I am sure that if I were to comment on a mid-game chess move, the reaction of an expert on the game would nod and think I was a complete newbie.
A CHESS-LOVING newbie.
Professional politics is handled on a strictly two-year basis. “A year is forever in politics.”
But that applies to paycheck politics. It’s checkers at most.
But politics for power is chess, but chess with more variables. Comments are usually at the level of a chess watcher thinking about how a move was to get a bishop.
War is power politics. The history of war is exclusively dedicated to which side had the butchest men. But, to repeat, no war hero ever made the slightest difference in the outcome of any war.
The outcome of any real war has been determined before the first shot is fired.
One of the best examples of this is how the Soviet Union was saved from Stalin’s idiocy in 1939 when he joined with Hitler in dividing Poland.
Hitler had been trying to get a common border with Russia. That is why Danzig was so crucial. Danzig was a Free City. It had voted in Nazism, but France and Britain had a treaty which allowed them to declare war if Germany took it.
German forces could not reach East Prussia, and Russia, without crossing Danzig.
You will not see this mentioned anywhere else.
History talks a lot about Danzig, but not about this basic strategic point.
Both France and Britain had a heavy leftist presence in its politics. They were able to protect Russia.
Then Stalin produced every intelligent leftist’s nightmare. He joined with Hitler in invading Poland, so that Germany would have a huge border right up against the USSR.
If Britain and France had not declared war against Germany, and ONLY against Germany, the USSR would have been doomed instead of having one third of the human population of earth to rule over by 1950.
The left had influence, but not open domination, in the UK and in France. They were “out of power.”
Due to a complete ignorance of power politics, no one is going to point to one of history’s most ingenious balancing acts.
#1 by Jason on 01/06/2013 - 7:28 am
Let me recap part of this in my own words, to make sure I’ve got it right (and I know the point of this article is to teach us about the long term nature of real politics, not to obsess over WWII). Basically, Stalin screwed up by agreeing to invade Poland with Hitler, because as a result, Germany now shared a border with the USSR.
Without help, the Soviets would be doomed if the Germans decided to strike. The Left, having great influence in the UK and France, pressured those governments to declare war on Germany as a way to defend the USSR. And later the USA joined in.
If the above is accurate, then my question is, what could Germany have done even if it better understood the political dynamics in the UK and France? Would it have been better to avoid becoming a direct threat to USSR via the Poland takeover?
If I were Germany in 1938, it would be difficult for me to know the best course of action, even with this knowledge, unless it was to stop enlarging, pretend not to be a threat to the USSR, and consolidate gains already made.
#2 by dungeoneer on 01/06/2013 - 7:20 pm
” The Left, having great influence in the UK and France, pressured those governments to declare war on Germany ”
Roosevelt and his lapdog Chirchill did`nt need any pressure to declare war ONLY against Germany.
They and the Left had common cause in destroying Germany and seeing the USSR survive.
I don`t think it`s “The lesson”, but A lesson of power politics is when you have groups with a common interest the path is made clear to extraordinary happenings ref: White Genocide.
#3 by Vale on 01/06/2013 - 7:42 am
I’m probably wrong, but what I got from this article was this:
None of us (White and normals) will ever hear about the string of stupid/ridiculous acts committed by Anti-Whites and the left – because nobody (not even the paycheck right) will ever mention them.
So if you want to embarrass the hell out of Anti-Whites and have maximum impact in showing what utter idiots they really are (and almost always are), you’d better learn to hear alarm bells whenever you hear silence.
Or something similar to that.
#4 by Jason on 01/06/2013 - 8:46 am
Great point. Listening to the silence is a skill. And most of us have to learn to even pay attention to it in the first place. However, I think you have to know enough about a topic to realize they are being silent about something. But, maybe all such silences have common features that a person can learn to spot.
#5 by Dave on 01/06/2013 - 1:33 pm
Silence is a survival strategy for those besmirched by the dishonor of their friends, family, and allies.
This issue split the sad sack Winston Churchill down the middle. For the last twenty years of his life, his only option was self-deception.
