BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The old cliche saying, "history is written by the victors" is so evident when studying WW2. I encourage all history buffs to make an attempt to study 20th century history from a true neutral perspective, read from the axis side, the translated Hitler speeches are real interesting to listen to as well

---

Big Hitler fan I see.

---

I had a feeling you would respond, I should've threw a disclaimer in my post. Figured yall could have mature conversations without pointing fingers

---

Just giving you a hard time. I don't share your admiration of Hitler, of course, but am happy to have a discussion, as you're more reasonable (and intelligent) than the other Groypers on this website.

There's still hope for you.

---

There is still hope for him to adopt my dying Boomer ideology that only white people - especially white German people - can be bad and that white people should not be proud of themselves at the risk of offending others, but should instead be as weak, pathetic, and cowardly as possible.

And if you say anything even approaching criticism of my sacred Boomer idol, Israel... I will rage at you with the intensity of a thousand suns... criticizing America and Europe is strongly encouraged however.

---

Speaking of boomer ideology, your ideology died off with the Nazis, lol.

---

Tell that to your son's football team.

---

The good news is that most of the team disagreed with the handful of racist neo-Nazis. Most still adhere to common human decency and morality.

So "boomer" of them.

---

But there's no denying that the younger generation is more radical than their predecessors, and there's a reason why

I graduated while the job market was hot (thank God), but my friends younger than me can't find anything besides ****ty sales jobs. I've been saving for a home since I graduated but the market is out of control, and my metro is one of the cheaper ones in the country. I've lived in DFW and Philly, both are urban hell but there's little good work outside the metros.

The GOP has turned its back on the common man. They talked big game during the election cycle but have been utterly useless since getting in power. They seemingly have no care for the national debt and their only solution for the affordability crisis is a one time $1000 tariff refund

Conditions like these create radical views. It's happened all throughout history

---

I don't disagree. I think you also have to look at the identity politics that has sprung up among younger "conservatives" as a reaction to years of identify politics on the left. If they do it, why shouldn't we, seems to be the mantra.

Providing a reason or basis for these types of views, however, is not an excuse for these types of views. And that's the important point. Racial identity politics is not a winning strategy. It's also immoral. I'd rather be right than popular. The kind of radicalism that has sprung up among the Groypers is awful, and will lead to election defeats if it persists. Mark my words.

Radicalism is not the answer.

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If only Winston had pacified the Germans, conceding Polish territory, and allowed him to enslave/exterminate the Jews within Poland.

Yes, I am certain Hitler's bloodlust would have stopped there. And after all, it's only the lives of a few Jews. Maybe Hitler would have enslaved them instead of murdering them.

---

I think you meant to say German territory that was taken after WW1

---

No, I meant what I said. Germany took far more than the territory it lost in WW1. In addition to the whole of Poland, it took much of the rest of Eastern Europe.

---

Lost me here.

Are you referring to the time period of 1939 through
1943…..prior to the massive Soviet counter offensive after Stalingrad ?

---

Germany took Poland, the Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia), Ukraine, Belarus, and large swathes of European Russia in WW2. That of course doesn't include Western Europe.

Don't know the time frame off the top of my head.

---

US interpretation of historical events in Europe are rarely clear cut.

Much of what Hitler occupied prior to his invasion of Poland in 1939 was ground lost at the end of WW1.

Even parts of Poland had belonged to Germany for generations.

Does this justify Hitler's slaughter of millions of Jews, Slavs, Catholics, gypsies, and other civilians….,of course not.

Hitler and Himmler were ruthless animals.

But so were Stalin and Mao.

---

Respectfully, that's not a US interpretation, but historical fact. Germany invaded and occupied all of those countries in WW2. The only pre-WW2 territory that belonged to Germany out of that group was approximately 1/3 of Poland. So that was not Germany acquiring territory it lost, by and large.

Now, I grant you that Germany did lose 13% of its pre-WWI territory following WW1, which became parts of France, Belgium, Denmark and of course, Poland. But that doesn't affect what I said above.

---

Unless I am mistaken, the part of Czech surrendered to Hitler as a part of the Munich accord had been part of Germany prior to WW1

Of course this conversation is all in fun, while I wait for my flight from Key West to take off.

The Nazis deserved to be exterminated for what they did to millions of innocent people.

But our schools do not make a habit of teaching what happened to German civilians at the end of WW1 and especially at the end of WW2.

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The old cliche saying, "history is written by the victors" is so evident when studying WW2. I encourage all history buffs to make an attempt to study 20th century history from a true neutral perspective, read from the axis side, the translated Hitler speeches are real interesting to listen to as well

---

Big Hitler fan I see.

---

I had a feeling you would respond, I should've threw a disclaimer in my post. Figured yall could have mature conversations without pointing fingers

---

Just giving you a hard time. I don't share your admiration of Hitler, of course, but am happy to have a discussion, as you're more reasonable (and intelligent) than the other Groypers on this website.

There's still hope for you.

---

I appreciate it, always happy to have a civil discussion. I'm trying my best to bridge the gap between the groypers and Gen-X/Boomers

Our nation is sinking fast and we need each other in order to save it

---

NP, though I would submit that any position that tries to minimize Hitler's atrocities and describes him as "great" is going to have a very difficult time gaining a foothold with decent, conservative or Christian people.

---

A while ago, Carlson welcomed on his podcast Darryl Cooper, a crank historian with revisionist views on World War II, and enthusiastically endorsed him as "the most important historian in the United States" (move over Gordon Wood, Niall Ferguson, and Allen Guelzo, among others). While Carlson served as his caddy, Cooper explained that Winston Churchill was "the chief villain" of World War II, while Hitler "didn't want to fight." According to Cooper, the Holocaust was just a product of inept military planning.

That is true regarding Czech Repub.

I also don't disagree that the treatment of Germany after WW1 helped lead to Hitler's rise to power. I would also submit that the Allies' concessions to the Soviet Union were a colossal mistake.

We absolutely made mistakes, no question. But the attempt to make someone other than Hitler as the bad guy are revisionist at best. He was indeed the bad guy.

Mothra said:

---

That is true regarding Czech Repub.

I also don't disagree that the treatment of Germany after WW1 helped lead to Hitler's rise to power. I would also submit that the Allies' concessions to the Soviet Union were a colossal mistake.

We absolutely made mistakes, no question. But the attempt to make someone other than Hitler as the bad guy are revisionist at best. He was indeed the bad guy.

---

The reparations demanded by the allies after WW1 put Weimar Republic in a financial hole impossible to get out of, thus leading to hyper-inflation and giving rise to Hitler.

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

That is true regarding Czech Repub.

I also don't disagree that the treatment of Germany after WW1 helped lead to Hitler's rise to power. I would also submit that the Allies' concessions to the Soviet Union were a colossal mistake.

We absolutely made mistakes, no question. But the attempt to make someone other than Hitler as the bad guy are revisionist at best. He was indeed the bad guy.

---

The reparations demanded by the allies after WW1 put Weimar Republic in a financial hole impossible to get out of, thus leading to hyper-inflation and giving rise to Hitler.

---

You left out the Bolshevik threat to take over Germany, the child brothels and the rampant degeneracy.

Mothra said:

---

That is true regarding Czech Repub.

I also don't disagree that the treatment of Germany after WW1 helped lead to Hitler's rise to power. I would also submit that the Allies' concessions to the Soviet Union were a colossal mistake.

We absolutely made mistakes, no question. But the attempt to make someone other than Hitler as the bad guy are revisionist at best. He was indeed the bad guy.

---

Of course.

Anyone who thinks Hitler was anything other than a reckless mass murderer is a nut case.

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The old cliche saying, "history is written by the victors" is so evident when studying WW2. I encourage all history buffs to make an attempt to study 20th century history from a true neutral perspective, read from the axis side, the translated Hitler speeches are real interesting to listen to as well

---

Big Hitler fan I see.

---

I had a feeling you would respond, I should've threw a disclaimer in my post. Figured yall could have mature conversations without pointing fingers

---

Just giving you a hard time. I don't share your admiration of Hitler, of course, but am happy to have a discussion, as you're more reasonable (and intelligent) than the other Groypers on this website.

There's still hope for you.

---

There is still hope for him to adopt my dying Boomer ideology that only white people - especially white German people - can be bad and that white people should not be proud of themselves at the risk of offending others, but should instead be as weak, pathetic, and cowardly as possible.

And if you say anything even approaching criticism of my sacred Boomer idol, Israel... I will rage at you with the intensity of a thousand suns... criticizing America and Europe is strongly encouraged however.

---

Speaking of boomer ideology, your ideology died off with the Nazis, lol.

---

Tell that to your son's football team.

---

The good news is that most of the team disagreed with the handful of racist neo-Nazis. Most still adhere to common human decency and morality.

So "boomer" of them.

---

I'm sure they'll be wearing balaclavas and burning down historical monuments in no time!

You'll be a proud Boomer!

Honestly, the fact that you would call teenagers "racist neo-nazis" for being edgy and counter-culture just proves what a ****** and POS you are....

