76 years after the infamous D-Day, do the western allies WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side?

[borjastick]

borjastick said:

Meanwhile in the real world I'll take that as an offensive comment. I am British and despite being a revisionist concerning the holocaust I fully understand that Hitler was the aggressor evidenced by the simple fact that he invaded, Poland, France, Belgium, Holland etc etc blah blah blah. There was only one country that took up arms against Hitler and fought the fight against him and his aggression from start to finish, and that was Great Britain. The war was correct though regrettable and we were right to take a stand.

Were off topic, but that's simply not true,

That surprises me given the real facts that are available here:
WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum at: viewforum.php?f=20
such as:
'Responsibility for WW2' viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7544
Why Germany Invaded Poland', by John Wear / 'peaceful Poland' debunked: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12331
Polish Atrocities against Germans before 1. September 1939: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7525
How Britain & Roosevelt conspired to get America into WW2: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=13252

briefly:
- Britain & France did not declare war on the communist USSR which invaded from the east and took 60% of Poland.
- The aggressive Soviets violated numerous treaties with neighboring countries, yet Britain did nothing.
- Before the German attack on war mongering Poland, Poland threatened force against Lithuania with an ultimatum..
- Poland invaded and annexed parts of Czechoslovakia, held large parts of German territory, was engaged in atrocities against German civilians. Yet the ‘Allies’ did nothing.
- The “neutral” US had been attacking German U-boats & shipping, while supplying both Britain & the USSR long before Germany’s declaration of war on the US.
- Brits invaded & were mining Norway at Narvik before Germany arrived & stopped it.
- British invaded Iceland and Iran
- Norway, who claimed neutrality, in fact aided & abetted Britain by not mobilizing it's armed forces against British mining of their ports & sea lanes.
- "Neutral" Belgium actually aided & abetted France & Britain by allowing France to position 2 million if it's soldiers in Belgium, and also allowed the British to add another half million troops within Belgium.
- France and England were also allowed to use Belgian and Dutch airspace with impunity for their military aircraft.
- It is important to remember that France had already invaded Germany, the Saar in 1939, and that throughout this entire period Hitler was begging Churchill to negotiate a return to the status quo.

Regards, Hannover

Be unhappy then it doesn't alter the fact that we stupidly entered a pact with Poland and honoured it. Your argument is like someone bitching about being slapped in the face and then returning with a machine gun and fifty mates with baseball bats to knock the shit out of the slapper. Germany was very aggressive and no little incursion here and there causing mild offence justified his full scale invasions around Europe.

[attenuate]

In regard to Germany invading Poland, I've always thought the autonomous city state of Danzig was the crux of the matter. Here's an answer I found to the question of why Hitler decided to attack Poland. It's worth reproducing in full and It satisfies me completely that Germany was antagonized into invading Poland and was then drawn into a war which Hitler never wanted with Great Britain. Great Britain as usual, was the aggressor and the intention was to smash a resurgent Germany, enjoying an economic miracle, once and for all.

'What Hitler wanted was the German city of Danzig, essentially foregoing claims on the German regions of Silesia and Prussia. To underline how magnanimous this offer was, we should remember that these were popular demands in Germany, and if a politician less popular than Hitler was to concede these regions it would surely spell political suicide.

Initially Poland were willing to negotiate on these terms. They would retain their economic interests in the city and enter a military alliance with Germany.

That is until the Brits backed by Roosevelt offered them a, seemingly, better deal. This deal entailed antagonizing Germany to war, giving the West cassus belli to use force against her, and once defeated Poland would gain hegemony in that part of Europe. All they had to do was hold off the German attack until France and Britain could attack the rear.

But first they had to trigger a war. This they did by provocation. All German attempts at diplomacy were briskly refused and the Polish press began a severe anti German campaign in the country, inciting the populace to violence against the German minority. Incursions were made on the border, and finally full mobilization was ordered (an act of war in international law).

Hitler then did the only thing he could to defend German honor, use force.'

[attenuate]

Meanwhile in the real world I'll take that as an offensive comment. I am British

For what it is worth, I also am British, English to be precise and Britain can be quite a violent country. Most British people are willfully ignorant of the fact Hitler didn't want a war with this country and was loathe to bomb British civilian targets. If you try to point this out to the average British person and tell them the Allies' themselves were responsible for the genocide of German civilians through indiscriminate area bombing, they tend to become aggressive. I've personally and perhaps unwisely told people I would have been a conscientious objector during both World Wars, especially the Second World War and have been threatened with barely-constrained violence.

[sfivdf21]

Simple:

These veterans have been conditioned to believe they fought 'The Good War'.
They receive public praise, glorification, and taxpayer resources which reinforces the propaganda they were fed.
They love the attention.

For too many, being part of WWII is their defining moment in life, it's their 'fifteen minutes of fame' from which they unfortunately derive much of their self esteem and desire to be special.

Obviously, it provides a support system for the fake & impossible 'holocaust' mythology, and it provides further justification for even more wars.

