[wvns] Did Hitler Want War?

Buchanan asks an important question in Did Hitler Want War? both

• from the standpoint of historiography and also
• because of the effects of current understanding of WW2 on contemporary politics,

but he does not go far enough

• because he only looks at World War 2,
• because he only looks at Europe through 1945, and
• because he simply does not know enough about historical Jewish political economy.

Not only is the common wisdom at best confused about WW1 and the US entry into that war, but intertwined Zionist and Jewish oil politics played a major role in transforming the outcome of the War to End All War into the Peace to End All Peace by chopping up up the German and Austrian Empires into states, whose boundaries made no sense, and by vivisecting to the Ottoman Empire in order to satisfy the rapacious apetites of the UK, France, and the Zionist Virtual Colonial Motherland, whose public face today is the American Israel Lobby:

• Petroleum: Driving Force in Zionism,
• Introduction: The Virtual Colonial Motherland as Political Innovation,
• Wikipedia, Hummus, Falafil, WWI, Dolchstoßlegende, and
• Herzl and Normalizing Jewish Power.

In some sense one could argue that in large measure the origin of the WW2 population destruction and ethnic cleansing

• that really ended in 1950 and not 1945 (A Terrible Revenge, The Ethnic Cleansing of the Eastern European Germans, 1945-1950 by Alfred-Maurice de Zayas),
• that included the murder of Arab Palestine at the hands of Zionists (Jewish Nazis), and
• that also included the Partition of India

really can be found in the greed awakened by the discovery of oil in Baku in 1879.

Why did Britain and France declare war on Germany? Why was no peace negotiated during the Sitzkrieg or during the period between Dunkirk and the invasion of the Soviet Union? Why is Buchanan's article removed from the MSNBC website, and why is he called a crazy, a revisionist, or a thinly veiled fascist sympathizer for merely asking the question? (Why is Pat Buchanan Defending Hitler?)

Obviously, successive governments in Great Britain had a policy going back at least 300 years to prevent any single power from dominating continental Europe.

Yet the frenzy into which Jewish-Zionist dominated media sent the American public during the George W. Bush administration suggests that much more attention needs to be paid to the role of Jewish wealth and information control in foreign policy decisions at least as far back as the Russo-Japanese War of 1905.

Because of Jewish community backbiting on the Holocaust, Laurel Leff got away with detailing in Buried by the Times how the Sulzbergers' version of Jewishness affected NY Times coverage of mass murder against Jews and how this coverage may influenced US policy, but her analysis really did not go far enough.

In the blog entry Jewish Peril 1933 versus 2009, I point out:

During the Sitzkrieg of 1939-40 and then after Blitzkrieg of 1940, the German government expected the British government to recognize the new geostrategic reality of German domination of continental Europe and even hoped that the UK would join Germany in an anti-Soviet alliance.

The German government blamed the failure to achieve this result on the constant anti-German and anti-Nazi ideological barrage of the US and UK press. Because German Nazi ideology trapped German Nazis in their own ideological anti-Semitism, they saw a non-existent transnational Judeobolshevik conspiracy that was preparing to muster total war against Germany under the orchestration of the Judeobolshevik rulers of the USSR and Soviet Jewish agents within the Jewish communities of the USA and the UK.

Analysis of the articles of communist and communist-leaning Jewish reporters and columnists in the American and British press during this time period shows fairly general confusion while Zionist-inclined reporters rejected any sort of settlement or compromise. These latter journalists may have reflected

• the impatience of the Zionist leadership with the unwillingness of Jews to leave Europe to join the Jewish settlement and
• the Zionist hope that increased hostilities in Europe might create conditions to drive European Jews to Palestine.

Because of his perception of the impending Judeobolshevik threat , Hitler concluded that he had no choice but to attack first in June 1941 under the Code Name Unternehmen Barbarossa.

The pattern of Jewish influence applies just as much to opposition to the Vietnam War as it does to the license given to the Bush administration to incinerate one Arab and Muslim country after another.

Buchanan inspires Jewish Zionist media and Jewish Zionist pundit outrage because he rejects the hegemonic discourse that has supported Jewish power throughout the world: Collection: Chief Zionist Frauds.

Buchanan deserves a lot of praise because the benefits for accommodating oneself to Jewish disinformatsia are immense as analysis of the recipients of the Pulitzer Prize demonstrations. This award generally rewards ridiculous false news coverage or nonsensical propaganda-laden books meeting the reading requirements or desires of leading media Jews. Three prominent examples going back to the 30s are:

• Duranty's articles on the Soviet Union,
• Samantha Power's The Problem from Hell, and
• Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower (see Myths & Facts about al-Qaeda -- especially the comments).

Did Hitler Want War?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier. On Sept. 3, Britain declared war.

Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin.Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers.

By May 1945, Red Army hordes occupied all the great capitals of Central Europe: Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Berlin. A hundred million Christians were under the heel of the most barbarous tyranny in history: the Bolshevik regime of the greatest terrorist of them all, Joseph Stalin.

What cause could justify such sacrifices?

The German-Polish war had come out of a quarrel over a town the size of Ocean City, Md., in summer. Danzig, 95 percent German, had been severed from Germany at Versailles in violation of Woodrow Wilson’s principle of self-determination. Even British leaders thought Danzig should be returned.

Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that, should Germany attack, Britain and her empire would come to Poland’s rescue.

But why would Britain hand an unsolicited war guarantee to a junta of Polish colonels, giving them the power to drag Britain into a second war with the most powerful nation in Europe?

Was Danzig worth a war? Unlike the 7 million Hong Kongese whom the British surrendered to Beijing, who didn’t want to go, the Danzigers were clamoring to return to Germany.

Comes the response: The war guarantee was not about Danzig, or even about Poland. It was about the moral and strategic imperative “to stop Hitler” after he showed, by tearing up the Munich pact and Czechoslovakia with it, that he was out to conquer the world. And this Nazi beast could not be allowed to do that.

If true, a fair point. Americans, after all, were prepared to use atom bombs to keep the Red Army from the Channel. But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet’s, or Fidel Castro’s, was out to conquer the world?

After Munich in 1938, Czechoslovakia did indeed crumble and come apart. Yet consider what became of its parts.

The Sudeten Germans were returned to German rule, as they wished. Poland had annexed the tiny disputed region of Teschen, where thousands of Poles lived. Hungary’s ancestral lands in the south of Slovakia had been returned to her. The Slovaks had their full independence guaranteed by Germany. As for the Czechs, they came to Berlin for the same deal as the Slovaks, but Hitler insisted they accept a protectorate.

Now one may despise what was done, but how did this partition of Czechoslovakia manifest a Hitlerian drive for world conquest?

Comes the reply: If Britain had not given the war guarantee and gone to war, after Czechoslovakia would have come Poland’s turn, then Russia’s, then France’s, then Britain’s, then the United States.

We would all be speaking German now.

But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can’t get out of the Baltic Sea?

If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?

Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?

Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?

Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?

Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.

Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland such as he had with Francisco Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, Miklos Horthy’s Hungary and Father Jozef Tiso’s Slovakia.

Indeed, why would he want war when, by 1939, he was surrounded by allied, friendly or neutral neighbors, save France. And he had written off Alsace, because reconquering Alsace meant war with France, and that meant war with Britain, whose empire he admired and whom he had always sought as an ally.

As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?

Winston Churchill was right when he called it “The Unnecessary War” — the war that may yet prove the mortal blow to our civilization.

Sphere: Related Content