He became like black intellectuals are in America. They claim that it cannot be possible that black men have an unusual propensity for crime; the high crime rate “must” be the “legacy” of white oppression.
A completely self-defeating strategy! The only way you can separate yourself from the crimes of a family member is to denounce their dishonor and demand especially harsh punishment. This is exactly the reason Malcolm X can never be credible. And it is also the reason black people in America have yet to find a path to freedom – so much better to talk about the “crimes” of your liberators than the dishonor of your own family.
.
White people who carry on about the black crime don’t have a clue about the silence. It is about dishonor and how intolerable it is to endure dishonor.
This is also the reason the British never shut up about their supposed “glory” in WW II. It’s sickening. PBS shines this shit into nursing homes and assisted living facilities in the US, an endless stream of lies and falsehoods and ridiculous ritual regarding America during WW II. This puke is unbelievable and it proves that dishonor cannot be endured even from the grave. That was the WW II generation. They are rolling in their graves in dishonor.
The good part of having a nigger President is that all this becomes irrelevant. Niggers have their own issues and WW II isn’t included. Thank God.
#6 by Epiphany on 01/06/2013 - 4:39 pm
Yes, the silence about Soviet sins is most revealing about these anti–Whites. Another thing they do not much talk about is the fact that Sir Winston Churchill was heavily into Eugenics.
#7 by Skippy 01 on 01/06/2013 - 7:18 pm
“War is power politics. The history of war is exclusively dedicated to which side had the butchest men. But, to repeat, no war hero ever made the slightest difference in the outcome of any war.
The outcome of any real war has been determined before the first shot is fired.”
–
Excuse me, but this is religion. It must be taken on faith and cannot be known to be true.
* The history of war is exclusively dedicated to which side had the butchest men.
That’s not the impression you get from reading scores of books on military history. You may say that, underneath, that’s what they are “really” saying, but this is like the mystery of transubstantiation. As an ordinary statement of fact, what you said there is false.
* But, to repeat, no war hero ever made the slightest difference in the outcome of any war.
That’s not the opinion of those who have studied war.
There are examples to the contrary, for example Brasidas in the Battle of Amphipolis. Of course you can change your definition of what the “real” war was so that mere victory at any particular place and time does not count. But again, that’s religion. Why would the perspective that “the ‘real’ war was the Peloponnesian War” be exclusively correct, and the opinions of the citizens of Amphipolis, that the ‘real’ war they cared about was the one that had come to their city, be incorrect? Only to make your theory true.
Besides, you fall foul of your “slightest difference”. There are many examples besides Brasidas of war heroes making at least a slight difference.
* The outcome of any real war has been determined before the first shot is fired.
This, too, is religion. I see people with inevitable-ist views of history saying it, but I don’t see them backing it up.
According to practical experts, war is chancy, dangerous and contingent.
I don’t see the sense in your chess talk either.
There may be a mystery in your statements, so that while on the surface they are just bombastic religious statements and simple errors of fact, in reality there is a higher and deeper meaning. But if so, you might want to spell that out.
#8 by OldBlighty on 01/06/2013 - 7:27 pm
You are quoting experts who make a LIVING studying war. Do you really think they would say any different? lol How would they pay their mortgages if they poo pooed the importance of war hero?
It seems you lack a healthy skepticism about paycheck experts.
An army that is technologically superior, better trained, better supplied, as a rule wins. You can only point to EXCEPTIONS to the RULE Bob has pointed out.
Preparation is what wins wars and preparation is done many years before any war is ever fought.
#9 by OldBlighty on 01/06/2013 - 8:24 pm
I will go further and suggest the promotion of war heroes, is a necessary recruitment and motivation aid.
No military planers at the very top, would seriously believe any individual, would make the difference between loss or victory in war. War is about moving enormous resources over large distances. The scales are beyond any individual contribution.
#10 by dungeoneer on 01/06/2013 - 9:16 pm
“According to practical experts, war is chancy, dangerous and contingent”
No military expert will say any individual soldier or General can cancel out the strategic situation in which they fight and it is always the strategic situation which decides the outcome of any conflict.
