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.
- I assume that you heard of Halford MacKinder and his "heartland" theory. Some folks argue that this theory is outdated / obsolete. But I think this theory is still alive and kicking. Hitler employed this theory in WW II and Zbigniew Brzezinski also referred to / build upon this theory. Even with the current war in the Ukraine I think MacKinder's theory is still much in play. But then one has to know A LOT OF more details of how the situation in Eastern Europe has evolved in the past say 70 to 80 years.
Yes of course. The Sino-Russian military alliance controls the Eurasian "heartland" and the only way to change that is for Trump to form a detente with Russia to neutralize its military alliance with China.
- Correct. That's my reading of the current situation as well.
- The key here is the control of Eastern Europe (I read that as "Ukraine"). One has to look at the former Soviet Union. some 60 to 70% of the soviet population lived west of the Ural mountains. West of the Ural mountains is / was most of the Soviet territory / soviet fertile land that's suitable for agricultural use (think: Ukraine). If Hitler has conquered Moscow then Hitler would have been able to add the Ukraine to the Third Reich. And the Soviet Union wouldn't have been able to feed it population anymore. and then Britain would have had a more powerful enemy called nazi Germany that also controlled the Ukraine and what'sleft of the Soviet Union.
- This in turn could be the reason why Churchill supported the Soviet Union. otherwise Nazi Germany would have been a much more powerful enemy. After all MacKinder's theory originated in Britain (1904).
- Controlling the Ukraine also would give the US more leverage over Europe because there are a number of (oil and gas) pipelines that run from Russia to Europe. Then the US would be able to decide how much gas and oil Russia can export and Europe can import. Never heard of Nordstream I and II ?
- Are you aware of the oil pipeline from Baku (Azerbeidjan) to Tblisi to the Black Sea port of Poti (both in Georgia) ? From Tblisi there is another branch to the turkish port of Ceyhan on the shores of the Mediterranean. It's all designed to circumvent oil transport through Russia.
- To circumvert the Bosporus (in Turkey) there is also an oil pipeline constructed from Burgas (Bulgaria) through the Balkans to the albanian port of Vlore. That's an additional reason why Bulgaria is now in NATO.
- See how MacKInder's theory is still "alive and kicking" ? Not surprsing because the geographic situation didn't change since the year 1904.
- I can agree with A LOT OF things that have been written here. There are also things in this article I have a hardtime believing. At least, this article does contain a number of thought provoking information which made my braincells run overtime for a while. I have read this article already 2 times and I certainly will read it a few times more.
- Tucker Carlson has shown in the past that he certainly is able to think for himself and made his own mind up that don't "line up with" the mainstream stream narrative. I assume that that was the reason he was fired from FOX News.
This was - IMO - the video that was the "final straw that broke the back of the camel" called Tucker Carlson. It was this video that got Carlson fired from FOX News.
- I must confess that I wasn't aware of those details and what those peace proposals entailed. But I assume / could imagine that britain backe then was already "knee deep" in its "cooperation" with the Soviet Union.
Yes it was as was the US from June 1941 onward. The Soviet Union magically transformed from Hitler's co-aggressor and a murderous dictatorship to a beacon of democracy after Hitler invaded the USSR. It might have been better for Germany if Hitler had let Stalin strike first in July 1941 for that reason so the Allies could not paint the Soviets as defending against Nazi aggression.
- One has to keep in mind that Churchill's main and only (or - at least - the most important) concern was the preservation and continuation of the British Empire. with that point in mind Churchill's decisions start to make (much) more sense. But the British Empire was already on a downward trajectory from about the 1st decade of the 20th century. And WW II only accelerated the demise of the British Empire.
- Let's assume that britain had accepted the german peace proposals then the success of those proposals and peace would have hinged on the assumption that Britain (and the US) would keep to their end of the deal and wouldn't have attacked Nazi Germany at all. And I am NOT convinced Britain and the US would have kept their end that deal/agreement.
- Did you ever read the book called "The Chinese Mirage" (James Bradley). Bradley shows that it was inevitable that the chinese Nationalists would lose that chinese civil war. And this had NOTHING to do with WW II in the Far East. Between say 1930 and 1949 the US made a number of decisions that - in the end - made Mao Zedong turn to communism. Otherwise Mao Zedong would have become a friend of the US. Here we again come across a thing called "American Hubris / Arrogance / Exceptionalism". Very interesting book.
- I see an interesting parallel between WW II and the war in the Ukraine: In both cases the war was lost already BEFORE these wars started. The US made an number of decisions in the 1990s and 2000s and those decisions now come to haunt NATO and the Ukraine. Likewise Hitler already lost "Operation Barbarossa" by delaying the attack on the Soviet Union by 2 months, from april 1941 to june 1941.
Exactly right. Churchills decision to unnecessarily prolong World War Two by nearly five long years from July 1940 when Hitler offered to withdraw from France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Norway in exchange for peace with Britain accelerated the demise and collapse of the British Empire as it encouraged the spread of nationalism. You are also right to question whether the US or UK would have honored their peace agreement with Hitler. We know Hitler would have honored it in order to achieve his goal of fighting the Soviet Union without Stalin receiving western military support but I can see Churchill considering violating the peace agreement when the time was right. FDR would have a much harder time violating it if the European war was over before the US entered the conflict. Hitler made many mistakes that ensured Germany's defeat including delaying the German invasion of the USSR by five to six weeks as you rightly note.
In the case of the Chinese Civil War, the Nationalists had the upper hand all the way until 1946 when Truman cut off all US aid to the Nationalist Revolutionary Army while the Soviets increased their military support of Mao's Red Army during the same period ensuring a Communist Chinese victory. Truman despised Chiang Kai Shek that he ordered a billion dollars worth of congressionally authorized US weapons destined for the Nationalists dumped into the Pacific Ocean. Ultimately, Stalin succeeded in infiltrating the US government and peppering both the FDR and Truman administrations with Soviet spies that caused both Presidents to pursue pro-Soviet policies from 1941-1949/1950. Without Soviet stooges like FDR and Truman, the Cold War with the Soviet Union would have either been entirely averted or else we would have fought it along the USSR's 1938 border rather than in central Germany.
