Good old Pat! What a hell of a slugger. Keep telling the truth, this country needs it.

Frankly I dont understand the obsession with Hilter and the causes of the holocaust.

WWII took the lives of millions from many lands and many beliefs. THAT was the holocaust.

huh, well I didn’t know JFK had the courage to profile Taft over that. Not bad.

Long live Patrick J. Buchanan.

Thank you, Pat, for blaring these inconvenient facts out into the ears of the sleepwalking hordes.

WWII was a completely dishonest project from the start.

A wise man once said that “War is a racket”, and that is the unadulterated truth.

Anything that attacks Hitchens is good for conservatives.  This unrepentant Trotskyist being so well received in the media is a sign of how far we’ve fallen.

Hitchens is a living reminder that the moral high ground is just a pile of corpses.

The myths of the 20th Century convert mankind’s most barbaric wars into moral tales. They hide the State, the greatest purveyor of terror ever devised, behind a veil of (ig)noble lies and pretexts. They also create a prison of the spirit, of which either we muster the courage to break out –as Mr. Buchanan is doing-, or what remains of Western civilization will fail to be reproduced in the course of the next two generations.

Tell the Truth, Mr. Buchanan, and shame the devil.

It’s notable that the Zionist propaganda machine uses the horrors of the Nazi holocaust as a way of diverting the public from the equally terrible plight of the Palestinians since 1848..

Vishinksy----brrr.  As a lawyer (by training if not by trade), I shudder when I hear the name.

My reaction to Christopher Hitchens is much the same.  (On the other hand, his brother Peter is quite sound on many things.)

Salud, Mr. Buchanan.

Sometimes I wonder why do we even bother. Anyone with minimal mechanical skills can reproduce the generic neo-con response to Buchanan: “Anti-semite… yada-yada… appeaser… had we only stopped Hitler at Munich… Chamberlain… blah-blah… the only way to stop the next Holocaust is to bomb (fill in the blank)… can’t negotiate with them…” As for the wonderful results of WWII, isn’t it ironic that the only country in the world where Jews are killed just because they are Jews is the state of Israel – a direct creation of WWII, of course? Another result is the sickening racist propaganda against the Baltic states, whose only crime was to defend against Communism with the only help available, the Germans? Why on earth should the Balts have sacrificed themselves for Stalin’s ambition, anymore so than why should Americans sacrifice themselves for Hitchen’s ambition?

The alliance with Stalin cast a moral shadow on the Allied effort in World War II, and Buchanan is absolutely right to point this out.

Wonderful article-- Now please, Pat, don’t make the mistake of endorsing John McCain.

Endorse Bob Barr, instead, or simply refuse to endorse anyone.

People think this election actually means something, when as George Carlin used to say,
the guys who really run the gov’t have got us by the balls, whoever wins.

WWII was a war of attrition with Nazi Germany, with the Russians suffering most of the
attrition. Churchhill entered into an alliance with Stalin because he knew he couldn’t win
against Hitler without Russians bleeding him in the East. FDR agreed, and was complicit
as Churchhill in the unholy alliance with EVIL.

It is poetic justice that Churchhill lost his most important goal---to preserve the British
Empire. As they say, what goes around, comes around.

Yes, the holocaust was begun only after Hitler knew the war was unwinnable. He knew he
couldn’t win the war, and wanted to “cleanse” Europe of the Jews as his legacy.

Being of Czech ancestory, I cannot help but disagree with Buchanan on his views about the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, which was a patchwork of conquered non-German peoples, and falling apart of it’s
own dead weight. Particularly, the nonsenese that a “Sudenland” even existed as a viable
independent nation within Bohemia. Bohemia was a province in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire,
but a Czech identity and nation existed long before the German immigrants were invited
in. Britians were generally as racist as the Germans when it came to the slavs, and from
that sentiment came their conviction that it wasn’t worth a war to preserve the independence of a people they considered backwards and beneath their contempt.

It is nonsense to view WWII as a “war against fascism"---everyone was “fascist” back them
including Churchhill and FDR.

Hitchens says, about Buchanan:
..."Descending as he does from the tradition of Charles Lindbergh’s America First movement, which looked for (and claimed to have found) a certain cosmopolitan lobby behind FDR’s willingness to involve the United States in global war...”

Thanks for pointing that out Mr Hichens, and here is Einstein’s letter of Aug 2, 1939, raising the spectre of Germany with the atomic bomb (sound familiar?), and motivating FDR to construct our own, to destroy German cities.

August 2, 1939

Albert Einstein
Old Grove Rd.
Nassau Point
Paconic, Long Island, NY

F. D. Roosevelt
President of the United States
White House
Washington, DC

Sir:

Some recent work by E. Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been communicated to me in a manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uranium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the immediate future.  Certain aspects of the situation which has arisen seem to call for watchfulness and, if necessary, quick action on the part of the Administration.  I believe therefore that it is my duty to bring to your attention the following facts and recommendations.

In the course of the last four months it has been made probable - through the work of Joliot in France as well as Fermi and Szilard in America - that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated.  Now it appears almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future.

This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable - though much less certain - that extremely powerful bombs of a new type, may thus be constructed.  A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory.  However, such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by air.

Page 2…

The United States has only very poor areas of uranium in moderate quantities.  There is some good ore in Canada and the former Czechoslovakia, while the most important source of uranium is the Belgian Congo.

In view of this situation you may think it desirable to have some permanent contact maintained between the Administration and the group of physicists working on chain reactions in America.  One possible way of achieving this might be for you to entrust with this task a person who has your confidence and who could perhaps serve in an unofficial capacity.  His task might comprise the following:

a) to approach Government Departments, keep them informed of the further development, and put forward recommendations for Government action, giving particular attention to the problem of securing a supply of uranium ore for the United States.

b) to speed up the experimental work, which is at present being carried on within the limits of the budgets of University laboratories, by providing funds, if such funds be required, through his contacts with private persons who are willing to make contributions for this cause, and perhaps also by obtaining the co-operation of industrial laboratories which have the necessary equipment.

