Pat Buchanan on World War II - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

User avatar
By Donna
#1556909
The Soviet Union was invaded because Hitler was trying to impress Eva Braun.

End of story.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#1556918
In the Pat Buchanan video I posted, he rails on about the horrible things that could have been avoided if Britain and its Jewish viscounts hadn't started WW2.

My problem is with his list of atrocities.

The "bad" side of WW2 is summed up by Buchanan as:

600,000 dead US soldiers

600,000 dead British soldiers

The holocaust

The Stalinization of Europe


That's it. The 50 million non-Jewish civilians who perished weren't American or British, so he writes them off. The impoverishment of all of Europe and the destruction of thousands of irreplaceable historic buildings... well, that's nothing compared to a government model that inhibits US and British business ventures.

His list of beefs about WW2 is a sign that Buchanan is an ideological racist, and I will never vote for him for president.
User avatar
By Nets
#1556954
In the Pat Buchanan video I posted, he rails on about the horrible things that could have been avoided if Britain and its Jewish viscounts hadn't started WW2.


Yep, it was all the j00z fault.
Image
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#1556958
Why don't any of our newspapers have the courage to reprint that hilarious cartoon, Nets?

Don't our media owners need to express their freedom?
User avatar
By pikachu
#1556989
The June 1941 invasion of Russia was a preemptive strike to remove Britain’s last hope of winning the war.

It is unlikely that this was anywhere near a major cause of the invasion, however Hitler did hope that the British would rather side with him than with the Soviets. He was proven wrong.

The Soviet Union was invaded because Hitler was trying to impress Eva Braun.

Very macho! No wonder she fell in love with him.
User avatar
By RonPaulalways
#1557064
And I'll believe the words from Hitler's own mouth.

But you're right. The historian is a much, much better source, certainly more in tune with Hitler's motives than... Hitler.


Hitler's very own words WERE that he invaded the Soviet Union to defeat Britain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lukac ... of_History

Lukacs has argued that the reason that Hitler offered for the invasion of Russia was indeed the real one. Hitler claimed that Britain would not surrender because Churchill held out the hope that the Soviet Union might enter the war on the Allied side, which left Germany with no other choice than to eliminate that hope
By Tonic
#1557743
millie_(A)TCK


I loved how he kept on mentioning during the interview that had Churchill not entered the war then England wouldn't have lost its empire....its empire was colonialists and man I am glad that englands wealth was fucked during WW2


Loved that part too.


William F Buckley Jr interviews Oswald Mosley
for Firing Line : March 25th 1972


MR. BUCKLEY: Well, now, what were the similarities between the fascism that you advocated during the Thirties, the fascism that had been instituted 10 years earlier by Mussolini, and the fascism that was being instituted by Adolf Hitler?

SIR OSWALD: Well, the similarity was that they were ultra-national movements, interested in their —

MR. BUCKLEY: Now, what does "ultra-national" mean? Did you have any designs on other countries?

SIR OSWALD: Oh, none whatever, because we had everything we wanted.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, then, what does "ultra-national" mean?

SIR OSWALD: National meant the development —

MR. BUCKLEY: No, "ultra-national."

SIR OSWALD: - of the British Empire.

MR. BUCKLEY: Oh - the development of the British Empire?

SIR OSWALD: The development of the British Empire at that time, for the benefit —

MR. BUCKLEY: So, it was a part of fascism, under no circumstances, to give up any of the Empire?

SIR OSWALD: Oh, no, to development the Empire.

MR. BUCKLEY: Was it a part of fascism to increase the size of the Empire?

SIR OSWALD: Not to increase, because we had a quarter of the globe, very nearly, already.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, why wouldn't you be better off with a third of the globe?

SIR OSWALD: Well, now, I think anyone who's sane at all never takes on more than he can manage, and we had grossly mismanaged what we had already undertaken. We hadn't even completed the geological survey of the Empire when the Second World War began.


