Was Churchill anti-Semitic?

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Please continue to show your support and admiration for Adolph Hitler...please tell us what the world would have been like if we had stayed out of the WWII on the side of the allies against Hitler.

Oh, and also try to show how Saddam was running a country that was strong enough while in power conquer much of Europe today, the way Hitler was able to do in his time frame with the force of the industrial power that was Germany of that time frame...

Then compare the consequences of allowing a contained Saddam to continue, vs. Hitler being allowed to continue.

Oh yes, please continue...

Oh, and for the sake of the ET Jews, please explain why it was not necessary to stop Hitler's extermination of Jews, I am sure they are just dying to hear about that one...

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Gosh, what a compelling, imaginative rebuttal.

Let's use Z logic.

Saddam was a mass murderer but the U.S. (if served by a Republican Prez) should never enter an unprovoked war.

Hitler was a mass murderer but the U.S. (if served by a Democratic Prez) entering the war unprovoked in Europe was just.

Iraq was a colossal mistake (if served by a Republican Prez) because our "exit plan" (or lack of) means war between rival Muslims, 3000 American dead and trillions in expense.

WWll was just (if served by a Democratic Prez) even though our "exit plan" (or lack thereof) meant teaming with Joe Stalin, enslaving Eastern Europe to 50 years of Soviet communism, 500,000 American dead and trillions in expense.

Can I share some more Z logic? Will you next tell us what a great war Viet Nam was? I'm sure LBJ warms you up with admiration.

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Please continue to show your support and admiration for Adolph Hitler...please tell us what the world would have been like if we had stayed out of the WWII on the side of the allies against Hitler.

"Side of the allies"? Near as I can tell the only ally involved was the U.K. Sound familiar? How about a Europe where half of Germany isn't partitioned into a communist state. How about a Europe where Hungary isn't invaded by the USSR in 1956. How about a Europe where Czechoslovakia isn't invaded in 1967. How about a Russia that isn't releasing nuclear weapons to former states who are now Islamic terrorists in 2007. How about a Europe that doesn't need to spend trillions of U.S. dollars defending itself from Soviet aggression until 1989.

Oh, and also try to show how Saddam was running a country that was strong enough today to conquer much of Europe today, the way Hitler was able to do in his time frame with the industrial power that was Germany of that time frame...

So Saddam didn't cause ONE MILLION deaths in his war with Iran? Nor invade Kuwait. Nor lob missiles at Israel. Nor fund Hammas? Who did Germany conquer? Hitler could have WASTED Britain if he desired. The Vichy government in France was pro-Hitler. As was Italy, Austria and Poland. Not a whole lot of conquering going on.

Then compare the consequences of allowing a contained Saddam to continue, vs. Hitler being allowed to continue.

The "consequences" in neither case would have been earth shattering.

Oh yes, please continue...

Oh, and for the sake of the ET Jews, please explain why it was not necessary to stop Hitler's extermination of Jews, I am sure they are just dying to hear about that one...

The LAST thing on FDR or Churchill's mind was the state of European Jewry. FDR's the same guy who refused refugee Jews into the United States. Most Jews died in the last three years of WWll AFTER the U.S. entered the conflict. Besides, if your faux humanitarianism is the reason for WWll then why is a Kurd worth less than a Jew. (even though he is, lol)

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Not the insane part. But do you believe Hitler's political success involved brainwashing?

My excerpt has nothing to do with whether or not Hitler's sway over the German people was brainwashing.

You did not say

"rubbish like 'Hitler used fiery speeches to hypnotize the gullable [sic] but usually peaceful German populace.' "

you said

"rubbish like 'Hitler was a madman who used fiery speeches to hypnotize the gullable [sic] but usually peaceful German populace.' "

So it's rubbish that Hitler was a madman. Or... Hitler was insane. You made both points in your post. Blatant contradiction within one post? Now how did this happen?

I'll let everyone in on the truth. When Pabst first hit 'Submit Reply', this last paragraph, with its half-hearted qualifier, was not there. I read the post and went to reply to it. When the reply box came up, I saw this extra paragraph. I thought it was strange so I refreshed and went back to the post. Indeed, he had added this last paragraph after posting and then reading his post after it was published.

Clearly, he has a sense that saying it's rubbish that Hitler was a madman is not going to go over very well. So he added the disclaimer for the sake of propriety.

What we have here is a pretty clear look at the thought process in action. And it is telling that these people understand that their views are abhorrent and are aware enough to make an attempt to mitigate their statements. Here, Pabst's true feelings came out after reading Z's post.

"It is rubbish to say that Hitler was a madman"

Then he re-read that and said 'That is not going to be acceptable' so he added the disclaimer but forgot to edit the first statement for consistency.

Why are you afraid to just come out and say what you really think about Hitler?

OOPS - my bad... you already have, late last year, when you told us that he was one of your personal heroes and that he had been given a bad rap by history.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from traderNik:

My excerpt has nothing to do with whether or not Hitler's sway over the German people was brainwashing.

