Was Churchill anti-Semitic?

The only chance of America "being drawn in" would have been a post-FDR U.S. fighting with Germany/Italy/France against Russia.

If Hitler's Blitz of London didn't stir up America then nothing could. Keep in mind Nik, America had just fought for the same folks against the same enemy, two decades before. The average farmer in Kansas had no interest in sending his boy all over again to Europe. Let's face it, 1941 middle America thought Europe's a primitive piece of shit. Not to mention America had ten's of millions living here who'd immigrated from Germany. No public support. Period. FDR knew this. Hence leaning on Japan.

No, FDR didn't have "proprietary" information. I think the following: America's economy was ailing. Certainly not to Europe's degree but a major recession had hit the U.S. in 1939. For all the ballyhoo about FDR's socialist domestic agenda, the sad fact is America had not yet recovered from the Great Depression. In 1940, 14.6% (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt) of American's were unemployed. FDR had cynically hoped the war in Europe would spark a "War Bride Boom" like that of the first war. I think in 1915-16 GM rose 5000%. 1941 America wasn't like that. There was no war to speak of anywhere in Europe except between Russia and Germany. Thus no massive orders for U.S. built hardware and hence a crappy U.S. economy.

Roosevelt wanted war for the economy (that 14.6% unemployed fell to 1.9% in 1943) plus he was an ideological admirer of Russia. Make no mistake about it, FDR viewed Hitler, Mussolini and the Vichy's as fascists for not giving the Red's their props.

Roosevelt was a fucking moron. So was Hitler. But what you wind up then is a hypothesis of what was ultimately better for the world. To my death I'll say WWll was the single worst disaster in history. Bar none.

To this day Russia is a costlier, more oppressive and more dangerous foe than Germany ever wanted to be. Frankly as an American I don't care what methods Hitler used if only he could have defeated the Communists.

Quote from traderNik:

Something just occurred to me. Leadership often carries heavy burdens. Being a leader often means taking a decision that is unpopular, and being a good leader sometimes means being able to see what others, with their limited perspective, cannot see. Obviously, this has been shown countless times throughout history. Decisions which were unpopular at the time turn out to be pretty good when considered a few decades later.

The President of the United States has more access to information than any other human. Does it not seem possible to you that a decision he takes might seem mistaken to you because you don't have all the information he has?

So do you think the majority of Americans would have said, in 1950, that their country's involvement in WWII was a mistake, was unnecessary, or even morally wrong?

Do you think the majority of people today would say this?

Wait, let me guess... the majority wouldn't say this, but only because history is written by the winners and WWII has been turned into fight against exterminators of Jews, which no one (except whack job Holocaust deniers) can argue against.

Let me guess again...the majority wouldn't say this, but in fact if Hitler had been allowed to take control of Europe, America would have been better off for the next 50 years, right? But we'll never know, right?

One last guess...it's Zionist propaganda, written by the Zionist press Barons, that is responsible for the widespread belief that Hitler was illegally murdering and annexing his way across Europe and intended to go all the way to Britain and the USSR, and that he was responsible for the horrific deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own people as well. Stalingrad was a concoction of the Jewish left.

Am I in the ball park?

And once again, just for the record, I state categorically that America and Canada would have been drawn into WWII eventually.
More...
 
Quote from traderNik:


The President of the United States has more access to information than any other human. Does it not seem possible to you that a decision he takes might seem mistaken to you because you don't have all the information he has?
More...

It didnt help in vietnam, where its estimated around 10% of captured documents and intelligence reports were actually read.

Regarding churchill, the thread title is typically inflammatory, the quotes are very much out of context;
but he wasnt just whistling dixie either, he did mention the rising antisemitism across europe, right?

Gee, i wonder what the meant.

He must have been a switched on character, his journalistic career was surprisingly prolific.

More surprising, is his overall popularity, with the bizarre high pitched speaking voice he had, but his lecture tour of the states must have played a part-maybe he wasnt particularly anti semetic, but like most of his contemporaries, was a diehard anglo supremist, something that likely struck a cord on that tour, certainly with the white house.
 