- Hannover

"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”
- George Orwell

I understand that many of these Western Allied soldiers (American, British, French, Canadian, Australian, etc.) went to war to fight for their countries (as did the soldiers of the Axis powers) and that at that time they were deceived by the anti-German belicist propaganda of Churchill and Roosevelt who said that they had to fight a "necessary" war because supposedly Adolf Hitler and the German people "wanted to conquer the whole world" and "threatened the freedom of their nations", but 75 years later and with all the historical evidence that has come to light (despite the brutal Jewish censorship and persecution against the Revisionists) Have they not yet realized that they were deceived and used by the international Jewry and its vassal politicians like Churchill or Roosevelt to wage an unnecessary annihilation war against Germany and almost half World so that the Jews could finally carry out their world dominance political agenda? Have they not yet realized that everything his evil and corrupt political leaders were led to believe them that they fought for (supposedly to bringing "freedom" to the whole world and ending the oppression, injustice, and war) was not only not fulfilled, but has the totally opposite happened? Have the Allied WW2 Veterans still not realized that they fought on the wrong side when they look at the hell that the whole Western World has become since 1945 (including his own countries, theoretically victors) and the terrible future that future generations have thanks to his victory in 1945?
I understand that when they were young they were brainwashed with anti-German propaganda, but obviously at that time they could not see what would happen decades later and what the world would become after the victory on the side they fought, but many decades later when it's evident that they fought on the wrong side and that they fought for something that turned out to be false (supposedly they had fought for the "freedom" of the world and for their countries, what "freedom" has there been and is there in the world and in their countries since 1945?) Do they still believe that they were "the greatest generation" and that they brought "freedom"? I am not American, but I know that right now with all the controversy and media manipulation of the George Floyd case the BLM movement and the antifascist activists (precisely they fought against fascism in the Second World War, that was exactly what their political leaders said to them) have been vandalizing and destroying monuments in honor of the American soldiers of World War II, and this happens with the approval of the politicians of the political parties to which Roosevelt and Eisenhower belonged (I wonder what the WW2 allied veterans would think about it, when the monsters for they fought are now spitting into their memory, and yet they still do not see that they were deceived and did not fight for the freedom of their nations but for a diabolical Jewish political agenda of world domination?). Something similar is happening in Britain when those same antifascist activists have destroyed a statue of the mass murder and war criminal Winston Churchill (I was very glad when I found out that a Churchill statue was destroyed, perhaps its true that the karma exists).
In conclussion, if the most allied WW2 veterans have a some decency and morality, I think that it's evident that at this point they regret what they did 76 years ago, if it's really true that most of them continue to believe that they were "heroes", then they are evil and they really want the destruction of their own countries.

[sfivdf21]

Depends how much their ideas changed. During this time period it would not be incorrect to call America (and perhaps Britain and France) as "White supremacist" or "anti-semitic". Some info on that here:

Were Americans more anti-Semitic than anti-German during WWII?
viewtopic.php?t=12464

Mostly they wouldn't be alive anymore. Most people alive today in these countries went through a psychological warfare / brainwashing campaign directed at them by the USSR. It is described more here:

The Ideological shift in the USA (and West) after WWII and why it happened + Yuri Bezmenov
viewtopic.php?t=13209

Thanks for the information, I will read it.
I agree with you in that from the point of view of today's society the United States and Great Britain of the 1940s would be called "racist and white supremacist countries". In this moments in the United States the anti-white and black supremacist movement of the BLM and the Soros-financed far-left antifascist rioters are destroying many memorials of the American soldiers who fought in World War II, in England even those same BLM and leftist activists have destroyed a statue of the mass murder and war criminal Winston Churchill (at least it will be true that karma exists, 75 years later they are being destroyed by the own monsters that they created). But I do not agree that Britain and the United States of the 1940s can be described as "antisemitic", in fact if they decided to wage a merciless anihilation war against Germany it was because they were ruled by the international Jewry and they were ruled by politicians who were puppets of the Jews. If Britain in the 1930s and 1940s had been ruled by "antisemites", the King Edward VIII (who was pro-German and sympathetic to Adolf Hitler) would not have been forced to abdicate and the British Union of Fascists would not have been outlawed in 1940 (and their leader sir Oswald Mosley jailed) for opposing the war against Germany and wanting peace and friendship with them.
If the United States had been ruled by antisemites in the 1940's, then the Jews would not have control of the Federal Reserve System, and Charles Lindbergh would not have been forced to resign from office wenn he had openly declared his support to Adolf Hitler, a supporter of the point of view that the United States must not entering in the WW2 and for daring to point out that it was the Jews who dragged America into the war and that they were the ones behind the Roosevelt's evil plans.

[sfivdf21]

Simple:

These veterans have been conditioned to believe they fought 'The Good War'.
They receive public praise, glorification, and taxpayer resources which reinforces the propaganda they were fed.
They love the attention.

For too many, being part of WWII is their defining moment in life, it's their 'fifteen minutes of fame' from which they unfortunately derive much of their self esteem and desire to be special.

Obviously, it provides a support system for the fake & impossible 'holocaust' mythology, and it provides further justification for even more wars.

- Hannover

"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”
- George Orwell

I assume you are talking only of US soldiers here Hannover.

What do you mean by this question? So does it mean that many British WW2 veterans are sorry that they fought for Churchill and company and realized that they were terribly deceived?

[Lamprecht]

But I do not agree that Britain and the United States of the 1940s can be described as "antisemitic", in fact if they decided to wage a merciless anihilation war against Germany it was because they were ruled by the international Jewry and they were ruled by politicians who were puppets of the Jews. If Britain in the 1930s and 1940s had been ruled by "antisemites", the King Edward VIII (who was pro-German and sympathetic to Adolf Hitler) would not have been forced to abdicate and the British Union of Fascists would not have been outlawed in 1940 (and their leader sir Oswald Mosley jailed) for opposing the war against Germany and wanting peace and friendship with them.
If the United States had been ruled by antisemites in the 1940's, then the Jews would not have control of the Federal Reserve System, and Charles Lindbergh would not have been forced to resign from office wenn he had openly declared his support to Adolf Hitler, a supporter of the point of view that the United States must not entering in the WW2 and for daring to point out that it was the Jews who dragged America into the war and that they were the ones behind the Roosevelt's evil plans.

I compiled some information on this here for the USA:

Were Americans more anti-Semitic than anti-German during WWII?
viewtopic.php?t=12464

At the beginning of that thread a source is cited that says:
"And American citizens, asked to name the greatest threat to the United States in a series of polls taken by the Opinion Research Corporation between 1939 and 1946, consistently chose “the Jews” over the Japanese or the Germans, with fear peaking in June of 1944, just as the Jewish population of Europe was close to fully exterminated."

Ignoring the claim that Jews were being exterminated for a moment (which is irrelevant to the point) it is undeniable that American public opinion would be labelled "anti-Semitic" by modern standards if these figures are correct. There were also immigration laws passed to keep Jews from emigrating to the country. Henry Ford published "The International Jew" and circulated the text on a large scale.

