Respect for the fighting spirit of Russian forces which practically single-handedly fought the Nazis from June 1940 to June 1944 and Chinese soldiers who fought our guys doggedly in Korea equates a critic of your outlandish opinions as a Communist apologist ? SMH
Again 1941 not 1940 and we would have been fighting alongside not against the Chinese that fought the Japanese had we fought to liberate mainland China in 1951.
Bizarre point of view. “Hitler honored all of his agreements…” Absolute nonsense. I have read Churchill’s history of WWII. Based upon same, I will make one concession to this unique view of history: Churchill did defend Chamberlain’s action. He justified the surrender to Hitler’s demands based upon the British public’s abhorrence of a repeat of the slaughter occasioned by WWI. Britons wished to try anything to avoid war. Obviously - except to this writer - giving in to tyrants only encourages them to seek more and more.
You took my statement entirely out of context. I never said he honored all of his agreements. I said he honored all of his agreements with his allies including Germany's alliance with Japan which led to Germany's destruction and Hitler's own suicide. False. I adamantly opposed Churchill's decision to appease Stalin with half of Europe to the hilt. It is you who cravenly seek to apologize for and justify Churchill's evil and unnecessary act in appeasing the most murderous tyrant in world history at the time. We should have let General Patton liberate all of Eastern Europe from the Soviets in 1945 who you justified appeasing and we should have let General MacArthur liberated mainland China and North Korea from the Communists in 1951. Sounds like you will never learn that appeasing genocidal Communist mass murderers is a mistake.
Were not Hitler and Stalin companions when they signed their “non-aggression” pact in 1939 ?Apparently, Stalin thought so since he was shocked at Hitler’s betrayal by his invasion of the Soviet Union in June, 1940. As for Patton conquering the USSR and McArthur China, you exhibit delusion in the extreme. You completely discount the millions of Russian troops in Europe and Chinese troops in Asia under arms and at the ready to defend their homelands opposing Americans whose desire was to go home to America. SMH :)
Wow! I didn't realize you were an actual Communist apologist for the USSR and PRC which are the two most evil, murderous regimes in world history. No wonder my critique of Churchill's craven appeasement to Stalin at Yalta hit home for you. Mao's Red Army never did anything to fight the Japanese from May 1941 onward because of Stalin's decision to extend the Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact to his Chinese proxies. Rather they spent all of World War Two trying to fight the Nationalist Chinese freedom fighters who were fighting to defend China from Japanese aggression. As for Stalin supposedly viewing Hitler as an ally, the truth could not have been more different as a a number of recent books have exposed Stalin's plans to invade Germany, western Poland and Romania in July 1941 with Hitler only beating Stalin to the punch by three weeks. Finally, Germany invaded the USSR in June 1941 not 1940. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy
The Great Appeaser is neither Churchill or Chamberlain but Mr. Pyne himself. Read some of Mr. Pyne's commentary and analysis of the war in Ukraine if you want to see an appeaser of Putin in action.
So let me get this straight. You believe that me echoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley's call for a cease fire in Ukraine to enable them to lock in their battlefield territorial gains before the massive Russian winter offensive takes control of up to half of Ukrainian territory, to save the US and our NATO allies from destruction by Russian nuclear/EMP and cyber weapons would constitute a greater act of appeasement than Churchill handing over 700,000 square miles of European territory including parts or all of nearly a dozen central and eastern European countries to genocidal Soviet enslavement for nearly half a century. Not seeing any logic whatsoever in that assertion so please explain.
Whew! Long run on sentence here, lots to digest....
Your mischaracterization of what General Milley actually said is stunning, as is your belief that Russia will be able to conduct a winter offensive that will take control of up to half of Ukraine's territory. What has Russia demonstrated so far in this conflict that indicates they will be able to accomplish that?
I concur with Michael when it comes to your view of Churchill. This kind of revisionist history belongs in the Barnes Review, not Real Clear History or Substack, along with your previous assertions that General Patton was assassinated by a joint OSS/M16 operation. You also apparently believe that the 2020 Presidential election was rigged, so that might explain your problems with seeing the logic in my assertions.
