Movatterモバイル変換

White support and White advocacy is something you either go all the way with or just forget about it. No one should be ashamed to say the Founding Fathers envisioned a White Christian country and the first immigration law only allowed in White Europeans meaning White Christians. “Civic nationalism” is a fraud and was never the intent of those who started the country and it needs to be challenged. Don’t back down. Once the devils get you on your heels you are done. Just state the facts and then let the “anti-racists” melt down.

When Steve King got into trouble in the House for his New York Times comments, I went to the trouble of writing a letter to the editor in his support (I resided in Iowa at the time). But I lost my enthusiasm when Steve voted for the motion that censured him. This was hardly a Martin Luther, “Here I stand, I can do no other moment.” Steve is probably fundamentally a “Midwest nice,” civic nationalist whose support is welcome but will never be able to come to terms with the racial dimensions of the demographic, cultural, economic and political situation of the United States and Europe.

I like King but he’d get more respect from me if he just said, White people created the country, & they should run it. It’s stupid to replace the Japanese, Mexicans, etc. & of course along won’t say his j masters are behind replacement migration.

Mockingbird Media scumbags Pierce and Hayes were leering at you because you fell for their stupid fucking CIA trap, let’s-you-and-him-fight.

Sadly, aspiring lawmaker Steve King is ignorant of the supreme law of the land. So he flailed around like Jose Canseco in the octagon of luls, “Niggers! Crackers! Niggers! Crackers!” Exactly what CIA wants, all you proles fighting each other instead of ganging up on treasonous CIA ratfuckers.

If King knew shit from shinola he could have answered more or less as follows: “Gosh, Charlie, it sounds like you’re advocating discrimination against a racial group. You seem to want to take away their right to participate in public affairs. Do you really want to set aside Articles 2 and 26 of the supreme law of the land? The law with which US law at all levels is to come into conformity? Shouldn’t you be protecting Americans’ rights instead of stoking conflict? How do you read General Comment 18 para 3? Wait, do you even know what it says? You don’t, do you??”

https://www.refworld.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/en/1989-11/453883fa8.pdf

King’s not just dim but brainwashed. His lifelong CIA indoctrination makes him repudiate the means that can protect him most effectively. He’s like any broke loser drunk in a bar telling you he doesn’t want his rights cause hurr durr slurr UN communism.

I wonder how much money this guy received from Aipac and other Zionist organizations he was a representative. His hero, Orban, kissed Netanyahu’s ring and blew the shofar and he wants to save “western civilization”. What a joke.

If Mr. Secor knows of Prof. Revilo Oliver (1908-1994) it would be interesting to know what Mr. Secor thinks of him. Since Mr. Secor is involved withCounter Currents, he must be at least somewhat pragmatic in racial matters. On the other hand, Prof. Oliver (particularly in his later years) was completely frank and often acerbic in discussing the follies and foibles of Whites, most notably their continuing (and bewildering) attachment to the mythologies of Christianity.

With all due respect to this man and what he endured, I would like to have known a) his thoughts as to why Trump did not pardon them all prior to leaving office in 2020 and b) what he really thinks of Trump vis-a-vis the “Jewish hegemony” to which he refers

Why so little about Truman and Eisenhower? Those two opened the gate. By the time Kennedy got in it was a bit like rolling off a log.

There is a tide in the affairs of men and JFK was stuck in one. Not saying he was a good guy. He picked a bad time to be president, is all.

Well, yeah, lots of lies by the government but at least they told us the truth about the Kennedy assassi … well about Vietn … I mean WMD in Ira … that is, about the origins of Cov … uhh, the unmitigated benefits of the Covid vacc …

I’ll see myself out.

“Tales of the Royal Irish Constabulary” by Major Aubrey Waithman Long

1921, theres one chapter in this book about the foreign bolshevik jews promoting Irish soviets and other communist stuff during the independence war.

Hollywood with its Michael Collins movie and The Wind That Shakes the Barley movie, has rose tinted spectacles.

She was a stupid nigger along with Martin Luther-King who worked for the kike created NAACP (national association for the advancement of colored primitives). And what the sticken to high heaven is a groid doing with a German theologians name? You see the lying kike and now groid want to create bullshit modern mythologies all based on lies.

The Political Cesspool. It’s a Memphis based radio program broadcast mostly online, though they are carried by a few stations. Check them out. I’ve been listening to them since 2009.

Both King and Parks were communists. King’s primary advisor was a NYC Jew communist Stanley Levison. Amazing how the media keeps this under wraps leaving brain dead Americans to believe both were wonderful people just wanting equal rights for blacks. America is easily the most misinformed and propagandized country in the world. Imagine, America has a national holiday for a black communist that was signed into law by conservative icon Ronald Reagan.

Who or what is “TPC”?

The famous “bus scene” showing Rosa Parks sitting in the front was a setup. The man sitting behind her was a UPI reporter.

I came of age during the first so-called“civil-rights” movement and observed for myself the underhanded dealings, the demonization of us decent, law-abiding Whites, and in general, the deterioration of civil society.
Almost all of the“civil-rights” workers and demonstration“handlers” were of one persuasion–New York based leftist communist jews. They cared not one wit about true“civil rights”, but were there to create hate and discontent among their black charges (who were too stupid or naive to see that they were being used to suborn and destroy legitimate government and society–a favorite communist tactic).
These New York-based jew“carpetbaggers” fomented their hate and discontent, only to become future“civil-rights” attorneys, race-hustlers, and America-hating leftist communists…and theADL and$PLC being invented.
Those of us whites who were in the middle of this“civil-rights” revolution had a saying:“Behind every negro, there is a jew”. No truer words were ever spoken.
Let’s not forget jewish infestation of the nation’s education and entertainment systems, (which continues to the present day), in which they still spread their jewish supremacist poison.
The so-called “non-violent civil-rights demonstrations” were anything but“non-violent”. Robberies, rapes, and other criminal acts committed by jewish civil-rights handlers and their black“pets” were common, but never reported, as even the“mainstream media” of the day was“in on the game” and conveniently turned off their cameras during the acts of violence. You see, even then,”creating crises” was a part of the agenda.
The“beginning of the end” of America was the use of federal troops against us White Americans, which, in itself was a violation of“posse comitatus”–the prohibition of the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement purposes.
President Eisenhower, being of jewish extraction showed his visceral hatred of White gentiles by using federalized troops to suppress constitutionally protected dissent.
As most Whites were (and still are) law-abiding, they (we) were“steamrollered” by the use of federalized troops to crush our (White) honest dissent.
We never recovered from those unconstitutional actions. It was all downhill from there…
We are living with the consequences of the so-called“civil-rights” act to this day.

Let’s not forgetEmmett Till…
Emmett Till was not a“little boy” who whistled at a white woman, but was a strapping young man of about 160 lbs. His Chicago relatives could not handle him so they sent him to Mississippi to live with other relatives.
Till used to brag about“getting it on” with White women. This may not have had much if any consequences in Chicago, but in the south of the day it was definitely not a good idea.
On a dare from his friends (Till was not too bright) he grabbed and fondled a White woman storekeeper(Carolyn Bryant)stating:“hey baby, how about a date? I’ve (been with) f#cked White women before” She recoiled in horror, having been assaulted by a much larger black man.
In any case, Till’s behavior would have been considered assault, if not attempted rape.Mrs. Bryant was so rattled, she ran out of the store to get a gun. By that time,Till had left the scene.Bryant was reluctant to tell her husband of the incident, but word eventually got out.
Till refused to apologize for his behavior. One of the men responsible forTill’s demise was a black man, a detail that is conveniently not mentioned.
IfTill had apologized, he would probably be alive today, perhaps in prison for rape or other criminal behavior, but would still be alive.
When it comes toEmmett Till’s “daddy”, the “apple most certainly did not fall far from the tree”.Till’s father was executed by the U. S. military for multiple rapes and murder of an Italian woman. He is buried in a military cemetery in Europe in a section reserved for criminals
As to the victim,Carolyn Bryant, she was considered to be a“suspect” in the demise ofTill.
In fact, an arrest warrant WAS issued forCarolyn Bryant but was never served. It is possible that the“powers that be” KNEW that the White menfolk would not take too kindly to the warrant being served and would have solved the problem by stringing up a judge, sheriff or other person who attempted to serve the warrant.
White men had cojones in those days…

Never doubted that Little Rosa Parks was Commie-evangelized, steeped in the Gospel of Critical Theory and baptized in the effluvium of Marx & Lenin. In today’s world, with cameras and cell phones everywhere, Red Rosa would have been forced to hold off on her civil disobedience until a better supporter of segregation came along –not a little old semi-disabled white man. Even if Red Rosa had qualms about doing her civil disobedience right then and there, her Jew Marxommunists would have kvetched “C’mon Rosa, old or not, crippled or not – the alte kocker is a still a cracker and that was your rightful seat.” Although the actors were black, all the directors and choreographers and set designers were Communist Jews. I really don’t think the whole Civil Rights Show could have been pulled off without Jewntervetion. Communist Jews from the 20s & 30s were praying that blacks would immediately gravitate to the “cause”. They saw them as the primary cannon fodder to foster the “revolution” they all hoped for. If I am going to respect a black man (or woman) who fought for his/her people -that respect goes to Malcom X, not MLK. OK Nation of Islam has this weird cosmology which is rather cartoonish, but on the ground level it instructed its followers in strength of character, fortitude and respectability that wasn’t seen before – especially in the urban black areas.

I wonder how many people know that little truth about Rosa Parks? Seem’s I have heard everything there was to know about her except that she was the secretary for the NAACP and in tight with all the race baiters. She wasn’t brave, she was paid.

If you want to learn true history, you have to start by accepting that 100% of what you have been taught about EVERYTHING is a lie.

Pat Buchanan, normally the voice of rational thought. Good interview.

Who listens to negresses speaking a Northern European Germanic language? Only simpletons and idiots. Also when you try to be all things to all people you are doomed to destruction. And that is what European-American Culture and Civilization was trying to do through out the 20th century.

California is a demonstration of what happens when Whites become a minority. Right now, Los Angeles faces out of control wildfires. The incompetent Black female mayor was over in Ghana when they happened. Several months ago she cut the fire department budget by 18 million dollars. This was not due to lack of taxes since this area of the country has some of the highest tax rates in the nation. Much money is spent on the burgeoning homeless population and various social services for the poor, including illegal immigrants.

