Dear Patrice. First i want to thank you for exposing the protocols of German leadership before WWI.
Reading your material, “Austria must deal firmly with the Slavs living outside its borders (the Serbs) if it does not want to lose control over the Slavs under the Austrian monarchy”.
Then “The Kaiser thought that Britain, Germany and the U.S.— the best representatives of Christian civilization—were natural allies against the “semi-barbarous Latin and Slavic nations” (including France and Russia), but that all should defend civilization “against the Oriental races.” The alliance was to exclude what was defined as the “racially inferior French“.
These sentences show clearly that Hitler was not a historical accident. In contrary. It is well known that racist concepts penetrated deeply the German conservative leading elites and not only the military but also the intellectual parts of the society. Unfortunately after the first world war and defeat this philosophy-ideology only strengthened and become more widespread among the simple people. The result was Hitler.
To my opinion the crimes committed by Europe during the two world wars delegitimized it’s moral stance in any issue, even if today it preaches for peace and humanism. And as times passes and these crimes are subject of intellectual research, they seem more and more horrendous and unacceptable. If there will be no ideological revival of some kind, European civilization will be buried under the wight of its crimes.
Patrice Ayme Says:
November 12, 2013 at 5:48 pm | Reply
Dear Eugen: Hitler was no accident. All he did he learned from his superiors. Luddendorf, for most of WWI the de facto head of the Kaiser’s army was in the Nazi party before Hitler. In the 1923 fusillade he kept on marching towards the troops, after many had been killed, including right and left of Hitler. Hitler fled to an American plutocrat mansion. The pluto had fled to Austria. Nimeyer (or so), his wife, dissuaded Hitler to commit suicide.
In 1919, instead of trying and executing all the German war criminals, one decided forgiveness. 25 years later, one decided to cut the crap. Even then, the punishment of war criminals was less than France intended: IBM escaped french justice, for example (with the help of he OSS).
Leclerc, head of the French SECOND ARMORED DIVISION (HEAVY) got to Strasbourg in three hours after extremely heavy fighting in the Vosges. The American army had prepared Leclerc’s division as a sort of high powered dart.
Don’t forget the French Republic deliberately declared war to Hitler. Hitler had no plans to attack France, and had no pretended he wanted to attack France. So France, clearly, stood for civilization.
She paid a heavy price. However French tanks arrived first to the Rhine, November 19, 1944 (OK, they were Sherman tanks manned by De Lattre crazed out First French army)
The “racially inferior” were found all over Europe, according to the Kaiser and HOUSE. At the time, there were “HUMAN zoos” in the USA.
French civilization is European civilization, the sort of barbary that was dominant in the USa and Germany for a while is its antithesis.
And this is completely actual, right now, in the fight against plutocracy.
Dominique Deux Says:
November 12, 2013 at 10:08 pm | Reply
EugenR – I generally share your analysis but I cannot accept “the crimes committed “by” Europe during the two world wars”. Europe, as such, did commit crimes during its history, but that was earlier – Crusades, Wars of Religion, Colonialism. By WWI and II Europe had grown out of its delinquent past. The horrendous crimes committed during those two wars must be laid on the doorstep not of Europe, but of its steadily losing darker side, whose eradication had started with the Revolution, and which spent most of the nineteenth century fighting back with the Papacy and Whitehall’s full support, and is now a shadow of its former self, albeit dangerous still, and malodorant.
(in that outlook, Napoleon was like Bomber Harris, Europe’s nasty weapon against a much darker evil – I know Patrice will disagree).
A “marker” of that dark side has been, of course, plutocracy; another one has been institutionalized, policy-shaping racism. Both have plagued Europe, but they are, in essence, anti-European, or “unEuropean” (as they say of “unAmerican” activities).
