Check out Fabius Maximus

Reader Nick Mgtow was kind enough to point to a recent article on Fabius Maximus that referenced ideas from this blog:  Child support payments create the new American family  The post is excellent, and I’m very pleased to see others outside of the Men’s Sphere pointing out the reality of our new family model.

Summary: Here are some mind-blowing facts about America’s new family system, and what encourages it and makes it work. No matter how traditional the marriage, what follows is often quite different.

Unmarried mothers are one part of the new American family. Divorce is the other.

Other related posts include:

Edit: You can see a full list of his posts on gender topics here.

Fabius Maximus editor Larry Kummer writes on a wide range of topics, most of which aren’t specific to the Men’s Sphere.  For example, his most recent post is: Dark secrets about our war in Afghanistan

Summary: Trump has began his term by boosting the war in Afghanistan, just as Obama did. Accompanied by the usual happy talk. But this time we have 16 years of experience and good data. We will not be fooled again — if we pay attention. We can end our mad wars.

I don’t have the expertise to critique his assessment of the war in Afghanistan.  However, I can say that it matches my own gut feel, and that I find it persuasive and interesting.

Kummer describes his political perspective (and the politics of the site):

One virtue of the FM site is its clear position about the politics of 21st century America:  I stand against them.  Choosing a party today is like cattle at the stockyards choosing a pen.  They (being smarter than us) don’t bother with party identification.  They don’t cheer the “left-side” pen:  the virtue of its prisoners, the beauty of the fence, the free food.  Those in the “right-side” pen don’t wear logos or bumper-stickers, or trumpet their superior intelligence over those in the other pen.


This entry was posted in Child Support, Fabius Maximus, Larry Kummer, Linkage. Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to Check out Fabius Maximus

  1. Pingback: Check out Fabius Maximus | @the_arv

  2. Thank you for the kind mention. I have learned a lot from reading your work!

    We have reached roughly similar views from different paths. I watch our entertainment media, using it as a mirror in which we can see the changes in American society. We went from marriages (or serious relationships) as equal partners of a team (with the guy as nominal leader) in the 1950s and 1960s, to partners where the woman was better (in most ways) to the guy (1990s), to today — where the women are unambiguously superior in most ways. And worse, where guys’ character arc goes from “independent alpha” to “buttmonkey beta.” The women break the guys in hit TV shows such as “Castle” and “NCIS LA”.

    The data, such as you present, shows the consequences of this played out in the real world. I would like to describe our future, but that’s beyond the scope of my imagination. I’m certain it will be different than anything in the past.

    I’ve written 135 posts about the gender “wars”:

    I’d like to cross-post some of your material, with full attribution — and no infringement on your copyright. If you grant permission, it would bring your work to a different audience.

    [D: I’ll send you an email.]

  3. Opus says:

    So disappointed on discovering that it is not about Cannae.

  4. krakonos says:

    I rather checked out the article about marriage rates & adolescents living with both parents.
    The latest OECD data does not even bother distinguishing between biological parents and step parents.
    The real numbers are much worse then. At least you in the USA blame minorities for much of the issues. Some, still, lilly white countries in Eastern Europe are in significantly deeper problems in this regard.

  5. Random Angeleno says:

    Welcome, Mr Kummer. I see that you reference a George Gilder book on your site. You might check out Dalrock’s posts about Gilder. They’re not all that long ago.

  6. Scott says:

    I just discovered their site a few days ago myself.

    There’s a lot of good stuff on there.

  7. Random Angeleno,

    Yes, I saw those posts — and no longer post Gilder’s book. Eye-opening.

    It’s also a measure of how we’ve changed. I read that book when it came out, and much used much of it in my late 1980s lectures. It reads much differently today.

    The same is true of many classic films featuring a smart woman and dumb guy, like Barbara Stanwyck and Henry Fonda in “The Lady Eve” (1941). I thought it was funny ten years ago; now it is cringe-worthy.

  8. Random Angeleno says:

    Larry, a lot of us took that Gilder book seriously once upon a time. *raises hand*

  9. Pingback: Check out Fabius Maximus | Reaction Times

  10. freebird says:

    50 years war with Afghanistan.
    What more needs to be done,other than grow poppies for the CIA to sell heroin worldwide.
    Europe was flooded with cheap heroin first,then the PTB expanfed the marker to the USA.
    But still not enough people were buying, so big daddy govt contrives this “Opiod crisis”
    and cuts legitimate chronic pain patients from their medication.
    Doctors claim to be saving lives,this reversal of 50 years know medical therapy is driving decent people to become heroin buying criminal and they are dying by record numbers.
    But hey,whatever pays,just don’t open your ignorant hypocritical face and try to justify it to me.