I understand that Germany has actually stopped the sale of uranium from the Czechoslovakian mines which she has taken over.  That she should have taken such hasty action might perhaps be understood on the ground that the son of the German Under-Secretary of State, von Weiznacker, is attached to the Kaiser-Wilhelm Institute in Berlin where some of the American work on uranium is now being repeated.

Yours very truly,


(Albert Einstein)

Obviously the British mass bombing of German cities had nothing to do with the Holocaust.  It does seem to have been effective though - not because it destroyed German morale (it didn’t) but because it diverted German resources away from more productive use. 

It started with an accidental German bombing of London during the Battle of Britain.  This ‘attack on civilians’ was used by the British to justify bombing German cities.  This action so enraged Hitler that he ordered an end to the Battle of Britain and initiated The Blitz - the bombing of British cities.  The Luftwaffe were diverted away from destroying the RAF to attacking civilian targets.  This effectively ended the Battle of Britain with the RAF surviving, Germany would never gain air superiority.  And the Blitz brought Britain together in solidarity.

Churchill’s actions killed British civilians as well as Germans.  But they also helped win the war.

Actually, my understanding and research indicate that the British mass and indiscriminate
bombing actually did very little towards ending the war. German industry became very difused
and was decentralized throughout the country. In fact, full “war capacity” as reached only in late 1944. It was the
taking of land---the physical occupation by Allied troops---that effectively defeated Germany.
Allied bombing, in particular, British mass bombing, did little but strengthen German resolve
and force Germany to find more efficient means of producing war materiel, which they did. Not as bad a decision as the demand for “unconditional surrender,” but still a major--and gravely immoral--error.

Another interesting point about Nuremberg: Grossadmiral Doenitz was charged with “unrestricted”
submarine warfare; but Admiral Nimitz (I believe it was) inttervened to remind that tribunal that the Americans
had done exactly the same thing in the Pacific Theatre.  Pat is also exactly right about the
Norway invasion. A British expedition was on its way when the German paratroopers reached the
Oslo airfield first, but Raeder was the one indicted for waging “aggressive war.”

Senator Robert Taft’s remarks about the travesty of Nuremberg still ring true, especially in
regards to the erecting of radical new standards and made-up ex post facto international law.
At Nuremberg we helped unleash a mad genie that continues to afflict us today.

Although it may seems a slight matter to debate these points, it is such items that help form
and give sustenance to the Neo-con mythology that has come to bedevil us. Pat has rightly
and with intelligence raised these issues, and we all should be thankful.

FDR, Churchill and Stalin together again. Today we have Pelosi and Reid along with the likes of Jay Rockefeller and Steney Hoyer trying to pass an anti-FISA spying bill that shreds the 4th Amendment and also prevents the exposure of their own collusion in the crimes of the Bush Administration.  No one with any respect for the old Republic should vote for either party with the scum passing for leaders.

I wonder how any of these politicians can show their face at a 4th of July gathering. It’s like Satanist priests going to Mass after sacrificing babies to the Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young, Shub-Niggurath.

Hitchens is the Antichrist.  (Literally!)

@Dr. Cathey.

You are correct. Nimitz did say that. Interestly enough, Doernitz received a number of letters from US naval officers expressing admiration for his conduct and sympathy for his plight after the war.

His memoirs make fascinating reading and an excellent primer on naval strategy.

@Ryan,
Thanks so much for the confirmation. I have Doenitz’s memoirs, certainly a very fascinating
read. BTW, let me also recommend noted English military historian Basil Liddell Henry Hart’s interesting volume, THE GERMAN GENERALS TALK, about the war and the conduct of the Wehrmacht. Hart and Corelli
Barnett, both English, are superb is their analyses, and their exoneration generally of the
wartime conduct of the Wehrmacht under very difficulty circumstances.

It’s not the crime, it’s who commits it; an offense is only condemnable if it’s perpetrated by a condemnable person or group.

For instance: The murder tally in Bolshevik Russia from 1918-1941 is 20 to 30 million victims, depending on your sources. No one puts the figure at less than 15 million. The revolution, the subsequent civil war, the terror, enforced collectivization, the engineered Ukrainian famine, purges… A Marxist omlette demands cracking an entire generation of eggs.

Will that blood-drenched horror ever attract the relentless memorialization of the Nazis’ World War II Holocaust? Of course not. Stalin’s victims are faceless nonentities, sacrificial offerings to a noble cause. Yes… the methods may have been… extreme. But, after all, the Soviets were attempting to create a workers’ paradise on our imperfect earth. Evidently, that required genocidal purgatory to temper and forge the New Soviet Man into the pure Communist automaton so cherished and idealized.

Marx and Lenin had little use for Gentile peasants - just read their stuff if you doubt that. And Lavrenti Beria wasn’t exactly a Southern Baptist, now was he. One group is always victim, another group is always victimizer. Same methods, different appraisal. One slaughter is a world-shattering crime, the other a… misguided experiment. One never, ever, ever forgotten - the other chronically forgiven.

The Soviet Union’s victims were stamped “peasants” and forgotten. No books, no movies, no PBS documentaries, no awareness training seminars, no endless museums and officially mandated public grief/guilt rituals.

Peasants. Forgotten.

History belongs to the winners.

Joe Populist should exercise caution in describing the Sudeten Germans as ungrateful “immigrants” who supposedly had been invited in by the supposed (actually, mythical) Czech national state of the Middle Ages. His arguments are, of course, identical to those of the Polish and Czech communists of 1945 who manufactured them from whole cloth as justification for expelling German populations that had existed for in the supposedly “recovered” Slavic territories of Sudetenland and the REAL “East Germany” for nearly a milennium. Americans in particular should feel uneasy about Joe’s arguments in light of the fact that Germans predominated in Budweis, Reichenberg, Eger, Pilsen and other parts of the Sudetenland hundreds of years before the first permanent European settlements were established in the New World.

