Here’s one of Grif’s books.

You are all over the map. Half the time I’m not even sure who you are talking to or what about.

I don’t have the time or the interest to parse your last post and figure out just what the hell you are trying to say. You can call all I said a pack of lies, but I note all you respond with is a flurry of wild assertions. You want to believe that the “Allies couldn’t make an exception for pinkos, kikes, and queers” and that’s what the issue is all about, then please go ahead.

Don’t mind me, I’m outta here.

And Maoz? You asked to clarify my position on Zionism. You didn’t notice that I did?

http://oybay.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/1126/

***

I profoundly, profoundly disagree with you on the Holocaust. Profoundly.

We can kick Zionism about, but let’s not let others off the hook please. Please. That’s prejudice.

My disagreement is simple. Just like Martin Gilbert, and other apologists, you commit a simple mistake.

The Holocaust was not, and is not about Jews. Solely about Jews. nearly 12 million people lost their lives in the camps alone. Of these, the majority comprised Communists, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and other opponents of the regime. When you, like Gilbert dowplay the possibility of action it’s based on the “well,we can’t make an exeption for the Jews.”

So the argument is invalid. Their inaction was about 12 million people. Rwanda, Gabon, Congo. Just a bunch of niggers.

Truth is, Allies couldn’t make an exception for pinkos, kikes, and queers. That’s the truth. You had Kennedy and Harriman conveying info from Europe via UK. Racist pro-Nazi bourgeois.

There are soldiers, diplomats, historians who disagree with the notion that the camps were not preventable. If you recall Weissmandel, and ten others like him, you will change your mind.

The Allies had time enough to waste Dresden, sortie after sortie, bomb bomb bomb. More than 70 per cent of all camps were within reach. Many were fighting for humanity, and not just against the Nazis. The same cannot be said for Dulles, Donnovan, Forestal, Bush, IBM, GM, Rockefellers. You want genocidal intent? How about a history of supporting Hitler?

Do you seriously not see the historical connection between the march on Roosevelt and Judeo-Bolshevism?!

Do you seriously believe that the Dearborn Independent was different from Alfred Rosemberg? Do you seriously believe Hearst pro-Nazi propaganda was inocuous?

How do you explain years of cover-ups of collaboration, of abeting, of goading in American history books? How do you explain that almost no americans have ever heard of this collaboration?

How do you explain Bush getting off scot free?

Genocidal intent, that’s how.

You are projecting your humanist values back on 1920. Absolute erroror. The White race, and the Mission and Herbert Spencer were nasty, brutish, and not far from Pol Pot. We had centuries of bigotry, masscares, of genocide behind our belt. Years of it. We were no different from the barbarians around us. WWII was decades away from the Civil Rights movement.

Oh the West gasped all right, they gasped, while We Shall Never Die did the theatre circuit, while Orthodox Rabbi after Orthodox rabbi denounced Zionits, and Alied inaction in Europe.

No the Nazi’s wouldn’t have rebuilt the rail links, because by then they didn’t have the resources! Yes, more than thousands would have volunteered, had the media not covered the genocides up. We know this story, it happens over and over. Just get the media on it, and the volunteers come in droves. The US bourgeoise knew this. Knew it damn well.

The Allies deliberately did nothing. Deliberately! When the Red Cross got involved, or Vatican and Switzerland, or the resistance in Italy and France, how many Jews were saved?! Hundreds of thousands! Why 400,000 million? Because that’s the last phase, the Hungarian Jewish transfer of end of 1944. Why a minimum, because the greatest number of Holocaust victims are 1944-45.

Did the Allies go about making statements “Hitler’s camps… Hitler’s camps.”?

Of course not! What they did, is gasp. Gasp, gasp.

Never will I buy this lie. You accuse the Zionists, but you don’t have the guts to say anything about the rest.

Trust me Grif. Like Gilbert, you just repeat why it couldn’t be done. This is fatalism, and an intellectual choice. As Isaiah Berlin put it, you can conceive of history as inevitability, or you can imagine freedom. You chose the former.

