Monday, June 29, 2009

The Rumblings of a Distant Storm

Cop: Why Gun Sales Are Up

Written by Scott Wagner.

view.jpgThe fear on the street is palpable. Ever since the election of Barack Obama as President of these United States in November 2008, coupled with the election of a democrat party majority in both the U.S. House and Senate, concern for the United States and personal safety has ignited like a fire in dry grass. Sales of guns – black guns, rifles, shotguns and handguns (particularly 9mm) everywhere, have gone through the roof. AR15s have literally flown off of dealer shelves, and only now in the spring of 2009, have I seen the display samples of ARs begin to reappear on the wall of my favorite shooting emporium after the initial post election rush.

What is odd about this new fear is that it is not coming from the average citizen gun owner out there, but it is coming from what to me is an almost shocking source: street cops. Street cops and SWAT cops that I know from various agencies – rural, suburban and metro – in my area are scared. Cops that before November 2008 never gave much thought (that I knew of anyway) to politics or more importantly to gun rights. For the most part, these are the guys that didn’t generally have any interest in shooting or gun ownership beyond keeping track of where their duty gun is, and a few of them didn’t even do that so well.

The guys I am talking about are some of the same guys who used to not even carry off duty on a regular basis- but not anymore. They don’t scare easily, defenders of the Constitution of this State and the United States (as our oath of office reads), have been buying ARs, survival gear, and all the ammo they can lay their hands on. All of them (or I should say “us”) have been discussing and have been acquiring guns to provide a layered perimeter defense.


What are we suddenly so afraid of? Well in our discussions it seems to boil down to four areas. First, fear of federal government intrusion into our lives. Every time I look at or listen to the news, there is something new and intrusive coming out of the Obama administration and this Congress. New tax schemes, government-run Canadian-style healthcare, a volunteer citizen defense force (whatever that is, what happened to the National Guard?) equipped with funding similar to our military, forced voluntary “service” after retirement, a lack of a southern border with hordes of illegal and criminal aliens pouring over our border, the swine flu scare as well as government forced closing of thousands of privately held Chrysler and GM dealerships, which will be the final nail in the coffin for these companies and the list goes on and on.

But these items in the news are just the tip of the iceberg. We can’t see the full impact of these actions yet, but we don’t know what was added into the thousand of pages of stimulus package bills in the dead of night yet. I predict however that when the plans contained in the stimulus packages go into effect, a lot of us are going to be surprised if not shocked by what has suddenly and sweepingly changed.

What also scares us is the second, well-founded fear that there is an assault weapons ban looming, one that would make the Clinton Ban appear like a look of disdain in comparison. I remember well the 1990s and the Clinton years: the rise of militia groups, the “black helicopter” rumors and paranoia, all of which was motivated by the Brady Law and the Assault Weapon’s ban. What if a new ban comes requiring registration or confiscation and turn-in of banned weapons as what happened in Australia?


Americans are citizens, and not subjects like the British, Canadians or Australians. They just don’t always obey the law blindly and not one officer or citizen that I spoke to said anything like “I hope I get to keep this gun for awhile before they are banned; They are fun to shoot, so I would hate to give it up.” It isn’t going to happen, so the cop on the street and the soldier on the base needs to think now what he will do if the orders come down. I think you all get what I am saying here.

Which leads me to the third fear, that there is a revolution coming, yes, a revolution on the scale of the original American Revolution. You can hear this topic discussed on many of the talk radio shows by even the big name hosts. The possibility of an armed revolution against the U.S. government is being discussed, albeit very gingerly and fleetingly and as something to be avoided, which it is. I never heard this mentioned in the 90s.

One of my quietest, low profile officer friends brought it up the other day. He said that at some point in the near future, he felt there is going to be an armed revolt if things keep going the way they are. Something has got to give. I was shocked. Yes, I had heard this from some of my more radical cop friends in the past, but to hear it from a guy like this was unprecedented for me. Now, these guys are not saying this will happen to foment revolution, preach sedition or to even participate. They just want to be ready if it happens, to at least defend their families, because number four on the fear list is general societal chaos.

