Pat is on the money again.  Is there a media historian sharper than this man?  You’re the best, no one close.

Pat would certainly be a better choice than Sarah Palin!

Germans were proportionally represented in the Czech parliament.  They were able to send their children to German schools.  While, there were some injustices, most of them centered around socialist policies of the Czech government, there were none that were any way exceptional for the time.  And don’t forget that it was the Czechs who had been at the receiving end prior to WWI, and that there were sizable Czech speaking minorities living in the German majority areas.

When we talk about Bohemia and Moravia, we are talking about contiguous historical entities occupying the same rough borders for over a thousand years. Conservatives are supposed to belief in other forms of legitimacy besides ethnicity aren’t they?

Whether there was a British interest in preserving Czechoslovakia is another question, but we shouldn’t pretend that the Sudetens had any grievances that justified the destruction of thousand-year-old countries.  We would be well served to remember this when Mexico starts to make its claims on lands that have been American for a much shorter period of time than the Sudetenland was Bohemian or Moravian.

Pat muddles issues.  The point wasn’t the Sudetenland or its 3.5 million Germans.  The
point was LEBENSRAUM.  If Hitler were going to *stop* with the Sudetenland, no problem.
But he didn’t.  He made the Czechlands into a “protectorate,” and treated the Slavs
worse than they had treated the Germans.  Then he turned on Poland—but wait, that
doesn’t really bother Pat all that much either.  It’s about drawing a line in the sand.
Maybe appeasement was the best that Chamberlain could have done; I hope that is Pat’s
point.  But he is ignoring—and he should damn well know better—the fact that
everyone knew that there was no natural limit to German expansionism.  Ideally, all of
the Allies would have chased Hitler out of the Rhineland when he violated the treaty
and remilitarized it.  Not because Germany did not deserve the Rhineland, but because
the Nazi juggernaut had to be stopped, the sooner the better.  Pat seems ignorant of a
basic principle of geopolitical strategy.  You don’t wait until your vital interests are
imperiled.  No, you set up lines of defense to make sure they never are imperiled. 
Britain and France went to war over Poland because if they had to wait until Hitler
directly threatened them, they would be forced to wait until Hitler was already strong
enough to clobber them.  Instead, they entered into an alliance that gave them a good
reason to strike at Hitler while there was still a point to it.

When America does think of Europe and World War II, German occupation of the Rhineland and the callous sellout of Czechoslovakia in 1938 in Munich for which we blamed the treacherous, cowardly British government of Neville Chamberlain have been regarded as preliminary activities.  That the United States of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was not prepared to do anything to assist the beleaguered government of Czechoslovakia in any meaningful way is not remembered at all as we regard our public display of concern as being sufficient to assert our virtue.  Historian A.J.P. Taylor had Leon Blum and the rest of France welcoming the Munich agreement with relief and shame.  The British also have had a difficult time in remembering the deal between Hitler and Chamberlain was widely popular at home.  Very few Britons were prepared to fight for Czechoslovakia. Some years later in his diary James Forrestal, who served as Secretary of War under Roosevelt, revealed American Ambassador Joseph Kennedy’s account of his conversation with Chamberlain.  The British Prime Minister blamed the American government of Franklin Delano Roosevelt along with world Jewry for forcing England into war.  In 1938 the England of Chamberlain had nothing to fight with and could not risk war with Hitler.  Old Joe Kennedy thought if England had refrained from entering the war over Poland, Hitler in time would have taken Germany into war with Russia with no resulting conflict with England.  Currently in England revisionist historians have been saying if Britain had avoided fighting Germany in World War II, she would be much richer today, and the country would be better for it.  Kennedy blamed William Bullitt, then American Ambassador to France, for forcing Roosevelt to insist that Germany be faced down over Poland as neither England or France wanted to fight.  American historian, Charles Beard, thought of the war as being necessary for the survival of the nation.  What did disturb Mr. Beard was the behavior of the American wealthy who had so little confidence in the citizenry and so little respect for the truth, that they unashamedly lied about the central issue of war or peace.  The question of democracy’s future perturbed Mr. Beard as he thought the actions of Mr. Roosevelt had left the populace with no effective choice.

British historian, A.J.P. Taylor, thought when the British went over to the bombing offensive, they did more damage to themselves than to the Germans.  He believed the British used up more of their men and supplies than they destroyed Germans and their supplies.  Taylor was unkind enough to remember Franklin Roosevelt urging Germany and Britain to negotiate at Munich while disavowing any American responsibility.  Afterwards Roosevelt was kind enough to tell Neville Chamberlain “Good Man”.

Pat: The juggernaut in operation today (and the whole world knows it, including Russia on whose doorstep the u.s. is currently parked) is the zionist led american juggernaut devouring our people at home in america and attempting to devour the rest of the world and its resources.  Let’s peek-in at the cultural ‘value’ of this juggernaut.  The very subtle but correspondingly potent cultural ‘value’ or mind-set that sets and keeps the juggernaut in motion is that: the top-down ‘narrative’ is ‘the’ truth (God hammering Moses as it were and Moses hammering his people & the other people/s of the world, making flat the earth and His ways known i.e. hammered out.) I.e. ‘the truth’ is top-down period or one-sided, and thus that is what is ‘transcendent.’ Thus the zionist culture itself is what is Fascistic, or zionist-like, or similarly nazi-like, ironically.

However the silenced-majority or christian culture in America and elsewhere is that such a top-down or one-sided narrative is not the truth per se merely to be blindly obeyed (i.e. give us $700 Billion dollars blindly because we the great law-givers demand it, for example.) RATHER that the truth is what is *knowable because it is of this world and so proceeds from the grass roots up and also back down again in the form of leadership or both ways not one-way.

And as for the Christian *transcendent which granted is not knowable by an act of one’s will alone, that belongs now (not to the elite or ‘chosen’ law-givers) but rather it belongs to Christ & God because *only they stand together with the Holy Spirit slightly above the lesser and conflicting truths or verities of the world.

