OT: Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War

Post by A Moose in Love
A good outline of the book. This thread is actually on topic for this NG
since Canada was involved in both world wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War

1) Not on topic, because it's not about Canadian politics. Take it to
alt.revisionism, or alt.support.mindless.nazis.klaas

2) Citing Pat Buchanan as an historian: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dave Smith

2019-12-01 15:34:54 UTC

A good outline of the book. This thread is actually on topic for this
NG since Canada was involved in both world wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War

1) Not on topic, because it's not about Canadian politics. Take it to
alt.revisionism, or alt.support.mindless.nazis.klaas
2) Citing Pat Buchanan as an historian: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

I got a kick out of this criticism of the book "Hungarian-American
historian John Lukacs, in a review in The American Conservative,
compared Buchanan to David Irving and argued that the only difference
between the two was that Irving uses lies to support his arguments while
Buchanan uses half-truths."

A Moose in Love

2019-12-01 15:55:43 UTC

A good outline of the book. This thread is actually on topic for this
NG since Canada was involved in both world wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War

1) Not on topic, because it's not about Canadian politics. Take it to
alt.revisionism, or alt.support.mindless.nazis.klaas
2) Citing Pat Buchanan as an historian: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well that's one review. I'm sure there are others that criticize the book negatively. That does not mean that PB is full of it. What that means is that there is someone who takes exception to what he has written. You are under the false impression that because someone criticizes a book in a negative manner, that then the book should be thrown out as good for nothing. Not so.

A Moose in Love

2019-12-01 15:53:10 UTC

Post by M I Wakefield

1) Not on topic, because it's not about Canadian politics. Take it to
alt.revisionism, or alt.support.mindless.nazis.klaas
2) Citing Pat Buchanan as an historian: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

? Show me where PB went wrong. You can't can you?

M I Wakefield

2019-12-01 17:59:26 UTC

Post by M I Wakefield
2) Citing Pat Buchanan as an historian: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

? Show me where PB went wrong. You can't can you?

1) Britain did not declare war on Germany to support France - the British
government was divided on the issue - only when Germany attacked Belgium,
whose neutrality it had guaranteed in an 1839 treaty, did the British
government unite behind the war.

2) The German Navy was not a major threat to the Royal Navy. The Royal
Navy was mandated to maintain at least as many battleships as the second-
and third-largest navies in the world combined, and neither of those was
Germany.

3) Prussian militarism was no myth:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-kaiserliche-militarism.htm

4) The Rape of Belgium was no myth.

German troops, afraid of Belgian guerrilla fighters, or francs-tireurs
(literally: "free shooters"), burned homes and executed civilians throughout
eastern and central Belgium, including Aarschot (156 dead), Andenne (211
dead), Seilles [fr], Tamines (383 dead), and Dinant (674 dead). The victims
included men, women, and children. In the Province of Brabant, nuns were
ordered to strip under the pretext that they were spies or men in disguise.
However, there is no evidence that nuns were violated. In and around
Aarschot, between August 19 and the recapture of the town by September 9,
women were repeatedly victimized. Rape was nearly as ubiquitous as murder,
arson and looting, if never as visible.

Before the war Belgium produced 4.4 percent of world commerce, but the
Germans destroyed the Belgian economy so thoroughly, by dismantling
industries and transporting the equipment and machinery to Germany, that it
never regained its pre-war level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium

And that's just what he got wrong before 1915.

Dave Smith

2019-12-01 18:11:03 UTC

Post by M I Wakefield
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
? Show me where PB went wrong. You can't can you?

1) Britain did not declare war on Germany to support France - the
British government was divided on the issue - only when Germany attacked
Belgium, whose neutrality it had guaranteed in an 1839 treaty, did the
British government unite behind the war.
2) The German Navy was not a major threat to the Royal Navy. The Royal
Navy was mandated to maintain at least as many battleships as the
second- and third-largest navies in the world combined, and neither of
those was Germany.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-kaiserliche-militarism.htm
4) The Rape of Belgium was no myth.
German troops, afraid of Belgian guerrilla fighters, or francs-tireurs
(literally: "free shooters"), burned homes and executed civilians
throughout eastern and central Belgium, including Aarschot (156 dead),
Andenne (211 dead), Seilles [fr], Tamines (383 dead), and Dinant (674
dead). The victims included men, women, and children. In the Province of
Brabant, nuns were ordered to strip under the pretext that they were
spies or men in disguise. However, there is no evidence that nuns were
violated. In and around Aarschot, between August 19 and the recapture of
the town by September 9, women were repeatedly victimized. Rape was
nearly as ubiquitous as murder, arson and looting, if never as visible.
Before the war Belgium produced 4.4 percent of world commerce, but the
Germans destroyed the Belgian economy so thoroughly, by dismantling
industries and transporting the equipment and machinery to Germany, that
it never regained its pre-war level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium
And that's just what he got wrong before 1915.

That's the bitch of credibility for writers. Once you get caught in some
very obvious lies, mistruths, misinformation .... everything else is
open to question. It's like getting caught lying in court, once you
have have been caught lying the court will not allow any of your evidence.