Cops fear for their parents, wives, children or grandchildren more now than ever before. Most cops are encouraging their spouses and loved ones to get concealed carry permits. Not only that, but some of these same cops are buying gun mounts for their personal cars so they can carry an AR in the family ride at the ready all the time. They are also strapping on heavier forms of off-duty hardware. I have other friends that are issued ARs or subguns for tactical team use, who always have their gear with them and are planning on just commandeering these weapons for personal use in defending hearth and home.

Final Notes
This is pretty heady and maybe even dangerous stuff. Know fully that I am not advocating anything here. I am reflecting to you what I see and hear going on around me, and maybe saying things that haven’t been said in the open, until now. It is something to think about.

Scott Wagner is a Police Academy Commander and Professor at Columbus State Community College in Columbus Ohio, and Commander of the 727 Counter Terror Training Unit. A 29 year law enforcement veteran, and current Deputy Sheriff, he is the Precision Marksman for the Union County Sheriff’s Office SRT Team.

This is a truncated version of the article. Those who want to read what this guy has to say about specific weapons and ammunition can do so here:

My thoughts on this: While this is certainly a positive development in terms of the growing fear and discomfort among those with their ears close to the ground, these folks are still agents of ZOG, and I would trust them about as far as I could hurl their donut eating asses. Only when the shit actually does hit the fan, will we see which side of the line they choose. For many of these authoritarian assholes the very thought of defying the gubmint (or orders in general) is anethema.

I am cautious but optimistic. The discontent rumbling through the land is not limited to race, and there is plenty of abuse of basic rights and liberties as ZOG goes for all the marbles socially, racially, politically and economically. Resistance is going to come from a broad spectrum of people and political views. Worse is better, and the ensuing chaos is our opportunity to turn back the tide of our own destruction and get this ship headed back in the right direction.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Megatron Versus Bimbosaurus

Anti-White cum bucket Megan Fox: all beauty, no brains

Transformers bombshell-cum-uninhibited philosophizer also contemplates -- reluctantly -- what she would say to Megatron to keep him from destroying the world. "I'd barter with him," she muses to the July issue Total Film UK, "and say instead of the entire planet, can you just take out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super bible-beating people in Middle America?"

This is the sort of anti-White invective that has become the norm in our culture of rot. This vapid, empty, and soulless "woman" will no doubt curry favor with her Hollyweird kikejew overlords for defaming the very people she comes from(Tennessee). It is probably lost on this brain dead bimbo that she has just gone out of her way to insult the very people who are the most likely to shell out hard earned money to watch her stupid movies. Most have been so successfully programmed and desensitized that they will shrug off the slur and get in line for their tickets regardless, but I hope that enough are offended and this tripe tanks at the box office.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Why Conservatives Can't Win

This essay by Dr. William Pierce coincides with my own thoughts as to why "conservatism" as a means of achieving our goals is a dead end. Conservatism has ceded too much ground and there is little left of our society worth conserving or preserving. Aside from being neocon jew tools, people like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and other conservative commentators appear to be of the mind that blacks and mestizos only need to adopt our values and, in essence, act White, then all will be right, as if they are just feces colored people who haven't yet found a way to express their "inner Whiteness". Called "racist" by their detractors, these people are (at least publicly) devoid of racial conciousness and more often than not will avoid touching race reality with a 200 foot pole.

Continuing to pin our hopes on the electoral process(which is under the influence and control of an alien entity) as a means to stanch the bleeding and turn back the tide of our own destruction is a dereliction of duty and a forfeiture of the gifts paid for in blood by the Founders.