User avatar
By Potemkin
#1557752
Well, now, I think anyone who's sane at all never takes on more than he can manage, and we had grossly mismanaged what we had already undertaken. We hadn't even completed the geological survey of the Empire when the Second World War began.

Sir Oswald was exactly right. The British Empire is perhaps the most obvious example of strategic overextension in human history. WWII demonstrated that overextension in the cruellest way, when the Japanese bit off huge chunks of the Empire at will. We couldn't even guarantee the security of Australia, ffs. From that point on, the Empire was doomed. It wasn't just lack of money which did for it; it was a bloated, overextended monstrosity which we could not militarily defend.
By Tonic
#1557779
Sir Oswald was exactly right.


Potemkin, because of the messenger's identity (as with Buchanan) people just not listening. I simply don't understand why Jews still worship Churchill. And Buchanan's new book will not going to change it. He was responsible for the Holocaust, ffs.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#1557785
I simply don't understand why Jews still worship Churchill. He was responsible for the Holocaust ffs.

No, he wasn't. Hitler (and the entire Nazi state apparatus) was responsible for the Holocaust. Churchill was a brutal imperialist, but he can hardly be blamed for the genocide of European Jews.
#1557829
Potemkin

I simply don't understand why Jews still worship Churchill. He was responsible for the Holocaust ffs.


No, he wasn't. Hitler (and the entire Nazi state apparatus) was responsible for the Holocaust. Churchill was a brutal imperialist, but he can hardly be blamed for the genocide of European Jews.


Yes, he was. When Britain declared war on Germany (3 Sep 1939) follow German invasion to Poland two days before, hapless desperate Jews were gathering outside British Embassy in Warsaw to thank Britain. They put all their hope on British protection, they had no one else. Instead Britain abandoned them.

"During the first two years of the war, when the German authorities bent their efforts to securing the exodus of the Jews from the Reich and from Nazi occupied territory, it was the British Government which took the lead in barring the escape routes from Europe against Jewish refugees." ("Britain and the Jews of Europe," 1939-1945, p.345)

Of course there need also to blame the Zionist leadership who ignore opposition advise (that is the Stern Group) to demand some concessions for Jewish support (i.e. to change British Palestine's White Paper policy meaning allowing more Jewish refugees to enter Palestine.) Nothing was made. After the war, many British were astonished why the Palestinian Jews turned against them after all they had just liberated Bergen Belsen. But than there were almost no one to liberate.

During the war, Churchill was afraid of Mosely's propaganda ("this is a Jewish war"), and did little to aid the trapped Jews (unlike other local resistance groups and exiled "govermemts" ). Despite the blockade, thousands of tons of foodstuffs' were sent to Greece between 1943 and 1945 while no relief was provided the Jews in occupied Europe; and there was an extraordinary effort to provision the Polish Home Army in its Warsaw rising a year after the Allies' total abandonment of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto.

Britain even refused Jewish begging to bomb Auschwitz railways and delaying the creation of Jewish force (in British Army) made by Palestinjian Jews, when the force was finally created they were not allowed to be too active. And saw little action let along to liberate the Jews or to sabotage Nazi machine.

Thus by allying themselves with Britain, the Jewish leaders outside occupied Europe (in Palestine, US and UK) betrayed their own people interests.


The Holocaust: why the Allies stayed mum

During WWII the Allies were afraid that if their struggle were in some way identified with the rescue of Jewish people, they would be accused by their own home constituency of fighting for the Jews and not for themselves.


This is the context in which Britain received, and suppressed, hard evidence that the Nazis were perpetrating systematic massacres of Jews. Marion Milne, co producer of a BBC documentary called “What did you do in the war, Auntie?”, wrote "The Holocaust was the best-kept secret of the war. " Suspicions of Jews continued during the war, when the government was apprehensive about the level of anti-Semitism in Britain and feared it could turn into anti-war and pro-Fascist sentiment. "It did everything to avoid the impression that Britain was at war on behalf of the Jews".