  11. Dan says:

    Trump inherited the “War in Afghanistan” just as Obama did….Bush II put the US there.
    In reality this “war” is not a war….it’s a battle… of MANY battles being waged by islam
    against humanity. The WAR is the war islam has been waging for over a millennia. The
    goal, the ENTIRE REASON FOR EXISTENCE for all of islam is to convert, enslave or kill
    EVERYONE who is not muslim. THAT IS REALITY. The fighting in A’stan is just one battle
    out of many. And one we are NOT losing. The problem is we can’t win this battle either.
    A total victory like we had over Japan where they capitulated and we rebuilt them into a
    mirror of western democracy can NEVER happen in A’stan or any other muslim country as
    long as islam exists. It is a sociopolitical construct masquerading as a religion with the intent
    of TOTAL CONQUEST and domination of the entire world. To “WIN” the war against islam is simple
    Not easy…..but simple. To win requires we EXTERMINATE islam. Any other course of action is a
    holding action. If we as a society and civilization refuse to acknowledge that it truly is ‘them or us’
    then we have two choices…surrender or incessant never ending conflict. And it appears we have chosen by default option two. If that is the case I prefer we do the majority of the fighting on THEIR lands rather than ours. Which means the ‘war’ in A’stan and the rest of the middle east will NEVER END…..but at least most of the killing and dying will be THERE, rather than HERE….which is what will happen if we give up and retreat from the battle.

  12. Anon says:

    More proof that Economics is the subject where women have the greatest underperformance relative to men, even more so than engineering :

    When women join the workforce, everyone’s wages rise, including mens’.

    To the extent that voters should grasp the most basic economic concepts, female suffrage was the greatest disaster a prosperous society can possibly inflict upon itself.

  13. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    Thanks for the recommendation. I spent some hours digesting some outstanding writing and insights at FM.

  14. Per Desteen says:

    The hopeful note is that the marxist SJW’s have to propagate through extensive indoctrination. This worked for awhile, but their followers aren’t the ones having children now, and more young people in GenZ are detaching themselves from the education complex due to cost or perception of a lack of opportunity.

    The ones having children are the deplorable millennials, early GenZyklons, and late X’ers. And they’re having them in far greater numbers than replacement. They’re the homeschoolers, the christians that are seeking the unconverged church, and they’re staying married.

    SJW’s may be bred out soon, by both the hard core of civilized whites and the immivaders. The future will definitely be like the past, but 400 or 500 years ago past.

  15. ManlyMan says:

    From an article on Larry’s website, by Larry:

    “TOK, that’s just dumb sexism. We’re not going to debate women’s inferiority here. It’s off topic. No more will be allowed.”

    This guy’s your new Knight in Shining Armor”? More like a White Knight Equalist.

    No thanks.

  16. Boxer says:

    Larry: I’ve been a fan of yours since your Star Wars review. Glad you’re getting some new readers.

  17. eriksvane says:

    Fabius and Dalrock,

    do not forget Dr. Stephen Baskerville,
    whose books include “Taken Into Custody”
    (The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family)
    and “The New Politics of Sex” (The Sexual Revolution,
    Civil Liberties, and the Growth of Governmental Power).

    Excerpt here from the former book bere:
    Witch Hunts in Contemporary America—
    Is the United States Turning Into a Fascist Country?
    (no, the title is — unfortunately — not over the top)

    More here (both from SB and from other sources):

  18. Per Desteen,

    “SJW’s may be bred out soon,”

    SJW’s are happy for conservatives to breed, so long as SJWs teach the children. You have probably seen the many “before college — after college” pictures of young women. My post today describes how that happens. In SJW hands, even Jane Austen’s conservative “Pride and Prejudice” can be weaponized:

  19. PokeSalad says:

    Reminds me of a ‘joke’ I heard often in the Reagan 80s:

    “What do the liberals do after they lose an election? They go back to the classroom and teach your children.”

    Not funny now, if it ever was.

  20. I always find it funny when proactive women say “did you know that women make most of the important purchasing desicions in the family????”

    My reply is “Explains the massive ammount of debt incured by most households in the USA post 1974….”

  21. They Call Me Tom says:

    The only thing wrong with the ‘war’ in my opinion, was how it was prosecuted. Instead of consulting the polls and trying to please everyone, for the sake of politics, the war should have been brutal, cruel and threatening for long enough to send the message and then be done with.

    I’m sure our soldiers did what they could and then some. But the strategy and goals they were given were poorly thought through. Trying to change a country that you aren’t willing to conquer has never worked in any of the history I’ve read.

  22. Luke says:

    Two thoughts…

    1) No mention of first-class books on modern U.S. sexuality/romance/family issues is complete without Roger Devlin’s long essay “Home Economics” and Daniel Amneus’ book “The Garbage Generation”. (Both are available online for free, and GarbGen is also orderable from Scamazon.)

    2) As yet another, tightening of the screws on male sexuality, consider this policy + device for Amazon employees, that has the obvious effect of preventing employees from masturbating in bathrooms during breaks (obviously going to be very predominantly males, of course):


    “In related Ingsoma news, Amazon has gotten into the NoFap business and invented a GPS receiver that tracks its employees’ hand movements every second of the day, ostensibly to improve their inhumanity productivity moving boxes around a colossal warehouse.”