A Moose in Love

2019-12-01 18:37:47 UTC

Post by M I Wakefield
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
? Show me where PB went wrong. You can't can you?

1) Britain did not declare war on Germany to support France - the
British government was divided on the issue - only when Germany attacked
Belgium, whose neutrality it had guaranteed in an 1839 treaty, did the
British government unite behind the war.
2) The German Navy was not a major threat to the Royal Navy. The Royal
Navy was mandated to maintain at least as many battleships as the
second- and third-largest navies in the world combined, and neither of
those was Germany.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-kaiserliche-militarism.htm
4) The Rape of Belgium was no myth.
German troops, afraid of Belgian guerrilla fighters, or francs-tireurs
(literally: "free shooters"), burned homes and executed civilians
throughout eastern and central Belgium, including Aarschot (156 dead),
Andenne (211 dead), Seilles [fr], Tamines (383 dead), and Dinant (674
dead). The victims included men, women, and children. In the Province of
Brabant, nuns were ordered to strip under the pretext that they were
spies or men in disguise. However, there is no evidence that nuns were
violated. In and around Aarschot, between August 19 and the recapture of
the town by September 9, women were repeatedly victimized. Rape was
nearly as ubiquitous as murder, arson and looting, if never as visible.
Before the war Belgium produced 4.4 percent of world commerce, but the
Germans destroyed the Belgian economy so thoroughly, by dismantling
industries and transporting the equipment and machinery to Germany, that
it never regained its pre-war level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium
And that's just what he got wrong before 1915.

You've been caught lying. When you suggested that my Grand Dad 'helped them into the showers'. When you said that the 'Germans worked for the Nazis'. And even more shitty, when you said that 'rape and murder was a little payback'.

Dave Smith

2019-12-01 22:09:47 UTC

Post by Dave Smith
That's the bitch of credibility for writers. Once you get caught in
some very obvious lies, mistruths, misinformation .... everything
else is open to question. It's like getting caught lying in
court, once you have have been caught lying the court will not
allow any of your evidence.

You've been caught lying. When you suggested that my Grand Dad
'helped them into the showers'.

That was not a lie. It was a question. I said that he was in the Waffen
SS and the Waffen SS were often used at the camps while convalescing.

Post by A Moose in Love
When you said that the 'Germans
worked for the Nazis'.

I am wondering if you are going to argue that the German people were not
working for the Nazi regime because most of the work was being done by
slave labour.They had close to 5 million slave labourers in Poland
alone. I can't be bothered checking the distinction between slave labour
and forced labour but there were also a lot of people forced into
working for the Nazis. By 1944 almost the entire Germany economy was
involved in war material production. By 1944, slave labour made up about
25% of the work force. That left 75% of it to be done by Germans.

Post by A Moose in Love
And even more shitty, when you said that
'rape and murder was a little payback'.

Yes. It was payback... revenge. It was done by the Russian soldiers.
What the hell else would you call it? Maybe it was just the animalistic
behaviour of lesser humans..... which is what the Nazis thought the
Slavs and Russians were. I described it as payback, which is not the
same as saying that I condoned it.

A Moose in Love

2019-12-02 13:05:58 UTC

You've been caught lying. When you suggested that my Grand Dad
'helped them into the showers'.

That was not a lie. It was a question. I said that he was in the Waffen
SS and the Waffen SS were often used at the camps while convalescing.

Post by A Moose in Love
When you said that the 'Germans
worked for the Nazis'.

The British people were working for the criminal British regime.

Post by A Moose in Love
And even more shitty, when you said that
'rape and murder was a little payback'.

You did not condemn(until I prodded, and you finally agreed that it was a crime, that's at least an improvement on your initial position)the crimes immediately, you at the very least trivialized these crimes initially. Oh and duh the Germans worked for the Nazis. That's a nonsensical statement; as is mine above. At least I know that it's nonsense. You are trying to equate all Germans as being nazis. How you twist language. You are the best at twisting here, I'll give you that. Do you actually talk like that to people you meet who are ethnic Germans? If you do, only a brainwashed kraut would listen to you; someone who is consumed by 'war guilt'.
I feel no guilt, nor am I ashamed, nor embarrassed by the fact that I had relatives who were SS men.

Dave Smith

2019-12-02 14:22:39 UTC

Post by Dave Smith
I am wondering if you are going to argue that the German people
were not working for the Nazi regime because most of the work was
being done by slave labour.They had close to 5 million slave
labourers in Poland alone. I can't be bothered checking the
distinction between slave labour and forced labour but there were
also a lot of people forced into working for the Nazis. By 1944
almost the entire Germany economy was involved in war material
production. By 1944, slave labour made up about 25% of the work
force. That left 75% of it to be done by Germans.

The British people were working for the criminal British regime.

You are just expressing your rather bizarre opion. You objected to my
comment about the German people working for the Nazis. I explained how
that is pretty much undeniable and the best you can come up with to
counter that is an idiotic and nonsensical comment that the British
people were working for a criminal regime. Britain was not arresting
and imprisoning political opponents, rounding up various ethnic groups
and sending them of to concentration camps.