Many of the fire hydrants did not have water in them. Needed reservoirs were not built. Millions of gallons of water from the rains and water coming down from Canada were allowed to flow into the ocean to protect an endangered species of fish. Hundreds of fire hydrants have been stolen and sold for scrap metal. Controlled burns were not done previously to clear the underbrush.

The state put price controls on fire insurance so many insurance companies left the state, leaving many residents with no fire insurance. In addition to the governor and LA mayor being incompetent, so is the DEI obsessed LA fire chief. All these factors coming together has led to the worst fire in Los Angeles history.

“Western Civilization died at Stalingrad” – Louis Ferdinand Celine

The Nazis were the good guys in WWII. Today, this is eminently obvious to everyone with a functioning brain, ears to hear and eyes to see. It’s so obvious that it’s hard to imagine how anyone could possiblynot see it. This Frenchman saw it decades ago. Why are so many today so blind?

Unfortunately, many (especially many Boomers) apparently don’t have functioning brains as they react more violently to the assertion of this obvious truth than to any other – than even the contradiction of their religious faith (assuming they have any faith, besides Holocaustianity, that is).

That’s a clue I think – the intense emotionalism of their reaction and the vicious attacks they unleash upon you – that ejaculate forth from their stupid spittle-flecked maws. It’s how you know that their beliefs aren’t based in reason but are a matter ofself-identity and quasi-religious devotion.

Their brains have been turned to mush by decades of sitting in front of the Jewtube (and also, it must be said (because it’s probably true), by many years of exposure to tetraethyllead.

More charitably, one might argue that people who fail to see (or refuse to see) what is right in front of them (whenever they leave home or turn on the television*) have simply been indoctrinated into a sort of religious cult – as the denizens of Jonestown were – and disabusing them of their way (self-destructive) of thinking is rather like being a missionary seeking to make a conversion. It just doesn’t happen very often, and evidence and reason don’t make much if any difference – especially beyond a certain age.

As with scientific progress, historiography moves forward only one funeral at a time.

As for whether Western Civilization is really done for – done in at Stalingrad – (and doomed to a sort of Brazilification, Third World-ization and to be forever lorded over by hook-nosed goblins and Machiavellian sneaks.) I suppose only time will tell. I’m perhaps a bit more hopeful than Louis Celine was, though.

* I.e., every time they enter a public place or store and are thronged by a sea of, mostly obese, brown and black bodies blabbering in a smorgasbord of foreign tongues, in what in recent memory was a homogeneous white town; or every time you turn on television news and see a panel of negresses and Jews telling the dumb placid-faced white goyim on their sofas what to think. When was my country conquered by the united armies of Pakistan, Guatemala and Mozambique, and why are they displacing me and my kind in my own town and nation? What war did I (an American, or Brit or Frenchman) lose? And the answer is simple: You lost WWII to the Jews.

“Western Civilization died at Stalingrad” – Louis Ferdinand Celine

The Nazis were the good guys in WWII. Today, this is eminently obvious to everyone with a functioning brain, ears to hear and eyes to see. It’s so obvious that it’s hard to imagine how anyone could possiblynot see it. This Frenchman saw it decades ago, so why are people still blind?

Unfortunately, many (especially many Boomers) apparently don’t have functioning brains as they react more violently to the assertion of this obvious truth than to other – than even the contradiction of their religious faith (assuming they have any faith, besides Holocaustianity, that is).

Their brains have been turned to mush by decades of sitting in front of the Jewtube (and also, it must be said (because it’s probably true), by many years of exposure to tetraethyllead.

More charitably, one might argue that people who fail to see (or refuse to see) what is right in front of them have simply been indoctrinated into a sort of religious cult – as the denizens of Jonestown were – and disabusing them of their way (self-destructive) of thinking is rather like being a missionary seeking to make a conversion. It just doesn’t happen very often, and evidence and reason don’t make much if any difference – especially beyond a certain age.

As with scientific prograess, historiography moves forward only one funeral at a time.

As for whether Western Civilization is really done for – done in at Stalingrad – (and doomed to a sort of Brazilification, Third World-ization and to be forever lorded over by hook-nosed goblins and Machiavellian sneaks) I suppose only time will tell. I’m perhaps a bit more hopeful than Celine was, though.

I think the median death age of Russian men is now something like 60. It has not only to do with the lack of births but apparently, the health system is terrible. There’s alcoholism. I think the average woman has seven abortions. I’ve had that in an earlier book.

LOL, what is this nonsense?

This is your brain on Jew-on-a-stick worship.

when the faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, and then the people die

The most terrifying prospect for every addict is to face life without his drug of choice. The singular blindness of every addicted person is the unshakable conviction that the habit that is poisoning his life and diminishing his world is the only worthwhile thing in that suffering place. This is so painfully obvious to the rest of us who iinhabit with him the world that is so damaged by his desperate clinging to a dead past, which is his right (though not his choice as he imagines), but not to force it on the rest of us..

The West died in the minds of the people who built it when multiculturalism was used ,as a Trojan horse, to undermine and steal the workers right to a share of the bounty. Then the finacialization axe created the next body blow by turning stored wealth into stockmarket confetti as the fiat dollar was inflated to steal the workers toil.

The people who matter are the multitude of little people, who are the true believers, once you lose them your society is finished no-matter how many economic refugees you flood in to try and replace the originals, they’re not builders but greedy opportunists.

I believe the reason why NATO and the U.S don’t want to put troops into Ukraine is because it will demonstrate that fact that the West is an entity in name only and nobody , who counts as an original, wants to fight for it anymore.

I don’t think I make any quality claims of national character

We get it already: Germany baaad allies goood! LOL.

I state specifically the issues regarding the blockade. As indicated by the comments by Carlton Meyer, the most recent estimates put the number at 100,000. However that number is probably inaccurate because of the flu and I will also that Germany was already in a desperate fod shortage in which people were starving. It is unclear when food blockages occurred in 1919 or how much. so that number could easily far less.

Context is the issue, not justification.

most importantly, the contention has no impact to the purpose of my comments: which is that given German ambitions there was no way to avoid the war, unless one wanted to be a complete pacifist.

—-

As I think my comments make very clear. I understand the necons’ ambition as reflected by the New American Century. That does not mean an endorsement.

Referencing the blockade of Germany that continued even after the Armistice was signed (and continued well into 1919 – resulting in hundreds of thousands of German civilians starving needlessly), you wrote:

Second, the blockade was not a “starvation blockade”.

Mr Elite Communist Incorporated, it just never ends with you, does it?

The Anglo-Zionist empire could literally set the world on fire and incinerate every living thing, and you’d still find an excuse to justify it.
You are a neocon/ZOG apologist of the worst order.

First I am confused on what your comment has to with preWWII Germany seeking to renegotiate the terms of the Versaille Treaty.

Second, the blockade was not a “starvation blockade”. The primary cause for the blockade to bar Germany from obtaining anything that might enable her to reconstitute weapons for war. During 1919, at some point food stuffs wre included. it is belived that resulted in maybe some 100,000 deaths. That figure is clouded by the deaths that resulted from the flu that arrived that same year. There was no unique blockade to starve Germans. When and to what extent food was included is unfortunate and clearly wong, its impact is mooted.

Third, by the time Chancellor Hitler/Nazi Party came to power the allied powers had already backtracked on the early limitations, restrictions and penalties imposed on Germany. And discussed previously, the allies made further concession and accommodations with Nazi Germany. So clearly, the record indicates that not only could Germany renegotiate, some of her territorial (the only issues left) demands were accommodated.

Fourth, I have made no comments about the fairness or lack thereof of the Versailles Treaty. The breaches in question that finally led to the allies to confront Nazi Germany’s breaches of contracts made outside the auspices of Versailles. While it is officially known as an Armistice, it was in reality an unconditional surrender.

“There wasn’t much of a negotiation. When the Germans asked if he had an Allied offer, Foch responded, “I have no proposals to make.” His instructions from the Allied governments were to simply present an as-is deal. French General Maxime Weygand then read the terms that the Allies had decided upon to the Germans.

According to Lowry’s account, the Germans became distraught when they heard that they would have to disarm, fearing that they’d be unable to defend their teetering government against communist revolutionaries. But they had little leverage.”

https://www.history.com/news/world-war-i-armistice-germany-allies

Since ther were no signs that Germany would ever abide by said agreements made, Great Britain, Poland and others had two choices

1. allow Germany to do as she wished – continued pacification

or

2. take a stand. The chose to stand and finally the fascist war that started in Asia came to Europe.

Hmmmm . . I am unfamiliar with this naval blockade scenario. I will get back to you.

I have no issues with Germany renegotiating Versailles. And it is clear the allied forces, made accommodations and clearly made concessions.

I have doubts because the Germans were not invited to Versailles. The Allied made a deal while the British continued its starvation blockade that killed another 100,000 German civilians. The Germans were invited to the Paris Peace Accords and told to sign or the Allies will attack.

Agree… Buchanan actually exposes himself as a damned fool in his belief in the “holocaust”.

Odd he never was exposed to Kollerstrom or Butz. Debunking the “holocaust” is NOT difficult.

I found this video to be enlightening and enjoyable, I believe that Hitler was actually a great leader, he made Germany great again. He was, of course, not without flaw, especially as the stress of the war took its toll on him mentally… and some of his incompetent generals…

Video Link

Churchill and Eisenhower were more criminal, IMO, than Hitler, and none of them as evil as the Zionists, then and now.

Video Link

Video Link

You write: “Neville Chamberlain couldn’t express his opinions freely because he was a politician who had to run for elections. Chamberlain had plans to call for UK general elections in late 1939 so he was extremely sensitive to public mood in 1939….The Prime Minister’s willy-nilly statement caused an uproar in the British press and in the House of Commons. Chamberlain was lambasted over his lack of moral outrage concerning Hitler’s gangster diplomacy. Angry members of the House of Commons vowed that Britain would never again appease Hitler…No conspiracy, no profound logic, no Jews, okay? Just common sense politics. Run of the mill stuff, understood by everyone.”

My response: My question is: “Who was creating the public mood in 1939?

I have thoroughly documented that The Focus financed Winston Churchill. The Focus was Jewish controlled and was totally committed to instigating war against Germany.