Jews were blamed for Bolshevism in multiple US government reports and by influential personalities beyond Henry Ford. Harvard introduced a quota for Jews in the 1920s, the same decade that multiple immigration laws were passed to stop the flood of Jewish immigrants from Europe. Other American universities passed similar rules with "numerus clausus" statutes.

World War II was not marketed to the American people as "We need to liberate the Jews from Hitler" that was an idea that was pushed after the fact. Just like in WW1, our president (FDR) was elected on an anti-war platform but once he got into office he began plotting and scheming to get the country into the war. After being bombed at Pearl Harbor American public opinion reversed overnight. The fact that the attack was predicted and our leaders let it happen was not known and most continue to remain oblivious to it. FDR was also accused of being overly friendly with Jews and his "New Deal" was called the "Jew Deal" by enough people for Jews to fuss about it;


Today we mostly just hear about how FDR is "anti-semitic" because he didn't take enough Jewish refugees and turned away the SS St. Louis; allowing so many Jews to flood into the country may have turned American public opinion even more strongly against them. Pearl Harbor was so significant in shifting public opinion that the neo-con PNAC think tank stated the need for a "new Pearl Harbor" to get what they wanted in regards to foreign policy. Eventually they got that on September 11, 2001: viewtopic.php?t=12203

Father Charles Coughlin had an estimated 30 million or so radio listeners in the 1930s and was overtly "anti-semitic" in his statements. FDR cancelled Coughlin's radio program after WWII broke out in Europe and banned his newspaper from circulation. A 1938 survey found 60% of Americans had a low opinion of Jews: https://books.google.com/books?id=jj2x- ... 22&f=false

Also:
"Although the overwhelming majority of US citizens were opposed to attacks on Jews such as occurred on Kristallnacht, in a Roper poll in the United States, only thirty-nine percent of the respondents agreed that Jews should be treated like everyone else. Fifty-three percent believed that 'Jews are different and should be restricted.' And ten percent believed that Jews should be deported." http://archive.vn/s1dld

There is a lot of information on this if you really look for it. I wonder how American public opinion would have been different if General Patton did not die in Europe and came back to the USA to spread his "anti-semitic" ideas. He was seen as a national hero and wanted to get into politics. The "Holocaust" story most likely played a massive role in shifting American public opinion into being against what they believed was "anti-Semitism."

[sfivdf21]

My Dad fought in WWII, is still alive (97 years old) dropped bombs as a copilot of a B17 over Germany, in 1944 but most missions in 1945. His memory is not great in many areas, but shocked me with his memory, when he told me his first cousin who died by being shot down in a B29 between Japan and Saipan during WWII, was "a navigator." --I had just read on findagrave.com that his cousin was a navigator.

He wasn't one to talk about the war too much, but a little, and never joined a vet organization, it wasn't too much a part of his identity, but it became more of his identity, in a self-righteous congratulatory way in his 80's and 90's. And a local newspaper even did a story on him. I think around 90 years old he said once,twice, or three times "if we hadn't won the war....we'd all be speaking German right now." He thought the USA would have had the English language supplanted with German. That sums up how he thought of the whole thing, or how his generation thought of the whole thing.

His viewpoint, attitude, I came to see, was largely based on the Eisenhower Psych Warfare operation against our own troops centering on Buchenwald and Ohrdruff, and then mixed with the Belsen photos. To the point that at around 93 years old he actually told me he saw the camps, which he didn't.

And I think as he got older, and had watched a lot of t.v daily, he sort of thought that as a WWII vet he helped "save the Jews."

When I told him about my videos it didn't go over well. He thought it was terrible, but I think he's sort of forgot about that. I didn't tell him till he was in his early 90's because I thought he might dox me.

Hello Carto's Cutlass Supreme, thanks for you information. That means that your father, despite all the irrefutable historical evidence that has come to light that shows that the "Holocaust" is a grotesque and evil lie and that Adolf Hitler and the German people wanted peace and that they didn't start the war and having witnessed in person the innumerable atrocities that the Allied troops committed (you say that he piloted a B17 and participated in the terrorist bombings of Germany) and to be able to see in the following decades (from the 1950s to the current days) that everything that their rulers made them to believe for what they fought was not for what they really fought. They were told that they fought for "freedom", I ask myself, what kind of "freedom"? The "freedom" that the entire western world (including of course their own countries) come under Jewish tyranny and lose their freedom and national sovereignty?
That next generations were brainwashed into cultural Marxist thought (which they certainly despise now despite the fact that they defeated the "evil Nazis", as seen with the violence of the BLM movement and the leftist antifascist activists who are vandalizing many memorials dedicated to the Americans soldiers who fought in the WW2) to strip them of all morality and to make them a manipulable society and easy to oppress and plunder? We all know that the German people, being a defeated country in 1945, has since lost their freedom and national sovereignty and has come under the tyranny of the victors. But what kind of freedom has there been and is there in the United States, Great Britain and France since 1945? Let's see:

- Although it's true that after the Second World War the United States consolidated itself as a military and economic superpower, the same cannot be said in a social level. The United States since 1945 has been in a constant decline (and it has become very evident especially since the 1960s), the country has been constantly involved in wars (it is assumed that after the Allied victory there would be no more wars) that have caused quite a few economic crises, the Jews and his vassal politicians imposed in the United States and Europe a cultural Marxist educational system, where the next generations have been brainwashed to reject what is good, beautiful, healthy and natural and to love what is bad, nasty, sickly and unnatural. In many parts of the United States the illiteracy, unemployment and crime rate has always been very high since then, the Jews finally consolidating their absolute hegemony in all spheres of political and financial power in America (although it is true that they were in control of the United States at least since the end of the 19th century), all these so-called "integration policies", "anti-hate speech laws" and "civil rights movements" adding to the criminalization and defamation of White people and the extreme victimization of Black people that have caused enormous tensions and racial conflicts that have reached the point of what we are seeing these days (if it has not solved in time will inevitably trigger a racial war in the United States between Black and White people, which is exactly what the Jews want to happen).