Post by Dave Smith
Yes. It was payback... revenge. It was done by the Russian
soldiers. What the hell else would you call it? Maybe it was just
the animalistic behaviour of lesser humans..... which is what the
Nazis thought the Slavs and Russians were. I described it as
payback, which is not the same as saying that I condoned it.

I saw no need to apologize or clarify because I had never condoned it. I
called it for what it was. Yes. It was atrocious, just like it was
atrocious when the Germans invaded their country and did it.

Post by A Moose in Love
Oh and duh the Germans worked for the Nazis.
That's a nonsensical statement; as is mine above. At least I know
that it's nonsense. You are trying to equate all Germans as being
nazis.

That's bullshit. I said they were working for the Nazis. Almost the
entire Germany economy was geared toward war materials production. If
they were working they were contributing to the war effort. They may not
have been Nazis. They may not have wanted to be working for war effort,
but they were.

Post by A Moose in Love
would listen to you; someone who is consumed by 'war guilt'. I feel
no guilt, nor am I ashamed, nor embarrassed by the fact that I had
relatives who were SS men.

You have made that clear.

Alan Baker

2019-12-02 16:45:57 UTC

On Sunday, December 1, 2019 at 1:09:40 PM UTC-5, Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith
That's the bitch of credibility for writers. Once you get
caught in some very obvious lies, mistruths, misinformation
.... everything else is open to question. It's like getting
caught lying in court, once you have have been caught lying the
court will not allow any of your evidence.

You've been caught lying. When you suggested that my Grand Dad
'helped them into the showers'.

That was not a lie. It was a question. I said that he was in the
Waffen SS and the Waffen SS were often used at the camps while
convalescing.

When you said that the 'Germans worked for the Nazis'.

I am wondering if you are going to argue that the German people
were not working for the Nazi regime because most of the work was
being done by slave labour.They had close to 5 million slave
labourers in Poland alone. I can't be bothered checking the
distinction between slave labour and forced labour but there were
also a lot of people forced into working for the Nazis. By 1944
almost the entire Germany economy was involved in war material
production. By 1944, slave labour made up about 25% of the work
force. That left 75% of it to be done by Germans.

The British people were working for the criminal British regime.

What was criminal about it?

Greg Carr

2019-12-02 18:00:00 UTC

You've been caught lying. When you suggested that my Grand Dad
'helped them into the showers'.

That was not a lie. It was a question. I said that he was in the Waffen
SS and the Waffen SS were often used at the camps while convalescing.

Post by A Moose in Love
When you said that the 'Germans
worked for the Nazis'.

The British people were working for the criminal British regime.

The British govt at the time was democratically elected.

Post by A Moose in Love
And even more shitty, when you said that
'rape and murder was a little payback'.

To bad your relatives weren't castrated by the Soviets.

A Moose in Love

2019-12-03 14:43:10 UTC

You've been caught lying. When you suggested that my Grand Dad
'helped them into the showers'.

That was not a lie. It was a question. I said that he was in the Waffen
SS and the Waffen SS were often used at the camps while convalescing.

Post by A Moose in Love
When you said that the 'Germans
worked for the Nazis'.

The British people were working for the criminal British regime.

The British govt at the time was democratically elected.

Post by A Moose in Love
And even more shitty, when you said that
'rape and murder was a little payback'.

To bad your relatives weren't castrated by the Soviets.

Had that happened, the world would have been a worse place than it is.

Greg Carr

2019-12-02 05:49:32 UTC

Post by M I Wakefield
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
? Show me where PB went wrong. You can't can you?

1) Britain did not declare war on Germany to support France - the
British government was divided on the issue - only when Germany attacked
Belgium, whose neutrality it had guaranteed in an 1839 treaty, did the
British government unite behind the war.
2) The German Navy was not a major threat to the Royal Navy. The Royal
Navy was mandated to maintain at least as many battleships as the
second- and third-largest navies in the world combined, and neither of
those was Germany.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-kaiserliche-militarism.htm
4) The Rape of Belgium was no myth.
German troops, afraid of Belgian guerrilla fighters, or francs-tireurs
(literally: "free shooters"), burned homes and executed civilians
throughout eastern and central Belgium, including Aarschot (156 dead),
Andenne (211 dead), Seilles [fr], Tamines (383 dead), and Dinant (674
dead). The victims included men, women, and children. In the Province of
Brabant, nuns were ordered to strip under the pretext that they were
spies or men in disguise. However, there is no evidence that nuns were
violated. In and around Aarschot, between August 19 and the recapture of
the town by September 9, women were repeatedly victimized. Rape was
nearly as ubiquitous as murder, arson and looting, if never as visible.
Before the war Belgium produced 4.4 percent of world commerce, but the
Germans destroyed the Belgian economy so thoroughly, by dismantling
industries and transporting the equipment and machinery to Germany, that
it never regained its pre-war level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium
And that's just what he got wrong before 1915.

What was your Granddads name so we can search his record.

A Moose in Love

2019-12-02 13:54:48 UTC

Post by M I Wakefield
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
? Show me where PB went wrong. You can't can you?