In that respect, as a French Celt and therefore mostly white (Celts are happily mixing creatures), I always felt, in my earlier days, that I belonged to the “guilty” rather than the “receiving” end of racism: I could choose to embrace or reject it, but did not feel targeted by it. I very slowly came to realize that as a Frenchman, I have been in fact targeted by racism – like other Latin or Mitteleuropa populations – but I thought I could shrug it off as the consequences were much lighter than the horrific and ongoing plight of Africans or Asians. Yet that realization was … educational. That racism was most (and first) visible in American media and society, because of the US’ pretty uninhibited approach to societal issues in general and race in particular, but I have no delusions about (say) British or Dutch society – which I know well
Thus Patrice’s revelations about the superior races plotting for world empire in 1914 may horrify me, but they do not surprise me. They perfectly fit in with many cultural and societal symptoms which were visible at that time.
Patrice Ayme Says:
November 13, 2013 at 12:03 am | Reply
As soon as I hear the word Napoleon, I man my guns… OK, the situation was this:
Britsh plutocracy of the worst type (the Pitts, no I did not make that up!) attacked revolutionary France. Big mistake said Loyd George later.
Then English attack and invade Provence. Messy ineffectual siege of Toulon relevied by artillery genius Napoleon, wounded in combat.
Napoleon goes crazy, egged and empowered by a would new clas of plutocrats.
Nap’s victories could, and did happen with other generals. It was the spirit that won.
Nap was no Bomber Harris, because Bomber Harris, when he was told to hit fuel, he hit fuel, although he would have much preferred to keep killing Germam babies. nap took orders from no one, not even his mother, or common sense.
OK, I agree that by the time of the Russian campaign, he was stuck. And also that failed because of typhus epidemic, extreme winter, etc. and indifferent generalship (huge losses on the European army from frontal attacks)
Otherwise I seem to agree with the rest.
עוגן רודן (EugenR) Says: November 13, 2013 at 6:52 pm | Reply
Napoleon was the greatest waisted opportunity to unite Europe without to much bloodshed. After Austerlitz he could easily unite France with the fractioned Italy and Germany, Austria, Prussia and Spain, while leaving their anachronistic kings and princes as formal heads of countries they rule. These sometimes half retarded heads of countries would eagerly cooperate with Napoleon to reform the administration in their countries, to try to copy the great success of Napoleon’s reformed France administration. If this would happen, Europe as whole would be more than ready to adapt the steam industrial revolution, that started just few year after Napoleon. Then Europe could release the Balkans from the grip of the Ottomans, and even the British could not oppose it.
But even the intellectual Napoleon couldn’t do better than its predecessors. He nominated himself to be a Cesar, then attacked Spain and allowed to his Marshall Murat to murder the Spaniards who gathered out of curiosity in the main squares of Madrid, just to make them bitter enemies of anything French. Still Napoleon did not learn the lesson of limited capacity of abused power usage to achieve the goals of the attacker, and he attacked Russia. The rest is well known.
Just to add some conclusion, the again fractioned post Napoleonic Europe learned from Napoleon the lesson of potential efficiency of a military dictatorship and discovered the nationalism as a driving force of hate to the others, so useful to the illegitimate rulers of the new urbanized Europe that rose out of the Napoleon wars, and the scenario for the disastrous twentieth century was ready.
Patrice Ayme Says:
November 13, 2013 at 7:13 pm | Reply
Dear Eugen: Agreed. I will reply on another post, because threads come out bad in smart phones. If Napoleon had been like George Washington, it would not have happened. Nap said washington was “the greatest man that ever lived“… when he heard about his renunciation of power… Very telling.
Nap needed to be president, not “emperor”.
November 13, 2013 at 7:54 pm | Reply
Yes the great founding fathers of US, G.Washington, J.Madison, T.Jefferson, B.Franklin, A.Hamilton. All of them gave their rightful share to this amazing achievement the USA. I would write a book about them, but there are so many better than me to do it. I wonder if you ask in France who is more admired, them or Napoleon, what would most of them say. To me as economist A.Hamilton is a real wonder, how out of nowhere he created modern economy with central bank, which Jefferson the republican later abolished. It was of course a mistake. But who can criticize him after those amazing words, The self evident truth……
Patrice Ayme Says:
November 13, 2013 at 8:50 pm | Reply
The Democratic-Republican Party, also known as Jeffersonian Republicans, was the political party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791-93. It was opposed to the Federalists.