Numerous other sources confirm that Jews actively worked to draw Great Britain into war against Germany. James Forrestal, the former U.S. secretary of Defense, wrote in his diaries about a conversation he had on December 27, 1945, with U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain Joseph P. Kennedy:

“[British Prime Minister Neville] Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into war. In his telephone conversation with Roosevelt in the summer of 1939, the president kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain’s backside. Kennedy’s response always was that putting iron up his backside did no good unless the British had some iron with which to fight, and they did not.” (Source: Forrestal, James V., The Forrestal Diaries, edited by Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield, New York: The Viking Press, 1951, p. 122).

Ambassador Joseph Kennedy knew that Churchill and his Jewish controllers were scheming to have the United States enter World War II. Kennedy wrote in his diary about Churchill’s desire to draw the United States into the war: “I just don’t trust him. He always impressed me that he was willing to blow up the American Embassy and say it was the Germans if it would get the United States in.” (Source: Doenecke, Justus D., Storm on the Horizon: The Challenge to American Intervention, 1939-1941, New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000, p. 198).

Kennedy said privately that the Jews were too powerful in the media and too outspokenly anti-German. (Source: Ibid., p. 305).

Leading British Zionist Chaim Weizmann wrote an extremely revealing letter to Churchill on September 10, 1941:

“There is only one big ethnic group [in America] which is willing to stand, to a man, for Great Britain, and a policy of ‘all-out aid’ for her: the 5 million Jews. From Secretary Morgenthau, Governor Lehman, Justice Frankfurter, down to the simplest Jewish workman or trader, they are conscious of all that this struggle against Hitler implies…It has been repeatedly acknowledged by British statesmen that it was the Jews who, in the last war, effectively helped to tip the scales in America in favor of Great Britain. They are keen to do it—and may do it—again.” (Source: Dalton, Thomas, The Jewish Hand in the World Wars, Uckfield, UK: Castle Hill Publishers, 2019, pp. 134-135).

Max Aitken, better known as Lord Beaverbrook, was a prominent Canadian-British newspaper publisher who was anti-war and against Churchill’s return to public office. Beaverbrook made statements in private letters that he would never have made in public. In one private letter written on March 9, 1938, Beaverbrook identified the people sabotaging rapprochement with Germany: “There are 20,000 German Jews in England in the professions, pursuing research, in chemical operations, etcetera. These all work against such an accommodation.” (Source: Irving, David, Churchill’s War, New York: Avon Books, 1991, pp. 103-104).

In another private letter written to American publisher Frank Gannett in December 1938, Beaverbrook wrote:

“The Jews have got a big position in the press here. ‘One third of the circulation of the Daily Telegraph is Jewish. The Daily Mirror may be owned by Jews, the Daily Herald is owned by Jews, and the News Chronicle should really be the Jews Chronicle…I am not sure about the Mail.’ Beaverbrook stated that for years he had prophesied there would be no war. However, he wrote: ‘But at last I am shaken. The Jews may drive us into war. I do not mean with any conscious purpose of doing so. They do not mean to do it. But unconsciously…their political influence is moving us in that direction.’” (Source: Ibid., p. 104. See also Nasaw, David, The Patriarch: The Remarkable Life and Turbulent Times of Joseph P. Kennedy, New York: The Penguin Press, 2012, pp. 357-358).

So, with the British media and politicians largely controlled by Jews, I think that the mood of the British public was heavily influenced by Jews agitating for war against Germany. Because of this Jewish influence, Chamberlain was forced to change his speech on March 17, 1939 to satisfy Britain’s Jews.

Did Chamberlain actually through a third party reassure Hitler that he sympathized with Germany’s move? Were the intemperate attacks by the Churchill clique the cause of Chamberlain’s change of mind?If yes, does this mean that Chamberlain had no real power, and was not able to express his opinions freely because he was controlled by powers behind the scenes?

Neville Chamberlain couldn’t express his opinions freely because he was a politician who had to run for elections. Chamberlain had plans to call for UK general elections in late 1939 so he was extremely sensitive to public mood in 1939.

“…That same day, Tiso sent his pre-arraigned telegram from Slovakia urgently requesting the Führer’s protection. The two-day-old independent country of Slovakia thus ceased to exist as the German Army rolled in, supposedly at the request of the Slovaks themselves.

At this point, the whole world waited to see how Prime Minister Chamberlain would react to the incredible happenings in Czechoslovakia, all of which were gross violations of the Munich Agreement.

Chamberlain responded to Hitler’s aggression by claiming the British were not bound to protect Czechoslovakia since the country in effect no longer existed after Slovakia had voted for independence on March 14th.And Hitler’s actions had occurred the next day, March 15th.

The Prime Minister’s willy-nilly statement caused an uproar in the British press and in the House of Commons. Chamberlain was lambasted over his lack of moral outrage concerning Hitler’s gangster diplomacy. Angry members of the House of Commons vowed that Britain would never again appease Hitler.

Interestingly, while traveling on a train from London to Birmingham on Friday, March 17,Chamberlain underwent a complete change of heart. He had in his hand a prepared speech discussing routine domestic matters that he was supposed to give in Birmingham. But upon deep reflection, he decided to junk the speech and outlined a brand new one concerning Hitler.

In the new speech, which was broadcast throughout England on radio, Chamberlain first apologized for his lukewarm reaction to Hitler’s recent actions in Czechoslovakia. Then he recited a list of broken promises made by Hitler dating back to the Munich Agreement.

“The Führer,” Chamberlain asserted, “has taken the law into his own hands.”

“Now we are told that this seizure of territory has been necessitated by disturbances in Czechoslovakia…If there were disorders, were they not fomented from without?”

“Is this the last attack upon a small state or is it to be followed by others? Is this, in effect, a step in the direction of an attempt to dominate the world by force?”

If so, Chamberlain declared: “No greater mistake could be made than to suppose that because it believes war to be a senseless and cruel thing, this nation has so lost its fiber that it will not take part to the utmost of its power in resisting such a challenge if it ever were made.”

Now, for the first time in the history of the Third Reich,Great Britain had finally declared it would stand up to the German dictator and was willing to fight…”

https://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-czech.htm

“…The German occupation of Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939 marked the turning point for the Milner Group,but not for the Chamberlain group…

…Of these three points, the first two were shared with the Chamberlain group; the third was not.

The difference rested on the fact that the Chamberlain group hoped to permit Britain to escape from the necessity of fighting Germany by getting Russia to fight Germany. The Chamberlain group did not share the Milner Group’s naive belief in the possibility of three great power blocs standing side by side in peace.

Lacking that belief, they preferred a German-Russian war to a British-German war. And, having that preference, they differed from the Milner Group in their willingness to accept the partition of Poland by Germany. The Milner Group would have yielded parts of Poland to Germany if done by fair negotiation.The Chamberlain group was quite prepared to liquidate Poland entirely, if it could be presented to the British people in terms which they would accept without demanding war.Here again appeared the difference we have already mentioned between the Milner Group and Lloyd George in 1918 and between the Group and Baldwin in 1923, namely that the Milner Group tended toneglect the electoral considerations so important to a party politician. In 1939 Chamberlain was primarily interested in building up to a victorious electoral campaign for November, and, as Sir Horace Wilson told German Special Representative Wohl in June, “it was all one to the Government whether the elections were held under the cry `Be Ready for a Coming War’ or under a cry `A Lasting Understanding with Germany.’”

…It is a complete error to say, as most students of the period have said, that before 15 March the government was solidly appeasement and afterwards solidly resistant. The Chamberlain group, after 17 March 1939, was just as partial to appeasement as before, perhaps more so,but it had to adopt a pretense of resistance to satisfy public opinion and keep a way open to wage the November election on either side of the issue…”

https://web.archive.org/web/20221029210347/http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/quigley/anglo_12b.html

“…British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain held secret talks with Hitler’s henchmento work out ways of making the Nazis look more sympathetic to ordinary Britons, classified documents released last week reveal.
Two newly-declassified documents show Chamberlain was ready to make more deals with Hitler after Munich, which would have the ‘happiest and most far-reaching effects for the relationship between the two countries’.

…The papers revealChamberlain told Hitler that it would have ‘the greatest effect on public opinion in England’ if, in the event of war, they had a pact in place not to use poison gas, not to bomb each other’s civilians and to spare cities with cultural treasures…”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033502/Revealed-Chamberlains-secret-bid-reach-deal-Hitler.html

For example, we know that Trump cares nothing at all about Ukraine. If Russia annexes ALL of Ukraine, it would mean absolutely nothing for Trump. But Trump cannot openly and publicly say such things. If he did, the entire western press would mount fierce campaign to attack Trump and Trump would be forced to backtrack and row back his public remarks.

That was the situation with Chamberlain in 1939. 1939 was supposed to be election year for Britain.

Chamberlain’s policy was to let Hitler annex more territory in Poland. He didn’t care about Poland. Not at all. He didn’t care about easern europe. Germany could have have annexed all of eastern europe and Chamberlain wouldn’t bat an eye for it. But Chamberlain couldn’t say such things openly.

No way. These things could only be done secretly. It Trump was okay with Putin annexing all of Eastern Ukraine, he couldn’t state it out loud openly. He had to do it secretly through private channels with Putin.

No conspiracy, no profound logic, no Jews, okay? Just common sense politics. Run of the mill stuff, understood by everyone.

You write: “Hitler probably knew more about ‘the independence movement in Slovakia’ than Tiso: he’d been stirring up Slovaks, Ruthenians and Ukrainians with the express purpose of destabilizing the region. Tiso was given the choice of declaring independence under German protection or face occupation by Hungary. Tiso’s declaration of Slovakian independence (14 Mar 1939) was written by Ribbentrop and the German Foreign Office.”

My response: So, are you saying that Czechoslovakia would have be a stable region without Hitler’s influence and interference? If Hitler had done absolutely nothing, do you think Czechoslovakia would have remained intact?

According to David Hoggan, the Hungarian government presented a 12 hour ultimatum to the Czechs on March 14, 1939. The Czechs submitted, and the Hungarian military occupation of Ruthenia began the same day. (Source: Hoggan, David, The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1989). Do you think that Hitler’s policies caused Ruthenia to be taken over by Hungary? Did Germany benefit by Ruthenia being taken over by Hungary? Did Ruthenia benefit by being taken over by Hungary?

I write: “Hitler met Hácha’s train and presented flowers and chocolates to Hácha’s daughter, who accompanied her father” and you respond: “Hácha’s train arrived at Anhalter station at 9:00 pm and was met by senior civil servant Otto Meissner, not Hitler. Nor did the latter present flowers and chocolates to Hácha’s daughter. Did Hoggan come up with that nonsense, or was it your invention?”

My response: David Hoggan writes this on page 248 of his book The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1989.

Hoggan does write the following on this same page:

“Hacha made a plea for the continuation of full Czech independence, and he offered to reduce the Czech army. Hitler rejected this plea, and he announced that German troops would enter Bohemia-Moravia the same day. The Germans made it quite clear that they were prepared to crush any Czech resistance.”

David Hoggan also wrote: “Hitler’s decision to support the Slovaks and to occupy Prague had been based on the obvious disinterest of the British leaders in the Czech situation. There had been ample opportunities for them to encourage the Czechs in some way, but they had repeatedly refused to do so. The truth was that the British leaders did not care about the Czechs. They used Hitler’s policy as a pretext to become indignant about the Germans.” (Source: Hoggan, David, The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p.228).

You write: “If you actually read Watt [‘How War Came’ p.152-54], instead of cherry-picking a flattering quote originally found in Buchanan, you’d know better. Or try Volker Ullrich ‘Hitler: Ascent’ p.750-71; Evans ‘The Third Reich in Power’ p.682-3; Buchanan ‘Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War’ p.246-48; Irving ‘Hitler’s War’ p.162-64; Irving ‘Göring’ p.245; Longerich ‘Hitler’ p.608-09; Kershaw ‘Hitler 1936-45 Nemesis’ p.170-72; Bouverie ‘Appeasement’ p.321-323; Overy ‘Blood and Ruins’ p.59; Childers ‘The Third Reich’ p.421-24; Shirer ‘The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich’ p.597-602; Bullock ‘Hitler: ‘A Study in Tyranny’ p.426-432; Keitel ‘Memoirs’ p.73-74, p. 80; Schellenberg ‘Labyrinth p.34-36. Bullock includes the official minutes of the Hácha meeting written by Staatssekretär im Auswärtigen Amt Walther Hewel (p.430-31).

None of these sources even faintly agree with your cut-and-paste snow-job. That you persist speaks solely to fraudulent intent.”

My response: So, now I am being accused of fraudulent intent. This is getting pretty serious.

The historians I have primarily relied on for this period of history are David Hoggan, A.J.P. Taylor, Udo Walendy, Harry Elmer Barnes, and recently Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof.

I certainly have not read all of the books you list above. However, the history of this matter is not as black and white as you try to make it appear.

For example, David Irving writes on page 165 of his book “Hitler’s War”:

“The initial reaction from London was that this was an affair that need not concern them, but the British public refused to swallow Hitler’s ‘annexation’ of Bohemia and Moravia, and Chamberlain was obliged to deliver a strongly worded speech in Birmingham, demanding: Is this in fact a step in the direction of an attempt to dominate the world by force?” About a week later, however, Chamberlain reassured Hitler through a third party that he quite sympathized with Germany’s move, even though he was unable to say so in public, as he was being exposed to intemperate attacks by the Churchill clique.”

This passage raises several questions. Did Chamberlain actually through a third party reassure Hitler that he sympathized with Germany’s move? Were the intemperate attacks by the Churchill clique the cause of Chamberlain’s change of mind? If yes, does this mean that Chamberlain had no real power, and was not able to express his opinions freely because he was controlled by powers behind the scenes?

I am glad to see you are entering this discussion thread. We have had numerous exchanges on other UNZ discussion threads. I have learned a lot from your comments.

As you know, Hitler always said that World War II was intiated and prolonged by the forces of international Jewry. Based on my research on this subject, I tend to agree with Hitler.

In my comment #1072 of the discussion thread athttps://www.unz.com/article/auschwitz-six-facts-and-seven-questions/?showcomments#comments, I gave you some of the evidence that The Focus and Winston Churchill were controlled by Jews. You never responded to this comment. Do you agree with what I wrote in this comment? If not, where do you think I made a mistake?

I also think there is considerable evidence that the Roosevelt administration was controlled by Jews. The following are some of the Jews that were in Roosevelt’s administration:

See also:

The Elimination of Rump Czecho-Slovakia

https://web.archive.org/web/20140808010624/https://www2.bc.edu/~heineman/roadiii.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20140815094039/https://www2.bc.edu/~heineman/origins.html

page 175 of Memoirs of Ernst Von Weizsacker

https://archive.org/details/memoirsofernstvo0000john/page/175/mode/1up

“Hitler admitted to Tiso that until recently he had been unaware of the strength of the independence movement in Slovakia. Hitler promised Tiso that he would support Slovakia if she continued to demonstrate her will to independence. The Slovakian government proceeded to vote a declaration of independence from Czechoslovakia on March 14, 1939.”

Hitler probably knew more about “the independence movement in Slovakia” than Tiso: he’d been stirring up Slovaks, Ruthenians and Ukrainians with the express purpose of destabilizing the region. Tiso was given the choice of declaring independence under German protection or face occupation by Hungary. Tiso’s declaration of Slovakian independence (14 Mar 1939) was written by Ribbentrop and the German Foreign Office.

“Czech President Emil Hácha on his own initiative asked to see Hitler in the hope of finding a solution for a hopeless crisis.”

The “crisis” was engineered by Hitler, as was the outcome. He calls it the“greatest stroke of political genius of all time” [Göbbels Tagebücher 15 Mar 1939].

“Hitler met Hácha’s train and presented flowers and chocolates to Hácha’s daughter, who accompanied her father.”

Hácha’s train arrived at Anhalter station at 9:00 pm and was met by senior civil servant Otto Meissner, not Hitler. Nor did the latter present flowers and chocolates to Hácha’s daughter. Did Hoggan come up with that nonsense, or was it your invention?

Hácha (age 67) was intentionally kept waiting at Hotel Adlon while Hitler screened the comedy ‘Ein hoffnungsloser Fall’ [‘A Hopeless Case’] for his cronies at the Reich Chancellery. Summoned at 1:15 am, Hácha arrived fifteen minutes later and attempted to ingratiate his host and preserve Czech independence. Hitler replied with the usual grievances, then informed him German troops are invading Czechoslovakia in 4 hours (6:00 am) with lethal force unless he orders his army to stand-down. Keitel attests Wehrmacht readiness; Göring threatens to bomb Prague, triggering Hácha’s physical collapse.

“Hácha agreed to accept German medical assistance, and recovered quickly enough to negotiate the outline of an agreement with Germany and the Czech state”

LOL. Did Hácha have a choice? There was no’ negotiation’: gun to head, he signed a paper prepared by the German Foreign Office.

“After World War II, Hácha’s daughter denied to Allied investigators that her father had been subjected to any unusual pressure during his visit to Berlin.”

She wasn’t at the meeting. Did Hotel Adlon chambermaids and doormen have anything to add?

If you actually read Watt [‘How War Came’ p.152-54], instead of cherry-picking a flattering quote originally found in Buchanan, you’d know better. Or try Volker Ullrich ‘Hitler: Ascent’ p.750-71; Evans ‘The Third Reich in Power’ p.682-3; Buchanan ‘Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War’ p.246-48; Irving ‘Hitler’s War’ p.162-64; Irving ‘Göring’ p.245; Longerich ‘Hitler’ p.608-09; Kershaw ‘Hitler 1936-45 Nemesis’ p.170-72; Bouverie ‘Appeasement’ p.321-323; Overy ‘Blood and Ruins’ p.59; Childers ‘The Third Reich’ p.421-24; Shirer ‘The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich’ p.597-602; Bullock ‘Hitler: ‘A Study in Tyranny’ p.426-432; Keitel ‘Memoirs’ p.73-74, p. 80; Schellenberg ‘Labyrinth p.34-36. Bullock includes the official minutes of the Hácha meeting written by Staatssekretär im Auswärtigen Amt Walther Hewel (p.430-31).

None of these sources even faintly agree with your cut-and-paste snow-job. That you persist speaks solely to fraudulent intent.

Dr. Rock- Not only could the US stayed out of WW1 and WW2- Britain have and should have also. Some patriotic Brit should have assassinated Churchill- he was the warmonger who brought Britain into both wars, transforming Britain from arguably the world’s foremost power(1914) to the “cottage by the sea” (1946).

It’s unusual to read accounts of Southern Whites who experienced the effects of the Civil Rights Movement first-hand. We should solicit more such accounts to counter the the standard biased
accounts spoon fed to us by our liberal overlords.
The Civil Rights Movement was a disaster to the Southern Whites who actually experienced it in locales with a high percentage of Blacks. It ruined public education in the South, and poisoned comity between Blacks and Whites.

On page 283 of his book, Pat Buchanan writes:

‘…On May 5, Colonel Beck rose in the Polish Diet and rejected both the German version of negotiations and Hitler’s offer to start anew. Still, the German press “was kept under restraint.”” As the French ambassador in Berlin wrote to Paris, the Germans were serenely confident Britain and France would persuade the Poles to negotiate on Danzig, as the Allies surely realized that “Danzig is not worth a European war.”?

Nothing happened. No one talked.After Hitler’s April 28 offer, “there were no further negotiations with the Poles before the outbreak of warand none with the British until the middle of August.”…’

https://archive.org/details/patrick-j.-buchanan-churchill-hitler-and-the-unnecessary-war/page/283/mode/1up

That is untrue. Britain started secret talks with Germany from July to August 1939 to resolve the disputes between them and solve the Polish problem.

“…The industrialist Lord Aberconway, longtime chairman of both John Brown, the Clydeside shipbuilding firm, and English China Clays, and also a master-gardener, has died aged 89. Three years ago, he belatedly unburdened himself of a 60-year-old guilty secret.

He told the Tory historian Andrew Roberts that, as a 26-year-old, he had been one of seven British businessmen dispatched secretly by Neville Chamberlain’s pro-appeasement government to try to stop an Anglo-German war over Poland.

Three weeks before the war the seven made their separate ways to the island of Sylt off the German coast, to meet Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering.Their purpose was to offer a “second Munich” – a four-power agreement involving Britain, Germany, France and Italy – to make further concessions to German demands for lebensraum, on condition that the Nazis did not invade Poland.