So one doesn’t assume authority or superiority in these matters and so over others, but rather if needed in such matters one instead prays to be given inspiration or revelation precisely because the top-down or one-sided narrative (*unlike the truth in our world) is neither knowable by an act of one’s own will alone, nor is it automatically known to the elite. ‘As if’ it were, as in the other culture a ‘given,’ to only them and by proxy to their elite.  That is the past, that is the anachronism which is, when it assumes authority today - what is less, and runs to sh*t, like it all is running to sh*t today.  So it is the very subtle but correspondingly potent cultural value or mind-set (and probably they don’t even realize it themselves, that’s how powerful these things are) of the minority or *other culture which has silenced the majority culture, the appropriate culture, the Christian culture and made us (has hammered us) into the silenced majority.

And so of course I like the rest of the Christian world knows this now, and must resist it, and so join everyone else in declaring WAR on the zionist culture, which ironically is very much like the nazi culture.

Pat nails this one (again).
The driving force for Hitler’s success with the German people and subsequent access to power was not rooted in the appeal of his anti-semitism, nor his great marches, nor his quest for “Lebensraum” (most Germans were quite happy where they were), nor his great economic ideas. As I heard directly from those who admitted to vote for him in 1933, it was his promise rectify a wrong, which had put millions of Germans under foreign rule as a result of broken promises at the end of WWI. This is what gave him legitimacy in the eyes of the German electorate. How can one expect German respect for the results of WWI, when the allies sold the armistice to Germany with the vision of a reorganized Europe under the banner of “self-determination”, but hid the fine print “except for Germans” until the German army had laid down their weapons? Germans at that time did not feel defeated, they felt betrayed. And this is the feeling that Hitler rode to power.  This part of history is seldom heard and obviously not politically correct – even on this site I had some people “p*** and s*** on my grandfathers grave” for seeing it this way. The ascent of a vile dictator like Hitler was made possible through the injustices of the Versailles treaty, and despite the official tale, leaders throughout the West including Churchill and Roosevelt were admiring of the “fuehrer” at that time (1938) and agreed that the legacy of Versailles would lead to another bloodbath if not rectified, even though I doubt that they had really qualms about sacrificing their own youth in a “splendid little war”.
By not seeing the dynamics that led to WWII, is it any wonder that our leaders do not see the similarities to the present situation in Eastern Europe, where many Russians now live under foreign domination, be it in Georgia, Ukraine, Lithuania, or Estonia. And the Western powers break all their promises about not expanding Nato beyond East Germany! Any wonder Putin is beloved by the Russians for preparing to right this wrong?

@Werner Hoerrmann,

You are absolutely correct regarding the similarities with Russia today and Germany in the past.  It is also pretty eerie that our economy in the U.S. is starting to resemble pre-WWII as well.

The salient fact that made WW II inevitable was not the coming to power of Hitler but the creation of the Soviet Union as a result of WW I. Hitler’s moves prior to WW II put Germany in a position to fight the inevitable conflict with the Bolsheviks. Chamberlain’s failure was his inability to see this truth and to take advantage of it. Hitler did not want a conflict with the West and even his Polish invasion did not threaten the West. By declaring war on Germany and then later throwing in with the Bolsheviks, Western leaders forfeited a chance to knock out both regimes. The lamentable results of that policy are too well known to bear repeating.

Pat & werner h. are correct historically, for my money.  But I agree with bill w.’s above, it’s at root at this point, more a culture war.  Some people are anachronistic thanks to their culture or mind-set (subconsciously, though, no doubt at the conscious level of their leaders), and have long since worn out their welcome.  In China they become chinese; in the West they become bad bankers.  These people are crying out for a spanking.  But that won’t work either, it’s deeper, it’s their culture, or should I say ‘cultcha’.  So I turn to the lights of a bill w. above for example for explication.  I agree.

Werner Hoermann:

“...vile dictator like Hitler...”

Hitler was appointed and elected, and stood for re-election.  By current criteria this does not make him a dictator.

He was popular not only for the reasons given by Mr. Hoermann, but also for improving the standard of living of the the working man and family. “You can improve your standard only by working for it with your own two hands”! How this makes Hitler “vile” I fail to grasp.

In fact the National Socialists were quite progressive in many areas such as non-smoking; but they did not pass any draconian anti-smoking laws; that was left for the “democracies”.

As to Lebensraum, which appears to be a recurring theme for tarring and feathering:  Hitler did indeed write about this in his Mein Kampf during his imprisonment in the early 1920.  However nothing he did as Fuehrer can be construed as expanding on his writings.

Had Poland not insisted on murdering ex German civilians by the tens-of-thousands, and Stalin not amassed his armed forces to invade Europe in September 1940, the world might indeed have turned out much different.

In over 20 years of reading about that sorry time of European history I have arrived at one solid conclusion:  Everything the Germans have been accused of was in fact carried out by the Allies, and evidence proffed in support of German “atrocities” fail any scientific and forensic scrutiny.

And the autobahn is still being imitated and used world-wide.

Now, PLEASE, someone mention the concentration camps!

H.F. Wolff

Correction of errors is no longer permitted???

H.F. Wolff

Mr. Wolff:
I stand by my description of A. Hitler as a vile dictator, even though this was probably not true until the later years of his reign. In the end his actions were nothing but that of a “vile” dictator. But then, this can be said probably about many of the leaders of that time to one degree or another. I guess you cannot afford a conscience if you want to make it to the top.

Hello Pat.
Just a small sidenote:
Whether we like it or not, the western world (aka NATO) could be dragged into a war with Russia.
That is when Ukraine joins NATO.
Because in this case there was a
a russian fleet on NATO-soil in the City of Sevastopol (Crimea).
So the powderkeg is already in place. ...someone will find a spark

Re: support for Hitler in Germany. I had a friend who was an immigrant to US from Germany who one day in a moment of reflection said “You know, only under Hitler could a member of my family have become an officer.” Coming from a poor family, his father was commissioned posthumously after KIA in Russia. The point is that Germany in the early 20th century as in Napoleonic France, MERIT was a very strong force.

