![]() |
|
|
July 1, 2008 at 16:07:15
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 7/1/08: by Paul Craig Roberts Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
|
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
| 8 comments |
|
I'd question 2 points here. First, the assertion that
"British miscalculations brought the West into a war that Hitler did not want." - I don't object to this out of any impulse to defend the "honor" of the West, or out of any acceptance on my part of the West's standard black-and-white total demonization of Hitler. I'd certainly agree that the West shared much or most of the responsibility for the 2 world wars. But Hitler himself, I think, did indeed want the war. That's how Albert Speer characterizes it in his memoirs. (Not that one can believe everything Speer says, of course.) Hitler led an imperialist power that needed more land & resources; & had also been deeply wronged by the Treaty of Versailles. To solve its economic problems, Germany had no choice but to challenge the global power structure. Hitler understood all this perfectly, & was never under any illusions about it. Hitler understood power relationships very clearly. - Secondly, about Nuremberg: Chomsky describes Nuremberg as a process where the Allies took care to formulate their charges in such a way that they weren't also guilty of the same offenses. It wasn't always easy to do this (which is pretty much the point Dr Roberts is making here). So if a German defendant (like one of the U-Boot admirals -- I forget which one, off hand) could show that the Allies did the same thing he was accused of, he could escape conviction on that point. So it wasn't exactly that "the victors were also guilty of crimes for which the vanquished were punished." Rather, the victors carefully finessed the charges, managing thereby to conceal much of the underlying hypocrisy. I don't dispute that there was indeed a great underlying hypocrisy -- basically, the Allied position in WWI was, "We have the right to rule the world, and no one may challenge us." (The US is saying the same thing today.) As Keynes rightly saw, WWII was the inevitable result of this arrogant attitude. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:47:04 PM
|
|
Reply: And so is the current WWIII
With American/Western arrogance, there is war in IRAN. Iran should not have taken the "bait", of course, they have plenty of oil and don't need to enrich uranium for any reason. But the arrogance of the West in assuming it can ignore history is pretty S-T-O-O-P-I-D Or is the new mantra .. "We're all glow worms anyway ???" That's what it seems like to ME. The salt of the earth don't like this mantra . So much suffering now, and MORE to come. The least we can do is find a way to obey THE LAWS OF WAR. And here's to that HOPE .. by ladybroadoak (39 articles, 20 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 394 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:55:35 PM
|
|
Roberts on Buchanan et al
According to the many historians and documents cited, Hitler wanted no war with Britain, France, and America. His focus was on putting Germany back together, and his focus for future expansion was to the East. A lot of people think a lot of things that make them comfortable, but are simply wrong. by paul roberts (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:56:40 PM
|
|
The Great and Mythical Good War
The neocons only continue to go to the propagandistic storyling of WW II as the "Good War" to justify their further actions to start WW III. World War II was an abysmal period for humanity and the suffering incurred during that era was like nothing ever experienced by humanity. Nobody really WON, and I applaud Buchanan for daring to challenge the holiest of holies (at least pre 9/11) that is used to only propagandize the people to believe that all future wars should be seen in the same Manichean 'Good versus Evil" simplicity that has been beaten into our heads. Buchanan put a burr up their ass which was evident when Newsweek featured the unrepentant warmonger Winston Churchill on their cover in front of all things - the stars and stripes (all war criminals have stolen them apparently whether they are American or not) and a piece by that godless pickled Brit pig and highly paid neocon shill Christopher Hitchens. Not that Newsweek has risen above standard puppy potty paper it is still believed here as an authoritative source in the star spangled lemming colony. In closing my hat is off to Dr. Roberts, Pat Buchanan (who I don't always agree with) and the brilliant Mr. Pilger for their wonderful and taboo analysis into the vile creature that is the neocon 'American' empire. And I won't even get into that Holocaust stuff now in which the other 5 or 6 million victims of Nazi murderers are conveniently erased from history in order to justify more right-wing Israeli aggression. As always Paul Craig Roberts is a damned fine American who dares to speak the truth. Just my two cents EE by Ed Encho (12 articles, 20 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 438 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 1, 2008 at 7:06:20 PM
|
|
Our mythical history