---

If a white, impotent racist neo-nazi POS dislikes me, that's a good thing.

So thanks.

---

You are one of those Boomers who won't say Merry Christmas, arent you?

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The old cliche saying, "history is written by the victors" is so evident when studying WW2. I encourage all history buffs to make an attempt to study 20th century history from a true neutral perspective, read from the axis side, the translated Hitler speeches are real interesting to listen to as well

---

Big Hitler fan I see.

---

I had a feeling you would respond, I should've threw a disclaimer in my post. Figured yall could have mature conversations without pointing fingers

---

Just giving you a hard time. I don't share your admiration of Hitler, of course, but am happy to have a discussion, as you're more reasonable (and intelligent) than the other Groypers on this website.

There's still hope for you.

---

There is still hope for him to adopt my dying Boomer ideology that only white people - especially white German people - can be bad and that white people should not be proud of themselves at the risk of offending others, but should instead be as weak, pathetic, and cowardly as possible.

And if you say anything even approaching criticism of my sacred Boomer idol, Israel... I will rage at you with the intensity of a thousand suns... criticizing America and Europe is strongly encouraged however.

---

Speaking of boomer ideology, your ideology died off with the Nazis, lol.

---

Tell that to your son's football team.

---

The good news is that most of the team disagreed with the handful of racist neo-Nazis. Most still adhere to common human decency and morality.

So "boomer" of them.

---

I'm sure they'll be wearing balaclavas and burning down historical monuments in no time!

You'll be a proud Boomer!

Honestly, the fact that you would call teenagers "racist neo-nazis" for being edgy and counter-culture just proves what a ****** and POS you are....

---

If a white, impotent racist neo-nazi POS dislikes me, that's a good thing.

So thanks.

---

You are one of those Boomers who won't say Merry Christmas, arent you?

---

Oh, I am definitely a proud boomer who says Happy Holidays, though I will make an exception and wish the Jews Happy Hannukah.

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The old cliche saying, "history is written by the victors" is so evident when studying WW2. I encourage all history buffs to make an attempt to study 20th century history from a true neutral perspective, read from the axis side, the translated Hitler speeches are real interesting to listen to as well

---

Big Hitler fan I see.

---

I had a feeling you would respond, I should've threw a disclaimer in my post. Figured yall could have mature conversations without pointing fingers

---

Just giving you a hard time. I don't share your admiration of Hitler, of course, but am happy to have a discussion, as you're more reasonable (and intelligent) than the other Groypers on this website.

There's still hope for you.

---

There is still hope for him to adopt my dying Boomer ideology that only white people - especially white German people - can be bad and that white people should not be proud of themselves at the risk of offending others, but should instead be as weak, pathetic, and cowardly as possible.

And if you say anything even approaching criticism of my sacred Boomer idol, Israel... I will rage at you with the intensity of a thousand suns... criticizing America and Europe is strongly encouraged however.

---

Speaking of boomer ideology, your ideology died off with the Nazis, lol.

---

Tell that to your son's football team.

---

The good news is that most of the team disagreed with the handful of racist neo-Nazis. Most still adhere to common human decency and morality.

So "boomer" of them.

---

I'm sure they'll be wearing balaclavas and burning down historical monuments in no time!

You'll be a proud Boomer!

Honestly, the fact that you would call teenagers "racist neo-nazis" for being edgy and counter-culture just proves what a ****** and POS you are....

---

If a white, impotent racist neo-nazi POS dislikes me, that's a good thing.

So thanks.

---

You are one of those Boomers who won't say Merry Christmas, arent you?

---

Oh, I am definitely a proud boomer who says Happy Holidays, though I will make an exception and wish the Jews Happy Hannukah.

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The old cliche saying, "history is written by the victors" is so evident when studying WW2. I encourage all history buffs to make an attempt to study 20th century history from a true neutral perspective, read from the axis side, the translated Hitler speeches are real interesting to listen to as well

---

Big Hitler fan I see.

---

I had a feeling you would respond, I should've threw a disclaimer in my post. Figured yall could have mature conversations without pointing fingers

---

Just giving you a hard time. I don't share your admiration of Hitler, of course, but am happy to have a discussion, as you're more reasonable (and intelligent) than the other Groypers on this website.

There's still hope for you.

---

There is still hope for him to adopt my dying Boomer ideology that only white people - especially white German people - can be bad and that white people should not be proud of themselves at the risk of offending others, but should instead be as weak, pathetic, and cowardly as possible.

And if you say anything even approaching criticism of my sacred Boomer idol, Israel... I will rage at you with the intensity of a thousand suns... criticizing America and Europe is strongly encouraged however.

---

Speaking of boomer ideology, your ideology died off with the Nazis, lol.

---

Tell that to your son's football team.

---

The good news is that most of the team disagreed with the handful of racist neo-Nazis. Most still adhere to common human decency and morality.

So "boomer" of them.

---

I'm sure they'll be wearing balaclavas and burning down historical monuments in no time!

You'll be a proud Boomer!

Honestly, the fact that you would call teenagers "racist neo-nazis" for being edgy and counter-culture just proves what a ****** and POS you are....

---

If a white, impotent racist neo-nazi POS dislikes me, that's a good thing.

So thanks.

---

You are one of those Boomers who won't say Merry Christmas, arent you?

---

Oh, I am definitely a proud boomer who says Happy Holidays, though I will make an exception and wish the Jews Happy Hannukah.

---

---

Future emperor of the universe

Realitybites said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

So many of the things you're saying about Fuentes are flat out wrong. Again, you're going off of 10 second clips as you admitted you haven't watched the show. You tell people to investigate but you need to go do your own before making bold statements like you've been doing here

---

That being the case, it should be easy then to point a few things you think I am wrong about. Let's discuss. Where am I wrong?

---

For starters, the whole Nazi thing. He has made it clear that he disavows the actions of Hitler and the third reich (and Stalin too). He admires them as great men of history, same pool as Caesar, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, etc. He also disavows all harmful acts towards Jews in general. Two recent incidents, one was when the kid dressed as a Nazi at a bar in Georgia, the other when the kid threw coins at Dave Portnoy. Fuentes disavowed both.

I think you guys are misunderstanding the white supremacy thing as well. He has stated that he believes all people are created equally in the eyes of God. He has black and Jewish friends that he collabs with frequently. However, he wants to preserve the white race as the demographic core of America and Europe. He has no intentions to harm/deport legal blacks, jews, or Indians

---

It's interesting you thought this was a defense of Nick.

My friend, anyone who thinks Hitler and Stalin are "cool" or "great men" is a seriously screwed up and misguided individual who needs to repent and find Jesus. These were not cool men. They were despicable, evil human beings, responsible for millions of deaths.

You seriously need to get your priorities straightened.

---

Perhaps it's because your father's generation fought against these guys (if you're a boomer or early Gen x) but I don't think you older guys understand. Just because someone is bad, doesn't mean they can't be cool or fascinating. It's similar to Robert E Lee and many of the CSA generals, they were extremely fascinating men, much more so than those of the union side in my opinion (coming from a yankee btw). But you can't talk about them without some leftist complaining in your ear about how they're racist. It's awfully tiresome

---

My dad was a Vietnam vet. So I am quite a bit younger than a boomer. In fact, I am much closer to a Millennial than a boomer (about 3 years removed). So, it's not my age that has me thinking it's wrong to call a mass murderer responsible for genocide and the deaths of millions cool or great. It's just basic common human decency.

Robert E Lee was not a mass murderer responsible for genocide. So that's kind of an apples to bowling balls comparison.

What makes Hitler/Stalin "great" men, in your book?

---

Mothra, there are great men, like our fathers, and then there are great men who conquer nations, win battles, are insanely intelligent, and possess amazing leadership skills. We are obviously talking about the latter definition when talking about Hitler and Stalin. Go on and google "great men of history" and it will give you a list of guys, including Washington, Lincoln, Hitler, Alexander the Great, etc

---

I would submit that no reasonable person or historian thinks Hitler and Stalin were "great" men, but that doesn't answer my question.

What makes them great in your book? What makes them great in Fuentes' book? In other words, what do you guy admire about these despots?

---

Did you even read what I said? Do you understand the context of the word "great" in this conversation?

Hitler and Stalin are great because they industrialized their respective nations. Stalin transformed a peasant society into a world super power armed with nuclear weapons. Hitler took a war-torn dirt-poor Germany and turned them into one of the strongest nations in the world

JFK's personal diary stated "Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived"

He also described Hitler as "the stuff of which legends are made"

I would say JFK is a pretty reasonable man, what do you think?

---

So you think it's just the things Hitler and Stalin accomplished makes them great, not that they're mass murderers worthy of scorn.

Sounds like you really admire them and think they're cool dudes, like Nick. Right?

BTW, using this definition, we really need to take another look at Mao's and bin Laden's accomplishments. Sounds like they are "great" men as well using your definition.

---

Yeah. Using this definition, I would include Mao as one of the great men of history. Bin Laden? Not so much. He's mid. Doesn't even sniff the others actually

---

And do you find Stalin and Hitler really ****ing cool as well? And if so, what do you think makes them so ****ing cool?