1) Britain did not declare war on Germany to support France - the
British government was divided on the issue - only when Germany attacked
Belgium, whose neutrality it had guaranteed in an 1839 treaty, did the
British government unite behind the war.
2) The German Navy was not a major threat to the Royal Navy. The Royal
Navy was mandated to maintain at least as many battleships as the
second- and third-largest navies in the world combined, and neither of
those was Germany.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-kaiserliche-militarism.htm
4) The Rape of Belgium was no myth.
German troops, afraid of Belgian guerrilla fighters, or francs-tireurs
(literally: "free shooters"), burned homes and executed civilians
throughout eastern and central Belgium, including Aarschot (156 dead),
Andenne (211 dead), Seilles [fr], Tamines (383 dead), and Dinant (674
dead). The victims included men, women, and children. In the Province of
Brabant, nuns were ordered to strip under the pretext that they were
spies or men in disguise. However, there is no evidence that nuns were
violated. In and around Aarschot, between August 19 and the recapture of
the town by September 9, women were repeatedly victimized. Rape was
nearly as ubiquitous as murder, arson and looting, if never as visible.
Before the war Belgium produced 4.4 percent of world commerce, but the
Germans destroyed the Belgian economy so thoroughly, by dismantling
industries and transporting the equipment and machinery to Germany, that
it never regained its pre-war level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium
And that's just what he got wrong before 1915.

What was your Granddads name so we can search his record.

You sound infantile. The nazis could have used more dupes like you.

Eric®

2019-12-02 21:18:11 UTC

Post by A Moose in Love
You've been caught lying. When you suggested that my Grand Dad 'helped
them into the showers'. When you said that the 'Germans worked for the
Nazis'. And even more shitty, when you said that 'rape and murder was
a little payback'.

What was your Granddads name so we can search his record.

Bimmler?
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1hc9l

Dave Smith

2019-12-02 21:36:50 UTC

Post by EricÂ®

You've been caught lying. When you suggested that my Grand Dad
'helped them into the showers'. When you said that the 'Germans
worked for the Nazis'. And even more shitty, when you said that
'rape and murder was a little payback'.

What was your Granddads name so we can search his record.

Bimmler?
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1hc9l

LOL No, he would not have enjoyed Stalingrad ;-)

Alan Baker

2019-12-01 18:51:16 UTC

Post by A Moose in Love
A good outline of the book. This thread is actually on topic for this NG since Canada was involved in both world wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War

Written by Pat Buchanan:

'Antisemitism and Holocaust denial

Buchanan wrote that it was impossible for 850,000 Jews to be killed by
diesel exhaust fed into the gas chamber at Treblinka in a column for the
New York Post in 1990.[25] Buchanan once argued Treblinka "was not a
death camp but a transit camp used as a 'pass-through point' for
prisoners". In fact, some 900,000 Jews had died at Treblinka.[26] When
George Will challenged him about it on TV, Buchanan did not reply. In
1991, William F. Buckley Jr. wrote a 40,000-word National Review article
discussing anti-Semitism among conservative commentators focused largely
on Buchanan; the article and many responses to it were collected in the
book In Search of Anti-Semitism (1992). He concluded: "I find it
impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did
and said during the period under examination amounted to
anti-Semitism."[27][28]

The Anti-Defamation League has called Buchanan an "unrepentant bigot"
who "repeatedly demonizes Jews and minorities and openly affiliates with
white supremacists."[29] "There's no doubt," said Pulitzer Prize-winning
columnist Charles Krauthammer, "he makes subliminal appeals to
prejudice."[30] Buchanan denies that he is antisemitic, and a number of
his journalistic colleagues, including Murray Rothbard,[31][32][33]
Justin Raimondo,[34] Jack Germond, Al Hunt and Mark Shields, have
defended him against the charge.[35] As a member of the Reagan White
House, he is accused of having suppressed the Reagan Justice
Department's investigation into Nazi scientists brought to America by
the OSS's Operation Paperclip.[36] In the context of the Gulf War, on
September 15, 1990, Buchanan appeared on The McLaughlin Group and said
that "there are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in
the Middle East – the Israeli defense ministry and its 'amen corner' in
the United States." He also said: "The Israelis want this war
desperately because they want the United States to destroy the Iraqi war
machine. They want us to finish them off. They don't care about our
relations with the Arab world."[37] Furthermore, on The McLaughlin Group
Buchanan has also made such comments as "'Capitol Hill is Israeli
occupied territory' and 'If you want to know ethnicity and power in the
United States Senate, 13 members of the Senate are Jewish folks who are
from 2% of the population. That is where real power is at ... '"[38]

Buchanan supported President Reagan's plan to visit a German military
cemetery at Bitburg in 1985, where among buried Wehrmacht soldiers were
the graves of 48 Waffen SS members. At the insistence of German
Chancellor Helmut Kohl and over the vocal objections of Jewish groups,
the trip went through.[39]

In an interview, author Elie Wiesel described attending a White House
meeting of Jewish leaders about the trip: "The only one really defending
the trip was Pat Buchanan, saying, 'We cannot give the perception of the
President being subjected to Jewish pressure.'"[40]