As for the war in Ukraine, the war was unwinnable for Ukraine from the start so it was Biden's decision to fight the war in Ukraine in December 2021 ensured Ukraine's military defeat. Only a decision by Biden to issue a written guarantee that Ukraine would never join NATO would have sufficed to save Ukraine from defeat.
- No, the Nationalists were bound to lose the chinese civil war and that was already clear to Mao in about 1932.
- Agree, but Mao first tried to get support from the US from 1945. Like one Ho Chi Minh also tried to get american economic support which was also refused by the US. then Ho started to recieve support from Moscos and became a communist as well. (See a pattern here ???).
Would USA give up any town to avoid a war? It`a easy to say poland should have restored Gdańsk to Hitler but hitler didin`t want olny Gdansk> he wanted a corridor to Prus.
Yes, that is true but Hitler was willing to wait to regain the Polish Corridor until Poland was reimbursed with Lithuanian or Soviet territory as he respected Poland and courted it as a German ally from 1934-1939. Also, Danzig was not Polish territory until 1945. It was a free city administered by Poland. In late 1938, the Germans offered to make it a free city administered by Germany to ensure continued Polish use of the port.
After the last few years and becoming more aware of what is really going on, it makes me wonder if they taught us any truths in public schools and colleges?
I am starting to think the answer to that question is NO !!!
Buchanan's book is excellent and keep in mind that I've spent the greatest part of my life detesting the guy. Your screed is far in excess prolix and circular. History isn't your good v evil caricature. It's far more complex. Hint: we're not the "good guys." Nobody is, but certainly not the USA. We are all in this together.
I think you completely misread my article. It is the liberals in both major US political parties, not America First conservatives like myself, who want us to believe that World War Two was a fight between "the good" Allies versus the "evil Axis" because they view Communism as being "good." I have believed since at least 1987 that World War Two was a fight between evil Allied mass murderers versus evil Axis mass murderers. Today, I would agree that both sides are a mix of good and bad. Both Russia and Ukraine have a just cause to fight but it was Biden that lit the match to start this unnecessary conflagration that has cost over a million Ukrainian casualties to date.
What is the just cause for Ukraine? Cultural genocide on Russians and other minorities (the Hungarians and Romanians have continuously protested the opression of those minorities in Ukraine, especially after 2014)? And then the desire to have US troops on their soil to threaten Russia and maybe take even more territory from Russia, as if what they received from Russia in 1922 and after WWII was not enough?
Fostering the ukro-nazi coup (have you seen the videos with the burning alive of about 50 people in Odessa in 2014?), refusal to respect the Minsk accords, refusal to negotiate a quick pace in 2022 are prima facie evidence that Ukraine's cause is not a "just" cause.
We see how Assad's rule fell like a sand castle, because people did not stand by it any longer. Reports, from the Ukrainians, are that the Ukrainians are returning to the occupied and reconstructed Mariupol, and that many are moving to Pokrosk, in expectation of Russian takeover, and that there are about 100,000 deserters, and that now more than 50% of Ukrainians want peace now.
You're not looking at the significance of transnational interests in the origin and purpose of WWII (or WWI for that matter). Most modern wars, and practically all the ones occurring in the western theater of operations over the course of the last couple of centuries have been influenced by the banksters. They operate above the level of national sovereignty, and have their own aims and purposes (increase in their own power and influence, for one thing -- same as everybody else). What happened in 1947? Did that have anything to do with anything?
- Here another thought why Churchill chose the alliance with the Soviet Union and rejected the peace proposals as proposed by Nazi Germany.
- In the 1930s Italy under Mussolini 1) already had Libya as a colony and 2) started a war in - what's currently - Somalia and Ethiopia. Italy dominating Somalia and Ethiopia were a threat to Britain because both countries are in the "Horn of Africa" and border the Red Sea and the Bab El Mandeb. Italy controlling Libya and Ethiopia was a threat to british control over Egypt and the Suez canal. Churchill wanted to keep control over Egypt, the Red Sea and the Bab El Mandeb. These sea lanes were vital for Britain to be able to have a safe shipping route to its colonies in East Africa and in southern Asia (from India in west Asia up to Malaysia and Australia in the east of Asia).
- Italy was a partner with Nazi Germany. I think that that was the reason (think: control over Suez, the Red Sea and the Bab El Mandeb) why Churchill rejected the peace proposals coming from Italy and Nazi Germany.
- I also think that Chyurchill thought that both the Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union should / would battle it out and would severely weaken each other to the benefit of Britain and the British Empire. One also has to keep in mind that in the late 1930s and early 1940s Japan became a threat to the british colonies in South East Asia. That threat also had to be dealt with. There was simply too much war brewing which Britain couldn't fight / handle at all on its own at that time.
- But - as assumptions always do - the calculations / assumptions Churchill made in 1939/1940/1941 went up in smoke during WW II. I assume that after say 1942 (when the germans were forced to start their retreat from the Soviet Union) Churchill started to realize how his calculations from say 1938 up to say 1942/1943 were all going up in smoke. And then he had to admit that the US supporting the Soviet Union in its war effort had changed the entire dynamic and then started to realize that - with hindsight - he should have accepted the 1941 peace proposals of Italy and Nazi Germany. And as we all know Eastern Europe was occupied for 45 years by the Soviet Union from 1945 up to 1990.