This offer, authorised by the leading appeaser, Chamberlain’s Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax, came as a shock to Halifax’s biographer Roberts, who had not found any reference to this last-minute offer in either Foreign Office documents or Halifax’s private papers.Aberconway backed his claims by showing Roberts 38 pages of documents…”

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2003/feb/06/guardianobituaries.obituaries

“…The efforts of the Chamberlain group to continue the policy of appeasementby making economic and other concessions to Germany and their efforts to get Hitler to agree to a four-power pactform one of the most shameful episodes in the history of recent British diplomacy. These negotiations werechiefly conducted through Sir Horace Wilson and consisted chiefly of offers of colonial bribes and other concessions to Germany. These offers were either rejected or ignored by the Nazis…

https://web.archive.org/web/20221029210347/http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/quigley/anglo_12b.html

Pat Buchanan makes no mention of these secret talks in his book.

Another point of interest, Pat Buchanan writes on page 278:

Here is a list of the war guarantees the British government issued in that springtime of madness in 1939:

On March 23, Britain declared she would intervene militarily to stop any German attack on Holland, Belgium, or Switzerland. On March 31, the British gave the war guarantee to Poland.

On April 13, Britain gave war guarantees toRumania and Greece.

On May 12, Britain concluded a treaty of mutual assistance with Turkey.

…in a conversation with Churchill on April 6, Lord Halifax agreed thatYugoslavia might also be a worthy recipient of a war guarantee.”

https://archive.org/details/patrick-j.-buchanan-churchill-hitler-and-the-unnecessary-war/page/278/mode/1up

Here is a map of Europe in mid 1939:

We can see that according to the map, Britain had virtually gave security guarantees to almost all of the states bordering Germany. Except for the baltic states.

The Baltic States and the Anglo-Soviet Negotiations
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25642498

“…If, by means of another Munich, he could have obtained a German-Polish settlement that would satisfy Germany and avoid war, he would have taken it. It was the hope of such an agreement that prevented him from making any real agreement with Russia, for it was,apparently, the expectation of the British government that if the Germans could get the Polish Corridor by negotiation, they could then drive into Russia across the Baltic States. For this reason, in the negotiations with Russia,Halifax refused any multilateral pact against aggression, any guarantee of the Baltic States, or any tripartite guarantee of Poland…”

https://web.archive.org/web/20221029210347/http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/quigley/anglo_12b.html

“…But, from start to finish, Britain and France rejected the principle of equality and reciprocity; they demanded that the Soviet Union provide safeguards for their security,but refused to do likewise for the Soviet Union and the small Baltic states, so as to leave a gap through which Germany could attack,and they also refused to allow the passage of Soviet troops through Poland to fight the aggressor…”

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_17.htm

You are a clown yourself if you don’t know that Wiki is always prejudiced against Poles, but in this case Wiki agreed with them. This is like an additional confirmation of the Poles’ point.
Back to the clowns who claim that Poland and Germany attacked Czechoslovakia. Poland saved the ethnically Polish little Zaolzie from takeover by Germany. These territories had previously been stolen from Poland by Czechoslovakia in 1919, when Poland was fighting Russia.

No one states that taking another look at any historical to challenge what took place is not permissible or even helpful. But Mr. Buchanan’s title is loaded. All wars could are unnecessary. But in the range of pacifity, it is zero to total.

And like Mr. Buchanan, Germany had every right to challenge the Versaille Treaty.

But here the conditions set down are one way: Germany decides what is “reasonable” at all times.

The fact that concessions were made as were accommodations – part of the record are not counted as giving Germany plenty of roll back.

Mr. buchanan questions Great Br itains choice to let the agreement with Japan lapse. He conveniently ignores years of is own rhetoric how westerners should stick together to protect their history. Nevermind the interests of Japan and Great Brtain came into conflict. Great Britain chose who she thougt were white better counterparts in absolute accord with Mr. Buchanan’s stated views regarding western loyalties.

——–

The arguments made to defend Germany suggest the rightness of a anti-rule of law system. Should everyoe wronged by judges, police ofciers, parents, lawyers, then resort to violence as a means to get their way. Correct the wrong or I will do you harm.

That in short is the problem with the advances thus far presented on behalf of Germany.

And yet Germany had a recourse even in the early 1920’s

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/ils/article/1427/&path_info=vol_75_X_levie_the_history_and_status__1_.pdf

Two quick points-
1- I buy hardcopies of virtually every book referenced by you on this site, and it’s turning into an excellent collection!
2- It really is still quite astounding that seemingly NOBODY is “allowed” to question any canon of approved history, including US history.
60+ years later, and it’s still not okay to ask if we really needed to have the most destructive war in modern history? If we really needed to destroy Europe, kill millions, end the British Empire, and usher in The Cold War for the next 5+ decades… it’s really quite amazing.
They act like it’s some kind of heresy to question is one, or two world wars, were really our only option.

Just imagine it… the US could have stayed out of both!

And on the Polish matter there is this unassailable reality — the Poles chose to fight. They could have simply rolled over.

And Germany could have taken the Polish corridor and Danzig and been done.

This not complicated. Germany made war inevitable, as for the Russian front on the east and coulda woulda shoulda . . . one deals with the most immediate threat at hand in the case of Britain and France — it was Germany.

Uhhhh ohhhh. I guess my response was unclear —

I disagree and so what. The answer was no. The set authority made it quite clear, that at that time they did not agree with German demands.

We could argue the legitimacy of the governing authority, but that is not a matter for Germany to resolve. That is an internal matter for the Poles, not Germany.

That’s alll very nice. And so what? hey made a chose not do so. As far as the vaying accounts, on this issue there have been various posts saying the opposite, I think. But all of Poland’s history rebuts the matter.

But in any case, the point remains, Poland’s response was no. It doesn’t matter whether the no was because the sky was blue and tulips awash in violet. Germany would have to continue to negotiate and time would tell. Matters not a tiddle how reasonable the request or how German Danzig. There was an agreement om the table between Poland and Germany and another agreement between Britain, France and Germany.

Oy and Oy veh. Just because we agree to eat apple pie with you on Tuesday, does not mean you must agree that I shove lemom down pie down your throat on Saturday. This attitude of force my will is one that requires astern response. Either agreements have worth, duty or force or they are worthless. Germany disposition are that said agreements are only of value if they get Germany what she wants and to the devil with what others wants.

Good grief, and Germany feared competition with Britain, France and Italy. Your comments utterly introduce side issues of no import to the central case —- Germany betrayed every agreement she made. Could not be trusted. Had a temper tantrum when she dd not et her way. And sought to kill maim and murder. Understand the normal process in contacts once agreed, is that proposed changes are negotiated, one may ave to return to an issue multiple times to get the change desired. But if you decide to punch the other fellow in the nose because they sau no — well — then the game is war. And that was the choice of WWI, Germany chose to negotiate by war. In WWII Germany lied, sabotaged, dodged, stole, maimed and murdered — her choice of negotiation was war. So she got war. Russia has chosen war. She sould get war.

Now its fine for you and others to come along with metal high jinx to make a case that was unnecessary if only the Allies had given Germany what she wanted — well no kidding.

Good grief allow Germany the decency of having some agency

Yes, that’s true.

I have two Japanese biographies and it was clear in both that Yamamoto preferred peace.

Admiral Y also carried permanent scars from the Russo-Japanese War, the only serving flag officer who was still on active duty in 1941. He carried shrapnel in his leg and had missing fingers.

Yamamoto actually mocked the idea of war with the USA. The difference in force alone was insane.

As I read it, the Strike North faction were not active advocates for war with Russia. They were realists who had reason to believe the USSR was where the main danger was. They were right but they underestimated FDR’s treachery.

Are you seriously trying to say that Wiki is any less propaganda than what Goebbels put out? You have earned your clown status.

Your reading comprehension is mediocre at best.

The Polish leader who had reasonable relations with Germany DIED!

The Polish military junta that followed wanted war with Germany.

Okay. I’ve read sources that say the Polish colonels were willing to give Danzig and the corridor until the British war guarantee came along. But Danzig had been part of Germany prior to Versailles and was a majority German, large majority. Hitler and his national socialists said they wanted back the German lands lost after the Great War, and that’s what they went after. I agree with those who say that might have been enough. Poland still would have been at the mercy of Soviets and Germans, but they’d eagerly participated in taking part of Czechoslavakia, so they showed themselves able to work with the Germans in war. A German-Polish alliance would’ve stood a fair chance against the Red Army. Instead the Brits handed Eastern Europe over to the communists. Because they feared business competition with a resurgent Germany.

The assertion that Great Britain is a democracy and “the people” wanted war and therefore the government had no choice is laughable.

After Germany invaded Poland on Septemebr 1, 1939, Chamberlain didn’t want to declare war. But the next day September 2, British public opinion was getting restless. The house of commons rebelled against Chamberlain, the UK cabinet revolted. It was under such situation that Chamberlain forced himself to declare war. It was however only to remain a “phony war”.

Pat Buchanan’s own book tells the story at page 296:

By the second day of war, however, September 2, the Germans had broken through the Polish defenses. The Poles were publicly calling on their British allies to declare war and attack Germany from the west.But to the astonishment of many, no action came.

For Neville Chamberlain yet hoped that Hitler might agree to a conference to avert a European war.

On the evening of September 2, at 7:30 p.M., Chamberlain rose in the House and spoke hopefully of such a conference.He sat down—to a stunned silence.TheHouse had expected an announcement that an ultimatum was being sent to Berlin. As Labour leader Arthur Greenwood rose to reply to the prime minister, Tory backbencher Leo Amery shouted across to Greenwood,“Speak for England!”

When he departed the Commons that night, Neville Chamberlain

wastold that Tory backbenchers would rise in revolt if the government did not immediately carry out its threat to declare war. Twelve Cabinet members met in caucus in the chambers of Chancellor of the Exchequer Sir John Simon.They agreed to warn Chamberlain that his government could not survive another day of delay, regardless of what France did. Shortly before midnight, Chamberlain gathered his Cabinet and accepted a vote for war.*”

…The threat of a mutiny in conservative ranks that night of September 2 had forced Chamberlain, at 11:30 p.m., to assemble his Cabinet and direct Henderson to see Ribbentrop at 9 a.m.—to give Germany two hours to declare it was withdrawing from Poland or face war.His own House had forced on Chamberlain the war he never wanted.Seven weeks into that war, Chamberlain wrote his sister, “I was never meant to be a war leader.”**…

https://archive.org/details/patrick-j.-buchanan-churchill-hitler-and-the-unnecessary-war/page/295/mode/1up

Britain fighting Germany was not part of the plan, you see. The British plan was to let Germany annex Danzig and maybe polish corridor and then Hitler’s next target would be Russia. THAT was the plan. That was why Chamberlain was so hell bent and fanatical on appeasing German demands. He was close, very close to achieving his goals.