Like his fellow Slavic chauvinists whose aims dovetailed perfectly with those of J. V. Stalin in 1945, Joe should be cautious about arbitrarily picking a date in history and using it (solely for the transitory imperial advantage of “his “ people)as a baseline that applies both in advance and retroactively, for all time. For example, by his logic the Germans are fully entitled to assert claim to all of Poland based on the settlement of its present-day territory exclusively by the Teutonic Goths and Vandals in the first century a.d. Likewise, the great Czech imperium that is based largely on the myths and legends propagated in Smetana’s “Ma Vlast,” and which is supposed to have existed as an ethnic “nation” centuries before the advent of nationalism as a concept, sits on the territory of the Celtic Boii people (hence, the very name of “Bohemia") of the first century b.c., whose descendants probably reside in some form in Southern Germany. It all depends on which date we choose. How do you choose your dates, Joe? 

Joe, you cannot have it both ways: If the Sudeten Germans were “disloyal” to the alien, polyglot, Moscow-allied Czech State of Eduard Benes, then the Czechs of the Austrian Empire were just as disloyal to the alien Habsburg dynasty that ruled them and their supposed ancestral lands for many centuries.

The next thing to consider, Joe, is simply to ask ourselves: what tangible benefits accrue to the West as a whole from the creation of Gross-Polen and Gross-Teschei on the one hand, and the maintenance of Germany as a power factor in Europe on the other. These goals are decidedly antithetical and mutually exclusive to one another.

If Joe views the advancement of the USSR to the three great capitals of central Europe as being beneficial to the West as whole, or as a worthy price to pay for defending the great contributions Czechs and Poles have made to Western Civilization (as opposed to those made by the Germans, who as all democratically inclined people know contributed nothing positive to Western Civilization), there is nothing more to be said. Joe doubtless condemns Hitler’s “atrocities,” such as his extension of German social welfare benefits to Czech workers, who were then forced to rely upon those great humanitarians in Moscow for their liberation from this oppresion. Here I am reminded of a former co-worker from Ghana, who earnestly informed me that he would rather be a starving Ethiopian (it was the mid 80’s) rather than a Zulu with a job in the then-buzzing industries of South Africa. “Self-esteem” should not be underestimated as a force in ethnic nationalism. 

Joe, your Aztlan-like arguments were tried out in central Europe in 1945 to commit crimes greater than any that Hitler is accused of committing against either the Czechs or the Poles, and such logic will doubtless be used again in the near future against Americans. Your rules will apply in the Southwest when a Mestizo state based on myths arises in the territory between Texas and California; and in both the past and future contexts, the only role of the “ungrateful immigrants” is to be raped, tortured (such as the German women in Prague whose Achilles tendons were cut by laughing Czech mobs in May 1945), robbed and then ethnically cleansed from their centuries old homelands. These unfortunates should not be defined as people who have migrated to Slavic or mestizo homelands as such, but rather as people to whose homelands Slavic and mestizo states have migrated. 

Careful, Joe.

Pat’s comment that World War 2 was “a just and moral war” is rather unbelievable in the face of all he has just written in his book and in his response to Mr Hitchens.

I admire Pat quite a bit, but he does occasionally come out with some odd contradictions.  The second world war was an utter tragedy for what was left of civilization and Pat, being a Catholic, should know that instinctively.

I guess it still goes to show that the rubbish we were all fed in our fifth grade US history class stays with us most of our lives.

Dr Boyd Cathey:

“Actually, my understanding and research indicate that the British mass and indiscriminate
bombing actually did very little towards ending the war. German industry became very difused
and was decentralized throughout the country...”

I agree - my point was that Hitler diverted the Luftwaffe away from bombing RAF airfields to ineffectively bombing British cities.  Later on, the RAF’s bombing of German cities did not do much to stop German war production, but it did divert German resources into air defenses that could have been used elsewhere - an 88mm shooting at RAF planes is an 88mm not being used against Russian tanks.

I’m not arguing that the terror bombing was a price worth paying; I’m not sure it was.

Yes the 20th Century was sadly the bloodiest in
the history of the world and made into a moral
tale. Pat, thanks for attempting to help make
the 21st at least one that had learned from the
previous century and not covered it up.

So far we’ve all noticed, instead the 21st is
ATTEMPTING to be a continuation of the 20th.

You know in the imperfect world the mature among
us who actually are trying can see where we’re
sometimes hypocritical. However I have also noticed
along the way in life those who do not see that
they’re hypocritical and that’s scary since often
they are the most glarringly hypocritical of all.

I said to myself if one is a hypocrite and doesn’t
even know it what is that - a philistine?

No, now I know better (and figured this out too quite
a while ago) they’re a - trotskyite.

To the younger generation I say do not paint your
wagon red and ‘hitchens’ it to a star. You’ll only
repeat the 20th century.

My father once told me that the world is controlled by an elite and powerful group of people. They own or control all the corporations in all the countries of this earth. There are Jews amongst them, but also Christians like the Rockefellers. They control oil production and distribution, they control the insurance companies, and to repeat myself, all the corporations. They control the politicians, even Obama, and they control us. Their control is absolute, and they in turn are controlled by the International banks, which controls the Federal Reserve Board. These people are ruthless and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. One man tried to get rid of these people by being ruthless. He failed!

Why are Hitchens’ views worth replying to?  If he were stock, he ‘d be of the “Sell and run!” kind.

JSchmidt at the risk of contradicting your dad,
with whom I for the most part agree - take your
head out of the sand.

Nietzsche would not only agree with you but suggest
that’s good that’s the best possible, and it only
repeats itself in a never ending circle. He and your
dad and you could have had a drink. (he didn’t drink
and i think it’s why he went cookoo?) Must have been
prior to A.A.

Better for your own sanity, and to know you didn’t throw
down on the wrong side, to go on instead with Aristotle &
Heidegger. In that it’s not ONLY a never ending
Nietzschean-Platonic circle but also a curlicue...i.e.
ciruclar yes then a tad or wee bit of advance...circular
again...and then a wee or tad bit of advance.

Unless you’re on Rockefeller’s or jerusalem’s payroll
(which you probably are) it’s silly to ‘believe’ in their
power as if absolute ‘always and forever’. Isn’t that a
bit much? ...

Look at yourself - you were once swinging thru the trees
merrily unaware of yourself for the most part. Today you are
aware of being aware, even if you do not yet use that
ability, to now think consicously as well as unconsciously,
very well.

You’ll get there. I have faith if not in you in reality.

Certainly not in nietzsche/plato and/or rockefeller/jerusalem.