2) Britain had the treaty with Poland. A couple of weeks after the Germans invaded Poland from the West, Russia invaded from the East. So why didn’t Britain declare war also on Russia?

I believe that Rick Johnson makes a stupendously significant point ignored by all the so-called experts of WWII: why didn’t Britain (or France, for that matter) declare war on the Soviet Union after they invaded Poland?  Thanks Rick for making dumb-downed history more stimulating.

Y’all have got to be kidding.  Why is it every time Pat writes one of his inane columns to promote sales of his most recent book, all the neo-Nazis come out of the woodwork?

Guys, it’s very simple.  Absent intervention, Hitler was going to keep expanding the Nazi empire.  Chruchill was right, stuck to his guns and saved civilization.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is either a moron or wears his swastika armband on holidays chanting “Deutchland uber alles”

Period.

The truth is that WWII was not the final blow that made the death of the West inevitable.  It was the decision to let in massive numbers of non-Whites afterwards that will have done it - if not reversed.

What’s the point of re-fighting WWII?

Not literally re-fighting it, of course, but arguing over counter factual scenarios.

@ Sertorius, No.  Rick’s point is NOT a “good one”.  Just because a particular clique, dictator or ideology uses “merit” as “strong force” doesn’t make it “good”.  Only efficient.

One your other point of agreement with Rick, The Answer:  Because Churchill was focused on defeating Nazism.  He had to make a deal with the devil (Stalin).

@ Top: “Guys, it’s very simple.  Absent intervention, Hitler was going to keep expanding the Nazi empire.  Chruchill was right, stuck to his guns and saved civilization.” It seems incumbent upon you to give us the hard evidence that Hitler was going to expand the Nazi empire and to what extent.  You might also detail for us what U.S. vital interests were endangered by Hitler’s activities in Europe and his invasion of the Soviet Union.  And, if one looks honestly at the postwar world, in what way did Churchill save civilization?  If you can do this without casting aspersions upon those seeking the truth, you will not only have my respect, but the knowledge that you have enlightened us.

“However nothing he did as Fuehrer can be construed as expanding on his writings.” - H. F. Wolff

Buchanan’s book makes an interesting read, but ultimately, I’m not buying his assessment of Hitler’s motivations.

Invaded Russia to demoralize England and force them to come to terms?

LOL!

Read Irving instead, he actually knows what he’s talking about.

Hitler’s raison d’etre was the advancement of German ethic genetic interests - even if he did not precisely conceptualize said as such.

He wanted that Lebenraum like a jock wants a cheerleader.

BTW, I’m still waiting for Buchanan to come out and at least explicitly say he, you know, WANTS HIS RACE TO SURVIVE.

Not holding my breath.

But since the topic of WWII is on the table, I couldn’t resist apprising Paleodom of this exchange between Dr. Robert Faurisson and Noam Chomsky - here are some highlights:

“I shall repeat myself as well and say: I think that the high priests of exterminationism or of the “Judeocide” resemble the Catholic priests who persist, of course, in spouting the articles of their FAITH but who, de facto, no longer appeal to REASON.

Fifty years ago, priests were still teaching the faithful that the existence of God was a matter of both REASON and FAITH and, for example, in the catechism, children learned the four PROOFS of God’s existence, the first of these being the order of the world (“There can be no watch without a great watchmaker”). Today, the Catholic priests lay it down as a principle that God exists and no longer appeal to REASON and PROOF. Why is this, if not because their proof no longer convinces them themselves?

Today, the high priests of exterminationism or of the “Judeocide” no longer take the trouble to resort to PROOF. They recite their basic catechism but no longer try to bring forth a single PROOF of the existence of an order to exterminate the Jews nor a single PROOF of the existence of an extermination plan, nor a single PROOF of the existence of any relevant instructions or monitoring or budget thereof, and they are incapable of showing us what the crime weapon par excellence may have looked like or how it may have worked. When asked to “show us or draw us an Auschwitz homicidal gas chamber”, they no longer try to answer. When told to “give us the name of a single person who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz, with proof of that killing” they no longer reply. However, do remember that, in the past, we used to get names (that of Simone Jacob, for example, who would turn out to be Simone Veil). Why such a profound change if not because “there is serious doubt about the basic character of the Nazi Judeocide”, that is, a doubt about the will to physically exterminate the Jews, about the magical gas chambers and about the six or however many million victims? At the base (your word “basic”) of the mystery of the “Judeocide”, there is that holy trinity.

Can you explain this to me? Can you offer anything that you yourself would call a PROOF? Can you tell me why there have been so many patent LIES on the part of my opponents, so many manipulations of texts, facts and figures whilst, in the work by your humble servant on the essential question of the gas chambers, no one has been able to find a trace either of 1) rashness, 2) negligence, 3) deliberately overlooking anything or 4) lying?

You say you strongly oppose the State’s being granted the right to determine historical Truth and punishing deviations. So be it; how has the State come to be granted these rights? It hasn’t been by some quirk of history. It has been by a sort of vital necessity that, even in countries without any specific anti-revisionist law, the State, in reality, represses revisionism. Consider the ignoble examples of the United States and Canada in the Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf cases. In France, who was it who, starting in 1986, waged a dogged campaign, crowned with success, to get the State to exercise those exorbitant rights if not chief rabbi René-Samuel Sirat, Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Georges Wellers and Laurent Fabius? Those people set off on a bad path: they laid the postulate – backing it up with threats – that two and two were six (or six million?) and, consequently, as the lie could be upheld only by still more lies, they and their successors have sunk themselves into an abyss of lies. For my part, I’ve had no need to lie.

What do you think of this? Regards.”