As part of his peace offer to the UK in May 1941, Hitler offered to withdraw all German troops from Libya and western Egypt and to mediate an end to the war between the UK and Italy which would have largely eliminated the Axis threat to the Suez Canal because the Italian Army wasn't capable of advancing against British forces without German support. Indeed, its very possible that following a separate peace with Germany, Britain could have captured Libya and even liberated Greece so I guess I would push back on your assumption. I think the reason why Churchill rejected Hitler's offer to withdraw all German troops from seven European countries except for Alsace-Lorraine was that he was hell bent on destroying Germany and wanted to use the myth of Hitler bent on world conquest as a pretext to do so. I think he was fine to surrender Eastern Europe to Stalin after FDR shot down his Mediterranean Option which was designed to liberate Austria and maybe Hungary in advance of the Red Army but would have left Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Slovakia and Yugoslavia under Communist control. He only cared about keeping Greece under the British sphere of influence and trying to capture Berlin, Vienna and Prague. He absolutely knew that all out US and UK military support of the Soviet Union would lead to a Soviet takeover of nearly two-thirds of Europe but he didn't care. He just wanted to destroy Germany which he viewed as the biggest threat to the British Empire even though Hitler offered to send Germany army troops to defend the British Empire if necessary.
- Interesting. That were some details I wasn't aware of. Thanks for your answer.
- Agree, Italy wasn't strong enough on its own to win the war against Britain.
- Churchill's obsession was to preserve and the continuation of the British Empire.
- Yes, I knew Churchill had "some plan for the Balkans" but I didn't know what those plans entailed. But that shows that Churchill was very well aware of what was going to happen with the countries that were liberated by the Red Army. I assume that Churchill wanted to keep english influence in Greece to keep the (british) shipping lanes open that went through the Mediterranean and keep control over the Bosporus (as much as possible).
- Agree. It was the aim of the Britain to keep Germany in check. There was a (british (???) )saying that Britain always wanted to keep the french quiet, the germans down and the russians out (of Europe). It seems that the US now has the same / a similar saying about Europe.
- At the same time Britain saw Russia and the Soviet Union as an enemy as well. E.g Britain considered Russia to be a threat for its colony called India as early as the 1830s. Britain also was allied with Japan in the (very) late 19th century and the early 20th century as a counter balance against the growing influence of Russia.
- Politics isn't as straightforward as it sometimes looks. Again, interesting.
- The purpose of the war in Uraine was NOT to defeat Russia but to "weaken" it as much as possible and then ultimately shred Russia into smaller pieces. In a process that's similar to what happened to Austria-Hungaria after WW I. Do your research (e.g. YouTube). Then the US + NATO would have been able to control (oil & gas) pipelines that transport gas + oil to Europe. Remember Halford MacKinder's work (1904) ?
- One of the problems the Ukraine has is a demographic problem, In the 1990s and early 2000s ukrainian birthrates crashed / halved (???). Those people should have been in the urkainian army right now.
- Already from say 2004 onwards e.g. rumanian, bulgarian and polish workers left their country and started to work in west european countries. As a result of that there was a shortage of workers in those countries and these shortages were aleviated by importing workers from the Ukraine. None of those workers has any interest in returning to Ukraine.
That was a stupid goal that was completely unattainable. The USSR was 50% ethnic Russian. The Russian Federation is 80% Russian. I can't think of any parts of Russia that want to secede and of course Russia is now stronger than ever both economically and militarily while Putin has a stronger hold on power than ever before.
Accorrding to Steven Kotkin ( who is writng a trilogy about Stalin) Chamberlin also had to make VERY difficult decision. He had to make decision with whom Britain would become allies. Either ally with Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union but risk that large parts of continental Europe would be dominated by Nazi Germany. Or ally with the Soviet Union and risk that large parts of Europe would become communistic. Apparently Chamberlin chose the latter. Or perhaps Churchill was forced to continue his cooperation with the Soviet Union because Chamberlin had made that one decision previously and couldn't reverse that one decision.
I assume that Churchill wrestled with the same "Catch 22". If Churchill wanted to save the British Empire then he should have accepted nazi Germany peace proposals. It would have saved Britain A LOT OF expensive warfare in Europe. But nonetheless the British would still have continued it on the road towards its ultimate / inevitable demise. Or did Churchill think that the Soviet Union would pose a lesser threat than Nazi Germany to the Britsh Empire.
Not true. In 1939, Chamberlain himself joined Herbert Hoover in presciently warning of a Soviet takeover of Europe if Britain made the mistake of allying with it against Germany. In June 1939, Chamberlain actually did sound out Stalin on a potential alliance against Nazi Germany. In response, according to the outstanding book "Stalin's War" Stalin offered to Chamberlain the same deal he offered to Hitler under the Hitler-Stalin Pact two months later, an alliance in exchange for the UK ceding Eastern Europe to the Soviet sphere and allowing Stalin to annex Finland, the Baltic states, two-thirds of Poland and northeast Romania but Stalin refused seeing no moral difference between Stalin and Hitler and not wanting to consign half of Europe to Soviet enslavement.
Churchill had no such qualms and was very happy to ally with the Soviet Devil to give Stalin control of half of Europe in exchange for his goal of obliterating and destroying Germany. The reality was the Soviets posed a far greater threat to the UK than Hitler who never gave up his dream of an Anglo-German alliance against the Soviets and even famously offered to use German troops to defend the British Empire as an express part of his surprisingly generous formal May 1941 peace offer to Britain in which he offered to withdraw all German troops from 83% of German-occupied Europe.
The truth was that while Poland needed to choose sides in order to survive, Britain did not and, in fact, would have been far better off remaining neutral in the looming German-Soviet war that Hitler had envisioned. That would have forced Polish leaders to compromise with Hitler over Danzig preventing their annexation by Nazi Germany and the USSR. Of course, WW2 would have turned out very differently likely with a minor victory of Nazi Germany over the USSR, no Jewish Holocaust and a much larger Polish state than actual history.
Disagree. I think that if Britain had remained neutral then Nazi Germany would have captured the soviet central administrative center (soviet power was much more concentrated in one city) called Moscow and that would have been the end of the Soviet Union.