“I don’t see the sense in your chess talk either”
In the game of chess the player with the best strategic analysis wins.
#11 by Skippy 01 on 01/07/2013 - 8:06 am
dungeoneer: In the game of chess the player with the best strategic analysis wins.
–
No.
Superior strategic analysis helps, but day-in, day-out the player with the best tactics wins.
The player with the better endgame skill often wins, no matter how scrappy the previous play.
Often the player who makes the next-to-last blunder wins, and the player who makes the final, absolutely fatal blunder loses.
The player who runs out of time and whose clock flag falls loses, and his opponent wins.
The player whose opponent keels over with a heart attack wins, as does the player whose opponent fails to show up at the appointed time or soon enough after, as does the player whose opponent is simply too old to continue playing, as does the player whose opponent violates a rule, and who draws the referee’s attention to this and has his claim of a win duly recognized.
#12 by dungeoneer on 01/07/2013 - 8:25 am
The best use of strategy and resources wins, period.
You have no argument Skip.
#13 by Skippy 01 on 01/07/2013 - 9:27 am
dungeoneer:
The best use of strategy and resources wins, period.
You have no argument Skip.
–
OK, I’m done.
#14 by minervia on 01/06/2013 - 7:22 pm
I have thought his for years, it is all a BIG chess game. But I always thought there wasn’t people on our side.
In France and Britain it was the same politics as in USSR. Same as today. Just all different names.
They needed the USSR to continue and even though Germany was talking peace, it was of no difference to France or Britain as their plan was to invade Germany anyway. What is even more crazy is why America joined in. Just proves how easy propaganda, a consistent message and silence really works.
If they can’t control their realm they’ll go to war. Like a strangler fig taking down the host tree.
#15 by Skippy 01 on 01/07/2013 - 7:59 am
dungeoneer: No military expert will say any individual soldier or General can cancel out the strategic situation in which they fight and it is always the strategic situation which decides the outcome of any conflict.
–
No.
Blind luck can kill you or save you. Soldiers on one side or the other can panic and fail to perform. Defeatism can kill a cause, and save the day for an insecure enemy. The iron-willed Tsarina Elizabeth, with her hands on your neck, may die and be replaced by Tsar Peter III, who takes your side.
Bunglers cancel out advantageous strategic situations all the time.
Read books on military blunders and disasters, and reflect that for every loser there was a winner with his jaw hung open, giving thanks to Jesus or Allah or the gods of Rome as the case might be.
And that’s before you remember to take into account what military historians used to include without thinking anything of it, but that they’ve been leaving out ever since political correctness took over, mainly race. What kind of people are these, what is their temperament, what are their strengths and weaknesses, what can be expected of them by way of steadiness, or future time orientation? What kind of aims will make sense to them? It matters!
Rather than saying that the “history of war is exclusively dedicated to which side had the butchest men” (that is the qualities of the human material in war and the implications of those qualities) and that strategy is everything, it would be more accurate to say that modern military history has a squirming reluctance to say that war is fought by anything but interchangeable counters differentiated by military training and by economic and political “systems” that arise and are sustained in no genetic context, out of the air.
And since we’re reminded that war is “power politics,” let’s remember that books on political science share the same gaps. Too bad I threw out my old Politics 101 text book; the chapter on revolutionary ideologies was hilarious. It commented in droll detail on the system of modernizing authoritarian nationalism and its tendency to lethargy, incompetence, corruption and various weaknesses, compared to the ferocious energy, intellectual aggressiveness, conquering elan, international networking and ability to seize and monopolize power of the system of Communism. There was nothing in the description of the logic of these movements that had to lead to that.
Gee, do you think it might have anything to do with the intellectual ability, aggressiveness, intensity, tribal cohesiveness and international networking ability of the people who practically were Communism in its breakthrough phase, and the different human qualities of the people making up various nationalizing / modernizing movements and governments that were going to get their acts together manyana? No / shut up / racist / you need to resubmit this assignment using received concepts.
Might this iceberg of realities about how different kinds of people actually struggle with each other and screw themselves up have any military implications? See previous answer / no / racist / crimethink.