I didn't mischaracterize what Milley said. He said Ukraine was unlikely to retake any more territory for the foreseeable future so now was the time to negotiate peace with Russia from a so-called "position of strength". Of course, the Biden administration responded immediately by saying they disagreed with Milley and that the time for negotiations would not occur until Ukraine had pushed Russian forces back to their prewar positions. Yes, Russia should be able to occupy much of eastern Ukraine in their massive winter/spring offensive. What makes me think they can accomplish that is Putin's decision to mobilize an additional 500,000 reservists to support the 150,000-200,000 Russian troops in Ukraine which will give them three to four times more troops in Ukraine than they had pre-mobilization. If you don't think troop numbers matter, you obviously know nothing about modern conventional war. The evidence that Patton was assassinated is very strong and now we have an OSS officer who admitted he did it!
As previously stated, what have the Russians done that would lead us to believe they can effectively conduct offensive operations in Ukraine? It appears that they are poorly led, equipped and motivated and I doubt that additional troops are going to solve those issues
Patton was injured in a low speed auto accident that slightly injured the rest of the occupants of the vehicles but left him paralyzed from the next down and he died 12 days after the accident. Does this look like a professional hit job by US and British intelligence?
No, the Russians are not poorly led, equipped and motivated. That is all a bunch of Western/Ukrainian propaganda. They have killed three Ukrainians for every one of them that has been killed and they have done so while fighting outnumbered nearly three to one. The two top commanding generals of the Russian Group of Forces in Ukraine are quite good and for the first time since the war began they will finally be fully resourced in terms of manpower and equipment to defeat Ukraine. Patton broke his neck in a low speed auto accident in which no one else was injured (and such a critical injury was not possible). You don't find that suspicious at all? As revealed in the books "Target Patton" and "Killing Patton" he was shot in the neck by a special round fired by an OSS assassin firing from a pre-planned position in collaboration with the truck driver. He was nearly fully recovered when suddenly he died the victim of NKVD administered poison. Back then the OSS and NKVD worked together very closely as the OSS was heavily Communist penetrated. If you don't study history you will never learn the truth about what really happened.
Churchill never accepted appeasement... he did not hand over area's Russia already controlled. He was not even the UK leader at that point being removed when Labor won the 1945 elections. Labor won that election as the populace was war weary... The very term "Iron Curtain" was penned by Churchill. Churchill looked at the possibility of a war with the USSR after WW2 but could not find the support and was out of power before it could happen. Echoing Milley was foolish as Milley is an appeaser, a political flunky.
Actual factual history begs to differ with you. Have you ever heard of the Percentages Agreement. I am guessing that you have not based on your comments above. At the Fourth Moscow Conference (to which FDR was not invited) in October 1944, Churchill ceded four Eastern European nations to Stalin without consulting FDR who was angry at him for handing over these countries without so much as informing him in advance. Churchill not Stalin or FDR proposed this sphere of influence agreement in which Britain got Greece and Stalin got pretty much everthing else in Eastern Europe. Thus, it was Churchill who was the very author of the Iron Curtain which he claimed just fifteen months later to oppose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement
yes this is not worth reading. Anyone who gave stock to anything Hitler was peddling from 1938 and on is clearly off their rocker. The reason why Churchill refused any "peace" offers was because Hitler could not be trusted. What do you think - after he broke his word 200 times, the 201 he would keep it?
Look, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but anyone who gives you a second of thought or support likely is not someone anyone should take serious. no amount of lipstick will make this pig attractive.
Hitler, an evil murderous dictator who I would gladly go back in time to assassinate to save six million Jews from the Holocaust, offered four major peace offers to Britain and France including one on September 2, 1939, which would have entirely averted war with them in the first place and ended the war with Poland leaving it in control of over 95.6% of its territory? Why would Hitler offer to withdraw from 83% of German occupied Europe and allow France to rebuild its military if he was bent on conquering Europe, let alone the world? Why would he have written in his suicide note that his greatest regret was that he failed to secure peace with Britain? The bottom line is that this peace agreement would have been easily enforceable as if Hitler violated it, Britain could have sent the BEF to Belgium and northern France forcing Hitler to reinvade France and the Low Countries and maybe even Norway to prevent another British attempt to occupy the Swedish iron ore mines to cripple German steel production and fight another two front war while the German army was bogged down fighting a war to the death in the Soviet Union. Ultimately, Hitler was willing to pay virtually any price for peace with the British Empire (short of withdrawing German troops from the Czech republic, Danzig and the Polish Corridor) which he greatly admired due to his demented racist white supremacist belief that the British were fellow Aryans superior to lesser races. One of his greatest dreams was to achieve an alliance with Britain against the Soviets. He even offered a 25 year alliance with Britain and offered to send German troops to defend the British Empire if necessary. You will never succeed in learning from the mistakes of history if you refuse to even acknowledge them. I suggest you buy and read the outstanding book, "Stalin's War," by Sean McKeekin if you want to learn the truth about what really happened during World War Two.