Why Conservatives Can't Win

by Dr. William L. Pierce

Some of my best friends are conservatives. I sincerely like them and I admire them for their genuine virtues: for their sense of propriety and personal integrity in an age of corruption, for their independent spirit and their willingness to stand on their own feet in an increasingly paternalistic society.

Therefore, I hope my conservative friends will forgive me for what I am about to write.

A Tragic Choice

There is not the least doubt in my mind that if I were forced to cast my lot with either American conservatism or with the left - old or new - I would choose conservatism.

But, fortunately, none of us is faced with such a limited choice. It would surely be tragic if we were. It would be tragic in the great sense, in the Spenglerian sense. We would be making the choice of Spengler's Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii - who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. We would be choosing what is right and honorable and in accord with the traditions of our race - and certain to fail.

For conservatives cannot possibly emerge victorious from the life-or-death struggle in which they are presently engaged. Although their opponents on the radical left may not attain their own goals - indeed, cannot attain them, because they are based on an erroneous conception of man and Nature - conservatives have proved themselves utterly incapable of preventing the destruction of their own world by those same radical leftists.

Revolutionary Advantage

Conservatives cannot win because the enemy to which they are opposed is a revolutionary enemy - an enemy with revolutionary goals and guided by a revolutionary view of life.

The advantage has always lain - and always will lie - on the side of the contender who is prepared to take the offensive, rather than maintaining a defensive position only. And the elementary natures of the conservative and the revolutionary determine that the one shall always play an essentially defensive role and the other and offensive role.

Besieged vs. Besieger

This defensive-offensive dichotomy does not apply absolutely to tactics, of course, but it does to strategy. The conservative may launch brief counterattacks - he may sally forth from his fortress to harry his revolutionary besieger - but in the long run he is always the besieged and the revolutionary the besieger.

The goal of the conservative is to protect what is, or, at the extreme, to restore what recently was. The goal of the revolutionary is to radically transform what is, or to do away with it altogether, so that it can be replaced by something entirely different.

Raceless Nirvana

Thus, the conservative talks of "restoring the Constitution", of halting crime in the streets, of keeping down taxes, of fighting the spread of drugs and pornography, of keeping Big Government in check. And the leftist strives for a utopia in which there shall be no war, no "repression", no "discrimination", no "racism", no bounds on the individual's freedom of action - a raceless and effortless nirvana of "love" and "equality" and plenty.

Never-Never Land

The conservative's goals may seem reasonable enough - and attainable. The leftists goals, on the other hand, lie in a never-never land far beyond the horizon of reality. And that is precisely what gives the advantage to the left.

When the conservative makes some minor gain - getting a "constructionist" on the Supreme Court or a Republican in the White House - he is likely to act as if he had just won the whole war. He sees the achievement of his aims just around the corner, he lowers his guard, and he settles back to enjoy the fruits of imagined victory. But the leftist is never satisfied, regardless of what concessions are made to his side, for his goals always remain as remote as before.

The conservative works in fits and spurts. He reacts with alarm to new depredations from the left, but is satisfied if he is able to fall back, regroup his wagons, and establish a new line of defense. The leftist keeps on pushing, probing, advancing, taking a step back now and then, but only to be able to take three steps forward later.

Defeat by Halves

If the leftist makes new demands - for example, for the forced racial integration of schools or housing - the conservative will oppose them with a plea to maintain "neighborhood" schools and "freedom of association". When the smoke clears, the leftist will have won perhaps half what he demanded, and the conservative will have lost half what he tried to preserve.

But then the conservative will accept the new status quo, as if things had always been that way, and prepare to defend it against fresh attacks from the left with the same ineptitude he displayed in defending the old position.

Evil Ideology

This continually shifting position is almost as great a disadvantage to the conservative as is his chronic inability to grasp the initiative. The revolutionary left has and ideology, evil and unnatural though it may be, and from this ideology come the unity and the continuity of purpose which are indispensable prerequisites for victory.

