In this new video, I sketch out how history might be very different if the establishment media had reported on attempts to counter Hitler and the Nazis the way it reports on the jihad threat.
In this new video, I sketch out how history might be very different if the establishment media had reported on attempts to counter Hitler and the Nazis the way it reports on the jihad threat.
Red Bee says
I was not there at the time but from what I heard the media, and the politicians, did describe Hitler and nazi’s as normal and to be respected, before the war. What is mind boggling to me is the fact they make the same mistake again.
Voytek Gagalka says
Indeed, Churchill was frequently than not totally vilified before the war and before he became the Prime Minister, his own party ignored him and all his warnings until it was almost too late. Pacifists ruled in Britain and the US. The declaration of war for the US to enter the war (after Pearl Harbor’s attack) passed just by ONE MAJORITY VOTE! So certain similarities exists right now.
Tom Davis says
I’m sorry, you have confused the post Pearl Harbor declaration of war with the vote in August 1941 to extend the duration of enlistment for conscripted soldiers from one year to two and a half years. The bill to extend the enlistment was passed by one vote in the House of Representatives. After the Senate voted unanimously to declare war against Japan, the House then voted. One vote was cast against that resolution, with 388 in favor.
roger eric woodhouse says
The British by their very nature are ‘appeasers’. They just ‘hope ‘ things will turn out right ‘in the end’. Churchill was indeed villified as a ‘war monger ‘throughout the 1930s by the left and right in Britain untill it was too late to stop Hitler. The very same thing is happening about the Islamic threat.
gravenimage says
The British bravely held the line against the Nazis all alone for almost two years. The idea they are all appeasers is just false.
JMB says
Basically the press was subject to government issued “D” notices which were not outright censorship but the major news outlets which were mainly newspapers and periodicals were expected to tow the party line and keep up the morale of the British people.
BUT, what was the “party line”? Causes and reasons for the two world wars have been examined by historians in minute detail. However the question I still ask is did Britain really need to get involved? All the more curious at at the outbreak of WW1 the British royal family and much of the aristocracy were in fact German. But the press was always onside during that terrible war, no one dared to dissent.
Also remember it was Britain’s declaration of war on Germany that really started the second world war, surely it would have been better to let Germany and the rest of Europe fight it out themselves, perhaps Germany would have been able to destroy the then Soviet Union. Instead, Churchill made an unholy alliance with the Russians. (Because of his hatred of Hitler?)
But, Churchill stood up for what he believed in, that is the protection of the British nation and empire against an unspeakable evil. He succeeded but at an unfathomable cost. perhaps the world is still paying the cost. But again, the press was always required to be on side, traitorous publications were closed down and their publishers often arrested.
The USA tried to fight communism but ended up getting bogged down in a costly and pointless war in Vietnam, the press and people for the first time questioned what a war was all about. Perhaps our leaders have lost courage and determination because of this.
To keep this ramble short, perhaps today’s free world needs to stand up to another but this time ,a very real unspeakable evil, that is Islam. The war by Islam on us started in earnest on 11th Sept 2001. Somehow the world has chosen to forget this, the press certainly has. Perhaps the free world needs another leader like Churchill to lead us with dogged determination to try and protect us from Islam. President Trump is trying but as per the thrust of this article the press is against him. Why?
My answer that people out there really do believe in the NWO and globalisation. Also, while lots of Arab oil money is involved the world really can all be all one happy family. Unfortunately history says otherwise, particularly when a dark middle ages religion is involved.
Wellington says
“Also, remember it was Britain’s declaration of war on Germany that really started the second world war…..”
I respectfully disagree. It was Hitler’s aggression that started WWII, first in the announcement shortly after Hitler became Chancellor in 1933 that reparation payments would no longer be paid, followed by extensive militarization of the German military in clear violation of the Versailles Treaty, then in the internationally illegal militarization of the Rhineland in March of 1936, followed so tragically by the rank annexation and rape of Austria in March of 1938, subsequently followed by the threats of Hitler to start a world war over the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia were it not ceded to Germany, which Chamberlain and Daladier cravenly did in September of 1938 at Munich. All this was attended by yet another egregious aggression by Hitler in March of 1939 when he took over the rump state of Czechoslovakia, and then the final aggression by Hitler in the 1930s, the invasion of Poland on September 1st, 1939, shortly after the despicable Nazi-Soviet Pact of late August 1939. And so to assert that it was Britain’s formal declaration of war on September 3rd, 1939 that “really started” WWII is such a breathtakingly astonishing statement that I am at a loss for words to describe such a characterization.