But then - I think - Nazi Germany would have been able to start a war against Britain. "Operation Barbarossa" was all about seizing resources "(e.g. "Lebensraum") in the Ukraine and - if possible - in the Caucasus and make more wars possible.
There was book written about the fact that the prisoner Hess wasn't Hess himself but a "body double".
Disagree. The reduction of the total amount of nuclear heads on both sides of the Atlantic is a good thing. The US and Russia even had plans to reduce the amount of nuclear warheads to (about) 1000 on each side of the Atlantic / (if you will) Pacific.
I fear the only thing that will stop the US Empire from giving up its "Imperial Ambitions" is a MAJOR "economic schck" to the US economy.
- Over the years I learned more and more about WW I and especially WW II. The more I learned the more I "started to doubt" that ANY war can be called "A good war".
- Germany only wanted to take back the corridor to Danzig and Danzig itself ? I highly doubt it. Because Germany also demanded to return Klaipeda / Memel, which belonged to Germany up to say mid 1919, from Lithuania, to Germany. And indeed in march 1939 Memel / Klaipeda was returned to East Prussia, Germany.
- Based on my information, Nazi Germany wanted / was hell bent to conquer the Ukraine for its fertile soil. (think: the german word "Lebensraum" (english: "Living space")) and therefore he needed to defeat the USSR.
There is a VERY interesting theory that Germany wanted to conquer the Ukraine for its fertile soil (think: production of e.g. wheat) because Germany had suffered under severe famines during WW I and during the hyperinflation of 1922 and 1923. That seems to be still in Hitler's mind.
- WW II in the Far East was a clash between the japanese Empire and the US Empire. The US was responsible for letting the regional war between China and Japan spiral out of control into WW II in the Far East. FDR didn't want a war against Japan but some people in FDR's government wanted to punish Japan by imposing an oil boycott against Japan. That FORCED Japan's hand to start conquering the Dutch East Indies for its oil. (Read James Bradley´s excellent book "the China Mirage").
"people enslaved by Communism from 170 million to 730 million people". I stopped reading after this. Not because I am a communist, but because it is a complete falshood. It is only the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot, which was supported by both the US and China for being against Vietnam that was actually murderous. Vietnam deposed him in the end, a communist country.
That is a bullshit assessment. I was born and grew up in a socialist country. We all had lives worth living and it wasn't a bad life. The restrains came from the fact that US and its "allies" decided to contain socialism and preserve the power of oligarchies. However, due to the "threat" of socialism, the social safety net was build in western Europe and a bit in the US.
That is being dismantled now, little by little. One hears the new secretary of NATO, a ruthless Dutch, demanding that the spending for pensions, healthcare and social security be reduced so that the mony would go to defense, because Europe is facing an "existential threat".
Also, the communists were at the vanguard of the fight against the various occupations, in most of the countries during and after WWII, in France, in Italy, in Yugoslavia, in Korea, in Vietnam, heck, the communists were a force even in Japan after WWII, against the Japanese Imperialism and against American occupation.
Americans promoted and induced Indonesians to apply the famous Jakara Method (indiscriminate killing) of everyone deemed a communist.
Now that has been perfected to the Gaza method.
The current oligarchic structures promoted by the US and its ilk are not natural, they are a social construct. The assasination of the Health Insurance company is the prima facie evidence.
“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 that 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.”
Are you, by any chance, familiar with the Grand Mufti of so-called “Palestine”, Hajj Amin al-Husseini?
The very fact that you are essentially arguing that the Jews should have been ethnically cleansed and deported into the hands of a would-be genocidal Islamo-Nazi tells me everything I need to know about your historical illiteracy.
I do feel awful for some of the Germans that suffered unnecessarily harsh treatment during the process of denazification, but as anyone knows about chemotherapy, killing the cancer cells inevitably causes healthy, innocent cells to die in the process. It’s unfortunate, but that’s the only way you can eliminate cancer, whether physically or metaphorically.
What I am arguing for is that Churchill and FDR had a clear path to save 6 million Jews from Hitler's genocide and rejected it and here you are saying that starving and terror bombing 6 million plus innocent German civilians mostly women and children who had committed no crime but being born in the wrong country was worth it. Wow...I am guessing you are a strong supporter of Israel's killing of 30,000 innocent Gazan women and children as well based on your comments and probably a big fan of Biden's war in Ukraine which has killed 410,000 Ukrainians and counting.
In WW II Nazi Germany released a group of Jews and these jews were allowed to travel to Turkey and from there on to Israel. Can't remember the precise date or the size of the group. And in return a group of germans were allowed to travel from Turkey (???) to (Nazi-)Germany.
- I assume that you heard of Halford MacKinder and his "heartland" theory. Some folks argue that this theory is outdated / obsolete. But I think this theory is still alive and kicking. Hitler employed this theory in WW II and Zbigniew Brzezinski also referred to / build upon this theory. Even with the current war in the Ukraine I think MacKinder's theory is still much in play. But then one has to know A LOT OF more details of how the situation in Eastern Europe has evolved in the past say 70 to 80 years.
Yes of course. The Sino-Russian military alliance controls the Eurasian "heartland" and the only way to change that is for Trump to form a detente with Russia to neutralize its military alliance with China.
- Correct. That's my reading of the current situation as well.
- The key here is the control of Eastern Europe (I read that as "Ukraine"). One has to look at the former Soviet Union. some 60 to 70% of the soviet population lived west of the Ural mountains. West of the Ural mountains is / was most of the Soviet territory / soviet fertile land that's suitable for agricultural use (think: Ukraine). If Hitler has conquered Moscow then Hitler would have been able to add the Ukraine to the Third Reich. And the Soviet Union wouldn't have been able to feed it population anymore. and then Britain would have had a more powerful enemy called nazi Germany that also controlled the Ukraine and what'sleft of the Soviet Union.