“…If, by means of another Munich, he could haveobtained a German-Polish settlement that would satisfy Germany and avoid war, he would have taken it. It was the hope of such an agreement that prevented him from making any real agreement with Russia, for it was,apparently, the expectation of the British government that if the Germans could get the Polish Corridor by negotiation, they could then drive into Russia across the Baltic States. For this reason, in the negotiations with Russia,Halifax refused any multilateral pact against aggression, any guarantee of the Baltic States, or any tripartite guarantee of Poland…”

https://web.archive.org/web/20221029210347/http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/quigley/anglo_12b.htm

Question: Some people do not realize yet that the Soviet-German non-aggression treaty is the result of the breakdown of the Anglo-French-Soviet talks, but think that the Soviet-German treaty caused the breakdown. Will you please explain why the Anglo-French-Soviet talks failed?

Mao Zedong: The talks failed purely because the British and French governments were insincere. In recent years the reactionary international bourgeoisie, and primarily that of Britain and France, have consistently pursued the reactionary policy of “non-intervention” towards aggression by fascist Germany, Italy and Japan. Their purpose is to connive at wars of aggression and to profit by them.

Thus Britain and France flatly rejected the Soviet Union’s repeated proposals for a genuine front against aggression; standing on the side-lines, they took a “non-interventionist” position and connived at German, Italian and Japanese aggression.

Their aim was to step forward and intervene when the belligerents had worn each other out. In pursuit of this reactionary policy they sacrificed half of China to Japan, and the whole of Abyssinia, Spain, Austria and Czechoslovakia to Italy and Germany.[2] Then they wanted to sacrifice the Soviet Union. This plot was clearly revealed in the recent Anglo-French-Soviet talks. They lasted for more than four months, from April 15 to August 23, during which the Soviet Union exercised the utmost patience. But, from start to finish, Britain and France rejected the principle of equality and reciprocity; they demanded that the Soviet Union provide safeguards for their security, but refused to do likewise for the Soviet Union and the small Baltic states, so as to leave a gap through which Germany could attack, and they also refused to allow the passage of Soviet troops through Poland to fight the aggressor.

That is why the talks broke down. In the meantime, Germany indicated her willingness to stop her activities against the Soviet Union and abandon the so-called Agreement Against the Communist International [3] and recognized the inviolability of the Soviet frontiers; hence the conclusion of the Soviet-German non-aggression treaty. The policy of “non-intervention” pursued by international and primarily Anglo-French reaction is a policy of “sitting on top of the mountain to watch the tigers fight”, a downright imperialist policy of profiting at others’ expense.

This policy was initiated when Chamberlain took office, reached its climax in the Munich agreement of September last year and finally collapsed in the recent Anglo-French-Soviet talks. From now on the situation will inevitably develop into one of direct conflict between the two big imperialist blocs, the Anglo-French bloc and the German-Italian bloc.

As I said in October 1938 at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of our Party, “The inevitable result of Chamberlain’s policy will be like ‘lifting a rock only to drop it on one’s own toes’.”Chamberlain started with the aim of injuring others only to end up by ruining himself. This is the law of development which governs all reactionary policies…

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_17.htm
l

“Until 1935 Germany and Poland had reasonable relations and the two leaders appeared to get along reasonably well. Not until the Polish leader died in 1935, and the Junta of Colonels took power in Poland, did the Polish war mongers pound the war drums.”

Well, sure they got along until it became clear that Germany wanted more than she claimed and beyond wanting demanded. And subsequently engaged in subterfuge, murder and war to get it. As I look at the record, the “time of the colonols” seems to have been a staple of Polish governance as far back as the 1920’s.

There is no evidence that supports that Pres. Roosevelt of Churchill wanted a war. There’s a difference in grasping a war is coming and one should prepare and wanting one.

I took a brief look deeper into Polish History. And nothing in the character of Poland suggests remotely that they would have agreed to Germany’s conditions, ave this tobuild an internal resistance. Which as fate would have it is exactly what they did after the Germans invaded and partitioned the country with Russia.

The Poles in a bid to avoid their own country being targeted by Germany did sacrifice the Czechs, but a tactic that in the end failed. Their suspicions regarding German integrity on agreements would be confirmed in 1939. And this is why Mr. Buchanan’s book fails. Germany time after time violates agreements, treaties. They even betrayed Austria. Pointing that Poland made a deal with the devil, does not in any manner, vindicate the devil (metaphor — Germans are not devils in my view).

And as for common enemy, all it demonstrates is that Germany was unwilling to keep any agreement with anyone. The only choice was to capitulate, accommodate or fight, I am not going to fault any country that makes the choice to fight, because it upsets Mr. Buchanan’s analysis.

And will continue to note Germany’s contentions are continuously “our demands are reasonable, rejecting them is unreasonable and as justifies the use of force.” There was simply no way out but to fight. Once countries realized that there really was no comprising with Germany — they chose to fight. Now to those who make claims that France and Great Britain wanted a fight. The conduct of both countries — categorically undermines the claim. Neither Great Briatin had prepared for anpther war. In fact, the British people had by a referendum rejected the idea instead voting to spend their money on reindusyrializing the conuntry — and moderninzing its military was not on the agenda.

Now to the oft refarin war ambitions of PM Churchill. Using tthe understanding that he and others saw German conduct as nothing but a war reparations agenda accompanied by the rhetoric. They makes that he and those like him were warmongers — there is no big revelation, Frech and British establishment stated as much and why he was largely treated as a bounder and ignored. The British people, and government were not in the mood for another war. He just interpreted the writing on the wall. His interpretation does not by definition make him a warmonger. Not even close.

My constantly waring you that your house looks like it might catch fire because there are rags that smell like acetone, does nt mean, I intend to set your houe on fire or that I want your house ablaze.

I don’t discuss the sensibility of what Germany did — I am merely looking at the behavior. And their behavior was one of a wrecking crew turning a two way street into a one street that goes their way.

Someone who is a pacifist would look at all the players and conclude that all players were unsensible. But is this game, Germany is not the only player who gets to determine what is sensible or reasonable and neither is Mr. Buchanan. As for your comment regarding the Brtian only targeting Germany. One of the outstanding qualities that PM Churchill was his ability to assess the realities of strategy. Contrary to your comment — he wanted to take on the Soviets as well, and did not trust them. As I revcall he thought the invasion should take place in the east for very purpose of cutting off the Soviets.

PM Churchill had his faults as men do — but his assessment of what was happening strategically – the grand narrative was pretty darn close to spot on, bullseye — uncanny. There would have been n o East Berlin or Berlin Wall had the allies acted accordingly.

The plan for war actually began in 1935 when Churchill and Roosevelt conspired for war against Germany.

To me the reason for this was hard to fathom but, considering that in 1933 already “Judea Declares War on Germany”, and the Roosevelt administration in the USA was fully infiltrated by communists and Jews, it was no wonder what Roosevelt’s preoccupation became.

Both Hitler and Roosevelt achieved power in their respective countries at the same time. Within 3 years or so unemployment in Germany was practically zero, housing was being built for working families at enormous rates, there was good food for everybody, and recreational/holiday facilities were implemented to permit working families to enjoy sea shore holidays and ship cruises to foreign countries.

At the same time the USA, with its enormous natural resources was still mired in the Great Depression with millions of people unemployed and many starving.

Suggest you read John Wear’s book Germany’s War for detailled information on this.

Rubbish. Churchill and Roosevelt conspired for war with Germany since 1935, long before the former became prime minister of Britain.

Thus, regardless of what Germany or Poland would agree on, there would be war against Germany.

Until 1935 Germany and Poland had reasonable relations and the two leaders appeared to get along reasonably well. Not until the Polish leader died in 1935, and the Junta of Colonels took power in Poland, did the Polish war mongers pound the war drums.

Read Polish newspaper headlines of the period after 1935; in a military dictatorship these closely reflected the government’s plans.

Public Opinion as a term is code for what the News of the Screws want.

Newspaper Headlines.

You may be right, war between Poland and Germany might have been inevitable. From my reading of the history, I don’t think so. The Germans and the Poles cooperated in the destruction of Czechoslovakia and both had a common enemy in the communist Soviets. The Germans said they only wanted the German city of Danzig, they didn’t really need Poland and the Poles weren’t a threat to Germany. I agree that a more sensible German leader wouldn’t have invaded, but a more sensible British leader wouldn’t have given a war guarantee. It was almost like the Brits were trying to destroy Poland. They guaranteed the Soviets victory by only fighting the Germans, leaving the Poles fighting a 2 front war against two of the world’s military superpowers. Was Danzig worth 50 years under the communist boot? No.

My starting point for WWII is the day that Churchill became PM, from that point on it became a fight to the finish; a real deathmach.

cleaning up the previous

As I hope my response makes, I have no issues with Germany renegotiating Versaille. And it is clear the allied forces, made accommodations and clearly made concessions. That is why the premise of Mr. Buchanan’s work here doesn’t work. He ignores the steps taken by the allies to avoid war as if their choices wee somehow insincere, when in fact, they were egregious offenses against other states.

The allies bent over and sacrificed other states to make peace. In the end, it is ever the same line of reasoning — obey Germany or else. And even in these comments, Germany is denied any agency for events.

Or the former allied countries could have rolled over on the whole matter —- if your standards is to avoid bending over, then in the case of Germany one would have to fight.

I agree that Germany had every right to renegotiate the Versailles matter. The quetion at issue is the manner by which Germany engaged in the same. The consustent refrain of

“reasonableness”

so as to justify the use of force is interesting, but unacceptable. Just because Germany or “pepper pinocle” thought Germany’s position reasonable does not be definition that it was reasonable, The other party does have a say and an understanding of what constitutes reasonable. And Germany’s response when rebuffed was to huff and puff and resort to tactics of subterfuges and force. Her constant demand to redefine the rules and expectations, as she so deigned made her an untrustworthy partner in any negotiation of agreement. Her demands were just that demands.

Uhhh. No. Under the demands of Germany, Poland was never going to agree. And nothing about Polish character suggests she was going to “knuckle” under. Poland was going to fight any invasion regardless of who would come to her aide.

