Why Tucker Carlson is Right About The Second World War

If Americans became aware of the hidden truths about World War Two their support for Biden's empire building project in Ukraine would collapse like a house of cards and they would demand the war end.

Promotional picture of former Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s Interview with World War Two historian Darryl Cooper

Today marks the 83^rd anniversary of America’s entry into the war in Europe with its declaration of war on Germany in response to Germany's declaration of war on the US earlier the same day. FDR successfully tricked murderous Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler into declaring war on the US with his leak a week earlier of America’s top secret "Rainbow Five" plan to send an American Expeditionary Force of five million troops to invade German occupied France. Hitler wrongly assumed a US declaration of war on Germany was imminent and stupidly decided to honor his mutual defense pact with Imperial Japan in what amounted to an insane act of national suicide for Germany. Without Germany’s declaration of war the US likely would have stayed out of the European war and FDR might not have been able to send such massive amounts of Lend Lease aid to the Soviet Union changing the course of World War Two.

Leftists continue to refer to World War Two as “The Good War,” despite the fact that it was the most terrible, destructive and mass murderous war in human history, because it its chief outcome was to enable godless Communism, an ideology they have always sympathized with, to enslave one-third of the world’s territory and people. The idea that the Second World War was “a good war” is a laughable claim seeing that the end of the war saw nearly two-thirds of continental Europe fall under Soviet Communist totalitarian control while it also led to the Communist enslavement of nearly all of East Asia including northern Japan, North Korea, mainland China and Southeast Asia. This quasi-religious patriotic mythology of World War Two has served as the pretext for every war the US has fought since. From 1945, US war propaganda has presented each war, even wars in which the US served as the aggressor, as some kind of existential fight between good and evil, rather than a fight between mass murdering leaders on both sides of the conflict as was actually the case during the Second World War.

As was nicely summarized in the 1952 Republican platform which essentially accused FDR and Truman of treason, at the end of World War Two and in the years that followed, liberal US leaders squandered America’s overwhelming military victory and lost the peace. They did so by surrendering half of Europe to the Soviets as part of the Yalta appeasement pact, and helping Communists take control of mainland China and most of East Asia increasing the total number of people enslaved by Communism from 170 million to 730 million people. Similarly, America squandered its Cold War victory by turning Russia from a friend into an enemy and pushing it into an ever-closer alliance with Communist China showing US leaders learned nothing from the tragic strategic mistakes of their predecessors which have created the very existential threats to the United States that they are increasingly provoking to attack and potentially destroy us.

On the 79th anniversary of the end of this deadliest war in world history, former Fox News Host Tucker Carlson decided to publish a must-see interview exposes many of the liberal myths about World War Two that I've been writing about over the past seventeen years with World War Two historian, Darryl Cooper, who has hosted the Martyr Made podcast since 2015 and co-hosted The Unraveling podcast since 2020. In 2016, he co-hosted Decline of the West with John David Ebert^. His writings have also appeared in conservative magazines. Tucker entitled the interview, “Darryl Cooper: The True History of the Jonestown Cult, WWII, and How Winston Churchill Ruined Europe.”

Neoliberal and neocon imperialists alike reacted to Cooper’s hard-hitting fact-based revelations about the war as if he had committed some kind of sacrilege or religious heresy given that the idea that World War Two was a necessary “good war” is akin to the holy sacrament of the global hegemonists that have dominated America’s foreign policy establishment for the past eighty years. Virtually all modern-day US war propaganda deception and disinformation campaigns and false tenets including those pertaining to Biden’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine stem from the carefully constructed, popularly accepted mythology about this greatest of all wars. I have been publishing articles about many of the very myths that Cooper highlighted for at least seventeen years now including on the pages of The Real War. Here is a link to my article exposing liberal myths about World War Two which I first published in April 2007.

In his interview with Tucker Carlson, Cooper spoke about how the prevalent Soviet apologist myths of World War Two have become the altar at which both increasingly Marxist Democrats and neo-imperialist Republicans come to worship as a core part of the religion of the US national security state. The reason liberal World War Two mythology is so integral to our state religious dogma is because it has provided the very justification and pretext for nearly every US war since including Vietnam, President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq and now Biden’s manufactured proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.

The Founding Myth of the US Foreign Policy of Liberal Hegemony

During his interview on the Tucker Carlson show, Cooper spoke of the cherished liberal misconceptions of World War Two as “the founding myth of the global order we are all living in.” As Cooper noted, the mistaken notion that World War Two was a good, necessary and unavoidable war is the founding myth of America's liberal empire. This is “the Big Lie” that dominates American foreign policy thinking since 1941. Churchill once stated that, “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies” and I believe it is clear, in retrospect, that it is America’s World War Two wartime myths that Churchill was specifically referring to, nearly all of which have survived to this very day.

Stephen Wolfe, author of The Case for Christian Nationalism, agreed stating: WWII is the founding mythos of our age and its official interpretation animates our political life and much of our political rhetoric. Attacking that narrative attacks the very ground of our political imagination and what informs our worst fears. Losing the narrative is like realizing that the religion of your youth–what seems so natural to you in adulthood–is false. It casts you adrift into a terrifying unknown. For their own safety and peace of mind, they need everyone to affirm and live out the narrative. The animating mythos around WWII is not just intellectual but felt as deeply moral. It is the Good from which all political goods derive.

This interview ignited a regime media firestorm as liberal and neocon heads continue to explode in their rush to defend the prevalent Soviet apologetic myths of World War Two. The liberal myths of this greatest and most terrible of all wars are central to America's imperial state religion to increase support for our forever wars that make us far less safe and secure. The fact that the so-called US-led liberal international order was forged from an Unholy Alliance with the Evil Soviet Empire enabling them to conquer and enslave one-third of the world's people and territory is the reason I have always opposed it given that it was forged from the Yalta and Potsdam Agreements. It was born out of craven appeasement of the greatest mass murdering dictator in world history at the time and was thus severely morally compromised from its inception.

The globalists have been fighting back against the truths about World War Two exposed during Tucker Carlson’s interview by continuing to repeat the myth World War Two was a good and necessary war which liberated Europe and Asia from totalitarian tyranny. They continue to use the myth of Munich to mistakenly argue that any attempts on the part of the US to negotiate an end to potential nuclear conflicts such as Biden’s proxy war with Russia in Ukraine to prevent the outbreak of a Third World War would constitute an act of Chamberlainian appeasement.

Cooper’s challenges to the liberal myths of World War Two cause the regime media and Never Trumper Republicans to go bezerk and accuse his guest of being a pro-Nazi Holocaust denier. They have denounced Cooper as a “Nazi apologist” and a “Holocaust denier” despite the fact that he made clear during the interview, he stated Hitler mass murdered five to six million Jews and a couple million Russian POWs. He did state that the Nazis did not premediate the genocide of 5-6 million Jews in the Holocaust, which is true. There is no evidence Hitler intended to kill the Jews prior to May 1941 at which point he realized the British would never lift their blockade and allow him to achieve his objective of forcibly deporting the Jews from Europe, nor did he actually give an order to do so until December 12, 1941, the day after the US declared war on Germany in the realization that the war was lost.

