Eric Zuesse -- The Victory America Won for Fascism and Nazism After WW II

 The Victory America Won for Fascism and Nazism After WW II

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at Strategic Culture, updated here

INTRODUCTION

This article is about the role ideology actually played in World War II, the Cold War, and plays in today’s world. The links here provide access to deeper explorations, regarding each linked issue. Links are provided instead of notes, because all of the sources here are freely available online, and because in the digital era (as we now are) notes are archaic except when a source is not available online. Readers who are interested in the documentation at any point can instantaneously access that in the article’s online version simply by clicking onto the link. Readers who aren’t interested in ideology won’t be interested in understanding that the U.S. is now a certain type of fascist country, as is to be documented and explained in this article, which starts by discussing Hitler’s ideology, because some — but obviously not all — aspects of it became the U.S. Government’s ideology virtually the moment when U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt died on 12 April 1945 and was immediately replaced by Harry S. Truman.

THE HISTORY

Adolf Hitler is the best source for understanding his ideology. On 27 January 1932, he spoke before the Industry Club of Dusseldorf. Somehow (and it’s not fully understood how, even today) he managed to double his vote-percentage, from 18.3% in September 1930, to 37.3% in July 1932. The owner of Vereinigte Stahlwerke, the world’s largest steel and mining cartel, Fritz Thyssen, attended this speech, and, after the war, he wrote of it, “The speech made a deep impression on the assembled industrialists, and in consequence of this a number of large contributions flowed from the resources of heavy industry into the treasuries of the National Socialist party.” Other than that public statement, however, there is no surviving record that the Nazi Party received any immediate large infusion of cash as a result of the speech. The Nazi Party was broke at the time the speech was made. And yet, quite suddenly and mysteriously a year later, the Party received huge infusions of cash, and Hitler’s message to the tycoons had not changed, nor is there any indication that the deeply indebted Party was being bailed-out by its members. Apparently, German aristocrats were now pouring money into it.

Though there is no consensus regarding whom the main funders of the Nazi Party were, Hitler’s full address at that crucial presentation in Dusseldorf — to 700 principals and agents of the richest residents of Germany’s industrial center, Rhineland-Wesphalia — was his most complete recorded statement about his economic philosophy, and it therefore is extremely important for understanding his ideology. The text of that lengthy speech can be seen here. The gist of it is that those men (they all were men) were the most superior of all Germans, and wouldn’t be the titans of German industry if they hadn’t been Germany’s best. Hitler explicitly condemned “democracy,” because it isn’t  elitist. He said that “Political democracy … is equivalent to communism in the field of economics,” and that both violate nature. His message was ‘social Darwinism’ in the economic sphere (something that Darwin himself strongly did not  believe in, but Hitler had no real scientific interests). “The greatest results are the great crowning achievement of individual geniuses endowed by God,” he told them. Consequently, he said that they should be the actual political leaders of the Volk, and not merely its economic leaders. The Nazi Party represented this view. He was praising the aristocracy as being successful on account of their genetically being “geniuses” — not merely heirs from Man’s laws, but instead a product of the laws of nature and of nature’s God — that it reflected the survival of the fittest, and should extend to the political sphere, and not merely to the economic one.

In every nation where an aristocracy exists, what really matters isn’t whether or not aristocrats possess official titles but whether they actually are the few individuals whom the government actually represents. If they are (and whomever they might happen to be), then the government is an aristocracy, no democracy (which is where there is rule by no few people, but actually by a government that authentically represents all  of the nation’s residents). And those few individuals (the actual aristocracy, or “Deep State,” which rules that country) are typically the wealthiest in the land, who hire lobbyists and others to pay whomever needs to be paid in order to carry out their intention by means of the Government, via its legislature, chief executive, courts, police, and military. In other words: such a country is a dictatorship — and, by its very nature, is a corrupt one. (Aristocracy is intrinsically corrupt.) Such dictatorship formerly used to be carried out as feudalism, during the Agrarian Age, but increasingly, in the Industrial Age, after 28 October 1922, it is being carried out as fascism, which Benito Mussolini sometimes called “corporationism”. In either case, it’s rule by the richest.

Both of those systems — feudalism and fascism (aristocracy for the Agrartian Age, and aristocracy for the Industrial Age) — are typically extended also internationally, by means of imperialism and conquest, and control over, and exploitation of, foreign countries, called colonies or vassal-nations. The difference between fascism and nazism is simply that nazism is racist fascism, but both of those ideologies impose rule over a nation by its aristocracy (the owners of the controlling blocs of stock in that nation’s major corporations) and therefore are dictatorships, not democracies. (Under feudalism, the aristocracy possessed control over land, instead of control over corporations. That’s the difference between feudalism and fascism.) The dictatorial government can never become a democracy unless conquered by their own public (in an authentic revolution, which can be either violent or non-violent) or else by a foreign democracy that seeks no empire. (If they’re defeated, instead, by yet another imperialistic regime, then the government will remain a dictatorship.) 

During World War II, the United States and its allies were waging war against three imperialistic fascist regimes — Italy, Germany, and Japan — because those three fascist regimes were imperialistic: they were not only domestic dictatorships, but also international dictatorships, conquering other lands, distant from their own, and therefore posed severe threats against the national security of all other nations. America and its three main allies — Britain, U.S.S.R., and China (plus the nations that were allied with each one of those) — weren’t waging war against fascist Spain, because that fascist regime wasn’t trying to conquer any foreign country. Spain’s Government was a non-imperialist fascism, and therefore presented no threat to any of the Allies.