Buchanan accused Wiesel of fabricating the story in an ABC interview in
1992: "I didn't say it and Elie Wiesel wasn't even in the meeting ...
That meeting was held three weeks before the Bitburg summit was held. If
I had said that, it would have been out of there within hours and on the
news".[41]'

Greg Carr

2019-12-02 05:53:47 UTC

Post by Alan Baker

Post by A Moose in Love
A good outline of the book. This thread is actually on topic for this NG since Canada was involved in both world wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War

'Antisemitism and Holocaust denial
Buchanan wrote that it was impossible for 850,000 Jews to be killed by
diesel exhaust fed into the gas chamber at Treblinka in a column for the
New York Post in 1990.[25] Buchanan once argued Treblinka "was not a
death camp but a transit camp used as a 'pass-through point' for
prisoners". In fact, some 900,000 Jews had died at Treblinka.[26] When
George Will challenged him about it on TV, Buchanan did not reply. In
1991, William F. Buckley Jr. wrote a 40,000-word National Review article
discussing anti-Semitism among conservative commentators focused largely
on Buchanan; the article and many responses to it were collected in the
book In Search of Anti-Semitism (1992). He concluded: "I find it
impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did
and said during the period under examination amounted to
anti-Semitism."[27][28]
The Anti-Defamation League has called Buchanan an "unrepentant bigot"
who "repeatedly demonizes Jews and minorities and openly affiliates with
white supremacists."[29] "There's no doubt," said Pulitzer Prize-winning
columnist Charles Krauthammer, "he makes subliminal appeals to
prejudice."[30] Buchanan denies that he is antisemitic, and a number of
his journalistic colleagues, including Murray Rothbard,[31][32][33]
Justin Raimondo,[34] Jack Germond, Al Hunt and Mark Shields, have
defended him against the charge.[35] As a member of the Reagan White
House, he is accused of having suppressed the Reagan Justice
Department's investigation into Nazi scientists brought to America by
the OSS's Operation Paperclip.[36] In the context of the Gulf War, on
September 15, 1990, Buchanan appeared on The McLaughlin Group and said
that "there are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in
the Middle East – the Israeli defense ministry and its 'amen corner' in
the United States." He also said: "The Israelis want this war
desperately because they want the United States to destroy the Iraqi war
machine. They want us to finish them off. They don't care about our
relations with the Arab world."[37] Furthermore, on The McLaughlin Group
Buchanan has also made such comments as "'Capitol Hill is Israeli
occupied territory' and 'If you want to know ethnicity and power in the
United States Senate, 13 members of the Senate are Jewish folks who are
from 2% of the population. That is where real power is at ... '"[38]
Buchanan supported President Reagan's plan to visit a German military
cemetery at Bitburg in 1985, where among buried Wehrmacht soldiers were
the graves of 48 Waffen SS members. At the insistence of German
Chancellor Helmut Kohl and over the vocal objections of Jewish groups,
the trip went through.[39]
In an interview, author Elie Wiesel described attending a White House
meeting of Jewish leaders about the trip: "The only one really defending
the trip was Pat Buchanan, saying, 'We cannot give the perception of the
President being subjected to Jewish pressure.'"[40]
Buchanan accused Wiesel of fabricating the story in an ABC interview in
1992: "I didn't say it and Elie Wiesel wasn't even in the meeting ...
That meeting was held three weeks before the Bitburg summit was held. If
I had said that, it would have been out of there within hours and on the
news".[41]'

I understand Pat Buchanan is also an alcoholic. Very interesting article thanks for posting it.

A Moose in Love

2019-12-02 13:18:35 UTC

Post by Alan Baker

Post by A Moose in Love
A good outline of the book. This thread is actually on topic for this NG since Canada was involved in both world wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War

I understand Pat Buchanan is also an alcoholic. Very interesting article thanks for posting it.

Just because I posted a link to his book doesn't mean I agree with every thing that Buchanan writes/says. I do not agree with any type of holocaust denial, or attempts made to trivialize these events. That includes all acts of genocide/attempted genocide.
PB is anti war which is a good thing.
I also searched and found no evidence that PB is an alky.

M I Wakefield

2019-12-02 14:16:34 UTC

Post by A Moose in Love
Just because I posted a link to his book doesn't mean I agree with every
thing that Buchanan writes/says.

The fact that you challenged me to "Show me where PB went wrong. You can't
can you?" says you're lying.

Eric®

2019-12-01 19:53:05 UTC

On Sun, 01 Dec 2019 04:34:17 -0800, A Moose in Love

Post by A Moose in Love
A good outline of the book. This thread is actually on topic for this
NG since Canada was involved in both world wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War

Curious. You've repeatedly attacked Britain and allies for trying to stop
Adolf's invasion of Poland, but iirc you haven't said much about his march
into the Rhineland in 1936. Do you think it was a good thing that other
countries, especially France, didn't interfere?

Dave Smith

2019-12-01 22:24:57 UTC

Post by EricÂ®
On Sun, 01 Dec 2019 04:34:17 -0800, A Moose in Love

A good outline of the book. This thread is actually on topic for this
NG since Canada was involved in both world wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War

Curious. You've repeatedly attacked Britain and allies for trying to
stop Adolf's invasion of Poland, but iirc you haven't said much about
his march into the Rhineland in 1936. Do you think it was a good thing
that other countries, especially France, didn't interfere?