Neo-imperialists in both parties such as former Vice President Mike Pence regularly resort to denouncing anyone who dares criticize their disastrous, interventionist, un-American foreign policy initiatives or who advocates an America First policy of foreign policy restraint centered around peace through strength, non-intervention and peaceful co-existence with America’s adversaries as either Hitler apologists or Putin apologists, whichever best suits them. I have been viciously denounced as such by certain Ukrainians for publishing bold peace proposals beginning in June 2022, which had they been implemented, would have saved hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives and ensured Ukraine’s long-term independence and security.

America First conservatives have never excused any of Hitler’s horrific war crimes let alone the Jewish Holocaust. But we would be foolish to pretend that these crimes could not have been prevented had Western leaders acted differently. If we truly believe in and support the post-Holocaust slogan of “Never Again”, then as Christian conservatives we should feel duty-bound to discover why they were killed and how to prevent such a vile genocide of millions of innocent people on the basis of their race, religion or nationality ever again. That is the whole point of Cooper’s remarks in this interview. It is a fact that Hitler did not pre-meditate the Jewish Holocaust at least not until Churchill rejected his final peace offer in May 1941. Similarly, it is a fact he did not order it until the day after the US declared war on Germany, knowing that the war was lost for Germany and therefore his preferred plan of exporting them to Palestine or Madagascar would never come to fruition.

That is why Darryl Cooper historically accurate World War Two assertions are perceived as such a mortal threat to the designs of the neo-imperialists in both parties and why they went apoplectic in trying to falsely denounce him as a Nazi apologist and Holocaust denier much as they have attempted to silence and vanquish President-Elect Donald Trump for championing an America First foreign policy. In so doing, they fail to understand the irony given that the myths they have championed are inherently Soviet apologist in nature and the fact that the decision of Allied leaders—primarily Churchill but also President Franklin Delano Roosevelt--to fight a second unnecessary world war and then prolong it by several years, far from averting the Jewish Holocaust, actually provoked it.

Was Churchill Actually the Chief Villain of World War Two?

In 2004, Adam Young published an excellent article exposing the kind of man Churchill really was not the hero that leftists in both major US political parties have made him out to be. Young notes that earlier that year, President George HW Bush praised Churchill as “a prophet of the Cold War.”

But Churchill was not so much a prophet of the Cold War with the Soviet Union as the author of the very Iron Curtain he famously railed against at Fulton, Missouri in January 1946 when at the Fourth Moscow Conference in October 1944 he agreed to divide Europe between Britain and the USSR leaving the US out angering FDR in which later came to be known as the Percentages Agreement which he scribbled on a piece of paper referring to as “the naughty document.” Four months later, Churchill joined FDR in cravenly surrendering half of continental Europe including nearly a dozen countries to genocidal Soviet enslavement for nearly half a century in what came to be known as the Yalta Appeasement Pact. His and FDR’s betrayal of 140 million innocents was arguably the greatest appeasement of an evil mass murdering dictator and the greatest betrayal of human freedom in world history, dwarfing the transfer of 3.5 million Sudeten Germans to Germany under the terms of the Munich Pact signed by his predecessor.

During the war, Churchill tripped all over himself to reward Stalin with over 5,000 British and Canadian tanks and armored vehicles, 7,000 British combat aircraft and dozens of ships including a British battleship and an Italian battleship at no cost to Moscow even at a time when the British armed forces were in dire need of many of these weapon systems from 1941-1942. Some historians gloss over his treachery in arming the Red Army to the teeth to help the Soviets conquer and enslave half of Europe by pointing to his contingency plan for Operation Unthinkable which he did not order until May 1945 after the war had ended, but the claim that he was serious about actually fighting the Red Army for control of central Europe is laughable in the extreme. Certainly, the US and UK could have prevailed in a full-scale war with the Soviets to liberate central and eastern Europe in spring/summer 1945 had General George S. Patton Jr. been allowed to lead their offensive, helped by Western Allied air supremacy. However, it would have been a challenge to obtain popular support for such a war given US war propaganda had falsely painted “Uncle Joe” Stalin as a gallant ally and crusader for democracy.

Churchill only came up with this imaginary war plan because he knew that if he did not history might well rightly view him as who he actually was--namely a far bigger appeaser than Chamberlain ever was. He would write dozens of notes and letters so he could claim he was an anti-Communist visionary in the World War Two history books he wrote when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. He knew he was selling out half of Europe to Soviet enslavement and was happy to sell his soul to the Soviet devil to do so if necessary to accomplish his primary objective of vengefully crushing and dismembering Britain’s longtime historic rival for control of the European continent--Germany. Even after the war ended, he defended his decision to cede Eastern Europe to the Soviets in exchange for British control of Greece to his dying day.

That said, it is true that unlike FDR, Churchill was sincere in his desire to limit Soviet territorial gains somewhat with his idea for the so-called “Mediterranean Option” which he proposed to FDR in May 1944 that would not have liberated Yugoslavia, which he had already effectively handed over to Tito's Communist terrorists, but might have liberated Austria in advance of the impending Soviet advance. He also wanted Eisenhower to capture Berlin, Vienna and Prague in advance of the Red Army which the Allies could easily have done had Eisenhower (and likely FDR) not vetoed it.

For neoconservatives, the allegation that one is an appeaser is considered their most disdainful insult. That is why it is so strange that they continue to lionize Churchill who along with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman must rank as history’s greatest modern-day appeasers of mass-murdering totalitarian dictators. What is interesting is that for decades, liberals joined the neocons in lionizing Churchill as one of the heroes of the left, along with FDR, Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, due to his key role in exterminating the Nazis and expanding Communist control over central and Eastern Europe.

During his interview with Tucker Carlson, Cooper took this one step further and alleges that Churchill was not merely the author of the Cold War, but essentially the instigator of the Second World War as well. Of course, Churchill was not Britain’s leader when the war was declared so he does not bare principal blame for the start of the war. That said, he certainly played a major role in its outbreak in urging then Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to reject Hitler’s offer for an armistice on September 2, 1939, the day after German troops crossed into Poland that would have ended the war after a mere three days of fighting. Much like Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine after fifteen years of failed diplomatic efforts to end the NATO in Ukraine crisis, Hitler only invaded Poland reluctantly after ten months of diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue of the German city of Danzig peacefully had failed.

According to numerous accounts, Hitler had no desire for war with the Western powers. He had given up his desire for war with France to liberate western Germany from French occupation following the French withdrawal from the Rhineland in 1930 and he had forsworn the return of the once German province of Alsace-Lorraine from France signing an agreement in 1938 accepting its French annexation as permanent. Rather, he dreamed of getting Britain and Poland to ally with Germany in an international crusade against Bolshevism which he was determined to lead, desiring to carve out a new eastern empire for Germany at western Russia’s and Ukraine’s expense.

Most Americans have no idea how close the world came to averting World War Two altogether. In response to Germany’s invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, Chamberlain offered to mediate peace talks between Germany and Poland on the condition that Germany immediately begin withdrawing its troops from all Polish territory. Later the same day, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini proposed a cease fire and a Four Power Conference to discuss Hitler's claims to Germany’s lost eastern territories annexed by Poland following the Treaty of Versailles. France immediately accepted, praising Italy’s offer to mediate an end to the conflict. The following day, Hitler also accepted Mussolini’s peace proposal and conditionally accepted Britain's ultimatum agreeing to implement a cease-fire/armistice agreement effective September 3rd and withdraw all German troops from Poland except for the Polish Corridor, which comprised scarcely more than four percent of Poland’s territory, and the German city of Danzig which was not part of Poland.

