Comments on: Buchanan and Churchill http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/05/30/buchanan-and-churchill/ Your home for traditional conservatism. Thu, 24 May 2012 03:20:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: turkey guns http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/05/30/buchanan-and-churchill/comment-page-2/#comment-168276 turkey guns Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:06:51 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=604#comment-168276 <strong>turkey guns...</strong> How does the rss feed work so I can get updated on your blog?... turkey guns...

How does the rss feed work so I can get updated on your blog?...

]]> By: Michael Averko http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/05/30/buchanan-and-churchill/comment-page-2/#comment-162633 Michael Averko Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:43:31 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=604#comment-162633 Then Czech PM Klaus felt the less economically developed Slovakia was a burden on Czechia. In turn, the Communist turned nationalist Slovak government at the time preferred their own fiefdom, where they would dominate. Kind of reminds me of what happened in Montenegro. A matter which is somewhat related to why the current Moldovan government isn't so keen on reunifying with Romania. Then Czech PM Klaus felt the less economically developed Slovakia was a burden on Czechia.

In turn, the Communist turned nationalist Slovak government at the time preferred their own fiefdom, where they would dominate.

Kind of reminds me of what happened in Montenegro. A matter which is somewhat related to why the current Moldovan government isn't so keen on reunifying with Romania.

]]> By: TJF http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/05/30/buchanan-and-churchill/comment-page-2/#comment-162414 TJF Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:50:32 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=604#comment-162414 Yes, I spoke with Slovak businessmen and friends who had mixed feelings. One told me that exchanging Magyar oppression for Czech domination was not a big improvement, nor was Russian domination that much worse than the Czech-Slovak state that followed and they had little confidence in the Mechiar's Slovak nationalist government that gained independence. The Croats had been among the architects of Yugoslavia, but in the first election held, Radic's Croatian Peasant Party almost immediately started agitating for secession. Yes, I spoke with Slovak businessmen and friends who had mixed feelings. One told me that exchanging Magyar oppression for Czech domination was not a big improvement, nor was Russian domination that much worse than the Czech-Slovak state that followed and they had little confidence in the Mechiar's Slovak nationalist government that gained independence. The Croats had been among the architects of Yugoslavia, but in the first election held, Radic's Croatian Peasant Party almost immediately started agitating for secession.

]]> By: Michael Averko http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/05/30/buchanan-and-churchill/comment-page-2/#comment-162410 Michael Averko Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:35:12 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=604#comment-162410 TJF Re: 65 Slovaks appear mixed on the "velvet divorce," which had no referendum on the matter. Many Croats were big union with Serbia enthusiasts. Overall, this Croat enthusiasm changed when that union (in the form of a Serb monarchy) took effect. Yet, I've run into my share of nationally conscious Croats, who haven't totally escaped from the Yugoslav concept. TJF

Re: 65

Slovaks appear mixed on the "velvet divorce," which had no referendum on the matter.

Many Croats were big union with Serbia enthusiasts. Overall, this Croat enthusiasm changed when that union (in the form of a Serb monarchy) took effect. Yet, I've run into my share of nationally conscious Croats, who haven't totally escaped from the Yugoslav concept.

]]> By: Michael Averko http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/05/30/buchanan-and-churchill/comment-page-2/#comment-162403 Michael Averko Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:09:29 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=604#comment-162403 I'm sure there must have been an admiration factor at work. Those kind have a tendency to admire each other. Admiration doesn't always necessarily mean trust. Ceaucsecu was known to marvel at Nazi propaganda film clips of Hitler. Stalin was like you said paranoid. Somewhere down the line, he know doubt figured a Soviet war with Nazi Germany was inevitable. He quite possibly felt what you suggested: convenient propaganda to get him to go to war with Nazi Germany. He also might've calculated that Germany would next move to a different target other than the USSR. I'm sure there must have been an admiration factor at work.

Those kind have a tendency to admire each other.

Admiration doesn't always necessarily mean trust.

Ceaucsecu was known to marvel at Nazi propaganda film clips of Hitler.

Stalin was like you said paranoid. Somewhere down the line, he know doubt figured a Soviet war with Nazi Germany was inevitable.

He quite possibly felt what you suggested: convenient propaganda to get him to go to war with Nazi Germany.

He also might've calculated that Germany would next move to a different target other than the USSR.

]]> By: M.J.Harrington http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/05/30/buchanan-and-churchill/comment-page-2/#comment-162364 M.J.Harrington Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:34:41 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=604#comment-162364 Michael Averko I don't blame Stalin for the deal with Hitler he made in August 1939.It was a smart and cynical move in the Russian national interest. The strange thing is that a man as paranoid as Stalin actually trusted Hitler. In 1941 he would not believe intelligence which suggested that Hitler was planning an invasion. Churchill sent a long written warning to Stalin which Stalin dismissed on the ground that Churchill wanted to get Russia into the war. True of course, but Churchill was not deceiving him. Why did Stalin trust Hitler? Was it because he admired him? Michael Averko

I don't blame Stalin for the deal with Hitler he made in August 1939.It was a smart and cynical move in the Russian national interest.