It's a shame they didn't, because Germany was not prepared to go to war
at that point. France and Britain didn't really have the political will
to go to war against Germany again so soon. As it turned out, they were
in a better position for a fight then than they were a few years later.

Eric®

2019-12-02 21:23:54 UTC

On Sun, 01 Dec 2019 14:24:57 -0800, Dave Smith <***@sympatico.c=
a> =

On Sun, 01 Dec 2019 04:34:17 -0800, A Moose in Love =

A good outline of the book. This thread is actually on topic for th=

is =

NG since Canada was involved in both world wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_=

War

Curious. You've repeatedly attacked Britain and allies for trying t=

o =

stop Adolf's invasion of Poland, but iirc you haven't said much about=

his march into the Rhineland in 1936. Do you think it was a good thi=

ng =

that other countries, especially France, didn't interfere?

It's a shame they didn't, because Germany was not prepared to go to wa=

r =

at that point. France and Britain didn't really have the political wi=

ll =

to go to war against Germany again so soon. As it turned out, they wer=

e =

in a better position for a fight then than they were a few years later=

.

France had an outdated but powerful military compared to Germany which h=
ad =

next to nothing. I think it's quite likely that Hitler could've been =

stopped in his tracks at that time, averting the horror that followed.

*Odd* that Moose hasn't responded....

Dave Smith

2019-12-02 21:39:38 UTC

Post by EricÂ®
On Sun, 01 Dec 2019 14:24:57 -0800, Dave Smith

Post by EricÂ®
On Sun, 01 Dec 2019 04:34:17 -0800, A Moose in Love

A good outline of the book. This thread is actually on topic for
this NG since Canada was involved in both world wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War

Curious. You've repeatedly attacked Britain and allies for trying
to stop Adolf's invasion of Poland, but iirc you haven't said much
about his march into the Rhineland in 1936. Do you think it was a
good thing that other countries, especially France, didn't interfere?

It's a shame they didn't, because Germany was not prepared to go to
war at that point. France and Britain didn't really have the
political will to go to war against Germany again so soon. As it
turned out, they were in a better position for a fight then than they
were a few years later.

France had an outdated but powerful military compared to Germany which
had next to nothing. I think it's quite likely that Hitler could've
been stopped in his tracks at that time, averting the horror that followed.
*Odd* that Moose hasn't responded....

I don't know. It is not like he actually reads what we post. It seems
to be more a matter of automatically rejecting the facts and screaming
that we are lying or twisting the truth.

A Moose in Love

2019-12-03 14:04:52 UTC

Post by EricÂ®
On Sun, 01 Dec 2019 14:24:57 -0800, Dave Smith

Post by EricÂ®
On Sun, 01 Dec 2019 04:34:17 -0800, A Moose in Love

A good outline of the book. This thread is actually on topic for
this NG since Canada was involved in both world wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War

Curious. You've repeatedly attacked Britain and allies for trying
to stop Adolf's invasion of Poland, but iirc you haven't said much
about his march into the Rhineland in 1936. Do you think it was a
good thing that other countries, especially France, didn't interfere?

It's a shame they didn't, because Germany was not prepared to go to
war at that point. France and Britain didn't really have the
political will to go to war against Germany again so soon. As it
turned out, they were in a better position for a fight then than they
were a few years later.

I don't know. It is not like he actually reads what we post. It seems
to be more a matter of automatically rejecting the facts and screaming
that we are lying or twisting the truth.

Duh smith: 'Did your grandfather help them into the showers?' That is a very ignorant shitty thing to say/type and it sums you up completely. I do actually think that you are a POS, that's not just an insult, it's what I think of you.
I've tried to educate you and your ilk here that there was a lot more to the SS than what you have been taught. You choose to ignore the truth.
Much of the language here is hateful and ignorant, it's not just you.

Dave Smith

2019-12-03 15:35:11 UTC

Post by EricÂ®
On Sun, 01 Dec 2019 14:24:57 -0800, Dave Smith

Post by EricÂ®
On Sun, 01 Dec 2019 04:34:17 -0800, A Moose in Love

Post by A Moose in Love
A good outline of the book. This thread is actually on
topic for this NG since Canada was involved in both world
wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War

Curious. You've repeatedly attacked Britain and allies for trying

Post by EricÂ®

Post by EricÂ®
to stop Adolf's invasion of Poland, but iirc you haven't said
much about his march into the Rhineland in 1936. Do you
think it was a good thing that other countries, especially
France, didn't interfere?

It's a shame they didn't, because Germany was not prepared to
go to war at that point. France and Britain didn't really have
the political will to go to war against Germany again so soon.
As it turned out, they were in a better position for a fight
then than they were a few years later.

France had an outdated but powerful military compared to Germany
which had next to nothing. I think it's quite likely that Hitler
could've been stopped in his tracks at that time, averting the
horror that followed.
*Odd* that Moose hasn't responded....

I don't know. It is not like he actually reads what we post. It
seems to be more a matter of automatically rejecting the facts and
screaming that we are lying or twisting the truth.