The fallacy that Hitler did not want war with the west AND offered peace is undone by his plans for war with the west, the fact he never kept his agreements, AND his hatred for France...
Hitler mistakenly believed that the Hitler-Stalin Pact would prevent the UK and France from declaring war on Germany over Poland. Yes Hitler stupidly violated the Munich Pact by occupying Czech lands in March 1939. Hitler only violated his Non-Aggression Pact with Poland after his five years of attempting to recruit them as an ally and return the German city of Danzig failed. The fact is that Hitler honored all of his agreements with his allies most notably with Japan by declaring war on the US in an act of national suicide for Germany to honor Germany's alliance with Japan and of course sending German special forces troops to rescue Mussolini. He also ceded a lot of Russian territory to Romania and awarded Hungary, Italy and Bulgaria with territory as well. There is no reason he wouldn't have done the same for Poland as he promised with his offer to cede Poland Lithuania and western Ukraine in exchange for the return of Danzig and the Polish Corridor had they accepted his agreement and signed the Anti-Comintern Pact. Given his record of honoring all of his agreements with allies, there is no reason to believe he would have violated a peace agreement with Britain that was based on his own offered terms in which they were to assume a position of benevolent neutrality vis a vis his planned war against the USSR unless Britain were to have violated it first given he was willing to withdraw from all of western, northern and southern Europe in exchange for his dream of peace with the British Empire.
The author seems to pretend that Great Britain was the key to everything whereas the list of countries that German troops invaded was very long indeed!
Actually the UK was the key to everything. Hitler would never have invaded Denmark, Norway, France, Belgium, Holland and the Luxembourg if the UK had accepted one of Germany's peace offers between September 2, 1939 and April 1940. In response to Hitler's October 6, 1939 peace offer which French leaders wanted to accept, Chamberlain and Halifax told Hitler that Britain would not agree to peace unless Hitler righted the wrongs done to Czechoslovakia and Poland. Hitler was willing to withdraw German troops from most of Poland but stupidly refused to withdraw from the Bohemia and Moravia and Germany paid the ultimate price when it was destroyed and dismembered by the Allies and totally erased from the map of Europe from 1945-49. Most people have no idea how close the war came to ending with a negotiated peace in 1939 and 1940.
This Hitler apologist is a lunatic. Hitler had a pact with the USSR and they carved up Poland, and then later attacked the USSR. What earthly reason is there to believe that Hitler could’ve been trusted with any agreement he would have made for similar expedience with the West?
Ultimately, Hitler was willing to pay virtually any price for peace with the British Empire (short of withdrawing German troops from the Czech republic, Danzig and the Polish Corridor) which he greatly admired due to his demented racist white supremacist belief that the British were fellow Aryans superior to lesser races. One of his greatest dreams was to achieve an alliance with Britain against the Soviets. He even offered a 25 year alliance with Britain and offered to send German troops to defend the British Empire if necessary.
Maybe because Hitler offered four major peace offers to Britain and France including one on September 2, 1939, which would have entirely averted war with them in the first place and ended the war with Poland leaving it in control of over 95.6% of its territory? Why would Hitler offer to withdraw from 83% of German occupied Europe and allow France to rebuild its military if he was bent on conquering Europe, let alone the world? Why would he have written in his suicide note that his greatest regret was that he failed to secure peace with Britain? The bottom line is that this peace agreement would have been easily enforceable as if Hitler violated it, Britain could have sent the BEF to Belgium and northern France forcing Hitler to reinvade France and the Low Countries and maybe even Norway to prevent another British attempt to occupy the Swedish iron ore mines to cripple German steel production and fight another two front war while the German army was bogged down fighting a war to the death in the Soviet Union. You will never succeed in learning from the mistakes of history if you refuse to even acknowledge them. I suggest you buy and read the outstanding book, "Stalin's War," by Sean McKeekin if you want to learn the truth about what really happened during World War Two. https://www.amazon.com/Stalins-War-New-History-World/dp/1541672798/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2HFO90CRSHL1N&keywords=stalins+war&qid=1675054101&sprefix=stalins+war%2Caps%2C149&sr=8-1
Hitler had an agreement with Poland also... Signed in 1933 guaranteeing peace. Hitler faked an attack by Poland to invade Poland which ended that agreement. I do not understand how RealClear allowed your untruthful article to be published
It wasn't signed in 1933. It was a Non-Aggression Pact signed in 1934. My article is 100% true. It is the pro-Communist liberals like yourself that believe revisionist myths about the war. Hitler only violated his Non-Aggression Pact with Poland after his five years of attempting to recruit them as an ally and they rejected all of his peace offers from 1934-1939 including his January 1939 offer to support Poland's annexation of Lithuania and western Ukraine in exchange for Danzig and the Polish Corridor which would have made Poland far larger than actual history. Up until, March-May 1939, Hitler was regarded by Polish leaders (most notably Marshal Pilsudski who stated that Poland should do everything they could to keep Hitler in power for as long as possible) as pro-Polish as he suppressed all German media attempts to raise the plight of German citizens in Poland being mistreated in order to ensure good relations with Poland. That was why Polish leaders refused to believe Hitler would actually follow through with his threats to retake Danzig and the Polish Corridor by force if necessary.