What can conservatives, on the other hand, look to as fighting credo, and immutable principal for which they are willing to sacrifice all? They have been retreating so rapidly during the last 50 years or so that they have completely lost sight of the earlier ground on which they stood. It has simply receded over the ideological horizon.

"Racists" Are Radicals

Consider race, for example. Half a century ago men like Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard were spokesmen for the conservative position on race. They argued eloquently, albeit defensively, for the preservation of America's racial identity by maintaining strict barriers against miscegenation, adopting sound immigration controls, and applying eugenic standards to the problem of population quality. Today no "responsible" conservative would be caught with the books of either of these men in his living-room bookcase, for by present conservative standards they are both "racists" - hence, "radicals" rather than safely respectable conservatives.

Saving the Constitution

Is there any granite outcropping in the midst of shifting sands - any firm common ground on which conservatives can rally?

The defense of the Constitution perhaps?

The Constitution no longer exists, except as a scrap of paper in the National Archives. Its relevance became nil when it was no longer able to serve the purpose it's authors intended for it.

Insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare are quite different undertakings today than they were 200 years ago. Even such a fundamental portion of the Constitution as its ironclad guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms has proved to be as worthless as the paper it was written on. Nor has the Constitution's explicit ban against legislators who give aid and comfort to our enemies served to prevent the United States from becoming a hotbed for treason.

Free-Enterprise Pitfall

How about rescuing the American free-enterprise system from the evil machinations of Big Government?

As a matter of fact, the free-enterprise system was still relatively intact during the period when alien forces subverted our government and took over our country, and it cannot be said that free-enterprise slowed them down even one little bit. Those who gained control of our biggest newspapers and our motion picture industry and our radio and TV networks did so with the aid of free-enterprise, rather than in spite of it.

More than Economics

These comments should not be considered a condemnation of free enterprise per se, nor a belittling of the importance of economic problems in general; more than one nation has gone to ruin through economic mismanagement. The point is that America's problems today go far deeper than any Constitutional or economic reforms can hope to cure or even substantially ameliorate.

The youth of America are smart enough to recognize these things for themselves, and, consequently, are not to be blamed for having few tears to shed for the demise of either the Constitution or laissez-faire capitalism.

Fanatics Needed

The left can find plenty of misguided young fanatics willing to set themselves afire or blow up a police station in order to further the cause of "equality" or "peace". But the idea of young men and women assembling bombs in candle-lit cellars to put an end to the progressive income tax or social security reductions is simply ridiculous.

Until conservatives can offer something more inspiring, not many young Americans will rally to their standard.

Conservatism's two principle failings, lack of a spirit of aggressive activism and lack of any clearly defined ideological basis, go hand in hand. The one cannot be had without the other.

Ultimate Goals

In the words of an outstanding anti-communist leader: "The lack of a great, creative idea always signifies a limitation of fighting ability. A firm conviction of the right to use each and any weapon is always bound up with the fanatical belief in the necessity in the victory of a revolutionary new order on this earth."

"A movement which is not fighting for such ultimate goals and ideals will never seize upon the ultimate weapon"...and , needless to say, will never emerge victorious from a struggle with an opponent who is so motivated.

Revolutionary vs. Revolutionary

Though conservatism cannot win against the left, a new revolutionary force, with the spiritual basis that conservatism lacks, and advancing with even more boldness and determination that the forces of the left, can win!

That new revolutionary force is being built now. Its ranks are being filled with disciplined, idealistic young Americans.

They have examined and found wanting both drugs-and-sex libertinism of the left and the economic libertinism of the right.

A New Order

They are fighting for a new order in American life, based not on the fads and whims of the moment, but on the fundamental values of race and personality - values which once led Western man to the mastery of the earth and which can yet regain that mastery for him and lead him on to the conquest of the universe.

They know that the time is long past when the conservative rhetoric or conservative votes might have saved the day. They understand that America's salvation must now come from young men and women of revolutionary spirit and outlook who are through talking and voting and are instead working toward the day when they can seize the true enemies of our people by the hair of their heads and slit their throats.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Chutzpah! (What else is new?)

