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 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?
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.
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.
My history is a big rusty but I think it's extremely dishonest to blame Churchill for the Communist enslavement of Europe as per your:
"But Churchill was not so much a prophet of the Cold War with the Soviet Union as the author of it given he cravenly surrendered half of continental Europe including nearly a dozen countries to genocidal Soviet enslavement for nearly half a century at Yalta. His 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"
When it was crystal clear from national Archive leaks that it was actually the Americans to blame, specifically Roosevelt, and Eisenhower.
Blaming Churchill clearly dishonest in the extreme.
Case in point
Operation Unthinkable: Churchill’s plan for World War Three
"Churchill's plan (which Montgomery backed) was to finish cleaning up Germany then invade Russia.
The extraordinary plan that Churchill had to attack the Soviet Empire on the 1st July 1945 and try and claw back East Europe and Poland in the first instance.
Churchill is determined to hold out for free and fair elections in Poland but the problem he has is that Roosevelt, who is clearly a sick man, is determined to act as honest broker; he’s got no wish to upset Stalin. And this is firstly because Roosevelt is anti-imperial and he suspects that anything Churchill hatches or suggests is part of his ambition to maintain the influence of the British Empire; and secondly, Roosevelt is very keen to keep Stalin on board because he wants Soviet help to finish off Japan. And remember, at this stage of the war, war with Japan is probably going to go on until 1946. So consequently, Churchill is elbowed out.
Now as Yalta came to a close, the race was on between the US and British commanders to reach strategic targets in Germany and here we see in the Jeep, Churchill and Montgomery travelling up to the Rhine and this is six weeks before the end of the War.
Monty was keen for a single thrust to Berlin, but he was thwarted by Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander, who was determined to make the industrial Ruhr the main Allied target, leaving Berlin to the Soviets. And it was this massive, threatening presence of two and a half million Soviet soldiers around Berlin that really alarmed Churchill.
During this period, Churchill constantly sends telegrams to Roosevelt, warning him about the threat from further Soviet advances"
Plenty of information too on the animosity between Montgomery and Eisenhower.
Churchill was incredibly duplicitous and deceptive. It was he, not FDR, who was the author of the very Iron Curtain he warned 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. He tripped all over himself to reward Stalin with thousands of British armored vehicles, tens of thousands of British aircraft and even a British battleship. The idea that he was serious about implementing Operation Unthinkable is laughable in the extreme. He merely came up with that to cover his ass knowing that if he did not history might well rightly view him as a far bigger appeaser than Neville ever was. He also would write all these notes and letters so he could claim he was an anti-Communist visionary 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 it if it meant crushing and dismembering Germany.
That said, it is true that Churchill wanted to limit Soviet gains a bit with his Adriatic option which would not have liberated Yugoslavia which he had already handed over to Tito's Communist terrorists but might have liberated Hungary from 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. I would be happy to add these points in my article in his defense to provide more balance.
Montgomery and Churchill had a plan to invade Soviet Union post WW2 to roll back the iron curtain - kaiboshed by America.
And yet you claim Churchill is to blame for millions being left to Communist rule.
"The idea that he was serious about implementing Operation Unthinkable is laughable in the extreme. He merely came up with that to cover his ass knowing that if he did not history might well rightly view him as a far bigger appeaser than Neville ever was."
Drivel.
Evidence he wasnt serious? Nor that Montgomery wasnt?
You havent any.
Let's see American Archives then to establish the truth because the British National Archives are crystal clear (as they are on no Eastwards expansion!!!! We approach WW3 due to America's NATO expansion Eastwards, that and EU)
It has been well known that Montgomery wanted to keep the tanks rolling but that Eisenhower stopped him.
As you well know, UK was exhausted after 5 years of war - a war America joined at HALF TIME dont forget.
So whatever plans there were to stop the spread of Soviet Union's influence rested solely on American military power.
FDR and Churchill are jointly to blame for Yalta. It was Churchill who gave Stalin a formal sphere of influence over Eastern Europe at the Fourth Moscow Conference and FDR approved it four months later at Yalta. Churchill had zero intention to approve that plan. It was just for show and solely for the history books so he could claim he wanted to do it but FDR wouldn't let him. Montgomery is a much more respectable historical figure so I would be very interested in any articles you might be able to share to show he wanted to fight the Soviets in 1945. You are correct that Eisenhower wouldn't have agreed to it because Eisenhower was a Soviet stooge at the time like FDR, Truman and Churchill. The UK could have kept fighting but I agree with you that the US would have had to take the lead and we would have wanted to rebuild the German Army to provide us with millions more troops to help us defeat the Soviets and push them back to their pre-1939 borders.
Aside from the comments in the National Archive leaks where they say Monty approved of Operation Unthinkable (whether Churchill intended it genuinely or not) it's tough to glean much else.
Letter: One schoolboy memory of Monty’s Moscow warning
“I suppose some of you by now are wondering what is the first rule of war. It is simple — never march on Moscow.”
