east (against at least 20 destroyers). The Luftwaffe’s help would have been dubious at best: even if they’d had enough planes, they lacked armor-piercing bombs, sufficient aerial torpedoes and had a terrible success rate against ships during the Dunkirk evacuation (which was an easier job, with stationary targets during the embarkation of troops).
Testing a raft intended for use in Sea Lion
An even greater problem was that the German navy didn’t have transports for the invaders. They scraped together 2,400 river barges from all across Europe for the purpose, two-thirds of which had no engines and had to be towed by tugs. These were bolstered by jerry-rigged rafts and pontoons, many of which had a tendency to sink in harbor. The barges were barely seaworthy, only usable in good weather; even then, they could be swamped and sunk by the wash of a destroyer passing by at high speed. Due to their speed of 2-3 knots, troops inside would have had to stay onboard for 30 hours before disembarking to fight.
River barges intended for use in the invasion
The huge but ridiculously fragile fleet was to approach Britain in columns, then wheel around to sail parallel to the coast. All barges were then to simultaneously turn towards the shore and make land in massive lines. This was to be done at night, coordinated by loud hailers. A single exercise was performed with 50 ships in daylight. One barged capsized while turning, another lost its tow and one overturned when the troops all rushed to one side because another vessel came too close. Half the ships failed to get their troops ashore within an hour of the first landing and several hit the shore sideways, unable to lower their ramps.
German troops rehearsing the invasion
Finally, there was the ground component. Infantry landing with nothing but their small arms and grenades were expected to capture defended port cities and establish beachheads. There were only enough life vests for a single wave of attackers at the time, so soldiers were expected to land, remove their combat packs (which were worn over the vests), take off the vests and don their packs again, all the while under enemy fire. And even if they’d done so, the landing barges were instructed to return home immediately, so they wouldn’t have waited for the equipment.
Soldiers boarding rubber dinghies in preparation of an invasion exercise
Similarly, there were no provisions for taking supplies from the beaches to the front further inland, leaving the task to whoever happened to be there. High-ranking members of the command staff were supposed to stay on the continent during the early stages of the invasion, leaving all the decision-making to junior commanders. On the bright side, the first wave was to bring along 4,000 horses – despite not having any heavy equipment to haul.
German soldiers preparing the unloading of an anti-aircraft halftrack
The sweeping consensus of historians is that Sea Lion never had a chance to succeed and the notion was reinforced by a 1974 British military wargame conducted at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. In fact, the same sentiment was shared by a good number of its actual planners. Luftwaffe Commander-in-Chief Hermann Göring, Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt and Grand Admirals Karl Dönitz and Erich Raeder all believed that the invasion had no chance to succeed. We’ll never for sure but it’s possible that Hitler only intended it as a bluff from the beginning to cow Churchill into peace talks. What is known is that in September 1940, three months after the Battle of Britain began to suppress the RAF and prepare the way for Operation Sea Lion, Hitler postponed the invasion indefinitely.
You can learn more about how good and bad plans can decide a war on our many all-inclusive historical tours to Western EuropeEastern Europe and the Pacific throughout 2018 and 2019.

10 Most Chilling Nazi Super Weapons That Hitler Could Have Used To Win WWII

1 Comment

This is from War History OnLine.

We do not understand how advanced the Nazi’s were in research.

The biggest drawback to Nazi super weapons was Adolf Hilter.


Despite this reputation for producing very sophisticated weapons and equipment, the reality was that most Nazi super-weapons were incredibly expensive and in the vast majority of cases totally impractical. Moreover, many of them were also less refined and efficient (‘advanced’) than the experimental devices being tested in the outside world. For example, jetpack technology itself wasn’t rendered workable until 1958 and without an alternative fuel source, still remains impractical today.

Many of the super-heavy tank designs Germany came up with in the later years of the war were extremely large and slow, too expensive to build and operate in numbers, and could still be destroyed or disabled by conventional weaponry. Infantry weapons like the FG-42 or STG-44 made use of concepts that were ahead of their time, but their actual performance was spotty due to unreliable manufacturing circumstances and numerous flaws in the actual details of the designs, negating any advantages they had in the first place. Arthur C. Clarke’s short story, Superiority, succinctly summarizes many of the problems with the Nazis’ approach to the R&D of weapons and equipment.

10. Jet Interceptors That Could Have Blown The Allies Out Of The Sky


In early 1945, scared by the thought of facing the advanced Allied fighter plane, the Gloster Meteor, over Europe, the Nazis began quickly developing more advanced jet interceptors to replace their existing jet fighters. This new generation of Luftwaffe jet planes would, it was hoped, guarantee their dominance in the air.
Two very advanced interceptors were planned at the German’s Focke-Wulf factory. The first was the Super Lorin (a model of this plane is pictured above) and the second was the Ta 283. Fortunately, German engineers had yet to build the prototypes of these jet interceptors when British troops captured the Focke-Wulf factory in 1945.

Also in development by Nazi engineers was the Henschel Hs 132. This strange-looking aircraft had a jet engine mounted on top of the fuselage and was intended to be a lethal combination of dive bomber and interceptor. Luckily, soldiers in the Soviet Army occupied the Henschel factory just as the first version of the Hs 132 was almost ready for flight testing. Even scarier to contemplate, a second version and third version were also being built, with the V2 80% ready and the V3 75% completed for testing.

Had these faster and more agile jet planes made it into the skies over Europe in large numbers, RAF and USAF planes might not have stood much chance. It’s not hard to imagine that the impetus of the Allied advance could have faltered, buying Hitler time to bring yet more powerful weapons into play.

9. Superguns That Were Going To Flatten London

The Nazis already had a couple of massive train-mounted super cannons positioned on the French coast of the Channel, which they used to attack targets up to 29 miles away. These weapons were bad enough, but they were only part of the story.

They planned and actually built superguns capable of striking at other European countries (the prototype is shown above). These superguns used the “multi-charge principle”. Basically, after the projectile was fired, secondary charges of propellant also fired in quick succession to add an incredible amount of velocity to the shell.

The German plan was to use 50 Vergeltungswaffe 3 superguns (called the V-3s) to bombard London from two huge underground bunkers near Mimoyecques in northern France, with the first base’s full arsenal of 25 gun tubes commencing firing in October 1944. Fortunately, Allied bombing raids in July 1944 ended the construction of these superguns using deep-penetration bombs, saving London from even more pounding.

But two similar guns with shorter barrels were finished and they were used to bombard Luxembourg from December 1944 to February 1945. The attacks were not particularly overwhelming: only 10 people were killed and 35 wounded. Due to the collapsing rail network, the Nazis found it hard to get ammunition to the guns and even the size of the projectiles had to be scaled back.

Had the Mimoyecques guns gone into action in 1944, the Nazis would have been in a position to get more and larger ammunition to the guns. And that’s a truly terrible thought to contemplate.

8. VTOL Planes That Could Have Attacked From Anywhere

The Nazis were also developing vertical take-off/landing (VTOL) aircraft decades before the British came up with the Harrier Jump Jet. With these planes, the speed and cheapness of a fixed-wing aircraft would have been combined with the obvious advantages of a helicopter. That main advantage being the aircraft can take off and land without runways.

This VTOL plane, called the Focke-Achgelis Fa 269, was a one-person fighter designed by Heinrich Focke in 1941. The plane had tilting rotors that pointed down for take-off and pivoted to the rear for flight, pushing the craft forward.

Focke-Achgelis got as far as building a full-size model of the craft and demonstrating the VTOL concept. Again, the Allies bombed the project, setting the work back years. The project was postponed indefinitely in 1944 when the manufacturer said a prototype couldn’t be completed before 1947.

Had the factory escaped Allied bombing, VTOL aircraft could possibly have been deployed before the end of the war. Using the ability to land in any medium-sized clear area rather than returning to an airfield, the craft could have been more rapidly refuelled and rearmed, providing the Nazis with a vital tool for quickly attacking advancing Allied troops.

With the constant threat of attack from above by a Luftwaffe craft that could hover and pick its targets, the Allied ground offensive could have been severely slowed down. Assuming Hitler could have found enough fuel for their petrol-guzzling sorties.

7. Jet-Powered Bombers That Were Impossible To Intercept


Superguns weren’t the only highly advanced weapons developed to destroy targets in the British Isles. The Luftwaffe actually starting sending jet-powered bombers on raids over England in the closing days of the war in the European theatre. And the RAF couldn’t scramble fast enough to engage with them.

The plane that caused the RAF so much trouble was the Arado Ar 234, the world’s first fully operational jet bomber. This fearsome aircraft was produced by Germany’s Arado company in 1944 and, thankfully, was only built in very small numbers.