They can kiss my _________________ and then some. Let’s do it.

It’s on - bithches! hey, jschmidt with me? (please flag this post
if NOT abusive. thank you.)

Gneisenau rants: “If the Sudeten Germans were “disloyal” to the alien, polyglot, Moscow-allied Czech State of Eduard Benes, then the Czechs of the Austrian Empire were just as disloyal to the alien Habsburg dynasty Your rules will apply in the Southwest when a Mestizo state based on myths arises in the territory between Texas and California; and in both the past and future contexts, the only role of the “ungrateful immigrants” is to be raped, tortured...”

Genie, you’re off your rocker. The Hapsburg Monarchy was the most repressive and cruel dynasty in Europe, and the Austrian Hungarian Empire was falling apart of it’s own internal contradictions, of which the “Sudenland” Germans were but one example.

If you read Buchanan’s book---which I doubt---you’d know that he pointed out that one of the fallacies of Wilson Internationalism was this idea of “self-determination”, which taken to it’s extreme, was NAZISM---the idea of a “master race” fulfilling it’s “historic” destiny!

If anyone can be compared to the Aztlan (the race) ideology, it is not the SLAVS suffering under German autocracy, but Hitler and his Nazis.

At this time, I might remind you that the racism and hatred of Nazism was embraced by the “Sudenland” Germans as their own.  The Germans in the Czech lands that embraced the “Aztlan” philosophy of “race”, and their demand was for social and economic superiority over the rest of the population.

Thus, these traitors and racialists and fanatics got their just deserts when the whole German population was expelled after WWII. If they couldn’t live among the rest of the population, then it was high time they left. You speak of the “atrocities” suffered by the Germans by Czechs after the war, but you conveniently forget the death and destruction inflicted on the Czechs by the Nazis and their “Sudenland” German allies during the war!

Of course, the Germans were always cowards, pretending their cultural and social superiority but always against the helpless, weaker nations. Of course, we learned the REAL German ‘character’ when they got their asses kicked by RUSSIA. Let’s make very clear that German could not be beaten by Britain or the USA...it took the SLAVS to put Hitler and his “master race” in the garbage of history where they belonged.

Today Germany is a dominated by secular humanism and cultural liberalism, and it is mighty Russia, the mother of the Slavs in the ascendancy. No Genie, your hubris and hatred just show how weak thou art.

@Joe Populist:
You wrote earlier:
“The Hapsburg Monarchy was the most repressive and cruel
dynasty in Europe, and the Austrian Hungarian Empire was
falling apart of it’s own internal contradictions, of which
the “Sudenland” Germans were but one example.”
Although I have agreed with much of what you have written previously,
I must disagree with you on this point. I think it is demonstrable that
Austria-Hungary was NOT the “most repressive and cruel dynasty” in
Europe---indeed, far from it. I would be happy to cite any number of
excellent and detailed studies to buttress this view. I think you could
find any number of other nations on the continent that would fit that
bill.

Joe Populist...you hate germans. What is
your name? I thank you for your as the Greeks called it
alethia or disclosedness, the as it were unconcealment
of the moment. that’s honest. long as you know it
reveals you hate germans? they lost. there won’t be
any anti-semitic powerhouse (in behalf of the
anti-germanic to ruin you, or worse overseas - put you
in jail.) also, don’t consider pained rants of an
individual as demonstrative of a group necessarily.

hitler mistakenly invaded russia, because, believe it
or not, he did NOT know the extent to which manhattan
had funded the soviets with arms to the teeth. hitler
thought it would demonstrate to by then profligate england
they should offer him & germany the peace, which he had
sued for and was denied. So he went into russia in june
believing ok we’ll subdue them and sue for peace.

to do over he at that point had no choice but to occupy
england. give me a break even german food is better than
english.

why do you hate germans so yet? i’m not german, i’m
only wondering? i agree with you usually? can’t you smell
this coffee? chruchill come hell or high water was for
churchill...no one else. have some coffee.

Mr. Cathey sed: “I think it is demonstrable that Austria-Hungary was NOT the “most repressive and cruel dynasty” in
Europe---indeed, far from it. I would be happy to cite any number of excellent and detailed studies to buttress this view. I think you could find any number of other nations on the continent that would fit that
bill.”

The originators of the inquisition were the Hapsburgs. Perhaps as an American with some
knowledge of the history of the Hapsburgs in the Czech lands, that I know something you don’t.

I’m a stern protestant, inspired by Wycliffe and Huss, who considers most of the Medici Popes
to be the tool of the anti-Christ. So I guess I’m not going to get all excited about some
of the so-called “conservatives” here, who champion the cause of the “Sudetenland” Germans who embraced
Nazism, or moon over dead tyrants like Bismark or the Hapsburg kings. I’m also not very
exited about the League of the South either, or hoping to bring back Slavery, or at least
Jim Crow.

Borne asked: “...why do you hate germans so yet? i’m not german, i’m only wondering? i agree with you usually? can’t you smell this coffee?”

I don’t hate the Germans, I don’t hate anyone. I was merely tweaking Genie’s nose by
reminding him how his beloved Sudenland Germans embraced Hitler and Nazism rather then
live in a nation state dominated by non-Germans. After he accused me of being a
Stalinist Azlan lover.

I’m no admirer of Churchhill either, and I agree with Buchanan’s book mostly, except on
his treatment of the Czech republic as some kind of despotic regime that didn’t deserve to
exist. On the other hand, Buchanan did balance it by pointing out how aburd the notion
of Wilson’s “national self-determination” was, when taken to the point of absurdity---which
I believe was the case with the “Sudetenland” Germans. Even Hitler sacrificed the Tyrol
Germans to real-poliitik in winning an alliance with Italy.

http://www.culturewars.com/2008/Hitchens.html

@Joe Populist:
You wrote:

“The originators of the inquisition were the Hapsburgs. Perhaps as an American with some
knowledge of the history of the Hapsburgs in the Czech lands, that I know something you
don’t.”

That really isn’t true. If you are talking about the Spanish Inquisition, then it was King
Ferdinand and Queen Isabella in the late 15th century who established it, as weapon against
Islam. Marranos, and subversion of the country, then under serious pressure. They were NOT Habsburgs.