#16 by dungeoneer on 01/07/2013 - 8:23 am
“Blind luck can kill you or save you”
Just like a bad chess player >can< lose the game with silly mistakes even if he`s got the right strategy, so what?
I`m not getting into a pointless debate about personal or organizational failings, the article is about the work of expert strategists and political operators.
#17 by Conrad on 01/06/2013 - 8:08 pm
Just as a footnote you can read a discussion about the boarder issue in the book Icebreaker, and others. You will discover that Stalin was more than willing to have a shared boarder with Germany because he intended to place MASSIVE amounts of men & materiel on the boarder and, at the right moment, sweep across ALL of Europe. had it not been for Hitler’s move we’d all be living in a Soviet state now.
…..
Many people were into Eugenics at that time. We should be now, it is our reason for being and living. As far as WW2 is concerned, one thing that I am certain of, we fought on the wrong side.
…………
Jack’s War
http://www.jackswar.com
#18 by Scythian on 01/06/2013 - 10:06 pm
I told a group of friends once that WW2 was a disaster, it was white people killing white people; the reaction was silence. The life long and “eternal” narrative of ‘we’ (meaning U.S., despite the fact all of our parents or grandparents were living in Axis countries at that time) as the good guys and ‘them’ Germans as the bad guys went right out the window with that simple statement.
It’s truly hilarious how blacks spent the past several decades (if not the past Century!) crying about white oppression while at the same time crying that whites didn’t want to live around them. Can you imagine say the Armenians demanding the right to integrate and “assimilate” with the Turks in Turkey on account of Turkish oppression? You’d think the Armenians were morons, no? Of course, the Armenians demanded SEGREGATION from their oppressors. I’m no historian, can anyone think of another example whereby an oppressed people demanded to live with their oppressors? Moses said “let my people go”, not ‘let my people integrate and “assimilate” with the Egyptians’. And unlike blacks in white countries, the Jews could (and did by the millions) just stop being Jews and integrate into white societies without anybody noticing. So this tells me “black liberation” (of which Obama was raised on) is a crock of shit (just as our current “established” history) and blacks were just pawns used by the anti-white white establishment; the same establishment that built those wonderful ghetto projects/government housing for their beloved coloreds. And all coloreds (especially and more specifically non-white hispanics) have taken up this Negro mantle – whites are bad people who oppress us and we therefore have an eternal right to live around them where ever they are on this planet, and of course it is anti-white white TRAITORS who guarantee us this right forever and ever and ever. LOL!
Someone mentioned how black history has no villains, which tells us blacks have no real history. Here’s my Big Book Tome called ‘The Decline and Fall of the Egyptian Empire’: Brown countries are third world because they are filled with brown people. Egypt went from white to brown and went down, the more brown it got, the more it declined. When brown people first started taking over, the decline was slow b/c they were living off of what the whites created, but the more brown Egypt got, the decline accelerated until it couldn’t get any darker, hence stagnation since. THE END.
And the History Channel portrays anything Ancient Egypt as a mulatto/brown empire. LOL! So if America goes the way anti-whites want it to go – a brown/3rd world country, then in a few hundreds years or so, the history channel will portray George Washington and George Patton as brown/mulatto, and the the U.S. population as always being brown, correct?
And it’s also funny how (again) the History Channel bases Ancient Egypt on what the people of Egypt look like today while portraying Hannibal Barca as black, are there any Negros living on the North African coast? So I’m supposed to believe that two advanced civilizations Rome and Carthage, both of which had many historians and reporters ya know, failed to mention that Hannibal was black? And the Roman coins depicting Hannibal as white is a “big lie”? Why didn’t the Romans say Hannibal was white? For the same reason they didn’t say Scipio was White. So after thousands of years of the “big lie”, the fricken History Channel now tells us the “truth” about Hannibal, with no evidence whatsoever of course. So it just so happens that the only black warriors worth mentioning in all history is one of the greatest military geniuses of all time and primitive Zulus? LOL! And brown people built great empires thousands of years ago, but have somehow miraculously failed to build even one half way decent country since? Please stop with the fucking bullshit assholes, because I can’t stop laughing! And you can bet the establishment media will be the last ones to tell the truth; we see this everyday in the media, as though the internet doesn’t exist and nobody’s telling the truth.