The strange thing is that a man as paranoid as Stalin actually trusted Hitler. In 1941 he would not believe intelligence which suggested that Hitler was planning an invasion. Churchill sent a long written warning to Stalin which Stalin dismissed on the ground that Churchill wanted to get Russia into the war. True of course, but Churchill was not deceiving him.

Why did Stalin trust Hitler? Was it because he admired him?

]]> By: Michael Averko http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/05/30/buchanan-and-churchill/comment-page-2/#comment-162290 Michael Averko Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:14:56 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=604#comment-162290 Much unlike some of the casualty numbers claimed in the recent wars in Bosnia and Kosovo (some of which have been soundly debunked), I think the numbers on that particular have been pretty well established. The mentioned situation during WW II. had a coldly calculated aspect to it. Much unlike some of the casualty numbers claimed in the recent wars in Bosnia and Kosovo (some of which have been soundly debunked), I think the numbers on that particular have been pretty well established.

The mentioned situation during WW II. had a coldly calculated aspect to it.

]]> By: Constantine FitzRoy http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/05/30/buchanan-and-churchill/comment-page-2/#comment-162275 Constantine FitzRoy Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:40:30 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=604#comment-162275 Since it finally sunk into my consciousness that something funny was going on when Bruno Gollnisch, EU MP and NF politician from France, faced legal sanction for publicly asking a rather mild question concerning the Holocaust, it occurred to me that, maybe just maybe, it might be worthwhile to look at what some of the Holocaust revisionists had to say. Now I have, and I can say that, while I'm by no means an expert on the subject, many serious doubts as to *some* aspects of what we've all been told happened have been raised. I recommend highly that everyone see the film, "One Third Of The Holocaust," which is really very impressive in how it shows some of the testimony relied upon by people such as Raul Hilberg is quite specious. While Hitler may have been enthralled by a diabolical weltenschaung, that fact and threats of violence and imprisonment shouldn't prevent people from trying to find out * for themselves * what really happened in the concentration camps in WWII. Perhaps John Lukacs might moderate some of his positions if it did turn out that the numbers of deaths in the camps were far fewer than what we've been told. Since it finally sunk into my consciousness that something funny was going on when Bruno Gollnisch, EU MP and NF politician from France, faced legal sanction for publicly asking a rather mild question concerning the Holocaust, it occurred to me that, maybe just maybe, it might be worthwhile to look at what some of the Holocaust revisionists had to say. Now I have, and I can say that, while I'm by no means an expert on the subject, many serious doubts as to *some* aspects of what we've all been told happened have been raised. I recommend highly that everyone see the film, "One Third Of The Holocaust," which is really very impressive in how it shows some of the testimony relied upon by people such as Raul Hilberg is quite specious.

While Hitler may have been enthralled by a diabolical weltenschaung, that fact and threats of violence and imprisonment shouldn't prevent people from trying to find out * for themselves * what really happened in the concentration camps in WWII.

Perhaps John Lukacs might moderate some of his positions if it did turn out that the numbers of deaths in the camps were far fewer than what we've been told.

]]> By: » Buchanan and Churchill ::: Pat Buchanan Books http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/05/30/buchanan-and-churchill/comment-page-2/#comment-162139 » Buchanan and Churchill ::: Pat Buchanan Books Tue, 03 Jun 2008 05:18:23 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=604#comment-162139 [...] SOURCE: Chronicles Magazine [...] [...] SOURCE: Chronicles Magazine [...]

]]> By: Michael Averko http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/05/30/buchanan-and-churchill/comment-page-2/#comment-162014 Michael Averko Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:21:38 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=604#comment-162014 M.J. Harrington The bottom line is that the West refused the Soviet offer. Instead, choosing to appease the Nazi, Polish and Hungarian dismemberment of a Soviet friendly state. That act no doubt encouraged the Soviets to make their own deal with the Nazis. I recall a Soviet diplomat around that time being quoted with saying as much. At this thread, I brought this matter up in reply to a stated point about how the Soviets made a deal with the Nazis that violated the borders of a nation. The Soviets can't be legitimately accused of initiating a deal with the Nazis that violated the borders of a nation. M.J. Harrington

The bottom line is that the West refused the Soviet offer. Instead, choosing to appease the Nazi, Polish and Hungarian dismemberment of a Soviet friendly state.

That act no doubt encouraged the Soviets to make their own deal with the Nazis. I recall a Soviet diplomat around that time being quoted with saying as much.

At this thread, I brought this matter up in reply to a stated point about how the Soviets made a deal with the Nazis that violated the borders of a nation. The Soviets can't be legitimately accused of initiating a deal with the Nazis that violated the borders of a nation.

]]>