And given Germany’s conduct — was was inevitable. She was insatiable. Furthermore the speculations concerning Russian ambitions to attack Germany suggests that none of agreements matter because either Germany or Russia were intent on war. Frankly, I don’t buy that the new Russian government was going to attack Germany. I take it her goals were defensive. But in this issue what Russia was doing is irrelevant. Germany invited Russia into partitioning countries. Germany was the initial aggressor, Germany repeatedly violated agreements, broke guarantees . . . and did so wantonly. Despite multiple concessions and accommodations, After violating the Munich agreement, such concession, and accommodations could no longer be tolerated.

The counterfactuals are intriguing, but rest on the ledge of unlikelihood to ever occurring. Since the actual events rebut Mr. Buchanan’s work, whether the war was necessary rests in this — the level of pacificity the allies intended to live with. And Poland was the last cherry they were unwilling to give.

It’s absurd to say that public opinion would have forced war if the British had insisted that the Poles must compromise.

Roosevelt was heavily pressuring the British government on the issue of Poland.

The assertion that Great Britain is a democracy and “the people” wanted war and therefore the government had no choice is laughable. If the British press changed tack that would change immediately and the state had the power to change that. They certainly had the power to throw any peace advocates into prison.

Having read Buchanan’s book, I found nothing major I could disagree with. The Sudetenland was obviously not Czech and once Slovakia seceded, there was only a rump state that was traditionally part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. With Austria united with Germany, a reasonable argument could be made from the German point of view. If the Brits hadn’t given the war guarantee, only against Germany, not the Soviets, most believe Poland would have given up Danzig and the corridor. That could have prevented WW2. Maybe. If the Molotov-Ribbontrop treaty hadn’t been signed, that probably would’ve prevented it, too. Lots of poor decision making led to this very unnecessary war.

You must do much better than to rely on wiki for controversial topics.

You claim that the book Polish Atrocities….. is Goebbel’s propaganda. Ok then, let’s see Polish origin pictures of the same scenes.

Regarding the Gleiwitz incident, I’ve read a report written by a Hungarian author on this issue, and he described the German’s position on this.

Poland was run by war mongers after 1935, the Junta of Colonels it was called. Polish newspapers at that time made the most outrageous military plans public, such as invading Germany and moving the Polish border to Berlin, is one that springs to mind.

Germans were pretty meticulous in documenting their findings, of which the Katyn Forest is a case in point. I suppose you still agree with your communist buddies that it had been caused by the baaad Germans.

In the 1940s British soldiers were propagandized to write off German political leadership as queers. War on Germany was the manly thing to do you see. Bombing the mincing prancing Jerry.

While they were consuming queer entertainment by the likes of Noel Coward.

You write: “The key to understanding the Polish guarantee is that after Hitler dismembered Czechoslovakia in March 1939, it was obvious to entire world that Hitler was the aggressor and was not committed to upholding treaties of any kind.”

My response: Hitler was not responsible for the dismembering of Czechoslovakia.

A crisis developed in Czechoslovakia after the Munich Agreement. The German, Polish, and Hungarian minorities had been successfully separated from Czech rule. However, the Slovaks and Ruthenians were also eager to escape from Czech rule, and they received encouragement from Poland and Hungary. For about four months after Munich, Hitler considered the possibility of protecting the remnants of the Czech state. Hitler gradually came to the conclusion that the Czech cause was lost in Slovakia, and that Czech cooperation with Germany could not be relied upon. Hitler eventually decided to transfer German support from the Czechs to the Slovaks. (Source: Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 227).

Increasingly serious internal difficulties faced the Czech state, and in early 1939 the Czech problem with Slovakia deteriorated rapidly. The climax of the Slovak crisis occurred on March 9, 1939, when the Czech government dismissed the four principal Slovak ministers from the local government at Bratislava.

Josef Tiso, the Slovakian leader, arrived in Berlin on March 13, 1939, and met with Hitler in a hurried conference. Hitler admitted to Tiso that until recently he had been unaware of the strength of the independence movement in Slovakia. Hitler promised Tiso that he would support Slovakia if she continued to demonstrate her will to independence. The Slovakian government proceeded to vote a declaration of independence from Czechoslovakia on March 14, 1939. (Source: Ibid., 245-247).

Ruthenia also quickly declared independence and became part of Hungary, dissolving what was left of the Czech state.

Czech President Emil Hácha on his own initiative asked to see Hitler in the hope of finding a solution for a hopeless crisis. President Hácha was correctly received at Berlin with the full military honors due a visiting chief of state. Hitler met Hácha’s train and presented flowers and chocolates to Hácha’s daughter, who accompanied her father. After World War II, Hácha’s daughter denied to Allied investigators that her father had been subjected to any unusual pressure during his visit to Berlin. This information is important because Hácha, who was bothered by heart trouble, had a mild heart attack during his visit with the German leaders. Hácha agreed to accept German medical assistance, and recovered quickly enough to negotiate the outline of an agreement with Germany and the Czech state. The details were arranged between the Czechs and the Germans at Prague on March 15th and 16th. (Source: Ibid., p. 248).

The occupation of Prague by German troops was legalized by the agreements signed with the Czech and Slovak leaders. The period of direct German military rule lasted a little over one month. The new regime formed by the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia on March 16, 1939, enjoyed considerable popularity among the Czechs. On July 31, 1939, Hitler agreed to permit the Czech government to have a military force of 7,000 soldiers, which included 280 officers. (Source: Ibid., pp. 250-251).

President Hácha by signing this agreement had placed the fate of the remaining Czech state in the hands of Germany. Hácha and his new cabinet resumed control of the government on April 27, 1939. (Source: Tedor, Richard, Hitler’s Revolution, Chicago: 2013, pp. 117, 119).

Hácha served Hitler faithfully throughout World War II. British historian Donald Cameron Watt wrote, “Hitler was remarkably kind (for him) to the Czech Cabinet after the march into Prague, keeping its members in office for a time and then paying their pensions.” (Source: Watt, Donald Cameron, How War Came: The Immediate Origins of the Second World War, 1938-1939, New York: Pantheon, 1989, p. 145).

German historian Udo Walendy wrote concerning the dissolution of Czechoslovakia: “The disintegration of this multi-cultural creation, joined together in total disregard of historical and national principles, happened without any German help, and would already have come about in 1918 had not Russia and Germany been utterly and totally destroyed.” (Source: Walendy, Udo, Truth for Germany: The Guilt Question of the Second World War, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2013, p. 115).

Walendy further wrote that the alleged “brutal violation of little, defenseless Czecho-Slovakia” by Germany was a falsehood which was ceaselessly pounded into the masses by the opinion-makers of the press. In reality, Dr. Emil Hácha traveled to Berlin in order to prevent chaos from breaking out in Bohemia and Moravia, which was threatening to erupt unless the Reich government intervened. Germany’s protectorate of Czechoslovakia maintained peace in a region that was facing both internal disruption and potential conquest by neighboring countries. (Source: Ibid., pp. 115, 127, 130).

and I’m not sure there would have been a war if the British hadn’t issued this insane war guarantee to Poland.

The Polish guarantee was probably irrelevant as to whether UK would fight Germany or not.

The key to understanding the Polish guarantee is that after Hitler dismembered Czechoslovakia in March 1939, it was obvious to entire world that Hitler was the aggressor and was not committed to upholding treaties of any kind.

The public mood in Britain had also changed.

Paul Johnson writes in Modern Times, Chapter 10, The End of Old Europe:

“During the winter of 1938–9,the mood in Britain
changed to accept war as inevitable.The German occupation of Prague
on 15 March 1939, followed swiftly by the seizure of Memel from
Lithuania six days later,convinced most British people that war was
imminent. Fear gave place to a resigned despair, and the sort of craven,
if misjudged, calculation which led to Munichyielded to a reckless and
irrational determination to resist Hitler at the next opportunity,
irrespective of its merits.
This of course was precisely the kind of hysterical response which
Hitler’s acceleration of history was bound to produce sooner or later…”

https://archive.org/details/moderntimesworld00john_1

The topic of the role that British public opinion played in forcing the Chamberlain government to fight Hitler was investigated in an article by Richard Rosecrance and Zara Steiner: “British Grand Strategy and the Origins of World War II” in “The Domestic Bases of Grand Strategy”.

Their conclusion was that British public opinion played the DECISIVE role from 1939 onwards.

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.7591/9781501737701-008/html
https://annas-archive.org/search?q=The+Domestic+Bases+of+Grand+Strategy

Liddell Hart also said the same thing in his memoirs. He said that the Polish guarantee was given due to British public opinion.

See page 214:
https://archive.org/details/memoirs0002lidd/page/213/mode/1up

Here is how Carroll Quigley put:

“…British public opinion was quite clearly committed to resistance after March 1939. The two government groups between these, with the Chamberlain group closer to the former and the Milner Group closer to the latter.It is a complete error to say, as most students of the period have said, that before 15 March the government was solidly appeasement and afterwards solidly resistant.

The Chamberlain group, after 17 March 1939, was just as partial to appeasement as before, perhaps more so, but it hadto adopt a pretense of resistance to satisfy public opinion and keep a way open to wage the November election on either side of the issue.

…The unilateral guarantee to Poland given by Chamberlain on 31 March 1939 was also a reflection of what he believed the voters wanted. He had no intention of ever fulfilling the guarantee if it could possibly be evaded and, for this reason, refused the Polish requests for a small rearmament loan and to open immediate staff discussions to implement the guarantee.

The Milner Group, less susceptible to public opinion, did not want the guarantee to Poland at all.As a result, the guarantee was worded to cover Polish “independence” and not her “territorial integrity.” This was interpreted by the leading article of The Times for 1 April to leave the way open to territorial revision without revoking the guarantee. This interpretation was accepted by Chamberlain in Commons on 3 April. Apparently the government believed that it was making no real commitment because, if war broke out in eastern Europe, British public opinion would force the government to declare war on Germany, no matter what the government itself wanted, and regardless whether the guarantee existed or not.

On the other hand, a guarantee to Poland might deter Hitler from precipitating a war and give the government time to persuade the Polish government to yield the Corridor to Germany. If the Poles could not be persuaded, or if Germany marched, the fat was in the fire anyway; if the Poles could be persuaded to yield, the guarantee was so worded that Britain could not act under it to prevent such yielding. This was to block any possibility that British public opinion might refuse to accept a Polish Munich.

That this line of thought was not far distant from British government circles is indicated by a Reuters news dispatch released on the same day that Chamberlain gave the guarantee to Poland.