A temple built on a foundation of bullshit can not stand, it will not stand; why you think the USSR went down to the fucking the ground? It’s common sense. The enemy is left with two choices: surrender (i.e. tell the truth) or delay (i.e. keep lying), they’ll do the later and increase their pain. And the whole thing is based on the ongoing program of White GENOCIDE, that’s the reason for the lies, that’s the goal – so I imagine the pain will be of the utmost brutality.
#19 by Jason on 01/07/2013 - 12:50 am
I’ve noticed that when you challenge people on WWII (Whites), they literally have no response. I once said, “they tell me we fought WWII so we wouldn’t have to speak German, or something like that. But then we are all forced to speak Spanish”. All I got was stares.
I’ve thought that as well about how America will be portrayed in the future if we lose and we have a series of brown presidents. We will be shown as another example of brown people building a great country! Except, if we go brown, there may not be such a thing as “television” in the future.
They keep pushing the meme that all ancient civilizations were really brown. And I’ve even seen multicultural actors used to portray Vikings in History Channel!
#20 by Epiphany on 01/07/2013 - 7:28 am
The whole thing comes apart when one remembers the most obvious thing of all: the Germans are our fellow Whites. Notice, the American Revolutionary War, The War of Northern Agression, and The Second World War (at least in Europe) pitted Whites against each other. And it is no coincidence that these are the only three wars that the anti–Whites are desirous of the “American” population feeling any sort of patriotism about. The whole thing begins to make sense once one ponders it.
Yes, and I begin to realize that sometimes Wikipedia comes up with bald faced lies. Despite what Wikipedia states, Germans are not numberically the largest Ethnic group in “America”. If one can read between the lines, one comes to the realization that they want Whites to live in constant fear of being mistaken for being either German or German American. This is their strategy, and this is precisely why they keep harping on The Second World War!
I am sure that the Veterans of The Second World War no longer clearly remember what actually happened back then. And even if they do, they do not wish to contradict what the Television says. None dare contradict what the Television media tells them. It is even scary how easily controlled people are by that medium of Communication.
The whole thing makes sense now. For each geneation, they keep changing what supposedly happened during The War. I remember, in the past, when they claimed that the German National Socialists (aka the Nazis) were some form of White Supremacists, but now the claim is made that said National Socialists were too friendly with the Arab Muslims. It does not make too much sense. As if we cannot see the logical contradiction in that.
And even as much as I hate Soviet Communism, I find it most hard to believe that Joseph Stalin exiled Jews, fleeing the National Socialists, back to Germany so that said Jews would die in the Holocaust. Of course, Joseph Stalin was an anti–Christian bigot, I am sure of that, and he had many of the Christians exterminated off in the Gulag. Yet, helping his enemy Hitler, that would be way out of character for him.
#21 by Skippy 01 on 01/07/2013 - 9:20 am
David Brooks writing in the New York Times made this comment about an important article by Ron Unz:
http://tinyurl.com/aqhfue3
Unz’s other big point is that Jews are vastly overrepresented at elite universities and that Jewish achievement has collapsed. In the 1970s, for example, 40 percent of top scorers in the Math Olympiad had Jewish names. Now 2.5 percent do. The fanatical generations of immigrant strivers have been replaced by a more comfortable generation of preprofessionals, he implies.
Could that have any effect on how events might develop over the next twenty to sixty years, as the next generation of hostile, wealthy, privileged, entitled, born-to-win, brilliant-but-lazy, contemptuous and complacent Jewish American Princes and Princesses amble through their rose-scented careers?
Name me all the strategic geniuses that predicted that that was going to happen.
As long as stuff like that continues to fall outside the realm of the strategically calculable, I’ll continue to say that strategy’s not everything, even intellectually.