1939 July 16 Sir Oswald Mosley declares that one million British Fascists will refuse to fight in a "Jewish war." Or to ‘offer to fight in the quarrel of Jewish finance’. His campaigns carried through into World War II, requiring the British government ostentatiously to demonstrate that it was not fighting a "Jews' war." During the war itself, an obsessive fear of "fifth columns" and "enemy aliens" existed alongside a perceived linkage of Jews with black-marketeering, spying, and subversion. Fascists still scrawled "This is a Jewish War" on some of the walls which still stood, and anti-semitic feeling in the shelters was always a problem. This undercurrent of anti-Semitism probably contributed to Britain's refusal to undertake any serious rescue effort to save the remnants of European Jewry during the Holocaust. Britain's policy of blocking Jewish immigration to Palestine beginning in 1938, and especially from the end of the war until 1948, though mainly driven by realpolitik and imperial strategy, cannot plausibly be detached from anti-Jewish sentiment.


British Fascist WW2 Propaganda

Captain Archibald Henry Maule Ramsay was a British Army officer. From the late 1930s he developed increasingly strident antisemitic views. In 1940 his involvement with a suspected spy at the United States embassy led to his internment under Defence Regulation 18B, the only British MP to suffer this fate.

On the second day of World War II (September 4, 1939), Ramsay sat in the Library of the House of Commons writing a poem which was later to be printed and distributed by the Right Club. It ran:



"Land of dope and Jewry" ( to the tune of Elgars classic)

Land of dope and Jewry
Land that once was free
All the Jew boys praise thee
Whilst they plunder thee
Poorer still and poorer
Grow thy true-born sons
Faster still and faster
They're sent to feed the guns.
Land of Jewish finance
Fooled by Jewish lies
In press and books and movies
While our birthright dies
Longer still and longer
Is the rope they get
But — by the God of battles
'Twill serve to hang them yet.


In addition to "Land of dope and Jewry" rhyme, the slogans included "War destroys workers" and "This is a Jews' War"; some of the leaflets asserted "the stark truth is that this war was plotted and engineered by the Jews for world-power and vengeance".

Archibald Ramsay, Peeblesshire and South Midlothian Advertiser (13th January, 1939)

There was not the smallest doubt that there was an international group of Jews who were behind world revolution in every single country at the present time. That fact a great many people in this country were inclined to pooh pooh, but it was more or less generally accepted over the whole of Europe. People had come to the conclusion that a menace did actually exist, and that the Third International was unquestionably mainly controlled by Jews. They did not agree in this country with Hitler's methods with regard to the Jews, but he must, she said, have had his reasons for what he did. Did it not strike them that a man of Hitler's ability would not turn out an enormous section of the people from his country, and have half of Europe howling at him, unless he had some reason for doing so? The dictator States had discovered the terrible menace that they were facing at the present time.



#1558476
Could a photograph have saved thousands from the gas chamber?
David Smith on a TV documentary that examines the Allies' failure to spot the Nazi's extermination factory

David Smith
Sunday November 28, 2004

Observer

It is the photograph that showed the true horror of Auschwitz extermination camp: murder on an industrial scale.
A train convoy can be seen bearing thousands of new inmates to the site; there are five crematoria, in which corpses from the gas chambers were burnt, and a huge plume of smoke spews from bodies burning in open pits.

Yet the picture, from 23 August 1944, was taken by accident, and Britain's war leaders did not realise what it meant. Allied air reconnaissance planes flying at 15,000ft had been on a mission to photograph the Nazis' IG Farben chemical factory, four miles away near Monowitz. The images were examined by Allied interpreters, who studied the plant in minute detail but failed to identify the rows of huts, gas chambers or crematoria. They then filed away the image without further analysis.

Sixty years on, the set of pictures is being brought into the spotlight by Auschwitz: The Forgotten Evidence, a documentary to be shown on Channel 4 tomorrow, which interviews Holocaust survivors and historians and reopens the controversy about whether the Allies could have done more to stop the killing of up to 1.5 million people at Auschwitz, the huge majority of them Jews. Professor Richard Overy of Exeter University is among the experts interviewed in the programme. He says: 'You have to remember that there were thousands and thousands of images being put in every day, and for those whose task it was to look at the IG Farben plant at Monowitz, which they wanted to bomb because of its part in the German war effort, that was what they focused on.

