HOME PAGE

All Articles

Cool Graphics

Comments

Books

Who Rules America?

Revolution

Is vs. Ought

Current World Events

The So-called "War on Terror"

9/11

Palestine & Israel

Culture & Values

Education

Work

Health Care

Science:

Global Climate Change

World Population

Peak Oil?

HIV/AIDS

----------

Contact or Donate to Us

New Democracy's Core Beliefs

Speakers

 

printer-friendly version

www.NewDemocracyWorld.org

The Myth of German Villainy by Benton L. Bradberry--a Book Review

by John Spritzler

October 4, 2016

Facts are curious things; they don't come with tags on them saying how to correctly interpret them or what their significance is. Another curious thing about facts is that the same fact can be cited as evidence for two very different--indeed mutually contradictory--world views. If one keeps firmly in mind these curious facts about facts, then one can learn a great deal from this very interesting book. But if one is intellectually lazy and simply adopts the wrongheaded world view of the author, then one will be led into an intellectual swamp.

The over-arching world view of the author can be seen in these statements of his:

"At the beginning of the twentieth century, the white race dominated the world."

"...International Jewry was the primary winner of the war [WWII]" [emphasis in the original]

The author, Benton L. Bradberry, makes it quite clear that he believes the world was essentially good at the beginning of the twentieth century precisely because it was dominated by the "white race." Bradberry throughout his book equates "the white race" with "Western Christian Civilization."

Bradberry argues that "International Jewry" was hostile to "Western Christian Civilization" and that this is the framework with which to assess the significance of the many alleged facts that he presents in his book--some of which I am inclined (based on my independent reading) to believe to be true or at least very plausibly true.

Before looking at some of the interesting alleged facts in this book (listed below), let's see what's wrong with the book's world view (or framework).

To say that the "white race dominated the world" at the beginning of the twentieth century is to dismiss as irrelevant--of no significance, of no concern--facts such as this one about the malnutrition of white working class British "world dominators" on the eve of World War I:

"The Boer War recruitment process at the beginning of the twentieth century demonstrated that much of the British working class was under-nourished, given that approximately one-third of volunteers were deemed unfit to serve, mainly because of factors related to poor diet. Major-General Sir Frederick Maurice, took a particularly bleak view of the experience, commenting that it demonstrated that the physical state of the nation was 'af far more deadly peril than any that was presented by the most anxious period of the South African War'. The stature and health of many of the working-class volunteers reflected a diet that relied heavily on bread and jam, rather than bone-building fats and proteins. Indeed, the prospect of regular and plentiful food may have been an incentive for some of the volunteers, an opportunity to satisfy a hunger that was as much physical as it was patriotic. Certainly for the hungrier men, the First World War Recruiting Sergeants' promise to the inhabitants of the Salford slums of the unparalleled treat of 'meat every day!' was seductive."

Any world view that can blithly choose to use the category "white race" to denote who dominates the world, when the vast majority of people included in that category are clearly far more dominated than dominating, and when only a very tiny number of people in that category (the upper class) could be called "world dominators," is as wrongheaded a world view as one can possibly imagine.

Here's a fact about some people in the category of "International Jewry." An article titled "Tens of thousands of Israeli Holocaust survivors are living in abject poverty" reports:

"As the world marks Holocaust Memorial Day, a generation whose childhood was taken by the Nazis is spending its final years struggling with hunger, cold and homelessness.

"Isaac walks a shuffling path through the valley of rotting newspapers and piled-up rubbish bags that swamp his small kitchen. Despite the January cold he wears sandals as he picks his way through the squalor to the toilet. Awaiting him there is a bath with no hot water and a small sink that is black with rot and mold. The crumbling flat in Ramat Gan, near Tel Aviv, has no oven and the 79-year-old subsists mainly off crisps, raw vegetables and powdered soup made with an electric kettle. It is a sad and stark situation for an old man whose earliest memories are hiding from the Nazis in cellar beneath a Ukrainian pigsty, cramped in with ten other frightened Jews as they waited for rsecue or for death.

