17-05-2019, 05:42 PM
If I were a college history professor, I would give the essay by Paul Craig Roberts a D-Minus (or more appropriately, a flunk). Here's why.
Mr. Roberts' and Mr. Irving's main points are these:
Here are the problems with the above:
Woodrow Wilson and FDR were only reinstating the concept of the top priority as being people living in ethnicities with each having its own nation.
World War II was (mainly) religious spider-webs, international Communism and UK/French/German imperialism run amok.
Woodrow Wilson and FDR were the heroes in this scenario. The villains were the people who acted on behalf of international spider-webs and international conspiracies.
Many Jewish people in Germany and in Europe thought of themselves as a "nation". The problem with that was that they wanted to dominate or have a major influence in the nation of someone else's ethnic nationality and actual nation. But they were only 1% of the German population. And just look at the horrible result of that misguided theory.
So they ultimately founded their own true nation, i.e. Israel. For all its faults, at least Israel represents Jews being in control of other Jews, not trying to control the affairs of a non-Jewish nation besides their own (in large part for financial self-interest).
As for the Vatican, it is well-known that the Roman Empire tortured Christ to (physical) death. How could that empire go forward as the proponent of Christ and Christianity when they were the murderers of Christ? It doesn't make sense. So the shell of the Roman Empire still goes on despite being the opposite of what Christ preached, i.e. each ethnicity having its own nation.
IMHO, mostly in Ireland has Catholicism really respected the concept of "nationality" and "ethnicity". And this has endured really well IMHO for the Irish people. Maybe that idea should be applied worldwide. But even some clergy see "Irishmen" to be in existing all over the world, wherever people of Irish heritage live. In my opinion, this, too is misguided and fraught with peril.
Were it not for the British Empire, there would be no United States. I get that. There have been some good effects as a result of empires. The empire of Alexander the Great spread the valuable Greek culture to half of the world. His success still endures in various parts of Asia.
But despite temporary benefits, the long-term best interests of people is for them to live, each in their own nations. And the majority ethnicity in the nation should control its affairs through majority rule, democracy, constitutions, etc.
But also respecting and protecting the rights of minorities who respect that government and that system.
James Lateer
Mr. Roberts' and Mr. Irving's main points are these:
- England and France actually declared war on Germany.
- Germans were being abused in Poland and Hitler defended them.
- FDR was out to bankrupt England.
- Hitler attacked Russia because it was a big mistake, i.e. out of ignorance.
- The U.S. Italian campaign was due to another German mistake, more Hitler ignorance.
- The Holocaust (this is despicable) was due to typhus, not genocide.
- Hitler didn't know the Jews were being killed nor did he approve it.
Here are the problems with the above:
- Matthew 28:19-20 "19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you…"The word in Greek used here is "ethnos" which in English means "ethnicity" although it is translated in our Bibles as "nations."
- You can't make useful judgments about WWII unless you put your cards on the table regarding your own personal opinion about "nations" and "nationalism", trans-national religions and quasi-religions like Communism and trans-national corporate conspiracies and empires.
- In addition to the above quote from Christ, the Peace of Westphalia (which ended the brutal Thirty-Years' religious War) provided that henceforth, people would live in "nations", no longer under particularist feudal principalities, etc. etc.
- SIMPLY PUT, the efforts of both Woodrow Wilson in WWI and FDR in WWII were for the same goal. Wilson personally managed the WWI peace conference at Versailles. His famous 14 points program was based on "self-determination" which meant that the ethnicities of Europe would each have their own nation. No more empires. No more international Communist "International". No more "Holy Roman Empire" run by the Vatican, etc. etc.
- For people reading this post, you have to decide. Do you want the globe to be organized into "nations" or do you want to have (a) trans-national empires like the British Empire, the French Empire, etc. (b) do you want huge international religious spider-webs run out of the Vatican (Catholicism), Saudi Arabia (Islam), Jerusalem (Judaism) or © international corporate empires like the EEU, I G Farben and the Rothschild banking system?
- Hitler was put in power by Vatican Secretary of State Eugenio Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII. Mr. Pacelli preferred Nazism over Socialism and the German SPD party.
- Stalin always had in the back of his mind, the mission of international Communism. That Communist movement was, under the US constitutional law definition, a religion or at least a competitor with and for religions.
- Churchill was, to the end, promoting the British Empire, which reached its greatest geographical extent in 1945 under Churchill.
Woodrow Wilson and FDR were only reinstating the concept of the top priority as being people living in ethnicities with each having its own nation.
World War II was (mainly) religious spider-webs, international Communism and UK/French/German imperialism run amok.
Woodrow Wilson and FDR were the heroes in this scenario. The villains were the people who acted on behalf of international spider-webs and international conspiracies.
Many Jewish people in Germany and in Europe thought of themselves as a "nation". The problem with that was that they wanted to dominate or have a major influence in the nation of someone else's ethnic nationality and actual nation. But they were only 1% of the German population. And just look at the horrible result of that misguided theory.
So they ultimately founded their own true nation, i.e. Israel. For all its faults, at least Israel represents Jews being in control of other Jews, not trying to control the affairs of a non-Jewish nation besides their own (in large part for financial self-interest).
As for the Vatican, it is well-known that the Roman Empire tortured Christ to (physical) death. How could that empire go forward as the proponent of Christ and Christianity when they were the murderers of Christ? It doesn't make sense. So the shell of the Roman Empire still goes on despite being the opposite of what Christ preached, i.e. each ethnicity having its own nation.
IMHO, mostly in Ireland has Catholicism really respected the concept of "nationality" and "ethnicity". And this has endured really well IMHO for the Irish people. Maybe that idea should be applied worldwide. But even some clergy see "Irishmen" to be in existing all over the world, wherever people of Irish heritage live. In my opinion, this, too is misguided and fraught with peril.
Were it not for the British Empire, there would be no United States. I get that. There have been some good effects as a result of empires. The empire of Alexander the Great spread the valuable Greek culture to half of the world. His success still endures in various parts of Asia.
But despite temporary benefits, the long-term best interests of people is for them to live, each in their own nations. And the majority ethnicity in the nation should control its affairs through majority rule, democracy, constitutions, etc.
But also respecting and protecting the rights of minorities who respect that government and that system.
James Lateer