- Britain in theory "won" the World War II, but the facts have shown otherwise. After their "victory" in 1945, the British lost their entire colonial empire, they were relegated to being a second-order power, they lost so much of their influence and relevance in international relations, and they have since the second half of the 20th century suffered a brutal demographic replacement, to the point where today in London and other parts of England the English people are a minority (London currently has a Pakistani mayor, that means that someone who is not Brit rules Britain's capital) and their country has become a multicultural and multiracial place where the chaos reigns and the murders, rapes, robberies and terrorist attacks are the order of the day (the Muslim mayor of London Sadiq Khan said that terrorist attacks "are part of daily life in big cities"), this is the British "new normality", and all of this it's thanks to Winston Churchill and his stubborn warmongering and hate against Adolf Hitler and the German people.

- Since 1945 France has a stormy history, in the immediate postwar period many French people were murdered, tortured and jailed for having sympathized and colaborated with the Germans (there were more French people who fought for the Vichy France and as foreign volunteers in the Waffen-SS than for the "Free" France and the terrorist "French" resistance). For example, there were many cases of French women assassinated by the "French" resistance (the majority of the members of the resistance were Communist Jews) for falling in love with German soldiers. And just like England, France gradually lost all its colonies and then underwent a brutal demographic change, to the point where we are today where the French have become a minority in Paris, in their own capital and there are a tremendous insecurity given to the high crime rate and terrorist attacks of the non-White immigrants (many of them are from countries like Algeria, Senegal, Guinea or Morocco that hate France and they are very resentful of the French people for their colonialism, that further increases the racial and demographic tension that exists in the current France).

So with all this current panorama in the United States and the all Western Europe, does he still think that he did the right thing and does he still believe all the propaganda ("we are the good guys", "we fight for freedom of the mankind", "we fight for the future of our nation" and so on) that Roosevelt, Churchill, Weizmann, Morgenthau, Delmer, Eden and so on instilled in him when he was young?

If the most American and British ww2 veterans really think like your father then the British historian David Irving was wrong when he said that if all the dead Allied soldiers could see their countries today, they would have dropped their weapons and fought alongside the Germans.
Then he also told you that he saw the German concentration camps but that he lied to you and actually he didn't saw the KZs. So when did he tell you that he lied to you and why did he lie to you? And when he lied to you saying that he "saved Jews" and saw the German concentration camps, what kind of images that he "did see" had told you?

[sfivdf21]

But I do not agree that Britain and the United States of the 1940s can be described as "antisemitic", in fact if they decided to wage a merciless anihilation war against Germany it was because they were ruled by the international Jewry and they were ruled by politicians who were puppets of the Jews. If Britain in the 1930s and 1940s had been ruled by "antisemites", the King Edward VIII (who was pro-German and sympathetic to Adolf Hitler) would not have been forced to abdicate and the British Union of Fascists would not have been outlawed in 1940 (and their leader sir Oswald Mosley jailed) for opposing the war against Germany and wanting peace and friendship with them.
If the United States had been ruled by antisemites in the 1940's, then the Jews would not have control of the Federal Reserve System, and Charles Lindbergh would not have been forced to resign from office wenn he had openly declared his support to Adolf Hitler, a supporter of the point of view that the United States must not entering in the WW2 and for daring to point out that it was the Jews who dragged America into the war and that they were the ones behind the Roosevelt's evil plans.

I compiled some information on this here for the USA:

Were Americans more anti-Semitic than anti-German during WWII?
viewtopic.php?t=12464

At the beginning of that thread a source is cited that says:
"And American citizens, asked to name the greatest threat to the United States in a series of polls taken by the Opinion Research Corporation between 1939 and 1946, consistently chose “the Jews” over the Japanese or the Germans, with fear peaking in June of 1944, just as the Jewish population of Europe was close to fully exterminated."

Ignoring the claim that Jews were being exterminated for a moment (which is irrelevant to the point) it is undeniable that American public opinion would be labelled "anti-Semitic" by modern standards if these figures are correct. There were also immigration laws passed to keep Jews from emigrating to the country. Henry Ford published "The International Jew" and circulated the text on a large scale.

Jews were blamed for Bolshevism in multiple US government reports and by influential personalities beyond Henry Ford. Harvard introduced a quota for Jews in the 1920s, the same decade that multiple immigration laws were passed to stop the flood of Jewish immigrants from Europe. Other American universities passed similar rules with "numerus clausus" statutes.

World War II was not marketed to the American people as "We need to liberate the Jews from Hitler" that was an idea that was pushed after the fact. Just like in WW1, our president (FDR) was elected on an anti-war platform but once he got into office he began plotting and scheming to get the country into the war. After being bombed at Pearl Harbor American public opinion reversed overnight. The fact that the attack was predicted and our leaders let it happen was not known and most continue to remain oblivious to it. FDR was also accused of being overly friendly with Jews and his "New Deal" was called the "Jew Deal" by enough people for Jews to fuss about it;


Today we mostly just hear about how FDR is "anti-semitic" because he didn't take enough Jewish refugees and turned away the SS St. Louis; allowing so many Jews to flood into the country may have turned American public opinion even more strongly against them. Pearl Harbor was so significant in shifting public opinion that the neo-con PNAC think tank stated the need for a "new Pearl Harbor" to get what they wanted in regards to foreign policy. Eventually they got that on September 11, 2001: viewtopic.php?t=12203

Father Charles Coughlin had an estimated 30 million or so radio listeners in the 1930s and was overtly "anti-semitic" in his statements. FDR cancelled Coughlin's radio program after WWII broke out in Europe and banned his newspaper from circulation. A 1938 survey found 60% of Americans had a low opinion of Jews: https://books.google.com/books?id=jj2x- ... 22&f=false

Also:
"Although the overwhelming majority of US citizens were opposed to attacks on Jews such as occurred on Kristallnacht, in a Roper poll in the United States, only thirty-nine percent of the respondents agreed that Jews should be treated like everyone else. Fifty-three percent believed that 'Jews are different and should be restricted.' And ten percent believed that Jews should be deported." http://archive.vn/s1dld

There is a lot of information on this if you really look for it. I wonder how American public opinion would have been different if General Patton did not die in Europe and came back to the USA to spread his "anti-semitic" ideas. He was seen as a national hero and wanted to get into politics. The "Holocaust" story most likely played a massive role in shifting American public opinion into being against what they believed was "anti-Semitism."