NC, August 20

“I understand your position, but do not agree.”

Damn, is it just me, or did this round go to Faurisson?  Somebody better throw him in jail, that man is dangerous.

http://bradleysmithsblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/exchange-with-noam-chomsky-on.html

@ Sertorius, Read Mein Kampf.  In his own words, Hitler said he thought that Germany should retake the territoreis lost in WWI, and conquer France and the Soviet Union.  At that point he viewed England as a natural ally.  Perhaps some would have entered into that unholy alliance.  Not Churchill.

As to the US interests:  Assuming H. accoplished his goals, which by that point included Britain, why would anyone think he would stop there?  Africa, then Asia, were probably next on his list.

Churchill’s actions saved the bastions of Western civilzation, by virtue of his defeat of Nazidom and its ideologies.

I hope that answers your questions.

I’ve brought this up before, I’ll bring it up again:

What “Western Civilization” did Churchill and England save?

The one founded on the Church, upon God Himself?

NO.  Churchill and England saved the [perverted] “Western Civilization” founded upon the REJECTION of God.  Protestantism, the “Enlightenment”, Revolution, etc.  THOSE are the values that were saved by Churchill and England.  NOT the Civilization that built the West.

This perverted of “Western Civilization” was simply “saved from itself”, in the form of Nazi Germany.  After being “saved” by Churchill and England, this perverted “Western Civilization” goes on, dying it’s slow death by suicide.

When the perverted “Western Civilization” finally dies, I pray there are enough of us that care about the legacy of the True Western Civilization to be able to pick up the pieces and re-build what we once had.

I pray there are enough of us that care about the legacy of the True Western Civilization to be able to pick up the pieces and re-build what we once had.

Posted by Patrick Hall

Only the genetic stock that created Western Civ. gives a damn about said.  We’ll need some sound genetic material to work with (read: unmongrelized).  That’s where WN come in.

“Only the genetic stock that created Western Civ. gives a damn about said.”

You know what’s funny there “Capt Chaos”?

These kids here:

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/093ZfYs73M78t/340x.jpg
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/03vfcln9Ns0b1/610x.jpg

are more in touch with Western Civilization than you.  A restoration of Western Civilization will come from THEM before it comes from YOU and your type of people.

A restoration of Western Civilization will come from THEM before it comes from YOU and your type of people.

Posted by Patrick Hall

We’ll see who gets the credit after it’s end game.

In reply to the comments about how the US did nothing to stop Germany in 1938, they better look at what the US military consisted of, 183,000 soldiers including Army Airforce which was not even enough troops to fully man peacetime units, both the Army and Navy had bi-plane fighters in front line service, the Army had what was left of 1,000 WW1 light tanks and maybe a hundred more modern one of various experimental designs, most of the rest of the Army weapons were left over from WW1.  So all the US could do in a 1938 war was to send maybe a few WW1 equipped infantry divisions which would have stripped the US of any trained troops needed to train any drafted troops.

And while the British army was better off, it was small and scattered, while the French Army was larger and in better shape it was set up for defense not offense.

Captainchaos:

“Hitler’s raison d’etre was the advancement of German ethic genetic interests - even if he did not precisely conceptualize said as such.”

Thinkers often publish ideas during their formative years for which they can be pilloried later.  A current example is Canadian Prime Minister Harper, and he is not exactly a deep thinker, when he trashed Canada during a speech he made to a USA think tank some years ago.

Suppose for the sake of argument that you are correct with your quote above, Captainchaos.  In which case the Poles and Stalin must have been the dumbest people going for giving Hitler the perfect reason for invading:  The Poles’ wholesale murder of Germans in ex-German lands, and the Soviet Union mobilization for the invasion of western Europe, scheduled to begin 1 month after Hitler’s pre-emptive strike.

As Mr. Hoermann has stated, most Germans are/were quite happy with where they live, as I have observed myself.

I think that when Hitler was in prison as a young man he vented his spleen to some extend in Mein Kampf and, after having attained power in Germany and unleashed creativity, industriousness, and productivity, came to the conclusion that expansion for Lebensraum was unnecessary because Germany was able to barter and trade for everything she needed.

According to Churchill it was this ability by Germany to cut out the middle man, the international bankers from international trade, that made “war with Germany necessary”.

Hitler’s demonization after the war was simply victor’s justice, and to cover-up the fact of the truly atrocious actions of the Allied victors.

If Germany had won the war they would have been proclaimed by the rest of Europe as the greatest protectors of western civilization, and the rubbish we are sold today as “civilization, and strength through diversification” would not happen.

H.F. Wolff

David, your defense of forcing Germans to remain in Czechoslovakia against their will makes no
sense.  These Germans WANTED no part of that country.  And Czecholslovakia was NOT a thousand year old country,
it was an artificial state that had been in existence for just over twenty years.

top,Having not read Mein Kampf, can you or someone else point me to a passage where he spoke of conquering and occupying non-Germanic lands?  Certainly he wanted to overthrow the various Communist governments, and
replace them with pro-Nazi regimes, a la Vichy.  Did he support German rule in Russia, or overthrow of Communism. 

I believe that a mono-ethnic state is best form of national organization, and I have a hard time understanding with people who think that Germans in Danzig deserved to be Polish citizens as punishment for the alleged sins of the Kaiser. It seems that Munich was a failure of diplomacy.  The German question should have a could
have been settled once and for all, by a comprehensive agreeement involving all parties, including
USSR, ceding Sudetenland, Danzig, Polish corrider, the slivers in the Baltics, in exchange for
Nazis ceding all claims to non-Germanic territory, and other countries binding themselves in
a defense pact should Hitler breach that agreement.  That is to say, Danzig should have been dealt with
at Munich (or earler).

I guess the message for all you Nazi apologists, who try and blame the Allies for everything problem that exists now:  Win a war.  Then pop off.

