Posted on 06/20/2008 8:12:50 AM PDT by kellynla
So asks Newsweek's cover, which features a full-length photo of the prime minister his people voted the greatest Briton of them all.
Quite a tribute, when one realizes Churchill's career coincides with the collapse of the British empire and the fall of his nation from world pre-eminence to third-rate power.
That the Newsweek cover was sparked by my book "Churchill, Hitler and The Unnecessary War" seems apparent, as one of the three essays, by Christopher Hitchens, was a scathing review. Though in places complimentary, Hitchens charmingly concludes: This book "stinks."
Understandable. No Brit can easily concede my central thesis: The Brits kicked away their empire. Through colossal blunders, Britain twice declared war on a Germany that had not attacked her and did not want war with her, fought for 10 bloody years and lost it all.
Unable to face the truth, Hitchens seeks solace in old myths.
We had to stop Prussian militarism in 1914, says Hitchens. "The Kaiser's policy shows that Germany was looking for a chance for war all over the globe."
Nonsense. If the Kaiser were looking for a war he would have found it. But in 1914, he had been in power for 25 years, was deep into middle age but had never fought a war nor seen a battle.
From Waterloo to World War I, Prussia fought three wars, all in one seven-year period, 1864 to 1871. Out of these wars, she acquired two duchies, Schleswig and Holstein, and two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine. By 1914, Germany had not fought a war in two generations.
Does that sound like a nation out to conquer the world?
As for the Kaiser's bellicose support for the Boers, his igniting the Agadir crisis in 1905, his building of a great fleet, his seeking of colonies in Africa, he was only aping the British, whose approbation and friendship he desperately sought all his life and was ever denied.
In every crisis the Kaiser blundered into, including his foolish "blank cheque" to Austria after Serb assassins murdered the heir to the Austrian throne, the Kaiser backed down or was trying to back away when war erupted.
Even Churchill, who before 1914 was charging the Kaiser with seeking "the dominion of the world," conceded, "History should ... acquit William II of having plotted and planned the World War."
What of World War II? Surely, it was necessary to declare war to stop Adolf Hitler from conquering the world and conducting the Holocaust.
Yet consider. Before Britain declared war on him, Hitler never demanded return of any lands lost at Versailles to the West. Northern Schleswig had gone to Denmark in 1919, Eupen and Malmedy had gone to Belgium, Alsace and Lorraine to France.
Why did Hitler not demand these lands back? Because he sought an alliance, or at least friendship, with Great Britain and knew any move on France would mean war with Britain -- a war he never wanted.
If Hitler were out to conquer the world, why did he not build a great fleet? Why did he not demand the French fleet when France surrendered? Germany had to give up its High Seas Fleet in 1918.
Why did he build his own Maginot Line, the Western Wall, in the Rhineland, if he meant all along to invade France?
If he wanted war with the West, why did he offer peace after Poland and offer to end the war, again, after Dunkirk?
That Hitler was a rabid anti-Semite is undeniable. "Mein Kampf" is saturated in anti-Semitism. The Nuremberg Laws confirm it. But for the six years before Britain declared war, there was no Holocaust, and for two years after the war began, there was no Holocaust.
Not until midwinter 1942 was the Wannsee Conference held, where the Final Solution was on the table.
That conference was not convened until Hitler had been halted in Russia, was at war with America and sensed doom was inevitable. Then the trains began to roll.
And why did Hitler invade Russia? This writer quotes Hitler 10 times as saying that only by knocking out Russia could he convince Britain it could not win and must end the war.
Hitchens mocks this view, invoking the Hitler-madman theory.
"Could we have a better definition of derangement and megalomania than the case of a dictator who overrules his own generals and invades Russia in wintertime ... ?"
Christopher, Hitler invaded Russia on June 22.
The Holocaust was not a cause of the war, but a consequence of the war. No war, no Holocaust.
Britain went to war with Germany to save Poland. She did not save Poland. She did lose the empire. And Josef Stalin, whose victims outnumbered those of Hitler 1,000 to one as of September 1939, and who joined Hitler in the rape of Poland, wound up with all of Poland, and all the Christian nations from the Urals to the Elbe.
The British Empire fought, bled and died, and made Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism. No wonder Winston Churchill was so melancholy in old age. No wonder Christopher rails against the book. As T.S. Eliot observed, "Mankind cannot bear much reality."
A bunch.
Your ‘Conspiracy of Rabbis’ story would make good fodder for Dan Brown.
Excuse me, but the source of this was the chief justice of the Orthodox Jewish Supreme Court. If you think those folks don't demand documentation, you are smoking something. Just because it didn't make it into the history books you read, doesn't mean it isn't fact.
BTW, the Sabbateans were instrumental in the Jacobin Revolution and the Enlightenment, and yes, I have read Peter Gay's recount.
It is not true that Prussia only acquired those provinces from Denmark and France in the period 1864-1871. Much more significantly, Prussia also absorbed much of the rest of Germany when Bismarck created the German Empire.