Hitler was so taken aback by news of the British and French declarations of war followed by Chamberlain’s appointment of Winston Churchill to the War Cabinet that when informed of it, he dejectedly fell to his chair and exclaimed “So the war is real” providing further evidence that he never wanted to fight Britain or France and sincerely hoped to avoid a direct military conflict with the Western Powers. This was followed by eight months of inaction on the Western Front, which came to be known as “the Phoney War” following the abortive French Saar offensive from Sept 7-16th suggesting that Britain and France had almost as little interest in fighting a real war with Germany as Hitler had in fighting a war with them. Chamberlain believed that the illegal British starvation blockade would help ensure ultimate victory over Germany just as it had during the First World War and hoped that Hitler would be overthrown in a military coup. However, he proved mistaken on both counts, while offering peace with Germany only if it withdrew from Polish and Czech territory, effectively restoring the pre-March 1939 status quo.

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain announcing a state of war with Nazi Germany on September 3, 1939 just an hour after sending Britain’s war ultimatum.

Ultimately, Chamberlain bears chief responsibility for starting an unnecessary world war that cost the lives of seventy million people and tragically that will always be his life’s legacy. The reason is that while Hitler bears sole responsibility for his illegal invasion of Poland it was Britain's declaration of war on Germany on September 3, 1939 that transformed the German-Polish border dispute into a world war lasting six long years, which without the British military guarantee would have been over within five weeks at most. In fact, it is very possible the outbreak of war might not have happened at all as Polish leaders might have negotiated a peace deal over the Danzig issue had they not received pledges of unconditional British and French military support. It is indeed ironic that British leaders opted to fight an unnecessary world war against Germany that cost the lives of an estimated 34 million Europeans including six million Jews to prevent it from retaking control of the German city of Danzig and a small piece of territory the size of the tiny country of Montenegro for which it had spent the previous decade and a half trying to persuade the Polish government to return peacefully.

Hitler’s Peace Offers Rejected by Churchill

Cooper identifies British Prime Minister Winston Churchill as "the chief villain" of World War Two. The reason he gives for that allegation is that Churchill’s decision to reject Hitler’s peace offers from July 1940 to May 1941 peace offers to withdraw all German troops from northern, western and southern Europe virtually to their October 1939 boundaries led to the otherwise avoidable deaths of millions of innocents including five to six million Jews. Of the sixteen German peace offers issued between October 1939 and May 1941, the most generous and sweeping by far was the last hand-delivered to Britain by Deputy Fuhrer Rudolf Hess. This was an even more comprehensive and expansive peace offer than that one Hitler had offered ten months earlier with Hitler offering to withdraw all German troops from France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Norway as well as Yugoslavia and Greece totaling 83% of German-occupied Europe while also withdrawing all German troops from Libya and western Egypt in exchange for peace with Britain and its benevolent neutrality in the event of the outbreak of war between Germany and the Soviet Union.

Notably, Hitler’s peace offer would have served to free six of the seven European countries liberated by the Western Allies at great cost in actual history except for Luxembourg (as well as the German-speaking province of Alsace-Lorraine which constituted just over two percent of French territory) without a drop of Allied blood being shed. The terms of this peace offer were shared by Churchill to the U.S. government and leaked to the U.S. media who largely cooperated with the Roosevelt administration to censor it with the exception of the American Mercury magazine which published them in 1943. The British media which was operating under heavy censorship from the UK government also prevented the terms from going public. Had the British public been made aware of Hitler’s generous terms, they likely would have demanded that Churchill agree to it, which would have essentially amounted to a bloodless British victory, potentially putting Churchill at risk of a no-confidence vote if he refused to accept it which could have forced his resignation.

More than any other man, Churchill was the author of the demise of the British Empire which he claimed to have loved as when Hitler gave him the opportunity to preserve the British Empire by ending World War Two four to five years earlier with what amounted to a sweeping British military victory. As Cooper noted, Churchill’s tragic decision to reject Hitler’s generous July 1940-May 1941 peace offers led to the deaths of 15-20 million people by prolonging the war unnecessarily who otherwise would have likely survived the conflict including a million Allied soldiers and five to six million Jews given that one of the express terms of Hitler’s peace offer was to forcibly deport them to Palestine. As previously stated, such a mass deportation would have been very inhumane but far preferable than Hitler’s monstrous crime of exterminating them in the Jewish Holocaust which he did not consider doing until after Churchill rejected his final peace offer. Had Hitler publicized his peace offer, it is likely that the British public would have pressured the British government to accept it and end the war because the peace terms were so generous and far reaching which is why he needed what he referred to as “a bodyguard of lies” to prevent the British and American people from finding out about it.

Since the US government was aware of the generous terms of the German peace offer, FDR should have proposed a negotiated peace settlement with Germany shortly after Germany declared war on the US on December 10, 1941 based on these terms to get Germany to withdraw its troops from western Europe, northern Europe, southern Europe and North Africa. The world would very likely be far more peaceful and the US would be far safer and more secure today had we stayed out of the war or better yet accepted Hitler's May 1941 peace terms, thus liberating six out of the seven Western European countries we liberated in actual history at no cost to the US.

Staying out of the war would have also ensured the Nationalists won the Chinese Civil War. Thus, the PRC and NK would not exist and if the US had kept its military forces out of Europe and East Asia, the US would likely have no enemies today and would not be threatened with destruction by our nuclear adversaries. Remaining a non-belligerent in World War Two would have enabled us to avert not only the commission of exactly the kind of horrific war crimes in which the US and UK killed millions of German and Japanese civilians but also would have prevented the US drive for global hegemony from ever materializing.

The fact that King George VI, Queen Elizabeth (the mother of Queen Elizabeth II), the former King Edward VIII and other senior royal family members supported peace with Hitler in 1940 remains threatening enough to the British monarchy that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was willing to authorize the assassination of a 94-year-old Rudolf Hess in 1987 to prevent it from coming to light. However, the disclosure of the fact that Hitler wanted peace with Britain and France and offered to withdraw all German troops from Northern, Western and Southern Europe in 1940-41 also threaten the neo-imperialists in both major political parties in America today. That is because if it's true that Hitler didn't want war with the West, didn’t want to occupy Western Europe and Nazi Germany offered sixteen different peace offers with reasonable terms, then if Russian President Vladimir Putin is as some Western leaders have alleged “a new Hitler” he might want peace too. If Hitler didn't want to conquer the world, then maybe Putin doesn't either. The fact that Putin has expanded the territory under Russian control by a fraction of one percent during his quarter century in power as Russia’s leader suggests that his territorial aims are far less sweeping than the Nazi leader’s were.

Churchill’s War Crimes

Churchill even turned down numerous appeals from Germany’s noble resistance movement to help them kill Hitler including one in 1943 in which they offered to deliver Hitler and other top Nazi leaders to the Western allies dead or alive in exchange for a promise by FDR that he would send US troops to defend Europe from Soviet occupation after the Western allies occupied defeated Germany. He did so because his aim was not merely Germany’s unconditional surrender but rather the destruction and dismemberment of Germany and the deaths of millions of its civilians to prevent Germany from ever challenging British hegemony ever again. As such, he deemed it in Britain’s interests to keep Hitler alive to the bitter end as a pretext to justify the vengeful retribution he planned to visit upon Germany’s innocent civilians after the war ended and Germany was defenseless against Western predations. Otherwise, the Germans could have claimed that they had succeeded in overthrowing and executing Hitler and other top Nazi leaders and that therefore they should not be subject to a collective punishment campaign by the Western victors as Hitler carried out against the Jews.