In Europe generally it was established in 12th century by the Church, specifically to fight the
noxious Cathar heresy. Again, not by the Habsburgs. Certainly, the Inquisition played a role
in the religious conflicts in Bohemia between the heretical Hussites and orthodox Christians.
Thank goodness it did exist (my editorial opinion).

I would certainly understand your views of the Church, given your heretical views; but
your history is off here.

Joe, your comments were the closest things to “rants” that I have seen in this entire thread. One can almost see the steam coming rising from your severely bruised ego. You provide only hysteria and invective, and thereby unwittingly support my views, rather than reasoned argument and facts. As they say in Aztlan, “No my Problemo.”

Where to begin? First, the SudETen (named for the mountain range they inhabit, and therefore not “suden” as in your preferred lexicography)Germans were thoroughly disenfranchised in the Czecho-Slovak state, to the point that the German language was thoroughly suppressed by Czech officialdom. This occurred despite Mararyk’s false assurances to the befuddled Wilson that the Czechoslovak State would be a Carpathian Switzerland.

Germans were ruled from Prague as a colonial people and excluded from positions of authority in the government, even when Hitler was an unknown still making the rounds of the Münchner Beer Hall circuit. And laws were passed by Prague interfering with wills and property transfers of German owned assets, with the intent of breaking up German families and communities and impoverishing their inhabitants.

At the founding of the artificial construct called the Czechoslovak state, Czechs constituted only 46% of the population, but dominated the government, army and bureaucracy. The next largest group was the Germans, at 28%; Slovaks, who theoretically ranked higher on the totem pole than Germans, weighed in at third place at just 13%; the 8% of the population that was of Hungarian origin enjoyed a pariah status equal to that of the Germans. 3% of the populace consisted on Ukrainians, and the rest of “Poles and others.” (Source for the statistics: Manfred Scheuch: Atlas zur Zeitgeschichte, Wien 1992).

Considering their status in your Czech-dominated paradise of diversity (which ironically was a cartoon parody of the polyglot Hapsburg Empire it claimed to hate), the disenfranchised Sudeten Germans, Slovaks and Hungarians looked for any way out they could get. Considering your obsession with the oppression of your people, Joe, how do you justify the oppression of others? One often becomes what he hates, Joe.

Despite official hostility from “their” government in Prague, the Sudeten Germans genuinely tried to make a go of it throughout the twenties. The promised “Carpathian Switzerland” was just revealed as a cover story for Czech chauvinism. Above all, unlike Switzerland, there were NO autonomous cantons in which the indigenous language and culture were protected. 

Doubtless you also know that the Sudeten Germans (like the Germans of the rump Austrian REPUBLIC) strove to join the DEMOCRATIC Weimar Republic in 1919, but were rebuffed by the powers responsible for the Treaties of Versailles, St. Germain and Trianon. Why not interpret this as a commitment to Social Democracy on their part Joe, for that was the regime that ruled in Germany at the time? That would at least be as valid make as your (and some of your fellow “conservatives") smearing of them all as “Nazis” for joining the Germany of the National Socialists.

Are you suggesting that they should have given up their 700 to 800 year old way of life and become loyal “Aztlanitos,” giving up their history, language and culture, merely because the League of Nations and the vengeful Versailles powers chose to set up an experimental, new-world order style state in the cockpit of Europe? If so, what a servile, statist and imperialist outlook you have! One must then conclude that you also LOVE the United Nations and its spiritual founder, FDR, approving of the post-1945 status quo as you do. Are you sure you’re at the right web-site? 

It is a myth that support of self-determination for Germans, in the Sudetenland or anywhere else, is a particularly “Nazi” phenomenon. Every single political party of Weimar Germany, from extreme right to extreme left including the KPD, condemned the territorial changes that placed Germans in areas territorially contiguous to he Reich under Czech and Polish rule. You are right about one thing, though: Weimar Germany had much less difficulty accepting its borders in the West, and Chancellor Stresemann’s agreement with Germany’s western neighbors (the Locarno Treaty of 1925) recognized the status quo there, even though Germans were thus left under French and Belgian rule. Why do you think they felt so differently in the cases of Poland and Czechoslovakia?

The most fevered dreams of the most extreme Czech and Polish chauvinists were realized only through cooperation with bolshevism. That is irrefutable. These dreams existed long before the war, and perhaps you remember the claims that the “plucky little Czechs” raised at Versailles for the Sorb-inhabited areas of Germany (with which their frontier was NOT contiguous), which would have pushed the Czechoslovak boundaries to a point somewhere between Berlin and Dresden. How moderate! How modest! How “democratic!”

Evidently, in 1945 the Czechs and Poles and others of the “I be oppressed” mentality finally learned that, if one is to act as a parody of the Nazis, one should at least have some muscle to back it up. Joe Stalin provided it, willingly, though the price was somewhat “exorbitant,” wouldn’t you say? Nevertheless, politics is not an a la carte luncheon; if you want to expel the Krauts, you have do it with Uncle Joe’s help. That’s just the way it is, so don’t be ungrateful.

As far as the “oppressiveness” of Austria-Hungary is concerned, Joe, I counsel you to consult books on the period of Habsburg rule that were not written by the ideologues of the Communist Party of the CSSR circa 1960. Franz Ferdinand, who as you know never got to assume the throne, was all set to do an 1867-style Ausgleich with the Czechs, similar to the one reached with the Hungarians, which would have converted the Dual Monarchy into a “Triple” Monarchy after his accession. Throughout the 19th century, the Czech language and literature were allowed to flower with official encouragement from Vienna (another reason Hitler hated the Habsburgs), and old Emperor Franz Josef - a real “oppressor” of there was one - added the Czech tongue to the other seven languages spoken by his subjects that had mastered.

If the Czechs, as you claim, were so oppressed by Vienna, their experiences were widely different from that of the Emperor’s Polish subjects in the area stretching from Cracow to Lemberg/Lwow, who even after the territorial reconstitution of Poland spoke nostalgically of the Habsburgs and their benevolent support of Polish culture. There were quite a few Polish generals in old Franz Josef’s army, inlcuding the wise and far-seeing Jozef Pilsudski, and with FJ II’s blessing Cracow flowered as the spiritual capital of Poland.