"A survey in 2015 found that of the roughly 189,000 Holocaust survivors living in Israel, about 45,000 are in poverty. In the two other major population centers for survivors - New York City and the countries of the former Soviet Union - the rates of destitution are even worse."

A world view that asserts that "International Jewry" (a category that includes these piteous Holocaust survivors) was the primary winner of World War II, just because a very small number of people in that category (such as the billionaires and generals and politicians who are today's ruling class of Israel) can indeed be considered some of the winners of World War II, is simply wrongheaded.

Bradberry's book has a lot of interesting alleged facts--facts (if that is indeed what they are) that we don't learn in our schools or from our media, that's for sure! Some of these alleged facts are presented below. But first, keep in mind that Bradberry's world view can incorporate and "explain" these alleged facts only by frequently heaping praise on those who deserve condemnation, and condemnation on those who deserve praise.

Here's one example. Bradberry presents quite plausibly true facts about how the Bolsheviks who seized power in Russia were very largely Jews at the top ranks, and how they committed terrible sadistic atrocities against the non-Jewish people of Russia. He argues that people such as Hitler and Mussolini and Spain's General Franco were thus "saving their countries"--protecitng the white race--by fighting Communist (Stalin and the Comintern, specifically) attempts to take over those countries. Bradberry thus describes the Spanish Civl War (1936-9) as a fight between Stalin trying to take over Spain and General Franco heroically preventing it. Bradberry does not even mention the fact that the Civil War in Spain was begun before Stalin entered the picture, by Franco's attempt to carry out a coup against the Republican government because he feared that the Republican government was incapable of preventing what seemed to be an imminent successful revolution by the Spanish working class (that was led by anarchists, not Communists) to abolish capiatalism and class inequality in Spain. So instead of properly condemning Franco for attacking (white) working class and peasant people, Bradberry praises him for fighting Stalin. Lost from Bradberry's world view is the fact that many of the Spanish workers and peasants (those who understood that Stalin was their enemy despite his pretending to support them) were also fighting Stalin. Bradberry's world view is just incapable of exaplaining things, which is to say it is flat out wrong.

Another example of Bradberry's world view going off the rails is this. Bradberry argues that one of the ways "International Jewry" attacked white people after WWII was by supporting the NAACP and its efforts to end segregation in the United States in the 1960s. The fact is that segregation was bad not only for black people but also for the white working class, because it was used by the upper class (virtually all white at that time in the South) to divide-and-rule (i.e., to dominate and oppress) working class people of all races. In the 1930s the dirt-poor tenant farmers--who were blacks and whites--in the Cotton Belt of the South formed an integrated union (the Southern Tenant Farmers Union) to wage strikes for higher pay for their cotton crop. The large land owners used the notoriously racist Ku Klux Klan (KKK) to bust up the tenant farmers' integrated union meetings (the Jim Crow laws said it was illegal for blacks and whites to meet together.) According to Bradberry's idiotic world view, the KKK and the large land owners were "fighting on the side of the white race" and anybody who opposes racial segregation is attacking the "white race." A more stupid world view would be hard to invent!

Bradberry's Very Interesting Alleged Facts

(I think there is some truth to some of these assertions, but careful fact-checking is still required)