The Luftwaffe used the plane for reconnaissance to begin with, only utilising the aircraft for bombing raids a few times towards the end of hostilities. However, the Arado Ar 234 was virtually impossible to intercept whilst over England, showing just how potentially lethal it could be as a delivery system.

In fact, the Ar 234 was the last Luftwaffe aircraft to fly over English soil, in April 1945.

Be grateful the Nazis didn’t have time or resources to build more of these beasts, because there wasn’t much that could stop them.

6. Sub-Orbital Bombers That Were Going To Attack The USA


The horrific prospect of Nazi bombing raids that couldn’t be intercepted didn’t end with the very real Arado Ar 234, though. The Silbervogel (literally “Silver Bird” in German) was a design proposed by Eugen Sänger and Irene Bredt in the late 1930s for a rocket-powered sub-orbital bomber. This design came under consideration in 1942 for the Amerika Bomber mission, the endeavour to attack the American mainland

Other candidates for the mission were trans-Atlantic range strategic bombers with piston engines, like the Messerschmitt Me 264 and the Junkers Ju 390. Out of these entries, only the Silbervogel was a true glimpse of what future technology would bring: an honest-to-goodness space plane that used the lifting body principle.

An example of a real space plane that used the same ideas was the Space Shuttle, so the Silbervogel was considerably ahead of its time, to say the least. In the end, the space plane was considered too complicated and costly to build, and the plane’s development never got beyond the testing of a model.

The Silbervogel would have been able to cross the Atlantic, deliver a 4,000 kg bomb to the continental USA, and then finish its marathon flight on a Japanese landing strip somewhere in the Pacific. Or, assuming the Nazi project listed in first place on this list had seen fruition, it could have delivered something far worse than a conventional explosive.

5. U-Boats That Could Have Launched V-2 Rockets At New York

The Nazis also had more practical plans for attacking the continental USA. Rather than building one or two space planes, the German Navy devised a more practical and far cheaper means of hitting American cities: they intended to build the first ballistic missile submarine.

Several experiments with firing relatively small rockets from U-Boats had already been conducted with mixed success, but when the V-2 rocket was developed, it occurred to the Nazis that their submarines could be adapted to launch these rockets from positions close to the US coast – placing American cities such as New York well within their range.

Since the V-2 rockets were far too big to fit on a U-Boat, a 500-tonne submersible vehicle that could be towed behind a submarine was designed. The watertight towed vehicle would resemble a large torpedo, with a V-2 hidden inside it. Once the U-Boat was in position, the submersible’s ballast tanks would be flooded to tilt the vehicle into an upright position and the vessel would open up to reveal the rocket.

After the U-Boat’s crew prepared the rocket for launch, the V-2 could be fired remotely from the safety of the U-Boat. Then the submarine could return to port to pick up another rocket.

Despite construction of three of the towed submersibles being ordered towards the end of 1944, the deteriorating situation for the Nazis meant only one was built and the German Navy never had the opportunity to conduct trials. Still, with one prototype actually constructed, this technology got worrying close to being used in combat.

4. The World’s First Stealth Bomber


Whilst launching a few V-2s from submersibles would have achieved very little in the end (the rockets couldn’t be aimed very well), the Nazis did have a plan to drop a much greater tonnage of explosives on American targets with much more precision – a stealth bomber.
Using this highly advanced technology, the attacks would have been more than merely psychological warfare. And a stealth bomber entering US airspace could have proven a lot harder to detect and stop than U-Boats sailing into US waters. The plane that could have posed severe difficulties for Allied aerial defences was Reimar Horten’s Ho 229.

This futuristic aircraft was the first flying wing to use jet engines and the only plane to come close to meeting Luftwaffen Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring’s “3 x 1000″ performance requirements. The extraordinary specifications demanded by Göring were for a plane that could carry 1,000 kg of bombs a distance of 1,000 km with a speed of 1,000 km per hour.

The Ho 229 wasn’t only fast, able to carry a big payload, and capable of covering long distances, it featured an amazing stealth feature designed to befuddle Britain’s Chain Home radar early warning system. Horten mixed charcoal dust into the plane’s wood glue to absorb the radar system’s electromagnetic waves!
Not only that, because the plane was a flying wing, it had less surface area to be picked up by the radar. Even if the radar system had detected the plane’s approach, the unusual signature may not have been correctly identified. And that edge would have given the plane the chance to bomb the radar installations into oblivion, leaving Britain open to attack.

When a replica of the Ho 229 was tested for its stealth capabilities in a 2008 documentary produced by the National Geographic Channel, the results showed that the plane was indeed less visible on the British-style of radar used at the time. About 20% less visible, to be exact. The British would have had about two and a half minutes to respond to the plane’s high-speed attack – and that just wouldn’t have been long enough.
Thank God the Ho 229 wasn’t ready soon enough to be thrown at the British. On a cheerier note, the stealthy bomber would have done less well against American-style radar, which worked differently.

3. Rockets That Could Have Struck The USA And Put Weapons Into Orbit

Hitler didn’t only consider means of bombing North America that used vehicles to deliver the rockets (such as sub-orbital bombers and stealth bombers), he also wanted to build intercontinental ballistic missiles that could hit the USA all by themselves.

These missiles were part of the Aggregat series: rockets designed between 1933 and 1945 by the German army. The most famous rocket in this series was the V-2 (officially called the A4), but there were bigger rockets on the drawing board – monsters that could have allowed Hitler to bomb his enemies with enormous warheads.

The German word “Aggregat” was used to indicate that the rockets used different stages working together to deliver a payload. For example, the A10 featured an A9 rocket mounted atop an A10 booster stage. The A10 would have been large enough to strike at the US mainland from launch sites in Europe – less complicated than a space plane, perhaps, but still an expensive weapon.However, the A12 was intended to be a true orbital rocket. This gargantuan rocket was a four-stage vehicle, able to lift as much as 10 tonnes of payload into a low Earth orbit.

But why were the Nazis interested in intercontinental missiles? Surely conventional warheads could only have delivered psychological damage to the Americans; especially as there could never have been more than a few launches. Even more puzzling, what exactly was Hitler hoping to put into orbit? Read on for the terrifying answers to these question.

2. The Sun Gun That Could Have Burnt Entire Cities To Ash


One weapon Hitler could have been considering launching into orbit was the sun gun, also known as the heliobeam. This theoretical weapon was like something out of a supervillain’s notebook. The space-based weapon was dreamt up by German physicist Hermann Oberth in 1929, half a century before the Star Wars initiative became reality. He planned a space station on which a 100 metre-wide concave mirror could be fitted. This mirror would concentrate sunlight onto a point on the surface of the Earth, burning a swathe of destruction much like the Icarus satellite did in the James Bond film, Die Another Day.

Oberth’s calculations were off, though, and his version couldn’t have worked. However, during World War II, scientists at the German research base in Hillersleben began to rework his idea into something with better maths. They calculated that a huge reflector made out of metallic sodium, with a surface area of 9 square km, could generate enough focused heat to boil an ocean boil or fry a city. During questioning by the Allies, these scientists insisted the sun gun could be completed within only 10 years.
At the time, there would have been almost no way of knocking out the Nazi space station, had it been built, since the Germans were far ahead in rocketry.

1. The Atomic Bomb

Perhaps Hitler was hoping to fit an Atomic bomb to the top of one of his planned intercontinental A12 rockets. If so, his intention was nothing more than a pipe dream.

The Nazis were engaged in a secret nuclear energy project during World War II, trying to make a bomb as well as a nuclear reactor, but this effort was never going to produce results in the same way the Manhattan Project did. Hitler simply didn’t put enough resources into it.

On top of that, scientists who could have helped with the research were conscripted into the army, Luftwaffe, or navy, and their talents were wasted along with their blood. And, of course, the antisemitic political beliefs of the Nazis caused other talented people to flee Germany, not only draining the Third Reich of the brains needed to complete the project but also aiding the Americans who were sometimes the beneficiaries of these defections. All things considered, the one wonder weapon that could have persuaded the Allies to call a halt to their offensives was the very weapon that Hitler never put sufficient effort into.
First published on

July 23, 1944

Leave a comment

Hat Tip To Proud Hillbilly@From the Caer.

These are powerful words.


That would be the date that the forces of the Soviet Union liberated the Majdanek concentration camp near Lublin, Poland, the first of many that they would enter as Nazi Germany fell.  Efforts were made by the Nazis to destroy the evidence of their death camps, but they were forced out so quickly that too much evidence was left behind.  And many in the world were horrified.  Piles of belongings systematically taken from camp victims.  Tons of hair.  Piles of dead.  Walking, empty-eyed skeletons.  Enough evidence that some were hanged after Nuremburg.  Enough that some are still being taken to trial and convicted of crimes 70 years later.