It split in the Democrats and Republicans (1854) later.
Jefferson was an enslaver, a liar, a child abuser and rapist, plus a holocaust category massacrer of Indians who conquered more than Germany and France combined. But, true, he had good words. The Jefferson memorial is the most worthy thing in Washington. I suspect that, when he wrote them, he stole them somewhere (Montesquieu).
When in Paris, although protected by diplomatic immunity, he was told he could not keep slaves. He had to free them, and pay them a wage. However he lied to the relative girl he sexed and had enslaved. So she followed him back to the USa, where he enslaved her again. For life.
As a person, even Napoleon was not THAT bad. Another supreme achievement of Jefferson was supreme hypocrisy, and that, in turn, became the superior weapon of the USA. See Obama.
Napoleon and the rest | EugenR Lowy עוגן רודן Says:
November 13, 2013 at 7:18 pm | Reply
[…] http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/plot-against-france-1912-2013/ […]
Patrice Ayme Says:
November 13, 2013 at 7:36 pm | Reply
However, when he attacked Russia, he had little choice, from his point of view. His army was mostly German and Polish.
The forces in presence were launched even before naughty Nap. The obduracy of the plutocrats, the Pitts in england, and the fact the revolutionaries did not understand well enough what the Marquis de Sade, the greatest philosopher around, was talking about.
Verily, Nap was a nap of intelligence. I find the Nap cult, even found in the USA, deeply disgusting. Or then one should be logical, and put a bust of hitler next to that of Napoleon.
Just like they CCed the holocaust of the Indians by the Americans, the Nazis CCed Napoleon, very consciously.
Amusingly, that worked very well. Napoleon had the coldest winter in several millennia, and the Nazis got the most severe winter in decades. In the former case, human breath would froze and stay up in the dense air. In the later, Nazi machines stopped moving entirely, and all they could see was Stalin’s 250,000 very fresh Siberian troops skiing around, thanks to Pearl Harbor.
November 13, 2013 at 9:06 pm | Reply
Some addition to the founding fathers. The most amazing thing about them is not their intellectual capacity, after all i am quite sure they existed also in France during the revolution or even in pre-revolutionary Russia, but that they found their way to the top of the leadership. But the founding fathers of French revolution became Talleyrand, Fouche, Robespierre, Barras and Napoleon, the Russian revolution Lenin and Stalin and the Iranian revolution Khomeini.
Then Washington refused whole life presidency and invented the presidency of four years.And before that he resigned from the head of the army an act even Gorge III admired. I don’t know of any historical precedence for such a move. Do You?
They were very unusual people of correct principles. By the way, where are hiding these people now? In the academy 🙂
Patrice Ayme Says:
November 13, 2013 at 9:08 pm | Reply
To be answered is separate comment (to break the nesting effect). They had NO choice. They were vicious bastards, but nobody wanted to dies for them.
November 13, 2013 at 9:14 pm | Reply
Dear Patrice, I have also problems with Jefferson. Yes he is not as clean as a mountain spring. He had more than 100 slaves in his farm. All i can say to his defense, he lived in a different time with different values. I know for such an educated man as him it is a very weak excuse, but i just don’t have any better.
Patrice Ayme Says:
November 13, 2013 at 9:11 pm | Reply
Eugen: American Founding Fathers could not grab too much power for themselves. NO choice. Sometimes even the most vicious bastards find no one to die for them.
November 13, 2013 at 9:20 pm | Reply
So you say it was balance of power out of necessity? Also in case of Washington? I don’t think so. He was a man of honor, above the rest, even if less intellectual than Jefferson and Madison.
Yes, Jefferson with his pen created political rivality of new heights. I wonder is it good or bad?