  • The Communist movement was dominated by Jews.
  • The Communists, when in power, ruthlessly attacked and oppressed non-Jews of all classes.
  • Jewish international bankers bankrolled the Communist movement.*
  • Germany was no more guilty of starting WWI than the Allies. Britain fought Germany in WWI to eliminate it as a threatening economic competitior.
  • The Versaille Treaty imposed on Germany at the end of WWI was extremely punitive and caused enormous suffering (starvation included) in Germany.
  • Germans had the following reason for blaming Jews for Germany's loss of WWI. When WWI was at a stalemate but Germany was "winning" in the sense of the front line being in France and not inside Germany, Germany offered to end the war on the basis of both sides accepting the pre-war status quo. Britain would clearly have agreed except for the fact that it knew it could win if it could get the U.S. to enter the war on its side. Britain made a deal with the Zionists: "If you use your great influence in the United States (Supreme Court Justice Brandeis was a Zionist and was close to President Wilson) to persuade President Wilson to enter the war, then Britain will win and get Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and ensure that you will have a Jewish homeland there." (That's what the Balfour Declaration was all about.) It worked. The U.S. entered the war and the Allied nations defeated Germany. Germans, knowing that the Zionist Movement claimed to represent all Jews including those who lived in Germany, viewed this as a Jewish "stab in the back."
  • The Versaille Treaty took geographical parts of Germany away and gave them to other nations, even though the inhabitants spoke German and considered themselves German.
  • When Hitler became Chancellor (appointed by President Hindenberg, who had earlier defeated Hitler in the election to the presidency) in 1933 he began an extremely successful transformation of Germany from the previous huge unemployment and depression misery to much lower unemployment and greater economic prosperity. This made the Germans in the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia especially eager to become part of Germany.
  • Hitler aimed to re-incorporate Germans in the Sudentenland and Czechoslovakia and Danzig (Poland) back into Germany. When he did this people such as Winston Churchill falsely accused him of naked aggression aimed at conquering all of Europe.
  • Hitler viewed Jewish Communism as the enemy of Western Christian Civilization, not just the enemy of Germany, and aimed to overthrow Communism in the Soviet Union, but never wanted to get into a war with Britain or France or the United States. Hitler tried to avoid being at war with Britain or France or the United States and was disappointed that the leaders of these nations (because of Jewish influence over them) did not support his effort to protect Western Christian civilization from Jewish Communism.
  • Britain and France declared war on Germany, which is why Germany fought back, in some cases pre-emptively but essentially defensively. Even after war was declared, Hitler continued to offer peace settlements, and this is why he did not attack the British soldiers stranded at Dunkirk.
  • Hitler had the same racial understanding of nations that President Wilson and practically all other European leaders had--that nations were constituted by this or that race of people. Hitler also believed in keeping the Aryan (essentially European) race pure, but this was the same kind of thinking as the eugenicist thinking that was mainstream among intellectuals all over the European and North American world at the time. This is why Hitler wanted the Jews--perceived as an alien race--to leave Germany and go to Palestine. The Zionists felt exactly the same way.
  • There was full agreement and cooperation between the Zionists and the Nazis on wanting the Jews in Germany to leave and go to Palestine. In fact the Nazis minted a coin with the Star of David on one side and the swastica on the other to commemorate a Transfer (of Jews) Agreement between the Zionists and the Nazis.
  • When Hitler did things to persuade the Jews to leave Germany, such as enact laws barring them from citizenship and many jobs, and barring inter-marriage between Jews and non-Jews, Jewish organizations (but not the Zionists, who were a minority among Jews at this time) all over the world declared a boycott of all things German aiming to overthrow the Hitler regime; this was perceived by Hitler and many Germans as essentially a declaration of war by "International Jewry" against Germany.
  • In response, Hitler viewed Jews inside Germany as a "Fifth Column" much the same as FDR viewed Japanese people inside the U.S. as a danger when he put them into concentration camps.
  • At the 1936 Olympics in Germany, contrary to Western propaganda, Hitler was totally respectful to Jesse Owens and other black athletes. This is confirmed by Jesse Owens's initial reports on his visit to Germany, although Owens later changed his story to conform to the anti-Hitler version.
  • Before Britain and France declared war on Germany, Hitler opposed violence against Jewish people in Germany and only used discriminatory laws against Jews to induce them to leave.
  • The massive anti-Jewish violence in 1938 known as Kristallnacht was spontaneously carried out by ordinary Germans in response to the assassination of a German diplomat by a Jew, but this violence was actually sharply disapproved of by Hitler because he was still trying to court favorable world opinion.
  • The reason Britain and the U.S. went to war against Germany was because wealthy Jews in those nations used their wealth and power to persuade the leaders to do so. Winston Churchill was a poor person who lived lavishly because he was personally bankrolled by a consortium of wealthy Jews called "The Focus."
  • Jews persuaded FDR that Germany needed to be broken up and driven back into a pre-industrial agricultural society (the Morgenthau Plan).
  • The primary strategic aim of Allied bombing of Germany was to kill as many civilians as possible. Millions were killed for no specific military objective, most famously in the firebombing of Dresden (described in Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five based on his eyewitness of it as a POW forced to bury corpses.)
  • When the Soviet Union's military forces entered Germany they were ordered by leaflets they were given (written by a Soviety top government official who was Jewish) to rape and kill German civilians as viciously as possible, and they did. Eisenhower also was deliberately cruel and brutal to German POWs. Also large numbers of German civilians in regions outside of the Versaille Treaty border of Germany were forced to leave their homes and abandon their property and marched (cruelly, with many deaths) to inside Germany.