The world had been warned – there had been voices crying in the wilderness.  But by and large the world had ignored the warnings because it could not believe that such a thing was happening.  It could not comprehend the levels of brutality accepted by the Reich and those who, in one way or another, accepted and followed it.   This despite that fact that the Allied countries were themselves not far distant from another evil, slavery, that is born out of and sustained by exactly the same core belief that fueled what became known as the Holocaust.  The belief that some human beings aren’t quite human enough.  And if they aren’t quite human enough some argument can be made for their disposal, their unwilling disposition.

Recently, videos have revealed that Planned Parenthood not only deals in the body parts of aborted human beings but that they can even offer a “less crunchy” method of dismemberment so as to ensure less damage of the body parts they are providing.  Body parts, of course, requiring a fairly advanced level of development.  Human body parts, of course, requiring a human.  None of this surprises me.  Nor would it surprise me if the supporters of Planned Parenthood stopped reading right here.   I can guarantee that Planned Parenthood isn’t the only one trafficking in the body parts of those they kill.  Nor does the cavalier, casual way in which it is discussed between sips of wine and bites of food surprise me.  It’s to be expected.  We’ve seen this over and over in the history of the world.  First, declare someone not quite human.  Then do what you will with them.  With proper rationalization, of course.  See the Wansee Conference for one of many parallels.

Nobody who calls themselves pro-choice can be made uncomfortable by these videos as they are released.  In reality, I don’t believe they will watch them anyway.  To do so might cause discomfort and require serious contemplation and reflection and we are in too much of a mass media, bread and circuses environment for that to happen.  The preference for the comfortable will take priority.  But also there is the fact that if a human being is not being killed in an abortion then there is no more reason to be bothered by it than there is to be bothered by the package of chicken livers that one picks up at the local grocery store.  If it’s not a human being and not your household pet then it’s just meat, no different from the roast or wings housed in a cooler.

If, on the other hand, it is not just meat, then what is it?  No magic happens at some point between conception and birth.  The same chromosomes – half from the mother, half from the father – and the same biology exists for 9 months.  And for every month after.  It’s just a matter of development.  A unique entity appears at conception, first dependent on and nourished by just the mother, then dependent on and nourished by both mother and father.  X and or Y chromosomes combining to form an entity carrying various characteristics of both parents.  Nothing about that changes at any point from the moment of conception to the moment of death.  There is no person alive or dead who can prove that that changes.  The only thing that is proved as time goes on is how amazing a developing human being is.

In order to support abortion under any name, one of two things has to happen.  Either “humaness” has to be denied or it has to be accepted that a human being who has never committed a crime and cannot defend itself can be killed.  And that is the exact pathology that has allowed slavery, lynchings, the Third Reich, and countless other evils to flourish and grow.  It always will.  The pro-choice person is no more than the “good German” who, while perhaps not entirely accepting the extremes of the Reich, accepted that Jews were not quite human and possibly were a problem.  Those people were otherwise kind and giving.  They went to church, they brought a sick neighbor a casserole, they socialized and they looked after one another’s children.  They lived in the proximity of death camps and maybe even made a little money on the side selling produce from their farms for the commandant’s table.  They had a vague feeling that if someone was in Dachau they deserved to be there and then they went about their lives.  Because doing otherwise was unthinkable.  And hard.  The pro-choice person is the Yankee who would never consider owning a slave and yet feels that plantation owners have a right to their own property.

Since not a single pro-choice person can verify the instant a human being magically appears, a pro-choice person, no matter what they say, has to accept that no human being exists until birth.  That particularly onerous opinion does exist in the pro-choice community and is demonstrated in partial birth abortion.  Yet there is zero evidence to support one time or another as far as when a human life begins if it does not begin at conception.  Without anything to back it up, it’s just a matter of personal opinion.  If human life, despite the evidence of biology, only begins at some middle time, then that time is tied to a clock that is tied to  exact instant of conception and to a capability for a measurement of time that we don’t have.  For a pro-choice person, human life isn’t tied to any science – it’s tied to personal feeling.  For human life to be defined at some x along the developmental way, that x has to be defined to the tiniest, most infinitesimal  fraction of time.  An instant on the wrong side of that time and a human being is dead.  In a sane world, this is ludicrous.  In the pro-choice world, it is fine.  A member of a jury is required to only convict when there is no reasonable doubt. A pro-choice person not only convicts but hands out a death sentence thousands of times a day from deep within the shadows of doubt and personal opinion.

And there lies slavery.  There lies the Final Solution. There lies Hutus and Tutsis. There lies the millions dead under Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot.  It is exactly the same evil: insidious, comforting for those that accept it, normalized.  Promoted as progress and freedom.   And funded under the name of the Reich, the Glorious Revolution, Planned Parenthood.  All the born of the same idea – some are not human enough to not be expendable.

I don’t expect anyone who calls themselves pro-choice to have finished reading this.  It will have made them too uncomfortable.  Or, if they do get this far their sense of superiority will be outraged and they will call me names, condemn me.   They are part of a clique, surrounded by waves of media and persons with whom they feel comfortable, and any challenge to that will make them angry and frustrated.  At the very best they will call me divisive.  Many will deride opinions such as mine as stupid, ignorant, anti-woman, etc., because they cannot address the core arguments.  And those who at minimum call me divisive will continue to congregate where they feel safe.  If they contemplate otherwise they run the risk of being themselves called divisive and their comfortable community and the approbation of such as John Stewart are too much to risk for them.

They also have an advantage.  They will never in this life have to look into the eyes of the victims whose deaths they supported and justify themselves.  It’s all very neat and distant and clinically described for the pro-choice community.  After the Ohrdruf labor camp was liberated in April of 1945, General Walton Walker began the practice of making local civilians view the death camps, made them face up to what they had allowed and supported.  Very very few supporters of abortion will ever have to do that in this life.  They will oppose pain capable laws but never, ever interact with a survivor of abortion, despite the fact that there are thousands in this country alone who have survived that horrific, agonizing, and sometimes crippling attempt on their lives.  Those who are pro-choice will never look into the eyes of those survivors and tell them why they had to die, why their lives are a mistake.  That would require integrity and courage.  That would require the admission that the they, those that call themselves pro-choice, are exactly the same as those neatly dressed middle-class citizens who stand looking at a pile of bodies of those who weren’t quite human enough.  That sort of integrity and honesty doesn’t exist in the pro-choice community.  It’s much too frightening.


Offended Muslim Gets Couple Thrown Off Bus For Singing ‘Racist’ Song To Baby

1 Comment

This is from Mad World News.

Would would Winston Churchill say about England rolling over for the Muzzies?

Winston sure as Hell did not roll over for the Nazi’s.

So why roll over now to the puppets of the Nazi’s?

Now the Muzzies are playing the Race Card.


The parents of a 15-month-old autistic baby were riding on a bus when they started singing the theme song from Peppa Pig to keep their child happy during the ride. The couple, Nick Barnfield and Sarah Cleaves, claim they were then aggressively approached by a Muslim woman in a jihab, who began yelling, upset over their song choice.

Offended Muslim Gets Couple Thrown Off Bus For Singing ‘Racist’ Song To Baby

“A lady came up to us and quite aggressively started telling us we were irresponsible parents and that we were being racist singing the song,” Barnfield said.

Offended Muslim Gets Couple Thrown Off Bus For Singing ‘Racist’ Song To BabyThe popular cartoon which features a family of pigs, features a theme song where snorting sounds are made.

The Muslim woman automatically thought the couple was being racist and assumed the song was a reference to Islam, which forbids the eating of pork. Irate, she took up her complaint with the bus driver:

“She went up to the bus driver and told him we were being racist towards her,” Barnfield said. “The driver came up to me and said we had to get off the bus or the police would have to come.”

The couple was extremely humiliated over the whole thing:

“We were really embarrassed, ashamed and upset and we hadn’t done anything wrong- just trying to make our little girl happy. But people were looking at us as if we had done something wrong,” Barnfield said. “He [the driver] just said, ‘Go now, otherwise you’ll hold up all the passengers and no-one will be happy,’” Barnfield added.


An investigation into the incident by the bus company has begun, as the driver disputes the claim that the allegation of racism was a factor in his decision. Brandon Jones, head of external relations at the First bus group in Rotherham, England, said:

“The investigation is ongoing but we have viewed CCTV footage. It does show the customer leaving the bus at the location he describes and it does show a conversation between a lady customer on the bus and the driver, and the driver speaking to the customer. We’re speaking with our driver and with the customer to clarify the circumstances in which they left the bus. At this point I’m not in a position to confirm that they were forced to leave. It is clear they left the vehicle. The driver told us he heard no reference to racism but we are investigating the incident and have not yet drawn a conclusion,” Jones added.”

Absolute insanity, isn’t it? How long before this type of political correctness overtakes America too? With the way things are headed, it won’t be long.