As for bin Laden, I don't know. Using your criteria, I would say being able to bring down the WTC was an incredible "accomplishment."

---

I find them very fascinating. The Nazis had cool uniforms though, the Hugo Boss. Their guns were cool too. They're cool in a super villain kinda way

---

The Nazis were a strange cult. The real danger is how they corrupted so many ordinary people into supporting them. A lot of otherwise-decent people bought into a pack of lies they should have rejected out of hand.

As far as 'cool' goes, freezing to death in North Russia, discovering what a bunch of really pissed partisans can do, starving to the point of making 'bread' out of sawdust, don't really work out to much of a 'cool' thing, then to find out that all your sacrifice was to prop up a few malignant monsters at the top?

---

You could say the same about the Bolsheviks or other Communist takeovers in North Korea, Venezuela, etc. What happened in Germany was not a new thing. For example, I doubt most people like living under dictatorships yet they are common throughout history.

---

Hope you're ready to find out, because that's where The Leader is taking us.

---

Betcha $20 we aren't going to be a dictatorship in the near future…

---

I would bet that troops get deployed in major cities to ensure Republican victory in 2028, if not in 2026. Is that soon enough to qualify?

---

Sam, I am afraid you completely overestimate the capability of the GOP. Probably 80% of elected republicans are nothing but grifters whose only make a show of opposition to democrats. There is zero chance of that.

---

It's happening already. You really think the National Guard is in Chicago because of Trump's overflowing compassion and concern for the safety of its Democrat residents?

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Bruisers Burner Phone said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Churchill was the chief villain of WW2.

---

Aaaand you can stop reading there.

---

Tucker Carlson version of 'history for the weak minded'

---

Certainly it is podcaster Daryl Cooper's view of history, and Tucker seems to buy it hook, line, and sinker.

I've listened to Cooper and read Buchanan's book many years ago, and from what I recall of Buchanan and my understanding of Cooper's position, they are focused on what was essentially Churchill's unwillingness to agree to Hitler's desire to expand and conquer much of Eastern Europe. I know Buchanan didn't like the treatment of Germany post WWI, and posits that had Churchill been willing to allow Germany to conquer Eastern Europe, then a global conflict would likely not have happened, and the Holocaust would likely not have happened, because the Final Solution was a product of Hitler feeling the noose tightening.

Of course, what Buchanan ignores is that the Nazis' occupation of Poland was exceptionally brutal from the get-go. The Nazis targeted the educated Polish, including the teachers, clergy, doctors and govt. leaders, executing tens of thousands of them. They also had disdain for the Slavic background of the Polish, considering them an inferior race, which is why they killed millions of them indiscriminately. It is estimated that in addition to the 3 million Polish Jews who were exterminated at the hands of the Nazis, approximately 2 million ethnic Poles were likewise executed. This genocide began long before Hitler's Final Solution was put into effect, which of course completely undermines Buchanan's position. Hitler had plans to march through the rest of Eastern Europe and do the same thing as he did in Poland, and undoubtedly would have done so if not met with resistance.

Now, Buchanan is correct that Hitler didn't want war with GB. Indeed, he was a fan of Anglophiles (feeling they were also a superior race), and didn't have the disdain for them that he had for the Slavs and Jews, who he felt could be killed with abandon. So, in a sense, Buchanan is right that Churchill's refusal to allow Germany to march across Eastern Europe is what contributed to WWII becoming a global conflict. But it is an extremely ethnocentric (and, quite frankly, despicable) view in which Buchanan essentially demonstrated that it was more important in his mind for the Anglophiles to unite instead of war with one another. And that was more important than a few million dead Slavs and Jews.

Of course, you can see why it has so many fans on this board.

---

Buchanan's point is that Poland was either going to the Nazis or the communists. Both were brutal, but there was nothing we could do about it. That has nothing to do with why we fought the war.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

So many of the things you're saying about Fuentes are flat out wrong. Again, you're going off of 10 second clips as you admitted you haven't watched the show. You tell people to investigate but you need to go do your own before making bold statements like you've been doing here

---

That being the case, it should be easy then to point a few things you think I am wrong about. Let's discuss. Where am I wrong?

---

For starters, the whole Nazi thing. He has made it clear that he disavows the actions of Hitler and the third reich (and Stalin too). He admires them as great men of history, same pool as Caesar, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, etc. He also disavows all harmful acts towards Jews in general. Two recent incidents, one was when the kid dressed as a Nazi at a bar in Georgia, the other when the kid threw coins at Dave Portnoy. Fuentes disavowed both.

I think you guys are misunderstanding the white supremacy thing as well. He has stated that he believes all people are created equally in the eyes of God. He has black and Jewish friends that he collabs with frequently. However, he wants to preserve the white race as the demographic core of America and Europe. He has no intentions to harm/deport legal blacks, jews, or Indians

---

It's interesting you thought this was a defense of Nick.

My friend, anyone who thinks Hitler and Stalin are "cool" or "great men" is a seriously screwed up and misguided individual who needs to repent and find Jesus. These were not cool men. They were despicable, evil human beings, responsible for millions of deaths.

You seriously need to get your priorities straightened.

---

Perhaps it's because your father's generation fought against these guys (if you're a boomer or early Gen x) but I don't think you older guys understand. Just because someone is bad, doesn't mean they can't be cool or fascinating. It's similar to Robert E Lee and many of the CSA generals, they were extremely fascinating men, much more so than those of the union side in my opinion (coming from a yankee btw). But you can't talk about them without some leftist complaining in your ear about how they're racist. It's awfully tiresome

---

My dad was a Vietnam vet. So I am quite a bit younger than a boomer. In fact, I am much closer to a Millennial than a boomer (about 3 years removed). So, it's not my age that has me thinking it's wrong to call a mass murderer responsible for genocide and the deaths of millions cool or great. It's just basic common human decency.

Robert E Lee was not a mass murderer responsible for genocide. So that's kind of an apples to bowling balls comparison.

What makes Hitler/Stalin "great" men, in your book?

---

Mothra, there are great men, like our fathers, and then there are great men who conquer nations, win battles, are insanely intelligent, and possess amazing leadership skills. We are obviously talking about the latter definition when talking about Hitler and Stalin. Go on and google "great men of history" and it will give you a list of guys, including Washington, Lincoln, Hitler, Alexander the Great, etc

---

I would submit that no reasonable person or historian thinks Hitler and Stalin were "great" men, but that doesn't answer my question.

What makes them great in your book? What makes them great in Fuentes' book? In other words, what do you guy admire about these despots?

---

Did you even read what I said? Do you understand the context of the word "great" in this conversation?

Hitler and Stalin are great because they industrialized their respective nations. Stalin transformed a peasant society into a world super power armed with nuclear weapons. Hitler took a war-torn dirt-poor Germany and turned them into one of the strongest nations in the world

JFK's personal diary stated "Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived"

He also described Hitler as "the stuff of which legends are made"

I would say JFK is a pretty reasonable man, what do you think?

---

So you think it's just the things Hitler and Stalin accomplished makes them great, not that they're mass murderers worthy of scorn.

Sounds like you really admire them and think they're cool dudes, like Nick. Right?

BTW, using this definition, we really need to take another look at Mao's and bin Laden's accomplishments. Sounds like they are "great" men as well using your definition.

---

Yeah. Using this definition, I would include Mao as one of the great men of history. Bin Laden? Not so much. He's mid. Doesn't even sniff the others actually

---

And do you find Stalin and Hitler really ****ing cool as well? And if so, what do you think makes them so ****ing cool?

As for bin Laden, I don't know. Using your criteria, I would say being able to bring down the WTC was an incredible "accomplishment."

---

I find them very fascinating. The Nazis had cool uniforms though, the Hugo Boss. Their guns were cool too. They're cool in a super villain kinda way

---

The Nazis were a strange cult. The real danger is how they corrupted so many ordinary people into supporting them. A lot of otherwise-decent people bought into a pack of lies they should have rejected out of hand.

As far as 'cool' goes, freezing to death in North Russia, discovering what a bunch of really pissed partisans can do, starving to the point of making 'bread' out of sawdust, don't really work out to much of a 'cool' thing, then to find out that all your sacrifice was to prop up a few malignant monsters at the top?

---

You could say the same about the Bolsheviks or other Communist takeovers in North Korea, Venezuela, etc. What happened in Germany was not a new thing. For example, I doubt most people like living under dictatorships yet they are common throughout history.

---

Hope you're ready to find out, because that's where The Leader is taking us.

---

Betcha $20 we aren't going to be a dictatorship in the near future…

---

I would bet that troops get deployed in major cities to ensure Republican victory in 2028, if not in 2026. Is that soon enough to qualify?

---

Sam, I am afraid you completely overestimate the capability of the GOP. Probably 80% of elected republicans are nothing but grifters whose only make a show of opposition to democrats. There is zero chance of that.