C’mon.  Herr Wolff wrote, “If Germany had won the war they would have been proclaimed by the rest of Europe as the greatest protectors of western civilization.” Sez who?  If Germany had won the war, the only “civilization” in Europe would’ve be Nazism.

Do y’all really believe the drivel you type, or are you just trying to reinforce the impression that you know neither civilization (which doesn’t include death camps and a “Master Race") nor history (which doesn’t include Hitler suddenly deciding that he’s tired of invading countries to expand the Third Reich)?

Admit it.  You’re joking to get a rise out of people.  Please.

top:

Some of us have outgrown fairy tales, Santa Claus, comic book history, and Hollywood portrayals of reality; others never will.

Based on what I have read about European history from say 1900 to 1985, and experienced first hand the North American perception of truth, honesty, and reality, I have little difficulty in making a choice in who or what to give greater credence.

Of course your thoughtful contributions to these discussions are noted: Name calling is the final refuge of the out-argued scoundrel.

H.F. Wolff

@ Herr Wolff, You asked me to give evidence of Hitler’s intentions.  I did so.  You ignored it.  If you can’t take the truth, what’s the point?

What is your proof that Hitler would have stopped?  That his psychoses were a fucntion of the Allies’ actions?

Go back to your bunker.

Auf Wiedersehen

Say it’s 1938, not 2008. Scrap all the convenient hindsight. *All* of it!

Now:

Is it really that clear what Hitler ultimately intends?

H.F Wolff, you repeat the claim of “The Poles’ wholesale murder of Germans in ex-German lands”. Hope you are prepared to support it with solid historical documents. It would indeed have been stupid of Poland to do this. Then, why did Hitler bothered to organise Gleiwitz? (Gliwice) provocation to start the war? Or may be you are a part of the recent blame game, with Poland being an easy target. Don’t you mix historical revision with whitewash? If you want someone to mention CAMPS, I will. Barbarous. Shameful. Inhumane. Immoral medical experiments. Produced a couple of Catholic Saints. You do not seriously want to defend them? Hitler’s mistreatment of the peoples in the East, already hating communism cost him not conquering Moscow and beyond, so it was plain stupid racism. Still, what kind of civilization would prevail then… State deciding if one can smoke, p.c. national socialist style, state pagan religion and autobahns as a sweetener? At least for the superior race.. Some might like it. National socialism equal to bolshevism. That scum Hitler did not even declare the war. I know he has had followers since (worthy of the teacher, I must say). And your reading got you to the point of thinking of German invasions as just wars…

Godwin’s Law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:[2][3]

“As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”

Godwin’s Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the reductio ad Hitlerum form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law

top: 

All I got from your postings was a statement that Churchill saved civilization, and others have taken you to task for that.

My observation is that if what we have today is what Churchill saved you are welcome to it.  Civilization my a**.

P. Kucfir:

I am not your paid researcher; as I stated earlier, I READ and do not base my opinions on comic book/Hollywood versions of history.

As to the invasion of Russia, there are a number of fairly recent books written by Russian and German historians that give credence to the preemptive strike by Germany, ie. the Soviet invasion of western Europe was planned to begin 1 month after the German invasion.

Poles murdering Germans:  One account has it at 50,000, others at 36,000.  Take your pick.  Read some diplomatic dispatches by British diplomats of that time.  There are newspaper articles, books… Do your own research.

Concentration camps… Wonderful invention by the British no less, for the Boer war.

Any camp that has swimming pool, commissary, hospital, orchestra, mail, Red Cross visits, receives international mail and packages, etc., etc., and where inmates choose to retreat with the Germans rather than stay to be liberated by the Soviets, does not sound too inhumane to me.  Read Eli Wiesel’s biography for more on this; he is, after all, proclaimed as one of the world’s authorities on life in the camps.  I especially recommend the chapter on his father’s medical treatment in the camp’s hospital.

Everything I read I compare with today’s happenings:  Constant lies by the USA and British governments, Polish illusions of grandeur and massacre (the recent world cup soccer games spring to mind). 

H.F. Wolff

top:

I don’t recall having asked you for anything.

Captainchaos:

My sons have pointed out Godwin’s Law also, but thanks for the Wikipedia reference.  It’s amazing how people throw about these accusations; Wikipedia also plays a little fast and loose with facts.

It is the reason why I adapted this mantra: “Name-calling is the final refuge of the out-argued scoundrel”.

H.F. Wolff

@ Top: Thanks for your imput.  You recommend that I, “Read Mein Kampf.  In his own words, Hitler said he thought that Germany should retake the territoreis lost in WWI, and conquer France and the Soviet Union.  At that point he viewed England as a natural ally.” The restoration of the lands stolen from Germany at the Paris Peace Conference, is not an example of expansion.  Early in his career he considered France “the” enemy, but in the second volume of Mein Kampf, according to historian John Toland, Hitler changed his mind, France was not the main enemy.  His main enemy was the Soviet Union and that is one of the reasons he decided to expand eastward.  It is interesting to note, that when Winston Churchill (serving the interests of Communists,other Leftists, and international Jewry in a group called The Focus), presented a list of lies about the magnitude of German rearmament to Prime Minister Baldwin—because you see, Churchill was a warmonger—Baldwin replied, “‘We all know the German desire to move East....And if he should move East I should not break my heart.’” You continue:  “As to the US interests:  Assuming H. accoplished his goals, which by that point included Britain, why would anyone think he would stop there?”
First of all, you are speculating.  Where is the evidence that Britain was a part of his scheme of conquest.  He no more wanted to go to war against Britain than you want to put your head into a bee hive.  All this patter about Hitler conquering the world is a matter of British propaganda.  Read Thomas E. Mahl’s “Desperate Deception: British Covert Operations in the United States”, and Nicholas Cull’s “Selling War: The British propaganda Campaign Against American ‘Neutrality’ in World War II”.  You speculate, again, “Africa, then Asia, were probably next on his list.” Again, I ask, where is the proof?
You then assert, “Churchill’s actions saved the bastions of Western civilzation, by virtue of his defeat of Nazidom and its ideologies.” After trying to digest this last yearning of yours, I am left with the bitter taste of knowing that Churchill and his partner in crime, FDR, handed over some of the most beautiful and civilized lands to the Soviet barbarians to dominate for nearly 50 years.  Not only that, Britian delcared war to defend Poland’s sovereignty, but Poland was occupied by the Communists thanks to Churchill and FDR.  So, in that sense, the war was a futile exerise in which millions of lives were squandered, billions in wealth wasted, and many beautiful cities destroyed or greatly damaged.  Please, tell me, how is that saving civilization?
You conclude, “I hope that answers your questions.” Not really; in fact, you avoided answering my desire to know what vital U.S. interests were endangered by Hitler’s expansion eastward and his hope of destroying Bolshevism.  Would the defeat of Communism in the Soviet Union have been an immediate threat to U.S. National Security?

