Is it Really the Germans’ Fault? A Response to Colin Liddell’s Anglo Arrogance

Below I am posting an expanded version of a comment I left over at Affirmative Right in response to Colin Liddell’s tiresome and now all-too-familiar rant against Hitler, Germany, and so-called “1488ers”.

Hitler as an Expression of German “Bad Form”
by Colin Liddell

Today we enter “The Twelve Days of Hitler,” the period between the anniversary of the birth of the Adolf Hitler (20th April) and the anniversary of the announcement of his death (1st May). It’s a bit like Black History Month for 1488ers, but many other people also take an interest. . .

Hitler’s extremism, his lack of proportion, and his inability to find balance are sometimes explained – or justified – by referring to the “brutal” peace of Versailles that involved heavy financial reparations and the loss of colonies and much territory. The English economist John Maynard Keynes famously described this as a “Carthaginian Peace,” comparing it to the extremely harsh terms the Romans imposed on their defeated Punic rivals:

“Two rival schemes for the future polity of the world took the field,—the Fourteen Points of the President, and the Carthaginian Peace of M. Clemenceau. Yet only one of these was entitled to take the field; for the enemy had not surrendered unconditionally, but on agreed terms as to the general character of the Peace.”

In this view, Hitler’s reckless and doomed career of revenge, geopolitical over-ambition, and military overstretch were all forced on him by this supposedly unjustified national humiliation. But, actually, Germany had been defeated militarily – relatively fairly and squarely – and was hardly the first beaten country to be subjected to onerous peace terms, which, in effect, were imposed rather laxly, as proved by Hitler’s subsequent career.

My response: The biggest scandal of the First World War was the successful Jewish lobbying of America to enter the war on Britain’s behalf as quid pro quo for the Balfour Declaration in which Britain illegally signed over Palestinian land to the Jews. This source of Germany’s defeat was anything but the result of “fair and square” dealing.

More interestingly, Germany’s path to war in WWI has similar characteristics to its path to war in WWII, and even to post-war German history – the same sweaty mania and tendency to overdo things – suggesting that something inherent in the nature of Germans was the cause of WWII, rather than merely the petty vindictiveness of Monsieur Clemenceau at Versailles. Just as Hitler was pushing too fast and too far in the 1930s, so too was Kaiser Wilhelm in the years leading up to 1914. There too we see the same indelicate haste, arrogance, and insensitivity, something that is also mirrored in the present age with Angela Merkel and her über-signalling on migrants. . .

Just as Kaiser Wilhelm’s shrill, overwrought Germanism was the driving force behind the horrors of WWI, so Hitler’s unhinged revanchism was the factor leading to WWII. 

Many 1488ers like to share the meme about the “Jewish declaration of war on Germany” in 1933. This is a story from the Daily Express newspaper reporting on a Jewish campaign to boycott Germany. Obviously that didn’t work out, as the German economy was doing better than ever several years later. . .

My response: This is correct, but it glosses over the fact that the Jewish campaign to boycott Germany was merely the first shot in their campaign to bring Germany to its knees, as Germany’s subsequent rape and dismemberment shows.

Also, the Jews were in a poor position to persuade other “Goys” to fight Germany. In the wake of WWI, pacifism was strong, with powerful supporters across the West. It was only Hitler’s excessive exploitation of this anti-war feeling that finally rekindled the will of Europeans to resist further German expansion, and an all-out invasion of Poland in conjunction with the Soviet Union that forced the reluctant hand of the Western allies. In short, Hitler had plenty of options and was making great progress, when his “inner German” got the better of him and madness ensued. 

My response: The Western Allies had nothing to gain and everything to lose by going to war with Germany a second time. Hitler had no designs on the West and simply demanded a free hand in the east. If England and France genuinely cared about the violation of Poland’s sovereignty, why did they declare war on Germany but not the Soviet Union? Oh, and by the way, how did that Anglo-French “war guarantee” to Poland actually turn out for the Polish people?

The Second World War was the greatest catastrophe in Western history (as the subsequent events up to this day show all too clearly). The Western Allies should never have interfered with Germany’s freedom of action in the east. We would be immeasurably better off today had the West never declared war upon Germany a second time — or, given that it did — had the Germans won the war.

See the following William Pierce classics:

What Really Started World War Two (https://nationalvanguard.or…

Media Myths (http://williamlutherpierce….


Below is the debate between me and Liddell that continued in the comments section of Liddell’s article “Hitler as an Expression of German Bad Form”. My replies are in bold.

