ZOG (our Zionist Occupation Govt) pretends to be very keen on punishing “war criminals.” I call this “hypocrisy,” but ZOG can easily prove otherwise by punishing one of its own from its “War For Jewish Predominance” (WWII).
As far as I know, the words “war criminal” were not used back in the days of Oliver Cromwell. Had they been, possibly Charles II and his supporters might have used them after the Restoration, because they wanted to punish Cromwell in some way. They couldn’t do so in the normal sense, he being already dead, but they wanted to do something that would be symbolic, or that would send a message. So Cromwell was one of those rare individuals who was hanged after he was dead.
Charles II hated him because Cromwell was instrumental in having his father, Charles I, beheaded. A few years after Cromwell’s death, his body was dug up from Westminster Abbey and hanged on a triple gibbet at Tyburn. Two of his generals were hanged with him, and the bodies of his mother, sister and granddaughter were dragged from their graves.
After six hours, Cromwell and his two generals were taken down, beheaded, and the bodies thrown into a deep pit by the gibbet. The heads were taken to Westminster Hall, stuck on poles, and left there till at least 1684, or 23 years after being exhumed. Afterward, the mummified head of Cromwell was kept for various periods by different people, till March 25, 1960, when it was finally interred near Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, his alma mater, in a secret spot near the chapel.
Did Cromwell deserve all this? Well, he did treat Ireland with great severity, and exiled a large number of Englishmen who opposed his rule and gave him trouble, to the northern part of that country. In most respects, however, his administration was well run. The public revenues were economically managed, and every man was given liberty of conscience.
Cromwell was a great statesman and civil administrator, and in his personal habits, temperate and industrious. And even though he thought Charles I should die, he was courteous and kind to his three young children, who were held captive by the Parliamentary army; even going so far as to kneel to them in loyalty.
As President, Eisenhower was, it seems, a fairly able administrator, doing pretty well in handling the economy, and he did a good thing in getting the Interstate Highway System started; but as a general, he was terribly cruel to his German POWs after the war ended. Anyone who has read OTHER LOSSES, by James Bacque (Stoddard Publishing Co., Ltd., Canada, 1991), should feel sickened afterward by the horrors brought to light there.
Eisenhower didn’t just starve his prisoners for about a year after WWII ended; he also did other horrible things, like sometimes shutting off the water in some of the camps for up to three days at a time, forcing some of the prisoners to drink their own urine. He also denied many shelter, sanitary facilities and medical care. Mail service was withheld for about a year, till the spring of 1946. Sick prisoners often had to sleep in the mud, while nearby hospital beds sat empty.
About a million died from starvation, disease, neglect and other cruelties. It is pretty obvious as to why. Eisenhower apparently had long hated the Germans, but what really sent him into a towering rage was his visits to some of the German internment camps as soon as the war ended. In some (but not all), there were a lot of sick, starving and dead inmates lying around. These were caused by the conditions of the war, and were not part of any “extermination policy.”
Yes, the things that enraged him the most were caused by the military actions of his own forces, particularly the raids by his air-fleets. What did he think his bombers were dropping – flowers???
Now, what about the “Final Solution?” Yes, there was such a plan, but it meant resettlement, not “extermination.” An obnoxious American once asked Hitler where he got his ideas for his policies toward the Jews, and he said he got them from us, from our treatment of the Indians. We resettled a lot of them on reservations during the 19th century, but WWII profoundly changed the resettlement plans of the National Socialists (many Jews were resettled before, during and after the war, however).
Eisenhower was part-Jew, and was questioned about this when he sought to enter West Point. The academy was more concerned about things like this in those days, but (unfortunately) let him in anyway.
How much his Jewishness had to do with his actions is anybody’s guess, but it most likely had something to do with it. Maybe he was just taking a leaf from the book of his tribal god, Yahweh. This deity hated the human race so much that he drowned the whole kit and caboodle, except for Noah and his family. He even drowned all the animals, saving only the smidgen on the ark. We don’t know why he targeted them also, as they were innocent.
Eisenhower gave lip-service to the Geneva Convention, while at the same time secretly undercutting it to an astounding degree. He claimed there was a food shortage, but this was a lie. The wheat production that was lost in Germany and France was more than made up for by the yields in the U.K, and North America. There was also plenty of corn and the largest production of potatoes ever.
Why didn’t the “food shortage” also affect the POWs under British and Canadian control? They were able to feed their prisoners adequately. At any rate, if there really had been a shortage, and Eisenhower couldn’t feed his POWs, why didn’t he just release them? The tough talking (but humane acting) Gen. George Patton started releasing his prisoners as fast as he could, and let go many before he was stopped. He was then relieved of his command and transferred to a position where he couldn’t release any more. Eisenhower said the Germans were beasts, while Patton said they were the most decent people in Europe.
There were plenty of supplies. Gen. Everett Hughes said, on 3-19-45, after visiting huge supply depots in Naples and Marseille, that there were “more stocks than we can ever use. Stretch as far as eye can see.”
No really incriminating orders, of course, were ever signed by Eisenhower. Instead, he used “winks and nods,” with certain top deputies. All told, the number who knew exactly what was going on, numbered, at a minimum, 23. He kept the press out of the camps, saying there was typhus in them, and other diseases. True, but they were caused by him!!
The dense overcrowding in the barbed-wire cages eased because of the massive death rates. The rations for U.S. troops were set at 4,000 calories per day. Most of the prisoners got far less than the 2,000 Eisenhower claimed they were getting, and in many cases, far less than half!! The prisoners could not write and tell anyone what was going on, because no mail was allowed out, or in. (As aforementioned, mail service was withheld for about a year).
Red Cross parcels were not allowed in either, nor ICRC delegates. Hitler had allowed the organization to bring in extra food for Allied prisoners in Germany, but Eisenhower would not allow them to help feed German prisoners. Nor would he let German civilians help, even threatening them with death if they tried to slip any food in through the wire.
Two freight trains from Switzerland, loaded with food, were sent into Germany. They were told that the “warehouses were full,” and were not allowed to unload. They returned.
Also consider that American Gen. Mark Clark took very good care of his POWs in Italy. A “food shortage?” Hogwash!!! The only shortage of any kind was a shortage of common decency in the makeup of part-Jew Dwight D. Eisenhower. We can imagine him sitting in his opulent office, never once deigning to set his polished boots down into the muck and mire that his prisoners were living and sleeping in, gloating and delighting in the misery and suffering he was causing, and the deaths.
After the soldiers were dead, one final indignity awaited them. Before they were thrown upon trucks like garbage, their clothing was stripped off, along with their watches and jewelry, and sold on the black market in Germany. Former Atty. Gen. of the U.S., Francis Biddle, visited this market and called it “terrific.”
To sum up, I don’t know if Oliver Cromwell deserved to be hanged after he was dead or not. Probably not. But Charles II and his Royalists wanted to make a point, and they made it.
Now, you might ask if I think Eisenhower deserves the same treatment? Well, personally I think hanging is too good for him, but it would make a point. ZOG says it wants to punish all war criminals, and not a bigger one ever lived than him. He may very well be the granddaddy of them all. Hanging him would show that ZOG is sincere, and would make a strong point.
Can you think of a stronger one?
SOURCE: The Liberty Bell, September 1998