“While my Hitler’s central and guiding prewar
ambition always remains constant, his methods and tactics were
profoundly opportunistic. Hitler firmly believed in grasping at fleeting opportunities.
‘There is but one moment when the Goddess of Fortune wafts
by,’ he lectured his adjutants in 1938, ‘and if you don’t grab her then by the
hem you won’t get a second chance!’” - David Irving, Hitler’s War

Mein Kampf is a well-though-out description of what Hitler would have seen done in the world - IOW his manifesto.

Self-defense was a part of his motivation for “going East”, but not his prime motivation.

He saw the opportunity and he grabbed it.

For a more full-throated discussion of this topic than is feasible or would be allowed here checkout this link:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/filling_the_empirical_gap/

I promise those who take the time will not be disoppointed.

Guessedworker, the owner and one of the prime contributors to Majority Rights, does not censor commentators; this to the outrage of some well-respected “White Nationalist” pundits.

“Why should trolls have a say!”

He realizes the necessity of an open and unfettered discussion of those issues concerning the “death of the West.”

Takimag should get a clue.

This is war, not a freakin’ parlour game.  What is the veneer of respectability worth when contrasted with the prospect of our race and civilization being burned to ashes.

One Straussian professor I had in college related to me that most people simply do not possess the requisite intelligence to engage in the necessary dialectical process to find “truth”.  Very true.

If you want people to wake up they have to have access to the full-spectrum of debate - they won’t get there by themselves.

Or, perhaps, paleocons really don’t want people to wake up?

Guessedworker of Majority Rights says:

All germs ... all of them ... breed in a certain medium, perhaps like a thin film of grime on a kitchen surface.  They don’t create the medium themselves.  It must be present for them to live and breed within it.  In this case that medium is, if I can be as accurate as possible without taking up much space, the potentials present within philosophical liberalism.

For some years now I have been trying to refine and present a model of multiple causalities operating within a favourable philosophical and political environment.  The kitchen surface has to be disinfected with nationalism, so that the chefs and kitchen workers can, once again, lead a gentle and healthy, naturally conservative, beautiful life.

Now, you lean towards the Single Jewish Cause to explain pretty well everything.  You want to neutralise what you see as the virulent pathogen.  For you, as for James, I think it’s fair to say, the medium is European Man’s society, and it is by burning out the pathogen that European Man is saved.

I do disagree with this.  I am adding a component - liberalism - and stating plainly that without this component the pathogen cannot grow.  It cannot grow on European Man’s society alone, as it did not grow over the two millenia until liberalism appeared.

I continue to believe that my “cure” is holistic and complete.  It would hit the elites, big business ... everything.  But, as they say in Big Pharma, it might be several years before a commercial product is on the market.

The downward spiral began much earlier than 1945 (or maybe the sixties), and it began in Europe.  America itself is a product of that spiral.  The tea wasn’t turning Boston Harbour brown when it began.

Look, you know the origins of the political left and right?  You know how those sitting on the right of the French revolutionary parliament wanted to halt the revolutionary process and turn to constructing the New France.  But those seated on the left were the radicals who wanted to go on and on, overturning every table in the land ... always onward until the old life was destroyed and a New Man born.  The appetite for a radical analysis of human freedom was there already, having been nurtured into an intellectual movement in the years before 1789.

Likewise in America immediately after Appomattox men’s minds were turning to globalism, as Alex has demonstrated here.  These ideas were circulating before Karl Marx published his opus in 1867.

This is what I mean by “the potentials present within philosophical liberalism.” It is these potentials which harboured the pathogenic intellectualism of Frankfurt, and all that flowed from it.

Liberalism ... the religion of a human freedom isolated from human nature ... has to be got out of us.  You can’t achieve anything that you want without achieving that.  “Events” will always oppose you while men think that freedom is the ultimate human value.
By way of illustration, let me remind you that Alex Linder, the most singular anti-semite in America, has no real politics.  He described himself on a thread here (Cosmic Ants, I think) as a libertarian, more or less.

So we go “thru the Jew” and afterwards do whatever liberalism we like.  Yeah, that will work.

It is philosophical incoherence like this that causes the WN movement to be so patently worthless ... a people as energetic and creative as white Americans cannot put together a single nationalist party of any worth or substance!

The road is plainly signposted “To Failure”.  It has always led to Failure.  Why would it change now?

It’s truly amazing how every commenter here misses the point here.

Pat Buchanan is a politician.

Not a historian.

So of course, the commenters here all try to out-dazzle each other with their historical knowledge and insight. But Pat is a politician. So one must ask what exactly is he trying to accomplish by his rather subtle changes in the official WW2 narrative. Pat is trying to change the story.

Our current narrative is that the holy western democracies in concert with their “progressive” Soviet friends defeated the evil racist German/Nazi FIENDS.

But how about this narrative…

The modern materialist progressive empires banded together to annihilate the European remnants of Western Christendom?