This dispatch indicated that, under cover of the guarantee, Britian would put pressure on Poland to make substantial concessions to Hitler through negotiations. According to Hugh Dalton, Labour M.P., speaking in Commons on 3 April, this dispatch was inspired by the government and was issued through either the Foreign Office, Sir Horace Wilson, John Simon, or Samuel Hoare. Three of these four were of the Milner Group, the fourth being the personal agent of Chamberlain. Dalton’s charge was not denied by any government spokesman, Hoare contenting himself with a request to Dalton “to justify that statement.” Another M.P. of Churchill’s group suggested that Geoffrey Dawson was the source, but Dalton rejected this…”

“…the German Foreign Ministry memorandum on this conversation makes it perfectly clear that the Germans did not misunderstand Halifax except, possibly, on the last point. There they failed to see that if Germany made war, the British Government would be forced into the war against Germany by public opinion in England. The German diplomatic agents in London, especially the Ambassador, Dirksen, saw this clearly, but the Government in Berlin listened only to the blind and conceited ignorance of Ribbentrop.

As dictators themselves, unfamiliar with the British social or constitutional systems, the German rulers assumed that the willingness of the British Government to accept the liquidation of Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland implied that the British Government would never go to war to prevent this liquidation.They did not see that the British Government might have to declare war to stay in office if public opinion in Britain were sufficiently aroused.

The British Government saw this difficulty and as a last resort were prepared todeclarewar but not towage war on Germany. This distinction was not clear to the Germans and was not accepted by the inner core of the Milner Group. It was, however, accepted by the other elements in the government, like Chamberlain himself, and by much of the second circle of the Milner Group, including Simon, Hoare, and probably Halifax.It was this which resulted in the “phony war” from September 1939 to April 1940…

https://web.archive.org/web/20221029210347/http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/quigley/anglo_12b.html

Pat Buchanan keeps on harping on the issue of the Polish guarantee, according to him, no polish guarantee, no British war with Germany over Poland. That is totally wrong. British public opinion was committed to war over Germany if Hitler committed aggression. Whether there was polish guarantee or not was totally irrelevant. That was why Chamberlain gave the guarantee. He was not conceding anything. He was not running risks.

If Chamberlain did not give the March 1939 Polish guarantee and Hitler invaded Poland in September 1939, Britain would had still declared war on Germany. It is like if Iran launched an invasion of Israel, public opinion in America would force U.S. to declare war on Iran whether U.S had a Israeli security treaty or not.

Pat Buchanan’s thesis is wrong. He doesn’t really address the issue of British motivations with regards to Germany and Soviet Union.

It actually is hard to avoid the antipathy/hatred for German people, not only when it comes to the National Socialist period, that since a long time is being spread by the alternative media in Poland. As most people in the West cannot read/understand spoken Polish, very few are aware of this phenomenon.

I think possibly you’re conflating Admiral Yamamoto’s lack of desire to see Japan go to war with the US as necessarily an indication that he was seeking war in the other direction. But there were those who thought Japan should fight neither, especially while it was in the middle of a long-term war with China. As a naval officer, he would’ve had little insight into the Red Army as a potential adversary, and Japanese naval officers were generally opposed to wars which would’ve relegated their service to a secondary role. I’ve found no evidence that Yamamoto advocated war with either the USSR or the US.

Of course, Stalin’s Jewish Russia was preparing to attack the Second Polish Republic at least in 1937.
Contrary to what Putin recently lied about, it was not Poland that started World War II.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operacja_polska_NKWD_(1937–1938)

Just anticipating further attacks by German forum fanatics, I am posting an ethnic map of the Second Polish Republic

A map of ethnic Poles in the early 20th century [1100 × 1050].
by inMapPorn

A map of ethnic Poles in the early 20th century [1100 × 1050].
by inMapPorn

As you can see, there was no reason for Poland to give Germany any piece of its territory.

As I thought, the book was based on the false propaganda of Joseph Goebbels, which was intended to justify the German attack on Poland.
https://digital.kenyon.edu/bulmash/1376/
In Europe, Germans are the least resistant to idiotic manipulations and they probably also still believe in a Polish attack on the radio station in Gliwice/Gleiwetz or a Polish cavalry attack on German tanks.
Pathetic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_at_Krojanty
Here’s a bonus and information about the German minority in Poland. In 1939, even the SS was horrified by its brutality in murdering Poles.
The Polish version in Wiki is much more extensive and contains more information about the criminal German fifth column in Poland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksdeutscher_Selbstschutz
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksdeutscher_Selbstschutz

You should read Victor Suvorov works. While it is evident that a German empire in Eastern Europe and Russia was Hitler’s primary objective, Stalin too had been preparing for years the invasion of Europe. A war between Germany and Soviet Union was inevitable. FDR and Churchill wanted WW2 and from the beginning decided to side with Soviet Union, as simple as it is.

Exactly…I stopped reading when I read that!

My problem with Pat Buchanan’s book is that he asks a lot of questions, but he doesn’t give satisfactory answers.

Churchill, Hitler, And The Unnecessary War

https://archive.org/details/patrick-j.-buchanan-churchill-hitler-and-the-unnecessary-war/

The below sources give the answers to the questions that Pat Buchanan asks but apparently the answers are not popular with the rightwing, which I find odd. I am chinese, I only have limited understanding of the western rightwing mind. For the British, it is obvious why they cannot accept the answer. It is impossible to find any sort of real explanations or clarity about origins of WWII. British historians will only give you rubbish. It is the American rightwing that I cannot understand.

“…the British Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and Russia against one another in Eastern Europe.

In this way they felt that the two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine. It never occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany and Russia might make common cause, even temporarily, against the West. Even less did it occur to them that Russia might beat Germany and thus open all Central Europe to Bolshevism.

In order to carry out this plan of allowing Germany to drive eastward against Russia, it was necessary to do three things:

(1) to liquidate all the countries standing between Germany and Russia;
(2) to prevent France from honoring her alliances with these countries; and
(3) to hoodwink the English people into accepting this as a necessary, indeed, the only solution to the international problem.

The Chamberlain group were so successful in all three of these things that they came within an ace of succeeding, and failed only because of the obstinacy of the Poles, the unseemly haste of Hitler, and the fact that…

https://web.archive.org/web/20221029210347/http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/quigley/anglo_12b.html

http://www.carrollquigley.net/books.htm

See comments 30, 63 and 153 on this thread for more info:
https://www.unz.com/article/cathy-young-vs-darryl-cooper/

See comment 142:
https://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-surprise-of-hazel/

Add to that that at least one essay on the now defunctInconvenient History web site claimed that the second world war was due to Roosevelt’s machinations, on behalf of his Jewish masters. One in particular claimed he bullied Chamberlain into giving the Poles the guarantee that horrified one French ambassador because it guaranteed only the Polish ability to involve Britain in a war against Germany, a war that Roosevelt thought was going to exhaust Britain and France so that the USA could come to the rescue and take the glory.

Roosevelt was as much a mass murdering psychopath as Churchill. Like Pearl Harbour, the pair will, eventually, ‘live in infamy’.

AS I hope my response maes, mo issues with Germany renegotiating ersaille. And clear by the allied forces, thy made accommodations and clearly made concessions. That is why the premise of Mr. Buchanan’s work here doesn’t work.

The allies bent over and sacrificed other states to make peace It is the same line of reasoning — obey Germany or else.

There may be various versions if the story. The stormy atmosphere with the appearance strange colored storm clouds. I have five disk WWI disk, that I am tempted to replay. But thanks for confitming the content.

having not read the book in discussion, my comment might misrepresent the author’s position. you can engage in “what ifs” till the cows come home but it doesn’t change anything. the role of ideologies in shaping the action of leaders should not be minimized. it was inevitable that Hitler would provoke a major crisis given his supremacist beliefs. having sacrificed Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain realized that the German was an unstoppable war machine. initially, Hitler showed some sense by signing a pact with Stalin so he could knock out the western allies. but, Britain proved a hard nut to crack. so what to do? stew on my anti Slavic, anti Jew, anti communist ideology or risk the doom of a two-front war? you can take a savage out of his jungle, but it will be much more difficult to take savagery out of him, to teach him the peaceful ways of civilization.

the civil war in the former Soviet Union, now raging between Russia and the Ukraine is also a result of rigid ideological thinking. we must spread “democracy and freedom” by expanding NATO all the way to the Russian border, Russian security and feelings of vulnerability be damned! we cannot sleep until every Eastern European kid is able to choose their own gender or become exposed to sodomite propaganda. our great ideology demands of us to make great sacrifices and fight to the last Ukrainian! hooray for demon-cracy! freedom is bondage! long live our dear leader, the great jew who can play the piano without using any fingers!

And of course the ‘holocaust’ had too be mentioned!

Yeah. It was pretty hard to continue reading after that. I wonder, did Pat just not care enough about it to look into the issue? Considering the topic of the book, one would think he should have gotten up to speed.

The situation was dire for the European Jews.

Which was not America’s problem. In any case American intervention did not save any Jewish lives. Most of them were deep in eastern Europe far removed from areas of operations where Americans fought. In fact FDR’s unconditional surrender demand may even have prolonged the war. See the book NO CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER by Bruce Russett.

You might read the book Polish Atrocities against the German Minority in Poland.

Of course you will disagree with that book, after all, Germany baaad allies and communists goood.

You are of course welcome to refute the book or individual entries with better verified data.

I read this book years ago, and I am glad to see it featured here now. That is all I have to say at this point, other than I think every damn thing in the book is correct. Thank you to Ron Unz for continually presenting the actual truth of history here!

OK so you don’t like Germans and Hitler, fine.

But your analysis and opinions of the times in question are pure rubbish.

How do you know that Hitler’s numerous peace offerings were not seriously meant??? Why did the allies and communists never make any peace offerings to Germany? The answer is straight forward because the war mongers Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, wanted war, war at any cost because because their supporters stood to make $billions.

You ought to read some serious books about those times such as Churchill and Hitler the Unnecessary War, The Chief Culprit, and Germany’s War. If you have disagreements with any points therein, please write about them in this thread/forum.

Just a reminder: Books by officialdom or supported by them are not to be relied upon.

I bought and read this book a few months ago. I highly recommend it. I think many people condemned this book without reading it because they assumed that Buchanan was being an apologist for Hitler. He most certainly is not. Hitler, like many others, was a product of his time. The politics prior to the First World War were both very complex and very murky. It was a sub-set of the UK political establishment that largely created the conditions for WW1 to break out. Much of the book details this.