There is, in fact, precious little to admire about Churchill, aside from his inspired rhetoric, much of which was plagiarized from other sources, as he was a well-known white supremacist who infamously laughed off the deaths of three million Indians in the Bengal famine of 1943 which he had caused. Churchill committed numerous war crimes during World War Two including the terror bombing of German cities which killed 600,000 civilians--mostly women and children and the illegal starvation blockade of Germany which killed a million more during the war.

Churchill also ordered Operation Keelhaul in which two million anti-Communist freedom fighters and their family members were sent back to the Soviet Union to be executed either by firing squad or with a slow death by being sent to the Gulag death camps. But perhaps Churchill’s most horrific planned war crime of all was his decision to order the production of thousands of tons of anthrax biological weapons which have a 90% death rate to be used to make German cities unlivable for at least half a century had the D-Day amphibious invasion failed as part of what was euphemistically referred to as Operation Vegetarian. Had he used them its likely tens of millions of German civilians would have been killed.

In September 1944, Churchill signed off FDR’s Soviet inspired Morgenthau Plan at the Second Quebec Conference, which aimed to solve the so-called “German problem” by de-industrializing Germany and reducing it to an agrarian economy capable of supporting no more than twenty million Germans, thus starving the other fifty million German civilians to death. When Hitler learned of this ghastly plan, he was so frightened, he ordered several panzer divisions transferred from the eastern front so they can stage the Ardennes offensive later known as the Battle of the Bulge. This offensive resulted in 81,000 unnecessary US military casualties that otherwise might have survived the war unscathed representing over 17 percent of the total US killed and wounded in the European and North African theaters from 1941-1945.

This genocidal plan was partially implemented causing the estimated deaths of six to fourteen million German civilians and prisoners of war after Germany’s surrender according to esteemed historian James Bacque. I had the privilege of interviewing Bacque on my radio show back in 2019 before he died. Indeed, by any measure, there was no difference of moral significance between Churchill and Hitler aside from the total number of innocents they mass murdered. Churchill also supported the forced deportation of 15-18 million ethnic Germans from their ancestral lands all across Eastern Europe, which led to the deaths of two million German civilians. He also presided over the imposition of socialism in Britain for the first time in its history as he gave his Labour Party Deputy Prime Minister Clement Atlee free reign to do so, again putting to rest any argument that he had any conservative political principles to speak of.

America First conservative podcaster Candace Owens exposing how the neocons are using liberal myths about the Second World War to justify their attempts to provoke World War Three with Russia and China.

Cooper is not alone among America First conservative exposing liberal lies about “the Good War” that the liberals loved because the US allied with and armed the most murderous dictator in world history at the time and helped his evil empire to expanded Communism across the world to include half of Europe and most of East Asia. America First conservative icon Candace Owens has also repudiated Soviet-style indoctrination of our kids with those liberal myths with a podcast saying everything we learned about the war in public schools was a lie.

One of the liberal lies about the war Candace Owens rebuts is the claim that President Harry Truman’s decision to kill 140,000 Japanese civilians with atomic weapons over a year after Japan’s first surrender attempt. I wrote an article in which I substantiated her assertion in The National Interest a couple years ago. She asks why the Allies ethnically cleansed 15-18 million Germans from their homelands after the war ended and why we assigned collective guilt for Hitler’s Holocaust of 5-6 million Jews, deciding every German civilian including newborn babies were personally responsible for Nazi crimes. Some Allied war crimes that she discusses are covered though not in full in these two video links “War Crimes of the Liberators” and “Germany after the War, 1945-49.”

Why did US and British leaders think it was morally justifiable to sentence women and children who had never voted for Hitler and had no knowledge of the Jewish Holocaust to death with our mass terror bombings of German cities and our illegal starvation blockade of Germany that together killed 1.6 million Germans during the war? If we as Christians believe in the concept of God’s immutable moral laws and absolute rather than relative morality, then we must condemn not just Hitler for his collective punishment of the Jews but FDR, Churchill, Truman and Eisenhower for their mass murder of millions of innocent German and Japanese civilians during and after the war using the same pretext.

As she rightly noted, the reason the neocons are so unhinged in their defense of US and Soviet war crimes during World War Two is because they have been actively working to condition American citizens to get them to support fighting World War Three with Russia and very possibly China as well, which could lead to the deaths of 250 million Americans.

Stalin Was the Chief Culprit of the War and Killed More Soviet Citizens than Hitler

Churchill, FDR and Stalin at the Yalta Conference in February 1945 where Stalin was awarded virtually all of the territorial spoils of the war.

According to prevailing estimates, Hitler killed about twelve million innocents during World War Two including at least five million Jews and two million Russian prisoners of war. I think that is likely an accurate estimate of the number of those he mass murdered. According to some estimates, Stalin may have killed far more. Soviet dictator Josef Stalin stated until his death in 1953 that the Germans killed seven million Soviet citizens during the war including five million Red Army troops and two million civilians. I think that is likely true. However, in 1963, the Soviet regime revised its death toll to 20-27 million Soviet citizens killed during the war, blaming the Germans for their death.

The question then becomes—what possible motive would Stalin have to deliberately underestimate the number of Soviets killed during the war? I wrote an article about that previously but ultimately the answer is the only reason he would have to do that would be to cover up the fact that it was he who killed the additional 13-20 million Soviet citizens over half of whom were not Russians at all but rather conquered Poles, Finns, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Belarussians, Ukrainians and Romanians. There was a Soviet law that to surrender to the Germans was a capital offense worthy of death not only for the surrendering Red Army soldier but potentially for his family as well and there is no question that Stalin executed millions of Soviet POWs and their families including many he sent to the gulags in Siberia. According to multiple sources, Ukrainian survivors of the war stated the Nazis treated them better than the Soviets did, which is not surprising given the fact that Stalin genocided up to 25% of Ukraine’s population during the Holodomor in the 1930s and in the years thereafter which is why so many Ukrainians fought on the German side to try to liberate Ukraine from Soviet rule.

Of course, none of these assertions are meant to minimize the horrific crimes of Hitler and other Nazi leaders but merely to show that the US and UK opted to ally with and cravenly appease a dictator who was just as evil and even more murderous. This unholy alliance with what President Ronald Reagan rightly called the Soviet Evil Empire along with their decision to surrender half of Europe to Stalin under the terms of the infamous Yalta appeasement pact, made a mockery of FDR’s and Churchill’s supposed democratic principles and claimed desire to liberate Europe from totalitarian control.

“Stalin’s War”, easily the best book ever written about the true origins and history of World War Two. No one can claim to be a World War Two expert who has not read it.

As noted by Sean McMeekin in his outstanding and groundbreaking book, “Stalin’s War—A New History of World War Two,” Chamberlain himself had rejected Stalin's offer to ally with Britain and France against Hitler in June 1939 in exchange for Soviet occupation (and likely annexation) of parts or all of six Eastern European nations, presciently warning along with former President Herbert Hoover that an alliance with the USSR would lead to the Soviet conquest of central and eastern Europe. But tragically he was pressured by Winston Churchill and other fellow Conservative Party members to pursue what was later exposed to be a disastrous course not just for Poland and the British Empire but for the entire world. Had Chamberlain resisted the calls for war and chosen peace instead, he would likely have been praised as a visionary hero to this very day while Churchill would never have been appointed Prime Minister.