Kikejew proposes Israeli sanctions on US

In a sign of growing concern in Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's government over US President Barack Obama's Middle East policies, Minister-without-Portfolio Yossi Peled proposed Israeli sanctions on the US in a letter to cabinet ministers on Sunday.

In the 11-page letter, obtained by The Jerusalem Post from a minister on Monday, Peled recommends steps Israel can take to compensate for the shift in American policy, which he believes has become hostile to Israel.

"Obama's ascendance represents a turning point in America's approach to the region, especially to Israel," he wrote in the letter. "The new administration believes that in order to fight terror, guarantee stability and withdraw from Iraq, a new diplomatic slant is needed involving drastic steps to pacify the Muslim world and the adoption of a more balanced approach to Israel, including intensive pressure to stop building in settlements, remove outposts and advance the formation of a Palestinian state."(The nerve! How dare these sane and rational foreign policy ideas be implemented!!!)

Peled added that faced with an American government with an activist agenda that does not mesh with Israel's, traditional reactions are no longer relevant. He said he expected that Obama would eventually realize that appeasement and dialogue with countries that support terror would not have positive results.(Perhaps not, but a parasite cutting its nose to spite its own face would have extremely positive results.)

But in the interim, the minister suggests reconsidering military and civilian purchases from the US, selling sensitive equipment that Washington opposes distributing internationally, and allowing other countries that compete with the US to get involved with the peace process and be given a foothold for their military forces and intelligence agencies.

Peled said that shifting military acquisition to America's competition would make Israel less dependent on the US. For instance, he suggested buying planes from the France-based Airbus firm instead of the American Boeing. (Good riddance kikejews. You don't "buy" anything from us anyways. It's all freely given along with the $3 billion in annual aid. The old phrase "beggars can't be choosers" comes to mind.)

In what may be his most controversial suggestion, Peled recommends intervening in American congressional races to weaken Obama and asking American Jewish donors not to contribute to Democratic congressional candidates. He predicted that this would result in Democratic candidates pressuring Obama to become more pro-Israel.(Wow, so "controversial". This is what the kikejews do anyways. Ask Cynthia McKinney and James Trafficant among others.)

Peled called for the formation of a new body intended to influence American public opinion. The groups he suggests courting include Hispanic Americans and Labor unions in industries that benefit from Israeli military acquisitions.(What rock has Peled been living under? These bodies exist. They're called the ADL, AIPAC, and the American Mainstream Media.)

Peled told the Post on Monday that he still hoped common ground could be found with the Obama administration, but just in case that did not happen, Israel must be ready.(Ya, Mossad must be ready vith da false flag operation. Ya, headlines vill read "White Supremacist plot to kill Obama Succeeds." Ya dats da vey!!!)

"We must make every effort to maintain our relationship with the US and I respect Obama, but Israel has its own interests and we have to know what our alternatives are," Peled said. "I don't think what I suggest is vengeful. I just think that even a superpower must behave like a partner."(You are not, nor have you ever been a "partner", Shlomo. You're a fucking parasite.)

Peled personally gave the letter to Netanyahu at Sunday's cabinet meeting and urged him to take it seriously. But a source close to the prime minister reacted to it with scorn and stressed that none of Peled's suggestions would be implemented.(Netty's response: Vhat?! Iss he meshugginah?!?! Dis iss da golden goose! Ve got a little more vays to go before vee bleed da goyim dry, den vee cut dem loose!")

"The government's goal is to cooperate with the US," an official in the Prime Minister's Office said. "Jerusalem and Washington have a special relationship and we expect that relationship to continue to be strong, intimate and cooperative."(And subservient. Don't forget subservient.)

Shoshana Bryen, the senior director for security policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs in Washington, said she could understand Peled's perspective but worried about its consequences.