Duh smith: 'Did your grandfather help them into the showers?' That
is a very ignorant shitty thing to say/type and it sums you up
completely.

He was a question. You told us that he was in the Waffen SS. The
Waffen SS were sometimes used as concentration camp guards when
convalescing and some of them were recruited from among the
concentration camps. I asked a simple enough question that you could
have simply answered yes or no. Instead, you have been ranting and
carrying on for months, which might lead us to suspect that you are too
embarrassed to answer and prefer to deflect it with this outrage.

Post by A Moose in Love
I've tried to educate you and
your ilk here that there was a lot more to the SS than what you have
been taught. You choose to ignore the truth. Much of the language
here is hateful and ignorant, it's not just you.

You have done little to teach us anything other than to cite a couple of
books that have been dismissed for lack of credibility. There is not a
heck of a lot more to know about the Waffen SS other than the fact that
it was the military wing of the Nazi Party.

A Moose in Love

2019-12-03 14:00:49 UTC

Post by EricÂ®
On Sun, 01 Dec 2019 04:34:17 -0800, A Moose in Love

Post by A Moose in Love
A good outline of the book. This thread is actually on topic for this
NG since Canada was involved in both world wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War

Curious. You've repeatedly attacked Britain and allies for trying to
stop Adolf's invasion of Poland, but iirc you haven't said much about
his march into the Rhineland in 1936. Do you think it was a good thing
that other countries, especially France, didn't interfere?

France had an outdated but powerful military compared to Germany which had
next to nothing. I think it's quite likely that Hitler could've been
stopped in his tracks at that time, averting the horror that followed.
*Odd* that Moose hasn't responded....

Moose hasn't responded due to the fact that it is far too time consuming to counter all of the hate here.

Dave Smith

2019-12-03 15:21:06 UTC

Post by EricÂ®
On Sun, 01 Dec 2019 14:24:57 -0800, Dave Smith

Post by EricÂ®
On Sun, 01 Dec 2019 04:34:17 -0800, A Moose in Love

Post by A Moose in Love
A good outline of the book. This thread is actually on topic
for this NG since Canada was involved in both world wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War

Curious. You've repeatedly attacked Britain and allies for trying to

Post by EricÂ®

Post by EricÂ®
stop Adolf's invasion of Poland, but iirc you haven't said much
about his march into the Rhineland in 1936. Do you think it
was a good thing that other countries, especially France,
didn't interfere?

It's a shame they didn't, because Germany was not prepared to go
to war at that point. France and Britain didn't really have the
political will to go to war against Germany again so soon. As it
turned out, they were in a better position for a fight then than
they were a few years later.

France had an outdated but powerful military compared to Germany
which had next to nothing. I think it's quite likely that Hitler
could've been stopped in his tracks at that time, averting the
horror that followed.
*Odd* that Moose hasn't responded....

Moose hasn't responded due to the fact that it is far too time
consuming to counter all of the hate here.

Time consuming? You don't seem to have spent much effort developing a
fact based argument. You just dismiss it as hate. There is considerable
irony to that, considering that the regime that you are defending were
based on their sense of superiority and hatred... for Jews, for Gypsies,
for communists, for homosexuals....

Alan Baker

2019-12-03 16:50:16 UTC

Post by EricÂ®
On Sun, 01 Dec 2019 04:34:17 -0800, A Moose in Love

Post by A Moose in Love
A good outline of the book. This thread is actually on topic for this
NG since Canada was involved in both world wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War

Curious. You've repeatedly attacked Britain and allies for trying to
stop Adolf's invasion of Poland, but iirc you haven't said much about
his march into the Rhineland in 1936. Do you think it was a good thing
that other countries, especially France, didn't interfere?

France had an outdated but powerful military compared to Germany which had
next to nothing. I think it's quite likely that Hitler could've been
stopped in his tracks at that time, averting the horror that followed.
*Odd* that Moose hasn't responded....

Moose hasn't responded due to the fact that it is far too time consuming to counter all of the hate here.

I have no hate for Germany, "Moose": I have a strong belief in the truth.

And the truth is that Germany invaded Belgium in order to attack France;
setting off WW1...

...and they lost...

...and thus had to accept the terms of the Treaty of Versailles...

...a treaty they violated when the re-militarized the Rhineland

And regardless of those terms, nothing gave them the right to annex
Austria...

...then the Sudetenland...

...then...

After signing the Munich Agreement in which they agreed to make no
further territorial expansion.

...invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia...

...the Klaipeda Region of Lithuania...

...and finally Poland.

Those are the ACTS that led to there being a Second World War.

Eric®

2019-12-03 22:34:01 UTC

On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 06:00:49 -0800, A Moose in Love =

Post by EricÂ®
*Odd* that Moose hasn't responded....

Moose hasn't responded due to the fact that it is far too time consumi=

ng =

to counter all of the hate here.

Hate? It was a simple suggestion that had France moved to stop Hitler wh=
en =

he sent troops into the Rhineland, they likely could have prevented his =
=

entire brutal career.

You obviously disagree but don't want to admit it publicly. I think you=
=

are proud of F=FChrer's martial accomplishments.