Hey...was Hitler a bad guy? Sure he was. So were many of his leaders. But that doesn’t mean that all Germans and their allies deserved total annihilation. If Bomber Command would have been as successful in the mass murder of German city dwellers as it was in the destruction of their cities, the Holocaust story would have featured German Christians as the victims.
Slowly and cautiously many authors are trying to change the WW2 narrative. Hopefully, in time the story can be changed in ways that strengthen the west instead of damning it. As far as “the Truth?” Gee, who knows? What I have seen is that every major event in history came as a complete surprise to those who were in power at the time. And to the court experts who advised them.
And if I may exit with an aphorism of my own, it would be:
History is not an objective tool for the scientific, but a subjective tool for the chauvinistic.

@ Michael D. Erpelding: First, I suppose that Mr. Buchanan is not by education or profession an historian. Of course, this doesn’t mean he couldn’t be able to write a history. Second, I would suggest, for what its worth, that to be a leader in one’s own country (a politician, which should not be a derogatory term in itself)he should be familiar with history—real history, especially, his own country’s.  Third, is Pat Buchanan changing history (subtlely or not)?  Or is he confirming what is history that American students in high school and college have been deprived of, like yourself, for example?  Fourth, I am unable to comment on the total confusion of what you wrote before your aphorism.  Fifth, Yes, history can be manipulated to support the manipulator, but that does not mean that a true account of the events of mankind since the beginning does not exist.  I would suggest that the orthodox version, that is the court history, is a most fraudulent account of what happened between 1933 and 1945.

@Sertorius
Thank you or your kind response.
I am not trying to “suppose” anything regarding Pat Buchanan. He is a political commentator and former professional politician.
No supposition needed here.
As to your next point, which seems to define legitimacy in a leader as knowledge of “true” history...your words, not mine, than who’s version of true history do you choose? Bill Clinton is a Rhodes scholar. One of his great mentors is/was Carroll Quigley from Georgetown University. Was Dr. Quigley simpatico with our political worldview?
On point three you attack my education. But I am not the point of this post. Pat Buchanan and the purpose of history in the context of western civilization is featured.
The middle part you can’t understand. I think that I gave an alternative narrative along with a short plausible justification for that narrative. Not once do I try to insist that my narrative is true. In fact, WW2 can have numerous narratives. Which do you prefer?
At point five, you sidestep a simple summation and attack with the rhetorical clarity of a denizen of a modern government education. To whit:
“Fifth, Yes, history can be manipulated to support the manipulator,”.....after this there is a “but” moment:
“that does not mean that a true account of the events of mankind since the beginning does not exist.”...now note THE TRUTH…
“I would suggest that the orthodox version, that is the court history, is a most fraudulent account of what happened between 1933 and 1945. “

With all due respects, isn’t Pat Buchanan going against established opinion?

Doesn’t my post contain as an alternative a potentially politically incorrect narrative to WW2?

You seem to reject “established opinion” as a plausible historical narrative. So do I.

Maybe we are fighting over nothing.

@ Sertorius, You asked, “Would the defeat of Communism in the Soviet Union have been an immediate threat to U.S. National Security?”
No and yes. In adding the word “immediate” to your question (earlier you wrote of “vital interests") , you changed the question.  If, by “immediate” you mean that day or week , “No, Hitler wouldn’t have been a threat.” If you mean within a year or so, the answer is “yes”.
If Der Fuhrer and his henchmen had conquered the Soviet Union, they would have had the raw materials and capability for further expansion.  Since I assume Hitler would’ve continued his course of expansion/invasion (you can assume that he would’ve stopped there--but then we’d have nothing to discuss since your assumption would be based on the change of heart of a murdering psychopath), ultimately he would have had to be confronted.
The difference being that he would have picked the time.  And the US wouldn’t have any allies.

I’ll give you this, at least your not comparing concentration camps to the Four Seasons, like Herr Wolff.

@ M Erpelding, You are right.  You and Sertorius are arguing about nothing.

The Allies won.  The Axis lost.  Get over it.

Did the Allies make mistakes?  Sure.  But anyone who compares the Nazis’ malevolence with the Allies negligence is, quite frankly, ignorant.

Finally, Buchanan is neither a historian nor politican.  He is a pundit/author who simply tries to stir the pot to enrich himself.

“Pat Buchanan is a politician.

Not a historian.”

Here, here.

Buchanan is attempting to perform corrective surgery on the “founding myth” of the contemporary, now faltering, world order.

Here is a “tactless” question: Hey, Buchanan, do you believe NS Germany had an authorized, top-down program for the mass extermination of Jews?

IOW, “the Holocaust.”

Now, Buchanan has made statements in the past where he repudiates the possibility of Jews and others being gassed in the backs of vans or “mobile gaschambers.”

Sounds like “Holocaust denial” to me.

Yet, in his book Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War one is left with the impression that he does accept the “Holocaust” narrative as fact; he gets away with it because no one ever nails him down on what he means by “Holocaust.”

He is obviously trying to “out Straussian the Straussians” here.

But, but, but...Pat is on our side, why embarrass him with “tactless” observations and questions?

Because Buchanan and the whole paleocon endeavor is a failure, that’s why.  We cannot speak of culture as a proxy for race and hope the masses will “read between the lines” and “get it”.  They obviously will not.

Buchanan must explicitly advocate the survival (read: genetic continuity) of our people otherwise he is useless, as are paleocons.

“Finally, Buchanan is neither a historian nor politican.  He is a pundit/author who simply tries to stir the pot to enrich himself.” - top

You see, none of our “leaders” are going to lead of to the salvation of our people and civilization.

We have to do that ourselves.  That means working outside the system.  The system, of whom are “leaders” are a part, has turned against us.

Anyone who read the quotes I provided from Majority Rights owner and blogger Guessedworker can see “WNs” are SERIOUS about getting things done.  It’s comments like top’s that make me bother to comment on this site. 

