Sisley Huddleston Provides Pithy Enumeration of Western Allied Failures in WW II

It’s almost impossible to find the revisionist evaluation of the mistakes made by the Western Allies in WW II. Sisley Huddleston provides one such review. This does not include the mistakes leading up to our involvement in WW II. Nor does it include anything about the mendacity of FDR in getting us involved in WW II. Nor does it touch on matters like Operation Keelhaul or the US Concentration camps that starved German POW’s at the end of WW II. Much is left unsaid here that might be said but what Huddleston does give us in this pithy summary of the utter failures on WW II  by the Western powers might provoke others to look deeper into this issue.

The West did not “win” WW II. The Banker / Illuminati / Talmudist Bolsheviks won WW II, even if they didn’t get all they thought they were going to get.

Enjoy Huddleston’s summary.

“What did we discern, looking down, as it were, from the celestial height of Sirius? We saw that, from 1917 onward, a main danger to our ancient civilization, to our “way of life,” was the steady growth of Bolshevism. Not only had Russia fallen a victim to the conception of a purely materialist universe, in which force alone counted, not only had Russia become a vast prison in which all the liberties of which we were wont to boast were suppressed, in which a group of men, sitting in the Kremlin, had forged a system of terrorism, of totalitarianism, dependent on an army of police and spies, but outside Russia, in almost every country, the missionaries of Bolshevism had made large numbers of con- verts. In France, especially and perhaps this was the principal (though not the only) cause of her downfall Bolshevism had made immense progress. It was not only the underpaid toilers who were dazzled by the mirage of the Russian Paradise, but intellectuals, professors, writers, artists, what is usually called the elite, worked for Bolshevism. The great industrialists, hoping to control Communism, as the industrialists in Germany had hoped to control Nazism, staking their money on the Red as well as on the Black, financed the party. The bourgeoisie, timorous and foolish, wondered whether it would not be safer to side with the active minority and help the Revolution along.

In England and in America, Communism made less progress, though in many underground channels it oozed into the political and social body. So-called opponents of Bolshevism adopted many of its principles. Individual liberties were lost. To be sure, there was a relative respect for the human person; but whoever did not live before 1914 can scarcely realize how much freedom we have gradually relinquished to the all-controlling, all-devouring State.

We were warned that the real struggle was between the old Liberalism (no matter what label is put on) and the ever- encroaching Communism which would dictate our movements and standardize our behavior and our sentiments and our thoughts. The bloodier and more ruthless thing named Bolshevism we found abhorrent, but we were approaching Bolshevism by easy stages.

Unhappily, Germany was allowed to become the chief champion of anti-Bolshevism Germany which had accepted another form of totalitarianism. From the viewpoint of Sirus, it appeared that, whatever were the faults of Germany, that country was the only bulwark and barrier against Russian Bolshevism in Europe.

Could we not, should we not, have strained our energies to correct the defects of Germany, to give her legitimate satisfactions, long before the advent of Hitler? In the East, the only bulwark and barrier to Bolshevism was Japan. Should we not have strained our energies to keep our friendship for Japan, instead of offering all our sympathies to chaotic China, the prey of war lords, ripe for Bolshevism?
 
From the viewpoint of Sirius, it was at once tragic and comic that Germany, falling under the domination of an extraordinary personage with madness in his brain, should have made war on England and America, his natural allies against Bolshevism. The fatality of history ordained that Japan should range herself against the anti-Bolshevik countries. Thus we had the inconceivable spectacle of Japan and Germany joining hands against the anti-Bolshevik countries, and the anti-Bolshevik countries helping Bolshevism to triumph over its adversaries.We supplied Bolshevism with unlimited quantities of arms. We taught Bolshevism how to make arms for itself. We insisted on the “unconditional surrender” of Germany and Japan, after inflicting the maximum of damage on them, forgetting that after war there should be peace, after destruction, reconstruction. We disarmed, dismantled, shattered to pieces Japan and Germany, rendering them utterly impotent. We refused to admit anti-Bolshevik countries like Spain into international assemblies. We complacently encouraged Bolshevism to fortify itself in defiance of our pledges in the Atlantic Charter in the Baltic states, which were annexed by Russian Bolshevism. We had gone to war to protect Poland, and we abandoned half of Poland to Russian Bolshevism, and permitted the other half to be subjugated by Bolshevism. We had been ready, at one moment, to attack Russia for her action against “brave little Finland,” and then we acquiesced in the taking of parts of Finland. We prepared the way for the victory of Bolshevism in China, deserting our questionable protégé, Chiang Kai-shek, when he was in danger of being swept aside by the rising Red tide. We gave Bolshevism half of Germany, half of Austria, half of Korea, and much besides. In Europe we were troubled greatly when we saw that all the Balkan states were doomed by our war strategy to fall under the yoke of Bolshevism. In short, hypnotized by the conflict with Germany and Japan (Italy was comparatively negligible), the Allies forgot the permanent menace of Bolshevism, and provided Bolshevism with arms and strategic advantages in the future struggle.

At the same time, in praising Bolshevism as the inspirer of national energy (forgetting that Bolshevism preached and practiced surrender in 1917), the Allies gave a new impulse to the potential enemy in their own countries, where the Bolsheviks were granted full scope for their subversive propaganda and agitation. Vital secrets were betrayed with impunity. We formulated a doctrine of peace which forbade us to check Russian expansion on pain of branding ourselves as “Imperialist” warmongers. We hurriedly disarmed, while leaving Russia as heavily armed as ever, by far the most powerful military nation in the world.

From Sirius one could readily foresee the consequences of the decisions taken at Teheran and extended at Yalta. Roo- sevelt was convinced that he could convert Stalin, the head of a materialist and atheistic state, the autocrat of the Kremlin, to Christian and democratic views by making concessions that were both anti-Christian and anti-democratic. He thought the hard-boiled Stalin susceptible to his “charms.” The Anglo-Americans took a pledge to land in France, and operations in the Balkans were forbidden. This was tantamount to making a present of the Balkan peoples to Stalin.

As for Poland, for whose integrity we had gone to war against Hitler, boundaries well within German territory were to be accepted, and about fifteen million Germans thrown out of their own country, by way of compensation for the annexation of the eastern part of Poland by Russia. What had become of the Atlantic Charter which expressly forbade the bartering of territories and populations? What were the Allies to receive in return? They were to obtain Russian help against Japan months after the defeat of Germany help which they did not need, which was never effectively given and was designed simply to enable Russia to participate in the immobilization of Japan in the event of a Russo- American conflict at a later date.

Eight years later, it seems impossible that we should have given up so overwhelmingly much for so preposterously little. The Russians won the war at Casablanca and Teheran. They won Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Manchuria, not to mention the possibility of winning Germany and Austria, not to mention the later winning of China; as for the Baltic states, nobody cared any more about Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania. . . .

I will, in this place, to show that the Allies were not taken by surprise and that they persisted in their folly, mention the Yalta accords of February 1945, when the war was practically over. The new Polish line in Germany was drawn and the Poles, who had fought valiantly with the Allies, were thrown to the wolves as wicked anti-Communists. Germany was divided into zones, that is to say, the Russians were provided with a platform in Germany from which they might secure the whole country. Berlin itself was placed in the Soviet zone, and the Allies had not even a free corridor by which they could always obtain access to the German capital. By way of reparations, eighty per cent of German industries were to be scrapped, aviation factories confiscated, as well as the factories for the manufacture of synthetic petrol, and exorbitant payments in kind were meant to demolish Germany.

One of the most culpable aspects of the Yalta concessions was the fact that they were entirely unnecessary. No further concessions had to be made to Stalin. His aid was not needed to help conquer Japan the reason given by Roosevelt’s apologists. We now know that Japan was ready for peace on al- most any terms before Yalta. Indeed, President Roosevelt had received through General MacArthur before he left for Yalta much the same peace terms that were accepted by President Truman the following August. Walter Trohan published them immediately after V-J Day.

What would be the value of waking up to realities five or ten years too late? If statesmanship is the art of looking ahead, then statesmanship has never in the world’s history failed so signally. This statement is elaborately confirmed with extensive documentation in the book by the able American journalist and publicist, William Henry Chamberlin, Americas Second Crusade. What is most astonishing, and in many ways disheartening, is that many Americans, who wisely and courageously opposed the “second crusade” are now vigorously supporting a third and more horrible crusade in Asia.

In the meantime, the Allied advance in Italy continued slowly. Both Field Marshal Alexander and Field Marshal Wilson, when the operations against General Kesselring had succeeded, wished to press on to Vienna, to Budapest, the Balkans in general. And it had at one time been hoped to bring Turkey and Greece into a Balkan drive. It is not my business to write of military matters, but any diplomatic observer can see at a glance that such a plan would have far-reaching political consequences. In pushing back the Germans, the Allies would have prevented the Russians from invading and virtually annexing the Balkans. They would also have spared France, as Marshal Petain was hoping. But “Uncle Joe’s” aspirations and feelings had to be considered. He had been promised spoils at Teheran, and he must be allowed to take them. What would happen later in Europe was not considered.