Oh, and for the record, Islam isn’t a race!

[H/T OpposingViews]


Did Jews Go Like Sheep to the Slaughter?

Leave a comment

This is from JPFO.

If I am in the same situation of the Jews in Nazi Germany

I want to die as bravely as Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto

By Nechama Tec. Home / Winter 2013
Article Source

“Partisans In The Forest,” Irene Lieblich, 1923–2008. Courtesy of Mahil Lieblich, © The Estate of Irene Lieblich, 2013.

Invariably, as a frequent lecturer on the Holocaust, I am asked variations of the cliché, Why did Jews go like sheep to the slaughter? Behind this question is a blatantly false assumption that the opportunities to resist were present, but Jews simply failed to take advantage of them mdash; in other words, the victims themselves were partly to blame for their own destruction.

Ironically, the phrase “like sheep to the slaughter” first appeared in the Holocaust context as a call to arms in a 1942 New Year’s Manifesto in which Aba Kovner, a 23-year-old poet and Hashomer Hatzair (Socialist Zionist organization) leader in the Vilna ghetto, called for resistance: “Jews! Defend yourselves with arms! The German and Lithuanian hangmen have arrived at the gates of the ghetto. They have come to murder us! … But we shall not go! We shall not stretch our necks like sheep for the slaughter! Jews! Defend yourself with arms!” (Ghetto in Flames: The Struggle and Destruction of the Jews in Vilna in the Holocaust.)

How did Aba Kovner’s anguished call to stand up to the enemies of the Jews later come to be used to accuse the Jews of participating in their own demise?

One of the early proponents of the view that Jews were somehow complicit in their own destruction was Bruno Bettelheim. A Jewish psychoanalyst from Vienna, he was charged by the Nazis for political transgressions, arrested in 1938, and incarcerated in various concentration camps. A year later, an American benefactor sent him a U.S. immigration visa and he was released.

In 1943, Bettelheim wrote a long article in Abnormal and Social Psychology about his life in the concentration camp. Claiming for himself the role of an objective observer, he emphasized the slave-like docility of concentration camp inmates.

Notably, however, during the time of his incarceration, all concentration camp inmates were being held on charges stemming from alleged political and/or criminal transgressions. It was not until 1942, three years after Bettelheim’s release, that Jews and other groups were marked for extermination in death factories as part of Hitler’s “Final Solution.”

Bruno Bettelheim

In the early 1960s, Bettelheim returned to the theme that Jews had passively contributed to their own doom. Anne Frank, her family, and the Jews who had shared their hiding place in Amsterdam could, he said, “have provided themselves with a gun or two, had they wished. They could have shot down at least one or two of the ‘green police’ who came for them. There was no surplus of such police. The loss of an SS with every Jew arrested would have noticeably hindered the functioning of the police state. The fate of the Franks would not have been any different because they all died anyway except for Anne’s father, (but)they could have sold their lives dearly instead of walking to their death” (The Informed Heart, Avon, New York, 1960).

Clearly Bettelheim did not understand the insurmountable obstacles Jews faced under Nazi domination in the 1940s. Guns were unattainable. With very few exceptions Jews who sought to purchase weapons failed, and many who tried were murdered in the attempt.

Nonetheless, as a successful psychoanalyst, a talented writer, and someone who had presented himself as a Holocaust survivor, Bruno Bettelheim succeeded in being listened to, and his accusation of Jewish docility became an accepted view.


Another influential writer on the Holocaust was the historian Raoul Hilberg. In his magnum opus, The Destruction of the European Jews (first published in 1961, most recently updated in 2003), Hilberg wrote, “During the catastrophe of 1933–45, the instances of opposition were small and few. Above all, whenever and whichever they occurred, they were actions of last (never first) resort.”

The book’s descriptions of Jewish uprisings are brief, and critical facts do not appear. Ignored are the complexities, such as Jews being denied the means of armed resistance throughout the war. Weapons were scarce, and the Allies were unwilling to help Jews secure them. Successful resistance is contingent on the presence of several conditions, the key component being cooperation with others. Under German occupation, the emerging Jewish leaders searched in vain for cooperative parties, but none took interest in their plight or responded to their pleas for arms.

Effective armed resistance also requires guerillas to be able to vanish and blend into the local population mdash; but having been forced into Jewish ghettos, the vast majority of Jews in Eastern Europe had no place to hide.

Another precondition for successful resistance is effective leadership, and here, too, Eastern European Jewry was at a huge disadvantage. Many Jewish leaders were murdered during the first stage of the German occupation in 1939; only a few of the Judenräte (German-mandated Jewish Councils) wholeheartedly supported the Jewish underground; and most of the underground commanders lacked military experience.

Ignoring these overwhelming obstacles to Jewish armed opposition, Hilberg focused instead on one question: Did Jewish resistance diminish Germany’s overall military power? And to that he answered: When “measured in German casualties [Jewish resistance]shrinks into insignificance.”

By that definition, he was right. Jews were never in a position to undermine or diminish the effectiveness of German military might. But is it appropriate to evaluate Jewish, or, for that matter, any other kinds of resistance, only in military terms? What about the ingenious strategies the Jews were continually devising in order to survive and record the heinous crimes committed by the Nazis and their collaborators? What about spiritual resistance?

Hilberg didn’t even acknowledge that a military defeat of their oppressors was not the resisters’ primary aim. The Jews were fully aware of German superior power, and their own powerlessness. Through opposition, they tried to achieve a certain measure of autonomy, to the point of choosing their way of dying. As Yitzhak Zuckerman, second in command of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, commented, 25 years later: “I don’t think there is any need to analyze the uprising in military terms. This was a war of [fewer] than a thousand people against a mighty army, and no one doubted how it was likely to turn out….If there is a school to study the human spirit, there it should be a major subject. The really important things were inherent in the force shown by Jewish youths, after years of degradation, to rise up against their destroyers and determine what death they would choose: Treblinka or Uprising. I don’t know if there is a standard to measure that” (A Surplus of Memory, 1993).

In short, the goal of the Warsaw Ghetto revolt was not to win a military victory; it was to die fighting.


In 1963, influenced by Hilberg’s writings, the journalist Hannah Arendt published Eichmann in Jerusalem, which, while covering the Eichmann trial, also portrayed the Jews as collaborators in their own destruction. Stating that “undoubtedly the darkest chapter of the whole dark story [the Holocaust]has now been exposed….in all its pathetic and sordid detail by Raoul Hilberg,” she went on to describe the Judenräteas cooperating with the Nazis in the destruction of their own people: “In the Nazi inspired, but not Nazi dictated manifestoes, they issued, we still can sense how they enjoyed their new power.”

Influential as they were, Bettelheim, Hilberg, and Arendt all got it wrong. Bettleheim and Arendt built their cases on hypothetical value judgments and personal views rather than historical fact, and Hilberg took an incomplete and narrow view of Jewish resistance.


What is the truth about Jewish resistance during the Holocaust? While “resistance” conjures up images of combat; in reality, armed confrontations between oppressors and their victims during the war were rare, for the reasons noted above. In general, resistance efforts focused on collecting and disseminating information, forging documents, and accumulating arms where possible. The few national armed uprisings that did occur mdash; such as the 1944 revolt in Paris, when the Allies were already at the gates; and the August 1944 Warsaw uprising, which ended with the destruction of the city and the estimated death of 200,000 Poles mdash; occurred late in the war, when the Allied victory was imminent.

In my view, the unprecedented oppression of the Jews led to equally unprecedented forms of resistance, such as gemilut chasadim, acts of kindness. One example: On September 23, 1943, the day the final liquidation of the Vilna ghetto began, the population was divided by age and sex; however, older men were thrown into a group of older women and women with children. Dina Abramovicz, then a teenager, was watching from afar as her elderly mother struggled with oversized bundles. Suddenly, the Nazis pushed a teacher she knew into the group of older women and children because he walked on crutches. Faced with having to climb a hill along with the crowd, the teacher looked around imploringly, as if asking for help. Dina tells what happened next:

“Someone responded to his pleading and it was my mother. She put down all her bundles and took the arm of the crippled man, who leaned heavily on her. As they moved toward the steep hill together mdash; the tall, crippled man and the elderly, frail woman mdash; their faces glowed with a sublime light mdash; the light of compassion and humanity that overcame the horror of their destiny. This is the light in which I remember my mother and which will not disappear from my memory as long as I live.”

In the extreme environment of the concentration camp, resistance also often took the form of personal risks to support a newly made friend. A true story: Two young girls in Auschwitz became close friends. One of them developed a violent cough, and a kapo insisted she be moved to the Auschwitz medical ward, from which few returned alive. The healthy friend visited her every day after work, risking illness and being interned in the medical ward herself. Occasionally she would bring her friend water or a little slice of bread.