Hello Lamprecht, thanks again for your information. When I meant with that the United States was not an antisemit country in the 1930s and 1940s, I meant its rulers, not the American people as a whole. I know Henry Ford and his brave work in opposing the international Jewry (the Jews have always been very powerful in the United States and in the 1920s they were already the undisputed rulers of that country). And there is no doubt that many Americans at that time were antisemitic (and with good reason). Since I see that you are an American and you know the history of your country very well, I would like to ask you the following questions about some doubts I have about the attitude of the American society in the WW2:
- If the most Americans were antisemitic, why did they vote for Franklin D. Roosevelt (a president who, as Charles Lindbergh said, served the Jewish interests and was surrounded by Jewish advisers)?
- If the most Americans were antisemitic, why didn't they support Adolf Hitler in his heroic crusade against the Judeo-Bolshevik tyranny (I remember hearing a speech by the Führer in which he says that he has nothing against the United States of America and he knew that the lies of the Jewish owned American press and media did not represent the views of millions of American citizens, it's also well known that Hitler not only wanted peace but also made several public proposals to the United States, Great Britain and France to ally with Germany to fight together the communist threat of the East)?
- The famous Jewish campaign to boycott all German Goods in 1933 was originated in the United States and had much popular support there, if most Americans were antisemitic why they supported it?
- If most Americans were antisemitic, why didn't they try to overthrow Roosevelt when he declared war on Germany and why millions of them decided to join in an army that clearly served Jewish interests?
- If most Americans were antisemitic, why were not divisions of American volunteers organized in the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS (it would not be unreasonable to think that, in some countries with anti-German governments such as France, Belgium or Holland there were so many Volunteers from these countries in the Waffen-SS, for example in World War II there were more French people who fought for the Vichy France and served as Waffen-SS volunteers than the French people who fought for the "Free" France and the Resistance against the German occupation)?
I agree with you, there is no doubt that if General George S. Patton had not died shortly after the end of the war and have presented himself as a candidate for the US presidency the history (and therefore the American public opinion about the Jews, Adolf Hitler , Germany and the role that the United States had in the Second World War) would have been radically different from the one that exists today. If Patton had been elected President of the United States (he had enough popularity to win the elections) Germany would have ceased to be an occupied country (and therefore would be a free country today) and it would have restored the Nationalsocialist regime (even after the war Patton always expressed that he wanted to have the German Nationalsocialists as allies of the United States in a possible war against the Soviet Union), the Jews would no longer be the rulers of the United States and Europe and it would took place a new crusade against international Jewry (this time led by Patton instead Hitler) that would count on the restored European Fascisms as allies of the United States. If Patton had not died in an "accident" (although the ideal would have been that Hitler had won the war), we would live in a much better world with fewer wars and social injustice and without Jewish supremacy and communism. George S. Patton was a hero who fought on the wrong side and against the wrong enemy (and realized it after the war).

[sfivdf21]

Hello everyone, today is the 76th anniversary of the D-Day, in this forum all of us know who were the real heroes and who were the real villains of the WW2. But do the most American, British, French, Canadian and so one WW2 veterans still think they fought on the right side and are proud of what they did 76 years ago? Or the most of them have realized that they were deceived to fought on the wrong side and against the wrong enemy (as the notorious American General George S. Patton already realized)?

Right and wrong in warfare is not easily answered. These soldiers were told that they were fighting against evil in order to save the world, when in fact they were fighting for a share of the booty, which was Europe. Let me explain:

By the time the western Allies landed in Normandy, the war had already been effectively lost for Hitler. The battles of Stalingrad and Kursk were decisive victories for Stalin. It was merely a matter of time until the red army would march into Berlin and Paris and .... Roosevelt and Churchill were well aware of this.

The landing in Normandy was designed to prevent the USSR from taking over Europe. Thus, the landing in Normandy is really the beginning of the "cold war", the rivalry between the USSR and the USA over dominance in Europa.

But how many people do you know that realize this?

These soldiers were pawns in a chess game called geopolitics.

Would they believe you if you explained it to them? Very few. The veterans would feel miserable if they knew the truth.