  23. Burner Prime says:

    There are good reasons, not obvious, why Trump may have decided to stay in Afghanistan. It is reasonable to conclude there is no solution to the problem of insurgents there, so Dalrock and other’s gut instinct is right. I think Trump knows that too, but he will commit resources (and hopefully few to no lives) to maintain bases there as a strategic hegemon against China. To keep his cards close and placate the simpletons he will resort to the usual happy talk. I believe it is inevitable that there will be a massive clash with China and her allies, Trump probably knows this too and is moving the chess pieces accordingly. China is also making moves in the region, building their relationship (militarily as well) with Pakistan.

  24. Jeff Strand says:

    Looks like the folks at Fabius Maximus are fully (((cucked))). I made a single comment, correcting their cartoon version of history with some real, actual facts (in a polite, respectful manner…as well as being on-topic for the thread), and was immediately told to shut up and permanently banned! LMAO! What a bunch of losers!

    If you want to see for yourself my “crime”, you’ll find my comment here:

  25. Your version is a little cartoonish. Hitler never wanted peace. He bragged frquently about how he hoodwinked the world at Munich in 1938.

  26. Jeff Strand says:


    Hitler certainly wanted peace with the West, which is why he accepted the territorial changes of Versailles in the West. (With the British Empire, he wanted not just peace…but even friendship and possibly an alliance!) True, he did think it almost inevitable that there would one day be a “final reckoning” with “Jewish Bolshevism” in the East…but why would it be the role of the western democracies to pull Moscow’s chestnuts out of the fire? Would you be willing to sacrifice the life of your son in order to save Stalin’s regime? Is that a worthy cause?

    Regarding Poland, Hitler was actually quite reasonable. Even the British Ambassador in Berlin, Neville Henderson (not to be confused with the British PM, Neville Chamberlain), was stunned at how reasonable and logical Hitler’s terms to Warsaw were. Basically, Hitler would renounce forever a lot of (formerly) German territory that had been ceded to Poland after the Grea War – territories like West Prussia, Pomerania, and Silesia. No German gov’t during the Weimar era dared renounce claims on these lands, as they didn’t think the German people would stand for it. Think about that – Hitler was more dovish towards Poland than the Weimar democracies had been! Not quite what you learned in history class, right?

    Of course, Hitler wanted something from Poland in return. He wanted the return of the (historically and ethnically German) port city of Danzig, and a 1 km wide extra-territorial rail-and-road corridor across the Polish Corridor, that would link Danzig and East Prussia to the rest of Germany. And he wanted an end to the discrimination and violence that was being targeted at Polish citizens in Poland who happened to be of German ethnicity. In return, he was not only agreeable to the territorial concessions described in the paragraph above, but in addition he was willing to sign a lengthy extension to the existing German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact (that he had signed in 1934 with the legendary Polish leader Marshall Pilsudski)…and he was even willing to accept Poland into the Anti-Comintern Pact. Which would make Germany formally pledged, in a military alliance, to defend Poland against Soviet aggression!

    Again, even British diplomats were stunned at how fair and reasonable Hitler’s proposals were towards Poland! That Foreign Minister Beck and the rest of the junta of colonels ruling Poland, goaded by the Brits (who, in turn, were being pressured behind the scenes by FDR) rejected Hitler’s generous offers is a tragedy of unspeakable proportions.

    Btw, it’s also because Hitler never wanted war with the western democracies that he issued the “halt order” to his panzer forces outside Dunkirk in May, 1940. With the entire British Expeditionary Force within his grasp, he had his forces sit there and watch while the Brits were ferried across the Channel back home. He explained to his incredulous generals (who subsequently wrote what happened in their diaries) that he wanted a peace treaty with England, and so didn’t want to anger and embarrass the British people by capturing their whole army. Such naivety! Can you imagine the Allies, with the German army within their grasp, doing likewise? It is unthinkable!

    Ok, enough of a history lesson for today. I’m not trying to whitewash Hitler or say he was a Boy Scout. But can we just have the truth? Is that too much to ask, even 7 decades later? Everything I said above is VERIFIABLE FACT. Emotions and feelings have nothing to do with it.

    At any rate, is it really appropriate to immediately ban someone for even just bringing up these facts for discussion, in a thread where this is on-topic?

  27. Reasonable with Poland????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    Now you’re done.

    My father was a boy when the Werchmacht rolled into Poland September 1st 1939 PLUNGING Europe INTO a war. Hitler was fully TOLD both France and England would stand by Poland if she were attacked.