Totally with you on your analysis …. Except as to real clear; I like that they allow wacko perspectives. Maybe they should just label the articles as ‘opinion.’
why would anyone believe or trust Hitler? Unfortunately the past is prologue and after numerous breaking of agreements and treaties, why do you think anyone should have trusted that "this time he means it!"? There is no evidence accept your desired believe that Hitler would have lived up to these agreements. It is more likely that after he crushed the Soviet Union, he would have either turned to India, the middle east, or then just completely crushed England like a bug, especially because with the soviet union gone, America would have likely stayed neutral.
All of this is purely mental masturbation, and sorry Churchill was not an appeaser. Even your headline was never proved. This is pseudo intellectualism displayed as well reasoned analysis when in fact, it is just dribble.
You have not shown Churchill appeased. We have shown he did not. Even looking at the Moscow Conference of 1944 Churchill's own writings show he knew the UK was bankrupt, feared the US heading home, had no support to free lands the USSR controlled. His Percentages Agreement was the best solution and if anything had Stalin as the appeaser...
ROTFLOL! Well that is certainly a new one! Churchill did not appease Stalin with his surrender of 698,000 square miles of European territory which the Soviets did not control before the war (an area almost as large as the entire country of Mexico) but rather it was Stalin who appeased Churchill by giving him Greece with its 51,000 square miles? What else would you call it if not appeasement? You honesty can't get any more Orwellian than that. Perhaps Biden should hire you as his chief propagandist.
Land Churchill had no chance to recover...as Russia did own it at that point. Only part of Poland was still in Germany's hand. Greece was not as England was in the process of removing the Germans done in Oct. 44 ...
We are done here. Readers can easily check the facts if they choose. You came here today with a fake history. No one will side with you...
Just like any other evil mass murdering dictator, Hitler could be trusted to keep the agreements that were in Germany's national interests to keep. I find it amusing that you don't think that dictators will keep the agreements which they themselves propose. Obviously, you are blinded by historical myths and propaganda which are difficult for non-critical thinking people to detect and overcome. Hitler could be trusted then and Putin can be trusted now to honor the terms of any agreement in which all of their terms were accepted and agreed to by the Western powers. As I noted above, the penalties for Hitler's violation of his peace agreement with Britain would be grave as Churchill would have landed the BEF in northern France and Belgium with a re-armed France as well as landed troops in Norway and Sweden to occupy the Swedish ore mines to cripple German steel production forcing him to refight the Battles of France and Norway all over again at great cost in German lives at the same time the German Army is fighting a life or death struggle in western Russia and Ukraine. Hitler had no territorial ambitions beyond western Russia and Ukraine, the return of lost German territories from Poland and the return of Germany's lost colonies in Africa and the South Pacific. The proof is that he was willing to withdraw all German troops back to Germany's 1939 territories after losing tens of thousands of German troops killed to conquer the seven countries he offered to withdraw all his troops from.
I confess I've never encountered Col. Pyne until reading this post. I thank him for his service but this is crackpot garbage "history".
Respect for the fighting spirit of Russian forces which practically single-handedly fought the Nazis from June 1940 to June 1944 and Chinese soldiers who fought our guys doggedly in Korea equates a critic of your outlandish opinions as a Communist apologist ? SMH
Again 1941 not 1940 and we would have been fighting alongside not against the Chinese that fought the Japanese had we fought to liberate mainland China in 1951.