An aggressor who engages in aggression after aggression, as Hitler clearly did in the 1930s, should have the burden of the war that ensued because of such aggression clearly placed on his shoulders. To assign the inauguration of such a war on a polity who finally had enough of tricks, chicanery, false promises, etc., by the barbarian by way of finally declaring war on the barbarian is a route to the skewering of history and morally inverted thinking. So, reconsider here.
Brian Hoff says
Nobody accept Germany to paid the cost of loseing wwi that why the UK and France took any action over that in 1933. The people of Austrian who greet Hitler warming.
gravenimage says
JMB wrote:
However the question I still ask is did Britain really need to get involved?
…………………………
Well, of course not. They could have abandoned Poland and done nothing as Hitler rolled across Europe. Is *that* what you are advocating?
More:
Also remember it was Britain’s declaration of war on Germany that really started the second world war, surely it would have been better to let Germany and the rest of Europe fight it out themselves, perhaps Germany would have been able to destroy the then Soviet Union. Instead, Churchill made an unholy alliance with the Russians. (Because of his hatred of Hitler?)
…………………………
So–you don’t consider it a war unless the victims start fighting back? Much like the Jihad today.
By what standards would letting Fascism spread unchecked be “better”? Unless, of course, one is lamenting the ending of the Holocaust before it “got the job done”? I doubt you really think like this.
More:
But, Churchill stood up for what he believed in, that is the protection of the British nation and empire against an unspeakable evil.
…………………………
If you acknowledge that Fascism is unspeakable evil–which it was–then why do you believe it would have been “better” to have let it run amok unchecked?
I *would* love to see another Churchill. Right now, our best hope, despite his shortcomings and gaps in his understanding of the Jihad threat, probably is Trump.
roger eric woodhouse says
Excellent comment JMB I think your question about why Britain got involved is purely rhetorical and should be accepted as such.. Of course the Europe that unfolded due to the war would not be the same today had Britain not declared war( honouring a pact with Poland in doing so) but Britain would have been the main power surviving such an outcome and would havel been strong enough to defeat Germany eventually (with the support of America obviously) without the massive destruction of our cities,.
JMB says
Thank you Roger.
Unfortunately my comments have somewhat deviated from the original topic, that is the media coverage of Jihad.
But re the 2 great wars of the 20th century; It was, White man against White Man, Christian against Christian, history should continue to try and make sense of this insanity. Then when it was all over we are letting the Islamic world and the 3rd world just walk all over us, mainly due to the unintended outcome of WW2 which was the creation of the UN and the EU.
gravenimage says
Fascism was not a part of Christianity. In fact, Hitler *hated* the compassion of Christianity, deriding it as “weak and flabby”, and he instead admired Islam.
Mirren10 says
I will only add one point to what Wellington and graven have already said;
Your phrasing and choice of adjective in your comparison between what you say Churchill ‘believed’ of Nazism as an “unspeakable evil”, and your statement ; ” … this time the world needs to stand up to a very *real* (my emphasis) unspeakable evil, Islam” seems tendentious, to say the least.
Are you suggesting Nazism was only an unspeakable evil in the mind of Churchill, whereas Islam is the real thing ?
Mirren10 says
A J Liberphile, is that you, sweety ?
JMB says
Thank you to Graven Image & Wellington and also in reply to Mirren 10. I agree with what you all have to say, the issues are complex and I think discussion about the 2 world wars is quite relevant in light of the threat we face from Islam. But remember, people as diverse as Henry Ford, Some members of the Royal Family as well as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem all sympathised with Hitler. Likewise we have many people in the West totally supportive of Islam including your former president and as well as key leaders such as Angela Merkel.
Perhaps we do need another Churchill, his most difficult battle will be to get the “new” media on his side.
Wellington says
No, I disagree with you again, specifically about the “complexity issue.” Matters related to Nazism, ditto for Islam, Marxism too, are not complex, and just because one can cite a few individuals here and there, e.g., Ford, Edward VIII, or that God-forsaken man, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who sympathized in one way or another with the forces of evil, for whatever ignorant or base reason, does not make the difference between right and wrong “complex.”
Anything but, actually. Again, reconsider. Sometimes, you know, there are no shades of gray, just black and white.
JMB says
Hi Wellington, I accept your reasoning. I always appreciate any replies to my comments on JW, I always like to have a meaningful discussion.
By way of explanation I was a WW2 baby, my father served in and survived both wars, our house near London was bombed. Our whole family could not wait to get out of Europe, forever. They took the first available passages on boats to Oz & NZ where we all made new lives. There was much discussion in our family circle on the horror and pointlessness of war.