    Hitler was again hoping to delude the West into another “munich 1938” dante

    Yeah….reasonable…..all Polish land was immediately confiscated. Poles were considered no better than the Jews, and they were going to be extermintaed. He wanted Warsaw *wiped* off the map. All Polish records were destroyed……..including hearaldadic traditions and birth / death records….all that survived were the records the Catholic church had…..and they were spotty….there was never to be a *noble* Polish class ever again. He wanted the language exterminated. The ones deemed “german looking / aryan looking enough” would be adopted or moved back to families inside the reich and raised. Millions of Poles died at the hands of starvation, disease and being worked to death as slaves on their own soil to feed the German people. Polish was forbidden to be spoken in the presence of ANY German. The worst of the worst and most horrific work and death camps were built on Polish soil. Not just for Jews…..but for Poles as well. Millions died. Reasonable? Any reasonable offer Hitler made was always a lie. His track record proved this…..years before war descended on Europe.

    By 1944 Polish farmers were actually *starving* to death. Everything that could be of value was squeezed out. My father remembers the Nazis burning the fields as they retreated. My dad remembers the family and himself boiling “pine tree bark” for nourishment. He remembers his father hiding his sisters in the one silo because he didn’t want them raped by the kind and “reasonable” Germans.

    Poland suffered greatly under his “reasonable” rule. AS for the Boy Scouts…in 1933 he had them banned in Germany and formed his own evil, and twisted version called the HJ. No, he was def not a Boy Scout.

    Hitler had drawn up plans for Polish occupation, exploitation and conquest while telling the world his “reasonable” terms for the Poles all through the end of 1938 and into 1939.


  28. Jeff, please (for your sake) go get some help.

  29. Jeff Strand says:

    Lol. Ok, whatever. The proposals Hitler made to Poland during the first 8 months of 1939, that I described in my prior post, are a matter of historical record. They exist, and cannot be denied or explained away. As I said, even British diplomats like Sir Neville Henderson were shocked by how reasonable the proposals were, and couldn’t understand why the Poles kept spitting in Hitler’s face.

    Fact is, the junta of generals running Poland wanted war. They dreamed of a “Greater Poland”, stretching from Berlin to Kiev. Their diplomats told foreign advisors that in the event of war, Polish troops would be marching through Berlin within two months (this is a matter of historical record). Therefore the Polish military made no defensive preparations, explaining to foreign diplomats that they planned to go on the offensive from the get-go, and would be in Berlin in short order. They were so confident that they goaded Hitler by declaring a partial mobilization and also ratcheted up the attacks on the ethnic German minority in Poland.

    Why were Beck, Rydz-Smigly, and the rest of the Polish colonels so confident of an easy victory over Germany? Several reasons. First of all, the heroic Polish forces had astonished the world in 1920 by inflicting a stunning defeat on Trotsky’s Red Army just outside Warsaw (the so-called “Miracle of the Vistula”). So they considered their armed forces unbeatable. Second, they had the “blank check” war guarantee from Britain and France, and Britain had secretly promised the Poles that within a matter of weeks from the outbreak of any German-Polish War there would be an Allied invasion of Germany from France (astounding as it seems, the Polish govt seems to have actually believed the Brits on this preposterous claim!) Thirdly, the Poles were getting intelligence that the German armed forces were desperate to avoid a war, and would depose Hitler via a coup almost immediately after hostilities began, and sue for peace. Such peace would, of course, involve territorial negotiations that would benefit Poland at the expense of Germany

    Such were the calculations Beck, Rydz-Smigly, and the Polish colonels were making in the Spring and Summer of 1939. They were playing a frightfully risky and dangerous game. Meanwhile, the Brits and Americans were playing them, as you can see by how quick the western democracies were to throw Poland to the Soviets at the conclusion of the war. Suddenly the notion of a “free and independent Poland” didn’t mean jack squat in Washington and London. The Poles had been played, pure and simple.

    Bottom line: Hitler had MUCH more justification for launching a war against Poland in 1939 than we did for launching a war against Iraq in 2003. I just don’t see how that’s even debateable, by anyone familiar with the relevant facts. The Polish govt actually WANTED war with Germany, and did a lot to provoke Hitler (and remember, just the fact of accepting the “blank check” war guarantee from Britain and France was a provocation – wouldn’t we see it so if today Mexico accepted a “blank check” war guarantee from Russia and China, that was aimed against us?). But Saddam Hussein did NOT want war with America in 2003, and was doing nothing to provoke us.

    P.S. Jason, I don’t deny there were atrocities committed by German forces in Poland during the war. But there were also atrocities committed by the other side as well. Google “Bromberg massacre”, and also Google up the horrific atrocities Poles and Russians committed against female German civilians at Nemmersdorf (which are fully documented). The details are so sick, repulsive, and shocking as to make one nauseous.

  30. Jeff Strand says:

    Are you starting to get the point that there’s always (at least) two sides to every story?

  31. American says:

    And as The__Tren__Train 6 points out on Reddit:

    “And now, for divorces after 2018, alimony will not be tax-deductible to the man, nor taxable to the woman. So she’ll get the house, the kids, and 2 tax-free revenue streams (CS and alimony). What a time to be alive.”

  32. Gunner Q says:

    You were pretty fringe on that post, Jeff. Even if you had valid points to make, I can’t fault Fabius for not giving a “Hitler never wanted war” poster a second chance.