Bizarre point of view. “Hitler honored all of his agreements…” Absolute nonsense. I have read Churchill’s history of WWII. Based upon same, I will make one concession to this unique view of history: Churchill did defend Chamberlain’s action. He justified the surrender to Hitler’s demands based upon the British public’s abhorrence of a repeat of the slaughter occasioned by WWI. Britons wished to try anything to avoid war. Obviously - except to this writer - giving in to tyrants only encourages them to seek more and more.
You took my statement entirely out of context. I never said he honored all of his agreements. I said he honored all of his agreements with his allies including Germany's alliance with Japan which led to Germany's destruction and Hitler's own suicide. False. I adamantly opposed Churchill's decision to appease Stalin with half of Europe to the hilt. It is you who cravenly seek to apologize for and justify Churchill's evil and unnecessary act in appeasing the most murderous tyrant in world history at the time. We should have let General Patton liberate all of Eastern Europe from the Soviets in 1945 who you justified appeasing and we should have let General MacArthur liberated mainland China and North Korea from the Communists in 1951. Sounds like you will never learn that appeasing genocidal Communist mass murderers is a mistake.
... you said just that replying to my posts.
Were not Hitler and Stalin companions when they signed their “non-aggression” pact in 1939 ?Apparently, Stalin thought so since he was shocked at Hitler’s betrayal by his invasion of the Soviet Union in June, 1940. As for Patton conquering the USSR and McArthur China, you exhibit delusion in the extreme. You completely discount the millions of Russian troops in Europe and Chinese troops in Asia under arms and at the ready to defend their homelands opposing Americans whose desire was to go home to America. SMH :)
Wow! I didn't realize you were an actual Communist apologist for the USSR and PRC which are the two most evil, murderous regimes in world history. No wonder my critique of Churchill's craven appeasement to Stalin at Yalta hit home for you. Mao's Red Army never did anything to fight the Japanese from May 1941 onward because of Stalin's decision to extend the Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact to his Chinese proxies. Rather they spent all of World War Two trying to fight the Nationalist Chinese freedom fighters who were fighting to defend China from Japanese aggression. As for Stalin supposedly viewing Hitler as an ally, the truth could not have been more different as a a number of recent books have exposed Stalin's plans to invade Germany, western Poland and Romania in July 1941 with Hitler only beating Stalin to the punch by three weeks. Finally, Germany invaded the USSR in June 1941 not 1940. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy
The Great Appeaser is neither Churchill or Chamberlain but Mr. Pyne himself. Read some of Mr. Pyne's commentary and analysis of the war in Ukraine if you want to see an appeaser of Putin in action.
So let me get this straight. You believe that me echoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley's call for a cease fire in Ukraine to enable them to lock in their battlefield territorial gains before the massive Russian winter offensive takes control of up to half of Ukrainian territory, to save the US and our NATO allies from destruction by Russian nuclear/EMP and cyber weapons would constitute a greater act of appeasement than Churchill handing over 700,000 square miles of European territory including parts or all of nearly a dozen central and eastern European countries to genocidal Soviet enslavement for nearly half a century. Not seeing any logic whatsoever in that assertion so please explain.
Whew! Long run on sentence here, lots to digest....
Your mischaracterization of what General Milley actually said is stunning, as is your belief that Russia will be able to conduct a winter offensive that will take control of up to half of Ukraine's territory. What has Russia demonstrated so far in this conflict that indicates they will be able to accomplish that?
I concur with Michael when it comes to your view of Churchill. This kind of revisionist history belongs in the Barnes Review, not Real Clear History or Substack, along with your previous assertions that General Patton was assassinated by a joint OSS/M16 operation. You also apparently believe that the 2020 Presidential election was rigged, so that might explain your problems with seeing the logic in my assertions.
I didn't mischaracterize what Milley said. He said Ukraine was unlikely to retake any more territory for the foreseeable future so now was the time to negotiate peace with Russia from a so-called "position of strength". Of course, the Biden administration responded immediately by saying they disagreed with Milley and that the time for negotiations would not occur until Ukraine had pushed Russian forces back to their prewar positions. Yes, Russia should be able to occupy much of eastern Ukraine in their massive winter/spring offensive. What makes me think they can accomplish that is Putin's decision to mobilize an additional 500,000 reservists to support the 150,000-200,000 Russian troops in Ukraine which will give them three to four times more troops in Ukraine than they had pre-mobilization. If you don't think troop numbers matter, you obviously know nothing about modern conventional war. The evidence that Patton was assassinated is very strong and now we have an OSS officer who admitted he did it!