Liddell: As a typical Jew obsessive, all you see are Jews as factors. The fact is that Germany’s vacillating submarine warfare policy had more to do with America’s entry into the war than anything else.

In 1917 the Germans, in a desperate bid to break the British, who were pushing them hard in the West and pushing them into starvation by blockading their ports, resumed unrestricted submarine warfare, a red line that they were pretty sure would trigger the Americans into war. They decided that the chance of breaking Britain was worth the risk. Bad decision, Germans!

Also, let’s assume that the Jews were as powerful and influential as you claim, why then did the Germans not use them as a weapon of war, like you claim the British did? After all they, through their Turkish ally, actually controlled Palestine and could dangle it as a tasty carrot to “International Jewry.” The Brits didn’t get their hands on that valuable piece of real estate until 8 months after the Yanks entered the war. Are you literally trying to say the Germans were as big an idiot as you?

Then there’s this: apart from those Jews with specific business interests in a British victory, Jews in America would largely side with the Kaiser and the Austrian Emperor whose empires had ten times as many of their fellow Jews as the relatively Jew-free British Empire, which was also allied with the one major Empire that was still actively discriminating against Jews, namely the Russian Empire.

Now, calmly put down the Jew and step away from it before you harm your ability to think any more.

My response: Accusing someone of being a “Jew-obsessive” is just facile name-calling. While the Jews certainly deserve blame for the part they played in the Second World War, the bigger and more important question is who is to blame amongst the non-Jewish participants in the conflict, and on this front, your analysis is sorely lacking.

Liddell: It’s not facile calling you a “Jew obsessive.” You’re from National Vanguard, one of the most Jew-obsessed websites ever. Jew obsession influences your every waking moment.

This is the precise reason your analysis of WWI and WWII is so shitty. Because you have to thread everything through your Jew-obsession lace hole.

As for the non-Jewish participants in the conflict, yes, it is shocking how Poland forced itself under the feet of the German army in September 1939. I hope those poor German soldiers were not too traumatised by the experience.

My response: Re-read my last comment about who is to blame amongst the non-Jewish participants in the war and then tell me who’s obsessing about Jews. My contention is that blame for the Second World War and the subsequent implosion of the West lies squarely with England, France, and the United States, not with Germany.

Now re-read my comment before that referring to the disastrous Anglo-French “war guarantee” to Poland. I don’t blame the Poles for getting run over by the Germans before being handed over to the Soviets; I blame England and France for that nightmare, and I’m dumbfounded as to why this needed to be explained a second time.

Liddell: The war guarantee to Poland came out of Hitler fucking with the map of Europe for the previous few years. The problem was not British and French assertiveness as you wrongly think, but the lack of it.

A zero tolerance response to Germany breaking its first treaty obligation would have made Hitler back down and have avoided WWII and the mess we are in now.

Merkel’s madness reminds us that the final solution to the German problem is something like the Morgenthau Plan. It is good to see that a separate East German consciousness still survives. Maybe that, along with Bavaria’s strong regional character, could be the basis of a final solution to the German Problem.

My response: Endorsing a Morgenthau Plan as a “final solution to the German Problem” is perhaps the most unhinged and self-discrediting statement a putative White advocate has ever made. It does lend credence to the notion, however, that the blame for the Second World War and the subsequent implosion of the West does not lie solely or perhaps even principally with the Jews.

Liddell: What’s wrong with Germany being divided into a few smaller states? You just sound hysterical.

My Response: I can only assume you’re merely pretending to be dense at this point. Regardless, I believe that about concludes this exchange and I appreciate you showing your hand.

* * *

Source: Affirmative Right

Previous post

Homeless Jack on the Sacred Swastika

Next post

Contemptible White People

Notify of
Inline Feedback
View all comments
26 April, 2019 7:44 am

Britain itself broke the Versailles Treaty. There was a general disarmament clause whereby all signatories were supposed to reduce their armed forces. The UK didn’t comply – https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7937

Reply to  Les
27 April, 2019 10:24 am

Among the victorious powers of World War I, only Britain and Japan ratified the Treaty of Versailles. The French parliament rejected the treaty, with some members calling it vengeful. The fact that Germany was expected to abide by the terms of the treaty while France was not, and Britain did not, created an untenable situation. On 23 March 1933 Hitler stated before the German pariliament: “Germany has been waiting years for other nations to fulfill their promises to reduce armaments. We would gladly refrain from increasing our own if the others would agree to radical reduction of theirs.”