    “Btw, it’s also because Hitler never wanted war with the western democracies that he issued the “halt order” to his panzer forces outside Dunkirk in May, 1940. With the entire British Expeditionary Force within his grasp, he had his forces sit there and watch while the Brits were ferried across the Channel back home.”

    Goering wanted the Luftwaffe to have the glory and pulled strings with Hitler’s approval. Unfortunately, weather prohibited effective aerial attack and after several days, the halt order was rescinded… too late.

    Besides, nobody prevents a war by trapping the DEPLOYED military of the enemy and then letting them live. You crush them utterly and that’s when reasonable offers get heard.

  33. “some autrocities”

    Six million Poles died, mostly civilians between 1939-1945……and Hitler was “justified” to do this according to you. The fault of the Polish government of the time was trusting that France and England would help them. France HAD the forces to overrun Germany during 1939-1940 on the western front……but it became a joke and was labeled “sitskrieg” in Germany and the west while a nation was brutalized.

  34. Jeff Strand says:


    Thanks for adding that Goering wanted the Luftwaffe to take credit for destroying the Brits at Dunkirk. That, too, is part of the historical record and cannot be denied. Not for the first time did Goering over-promise what the Luftwaffe was capable of. He would do so again a few months later regarding the Battle of Britain, and most disastrously, at Stalingrad…where he assured Hitler that the Luftwaffe could indefinitely keep von Paulus’s surrounded Sixth Army supplied with food and ammo solely by air. Didn’t work out that way.

    But more than one thing can be true. While waiting for the Luftwaffe, Hitler could certainly have ordered his panzer groups forward. Sure, there was risk involved…but also the chance to bag the entire British Expeditionary Force! Why did he let them escape from the tightening noose? For this question, let’s allow one of his generals (Guenther Bluementritt), who was there, to educate us. Speaking of one of Hitler’s daily war conferences, at which he was present, he said:

    “Hitler was in very good humour, he admitted that the course of the campaign had been ‘a decided miracle’, and gave us his opinion that the war would be – finished in six weeks. After that he wished to conclude a reasonable peace with France, and then the way would be free for an agreement with Britain.

    “He then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but ‘where there is planing, there are shavings flying’. He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church – saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere. He remarked that the colonies were primarily a matter of prestige, since they could not be held in war, and few Germans could settle in the tropics.

    “He concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain on a basis that she would regard as compatible with her honour to accept.”

    Again, I can only say that Hitler’s naivety here is astonishing. He was thinking of nothing but peace with Britain, while Churchill was thinking of nothing but the destruction of Germany. (And Churchill made it clear that his war wasn’t just against “the Nazis”, but was to be waged against the German nation and people, until their total destruction and annihilation or complete subjugation via unconditional surrender and occupation).

    Of course, by the end of war Hitler came to bitterly regret his magnanimity toward Englad. With Churchill and Halifax running the show (who actually believed Hitler wanted to occupy Britain!), such gestures were wasted on them. What would have been effective at ending the war, would have been to capture all 200,000 “Tommies” and then threaten to execute every last one of them, and drop their severed heads over London from Luftwaffe bombers, unless the Brits immediately made peace. (The Brits could not have retaliated against German POW’s in their control, because they had practically none).

    This is partly what Hitler meant when he was ranting in the Berlin bunker, in the final weeks, that he should have been more vicious and cold-blooded, “like Stalin”. Because Stalin would not have entertained such sentimental fantasies, and would have destroyed the Brits at Dunkirk without a second thought.

    Hitler learned that lesson too late.

  35. Jeff Strand says:

    “Not for the first time did Goering over-promise what the Luftwaffe was capable of.”

    My bad. This obviously should have read “not for the LAST time…”

  36. Jeff Strand says:

    Jason: “The fault of the Polish government of the time was trusting that France and England would help them.”

    Like I said earlier, that was just ONE of the huge mistakes the Poles made. It bears repeating – Beck and Rydz-Smigly WANTED war with Germany, based on the calculations I laid out in a prior post. They were sure such a war would redound to Poland’s benefit. They were tragically mistaken.

    And the Poles, as a people, have never acknowledged these facts (which are fully supported by the historical records). Instead, they created the myth that Poland was an innocent victim of “Nazi aggression”. And in this, they have had almost total succes. The actual historical facts regarding the pro-war planning and scheming of Beck and Rydz-Smigly have been flushed down the “memory hole”.

    Regarding your point I quoted above. Yep, that was a big mistake in trusting that the Brits and French would bail them out, if they even needed the help (recall that they were also relying on intelligence that Hitler would be deposed by his own military anyway, as soon as hostilities commenced…followed by Germany immediately suing for peace).

    But have you considered just HOW reckless the promise of the “blank check” was? Consider the following. A generation earlier, Britain and France, together with military allies Russia, Italy, Japan, and America, had almost failed to keep the German Army out of Paris. Now, with America neutral, and Russia, Italy, and Japan all hostile, Britain and France alone were gonna keep the German Army out of Warsaw?? Are you even kidding me?

    When you think about it, it was beyond laughable. I can only echo Hitler himself, who in a speech after war commenced, laid out in detail the proposals he made repeatedly to the Poles that would have settled all outstanding issues between Germany and Poland. He then concluded with: “What the mental state of the Polish leadership was when they rejected all my offers, I have no idea.”

    Just so. But the Polish people would pay an unbelievably tragic price for the idiocy and lunacy of their govt leaders. Let’s hope we can avoid that kind of thing now, in the nuclear age!

  37. Opus says:

    Jason has a Polish father and that I assume colours his views. My Father, too, idolised Churchill and as a child I naturally made pilgrimage to Chartwell.

    I see that there is a new movie about Winston Spencer Churchill which naturally also idolises him. He was in a BBC poll of only a decade ago voted the greatest of all Britons (with John Winston Lennon coming second). Some weeks ago and before I was aware of the movie I had a conversation with my friend – I forget why, though Churchill is on the new ‘plastic’ Five Pound Note so perhaps that was it – and casually mentioned that not everyone likes Churchill. My friend was genuinely surprised and enquired of me who such people might be. I responded that in the first place the South Wales miners have never forgiven him for the threat he made to use troops and with live ammunition to end the miner’s strike and then there was the Sydney Street massacre – and that was before the First World War when he was Home Secretary. In the First World War as First Lord of the Admiralty, the Royal Navy was doing its best to fail to comply with his, as they saw them, insane orders, disaster of Gallipoli …and so it went on.

    It is now, by the way, illegal in Briton, for you will be arrested for doing so, to quote and in public great writer though he was from Churchill’s first book, from 1895, The River War – less than entirely positive about Muslims, you see.

    This blog is however not the place for this sort of conversation.

  38. Jeff Strand says:

    Opus: “This blog is however not the place for this sort of conversation.”

    Yes, but this is now an older thread, and I doubt anyone else is still reading the comments besides those of us who have wandered onto this tangent. So I think it’s ok (unless Dalrock says otherwise).

    I enjoyed your post. It reminded me of another reason I’m no big fan of Churchill – he was a war enthusiast the first time around as well, when while still a young man he was First Lord of the Admiralty (as you mentioned) in 1914. While PM Asquith and other cabinent members were wringing their hands about whether to take the plunge into war in those fateful summer days of 1914, Churchill was beside himself with joy that war was coming! (His own diary entries state this quite clearly). One cabinent member mentioned in his diary how, while everyone else was morose, “Winston has got his war paint on” and was all excited.

    And this had real consequences. He, on his own initiative, ordered the mobilization of the Royal Navy…which itself was very nearly a commitment to war. He wasn’t about to risk an outbreak of peace at the last moment!

    So while I still think Sir Edward Grey must claim the lion’s share of blame for the disastrous decision to bring Britain into the slaughterhouse of the Great War – mostly because Grey deliberately refused to clarify to German ambassador Bethmann-Hollweg what actions of Germany vis-a-vis Belgium would precipitate a British declaration of war – Churchill, too must shoulder a good bit of the blame. And an entire generation was destroyed. For nothing.

    As for greatest Englishman ever? I would consider good candidates to be people like Thomas More, Samuel Johnson, William Pitt, William Shakespeare (almost certainly was really Edward de. Vere), Thomas Beckett, Chaucer, Edmund Campion, Captain Cook, and so on.

    P.S. Churchill also ordered the dropping of poison gas from airplanes on civilians in Iraq in the 1920’s, and later ordered an artificial famine in Bengal state in India, which killed untold massive numbers of people. Pretty sure where Churchill is right now, it’s certainly plenty warm!

  39. Jeff Strand says:


    Also, for what it’s worth, here’s the post I put on Fabius Maximus. It was quite on-topic there, as the thread was about Churchill’s leadership at the time of Dunkirk (a movie review of “Darkest Hours”). But apparently I committed a thought crime, and have illegal opinions, since I was immediately banned. Can’t have people looking to learn both sides of a story, now can we..

    The post in question:

    The reviewer gets it exactly backwards. Churchill was a fool and a knave not to negotiate an end to the war in 1940. Germany had no demands to make on the British Empire, and was not even insisting on the return of the overseas colonies that were stolen from her at the end of the Great War. Hitler would certainly have agreed to evacuate all his forces from Western Europe, as he never wanted a second war with the western democracies anyway, and had previously and publicly accepted all the territorial revisions in the west that were arrived at through Versailles (even including the permanent ceding of Alsace-Lorraine to France, which no German govt during the Weimar period dared to do!)

    So given all that, all Churchill had to insist on in peace negotiations would be that Germany allow the re-constitution of an independent, sovereign Poland that was centered on Warsaw and Krakow. Just as a matter of realism, let Germany keep West Prussia and Danzig (which had always been German anyway). Hitler would probably have taken the deal. He always wanted peace and even friendship with Britain, and as a nationalist himself, he certainly could understand the need of the Poles for a nation of their own.