In his book, McKeekin, openly questions the prevalent liberal narrative that World War Two was “The Good War.” In his book, he shows that it was Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, not Churchill, who was not merely the chief beneficiary of World War Two but also its chief instigator. This interview exposes the fact that the unholy alliance between the US and what President Ronald Reagan rightly described as “the Evil Soviet Empire” was unnecessary. Accordingly, the decision of Churchill and FDR to help Soviet dictator Josef Stalin Communize one-third of the world's people and territory was not a necessity as the pro-Communist neocons and liberals have indoctrinated us to believe. Rather, it was the greatest betrayal of human freedom and liberty in world history and yet they continue to defend the indefensible while hypocritically accusing their opponents of supporting appeasement when it was they who continue to support and justify the greatest and most craven act of appeasement of all time at the Yalta Conference in January 1945.

McKeekin rightly notes in the epilogue to his book that given the fact that Britain’s wartime objectives of liberating Poland and Czechoslovakia from totalitarian tyranny failed, tens of millions of civilians were killed and Nazi Germany was replaced by the Evil Soviet Empire as the undisputed master of Central and Eastern Europe, one is left to wonder what the point was to fighting World War Two in the first place. Indeed, America’s wartime goals of liberating China and Indochina from totalitarian control were also frustrated within four years of the end of the war, underscoring this point.

The US effectively traded Nazi control of central and eastern Europe for Soviet control of central and eastern Europe as well as most of East Asia including mainland China, North Korea, northern Japan and Indochina, leaving one to wonder whether the outcome of the war was a worst case scenario for the cause of freedom and liberty worldwide. The cost to achieve this troubling outcome was not cheap—$4 trillion in today’s dollars and nearly 1.1 million US military servicemembers killed and wounded. In other terms, the difference between the peace Hitler offered the British in May 1941 before the US had lost a single servicemen and the peace that we got four years later was that the West got West Germany, Luxembourg, Alsace-Lorraine and a neutral Austria in exchange for losing China, North Korea, northern Japan and Indochina to totalitarian control.

Might it have been better for the West had we accepted Hitler’s peace offer to withdraw from eighty-three percent of German occupied territory in Europe instead and then pursued the same strategy of containment against Nazi Germany that won us the Cold War against the Soviet Empire that was over eleven times larger than the area under Nazi control at its zenith in 1942? Better yet, might it have been better had we accepted the 1943 offer of the German resistance to assassinate Hitler and liberate Germany from the Nazis to prevent China from going Communist in exchange for a permanent US troop presence in Estonia, Latvia, Poland and Romania similar to the one we have today to defend Europe from potential future Russian aggression?

He explains:

“If the point was to save Poland and Eastern Europe from foreign subjugation, then the war was an abysmal failure…We could say much the same about the war in Asia. If the point was to liberate Manchuria and north China, then, as in Eastern Europe, the war was a failure….In view of the disappointing returns, it is worth asking whether the sacrifices of millions of Poles, Britons, Frenchmen, Canadians, Australians, Russians, Americans, and others were necessary in the first place.

The United States approved, funded, and armed the Soviet invasion that led North Korea, Manchuria, and ultimately all of China (except Taiwan, to come under Communist rule. This was a perverse outcome of a war fought to free these areas from oppression…Whatever Americans voted for in 1940, it was not to finance, produce weapons for, and hire millions of Russia’s as (in effect) mercenaries, or have their sons fight a global war to the death to make much of Europe and Asia safe for Communism.”

“Soviet Communism was rescued by the US and Britain’s self-defeating strategic moves, beginning with Lend-Lease aid, as American and British supply boards agreed almost blindly to every Soviet demand. Stalin’s War machine was substantially reliant on American material from warplanes, tanks, trucks, jeeps, motorcycles, fuel, ammunition and explosives to industrial inputs and technology transfers, to the foodstuffs that fed the Red Army. This unreciprocated American generosity gave Stalin’s armies the mobile striking power to conquer most of Eurasia, from Berlin to Beijing, for Communism… The notion that a great American victory was achieved in 1945 is hard to square with the strategic reality of the Cold War, which required a gargantuan expenditure over decades merely to hold the line at the Fulda Gap before the USSR finally collapsed in 1991.”

McMeekin then goes on to explain that while the US defeated Germany and Japan in World War Two, “another militaristic empire, after gorging on Lend-Lease aid and the war booty won with it, was transformed into a superpower with far greater reach and influence than Germany or Japan and ever enjoyed….The ultimate price of victory was paid by the tens of millions of involuntary subjects of Stalin’s satellite regimes in Europe and Asia, including Maoist China, along with millions of Soviet dissidents, returned Soviet POWs, and captured war prisoners who were herded into Gulag camps. For subjects of his expanding slave empire, Stalin’s war did not end in 1945. Decades of oppression and new forms of terror were still to come.”

Ultimately, Joseph Stalin, the greatest mass murderer in human history at the time and his Evil Soviet Empire were the only true victors of the Second World War. The Western Allies won the war militarily but lost the peace by surrendering most of the fruits of victory to the Soviets at the end of the conflict. Had World War Two been waged with an eye to securing the future peace and freedom of the world's nations rather than merely military victory at all cost and at any price, many of the problems we are experiencing today with regards to Communist China and North Korea for example might have been entirely averted and over 1.7 billion people in eleven countries who live under Communist enslavement would today be free, and the lives of tens of millions of innocents who lost their lives to totalitarian genocide might have been spared.

Ultimately, the outbreak of unnecessary wars such as the First and Second World Wars represented failures of diplomacy as the great powers, apart from France and perhaps Russia, did not want to fight a major European war in 1914 nor did Germany, Britain, France or Poland want to fight a major war with each other in 1939. Of European leaders only Stalin and Churchill wanted the outbreak of the Second World War. Stalin wanted what he called the Second Imperialist War in the hopes that the Western Allies and Germany would exhaust each other militarily so they would be unable to resist the Red Army from occupying and Sovietizing Europe all the way to the English Channel. Churchill wanted war from the time of the German re-occupation of the Rhineland in 1936 onward because he loved war and ultimately wanted to re-subjugate and destroy Germany. From that point on he dreamed of “a Grand Alliance” between the UK and the Soviet Union to accomplish this goal and carve up Europe into British and Soviet spheres of influence. Churchill realized this objective at the Fourth Moscow Conference in October 1944 and the infamous Percentages Agreement which was later formalized with the Yalta Appeasement Pact of January 1945.

Accordingly, if there is one lesson to be learned from the failures of Britain and France to avert the outbreak of the Second World War, it is that US foreign policy should focus more on harnessing America’s diplomatic heft to negotiate peaceful diplomatic resolutions to international conflicts before they escalate into major regional wars. Then the US would not have to increase the size of its defense budget to counter the unprecedented myriad of existential threats which Biden’s failed foreign policy of liberal hegemony continues to provoke. This is especially true with regards to the Biden induced alignment of four nuclear adversaries—Russia, China, North Korea and Iran against us—plotting our destruction along with our allies in what might be an avertable cyber, super EMP or nuclear holocaust.

