Thursday, February 24, 2005

From The Perennial Rambler
Hollywood’s dirty little secret

There was no need for World War II

This needs some explaining and qualifying.

Obviously this isn’t a fascist or anti-Jewish blog.

Filtering out/answering some of the sources Mr Perry uses, which apparently are pro-Nazi:

• Hitler did want to control Europe. But not the world.
• As every history student knows, technically it’s true that Hitler was democratically elected. That of course doesn’t mean it was a good thing!
• Of course he wanted war in Europe — that’s why he re-armed Germany. It was vengeance for being punished for being blamed, wrongly, for World War I. (A Central Powers victory would have been better both for Catholic Europe and Palestine. There would have been no Nazi nor Soviet threat.)
• One doesn’t show friendship to a country like France by invading it (unless you’re Mr Bush’s handlers looking at the Middle East). (Thank you, Paul Goings.)
• I don’t think he would have pulled out of France for peace with Britain, even though it’s true that he didn’t want to fight the British.
• I don’t believe he offered to step down nor would he have if ‘the German people had asked him’. There was the plot to kill him in 1944 by the sensible German generals trying to save their country.
• I don’t believe that Roosevelt, for all his faults, was the one really to blame for Germany invading Poland.
• The Duke of Windsor wasn’t the nicest of men.
• Nor was Rudolf Hess but to deceive somebody who thinks he’s travelling under a safe-conduct pass sounds wrong.
• And what of the German-Japanese alliance, seemingly overlooked in Mr Perry’s article? I think that without the Allies they would have turned on each other anyway.

It was not Hitler and Germany who could be described accurately as the war maniacs. The war maniacs were Roosevelt and Churchill and their backers, such as Bernard Baruch and Samuel Untermeyer.
No, it’s more like ‘a pox on all your houses’.

All that said, correcting the article’s apparent bias, what you’re left with, including Roosevelt’s violation of the Neutrality Act (impeachable and convictable) and his damnable deception regarding Pearl Harbor, is largely correct.

Churchill did not object to Soviet tyranny, for he hailed Russia as a welcome ally when she came into the war.
Without Churchill and Roosevelt there would have been yet another European war — again, letting the Nazis and the Soviets destroy each other — but not a literal world war so, strictly speaking, the title is true.

To their astonishment, the four Jesuit historians came upon records documenting the personal involvement of Pius XII in a plot to overthrow Hitler. In January 1940, he was approached by the agent of a certain clique of German generals, who asked him to tell the British government that they would undertake to "remove" Hitler if they were given assurances that the British would come to terms with a moderate German regime. Pius XII promptly passed along this message to Sir D'Arcy Osborne, Britain’s envoy to the Holy See. The offer was turned down.
I haven’t read a confirmation of that but I am inclined to believe it because it fits the known real history.

The Allied insistence on German and Japanese unconditional surrender was wrong.

No comments:

Post a comment

Leave comment