    That Churchill rejected this line of thinking and chose instead total war, and the sure death of tens of millions, seems flat-out insane. God preserve us from such “leaders” in the future!

    So please, let’s not glorify Churchill. His decision in the early summer of 1940 to fight on was the most catastrophic decision of the 20th century. The price is horrifying to even contemplate.

    P.S. In the event of a negotiated peace in the West in 1940, it’s quite possible there may have been a subsequent German-Soviet war. But in that case, the western democracies could have stayed neutral, continued building their strength and arming themselves to the teeth while the two dictatorships tore the guts out of each other, and waited on subsequent events.

  40. Opus says:

    @Jeff Strand

    I believe I detect a certain bias in your list of greatest Britons.

  41. Jeff Strand says:

    “I believe I detect a certain bias in your list of greatest Britons.”

    Really? And I even held back on naming Mary Tudor and Cardinal Pole!


  42. Opus says:

    @Jeff Strand

    I had been to the Fabius Maximus blog and had read your comment. I too left a comment.

  43. Opus says:

    @Jeff Strand

    I wonder what the readers of this blog would think were I to leave my list of greatest Britons beginning with Lord North and continuing in like vein. Happily, in Britain, we have so many greats that choosing the greatest is beyond sense but as you see Churchill who is idolised is considered to be beyond criticism except on the subject of the religion of peace – so anyone’s reputation may be turned on a sixpence.

  44. Jeff Strand says:

    Opus: “so anyone’s reputation may be turned on a sixpence.”

    Lot of that going around. Over here in the Colonies, we started by denigrating all the heroes who fought for the South in the War of Northern Aggression (aka, The Late Unpleasantness). Now we’re moving on to the Founding Fathers, and will very shortly be tearing down their statues too. Part of the “oppressor class”, you see.

    It’s all cultural Marxism. And I think the election of Trump over here, and Brexit in your neck of the woods, was a backlash against this kind of insanity. But the Left never sleeps. They’ll keep coming, count on it.

  45. Opus says:

    @Jeff Strand

    I have long thought that it would be great sport to present a map of geographical Europe to an unsuspecting victim and on assuring oneself that they were aware that Prussia was the joint-victor at Waterloo to ask them to pin-point exactly where on the map they might find Prussia – and then overlay the map with one showing modern political boundaries.

    Back to Churchill – I just recall in the light of your 07.28 comment – that as recently as last week a group of left-wingers led by a female Somali immigrant trashed a ‘heritage’ shop in London as they perceived Churchill as an unrepentant Racist who has failed to apologise for his crimes. As I said, ‘turned on a sixpence’. I am not as now you may have observed Churchill’s biggest fan but even I will come to his aid on this one.

  46. BillyS says:

    The banning could be related to your behavior here Jeff, or at least method of arguing. I am not impressed with your argument about Churchill though, as it sounds like he should have been Neville Chamberlain II in your eyes, for all the good agreeing with Hitler did.

    I think the US should have stayed out of WWII BTW, just like I think it should have stayed out of WWI. It was a European conflict and we should have let Germany and the Soviet Union beat each other senseless.

    I see no merit in Churchill repeating the same mistakes as his predecessor though. Look how well Hitler’s deal with Stalin turned out, for example. That alone undermines the rest of your argument.

    (Sure, pretend to restore Poland and we will let you live with absorbing France. That will be good for us in the long run.)

  47. Churchhill was half American btw,,,,,,

    Jeff…..all of Hitler’s speeches, memos, commernts and promiese never were fulfilled. All his guarantees were back pedaled the minute he got what he wanted. Really want to know about Hitler….read “Mein Kampf” from the first chapter he talks about “land in the east” (Poland and Russia) being the future home of the German people for expansion.

    Hitler never anting war…’re crazy

    As for Churchhill. He was needed at that period in history. It was his moment for him and his people. Britons that were not the greatest but had the biggest impact?

    Hate to say this…but Cromwell comes to mind.

    My fav Brit? Well…………….that’s EASY….Sir George Martin (RIP). Class act that guy 😉

  48. Gunner Q says:

    BillyS @ 8:22 am:
    “The banning could be related to your behavior here Jeff”

    It wasn’t. Pro-tip, your first post on a new blog should NOT read like “Adolf Hitler was a good guy”.

  49. BillyS says:

    That makes sense too Gunner Q. Though if the blog owner read here it would make him quicker to ban someone spouting illogical things much quicker, especially pro-Hitler ones. No need to wade into that swamp, especially when trying to establish/grow a blog.

  50. Jeff Strand says:

    Billy: “I think the US should have stayed out of WWII BTW, just like I think it should have stayed out of WWI. It was a European conflict and we should have let Germany and the Soviet Union beat each other senseless.”