In closing, I have to say that, the one thing that is galling here is the spectacle of so-called “conservatives” who hurl slanders straight out of the communist propaganda handbook at those who dispute the establishment, new world order version of history.

Unlike you, Joe, and perhaps a few of your “friends” here, I do not advocate the expulsion of the ethnic population of the “other side,” nor do I advocate depriving them of their culture and way of life. That’s what separates us, and if your view was and is shared by the bulk of the Czech populace (as I think it is), then the Sudeten Germans really had no choice but to take any lifeline that they were given, and it is morally wrong to condemn them for it.

One more thing, Joe - your gloating about degeneracy and secular humanism prevailing in today’s Germany is on the mark, even though it ignores the fact that the regime of the Federal Republic was imposed by the same outside forces that changed the borders to their current configuration. The red-green-neocon regime there cares little about traditional Germany. If the average German is by nature a racist and a “Nazi,” then it follows that he cannot be blamed for his secular humanist government.

Like a ninety-seven pounder who whines “wait until my big brother gets you,” the Czechs and others who invoke Russia as the supposed hammer of the West forget that friendship between Romanov Russia, Prussia and Austria was the cornerstone of European peace after the Congress of Vienna; abandoning this policy was fatal blow to all involved - including Russia - as well as to Western Civilization as a whole. Or are you among those who rejoice at the consequences of the March Revolution of 1917, which replaced the Germanic Czar Nicholas II (who was 1/128th Russian by ethnicity) with rulers of a somewhat different origin?

Interesting. A whole article on the great atrocity orgy without the nonsense word “Holocaust” being used a single time. Could it be that people are waking up to the truth and trying to avoid the major Newspeak pitfall, even while plunging head-on on the “Final Solution” (minus the “territorial") lesser one? Well, I suppose that at least diminishes the probability of the comments thread vanishing in smoke sooner or later. Shhhhh…

Ginie rants endlessly: “Germans were ruled from Prague as a colonial people and excluded from positions of authority in the government, even when Hitler was an unknown still making the rounds of the Münchner Beer Hall circuit...At the founding of the artificial construct called the Czechoslovak state, Czechs constituted only 46% of the population, but dominated the government, army and bureaucracy....”

Oh pooh. Look Genie, no amount of ranting and raving and factual distortion is going to
hide the FACT that the it was your “SudeTENland” GERMANS who embraced the racial hatred of HITLER and
Nazism, and refused to live in a nation where they were the barely more then 1/5 of the population. And for this crime, they shared the fate of the Nazis, and were forced to leave the country. There are NO more “Sudetenland” and rightly so.

It’s a laugh riot that you are comparing ME to the Azlan racist Mexicans, when it is YOU
who embrace cause of the Nazi loving “Sudetenland” Germans! Now you want to compare
me to COMMUNISTS. Obviously, the worst thing about Pat’s book is he has brought out all the neo-Nazis like
yourself who are now ranting and raving about the “injustices"---in this case imaginary---
done to Hitler and his supporters.

Dr. Cathey sez: “I would certainly understand your views of the Church, given your
heretical views; but your history is off here.”

Consider the source: you think Wycliffe and Huss were “heretics”...Enough said, we know where your “history” is coming from.

Isabella and Ferndie were HAPSBURGS. The bloodbath of the 30 year war centered in Bohemia
and MOravia, and the “heretical” Hussites fought off the Imperial Armies for years.

@Joe Populist:
Really, I am quite sorry, but you disqualify yourself here. Neither Ferdinand of
Aragon (House of Trastamara) nor Isabella of Castille (descended maternally from
Catherine of Lancaster) were Habsburgs. Joe, I as told your earlier, the Habsburgs
of Spain came later, in the 16th century. You really need to get your history correct.
I suggest you check any good volume of Spanish history (I taught Spanish history in
Argentina for a while).

@Joe Populist,
As this little colloquy is SO important, let me add to my last note: Ferdinand and
Isabella (both descended through the native House of Trastamara) had a daugher, the
famous Juana la Loca. She married the Archduke Philip (son of the HABSBURG emperor,
Maximillian). It was THEIR SON, the Emperor Charles, who was the first Habsburg monarch
of Spain. The Spanish Inquisition, established ca. 1478, had already been established
by nearly 40 years earlier BEFORE THE ADVENT of this first Habsburg to the thrones of
Aragon and Castille. Thus, it was the GRANDSON of “los Reyes Catolicos"--Ferdinand and
Isabella---who was the first Habsburg to rule the Spanish kingdoms (they were not
yet technically one kingdom).

Dr. Cathey sed: “...it was the GRANDSON of “los Reyes Catolicos"--Ferdinand and Isabella---who was the first Habsburg to rule the Spanish kingdoms (they were not yet technically one kingdom).”

Yes, Charles continued to carry out the policies of his grandparents...so? Yet you say the Hapsburgs were
not the most cruel of all the European monarchies. 

The Thirty Years War WAS centered in Bohemia and Moravia, the Hussite “heresy” was one of
the several “heresies” going on at that time, peasant wars against an oppressive monarchs
supported by the corrupt and unclean Catholic Church..."holy" war against “heresy”.

The Hussites, allied with the Czech aristocracy, held the Imperial Armies at bay for hundresdd
of years. The great Czech military leader Ziska broke the back of the Imperial Armies, and
hastened the end of the mounted armoured knights as a military force with his war wagons.

The Imperial Armies would flee at the sound of Hussite Armies singing “Faith of our fathers"…

Was Luther also a “heretic” in your mind as well?

Wow, nothing I said has been addressed. You’ve already lost this argument with all your raving, Joe, and all that is left to you is to call names and threaten people with Russia. Boo hoo, them West Europeans be “dissin’ mah people.”

Rote repetition of WW II Allied and Soviet propaganda slogans is not argument, though you certainly “argue” like a fourteen year old Chicano who has just spouted his first facial hairs. You are heavy on group accusations and gloating over past ethnic cleansings, which is a true symptom of deep rooted, impotent rage, but light on facts, figures and dates. It’s obvious that no amount of reasoned discussion can overcome primtivism, Joe, but in your case, as the eastern Germans found in 1945, it probably goes with the territory.