I don't agree. Firstly, the D-Day was not designed to "prevent" that the USSR conquer Europe, quite the contrary, it was designed so that the USSR would take over half of Europe and the other half would be left to them. The Soviets were not able to defeat the Germans without the Anglo-American help (despite having the overwhelming numerical superiority and having their entire army concentrated on the same front, in contrast to the Germans), in 1941 they had to call their American "enemies" to send them tons of weapons and supplies to avoid losing the war against Germany (and yet the Germans were almost defeat the Soviet Union) and were unable to expel the German troops from their territory until the Western Allies landed in Normandy and the western front was reopened (which it had been closed since the German victory against France and Great Britain in continental Europe in 1940), If the war between Germany and the Soviet Union/Hitler vs Stalin had been waged without Anglo-American massive aid in favor of the Communists, Germany would have defeated the red plague, that is the historical reality. If the Western Allies had really wanted to stop communism, they would have allied themselves with Germany (Hitler repeatedly offered to the United States, Great Britain and France to ally themselves to fight together the communist threat from the East, in fact the Führer hoped that if he won the Battle of the Bulge and managed to push back the Allies, they would have been forced to sign peace with Germany and even ally to fight the USSR). But they did not because Churchill and Roosevelt of "anti-communists" had nothing, they, like Stalin, were puppets of the Jews, and that's what World War II was really about, it was a merciless war waged between the countries of the free World against the countries of the World subjected to Jewish interests (and both the capitalism and imperialism of the United States and Great Britain and the Soviet communism are 100% Jewish products).
If I knew American and British WW2 veterans I would not have asked this question. I am neither American nor British nor Russian nor Japanese nor Italian nor German and nor from any other country that was involved in the war, I am Spaniard. The only person who was involved in the WW2 that I know (and I don't know him personally, what I know about him is what my grandfather tells me) is a cousin of my grandfather who enlisted in the División Azul/Blaue Division (Blue Division, Spanish volunteers in the German Wehrmacht) . Although Spain was neutral during the WW2 (because the country had just emerged from a bloody civil war) The spanish government of the Caudillo Francisco Franco supported Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini (Germany and Italy helped the Nationalist Spain to defeat communism in the Spanish Civil War, while the USSR supported the Bolshevist Spain) and had a pro-German/pro-Nationalsocialist views (the propaganda of the Francoist regime and the great majority of the Spanish newspapers maintained a entusiasthic position favorable to Nationalsocialist Germany and Fascist Italy), that is the reason why he allowed Spanish volunteers were enlisted into the German army to fight the evil Judeo-Bolshevism in the East, and my grandfather's cousin was one of these Spanish volunteers, he always described that both Spanish volunteers and Germans were very chivalrous, that they fought with a bravery and heroism and that they were often received as liberators by many Russian civilians. But the Spanish Blue Division served only in the Eastern Front, did not confront or have contact with the Western Allied soldiers. So he did not meet any of them.
Of course the Western Allied WW2 veterans would feel themselves miserable, because that is what they were: young people who were poisoned by the Jews with anti-German hate propaganda and many of them became a true war criminals and merciless murderers, Adolf Hitler andt he Germans were the true heroes of WW2 and the Jews, the Western Allies and the Soviets were the real criminals and villains of WW2, that is the historical reality. But although many allied soldiers were criminals, not all were, there were also soldiers who enlisted because they wanted to defend their country (obviously they were wrong and they were mobilized not to defend their countries but to defend the evil interests of international Jewry), This is why I say that if there are Western Allied WW2 veterans with some decency and morality, after seeing in the hell that has become the world since 1945 (including their own nations) after their victory, in this days they must be sorry to fight for those who fought and they must have realized that they fought the wrong enemy.
The notorious British historian David Irving said that if all the dead Allied soldiers could see their countries today, they would have dropped their weapons and fought alongside the Germans. Is David Irving wrong or he has right?

[Lamprecht]

Hello Lamprecht, thanks again for your information. When I meant with that the United States was not an antisemit country in the 1930s and 1940s, I meant its rulers, not the American people as a whole. I know Henry Ford and his brave work in opposing the international Jewry (the Jews have always been very powerful in the United States and in the 1920s they were already the undisputed rulers of that country). And there is no doubt that many Americans at that time were antisemitic (and with good reason).

Well the USA at the time did not have as many Jews in positions of power and influence as Germany did, seemingly. Also, Americans were at the top and were short-sighted and lacked vigilance. Some (such as Lindbergh, Ford, Coughlin, Patton, etc) saw what was happening and spoke out against it. Clearly it did not work.

Since I see that you are an American and you know the history of your country very well, I would like to ask you the following questions about some doubts I have about the attitude of the American society in the WW2:
- If the most Americans were antisemitic, why did they vote for Franklin D. Roosevelt (a president who, as Charles Lindbergh said, served the Jewish interests and was surrounded by Jewish advisers)?

FDR had economic policies that seemingly helped with the "Great Depression" that was going on at the time. FDR was not overturning immigration laws and allowing Jews to flood into the country by the millions, instead laws were being passed to stop European Jews from immigrating here. FDR was elected president (again) in 1940 on an anti-war platform but we see how that turned out. Like I said, the war was not marketed to Americans as "We need to do this to save the Jews" or anything like that.

- If the most Americans were antisemitic, why didn't they support Adolf Hitler in his heroic crusade against the Judeo-Bolshevik tyranny (I remember hearing a speech by the Führer in which he says that he has nothing against the United States of America and he knew that the lies of the Jewish owned American press and media did not represent the views of millions of American citizens, it's also well known that Hitler not only wanted peace but also made several public proposals to the United States, Great Britain and France to ally with Germany to fight together the communist threat of the East)?

Americans were not speaking German at the time and were not so worried about Hitler. Coughlin I mentioned previously reached 10s of millions of Americans every week with his broadcasts. These broadcasts were eventually banned and he was taken off the air!
Most importantly: the American public lacked vigilance. Americans did not want anything to do with the war until Pearl Harbor. Even before that American civilians were being sent in passenger liners to the UK despite warnings that these boats would be shot on sight.

- The famous Jewish campaign to boycott all German Goods in 1933 was originated in the United States and had much popular support there, if most Americans were antisemitic why they supported it?

How much did American gentiles actually support this?
This JPost article seems to imply mainly it was leftist/socialist groups and Jews that supported it prior to the war breaking out:

Who boycotted the Nazis and who didn’t?
http://archive.vn/ebGX0

It says there was opposition to the boycott from both sides of the political spectrum. It does say that "Gallup polls found most Americans in sympathy with the boycott" - why would that be? Perhaps how it was marketed. For example, here is a 1934 JTA article which claims that the "Hitlerites" were boycotting American Jews:

U.S. Hitlerites Push Boycott of American Jews
http://archive.vn/3h6vZ

Actually that was an article about pro-Hitler Americans, but I can see how Americans could have majority opposed it in a poll where the question stipulated that the boycott applied to Americans of Jewish ancestry as well.

- If most Americans were antisemitic, why didn't they try to overthrow Roosevelt when he declared war on Germany and why millions of them decided to join in an army that clearly served Jewish interests?

Americans were too shocked by Pearl Harbor. One could ask "If Americans like the constitution and bill of rights, why did they allow laws to be passed after 9/11 that violated their constitutional rights?"
Well, people get angry and want blood after a terrorist attack happens.
The Spanish–American War of 1898 began largely in response to an explosion of an American ship which was blamed on Spain, although later reports have concluded that the ship blew up on its own. Does that matter? No, not really. Americans were told that Spain blew it up (why?) and they wanted revenge. Correct them and they don't want to hear it.