As previously stated, what have the Russians done that would lead us to believe they can effectively conduct offensive operations in Ukraine? It appears that they are poorly led, equipped and motivated and I doubt that additional troops are going to solve those issues
Patton was injured in a low speed auto accident that slightly injured the rest of the occupants of the vehicles but left him paralyzed from the next down and he died 12 days after the accident. Does this look like a professional hit job by US and British intelligence?
No, the Russians are not poorly led, equipped and motivated. That is all a bunch of Western/Ukrainian propaganda. They have killed three Ukrainians for every one of them that has been killed and they have done so while fighting outnumbered nearly three to one. The two top commanding generals of the Russian Group of Forces in Ukraine are quite good and for the first time since the war began they will finally be fully resourced in terms of manpower and equipment to defeat Ukraine. Patton broke his neck in a low speed auto accident in which no one else was injured (and such a critical injury was not possible). You don't find that suspicious at all? As revealed in the books "Target Patton" and "Killing Patton" he was shot in the neck by a special round fired by an OSS assassin firing from a pre-planned position in collaboration with the truck driver. He was nearly fully recovered when suddenly he died the victim of NKVD administered poison. Back then the OSS and NKVD worked together very closely as the OSS was heavily Communist penetrated. If you don't study history you will never learn the truth about what really happened.
Churchill never accepted appeasement... he did not hand over area's Russia already controlled. He was not even the UK leader at that point being removed when Labor won the 1945 elections. Labor won that election as the populace was war weary... The very term "Iron Curtain" was penned by Churchill. Churchill looked at the possibility of a war with the USSR after WW2 but could not find the support and was out of power before it could happen. Echoing Milley was foolish as Milley is an appeaser, a political flunky.
Also, Churchill plagiarized the term Iron Curtain from Nazi leader Joseph Goebells. You can't expect to learn WW2 and Cold War history if you never even bother to study it. https://medium.com/exploring-history/winston-churchill-didnt-originate-iron-curtain-620b87c3476e
Wrong he got it from Rozanov as did Goebbels
Actual factual history begs to differ with you. Have you ever heard of the Percentages Agreement. I am guessing that you have not based on your comments above. At the Fourth Moscow Conference (to which FDR was not invited) in October 1944, Churchill ceded four Eastern European nations to Stalin without consulting FDR who was angry at him for handing over these countries without so much as informing him in advance. Churchill not Stalin or FDR proposed this sphere of influence agreement in which Britain got Greece and Stalin got pretty much everthing else in Eastern Europe. Thus, it was Churchill who was the very author of the Iron Curtain which he claimed just fifteen months later to oppose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement
I posted on that already...
yes this is not worth reading. Anyone who gave stock to anything Hitler was peddling from 1938 and on is clearly off their rocker. The reason why Churchill refused any "peace" offers was because Hitler could not be trusted. What do you think - after he broke his word 200 times, the 201 he would keep it?
Look, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but anyone who gives you a second of thought or support likely is not someone anyone should take serious. no amount of lipstick will make this pig attractive.
Hitler, an evil murderous dictator who I would gladly go back in time to assassinate to save six million Jews from the Holocaust, offered four major peace offers to Britain and France including one on September 2, 1939, which would have entirely averted war with them in the first place and ended the war with Poland leaving it in control of over 95.6% of its territory? Why would Hitler offer to withdraw from 83% of German occupied Europe and allow France to rebuild its military if he was bent on conquering Europe, let alone the world? Why would he have written in his suicide note that his greatest regret was that he failed to secure peace with Britain? The bottom line is that this peace agreement would have been easily enforceable as if Hitler violated it, Britain could have sent the BEF to Belgium and northern France forcing Hitler to reinvade France and the Low Countries and maybe even Norway to prevent another British attempt to occupy the Swedish iron ore mines to cripple German steel production and fight another two front war while the German army was bogged down fighting a war to the death in the Soviet Union. Ultimately, Hitler was willing to pay virtually any price for peace with the British Empire (short of withdrawing German troops from the Czech republic, Danzig and the Polish Corridor) which he greatly admired due to his demented racist white supremacist belief that the British were fellow Aryans superior to lesser races. One of his greatest dreams was to achieve an alliance with Britain against the Soviets. He even offered a 25 year alliance with Britain and offered to send German troops to defend the British Empire if necessary. You will never succeed in learning from the mistakes of history if you refuse to even acknowledge them. I suggest you buy and read the outstanding book, "Stalin's War," by Sean McKeekin if you want to learn the truth about what really happened during World War Two.