#22 by dungeoneer on 01/07/2013 - 9:30 am
Jews get fat and lazy so that proves political and military wars aren`t really decided before hand by those that have anticipated and made the right preparations LOL
#23 by Bob on 01/07/2013 - 12:42 pm
Skippy did not read my articles. He readmeaning planning by generals.
My point is that long before any general has his strategy approved the War has been determined.
To repeat the actual article, once Stalin was saved from his own mistake, the left provided pressure which made any question of declaring war on Russia for invading Poland, which was the excuse for the declaration on Germany.
That was step one. Step Two was the certainty that America
“strategy” as would not hesitate once again to slaughter young Americans for Britain as it had in WWI and as it does today for Israel.
This is political strategy, where the real war is fought long before your generals get their fame or the grunts get their medals.
#24 by dungeoneer on 01/07/2013 - 6:23 pm
Well I did read but still found myself walking in circles and forgetting the main point of political versus military and being an experienced BUGSer who`s had the point repeated only a few hundred times I feel a tad dorkish.
Let`s hope this time it sinks in.
#25 by OldBlighty on 01/07/2013 - 8:59 pm
What I am getting from this article is if we had better activism on the ground in Britain and France, Germany would have destroyed the USSR, without interference from Western powers.
This is why those that can Convince, are of more value than those that are sent off to fight enemies.
Bob is also looking at the consequences of not understanding the complexities of global politics.
It seems the German leadership had a no understanding of how the players would respond. They had no one in their leadership with practical political experience, I assume.
#26 by The Cheshire Cat on 01/07/2013 - 9:31 pm
History books are defined as much by what Historians omit as they are by what is written. They serve as everlasting punishment for the vanquished and sweet spoils of war for the victors. Don’t believe me? Try challenging History©.
“One of the best examples of this is how the Soviet Union was saved from Stalin’s idiocy in 1939 when he joined with Hitler in dividing Poland.”
“German forces could not reach East Prussia, and Russia, without crossing Danzig.”
And Germany still could not reach the Soviet Union once the secret protocols of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact gave them back half of the captured Preussen territory. It left them in the middle of Deutschland and hundreds of miles from their [former] Eastern border. In 1940, Germany would concede even more of Poland than agreed upon so that most of Finland could become autonomous; Stalin labeled the protocols “mythical” and reneged altogether; “Germany invaded Poland”; Prussia was officially abolished; a third of the world would go under Communist rule; fourteen million German women and children would then be added to an ungodly number in that unrecorded genocide.
Should there exist in our minds any question as to why we don’t hear of this in History Class? Today, a few political practitioners understand that Germans don’t have the right to write their own history because they lost both rites – to wage and record war.
To apply this concept in an “American” context, one might point to the fact that – given the current immigration policy – Mexico is less than a couple of decades away from taking much, if not all, of the Southwestern Untied States. The USA could be forced to engage the Mexican cartels, nationalists and paramilitary at some point in the future because the court of public opinion may demand it. Pressure from the bottom is building.
The stage is set. The teams have been drafted. The players are moving into place. Who orders the “moves” and how they do it is immaterial. The endgame remains. So, we see that “American forces will not reach Mexico without crossing the Colorado River.” That is precisely why Political Correctness screams, “Arizona (and its guns) is too racist!”
Would Americans be “happy” with salvaging only Colorado and Utah as long as the government agreed not to attack Mexico? Is it socioeconomically healthy to have 80 million people living in a nation state smaller than Montana? Would its resources be enough to sustain them? Would it be healthy to have 310-350 million denizens in a Lebensraum 25%-40% smaller than the US?
Will the Southwest be given in history as Forever Aztlan or will historians record that it and its people once belonged to the United States of America? Will “humane transfer” (forced migration) be used to victimize whites once again? Exactly how far will we have to push Mexicans into Mexico in order to reacquire our territory or a fraction of it?
Will the demographic cliff go down in The Win Column or be added to the annals of Flyover History?
Don’t bother asking Logisticians, N&J gurus, Military Historians or even Political Scientists for real answers to any of these questions. You won’t be able to discern the difference between the look on their face and that of a deer caught in the headlights.