War and Peace
by Revilo P. Oliver
THE CURRENT (Spring 1992) issue of the Journal of Historical Review contains two articles that have in common questions of what is termed ‘international law.’
The term, although historically explicable, is a misnomer. In the first place, there is no international law in the current sense of that word, i.e., a code established by legislation and administered by an authority that can and will punish violations of it. It can be regarded as a ‘law’ only within the concept of the Greek nomos, which includes conventions of comity and conduct that are universally respected within a given society and, although not sanctioned by legislation, may be even more binding on participants in that society’s culture.
If you invite a guest for dinner in your home, you rely on our prevailing nomos and are quite sure that even if the roast is underdone, he will not throw it at the hostess. Even in our disintegrating society, such things are “not done,” and they will not be done, even by men who constantly evade or violate legislation of which they disapprove. During the Eighteenth Century there was legislation in almost all Western countries that forbade duelling, but the legislation conflicted with the nomos: no gentleman would ignore a challenge and every gentleman stood ready to facilitate the escape of a duellist who had killed his adversary. The concept of personal honor was far more binding than a government’s legislation.
In the same way, ‘international law’ was the expression of a nomos that regulated relations between civilized states and which was observed because violation of it was dishonorable. The ambiguity of the term, however, plus a recrudescence of Christian fatuity, inspired a multitude of crackpots and scoundrels to devise schemes to make the relations between sovereign states subject to legislation that would curtail a state’s sovereignty and thus, nitwits imagined, ensure lots of peace.
The potentiality of notions that appealed to sentimentalists was not overlooked by the enemies of our race and civilization. If you have read the poisonous slop concocted by a Kike who is now known under the Germanic name he assumed, Karl Marx, you will remember that his appeal to the envy, malice, and greed of the proletariat and of mediocrities who want to pose as “intellectual,” includes a promise of a warless world as soon as Western civilization has been stamped out. Peace-posh was especially fostered and often subsidized by a conspiratorial organization bent on the liquidation of the United States, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (1)
(1. Cf. the significant cartoon, first published in 1910 and reproduced in Liberty Bell, April 1992, p. 16, in which Andrew Carnegie, the great financier and “philanthropist,” is depicted as welcoming Karl Marx to the United States. The plotters of the Endowment injudiciously left written records of some of their deliberations, so there can be no doubt about their guilt, which cannot be palliated by talk about hypothetical “ideals.”)
From such sources sprang the subversive agitation for a “League of Nations” or a “United Nations” that would reduce the conventions of intercourse between sovereign states to a legislated law enforced by super-national military power, thus abolishing the sovereignty and independence of states and creating the Sheenies’ “One World” of universal tyranny and slavery.
In the second place, ‘international law’ was not strictly international: it dealt, not with relations between nations, but with relations between states, i.e., territories under a single government. A state may be a nation, as is Japan today and as was Germany before 1945, but it may also be a government that rules a multinational population, as, for example, was the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in which a German monarchy and a German aristocracy, to which some Germanized Bohemians, Hungarians, and Poles had been recruited, ruled equably and well widely diverse ethnic groups, which were and still are separated by reciprocal and innate antagonisms, as is made obvious today by Serbian aggression on the peoples of Croatia, Bosnia, and Herzegovina. (2)
(2. It may be worth while to remark that the English pronunciation is Herzegovi’na, with the accent on the penult. The mispronunciation one commonly hears on the radio and television today is Serbian. It may be intended to imply that the province belongs to Lord Bushy’s Serbian pals.)
The ferocious and enormously bloody Wars of Religion, culminating in the Thirty Years’ War, conclusively proved that the Christians’ oddly composite god, Yahweh & Son, Inc., would do nothing to help his True Believers exterminate the diabolical servants of the Antichrist (i.e., Protestants or Catholics), and rational men had to come to the conclusion that the tripartite monster in the clouds either didn’t give a damn about his votaries or, as was more probable, had never existed outside crude fiction. The superstition still had value for governing a populace, but the European monarchies had to find a reasonable basis for governing relations among themselves.