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

The only chance of America "being drawn in" would have been a post-FDR U.S. fighting with Germany/Italy/France against Russia.

If Hitler's Blitz of London didn't stir up America then nothing could. Keep in mind Nik, America had just fought for the same folks against the same enemy, two decades before. The average farmer in Kansas had no interest in sending his boy all over again to Europe. Let's face it, 1941 middle America thought Europe's a primitive piece of shit. Not to mention America had ten's of millions living here who'd immigrated from Germany. No public support. Period. FDR knew this. Hence leaning on Japan.

No, FDR didn't have "proprietary" information. I think the following: America's economy was ailing. Certainly not to Europe's degree but a major recession had hit the U.S. in 1939. For all the ballyhoo about FDR's socialist domestic agenda, the sad fact is America had not yet recovered from the Great Depression. In 1940, 14.6% (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt) of American's were unemployed. FDR had cynically hoped the war in Europe would spark a "War Bride Boom" like that of the first war. I think in 1915-16 GM rose 5000%. 1941 America wasn't like that. There was no war to speak of anywhere in Europe except between Russia and Germany. Thus no massive orders for U.S. built hardware and hence a crappy U.S. economy.

Roosevelt wanted war for the economy (that 14.6% unemployed fell to 1.9% in 1943) plus he was an ideological admirer of Russia. Make no mistake about it, FDR viewed Hitler, Mussolini and the Vichy's as fascists for not giving the Red's their props.

Roosevelt was a fucking moron.

To this day Russia is a costlier, more oppressive and more dangerous foe than Germany ever wanted to be. Frankly as an American I don't care what methods Hitler used if only he could have defeated the Communists.
More...

I'll think about what you said about whether or not the US would have been drawn into a war against Hitler. It seems unreal to me, and nothing I have ever read suggests this, but I'll think about it. I am curious to see if anyone agrees with this. America's decision to enter WWII as a booster to the economy? Solely?

I do care how Hitler achieved his goals. I guess we'll just have to agree to diagree about that. And I am by no means referring only to the Holocaust, which by itself proves that Hitler and a few of his generals and administrators were crazier than a bunch of shithouse rats.
 
I'd have to agree with that, sure.

I can think of only a handfull of wars that were legitimately waged on purely moral grounds, or objections.

You have to remember, the early 20th century was still a climate of "big" empire-(it still is, maybe not so obvious now ) in fact, most of the wars of the 20th century were the result of protecting empires.

Now, you already knew that-the british malaya campaign, rhodesia, french indochina, dutch guiana, german-prussian teritories, you name it.

All these places were invaded for economic gain, originally.
Not to bring civilisation to savages, not to spread "freedom" from oppressive regimes, hell no.


Unless it would be an easy victory of course, and the place could supply trade routes or ports, always helpfull.

So, on the law of averages alone, its reasonable to suggest it was purely economic.

The u-boats were sinking huge amounts of US cargo headed for europe, too-an economic threat, it causes problems when produce doesnt reach its destination, in payment terms and elsewhere-remembering, that just a few years beforehand, the US was supplying nazi germany on an equal basis .

And, given one of the first things the US military did, was protect the merchant marine; remarkably badly of course, but thats a military bureaucracy for you.

Of course it was economics.
 
Quote from traderNik:

Huh?? Is it rubbish or isn't it?

Sheesh.
More...

"Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived... he had a mystery about him in the way that he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him. He had in him the stuff of which legends are made."

- John F. Kennedy,
President of the
United States of America
More...