- This in turn could be the reason why Churchill supported the Soviet Union. otherwise Nazi Germany would have been a much more powerful enemy. After all MacKinder's theory originated in Britain (1904).
- Controlling the Ukraine also would give the US more leverage over Europe because there are a number of (oil and gas) pipelines that run from Russia to Europe. Then the US would be able to decide how much gas and oil Russia can export and Europe can import. Never heard of Nordstream I and II ?
- Are you aware of the oil pipeline from Baku (Azerbeidjan) to Tblisi to the Black Sea port of Poti (both in Georgia) ? From Tblisi there is another branch to the turkish port of Ceyhan on the shores of the Mediterranean. It's all designed to circumvent oil transport through Russia.
- To circumvert the Bosporus (in Turkey) there is also an oil pipeline constructed from Burgas (Bulgaria) through the Balkans to the albanian port of Vlore. That's an additional reason why Bulgaria is now in NATO.
- See how MacKInder's theory is still "alive and kicking" ? Not surprsing because the geographic situation didn't change since the year 1904.
- I can agree with A LOT OF things that have been written here. There are also things in this article I have a hardtime believing. At least, this article does contain a number of thought provoking information which made my braincells run overtime for a while. I have read this article already 2 times and I certainly will read it a few times more.
- Tucker Carlson has shown in the past that he certainly is able to think for himself and made his own mind up that don't "line up with" the mainstream stream narrative. I assume that that was the reason he was fired from FOX News.
Yes it was. He refused to be muzzled and insisted on having the freedom to speak the truth including the Biden 2020 presidential election steal
This was - IMO - the video that was the "final straw that broke the back of the camel" called Tucker Carlson. It was this video that got Carlson fired from FOX News.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68MhtliIAvk
That's false. He was fired for telling the truth about the Democrat decision to steal the 2020 presidential election for senile Joe Biden.
Nope. Other anchors like Laura Ingraham also helped to spread the myth that the election was stolen from Trump and were allowed to stay at FOX News.
- I must confess that I wasn't aware of those details and what those peace proposals entailed. But I assume / could imagine that britain backe then was already "knee deep" in its "cooperation" with the Soviet Union.
Yes it was as was the US from June 1941 onward. The Soviet Union magically transformed from Hitler's co-aggressor and a murderous dictatorship to a beacon of democracy after Hitler invaded the USSR. It might have been better for Germany if Hitler had let Stalin strike first in July 1941 for that reason so the Allies could not paint the Soviets as defending against Nazi aggression.
- One has to keep in mind that Churchill's main and only (or - at least - the most important) concern was the preservation and continuation of the British Empire. with that point in mind Churchill's decisions start to make (much) more sense. But the British Empire was already on a downward trajectory from about the 1st decade of the 20th century. And WW II only accelerated the demise of the British Empire.
- Let's assume that britain had accepted the german peace proposals then the success of those proposals and peace would have hinged on the assumption that Britain (and the US) would keep to their end of the deal and wouldn't have attacked Nazi Germany at all. And I am NOT convinced Britain and the US would have kept their end that deal/agreement.
- Did you ever read the book called "The Chinese Mirage" (James Bradley). Bradley shows that it was inevitable that the chinese Nationalists would lose that chinese civil war. And this had NOTHING to do with WW II in the Far East. Between say 1930 and 1949 the US made a number of decisions that - in the end - made Mao Zedong turn to communism. Otherwise Mao Zedong would have become a friend of the US. Here we again come across a thing called "American Hubris / Arrogance / Exceptionalism". Very interesting book.
- I see an interesting parallel between WW II and the war in the Ukraine: In both cases the war was lost already BEFORE these wars started. The US made an number of decisions in the 1990s and 2000s and those decisions now come to haunt NATO and the Ukraine. Likewise Hitler already lost "Operation Barbarossa" by delaying the attack on the Soviet Union by 2 months, from april 1941 to june 1941.
Exactly right. Churchills decision to unnecessarily prolong World War Two by nearly five long years from July 1940 when Hitler offered to withdraw from France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Norway in exchange for peace with Britain accelerated the demise and collapse of the British Empire as it encouraged the spread of nationalism. You are also right to question whether the US or UK would have honored their peace agreement with Hitler. We know Hitler would have honored it in order to achieve his goal of fighting the Soviet Union without Stalin receiving western military support but I can see Churchill considering violating the peace agreement when the time was right. FDR would have a much harder time violating it if the European war was over before the US entered the conflict. Hitler made many mistakes that ensured Germany's defeat including delaying the German invasion of the USSR by five to six weeks as you rightly note.
In the case of the Chinese Civil War, the Nationalists had the upper hand all the way until 1946 when Truman cut off all US aid to the Nationalist Revolutionary Army while the Soviets increased their military support of Mao's Red Army during the same period ensuring a Communist Chinese victory. Truman despised Chiang Kai Shek that he ordered a billion dollars worth of congressionally authorized US weapons destined for the Nationalists dumped into the Pacific Ocean. Ultimately, Stalin succeeded in infiltrating the US government and peppering both the FDR and Truman administrations with Soviet spies that caused both Presidents to pursue pro-Soviet policies from 1941-1949/1950. Without Soviet stooges like FDR and Truman, the Cold War with the Soviet Union would have either been entirely averted or else we would have fought it along the USSR's 1938 border rather than in central Germany.
As for the war in Ukraine, the war was unwinnable for Ukraine from the start so it was Biden's decision to fight the war in Ukraine in December 2021 ensured Ukraine's military defeat. Only a decision by Biden to issue a written guarantee that Ukraine would never join NATO would have sufficed to save Ukraine from defeat.
- No, the Nationalists were bound to lose the chinese civil war and that was already clear to Mao in about 1932.
- Agree, but Mao first tried to get support from the US from 1945. Like one Ho Chi Minh also tried to get american economic support which was also refused by the US. then Ho started to recieve support from Moscos and became a communist as well. (See a pattern here ???).
Would USA give up any town to avoid a war? It`a easy to say poland should have restored Gdańsk to Hitler but hitler didin`t want olny Gdansk> he wanted a corridor to Prus.
Yes, that is true but Hitler was willing to wait to regain the Polish Corridor until Poland was reimbursed with Lithuanian or Soviet territory as he respected Poland and courted it as a German ally from 1934-1939. Also, Danzig was not Polish territory until 1945. It was a free city administered by Poland. In late 1938, the Germans offered to make it a free city administered by Germany to ensure continued Polish use of the port.
How poland could have Belize in hitler promisses if we had rembered the partition of poland in XVII initiated by frederique the great
After the last few years and becoming more aware of what is really going on, it makes me wonder if they taught us any truths in public schools and colleges?
I am starting to think the answer to that question is NO !!!
Not many. I remember when my kids started going to public school, I warned them not to believe what they were taught because much of it is false!
Buchanan's book is excellent and keep in mind that I've spent the greatest part of my life detesting the guy. Your screed is far in excess prolix and circular. History isn't your good v evil caricature. It's far more complex. Hint: we're not the "good guys." Nobody is, but certainly not the USA. We are all in this together.
I think you completely misread my article. It is the liberals in both major US political parties, not America First conservatives like myself, who want us to believe that World War Two was a fight between "the good" Allies versus the "evil Axis" because they view Communism as being "good." I have believed since at least 1987 that World War Two was a fight between evil Allied mass murderers versus evil Axis mass murderers. Today, I would agree that both sides are a mix of good and bad. Both Russia and Ukraine have a just cause to fight but it was Biden that lit the match to start this unnecessary conflagration that has cost over a million Ukrainian casualties to date.
What is the just cause for Ukraine? Cultural genocide on Russians and other minorities (the Hungarians and Romanians have continuously protested the opression of those minorities in Ukraine, especially after 2014)? And then the desire to have US troops on their soil to threaten Russia and maybe take even more territory from Russia, as if what they received from Russia in 1922 and after WWII was not enough?
Fostering the ukro-nazi coup (have you seen the videos with the burning alive of about 50 people in Odessa in 2014?), refusal to respect the Minsk accords, refusal to negotiate a quick pace in 2022 are prima facie evidence that Ukraine's cause is not a "just" cause.
We see how Assad's rule fell like a sand castle, because people did not stand by it any longer. Reports, from the Ukrainians, are that the Ukrainians are returning to the occupied and reconstructed Mariupol, and that many are moving to Pokrosk, in expectation of Russian takeover, and that there are about 100,000 deserters, and that now more than 50% of Ukrainians want peace now.
You're not looking at the significance of transnational interests in the origin and purpose of WWII (or WWI for that matter). Most modern wars, and practically all the ones occurring in the western theater of operations over the course of the last couple of centuries have been influenced by the banksters. They operate above the level of national sovereignty, and have their own aims and purposes (increase in their own power and influence, for one thing -- same as everybody else). What happened in 1947? Did that have anything to do with anything?
- Here another thought why Churchill chose the alliance with the Soviet Union and rejected the peace proposals as proposed by Nazi Germany.
- In the 1930s Italy under Mussolini 1) already had Libya as a colony and 2) started a war in - what's currently - Somalia and Ethiopia. Italy dominating Somalia and Ethiopia were a threat to Britain because both countries are in the "Horn of Africa" and border the Red Sea and the Bab El Mandeb. Italy controlling Libya and Ethiopia was a threat to british control over Egypt and the Suez canal. Churchill wanted to keep control over Egypt, the Red Sea and the Bab El Mandeb. These sea lanes were vital for Britain to be able to have a safe shipping route to its colonies in East Africa and in southern Asia (from India in west Asia up to Malaysia and Australia in the east of Asia).
- Italy was a partner with Nazi Germany. I think that that was the reason (think: control over Suez, the Red Sea and the Bab El Mandeb) why Churchill rejected the peace proposals coming from Italy and Nazi Germany.
- I also think that Chyurchill thought that both the Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union should / would battle it out and would severely weaken each other to the benefit of Britain and the British Empire. One also has to keep in mind that in the late 1930s and early 1940s Japan became a threat to the british colonies in South East Asia. That threat also had to be dealt with. There was simply too much war brewing which Britain couldn't fight / handle at all on its own at that time.
- But - as assumptions always do - the calculations / assumptions Churchill made in 1939/1940/1941 went up in smoke during WW II. I assume that after say 1942 (when the germans were forced to start their retreat from the Soviet Union) Churchill started to realize how his calculations from say 1938 up to say 1942/1943 were all going up in smoke. And then he had to admit that the US supporting the Soviet Union in its war effort had changed the entire dynamic and then started to realize that - with hindsight - he should have accepted the 1941 peace proposals of Italy and Nazi Germany. And as we all know Eastern Europe was occupied for 45 years by the Soviet Union from 1945 up to 1990.
As part of his peace offer to the UK in May 1941, Hitler offered to withdraw all German troops from Libya and western Egypt and to mediate an end to the war between the UK and Italy which would have largely eliminated the Axis threat to the Suez Canal because the Italian Army wasn't capable of advancing against British forces without German support. Indeed, its very possible that following a separate peace with Germany, Britain could have captured Libya and even liberated Greece so I guess I would push back on your assumption. I think the reason why Churchill rejected Hitler's offer to withdraw all German troops from seven European countries except for Alsace-Lorraine was that he was hell bent on destroying Germany and wanted to use the myth of Hitler bent on world conquest as a pretext to do so. I think he was fine to surrender Eastern Europe to Stalin after FDR shot down his Mediterranean Option which was designed to liberate Austria and maybe Hungary in advance of the Red Army but would have left Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Slovakia and Yugoslavia under Communist control. He only cared about keeping Greece under the British sphere of influence and trying to capture Berlin, Vienna and Prague. He absolutely knew that all out US and UK military support of the Soviet Union would lead to a Soviet takeover of nearly two-thirds of Europe but he didn't care. He just wanted to destroy Germany which he viewed as the biggest threat to the British Empire even though Hitler offered to send Germany army troops to defend the British Empire if necessary.
- Interesting. That were some details I wasn't aware of. Thanks for your answer.
- Agree, Italy wasn't strong enough on its own to win the war against Britain.
- Churchill's obsession was to preserve and the continuation of the British Empire.
- Yes, I knew Churchill had "some plan for the Balkans" but I didn't know what those plans entailed. But that shows that Churchill was very well aware of what was going to happen with the countries that were liberated by the Red Army. I assume that Churchill wanted to keep english influence in Greece to keep the (british) shipping lanes open that went through the Mediterranean and keep control over the Bosporus (as much as possible).
- Agree. It was the aim of the Britain to keep Germany in check. There was a (british (???) )saying that Britain always wanted to keep the french quiet, the germans down and the russians out (of Europe). It seems that the US now has the same / a similar saying about Europe.
- At the same time Britain saw Russia and the Soviet Union as an enemy as well. E.g Britain considered Russia to be a threat for its colony called India as early as the 1830s. Britain also was allied with Japan in the (very) late 19th century and the early 20th century as a counter balance against the growing influence of Russia.
- Politics isn't as straightforward as it sometimes looks. Again, interesting.
During the 1930s, a mix of Wotan & egalitarianism made the German people & their talking head AH strategically stupid.
Stupid.
Stupid.
Repeat 6 mln times.
After which you may consider all other facts.
Thougths keep bubbling up:
- The purpose of the war in Uraine was NOT to defeat Russia but to "weaken" it as much as possible and then ultimately shred Russia into smaller pieces. In a process that's similar to what happened to Austria-Hungaria after WW I. Do your research (e.g. YouTube). Then the US + NATO would have been able to control (oil & gas) pipelines that transport gas + oil to Europe. Remember Halford MacKinder's work (1904) ?
- One of the problems the Ukraine has is a demographic problem, In the 1990s and early 2000s ukrainian birthrates crashed / halved (???). Those people should have been in the urkainian army right now.
- Already from say 2004 onwards e.g. rumanian, bulgarian and polish workers left their country and started to work in west european countries. As a result of that there was a shortage of workers in those countries and these shortages were aleviated by importing workers from the Ukraine. None of those workers has any interest in returning to Ukraine.
That was a stupid goal that was completely unattainable. The USSR was 50% ethnic Russian. The Russian Federation is 80% Russian. I can't think of any parts of Russia that want to secede and of course Russia is now stronger than ever both economically and militarily while Putin has a stronger hold on power than ever before.
Another thought:
Accorrding to Steven Kotkin ( who is writng a trilogy about Stalin) Chamberlin also had to make VERY difficult decision. He had to make decision with whom Britain would become allies. Either ally with Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union but risk that large parts of continental Europe would be dominated by Nazi Germany. Or ally with the Soviet Union and risk that large parts of Europe would become communistic. Apparently Chamberlin chose the latter. Or perhaps Churchill was forced to continue his cooperation with the Soviet Union because Chamberlin had made that one decision previously and couldn't reverse that one decision.
I assume that Churchill wrestled with the same "Catch 22". If Churchill wanted to save the British Empire then he should have accepted nazi Germany peace proposals. It would have saved Britain A LOT OF expensive warfare in Europe. But nonetheless the British would still have continued it on the road towards its ultimate / inevitable demise. Or did Churchill think that the Soviet Union would pose a lesser threat than Nazi Germany to the Britsh Empire.
Not true. In 1939, Chamberlain himself joined Herbert Hoover in presciently warning of a Soviet takeover of Europe if Britain made the mistake of allying with it against Germany. In June 1939, Chamberlain actually did sound out Stalin on a potential alliance against Nazi Germany. In response, according to the outstanding book "Stalin's War" Stalin offered to Chamberlain the same deal he offered to Hitler under the Hitler-Stalin Pact two months later, an alliance in exchange for the UK ceding Eastern Europe to the Soviet sphere and allowing Stalin to annex Finland, the Baltic states, two-thirds of Poland and northeast Romania but Stalin refused seeing no moral difference between Stalin and Hitler and not wanting to consign half of Europe to Soviet enslavement.
Churchill had no such qualms and was very happy to ally with the Soviet Devil to give Stalin control of half of Europe in exchange for his goal of obliterating and destroying Germany. The reality was the Soviets posed a far greater threat to the UK than Hitler who never gave up his dream of an Anglo-German alliance against the Soviets and even famously offered to use German troops to defend the British Empire as an express part of his surprisingly generous formal May 1941 peace offer to Britain in which he offered to withdraw all German troops from 83% of German-occupied Europe.
The truth was that while Poland needed to choose sides in order to survive, Britain did not and, in fact, would have been far better off remaining neutral in the looming German-Soviet war that Hitler had envisioned. That would have forced Polish leaders to compromise with Hitler over Danzig preventing their annexation by Nazi Germany and the USSR. Of course, WW2 would have turned out very differently likely with a minor victory of Nazi Germany over the USSR, no Jewish Holocaust and a much larger Polish state than actual history.
https://www.realclearhistory.com/articles/2021/08/01/why_rudolph_hess_was_the_last_casualty_of_ww_ii_788057.html
Disagree. I think that if Britain had remained neutral then Nazi Germany would have captured the soviet central administrative center (soviet power was much more concentrated in one city) called Moscow and that would have been the end of the Soviet Union.
But then - I think - Nazi Germany would have been able to start a war against Britain. "Operation Barbarossa" was all about seizing resources "(e.g. "Lebensraum") in the Ukraine and - if possible - in the Caucasus and make more wars possible.
There was book written about the fact that the prisoner Hess wasn't Hess himself but a "body double".
Disagree. The reduction of the total amount of nuclear heads on both sides of the Atlantic is a good thing. The US and Russia even had plans to reduce the amount of nuclear warheads to (about) 1000 on each side of the Atlantic / (if you will) Pacific.
I fear the only thing that will stop the US Empire from giving up its "Imperial Ambitions" is a MAJOR "economic schck" to the US economy.
- Over the years I learned more and more about WW I and especially WW II. The more I learned the more I "started to doubt" that ANY war can be called "A good war".
- Germany only wanted to take back the corridor to Danzig and Danzig itself ? I highly doubt it. Because Germany also demanded to return Klaipeda / Memel, which belonged to Germany up to say mid 1919, from Lithuania, to Germany. And indeed in march 1939 Memel / Klaipeda was returned to East Prussia, Germany.
- Based on my information, Nazi Germany wanted / was hell bent to conquer the Ukraine for its fertile soil. (think: the german word "Lebensraum" (english: "Living space")) and therefore he needed to defeat the USSR.
There is a VERY interesting theory that Germany wanted to conquer the Ukraine for its fertile soil (think: production of e.g. wheat) because Germany had suffered under severe famines during WW I and during the hyperinflation of 1922 and 1923. That seems to be still in Hitler's mind.
- WW II in the Far East was a clash between the japanese Empire and the US Empire. The US was responsible for letting the regional war between China and Japan spiral out of control into WW II in the Far East. FDR didn't want a war against Japan but some people in FDR's government wanted to punish Japan by imposing an oil boycott against Japan. That FORCED Japan's hand to start conquering the Dutch East Indies for its oil. (Read James Bradley´s excellent book "the China Mirage").
When I say Hitler only wanted to take back Danzig and the Polish Corridor, amounting to only one-third of the territory taken from Germany by Poland in 1919, I am referring to his designs on Polish territory exclusively/ I never said he didn't want to take back Memel in March 1939 or that he did not plan on conquering western Russia and Ukraine until September 1939 and then from November 1940 onward. Hitler wanted a colonial empire for Germany which Britain could not blockade and yes he wanted the breadbasket of Ukraine to prevent Germany from being starved into submission as it was at the end of World War One. FDR wanted war with Japan and was successful in getting Japan to attack us at Pearl Harbor as a back door to war with Germany. https://www.amazon.com/Day-Deceit-Truth-About-Harbor/dp/0743201299/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2OF0RY4JQSEZI&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.7ID9pvwr688JRKgk_1kQfzEXz1K7jr0HzjROR980bU5qOelryWoRf2vjtXpI01HGPd8NLaW3iWlQ1me7NdxuTI9Hpy_rLKLYMYRe9YSpCJSRCyUXU8CFGJ9b_zs1wmrDcESL1kK6Y_kYcBIthr8kc4noUODuguNVO4Mii1ztkaE21Ft3dWmFQTZEdQVFPVVd-674g91A6hHttplz7XILzfpvCCcEmevPCGg7XbRhzI0.45nLLPRrBllAkJFindrTyo2YWRs4PIrhuDfu7VzSmns&dib_tag=se&keywords=day+of+deceit&qid=1735847038&sprefix=day+of+deceit%2Caps%2C174&sr=8-1
"people enslaved by Communism from 170 million to 730 million people". I stopped reading after this. Not because I am a communist, but because it is a complete falshood. It is only the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot, which was supported by both the US and China for being against Vietnam that was actually murderous. Vietnam deposed him in the end, a communist country.
That is a bullshit assessment. I was born and grew up in a socialist country. We all had lives worth living and it wasn't a bad life. The restrains came from the fact that US and its "allies" decided to contain socialism and preserve the power of oligarchies. However, due to the "threat" of socialism, the social safety net was build in western Europe and a bit in the US.
That is being dismantled now, little by little. One hears the new secretary of NATO, a ruthless Dutch, demanding that the spending for pensions, healthcare and social security be reduced so that the mony would go to defense, because Europe is facing an "existential threat".
Also, the communists were at the vanguard of the fight against the various occupations, in most of the countries during and after WWII, in France, in Italy, in Yugoslavia, in Korea, in Vietnam, heck, the communists were a force even in Japan after WWII, against the Japanese Imperialism and against American occupation.
Americans promoted and induced Indonesians to apply the famous Jakara Method (indiscriminate killing) of everyone deemed a communist.
Now that has been perfected to the Gaza method.
The current oligarchic structures promoted by the US and its ilk are not natural, they are a social construct. The assasination of the Health Insurance company is the prima facie evidence.
“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 that 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.”
Are you, by any chance, familiar with the Grand Mufti of so-called “Palestine”, Hajj Amin al-Husseini?
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/hajj-amin-al-husayni-the-mufti-of-jerusalem
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/hitlers-mufti
The very fact that you are essentially arguing that the Jews should have been ethnically cleansed and deported into the hands of a would-be genocidal Islamo-Nazi tells me everything I need to know about your historical illiteracy.
I do feel awful for some of the Germans that suffered unnecessarily harsh treatment during the process of denazification, but as anyone knows about chemotherapy, killing the cancer cells inevitably causes healthy, innocent cells to die in the process. It’s unfortunate, but that’s the only way you can eliminate cancer, whether physically or metaphorically.
What I am arguing for is that Churchill and FDR had a clear path to save 6 million Jews from Hitler's genocide and rejected it and here you are saying that starving and terror bombing 6 million plus innocent German civilians mostly women and children who had committed no crime but being born in the wrong country was worth it. Wow...I am guessing you are a strong supporter of Israel's killing of 30,000 innocent Gazan women and children as well based on your comments and probably a big fan of Biden's war in Ukraine which has killed 410,000 Ukrainians and counting.
In WW II Nazi Germany released a group of Jews and these jews were allowed to travel to Turkey and from there on to Israel. Can't remember the precise date or the size of the group. And in return a group of germans were allowed to travel from Turkey (???) to (Nazi-)Germany.