Bradberry concludes that World War II was thus a war between Hitler trying to save Western Christian civilization from destruction by Jewish Communism versus International Jewry using its control of the Soviet Union and Britain and the United States to attack Germany because Germany was defending Western Christian civilization.

Bradberry's world view has no place in it for the fact that Hitler was installed as Chancellor at the behest of the German upper class to smash the German working class that was, in the years before 1933, so rebellious that the German rulers feared an imminent outbreak of a civil war (along class lines) that they would lose.

Bradberry only mentions the Holocaust briefly, by saying that a) yes, the Nazis did kill some Jews, b) the Nazis did use Jews as slave labor and did put them in concentration camps, c) no, the Nazis did not kill six million Jews--that figure is too high, and d) there is no physical evidence the Nazis killed Jews with gas chambers.

In Bradberry's world view the evil deeds of some Jews means that all Jews ("World Jewry") are evil. This is the same kind of idiotic logic by which the domination of the world by some white people at the beginning of the twentieth century supposedly means that "At the beginning of the twentieth century, the white race dominated the world." Thus, for Bradberry, the crimes of Bolshevik party leaders who were Jewish justifies the killing of ordinary people who happened also to be Jewish. By this kind of "reasoning" it means that the Nazi killing of some (but not six million) Jews and the use of Jews as slave labor in concentration camps is unobjectionable or at least not any reason for condeming the Nazis.

Bradberry makes a good case that the rulers of the United States and Britain were no less guilty of horrendous war crimes than the Nazis. In Bradberry's world view this means that the important question is then, "Which side was the good guys and which side was the bad guys?" Bradberry takes Hitler's side, viewing him as the defender of Western Christian civilization against "World Jewry." But in a sensible world view the important question is, "How can ordinary decent people remove from power the kind of people (ruling elites) who commit horrendous war crimes in order to dominate the world?" This is the viewpoint of www.PDRBoston.org .

-------------------

* Anthony J. Sutton, in his book, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, in Appendix I, argues that despite numerous assertions that American Jewish bankers were a major source of funds for the Bolsheviks and their revolution, there is no empirical evidence for this claim. In fact, Sutton says of his own book, "The evidence provided in this book suggests that the New York bankers who were also Jewish had relatively minor roles in supporting the Bolsheviks, while the New York bankers who were also Gentiles ("Morgan, Rockefeller, Thompson) had major roles. What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism?"

Comments

www.NewDemocracyWorld.org

This article may be copied and posted on other websites. Please include all hyperlinks.

 

 

 

Articles by Dave Stratman

Articles by John Spritzler

Turn the World Upside Down (John Spritzler's blog #1)

End Class Inequality (John Spritzler's blog #2)

 

Books

We Can Change the World: The Real Meaning of Everyday Life by Dave Stratman

The People as Enemy: The Leaders' Hidden Agenda in World War II by John Spritzler