Posted on 06/20/2008 8:12:50 AM PDT by kellynla
Very good point, that explains a lot. Genocide was on Hitler's mind for a long time.
But what we call the Holocaust took the form that it did because of specific circumstances. It resulted because Hitler controlled millions of Jews and couldn't use them as hostages.
Buchanan and his sources are concentrating on that smaller frame. In the big picture, I'd agree that what happened was the fruition of what Hitler had been talking about for a long time.
No he wasn't, John Demjanjuk was irrefutably an SS guard at several camps, but probably not Ivan the Terrible. He entered the US illegally, and was stripped of his citizenship a second time after being returned. He's currently awaiting deportation, if anyone will have him.
And Pat was wrong in his dalliance with pure Holocaust denial about diesel fumes, you can kill Jews with them. In fact the technique was pioneered on Polish military and political prisoners, who were majority Christian. Jews, Christians, you can kill them both with gas no matter what Pat says.
He was a concentration camp guard at Sobibor named Ivan Demjanjuk.
Another concentration camp guard at Treblinka at the same time was named Ivan Marchenko and nicknamed "Ivan The Terrible."
Both were trained at the SS facility in Trawniki before being assigned to Sobibor and Treblinka respectively.
Ivan Demjanjuk's mother's maiden name was Marchenko.
When he was prosecuted in 1988, it was believed that Ivan Demjanjuk and Ivan Marchenko were the same man, Demjanjuk using his mother's maiden name as an alias.
In 1993, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the documentary picture revealed holes in the prosecution's case and Demjanjuk was freed.
However, subsequent research has revealed that Demjanjuk really was a concentration camp guard at Sobibor and a Trawniki trainee - this thanks to documents that were uncovered in the former Soviet Union and which had been unavailable to US and Israeli prosecutors in 1988.
Since both the US and Israel adhere to the principle of double jeopardy, Demjanjuk is free from prosecution in either jurisdiction. Demjanjuk is also immune from deportation, since up until now no other country has wanted to take him.
German prosecutors, armed with evidence unavailable before 1994, will now undertake the prosecution. Perhaps Demjanjuk's victims will finally be given some small justice.
Indeed. See post 243.
Corrected since Pat says you can't kill people with diesel fumes. No solace to the dead I'm afraid.
“I do not know if it’s actually possible to expunge someone from conservatism (do we make him turn in his passkey and then we change the secret codes?) but I hate like hell that this anti-Semite is seen by anyone as representing conservatives. I don’t give a damn how spot-on he is on any issue: His unabashed hatred of all things Hebrew negates everything about him. Everything. I would like to see him publicly denounced by every and all true conservatives, especially those with high profiles, whether they are talk show hosts, legislators, businessmen, CPAC members—all of ‘em. He needs to be shunned. “
Exactly. William F. Buckley did that himself personally. We should follow suit, and make it public.
Pat is right about a lot of things: border, language, and culture among them —— but Hitler liked dogs, was a fairly decent painter, and was spot on about VW, and promoted the genius of Ferdinan Porsche. So what? Being right on some things does not excuse others.
Most importantly, Pat makes conservatives look like Nazis.
Not a brush we should be pained with.
Enjoy your time at The Cemetery.
By the way, Churchill’s biggest failing I have never seen discussed except by me:
I am reminded watching Croatia vs. Turkey on TV right now that Turkey is in the “Euro 2008” contest.
Why? Because the Ottomans, who had taken Constantinople from the Byzantines, were allowed to hold onto it, and to their toe-hold into Europe.
The Ottomans had no ability whatsoever to hold the European part of Turkey, and we should have Conquered it. Churchill was cool with letting them keep it.
“Would you be offended if someone said that same thing, only replacing the words with Aryan, European, or white?”
Chosen People does not mean “better.” It means “chosen,” as in God picked said people, for better or for worse.
Indeed, I was taught (in Hebrew school) that God picked the Jewish people because they were the least of His peoples, and He picked the least of the peoples to show just how powerful He is.
Chosen is just chosen.
He swore an oath as an officer in the Federal Army and reneged on that oath.
He had no obligation to "the South" (Lee thought the Confederacy ridiculous and criminal until Virginia seceded) and any obligation he had to Virginia would have been to ensure that it not continue to be led by demagogues down a path to its own destruction.
Lee is a cogent example of how sentimental attachments to myths and to prejudices (and I'm not talking about racial prejudices) can cloud an otherwise fine mind.
There are many parallels between what the National Socialists and the Soviet Socialists did. The USSR “Russified” its subject nationalities (esp. the Baltic states), deporting much of their populations to remote areas and replacing them with Russians. They operated slave labor camps long before the Nazis did, and filled them with millions of Balts, Ukrainians, and other groups. Just like the Nazis, the Soviets killed more in their camps during the war than before it. For Buchanan to pretend that the National Socialists didn’t plan their evil deeds until the nasty imperialist Brits provoked them is just as ridiculous as saying that the West provoked Stalin. Conquest, mass murder, torture, and enslavement are what socialism is all about. If the people around Hussein Obama are given free rein, we will have them in America also.
