Pat Buchanan: 'after Wannsee the the trains began to roll'

[Hannover]

Patrick Buchanan, to his credit, has openly questioned the veracity of the absurdly alleged diesel gas chambers (ca. 2M Jews are said to been gassed by this laughable process).

In the article below he says, among other things, that after the Wannsee Conference of 1942, "the trains began to roll".
excerpt:

Not until midwinter 1942 was the Wannsee Conference held, where the Final Solution was on the table.

That conference was not convened until Hitler had been halted in Russia, was at war with America and sensed doom was inevitable. Then the trains began to roll.

So what does that mean?
It's known Jews were deported to labor camps via trains yet nowhere does Buchanan mentions the impossible and equally absurd cyanide 'gas chambers'. Buchanan never cites the alleged mass graves, which cannot be shown to exist. Buchanan doesn't even define what he means by 'holocaust'. Is this fear induced weasely wordsmithing on his part?

Buchanan scores many points in this piece about the false history which states that 'Germany wanted to 'conquer the world', kudos to him. But it's the 'holocaust' aspect which I wish to discuss.

See false claims about the Wannsee Conference shot down here:
'Wannsee Conference minutes debunked'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1647

Read on, comments invited.

- Hannover

June 20, 2008
Was the Holocaust Inevitable?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=13021

"What Would Winston Do?"

So asks Newsweek's cover, which features a full-length photo of the prime minister his people voted the greatest Briton of them all.

Quite a tribute, when one realizes Churchill's career coincides with the collapse of the British empire and the fall of his nation from world pre-eminence to third-rate power.

That the Newsweek cover was sparked by my book Churchill, Hitler and The Unnecessary War seems apparent, as one of the three essays, by Christopher Hitchens, was a scathing review. Though in places complimentary, Hitchens charmingly concludes: This book "stinks."

Understandable. No Brit can easily concede my central thesis: The Brits kicked away their empire. Through colossal blunders, Britain twice declared war on a Germany that had not attacked her and did not want war with her, fought for 10 bloody years and lost it all.

Unable to face the truth, Hitchens seeks solace in old myths.

We had to stop Prussian militarism in 1914, says Hitchens. "The Kaiser's policy shows that Germany was looking for a chance for war all over the globe."

Nonsense. If the Kaiser were looking for a war he would have found it. But in 1914, he had been in power for 25 years, was deep into middle age but had never fought a war nor seen a battle.

From Waterloo to World War I, Prussia fought three wars, all in one seven-year period, 1864 to 1871. Out of these wars, she acquired two duchies, Schleswig and Holstein, and two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine. By 1914, Germany had not fought a war in two generations.

Does that sound like a nation out to conquer the world?

As for the Kaiser's bellicose support for the Boers, his igniting the Agadir crisis in 1905, his building of a great fleet, his seeking of colonies in Africa, he was only aping the British, whose approbation and friendship he desperately sought all his life and was ever denied.

In every crisis the Kaiser blundered into, including his foolish "blank cheque" to Austria after Serb assassins murdered the heir to the Austrian throne, the Kaiser backed down or was trying to back away when war erupted.

Even Churchill, who before 1914 was charging the Kaiser with seeking "the dominion of the world," conceded, "History should ... acquit William II of having plotted and planned the World War."

What of World War II? Surely, it was necessary to declare war to stop Adolf Hitler from conquering the world and conducting the Holocaust.

Yet consider. Before Britain declared war on him, Hitler never demanded return of any lands lost at Versailles to the West. Northern Schleswig had gone to Denmark in 1919, Eupen and Malmedy had gone to Belgium, Alsace and Lorraine to France.

Why did Hitler not demand these lands back? Because he sought an alliance, or at least friendship, with Great Britain and knew any move on France would mean war with Britain -- a war he never wanted.

If Hitler were out to conquer the world, why did he not build a great fleet? Why did he not demand the French fleet when France surrendered? Germany had to give up its High Seas Fleet in 1918.

Why did he build his own Maginot Line, the Western Wall, in the Rhineland, if he meant all along to invade France?

If he wanted war with the West, why did he offer peace after Poland and offer to end the war, again, after Dunkirk?