Mirren10 says
War is always horrible, it is not always ‘pointless’.
What would you prefer; that the Allies sat back and allowed the Axis to complete their goals without any response ? Would that have had a point ?
JMB says
Reply to Mirren 10
Hello Mirren, I have to accept history the way it has played out and accept the reasons as to why the world went to war twice in the 20th century. My own question will always be; could there have been an alternative?
I will also re phrase Robert Spencer’s hypothetical question: Would the world have gone to war if the media back then was the same as it is treating the Muslim threat now?
But as to the threat from Islam, I do believe it is real but sometime I think we all feel like Cassandra of old where no one would listen to her, hence the fall of Troy.
Again, I think the initial battle in the war against Islam, that is if it ever happens, will be between Trump and the mainstream media. In the meantime he has brought one word to the fore, that is FAKE. We hear it everywhere now!
All the best, JMB. (Sydney Australia)
Jeanette says
Amen!
roger eric woodhouse says
We have two such leaders now in the names of Trump and Farage !Both will come to the fore when called upon
gravenimage says
JMB wrote:
Thank you to Graven Image & Wellington and also in reply to Mirren 10. I agree with what you all have to say, the issues are complex and I think discussion about the 2 world wars is quite relevant in light of the threat we face from Islam. But remember, people as diverse as Henry Ford, Some members of the Royal Family as well as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem all sympathised with Hitler.
…………………………….
What is “complex” about this, JMB? Henry Ford, while I may respect his business acumen and a few other qualities, was a virulent antisemite. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, like so many Muslims, hated Jews and wanted to see them wiped out.
More:
Likewise we have many people in the West totally supportive of Islam including your former president and as well as key leaders such as Angela Merkel.
…………………………….
Few in the West are supportive of Islam in the same way those you point out were supportive of Hitler. Most Americans and other Westerners are woefully ignorant about Islam, and simply do not want to believe it is a threat–*very few* here actually support Jihad or Shari’ah.
A much better parallel is to note those in the free West who swallowed the idea that Fascism was ‘modern’ and benign and Nazi Germany no threat are quite similar to those who now desperately want to believe that Islam is a “religion of peace” and is no threat.
These people are in denial, which is very dangerous, but they are not specifically in support of evil.
More:
Perhaps we do need another Churchill, his most difficult battle will be to get the “new” media on his side.
…………………………….
Churchill had the same problem with the “old” media. He was characterized as old-fashioned, hysterical, and even a “war monger” before people got a clue.
More, in reply to Wellington:
Hi Wellington, I accept your reasoning. I always appreciate any replies to my comments on JW, I always like to have a meaningful discussion.
By way of explanation I was a WW2 baby, my father served in and survived both wars, our house near London was bombed. Our whole family could not wait to get out of Europe, forever. They took the first available passages on boats to Oz & NZ where we all made new lives. There was much discussion in our family circle on the horror and pointlessness of war.
…………………………….
The same circumstances can lead to different conclusions. The building my mother, who was serving in the army in communications. was working in was bombed–a bomb fell through the hallway outside her office one night during WWII, and she and her workmates were stranded for three days over a bomb that luckily turned out to be a dud.
This just further strengthened their resolve to go on fighting Hitler–no one wanted to flee the country.
And I agree with Mirren–the idea that defending against evil is “pointless” is very disturbing. In that case, why do you oppose Jihad?
Another point–you are completely mistaken in believing that Australia and New Zealand were not involved in the fight against the Axis. They fought against Fascism, and their brave contributions were very important to the fight for freedom.
More, in reply to Mirren:
Hello Mirren, I have to accept history the way it has played out and accept the reasons as to why the world went to war twice in the 20th century. My own question will always be; could there have been an alternative?
…………………………….
Of course there was an alternative–Hitler did not have to plot to conquer Europe and wipe out the Jews–but he did.
If you are asking whether Britain and the US and the rest of the Allies had an alternative to fighting–of course they did, as well. They could have allowed the Fascists to roll across Europe unchecked. Britain could either have accepted this, or even surrendered to Hitler outright.
How would surrender to evil have made things better for you, or for the world?
More:
I will also re phrase Robert Spencer’s hypothetical question: Would the world have gone to war if the media back then was the same as it is treating the Muslim threat now?
…………………………….
Odd phrasing indeed–again, you appear to believe that it would have been better if the free West had gone on ignoring the threat from Fascism.
More:
But as to the threat from Islam, I do believe it is real but sometime I think we all feel like Cassandra of old where no one would listen to her, hence the fall of Troy.
…………………………….