The British Empire v. America’s Liberal Empire Today

At the beginning of World War Two, there was a universal consensus among British leaders that the British Empire, was a positive good that was worth fighting for. It was said that the sun never set on the British Empire as it consisted of lands and territories in virtually every time zone on the planet. The British Empire is widely recognized as the largest empire in world history covering well over one quarter or the world's landmass subjugating nearly one quarter of the world’s people to British imperial rule. It was also the most aggressive and militaristic having invaded ninety percent of the world's nations. During both world wars, the Allies fought against Germany and her allies, they claimed they were fighting against a country that sought to conquer the world even though in the case of Nazi Germany, it never controlled more than one-tenth of the amount of territory controlled by the British Empire even at its largest extent in 1942 when in fact it was the British who were trying to control the world. Britain, the US, France and Russia together controlled well over half of the world's territory during both world wars while Germany and her allies controlled far less.

In 2008, Pat Buchanan published his most outstanding book, "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War," showing how Churchill bears much of the blame for starting World War One and for the foolish British decisions that led to the rise of Hitler and World War Two and how his rejection of Hitler’s generous peace offers prolonged the war for many years unnecessarily. What most Americans fail to realize is that the British didn't actually have a problem about Germany retaking Danzig and the Polish Corridor. In fact, they supported getting Poland to return those territories to Germany from 1925 onward. They only had a problem with Germany taking it back by force without a negotiated agreement with British consent as that would violate the rules of what many historians believe was a British-led international order at the time.

Just as Britain went to war with Germany even though it had no national security interests in going to war over Poland because Germany did not annex Danzig and the Polish Corridor with Britain’s permission with Britain as the world’s leading power, the Biden administration seems willing to risk nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine because Russia refuses to recognize US liberal hegemony. Russian officials have stated that Russia refuses to submit itself to the US rules-based order, given that the US has hypocritically flouted its own rules with international bombings, invasions and occupations of several countries in violation of international law over the past quarter century. Biden is fighting a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine because the US views Russia as a continued threat to the US-led international order and wants to eliminate the Russian threat to perceived US global domination. As former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has stated, a Russian “victory” over Ukraine in retaining all the Ukrainian territory in the West could lead to the end of Western global hegemony, failing to state why he thinks this perceived Western global dominance serves US or UK national security interests.

After World War Two, Britain found itself bankrupt and so the US took Britain's place as the world's leading imperial power. In a speech given at the Heritage Foundation in February 2023, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) rightly condemned America’s “liberal empire” and suggested America First conservatives should begin dismantling it and returning to a more restrained Reaganite policy of peace through strength instead, the pursuit of which has been widely credited to have enabled us to win the Cold War against the Soviet Union at a modest cause in American lives. Certainly, it must be said that America’s liberal empire is much more benevolent than previous empires in history as with some notable exceptions including a number of nations in the Middle East, it has not sought to subjugate other nations directly with invasion and military occupation, but rather to dominate them through more indirect means.

For years, virtually all US policymakers have supported America's imperial uniparty consensus that has included constant regime change wars and empire building projects such as Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and now Ukraine just as British leaders of all major parties were unanimous in supporting the British Empire a century ago. However, public support for America's strategy of pursuing global hegemony and attempting to expand our liberal empire is no longer widespread today with an August 2023 CNN poll showing 55% of Americans opposed further military aid to Ukraine including 71% of Republicans.

From 1990-91, Russia unilaterally surrendered its entire empire--consisting of twenty different nation states in Eastern Europe and Central Asia by disbanding the Warsaw Pact and dissolving the Soviet Union --the first nation to willingly do so in modern history. By 1994, it had withdrawn the last of its troops from Eastern Europe. Instead of following Russia’s lead and giving up its overseas empire by leaving NATO, US leaders opted to greatly expand it into Eastern Europe. Within a decade later, the US had finished converting all former Russian Warsaw Pact member satellite states in Eastern Europe into US satellites along with the three former Soviet Baltic republics.

Four years later, the US threatened to transform Ukraine and Georgia into US military protectorates as well. Which country is the real imperialist power again? Russia accepted the post-Cold War international order in which its twenty former imperial republics were free of Russian rule but it has never accepted NATO expansion eastward in violation of verbal assurances from the US and other NATO countries which were given in exchange for Soviet acquiescence to German re-unification as a NATO member state in 1990. Understanding this, we can see that it is not Russia, but rather NATO, which has disrupted the agreed upon post-Cold War international order.

Today, the Biden administration accuses the Russian Federation of seeking to restore control of its Soviet-era empire in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union when in fact it is the US that has expanded its control over Eastern Europe and former Soviet republics in the Baltic region and now Ukraine, which prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union had been considered part of the Russian heartland. As Dr. John Mearsheimer has stated there is no evidence that Russia is attempting to regain control of its lost empire that it voluntarily gave up over three decades ago.

Neocons and Neoliberals Failure to Learn the Lessons of History Imperil US

Back in April 1939, former British Prime Minister David Lloyd George expressed alarm that Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was willing to subcontract Britain’s decision to start a Second World War with Germany to a lesser nation like Poland by issuing an ill-considered military guarantee to Poland and risk the loss of the British Empire in the process. He rightfully condemned Chamberlain’s decision stating that in the event of war the British would be unable to send a single army battalion to defend Poland, so it made no sense to guarantee it from potential German aggression. Eighty-five years later, President Joe Biden appears to be attempting to subcontract America’s decision to fight a Third World War with Russia that would likely swiftly escalate to the nuclear level to a corrupt autocratic Ukrainian despot who has been openly trying to embroil NATO in a direct war with Russia, knowing that is the only hope Ukraine has to retake its lost territories.

Perhaps the most glaring historical misconception of the war by far, which has since been used to justify numerous wars since including an indefinite, unnecessary, destabilizing and incredibly dangerous prolongation of America’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, was that it was Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler with the Munich Agreement that caused the outbreak of World War Two. Therefore, the historical ignoramuses who dominate US foreign policymaking circles mistakenly reason, the chief lesson of the war is that the US must never accommodate our adversaries or else they will be emboldened to invade other countries and perhaps start another world war. US leaders would do well to realize that it was not the British policy of accommodating Nazi Germany that caused the outbreak of World War Two but rather it was Chamberlain’s decision to abruptly abandon it by issuing a rash, ill-considered British military guarantee of Poland against a German invasion that Hitler had never previously considered, in view of the fact that Hitler had spent the previous five years trying to cultivate Poland as an ally against the USSR, that resulted in the outbreak of the war.

As previously noted, Germany’s claims for the return of the German city of Danzig and the Polish Corridor were legitimate given they had been part of the German province of West Prussia which was 61% ethnic German when it was used by the Allies to dismember Germany and split it in two upon the signing of the unjust Versailles Agreement in 1919. Similarly, Russia’s security concerns were also legitimate with regards to Biden’s decision to make Ukraine a de facto NATO member by November 2021 in flagrant violation of US assurances to Russia thirty years earlier by Secretary of State James Baker that NATO would not expand by one inch, caused Russian President Vladimir Putin to authorize a limited invasion of Ukraine to rollback NATO’s revisionist expansion. Three years ago on December 7^th, 2021, Putin and Biden spoke on the phone and Putin pledged not to invade Ukraine if Biden issued a written guarantee that Ukraine would never join NATO but Biden refused, deliberately choosing an unnecessary war instead.