Two capital blunders without counting innumerable mi- nor blunders marked the campaign of the Allies: the prolongation of the war, until the paroxysm of fury and destruction could reach no higher, by the proclamation of “unconditional surrender” at Casablanca; and the diversion of the Allied troops to France instead of to Central Europe, for the sole benefit of Russia. It would be difficult to decide which of these major blunders was of the greater assistance to Bolshevism. They were both unnecessary and pernicious presents, which may well ruin us and our civilization….

A crowning mistake of the Allies was their treatment of defeated Germany. Seemingly, they had learned nothing from the example of the disastrous effects of the Versailles Treaty. The Casablanca formula of “unconditional surrender” assured that Germany would be utterly destroyed in a military way and all but demolished materially, leaving a vacuum into which Russia could penetrate unless Germany was permanently occupied by a large Allied force or rearmed in serio-comic defiance of the whole principle of the Casablanca decision. The division of Germany into zones of occupation was determined at Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam, and this made it virtually certain that a large portion of eastern Germany would remain rather permanently under Russian domination. But this was not all; the notorious Morgenthau Plan to destroy German industry and transform Ger- many into a pastoral and agricultural country, even if it involved the starvation of millions of Germans, was approved by Roosevelt and Churchill (after brief opposition by the latter) at Quebec in September 1944. It was approved and applied, with slight changes, by the Potsdam Conference of July 1945. This led to further demoralization and destruction of the German industrial plant and the transfer of much which remained to Russia, Britain and France.”

Sisley Huddleston
France: The Tragic Years — p. 218-223

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

18 thoughts on “Sisley Huddleston Provides Pithy Enumeration of Western Allied Failures in WW II”

  1. “From the viewpoint of Sirius, it was at once tragic and comic that Germany, falling under the domination of an extraordinary personage with madness in his brain, should have made war on England and America, his natural allies against Bolshevism.”

    In truth, the ‘extraordinary personage’ mentioned went to great lengths NOT to make war on England and America, but behind the scenes personages pulling the strings of Churchill and FDR brought him into a conflict he never wanted.

      1. I know you’ve read some David Irving, and I think he would concur that the ‘extraordinary personage’ NEVER wanted war with England or America. If the die was cast we could argue that just as Lincoln maneuvered the South into firing on Sumter, Germany was maneuvered into making a preemptive strike eastward while still hoping not to be compelled to fight a two-front war.

      2. If the “extraordinary personage” had had his way he would have thrown everything at the Rodina and left the West alone. Now after conquering Russia it is an open question as to whether or not he would have continued to leave the West alone. It is not like he was not a megalomaniac of the first order.

  2. Have you read Zweites Buch? It was the ludicrous lie of FDR that Germany was out to ‘conquer the world’. I can hardly believe you’d lend ANY credence to it after reading Irving.

    1. I don’t think the Austrian wanted the US or Britain. I do not think the alliance w/ Japan would have lasted had He been successful in eating up the Rodina.

      I do think the Mustachioed one was a villain and agree with both HST and Herbert Hoover that we should have let the Commies and Nazis kill each other off. We had no business in WW II and should have militarily supported both sides until they both were overturned by less extreme parties.

      1. Sigh. … Well I guess you’ve self-identified as a normiecon. I’d encourage you to look a little further into HST and Hoover, and consider the source. If there were villains in WW2 we don’t have to look any further than the Allied ranks. Eisenhower and Churchill were distinguished villains. And guess who found a welcome at the Hoover Institution after the war? Alexander Kerensky.

      2. Hello Ron

        Sigh … not a normie but also not a tin foil hat wearer.

        Of course the Allies were villains. Was there anybody who wasn’t a villain? Oh … let me guess… The Austrian Painter was wearing a white hat.

        Right.

  3. “We made a monster, a devil out of Hitler. Therefore, we couldn’t disavow it after the war. After all, we mobilized the masses against the devil himself. So, we were forced to play our part in the diabolical scenario after the war. In no way could we have pointed out to our people that the war was only an economic preventive measure.”

    Secretary of State James Baker (1992)

    Another tinfoil hat wearer?

      1. The eugenics movement in the United States came to a climax in 1927 when a woman named Carrie Buck challenged the law in Virginia. Buck was told she would be sterilized for being “feeble-minded.” However, Buck fought back and brought the issue before the courts. The case made its way to the Supreme Court and resulted in the court ruling eight to one against Buck. The court ruled that the state does have the right to forcibly sterilize a person they deem unfit to procreate (Supreme). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. concluded the majority opinion, by asserting that it was Bucks’ duty to society to not produce any more feeble-minded individuals such as herself, stating, “three generations of imbeciles are enough” (BUCK). This case was a huge victory for the eugenics movement in the United States and solidified its power. (source: Eugenics in the United States: the Forgotten Movement May 20, 2021).

        Matthew 7:5

        Just as an aside: Robert Jackson, the chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, said that Germany fought a cleaner war than the Allies … an astounding admission.

      2. Ron,

        No offense but I know all this.

        Is this a “Me Too” argument? We were a monster therefore the Austrian Painter was not a monster?

        I already said there were no guys in white hats.

  4. Churchill’s targeting of the civilians of Hamburg in July 1943 was pure evil. It was mostly women, children and old people. If you had the window open, you might have been sucked out the window, pulled high into the air and vaporized. And bodies that were still intact in the air, fell down into the melted streets and burned. More innocent civilians were killed in Hamburg in July 1943 — one city — than in all of Great Britain during the course of the war.

    1. Thanks Dave.

      Rev. McAtee SAYS ‘there were no guys in white hats’, but joins with untermenschen like HST and Hoover in wishing the Germans and Russians (both extremists) had destroyed one another, leaving the world safe for good old (moderate) U.S. liberty and justice for all. It’s not a ‘me too’ argument, but it should be abundantly clear to all today (seeing how things have played out), that the Austrian Painter (as he contemptuously refers to him) and the people who loved him, was the last best hope of saving humanity from the global gulag.

      “The affliction put upon all mankind by arrogant psychopaths of falsified history ordains the Empire of Lies. Take away the concocted myths, the rubbish historian’s exaggerated lies touted to malign and vilify the German people and their nation — and there stands a great man of the 20th Century.

      Despite these petty men, Hitler towers above the prejudiced lesser. To be a great leader, by necessity, includes making mistakes: no mortal man is beyond criticism. However, no leader can be portrayed as always wrong or as an utterly vile person — as the myth-makers promote relentlessly; for they fear that objectivity may result in adoration. Yet, Adolf Hitler’s renown remains decades past his time. The problem is sorting the reality from the lies.”

      Columbus Falco, ‘Real History for the Purification of History’ (foreword to ‘Hitler’s Orations’)

      1. Hello Ron

        I’m more than happy to allow you to stick up for Hitler. Would you care to defend Streicher, Röhm, and Himmler also?

        Let me guess … National Socialism is God’s gift to all mankind and all White men should embrace the essence of the third Reich?

  5. I don’t think very many people today really understand National Socialism and what it was really trying to accomplish. That’s unfortunate and it’s everyone’s loss. Of course I’m not defending everyone associated with the ideological movement. I’m really just taking the same tack that you do with your post-mil eschatology. As you quoted to me previously:

    “Principles, it is said, have no modesty. It is their nature to rule and they steadily assert their privilege. Do they encounter other principles in their paths that would dispute their empire, they give battle immediately. A principle never rests until it has gained the victory; and it cannot be otherwise – with it to reign is to live. If it does not reign supreme it dies.”

    J. H. Merle d’Aubigne
    History of the Reformation of the 16th Century

    “I wish to put before you a few basic facts: The first is that in the capitalistic-democratic world the most important principle of economy is that the people exist for trade and industry, and that these in turn exist for capital. We have reversed this principle by making capital exist for trade and industry, and trade and industry exist for the people. In other words, the people come first. … In Germany, the people, without any doubt, decide their existence. They determine the principles of their government. … On the other hand, that other world says: ‘If we lose, our world-wide capitalistic system will collapse. … If the idea that work is the decisive factor spreads abroad, what will happen to us? … Our whole claim to world dominion can then no longer be maintained.’… These are the two worlds. I grant that one of the two must succumb. … But if we were to succumb, the German people would succumb with us. If the other were to succumb, I am convinced that the nations will become free for the first time.”

    Adolf Hitler, December 10, 1940

    ‘God’s gift to all mankind?’ All the nations of the world free of global finance usury and free to enjoy the fruits of their labors? Well, you decide.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.