They naturally revived the Romans’ ius gentium, the consensus of civilized nations and states on standards of conduct that permitted and facilitated intercourse between them. This was expounded and elaborated with reference to contemporary conditions by a series of eminent scholars. Hugo Grotius, now better known for his elegant Latin translation of the Anthologia Planudea, produced the fundamental work of ‘international law,” De iure belli ac pacis (1625). This was prolixly elaborated by Samuel Pufendorf in Elementa iurisprudentiae universalis (1660), and finally, with logical precision, by Christian von Wolff in Ius gentium methodo scientifico pertractatum (1746). This was codified in what had become the language of diplomacy by Emmerich von Vattel in his Droit des gens, ou principes de la loi naturelle appliqu‚es … la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains (1756), which became the standard and universally accepted authority. (3)
(3. I know not how many hundreds of scribblers subsequently wrote on this subject, most of them trying to promote some pet idea of their own or have their own axe ground at public expense. Near the end of the Nineteenth century, innumerable volumes of drivel were published by crackpots who jabbered in print about “world peace” and similar niaiserie. As I remarked above, the nonsense was encouraged and often subsidized by our eternal enemies.)
It must be noted that, first, international law, as formulated, applied only to relations between civilized nations and states, i.e., Aryans. No one in his senses ever thought it applied to relations with tribes of niggers in Africa or of savages in North America. It could be extended to relatively civilized and firmly established Oriental monarchs, such as the Sultans of Turkey, the Maharajahs of India, and the Emperors of China, to the extent that they were willing to accept its provisions and abide by them. But it was essentially a code of conduct for Europeans.
Second, the code was eminently practical. No state could attack another without a preliminary declaration of war, because no state wanted to be exposed to the danger of a sudden attack without warning. Ambassadors and envoys were sacrosanct, because if they were not, you could not reasonably ask one of your subjects to take the risk of entering the territory of a possibly hostile power. When enemy troops surrendered, you guaranteed not only their lives but comforts in captivity equal to those enjoyed by your own men of comparable rank, because you wanted to spare your men if they found themselves in a similar situation. (4) The white flag of surrender must always be respected, because you wish to avoid the losses and possible change of fortune that you would face, if the enemy fought to the death with the courage of despair. The provisions of treaties, whether public or secret, must be honorably kept until one party to the treaty denounces it (for no one imagines that a state can sign away the right to act for its own best interests).
(4. Enemy officers, being deemed to be gentleman, were not confined to prisons or camps; if they gave their word they would not escape, they were free ‘on parole’ to walk about the town, make purchases in shops or taverns, chat with the inhabitants, and accept dinner invitations. How strange all that seems today, when personal honor has been abolished and all but forgotten!)
War must be strictly limited and made as humane as possible, because you wish to spare your own people and, if you take territory from the enemy, you want that territory to be undamaged and prosperous, and its population to be content with their transfer from one state to another. War, therefore, is the business of disciplined armies, and wars are to be decided by those armies. Civilians are, by definition, non-combatants, and their lives and property are to be preserved so far as it is humanly possible to do so, to the mutual advantage of both the victorious and defeated states. Civilians of an enemy state are entitled to protection, even from an invading army, unless, of course, they have renounced their status as civilians by taking up arms. Even in civil wars, civilians who do not participate in the rebellion are to be protected, whatever their sympathies. (You remember that during the American revolution, General Gage hanged some of his own soldiers, who had been guilty of breaking into a colonial’s shop.) But civilians who engage in hostilities against an enemy army are, in effect, rebels against their own government, like pirates and bandits, and are to be treated accordingly.
Such was the code of civilized decency in peace and war observed by European nations for two centuries. There were wars in monarchical Europe, but none was disastrous. Colonel Hoffman Nickerson, who liked to call democracy l‘anthropaphage because it devours so many human lives, was fond of noting how small were the armies of European monarchies and how relatively few lives were lost in their wars. He cited the estimate that in 1704, the year of Blenheim (which contemporaries considered a terribly bloody battle), the British Army and Navy decided the fate of Europe at the cost of less than 5,000 dead, of which 2,000 fell in the four major battles, whereas in 1914-1918 the British Army and Navy lost an average of 200,000 men every year. (5) Thus did democracy permanently impoverish Britain’s genetic heritage.
(5. See especially Colonel Nickerson’s article, “Democracy and Mass Massacre,” in the American Mercury, April 1932.)