I think most were just ignorant of what was really going on. The US was not really even neutral when Hitler "Declared war" on the USA, which was really just a recognition that a state of war already existed (whether the American public was privy to it or not) and that a formal declaration was now necessary since it was unavoidable anyway.

- If most Americans were antisemitic, why were not divisions of American volunteers organized in the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS (it would not be unreasonable to think that, in some countries with anti-German governments such as France, Belgium or Holland there were so many Volunteers from these countries in the Waffen-SS, for example in World War II there were more French people who fought for the Vichy France and served as Waffen-SS volunteers than the French people who fought for the "Free" France and the Resistance against the German occupation)?

It makes sense that these countries in Europe would have more volunteers because they were at a bigger risk in regards to the USSR invading them and also had a longer history of anti-Jewish movements in their countries. America did not have that at all since it was a brand new country with no prior history of Jews. The closest thing we have to a Jewish expulsion is Grant's "General Order No. 11" during the Civil War; it was temporary and the disastrous nature of the war itself probably overshadowed most from knowing about it, and it is not really taught.

Also, unlike these smaller European countries, the USSR was not seen as a military threat to the USA. USSR never really was much of a military threat until Jewish communists stole the US nuclear weapons research and gave it to the USSR so they could develop their own atomic weapons. Even after, the USSR decided to use psychological warfare / ideological subversion instead of any sort of direct military confrontation with the USA.

Americans of German descent, like German-Canadian Bruno Friesen, would have probably joined the Wehrmacht. If they did join the German army they would have either had to keep it hushed up and never return or quietly switch sides whenever Hitler declared war on the USA. I don't think we would be hearing about it much.

It is easy to look at these developments in hindsight but we are talking about a population that was mostly ignorant of what was going on in the world, did not have internet and therefore were dependent on newspapers mostly to figure out what was happening. And in the USA it was perfectly legal to have segregation and to discriminate based on race or ethnicity. So, if someone wanted "No Jews" they could just say that, and examples were given of US immigration policies and US universities greatly limiting the number of Jews allowed in.
For the most part the American public was isolationist, that is why Pearl Harbor was so pivotal. FDR clearly was not isolationist (for whatever reason) even though he pretended to be in order to get reelected.

Suggested thread (I plan to reply to it with more content soonish):

The Ideological shift in the USA (and West) after WWII and why it happened + Yuri Bezmenov
viewtopic.php?t=13209

I agree with you, there is no doubt that if General George S. Patton had not died shortly after the end of the war and have presented himself as a candidate for the US presidency the history (and therefore the American public opinion about the Jews, Adolf Hitler , Germany and the role that the United States had in the Second World War) would have been radically different from the one that exists today. If Patton had been elected President of the United States (he had enough popularity to win the elections) Germany would have ceased to be an occupied country (and therefore would be a free country today) and it would have restored the Nationalsocialist regime (even after the war Patton always expressed that he wanted to have the German Nationalsocialists as allies of the United States in a possible war against the Soviet Union), the Jews would no longer be the rulers of the United States and Europe and it would took place a new crusade against international Jewry (this time led by Patton instead Hitler) that would count on the restored European Fascisms as allies of the United States. If Patton had not died in an "accident" (although the ideal would have been that Hitler had won the war), we would live in a much better world with fewer wars and social injustice and without Jewish supremacy and communism. George S. Patton was a hero who fought on the wrong side and against the wrong enemy (and realized it after the war).

You may be overestimating what impact one person has. When Eisenhower was president he instituted "Operation Wetback" but would Americans today support such a thing? A lot would but as a law it could never get passed today.

Most people did not think very far ahead nor did they even care to. They were busy with their jobs and families and did not have the time or energy to worry about much of this. They might have read the newspapers but otherwise I don't think they really knew much about it. It's hard to fathom a pre-internet world but that's what they had, no computers either. If they wanted to learn something they had to drive their archaic automobile to the library and grab the encyclopedia.
People did speak out but it was not an organized and concerted effort like after the war as television began spreading into every household. Most Americans just did not care, they saw that they were at the top and had a culture of "Just leave me alone and we can get along fine."
They saw the world around them only one day at a time. They didn't see the trends. This still has not changed for 95%+ of the population and it likely will not without some cataclysmic event like Pearl Harbor or 9/11, and even then they will probably listen only to the loudest voice, the one which seems to have the most authority behind it.

The war was not sold to the American public as some sort of liberation of the European Jews. It was instead "Let's just go finish up what is going on in Europe and then move on to Japan so we can get our revenge" complete with all sorts of atrocity propaganda which the English-language press already was spreading because of British involvement in the war.

Only after the war was it phrased in this manner, and this did have an effect on Americans but it was slow, gradual. Jews were careful to not bring attention to themselves and with their movements would often use gentiles as figureheads. Malcom X derided Jews for being so heavily involved in the "Civil Rights" movement because he said they were motivated not by actual belief in racial equality but knew that if Americans were focused on Blacks or angry at them, they would be too busy to focus on Jews and their behavior. I think that is correct for a lot of people and could help to explain what is going on even today in this country. Still, it took decades for the USA to get rid of all of the supposedly "racist" laws and such. Jews, remembering what happened to them under Hitler (real or imagined) were more inclined to deny or hide their ethnically-driven motivations for their involvement in such ideological movements. Notably also, after the Hungarian uprising in 1956 a lot of the leading Jewish communists in Eastern Europe were replaced by gentiles; something of the sort also happened right after the war in Russia under Stalin.

Someone once said:
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

Well, I can't disagree with that. It is easy to say "Well if they didn't like Jews, why did they allow ____ to happen?" in hindsight, but most Americans at the time had no idea what was going on and were not inclined to think very far ahead. Indeed, Americans lacked vigilance. Will they learn their lesson? Probably not any time soon, but hopefully one day.

