Sunday, January 30, 2022

Friday, January 30, 1942 . Hitler Speaks about the United Kingdom, DeValera Protests about Ulster.



On this day in 1942 Adolph Hitler called Franklin Roosevelt a "Mad Fool" in a speech at the Berlin Sportpalast, much of which was oddly aimed at the British, and in justifying his own rise to power.

The speech attempted to justify the war to date, which had now taken a dangerous turn with the entry of the United States.  Ironically, Hitler had been attempting to goad the Japanese into more aggressive action in the Pacific since 1940, as he had believed that a diverted United States would supply less in the way of materials to the United Kingdom.  He had, in that, grossly underestimated American production capacity, as the US was now in the war, had agreed to take on Germany prior to defeating Japan, and had now landed troops in Northern Ireland.

He's also failed to appreciate that the US would aid the Soviet Union, which he'd attacked in 1941.  That attack had come about as he'd failed to defeat the United Kingdom and had turned his eyes East.  The USSR was his prime raw material supplier right up until Operation Barbarossa, but it seemed things moved from one step to another leading, inevitably, to his country's assault on the East.  

That assault was now reversing.

The really amazing thing about this January 1942 speech is how focused on the United Kingdom it was.  Indeed, the focus was on the UK and justifying his own rise to power.  It almost ignored the fact that in June 1940, the Germans had thrown in 3,800,000 troops against 2,900,000 Soviet troops (yes, the Germans outnumbered the Soviets by nearly a million men), the Soviets had sustained over 4,000,000 casualties (yes, they'd lost the equivalent of more than their entire army), and yet the Soviets had finally stopped the Germans and thrown them into retreat.  An irreversible attrition had now commenced, but to read this you'd assume the Germans were really at war against only the British.

Indeed, there are those who maintain that Germany's assault on the Soviet Union was really aimed at the United Kingdom, and there is some room to argue that.  As late as the winter of 1940 Germany had been offering the USSR a place in the Tripartite Pact, with British possessions as the prize. The Soviet Union, however, was not geographically oriented in that fashion and claimed that it's sphere of influence was in the European East, a view that oddly coincided with that of Orthodox Russia.  Those talks had accordingly fallen silent, and the Germans marched forward on their plan to conquer the regions they were then receiving materials from through purchase, although Hitler had always looked upon the East as Germany's by some sort of strange right.

In a grim prediction, Hitler predicted the end of the Jewish people, something he could predict as he was working on it right at the time.

His lengthy speech stated:

My German Fellow Countrymen and Women, My Comrades!

At present everybody speaks before the forum which seems to them the most fitting. Some speak before a parliament whose existence, composition and origin are well known.

I believed that I should return again today whence I came, namely to the people! Every person is a representatives of this nation, with the one difference that you do not receive any salaries, and often it is more difficult for you to come to such rallies, more difficult than for the so-called qualified representatives of those democracies.

Before we enter the tenth year of the National Socialist German Reich, it seems appropriate to look into our past, and once again occupy ourselves with the principles of our existence, of our life, and of our victory.

Quite often we hear today the remark that this war is really the second world war. It means that this struggle is identified with the first, which most of us lived through as soldiers. This is not only correct in that this struggle, too, encompasses almost the whole world, it is even more correct when we consider that it is a question of the same aims; that the same powers which brought about the first world war are responsible for the present one, and that these powers and states have the same aims which they had at that time (although they remained hidden at first glance then); they had the same intentions which are the true cause and purpose of this struggle.

They are not only the same causes, but, above all, they are the same individuals. And I can proudly say that the only exceptions are the very nations which today are embodied as allies by the German Reich, by Italy, by Japan, and so on. For certainly no one can deny that Churchill even in 1914 was one of the most rabid war-mongers of his time; that Roosevelt was then the disciple of President Wilson; that the capitalistic countries then also had thrown the weight of their influence into the scales on the side of war; just as no one can deny the reverse, that we were entirely innocent in starting that war. We were all only very ordinary soldiers, just as you are now, my dear wounded men sitting here before me. Unknown and nameless men, whom duty had simply called, nothing else, and who in response had fulfilled their duty as faithfully as they were able.

The same motive forces which were to blame for the first world war are now responsible for the second. I want to start by saying one thing:  Germany then was a monarchy; in other words not a National-Socialist dictatorship. The Germany of that period was democratic, that is, not a national-socialistic state, and the Germany of that period was parliamentarian, that is, not what Germany is today, to say nothing of all other differences. Therefore, there had to be reasons which led to the attacks of these powers then as today, and which had nothing to do with the respective forms of government, although both sides pretend that it is just this which called them into the field of battle.

We Germans cannot possibly imagine that if a country near us suddenly decides on a certain form of government, we must declare war on this country just because that particular form of government doesn't suit us. We can't understand this at all, and naturally the others can't understand it either. They did not enter the war for this reason. They did not enter and are not at war because they were irritated by the form of the state. They are capable of embracing the vilest type of government when necessary and of fraternizing with it. No, no, it is not a question of a form of a government, but other reasons which have also  previously brought them into a war against the German state.

At that time England was the principal initiator of this struggle, England, which over a period of 300 years, through a continuous succession of bloody wars, subjugated roughly a quarter of the globe. Because at that time it wasn't as if one day a few Indian princes or Indian localities or Indian representatives proceeded to London with the request "Britishers, come to India, reign over us or lead us," but it was the English who went to India and the Indian people did not want the British and tried to get rid of them by force. They forced their way in and could not be gotten rid of through more force. Through the use of force they subjugated this continent of over 380 million people, and kept them subjugated.

Only through force did they make one state after another pay them tribute and taxes. Behind this force, of course, stood the other one, which scents business everywhere where a state of disturbance exists: our international Jewish acquaintances. In this manner England, over a period of a few hundred years, has subjugated the world; and, to make secure this conquest of the world, this subjugation of the people, England endeavors to maintain the so-called balance of power in Europe.

This means in reality that it endeavors to make sure that no European state is able to gain over a certain measure of power and perhaps in this way rise to a leading-role in Europe. What they wanted was a disunited, disintegrated Europe, a Europe all of whose forces completely offset one another.

To reach this goal, England conducted one war after another in Europe. She has seen first its powerful position menaced by Spain. When they had finally conquered Spain, they turned their attentions to the Netherlanders. When Holland seemed to represent no further danger, British hate concentrated itself against France. And when finally France was crushed with the help of all Europe, to be sure, they then imagined that Germany must be, of necessity, the one factor which might possibly be able to unify Europe.

Then it was that the struggle against Germany began, not out of love for the nations or their people, but only in their own most selfish, rational interests, behind which, as previously said, stands the eternal Jewry, which, in every struggle between nations, is capable of making profits and winning wherever there is confusion and wrangling. It is well-known that they have always been the instigators of unrest among the nations, because they were able to profit only in time of unrest, and because a period of peace might lead to reflection and hence, also, to an insight into the ways of these evil-doers of all nations.

When, in 1914, a world coalition against the German Reich of that time was first brewing, they found justifications in these reasons. They then said, "Germany must first of all be freed from its Kaiser." This, of course, should have been of no concern to the English, but rather an internal matter for the German people. But the English always feel concerned for other nations, and for that reason they wanted to free Germany of its Kaiser, then as now.

They further said: "It is Germany's militarism which makes the German people unhappy and oppresses them."

The English are against the oppression and against the misery meted out today everywhere. Finally, they said, "There shall be no more war. Therefore let us wage war upon war." A wonderful, enticing, splendid perspective. If only one wanted to apply it in retrospect. That means, if one wanted to say, "We agree that war is an injustice because only brutal force decides war. We will eliminate all coercion. Hence we will abolish everything arisen through coercion up to now."

A very difficult beginning, indeed, because the whole world hitherto has been built up in accordance with the principle that might makes right. But still it would have been wonderful if England had led the way to the rest of the world in its abhorrence of war in this manner, that it would have liberated the fruits of its own wars, that is, that it would have placed them again at the disposition of the rest of the world. If England had done that, if it had therefore declared: "We abhor war. Therefore, we will immediately return South Africa; because we won it through war. We hate war. Therefore, we will return the East Indies; we also won those in a war. For instance, we hate war. Therefore, we will also leave Egypt; because this also we have subjugated through force. We shall also retire from the entire Near East; because this also became ours through force."

It would have been a beautiful gesture, to have declared war on war in this fashion. However, the struggle against war meant something entirely different in England; namely, this war against war was interpreted to mean the impossibility of making good the injustices already existing in this world: keep the power with him who already has it, and deny all possibility of power from him who has none.

It is about the same as the attitude we recognize also in domestic policy, when people say: "We want no change in the social order. He who is rich is to stay rich; he who is poor must stay poor. As things are, so are they willed; and as they are willed, so they are to remain; for man should not rise against that which is once willed, because it is so."

You know, my comrades, our National Socialist concepts are against this. We see in each situation and at each moment on this earth the evidence of an uninterrupted life process.  It is impossible to say at any given moment: "Here the evolutionary process stops," for it is the nature of the evolution of all things that every halt to this life process must lead to extinction. On the contrary, it is the essence of Nature that again and again those who are the most competent are chosen and lifted up, meaning therefore, that one must open a pathway within the people so that those who are more competent are not locked in by a static social structure, that one must not allow financial circumstances of the people to halt the process. Instead, one must take care to ensure that a continuous stream of fresh blood rises from the bottom to the top and that everything above which is decadent, because it is lazy, should die, because it must die, because it is ready to die. One should not put a stop to this process.

And so the talk of war on war has been proved quite false. The best proof for that is that the moment the war was over, the conditions for a new war could by no means be avoided, nor the instruments for waging the new war, either. It would have been a wonderful gesture if after the disarmament of Germany, as it had been promised in the treaty, England, America, and France had also disarmed. We suggested it to them often, begged them to at the time of the Weimar Republic, and still later demanded that they do it.

They did not even consider it. On the contrary, the wars went on. Only the defeated people, the German people, lost every prospect ever in this world to change its condition once more for the better.

The methods which they used in the first World War were like those with which they are fighting today. At first the war from outside, and war in the form of creating coalitions. Here fits a piece of Churchill's shamelessness, who says today: "England was never in a position to carry on war by herself alone against Italy or Germany." But this same man has through his lieutenant year after year given out promises of guarantee to the whole world. Then he himself admits that they were never in a position to fight alone.

But they guaranteed the Baltic states; they guaranteed the Balkans. They went on around: Every state in the world, they declared, needs a guarantee. Great Britain will put her whole strength behind them and will protect them. Today this same arch-liar says: "But we were really never in a position to carry on the war alone." But that is right; even in the World War they were not in a position to carry on the war alone. Therefore they cooked up a coalition against us of world-wide extent.

The methods have likewise remained the same. Promises to all those of little faith, the credulous, or stupid, who wanted to trust these promises, moreover, the attempt to allow their own interests to be represented with as much other blood as possible.

It must always be remembered that the British world empire in the 400 years since its origin had to shed in countless wars barely 10% of the blood that Germany needed to defend alone its bare existence, and in spite of that, we have always lost more and more. This truth is connected with the second British method, that is, with the method of division. In the time that the British Empire had its origin, Germany tore herself apart. There were at that time modes of thought that we no longer understand, modes of thought of a religious kind, that unfortunately were fought out only with the sword, modes of thought that became horrible among the people, that seem insufficient to us in their inner being. Only these grievous internal struggles, that cost the German people endless blood, gave England the opportunity, in this same period, to raise up a world claim that never belonged to her either in number or in significance. Then I must always point out that it is not true that we Germans are like upstarts, but if one wants to talk about upstarts, then it is unconditionally the English and not ourselves! We have an older history, and during the time when Europe had a powerful German Empire, England was a quite insignificant, small, green island.

In the last World War the possibilities of this dissolution lay in another sphere. The religious problems did not provoke any more bloodshed, especially since the priests themselves would not have been ready any more to sacrifice their lives for these causes.

After realizing the impossibility of involving the German people in a dark, dynastic and domestic crisis, there evolved a new possibility of playing the political parties' against one another. We lived through it then. The parties of the right and the parties of the left, which further splintered; a dozen bourgeois aspects, and a half dozen proletarian aspects. And having begun with these parties, from the bourgeoisie of the Zentrum Party up to the KPD (Communist Party of Germany), the German people were undermined and broken down  slowly from within. In spite of that, the course of the war was an immeasurably glorious one. The years 1914-1918 - they proved one thing: not even the opponents triumphed; it was a low, common revolt, plotted by Marxian-Zentrum-Liberal-Capitalistic subjects. The driving force behind all of it was the eternal Jew. They brought Germany to its collapse at that time.

We know this today from the verdict of the English themselves, that they  in 1918 were exhausted, just before their own collapse, when perhaps a quarter hour before 12 o'clock the revolt in Germany was realized. Only the cowardice of our former rulers, their indecision, their halfway measures, their own uncertainty brought it on. And so the First World War was lost not by the merit of our opponents, but exclusively by our own fault.

The consequences of this collapse in November were not that world democracies stretched out open arms to Germany, they were not concerned about freeing the German people from its burdens and lifting the German people to a higher standard of culture (an impossibility since they themselves had a much lower one); the consequence was the most frightful collapse, politically and economically, that a people has ever experienced.

At that time there came to us a man who has done the German people immeasurable harm, Woodrow Wilson, the man who lied with a straight face. If Germany would lay down her arms, then she would get a compassionate, an understanding peace! Then she would not lose her colonies! But the colonial problems were fixed up, all right! The man lyingly promised us that there would be a general disarmament, that we would then be accepted on equal terms among nations, peoples, etc. with equal rights! He lyingly promised us that then secret diplomacy would be done away with, and that we too would then enter into a new age of peace, of equality, of reason, etc.! This arch-liar's stooge was the President Roosevelt of today! He was his right hand man. Our German folk believed this man. They had no idea that they were dealing here with an American President, that is, with a man who has no regard for truths; who, for example, can calmly say before an election: "I shall vote against war," and after the election can say: "I vote for war." And who, when he is then called to answer for it, can explain as calmly as ever: "I said that then because I thought that there would be stupid people who would take it for the truth."

But we had no idea of a thing like this, that we were in fact dealing with a paralysis victim, with a madman, who was then head of this people, with which the German people had never in their history had a conflict! So there came the hour of the German people's worst disappointment:  got its disappointment at the moment when the German subordinate emissaries entered the car in the Compiegne forest, now known to us for the second time. And there right away came the rude question: "What are you gentlemen doing here?" There was an armistice which in reality meant total defenselessness. And the sequel to this armistice was then the peace treaty, the complete removal of our people's arms and therewith the removal of its rights, and with that the plundering and ravaging by an international financial combine which threw our people into the depths of misery.

They told us beforehand: "He who says that we intend to take away Germany's colonies lies!" They took them away from us! They said: "He who says that the intention is to take from Germany her merchant marine is not telling the truth!" They took it away from us! They said beforehand: "He who says that we want to take away part of the German people is inciting the people!" Later they took away one part after another! They had broken all their promises! In a few months the German people sank into a state of unimaginably deep despair and despondency-starving people without any hope. A people that did not get its prisoners of war back, even after the armistice and peace-treaty had been signed! A people that was not given food, even after it was defenseless! A people that was now repeatedly coerced,-if one carefully studies those times-from whom re-subjection was again and again demanded, extorted by some new repression. Even today, when one reflects upon this, one falls into a state of burning hatred and rancor against a world in which anything like this is possible.

Now it was at that time, my comrades, when everything was shattered, when the highest leadership of the Reich had fled abroad, when others were surrendering, when the armed forces had to give up their weapons, when the people themselves voluntarily disarmed; at that time when agitation could rage against Germany from within our borders, that one could read in the newspapers: "It is a good thing that we lost the war," that men without character could declare: "We were not able to win the war," it was at that moment, when anyone who even thought of Germany, or spoke about it, trembled to stand up, at that time, when the renunciation of life was being preached as an ideal, so to speak, and when one was ashamed to face the world as a German altogether, it was at that very time, my comrades, that I entered my political career with the determination to resurrect Germany!

It was such a mad determination in the eyes of those others, that my closest friends did not understand me. I found the strength for this determination only from my insight into the population. If, at that time, I had only known the upper ten thousand, believe me, my German people-I would not stand before you today, I would never have found courage for this thought which is capable of revolutionizing a people: Determination and Faith. I knew first and foremost the people itself; I knew my comrades; I knew that these men, who for years have done what could not be left undone, who have done work without precedence, could be trusted,-I knew that if they only would have had the right leadership, that they never would have agreed to a capitulation, not these comrades, since each knew that so many comrades had already fallen for what I was fighting for. I could not abandon that, for it would have been to betray my own comrades, who were just as badly treated by life as I myself, who had also contributed their lives to the cause.

I have come to know the great mass of the German people, ladies and gentlemen, from living with them. And these masses have not only upheld my belief in the people, but have restored it, and constantly strengthened it through all the years since then, in the face of contrary circumstances, or when any misfortune seemed to threaten the realization of my plans. It was clear to me that this whole development, just as in the last 20 years or 30 years before the war, could lead only to collapse. But I had already formed the resolve to declare war on this whole development. That is not merely to declare: "I will get a German Wehrmacht, I will get an army or an air-force"; it was clear to me that the inner structure of the social order must be altered, so that in the dead body of our people the blood would flow up from the bottom again, and that society should hold firmly to the goal.

I have always looked upon this undertaking as possible, as within the power of the country. But I was of the conviction that strength could only be given to a body in which the sight and the essence of the new condition was already incorporated. Therefore, I was resolved to build up a small movement, beginning with those people who should already have within themselves that which appeared later as really essential to the whole of society. And this was perhaps not so hard as I thought, inasmuch as I was already on guard against the danger of unworthy place-seekers or selfish persons joining my ranks.

For whoever joined this movement in those years from 1919-23 had to be a boundless idealist. Any other kind of man would only say: "He is an utter fool. He wants to build a new people, to found a new state, to organize a new Wehrmacht, to make the Germans free again-and he hasn't even a name, no money, no press, no political clique, nothing. The man is mad." They had to be boundless idealists who came to me then, for we had nothing at all to gain, but always only to lose, always to sacrifice. And I can say that of all my followers, all of them who at that time and later supported me: they had nothing to win, and everything to lose. And how many have lost everything, even their lives, for my sake. I have now begun this battle, first against stupidity, stupidity and inertia, under the so-called higher strata; I have begun it against the cowardice which spreads caste far and wide, the cowardice which always pretended to be cleverness and came around and said: "We must submit; we must be patient"; or, as Herr Erzberger said, "We must sign everything, we must sign everything they put before us; then they will forgive us; then it will be all right again." Against this immeasurable cowardice which did everything rather than take a stand, I had to fight then, in small and gradually larger circles. Often we have experienced that this part of society says, "But why do you go demonstrate on the streets? Can you not see that us others don't want this and that it leads inexorably to more conflict? Why? Because you are provocative, so stop provoking them, stand back, be quiet" And we were not quiet. I then formed the program: "The German street belongs to the German, not the Jew." And I have won the streets back for these German masses, not by the cleverness of the cowards, but the bravery of these daredevils who at that time attached themselves to me and who were ready to liberate the streets from our enemies, and carry the German colors back through these German streets, to the German markets, villages and cities. And I had at that time to fight on further against selfish interests of manyl individuals. The man of the Left said to me: "You are going against my interests" or "You are going against my interests. My interests are class interests. And these class interests oblige me to slay the other fellow." And the other spectrum said to me: "Sir, keep away from our interests. We have the interests of station, we too have our interests, stay away. Do not come in here!" I had to turn against both sides. And above the interests which seemed to be found in station or in class, stood the interests which lie in the people themselves, in that community which cannot be torn apart. All this appears today to be so obvious a thing to get all these truisms into the cross-grained skulls of our people from the Left and Right.

One group did not want to accept this idea, from pure doggedness, because they said: "What? We will break our enemies' heads in", and the others did not want to accept it because of their limitations or stupidity, because of sluggish thinking, when they said: That was not until now, why should we change now? You cannot demand of me that I should have anything to do with these persons who come from the people: That I cannot do.

Eventually you will even demand of me that I should add switch positions. We want to be a people as brothers, but with enough distance, with enough distance, gentlemen, not too close, and only during elections, not every day.

All that was thus not so simple, slowly to draw one thing after another out of this people, and how many have quite simply run away from it. It was not, indeed, my national comrades, as if every one who came to me at that time, on that account also remained with me. Many a time I had to bring fifty or sixty somewhere and three months later they were again only seven or eight. All the others were gone again. And one had to begin again. I made a calculation at that time. If I win a hundred over, and have only ten remain to me, and the other ninety always leave me, then gradually they will become a hundred if I win a thousand. If I win ten thousand, they will be a thousand, and gradually the number of those who remain will grow ever larger. And if one had departed for the second or third time, perhaps, then perhaps he will be embarrassed to go the fifth time, and then he too will remain.

And thus, with unbelievable patience and with perseverance and persistence I will slowly build up a group that is a majority in the German Reich itself. The others may laugh or mock as much as they wish. It does not matter. They may go against us. That does not matter; then we will defend ourselves. We will not capitulate. We will not get off the street, we will not give up our places until we have the upper hand, or until others force us out themselves.

The feeling of the National Socialist is today obvious to us. However at that time, these were new ideas, new learnings, which were neither understood, nor of course, accepted by many. And another thing was added to this, a cursed tradition, this question of education, into which every single man believes he was born differently,  behind which there lies a much more serious problem than any other; one individual could not bring himself to mix with the broad masses of the people, because he didn't belong to them socially; while another could not because he also came from others. It was a fight against traditions, and also, naturally, against the elements of cultural up-bringing.

Some said, "I, as a cultured person, cannot be made to expect to associate with such a village organization, in which a day-laborer leads the way." I had to first of all make them understand that leadership had nothing to do with an abstract learnedness, which had been pumped up in an institution of studies. One is studied, taught, hammered in, in God knows how many homework hours, and the other is innate and will always come to the fore, and will know how to find a following among his natural and necessary talents of leadership. It was a struggle against almost all of the things which we were accustomed to in life. Besides this, there was a fight against certain natural interests. "If I should really join you, I shall lose my business," (said one) and another would say: "It would be scandalous, because my colleagues would not stand for this." Can you imagine, my countrymen, what a hero one had to be to be the first National Socialist in any group, in any factory, and also, I concede, to be the first National Socialist in any salon? For some, they are bodily, the others because they are spiritually threatened. I do not know what is more evil, a bodily threat rather than a spiritual suppression which can perhaps break down a person even faster than a physical threat. There have been heroes who have come forward at that time. And I should like to explain something about that: These heroes have in reality continued the war of 1914-1918. One sees them yet so displayed as if they were soldiers (in my eyes) and their party, no, that the soldiers have been once, and indeed the best soldiers. They were the best soldiers that have ever been, who would not and could not bear the acquiescence, thus we recognize it today, that a really good National Socialist will also be always the best soldier.

And now came the organized opponents. There were originally approximately 46 or 47 parties, who hesitated accordingly to unite together the bicyclists, or the small gardeners, or cottagers, or other people. But there were some 48 parties. An Allied Opposition. And here above all the party secretaries, their functionaries, who saw in us the ruin of their existence. For where, after all, was a civil party position to arrive, represented by its syndics, party secretaries, and so on, and where a proletarian party itself, represented by trade-union leaders and again party secretaries, if now suddenly someone comes and says: "All that rubbish is again plain madness. You are fighting here for something that can be of no use to anyone. You will both have to get off your high horse. In the long run you cannot do without each other. It is more sensible for you to come to an intelligent agreement with each other than that you should each bring about the other's ruin." One could say that, of course, to the individual, but to a secretary it meant making the man think, immediately, that then his entire existence was over. If I say, religion is not a topic of political debate, what happens to the followers of the Zentrum Party? If I say, I cannot fight politically for economic interests, which must be solved, rationally, in economic terms, where, then, do the trade-union secretaries and the syndics get? And most of all, where then do the dear Jews get, who had, indeed, their interests so much in both camps, who on the one hand directed capital, and on the other hand led the anti-capitalists, and often, indeed, as one family with two brothers in both camps.

My dear comrades! When at that time I began this fight, I knew very well that it was a fight against an entire condition of things, and how hard it was only my fellow-fighters can know.

I can say that for me, the war has not ended since 1914. I have gone up and down the country, and from city to city, and have spoken and labored again and again, always with the single thought to loose the German people from this bond, to deliver them from their lethargy, and gather them together once more.

Not only have I found comrades in arms, but also countless people in the course of these years, who have now helped us, women and men, who have given all, for whom the Party, in particular, was everything. The other wretched bourgeois, especially, cannot understand that. Only those can understand who belong to National Socialism, for whom the movement means everything, so that they have thought of their movement the whole day, so that they have risked all, and have offered every sacrifice. Now the whole nation understands it; what then counted not even a thousand, today totals millions of fellow countrymen, who are going to the gathering places, and are giving, for the National Socialist Union, their last fur and pullover.

This good fortune, to be able to give, to be able to sacrifice for it, that millions today have, was had formerly by only the few National Socialists of our movement. How great the good fortune was only those can measure, apparently, who today can say of themselves: "I am doing everything for my people, everything for our soldiers, so that they may stand fast."

Now, my fellow countrymen, from this small beginning has sprung the German Union. Slowly, it is true, but it was well so; it needed time, but it came into existence. This movement exists today; it was not an uninterrupted growth, but there were then again also days of the most severe distress and of doubt, dark days.

I need only remember the year 1923. The enemy stood in the Ruhr district, Germany was in inflation, the whole German people ruined, and seemed to be going under in unparalleled misery. And the Jews triumphed over everything. They ruined our country and they profited by our misfortune. And then I tried at that time to grab in my hand the power to bring misfortune to a stop. And at the moment when I might have believed that I would get the power, then fate struck me down, and I came, instead of into power, into prison.

And then, at this time, then the movement had to prove itself, and, of course, I had to prove myself as well. And I may now say that at this moment, when I had yet scarcely come to my senses, I did not lose my head for a minute, but had soon recovered my faith. My enemies said, "Now he is dead! One need not hesitate further about it, one need never mention him again, National Socialism is dead!" After 13 months I came back and began again. And I think that this was maybe the most important thing for our party: any weakling can bear winning, but only the strong can bear the strokes of misfortune that fate deals!

Back then, I was the recipient of first major crisis within our movement. It was done with a few years later. Then after the first hard blow I got great increases in the movement. What that cost in work is known only to those who were there then. But I kept then also my boundless faith, faith in my own person, too, that nothing can break my composure. I took to heart  the saying of a German philosopher: "The blow that does not kill you makes you stronger."

At this time the rest of the world took no notice at all of us. The rest of the world listened to the Diplomats, and the diplomats moved in circles which at that time we National Socialists could not move in, were absolutely forbidden to move in, and as far as I am concerned, didn't have to move in. These diplomats sent wonderful reports to their governments, in which they depicted the political games within the Reich, and ignored the powers that would take over this entire Reich some day. They treated the Germany of that day as though there never would exist, or never had existed a National Socialism.

And how they treated this Germany! Their Germany, their democratic Germany. The child which they had suckled. This freak of parliamentary democracy, constitution of Weimar and body of laws from Versailles! How they mishandled this monster-child, oppressed it, wrung it out. If today they act as though they are against us National Socialists, or turn against National Socialist Germany, still, did they not also turn against formerly democratic Germany? Only there is one difference: they cannot hurt us at all, but unfortunately they could hurt the democratic Germany. To us it makes no difference what their opinion of us is: I have never, even to the slightest degree, counted on having foreign countries agree with or like me;  that doesn't matter to me in the least. If it should come to pass that my enemies should praise me, then the German nation can send me to the devil.

So to me, and to us, it doesn't matter; but they mistreated democratic Germany, that Germany, which crept, which was satisfied with a few crumbs which fell from the tables of these so-called "moneyed classes." They were treated like beggars, but they at least should have had the honor of sitting in Geneva. They were refused every human right, but they should have had the right, now and then, to participate in an international conference, or even to preside there.

They misused the right of self-determination of the German nation, they didn't worry about anything, but they should at least have been allowed to speak on the subject of the rights of self-determination of other nations at the League of Nations in Geneva, and they would have been satisfied and happy with that.

The disarmament: If today it is said, that our Germany, this National Socialist Germany, forced us to arm (putting aside the fact of how often I asked them to disarm) There was once a Germany which had no arms at all. But why didn't they disarm then? They could have done it, or does anyone believe that perhaps Stresemann or Marx, or any one of these men, Wirth, Bauer, Eberth, Scheidemann, would have declared the might of war? Well, that cannot be told anyone. They didn't believe that themselves. That is when they should have disarmed. They didn't do it; on the contrary, they pushed the war on farther. Some of them got themselves well-fixed in one place, some in another. The English didn't worry any further about their Allies; they betrayed the Arabs on the subject of their self-determination, as for the Indian people, whom they needed in the war, they later on abruptly took away everything they had promised them. They knew very well why Germany had to be disarmed. They added all of this to the name Democracy. Everything crumbled piece by piece. And then the terrible unemployment.

Where were the miracle workers then? If today they can lie so in the newspapers, so that President Roosevelt declares that America will give the world a new economic order. It may very well be a new order, but a very miserable one. Such is the system, a system with which he has himself gone bankrupt, so that he now believes that only through a war can he preserve himself from the justice of the people.

Politico-economically, the German people has not received what was promised it before the days of the Versailles Treaty. On the contrary, as the other world went to pieces progressively, unemployment grew and continued to grow greater. The years 1913 to 1930 are years of continuous experimentation, continuous economic ruin, an uninterrupted prostitution of the political sovereignty of the German people; also an abandonment of economic materials. And we had to witness all this.

At that time I fought, but during those years, my countrymen, there were many setbacks: our Party was forbidden, I was gagged for two years, local groups were dissolved, then again, in  all German states the movement was forbidden. In short, there was a continuous fight against uninterrupted setbacks.

Then, finally, came September, 1930, and we walked into the Reichstag with our 106 mandates-another was added-107 mandates. Then we should have been given part in the government, but that was when the real opposition (sidetracking) came, and it grew greater uninterruptedly. It was a continuous battle. How many party members did we lose at the time? Many were foully murdered, over 40,000 wounded, we could count in these few years. Then came the year 1932. The first presidential election, again a setback. The second presidential election, the party caught itself, and so the fight for the inside power in this state has continued in battle after battle. It was a fight in which all was at stake. Many persons again had to pay with their lives that year. Many persons went to prison. And then came July, with an incredible victory. Then everyone cried: "This is the hour in which to take over power," and again the hour passed by, it had to go by.

And then came another reversal. And then-a final battle. And finally the day, the memory of which we are celebrating.

Now, my compatriots, I have related this to you only very briefly, in order to show you above all else that: the victory which we are celebrating today, did not come to us at that time as an easy gift, which fell into our laps. This victory was bound up with great efforts, with sacrifices, with deprivations, with unceasing labors, and also with setbacks. And if you had asked anyone on January 15, "Do you believe that this person"-that was I at that time-"will get into power?" everyone would have answered you, even on the 25th and the 28th, "Never." And when we did get into power on the 30th, then many a wise man said:-"It's only for six weeks." Today, it is nine years.

And now I must mention something else. I told you what I found conditions to be in the year 1919 to 1920, when I brought the party into existence; I have depicted for you the situation, after my first great defeat.

But I must recall to your memory, in just a few sentences, what I had taken upon myself on that 30th of January. It was a heritage which hardly anyone wanted any more to take over at all.

Everything ruined, the economy destroyed; 7,000,000 people without a living, and it was increasing from week to week; 7,000,000 part-time workers. The Reich finances an enormous deficit of nearly three billions. The states had incredible deficits, the communities were in debt, the peasantry was completely ruined and on the verge of having their land auctioned off, commerce came to a standstill, our shipping no longer in existence. In general, everything in Germany seemed now to be dead.

But I took that over. It was no bright heritage, but I looked upon it as an honor to take over something not at the moment when it is flourishing, but to take it over at the moment when others say: "Everything is already ruined. No one can help."

I ventured it then. It was altogether clear to me that if it did not succeed I would probably be stoned. I would have been beaten to death, I dared and I won. Within a few years I had solved all the problems.

In 1933 and 1934 I started by cleaning Germany up domestically. First I got rid of  the parties and similar silliness. Then I began to stabilize the German currency by relentless pressure from above. I began, however, to stabilize it not just by pressure from above, but by guaranteeing it and backing it up with German production. All that is easy to tell today, but it was not so easy then, for if it had been so easy, why did my opponents not do it?

I immediately began with the repression of all the foreign elements in Germany; I mean our cosmopolites. I began also at this time to bring individual provinces into the Reich. When the year '34 came, I had really got through with the most essential internal preparations toward getting for the German people at last the benefit of its labor. Instead of numberless economic organizations a combination of all in one single bureau. At first, of course, everyone complained whose interests were thereby threatened. But one thing no one can dispute, from either the right or left: In the end everything went better than before. And moreover what an individual perhaps had to give up for the moment he got back again, got back through reason which lay at the bottom of all transactions, through insight into what was necessary.

In '35 the freedom began already to permeate to external relations. You remember all that: introduction of military service; in '36 the throwing off of these oppressive Versailles shackles in regard to the Rhineland; recovery of our sovereignty; in '37 and '38 the completion of our armament, not without my having previously made numerous offers to the others, to obviate this armament. For one thing, my comrades, you must all admit, wherever you come from: Everywhere today you see works of peace which we could no longer continue on account of war. Everywhere you see great buildings, schools, housing projects, which the war has kept us from carrying on. Before I entered upon this war, I had begun a gigantic program of social, economic, cultural work, in part already completed. But everywhere I had in mind new plans, new projects.

When, on the other hand, I look at my opponents, what have they really done, now? They could rush easily enough into war. War did not rob them of a peaceful state, for they have accomplished nothing. This prattler, this drink-bold Churchill, what has he in reality accomplished in his life? This perfidious fellow is a lazybones of the first order.

If this war had not come, the centuries would have spoken of our generation and also of all of us and also of myself as the creator of great works of peace. But if this war had not come, who would speak of Churchill? Now he will one day be spoken of, to be sure, but as the destroyer of an empire, which he and now we destroyed. One of the most pitiful phrase-mongering natures of world history, incapable of creating anything, of accomplishing anything, or of performing creative acts, capable only of destroying.

Of his accomplice in the White House I would rather not speak at all, moreover-a wretched madman.

To be sure, the more we worked, the more we put Germany in order, the greater grew the hatred, unfortunately. For now there came something in addition. Now came the stupid hatred of the social strata abroad, who believed that the German model, the socialistic German model, could break in on them also, circumstances permitting. I have often heard that those in other countries said themselves: "Well, you know, for us those National Socialist ideas are, of course, not practicable."

But I do not even demand at all that they should be carried out. On the contrary, I am not here to concern myself with the happiness of other peoples, but I feel myself responsible exclusively for my own people. That is what I work for. To my sleepless nights I will not add a single one for other lands.

And yet right away they say: "And the example, your example, that's just it, the example that is offered. The example ruins the good morals"; that means in this case the bad habits and bad qualities. They said "They travel with their ships among us, we cannot permit that no yachts should land among us. Why not? That only spoils our working class." How will that spoil our working class? They do not perceive that the German workingman has worked more than ever before; why should he not then recover? Is it not above all a joke when that man from the White House says: "We have a World Program and this World Program will give mankind freedom and the right to labor." Mr. Roosevelt, open your eyes, we have had that in Germany for a long time already. Or when he says that care will be taken of illness. Go and look at the battle-cry of our party program that is National Socialistic, not its doctrine, my dear sir, those are high ideas like those of a Democrat.

Or when he says: "We wish to raise (the standard of) prosperity, even for the masses. Those are prominent things in our program." He could have done that much more easily if he had not started a war. For we have also done that without a war. You have a war! No, this capitalistic babble does not even think of doing such a thing. They see in us only the bad example, and in order to tempt their own people, they must meddle in our party program and there snatch out single sentences, these pitiful blunders, and even then they do it badly.

We have had a united world against us here, naturally, not only from the right but also from the left, as those on the left say to us, "If that succeeds; this experiment, it actually creates, it brings it about, that it does away with homelessness. It makes it ready and establishes a school system whereby every talented youngster, irrespective of what kind of position. He completes it and makes a lawyer out of a former farm worker. He completed it, and really introduced universal health care for the aged, the man who finally brings it about, who brings them to an ordered, assured standard of living, what will we do then? Why, we live by the fact that that does not exist. We do live by that. War, then, against this National Socialism."

We have now been at the helm for nine years. Bolshevism has now been at the helm since 1917, nearly 25 years. This struggle will render the verdict, if this Russia is compared with Germany. What have we created in nine years, what is the aspect of the German people, and what has been created there? I do not even want to talk about the capitalist states, they are not at all concerned about their unemployed for that reason. To the American millionaire the unemployed person is something natural, something he does not have to see at all, since he does not go to the neighborhoods where they are, and they do not come to the neighborhood where he sits; they under-took a hunger march on Washington, to be sure, to the White House or to the Capitol, but they are dispersed somewhere by the police before they can do it with rubber truncheons and tear gas, and so on, all of them things which do not exist in autocratic Germany. We have not used these measures against our people at all, we manage without rubber truncheons and without these things, without tear gas. We are resolute in our renunciation of them, while in the case of the enemy it is understood that at the moment of taking power they increased it and therein refuses to introduce a definite foreign policy. You know them already from my fighting period.

I wanted a close relationship with three countries, with England, with Italy and with Japan.

Every attempt to come to an understanding with England was altogether to no purpose. It did not seem that one could rid them any more of that crazy, mad ideology, prejudice and obstinacy. They saw in Germany an enemy, and that the world had changed essentially since the time of their great Queen Victoria, that people did not know at all that Germany never threatened England but that this England could be maintained only when she had found a close cooperation with Europe. This they did not realize. On the contrary, they fought on every occasion against Europe. This they did not realize.

The man who I have mentioned several times already, Churchill, every attempt, even to offer this man the thought of an understanding failed, at his chair: "I want a war." It was impossible even to talk to this man and surrounding him was this clique of Duff Cooper. It is sad to even mention the name, they are such boneheads! It is quite interesting as they themselves, when one of their men arrives, are thrown out immediately.  But this doesn't mean anything. These are unbreakable eggs. Wherever they step they remain somewhere again, among enemies. On the whole they have been in the cold too long. They have been individually, generation, genders and even individual men, not mentioning the Jews in this Connection, (they are our old enemies as it is, they have experienced at our hands an upsetting of their ideas' and they rightfully hate us. just as much as we hate them) we are well aware that this war could eventually only end that they be out-rooted from Europe or that they disappear.

They have already spoken of the breaking up of the German Reich by next September, and with the help of this advance prophesy, and we say that the war will not end as the Jews imagine it will, namely, with the uprooting of the Aryans, but the result of this war will be the complete annihilation of the Jews. Now for the first time they will not bleed other people to death, but for the first time the old Jewish law of 'An eye for an eve, a tooth for a tooth,' will be applied. And the further this war spreads, the more antisemitism will spread. It will find strength in  every prison camp, and in every family, which will understand that its sacrifices are because of this antisemitism. And the hour will come when the enemy of all times, or at least of the last thousand years, will have played his part to the end.

My attempt to explain this to England was useless, and all my actions and explanations did not convince them.

I was more fortunate with the second state, with which I found some relationship. That is actually no wonder. However, it would be a real wonder, if it were otherwise. Because, already-as I said today-it is no accident, that two nations in the course of nearly a hundred years go through the same experience and fate.

A hundred years ago, Germany fought its way to a renaissance as a state, and its independence as a state, and Italy was fighting for its national unity. Both states were progressing along similar lines. Then these two states separated, and both nations fought without success and then came the revolutions, almost simultaneously, for both, with ideals which are as similar as they can be with two different peoples.

Both Revolutions had about the same course; each one had severe setbacks, but finally won the fight. Both nations brought about a socialistic, national renaissance. Both revolutions adhered to the program they had committed themselves to. Both nations concerned people who could not find their daily bread on their own soil. Both nations found themselves one day standing opposite the same people, without wanting to, against the same international union, as already had occurred in 1935, when England suddenly turned against Italy, without any sort of preliminary warning; Italy had taken nothing from England, therefore it was for the reason that: "We do not wish Italy to have its free right to life," just as it was, with Germany, for the reason that: "We do not wish Germany to have its free right to life." What did we take from England? What do we want from England? or from France, or from America? Nothing. I offered each of them peace. But these are the kind of men that just declare - Mr. Churchill said "I want war" - him and the clique behind him, behind this drunk, corrupt man, the financial powers of his international Jewish friends. On the other side, we have an old freemason, who only believes in a war, to be able to salvage his bankrupt economy, perhaps, or at least to gain time. Thus both states again stand face to face with the same foe, and on the same front, and they are forced to fight with each other, to be joined together in the same life-and-death struggle.

And then, in addition, there is still a third thing-I have mentioned it today also: in both cases they are men, two men, who have come from the people, started the revolution, and led the states to victory. In the last few weeks, whenever I had a couple of hours to myself, I read about the history of the Italian Fascist Revolution, and it seemed to me as if I had the history of my own party before me, so similar, so identical, the same enemies, the same opponents, the same arguments, it is really a unique wonder, and now we are also fighting in the same theaters of war, Germans in Africa, Italians also in the East; they fight jointly, and let one not deceive oneself, this battle will be fought through to a joint victory.

And now finally the third state has joined us, another state with which we have always wanted to have good relations for the past many years. You all know it from "Mein Kampf"-Japan.

Now the three great Have-Nots are united, and now we shall see who gains in this struggle, those who have nothing to lose, but everything to gain, or those who have everything to lose and nothing to gain. For, what does England want to gain? What does America want to gain? What do they want to gain? They have so much that they do not know what to do with what they have. A few persons per square kilometer need much more for all the cares which we are not the ones to have. A single poor harvest means for our national decades plundered, exploited, crushed, and in spite of that they could not eliminate their own economic need. They have raw materials, as much as they are willing to use, and they do not complete it, with their problems actually to found something reasonable in society, to the one who has everything and the one who wants to take from the other fellow who has hardly anything practically the last thing he owns, or to the one who defends that which he honors as his last possession.

And if a British archbishop prays to God to send Bolshevism over Germany and Europe as a scourge, I can only say: "It will not come over Germany but whether it will come over England is a different question." And then this old sinner and evil-doer can pray in an attempt to keep this British hazard at bay.

We have never done anything to England, France, we have never done anything to America. Nevertheless there follows now in the year 1939 the declaration of war, and now it has gone further.

Now however you must out of my whole history understand me rightly. I once said something that foreign countries did not understand. I said: "If the war is inevitable, then I should rather be the one to conduct it not because I thirst after this fame; on the contrary, I here gladly renounce that fame, which is in my eyes no fame at all. My fame, if Providence preserves my life, will consist in works of peace, which I still intend to create. But I think that if Providence has already disposed that I can do what must be done according to the inscrutable will of the Providence, then I can at least just ask Providence to entrust to me the burden of this war, to load it on me. I will beat it! I will shrink from no responsibility; in every hour I will take this burden upon me. I will bear every responsibility, just as I have always borne them."

I have the greatest authority among this people; it knows me. It knows that I had endless plans in those years before the war. It sees everywhere the signs of works begun, and sometimes also the documents of completion. I know that this people trusts me. I am happy to know it. But the German people may be persuaded also of one thing, that the year 1918, as long as I live, will never return.

I am glad that so many allies have joined our soldiers: in Sweden, Italy, then in the north, Finland and the many other nations which are sending their sons here to the east, too, Rumanians and Hungarians, Slovaks, Spaniards, we have many Frenchmen, and besides, the volunteers of our German States out of the North and West. Already today, a European war, and finally in the East, our a new ally: Japan. On this history will speak. 1939-the conquest of Poland; 1940-Norway and France and England, the Netherlands and Belgium; 1941-the Balkans and then finally, the nation which Mr. Cripps assured us a few days ago, in his loquacious manner, has been preparing itself for a fight with Germany. I knew that. As soon as I had become certain that there was false play going on here, in the instant that I became aware that Mr. Churchill in his secret meetings was already considering this ally, within the hour in which Molotov left Berlin, and took his leave because he had been able to come to a shrewd agreement, at that moment, it became clear to me, that this conflict was inevitable.

For this, too, I thank fate, that it placed me at the head of the Reich, so that I was in a position to strike the first blow. If one must fight, then I take the stand that the first blow is the decisive one. And we didn't stop to think it over very much.

We can only wish Japan good luck, because instead of playing around for a long time with this lying nation, it started to fight immediately.

Now, our soldiers have been fighting in the East since June 22, a battle which will some day go into the chronicles of history as a hero-song of our people. On the seas our naval forces (battleships), our U-boats, which have put all of Roosevelt's plans to shame. He meant to drive the German U-boats out of the oceans gradually, by making new decrees of the American spheres of influence, and to limit them to a very small territory, which the British would then take care of with their naval forces. And, my fellow country-men, that is also the reason for the regression of the number of U-boat sinkings, but not at all the number of damages or sinkings by our U-boats. On the contrary, the latter has risen greatly. Also not the lack of our occupational forces, nor the impossibility of mobilizing, but exclusively the attempt to talk to us about our freedom of action, by means of decrees. You will understand that it has been a vindication for myself to decide whether one should finally conclude with the whole pack of lies for the sake of peace, and to bind oneself to the new limitations to which we must be subjected.

Japan has finally eliminated this necessity. Now there are U-boats on all the oceans of the world, now you will see how our submarines carry out their work, and however they may look, we are armed for everything, from North to South, from East to West.

But about one thing they may be assured; as I have said before, today they are up against a different German people; now they are again up against Fredrichian people; we will fight where we stand, give no foot of ground, immediately push forward again. And we are, in fact, happy to know since yesterday that our General Rommel with his brave Italian and German panzers and men at the moment when they had beaten him back, turned around right away and forced him back again. That will continue to happen to them until the war has ended with our victory.

With these two forces stands a third, our air-force. Its fame is immortal. What they have accomplished in their efforts in the Arctic cold of the Far North, in the East, or in the heat of the desert, or in the West, is everywhere the same, a heroism that honors cannot glorify.

There is just one thing which I must emphasize again and again; that is our infantry. And behind these forces stands a gigantic communications organization with tens of thousands of motor vehicles and railroads, and they are all going to work and will master even the hardest problems. For it is self-evident that the conversion from advance to defense in the East is not easy. It was not Russia that forced us to defense, but only 38 and 40 and 42 and sometimes 45 degrees below zero that did it. And in this cold, there, troops which are not accustomed to it cannot fight as in the red heat of the desert during certain months. But at this time, when the difficult transition was necessary, I again looked upon it as my task to take upon my shoulders the responsibility for that, too. I wanted thereby to save my soldiers from something worse.

And I want to assure them at this point, insofar as those who are on that icy front can hear me today: "I know the work you are doing. And I know also that the hardest lies behind us. Today is January 30. The winter is the big hope of the Eastern enemy.

It will not fulfill this hope for him. In four months we had fought almost to Moscow and Leningrad. Four months of Northern winter are now past. They have advanced a few kilometers at individual points and have made great sacrifices in blood and human lives there. They may be indifferent to that; but in a few weeks in the South the winter is going to break, and then the spring will move farther north, the ice will melt, and then the hour will come when the ground is again hard and firm, and when the new weapons will again flow there from our homeland, and when we shall beat them, and revenge those who now have fallen such lonely victims of the cold.

For I can tell you that the soldiers at the front have the feeling of superiority over the Russians. To compare him with them would be an insult. The decisive thing now is that this transition from attack to defense be successful, and I may say that it has been.

These fronts, as you shall see, where a few individual Russians break through, and where they sometimes even believe that they are occupying localities, there are no localities, there are only ruins. What does this mean, in comparison to what we have occupied, what we are bringing in order, and what the next spring and from then on, will bring into order? Behind this front there is today a dignified German homeland. I have recently, the other day, in view of this cold weather, appealed to the German people, for everything which had been prepared for protection against the frost has not sufficed. I wanted to express gratitude to the people themselves. This appeal then was also a plebiscite. While the others talk of democracy, this is true democracy. It has shown itself these days, when an entire people voluntarily sacrifices, and I know that so many small people, but this time also, many, many people, for whom this was difficult, and perhaps, formerly, seemed to find it impossible to part with a precious piece of fur, have today given it, with the knowledge that the most humble infantryman is of greater importance than the most costly fur.

And I have taken care, that things should not happen as they did in the first World War, in which the homeland delivered troops, and as the furnisher of such troops allowed itself a 2,260% dividend; in which the homeland had to furnish leather-goods, for example, and paid the leather-goods profit organizations 2,700% dividends. Whoever makes profits on the war in the Third Reich dies.

It is not a question of the hidden clothes, the poor infantryman who, perhaps, saves his hands by having warm gloves, or could be kept from freezing by a warm vest, which some one takes from home for him. I will here stand up for the interests of the soldiers, and I know that all the German nation stands behind me in this.

On this January 30th, I can tell you that I am sure of only one thing. How this year is going to end I don't know. Whether or not the war will end this year I do not know; but I do know one thing. Wherever the foe may appear, he will this year be fought as before. It will again be a year of great victories; and even as I held the flag high before this, at all times, so I will hold it high even now because I find myself in such a different position.

My German countrymen, my soldiers. We have a full of fame and glory behind us. One likes so much to draw analogies from it. In this fight German heroes have fought in similar situations, which also seemed hopeless. We should not draw any comparisons with former times, at all. We have no right to do so. We have the strongest army in the world. We have the strongest air-force in the world. Frederick the Great had to fight against a preponderance of power, which was just as choking (in his time). As he waged the first Silesian war, he had 2,700,000 Prussians in the state of 15 million people. When he was compelled to wage a third one, for 7 years, there stood 3 1/2 million, or 3,700,000, or even 3,800,000 million against 50 or 54 million others. A man with all his willpower stood up in spite of all reverses so that he never despaired of his success, and when he despaired, he wished to pull himself together again and then take the flag in his strong hands. How do we wish to speak of that to-day?

We have an opponent in front of us, who may have an immense numerical superiority, but we will rival him at least in the birthrate by spring and also in regard to weapons. And so it will be in all things, and above all we have Allies today. It is also no more the time of the World War. What Japan is accomplishing in the East alone, is, for us, beyond evaluation.

No other way remains, but the way of battle and the way of success. That way may be hard, or it may be easy. In no case, is it more difficult than the way our forefathers went. It will not be any easier from now on, and we may not expect that it should be less difficult than the task we have during the last few battles. Thus we feel the entire sacrifice which our soldiers are making. Who can understand that better than myself, who was once a soldier, too? I look upon myself as the first Musketeer of the Reich. I know definitely that the musketeer (Infantryman) fulfills his duty. I fulfill my own duties also, unmistakably, and I understand all the sorrow of my comrades and know all that goes on with them. I cannot therefore use any phrase which they will misunderstand. I can only say one thing to them, the home-front knows what they have to go through. The home-front can well imagine what it means to lie in the snow and the frost in the cold of 35, 38, 40 and 42 degrees below zero (Centigrade) and defend our homes for us. But, because the home-front knows it, they will all do what they can to lighten your fate. They will work, and they will continue to work, and I will demand that the German patriots at home work and produce munitions, manufacture weapons, and make more munitions and more. You remain at home, and many comrades lose their lives daily. Workers, work, manufacture, continue to work so that our means of communication, our transportation facilities can take them to the front from behind the lines. The front will hold, they will fulfill their duty.

Thus the home-front need not be warned, and the prayer of this priest of the devil, the wish that Europe may be punished with Bolshevism, will not be fulfilled, but rather that the prayer may be fulfilled: "Lord God, give us the strength that we may retain our liberty for our children and our children's children, not only for ourselves, but also for the other peoples of Europe, for this is a war which we wage,  not for our German people alone, but for all of Europe and for all of humanity.

In the war against the British, on this day the Germans retook, along with the Italians, Benghazi, although this event was noted earlier.  For some reason, three different dates are accorded to this event.  This date may be given as Mussolini telegraphed Rommel with the suggestion that the city be taken only to receive the reply that it had been.

Hitler had, of course, addressed the US a bit in his speech, railing against Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.  On this day, things were indeed busy in the US, as noted in Sarah Sundin's blog:
January 30, 1942: California congressional delegation urges evacuation of “enemy aliens.” Emergency Price Control Act gives US Office of Price Administration right to control prices. Last automobiles from Chevrolet and DeSoto roll off US assembly lines until 1945.

The U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey ship Pathfinder, which had served in the Philippines for forty years, was beached under sinking conditions at Corregidor after it has sustained bombing damages.


The Qantas Short Empire was shot down by the Japanese off of West Timor, killing all of the crew and thirteen of the eighteen passengers.  They flying boat went down in the ocean.

Éamon de Valera's Irish government protested the presence of American troops in Northern Ireland, claiming that this violated the Irish Republic's sovereignty.  The strongly worded message accused the US of recognizing a "Quisling government" in Ulster.

The Irish protest made some sense in context, as De Valera's government in 1937 had converted the state from a dominion into a republic which claimed, in its constitution, all of Ireland as its borders.  This had been ignored by the United Kingdom even though it was really a violation of Ireland's 1922 treat with the UK, although it certainly wasn't worth bothering about.  During the Second World War, however, the Irish treaty violation would be a sore point with the British, who were denied port rights in Ireland that had been seemingly promised by the treaty.  The British reaction was to condemn Ireland's actions publically and to mount a propaganda campaign against it overseas, the latter of which was very effective.  The British also treated Irish ships unfavorably in convoys.  Nonetheless, individual Irish volunteers to the British Armed Forces were extremely numerous, and Ireland itself quietly aided the Allies in various ways.

It was the tone of the message, not the message itself, that was notable, and remains so.

Stupid statements such as this boosted the international perception that Ireland was playing footsy with the Germans.  It was an unfair view, but De Valera's statements on such things or that of his government didn't help matters.


School Daze. Does Wyoming's Superintendent of Education Selection System Make Sense?

S. H. Knight Science Camp classroom, Albany County, Wyoming.

We recently reported on our ongoing series on the 2022 election,  Lex Anteinternet: The 2022 Election Part VI. The Early Landing Li..., the following:

January 25, 2022

On a totally different topic, and not really related to the election directly, the Wyoming Superintendant of Education recently resigned, which means a new one has to be picked.

That entails forwarding three names chosen by the populist controlled far right Republican Central Committee to the Governor.  The Committee has now chosen their three picks. They are:

1.  Thomas Kelly, who occupies a position with the American Military University, and who indicated in his application that he relocated to Wyoming, which he did only very recently, from Colorado as Colorado's schools, he asserted, were teaching climate change, mulitple genders and white supremacy.

2.  Brian Schroeder, who is an educator by profession and head of Veritas University, a Christian K through 7 school in Cody.

3.  Marti Halverson, a far right wing Republican East Coast/Chicago ex pat who arrived in Wyoming in 1996 and who has been in the legislature.

The choices were obviously very political and fit in with the Central Committee's current populist hard right wing view.  The last superintendant to fit that bill, who was elected to the position, proved to be highly unpopular with Wyomingites.  Nonetheless, the Central Committee's candidates leave the Governor with little choice but to pick somebody far to the right.

Chances are, I'd guess, it will be Schroeder, who appears to be the most qualified and least politicized.

One committee member, Tom Lubnau of Gillette, raised concerns that the process used to pick the candidates was unconstitutional, as the committee is not longer proportionally representative. Given the current atmosphere everywhere, that should be a clear warning that whomever is chosen is likely to end up with their qualifications to hold office challenged in court.

Governor Gordon has five days to pick from amongst the three.  Whether he has a choice to send back for a redo I don't know.  He does with judicial nominees, but that process is likely different.

Whoever occupies this position will only be doing so until November, or upon their reelection in November.

This entire development sort of nicely tees up the current conflict in the GOP and the state's poltic's in general.  Traditionally the WEA, the teachers union, has been one of the very few strong unions in the state and used to have a very strong influence over who occupied this position.  None of the candidates in question will have that relationship with the WEA.  Jilian Balow had been careful to monitor the spirt of the times, while not diving too deeply into it, but chances are that two out of the three here would not be so restrained.

January 25, 2022 cont.

Tom Lubnau's prediction of a lawsuit was correct.  It was filed today, and he's one of the plaitniff's.

This is an extremely interesting development as it would suggest the mainstream part of the GOP is attempting to stage a comeback, and throught he court.  With the GOP having just sidelined the Natrona County delegation, and this suit now coming on, the party may be facing a litigation backlash that will be essentially taking on the current leadership.

Anyway a person looks at this, this is going to amount to airing some dirty laundry, and the nominees to the Governor aren't going to get up there quickly. Chances are the court will order a stay on the nominees and this will carry on for at least a little while.

At the same time, a Carbon County Legislature raised the eligibility of a Laramie County Legislature who has been very active as a respected establishment Republican to continue to serve in the Legislature, asserting that redisctricting may have zoned him out of his district. This was raised as an asserted question, but it can't help be noted that the challenge comes from the populsit righ against a legislature who openly spated with Anthony Bouchard of the populsit right.  The matter has been referred to the Secretary of State.

January 26, 2022

Federal Judge Skavdahl enjoined the Governor from slecting a Superintendant of Public Education until he could consider the issues in the new suit.

January 27, 2022

The Trib is reporting that the Court ordered the Governor not to make a choice until he "makes a decision" today.

Wrong.

What he did, is to enter a termporary order holding:

ORDERED that Governor Gordon shall not fill the vacant position of Superintendent of Public Instruction with any candidate forwarded to him by the Case 0:22-cv-00016-SWS Document 11 Filed 01/26/22 Page 1 of 2 Defendants prior to issuance of this Court's Order on the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, which shall be issued no later than 12:00 p.m. MSI on January 27, 2022.

That doesn't mean that the Court will have made a decision on the case.  Far from it.  The Court, today, will make a decision on the Temporary Restraining Order.


January 28, 2022

Yesterday, the Court lifted its TRO on the basis that the plaintiffs' suit was unlikely to prevail on the merits.  Accordingly, Governor Gordon selected Brian Schroeder as the new Superintendent of Public Instruction.  Schroeder was fairly clearly the only realistic pick out of the three who were nominated.

Indeed, with the injunction lifted, the Governor was statutorily obligated to make his choice yesterday.

It has to be presumed that Schroeder will announce for this position and run for it, rather than simply choose to occupy it for a few months.

South Pass classroom, 1974.

This drama has now sort of concluded.  Brian Schroeder, a recent import to the state of Wyoming who is the head of a Christian academy, will be the new Wyoming Superintended of Education, taking position over Thomas Kelly, another recent import who has a position with the American Military University, a non profit on line university, and Marti Halverson.  Kelly moved to Wyoming from Colorado as part of the populist import thing going on, complaining about what he feels is a liberal based deterioration in education, or educational values.  The third finalist was Marti Halverson, a far right wing Wyoming politician originally from Chicago.

The names of all of those submitted are:

  • Michelle Aldrich
  • Megan Degenfelder
  • Reagan Kaufman 
  • Thomas Kelly 
  • Jayme Lien
  • David Northrup 
  • Joseph Heywood
  • Joshua Valk 
  • Marti Halverson 
  • Brian Schroeder, Sr.
  • Keith Goodenough
  • Angela Raber
I don't know who they all are, but to the extent I know something or have learned something, and taking out those already discussed;

Boxelder School, Converse County Wyoming.

Aldrich:  She is a professional educator and has been (or is) on the Cheyenne City Council.

Degenfelder:  She's' apparently a regulatory specialist with an oil and gas company.

Kaufman: She's a professional educator in Cheyenne.

Lien.  Don't know, which doesn't mean anything.

Northrup.  Former legislature, maybe a farmer.

Heywood.  Educator with Wyoming Virtual Academy.

Valk.  Educator with Casper College and a recent arrival.

Goodenough.  Long time Natrona County politician.

Raber.  Educator at Northern Wyoming Community College.


Okay, now if we assume (and maybe we aren't) that you should be an educator, or maybe a demonstrated administrator, who would we have been looking at.

Aldrich:  She is a professional educator and has been (or is) on the Cheyenne City Council.

Kaufman: She's a professional educator in Cheyenne.

Heywood.  Educator with Wyoming Virtual Academy.

Valk.  Educator with Casper College and a recent arrival.

Kelly.

Raber.  Educator at Northern Wyoming Community College.

Schroeder.

Well, two out of those six names made the finalist.

One of the Casper high schools from the air.

Of all three, however, we certainly see political views at work.  Gordon was left with three choices, but really two of them were pretty much untenable, really.

Now, here's a dirty little secret of the Wyoming nomination process.  Boards very frequently nominate two no goes and one go, knowing that they're not really leaving the Governor with three choices, but only one.  You see it all the time. The Central Committee likely knew that there was no way that Gordon was going to pick Halverson and that picking Kelly was highly unlikely. Effectively, they may have simply picked Schroeder and then weighted the dice.

That's politically legit, of course.

But is Schroeder the best choice?

Well, if you have a certain world view, no doubt.

But does this system of choosing a replacement make sense?

No, not really.

It might have at one time.  

Bolsler Consolidated School, Bosler Wyoming.

This system was dreamed up when most people didn't graduate high school.  The general gist of it was that something around 40%, more or less, of Americans made it all the way through school.  A good 60% left school before they were finished.  More males left than females, and for a solid reason. They were going to work and, up until really after World War Two, having a high school education didn't give you that much of an advantage if you were going into blue collar work.  One local rancher around here, for example, took his kids out of school at 8th grade.  By that age, he reasoned, they'd learned everything useful that they were going to that related to their future agricultural career.

Those going on to white collar occupations were more likely to stay in school.  Girls were also more likely to stay in as female employment was quite limited and dropping out of school, for most of them, meant domestic employment at home. Who would opt for that if they had anyway to avoid it?

Education, moreover, was extraordinarily local early in the state's history.  Towns, like Casper, would hire a teacher who worked for the town.  The teacher was nearly always a young woman who had some sort of education.  Not too infrequently she simply had a high school education, but relatively early on we began to see "teachers colleges" that specialized in educating teachers.  And here's an important clue on the current system.

The western states realized that one of the ways they suffered enormously was from a largely uneducated population.  Farming and ranching was fine, but they felt that if they were going to have mines, industry towns and cities, they needed to emphasize education.  Education, in facdt, became a huge deal in the West, with Western states being nearly manic about it.

This saw the creation of teachers colleges as part of this movement and concern.  Chadron State in Nebraska, for example, was originally a teachers' college.  And it also saw the creation of the system we now have, with local school districts and school boards controlling schools locally, and the Wyoming Department of Education heading it up overall.

In a society in which high school graduates were either a minority or a slim majority, and everyone pretty much appreciated the need for education, or at least the classes involved in politics at the time really appreciating it, the system worked very well, and it made a great deal of sense that the head of the whole thing was an elected superintendent.  That person had a role that pretty much everyone agreed on, the complete and full education of students and keeping them in school.

Is that still the case?

There's reason to doubt it.

No matter what the cause of it may be, a person doesn't have to be paying all that much attention to realize that over time the number of topics hotly debated as to what will be taught regarding them has expanded enormously, and politically.  There were early examples, of course, with the Skopes trial being a prime example.  But by and large, in most places in the West, people took the view that a good education was the primary goal.  People didn't have a lot of debates about what should be in science books.  I don't recall a single kid being dragged out of a science class for discussing evolution.  I'm a child of two devout Catholics, but when we came home with a note about "sex ed" in high school, my father read it and put it aside.  100% of the students attended, including all my co religious.  It was information, we knew, not a values suggestion.

For that matter, a weirdly disorienting introductory film to the topic was shown to us kids in grade school with no note being sent home at all, perhaps because the film actually taught so little it conveyed no information at all.  All I can recall about it was the information that calling girls on the phone caused nervousness (a true fact).

And so on.  Nobody stormed the school regarding history, etc. etc.  

And when my own kids went, which is pretty recently, the same was all true.

Now they aren't.

Starting with the South, or seemingly starting with Texas, there's been all sorts of fights once again about what is appropriate to teach both scientifically and historically in school.  The fight in the sciences is almost always over 1) evolution, and 2) climate change.  These are political, not scientific, fights. Nonetheless, within the last decade at least one person ran for a Wyoming school board in recent years whose own children were not sent to public school at all, and probably topic #1 had something to do with that.

We see this in the recent nominees.  One of the three nominees had, among his complaints, that the schools in Colorado were "teaching" climate change.  Most scientists agree that anthropocentric climate change is happening and is a real threat.  If the schools are touching on it, they're reflecting that fact, which is what they're supposed to do.  However, many people also confuse their economic views with their scientific ones, and feel that one follows the other.

Now, there's also all sorts of assertions that schools are teaching left wing social items.  Maybe some places they are.  But here they are not.  Nonetheless, the debate's spilled over into the state. 

All of this reflects the heavily divided nature of the country right now. The 1619 Project provoked the 1776 Project.  Debates rage on Critical Race Theory even if no school in the state is teaching it.  And fears that something will happen yield to the certainty that it is in fact happening.

This has caused an open debate to some extent about the schools and what they are teaching.  Wyoming's public schools are excellent, and there's no reason to believe that they're teaching subversive anything.  To listen to some quarters, however, you'd think the opposite.  For a time I ended up on a mailing list, for example, in which almost daily I received emails from the same author on all the horrible books that were in the Gillette schools, in the author's view.

Now, parents have a right, and indeed a duty, to educate their children.  This includes making value judgments, but it also includes approaching education, including home education, honestly.  The state Superintendent of Education, however, has an obligation to educate everybody's children.

That duty is distinctly different from a parent's duty in certain fundamental ways.  In this multicultural society, parents who have distinct cultural views that are not society's overall will have to take up the laboring ore.  For this reason, various religions have always sponsored private schools, with Catholic education being a prime example.   What the state doesn't have the right to do, however, is to impose distinct cultural views on the population as a whole . . . even though it sort of does has that right.

That last statement, no doubt, at first blush doesn't make a lick of sense.  How can that be true?  But that's a big part of this debate.  The hard left undoubtedly has its own social views, and they are largely at odds with most Americans. That the left has had some impact on education is true.  But by and large it has not co-opted it.  The fear that it has, however, has lead to a pretty massive counter reaction.  So, as an example that's already mentioned, we have some who are arguing for a massive overhaul of historical focus, which has created a counter reaction by those who would present a sanitized heavily patriotic view from solely a right wing prospective.

A really good example of this is provided by way of an advertisement for some sort of educational institution in the pages of a recent sporting journal.  Showing what is supposed to be a college classroom, apparently, the professor is telling the students how they'll learn to hate their country in the class, and how "FDR, Karl Marx and Malcolm X will be your new heroes".

That an ad like that ends up in a widely distributed magazine is stunning in and of itself, but the proposition shows how extreme people are now viewing their own history.  Marx isn't anyone's hero in the US out of a certain nutty far left caste.  FDR, however, was hugely admired by most Americans and still is.  To put him in the same camp as Marx is massively absurd.  Malcolm X, moreover, is a hero to some Americans including some who are neither Black Muslims or Muslims, and he is a uniquely American character quite frankly who has to be treated subtly to be grasped.  

A person may wonder what this has to do with this process, but right now the Wyoming GOP leadership is in the far right camp, and at least a couple of these nominees demonstrate that.  The electorate isn't, however, which cuts the other way.  But the overall question remains.

In a field which has become increasingly scientific over the years, and which requires professional certification to profess in, does it make sense that this position be a political one?  

It might not.  It might make more sense that the Superintendent of Education be appointed by the Governor from applicants qualified in their profession, and to serve a term that's staggered with the Governor's so it doesn't automatically change with each change in administration.

Best Post of the Week of January 23, 2022

The best posts of the week of January 23, 2022

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgiest Part XXVIII. The juvenile or nearly so femme fatale edition. Plus, the example of monarchy, Robbing trains, Expats and politics, M&M's, Tucker Carson and Carson Tucker.









I posted the above entry with the photo above, even though it goes on much longer than that, as the same photo was posted on Reddit's 100 Years Ago Today thread where it received a large number of likes and lots of comments.

I'm not sure what it is, and I don't know that I want to, but I've noticed that any photos of young women on Reddit tend to go a bit wild.  It's a bit scary.

Quite awhile back I posted on the same sub a photo of a couple of young Kurdish women and some people were nearly overcome by it.  If I recall, they were simply in traditional dress, getting water.

Anyhow, I'm often surprised but what people are really fascinated by and what they are not.  This is one such example.

As an aside, one sharp-eyed observer wondered if the girl on the right was holding a cigar.  I hadn't even noticed, but frankly I think she is.  Opinions?

I have to say, the two young women look very happy.  I hope their live were happy ones.

2022 Wyoming Legislative Session. Part I.




Saturday, January 29, 2022

Why is Putin Jonesing for Ukraine?

Ukrainian girl in traditional costume.

Well because he doesn't believe that there's such a thing as Ukrainians at all.

And hence he doesn't believe that Ukraine exists.

A lot of current commentators will claim that this makes him a neo-Soviet, a claim for which there's more than a little truth, but in real ways, it makes him a neo-Romanov.

A little history.

Ukrainians and Russian stem from the same early Slavic people, a group of tribesmen who lived in central Eastern Europe.  Indeed, modern Slavs are so closely related, genetically, that for the most part their DNA is of the same stock today.  I.e., if you looked at a DNA sample of a Russian, and a DNA sample of a Croatian, you couldn't tell who was from where.[1]   Only the Poles, who seem to have mixed more with their German neighbors, are genetically distinct.

Their origin is obscure, because the origins of all people are obscure.  It's not really possible today to determine exactly where they stem from, but it seems likely it was probably from an area that today is in fact in Ukraine

Or maybe not.  Some say it was in Pomerania.  

Hmm. . . 

Anyhow, originally all one people, they ultimately separated into East and West Slavs.  The Ukrainians are East Slavs, along with the Russians, the Belarusians, and the Rusyns.  You probably haven't heard of that last group, unless you are really up on things Slavic, and might not have heard of the Belarusians but for their communist government recently trying to flood Poland with Middle Easter refugees.

All told, there are 200,000,000 of them. . . which means that since World War Two their population has increased . . .well not hardly at all.  Of the groups, the Russians are the largest.  Rusyns are the smallest group, with there being just over 600,000 spread around Eastern Europe.  Ukrainian are the second-largest group, and indeed Ukraine is one of the most populous country in Europe.

Anyhow, no matter what their origin, like all expansive people they spread around, and as that happened, they eventually had separate cultural developments.  This is the same reason, for example, that the Germans and the Dutch aren't the same people even though they are linguistically and genetically very similar.  And it's the same reason that the Swedes and the Germans aren't the same people as well, even though they ultimately are both Germanic peoples whose distant ancestors were the same folks.

All of this gets more complicated the closer people are culturally related to each other.  Germans and Swedes may have all stemmed from the same people in some smokey village on the Steppes, before they started fleeing from the Slavs, but they clearly aren't the same people now. What about the Norwegians and the Swedes?

Well, as recently as the late 19th Century, that point was somewhat debated.  Yes, they were distinct, but not that distinct.  In Medieval times they were also distinct, but sufficiently close that they were often ruled by the same monarchs.  Their languages are, moreover, cognate.

Another example might be the Irish and the Scots.  The Scots are in fact descendant from Irish invaders into northern Britain in the 400s.  Since then, however, 1600 years has passed, and they clearly aren't regarded as the same people.

The Ukrainians and the Russians are something like that.  Ukraine might have been, or might not have been, the ancestral homeland of all the Slavs, but people and cultures changed as they moved about, and the Slavs really moved about, a lot.

As they did, the Russians became the most numerous and the most territorially aggressive, although occasionally the Poles would rival them for that title.  In both instances, Ukraine was frequently their victim, as Russians claimed Ukraine was Russian and the Poles claimed it was Polish. All the while, the Ukrainians kept claiming that they were Ukrainian, and given the chance, as they occasionally were, they'd form their own nation.  Usually that nation, however, has lived with the threat of Russian or Polish invasion, with both happening occasionally. The Poles threatened the then newly, and briefly, independent Ukraine as late as the 1920s, not all that long ago historically. And of course the Soviets reincorporated Ukraine into the Russian Empire in the 1920s, over the violent opposition of the Ukrainian state and then a Ukrainian guerilla movement.

Both reemerged during World War Two, making Ukraine's Second World War history complicated.  In some regions, there was widespread collaboration with the Germans, which was a reaction to heavy Soviet repression and the mass starvation that had been imposed on the region due to Soviet occupation in the interwar period.  In other regions, and more and more as the war went on, Ukrainians served in the Red Army or partisan groups.  However, a partisan movement also emerged that fought for a free Ukraine, that being the Ukrainian Insurgent Army emerged during the German occupation to resist it in favor of an independent Ukraine, and to resist the Soviets for the same reason.


During its existence, the UPA fought the Poles, Germans and the Soviets, with the Soviets and the Poles being their primary opponents, but the Germans being real ones as well.  Red Army mortality rates fighting the UPA after World War Two were higher than they were in Afghanistan, with some areas being particularly bitterly fought over, but without outside support, the Ukrainian guerrillas passed into history for the second time in the 20th Century, in this instance ceasing to exist probably around 1949, and in no instance later than the early 1950s.  The organization did not wage a "clean" war by any means, taking genocidal actions against displaced Polish populations.

So, historically, the region has certainly fought for its independence, not always admirably, from any other power.

The Ukrainians have their own language, but it's cognate with Russian, showing how closely related the peoples are.  The language shares some similarities with Polish, but they are not cognate, with the distinction being an odd one that has to do with listening to Polish in a studied manner in order to learn how to understand it.  Ukrainians have their own branch of Orthodoxy, Ukrainian Orthodox, which just received autocephalous status from the Greek Patriarch, although a branch loyal to the Russian Orthodox Metropolitan exists as well.  It also its own branch of Catholicism, that being the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (the Ruthenians, with that name being the ancient name for Ukrainians).  Overall, over half of the Ukrainian people are members to some degree in one of the three Christian churches native to the region, with some being members of other Christian professions, and some Tartars retaining Islam.

The religious distribution of the country is revealing about the current situation, as is the linguistic one.  On its margins, Ukrainian speakers bleed into Russian ones, with it being the case that the closer a person is to the eastern border with Russia, the more likely it is that a person speaks Russian.  In terms of religion, most Ukrainian observant are Ukrainian Orthodox until a person approaches the Polish border, at which point Ruthenains dominate.

Ukrainians claim additionally culture distinctions beyond that, which no doubt exist, but which I'm not any sort of expert regarding.  Architecturally, not too surprisingly, the further west a person goes in the country, the more its architecture resembles that of Austria.  Supposedly, Russians are much more communal and gregarious than Ukrainians, and the legendary Russian association with alcohol supposedly does not carry over into Ukraine.

Like every region of the former USSR, there are a lot of Russians everywhere.  The Soviet Union was oddly admirable and not in regard to its view of its imprisoned nationalities, in that the Communist did elevate to high position many who were not Russian in ethnicity, Stalin perhaps being the most famous example.  At the same time, the USSR steadfastly engaged in a policy of Russification everywhere, exporting Russian populations to non-Russian regions, and conversely exporting wholesale some non-Russian populations elsewhere.  In this context, it is not surprising that there are large Russian populations inside of Ukraine's borders, and it's more surprising that they are not evenly spread, being concentrated instead on the regions which actually border Russia.

What is going to occur is now, to a degree, anyone's guess, but Putin appears to be taking a page out of Hitler's book in regard to Czechoslovakia in 1939.  The Donbas is Putin's Sudetenland, and the globe is already talking about concessions to Russia and its "legitimate" grievances.  Hardly noticed is that the Russian population declined by 1,000,000 people last year, 600,000 due to COVID deaths, and the country is a mess.  

There's no reason to believe that his appetite, in regard to Ukraine, or the former Russian Empire in general, stops at Donbas.  The real question is whether the Western powers, here and in the Far East, are now willing to allow the globe to step back into the geopolitical atmosphere of the late 1930s.  

Ukraine will provide the first test.

Footnotes

1.  Ukrainians claim that this is not true, and that you can tell the difference between Ukranians and Russians by mere appearance, with the Russians being more Finnic.

Whether the DNA bears this out or not, it would actually make a little sense.  As the Ukrainians are to the south of the Russians, their ancestors should not encountered what was the vast Finnic territory, originally, and its inhabitants the way the ancient ancestors of the Russians did.  In contrast, the Ukrainians heavily encountered the Scandinavian Rus, and ironically the Kievian Rus gave Russia its name.

Thursday, January 29, 1942. Iranian alliances, Integrated blood, Desert Island Discs.


Desert Island Discs premiered on the BBC. The show invited guests on to imagine that they were shipwrecked on a desert island, but could bring 8 records with them, then featuring the eight.

The show ran throughout the war, and has been revived from time to time.  The concept remains a popular one in the imagination.

Indeed, at least for the stressed, being shipwrecked on a desert island, as long as you have food and some comfort, starts to look like a pretty good thing. . . for a while.

As we learn from Sarah Sundin's blog; 
January 29, 1942: Iran signs treaty of alliance with Britain and USSR, which promise to depart Iran 6 months after Axis defeat.

Iran frankly didn't have much of a choice but to agree, and the Soviets would nearly have to be forced out after the war.

Persia had been long part of the "great game", along with Afghanistan, played between the United Kingdom and Russia.  As it was between the two, its position was untenable during the Second World War, and it was occupied, as we've previously discussed, by both powers.

The New York Times reported, on the previous days byline, that Prime Minister Churchill was standing for a vote of confidence:

LONDON, Jan. 28 -- Debate on conduct of the war raged in Parliament today with a political fury quite equal to the fighting on the fronts. At the end of one of the longest single day's sittings that Parliament has had since the war began, there was little doubt that Prime Minister Winston Churchill would get a big majority in a vote of confidence that will close the three-day debate.

He survived the vote.

African American enlisted men, white officer, 10th Cavalry, April 1942.

The NYT also reported that:

RED CROSS TO USE BLOOD OF NEGROES; New Policy, Formulated After Talks With Army and Navy, Is Hailed and Condemned WILL BE PROCESSED ALONE New York Delegation Criticizes Separation as 'Abhorrent' to Founding Principles

Hard to believe this was a concern with some people.

Blood is blood, but the "mixing of blood" to mean the mixing of "races" had been a long fear in a certain section of the United States, with no quarter of it being immune.  Laws existed nearly everywhere preventing mixed marriages, although the degree to which they were enforced varied enormously.

Scientifically, it was well known and had been for a very long time that there's no difference whatsoever between the blood of various humans, not matter what their ethnicity.  Indeed, the concept of "race" itself is a false one, although it's still widely believed.  The genetic variance between various human populations is slight, and to the extent it's real, it's real between various populations that are grouped into "races" as well.  I.e, there's a genetic variance, albeit slight, between, let's say, Irish men and Italians, and so on.

As we've discussed here before, it's widely stated, inaccurately, that World War Two brought about a phenomenal change in regard to women in the workplace, and hence society.  It'd be more accurate to say that about the status of African Americans in American society.

Their place, of course, had been fought over and struggled over since the end of the Civil War.  The Compromise of 1877 had caused a massive nationwide retreat in the cause of civil rights in the country, but the issue had not gone away.  The creation of the Lost Cause myth, its strong growth in the early 20th Century, and increased mobility, had brought about the Great Migration in the second decade of the 20th Century. World War One saw African Americans volunteer to fight in the belief that their performance in the war would bring about a final leap to full equality, but that not only did not occur, the end of the war brought a racist reaction with the Red Summer of 1919.

Still, things were slowly changing, and the liberal administration of Frankly Roosevelt at least held the promise of the advancement of civil rights for African Americans.

African Americans had served in some numbers in the U.S. military since the Revolution.  Interestingly, the Navy had been originally integrated, as we've also discussed here previously, but the Army had been segregated since large-scale recruiting of blacks first occurred during the Civil War.  The Marine Corps had not admitted blacks its entire history, going into the Second World War.  Given the excellent performance of black troops during World War One, it would be natural to suppose that the experiment would have been repeated during World War Two, but in fact the Army was, at least at first, more prejudiced during the Second World War than the First.

In spite of having longstanding all black combat units, prejudice from career officers, often with Southern roots, meant that the Army declined to deploy them as combat troops. For the most part, the Regular Army black units were busted up into service units during the war.  African American sailors likewise were relegated to service roles on board ship, something that had been the case since the steel wall Navy replaced the wooden wall one.  Blacks were allowed into the Marine Corps as the war progressed, but again in service roles.  Only late in the war, when pressure from African American groups and combat necessity required it, would this start to break down in the Army.

Still, the fact that the nation went to war espousing the ideal of equality made the hypocrisy a bit too much for society to bear.  Integration of the services would commence in the late 1940s and there was no going back.  This was brought about, in large part, due to the ideals expressed in the Second World War.

Related Threads:

Blacks in the Army. Segregation and Desegregation


Women in the Workplace: It was Maytag that took Rosie the Riveter out of the domestic arena, not World War Two

 

Friday, January 28, 2022

Wednesday, January 28, 1942. Comings and Goings.

"One of our Filipino boys, injured in the fighting on Bataan, January 28, 1942, being brought back to a first aid station by his comrades. Longoskawayan Point, West Coast."

On this day in 1942, the Germans and Italians retook Benghazi.

The Ninth Pan American Conference adjourned. Twenty-one nations agreed to sever relationship with the Axis powers as a result of it, although quite a few already had.  Brazil and Paraguay did that day.

From Sarah Sundin's Today In World War Two History blog, we learn the following:
January 28, 1942: 80 Years Ago—Jan. 28, 1942: US Navy PBO Hudson pilot claims to sink a U-boat off Newfoundland and radios “Sighted sub, sank same,” but no U-boat was sunk, an honest error. US Eighth Air Force is activated in Savannah, GA, under Brig. Gen. Asa Duncan; originally intended for North Africa but will serve in Britain. US Naval Magazine at Port Chicago, CA, is established as a subcommand of Naval Ammunition Depot at Mare Island.

And from our  Today In Wyoming's History blog, we learn this:

Today In Wyoming's History: January 281942   The USS Wyoming put in at Norfolk and began a series of gunnery training drills in Chesapeake Bay. Attribution:  On This Day.
Oakland Army Base, January 28, 1942.

Saturday, January 28, 1922. The Knickerbocker Storm.

On this day in 1922, a day in which in 2022 a major blizzard is expected on the East Coast, one hit the East Coast.



The storm is called the Knickerbocker Storm as it collapsed the roof of Washington, D.C.'s Knickerbocker Theater due to a heavy snow load, killing 98 people.


The Saturday Evening Post featured a trapper on its cover, while The Country Gentleman featured a tractor in the sunset.

What's wrong with Justices like Stephen Breyer.

Queen Anne addressing the House of Lords.

We noted the retirement of Justice Stephen Bryer on the day the news broke, here:
Lex Anteinternet: Courthouses of the West: Justice Stephen Breyer To...: Courthouses of the West: Justice Stephen Breyer To Retire. :  Justice Stephen Breyer To Retire. Just when you thought the news wasn't te..

Predictably, the New York Times is lamenting his retirement, noting: 

Yet Justice Breyer was anything but dull. As Linda Greenhouse writes in a guest essay this week, beneath his cool demeanor was a passion stirred by his clerkship as a young lawyer on Earl Warren’s Supreme Court. It was a court, she writes, “that understood the Constitution as an engine of progress.”

 

As his years as a justice on the court proceeded, Greenhouse writes that he ended up as the “quintessential Enlightenment man in an increasingly unenlightened era at the court.” Moreover, he found himself recently being urged by the left, at the age of 83, to retire lest the Senate fall into the hands of Republicans this fall and torpedo the chance that he would be replaced by a liberal or even a moderate on a court that has become increasingly conservative.

And this is part of exactly what was wrong with the Court and, dare we say it, part of how the country became the mess it is today, with a populist coup attempt just one year under our belt, and our commitment to democracy really shaky.

The Constitution is a law.  

It's not an engine of anything.  It was written in a certain place and time, by men who were elected to those positions at that date and time.

Understanding the Constitution as an engine, that is a driver, of progress assumes that an unelected panel of nine have a common definition of "progress", something that history suggests is problematic.  In the 1920s and 30s, for example, the most "progressive" Americans were far, far to the left of the nation as a whole, and even further to the left of the left today.  Is that progress?  Quite a few would regard "progress", both in political terms and in terms of what the court has imposed on the nation, undemocratically, since 1973, as not progressive at all, but rather as sort of a retrograde return to a sort of barbarism of earlier times.  Others would disagree, but the co-opting of the court of those issues has operated to keep them from being determined democratically or even to make a large section of the country feel completely disenfranchised.

That latter feeling is what gives rise, in part, to a "take my country back" or "keep our country" sort of feeling in part of the American electorate.  Losing at the polls is losing, but losing to a court, in a remote setting, on issues that no clear grounding in the Constitution is quite another thing.

And that's what has ultimately defined the much of the modern trend of the court.  Judicial conservatism, as understood by the press, isn't conservatism at all, but rather textual originalism.  If it isn't in there, it isn't

To go further, however, Breyer's career also demonstrates what's wrong with the Court.  Breyer didn't have to go into court in front of a judge on cases that had come in the door, from an insurance carrier, or on assignment from a boss.  He didn't have to puzzle out the meaning of a badly drafted statute and hunt down its legislative history.  He hardly had to work at being a lawyer at all.

And this is now common of the entire Court. Their tickets are punched by an elite Ivy League Law School that allows them to avoid practicing law and go on to making decisions for an entire country based on that early history.

The founders would not have had that in mind.

President Biden has already announced that Breyer's replacement will be a black woman.  There's a certain presumption, perhaps correct, that picking people by certain predetermined characteristics will achieve a certain result, although with the Supreme Court, that's tricky.  The most conservative justice on the Court, after all, is a black man.  There will no doubt be many black women lawyers who are qualified for the job.  We might hope, although it's hoping against hope, that whoever is chosen will not be a Harvard law graduate, nor even an Ivy League graduate.  We might also hope that the person isn't a sitting jurist, and isn't a college professor.

No, rather, a black woman lawyer who is actually practicing law.

That person will know what the law is about, how it is applied, and what real law is like.

It's not too much to hope for, but it won't happen.

Blog Mirror: Changemaker Profile: Renard Turner and the Central Virginia Agrarian Commons

 

Changemaker Profile: Renard Turner and the Central Virginia Agrarian Commons

Friday Farming: What's All The Fuss About Gas?

 What's All The Fuss About Gas.

Sustainability.


Derrick “talks to cows” Josi 
Seedling
@DerrickJosi
Is anyone else sick of hearing how agriculture is going to become sustainable? Farming the same property for over a century, we’ve been sustainable. I feel like agriculture is always trying to pull the knife out of its back put there by industry leaders trying to sell product.


A good novel

A good novel tells us the truth about its hero; but a bad novel tells us the truth about its author.

G. K. Chesterton.


Boston - Peace of Mind (Audio)