Even after the blood-thirsty conspirators of the French Revolution revived the Christian mania of Holy Wars, civilized nations tried to respect the canon of international law. The first serious breach in that code was made surreptitiously by Great Britain in 1915, when she used armed merchant vessels treacherously to destroy German submarines that observed the rules of civilized warfare. And the last nation that tried to observe the old decencies of combat was Germany under Adolf Hitler.
The crazed Americans did not openly become an outlaw nation until 1945. They respected some parts of the old code. For example, they treated with some consideration the Japanese diplomats who were stranded here in 1941, and they interned the thousands of Japanese who were residing in this country, instead of massacring them, as would have been more in keeping with American righteousness and as they would doubtless have done, had their Jewish masters hated Japanese as much as they hated Aryans.
With so much of preamble, we may turn to the articles in the Journal of Historical Review.
As everyone who had access to reliable information at the time well knew, the “heroic French Resistance,” so clamorously lauded by the liepapers after the defeat of France in 1940, was really a pack of rebels engaged in a revolt against the legitimate government of France, which, having miscalculated when it declared war on Germany, had been decisively defeated and had accordingly concluded the best possible treaty with Germany to spare the French people unnecessary hardship and suffering. But the “Resistance” was more than that. It consisted primarily of the criminal class of France, hired by British Intelligence and paid handsomely by American taxpayers. The apaches and other professional criminals were augmented by Communist-minded potential criminals among the lowest classes of peasantry and workers, also eager for gold and immunity for the crimes they could at last commit with impunity; and there was a small leaven of hot-headed and unthinking French youths and “idealists,” inflated with a spurious patriotism or “humanitarianism,” who principally served as decoys to be thrown in the path of the German Gestapo while the hardened and expert criminals made their escape.
Even if it had not been composed of such unsavory and vicious creatures, the French Resistance was, in terms of international law, a horde of outlaws, similar to pirates and ordinary bandits, and it is amazing what adulation it was accorded by Americans crazed with Christian righteousness, even before the great War Criminal in Washington contrived open warfare against Germany by surreptitiously mounting a projected and treacherous attack on Japan.
I remember having attended a performance of a play, written and produced by a blood-thirsty American woman in 1941 to arouse enthusiasm for a jihad against Germany. It was full of hogwash about “saving the world” and “the cause of mankind,” and one saw jackbooted and ruthless “Nazis,” but I now remember only one scene. The hero of the play was a Professor of English in an American university who had contracted an itch to “fight for freedom [sic!]” and deliriously rushed off to join the French “freedom-fighters.” I recall only the scene in which he, looking like a wet rat, crawled out of the sewers of Paris (the authoress had read Les Misérables) to help heroic French men and women plot to dynamite a railway train on the chance that some of the victims might be Germans.
After the defeat of Germany, the French criminals and French scum that had waited to join them until it was safe to do so indulged in a vast orgy of murder to sate their innate blood-lust and their hatred of their betters, with the approval of the French revolutionary general, Charles de Gaulle, whose treason had been rewarded with success and temporary sovereignty over his unhappy country. These massacres were euphemistically called the puration. Many of the murders were inspired by the hostes generis humani to avenge rational consideration of the Jewish problem, and others were hired by businessmen, large and small, who delightedly found a way to eliminate successful rivals in their business. It has been estimated that about one hundred thousand French men and women of the upper classes were murdered between 1940 and 1946 by the “heroic” criminals of the “Resistance,” whom professional liars have taught you to admire.
Years ago, Professor Robert Faurisson, a true hero who has championed the cause of historical truth despite vicious harassment by the Jewish government of France, undertook a detailed study of the bloody operations of the “heroic Resistance” in 1944, i.e., before the defeat of Germany, by just two bands of maquisards in certain communities of just one small district of France, the region around Confolens, a small town of a few thousand inhabitants north-east of AngoulŠme and north-north-east of a small city of which all Americans know the name, Cognac, in the modern départment of Charente, which is directly east of Charente-Maritime, the départment on the Atlantic coast, south of La Rochelle.
In that relatively tiny and rather thinly populated area, Professor Faurisson undertook to ascertain the names of the victims of the maquis, the circumstances of their murder, and the lies by which the guilty have with some success covered up their crimes. For example, some residents of the region now repeat the story that a priest who was foully tortured and murdered, probably because he went to the guerrilla band to protest their treatment of seven of his parishioners whom they were about to murder, was not a priest, but was a German spy, who had worn a German captain’s uniform under his cassock. That story had been validated by murdering the priest’s house-keeper, who knew the truth.