I will extend charity here and simplify it all for you, in the form of two simple questions. And please, only honest and DIRECT answers, with at least some supporting EVIDENCE, with no name calling. The questions I put to you are:

1) Did the ethnic Germans, Slovaks and Hungarians who resided in so called “Czechoslovakia” from 1919 to 1938 enjoy rights equal to those of the ruling Czech minority (you will remember that Czechs constituted only 46% of the population)?

2) How can a distinct ethnic population, which resided in its own culturally compact and homogeneous areas, be charged with “treason” to a state when that state was was foisted upon it by outside powers that openly declared that population to be their enemy, and less than two decades before to boot(in your answer, address the fact that that the Germans of so-called Czechoslovakia had been Austrian subjects for centuries)?

I’ll leave you to answer these two simple questions and laugh myself silly while you tie yourself in knots, or (if you refuse to answer) forever reveal yourself and by extension “your” people as cowardly and exemplars of a pygmy mentality. This mentality spouts platitudes about “self-determination” when it stands to gain from them, and condemns self-determination when it would be forced to recognize the rights of someone else. Abstract principles of justice are not widespread in Liberia, either. 

Don’t bother calling me a neo-Nazi, Joe. On this board in the past, I have praised the men of July 20 and defended Paul Gottfried from the junior anti-Semites who were spamming their crapola here. Love of Germany equals nazism only in the pages of “Rude Pravo,” Pravda or JOE. Is Walter Ulbricht your idea of a “good” German? Are you consciously a slanderer, or just a robot? 

If I am a neo-Nazi for condemning the hypocrisy, brutality and thievery committed by certain grasping primitives feeling their red flavored nationalist oats, then then Konrad Adenauer, Ludwig Erhard, Kurt Schumacher, and every other politician of the early Federal Republic who condemned these expulsions was a neo-nazi. The above-named even attended gatherings of the Landsmannschaften of Sudetenland, Ostpreussen, etc, which made the press behind the iron curtain go “wild” with rage. :-)

So try again, my brave American, trailer-park Hussite warrior who is more Czech than the Czechs. You are obvioulsy a PROPOSITIONALIST in that you condemn the Sudetenlanders for not accepting the “proposition” of Czech domination in a multi-ethnic state. Do you also advocate propositionalism for America?

You would have been truly at home in Moscow, circa 1937, my little nazi hunter, and enjoying the hunt for fascists, wreckers, counterrevolutionary elements and other enemies of the people. Your obsession with “hate” should at least get you an office boy job from Abe Foxman. 

Now, if there is any shred of honor in you, answer those two questions.

P.S. Yeh, Joe, Germans are real cowards. That’s not what Many Allied and even SOVIET generals who fought them have said, though. They were especially cowardly when they launched their PRE-EMPTIVE attack on Stalin’s Russia on June 22, 1941. The Krauts were outnumbered in tanks alone by only EIGHT to ONE. The bullies!

@Joe,
You did not respond to my point. You stated the King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella were
Habsburgs. That, I repeat, is demonstrably false. Each time I write, you change the topic.

Yes Joe, and while you’re at it, please tell us why the three and a half million Sudeten German expellees deserved to be robbed of all of their personal property in 1945, from farmsteads and factories to soup spoons, shoes and the shirts on their backs. This was done to all, regardless of their political affiliations which were not even investigated. Then compare them to the Czech industrialists who actually prospered under German rule, and cite some equivalent crimes that were committed against the Czechs by Germany from 1938 to 1945.

Good article though to use a quote from AJP Taylor a Communist historian to buttress your argument is just a touch ironic when you yourself are condemning a one time Trotskyite !

Genie asks: “Yes Joe, and while you’re at it, please tell us why the three and a half million Sudeten German expellees deserved to be robbed of all of their personal property in 1945...”

Uh, Genie. Because the Sudenlanders were pro-Nazi. They refused to live in a nation where they were not the privileged minority. It’s called being a traitor. YOu claim to oppose the Azlan political agenda, yet it was the “Sudenteland” Germans who embrace the very premises of the Azlan agenda.

The whole sad story of the Czech lands, and the outcome of the war is past and over. It’s not
worth arguing about anyway. The real political purpose of Pat’s book is comparing the
current US foreign policy in the Mideast to the “war against facism” is really a fallacy.
Hopefully, we can both agree on that.

Dr. Cathey asked: “You stated the King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella were Habsburgs.”

The Hapsburg Dynasty shared the political and religious ideology of Ferdie and Isabella.
They were the inheriters of the F/I legacy. 

I’m not sure what your point is, other then to defend the Hapsburgs, and their legacy. It’s really
not relevant to Pat’s book, regardless of my nit-picking on his view of the “injustice”
done to the “Sudenteland” Germans. Irregarless, I agree with most of Pat’s book, that WWI/WWII was a war to enlarge, and then preserve the British Empire. I also agree with political purpose of
Pat’s book, which is to refute the argument that US foreign policy in the Mideast can
be compared to a “War against Facism” or a “War for Democracy”, and undercut the
neo-con argument that US foreign policy in the Mideast is in America’s best interests.

Gneisenau and Dr. Cathey, that was an elegant demolition job. Thanks.

It is remarkable how tribalists like Joe cannot precind from appeals to sentiment, emotionality, prejudice and, when all else fails, appeals to stop the debate.

As Solomon said, “ein hadash tachat hashemesh...”

“Uh, Genie. Because the Sudenlanders were pro-Nazi. They refused to live in a nation where they were not the privileged minority.”

First of all, the name is Gneisenau, after the great Prussian general and military reformer. And, where do you get that word “Sudenlanders?”

Anyway, you sound like an ANC official describing the murdered White farmers of South Africa. They are “traitors” too, Joe. They, like the Sudeten Germans, desire the “privilege” of keeping their homes, their culture, their lives and not being subjected to the attacks of hate-filled savages. 

Joe, if what you call “pro-Nazism” (i.e., preferring union with Germany no matter who was in power)was the only alternative to pan-Slavism and Bolshevism, what choice did they really have, these Germans, and what could possibly have attracted them to the latter two “alternatives?” Or is it that their point of view did not really matter in so-called “Czechoslovakia?”

I find it amusing that you nicely sidestepped all my direct questions so far and have provided nothing but unsubstantiated sloganeering. You are therefore revealed as the loser in this “discussion.” You are the equivalent of a monk repeating the our father while a certain Florentine astronomer attempts to discuss planetary orbits.

I’ll ask you one more time: Was the Sudeten Germans’ desire for union with Germany inherently “pro-Nazi,” even when they unsuccessfully sought to join a Germany ruled by the Social Democrats and Catholic Center Party?

Am I right in assuming you consider Communism preferable to Nazism? That may be an easy choice for a Czech-American who desperately craves a constructed “identity” at any price, but Communism was not preferred by the peoples of Europe at the time, I assure you. Now tell us why Stalin’s body count, which is exponentially greater than Hitler’s, is somehow more excusable. Or should we ask ourselves before exercising judgment on any issue: “Is it good for the Czechs?”

The oft-repeated Czech and Communist mantra that the expulsions were mere “tit for tat” are all a lie. At least 500, 000 Sudeten Germans were murdered by the Red Czechs in 1945-47, but all Czech losses from 1938 to 1945 amounted to no more than 225,000 people. Most of these were casualties fighting in Allied and Soviet units on various battlefronts, while the Sudeten Germans were overwhelmingly non-combatants.

Tit for tat, Joe? Throughout the war, the Czechs in Böhmen and Mähren enjoyed a higher standard of living and ration level than the citizens of the Reich as a whole, they were never bombed, and they were left secure in their personal property. That’s because the Germans viewed the Czechs as valued industrial workers, and “gave” to them so they could get something - production - in return. Look at the photographs of the healthy, well-fed and well-dressed Czech mobs on the streets of Prag in May 1945, laughing as German civilians, including old people and children (and German soldiers who had stupidly surrendered their arms to them) were being burned alive and hamstrung.

I am of course fully cognizant of the case of Lidice, the tiny village that harbored the assassins of a highly-placed German government official - a truly ham handed German response if their ever was one, and worse than a crime, a blunder. But did you know that the Stalin-lover in exile Eduard Benes actually begged the British SOE to support the assasination operation against Heydrich, because he feared the Czechs were getting “too comfortable” under German rule, and wanted to provoke some savage reprisals to heat up a “guerrilla” war there? 

Now remain true to form and knock yourself out sidestepping all of these points, as you have all my other points.

The intellectual gyrations necessary to support the positions of numerous contributers to this and other blogs is astounding!

On the one hand neocons are properly taken to task, while on the other hand the Holocaust (TM) is given all the reverence of a religion.

Considering that the holocaust profiteers are, to a very large measure also the neocons or their backers, I fail to see any reason not to seriously query everything that has ever been written about the holocaust, Nazi Germany, or what happened during or after WWII.

There is not a single authenticated document ordering the wholesale killing of Jews, nor any forensic or scientific evidence to substantiate any such claim, nor any authenticated documents proving the construction of homicidal gas chambers in Germany or German controlled lands during WWII. Therefore any talk of holocaust as “the most documented occurrence in history” is the most grievous lie ever perpetrated.

You can check with the Simon Wiesental Centre in Los Angeles as to any existence of documentation.

There is, however, solid scientific evidence that the holocaust could not have happened as claimed, therefore it could not have happened!

1) In 2002 or thereabouts the Israeli government is on record as stating that 1 million survivors were still living.  Actuarial calculations show that this would require about 6 1/2 million “survivors” after the war!  Life insurance people are very good at this sort of arithmetic!  (I’ll leave the implications of this for others to expound).

2) During the Zuendel trials in Toronto, Canada during the mid 1980’s eye witnesses to the holocaust testified under oath that hey had been forced to move gassed bodies with their bare hands, and that the bodies, within a short time of being gassed, had a bluish/greenish coloration. Fact:  Zyklon B is a systemic poison that is absorbed through the skin; handling gassed bodies without protective gloves causes death to the handlers.  Further, gassed bodies take on a red coloration, NOT bluish/greenish.

3) Rudolf Germar, PhD candidate in chemistry, has proven that the rooms claimed to be gas chambers could never have been used for such purposes because of the absence of any residue that would form from the Zyklon B gas.  However those chambers used for delousing purposes of clothing and bedding did show this residue.  Unfortunately for the holocaust profiteers no witness ever claimed any homicidal gassings in those chambers.

4) Eye witness testimony as to flames shooting out of the crematory stacks:  This is a scientific impossibility.  Also, no allied surveillance photographs exist that show such flames or even copious amount of smoke.  These photos were taken in sufficient quantities to give a reasonable record of what testimony has described as a continuous, 24 hr/day destruction of human beings.

5) No mass graves, residue of burning pits, etc. have been found; certainly not in locations claimed by eye witnesses.  An aside:  German Officers were executed for the massacre of the Katyn forest in Poland where upward of 14,000 Polish officers were executed.  The Soviets/Russians were responsible for this and have confessed.

6) Forensic investigation by American doctors disclosed that all bodies examined died of malnutrition or disease, mostly typhoid.  Considering the mass bombings of everything that moved, this should come as no surprise.  There is no authenticated documentation of a single Jew having been gassed in a homicidal gas chamber. Since the claim of 6 million gassed Jews is still making its rounds this should be rather surprising to the thinking person.

7) The draconian measures taken in Germany and other countries to curtail ANY debate regarding the holocaust should be sufficient evidence to cause any thinking individual to query holocaustian claims.  After all, the most documented occurrence in history should be very easy to prove in a public forum and televised debate.  Only lies require the protection by fines and jailings.

8) “What about all the eye witnesses”?  In a court of law eye witness testimony is usually given the lowest credence of any evidence.  Even the Israeli supreme court dismissed all eye witness testimony when it overturned the death sentence of “Ivan the Terrible” and set him free, only to have him persecuted by the US “Justice” system.

Something to think about. All assertions above may easily be verified by a google search or contacting groups responsible.

H.F. Wolff