One day after work, she noticed a raspberry bush next to the road and was filled with the desire to bring the fruit to her friend. Knowing that if the Germans found out it would be confiscated and she would likely be murdered, she nonetheless gently placed the fruit into her closed palm in a leaf and then rushed to her friend with the news that she had a surprise. The raspberries, however, clutched tightly in her hand, had become a paste. Nevertheless, when the sick young girl saw what was in her friend’s open palm, her face lit up with happiness. Such a gesture of kindness, an act of spiritual resistance, proved to each girl that she was not alone and rekindled her hope in humanity.

In examining the actions of the Jews during the Holocaust, it is important to view them in the appropriate context. The Holocaust scholar and survivor of the Lód’z Ghetto and Auschwitz Lucjan Dobroszicki reminds us of this when he asks: “Has anyone seen an army without arms? An army scattered over 200 isolated ghettos? An army of infants, old people, the sick? Armies whose soldiers are denied even the right to surrender?”

Equally important, we must not limit ourselves to a narrow definition of resistance. The charge that Jews were complicit in their own slaughter rings hollow when Jewish resistance is more broadly defined to include armed resistance, simple acts of kindness, ingenious survival strategies, and the commitment to retain one’s own humanity in the face of overwhelming evil.

Nechama Tec is professor emerita of Sociology, University of Connecticut, Stamford, and author of several books on the Holocaust, including the bestselling Defiance. This article is adapted from Resistance, published in June 2013 by Oxford University Press.

NYS goes full on Nazi; SAFE act to encourage people to inform on neighbors if they have too many bullets


This is from Bullets First.

I am sure Hitler and Himmler are celebrating in their

corner of Hell.

I have no doubt Stalin and Chairman Mao are celebrating.

One more reason to avoid the state of New York. 


Fuhrer Cuomo has goosestepped his way even further down the path that leads to a freedom-less tyrannical autocracy.

Apparently Cuomo fashions himself as a modern day Hitler.

Yeah…how’s that for some bombastic opening sentences.

Calling someone Hitler or a Nazi has long been a pastime of liberals who find themselves unable to cognitively refute a person with a different ideology.

They toss it around so much that it has become cliche.  I’m not doing that.  Rather, I am pointing out how the methods of the Third Reich are being implemented as we speak in the Empire State under the watch of one Andrew Cuomo.

Changing the rules in order to ram the SAFE Act down the throats of New Yorkers before they had time to voice dissent is one thing.

Enacting a program where, in order to enforce the SAFE Act, you are encouraging neighbors to inform on neighbors anonymously is something that hearkens back to the dark time of Germany.


We all have this idea that the Gestapo, Germany’s secret police, were everywhere and that it was they who ferreted out the Jews and Gays and dissenters.  Yet research done by History Prof. Robert Gellately at FSU , whose expertise deals with the Holocaust and Nazi Germany sheds new light on the myth that the secret police was as omnipresent as the movies would make out.

“There were relatively few secret police, and most were just processing the information coming in. I had found a shocking fact. It wasn’t the secret police who were doing this wide-scale surveillance and hiding on every street corner. It was the ordinary German people who were informing on their neighbors.

And despite the myth that the informers were driven either by a love of the Third Reich or fear from authority, Gellately finds a more base motivation behind the actions of those who named names:

But the motives found were banal—greed, jealousy, and petty differences.

Adolf Hitler in Yugoslavia.

Adolf Hitler in Yugoslavia. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Adolf Hitler Wanted you to spy on your neighbors for money

Cases of partners in business turning in associates to gain full ownership; jealous boyfriends informing on rival suitors; neighbors betraying entire families who chronically left shared bathrooms unclean or who occupied desirable apartments.

And then there were those who informed because for the first time in their lives someone in authority would listen to them and value what they said.

What of people saying they didn’t realize what would happen to those they turned in, that they didn’t think the government would act the way they did?  Gellately states:

“If somebody tells you that they lived in Germany during the Holocaust and didn’t know about concentration camps, they are self-delusional, at best.”

Gellately compiled his findings and wrote a book: Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany, 1933-1944

One of the most frightening ways that the Nazi’s were allowed to do this can be seen in the way gun controllers operate today.  Gellately paints a picture in which it is easy to see the similarities:

“They began with small violations of the rights of Jews and other minorities, and then ratcheted up their racism and persecution only when they saw implied consent from the German people.”

So too are these so-called “common sense” gun laws and small infringements just a stepping stone.  If we allow them to take root, the gun controllers will view that as implied consent and will continue to push for more and farther reaching infringements, not only on the 2nd Amendment but on the others as well, such as the ongoing attack on the Fourth Amendment which is also affected by New York’s new, “rat your neighbor out” policy.

Think about it.  You’re neighbor anonymously calls the authority and tells them you have 8 bullets in your magazine instead of 7 (yeah…that’s a crime in NY), what will be the response?

Will the police show up, knock on your door and ask nicely whether it is true?  Or will their response more likely include a no-knock warrant in the middle of the night that will surely cost your family dog its life if not your own?

Not only is this reminiscent of Nazi Germany but even closer to home it’s like the witch hunts of Salem where the accusation is enough to find you pressed to death or burned, drowned or hung.

English: Andrew Cuomo, 11th United States Secr...

English: Andrew Cuomo, 11th United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and 64th New York State Attorney General as a candidate for Governor of New York, outside of City Hall, little American flags on his tie. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Andrew Cuomo wants you to spy on your neighbors for money

So, we have Cuomo encouraging people to spy on and turn in their neighbors for a $500 bounty with no safeguards for the accused, nor any punishment for the accuser should their accusation be without merit.  This situation is so vulnerable to abuse it’s pathetic.  How long before a dispute between neighbors over a property line, or dog crap, or a trees branch ends up with dueling no-knock warrants and tossed houses and shot dogs?

So yeah…I don’t call Cuomo’s regime Nazi-like because I don’t have an artfully intelligent counter to his policies;  I call it Nazi-like because I do.  If it walks like a goose, talks like a goose and encourages neighbors to rat out neighbors like a goose, chances are its a freedom hating goosestepper.


Nazi Gestapo chief ‘buried in Jewish cemetery’

Leave a comment

This is from France 24 International News.

Two things come to mind YGTBSM and WTF.                                                                           

AFP – The head of Hitler’s Gestapo secret police and one of the organisers of the Holocaust, Heinrich Mueller, was buried in a Jewish cemetery in Berlin in 1945, a German newspaper reported Thursday.

For 68 years, the fate of “Gestapo-Mueller” has been unclear but Bild, based on documents found by a historian, said he died at the end of the war and was buried in a common grave in a Jewish cemetery in central Berlin.

“Mueller didn’t survive the end of the war,” the mass circulation newspaper quoted Johannes Tuchel, head of the Memorial to the German Resistance, as saying.

“His body was interred in 1945 in the Jewish cemetery in Berlin-Mitte in a mass grave,” he said.

Mueller was long rumoured to have survived World War II. Bild quoted a German BND foreign intelligence file stating that Mueller was in Carlsbad in the former Czechoslovakia in summer 1949.

But Tuchel told Bild that the secret services were wrong.

“Mueller’s body was already found in August 1945 in a provisional grave near the former Reich’s aviation ministry by a burial commando,” he told Bild.

His body was dressed in a general’s uniform, Tuchel said. “In the inner left breast pocket was, among other things, his service certificate with a photo,” he went on.

Bild also printed a document it said was from the registrar’s office in Berlin-Mitte showing Mueller was buried in the district’s Jewish cemetery.

The leader of Germany’s Jewish community, Dieter Graumann, reacted angrily.

That one of the most brutal Nazi sadists is buried in a Jewish cemetery is a distasteful monstrosity. The memory of the victims is being treated here with contempt,” he told Bild.

Mueller attended the Wannsee Conference at a villa on the outskirts of Berlin in January 1942 at which senior Nazis plotted the “Final Solution”, a plan to exterminate all Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe.



ADOLPH HITLER: The Real Father of Universal Health Care

1 Comment

This is from Clash Daily.

Obamacare closely mirrors some of Hitler’s health care plans.

Obama with his own words supports death panels.

Screen Shot 2013-09-26 at 9.11.40 AM

Otto von Bismarck, the Chancellor of Germany and a dictator in his own right, started socialized healthcare in 1883 with the Reichsversicherungsverordnung or Reich Insurance Act. However, only certain segments of the society were insured at that time. It was Adolf Hitler, who actually imposed socialized healthcare on the entire German population, as a part of nazification of the healthcare industry, and for that reason he should rightly be called the *real* father of universal healthcare. This collective universal healthcare concept was called “racial hygiene.” This is history that people have largely forgotten, because it is inconvenient for many to remember it.