An interesting introduction to the subject of why Hitler didn't cause WW2 can be found on the following link.
http://judicial-inc.biz/Broomberg.htm


If anyone deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, it was Adolf Hitler. Hitler did not want war. World War II was forced on Germany. Poland was encouraged to attack Germany by the promises of British Ambassador Sir Howard William Kennard and French Ambassador Leon Noel. They promised unconditionally that England and France would come to Poland’s immediate aid should she need it in case of war with Germany; therefore, no matter what Poland did to provoke Germany’s attack, Poland had an assurance from England and France. With this guarantee, Poland began acting ruthlessly. In addition, Kennard and Noel flattered Poland into thinking she was a great power. As the Chinese proverb says, “You can flatter a man to jump off the roof.” They sabotaged the efforts of those Polish leaders who wanted a policy of friendship with Germany.

By Alex S. Perry Jr.

Poland delivered the first blow, and Hitler announced, “Since dawn today, we are shooting back,” when he spoke to the Reichstag on Sept ember 1, 1939. “Shooting back” is not the statement of an aggressor. When Hitler attacked, Donald Day said, Poland got exactly what she deserved. None of Poland’s immediate neighbors felt sorry for her. Poland had conducted a policy of terror. Ethnic Germans living on German soil that had been given to Poland at the end of World War I by the Versailles Peace Treaty had been so mistreated that 2 million left the area for Germany and elsewhere.3 They were driven from what had been their homeland long before World War I. Leon Degrelle, a young Belgian political leader in the 1930s, and who later joined Hitler’s hardest fighting unit, the Waffen SS, with over 400,000 other non-German European volunteers, says, “Of all the crimes of World War II, one never hears about the wholesale massacres that occurred in Poland just before the war. Thousands of German men, women and children were massacred in the most horrendous fashion by press-enraged mobs. Hitler decided to halt the slaughter and he rushed to the rescue.”4 Young German boys, when captured by the Poles, were castrated.5

William Joyce, nicknamed Lord Haw Haw by British propaganda, became a German citizen and took up for the German cause. He described the conditions of the Germans who were living in Poland because of the Versailles Treaty:

German men and women were hunted like wild beasts through the streets of Bromberg. When they were caught, they were mutilated and torn to pieces by the Polish mob. . . . Every day the butchery increased. . . . [T]housands of Germans fled from their homes in Poland with nothing more than the clothes that they wore. Moreover, there was no doubt that the Polish army was making plans for the massacre of Danzig. . . . On the nights of August 25 to August 31 inclusive, there occurred, besides innumerable attacks on civilians of German blood, 44 perfectly authenticated acts of armed violence against German official persons and property. These incidents took place either on the border or inside German territory. On the night of [August 31], a band of Polish desperadoes actually occupied the German Broad casting Station at Gleiwitz. Now it was clear that unless German troops marched at once, not a man, woman or child of German blood within the Polish territory could reasonably expect to avoid persecution and slaughter.



Due to Poland’s atrocious acts against the German people, Hitler declared to British Ambassador Sir Nevile Henderson on August 25, 1939: “Poland’s provocations have become intolerable.”7

So Poland delivered the first blow, not Germany. The first blow was important to the United States in its war with Japan. It gave the United States the right and justification to do whatever was necessary to defeat the Japanese. But Germany did not have this right with Poland even after Poland had delivered the first blow. What fair-minded man, if he knew the true facts involved in the Polish situation, could blame Hitler for his retaliatory attack on Poland? Poland, if any nation ever did, deserved exactly what Germany gave her in return. But Hitler did not even want to do what he had to do. No sooner than Hitler began protecting the German people inside Poland, he was ready to stop all hostilities and begin peace negotiations. Prince Sturdza narrates:

Only hours after the outbreak of hostilities between Germany and Poland, Mussolini, renewing his efforts for peace, proposed to all the interested powers an immediate suspension of hostilities and the immediate convocation of a conference between the great powers, in which Poland would also participate. Mussolini’s proposals were, without any delay, accepted by all governments concerned except Great Britain.8

Before war broke out Britain’s ambassador to Berlin, Sir Nevil Henderson, on August 30, 1939, said, in his final report of Germany’s proposed basis for negotiations, “Those proposals are in general not too unreasonable.”