That Hitler was a rabid anti-Semite is undeniable. Mein Kampf is saturated in anti-Semitism. The Nuremberg Laws confirm it. But for the six years before Britain declared war, there was no Holocaust, and for two years after the war began, there was no Holocaust.

Not until midwinter 1942 was the Wannsee Conference held, where the Final Solution was on the table.

That conference was not convened until Hitler had been halted in Russia, was at war with America and sensed doom was inevitable. Then the trains began to roll.

And why did Hitler invade Russia? This writer quotes Hitler 10 times as saying that only by knocking out Russia could he convince Britain it could not win and must end the war.

Hitchens mocks this view, invoking the Hitler-madman theory.

"Could we have a better definition of derangement and megalomania than the case of a dictator who overrules his own generals and invades Russia in wintertime ... ?"

Christopher, Hitler invaded Russia on June 22.

The Holocaust was not a cause of the war, but a consequence of the war. No war, no Holocaust.

Britain went to war with Germany to save Poland. She did not save Poland. She did lose the empire. And Josef Stalin, whose victims outnumbered those of Hitler 1,000 to one as of September 1939, and who joined Hitler in the rape of Poland, wound up with all of Poland, and all the Christian nations from the Urals to the Elbe.

The British Empire fought, bled and died, and made Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism. No wonder Winston Churchill was so melancholy in old age. No wonder Christopher rails against the book. As T.S. Eliot observed, "Mankind cannot bear much reality."

[ASMarques]

Buchanan scores many points in this piece about the false history which states that 'Germany wanted to 'conquer the world', kudos to him. But it's the 'holocaust' aspect which I wish to discuss.

Buchanan's article was also posted on Taki's blog and some interesting comments on his approach to the "Holocaust" have been added by the readers. I've posted a couple of short comments myself (starting with my standard introduction to the "obvious Holocaust" canard):
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/wa ... nevitable/

[Hannover]

Was said about ASMarques by a participant at
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/wa ... nevitable/

If I did not risk going to jail and have my livelihood destroyed (I’m writing from Germany), I would congratulate ASMarques for his excellent post.

Here here.

The excellent, to the point responses by ASMarques all through that thread simply demolish the True Believers. You gotta love the links ASM gives:

http://vho.org/GB/Books/Giant/
http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/09hilberg.html

It's great to be right.

- Hannover

[ASMarques]

I've just posted the latest sensational "Holocaust" news on the same thread. You may find them as amusing as I did.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/wa ... nevitable/

Said Maciano: "Allowing holocaust denial commenters to respond is immoral, incomprehensible and stupid."'

Look, Maciano, even if one wishes to get away from the "Holocaust" bombardment, it's nearly impossible. It's really the software version of Gaza for all the peoples of the World. It's a pervasive cloud that constantly attempts to numb one's mind. How can anyone avoid giving it at least a critical thought, as you demand?

Even if one runs away from one's breakfast, lunch, and dinner diet of Jewish suffering, say by watching some football for distraction, one is led back to it by the nose.

I'm not much of a football fan, but just recently my national team was exterminated out of the Euro Cup by the evil Nazis, and "Big Phil" Scolari, our Brazilian manager that I rather liked, is moving on to Chelsea. So I did a fast search on his predecessor there to see why the Avram guy had been sacked by the Abramovich guy, and that's how I discovered that Hitler had actually conducted a holocaust of Jews in Siberia, of all places...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 512323.ece

Quote: "Grant's father, Meir, 80, was born in Poland and deported to Siberia during the second world war. 'Most of my family was lost during the Holocaust,' Grant said when he visited Auschwitz with Israel's Under21 team last year. 'I can't understand how a man can come out of this hell on earth as an optimist. When my father was 15, he had to bury his parents, sisters and brothers with his own two hands.'"

His father was deported to Siberia but buried his family with his own two hands at Auschwitz?! Odd, to say the least. I mean, how can anyone help taking a further peek at the "Holocaust" by looking up the Wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avram_Grant

Quote: "Grant's father, Meir Granat, was born in Mlawa, Poland and deported with his family by the Soviet secret police to Kolyma, Siberia during the Second World War. After [the] War was over he left postwar Poland, escaping postwar anti-Jewish pogroms in Poland. His mother, Aliza Nisan, is an Iraqi Jewish immigrant who met Meir in Petach Tikvah. Most of his father's family were murdered during the Holocaust and died in Kolyma."