"If what he's doing is expressing the frustration that after being a good friend and ally, as Israel has been, he feels like Israel is being stepped on, then he's right," she said, adding that it was appropriate to make America aware of those feelings.

But she warned that such expressions could "take on a life of their own," and that some of Peled's policy prescriptions could be less than helpful for the Jewish state.

For instance, while Bryen said it made sense for Israel to diversify its military sales partners in any case, relationships with European and Russian companies and countries were likely to be subject to some of the same issues.(Good luck trying to bilk other countries out of war materiel. And try paying for it without that 3 billion dollars.)

In addition, she noted, America might not be pleased.(and then, on cue, Abe Foxman would come out with a report entitled "Anti-Semitism On The Rise.")

"If you take on a big country when you're a small country, you have to be very, very cognizant of the ways a big country can respond," she said.

The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Peled's letter.

But Democratic political activists in Washington dismissed out of hand Peled's suggestions, saying that such an approach would have little chance of influencing Congress's posture on Israel.(In a sane world, however, it would be the impetus for severing ties with the bandit state all together.)

"It shows Yossi Peled is terribly uninformed about US politics," said National Jewish Democratic Council Executive Director Ira Forman. "He doesn't understand the politics of the American Jewish community. He doesn't understand the politics of the Democratic party."("He doesn't understand that we own these assholes outright.")

Forman argued that Republicans had long tried to use the issue of Israel to peel Jews away from the Democratic Party with limited success, as the constituency continued to vote overwhelmingly Democrat.(Vhat to do, vhat to do? Do ve go for da party dat sucks our iss-railly dick vithout question or go for da party dat pushes our social agenda to destroy da goyim? Wait, vhat are ve vorried about? Ve own da whole process. Ya, dats da vey!)

He predicted that such efforts, if attempted, would neither shift congressional support away from Obama nor boomerang to hurt Israel's backing on Capitol Hill.(Ya, like I said. Ve own dese assholes outright!)

But other Jewish leaders were concerned that Peled's recommendations might create negative repercussions.(uhh, like the American sheeple actually waking up to the fact that our "gallant little ally" is anything but?)

"Just as it is inadvisable and inappropriate for the United States government to interfere in the domestic political affairs of the State of Israel, it is totally wrong-headed and dangerous for the Government of Israel to attempt to inject itself into American electoral politics," said William Daroff, director of the United Jewish Communities' Washington office .(So said the tail that wags the dog and interferes in every aspect of our lives.)

"I have no doubt that Prime Minister Netanyahu did not know in advance about this proposal, and that he would reject it as outlandish."("after briefly considering it.")

Friday, June 5, 2009

Order of the Werewolf

From Tom Metzger's Resist web site. It's pretty much the spirit under which this web log was launched. When this "radio" goes dead air, this is what we're going to have to do in each of our localities.
Welcome to the Insurgency!


Blood & Honour

Nazi Guerillas in Post War Germany

The Werewolves were originally organised by the SS and the Hitler Youth as a diversionary operation on the fringes of the Third Reich, which were occupied by the Western Allies and the Soviets in the autumn of 1944. Some 5,000 -- 6,000 recruits were raised by the winter of 1944-45, but numbers rose considerably in the following spring when the Nazi Party and the Propaganda Ministry launched a popular call to arms, beseeching everybody in the occupied areas -- even women and children -- to launch themselves upon the enemy. In typical Nazi fashion, this expansion was not co-ordinated by the relevant bodies, which were instead involved in a bureaucratic war among themselves over control of the project. The result was that the movement functioned on two largely unrelated levels: the first as a real force of specially trained SS, Hitler Youth and Nazi Party guerrillas; the second as an outlet for casual violence by fanatics.