Makes one wonder how far Monty wanted to push on in 1945.
It seems it wasnt only Monty but also Gen Patton who wanted to push the Communists back..
"At the time of his death, Patton had been relegated to a desk job, overseeing the collection of Army records in Bavaria. That he had been an outspoken critic of Stalin and a vocal proponent of liberating Berlin and the German people from certain communist aggression triggered his sudden removal from the battlefield. In the aftermath of war, the Western powers sought to sideline the mercurial Patton and his incendiary views
In early May 1945, as the Allies shut down the Nazi war machine, Patton stood with his massive 3rd Army on the outskirts of Prague in a potential face off with the Red Army. He pleaded for General Eisenhower's green light to advance and capture the city for the Allies, which also would have meant containment of the Russians. British Prime Minister Churchill also thought the move a crucial and beneficial one for post-war Europe and insisted upon it, but to no avail. Eisenhower denied Patton's request, and the Russians took the region, which would pay dearly for years to come"
"The decision to let the Russians take Berlin and Prague created a more acute military-political crisis in the British-American alliance than anything else in World War II. The decision was essentially his, and he has been blamed the most for it"
Dated 1948 evidencing spread of Communism had been a major concern to Monty and that the next war would be against Russia (as it had not been contained at end of WW2 and been allowed to expand too far Westwards)
Ultimately one could go back to 1914 and say WW2, and the Spread of Communism was down to Britain foolishly supporting France - thereby emboldening the latter to fight the Kaiser. Without this backing France would have folded like a cheap suit.
Result:
4 years of awful Trench warfare
The fall of Tsar to Lenin's Communists.
The seeds of WW2 sown in the harsh(but very fair) Versailles Treaty.
What is certain is that there was plenty of infighting amongst the allies - end result they werent allowed to continue pushing into Berlin and beyond to free up rest of Eastern Europe.
Some conspiracy theories abound but not sure how much weight to give them (eg Albert Pike letter dated pre WW1)
Ultimately we will never know all the truth due to passage of time, the disappearance or "continued hiding away of documents" that reveal the whole picture.
- 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?
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.
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.
My history is a big rusty but I think it's extremely dishonest to blame Churchill for the Communist enslavement of Europe as per your:
"But Churchill was not so much a prophet of the Cold War with the Soviet Union as the author of it given he cravenly surrendered half of continental Europe including nearly a dozen countries to genocidal Soviet enslavement for nearly half a century at Yalta. His 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"
When it was crystal clear from national Archive leaks that it was actually the Americans to blame, specifically Roosevelt, and Eisenhower.
Blaming Churchill clearly dishonest in the extreme.
Case in point
Operation Unthinkable: Churchill’s plan for World War Three
https://media.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php/operation-unthinkable-churchills-plan-world-war-three/
"Churchill's plan (which Montgomery backed) was to finish cleaning up Germany then invade Russia.
The extraordinary plan that Churchill had to attack the Soviet Empire on the 1st July 1945 and try and claw back East Europe and Poland in the first instance.
Churchill is determined to hold out for free and fair elections in Poland but the problem he has is that Roosevelt, who is clearly a sick man, is determined to act as honest broker; he’s got no wish to upset Stalin. And this is firstly because Roosevelt is anti-imperial and he suspects that anything Churchill hatches or suggests is part of his ambition to maintain the influence of the British Empire; and secondly, Roosevelt is very keen to keep Stalin on board because he wants Soviet help to finish off Japan. And remember, at this stage of the war, war with Japan is probably going to go on until 1946. So consequently, Churchill is elbowed out.
Now as Yalta came to a close, the race was on between the US and British commanders to reach strategic targets in Germany and here we see in the Jeep, Churchill and Montgomery travelling up to the Rhine and this is six weeks before the end of the War.
Monty was keen for a single thrust to Berlin, but he was thwarted by Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander, who was determined to make the industrial Ruhr the main Allied target, leaving Berlin to the Soviets. And it was this massive, threatening presence of two and a half million Soviet soldiers around Berlin that really alarmed Churchill.
During this period, Churchill constantly sends telegrams to Roosevelt, warning him about the threat from further Soviet advances"
Plenty of information too on the animosity between Montgomery and Eisenhower.
https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1569&context=student_scholarship
Churchill was incredibly duplicitous and deceptive. It was he, not FDR, who was the author of the very Iron Curtain he warned 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. He tripped all over himself to reward Stalin with thousands of British armored vehicles, tens of thousands of British aircraft and even a British battleship. The idea that he was serious about implementing Operation Unthinkable is laughable in the extreme. He merely came up with that to cover his ass knowing that if he did not history might well rightly view him as a far bigger appeaser than Neville ever was. He also would write all these notes and letters so he could claim he was an anti-Communist visionary 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 it if it meant crushing and dismembering Germany.