So there. Avram's father was deported to the Kolyma, his mother probably ran away from the Israeli anti-Jewish terror campaign in Iraq, and that's why he goes to Auschwitz where his father presumably buried his family with his own hands after dragging the bodies all the way from the Russian Far East.

How can anyone escape from this?

[KostasL]

Yet, another revealing article published.

Above article is not the most funny we have seen so far but is quite revealing.
Thank you for posting it.

[ASMarques]

And there we are. After all the protestations from the webmaster that the site believes in allowing free speech etc., all the speech suddenly vanished. It's now the only article with exactly 0 comments. What a surprise...

[steve]

ASMarques:

... It's now the only article with exactly 0 comments.

I noticed that this morning.

I read most of the replies yesterday. You (ASMarques) were quite impressive. Another fellow there, Bruns, handled himself quite well also.
How could anyone not see how well behaved and reasonable the revisionists are, especially when compared to the Hoaxers.

Gee, I wonder if that is why all the comments disappeared!

[Hannover]

More on this.

Once again Buchanan states in another article below what others already know; that the Germans were not the first to attack civilian targets but merely responded after pleading for the British to cease, that the so called 'Allies' were the major war criminals.

But there's more weasel writing from Buchanan, excerpts:

Late 1940 was a full year before the mass deportations from the Polish ghettos to Treblinka and Sobibor began. Churchill had ordered the indiscriminate bombing of German cities and civilians before the Nazis had begun to execute the Final Solution.

While Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were surely guilty of waging aggressive war in September 1939, Stalin and his comrades had joined the Nazis in the rape of Poland, and had raped Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, as well. Scores of thousands of civilians in the three Baltic countries were murdered.

"Deportations", but rightfully no mention of the absurdly alleged 'gassings'. No mention of the fact that the alleged mass graves at these camps cannot be shown. Nothing in the way of support for the falsely alleged plan that claims the Germans wanted to externinate every Jew they could their hands on.

Notice how Buchanan gives no definition for 'The Final Solution'*. That actual phrase is used in real German documents that state exactly what happened, deportation of Jews to the fringes of Europe.

"Aggressive war"? I suppose fighting back can be called "aggressive".

Buchanan continues to give no definition of the 'holocaust'. Why?

* For more on 'The Final Solution' canard, see:

'Occam's Razor / 'Code Words' when no evidence exists'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=347
'Grubach debunks Jeffrey Herf and the 'Final Solution' canard'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4685

Read on.

- Hannover

Morality – Trotskyite vs. Christian
http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan88.html
by Patrick J. Buchanan

Did Hitler's crimes justify the Allies' terror-bombing of Germany?

Indeed they did, answers Christopher Hitchens in his Newsweek response to my new book, "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War": "The stark evidence of the Final Solution has ever since been enough to dispel most doubts about, say, the wisdom or morality of carpet-bombing German cities."

Atheist, Trotskyite and newborn neocon, Hitchens embraces the morality of lex talionis: an eye for an eye. If Germans murdered women and children, the British were morally justified in killing German women and children.

According to British historians, however, Churchill ordered the initial bombing of German cities on his first day in office, the very first day of the Battle of France, on May 10, 1940.

After the fall of France, Churchill wrote Lord Beaverbrook, minister of air production: "When I look round to see how we can win the war, I see that there is only one sure path ... an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland."

"Exterminating attack," said Churchill. By late 1940, writes historian Paul Johnson, "British bombers were being used on a great and increasing scale to kill and frighten the German civilian population in their homes."

"The adoption of terror bombing was a measure of Britain's desperation," writes Johnson. "So far as air strategy was concerned," adds British historian A.J.P. Taylor, "the British outdid German frightfulness first in theory, later in practice, and a nation which claimed to be fighting for a moral cause gloried in the extent of its immoral acts."

The chronology is crucial to Hitchens' case.

Late 1940 was a full year before the mass deportations from the Polish ghettos to Treblinka and Sobibor began. Churchill had ordered the indiscriminate bombing of German cities and civilians before the Nazis had begun to execute the Final Solution.

By Hitchens' morality and logic, Germans at Nuremberg might have asserted a right to kill women and children because that is what the British were doing to their women and children.

After the fire-bombing of Dresden in 1945, Churchill memoed his air chiefs: "It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed."

Churchill concedes here what the British had been about in Dresden.

Under Christian and just-war theory, the deliberate killing of civilians in wartime is forbidden. Nazis were hanged for such war crimes.

Did the Allies commit acts of war for which we hanged Germans?

When we recall that Josef Stalin's judges sat beside American and British judges at Nuremberg, and one of the prosecutors there was Andrei Vishinsky, chief prosecutor in Stalin's show trails, the answer has to be yes.

While Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were surely guilty of waging aggressive war in September 1939, Stalin and his comrades had joined the Nazis in the rape of Poland, and had raped Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, as well. Scores of thousands of civilians in the three Baltic countries were murdered.

Yet, at Nuremberg, Soviets sat in judgment of their Nazi accomplices, and had the temerity to accuse the Nazis of the Katyn Forest massacre of the Polish officer corps that the Soviets themselves had committed.

Americans fought alongside British soldiers in a just and moral war from 1941 to 1945. But we had as allies a Bolshevik monster whose hands dripped with the blood of millions of innocents murdered in peacetime. And to have Stalin's judges sit beside Americans at Nuremberg gave those trials an aspect of hypocrisy that can never be erased.

At Nuremberg, Adm. Erich Raeder was sentenced to prison for life for the invasion of neutral Norway. Yet Raeder's ships arrived 24 hours before British ships and marines of an operation championed by Winston Churchill.

The British had planned to violate Norwegian neutrality first and seize Norwegian ports to deny Germany access to the Swedish iron ore being transshipped through them. For succeeding where Churchill failed, Raeder was condemned as a war criminal and sent to prison.

The London Charter of the International Military Tribunal decided that at Nuremberg only the crimes of Axis powers would be prosecuted and that among those crimes would be a newly invented "crimes against humanity." This decree was issued Aug. 8, 1945, 48 hours after we dropped the first atom bomb on Hiroshima and 24 hours before we dropped the second on Nagasaki.

We and the British judiciously decided not to prosecute the Nazis for the bombing of London and Coventry.

It was an understandable decision, and one that surely Gen. Curtis LeMay concurred in, as LeMay had boasted at war's end, "We scorched and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo that night of March 9–10 than went up in vapor in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined."

After the war, a lone Senate voice arose to decry what was taking place at Nuremberg as "victor's justice." Ten years later, a young colleague would declare the late Robert A. Taft "A Profile in Courage" for having spoken up against ex post facto justice. The young senator was John F. Kennedy.

June 25, 2008

Patrick J. Buchanan [send him mail] is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of seven books, including Where the Right Went Wrong, and A Republic Not An Empire. His latest book is Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War.

[Mannstein]

Pat Buchanan forgot to mention that Stalin also invaded Moldova which at the time was part of Romania.

It's a red herring for Hitchens to claim that carpet bombing of German cities was justified because of the holocaust. Churchill knew nothing about any holocaust when he set out his bombing policy. He could not have used this as an excuse. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the intercepts from Bletchley Park that came across Churchill's desk on a daily basis. This decoded radio traffic contained messages between Auschwitz and Berlin in near real time. Also had the Allies suspected an extermination program they might not have demanded unconditional surrender and publicised the Morgenthau Plan when they did. Both extended the war for at least a year.

I could be wrong but in his memoirs Churchill did not make a link between the bombing and the holocaust.

My sense is Buchanan played up the holocaust in his book for fear of the Jews.

[Breker]

Mr. Mannstein stated:

It's a red herring for Hitchens to claim that carpet bombing of German cities was justified because of the holocaust.
I could be wrong but in his memoirs Churchill did not make a link between the bombing and the holocaust.

Mr. Hitchens has never been known for his honesty, he is an ardent Supremacist Zionist, his allegiance to that monstrosity means living a lie. I believe that Winston Churchill did not so much as mention "The Holocaust" in his lengthy memoirs. But then neither did Eisenhower or DeGaulle. It's really quite interesting how easily "The Holocaust" misinformation crumbles when it is examined.
Breker