So what? That does not mean that the war was the causal effect for the mass externation. Hitler's writings and the steady rise of persecution of Jews shows he was heading there anyway.
I can live with that, whether I agree with it or not, but saying that they have different souls sounds a lot to me like what people used to say re: whites vs. blacks.
==================
Buchanan Revisited
Jason Maoz, Senior Editor
June 12, 2008
The Monitor requests some forbearance from readers; with preparations in high gear for an extended 10th anniversary column which, barring catastrophe, will appear as the front-page essay in the July 4 issue, this week’s offering is a reprint of a piece that garnered significant reader feedback when it first appeared several years ago.
Running the column again is more than apropos, as Patrick Buchanan is back in the news with the release of his new book, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, which argues that World War II and all its death and destruction was ultimately the fault of the Allies, particularly Winston Churchill. When considering Buchanan’s thesis, it’s important to recall his previous statements and writings.
Pat Buchanan’s strange concern for former Nazis (Alan A. Ryan, Jr., a former Justice Department prosecutor, once characterized Buchanan as “the spokesman for Nazi war criminals in America”) is coupled with a disdain for Holocaust survivors, whom he’s described as suffering from “group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics.”
A constant critic of the late Kurt Waldheim during the latter’s tenure as UN secretary general, Buchanan suddenly became supportive when the nature of Waldheim’s wartime activities was made public. The ostracism of Waldheim by the U.S. and other countries, wrote Buchanan, had to it “an aspect of moral bullying and the singular stench of selective indignation.”
Buchanan actively lobbied then-Attorney General Edwin Meese on behalf of Karl Linnas, who had headed a Nazi concentration camp in Estonia (Meese ignored Buchanan’s entreaties and Linnas was deported to the Soviet Union), and made his unhappiness known when the U.S. apologized to France for having sheltered the “Butcher of Lyons,” Klaus Barbie. (“To what end,” Buchanan asked rhetorically in a column on the Barbie matter, “all this wallowing in the atrocities of a dead regime...”)
Buchanan, who in his autobiography describes being brought up in a milieu of pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism by a father whose “sympathies had been with the isolationists, with Charles Lindbergh and the America First Committee,” seems always to be spoiling for a religious war, particularly when he feels that his church has been slighted or trumped by Jews or Jewish interests.
His deep-seated resentments are perhaps best summed up in his complaint about what he calls “the caustic, cutting cracks about my church and my popes from both Israel and its amen corner in the United States.”
The controversy that erupted in the late 1980’s over the desire of some Carmelite nuns to erect a permanent convent at Auschwitz was made to order for Buchanan. Upset with conciliatory statements made by the late Cardinal John O’Connor and other church leaders, he sneered: “If U.S. Jewry takes the clucking appeasement of the Catholic cardinalate as indicative of our submission, it is mistaken.
“When Cardinal O’Connor of New York ... declares this ‘is not a fight between Catholics and Jews,’ he speaks for himself. Be not afraid, Your Eminence; just step aside, there are bishops and priests ready to assume the role of defender of the faith.”
Although he likes to say that he was at one time an “uncritical apologist for Israel,” Buchanan was already on record as early as the mid-1970’s imploring Congress not to listen “to the counsel of the Jewish lobby” and criticizing legislation designed to counter the Arab boycott of Israel.
In 1982, Buchanan referred to the mass killing of Palestinians by Lebanese Christians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps as the “Rosh Hashanah massacre,” and opined that “the Israeli army is looking toward a blackening of its name to rival what happened to the French army in the Dreyfus Affair.”
And so Buchanan already had a history when he gained notoriety, shortly before the 1991 Gulf War, by describing the U.S. Congress as “Israeli-occupied territory” and claiming that “There are only two groups that are beating the drums...for war in the Middle East: the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States.”
As international-affairs scholar Joshua Muravchik wrote some years ago in Commentary, Buchanan “is hostile to Israel....sprinkles his columns with taunting remarks about things Jewish...rallies to the defense of Nazi war criminals, not only those who protest their innocence but also those who confess their guilt ... [and] implies that the generally accepted interpretation of the Holocaust might be a serious exaggeration.”
When confronted with a man who does all these things, suggested Muravchik, a fair conclusion would be that his actions are consistent with the succinct definition of anti-Semitism – “an embedded hatred of Jewish people, manifest in writing and conduct” – given, in a 1990 column, by none other than Patrick J. Buchanan himself.
You misunderstand. I'm not Jewish at all. I just believe in the Jewish G-d. And to believe in the Jewish G-d is to believe that the Jews are the center of everything that happens.
It is simply a fact of Torah that the Jewish soul is different from the non-Jewish soul. Both are immortal, but they have different assignments in this lower world.
I reject the claim of any other people to chosenness because I believe in the Jewish G-d, not that of "aryans," whites or Europeans.
Right on!
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.