Professor Faurisson even ascertained in many cases what had been done with the corpses; e.g., “Ten or so bodies [i.e., ten identified victims and possibly others] are still buried in the ‘foxholes’ at the old Jayet mill, for exhuming them would mean exhuming a part of the truth in contradiction to the legend that grows stronger year by year.”
In this highly detailed study, Professor Faurisson meticulously reports what he learned from each witness who dared talk to him, and he judiciously evaluates each testimony with critical acumen. Some of the stories he was told exemplify a common phenomenon: narrators supply from imagination details they do not recall. For example, one source told Professor Faurisson that a young bride, whom the “Freedom Fighters” seized and murdered in her wedding gown after looting her well-furnished chalet, (6) had been shot “at dawn.” Actually the murder occurred at 9 P.M.
(6. It took 126 men with two trucks to cart away all the loot. You will have no difficulty in understanding, despite the author’s scrupulous silence, why the unfortunate young woman, who seems to have had no political interests whatever, was guilty of “collaboration with the Nazis.” The guilt of the owner of what was the most highly reputed automobile factory in France and many other prosperous and cultivated victims was, no doubt, similarly established.)
Professor Faurisson even located and interviewed some of the murderers, who are still alive, flourishing, and feel quite secure. No one, of course, would ever accuse them of “war crimes”: they never offended a Sheeny.
Four excerpts from Professor Faurisson’s unfinished work were published in the Revue d’histoire r‚visionniste in the spring of 1991, and have now been translated into English under the title, A Dry Chronicle of the Purge.
These portions of his study do not lend themselves to summary, and it will suffice to say that the conduct of the “heroic Resistance” was precisely what any intelligent man would expect of the human offal of which it was composed. When one reads the article in the Journal of Historical Review, one must remember that the author scrupulously refrains from inferring even obvious motives when there is no specific evidence for them, and bear in mind that what he reports is only one small sample of the work of the “heroic Resistance,” which, multiplied many thousand times, engulfed all France with its terrible hatred of decent human beings.
That, in turn, is a small part of the disasters the American boobs brought upon mankind, which, an imaginative person would say, they are now doomed to expiate.
The diary kept by the Japanese General and Prime Minister, Hideki Tojo, after he was imprisoned by the Americans in 1945 and until they murdered him in 1948, has been translated into English for the first time by Henry Symington and General Hideo Miki. It is not easy reading in many places, but you must not unjustly suspect the translators. Tojo was a man of a race whose mentality is fundamentally different from ours, but he was trying to address our mentality (which he probably could not understand), and I feel confident that his sometimes involute discourse was accurately put into English, at least so far as is possible, given the great difference between the two kinds of language.
The “trial” of Tojo, needless to say, was an obscene farce. Not only by international law, but by the innate ethics of our race, the rulers and officers of a defeated state, who fought for their country and nation, are entitled to the respect and consideration that Aryans instinctively accord brave enemies. (7) But the American assassins, sent to murder Tojo, played with the unfortunate victim and subjected him to at least mental torture by pretending, with odious hypocrisy, to be a court of justice and open to reasonable argument.
(7. The fact that the Japanese, like the Chinese and all Mongoloid peoples, were, by biological necessity, the enemies of our race was relevant, but not mentioned at the time, since plans for the liquidation of Americans depended on keeping the boobs befuddled with the Christian hokum that denies biological reality.)
The murder of the Japanese was probably ordered to provide a kind of simulated counterpart to the even more foul murders that the victorious Americans, reverting to the savagery of the Indians from whom they once took their country, perpetrated at Nuremberg and elsewhere in Germany at the behest of their Yiddish masters.
Well, the really binding laws of nature, from which there is no appeal, cannot be flouted with impunity. Now, forty-five years later, Japan is the foremost industrial nation of the whole world. The United States is a wasteland, ruled by its implacable enemies and filled with biological refuse, and the ruined Americans, their economy bankrupt and their industry destroyed, have become a dead nation, waiting for the undertaker.
* * *
Source: Liberty Bell magazine, July 1992