---

It's happening already. You really think the National Guard is in Chicago because of Trump's overflowing compassion and concern for the safety of its Democrat residents?

---

Good odds the President cares more about them than you, Sam.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

So many of the things you're saying about Fuentes are flat out wrong. Again, you're going off of 10 second clips as you admitted you haven't watched the show. You tell people to investigate but you need to go do your own before making bold statements like you've been doing here

---

That being the case, it should be easy then to point a few things you think I am wrong about. Let's discuss. Where am I wrong?

---

For starters, the whole Nazi thing. He has made it clear that he disavows the actions of Hitler and the third reich (and Stalin too). He admires them as great men of history, same pool as Caesar, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, etc. He also disavows all harmful acts towards Jews in general. Two recent incidents, one was when the kid dressed as a Nazi at a bar in Georgia, the other when the kid threw coins at Dave Portnoy. Fuentes disavowed both.

I think you guys are misunderstanding the white supremacy thing as well. He has stated that he believes all people are created equally in the eyes of God. He has black and Jewish friends that he collabs with frequently. However, he wants to preserve the white race as the demographic core of America and Europe. He has no intentions to harm/deport legal blacks, jews, or Indians

---

It's interesting you thought this was a defense of Nick.

My friend, anyone who thinks Hitler and Stalin are "cool" or "great men" is a seriously screwed up and misguided individual who needs to repent and find Jesus. These were not cool men. They were despicable, evil human beings, responsible for millions of deaths.

You seriously need to get your priorities straightened.

---

Perhaps it's because your father's generation fought against these guys (if you're a boomer or early Gen x) but I don't think you older guys understand. Just because someone is bad, doesn't mean they can't be cool or fascinating. It's similar to Robert E Lee and many of the CSA generals, they were extremely fascinating men, much more so than those of the union side in my opinion (coming from a yankee btw). But you can't talk about them without some leftist complaining in your ear about how they're racist. It's awfully tiresome

---

My dad was a Vietnam vet. So I am quite a bit younger than a boomer. In fact, I am much closer to a Millennial than a boomer (about 3 years removed). So, it's not my age that has me thinking it's wrong to call a mass murderer responsible for genocide and the deaths of millions cool or great. It's just basic common human decency.

Robert E Lee was not a mass murderer responsible for genocide. So that's kind of an apples to bowling balls comparison.

What makes Hitler/Stalin "great" men, in your book?

---

Mothra, there are great men, like our fathers, and then there are great men who conquer nations, win battles, are insanely intelligent, and possess amazing leadership skills. We are obviously talking about the latter definition when talking about Hitler and Stalin. Go on and google "great men of history" and it will give you a list of guys, including Washington, Lincoln, Hitler, Alexander the Great, etc

---

I would submit that no reasonable person or historian thinks Hitler and Stalin were "great" men, but that doesn't answer my question.

What makes them great in your book? What makes them great in Fuentes' book? In other words, what do you guy admire about these despots?

---

Did you even read what I said? Do you understand the context of the word "great" in this conversation?

Hitler and Stalin are great because they industrialized their respective nations. Stalin transformed a peasant society into a world super power armed with nuclear weapons. Hitler took a war-torn dirt-poor Germany and turned them into one of the strongest nations in the world

JFK's personal diary stated "Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived"

He also described Hitler as "the stuff of which legends are made"

I would say JFK is a pretty reasonable man, what do you think?

---

So you think it's just the things Hitler and Stalin accomplished makes them great, not that they're mass murderers worthy of scorn.

Sounds like you really admire them and think they're cool dudes, like Nick. Right?

BTW, using this definition, we really need to take another look at Mao's and bin Laden's accomplishments. Sounds like they are "great" men as well using your definition.

---

Yeah. Using this definition, I would include Mao as one of the great men of history. Bin Laden? Not so much. He's mid. Doesn't even sniff the others actually

---

And do you find Stalin and Hitler really ****ing cool as well? And if so, what do you think makes them so ****ing cool?

As for bin Laden, I don't know. Using your criteria, I would say being able to bring down the WTC was an incredible "accomplishment."

---

I find them very fascinating. The Nazis had cool uniforms though, the Hugo Boss. Their guns were cool too. They're cool in a super villain kinda way

---

The Nazis were a strange cult. The real danger is how they corrupted so many ordinary people into supporting them. A lot of otherwise-decent people bought into a pack of lies they should have rejected out of hand.

As far as 'cool' goes, freezing to death in North Russia, discovering what a bunch of really pissed partisans can do, starving to the point of making 'bread' out of sawdust, don't really work out to much of a 'cool' thing, then to find out that all your sacrifice was to prop up a few malignant monsters at the top?

---

You could say the same about the Bolsheviks or other Communist takeovers in North Korea, Venezuela, etc. What happened in Germany was not a new thing. For example, I doubt most people like living under dictatorships yet they are common throughout history.

---

Hope you're ready to find out, because that's where The Leader is taking us.

---

Betcha $20 we aren't going to be a dictatorship in the near future…

---

I would bet that troops get deployed in major cities to ensure Republican victory in 2028, if not in 2026. Is that soon enough to qualify?

---

Sam, I am afraid you completely overestimate the capability of the GOP. Probably 80% of elected republicans are nothing but grifters whose only make a show of opposition to democrats. There is zero chance of that.

---

It's happening already. You really think the National Guard is in Chicago because of Trump's overflowing compassion and concern for the safety of its Democrat residents?

---

Good odds the President cares more about them than you, Sam.

---

Eh, did you see his tweet on Rob Reiner? Trump doesn't care about democrats

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

So many of the things you're saying about Fuentes are flat out wrong. Again, you're going off of 10 second clips as you admitted you haven't watched the show. You tell people to investigate but you need to go do your own before making bold statements like you've been doing here

---

That being the case, it should be easy then to point a few things you think I am wrong about. Let's discuss. Where am I wrong?

---

For starters, the whole Nazi thing. He has made it clear that he disavows the actions of Hitler and the third reich (and Stalin too). He admires them as great men of history, same pool as Caesar, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, etc. He also disavows all harmful acts towards Jews in general. Two recent incidents, one was when the kid dressed as a Nazi at a bar in Georgia, the other when the kid threw coins at Dave Portnoy. Fuentes disavowed both.

I think you guys are misunderstanding the white supremacy thing as well. He has stated that he believes all people are created equally in the eyes of God. He has black and Jewish friends that he collabs with frequently. However, he wants to preserve the white race as the demographic core of America and Europe. He has no intentions to harm/deport legal blacks, jews, or Indians

---

It's interesting you thought this was a defense of Nick.

My friend, anyone who thinks Hitler and Stalin are "cool" or "great men" is a seriously screwed up and misguided individual who needs to repent and find Jesus. These were not cool men. They were despicable, evil human beings, responsible for millions of deaths.

You seriously need to get your priorities straightened.

---

Perhaps it's because your father's generation fought against these guys (if you're a boomer or early Gen x) but I don't think you older guys understand. Just because someone is bad, doesn't mean they can't be cool or fascinating. It's similar to Robert E Lee and many of the CSA generals, they were extremely fascinating men, much more so than those of the union side in my opinion (coming from a yankee btw). But you can't talk about them without some leftist complaining in your ear about how they're racist. It's awfully tiresome

---

My dad was a Vietnam vet. So I am quite a bit younger than a boomer. In fact, I am much closer to a Millennial than a boomer (about 3 years removed). So, it's not my age that has me thinking it's wrong to call a mass murderer responsible for genocide and the deaths of millions cool or great. It's just basic common human decency.

Robert E Lee was not a mass murderer responsible for genocide. So that's kind of an apples to bowling balls comparison.

What makes Hitler/Stalin "great" men, in your book?

---

Mothra, there are great men, like our fathers, and then there are great men who conquer nations, win battles, are insanely intelligent, and possess amazing leadership skills. We are obviously talking about the latter definition when talking about Hitler and Stalin. Go on and google "great men of history" and it will give you a list of guys, including Washington, Lincoln, Hitler, Alexander the Great, etc

---

I would submit that no reasonable person or historian thinks Hitler and Stalin were "great" men, but that doesn't answer my question.

What makes them great in your book? What makes them great in Fuentes' book? In other words, what do you guy admire about these despots?

---

Did you even read what I said? Do you understand the context of the word "great" in this conversation?

Hitler and Stalin are great because they industrialized their respective nations. Stalin transformed a peasant society into a world super power armed with nuclear weapons. Hitler took a war-torn dirt-poor Germany and turned them into one of the strongest nations in the world

JFK's personal diary stated "Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived"

He also described Hitler as "the stuff of which legends are made"

I would say JFK is a pretty reasonable man, what do you think?

---

So you think it's just the things Hitler and Stalin accomplished makes them great, not that they're mass murderers worthy of scorn.

Sounds like you really admire them and think they're cool dudes, like Nick. Right?

BTW, using this definition, we really need to take another look at Mao's and bin Laden's accomplishments. Sounds like they are "great" men as well using your definition.