    If the US had stayed out of WWI, there wouldn’t have been a WWII. Not in Europe, anyway. There’s a reason why Woodrow Wilson wins my pick as worst POTUS ever. (Then income tax doesn’t help)

    Even better, if the Brits had stayed out of things in 1914. The Germans would have quickly beat the French, marched through Paris, then turned around and gone home…just as they did in 1870. Who today remembers or cares about the Franco-Prussian War?

  51. Boxer says:

    My fav Brit? Well…………….that’s EASY….Sir George Martin (RIP). Class act that guy 😉

    I’ve always been sorta partial to G.E. Moore, myself.

  52. Jeff Strand says:

    Gunner: “It wasn’t. Pro-tip, your first post on a new blog should NOT read like “Adolf Hitler was a good guy”.”

    Yeah, cause I def said “Adolf Hitler was a good guy”. (Insert massive eye roll here)

    Still, I suppose you’re right. To learn the truth of any conflict, one shouldn’t examine all the evidence and objectively evaluate the facts. Instead, just swallow down whole the war propaganda of the victors, assume they were spotless and on the side of the angels in all ways, and assume the defeated powers were evil, lying, or just wrong in every sense…even if they were saying two plus two equals four.

    Thanks for clearling that up for me. (Insert even bigger eye roll here)

  53. Jeff Strand says:

    BillyS: “Sure, pretend to restore Poland and we will let you live with absorbing France. That will be good for us in the long run”

    See, there’s that cartoon version of history. It’s ridiculousness like that that tells me you can’t be taken seriously on this topic.

    Hitler never had the slightest intention of “absorbing” France. He invaded France because France declared war ON HIM, in case you forgot. He never did anything aggressive towards France prior to their declaring war on Germany.

    Once he had beaten the French, he had no choice but to militarily occupy the country until he could reach a peace agreement with Britain. Obviously.

    FWIW, Hitler didn’t even demand the surrender of the French Fleet or the turning over to Germany of French colonies in North Africa and elsewhere (which, while magnanimous, was also naive and foolish of him). The French Fleet ended up being deliberately bombed and sunk while at anchor in Africa, with great loss of life, by her claimed ally, the British. Something no one today speaks about.

    And btw, the Brits had sure demanded (and got) the surrender of the German Navy at the end of the Great War (the German officers deliberately scuttled the fleet at Scapa Flow, rather than turn over the fleet…which enraged the British, who proceeded to open fire on many of the German sailors in their lifeboats! Which, of course, was simply murder)

    Hitler also carved out “Vichy France” so the French could rule themselves there and maintain some sovereignty and national honor. But for the coastal region of France, he had NO CHOICE but to maintain a military occupation, for as long as the Brits refused to negotiate an end to the war. He needed this French territory in the hands of his military because this is where he had his U-boats pens, that were needed to carry on war against the Royal Navy and British merchant shipping. He also had Luftwaffe bases, radar sites, the construction of “the Atlantic Wall” to repulse any attempt by the Brits (and later, Americans) to open a second front in the West, etc, etc.

    In short, his occupation of France was a MILITARY NECESSITY for as long as the war in the West continued, and he would have been nuts (and have failed his nation and his allies as a leader) NOT to have maintained this military occupation. It had nothing to do with any claim to “absorb France”, which is just nonsense. Evacuating all his forces from France would have followed as a matter of course if peace had been negotiated in the West.

    But you’re right, there’s always just one side to every story. You should just stick to your bumper-sticker history.

  54. Lost Patrol says:

    We’re naming our favorite Brits and it can’t be Opus? Rifleman Dodd then.

  55. Jeff Strand says:

    Wow, this almost brings us back on topic. We’ve talked a lot here about Germany in WWII. But of course, modern Germany has been destroyed by Angela Merkel (Trump was surely right to call her “terrible”) and her insane policy of mass Muslim immigration. And of course, Germany is SJW paradise.

    Well guess what? Against all odds, an SJW over there has actually proven capable of learning! From being a big promoter of mass immigration just a few years ago, she has now turned against it after being mugged by reality. Awesome! But more sobering is her statement that the damage is already done, and “it’s already too late”, and therefore Germany is finished.

    She goes on to express admiration for Poland and Hungary for not making the same mistake…and says a lot of Germans (and French) will be wanting to retire in Poland in years to come, probably including herself! You can’t make this up!

  56. Opus says:

    Vichy France

    As a young adolescent I visited in the company of my family Oradour sur Glane. The bodies have been removed, of course, but otherwise the village – abandoned – is as it was after the German atrocity. Something, however, even then, never quite seemed right about this ghoulishness. My scepticism is now, so I learn, probably justified.

    My favourite American: probably Thomas Jefferson.

  57. Dalrock says:

    Jeff Strand, I have asked you before not to hijack the discussion by declaring your undying love for Hitler. I won’t warn again, I’ll simply ban you. Knock it off.

  58. Jeff Strand says:


    Sorry. I know this got way off-topic but it was just very interesting. But you’re right, your blog is not for historical discussions, that’s not your purpose here. So no problem, I’ll respect your request. I do enjoy the blog.


Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.