I don’t buy it, and I am willing to get technical if you like. We can go detail by detail, accusation by accusation, and let’s see who is more convincing?

Or you can just admit, that you have no more reason to believe it was impossible, than I have to believe it was, and we can leave it at that.

Frankly, if we dont’t see eye to eye, why don’t you give me your opinion on my Zionist critique at: http://oybay.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/1126/

***

So what are sone if the names of your books?

I did read Weismandel, what I said was that I no longer had the book on my computer. I wanted to give you the title. If there are unread docs in Switz. then I’d love to read them, but the quotes from Gurion and Greenbaum are only a few of many more in the public record. And what do you mean about Jabotinsky making the rounds?

“I disagree somewhat with Rosen and yes, Martin Gilbert. Its whitewash. For too long we’ve heard the story that “no one knew”. Government agencies are still washing their hands, witness Eavesdroping on Hell. I don’t buy it.”

Nothing I wrote indicated any belief on my part that “no one knew,” nor does Rosen believe that. I can’t speak for Gilbert. It is clear that they knew. What is not clear is what they could do about it.

“two points. Could rail links to Auschwitz have been bombed. Absolutely. Bombers were within range of many camps by 1944, and a minimum of 400,000 lives could have been saved. Weismandel comments how they flew over his head.”

The area around rail links could well have been bombed – and repaired overnight as many indeed were. How can you assert that 400,000 lives could have been saved? Even assuming that the rails were not repaired overnight or even in a week, what would stop the Nazis from killing whoever they pleased right where they stood? They certainly did exactly that to millions in the Soviet Union. Another consideration: the toll of these bomber raids was very high in lost crews and destroyed planes. How much effort and at what cost do you divert these precious assets to missions with such a highly uncertain outcome? Particularly when it could be argued, and no doubt was, that more lives might be saved by destroying the Nazi war machine as quickly as possible? A terrible arithmetic but perhaps unavoidable at the time.

“The reason, I most suspect the Allies did not stop the genocide, is because they couldn’t care less about about communists, Jews, homosexuals, etc.”

I would not believe this for a moment. There is no evidence save one late interview with John McCloy that indicates FDR was ever approached on the idea. McCloy first denied it then later said he had spoke with FDR about the idea, accordingly he says this was FDR’s response: “Then he [McCloy] said the President was opposed to the idea because it would have done no good. The President made it clear, McCloy said, that the US “would have been accused of destroying Auschwitz, bombing these innocent people . . . FDR was irate at the idea of bombing Jews in the camps to make a gesture.”

“Otherwise you simply cannot explain why knowing full well about the camps, they did not issue any statements acknowledging them. When Soviet footage of Auschwitz became available, they gasped.”

Who the hell would not gasp? Everytime I see that footage I still gasp. Knowing of killings is one thing seeing the actual staggering toll, which many, Jews and gentiles alike, had trouble comprehending for the sheer insanity of it, is another. Your assertion that there was no acknowledgment is plain wrong. on Aug. 21, 1942 FDR warned the Germans they would face “fearful retribution” for the “mass killings.” Front page headline in the NY Times read: “President warns Atrocities of Axis will be Avenged.” On Oct. 7 he told the Nazis that he was aware the “commission of these crimes continues” and that it was “the intention of this government . . that the criminals would receive swift and sure punishment.” By November of the same year there was absolutely no question and the Sumner Welles and FDR informed Rabbi Wise and asked him to make it public, with their confirmation. The result was a wave of anti-German demonstrations across the country. December 2 was declared a national Day Of Mourning. The Times denounced the Nazi’s “homicidal mania.” NBC broadcast a memorial service to the nation and services were held across the country. On December 17, 1942, the United Nations Declaration on Jewish Massacres was issued. Signed by the US, Great Britain, the Soviet Union and the free governments of eight occupied nations it denounced “in the strongest possible terms this bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination.” It condemned the German gov’t’s “intention to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe . . . None of those taken away are ever heard of again . . . The infirm are left to die of exposure and starvation or are deliberately massacred in mass executions.” This was reported widely in the American press and committed the Allies in the eyes of the world to prosecute war crimes against European Jewry.

“I don’t buy it. It wasn’t 20/20 hindsight. Also, why don’t apply the 20/20 critique to the Zionists, I am puzzled. You readily agree to Zionist failures and the Holocaust, but citing only Rosen, you defend FDR. I don’t share this perspective. Overall, America saved less Jews than Switzerland, or England. Or so say the statistics.”

Please explain to me then how anyone could have saved the Jews of Europe once the war was on? How could we have spirited away the Polish Jews once Poland was firmly occupied by Germany? Not even the Soviets could save the millions of their own once they were behind Nazi lines. Somehow a notion that we were all powerful at that time appears here. We nearly lost the goddamn war. If Hitler had not invaded the Soviet Union we might well have lost. Before Pearl Harbor our military was one of the smallest of the Western powers. We were fighting on two fronts and could not even rescue our own soldiers on Bataan and Corrigedor, who held out for 90 days – the largest surrender of American troops in history. I defend FDR because the record is clear- he cared deeply about what Hitler was doing and had been working to aid Britain and France long before we got into the war. American military personnel were dying in this war well before Pearl Harbor. Ever hear of the Reuben James? Lend-lease began before Pearl Harbor. FDR was no anti-Semite. He worked to save Jews and to extend all help he could before the war began, but was limited by a isolationist Congress that was frightened of a large influx of refugees while we had 25% unemployment. The quotas did not just apply to Jews but to all immigrants. But thanks to the efforts of FDR half of all immigrants to the US from 1938 to 1940 were Jewish. The quota for German (entirely reserved for Jews at FDR’s insistence) was 25,957, the highest quota for any country except Britain. Remember that of all the Jews murdered in the Holocaust, 4,565,000 were Polish and Russian and 125,000 were German. Just how were we, or anyone, to rescue them? As it was we accepted twice as many refugees as the rest of the world combined. In 1938 and 39 FDR even tried a ransom scheme through the IGCR to save European Jews, the Rublee Plan, which failed only because the Germans finally refused to let the Jews leave.

“The Bermuda conference is even seldon discussed. I cannot simply agree to Rosens reading of affairs. It does’t make sense to me.”

What doesn’t make sense? You believe that in 1943 when we could barely get a convoy to Europe without losing half of it to U Boats, when the Germans in North Africa had just kicked our asses in the Kasserine Pass and our allies wondered if we could stand up at all, you believe that somehow we could have swept into Eastern Europe and saved the Jews of Poland?

“There was way too much colaboration by US elites with Nazi germany, at a time when Jews had to deal with quotas and couldn’t be admited to clubs in America. The mindset of America and the British royals, is the best explanation for why Hitler’s killing machine ran as smoothly as it could.”

Do not confuse the greed of American businessmen with genocidal intent. The relatively mild anti-Semitism of “restricted” country clubs does not translate into a desire for mass murder. Yes, there was instances of vile collaboration with the Nazis. Ford motors, IBM, General Motors, and others should have been exposed far more than they were (including Bush’s granddaddy). But don’t forget also that these very same people hated FDR’s guts. In 1934, the Liberty League, led by DuPont and the Morgan interests were exposed in a plot to overthrow FDR. They hated the ground he walked on, believed he was turning the country over to the communists and that they were the rightful rulers of America. FDR’s reign was one long battle with the industrial elites. They are not one and the same.

“Loftus. I am not sure I agree with you. He pursued Nazi’s accross the USA, and some of his work has been vindicated. . . In as much the Protocols of Zion were plagiarized from a rather briliant book by Maurice Joly, which had nothign to do with Jews, so too Loftus has some insight.”

His other work may indeed have merit, but his thesis in the Secret War is preposterous, to say the least. You could say that elements of the Protocols were lifted from Joly’s satire on Napoleon, but I don’t see much insight concerning Jews. What insights do you reckon Loftus has concerning a world-wide ages-long conspiracy against the Jews?

“Why are you sure the LIberty didn’t collect Sigint on Isreal?”

From every account I’ve read, including those of the crew and George Ball, of the Johnson administration, there were no Hebrew linguists aboard. What we were doing is monitoring soviet communications in the area. The notion that were relaying info to Egypt to insure the destruction of Israel is insane. For Christ’s sake, we were instrumental in the creation of Israel, shoved the plan through the UN and instantly recognized Israel in conjunction with Ben Gurion’s announcement of statehood. In 1967 Americans were firmly behind Israel and saw Egypt as allied with the Soviets. The Egyptians were claiming we were in cahoots with Israel. In 1967 the entire country was cheering for Israel, including Congress. The notion that we were out to destroy Israel is revisionism worthy of a David Irving.

What do you write?

One book on the Red Scare, a novel in progress, some labor history.

In the text you quote, one government stands out – SAudi Arabia.

Read more about the country and its holy relationsihp with the US. You will quickly lose interest in Israel.

As for Mossad’s motto. So what? Find me mottos of five comparative agencies, and then tell me if its stands out. Compared to a few others The Mossad motto is at least honest. Take the “intelligence” in the word CIA… a joke.

***

Look, basically there is a conspiratorial view of history, and then there is history. Conspiracies do not understand simple concepts like Error, Mistake, Lack of Coordination, Lack of Capacity, or Poor Policy.

That said, did Al Qaida have insights into US OpSec? Obviously. Viz Ali Mohammed, and a slew of other double triple crossers.

***

I agree, there are questions to be answered about 911. But all evidence indicates that answers are to be found in the Arabian Desert.

***

So you haven’t read Weismandel? You see, there are documents, from Switzerland. Untouched. Because quotes from Ben-Gurion and Greenbaum, simply don’t suffice. Not enough evidence, at least not for me. Jabotinsky really did make the rounds after all.

***
I disagree somewhat with Rosen and yes, Martin Gilbert. Its whitewash. For too long we’ve heard the story that “no one knew”. Government agencies are still washing their hands, witness Eavesdroping on Hell. I don’t buy it.

two points. Could rail links to Auschwitz have been bombed. Absolutely. Bombers were within range of many camps by 1944, and a minimum of 400,000 lives could have been saved. Weismandel comments how they flew over his head.

The reason, I most suspect the Allies did not stop the genocide, is because they couldn’t care less about about communists, Jews, homosexuals, etc.

Otherwise you simply cannot explain why knowing full well about the camps, they did not issue any statements acknowledging them. When Soviet footage of Auschwitz became available, they gasped.

I don’t buy it. It wasn’t 20/20 hindsight. Also, why don’t apply the 20/20 critique to the Zionists, I am puzzled. You readily agree to Zionist failures and the Holocaust, but citing only Rosen, you defend FDR. I don’t share this perspective. Overall, America saved less Jews than Switzerland, or England. Or so say the statistics.

For the longest of times we’ve been brainwashed to believe no one knew, no one understood. The Bermuda conference is even seldon discussed. I cannot simply agree to Rosens reading of affairs. It does’t make sense to me.

There was way too much colaboration by US elites with Nazi germany, at a time when Jews had to deal with quotas and couldn’t be admited to clubs in America. The mindset of America and the British royals, is the best explanation for why Hitler’s killing machine ran as smoothly as it could.

***
Loftus. I am not sure I agree with you. He pursued Nazi’s accross the USA, and some of his work has been vindicated. Especially the more recent material on Prescott Bush. Not only are accusations of collaboration entirely true, they did not stop in 1943. I n as much the Protocols of Zion were plagiarized from a rather briliant book by Maurice Joly, which had nothign to do with Jews, so too Loftus has some insight.

Why are you sure the LIberty didn’t collect
Sigint on Isreal?

**

What do you write?