Much of our history is simply a myth which hides the war crimes of the conspiracy of the last 150 years. The previous World Wars, as well as the Cold War and Global War on Terror were manufactured with the objective of building the NWO. "We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion. And the question is this: Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people? And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war. So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?" -Norman Dobbs, U.S. Congressional Special Committee for the Investigate of Tax-Exempt Foundations (1982)" They got their war 8 years later with WW I. A war this size that lasted that long has never been fought for such trivial reasons. Our entry into this war was beyond comprehension. One day much of the nation supported Germany and were outraged mainly due to the Armenian genocide by the Turks, and then the Balfour agreement is made and MSM starts reporting on German atrocities and the war drums start. And when we entered the War, Wilson refused to intervene against the Young turks who had been killing his fellow Christians. WW I's main accomplishments were a weakened Czars Russia that permitted Communism to take hold with Anglo-American financing, and it broke up the Ottoman Empire and led to British and French Mandates in the Middle East, and strengthened political Zionism. Yet Turkey was allowed to keep much of Armenia despite the genocide of 1.5 million Christians. The Versailles Treaty was intentionally written up to be so unfair as to make it a certainty that another war would be fought, or as was said at the time, it was nothing more than a 20 year armistice. As for WW II, with any crime, follow the money. How was Hitler able to rearm Germany and rebuild it's economy to such an extent as to wage war?. Germany had no navy to speak of, and it had no access to crude oil in quantities necessary to fight a modern war. Germany manufactured synthetic gasoline from their domestic coal supplies using a process developed and financed by the Standard Oil laboratories in partnership with I.G. Farben. Those on the board of the US branch of I.G. Farben include members from Standard Oil, Ford, Federal Reserve Bank-NY and FDR's GWS Foundation. General Electric, ITT, Ford, Harrimans Union Banking Corporation and the same financiers that funded the Bolshevik Revolution all backed Hitler. Also one must ask why did FDR diplomatically recognized Stalin in 1933 while he was murdering millions of Ukranian Christians in his war on religion?. Why did he allow business as usual to continue when Hitler was in power?. How did the war to save Poland end up with Poland losing half it's territories to the Soviet Union and the rest coming under Communist control?. How did we lose China? How was it that Communism was allowed to be the biggest winnner of WW II?. Why did we continue to aid and trade with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and isn't it a coincidence that Larry McDonald who was exposing this was shot down by the Soviets on KAL 007?. Could McCarthy have been right? The answer of course is this was the plan, and yes, McCarthy was right, although he may not have seen the Big Picture as to who was behind it. In any event, in order to have a Cold War (perpetual war) between Democratic Western nations and Communism, one must build up Communism to be a force that would be feared . It is not any accident that the Soviets got the technology for the Atomic Bomb before they became our enemy. Images of mushroom clouds and drills in schools then fueled the fear and wars in Korea and Vietnam could be justified to prevent the spread of Communism WW II led to half the world being under Communism, the destruction of the British Empire and the beginning of the American Empire, and the United Nations and the start of a new war, the Cold War. It also led to Israel and it's destabilizing force in the Middle East that would give rise to a new enemy for a later war, this one against Terrorism. The British people were betrayed by their elite, as Americans are being betrayed today. They decided to move the military and financial arm of it's empire to the New World, and Americas leaders ever since have in effect served the Queen as a defacto Commonwealth nation post WW II. JFK tried to revolt and was dealt with. Today, the British Empire lives on through America, their recovery of the old colonies perhaps not exactly as envisioned by Cecil Rhodes, but a recovery none the less. Their Free Trade policies and Imperialism in the 19th century decimated the British economy and indirectly led to WW I, and the Great Depression in the 20's and 30's that preceded WW II. These same policies have been embraced by America in the 20th century up till today, and a Great depression is looming, likely followed by another Great War. Politically the Cold War years with it's perpetual war feeding the MIC, allowed Democratic Capitalism to be replaced by Fascism (Corporatism). National Fascism is an essential stepping stone to Global Communism. The GWOT on terror has served to feed the same machine while at the same time eliminating many liberties. It has essentially given the President the same legalized dictatorial powers as Hitler. As America goes, the world follows, and Fascism has spread to Europe with a temporary set back with the Irish nay on the Lisbon Treaty. The GWOT also has served to destroy Americas image as a superpower that could not be corrupted and who would defend Democracy and human rights. The great global depression that is looming will be blamed on Americans fiscal policies and bring support for a World Currency which will end our superpower status as we will have no way to finance our debt. We will in fact become debt slaves of the IMF, subject to Zimbabwe like attacks on our currency should we protest. This final transfer of power will be