It was right after a decision to enlarge the French armed forces that Hitler decided that Germany should ignore the treaty too. http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com/2010/11/did-hitler-violate-treaty-of-versailles.html

27 April, 2019 10:17 am

Hitler was not motivated by “unhinged revanchism.” His actions in 1939 had no direct relationship with the Treaty of Versailles. He was not pursuing any agenda of revenge. Colin Liddell notes that Hitler’s actions don’t seem rational. Well, that’s a good indication that Colin Liddell doesn’t have enough information to understand why Hitler would do what he did. Adolf Hitler in 1939 was reacting to provocations and dangers that presented themselves at that time. The Treaty of Versailles affected Hitler’s actions indirectly, insofar as Germany had been given an indefensible border with Poland. Thus it was a matter of vital importance for Germany if Poland was friendly or hostile. While Pilsudski ruled Poland, there was no problem, but his successors allowed themselves to be influenced through American diplomacy to take… Read more »

Storm Warning
Storm Warning
27 April, 2019 11:05 am

I am not a Hitlerphile. That said, Colin Liddell runs a dishonest website whereby he verbally abuses those who disagree with his faultily-researched assessments on any variety of subjects. Cogent responses (backed up with references) are routinely deleted from his Disqus comments within minutes if they expose him to any kind of embarrassment – which happens often with his slapdash articles. In regard to the current article, he drew upon 1910 UK census data that a commenter countered with more relevant Census data from 1933, the year Hitler took power. Instead of acknowledging this, Liddell outright lied when he responded to this commenter by stating his 1910 census data “actually” referred to 1940’s data – when no such time period was ever referenced in his article. Then, when the commenter… Read more »

27 April, 2019 9:57 pm

In both world wars the British establishment accused Germany of trying to “take over the world”. They also accused the Germans of being “warmongers”. This is a classic case of projection because the largest empire on earth was that of the British. And the country that has been involved in more wars than any other is Britain.
Even a UK newspaper admits this.

Reply to  Les
9 May, 2019 4:41 pm

The British Empire was sixty-six times larger than the German Empire at the commencement of WW2.

During the previous thousand years the German states were involved in 8% of wars in Europe. Britain was involved in 28%.

27 April, 2019 11:38 pm

This is what happened to Germany. More German civilians and POWs died in the 2 years after WW2 ( During allied occupation) than civilians and soldiers died during 5 years of fighting.The British and American troops were as bad as the Communist Marxists.



Walt Hampton
Walt Hampton
28 April, 2019 4:54 pm

This was taken from the August 2000 NA BULLETIN: WE ALL LOST ——————- Revisionist history has may aspects besides going back to check the “official” version of events presented by the victors in a war to see if they are accurate. Another form of revisionist history is counterfactual historical analysis: what would have happened if such and such had been the case instead? This is not simply Monday-morning Quarterbacking; it is analysis to help us understand what was at stake in the past and the significance of the actual outcome, and to offer guidance for present action and future outcomes. In this context it is useful and instructive to ask the counterfactual historical question: What would have happened if the United States had stayed out of the Second World War… Read more »

Reply to  Walt Hampton
9 May, 2019 4:46 pm

If the Kaiser’s most generous peace offer in history on 12 December 1916 had been accepted then WW1 would have ceased and most of the wars since then would not have occurred. It depended on one last signature.

Instead British Zionists had the war restarted after receiving Britain’s promise that they would receive Palestine.

8 May, 2019 7:54 pm

Perfidious albion raises its ugly head yet again. Lidell’s incessant and infantile German polemic is reminiscent of the judeo-masonic clique that were responsible for the bloody “revolutions” and wars from the 18th to the 20th centuries. This would-be charlatan echoes the same bigoted and blinkered attitudes that created the synthetic war psychosis around 1939, where England can do no wrong and everything German is bad. Lidell’s sanctimonious tirade has all the hallmarks of complicit baiting, designed to emphasise the differences between northern Europeans instead of finding a common set of causes from which we would (and should) be working in unison. This person is clearly a pretender and does not have the best interests of any Europeans within his narrow pretense. He propagates the mainstream narrative while throwing a few… Read more »

9 May, 2019 4:00 am






14 June, 2019 3:40 pm

Don’t forget the mass slaughters done to whites through history, perpetrated by Mongols, Huns, Turks, and Moors/Arabs.

9 May, 2019 4:02 am


13 May, 2019 11:37 pm

At Valley Forge, it was the Baron von Steuben who showed the Redcoats what “Good Form” really means, literally.