A crucially important lesson of history that few, if any, US leaders are willing to accept is it was great power alliances that transformed two regional conflicts in Eastern Europe into unnecessary world wars which together cost the lives of over 100 million people. Will America’s membership in NATO transform a third regional conflict in Ukraine into an unnecessary Third World War that could potentially cost the lives of a billion more? If President Joe Biden has his way with his continued and increasingly alarming escalations of his proxy war against Russia in Ukraine most recently including authorizing Ukraine to employ long range US ATACMS missiles against Russia, the answer may be yes.

If the West survived Communist domination of one-third of the world’s territory and people for nearly half a century and Communist domination of over one-fifth of the world’s people today, then why should we suppose the West could not have survived Nazi domination of central and eastern Europe for decades? Why should we assume that Nazi control of even 2.6% of the world’s territory at its zenith in 1942 necessitated US military involvement which did not liberate central and eastern Europe nor East Asia but merely transferred it from control of a couple of totalitarian powers (Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan) to another far more dangerous enemy that unlike Nazi Germany, posed an existential threat to us. Furthermore, if former President Ronald Reagan was unwilling to risk World War Three to liberate East Germany from Soviet control, why do the neocons and neoliberals expect us to believe it is in the US national security interest to risk a nuclear war with Russia to help Ukraine liberate its five most southeastern provinces from Russian control that are located approximately 1,000 miles eastward?

The stakes of getting our Russia and China policies right are infinitely greater than the stakes were for getting our Japan and Germany policies right were 80-85 years ago as back then the US faced no real threat to the security of the continental United States and the US produced all of our own necessities meaning that our enemies could have blockaded us on both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and we could have easily weathered the storm. Today, the US faces a myriad of existential threats from four closely allied nuclear adversaries that could use their escalation dominance in terms of nuclear weapons, super Electromagnetic Pulse weapons and cyberweapons to effectively destroy America’s lifesaving critical infrastructure without warning that could cause up to one quarter of a billion Americans to perish within a year.

President Richard Nixon, demonstrated his profound understanding of history and strategy entirely lacking in neocon foreign policy circles, with his outstanding book, “The Real War” that reportedly served as the blueprint for the Reagan military buildup and his successful strategy to defeat the Soviet Union which informed my own foreign policy thinking when I first read it in 1985. As Nixon, stated in his book, “World War I and II…brought the Communists to power in Russia and China” and “destroyed the five (actually six with Imperial Japan) great containing powers that had kept Russia penned in.” U.S. leaders should follow Nixon’s sage advice in seeking peaceful accommodations with Russia and China which satisfy the vital interests of all three nuclear superpowers and serve to increase international peace and stability while making no concessions to them without receiving reciprocal concessions in return. By doing so, we can induce them to stop viewing the U.S. as ‘the main enemy’ and can succeed in dividing and neutralizing the Sino-Russian military alliance while greatly diminishing the unprecedented threat they pose to our existence. With regards to ending the war in Ukraine, the U.S. should seek a negotiated end to the conflict with Russia which satisfies Russian security concerns and ensures continued Ukrainian independence.

President-Elect Trump’s Pledge to End America’s Imperial Wars and Save America from World War Three

America First Republicans led by President Donald Trump and Senator JD Vance (R-OH) won the 2024 presidential election on a platform of ending Biden’s policy of liberal hegemony and never-ending military confrontation which has provoked four nuclear adversaries to ally against us and plot to destroy us. As a result, President Trump has been falsely accused of supporting a return to a policy of “isolationism,” which is a policy the US has never pursued in its history. Indeed, apart from a brief interlude from 1917-1918 when the US fought a world war in Europe, the prevalent foreign policy supported by Presidents of all major political parties from 1823-1941 was one of hemispheric hegemony, the last few decades of which was characterized by the US invading and occupying its neighbors in Latin America at will, which was in no way isolationist as historical revisionists have alleged.

Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Stephen Bryan wrote an excellent article critical of the US policy of NATO expansion into Ukraine all along Russia’s western frontier showing how Biden’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine has served to weaken the US and NATO while strengthening Russia both economically and militarily and strengthening its military alliance with Communist China.

“In 1935 retired Marine General and two-time Medal of Honor winner Smedley Butler published a 55 page pamphlet that caused a sensation. It was reprinted in Reader's Digest assuring a mass circulation. The pamphlet was called "War is a Racket. Butler's argument has lingered to this day. As we view the tragedy in Ukraine it is hard to understand why so many billions of dollars and tens of thousands of modern weapons have been squandered in a NATO crusade to expand its borders.

The Ukraine war has weakened the United States because it has emptied its treasury and its arsenals. It has undermined US interests elsewhere, especially in the Pacific, where a restless China is now challenging Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan. But even more is involved and this includes NATO itself. Despite the collapse, or better yet, disregarding the collapse, instead of NATO dissolving (as did the Warsaw Pact), NATO adopted an expansion policy. It engaged in wars outside of the context of a defensive alliance including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Libya and Afghanistan. And NATO expanded eastward and is still trying to enlarge

All this leads to the odd conclusion that without the United States European members of NATO cannot defend their own territory. It also puts the US at a serious geopolitical disadvantage. Empty arsenals and overseas deployments on Europe's borders diminish America's ability to defend its interests elsewhere, especially in the Asia Pacific region. It also exposes US security to serious risks of entrapment --a Russian inspired war in the Middle East led by Iran, and a Chinese push in east Asia, plus conflict breaking out in Korea, could lead to real disaster ahead.

Expanding NATO is a big risk for the United States, which has unequivocally backed NATO enlargement and the aggressive posture towards Russia. Even if one discount's Smedley Butler's argument that War is a Racket, the time has come to reevaluate America's support of expanding NATO.”

President Trump has pledged to end America’s forever wars of regime change and imperial expansion, most notably with a negotiated compromise peace agreement with Russia ending the war in Ukraine within twenty-four hours of taking office to avert the outbreak of an unnecessary world war. It is ironic that President-Elect Donald Trump’s desire to end Biden’s empire building project in Ukraine and indeed NATO itself seeks to restore the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine and that of our European allies, satellites, imperial dominions, vassal states and military protectorates, while removing our veto power over their defense and foreign policy initiatives, something that European nationalists should strongly support.

Trump’s NATO policy is designed not only to restore peace and stability to Europe but to help make our European allies self-sufficient in terms of their ability to defend themselves, a laudable goal everyone should share, that would cause European leaders to be much more reluctant to provoke a Third World War with Russia if they had reason to doubt the US would come to their aid if attacked. One of the best ways Trump could make European nations less dependent on the US for its security would be to persuade Europe’s most populous member, the Federal Republic of Germany, to develop nuclear weapons and takeover the position of Supreme Allied Commander Europe from us. Then, the US could withdraw all of its ground troops from the continent while continuing to offer air and naval support as well as to continue keeping NATO’s pre-1999 member states under its nuclear umbrella. That way the US could not be drawn into an unnecessary world war with Russia, making the US much more safe and secure.

President Trump has also pledged to work to restore America's economic independence from the People’s Republic of China during his second term. He supports ending America’s ruinous policy of economic globalization in which we have shipped millions of jobs, trillions of dollars of wealth and tens of thousands of advanced dual-use military technological industries to our most determined enemy, Communist China, thus depriving us of the ability to manufacture our own advanced weapon systems without Chinese components. The Deep State globalists feel so threatened by President Donald Trump’s America First conservative foreign policy agenda that they attempted to imprison and even assassinate him to prevent him from ending their wars for imperial expansion in Ukraine, Iraq and Syria and maybe Taiwan. Their attempts to do are very much reminiscent of the CIA conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy over sixty years ago because he dared to support peace with the Soviet Union and they viewed his desire to compromise with the Soviets to avert nuclear war as an act of appeasement.