Even Pierre and Renee Gosset, in their rabid anti-German book Hitler, declare: “It was a proposal of extreme moderation. It was in fact an offer that no Allied statesman could have rejected in good faith.”9

As early as January 1941, Hitler was making extraordinary efforts to come to peace terms with England. He offered England generous terms. He offered, if Britain would assume an attitude of neutrality, to withdraw from all of France, to leave Holland and Belgium . . . to evacuate Norway and Den mark, and to support British and French industries by buying their products. His proposal had many other favorable points for England and Western Europe. But England’s officials did not want peace. They wanted war. Had they not celebrated their declaration of war by laughing, joking and drinking beer?

Hitler allowed the British to escape at Dunkirk.

He did not want to fight England. German Gen. Blumentritt states why Hitler allowed the British to escape:

He [Hitler] then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of the Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but “where there is planning there are shavings flying.” He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church—saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the continent. The return of Germany’s lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere.

Blumentritt’s statement is not the only notice about Hitler’s hope of peace and friendship with England. The renowned Swedish Explorer Sven Hedin observed Hitler’s confusion about Britain’s refusal to accept his peace offers: Hitler “felt he had repeatedly extended the hand of peace and friendship to the British, and each time they had blacked his eye in reply.” Hitler said, “The survival of the British Empire is in Germany’s interests too because if Britain loses India, we gain nothing thereby.” Harry Elmer Barnes says that Hitler lost the war because he was too good.

While the theory of Hitler’s diabolism is generally accepted, there are very well informed persons who contend that he brought himself and Germany to ruin by being too soft, generous and honorable rather than too tough and ruthless. They point to the following considerations: he made a genuine and liberal peace offer to Britain on August 25, 1939; he permitted the British to escape at Dunkirk to encourage Britain to make peace, which later on cost him the war in North Africa; he failed to occupy all of France, take North Africa at once, and split the British Empire, he lost the Battle of Britain by failing to approve the savagery of military barbarism which played so large a role in the Allied victory; he delayed his attack on Russia and offered Molotov lavish concessions in November 1940 to keep peace between Germany and Russia; he lost the war with Russia by delaying the invasion in order to bail Mussolini out of his idiotic attack on Greece; and he declared war on the United States to keep his pledged word with Japan which had long before made it clear that it deserved no such consideration and loyalty from Hitler.

Continued:
http://greyfalcon.us/restored/How to Start a War.htm
More...
 
It was an injustice committed by Britain and France to declare war on Germany while Poland was attacked by the Soviets at exactly the same moment. Hitler was frustrated with the slaughter of over 50,000 germans from 1933 to 1939, which gave him enough reason to attack Poland without wanting to "conquer to world". Before 1940, Stalin was already attacking territories all over eastern Europe, Romania,Finland,Ukraine etc. The interesting fact about that is that the west didn't care, but whenever Hitler made the smallest move Britain and France started saber rattling.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbentrop-Molotov_Treaty

Wiki has its moments, but you need to remember its all someone's interpretation.

Revisionist history, edited by revisionist historians.......based on the contemporary versions of what contemporary historians and journalists were forced to write, or allowed to write, assuming the version they had had been "cleared" by higher channels, with overwhelming agenda's.
 
Quote from Publisher:

It was an injustice committed by Britain and France to declare war on Germany while Poland was attacked by the Soviets at exactly the same moment. Hitler was frustrated with the slaughter of over 50,000 germans from 1933 to 1939, which gave him enough reason to attack Poland without wanting to "conquer to world". Before 1940, Stalin was already attacking territories all over eastern Europe, Romania,Finland,Ukraine etc. The interesting fact about that is that the west didn't care, but whenever Hitler made the smallest move Britain and France started saber rattling.
More...


Nice theory, maybe right.

Dont you love it when you prove your own theory?
Poland couldnt buy support from britain, more than empty promises-and empty they turned out to be.

Polish forces refused inclusion in the victory marches, when their air force were denied honours, for the battle of britain. That must tell you they were gipped.

Pride, honour, dignity........qualities none but they actually had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top