The Werewolves specialised in ambushes and sniping, and took the lives of many Allied and Soviet soldiers and officers -- perhaps even that of the first Soviet commandant of Berlin, General N.E. Berzarin, who was rumoured to have been waylaid in Charlottenburg during an incident in June 1945. Buildings housing Allied and Soviet staffs were favourite targets for Werewolf bombings; an explosion in the Bremen police headquarters, also in June 1945, killed five Americans and thirty-nine Germans. Techniques for harassing the occupiers were given widespread publicity through Werewolf leaflets and radio propaganda, and long after May 1945 the sabotage methods promoted by the Werewolves were still being used against the occupying powers.

Although the Werewolves originally limited themselves to guerrilla warfare with the invading armies, they soon began to undertake scorched-earth measures and vigilante actions against German 'collaborators' or 'defeatists'. They damaged Germany's economic infrastructure, already battered by Allied bombing and ground fighting, and tried to prevent anything of value from falling into enemy hands. Attempts to blow up factories, power plants or waterworks occasionally provoked melees between Werewolves and desperate German workers trying to save the physical basis of their employment, particularly in the Ruhr and Upper Silesia.

Several sprees of vandalism through stocks of art and antiques, stored by the Berlin Museum in a flak tower at Friedrichshain, caused millions of dollars worth of damage and cultural losses of inestimable value. In addition, vigilante attacks caused the deaths of a number of small-town mayors and, in late March 1945, a Werewolf paratroop squad assassinated the Lord Mayor of Aachen, Dr Franz Oppenhoff, probably the most prominent German statesman to have emerged in the occupied fringes over the winter of 1944-45. This spate of killings, part of a larger Nazi terror campaign that consumed the Third Reich after the failed anti-Hitler putsch of July 20th, 1944, can be interpreted as a psychological retreat back into opposition, even while Nazi leaders were still clinging to their last few months of power.

Although the Werewolves managed to make themselves a nuisance to small Allied and Soviet units, they failed to stop or delay the invasion and occupation of Germany, and did not succeed in rousing the population into widespread opposition to the new order. The SS and Hitler Youth organisations at the core of the Werewolf movement were poorly led, short of supplies and weapons, and crippled by infighting. Their mandate was a conservative one of tactical harassment, at least until the final days of the war, and even when they did begin to envision the possibility of an underground resistance that could survive the Third Reich's collapse, they had to contend with widespread civilian war-weariness and fear of enemy reprisals. In Western Germany, no one wanted to do anything that would diminish the pace of Anglo-American advance and possibly thereby allow the Red Army to push further westward.

Despite its failure, however, the Werewolf project had a huge impact, widening the psychological and spiritual gap between Germans and their occupiers. Werewolf killings and intimidation of 'collaborators' scared almost everybody, giving German civilians a clear glimpse into the nihilistic heart of Nazism. It was difficult for people working under threat of such violence to devote themselves unreservedly to the initial tasks of reconstruction. Worse still, the Allies and Soviets reacted to the movement with extremely tough controls, curtailing the right of assembly of German civilians. Challenges of any sort were met by collective reprisals -- especially on the part of the Soviets and the French. In a few cases the occupiers even shot hostages and cleared out towns where instances of sabotage occurred. It was standard practice for the Soviets to destroy whole communities if they faced a single act of resistance. In the eastern fringes of the 'Greater Reich', now annexed by the Poles and the Czechoslovaks, Werewolf harassment handed the new authorities an excuse to rush the deportations of millions of ethnic Germans to occupied Germany.

Such policies were understandable, but they created an unbridgeable gulf between the German people and the occupation forces who had pledged to impose essential reforms. It was hard, in such conditions, for the occupiers to encourage reform, and even harder to persuade the Germans that it was necessary.

By the time that this rough opposition to the occupation had started to soften, the Cold War was under way and reform became equally difficult to implement. As a result, both German states created in 1949 were not so dissimilar to their predecessor as might have been hoped, and changes in attitudes and institutions developed only slowly. Thanks partly to the Werewolves there was no German revolution in 1945, either imposed from above or generated from below.