Hitler also literally rolled out, via panzer, his now universal healthcare to occupied France, Belgium and the Netherlands — those countries with mainly “Aryan” populations. Hitler put universal healthcare in place in those very countries that he wished to aryanize and perfect by eliminating physical/mental defects in the populations via sterilization and medical killing.

The point is that universal healthcare gives any Government enormous power that can be misused, if the wrong people are in control, not that it is adminstered the same now as in Nazi Germany. This is too much power to centralize in the hands of the Government, because governments sometimes go bad.

The first mass murders of the Holocaust were carried out in the socialized German hospitals and the techniques for mass murder were developed there. Several hundred thousand handicapped and mentally ill persons were murdered in Hitler’s universal healthcare system. Retarded and mentally ill children were euthanized and the T4 project did the same for handicapped, mentally ill and elderly adults. In his orders permitting medical killing, Hitler called them “mercy killing” and “lives not worth living.” In this way Germany produced great savings in healthcare, not only due to the extermination of existing patients, but many ill persons (and their families) became afraid to even check into the hospitals.

Robert Jay Lifton, author of “The Nazi Doctors, points out that the extermination of the Jews and others of different ethnic groups was itself seen as a medical solution, a medical procedure for the collective healing of the Aryan race by elimination of the Jewish infection of Aryan blood. So, the entire Holocaust can be seen as an extension of Hitlercare. From that point of view, it is estimated that about 10 million people were murdered under Hitlercare, including six millions Jews. The Nazi plan was ultimately to exterminate about 25 million Jews and Slavs in Eastern Europe in fulfillment of the so-called “racial hygiene” principle of the the German universal healthcare system.

Because resources are limited, the concept of Universal Healthcare requires the Government to make decisions on the distribution of healthcare that will determine the survivability of different groups in society. That is, the welfare of the collective and government priorities are placed above that of the rights of any individual.

Once you have given the Government that much power, there is no natural barrier between you and the Holocaust of the Nazis. It is only a matter of degree, of how far they want to take this concept that social welfare trumps individual rights.

This is the inherent evil of universal healthcare. It gives Government the right to decide life and death for entire classes of society, as opposed to individuals contracting for their own healthcare. This is why Hitler liked universal healthcare so much that he imposed it on conquered countries, not because he was so concerned for the well being of the subjected peoples, but because it gave him the right over entire classes of people to decide, who lives and who dies. It gave him the power to engineer the composition of society to his own malicious requirements. Entire classes of people can be killed — or, allowed to die — with no judicial process being necessary. (This is death panels on steroids.)

This is also the reason that Obama and others in the Government want universal healthcare so desperately. The socialist elite need to be able to ignore the rights of the individual to engineer their new utopian society. For that purpose, the same kind of centrally-controlled healthcare system that Hitler used is required.



Who’s a Fascist? A Checklist

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

This is offered without comment.


Who's a Fascist? A Checklist


Liberals like to toss around words they’ve heard in movies or on Bill Maher’s show without having a clue to their meaning. Take the word “fascist,” a favorite of frustrated liberals when they’ve hit an intellectual dead-end in an argument against a conservative — so usually about three seconds into it.

A fascist, of course, is a supporter of fascism, a word which has its root in the Latin “fasces,” a symbol of Roman imperial authority that consisted of a bundle of wooden rods with an ax head protruding.

Historically, fascist governments include the Axis nations in World War II, along with countries like Greece, Spain, Brazil and Croatia around the same period. In 1933, according to testimony from Gen. Smedley Butler, there was a plot by fascist sympathizers in American big business circles to carry out a coup against President Franklin Roosevelt.

What is fascism, though? Skip right past the online definitions that equate fascism with American conservatism and look at a reliable source like Merriam-Webster, which states that fascism is “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”

Let’s break that down and see who’s really a fascist: Exalts nation and often race above the individual — Remember “you didn’t build that”? How about “spread the wealth around”? Or, “if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon” followed by dead silence when it was a white child being beaten on a school bus by three black children?

The Administration is famous for its favoritism toward blacks and Muslims. And it definitely has a low regard for individual freedoms. Stands for a centralized autocratic government — Obamacare, expansion of the IRS, militarization of the Department of Homeland Security, drones in American air space, NSA spying, warrantless searches, suing states that want the border closed … need we go on?

Headed by a dictatorial leader — failed congressional bills being essentially passed by executive order or by agencies  creating unscrutinized “rules” changes. A dictator operates outside the laws of the country. President Obama bypasses constitutional procedure and the separation of powers on a regular basis.

Severe economic and social regimentation — bailouts for the select supporters of the Administration, regulation by rules and lawsuits for others. Don’t forget the tremendous cost increases being imposed by Obamacare and by the Administration’s “green” fetish. Government meddling exists at all levels of life, all the way down to your child’s school lessons and lunches.

This Administration is forcing gay marriage, abortion and other liberal social experiments down America’s throat while dividing the country by race and widening the gap between rich and poor. Forcible suppression of opposition — It’s wiretaps, IRS investigations and threats all around, not to mention stories about individuals being held against their will in jail or in mental hospitals.

This Administration lives every day hoping for a good excuse to shut down Fox News, pull the plug on Rush Limbaugh and toss Tea Partiers in a  cell somewhere. And if that doesn’t persuade you, just look at who our Administration is supporting in Egypt — the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna and quickly became allied with the Nazis, whom al-Banna admired.

During World War II, the Brotherhood engaged in espionage, sabotage and terrorism on behalf of the Nazi regime. Brotherhood recruits’ training included having to read Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. During the current clashes, the Brotherhood is targeting Christian churches and businesses.

This week, Brotherhood supporters paraded nuns through a mob as “prisoners of war,” attempted to gang rape two Christian girls after burning their church, marked Christian businesses with black crosses for burning, and  blamed Christians for deaths across Egypt of Brotherhood members. Our country is on the brink. One push could send it tumbling into the same nightmare Germany experienced in World War II.



The Chilling History of How Hollywood Helped Hitler (Exclusive)

1 Comment

This is from The Hollywood Reporter.

Even is the area of The Golden Age of Hollywood it was filled by

Leftist Loons and Nazi sympathizers.

The more things change they stay the same in Hollyweird.

2013 Issue 27: How Hollywood Helped HitlerIn devastating detail, an excerpt from a controversial new book reveals how the big studios, desperate to protect German business, let Nazis censor scripts, remove credits from Jews, get movies stopped and even force one MGM executive to divorce his Jewish wife.

This story first appeared in the Aug. 9 issue of The Hollywood Reportermagazine.

The 1930s are celebrated as one of Hollywood’s golden ages, but in an exclusive excerpt from his controversial new book, The Collaboration: Hollywood’s Pact with Hitler (Harvard University Press, on sale Sept. 9), Harvard post-doctoral fellow Ben Urwand uncovers a darker side to Hollywood’s past.

Drawing on a wealth of archival documents in the U.S. and Germany, he reveals the shocking extent to which Hollywood cooperated and collaborated with the Nazis during the decade leading up to World War II to protect its business.

Indeed, “collaboration” (and its German translation, Zusammenarbeit) is a word that appears regularly in the correspondence between studio officials and the Nazis. Although the word is fraught with meaning to modern ears, its everyday use at the time underscored the eagerness of both sides to smooth away their differences to preserve commerce.

PHOTOS: Hitler’s Hollywood: The Films Nazis Loved and Hated

The Nazis threatened to exclude American movies — more than 250 played in Germany after Hitler took power in 1933 — unless the studios cooperated. Before World War I, the German market had been the world’s second largest, and even though it had shrunk during the Great Depression, the studios believed it would bounce back and worried that if they left, they would never be able to return.

Beginning with wholesale changes made to Universal’s 1930 release All Quiet on the Western Front, Hollywood regularly ran scripts and finished movies by German officials for approval. When they objected to scenes or dialogue they thought made Germany look bad, criticized the Nazis or dwelled on the mistreatment of Jews, the studios would accommodate them — and make cuts in the American versions as well as those shown elsewhere in the world.

It was not only scenes: Nazi pressure managed to kill whole projects critical of the rise of AdolfHitler. Indeed, Hollywood would not make an important anti-Nazi film until 1940. Hitler was obsessed with the propaganda power of film, and the Nazis actively promoted American movies like 1937’s Captains Courageous that they thought showcased Aryan values.

Historians have long known about American companies such as IBM and General Motors that did business in Germany into the late 1930s, but the cultural power of movies — their ability to shape what people think — makes Hollywood’s cooperation with the Nazis a particularly important and chilling moment in history. — Andy Lewis  

VIDEO: Author Ben Urwand Talks ‘Hollywood and Hitler’

‘Victory Is Ours’

On Friday, Dec. 5, 1930, a crowd of Nazis in Berlin seized on an unusual target: the Hollywood movieAll Quiet on the Western Front. Recognized in most countries as a document of the horrors of the First World War, in Germany it was seen as a painful and offensive reenactment of the German defeat.