There were revolutions all over Europe in 1848 and it’s not entirely accurate to call them communist. They were a reaction to the virtual Police State set up by Metternich after the defeat of Napoleon. Do you also think Napoleon was a communist? Moses Mendelsohn was sort of a Jewish Kant (do you think Kant and Hume were communists?) No offense but you sound like Lyndon Larouche.
Huck has a good thread going about a grass-roots effort, from the conservatie side, to ask news outlets to not prop Pat Buchanon up as a “conservative” -— he does not speak for us.
So, who has time to put together a list of who to contact and how?
World Net Daily
TownHall
Fox News -— probably need to break down by show
MSNBC
Ask your liberal neighbors if they think islam (the name means 'peace' doncha know) if they think muslims are our enemies, or our friends, or simply misunderstood.
Get back to us with what you learn, 'K?
Obviously, Buchanan ignores everything that happened to Jews in the 1930s.
Also, the Holocaust was begun in earnest in 1941 by the Einsatzkommando before Wannsee took place.
As for most of the Jews being killed later in the war, that's partly because most of the victims were in territories the Germans had to conquer and stabilize first. And it's preposterous to assert that Hitler threw millions of his best troops and other resources into Russia just to intimidate the Brits. Buchanan has it backwards; going into Russia doomed any chance Hitler had of defeating Britain.
I have to wonder if Buchanan is partly motivated by the hatred of England which simmers within some Irish Catholics.
Its a banality of evil that he does not recognize. In the WWI, the Kaiser Germany was an aggressor, looking for the space, power and all. But in a more conventional, “usual” way. Just one younger wannabe Empire fighting older Empires.
Lets take an occupied Ukraine, for example. The German occupation during the WWI was a relatively organized and on many occasions less painful to ordinary people caught in-between all the warring parties from Reds to Greens to Whites.
That memory of German relative civility even prompted some Jews naively not to escape them during the WWII. (and be killed). But brutality of Germans during the WWII did not stop with Jews. While not targeted for immediate extermination, the Slavs, nevertheless, were relegated to the lowly, often slave, labor role. Many who would not mind the communist rule to be gone, stopped seeing Germans as liberators quite quickly.
It is very instructive how different Germans became from WWI to WWII. The Holocaust was, of course, not a cause for war, but indication of the spreading evil malaise of Nazism, corrupting German society and making them collaborators in the industrial slaughter of human beings.
Oh, so you think "self-hating Jews" includes those who happen to make it to the position of Chief Justice of an Orthodox Supreme Rabbinical Court!
The vapors are getting to you.
German repression of the Christ-killer Jews goes back at least as far as the middle ages. Anyone with a Jewish name was banned from many jobs, including anything in banking, government, and owning many private sector businesses.
I'm not going to discuss the aftermath of the bar Kochba revolt for your benefit.
At the end of the 19th Century, Germany was the best place in Europe for a Jew to live, which is one reason why there were so many there at that time. As to Jewish names, Antelman recounts how not a few were adopted for the purpose of infiltrating European royalty. "Converting" religions as a pretense was a favorite Sabbatean sport, as exemplified by Ya'akov Lieb Frank.
Sir, it is the increasingly rare individual such as yourself, one not only capable of free thought but hopeful enough to admit it amongst the bleating sheep, that gives this forum life. Thank You so very much.
Members of M.M. Warburg remained in Germany, and thus in peril, until the last minute. Whatever their relationship with the Warburg firm, Kuhn Loeb would not have supported the Hitler regime. That is not the case with such firms as Brown Bros. Harriman or Standard of New Jersey, predecessor of Exxon Mobil.
I can not find any information on this alleged "Orthodox Rabbi" Marvin S. Antleman or the "Supreme Rabbinical Court of the United States" other than the conspiracy book authored under this name, and a bunch of whacko sites. This guy Antelman sounds like a complete whack job, and there is no such organization as the "Supreme Rabbinical Court of the United States"
So, once again, you are heading down the path of rationalization for what Hitler did. Actions eighty years before Hitler rose to power, regarding a small wing of Judaism dabbling in communism, are what drove Hitler? To exterminate? You really need to step back from the brink. This is not an intellectual exercise, as much as you are trying to make it such. Some of your terms, such as 'international banking cabal', are Stormfront bait.
Whatever your ideas of Jewish Law were in the past, rest assured they’ve since been secretly overturned by the “Supreme Rabbinical Court of the United States” under the authority of ‘Marburystein Vs. Madisonovitch’.
If Marx got communism from “the Jews,” why did he spew out so much anti-Semitic venom in his writings?
“Victor Davis Hanson eats Buchanan’s book for a snack”
yes, but he had to use lots of Pepto bismol!
If I may add a third, it’d be Pat’s attack on Hitchens as a Brit, gah-gah over losing the Empire. It’s typical of Buchanan’s style of argument.
What does Pat say about Lucky Lindy?
Moses Hess wasn’t a rabbi.
Hess was one of the earliest socialists and collaborated with Marx, but is not himself responsible for Marx’s ideas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.