Dave Smith

2019-12-03 22:59:28 UTC

Post by EricÂ®
On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 06:00:49 -0800, A Moose in Love

Post by EricÂ®
*Odd* that Moose hasn't responded....

Moose hasn't responded due to the fact that it is far too time
consuming to counter all of the hate here.

Hate? It was a simple suggestion that had France moved to stop Hitler
when he sent troops into the Rhineland, they likely could have prevented
his entire brutal career.
You obviously disagree but don't want to admit it publicly. I think you
are proud of Führer's martial accomplishments.

If he actually bothers to research something other than some discredited
Nazi apologist literature he could check the stages of Germany's
militarization. Hitler did not even start to rebuild the military until
1935. He did not have much an army when he marched troops into the
Rhineland. By 1939 they only 3500 tanks, and we are talking small tanks,
not the more formidable Tigers and Elephants. The Luftwaffe was just
starting up. Young men were taking flying lessons on civilian aircraft.

France and Germany were upset about German re-armament and protested
vocally and in print, but they failed to back it up. Things would have
been much different if they had.

Tim Buck Too

2019-12-06 15:07:37 UTC

Post by EricÂ®
On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 06:00:49 -0800, A Moose in Love

Post by EricÂ®
*Odd* that Moose hasn't responded....

Moose hasn't responded due to the fact that it is far too time
consuming to counter all of the hate here.

If he actually bothers to research something other than some discredited
Nazi apologist literature he could check the stages of Germany's
militarization. Hitler did not even start to rebuild the military until
1935. He did not have much an army when he marched troops into the
Rhineland. By 1939 they only 3500 tanks, and we are talking small tanks,
not the more formidable Tigers and Elephants. The Luftwaffe was just
starting up. Young men were taking flying lessons on civilian aircraft.
France and Germany were upset about German re-armament and protested
vocally and in print, but they failed to back it up. Things would have
been much different if they had.

I am all for free speech, but the original poster goes one step beyond free speech and crosses the line entering into the territory of downright lying.
I don't think that people who are guilty of hate speech(unless it incites violence against others)should be jailed. However they need to be sent to re education classes.

Byker

2019-12-02 16:50:30 UTC

Just think if Lord Halifax would have been PM instead of Churchill, which
very nearly happened. When the BEF was pushed all the way back to the
Channel, he'd probably have sued for peace, and Franco-Prussian War II would
have lasted a grand total of eight months. It's not as ludicrous as it
sounds. In April, 1940, over 90% of Americans polled wanted nothing to do
with getting involved in another European war. 110,000 U.S. troops died in
WWI, and the popular notion that we were "duped" into getting involved
produced a resentment that lasted a generation.

Interesting scenario to ponder:

SolomonW

2019-12-03 10:01:22 UTC

Post by Byker

Just think if Lord Halifax would have been PM instead of Churchill, which
very nearly happened.

I am not so sure although many wanted Lord Halifax as Prime Minister after
the resignation of Neville Chamberlain, he declined.

Partly it was dubious if he could be and part of the problem was the lack
of support he had from the Labour Party.

Post by Byker
When the BEF was pushed all the way back to the
Channel, he'd probably have sued for peace, and Franco-Prussian War II would
have lasted a grand total of eight months.

This is possible, both Halifax and Chamberlain wanted peace at this point.

I am not sure what sort of peace it would be, during the Napoleonic wars,
Britain made peace several times and then broke it.

Britain would be arming fast. Germans would still need vast reserves in the
West just in case. Would the British and U.S. allow war materials into
Germany?

Post by Byker
It's not as ludicrous as it
sounds. In April, 1940, over 90% of Americans polled wanted nothing to do
with getting involved in another European war. 110,000 U.S. troops died in
WWI, and the popular notion that we were "duped" into getting involved
produced a resentment that lasted a generation.

But also surveys at the time showed that Americans thought that sooner or
later they would get involved.

Post by Byker
Interesting scenario to ponder: http://youtu.be/EnQ_3anpWQk

Very nice. Spelling mistakes

I doubt Hitler would have offered anywhere as much as this POD assumes.

Some points would Barbarossa have been so successful if Britain and Germany
had been at peace. I doubt it would be a surprise.

Would the British and the U.S. have done nothing is Hitler attacks Russia,
it is very much than in their interest that Russia holds! They supplied
China, why not Russia?

Why would the axis allies not send forces to help Germany take Russia, and
why would Hitler refuse more troops?

Also, I doubt Hitler if he was winning would make peace with Russia, and if
he did, he would undoubtedly intervene in a later Russian Civil War.

Byker

2019-12-03 17:25:56 UTC

Post by SolomonW

Post by Byker
http://youtu.be/EnQ_3anpWQk

Very nice. Spelling mistakes

Not mine...

M I Wakefield

2019-12-06 14:35:34 UTC

Auschwitz visit: Angela Merkel says past Nazi crimes part of German identity

Chancellor Angela Merkel has said Germany has an unending responsibility to
remember the Nazis' war crimes, as she made her first trip while in office
to the Auschwitz death camp in Poland.

The responsibility was "part of our national identity", she said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50671663

Byker

2019-12-07 23:29:22 UTC