Yes, we do. That does not mean that we think that it would be better to surrender to Islam. Troy did not fall *because* of Cassandra, but because no one would listen to her warnings about the threat until it was too late.
More:
Again, I think the initial battle in the war against Islam, that is if it ever happens, will be between Trump and the mainstream media. In the meantime he has brought one word to the fore, that is FAKE. We hear it everywhere now!
…………………………….
You are mistaken in thinking that we are not already fighting back against Jihad–we are, and have been for some time now. The problem is that officials are generally ignorant and in denial about the ideology that lies behind and fuels Jihad–Islam itself. Our fight against Jihad is always going to be scattershot, disorganized, and in many way ineffective until Infidels realize that Islam itself is the problem.
gravenimage says
Thanks for the initial kind comment, JMB.
Richard Paulsen says
The idiots in EU intending to vote for whether sharia law should be allowed in Europe.
How about discussing claims christian law in islamic countries.
EU is mad.
Jeanette says
http://nevadanewsandviews.com/joecks-democrats-support-bill-that-would-legalize-female-genital-mutilation//
Nevada is getting ready to vote on legalizing female genital mutilation, and Democrats support it.
We already knew that Hillary supports it, by her keeping Huma Abedin on board while Abedin’s mother wrote and published books calling for the forced mutilation of all females in the world.
The Europeans aren’t the only ones with evil people among them!
Richard Paulsen says
Aware of that. It is terrible, to say the least. Good Hillary Clinton did not win. Strange she and the so called democrats are talking about equality between women and men and at the same allowing a barbaric belief being spread.
All good forces must join and stop.
gravenimage says
This is completely nuts, Jeanette. Thanks for the head’s up. Here’s more:
“Democrats support bill that would legalize female genital mutilation”
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/columns/victor-joecks/democrats-support-bill-would-legalize-female-genital-mutilation
That this is under the auspices of the ERA (Equal Rights Amemndment) could not be more grotesque.
Here’s an article on Nevada banning FGM in 1997:
https://lasvegassun.com/news/1997/apr/08/witness-tells-of-genital-mutilation/
gravenimage says
Here’s some related Taqiyya, Richard:
“Muslim State Secretary for Berlin voices her backing for Sharia law in Europe, saying it is ‘absolute compatible’ with German legislation”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4024812/Muslim-State-Secretary-Berlin-voices-backing-Sharia-law-Europe-saying-absolute-compatible-German-legislation.html
Richard Paulsen says
According to the book “The Caged Lion”, Winston Spencer Churchill by William Manchester, those who warned for the nazis were being called ” warmongers”.
They were censored by media, efforts being made to stop voters to vote for them in their constituencies even being thretened with court-martial almost totally isolated till very close to the beginning of the war.
They had a hard time. Still they prevailed. Never surrender.
Richard Paulsen says
Those criticising islam today are being treated in the same way as critics of nazism in the 1920s and 1930s. Very obvious. Very strong powers behind.
gravenimage says
All true, Richard.
Richard Paulsen says
EU signing the Cairo Declaration? Soon coming. Within 3 months in June.
http://www.assembly.coe.int/Committee/JUR/ajdoc282016.pdf
gravenimage says
More insanity. The “Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam” contradicts virtually everything in the UN Human Rights Declaration.
Sassy says
Stick with your website. Dump Facebook and Twitter. You don’t need them. I truly appreciate the high value of your posts. You are a great teacher. Cheers.
ken brown says
WW2 started when Japan invaded China in 1937. No doubt Hitler took note of the toothless League of Nations response and concluded that he could join in.
Charles Martel says
Most of our “leaders” and “journalists” are as asleep now as we were when Pearl Harbor was attacked.
alex9234 says
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2016/12/a-date-that-will-live-forever-in-infamy.html?m=1 – Daniel Greenfield actually did something like that with this article, but with Imperial Japan.
ermom says
Excellent points, Robert. Keep up the good work.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
In general, it is not a good idea to play sound effects (here, percussion) while the narrator is speaking; save it for the intro and/or outro. At 1:35, the shot of “Honest Ibe the Tie Merchant” is precious. On one of the ties, is that Hebrew lettering?
Brian Hoff says
There is than moive on U-tude that cover the possible invasion of the UK by Hitler in 1940. On Sept 15 the crisis point came at 4 pm when the UK have no more fighter in back up force than down to 100 fighter left in the RAF. The germany kept increace attack on the UK destorying the RAF. The next day they invaded the UK. Two week later the King dismiss the government on his own than power the royal have and his wife call up Germany Hight Command to negotiating than end to the war.