all 8 comments

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229643/This-isnt-Britain-fought-say-unknown-warriors-WWII.html

This is the first thing that comes to mind. It's a British book that contains interviews with veterans and people who lived through the war and they're horrified by what has happened to Britain.

[–]Richard_Parker 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Peter Brimelow recentlt referenced conversations with British veterans whom were disillusioned given the reverse colonization and other factors. He did not mention names though.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That might be a good talking point with normies and young progressives, "If colonization is bad then why do you condone reverse colonization?"

The biggest frustration I have is with Liberals over 40. They aren't even on script with the current leftist dogma. Most of the shit they say would get them called a racist by the mainstream media and fired or ostracized. They are almost completely oblivious to the anti white hate rising up all around them. Yet they continue to live in their bubbles (often very white housing, white businesses and white workplaces) and they continue to vote straight democrat in local and national elections. They especially eat up all the BLM nonsense. Yet fail to look deeper at what BLM is really demanding and participating in.

In fact the best way to describe the average middle age or older white liberal is 'chronically misinformed' and primed to see 'racism' everywhere. This priming makes everything you say to them run through a filter of, 'is this person just a closet racist that I can write off?' It's fucking super frustrating.

[–]Jacinda 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

[–]Jacinda 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Charles Lindbergh served in the pacific theatre. He maintained the US lost WWII

Charles Lindbergh:

Your ask what my conclusions are, rereading my journals and looking back on World War II from the vantage point of quarter century in time? We won the war in a military sense; but in a broader sense it seems to me we lost it, for our Western civilization is less respected and secure than it was before.

[Snip...]

Much of our Western culture was destroyed. We lost the genetic heredity formed through eons of many million lives. Meanwhile, the Soviets have dropped their Iron Curtain to screen off Eastern Europe, and an antagonistic Chinese Government threatens us in Asia.

[Snip...]

It is alarmingly possible that World War II marks the beginning of our Western civilization's breakdown [Cont...]

He wrote that before the mass immigration and the advent of multiculturalism. He would be horrified to see his country now.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The US didn't lose lol, Americanism took over the world. It's just that the US/Americanism is entirely against Americans

[–]Girondin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also remember that their was a large post-war literature that Hitler was jewish, globalist, a rothschild stooge etc, written by ww2 veterans (usually KKK members), it is obvious cope.

Some of them might not regret it but I am suspect due to the ridiculous copes they made that no historian takes seriously.

See the book "iron curtain over America", Ron Unz has alleged that this book was read by numerous high profile US commanders, and was the second most popular book on conservatism in the 1950s. some select quotes:

In a speech before the Dallas, Texas Alumni Club of Columbia University on Armistice Day, 1950, General of the Army D wight D. Eisenhower stated that as Supreme Commander in Europe he made a habit of asking American soldiers why they were fighting the Germans and 90% of the boys said they a had no idea. Very significantly, General Eisenhower did not offer members of his Alumni Group any precise answer to his own question. The high point of his speech was a statement of his hope that Columbia might become the fountain-head for widely disseminated simple and accurate information which will prevent our country from ever again “stumbling into war” at “the whim of the man who happens to be president” (notes taken by the author, who attended the Alumni Club meeting, and checked immediately with another Columbian who was also present).

The American soldier is not the only one who wondered and is still wondering about the purposes of World War II. Winston Churchill has called it “The Unnecessary War.” In view of our legacy of deaths, debt, and danger, Churchill’s term may be considered an understatement

... The facts and conclusions thus far outlined in this chapter establish fully the validity of Churchill’s phrase “The Unnecessary War.” The war was unnecessary in its origin, unnecessary cruel in its prolongation, indefensible in the double-crossing of our ally Britain, criminal in our surrender of our own strategic security in the world, and all of this the more monstrous because it was accomplished in foul obeisance before the altar of anti- Christian power in America.

[–]Jacinda 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Although he didn't fight, your question made me think of Céline's comments on the battle for Stalingrad. Here's one version.

Paris Review:

INTERVIEWER

And for you the tragic in our times?

CÉLINE

It’s Stalingrad. How’s that for catharsis! The fall of Stalingrad is the finish of Europe. There was a cataclysm. The core of it all was Stalingrad. There you can say it was finished and well finished, the white civilization. [Cont...]