The fallacy that Hitler did not want war with the west AND offered peace is undone by his plans for war with the west, the fact he never kept his agreements, AND his hatred for France...
Such a poorly presented article...
Hitler mistakenly believed that the Hitler-Stalin Pact would prevent the UK and France from declaring war on Germany over Poland. Yes Hitler stupidly violated the Munich Pact by occupying Czech lands in March 1939. Hitler only violated his Non-Aggression Pact with Poland after his five years of attempting to recruit them as an ally and return the German city of Danzig failed. The fact is that Hitler honored all of his agreements with his allies most notably with Japan by declaring war on the US in an act of national suicide for Germany to honor Germany's alliance with Japan and of course sending German special forces troops to rescue Mussolini. He also ceded a lot of Russian territory to Romania and awarded Hungary, Italy and Bulgaria with territory as well. There is no reason he wouldn't have done the same for Poland as he promised with his offer to cede Poland Lithuania and western Ukraine in exchange for the return of Danzig and the Polish Corridor had they accepted his agreement and signed the Anti-Comintern Pact. Given his record of honoring all of his agreements with allies, there is no reason to believe he would have violated a peace agreement with Britain that was based on his own offered terms in which they were to assume a position of benevolent neutrality vis a vis his planned war against the USSR unless Britain were to have violated it first given he was willing to withdraw from all of western, northern and southern Europe in exchange for his dream of peace with the British Empire.
The author seems to pretend that Great Britain was the key to everything whereas the list of countries that German troops invaded was very long indeed!
Actually the UK was the key to everything. Hitler would never have invaded Denmark, Norway, France, Belgium, Holland and the Luxembourg if the UK had accepted one of Germany's peace offers between September 2, 1939 and April 1940. In response to Hitler's October 6, 1939 peace offer which French leaders wanted to accept, Chamberlain and Halifax told Hitler that Britain would not agree to peace unless Hitler righted the wrongs done to Czechoslovakia and Poland. Hitler was willing to withdraw German troops from most of Poland but stupidly refused to withdraw from the Bohemia and Moravia and Germany paid the ultimate price when it was destroyed and dismembered by the Allies and totally erased from the map of Europe from 1945-49. Most people have no idea how close the war came to ending with a negotiated peace in 1939 and 1940.
This Hitler apologist is a lunatic. Hitler had a pact with the USSR and they carved up Poland, and then later attacked the USSR. What earthly reason is there to believe that Hitler could’ve been trusted with any agreement he would have made for similar expedience with the West?
Crazy. Shameful. Revisionist. Tosh.
Ultimately, Hitler was willing to pay virtually any price for peace with the British Empire (short of withdrawing German troops from the Czech republic, Danzig and the Polish Corridor) which he greatly admired due to his demented racist white supremacist belief that the British were fellow Aryans superior to lesser races. One of his greatest dreams was to achieve an alliance with Britain against the Soviets. He even offered a 25 year alliance with Britain and offered to send German troops to defend the British Empire if necessary.