---

Yeah. Using this definition, I would include Mao as one of the great men of history. Bin Laden? Not so much. He's mid. Doesn't even sniff the others actually

---

And do you find Stalin and Hitler really ****ing cool as well? And if so, what do you think makes them so ****ing cool?

As for bin Laden, I don't know. Using your criteria, I would say being able to bring down the WTC was an incredible "accomplishment."

---

I find them very fascinating. The Nazis had cool uniforms though, the Hugo Boss. Their guns were cool too. They're cool in a super villain kinda way

---

The Nazis were a strange cult. The real danger is how they corrupted so many ordinary people into supporting them. A lot of otherwise-decent people bought into a pack of lies they should have rejected out of hand.

As far as 'cool' goes, freezing to death in North Russia, discovering what a bunch of really pissed partisans can do, starving to the point of making 'bread' out of sawdust, don't really work out to much of a 'cool' thing, then to find out that all your sacrifice was to prop up a few malignant monsters at the top?

---

You could say the same about the Bolsheviks or other Communist takeovers in North Korea, Venezuela, etc. What happened in Germany was not a new thing. For example, I doubt most people like living under dictatorships yet they are common throughout history.

---

Hope you're ready to find out, because that's where The Leader is taking us.

---

Betcha $20 we aren't going to be a dictatorship in the near future…

---

I would bet that troops get deployed in major cities to ensure Republican victory in 2028, if not in 2026. Is that soon enough to qualify?

---

Sam, I am afraid you completely overestimate the capability of the GOP. Probably 80% of elected republicans are nothing but grifters whose only make a show of opposition to democrats. There is zero chance of that.

---

It's happening already. You really think the National Guard is in Chicago because of Trump's overflowing compassion and concern for the safety of its Democrat residents?

---

Good odds the President cares more about them than you, Sam.

---

Eh, did you see his tweet on Rob Reiner? Trump doesn't care about democrats

---

Arrogant wealthy Democrats, sure. Ordinary folk, he's cool.

Funny thing, Trump is also a **** to arrogant, wealth Republicans.

Guess P-Donald wants to be the only influential, arrogant rich guy in the room.

Ben Shapiro says Tucker Carlson should be pushed out of the conservative movement, warning that his rhetoric has become too dangerous.

He says Carlson’s language could push Americans toward a real revolution and lead conservatives to “lose control.”

Shapiro says Carlson is… pic.twitter.com/hSQrAxzKe0

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) December 18, 2025

boognish_bear said:

---

Ben Shapiro says Tucker Carlson should be pushed out of the conservative movement, warning that his rhetoric has become too dangerous.

He says Carlson’s language could push Americans toward a real revolution and lead conservatives to “lose control.”

Shapiro says Carlson is… pic.twitter.com/hSQrAxzKe0

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) December 18, 2025

---

You wouldn't hear a peep out of Ben Shapiro if Tucker was criticizing any other US ally

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Ben Shapiro says Tucker Carlson should be pushed out of the conservative movement, warning that his rhetoric has become too dangerous.

He says Carlson’s language could push Americans toward a real revolution and lead conservatives to “lose control.”

Shapiro says Carlson is… pic.twitter.com/hSQrAxzKe0

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) December 18, 2025

---

You wouldn't hear a peep out of Ben Shapiro if Tucker was criticizing any other US ally

---

This is demonstrably untrue. Shapiro has often said that Tucker has gone too far in his criticism of Western Europe, not because they don't deserve criticism, but because he doesn't believe that abandoning Western Europe is good for America.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The old cliche saying, "history is written by the victors" is so evident when studying WW2. I encourage all history buffs to make an attempt to study 20th century history from a true neutral perspective, read from the axis side, the translated Hitler speeches are real interesting to listen to as well

---

Big Hitler fan I see.

---

I had a feeling you would respond, I should've threw a disclaimer in my post. Figured yall could have mature conversations without pointing fingers

---

Just giving you a hard time. I don't share your admiration of Hitler, of course, but am happy to have a discussion, as you're more reasonable (and intelligent) than the other Groypers on this website.

There's still hope for you.

---

There is still hope for him to adopt my dying Boomer ideology that only white people - especially white German people - can be bad and that white people should not be proud of themselves at the risk of offending others, but should instead be as weak, pathetic, and cowardly as possible.

And if you say anything even approaching criticism of my sacred Boomer idol, Israel... I will rage at you with the intensity of a thousand suns... criticizing America and Europe is strongly encouraged however.

---

Speaking of boomer ideology, your ideology died off with the Nazis, lol.

---

Tell that to your son's football team.

---

The good news is that most of the team disagreed with the handful of racist neo-Nazis. Most still adhere to common human decency and morality.

So "boomer" of them.

---

I'm sure they'll be wearing balaclavas and burning down historical monuments in no time!

You'll be a proud Boomer!

Honestly, the fact that you would call teenagers "racist neo-nazis" for being edgy and counter-culture just proves what a ****** and POS you are....

---

If a white, impotent racist neo-nazi POS dislikes me, that's a good thing.

So thanks.

---

You are one of those Boomers who won't say Merry Christmas, arent you?

---

Oh, I am definitely a proud boomer who says Happy Holidays, though I will make an exception and wish the Jews Happy Hannukah.

---

---

The irony here? You admittedly don't even believe in him.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Bruisers Burner Phone said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Churchill was the chief villain of WW2.

---

Aaaand you can stop reading there.

---

Tucker Carlson version of 'history for the weak minded'

---

Certainly it is podcaster Daryl Cooper's view of history, and Tucker seems to buy it hook, line, and sinker.

I've listened to Cooper and read Buchanan's book many years ago, and from what I recall of Buchanan and my understanding of Cooper's position, they are focused on what was essentially Churchill's unwillingness to agree to Hitler's desire to expand and conquer much of Eastern Europe. I know Buchanan didn't like the treatment of Germany post WWI, and posits that had Churchill been willing to allow Germany to conquer Eastern Europe, then a global conflict would likely not have happened, and the Holocaust would likely not have happened, because the Final Solution was a product of Hitler feeling the noose tightening.

Of course, what Buchanan ignores is that the Nazis' occupation of Poland was exceptionally brutal from the get-go. The Nazis targeted the educated Polish, including the teachers, clergy, doctors and govt. leaders, executing tens of thousands of them. They also had disdain for the Slavic background of the Polish, considering them an inferior race, which is why they killed millions of them indiscriminately. It is estimated that in addition to the 3 million Polish Jews who were exterminated at the hands of the Nazis, approximately 2 million ethnic Poles were likewise executed. This genocide began long before Hitler's Final Solution was put into effect, which of course completely undermines Buchanan's position. Hitler had plans to march through the rest of Eastern Europe and do the same thing as he did in Poland, and undoubtedly would have done so if not met with resistance.

Now, Buchanan is correct that Hitler didn't want war with GB. Indeed, he was a fan of Anglophiles (feeling they were also a superior race), and didn't have the disdain for them that he had for the Slavs and Jews, who he felt could be killed with abandon. So, in a sense, Buchanan is right that Churchill's refusal to allow Germany to march across Eastern Europe is what contributed to WWII becoming a global conflict. But it is an extremely ethnocentric (and, quite frankly, despicable) view in which Buchanan essentially demonstrated that it was more important in his mind for the Anglophiles to unite instead of war with one another. And that was more important than a few million dead Slavs and Jews.

Of course, you can see why it has so many fans on this board.

---

Buchanan's point is that Poland was either going to the Nazis or the communists. Both were brutal, but there was nothing we could do about it. That has nothing to do with why we fought the war.

---

Just FYI, we did something about it.

And sure it does. It was the catalyst that led GB's involvement, and helped turn the regional war into a more global conflict.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Bruisers Burner Phone said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Churchill was the chief villain of WW2.

---

Aaaand you can stop reading there.

---

Tucker Carlson version of 'history for the weak minded'

---

Certainly it is podcaster Daryl Cooper's view of history, and Tucker seems to buy it hook, line, and sinker.

I've listened to Cooper and read Buchanan's book many years ago, and from what I recall of Buchanan and my understanding of Cooper's position, they are focused on what was essentially Churchill's unwillingness to agree to Hitler's desire to expand and conquer much of Eastern Europe. I know Buchanan didn't like the treatment of Germany post WWI, and posits that had Churchill been willing to allow Germany to conquer Eastern Europe, then a global conflict would likely not have happened, and the Holocaust would likely not have happened, because the Final Solution was a product of Hitler feeling the noose tightening.

Of course, what Buchanan ignores is that the Nazis' occupation of Poland was exceptionally brutal from the get-go. The Nazis targeted the educated Polish, including the teachers, clergy, doctors and govt. leaders, executing tens of thousands of them. They also had disdain for the Slavic background of the Polish, considering them an inferior race, which is why they killed millions of them indiscriminately. It is estimated that in addition to the 3 million Polish Jews who were exterminated at the hands of the Nazis, approximately 2 million ethnic Poles were likewise executed. This genocide began long before Hitler's Final Solution was put into effect, which of course completely undermines Buchanan's position. Hitler had plans to march through the rest of Eastern Europe and do the same thing as he did in Poland, and undoubtedly would have done so if not met with resistance.