You did not say

"rubbish like 'Hitler used fiery speeches to hypnotize the gullable [sic] but usually peaceful German populace.' "

you said

"rubbish like 'Hitler was a madman who used fiery speeches to hypnotize the gullable [sic] but usually peaceful German populace.' "

So it's rubbish that Hitler was a madman. Or... Hitler was insane. You made both points in your post. Blatant contradiction within one post? Now how did this happen?

I'll let everyone in on the truth. When Pabst first hit 'Submit Reply', this last paragraph, with its half-hearted qualifier, was not there. I read the post and went to reply to it. When the reply box came up, I saw this extra paragraph. I thought it was strange so I refreshed and went back to the post. Indeed, he had added this last paragraph after posting and then reading his post after it was published.

Clearly, he has a sense that saying it's rubbish that Hitler was a madman is not going to go over very well. So he added the disclaimer for the sake of propriety.

What we have here is a pretty clear look at the thought process in action. And it is telling that these people understand that their views are abhorrent and are aware enough to make an attempt to mitigate their statements. Here, Pabst's true feelings came out after reading Z's post.

"It is rubbish to say that Hitler was a madman"

Then he re-read that and said 'That is not going to be acceptable' so he added the disclaimer but forgot to edit the first statement for consistency.

Why are you afraid to just come out and say what you really think about Hitler?

OOPS - my bad... you already have, late last year, when you told us that he was one of your personal heroes and that he had been given a bad rap by history.

Get a clue here - PP is saying 2 things in the same sentence

1- Hitler is a madman.

2- Hitler used fiery speeches......

You need to stop treating everyone like they're the ubertroll, before you become one too...

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Very rarely do I post my stuff in one shot. The "Preview Reply" causes my feeble brain great confusion. Given that around one person an hour has so little a life as to visit this forum, I feel no compulsion to "edit" my posts.

My point Nik is not to comment on Hitler's mental capacity. Let the pseudo psychologists waste time in those futile pursuits.

The salient point is we can't learn from history if we use convenience or political correctness to re-write history. Why Hitler struck out at Jew's is extremely relevant if we're to examine how we'll deal with the coming day when Islamo terrorism becomes an increased domestic threat.

What if America had lost the war and starvation was so great that we could no longer afford to feed the Japanese in California's internment camps?

Wasn't our killing of Native-Americans just 60 years before WWll our own quest for Lebensraum?

He who casts the first stone is doomed to repeat history.....

Quote from traderNik:

My excerpt has nothing to do with whether or not Hitler's sway over the German people was brainwashing.

You did not say

"rubbish like 'Hitler used fiery speeches to hypnotize the gullable [sic] but usually peaceful German populace.' "

you said

"rubbish like 'Hitler was a madman who used fiery speeches to hypnotize the gullable [sic] but usually peaceful German populace.' "

So it's rubbish that Hitler was a madman. Or... Hitler was insane. You made both points in your post. Blatant contradiction within one post? Now how did this happen?

I'll let everyone in on the truth. When Pabst first hit 'Submit Reply', this last paragraph, with its half-hearted qualifier, was not there. I read the post and went to reply to it. When the reply box came up, I saw this extra paragraph. I thought it was strange so I refreshed and went back to the post. Indeed, he had added this last paragraph after posting and then reading his post after it was published.

Clearly, he has a sense that saying it's rubbish that Hitler was a madman is not going to go over very well. So he added the disclaimer for the sake of propriety.

What we have here is a pretty clear look at the thought process in action. And it is telling that these people understand that their views are abhorrent and are aware enough to make an attempt to mitigate their statements. Here, Pabst's true feelings came out after reading Z's post.

"It is rubbish to say that Hitler was a madman"

Then he re-read that and said 'That is not going to be acceptable' so he added the disclaimer but forgot to edit the first statement for consistency.

Why are you afraid to just come out and say what you really think about Hitler?

OOPS - my bad... you already have, late last year, when you told us that he was one of your personal heroes and that he had been given a bad rap by history.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Why Hitler struck out at Jew's is extremely relevant if we're to examine how we'll deal with the coming day when Islamo terrorism becomes an increased domestic threat.

I don't know exactly what you mean by this.

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:
Wasn't our killing of Native-Americans just 60 years before WWll our own quest for Lebensraum?

The clearest thing that emerges in your (many) references to Hitler and the Reich are the things that you stop just short of saying.

Was the murder of the Native Indians the same as the murder of the Jews? It was genocide, as was the Holocaust. But if you are suggesting that the Holocaust was in any way associated with 'Lebensraum' (I am talking about actual association, not what the Nazi propagandists might have said), you are either lying or badly misinformed.

At any rate, you are an apologist for the Third Reich. I am sure you wouldn't object too much to this characterization. Your views about the American involvement in WWII are clear. I think the fact that others on the right here are unwilling to step in and back you up on these things indicates that the majority of those on the right understand that American involvement in WWII was necessary in order to stop a homicidal maniac who was ruining his own country and murdering millions of Europeans. Certainly there are a few who feel as you do, but don't have whatever 'guts' you could rightly say would be necessary on an anonymous message board to come out and say it. In this you are to be... well, I guess all I can say is that your willingness to state your views, no matter how distasteful, is... to be acknowledged.

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

If Khruschchev had returned Kennedy's bluff over Cuba the U.S. would have been involved in a nuclear war against Russia just 17 years after being the Red's ally against Hitler. If that type of irony doesn't chill you then you're a bigger dolt than I give you credit for.

The entire war effort was predicated on the concept of Lebensraum as expansionist rebellion toward the injustice of the Versailles Treaty.

Somehow you and your revisionist ilk think that "holocaust" was a central theme of the "War". It wasn't. It was just another nasty sideline in a war that killed 63,000,000 people. Most of the world had no idea of the scope.

My father was an American officer who served from 43-46. He was stationed in Frankfurt after the surrender and he told me numerous times that the depth of the fatalities was unknown during the war. Nor frankly would have America cared. No different than now. Everyone here knows 3000 American's have died in Iraq but we couldn't estimate within 50,000 how many Iraqi's have died. We've got our own dead to grieve.

Can you imagine America today being half our present size and losing 150 times more troops the past 4 years than we actually have. It would be the equivalent of 1,000,000 Americans dying in Iraq. In fact our involvement in WWll was less lengthy than our time in Iraq. (12/41-8/45)

I know you're ignorant to history but without Pearl Harbor, America would NEVER have fought in Europe. All through 1940-1941 polls were 75-25 against helping Britain. FDR had to maneuver even with a heavy Democrat majority in Congress, just to get Lend Lease passed. The American public was VERY, VERY, VERY isolationist. Unfortunately FDR wasn't.

Here's a sample of FDR's rhetoric days before the 1940 election.

Mr. Roosevelt said at Boston on October 30: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."
The same thought was expressed in a speech at Brooklyn on November 1: "I am fighting to keep our people out of foreign wars. And I will keep on fighting."
The President told his audience at Rochester, New York, on November 2: "Your national government ... is equally a government of peace -- a government that intends to retain peace for the American people."
On the same day the voters of Buffalo were assured: "Your President says this country is not going to war."
And he declared at Cleveland on November 3: "The first purpose of our foreign policy is to keep our country out of war."


As far as apologist for Hitler. If the shoe fits I'll gladly wear it. Roosevelt's failure with Hitler cost Eastern Europe 50 years of oppression and his BS with Japan allowed Red China to emerge in 1948. Those who can't recognize that clear fact are delusional.

Quote from traderNik:

I don't know exactly what you mean by this.



The clearest thing that emerges in your (many) references to Hitler and the Reich are the things that you stop just short of saying.

Was the murder of the Native Indians the same as the murder of the Jews? It was genocide, as was the Holocaust. But if you are suggesting that the Holocaust was in any way associated with 'Lebensraum' (I am talking about actual association, not what the Nazi propagandists might have said), you are either lying or badly misinformed.

At any rate, you are an apologist for the Third Reich. I am sure you wouldn't object too much to this characterization. Your views about the American involvement in WWII are clear. I think the fact that others on the right here are unwilling to step in and back you up on these things indicates that the majority of those on the right understand that American involvement in WWII was necessary in order to stop a homicidal maniac who was ruining his own country and murdering millions of Europeans. Certainly there are a few who feel as you do, but don't have whatever 'guts' you could rightly say would be necessary on an anonymous message board to come out and say it. In this you are to be... well, I guess all I can say is that your willingness to state your views, no matter how distasteful, is... to be acknowledged.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:
The entire war effort was predicated on the concept of Lebensraum as expansionist rebellion toward the injustice of the Versailles Treaty.

Like I said, the war effort and not the extermination of the Jews, which was a philosophical preference. Re-read my post.

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:
Somehow you and your revisionist ilk think that "holocaust" was a central theme of the "War".

Where have you seen any statement from me that remotely suggests that? You do yourself a disservice by blatantly making things up and then attributing them to me. I defy you to provide a link to one post where I have even hinted at any such thing.

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:
I know you're ignorant to [sic] history but without Pearl Harbor, America would NEVER have fought in Europe.

You may want to believe that America wouldn't eventually have been drawn into the war in Europe. There are plenty of historians who would disagree. Oh yes, I know you think I am 'ignorant to [sic] history'. I take some solace in the fact that the vast majority of American and European historians agree with me. It is merely your (minority) opinion that the US would never have fought in Europe, and really, it's a hope rather than a belief.

(By the way, the phrase you wanted there was 'ignorant of history (and even that is awkward), not ignorant to history).

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:
As far as apologist for Hitler. If the shoe fits I'll gladly wear it.

To remain metaphorically consistent, it does fit... like a glove.

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:
you're a bigger dolt than I give you credit for.

I would have to be a pretty big dolt to be that big a dolt.

Have a good evening.

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Quote from traderNik:


I would have to be a pretty big dolt to be that big a dolt.
[/B]

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

I know you're ignorant to history but without Pearl Harbor, America would NEVER have fought in Europe. All through 1940-1941 polls were 75-25 against helping Britain. FDR had to maneuver even with a heavy Democrat majority in Congress, just to get Lend Lease passed. The American public was VERY, VERY, VERY isolationist. Unfortunately FDR wasn't.

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.