Maybe because Hitler offered four major peace offers to Britain and France including one on September 2, 1939, which would have entirely averted war with them in the first place and ended the war with Poland leaving it in control of over 95.6% of its territory? Why would Hitler offer to withdraw from 83% of German occupied Europe and allow France to rebuild its military if he was bent on conquering Europe, let alone the world? Why would he have written in his suicide note that his greatest regret was that he failed to secure peace with Britain? The bottom line is that this peace agreement would have been easily enforceable as if Hitler violated it, Britain could have sent the BEF to Belgium and northern France forcing Hitler to reinvade France and the Low Countries and maybe even Norway to prevent another British attempt to occupy the Swedish iron ore mines to cripple German steel production and fight another two front war while the German army was bogged down fighting a war to the death in the Soviet Union. You will never succeed in learning from the mistakes of history if you refuse to even acknowledge them. I suggest you buy and read the outstanding book, "Stalin's War," by Sean McKeekin if you want to learn the truth about what really happened during World War Two. https://www.amazon.com/Stalins-War-New-History-World/dp/1541672798/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2HFO90CRSHL1N&keywords=stalins+war&qid=1675054101&sprefix=stalins+war%2Caps%2C149&sr=8-1
Hitler had an agreement with Poland also... Signed in 1933 guaranteeing peace. Hitler faked an attack by Poland to invade Poland which ended that agreement. I do not understand how RealClear allowed your untruthful article to be published
It wasn't signed in 1933. It was a Non-Aggression Pact signed in 1934. My article is 100% true. It is the pro-Communist liberals like yourself that believe revisionist myths about the war. Hitler only violated his Non-Aggression Pact with Poland after his five years of attempting to recruit them as an ally and they rejected all of his peace offers from 1934-1939 including his January 1939 offer to support Poland's annexation of Lithuania and western Ukraine in exchange for Danzig and the Polish Corridor which would have made Poland far larger than actual history. Up until, March-May 1939, Hitler was regarded by Polish leaders (most notably Marshal Pilsudski who stated that Poland should do everything they could to keep Hitler in power for as long as possible) as pro-Polish as he suppressed all German media attempts to raise the plight of German citizens in Poland being mistreated in order to ensure good relations with Poland. That was why Polish leaders refused to believe Hitler would actually follow through with his threats to retake Danzig and the Polish Corridor by force if necessary.
correct the signing was early Jan. 34 but the agreement was agreed to in 33
Totally with you on your analysis …. Except as to real clear; I like that they allow wacko perspectives. Maybe they should just label the articles as ‘opinion.’
why would anyone believe or trust Hitler? Unfortunately the past is prologue and after numerous breaking of agreements and treaties, why do you think anyone should have trusted that "this time he means it!"? There is no evidence accept your desired believe that Hitler would have lived up to these agreements. It is more likely that after he crushed the Soviet Union, he would have either turned to India, the middle east, or then just completely crushed England like a bug, especially because with the soviet union gone, America would have likely stayed neutral.
All of this is purely mental masturbation, and sorry Churchill was not an appeaser. Even your headline was never proved. This is pseudo intellectualism displayed as well reasoned analysis when in fact, it is just dribble.
And your assertion that Churchill was not an appeaser is the most laughable and provably false claim in modern history.
You have not shown Churchill appeased. We have shown he did not. Even looking at the Moscow Conference of 1944 Churchill's own writings show he knew the UK was bankrupt, feared the US heading home, had no support to free lands the USSR controlled. His Percentages Agreement was the best solution and if anything had Stalin as the appeaser...
ROTFLOL! Well that is certainly a new one! Churchill did not appease Stalin with his surrender of 698,000 square miles of European territory which the Soviets did not control before the war (an area almost as large as the entire country of Mexico) but rather it was Stalin who appeased Churchill by giving him Greece with its 51,000 square miles? What else would you call it if not appeasement? You honesty can't get any more Orwellian than that. Perhaps Biden should hire you as his chief propagandist.
Land Churchill had no chance to recover...as Russia did own it at that point. Only part of Poland was still in Germany's hand. Greece was not as England was in the process of removing the Germans done in Oct. 44 ...
We are done here. Readers can easily check the facts if they choose. You came here today with a fake history. No one will side with you...
Just like any other evil mass murdering dictator, Hitler could be trusted to keep the agreements that were in Germany's national interests to keep. I find it amusing that you don't think that dictators will keep the agreements which they themselves propose. Obviously, you are blinded by historical myths and propaganda which are difficult for non-critical thinking people to detect and overcome. Hitler could be trusted then and Putin can be trusted now to honor the terms of any agreement in which all of their terms were accepted and agreed to by the Western powers. As I noted above, the penalties for Hitler's violation of his peace agreement with Britain would be grave as Churchill would have landed the BEF in northern France and Belgium with a re-armed France as well as landed troops in Norway and Sweden to occupy the Swedish ore mines to cripple German steel production forcing him to refight the Battles of France and Norway all over again at great cost in German lives at the same time the German Army is fighting a life or death struggle in western Russia and Ukraine. Hitler had no territorial ambitions beyond western Russia and Ukraine, the return of lost German territories from Poland and the return of Germany's lost colonies in Africa and the South Pacific. The proof is that he was willing to withdraw all German troops back to Germany's 1939 territories after losing tens of thousands of German troops killed to conquer the seven countries he offered to withdraw all his troops from.
Well stated. Farce floating as sober analysis.