Was Churchill anti-Semitic?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Mar 11, 2007.

  1. No, I don't advocate might makes right.

    It is a practical reality of the world, the primitive world, but not the civilized world....that might makes right in the sense that the winners make the rules...but that is not my concept of "right."

    Right now, I list the most dangerous threat to the USA is our own internal weakness of our society, i.e. greed, people living on credit beyond their means, corruption, lack of real protection of constitution, lack of trust in our institutions, illegal aliens, exporting of jobs overseas, weakening of labor unions who protect workers, corporate power and lobby, too much power in executive branch, etc.

    Second biggest threat is China.

    Terrorism is actually way down the list...

    I don't see much value in playing who is the worst offender of human rights. We are in bed with China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, nearly all the major human rights defenders, because corporate profit is now the God of America, which is why we are eventually doomed.

     
    #41     Mar 12, 2007


  2. General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower stated in a 1950 speech given in Dallas, Texas that as Supreme Commander in Europe during World War Two he made it a habit of asking American soldiers why they were fighting the Germans and 90% answered him..."They had no idea.

    Source:
    The Iron Curtain Over America,
    John Beaty, 1960, P. 60,
    Chestnut Mountain Press.

    I wonder what the response of American soldiers would be if they where confronted with the same question in Iraq.


    I think that some good patriots in this country, who opposed Iraq, should try to reconsider their view on the subject of World War II. The deception the US used to enter that conflict was as bad as the lies used to justify Iraq - and by the same people.

    An article, published in Germany in 1944 by the ""Evil Nazis"", shows clearly that Germany wanted nothing but peace with the United States. Unfortunately, this wish was not mutually shared by the US due to the Zionist control that sadly still holds sway to this day. Read the article below.

    By Julius Streicher

    Streicher died on the gallows at Nuremberg solely for publishing a paper critical of the Zionism. Despite not having been part of the German government during the war, nor having any role in the German war effort or in the concentration camps.
     
    #42     Mar 12, 2007
  3. Here is another article on this subject by the same author. Written in 1944, it could perfectly well have been written in 2007.

    The source: "Die Gefahr des Amerikanismus," Das Schwarze Korps, 14 March 1944, pp. 1-2.


     
    #43     Mar 12, 2007
  4.  
    #44     Mar 12, 2007

  5. And not simply because of post-war communism either. Romania, Hungary, Albania and Bulgaria were wartime (German) pact members, and if Ukranians were polled, I'm sure we'd find many/most of them in sympathy with Germany, too.

    Anyway, what has been the point of "saving" Europe from the Germans only to hand it over to the Arabs and Africans? We incessantly hear how if it hadn't been for American involvement Europeans would all be "speaking German" now. Well, so what? Speaking German is hardly as ghastly a fate as enduring Islamization and German polkas would certainly be preferable to muezzin calls.
     
    #45     Mar 24, 2007

  6. If that's your only proof of Hitler's madness then perhaps you might have to reconsider your views of his sanity. For if the Holocaust -- defined as the extermination of millions of Jews in homicidal gas chambers -- did not occur, then your claims of his madness would seem to be baseless.

    Now I know from previous exchanges with you that you consider the very fact of my doubting the holocaust a sign of moral failure, but I am now calling you on that: claims of extermination by gassing are, at bottom, no different to any other historical claims; either they rest on a foundation of historical evidence or they do not. In this sense, checking the reliability of a historical claim cannot be immoral. The holocaust must be subjected to the same standards of historical scrutiny no matter how many people howl in protest.

    As a simple introduction into the reasons one might have for reviewing or casting doubt on holocaust claims is the following case. An inscription at Auschwitz used to read that the Germans killed four million Jews there. Some time later, that number was revised down to one million. The total number of Jews said to have been killed during the holocaust, however, remained six million. Presumably, that six million was arrived at by summing the murder counts at various camps. So Auschwitz + Treblinka + Sobibor etc = 6 million. Now, if Auschwitz is revised down to 1 million, shouldn't the total number of deaths similarly be revised down to 3 million? Apparently not. Why, though, was never made clear. In fact, it was never even made clear why 1 not 4 million died at Auschwitz.

    In fact, nothing is ever made clear when it comes to the particulars of the holocaust.

    In the early 80s, in light of the "Faurisson Affair", in which revisionist Robert Faurisson debated a French-Jewish historian in the pages of Le Monde, a Jewish organization put out a statement, signed by leading historians, deploring the offenses caused to the sensibilities of survivors of the genocidal Nazi machine that killed six million Jews and five million others. (I'll dig up the reference if you like.) Five million others. Nothing before or since has been heard about these five million others and it is difficult to avoid the impression that those historians would have signed anything the Jewish organization put in front of them if only it would get people to stop being so damn critical of the holocaust.

    But I am digressing. I simply wished to highlight some simple reasons why one might wish to investigate the historicity of the alleged holocaust. Absent satisfactory explanations to the questions raised above, it would seem bizarre to label someone immoral for simply being skeptical where skepticism is clearly warranted.
     
    #46     Mar 24, 2007