Consequently, the “isolationists” who, in the non-fascist countries, wished to avoid war against the three imperialistic fascist regimes, were supporting imperialism, not supporting peace, because the only way to support peace when there is an imperialistic regime is to prepare to defeat that imperialistic regime — to prepare for war against it, because that war will be coming, and the only real question is when it will come. (This is why lend-lease was done by Franklin Delano Roosevelt even before America overtly entered WW II.) Some of the pacifists in the 1930s were authentically naive, but others of them were pro-fascist. 

WW II was not actually a war about fascism versus democracy (such as the propagandized myth says), but instead was a war about imperialism versus the sovereignty of each nation. This reality is misrepresented by many ‘historians’, who simply — and falsely — presume that WW II was about dictatorship versus democracy. The reason why this myth is propagandized is that wherever the military-industrial complex control the government and the ‘news’-media (such as after FDR died), this myth is the way to get the public to support invasions such as against Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, and Syria during 2013-2019 (all of them sovereign countries, which posed no actual threat to America). That’s imperialistic fascism. It’s what an imperialistic fascist nation does, and what that nation’s propaganda lies about (because those target-nations had actually posed no threat to the invading nations, and because such invasions are actually fascist and therefore prove the invading nation itself to be fascist).

In this context, a clarification is important: To assert (as many people do) that support for the sovereignty of each nation necessarily means opposition to the formation of a world government, is wrong — it is simply false to assert that. A global federal government could develop in which all of the existing governments are democratically represented in a global republic as constituting its federal districts (which was FDR’s goal with the U.N.). Doing this would support the sovereignty of each nation within each nation’s territory, and would assign to the global government the exclusive control over nuclear and other strategic weapons, so that only by means of a majority-vote, in that global legislature, could strategic weapons be mobilized for war. However, a fascist world government — a global corporate dictatorship such as U.S. President Barack Obama was trying to advance — would eliminate the sovereignty of nations and replace it by the sovereignty of international corporations. What would be supremely inconsistent with a global democracy of sovereign nations, is a global dictatorship — any type of dictatorial world government. There is strong evidence that Adolf Hitler (like Obama) aspired to establish a dictatorial world government, and that he (unlike Obama) even expected to achieve such global dictatorship within his own lifetime.   

Hitler’s Nazism was fascist like Mussolini’s Fascism, but with a more pronounced residual feudalistic element of land and of race (and this feudalistic element includes the Old Testament’s zionism, of Israel being the land that God gave to “God’s People”; so, zionism is based upon that ancient feudal concept, which is concerned more with land than with any corporations). 

Hitler hated Jews as a race. He didn’t consider them a religion, because in his private notes in 1919 at the time when he entered politics, he cited (see pages 283-287 of Werner Maser’s 1974 Hitler’s Letters and Notes) his authority, “The Bible — Monumental History of Mankind,” and this included both the Old Testament and the New Testament. He paraphrased from both Testaments in his subsequent speeches and writings, and did it often; and he always interpreted Old Testament passages as viewed in light of the New Testament. He thus had a fundamentalist, or literal, interpretation of that “Monumental History of Mankind.” Until 1937, he believed unquestioningly in its complete and literal truthfulness. But even till the end of his life, he remained basically a Biblical literalist. For example, in his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) on the night of 25-6 January 1942, when the “final solution” was already under way (and the Wannsee Conference had occurred just five days earlier, instructing his subordinates what their respective roles would be in the plan), Hitler asked, “Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been as he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They’ve occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey — assuming that this transformation really took place.” Even that late, it all went back to Adam and Eve and the snake, and to original sin.

As a supremacist Christian, he despised Slavs as a nation of slaves to Jews, via the racially Jewish Karl Marx’s communism reigning over Slavic lands, which Hitler was convinced should therefore become controlled by his pureblooded Christian God’s People, or “Aryans.” For Hitler, race was thus supreme above nation, and this racial supremacy was what he referred to by emphasizing the “Volk,” or people, as being represented by his Nazi Party. To him, their race was “Aryan,” and this meant that they were pure-blooded Christians, the direct descendants of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, as that was being interpreted in light of the New Testament. In Hitler’s theology (roughly outlined in those 1919 notes, and subsequently developed in his speeches and Mein Kampf), the snake Satan from Genesis 3 had spawned the Jews, as Hitler interpreted Genesis 3 upon the basis of Matthew 23:33-38, John 8:44, and over a hundred other biblical passages that he paraphrased from in his notes, letters, speeches, and books. Thus, he said, “Jesus was not a Jew” — Jesus was descended from Adam and Eve, not  from the snake. In his private notes during September 1919, at the time when his notes mentioned “The Bible — Monumental History of Mankind,” he was pondering the meaning of “original sin” and referred to the “blood poisoning” of “the Aryan” or “Children of God” by “the Jew” via “miscegenation,” violating “Racial purity the highest law” (as he interpreted the Old Testament) and so constituting “a terrible fact” that produces “misery forever.” He feared that he might be the illegitimate son of (“miscegenated” from) a Jew (though he actually was not, and he never got to know this). From September 1919 onwards, he was determined to atone for his “original sin” (the alleged Jewish bastardization) (and never to let the public know that this is what he was aiming to do). This was the basis of his racist fascism. Thus, in the May 2003 The Atlantic, Timothy Ryback headlined “Hitler's Forgotten Library: You can tell a lot about a person from what he reads. The surviving — and largely ignored — remnants of Adolf Hitler's personal library reveal a deep but erratic interest in religion and theology.” Ryback pointed out especially Hitler’s passionate markings in the books that Hitler was the most interested in. For example, Ryback wrote:

As I traced the penciled notations, I realized that Hitler was seeking a path to the divine that led to just one place. Fichte asked, "Where did Jesus derive the power that has held his followers for all eternity?" Hitler drew a dense line beneath the answer: "Through his absolute identification with God." At another point Hitler highlighted a brief but revealing paragraph: "God and I are One. Expressed simply in two identical sentences — His life is mine; my life is his. My work is his work, and his work my work."

As I had noted in my 2000 book about Hitler and the Holocaust, WHY the Holocaust Happened, Hitler on several occasions said in private, or only to devoted followers, things such as he did on 18 December 1926, “The teachings of Christ have laid the foundations for the battle against Jews as the enemy of Mankind; the work that Christ began, I shall finish.” In that book regarding Hitler’s “final solution,” I wrote that (p. 274):

as is shown by Revelation 20:1-6, this solution [his ‘final solution’] will actually last for only a thousand years: exterminating Satan’s people will eliminate the blood-poisoning from Satan, and restore Paradise for one thousand years, the Thousand-Year Reich, during which God’s People — the Aryans — will rule the Earth, carrying out God’s will in Paradise restored.

In order for Hitler to do this, he needed to rise to become Germany’s leader, and to ultimately become the world’s leader; and this required WW II. He even frustrated his generals in order to expedite the extermination of Jews. So: that was his intention when he entered politics. WW II was essential in order for him to become enabled to wipe out all Jews and establish “Paradise,” the Thousand-Year Reich. For him, success in the war could not be achieved unless and until all Jews would be eliminated.

But Jews were only his main target. He had actually two primary targets — two main war-aims — which were for Jews to become eliminated, and for Slavs to become Aryans’ slaves. Another way to phrase it is for Jews to be exterminated (not only in Germany but everywhere), and for the Soviet Union to be colonized by Aryans. As he saw it at that time, Slavs were being exploited by Jews, and he wanted Slavs to be exploited instead by Aryans. Hitler’s focus against the Soviet Union was secondary to his focus against Jews. But almost immediately when, on 12 April 1945, U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt died, Hitler’s secondary focus became adopted as the U.S. Government’s primary focus. Today’s U.S. is therefore a modified Nazism. Here’s how that happened:

Under the naive U.S. President Harry S. Truman (deceived by agents of America’s wealthiest citizens), America’s dominant foreign-policy theme became (beginning on 26 July 1945) — and it increasingly has become — Hitler’s anti-Slav theme: under the guise of “anti-communism”. It was to be conquest of all of the Slav republics, virtually all of which, except Russia itself, have, indeed, successfully been taken over by the U.S. regime — that is, by the U.S. aristocracy, its billionaires who control all of America’s international corporations and the U.S. Government. Hitler’s chief of anti-Russian intelligence actually became hired by U.S. President Truman’s Government, in order, first, to set up West Germany’s foreign-intelligence operation against the Soviet Union; and, then (once Truman became replaced by one of his own core former advisors, the cunning Republican Dwight David Eisenhower) to help the fascist, even Nazi, Allen Dulles’s own CIA, to defeat the communist Soviet Union. After the Cold War ended in 1991 on Russia’s side, it was secretly continued on the U.S. side, and U.S. President Barack Obama’s February 2014 coup in Ukraine (which he had started in 2011 to plan) was one of its culminating events, which brings us to today. Here’s some of the deeper background behind that outcome (and explaining the nazism of the Government that Obama imposed upon Ukraine):

Reinhard Gehlen had been the chief of Hitler’s “military intelligence service on the eastern front during World War II” and he had been chosen by Hitler for this assignment because of his intense devotion to conquering the Soviet Union so as to expand the Lebensraum (living-space) of Germany’s Aryans, or pureblooded Christians, and to impose the enslavement of the Slavs who lived there. Gehlen’s amply documented methods entailed mass-murder and individual torture, all on a vast scale. He would have been a cinch to hang at Nuremberg. But he was sufficiently cunning so as to have secretly turned against Hitler in 1943 as soon as he could see that Germany would lose the war, and actually he was already, by 1942, in contact with Allen Dulles in America’s nascent CIA, the OSS, offering Dulles assistance after the war would be over. Gehlen knew better than to reach out to any of Stalin’s people to offer help, and Truman turned out to be as naive as Gehlen possibly could have hoped for. Truman’s CIA set Gehlen up to run West Germany’s intelligence operation. Dulles did this, under the ignorant Truman, and largely behind Truman’s back. As John Loftus and Mark Aarons put it, in their masterful 1994 The Secret War Against the Jews (p. 151), “Allen Dulles had arranged for General Reinhard Gehlen, chief of Nazi intelligence on the Eastern front, to receive special treatment. Gehlen was flown to Washington in 1945, dressed as an American General.” Dulles was one of Gehlen’s secret friends. Truman didn’t like Dulles, but Eisenhower, who intermittently advised Truman, did.

Perhaps the greatest masterpiece of investigative historical writing about the post-WW-II era is Paul L. Williams’s 2018 book OPERATION GLADIO: The Unholy Alliance between The Vatican, the CIA, and the Mafia, which delivers stunning evidence against all three of those components of the Operation, and which historical account opens by discussing “the close of 1942, when the German infantry remained mired in the mud and snow of the Russian steppes.” Williams quotes Dulles there (p. 23, opening Chapter One) as saying “We’re fighting the wrong enemy.” (However, that ‘quotation’ might be apcryphal, though Dulles’s solidly documented assertions make clear that he believed that.) Dulles was eager to move forward at that time with “word via Vatican messengers from Schutzstaffel (SS) chief Heinrich Himmler and Walter Schellenberg, head of the Sichterheitsdienst (the SS foreign intelligence service) that the Nazi government wished to establish a separate peace with the United States.” Williams notes that “Dulles not only endorsed the Nazi proposal, but also maintained that a strong Germany was necessary as a bulwark against Bolshevism.” Then, “Having established contact with Hitler’s High Command, Dulles conducted meetings in Bern with Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen.” Not only that, but Dulles’s then-boss, the head of FDR’s OSS, William Donovan, promptly worked with Dulles, and with Gehlen, behind FDR’s back, so that in February 1945 they did all that they could to sabotage what FDR was arranging at the Yalta Conference with Stalin. Both Donovan and Dulles were top Wall Street lawyers. Truman became President barely over a month later, on April 12th. And, by the time of 26 July 1945, General Eisenhower was able to persuade the gullible Truman, by his mere opinion, that the Soviet Union would take over the world, if the U.S. did not; and, so, the Cold War was on, started by those Deep State agents, including, by that time, the Nazi Gehlen. Perhaps Truman recognized that he was in over his head, and — finding himself forced by circumstances to choose whether to trust his advisors, who could speak his language, or else trust Stalin, who couldn’t — he chose to trust his advisors, and to assume that the man who had actually been FDR’s chief international ally was instead America’s (and Truman’s own) top international enemy. Truman didn’t know some of the key details of the discussions that had gone on between FDR and Stalin. At first, Truman trusted Dulles so much as to assign him to hire and organize the members of the CIA, which would soon replace FDR’s OSS. For American democracy, this turned out to be a fatal error. 

Gehlen, though one of the top Nazi war criminals, was not hung at Nuremberg, because the influential Americans who shared his chief values — both anti-Semitism but also and especially  anti-Russian — assigned Gehlen to establish West Germany’s CIA division, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, or national intelligence service, against the Soviet Union. General Gehlen already had thousands of secret “left behind” pro-Nazi agents in the Soviet sphere, who had helped the Nazis while Hitler was still alive, and who remained committed to overthrowing communism there, even if not particularly supporting the post-WW-II, after-FDR, really very new and increasingly anti-democratic, U.S. government, which was rapidly becoming fundamentally different from what FDR had been hoping and trying to establish for post-WW-II America, and for the world-at-large. 

There exists overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that as soon as FDR died, the U.S. Government became protective of whatever Nazis would help it to conquer the Soviet Union. For example: As Charles Higham said in his classic 1985 American Swastika, (p. xxv), “Dulles made arrangements with SS General Karl Wolff in order to secure the surrender of Italy and the security of German armaments as a potential force against Russia. General [“Wild Bill”] Donovan (at that time Colonel) of the OSS cannot be absolved from his own arrangements, many of them conducted despite the express disapproval of the chief executive [FDR].” Furthermore: (p. xv) “The [Klaus] Barbie [“Butcher of Lyon”] operation was a mere part of a much larger operation, the Gehlen operation, which was incorporated and sanctioned [allowed] by the Pentagon.” The U.S. attorney who was “in charge of pursuing the matter of the Barbie connection with the U.S. Army” “stated in sum that it was quite in order to use a former Nazi if that personage would be of use against the Soviets.” Then, as Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair detailed in their classic 1998 Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs, and the Press, in their chapter “Klaus Barbie and the Cocaine Coup,” Barbie became employed by the CIA starting in the 1960s to funnel Latin American cocaine profits into the CIA’s hidden off-the-books accounts that largely fund the CIA; he was “a major player in the US-inspired Condor Program to suppress popular insurgencies and keep US-backed dictators in power throughout Latin America. He helped orchestrate the so-called ‘cocaine coup’ of 1980 when a junta of Bolivian generals seized power, slaughtering their leftist opponents and reaping billions in the cocaine boom.” So: whereas France, Israel, and others, were trying to nab and prosecute leading ‘ex’-Nazis, America was instead protecting them, despite FDR’s intentions. Then FDR died, and the U.S. Government promptly got taken over by fascists and outright nazis in leading governmental positions. As Whiteout reported, at least some American Presidents not only knew about such operations, but themselves personally oversaw them. For example (p. 9): “When Reagan secretly decreed to National Security Adviser McFarlane that whatever Congress might stipulate, the [Nicaraguan] Contras had to be kept together ‘body and soul,’ the drug operation run by Contra supporters Meneses and Blandon led a charmed life, without any disruption of its activities by law enforcement. Indeed, several law enforcement officers have complained bitterly that actions targeted against Meneses were blocked by NSC officers in the Reagan administration and by the CIA.” Under America’s fascist Presidents, this wasn’t merely acceptable; it was commanded. (Yet, most Americans have great respect for those Presidents.)

Without the laws illegalizing (instead of regulating) narcotics, ‘intelligence’ agencies such as the CIA couldn’t exist as they do. Perhaps that’s why such laws exist — to fund such agencies with no real democratic accountability: rogue operations, dark operations, off-the-books enforcement operations, in order for international corporations to get the type of foreign governments that will do their bidding (such as was described in John Perkins’s 2004 classic Confessions of an Economic Hit-Man).

The post-FDR U.S. has thus become, and increasingly it is, a two-Party, Republican and Democratic Party, imperialistic fascist regime, which is bent upon world-conquest not much different from what Hitler had propounded for Germany in his 1928 Second Book, except that, in the American instance, the global-empire goal was not specifically anti-Jewish but instead is anti-Russian — and, at first, it was not even that (at least not nominally) but instead was ideological, “anti-communist,” so as to provide a ‘moral’ cover for what was actually a rising American imperialism, serving the billionaires who control the military-industrial complex. Global control has been the focus of this American fascist regime. It benefits America’s international corporations. The main aim of America’s post-WW-II foreign policy has been to demonize Russians and anyone who opposed overthrowing the Soviet Union’s, and subsequently post-communist Russia’s, government (so that the United States would ultimately control Russia and finally the world). 

At the end of WW II, the Soviet Union included not only Russia but also Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Then, because of FDR’s agreement with Stalin that the U.S.S.R. needed buffer-states in order to protect itself — just as the U.S. had buffer states in Mexico, Canada and throughout the Western Hemisphere — Stalin was allowed by FDR to continue controlling the formerly Nazi-controlled Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Poland and eastern Germany, each of which nation therefore entered the post-War era with hundreds or thousands of Nazi left-behind agents who reported either directly to Gehlen’s organization or else to that of James Jesus Angleton, who worked under Allen Dulles. Angleton’s father, Hugh Angleton, had, while FDR was President and the CIA was called the OSS, collected the names and contacts of 3,000 Axis secret agents, which list he handed to his son when retiring from Government service at the end of WW II. Under FDR, the likely expectation was to target those 3,000 people after the war, to expose and disempower them, but under Truman the list was instead used so as to recruit them to be used against the Soviet Union. And the Angletons’ list, plus Gehlen’s personal list of his secret agents, thus became the basis of the new CIA’s Operation Gladio, which for the first time became fully and publicly exposed by a masterful BBC documentary in 1992, which was being telecast right after the Soviet Union disintegrated but before the management of the BBC yet knew that the war against Russia was secretly to continue even after Russia had already just ended the Cold War on their side. 

Here is that extraordinary, and historically important, breakthrough documentary, which everyone who wants to understand the world today should see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGHXjO8wHsA  

In other words: Virtually as soon as Truman came into office, J.J. Angleton was organizing the Gladio contingent, who were, at their very start, comprised of fascist and racist-fascist (or nazi) aristocrats who had previously been having the “partisans,” or anti-Fascist and anti-Nazi fighters against the fascists and nazis — the leading supporters of the Allies against the fascists — lynched. America now was secretly working against, instead of (as under FDR) working for, the heroic Europeans who had so courageously fought against Mussolini and Hitler during WW II. The leading fascists’ and nazis’ loyalty now was to be against the Soviet Union and to be organized and run by the U.S. Government (no longer by either Hitler or Mussolini), with the cooperation and under the immediate direction of the most-far-right aristocrats of Europe, so as, ultimately, to conquer, first, the Soviet Union, and, then (ultimately), Russia (and China to be dealt with later). The ignorant and manipulable Truman became followed immediately, as President, by the intelligent and cunning outright fascist General Dwight Eisenhower, who knew what he was doing — building up America’s military-industrial complex (MIC), for global conquest — and, then, three days before he left office, he warned Americans against the MIC, as being a danger to America, as if he hadn’t been building them up all along. (Like Obama’s vision, Ike’s vision was for a dictatorship of the world by the controlling stockholders in America’s international corporations. And, also like Obama, Ike was a mild-mannered and extremely cunning charmer. So, too, of course, was Allen Dulles.) 

Meanwhile, the German industrialists (such as this) who were likeliest to have been the individuals who had funded Hitler’s rise to power, were let off scot-free at the Nuremberg Tribunals after the war was over. 

Behind the scenes, after FDR’s death, the U.S. Government was — and it still is — a totalitarian international regime, no democracy at all, but instead an imperialistic dictator over almost the whole world, a nation that’s bent upon making the entire world serve as its imperial colonies. In other words: imperialistic fascist. And this wasn’t to be fascism in one nation, like under Franco in Spain (who would have been happy to serve as one of Hitler’s mere vassals); it was to be the full-fledged thing: expansionist fascism, which is imperialistic fascism, like Mussolini, Hitler, and Hirohito. This is today’s America, though, under FDR, it had been America’s enemy.

The latest important example of it was America’s February 2014 conquest of Ukraine, which was “the most blatant coup in history." On 15 June 2014, Russia’s RT posted to youtube an accurate succinct 14-minute documentary on the deep history of the U.S. regime, including Gladio, being behind that coup against Ukraine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57bzgQEXL6A

A sophisticated operation by today’s fascists and nazis has arisen after WW II (including even in Israel) to pretend that Hitler did not intend to take over the world but that Stalin (whose philosophy derived from the communist Marx who condemned all imperialism) did. And, beside that fact against such ‘historical’ lies, is this: Stalin, within the communist movement, stood opposed to Trotsky who opposed this anti-imperialist feature of Marxism. Stalin instead insisted upon “communism within one country,” which meant that beyond the Soviet Union and its buffer-states, there was to be no spread of communism until communism within the Soviet Union first would manage to lead the world economically and thus would stand as the global economic model, which success of “communism within one country" would then (he was expecting) cause workers around the world to rise up in local revolutions and overthrow and replace capitalism. But today’s fascists and nazis lie nonetheless to allege that both Hitler and Stalin together had caused WW II and were imperialistic, trying to conquer the whole world. The fact is: Hitler was imperialistic, but Stalin was — in this regard, like FDR himself — anti-imperialistic.

This post-WW-II fascist and nazi movement contends that Hitler actually was only responding to Stalin’s imperialism. Here is one recent argument along this line, and it’s based upon and extols the Oxfordian A.J.P. Taylor's 1962 The Origins of the Second World War. A succinct good review of that book was written by Stephen Cooper at Amazon and headlined there “AN OUTRAGE". One of the currently two negative reader-comments against that review of it was by an “Infidel” and took Taylor’s review to task because the only thing that Cooper presented against Taylor’s argument was “a completely different book,” which “Infidel” did not identify, but Cooper had especially cited Mein Kampf, as indicating that Hitler even in 1925 was promising to invade and conquer the Soviet Union. So, I responded there, to “Infidel,” as follows:

Responding to the comment here by "Infidel": I presume that by your dismissive reference to "a completely different book," you are referring to Hitler's 1925 Mein Kampf, which book stated two primary goals in international policy: one being the elimination of Jews everywhere, and the other being the enslavement of Slavs in the Soviet Union so as to take their land for Lebensraum or living-space to become controlled by Aryan, or pureblooded Christian, Germans. However, Hitler's 1928 Second Book stated in more detail his subsequent war-aims, and fleshed them out a bit on a country-by-country basis, while suppressing the emotional intensity of his more blatantly anti-Semitic expressions in Mein Kampf. And yet even in his Second Book, he emphasized that “Jewry,” meaning Jews everywhere, were responsible for Germany’s defeat in WW I. And even in his Second Book, it is clear that the only way in which he could accept a foreign nation is if it has no Jews. He would not live in peace with a Britain that still had Jews. In fact, though his war-aim to enslave Slavs was one of his two main objectives in foreign policy, it was, for Hitler, secondary to his anti-Semitic goal of eliminating all Jews. Although the Second Book said that Italy would be an ally, and that England, and maybe Hungary and Spain would be, there was no question that the Soviet Union would not be. Furthermore, only a U.S.A. that eliminates its Jews would be. I have read all of Hitler’s published letters, private notes, and speeches, and much else, and do not find anything in them that is contrary to this. Consequently, I agree with Stephen Cooper’s calling this book by A.J.P. Taylor “AN OUTRAGE” but I go further and call it a hoax.  

Unfortunately, as soon as I posted that comment, Amazon’s editors simply removed the one that I was contradicting. 

At that same site where I said above here that had posted “one recent argument along this line” against Russia and especially against communism, the same writer had earlier extolled another rabid hater of both Russia and communism, David Irving, the famous Holocaust-denier and defender of Hitler. (Irving portrayed Hitler as having been a well-intentioned but weak dictator who had unfortunately become manipulated into anti-Semitism by his underlings and who had really been just an anti-communist himself, not originally an anti-Semite at all.) I responded there to that writer’s adulatory review of David Irving’s Hitler’s War, and headlined there "Against David Irving’s View of Hitler”. So, readers here can judge for themselves whether what I am saying is true, or whether what the nazis (or racist fascists) are saying is true. Since I was writing there at a site which favors nazism — except as it’s practiced by almost all Jews in Israel against non-Jews there — most of the 854 reader-comments to that article from me are supportive of the article (in favor of David Irving) that I was attacking, and opposed to the views that I expressed there against that (pro-David-Irving) article. The readers at that site seem generally to favor Hitler against Stalin, Christians against Jews, and Whites against Blacks, instead of to favor truth against lies. I should state here, for the record, that I favor no group against any other group, and that in terms of ideology, I favor democracy; and in terms of economics, I reject both Adam Smith and Karl Marx, and favor both Marriner Eccles and FDR. When writing about ideology (such as I am doing here), it is important for the writer (me) to state clearly his or her own personal ideological orientation. When discussing ideology, questions about the writer’s motives are not unscientific; they’re not merely, ad-hominem, but instead possess also an ad-rem (i.e., scientifically justifiable) component, and therefore should be addressed. So, I do that here.

More recently, the U.S.-regime-created EU’s European Parliament voted on 19 September 2019 for a resolution condemning both Hitler and Stalin for having started World War II, which is a lie — and an especially outrageous one, considering that the Soviet Union did more than any other country to defeat Hitler and to enable all of those countries to not now be controlled by a Nazi regime. (Shortly after I published that article, another, by Max Parry, independently came to the same conclusion: that the EU is fascist.) That Big-Lie Resolution, which the EU’s Parliament passed on 19 September 2019, said that 

whereas it has become commonplace for Russia to deny responsibility and blame hostilities on the West in its official rhetoric, creating a reliable propaganda base upon which it can rely to justify its disregard of international law and continue its aggression against Eastern Partnership countries; [the EU]

1. Stresses that the Second World War, the most devastating war in Europe’s history, was caused by the notorious Nazi-Soviet Treaty of Non-Aggression of 23 August 1939, also called the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and its secret protocols, which allowed two totalitarian regimes that shared the goal of world conquest to divide Europe into two zones of influence. … 

Stalin had been begging the UK to ally with the Soviet Union to defeat Hitler; and, after being snubbed each time, joined with Hitler in order to prevent an expected invasion by Hitler against the Soviet Union. It was an act of desperation by Stalin, which was forced upon him by the UK. And, now, the U.S. and its allies rewrite ‘history’, to make the Soviet Union their enemy during WW II, instead of their savior — as it actually was.

The EU’s lie is especially blatant in regard to what Hitler stated in his Second Book to be the aims of the war-to-come.

He said in Chapter 5 of his Second Book, “I am a socialist. I see no class and no social estate before me, but that community of the Folk, made up of people who are linked by blood,” so that “its foreign policy is to be be determined by the necessity to secure the space necessary to the life of our Folk.” Also, “I am a German nationalist. This means that I proclaim my nationality.” That was his nazism: his National Socialism (or, as it was called in Ukraine, “Socialist Nationalism”). None of it was, at all, Marxist. He despised Marxism as “Jewish.” However, many post-War nazis lie to condemn nazism as “socialist” in the same sense that Marx’s communism is. They refuse to acknowledge that they’re nazis (racist fascists), and blame only communism. In Chapter 11 of his Second Book, Hitler said that it is impossible “to achieve an understanding with a State whose greatest interest is the destruction of this very national Germany. Obviously, should such an alliance finally come into being today, its result would be the complete rule of Jewry in Germany exactly as in Russia.” In other words: peace with Russia would be impossible unless the “Bolshevists” there became replaced by Nazis. Furthermore, common purpose could never be achieved between Germany and Russia, because “For then, Germany would no longer be allied with the Russia of a great, noteworthy, ethical, bold idea, but with the despoilers of the culture of mankind.” He then critically paraphrased proponents of a German-Soviet detente, and said: “This is a very great error. It rests on an extraordinary ignorance of the psyche of the Slavic Folk Soul.” Like in Mein Kampf, he was virtually declaring the Soviet Union to be Germany’s Jewish-controlled enemy. Slavs, in his view, were merely a slave-people, and their masters needed to be changed, from Jews to Aryans. This was part of his Lebensraum concept. His argument to this effect was unambiguously clear, and it was remarkably consistent throughout his entire political career. Stalin (who had figured this argument out from Mein Kampf, because the Second Book remained unpublished) achieved the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact only in order to delay Hitler’s invasion so as to help to prepare for it. Today’s nazis blame Stalin not only for the delaying-tactic, but for his preparations against Germany’s invasion.

The cover-up of this is all part of America’s post-WW-II victory for fascism and nazism. However, it’s not yet an ultimate victory — an all-encompassing global dictatorship by the U.S. regime over the entire world. Some hope therefore still remains that the U.N. will become the global democracy that FDR had intended. (However, that’s very unlikely.)

It might also be noted here that another defense which the post-WW-II U.S. regime offers for its having protected and hired so many ‘ex’ Nazis is that the Soviets hired some also. For example, American historian Norman J.W. Goda produced a 30 December 2015 paper, “CIA Files Relating to Heinz Felfe, SS Officer and KGB Spy” which claimed that Felfe’s file is “of great historical significance” because it shows “in more detail than ever before how Soviet and Western intelligence alike used former Nazi SS officers during the Cold War years.” However, Goda admitted that Felfe had been a member of the Gehlen Organization, who was captured by the British in Netherlands and then hired by British intelligence but subsequently became a double-agent after the KGB threatened him that if he didn’t, his war-crimes (which weren’t nearly on the level of Gehlen’s own) would be publicly exposed. Any historian who even just suggests that ‘both sides did it’ is basically lying. Nazis and Bolshevists hated and despised each other. That’s no defense of either, but it is a fact about both. As an online review of a Cambridge University Press book co-authored by Goda fairly concluded at the end: “It is disappointing that the authors seem almost as uninterested as the OSS had been in following the trail of evidence before them to see where it might lead.” Cambridge University Press published that book, but I feel confident that they wouldn’t even consider publishing something like this. Prestigious publishers in the social ‘sciences’ use lots of filters, but uncompromising truth and honesty are almost never among them. In a field that’s not yet scientific, peer review is no way to find truth; it’s only the way to embellish the prevailing myth, which the aristocracy endorse. That, too, is just a fact, a well-established historical fact. Such a field is more like the ‘journalism’ and ‘history’ that’s described in the prophetic dystopian 1948 George Orwell novel 1984.

Proponents of the view which blames the Soviet Union, instead of the United States, for having created the Cold War, totally ignore post-WW-II America’s psychopatic and obsessive imperialism and constant violations of the U.N. Charter’s admonitions against “aggressive war.” Though the U.S. usually precedes its invasions by a three-stage process of, first subversion, then sanctions, then coup-attempts, and finally military invasion, every stage of that is in violation of international law. One book which well documented the U.S. regime’s psychopathy in this regard is William Blum’s Killing Hope. The pro-imperialistic London School of Economics website includes a review of it which alleges:

Killing Hope … inadvertently exemplifies its central tenet — blind ideological adherence is as seductive as it is dangerous. The author’s view of US foreign policy as mercilessly and resolutely opposing the slightest challenge to American dominance (and usually through sinister, covert means whilst keeping its populace in the dark) is so deeply entrenched, that it keeps the author from recognising the complexity of the post-Cold War world. Furthermore, he also neglects to situate the majority of his historical narrative in its proper Cold War context, that is, an existential conflict between two fundamentally opposed models and ideologies expressed through superpower rivalry and confrontation. An appreciation of this bi-polar system and its nuances would have provided Killing Hope with the much-need historical framework — which revolved around two dominant actors vying for supremacy. It would have also helped the reader understand what drove the US foreign policy decisions that today’s citizens find so morally repugnant.

A work that truly does justice to this subject — and faithfully catalogues many of the evils examined by Blum — is William Keylor’s A World of Nations: The International Order Since 1945. With the second edition published in 2009, Keylor, a highly-renowned historian with an illustrious academic career, is careful to avoid ideologically-tinged interpretations of US foreign policy during the Cold War, but is unsparing in his detail.

That recommended book was published by the intensely pro-imperialistic Oxford University Press. Here is the opening of the Table of Contents of that recommended book, and it clearly displays its propaganda for the U.S. regime, by lying to imply that the Cold War was initiated by the Soviet Union, and that it was a contest between ideologies, instead of any sort of U.S. global-imperialistic operation:

Chapter One: The Ideological Partition of Europe 1

The Formation of the Soviet Satellite Empire 2

Czechoslovakia between East and West 7

The Anatomy of Yugoslavia 8

Early Western Concerns about Soviet Expansionism 9

Confrontation at the Periphery: Iran, Turkey, Greece 11

The British Withdrawal, The Truman Doctrine, and “Containment” 17

The European Recovery Program 20

The Emergence of the Postwar Economic Order 24

The Political Consequences of the Marshall Plan 26

The Division of Germany 27

The Creation of the Atlantic Security System 37

Chapter Two: The Militarization of Containment 41 ...

Chapter Three: East-West Global Rivalries in the Eisenhower Years 53 ...

Chapter Four: From Chapultapec to Castro 93 ...

In other words (according to that recommended book): The U.S. was merely reacting to Soviet aggression. Soviet aggression (against nations that were on or near its borders, just like Cuba was on or near America’s borders and so the Cuban Millile Crisis occurred in 1962, as being a legitimate existential threat to the United States) ‘started’ the Cold War, in the U.S. regime’s propaganda. A decision by Truman, on 26 July 1945, for the U.S. ultimately to take over the entire world, did not, according to the U.S. regime’s propagandists. 

Here is from a review of that recommended book, appearing at a website for historians:

I do have three reservations about the study. First, I wish it were more forcefully formulated in analytical terms. For example, the opening chapter is entitled "The Ideological Partition of Europe," yet just what made the Soviet and American blueprints for world order so different, indeed so incompatible, is never made clear.

A second reservation is linked to the first: students can learn a great deal from seeing how controversies over the meaning ascribed to historical developments play themselves out. For example, there has been a rich debate over rival interpretations as to why the Cold War developed as it did, but these debates are not presented here.

In other words: That Oxford University Press book, which had been cited as being ‘superior’ to Blum’s book, doesn’t even so much as address the problem that the Blum book is focusing upon. It’s no alternative, whatsoever, to Blum’s book.

This is how propaganda is done — not by presenting the important historical facts, such as Blum was presenting, and which are authentic; but, instead, by, essentially, ignoring them, in order not to expose what causes what and how and why (as Blum does). Scientific historianship is always not mere narratives, but going deeper, to explaining what caused what, and how, and why.

It’s because of these pro-imperialist, anti-Russian, fascist, and even outright nazi, filters that, for example, the nazi nature of the U.S. coup against Ukraine in February 2014, and subsequent ethnic cleansing there, all of which destroyed that country, remain hidden in the U.S. empire, even now, and the overthrow remains called, instead, a ‘democratic revolution’ — while Russia’s reactions, instead of America’s crimes there, get blamed for the coup’s results. That potently displays the victory America won for fascism and nazism after WW II. In fact, Obama, by no later than June 2013, was actually expecting that when his coup in Ukraine would succeed — which happened in February 2014 — the U.S. would take over Russia’s largest naval base, which (ever since 1783) was (and still remains) in Crimea. Though the U.S. regime and its vassals imposed sanctions against Russia for “seizing Crimea,” the U.S. regime actually seized Ukraine and expected that Russia’s main naval base would become part of America’s prize in Ukraine. And yet, no one is imposing sanctions against America. Why not? It’s the global empire. It’s a dictatorship that no nation wants to go up against. Hitler’s regime was like that, until WW II started.

One blogger responded to the present article by saying that this article’s argument aims “to restore capitalism as it was before WWII”, though I have argued here nothing of the sort. This article is instead arguing for FDR’s anti-imperialism, and against the imperialistic U.S. regime that started on 26 July 1945 and that lasts till today in both of America’s billionaire-financed political Parties. 

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.