[attenuate]

If you think Britain should have stayed at home knitting cardigans and drinking tea while Hitler marched his armies largely unopposed throughout Europe you are deluded.

You sound like the sort of person who has a photograph of bomber Harris on the mantlepeice and a scale model of Dresden after the firestorm.

I would just like to tell my German friends that there were people in Britain who opposed WWII. My own great grandfather was one of them and he considered Churchill a warmonger. Conscientious objectors represented the only moral perspective in this country during the Second World War and unsurprisingly they were treated very badly.

[Otium]

Be unhappy then it doesn't alter the fact that we stupidly entered a pact with Poland and honoured it.

No. Britain didn't honour anything. Britain left the Poles in the lurch at wars end and were unable from the beginning to do anything to preserve Poland. Poland's autonomy was secured as Hitler was willing to give it to them, only after the March 31st guarantee did Chamberlain then specify that Britain would declare war on Germany based on whatever the Poles deemed a "violation" by Germany. Before that guarantee in August 1939 the protection which Britain offered to Poland was specified on the grounds that the British would only invade in Polish SOVEREIGNTY were at stake, not just if the two countries came into conflict. This would've been more reasonable than giving Poland carte blanche do just do whatever they want and effectively provoke Germany. Britain was no better, they guaranteed this to Poland knowing full well there was nothing they could do.

YOU call Hitler and Germany "aggressive", but you'd need to define what this means and WHY it is relevant. The fact is yes, Germany played apart in being a pusher and puller, a key player in events, so Germany isn't totally out of the picture as to who influenced events at that time. But it must also be pointed out that Germany's position was precarious in that she was the one who had grievances that needed satisfaction, while the other powers and Poland required no such change with or without Germany's grievances. So, in this way, only Germany could bring to ahead and give rise to them in the first place, thus being the pusher of these concerns and injustices to the forefront of their own foreign policy and the foreign policy of others. All the Poles and British had to do was wait, this allowed them to strategically allow the pot to boil over, and for Germany to make the first move and thus be blamed for starting a conflict. This is the closest thing to inevitable you could get me to believe played apart in ensuring a war. Afterall, it's a lot less likely that Britain or Poland would "start" a conflict, as they had no problems which needed solving, hence no reason to push events to the forefront and boil them over themselves. So who fired the first shot and who did what is irrelevant because you must understand that those responsible don't have to be the ones who acted. The only thing Germany and Hitler could do is act, that's all they had as an option up to a certain point. The fact is their demands were just, and those of the British and the Poles were not. You speak of "aggression" but Britain ensured Germany's "aggression" in the first instance when they separated europe after 1918 by removing the territorial right to self determination to German minorities and other European ethnic groups.

While I mentioned "demands" I wish to make another thing clear also, not EVERYTHING is a "demand". People like to say Hitler made "demands" but in reality he only ever demanded what already belonged to him, and the negotiation was about how to get there. All governments when trying to secure something they want have "demands", in reality what you call a "demand" is just the point to which they will no longer compromise and thus renders any hope of resolution either impossible or to be brought about by force. If you want to measure "demands" the British (and Americans for that matter) demanded Germany's "unconditional surrender", no compromise, no debate. Even when they were losing the war in 1939-1940, or even prior to the war the British demanded Germany waste time going through Britain when there was nothing she could actually do to stop Germany doing what she wanted, and what was moral, not to mention in her own interests. When Germany didn't just give up and succumb to the demands the British couldn't ever hope to back up by action, they later on in the war carried out through force these ultimatums despite multiple attempts at German peace offerings, even when Germany was winning, particularly in the first weeks of the Polish campaign.

If you think the "Allies" were on the "right side" you would have to define what exactly was wrong with Hitler's side. "The Holocaust" cannot and doesn't fall into your pool of excuses in this respect. So what was it? I see no other reason than petty British nationalism and power politics over the European continent. Something as nationally chauvinistic as that is hardly worth considering as an argument, as I or anyone else, a German perhaps, could make the exact same argument with more logical support than you ever could considering the circumstances of 1939 where Germany held all the cards and also had a monopoly on the moral side of the "debate".

[Lamprecht]

No. Britain didn't honour anything.

Well the defense pact Britain and Poland signed had a secret addendum that stipulated that it only applied to Germany. That was the entire point of the agreement anyway: to start a war with Germany. And they did do that. The effort was just cloaked in deceit to better sell it to the public.

Secret Protocol attached to the Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland signed on the 25th August 1939
...
By the expression "a European Power" employed in the Agreement is to be understood Germany.

http://archive.fo/gnQhd

[Otium]

No. Britain didn't honour anything.

Well the defense pact Britain and Poland signed had a secret addendum that stipulated that it only applied to Germany. That was the entire point of the agreement anyway: to start a war with Germany. And they did do that. The effort was just cloaked in deceit to better sell it to the public.

Secret Protocol attached to the Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland signed on the 25th August 1939
...
By the expression "a European Power" employed in the Agreement is to be understood Germany.

http://archive.fo/gnQhd

Okay Lamprecht, sure. They stuck to their guns the way they planned to and declared the war against Germany that they wanted. This hardly means that they "honoured" their agreement, because honouring it actually would mean fulfilling it which they did not do even when they had multiple chances to do so; particularly in victory or when Hitler offered them peace. In both cases they decided to do nothing at all. So the fact is, in the long run, when all was said and done, the only thing they did do was declare and fight a war, seemingly, for no war aim; while in the end doing nothing to honour their black check to Poland.

I didn't think I needed to explain it this much. I wasn't saying the British didn't guarantee Poland anything, I am saying that they did but knew full well that they could do nothing about going and honouring their guarantee. In reality it was little more than an excuse to ensure British hegemony over continental Europe.

That was the entire point of the agreement anyway: to start a war with Germany. And they did do that. The effort was just cloaked in deceit to better sell it to the public.

Yes I would agree, and in fact the British look worse having been so obviously deceptive in this way, not actually caring about Poland at all. That much should be obvious, but people today still fail to see the obviousness of this.