Churchill was indeed a very very evil man.

He even ordered his generals to use poison gas on German civilians, his generals refused to obey the order, not because they necessarily were any better, they didn't hesitate to commit non stop war crimes and firebomb every single German city. Something that had never been done before.

They refused to poison gas German civilians, because they were afraid Germany might do the same to them.

Germany had weapons of mass destruction, but the Germans are a different kind of people and not even when their own cities were being firebombed and millions of civilians incinerated did they use their weapons of mass destruction.

Had they know that Eisenhower would murder 1,5 million German soldiers AFTER the war on open fields in Luxembourg and the Alsace region, the socalled Rhine Meadows, they might have reconsidered.

But for good people it is difficult to imagine the level of evilness devil worshipping Talmud followers are capable of.

Time to

SEPARATE SYNAGOGUE and STATE

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Ok.

Help me with something.

Why did Hitler invade Poland and consider them as expendable?

It was 50% Jews 50% non. Correct?

So, how is that defendable or justifiable?

Am I wrong on the history of it?

Yes. You are wrong.

May get to it eventually.

In the meantime have a brief explanation of what happened in Poland?

Buchanan argues that Hitler's public demands on Poland in 1938 and 1939, namely the return of the Free City of Danzig to the Reich, "extra-territorial" roads across the Polish Corridor, and Poland's adherence to the Anti-Comintern Pact were a genuine attempt to build an anti-Soviet German-Polish alliance, especially since Buchanan argues that Germany and Poland shared a common enemy, the Soviet Union.[14] Buchanan claims that Hitler wanted Poland as an ally against the Soviet Union, not an enemy.[15]

Buchanan agrees with the British historian E. H. Carr, who said in April 1939 about the Polish "guarantee": "The use or threatened use of force to maintain the status quo may be morally more culpable than the use or threatened use of force to alter it."[16] Buchanan maintains that Hitler did not want a war with Britain and that Britain should not have declared war in 1939 on an Anglophile Hitler who wanted to ally the Reich with Britain against their common enemy the Soviet Union.[17] Buchanan calls the Morgenthau Plan of 1944 a genocidal plan for the destruction of Germany that was promoted by the vengeful Henry Morgenthau and his deputy, the Soviet agent Harry Dexter White, a way of ensuring Soviet domination of Europe, with Churchill being amoral for accepting it.[18]

Buchanan argues that the Holocaust would not have developed the scale that it did without Hitler's invasion of Poland and then the Soviet Union, as he would not otherwise have been in control of most European Jews. Buchanan argues that if Churchill had accepted Hitler's peace offer of 1940, the severity of the Holocaust would have been greatly reduced.[19]Endorsing the concept of Western betrayal, Buchanan accuses Churchill and Roosevelt of turning over Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union at the Tehran Conference and the Yalta Conference.[20]

Too many contradictions in this.

He wanted Poland as partners yet he massacred him.

The British and Germans had a common enemy of Russia yet the British partnered with the soviets.

Hitler had already broken one peace treaty, why would Churchill have bothered with a second?

Hitler sued for peace many times and showed restraint when he probably shouldn't have.

Killing 6mm poles isn’t restraint…

Lol. Mkay.