the end of our sovereignty and will hinder any future rebuilding. After WW III, the question will be asked why did we trade and invest in the most populous Communist nation when we refuse to do so with many smaller nations, and which allowed them to grow into a great economic and military power? Why did we allow America, which at the end of WW II had over 50% of the worlds wealth with 5% of it's population, to dismantle it's manufacturing base and export it abroad. Why did we continue with a 300 year old financial system that originated with the Bank of england following Britains Glorious Revolution and that was adopted in 1913 with the Fed, that serves only to create recessions, depressions, inflation, debt and finance imperial wars?. Why do we support Globalization and Free Trade Policies, and illegal immigration that only served to weaken homeland security?. In the late 19th century Albert Pike said 3 World Wars would need to be fought to complete the New World Order. In order to have a great war, you must have a great enemy. If one does not exist, one must create one, real or imagined. China's build up gives us a great potential enemy, made possible by our transfer of wealth to China which serves to weaken America. Instability in the Middle East with much of the worlds oil, and tensions with Iran, and a nuclear power in Pakistan, home of Islamic extremism, and Kosovo independence provide all the ingredients for a great war. And since the NWO is all about Totalitarian One World Government, our standard of living must be reduced and the developing nations increased so we can be comfortably merged together. Making Americans poorer helps make our homeland elite more secure. We are getting close to being securely merged with the developing world. WW III may not be needed if China and Russia go along, and the economic crisis is severe enough to get people to go along with One World Government and give up their national sovereignty. Either way, the coming years ahead are unlikely to be pleasant. by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 2, 2008 at 12:47:26 AM
|
|
Left-Right Cooperation
Hat's off to OpEdNews.com for printing this gem from one of the greatest paleoconservatives. I'd say that over the years Dr. Paul Craig Roberts has been the most vocal denouncer of the Bush Regime, from the left or the right. It has often been stated that the political spectrum is a circle, and that the far left and far right meet at totalitarianism. This may (or may not) be true of Europe, but in America, God bless her, it is absolutely false. In America, the far left and far right meet at decentralism, and our common enemy is the Empire. Sure, there is much that divides us, but let's work together to end the Empire and restore the Republic. We can thank the Bush Regime for one thing, it has caused many "conservatives" to realize that the Empire is not about conserving anything. It has caused many "liberals" to look back to the Republic established in 1776 and realize that, despite its imperfections, it was a pretty good idea. by Joshua Snyder (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 8 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:44:49 AM
|
|
Reply: RE: Left-Right Cooperation
Is the only hope that we have and Op Ed News is a great forum where the ideas and imput of both are respected and where we can all come together for a mutual cause which should be first and foremost banishing neocon fascism, reinstating the Constitution, ending the imperialist wars, restoring principled economics that work for more than the elite and holding the war criminals and outright traitors who have taken over America accountable. It is especially good to have a place like this when so many of the other blogs have been co-opted by the DemocRATs and Republicons and don't allow for any discussion that strays too far from the false paradigms and the sham democracy. EE by Ed Encho (12 articles, 20 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 438 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:07:29 AM
|
|
WWII was Inevitable
Remember how (from your history books unless you are really old) WWI was supposed to be the war to end all wars? Ahh, the romance of war, always so bitter-sweet in the movies, on TV and in comic books. Good things come out of war we are told, despite all the killing and crippling. It as if Jason could sow dragon's teeth at Colchis and NOT have demon-warriors spring up. What was the greatest end-product, though, of WWI? Well, right away there was a horrid world-wide flu epidemic, then came the Great Depression a decade later, so it is not as if the birds began singing, the flowers began growing and the Garden of Eden immediately returned after sowing so much death. Actually, the crown of creation for WWI was the rise of Hitler, the lonely corporal on the Western Front who saw too much death and wanted only revenge for Germany upon the Allies. Hitler came to embody the collective resentment of the entire German nation and their thirst for revenge and conquest, so WWII was inevitable once he gained power. Churchill could not have stopped WWII if he tried. How could he when English and American financiers were investing in the Nazi war machine? It is unfortunate though that Churchill helped take war's barbarity to a new level. by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 114 quicklinks, 241 diaries, 1414 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 2, 2008 at 11:46:36 AM
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |