muddybrazos said:

---

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

— HistoryRecap (@HistoricalWWII) October 27, 2025

---

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:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

Buchanan may have been right. But he also may have been wrong.

As for me, I've offered no opinion on the subject of whether it was a poor decision or the correct one. I've simply commented on the reason it expanded into a world war, and the invasion of Poland was certainly the catalyst.

There is also no question in my mind that Buchanan's view was affected by his ethnocentrism.

---

Tucker: Attacking millions of Americans because they're muslims, it's disgusting. And I'm a Christian. I know there's effort to claim I'm a secret jihadi. I'm not. You should not attack on those grounds. And you're seeing that from Republicans. What the hell are you doing? What… pic.twitter.com/v1MRybhkjI

— Acyn (@Acyn) December 19, 2025

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

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

— HistoryRecap (@HistoricalWWII) October 27, 2025

---

Do you agree with him?

---

Tucker Carlson goes SCORCHED EARTH on Christian Ministers working on behalf of a Foreign Nation 🔥🔥🔥🔥

“God is not on any country’s side. Certain countries can be on God’s side, and that is true for people too. God doesn’t have a partisan affiliation.. if someone is telling… https://t.co/3jlkMi5Nz4 pic.twitter.com/7nwGciRtwA

— MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) December 19, 2025

muddybrazos said:

---

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

— HistoryRecap (@HistoricalWWII) October 27, 2025

---

🇷🇴 105 years since the first terrorist attack in Romania:

In 1920, Max Goldstein, Leon Lichtblau, and Saul Osias, three Jewish Bolsheviks, detonate a bomb in the Romanian Senate, killing several people and injuring many others with the intent of starting a communist revolution pic.twitter.com/zvMSiI6Bco

— Daily Romania (@daily_romania) December 18, 2025

KaiBear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

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

— HistoryRecap (@HistoricalWWII) October 27, 2025

---

Kennedy did not admire Hitler.

Such a premise is mere internet pulp.

Kennedy's older brother….Joe Jr…..died fighting the Nazis.

---

“Conspiracy” pic.twitter.com/YOJrfDCOIC

— LivornoGroyper (@LivornoGroyper) December 19, 2025

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

Buchanan may have been right. But he also may have been wrong.

As for me, I've offered no opinion on the subject of whether it was a poor decision or the correct one. I've simply commented on the reason it expanded into a world war, and the invasion of Poland was certainly the catalyst.

There is also no question in my mind that Buchanan's view was affected by his ethnocentrism.

---

But don't forget to pay 30% taxes for Ben's favorite country!

— Owen Shroyer (@OwenShroyer1776) December 19, 2025

This was all in less than a week, mind you.

— Owen Shroyer (@OwenShroyer1776) December 18, 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:

---

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.

---

So you like the thought of Jesus, you just don't believe in him or follow his teachings. This is of course no surprise to any Christian who had read your posts.

As I said, I pray you find him.

---

I’ll say this… Tucker went into the lions 🦁 den and slapped his massive balls down, because everything he said takes huge balls! It was great to hear him call everything out… he’s definitely on their list and he knows it but he said it anyway!! Awesome!

— REDTRASH (@R3sist_Tyranny) December 19, 2025

Germany and Soviet both invaded Poland in September 1939. Soviets also invaded Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia October '39 and Finland in November '39. But for some reason only declared war on Germany for invading Poland. And bombed Berlin 9 days straight to provoke the Blitz

— Schulzy $089 🐍⚔️🥷 (@Schulzy12) December 19, 2025

The_barBEARian said:

---

Every day I read about a new jewish terror attack from the beginning of the 20th century that I had never heard about before.

🇷🇴 105 years since the first terrorist attack in Romania:

In 1920, Max Goldstein, Leon Lichtblau, and Saul Osias, three Jewish Bolsheviks, detonate a bomb in the Romanian Senate, killing several people and injuring many others with the intent of starting a communist revolution pic.twitter.com/zvMSiI6Bco

— Daily Romania (@daily_romania) December 18, 2025

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

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

— HistoryRecap (@HistoricalWWII) October 27, 2025

---

Do you agree with him?

---

I cant say I disagree with JFK.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

Buchanan may have been right. But he also may have been wrong.

As for me, I've offered no opinion on the subject of whether it was a poor decision or the correct one. I've simply commented on the reason it expanded into a world war, and the invasion of Poland was certainly the catalyst.

There is also no question in my mind that Buchanan's view was affected by his ethnocentrism.

---

Poland was a catalyst in the true sense, as it precipitated the event without any change in its own fate. The real action and reaction were elsewhere.

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Every day I read about a new jewish terror attack from the beginning of the 20th century that I had never heard about before.

🇷🇴 105 years since the first terrorist attack in Romania:

In 1920, Max Goldstein, Leon Lichtblau, and Saul Osias, three Jewish Bolsheviks, detonate a bomb in the Romanian Senate, killing several people and injuring many others with the intent of starting a communist revolution pic.twitter.com/zvMSiI6Bco

— Daily Romania (@daily_romania) December 18, 2025

---

If international jewry was responsible for communism, why isn't Israel a communist state?

---

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:

---

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.

---

So you like the thought of Jesus, you just don't believe in him or follow his teachings. This is of course no surprise to any Christian who had read your posts.

As I said, I pray you find him.

---

I am honest about my position on organized religion, which is admirable.

The really loathsome people are the ones who attempt to speak for god and manipulate scripture to promote or endorse their personal interests

I’ll say this… Tucker went into the lions 🦁 den and slapped his massive balls down, because everything he said takes huge balls! It was great to hear him call everything out… he’s definitely on their list and he knows it but he said it anyway!! Awesome!

— REDTRASH (@R3sist_Tyranny) December 19, 2025

---

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Every day I read about a new jewish terror attack from the beginning of the 20th century that I had never heard about before.

🇷🇴 105 years since the first terrorist attack in Romania:

In 1920, Max Goldstein, Leon Lichtblau, and Saul Osias, three Jewish Bolsheviks, detonate a bomb in the Romanian Senate, killing several people and injuring many others with the intent of starting a communist revolution pic.twitter.com/zvMSiI6Bco

— Daily Romania (@daily_romania) December 18, 2025

---

If international jewry was responsible for communism, why isn't Israel a communist state?

---

Probably because of the failure of the kibbutzim. By the 1980s, most had been privatized.

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Every day I read about a new jewish terror attack from the beginning of the 20th century that I had never heard about before.

🇷🇴 105 years since the first terrorist attack in Romania:

In 1920, Max Goldstein, Leon Lichtblau, and Saul Osias, three Jewish Bolsheviks, detonate a bomb in the Romanian Senate, killing several people and injuring many others with the intent of starting a communist revolution pic.twitter.com/zvMSiI6Bco

— Daily Romania (@daily_romania) December 18, 2025

---

If international jewry was responsible for communism, why isn't Israel a communist state?

---

Probably because of the failure of the kibbutzim. By the 1980s, most had been privatized.

---

Israel has never been on a path toward communism. They've had a few liberal prime ministers over the years, but the idea that they've ever toyed with or considered communism is just utter bull*****

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

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

— HistoryRecap (@HistoricalWWII) October 27, 2025

---

Do you agree with him?

---

I cant say I disagree with JFK.

---

As I figured. What did you like best about him? How many Jews he killed?

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

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

— HistoryRecap (@HistoricalWWII) October 27, 2025

---

Do you agree with him?

---

I cant say I disagree with JFK.

---

As I figured. What did you like best about him? How many Jews he killed?

---

I like Fanta. The euro fanta bc the American version is trash.

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

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

— HistoryRecap (@HistoricalWWII) October 27, 2025

---

Do you agree with him?

---

I cant say I disagree with JFK.

---

As I figured. What did you like best about him? How many Jews he killed?

---

I like Fanta. The euro fanta bc the American version is trash.

---

Is the American version made by Jews?

Seriously, you can't tell everyone why you like and/or respect Hitler, and think he's a legend?

Huh. Never figured you for a coward.

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Every day I read about a new jewish terror attack from the beginning of the 20th century that I had never heard about before.

🇷🇴 105 years since the first terrorist attack in Romania:

In 1920, Max Goldstein, Leon Lichtblau, and Saul Osias, three Jewish Bolsheviks, detonate a bomb in the Romanian Senate, killing several people and injuring many others with the intent of starting a communist revolution pic.twitter.com/zvMSiI6Bco

— Daily Romania (@daily_romania) December 18, 2025

---

If international jewry was responsible for communism, why isn't Israel a communist state?

---

Probably because of the failure of the kibbutzim. By the 1980s, most had been privatized.

---

Israel has never been on a path toward communism. They've had a few liberal prime ministers over the years, but the idea that they've ever toyed with or considered communism is just utter bull*****

---

You know, at this point you're just a Zionist shill.

Clearly, Israel history shows that many residents of that country held collectivist views, which is why there were some 275 Kibbutz formed. It's also clear that the decline in support for Labor and Meretz (forcing a merger) shows there are far fewer ones today than there used to be 75 years ago.

But you can't even discuss objective facts about Israeli history, or the US-Israeli relationship without interjecting a "Reeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Anti-semite!"

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

---

Do you agree with him?

---

I cant say I disagree with JFK.

---

As I figured. What did you like best about him? How many Jews he killed?

---

I like Fanta. The euro fanta bc the American version is trash.

---

Is the American version made by Jews?

Seriously, you can't tell everyone why you like and/or respect Hitler, and think he's a legend?

Huh. Never figured you for a coward.

---

I wouldnt say I like him. I do like Rommel and the Wehrmacht was a good army. I like German shepherds too.

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

Buchanan may have been right. But he also may have been wrong.

As for me, I've offered no opinion on the subject of whether it was a poor decision or the correct one. I've simply commented on the reason it expanded into a world war, and the invasion of Poland was certainly the catalyst.

There is also no question in my mind that Buchanan's view was affected by his ethnocentrism.

---

Poland was a catalyst in the true sense, as it precipitated the event without any change in its own fate. The real action and reaction were elsewhere.

---

What's crazy is it took this many posts for you to come out and agree with my original statement.

Ever the obtuse contrarian. You waste so much bandwidth.

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Every day I read about a new jewish terror attack from the beginning of the 20th century that I had never heard about before.

🇷🇴 105 years since the first terrorist attack in Romania:

In 1920, Max Goldstein, Leon Lichtblau, and Saul Osias, three Jewish Bolsheviks, detonate a bomb in the Romanian Senate, killing several people and injuring many others with the intent of starting a communist revolution pic.twitter.com/zvMSiI6Bco

— Daily Romania (@daily_romania) December 18, 2025

---

If international jewry was responsible for communism, why isn't Israel a communist state?

---

Probably because of the failure of the kibbutzim. By the 1980s, most had been privatized.

---

Israel has never been on a path toward communism. They've had a few liberal prime ministers over the years, but the idea that they've ever toyed with or considered communism is just utter bull*****

---

You know, at this point you're just a Zionist shill.

Clearly, Israel history shows that many residents of that country held collectivist views, which is why there were some 275 Kibbutz formed. It's also clear that the decline in support for Labor and Meretz (forcing a merger) shows there are far fewer ones today than there used to be 75 years ago.

But you can't even discuss objective facts about Israeli history, or the US-Israeli relationship without interjecting a "Reeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Anti-semite!"

---

And you're an uninformed, pseudo-intellectual Sam Lowry starter kit. You just lack his intellect, and unlike him, will run from a debate (probably for the same reason).

Refuting the bull**** you spew on these boards on a daily basis is like shooting fish in a barrel. At no point in Israel's 70 plus year history was communism or socialism ever considered by any majority of the population. And suggesting otherwise is just one of the many lies you tell on these boards.

Stating undisputed fact typically doesn't make one a Zionist. It's just stating fact. Just like believing replacement theory is complete and utter bull**** is stating fact, and doesn't make one a Zionist.

I remember when I was young, and full of piss and vinegar such as yourself. I hope it dissipates, and you can speak rationally at some point in the future.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

Buchanan may have been right. But he also may have been wrong.

As for me, I've offered no opinion on the subject of whether it was a poor decision or the correct one. I've simply commented on the reason it expanded into a world war, and the invasion of Poland was certainly the catalyst.

There is also no question in my mind that Buchanan's view was affected by his ethnocentrism.

---

Poland was a catalyst in the true sense, as it precipitated the event without any change in its own fate. The real action and reaction were elsewhere.

---

What's crazy is it took this many posts for you to come out and agree with my original statement.

Ever the obtuse contrarian. You waste so much bandwidth.

---

Again, the pearl-clutching over Poland is a poor substitute for analysis. Buchanan and others have debunked the myth that we entered the war to liberate Eastern Europe.

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Every day I read about a new jewish terror attack from the beginning of the 20th century that I had never heard about before.

🇷🇴 105 years since the first terrorist attack in Romania:

In 1920, Max Goldstein, Leon Lichtblau, and Saul Osias, three Jewish Bolsheviks, detonate a bomb in the Romanian Senate, killing several people and injuring many others with the intent of starting a communist revolution pic.twitter.com/zvMSiI6Bco

— Daily Romania (@daily_romania) December 18, 2025

---

If international jewry was responsible for communism, why isn't Israel a communist state?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Every day I read about a new jewish terror attack from the beginning of the 20th century that I had never heard about before.

🇷🇴 105 years since the first terrorist attack in Romania:

In 1920, Max Goldstein, Leon Lichtblau, and Saul Osias, three Jewish Bolsheviks, detonate a bomb in the Romanian Senate, killing several people and injuring many others with the intent of starting a communist revolution pic.twitter.com/zvMSiI6Bco

— Daily Romania (@daily_romania) December 18, 2025

---

If international jewry was responsible for communism, why isn't Israel a communist state?

---

Probably because of the failure of the kibbutzim. By the 1980s, most had been privatized.

---

Israel has never been on a path toward communism. They've had a few liberal prime ministers over the years, but the idea that they've ever toyed with or considered communism is just utter bull*****

---

You know, at this point you're just a Zionist shill.

Clearly, Israel history shows that many residents of that country held collectivist views, which is why there were some 275 Kibbutz formed. It's also clear that the decline in support for Labor and Meretz (forcing a merger) shows there are far fewer ones today than there used to be 75 years ago.

But you can't even discuss objective facts about Israeli history, or the US-Israeli relationship without interjecting a "Reeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Anti-semite!"

---

And you're an uninformed, pseudo-intellectual Sam Lowry starter kit. You just lack his intellect, and unlike him, will run from a debate (probably for the same reason).

Refuting the bull**** you spew on these boards on a daily basis is like shooting fish in a barrel. At no point in Israel's 70 plus year history was communism or socialism ever considered by any majority of the population. And suggesting otherwise is just one of the many lies you tell on these boards.

Stating undisputed fact typically doesn't make one a Zionist. It's just stating fact. Just like believing replacement theory is complete and utter bull**** is stating fact, and doesn't make one a Zionist.

I remember when I was young, and full of piss and vinegar such as yourself. I hope it dissipates, and you can speak rationally at some point in the future.

---

Socialism was the dominant ideology of the Zionist movement from the early 20th century until the rise of the Likud Party in the 1970s. That doesn't make the scapegoating of Jews any less wrong or ridiculous, but it is a historical fact.

---