The Nazis, who had recently increased their representation in the Reichstag from 12 to 107 seats, took advantage of the national indignation toward All Quiet on the Western Front. They purchased about 300 tickets for the first public screening, and as they watched the German troops retreat from the French, they shouted: “German soldiers had courage. It’s a disgrace that such an insulting film was made in America!” Because of the disruptions, the projectionist was forced to switch off the film. Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels gave a speech from the front row of the balcony in which he claimed that the film was an attempt to destroy Germany’s image. His comrades threw stink bombs and released mice into the crowd. Everyone rushed for the exits, and the theater was placed under guard.

The Nazis’ actions met with significant popular approval. The situation came to a climax Dec. 11, when the highest censorship board in Germany convened to determine the fate of the film. After a long discussion, the chairman of the board issued a ban: Whereas the French soldiers went to their deaths quietly and bravely, the German soldiers howled and shrieked with fear. The film was not an honest representation of German defeat — of course the public had reacted disapprovingly. Regardless of one’s political affiliation, the picture offended a whole generation of Germans who had suffered through the War.

And so, six days after the protests in Berlin, All Quiet on the Western Front was removed from screens in Germany. “Victory is ours!” Goebbels’ newspaper proclaimed. “We have forced them to their knees!”

STORY: How Jack Warner Tried to Crush the Postwar German Film Industry (Book Excerpt)

In Hollywood, the president of Universal PicturesCarl Laemmle, was troubled by the controversy surrounding his picture. He was born in Germany, and he wanted All Quiet on the Western Front to be shown there. According to one representative, his company had “lost a fine potential business, for the film would have been a tremendous financial success in Germany if it could have run undisturbed.”

In August 1931, Laemmle came up with a heavily edited version of the movie that he was convinced would not offend the German Foreign Office. He made a trip to Europe to promote the new version. The Foreign Office soon agreed to support All Quiet on the Western Front for general screening in Germany, under one condition: Laemmle would have to tell Universal’s branches in the rest of the world to make the same cuts to all copies of the film. Late in the summer, Laemmle agreed to cooperate with the request.

As months passed, however, Laemmle, who was Jewish, grew worried about something much more important than the fate of his film. “I am almost certain,” he wrote in early 1932, “that [Adolf] Hitler’s rise to power … would be the signal for a general physical onslaught on many thousands of defenseless Jewish men, women and children.” He convinced American officials that he could provide for individual Jews, and by the time of his death in 1939, he had helped get at least 300 people out of Germany.

And yet at precisely the moment he was embarking on this crusade, his employees at Universal were following the orders of the German government. In the first few months of 1932, the Foreign Office discovered unedited versions of All Quiet on the Western Front playing in El Salvador and Spain. The company apologized. Afterward, there were no more complaints; Universal had made the requested cuts all around the world.

The following year, Laemmle made another concession to the Foreign Office: He postponed The Road Back, the sequel to All Quiet on the Western Front. His son, Carl Laemmle Jr., also agreed to change many pictures in Germany’s favor. “Naturally,” the Foreign Office noted, “Universal’s interest in collaboration [Zusammenarbeit] is not platonic but is motivated by the company’s concern for the well-being of its Berlin branch and for the German market.”

PHOTOS: Hitler’s Hollywood: The Films Nazis Loved and Hated

Throughout the 1930s, the term “collaboration” was used repeatedly to describe dealings that took place in Hollywood. Even studio heads adopted the term. An executive at RKO promised that whenever he made a film involving Germany, he would work “in close collaboration” with the local consul general. A Fox executive said the same. Even United Artists offered “the closest collaboration” if the German government did not punish the studio for the controversial 1930 air combat movie Hell’s Angels. According to the Foreign Office, “Every time that this collaboration was achieved, the parties involved found it to be both helpful and pleasant.”

All this was a result of the Nazis’ actions against All Quiet on the Western Front. Soon every studio started making deep concessions to the German government, and when Hitler came to power in January 1933, they dealt with his representatives directly.

The most important German representative in the whole arrangement was a diplomat named Georg Gyssling, who had been a Nazi since 1931. He became the German consul in Los Angeles in 1933, and he consciously set out to police the American film industry. His main strategy was to threaten the American studios with a section of the German film regulations known as “Article 15.” According to this law, if a company distributed an anti-German picture anywhere in the world, then all its movies could be banned in Germany. Article 15 proved to be a very effective way of regulating the American film industry as the Foreign Office, with its vast network of consulates and embassies, could easily detect whether an offensive picture was in circulation anywhere around the world.

The Mad Dog of Europe

In May 1933, a Hollywood screenwriter named Herman J. Mankiewicz‚ the man who would later write Citizen Kane, had a promising idea. He was aware of the treatment of the Jews in Germany and he thought, “Why not put it on the screen?” Very quickly, he penned a play entitled The Mad Dog of Europe, which he sent to his friend Sam Jaffe, a producer at RKO. Jaffe was so taken with the idea that he bought the rights and quit his job. Jaffe, who, like Mankiewicz, was Jewish, planned to assemble a great Hollywood cast and devote all his energies to a picture that would shake the entire world.

Of course, various forces had been put in place to prevent a picture like this from ever being made. First and foremost was Gyssling. Up to this point, he had only invoked Article 15 against pictures that disparaged the German army during the World War. The Mad Dog of Europe was infinitely more threatening: It attacked the present German regime.

Gyssling was unable to use Article 15 against The Mad Dog of Europe for the simple reason that the independent company producing the picture did not do business in Germany. He was left with only one option: Inform the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association of America (popularly known as the Hays Office), which regulated movie sex and violence for Hollywood, that if the movie were made then the Nazis might ban all American movies in Germany.

The Hays Office reacted quickly. Will Hays, the organization’s president, met with Jaffe and Mankiewicz. He accused them of selecting a “scarehead” situation for the picture, which, if made, might return them a tremendous profit while creating heavy losses for the industry. Jaffe and Mankiewicz said they would proceed despite any ban that Hays might attempt.

STORY: Competing Scholar Challenges Ben Urwand’s ‘The Collaboration’

Hays needed to adopt a different approach. He asked his representative, Joseph Breen, to reach out to the advisory council for the Anti-Defamation League in Los Angeles. The advisory council read the script and felt that the direct references to Hitler and Nazi Germany might provoke an anti-Semitic reaction in the United States. But “if modified so as to apparently have reference to a fictitious country, and if the propaganda elements … were made more subtle … the film would be a most effective means of arousing the general public to the major implications of Hitlerism.”

Even if the script were toned down, the Anti-Defamation League suspected that the Hays Office would object to the film because the major Hollywood studios were still doing business in Germany. Nobody in the ADL group knew exactly how much business was being done. Some imagined that Germany was banning films starring Jewish actors; others thought that Germany was banning entire “companies supposed to be controlled by Jews.” Nobody had the slightest idea that the Nazis were actually facilitating the distribution of American movies in Germany.

The Anti-Defamation League decided to carry out a test: It asked a well-known screenwriter to prepare an outline of The Mad Dog of Europe that contained none of the obvious objections. This scriptwriter then submitted the outline to three different agents, and without any hesitation, they all told him the same thing: “It was no use submitting any story along this line as the major studios had put ‘thumbs down’ on any films of this kind.”

Eventually, Jaffe gave up his plans and sold the rights to The Mad Dog of Europe to well-known agentAl Rosen. And when the Hays Office urged Rosen to abandon the picture, Rosen accused the Hays Office of malicious interference and issued a remarkable statement to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency claiming “on good authority” that Nazi officials were trying to stop the picture. He scoffed at the idea that the picture would provoke further anti-Semitism.

Over the next seven months — from November 1933 to June 1934 — Rosen continued to work on the film, but he failed to convince Hollywood executives to pour money into the project. Louis B. Mayer told him that no picture would be made: “We have interests in Germany; I represent the picture industry here in Hollywood; we have exchanges there; we have terrific income in Germany and, as far as I am concerned, this picture will never be made.”

And so The Mad Dog of Europe was never turned into a motion picture. The episode turned out to be the most important moment in all of Hollywood’s dealings with Nazi Germany. It occurred in the first year of Hitler’s rise to power, and it defined the limits of American movies for the remainder of the decade.


In 1936, the studios started to encounter major censorship difficulties in Germany. Nazi censors rejected dozens of American films, sometimes giving vague reasons, sometimes giving no reasons at all. The smaller companies had all left Germany by this point, and only the three largest companies — MGM, Paramount and 20th Century Fox — remained. By the middle of the year, these three companies had managed to have a combined total of only eight pictures accepted by the censors, when they really needed 10 or 12 each just to break even.