'They may have seen some of the surrounding camps and thought they were simply labour camps, like thousands of labour camps in Germany. The terrible tragedy is that they had the camp in their sights but they didn't realise what they were looking at.'

Yet in July 1944, even before the pictures were taken, Britain and America had already been urged to bomb the Auschwitz camp and the railway lines leading to it by the Jewish Agency, which had received reports of 400,000 Hungarian Jews being sent there.

David Cesarani, professor of Modern History at Royal Holloway College in London, explains: 'By the summer of 1944, the British government knew that Auschwitz was a place of mass murder. Why, given this information, didn't the Allies act sooner, and why specifically didn't they bomb Auschwitz?'

The Allies considered sending low-flying Mosquito bombers on a 1,200 mile mission to target the camp but rejected the plan after three months of deliberation, partly because they feared killing the camp's inmates. Soviet troops finally entered the camp in January 1945. But Trude Levi, a Hungarian Jew who was interned at Auschwitz, says: 'We were waiting for, hoping for bombs - even though it could have hit us we were hoping. I didn't mind dying. For me it was more important that something happened from outside, that somebody was doing something.'
User avatar
By Donna
#1558844
Tonic, the French could have easily crushed the Third Reich when Hitler reoccupied the Rhine - by the very treaty of Versailles France was entitled to take military action against Germany if they re-entered the Rhine, and in 1936 the French would have spelled the end of Hitler's regime had they acted accordingly. Yet they backed down and Germany spent the next three years rearming itself. Does this mean that we can blame France for the Holocaust? Of course not. History will always regard the Nazi genocide as a German crime. It was planned by the Germans, organized by the Germans and executed by the Germans.
User avatar
By Arthur2sheds_Jackson
#1558853
Yeah that jewish doctor who tended to Hitler's mother as she lay dying didn't take the opportunity to kill him.

So it's all the joos fault ;)

Personally I blame the guy who invented the wheel, without him providing a means of transport the holocaust could never have happened.
By Tonic
#1558942
Donald, what France has to do with what I've said? Ever since Balfour declaration, Britain was the patron of the Zionist movement. I don't understand your post.
User avatar
By Donna
#1558960
Donald, what France has to do with what I've said? Ever since Balfour declaration, Britain was the patron of the Zionist movement. I don't understand your post.


Your attempt to blame the British for the Holocaust is simply stupid. I mentioned France because the French had an ample opportunity to strangle Nazism in its cradle, but failed to do so. This does not mean we can revision blame for the Holocaust on France.
By Tonic
#1558990
During the war Britain betrayed the Jews. France owed nothing to the Jews. Palestine (the Jewish National Home) was under British mandate.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#1558995
During the war Britain betrayed the Jews. France owed nothing to the Jews. Palestine (the Jewish National Home) was under British mandate.

Palestine was not the "Jewish National Home" at that time. Britain owed no more to the Jews than did France.
By Tonic
#1559001
Palestine was not the "Jewish National Home" at that time.


Potemkin, I don't believe you. Palestine was exactly that, "Jewish National Home" though not Jewish State. Strange you don't know it.

PS. Is it your first time you change your avatar? cause I always picture you as beardy know-all Karl Marx (and arthur as George Orwell)
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#1559544
Donald wrote:Your attempt to blame the British for the Holocaust is simply stupid. I mentioned France because the French had an ample opportunity to strangle Nazism in its cradle, but failed to do so.

No offense, Donald, but "strangling things in the cradle" sounds a lot like the behavior we attribute to the Nazis in our World War Two mythology. You might want to be more careful with your anti-German rhetoric in the future in order to avoid cognitive dissonance.

Yesterday, 25 April, on the day of Italy’s liberat[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Whatever he is as leader of Azerbaijan, he is righ[…]

A lot of Russians vacationing in Mexico. I have[…]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMCdypUXU[…]