Rank-and-file paleos who are SICK AND DAMN TIRED of being faileos should come over to our side and help us build a REAL opposition.

If not us, then no one, and all is lost.

Are you willing to fight for it, White man?  Or should they just start shoveling the dirt on your coffin?

“...“WNs” are SERIOUS about getting things done.” - my comment above

Make that some WNs.

top, you seem to have a severe case of Germanophobia. Why do you insist on depicting people you disagree with, like Mr. Wolff, as Germans, by adressing him as “Herr”? Are you implying that Germans are inherently evil?

top wrote:

“I’ll give you this, at least your (sic) not comparing concentration camps to the Four Seasons, like Herr Wolff.”

Top, only YOU made that comparison; the presence of the amenities I mentioned in an earlier post above and were available in Auschwitz, can be verified by any interested high school student.

Glad that you would equate the availability of these amenities as providing accommodation equal to that found at the Four Season hotel chain.

I keep wondering what the Chosen Ones keep bellyaching about.  Four Seasons accommodation not equal to the Ritz, especially when it was free?

H.F. Wolff

@ W. Hoermann, I thought “Herr” was an appropriate appelation for someone who seems to be a Nazi apologist.  I have many German friends.  I think the country and ladies are beautiful, I love the beer.

On my mother’s grave and my children’s soul, I am drinking a St. Pauli as I hit “submit”.

Mr. Hoermann, please, I do not consider being addressed as “Herr” an insult.  Quite the contrary, regardless of the anglophone connotation.  Multi-language skill has its advantages.

H.F. Wolff

@ Herr Wolff, You wrote, “Name-calling is the final refuge of the out-argued scoundrel”.

Possibly true.  Correcting someone’s punctuation when they are typing blind, because of the formatting of the site is infantile.

The Master Race was neither.  It lost.  Thanks to God and Churchill.

Deal with it.

Auf Wiedersehen.

Hello Michael, thanks for your response.  Yes, it is possible that we are “fighting over nothing.” It is obvious that I have rushed to judgment concerning your post, because I did not read it carefully.  I would insist, however, that Buchanan, in the metaphysical sense, is not changing history, but is trying to restore its fullness which has been tampered with by political opportunists going back to FDR and his cronies and their successors in the U.S.Government to the present.  This tampering has been handed down through the text books used in our public educational system.  I equate this to propaganda which is deleterious to our well being as well as those of other countries.

Top:
Yes, I should have stayed with my original question: what vital national interests of the U.S. A. did Hitler threaten by his invasion of the Soviet Union?  Nevertheless, the point was still there, and again, you gave only supposition not historical evidence.  For example, “Since I assume Hitler would’ve continued his course of expansion/invasion (you can assume that he would’ve stopped there--but then we’d have nothing to discuss since your assumption would be based on the change of heart of a murdering psychopath), ultimately he would have had to be confronted.” You apparently have knowledge that only God would have about Hitler’s intentions.

@ Sertorius, Thanks.  If our relative positions are that I think Hitler was a nutjob and youbelieve he would have become a pacifist after he’d conquered Europe and Asia, I think I may safely claim victory.

QED

Eventus stultorum magister

top wrote:

“The Master Race was neither.  It lost.  Thanks to God and Churchill.”

God must have had a day off when HE was supposed to have helped Churchill save western “civilization”. HE may also have been playing a joke.

BTW if Hitler was a nutjob what would you call the current crop of western “leaders”?

Mind you, Hitler managed “only” to improve the standard of living of the working man and his family.

Something that none of your GOD-assisted war mongers can lay claim to.

H.F. Wolff

@ Top: I wish to congratulate you on your self-proclaimed victory!

“The Master Race was neither.  It lost.  Thanks to God and Churchill.”

Race is a social construct.  God wants you to encourage your daughters to breed with negroes.

@ Captainchaos,

“Race is a social construct.  God wants you to encourage your daughters to breed with negroes.”

In many ways, that encapsulates the sentiment at all the ultra-leftist universities of today.  Ha!  Being a college student in this time period is really torture.

“In many ways, that encapsulates the sentiment at all the ultra-leftist universities of today.  Ha!”

Liberals.  I’m sure they think they are the quintessence of cutting-edge but in fact they are utterly boring and conventional. (shakes head)

The Straussians are great scholars who provide an interesting slant on Great Books; they should stick to that.

@ Captainchaos,

Allan Bloom, Straussian extraordinaire, deconstructed just about every heinous, ridiculous non-tradition that we boast.  So if you think that every jew is opposed to our interests, I would’ve thought you’d think again.  Anyhoo, his efforts aside, as I pointed out a few posts ago, I’ve been to Zambia (north of Rhodesia) and S. Africa.  Having seen it w./ my own eyes I cannot stress enough that white interests in these countries have been utterly destroyed.  I pray that we can reverse this trend in our own lands; otherwise, doom will become us.

“So if you think that every jew is opposed to our interests, I would’ve thought you’d think again.” - Ryszard Anderszewski

I truly believe that the Jews cannot help what they do.  It’s genetically hard-wired, too bad.

We don’t owe them a living, we owe that to our own people.

Bottom line:

After millenia living amongst Europeans the Jews would have been genetically and culturally absorbed, truly assimilated, if they cared to or were capable of doing so.  They have remained a hostile minority in our midst.  They justly bear a heavy share of the blame for the existential crisis we find ourselves in.

How do we treat members of a group as individuals who consistently, compulsively act as members of their group to the detriment of our group?

Where to go from here?

How much do we want our peole to live?

Also, the “outsourcing” of the intellectual heavy-lifting of interpretation and stewardship of the Great Books written by our ancestors to an alien people with a demonstrable (see: Dr. Kevin MacDaonald), ulterior, subversive, self-interested motivation is fraught with peril.

Those Great Books, written by the best our people have produced, is an expression of the apex of European Man’s soul.  Those works could have been produced by none other than European Man.  They belong to us, not them.