Now, Buchanan is correct that Hitler didn't want war with GB. Indeed, he was a fan of Anglophiles (feeling they were also a superior race), and didn't have the disdain for them that he had for the Slavs and Jews, who he felt could be killed with abandon. So, in a sense, Buchanan is right that Churchill's refusal to allow Germany to march across Eastern Europe is what contributed to WWII becoming a global conflict. But it is an extremely ethnocentric (and, quite frankly, despicable) view in which Buchanan essentially demonstrated that it was more important in his mind for the Anglophiles to unite instead of war with one another. And that was more important than a few million dead Slavs and Jews.

Of course, you can see why it has so many fans on this board.

---

Buchanan's point is that Poland was either going to the Nazis or the communists. Both were brutal, but there was nothing we could do about it. That has nothing to do with why we fought the war.

---

Just FYI, we did something about it.

And sure it does. It was the catalyst that led GB's involvement, and helped turn the regional war into a more global conflict.

---

There was nothing we could do about it. Poland became part of the Eastern Bloc, and so it remained until the end of the Cold War.

Bruisers Burner Phone said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Ben Shapiro says Tucker Carlson should be pushed out of the conservative movement, warning that his rhetoric has become too dangerous.

He says Carlson’s language could push Americans toward a real revolution and lead conservatives to “lose control.”

Shapiro says Carlson is… pic.twitter.com/hSQrAxzKe0

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) December 18, 2025

---

You wouldn't hear a peep out of Ben Shapiro if Tucker was criticizing any other US ally

---

This is demonstrably untrue. Shapiro has often said that Tucker has gone too far in his criticism of Western Europe, not because they don't deserve criticism, but because he doesn't believe that abandoning Western Europe is good for America.

---

Wrong, Tucker has been an isolationist for years now but Shapiro has never gone as far to say he should be kicked out of the conservative movement, it's because Tucker has upped the ante on his anti-Israel rhetoric and everyone knows it

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Bruisers Burner Phone said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Churchill was the chief villain of WW2.

---

Aaaand you can stop reading there.

---

Tucker Carlson version of 'history for the weak minded'

---

Certainly it is podcaster Daryl Cooper's view of history, and Tucker seems to buy it hook, line, and sinker.

I've listened to Cooper and read Buchanan's book many years ago, and from what I recall of Buchanan and my understanding of Cooper's position, they are focused on what was essentially Churchill's unwillingness to agree to Hitler's desire to expand and conquer much of Eastern Europe. I know Buchanan didn't like the treatment of Germany post WWI, and posits that had Churchill been willing to allow Germany to conquer Eastern Europe, then a global conflict would likely not have happened, and the Holocaust would likely not have happened, because the Final Solution was a product of Hitler feeling the noose tightening.

Of course, what Buchanan ignores is that the Nazis' occupation of Poland was exceptionally brutal from the get-go. The Nazis targeted the educated Polish, including the teachers, clergy, doctors and govt. leaders, executing tens of thousands of them. They also had disdain for the Slavic background of the Polish, considering them an inferior race, which is why they killed millions of them indiscriminately. It is estimated that in addition to the 3 million Polish Jews who were exterminated at the hands of the Nazis, approximately 2 million ethnic Poles were likewise executed. This genocide began long before Hitler's Final Solution was put into effect, which of course completely undermines Buchanan's position. Hitler had plans to march through the rest of Eastern Europe and do the same thing as he did in Poland, and undoubtedly would have done so if not met with resistance.

Now, Buchanan is correct that Hitler didn't want war with GB. Indeed, he was a fan of Anglophiles (feeling they were also a superior race), and didn't have the disdain for them that he had for the Slavs and Jews, who he felt could be killed with abandon. So, in a sense, Buchanan is right that Churchill's refusal to allow Germany to march across Eastern Europe is what contributed to WWII becoming a global conflict. But it is an extremely ethnocentric (and, quite frankly, despicable) view in which Buchanan essentially demonstrated that it was more important in his mind for the Anglophiles to unite instead of war with one another. And that was more important than a few million dead Slavs and Jews.

Of course, you can see why it has so many fans on this board.

---

Buchanan's point is that Poland was either going to the Nazis or the communists. Both were brutal, but there was nothing we could do about it. That has nothing to do with why we fought the war.

---

Just FYI, we did something about it.

And sure it does. It was the catalyst that led GB's involvement, and helped turn the regional war into a more global conflict.

---

There was nothing we could do about it. Poland became part of the Eastern Bloc, and so it remained until the end of the Cold War.

---

Again, we DID do something about it. And while Poland became part of the Eastern Bloc, it doesn't change the fact that GB went to war with Germany in large part because of its invasion of Poland. These are undisputed facts.

Now, was it ultimately successful in freeing Poland from any type of foreign interference? No. Was it a foolish thing to go to war because of Hitler's invasion of Poland? Perhaps. Should we have pushed back on the Soviet Union instead of allowing it to vastly expand its territory? I believe so. But these are different arguments that don't change any of the facts I said above, regardless of what you feel about whether it was a foolish endeavor.

Moreover, from what I recall of Buchanan's book, he assumed that Hitler would stop there, when there was pretty substantial evidence that his plans included incorporating much of Eastern Europe into Germany. There wasn't much evidence to suggest that Hitler's territorial ambitions ended with occupying Poland, and we saw that first hand given his behavior for the rest of the war.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Bruisers Burner Phone said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Ben Shapiro says Tucker Carlson should be pushed out of the conservative movement, warning that his rhetoric has become too dangerous.

He says Carlson’s language could push Americans toward a real revolution and lead conservatives to “lose control.”

Shapiro says Carlson is… pic.twitter.com/hSQrAxzKe0

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) December 18, 2025

---

You wouldn't hear a peep out of Ben Shapiro if Tucker was criticizing any other US ally

---

This is demonstrably untrue. Shapiro has often said that Tucker has gone too far in his criticism of Western Europe, not because they don't deserve criticism, but because he doesn't believe that abandoning Western Europe is good for America.

---

Wrong, Tucker has been an isolationist for years now but Shapiro has never gone as far to say he should be kicked out of the conservative movement, it's because Tucker has upped the ante on his anti-Israel rhetoric and everyone knows it

---

I've never heard Shapiro say or suggest Tucker should be kicked out of the conservative movement, and I've listened to him quite a bit (along with Tucker). You seem to be equating criticism of some of Tucker's more kooky and base behavior with cancellation.

Shapiro is free to criticize despicable behavior on the part of other so-called conservatives, just as Tucker regularly trashes conservatives he disagrees with. In fact, having listened to Tucker for years, he is MUCH more brutal in his takedowns of fellow conservatives, who he has admitted he "hates."

Tucker has taken an evil turn, IMO, with some of the stuff he's peddling. It's ok to criticize that.

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Bruisers Burner Phone said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Ben Shapiro says Tucker Carlson should be pushed out of the conservative movement, warning that his rhetoric has become too dangerous.

He says Carlson’s language could push Americans toward a real revolution and lead conservatives to “lose control.”

Shapiro says Carlson is… pic.twitter.com/hSQrAxzKe0

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) December 18, 2025

---

You wouldn't hear a peep out of Ben Shapiro if Tucker was criticizing any other US ally

---

This is demonstrably untrue. Shapiro has often said that Tucker has gone too far in his criticism of Western Europe, not because they don't deserve criticism, but because he doesn't believe that abandoning Western Europe is good for America.

---

Wrong, Tucker has been an isolationist for years now but Shapiro has never gone as far to say he should be kicked out of the conservative movement, it's because Tucker has upped the ante on his anti-Israel rhetoric and everyone knows it

---

I've never heard Shapiro say or suggest Tucker should be kicked out of the conservative movement, and I've listened to him quite a bit (along with Tucker). You seem to be equating criticism of some of Tucker's more kooky and base behavior with cancellation.

Shapiro is free to criticize despicable behavior on the part of other so-called conservatives, just as Tucker regularly trashes conservatives he disagrees with. In fact, having listened to Tucker for years, he is MUCH more brutal in his takedowns of fellow conservatives, who he has admitted he "hates."

Tucker has taken an evil turn, IMO, with some of the stuff he's peddling. It's ok to criticize that.

---

Shapiro gave a speech at the Heritage foundation yesterday where he called Tucker an "opponent of conservatism" and stated the conservative movement needs to set up "ideological borders"

And fundamentally I agree that Shapiro is free to say what he wants about ousting Tucker, as well as Tucker is free to say what he wants about Israel. But that's sort of a different conversation from my original statement

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Bruisers Burner Phone said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Ben Shapiro says Tucker Carlson should be pushed out of the conservative movement, warning that his rhetoric has become too dangerous.

He says Carlson’s language could push Americans toward a real revolution and lead conservatives to “lose control.”

Shapiro says Carlson is… pic.twitter.com/hSQrAxzKe0

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) December 18, 2025

---

You wouldn't hear a peep out of Ben Shapiro if Tucker was criticizing any other US ally

---

This is demonstrably untrue. Shapiro has often said that Tucker has gone too far in his criticism of Western Europe, not because they don't deserve criticism, but because he doesn't believe that abandoning Western Europe is good for America.

---

Wrong, Tucker has been an isolationist for years now but Shapiro has never gone as far to say he should be kicked out of the conservative movement, it's because Tucker has upped the ante on his anti-Israel rhetoric and everyone knows it

---

I've never heard Shapiro say or suggest Tucker should be kicked out of the conservative movement, and I've listened to him quite a bit (along with Tucker). You seem to be equating criticism of some of Tucker's more kooky and base behavior with cancellation.

Shapiro is free to criticize despicable behavior on the part of other so-called conservatives, just as Tucker regularly trashes conservatives he disagrees with. In fact, having listened to Tucker for years, he is MUCH more brutal in his takedowns of fellow conservatives, who he has admitted he "hates."

Tucker has taken an evil turn, IMO, with some of the stuff he's peddling. It's ok to criticize that.

---

Shapiro gave a speech at the Heritage foundation yesterday where he called Tucker an "opponent of conservatism" and stated the conservative movement needs to set up "ideological borders"

And fundamentally I agree that Shapiro is free to say what he wants about ousting Tucker, as well as Tucker is free to say what he wants about Israel. But that's sort of a different conversation from my original statement

---

I am not sure he's wrong about Tucker, but I agree that does sound a little more like cancellation, if that's what he suggested. I will take a look.

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Bruisers Burner Phone said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Ben Shapiro says Tucker Carlson should be pushed out of the conservative movement, warning that his rhetoric has become too dangerous.

He says Carlson’s language could push Americans toward a real revolution and lead conservatives to “lose control.”

Shapiro says Carlson is… pic.twitter.com/hSQrAxzKe0

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) December 18, 2025

---

You wouldn't hear a peep out of Ben Shapiro if Tucker was criticizing any other US ally

---

This is demonstrably untrue. Shapiro has often said that Tucker has gone too far in his criticism of Western Europe, not because they don't deserve criticism, but because he doesn't believe that abandoning Western Europe is good for America.

---

Wrong, Tucker has been an isolationist for years now but Shapiro has never gone as far to say he should be kicked out of the conservative movement, it's because Tucker has upped the ante on his anti-Israel rhetoric and everyone knows it

---

I've never heard Shapiro say or suggest Tucker should be kicked out of the conservative movement, and I've listened to him quite a bit (along with Tucker). You seem to be equating criticism of some of Tucker's more kooky and base behavior with cancellation.

Shapiro is free to criticize despicable behavior on the part of other so-called conservatives, just as Tucker regularly trashes conservatives he disagrees with. In fact, having listened to Tucker for years, he is MUCH more brutal in his takedowns of fellow conservatives, who he has admitted he "hates."

Tucker has taken an evil turn, IMO, with some of the stuff he's peddling. It's ok to criticize that.

---

Shapiro gave a speech at the Heritage foundation yesterday where he called Tucker an "opponent of conservatism" and stated the conservative movement needs to set up "ideological borders"

And fundamentally I agree that Shapiro is free to say what he wants about ousting Tucker, as well as Tucker is free to say what he wants about Israel. But that's sort of a different conversation from my original statement

---

I am not sure he's wrong about Tucker, but I agree that does sound a little more like cancellation, if that's what he suggested. I will take a look.

---

It's on the Daily Wire website, here's a link

https://www.dailywire.com/news/ben-shapiro-at-heritage-the-conservative-movement-needs-to-enforce-its-borders-too

Mothra said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

1. Should he only interview people he agrees with?
2. Does Nick not ask some reasonable questions about the US's involvement with the nation of Israel?
3. Do we no longer accept the democratic marketplace of ideas system and opt for a totalitarian system where only certain views are allowed to be expressed and others are suppressed? And if so, who gets to decide which views rightthink and which are beyond the pale?

---

You seem to be confusing this with a free speech issue. Tucker can interview anyone he likes. And of course, his viewers and sponsors can express their thoughts about who he interviews through their pocketbooks. It's called capitalism. And last I checked, Nick already had a website where he promotes some of his more heinous views. A quick search of google, and you'll find a ton of videos.

The main critique of Tucker is the softball questions and soft-pedaling of heinous and racist ideas, as well as giving a platform to same. And that is of course a legitimate critique. It's not just that he chooses to interview evil and despicable (and in some case, murderous) people, it's that he fails to challenge them on those ideas and has a tendency to make them appear sympathetic. Or in some instances, he outright praises them (see Putin).

Unless it's the evil Ted Cruz of course.

As for Nick, I suspect there are a lot of things he and I agree on, just like a lot of people who hold some conservative views. It's the more heinous views on the Holocaust, Hitler, Stalin, minorities and women that are untenable, and the reason I don't listen to a POS like him.

---

DFTW demonstrates a classic motte & bailey fallacy. Tucker is criticized for promoting a guy who admires Hitler, DFTW defends Tucker (the motte). There is massive pushback, so DFTW retreats to defending free speech (Tucker gets to interview anyone he pleases (the bailey).
Then DFTW tries to declare victory in the whole Fuentes/Hitler discussion

JFK admiration of Hitler pic.twitter.com/2FizSEuBlB

— HistoryRecap (@HistoricalWWII) October 27, 2025

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The old cliche saying, "history is written by the victors" is so evident when studying WW2. I encourage all history buffs to make an attempt to study 20th century history from a true neutral perspective, read from the axis side, the translated Hitler speeches are real interesting to listen to as well

---

Big Hitler fan I see.

---

I had a feeling you would respond, I should've threw a disclaimer in my post. Figured yall could have mature conversations without pointing fingers

---

Just giving you a hard time. I don't share your admiration of Hitler, of course, but am happy to have a discussion, as you're more reasonable (and intelligent) than the other Groypers on this website.

There's still hope for you.

---

There is still hope for him to adopt my dying Boomer ideology that only white people - especially white German people - can be bad and that white people should not be proud of themselves at the risk of offending others, but should instead be as weak, pathetic, and cowardly as possible.

And if you say anything even approaching criticism of my sacred Boomer idol, Israel... I will rage at you with the intensity of a thousand suns... criticizing America and Europe is strongly encouraged however.

---

Speaking of boomer ideology, your ideology died off with the Nazis, lol.

---

Tell that to your son's football team.

---

The good news is that most of the team disagreed with the handful of racist neo-Nazis. Most still adhere to common human decency and morality.

So "boomer" of them.

---

I'm sure they'll be wearing balaclavas and burning down historical monuments in no time!

You'll be a proud Boomer!

Honestly, the fact that you would call teenagers "racist neo-nazis" for being edgy and counter-culture just proves what a ****** and POS you are....

---

If a white, impotent racist neo-nazi POS dislikes me, that's a good thing.

So thanks.

---

You are one of those Boomers who won't say Merry Christmas, arent you?

---

Oh, I am definitely a proud boomer who says Happy Holidays, though I will make an exception and wish the Jews Happy Hannukah.

---

---

The irony here? You admittedly don't even believe in him.

---

I believe Jesus existed and his story and message manifested as Christianity changed the world for the better.

But no, I do not believe in a deity or an afterlife, but I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater bcs of that.

Christianity is the only major religion whose foundational principle is forgiveness.

Islam was founded on submission and Judaism was founded on racial supremacy.

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

1. Should he only interview people he agrees with?
2. Does Nick not ask some reasonable questions about the US's involvement with the nation of Israel?
3. Do we no longer accept the democratic marketplace of ideas system and opt for a totalitarian system where only certain views are allowed to be expressed and others are suppressed? And if so, who gets to decide which views rightthink and which are beyond the pale?

---

You seem to be confusing this with a free speech issue. Tucker can interview anyone he likes. And of course, his viewers and sponsors can express their thoughts about who he interviews through their pocketbooks. It's called capitalism. And last I checked, Nick already had a website where he promotes some of his more heinous views. A quick search of google, and you'll find a ton of videos.

The main critique of Tucker is the softball questions and soft-pedaling of heinous and racist ideas, as well as giving a platform to same. And that is of course a legitimate critique. It's not just that he chooses to interview evil and despicable (and in some case, murderous) people, it's that he fails to challenge them on those ideas and has a tendency to make them appear sympathetic. Or in some instances, he outright praises them (see Putin).

Unless it's the evil Ted Cruz of course.

As for Nick, I suspect there are a lot of things he and I agree on, just like a lot of people who hold some conservative views. It's the more heinous views on the Holocaust, Hitler, Stalin, minorities and women that are untenable, and the reason I don't listen to a POS like him.

---

DFTW demonstrates a classic motte & bailey fallacy. Tucker is criticized for promoting a guy who admires Hitler, DFTW defends Tucker (the motte). There is massive pushback, so DFTW retreats to defending free speech (Tucker gets to interview anyone he pleases (the bailey).
Then DFTW tries to declare victory in the whole Fuentes/Hitler discussion

---

Would Europe be better off today if Germany hadn't been defeated?

Would native Europeans still have strong, healthy majority populations in their native countries?

These are questions we will never know the answer to...

Hitler was a brutal man but we live in a brutal world filled with brutal people.

Very few ethnic groups are capable of creating a relatively free and fair high trust, civilized societies.

You see it here and in Europe in the crime statistics. Some groups are less evolved than others and follow the laws of nature or survival of the fittest. They lack the empathy and conscientiousness needed to created high trust societies and are predators looking at Americans and Europeans as easy prey. You can only tolerate so much and at a certain point you have to confront these people at their level. Strength is the only thing they respect.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Bruisers Burner Phone said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Churchill was the chief villain of WW2.

---

Aaaand you can stop reading there.

---

Tucker Carlson version of 'history for the weak minded'

---

Certainly it is podcaster Daryl Cooper's view of history, and Tucker seems to buy it hook, line, and sinker.

I've listened to Cooper and read Buchanan's book many years ago, and from what I recall of Buchanan and my understanding of Cooper's position, they are focused on what was essentially Churchill's unwillingness to agree to Hitler's desire to expand and conquer much of Eastern Europe. I know Buchanan didn't like the treatment of Germany post WWI, and posits that had Churchill been willing to allow Germany to conquer Eastern Europe, then a global conflict would likely not have happened, and the Holocaust would likely not have happened, because the Final Solution was a product of Hitler feeling the noose tightening.

Of course, what Buchanan ignores is that the Nazis' occupation of Poland was exceptionally brutal from the get-go. The Nazis targeted the educated Polish, including the teachers, clergy, doctors and govt. leaders, executing tens of thousands of them. They also had disdain for the Slavic background of the Polish, considering them an inferior race, which is why they killed millions of them indiscriminately. It is estimated that in addition to the 3 million Polish Jews who were exterminated at the hands of the Nazis, approximately 2 million ethnic Poles were likewise executed. This genocide began long before Hitler's Final Solution was put into effect, which of course completely undermines Buchanan's position. Hitler had plans to march through the rest of Eastern Europe and do the same thing as he did in Poland, and undoubtedly would have done so if not met with resistance.

Now, Buchanan is correct that Hitler didn't want war with GB. Indeed, he was a fan of Anglophiles (feeling they were also a superior race), and didn't have the disdain for them that he had for the Slavs and Jews, who he felt could be killed with abandon. So, in a sense, Buchanan is right that Churchill's refusal to allow Germany to march across Eastern Europe is what contributed to WWII becoming a global conflict. But it is an extremely ethnocentric (and, quite frankly, despicable) view in which Buchanan essentially demonstrated that it was more important in his mind for the Anglophiles to unite instead of war with one another. And that was more important than a few million dead Slavs and Jews.

Of course, you can see why it has so many fans on this board.

---

Buchanan's point is that Poland was either going to the Nazis or the communists. Both were brutal, but there was nothing we could do about it. That has nothing to do with why we fought the war.

---

Just FYI, we did something about it.

And sure it does. It was the catalyst that led GB's involvement, and helped turn the regional war into a more global conflict.

---

There was nothing we could do about it. Poland became part of the Eastern Bloc, and so it remained until the end of the Cold War.

---

Again, we DID do something about it. And while Poland became part of the Eastern Bloc, it doesn't change the fact that GB went to war with Germany in large part because of its invasion of Poland. These are undisputed facts.

Now, was it ultimately successful in freeing Poland from any type of foreign interference? No. Was it a foolish thing to go to war because of Hitler's invasion of Poland? Perhaps. Should we have pushed back on the Soviet Union instead of allowing it to vastly expand its territory? I believe so. But these are different arguments that don't change any of the facts I said above, regardless of what you feel about whether it was a foolish endeavor.

Moreover, from what I recall of Buchanan's book, he assumed that Hitler would stop there, when there was pretty substantial evidence that his plans included incorporating much of Eastern Europe into Germany. There wasn't much evidence to suggest that Hitler's territorial ambitions ended with occupying Poland, and we saw that first hand given his behavior for the rest of the war.

---

Buchanan's point is that either the Germans or the Russians were going to take Poland. Nothing we did changed that. So while you might assume it was unthinkable to walk away and let Poland fall under tyranny, and that therefore we had no choice but to enter the war, the end result was always going to be the same.

Trump is a Boomer.

89% of Boomers support Israel at all costs.

Gen Z that number turns to 8%.

Millennials 19%.

All we need to do is bide our time. The boomer generation is on its way out. Once they are, bye bye to our greatest ally.

— Bryce M. Lipscomb (@BryceMLipscomb) December 18, 2025

76% support Israel at all cost. Fortunately Millennials out number Gen X & with Gen Z by our side Gen X will never see any real power. Ever.

— Bryce M. Lipscomb (@BryceMLipscomb) December 18, 2025

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Bruisers Burner Phone said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Churchill was the chief villain of WW2.

---

Aaaand you can stop reading there.

---

Tucker Carlson version of 'history for the weak minded'

---

Certainly it is podcaster Daryl Cooper's view of history, and Tucker seems to buy it hook, line, and sinker.

I've listened to Cooper and read Buchanan's book many years ago, and from what I recall of Buchanan and my understanding of Cooper's position, they are focused on what was essentially Churchill's unwillingness to agree to Hitler's desire to expand and conquer much of Eastern Europe. I know Buchanan didn't like the treatment of Germany post WWI, and posits that had Churchill been willing to allow Germany to conquer Eastern Europe, then a global conflict would likely not have happened, and the Holocaust would likely not have happened, because the Final Solution was a product of Hitler feeling the noose tightening.

Of course, what Buchanan ignores is that the Nazis' occupation of Poland was exceptionally brutal from the get-go. The Nazis targeted the educated Polish, including the teachers, clergy, doctors and govt. leaders, executing tens of thousands of them. They also had disdain for the Slavic background of the Polish, considering them an inferior race, which is why they killed millions of them indiscriminately. It is estimated that in addition to the 3 million Polish Jews who were exterminated at the hands of the Nazis, approximately 2 million ethnic Poles were likewise executed. This genocide began long before Hitler's Final Solution was put into effect, which of course completely undermines Buchanan's position. Hitler had plans to march through the rest of Eastern Europe and do the same thing as he did in Poland, and undoubtedly would have done so if not met with resistance.

Now, Buchanan is correct that Hitler didn't want war with GB. Indeed, he was a fan of Anglophiles (feeling they were also a superior race), and didn't have the disdain for them that he had for the Slavs and Jews, who he felt could be killed with abandon. So, in a sense, Buchanan is right that Churchill's refusal to allow Germany to march across Eastern Europe is what contributed to WWII becoming a global conflict. But it is an extremely ethnocentric (and, quite frankly, despicable) view in which Buchanan essentially demonstrated that it was more important in his mind for the Anglophiles to unite instead of war with one another. And that was more important than a few million dead Slavs and Jews.

Of course, you can see why it has so many fans on this board.

---

Buchanan's point is that Poland was either going to the Nazis or the communists. Both were brutal, but there was nothing we could do about it. That has nothing to do with why we fought the war.

---

Just FYI, we did something about it.

And sure it does. It was the catalyst that led GB's involvement, and helped turn the regional war into a more global conflict.

---

There was nothing we could do about it. Poland became part of the Eastern Bloc, and so it remained until the end of the Cold War.

---

Again, we DID do something about it. And while Poland became part of the Eastern Bloc, it doesn't change the fact that GB went to war with Germany in large part because of its invasion of Poland. These are undisputed facts.

Now, was it ultimately successful in freeing Poland from any type of foreign interference? No. Was it a foolish thing to go to war because of Hitler's invasion of Poland? Perhaps. Should we have pushed back on the Soviet Union instead of allowing it to vastly expand its territory? I believe so. But these are different arguments that don't change any of the facts I said above, regardless of what you feel about whether it was a foolish endeavor.

Moreover, from what I recall of Buchanan's book, he assumed that Hitler would stop there, when there was pretty substantial evidence that his plans included incorporating much of Eastern Europe into Germany. There wasn't much evidence to suggest that Hitler's territorial ambitions ended with occupying Poland, and we saw that first hand given his behavior for the rest of the war.

---

Buchanan's point is that either the Germans or the Russians were going to take Poland. Nothing we did changed that. So while you might assume it was unthinkable to walk away and let Poland fall under tyranny, and that therefore we had no choice but to enter the war, the end result was always going to be the same.

---

Yea, Buchanan makes a decent point....

"It [WWII] began to keep Poland from being occupied by an evil totalitarian socialist foreign government. It ended with Poland occupied by an evil totalitarian socialist foreign government. Also, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia all fell to communism. The most populous nation on earth, China was also taken over by the communists. And at least 50 million people died"

Solzhenitsyn also let us know it was a civilizational catastrophe

"was a war when Europe, bursting with health and abundance, fell into a rage of self-mutilation which could not but sap its strength for a century or more, and perhaps forever." -Solzhenitsyn