That said, it is true that Churchill wanted to limit Soviet gains a bit with his Adriatic option which would not have liberated Yugoslavia which he had already handed over to Tito's Communist terrorists but might have liberated Hungary from 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. I would be happy to add these points in my article in his defense to provide more balance.
The National Archives dont show that though.
Montgomery and Churchill had a plan to invade Soviet Union post WW2 to roll back the iron curtain - kaiboshed by America.
And yet you claim Churchill is to blame for millions being left to Communist rule.
"The idea that he was serious about implementing Operation Unthinkable is laughable in the extreme. He merely came up with that to cover his ass knowing that if he did not history might well rightly view him as a far bigger appeaser than Neville ever was."
Drivel.
Evidence he wasnt serious? Nor that Montgomery wasnt?
You havent any.
Let's see American Archives then to establish the truth because the British National Archives are crystal clear (as they are on no Eastwards expansion!!!! We approach WW3 due to America's NATO expansion Eastwards, that and EU)
It has been well known that Montgomery wanted to keep the tanks rolling but that Eisenhower stopped him.
As you well know, UK was exhausted after 5 years of war - a war America joined at HALF TIME dont forget.
So whatever plans there were to stop the spread of Soviet Union's influence rested solely on American military power.
UK was done, France was done, Germany was done.
It was Roosevelt, not Churchill that is to blame.
FDR and Churchill are jointly to blame for Yalta. It was Churchill who gave Stalin a formal sphere of influence over Eastern Europe at the Fourth Moscow Conference and FDR approved it four months later at Yalta. Churchill had zero intention to approve that plan. It was just for show and solely for the history books so he could claim he wanted to do it but FDR wouldn't let him. Montgomery is a much more respectable historical figure so I would be very interested in any articles you might be able to share to show he wanted to fight the Soviets in 1945. You are correct that Eisenhower wouldn't have agreed to it because Eisenhower was a Soviet stooge at the time like FDR, Truman and Churchill. The UK could have kept fighting but I agree with you that the US would have had to take the lead and we would have wanted to rebuild the German Army to provide us with millions more troops to help us defeat the Soviets and push them back to their pre-1939 borders.
It's hard to find much on Monty.
Aside from the comments in the National Archive leaks where they say Monty approved of Operation Unthinkable (whether Churchill intended it genuinely or not) it's tough to glean much else.
Letter: One schoolboy memory of Monty’s Moscow warning
“I suppose some of you by now are wondering what is the first rule of war. It is simple — never march on Moscow.”
https://www.ft.com/content/91669294-266a-48d8-a267-740a42c1e134
Makes one wonder how far Monty wanted to push on in 1945.
It seems it wasnt only Monty but also Gen Patton who wanted to push the Communists back..
"At the time of his death, Patton had been relegated to a desk job, overseeing the collection of Army records in Bavaria. That he had been an outspoken critic of Stalin and a vocal proponent of liberating Berlin and the German people from certain communist aggression triggered his sudden removal from the battlefield. In the aftermath of war, the Western powers sought to sideline the mercurial Patton and his incendiary views
In early May 1945, as the Allies shut down the Nazi war machine, Patton stood with his massive 3rd Army on the outskirts of Prague in a potential face off with the Red Army. He pleaded for General Eisenhower's green light to advance and capture the city for the Allies, which also would have meant containment of the Russians. British Prime Minister Churchill also thought the move a crucial and beneficial one for post-war Europe and insisted upon it, but to no avail. Eisenhower denied Patton's request, and the Russians took the region, which would pay dearly for years to come"
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/general-patton-cold-war-russia_b_5526514
"The decision to let the Russians take Berlin and Prague created a more acute military-political crisis in the British-American alliance than anything else in World War II. The decision was essentially his, and he has been blamed the most for it"
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1986/10/23/eisenhowers-war-the-final-crisis/
Perhaps Monty was out of favour after his daring "Operation Market Garden" fiasco #BridgetoFar
London School of Economics and Political Science
https://www.lse.ac.uk › ideas › Assets › Documents › bsra › 1948 › 1948-01-30-Montgomery-memorandum-Russia-war.docx
Dated 1948 evidencing spread of Communism had been a major concern to Monty and that the next war would be against Russia (as it had not been contained at end of WW2 and been allowed to expand too far Westwards)
Ultimately one could go back to 1914 and say WW2, and the Spread of Communism was down to Britain foolishly supporting France - thereby emboldening the latter to fight the Kaiser. Without this backing France would have folded like a cheap suit.
Result:
4 years of awful Trench warfare
The fall of Tsar to Lenin's Communists.
The seeds of WW2 sown in the harsh(but very fair) Versailles Treaty.
What is certain is that there was plenty of infighting amongst the allies - end result they werent allowed to continue pushing into Berlin and beyond to free up rest of Eastern Europe.
Some conspiracy theories abound but not sure how much weight to give them (eg Albert Pike letter dated pre WW1)
Ultimately we will never know all the truth due to passage of time, the disappearance or "continued hiding away of documents" that reveal the whole picture.