As Republican Vice-presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) noted, neoconservative Republican leaders supported the transfer of our defense industrial base to China and other countries following the end of the Cold War and now insist we must fight an unwinnable, and likely nuclear, war against China to defend Taiwan. They also foolishly supported the reckless unilateral dismantlement of 92% of America’s nuclear arsenal as part of our so-called post-Cold War “peace dividend.” The decision to scrap the vast majority of our Cold war winning strategic nuclear arsenal that kept America safe and successfully deterred enemy nuclear aggression has proven to be a huge mistake given that China is in the process of rapidly expanding the size of their nuclear triad by 500% at breakneck speed while Russia has broken out of the New START Treaty limits on the size of their strategic nuclear arsenal.

Only if US leaders abandon their absolutist refusal to negotiate compromise peace agreements with Russia and China over Ukraine and Taiwan that recognize their security interests will a just and lasting peace be possible. Otherwise, the outbreak of World War Three may be inevitable, particularly given the fact that a Communist Chinese attempt to forcibly take control of Taiwan is undeterrable outside of a negotiated peace settlement and may materialize in January before President Trump is inaugurated. May God bless and preserve the United States of America and prevent the outbreak of World War Three before President Trump takes office on January 20^th!

© David T. Pyne 2024

David T. Pyne, Esq. is a former U.S. Army combat arms and Headquarters staff officer, who was in charge of armaments cooperation with the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the Americas from 2000-2003, with an M.A. in National Security Studies from Georgetown University. He is the former President and current Deputy Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security. He also serves as a member of the Committee on the Present Danger-China. He recently served as Defense and Foreign Policy Advisor to former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. He has also co-authored the best-selling new book, “Catastrophe Now--America’s Last Chance to Avoid an EMP Disaster” and his new book “Restoring Strategic Deterrence” will be published in March or April 2024. He serves as the Editor of “The Real War” newsletter at dpyne.substack.com and previously served as a contributor to “The National Interest”. Here is a link to his interview archive. He may be reached at emptaskforce.ut@gmail.com.

Recent Interviews

November 12th—Panel Interview with Jon Twitchell on Main Street Radio to discuss Trump’s Cabinet picks, the prospects for the success of his America First conservative agenda and the likely effect of his Presidency on the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East and China’s plan to blockade Taiwan. Here is a link to the interview.

November 18th—Interview with Nima Alkhorshid on the Dialogue Works show to discuss how Trump’s Cabinet' picks are likely to influence his foreign policy and the course of ongoing US conflicts with Russia and China as well as Biden’s decision to send US mercenaries to Ukraine as well as his decision to authorize Ukraine to use ATACMs missiles deep inside Russian territory which Russian President Putin stated would constitute an act of war. Here is the link to the interview.

November 18th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss the ramifications of Biden’s decision to authorize Ukraine to use ATACMs missiles deep inside Russian territory which Russian President Putin stated would constitute an act of war and the very real possibility that Biden will provoke World War Three with Russia and/or China before Trump takes office. Here is a link to the interview.

November 19th—Interview with Brannon Howse on his radio show to discuss the increasing risk of World War Three with Russia in response to Biden’s escalation of his proxy war against it. Here is the link to the interview.

November 20th—Interview with Pascal Lottaz on the Neutrality Studies podcast to discuss how Trump’s Cabinet' picks are likely to influence his foreign policy and the course of ongoing US conflicts with Russia and China. We will also discuss my peace plans to end the war in Ukraine and to prevent a war with China over Taiwan. Here is the link to the interview.

November 21st—Interview with Brannon Howse on the Brannon Howse Radio show to discuss the ramifications of Russia’s first ever ICBM strike on Ukraine in response to Biden’s foolish decision to authorize Ukraine to use ATACMS missiles for deep strikes inside Russian territory. Here is a link to the interview.

November 21st—Interview with Brannon Howse on the Brannon Howse Live TV show to discuss the ramifications of Russia’s first ever ICBM strike on Ukraine in response to Biden’s foolish decision to authorize Ukraine to use ATACMS missiles for deep strikes inside Russian territory. Here is the link to the interview.

November 22nd—Interview on the American Journal hosted by Harrison Smith to discuss Biden’s escalation of his war in Ukraine authorizing ATACMs missiles to be used in deep strikes against Russia followed by Russia’s use of ICBMs to attack Ukrainian targets. Here is a link to the interview.

November 25th—Interview with Brannon Howse on the Brannon Howse Radio show to discuss New York Times report that Biden may give Ukraine nuclear weapons to attack Russia and Israel’s strikes on Russian troops in Syria. Here is a link to the interview.

November 26th—Interview with Brannon Howse on the Brannon Howse Radio show to discuss NATO military chief Admiral Rob Bauer’s call for NATO to plan pre-emptive conventional military strikes on Russian nuclear-capable bomber and missile sites in the event of war. Here is the link to the interview.

November 27th—Interview with Nazar Kotovych on his podcast to discuss the true origins of the war in Ukraine, Biden’s dangerous escalations, Trump’s championing of peace with Russia and a potential looming Chinese blockade of Taiwan before Trump is inaugurated President. Here is the link to Part I of the video.

December 2nd—Interview with COL Rob Manass on the Rob Manass show to discuss Russia’s decision to begin using ICBMs to attack Ukraine to restore deterrence with Ukraine and NATO and show he is willing to escalate the war to the nuclear level if the West does not agree to a negotiated diplomatic settlement of the conflict. Here is the link to the interview.

December 3rd—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss Russia’s super stealthy Kilo II class submarine Ufa which Russia’s Tass News Agency reports carries a nuclear missile with a 12,000 KM range. We will also discuss the Biden administration’s attempts to stir up trouble for Russia in Syria by supporting Al Queda rebels and in Georgia by supporting violent protests against the government. Here is a link to the interview.

December 5th—Panel Discussion with Scott Ritter on RT International’s Crosstalk program to discuss the prospects for peace in Ukraine after Trump becomes President. Here is the link to the interview.

December 5th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss the just released House Intelligence Committee report detailing the US intelligence committees attempt to cover up Russia’s use of microwave Americans to target US military personnel, US intelligence personnel and embassy officials with microwave weapons since 2016. Here is a link to the interview.

December 10th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss the fall of Syria to the HTS jihadist forces led by a former Al Queda and ISIS terrorist leader as well as China’s massive Joint Air-Naval Blockade exercises surrounding Taiwan, reported to be the largest such exercises in the past three decades. Here is the link to the interview.

Upcoming Interviews

December 17th—Interview on Main Street Radio with Jon Twitchell to discuss my latest article on the myths of World War Two and why it was an unnecessary war as well as Biden’s attempts to get the US into World War Three with Russia before Trump takes office. Here is a link to the interview.

December 20th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss the report that Biden has more than doubled the number of US troops in Syria, China’s ongoing efforts to penetrate US cyber networks in preparation for war with us and the latest revelations that Biden has been a figurehead President over the past four years with a cabal of his senior cabinet officials setting policy in his absence.