The studios were faced with a difficult decision: continue doing business in Germany under unfavorable conditions or leave Germany and turn the Nazis into the greatest screen villains of all time. On July 22, MGM announced that it would bow out of Germany if the other two remaining companies, Paramount and 20th Century Fox, would do the same.

Paramount and Fox said no. Even though they were not making any money in Germany (Paramount announced a net loss of $580 for 1936), they still considered the German market to be a valuable investment. They had been there for years. Despite the difficult business conditions, their movies were still extremely popular. If they remained in Germany a while longer, their investment might once again yield excellent profits. If they left they might never be permitted to return.

Over the next few years, the studios actively cultivated personal contacts with prominent Nazis. In 1937, Paramount chose a new manager for its German branch: Paul Thiefes, a member of the Nazi Party. The head of MGM in Germany, Frits Strengholt, divorced his Jewish wife at the request of the Propaganda Ministry. She ended up in a concentration camp.

The studios also adopted new tactics. When Give Us This Night and The General Died at Dawn were banned, Paramount wrote to the Propaganda Ministry and speculated on what was objectionable in each case. Give Us This Night was scored by a Jewish composer, so the studio offered to dub in music by a German composer instead. The General Died at Dawn had been directed by Lewis Milestone,who had also directed All Quiet on the Western Front, so the studio offered to slash his name from the credits.

In January 1938, the Berlin branch of 20th Century Fox sent a letter directly to Hitler’s office: “We would be very grateful if you could provide us with a note from the Führer in which he expresses his opinion of the value and effect of American films in Germany. We ask you for your kind support in this matter, and we would be grateful if you could just send us a brief notification of whether our request will be granted by the Führer. Heil Hitler!” Four days later, 20th Century Fox received a reply: “The Führer has heretofore refused in principle to provide these kinds of judgments.”

In April 1936, Laemmle lost control of Universal Pictures to the American financier and sportsmanJohn Cheever Cowdin, who revived All Quiet on the Western Front sequel The Road Back. “When this story originally came in four or five years ago,” a Universal employee explained to the Hays Office, “we were loath to produce … solely due to the jeopardy in which its production would have placed our German business. … [S]ince then the situation with regard to the American Film Industry has completely changed and we are now ready and anxious to produce this story.”

Despite this proclamation, Universal had not lost interest in Germany. In February 1937, Cowdin traveled to Berlin, and according to U.S. ambassador William E. Dodd, he made an “unusual offer” to the Nazis. “The company in question was previously controlled by Jewish interests but after recent reorganization, it is understood that it is now non-Jewish,” wrote Dodd, “[and after] discussions with government officials … a plan was considered whereby, probably in collaboration with German interests, his company might re-enter the German market.”

On April 1, 1937, Gyssling made his boldest move yet. He sent letters to about 60 people involved inThe Road Back — the director, the cast, even the wardrobe man — and he warned them that any films in which they participated in the future might be banned in Germany. The move created an uproar. Gyssling had directly threatened American film workers for their activities on home soil. He had used the U.S. Postal Service to frighten and intimidate individuals. Universal told everyone to keep the matter a secret, but the news leaked out. Several actors sought out legal advice; complaints were lodged with the State Department. One member of the Hays Office hoped that Gyssling would finally be expelled “on account of his viciousness.”

STORY: The Berlin Hotel Where Hollywood Sleeps — and Hitler Did Too

The matter was considered at the highest level. A representative of the secretary of state met with the counselor of the German embassy and pointed out that such actions did not fall within the proper functions of a consular officer. He did not want to lodge an official complaint; he simply asked the counselor to bring the matter up with the German government.

In the meantime, Universal Pictures made 21 cuts to The Road Back. By this stage, there was hardly anything in the film to which the ambassador could object. So many scenes had been cut out that the plot barely made any sense. The ending, which had criticized the rise of militarism in Germany, now criticized the rise of militarism all around the world. But the Nazis would not allow the company back into Germany.

For Gyssling, the news was less bleak. The German Foreign Office sent a brief, unapologetic letter to the State Department to explain that the consul in Los Angeles had been instructed not to issue future warnings to American citizens. As a result, the State Department considered the matter closed.

In all of these dealings with the Hollywood studios, Gyssling was doing something very strategic. He was objecting to a series of films about the World War when his real target lay elsewhere. Ever since he had heard about The Mad Dog of Europe, he had understood that Hollywood was capable of producing a much more damaging type of film from his perspective: a film that attacked Nazi Germany. His reaction to The Road Back was carefully calculated. He was focusing his energies on the films set in the past in an attempt to prevent the studios from moving into the present.

In April 1937, the final volume of Erich Maria Remarque‘s trilogy, Three Comrades, which was prime Hollywood material, was published in the United States. Whereas All Quiet on the Western Front had been about the World War and The Road Back had been about its aftermath, Three Comrades was set in the late 1920s, when the Nazis were emerging as a significant political force. The MGM producer Joseph L. Mankiewicz (brother of Herman) hired none other than F. Scott Fitzgerald, who wrote a script that mounted a powerful attack on the rise of Nazism in Germany.

When the Hays Office’s Breen read the new script, he panicked. He had just received a fourth warning from Gyssling about Three Comrades, and he knew exactly what the German consul was capable of. He wrote to Mayer in the strongest possible terms: “This screen adaptation suggests to us enormous difficulty from the standpoint of your company’s distribution business in Germany. … [and] may result in considerable difficulty in Europe for other American producing organizations.”

Despite Breen’s concerns, the shooting of Three Comrades went ahead. Screenwriter Budd Schulberg recalled MGM screened the movie for Gyssling: “There was some films that Louis B. Mayer of MGM would actually run … with the Nazi German consul and was willing to take out the things that the consul, that the Nazi, objected to.” Although Breen did not keep a record of the meeting between Mayer and Gyssling, he was soon in possession of something else: a list of changes that needed to be made to the film. It is very unlikely that Breen came up with the list himself, for he had his own separate set of suggestions (relating to sex, foul language, etc.). In all likelihood this secret document, which contained 10 unusual changes, was the list that Mayer compiled with Gyssling at the end of their screening of Three Comrades.

STORY: Showtime’s ‘The Vatican’ Casts Its Pope: ‘Downfall’s’ Hitler

Breen went through the list in a meeting with several MGM executives. The film needed to be set somewhat earlier, in the two-year period immediately following the end of the World War. “Thus, we will get away from any possible suggestion that we are dealing with Nazi violence or terrorism.” He read out the scenes that needed to be cut, and he pointed out that these cuts could be made without interfering with the romantic plot at the center of the picture. The MGM executives agreed. After all the changes had been made, Three Comrades neither attacked the Nazis nor mentioned the Jews. The picture had been completely sanitized.

From Gyssling’s perspective, the removal of all the offensive elements of Three Comrades was the true benefit of his behavior from the previous year. He had reacted so dramatically to the second film in the trilogy that he had now managed to get his way on the third. And this was no small feat, forThree Comrades would have been the first explicitly anti-Nazi film by an American studio. At this critical historical moment, when a major Hollywood production could have alerted the world to what was going on in Germany, the director did not have the final cut; the Nazis did.

‘Throw Us Out’

The collaboration between Hollywood and the Nazis lasted well into 1940. Though Warner Bros. released Confessions of a Nazi Spy in 1939, this B-picture had no effect on the studios still operating in Germany. MGM, Paramount and 20th Century Fox kept doing business with the Nazis, and MGM even donated 11 of its films to help with the German war relief effort after the Nazis invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939.

As the war continued, the studios found it virtually impossible to distribute their pictures in England and France, two of their largest sources of foreign revenue. In this context, they were less concerned with the relatively minor German market. MGM soon embarked on its first anti-Nazi picture The Mortal Storm, and 20th Century Fox began work on Four Sons. The Nazis responded by invoking Article 15 and by September 1940, both had been expelled from German-occupied territory.

In the year that followed, the studios released only a handful of anti-Nazi movies because of another, very different political force: the American isolationists. The isolationists accused Hollywood of making propaganda designed to draw the United States into the European war, and in the fall of 1941, Congress investigated this charge in a series of hearings. The most dramatic moment came when the head of 20th Century Fox, Darryl F. Zanuck, gave a rousing defense of Hollywood: “I look back and recall pictures so strong and powerful that they sold the American way of life, not only to America but to the entire world. They sold it so strongly that when dictators took over Italy and Germany, what did Hitler and his flunky, Mussolini, do? The first thing they did was to ban our pictures, throw us out. They wanted no part of the American way of life.”

In the thunderous applause that followed, no one pointed out that Zanuck’s own studio had been doing business with the Nazis just the previous year.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: