I'm generally interested in revisionist history of the first two world wars. So far I've got F. J. P. Veale's "Advance to Barbarism", John T. Flynn's "The Roosevelt Myth", Mises' "Omnipotent Government". I'm looking for more stuff along these lines (perhaps I'll grab Pat Buchanan's book), but specifically I was wondering if anyone knew anywhere I could find stuff by James J. Martin.

I'm sorry, i don't understand: how is this related to Stefan Molyneux?


just kidding.

there are quite a few lectures on mises.org about revisionist history re the two world wars. also wikipedia has an interesting article on the Pearl Harbour debate.

there are quite a few lectures on mises.org about revisionist history re the two world wars. also wikipedia has an interesting article on the Pearl Harbour debate.
Perhaps I should have specified that I've pretty much listened to or read everything remotely related to it on Mises.org; though I'm only halfway through Reiman's "The Vampire Economy".

I really enjoy the stuff Mises.org does on WW1-WW2, fascism, nazism and Communism. I also have a major interest in the history of modern Russia, I emailed Maltsev the other day to tell him to write a book about the late Czarist period.

ah, very cool.

That's right. Never trust the court historians! (as you said elsewhere, vichy)

Hey... I wonder then if your moniker is a product of this particular curiosity?

Well, how 'bout vice versa? The name spur the interest maybe?

I read Mein Kampf, too. I thought "what a waste of a mind." He was really passionate, pretty persuasive, especialy when I put myself in the mindset of a proud German ex-solidier, humiliated by WWI, trying to survive in the midst of a horrible economy (Weimar Republic) and seeing that a lot of Jews still had financial connections throughout Europe (because they were filial/religious, not bureaucratic) and weren't looking too bad by comparison. Hitler was really mostly writing to an audience of others just like himself, but there were millions of them at the time.

Germany was also hemmed in by economic and political bullying, had been since the late 19th century, and was being warred upon and eviscerated for the benefit of politically connected international financiers; the many methods of tariffs, trade barriers and internal political meddling which always seems unworthy of comment to outsiders but which spells nothing but death and destruction for the german people. And by the logic of the time, all throughout Europe, America and even Asia, statism and socialism were the cures to this; coupled with an agressive expansionism which (as Mises pointed out) was a logical necessity for any autarkic economy; the drive for the latter being almost necessitated by the aforementioned trade barriers.

Let's not forget the plan to ally all of continental Europe around the Germanies; or the constant war-mongering speeches of Churchill.

Jewry aside, Hitler was right in many of the generals and probably several specifics; moreover such facts were known amongst many people inside and outside Germany. The problem was not his assessment of what the threat was, nor where it came from, but that Hitler was a Nazi.

Yes, that NAZI shit was seriously bad. I'm just saying, I thought he must have been smart guy, he just had the wrong prescription for what ailed his "Fatherland," plus a seriously bad case of malignant narcissistic personality disorder. But, at the time, statist collectivism was all the rage, and without the pogrom against the Jews, he would have been a run of the mill 20th century dictator, even if his death toll were the same.

I always thought it was weird that just because he focused on the Jews specifically (thought not, actually, there were slavs and homosexuals and gypsies and other types of untermenschen in those camps, too), he was made out as far worse than Stalin or Mao, or even Castro and Che, who killed more people either by volume or as a percentage of their country's population, respectively. I mean, murder is murder, right?

Oh well, probably best not to go down that road, wouldn't want to seem anti-Semitic, would I?

What the Nazis did and what USA does now is pretty much the same.
However in the USA it is not happening as rapidly and only utterly detested people by the public such as alleged criminals are executed.
Besides the awful things happening in the imperial colonies of the USA around the world.

They just put people in cages here, no gas chambers (yet), but non-violent drug offenders are just as innocent as gypsies, homosexuals and Jews who'd never hurt anyone either were. A nation that leads the world in net and per capita incarceration for socially discouraged but victimless behavior ought to be ashamed of itself. There needs to be "Truth and Reconciliation" tribunal for the American Drug War (not to mention the War on "Terrah").

No, not gas chambers, just electrocution, poison, hanging, shooting and so one as means of execution.