Today on Blogcritics
Home » Pat Buchanan Asks: Was WWII Worth It?

Pat Buchanan Asks: Was WWII Worth It?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Column here:

If Yalta was a betrayal of small nations as immoral as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why do we venerate Churchill and FDR? At Yalta, this pair secretly ceded those small nations to Stalin, co-signing a cynical “Declaration on Liberated Europe” that was a monstrous lie.

As FDR and Churchill consigned these peoples to a Stalinist hell run by a monster they alternately and affectionately called “Uncle Joe” and “Old Bear,” why are they not in the history books alongside Neville Chamberlain, who sold out the Czechs at Munich by handing the Sudetenland over to Germany? At least the Sudeten Germans wanted to be with Germany. No Christian peoples of Europe ever embraced their Soviet captors or Stalinist quislings.

Other questions arise. If Britain endured six years of war and hundreds of thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish freedom, and Polish freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war?

If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and Central Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny even more odious, as Bush implies, did Western Civilization win the war?

In 1938, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain refused. In 1939, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Poland. Chamberlain agreed. At the end of the war Churchill wanted and got, Czechoslovakia and Poland were in Stalin’s empire.

How, then, can men proclaim Churchill “Man of the Century”?

True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium from Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany – on behalf of Poland.

When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?

If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a “smashing” success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.

If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe? If it was to keep Hitler out of Central and Eastern Europe, then, inevitably, Stalin would inherit Central and Eastern Europe.

Was that worth fighting a world war – with 50 million dead?

The war Britain and France declared to defend Polish freedom ended up making Poland and all of Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism. And at the festivities in Moscow, Americans and Russians were front and center, smiling – not British and French. Understandably.

I will withhold my opinions on this article for now. I am interested first in the opinions of others at BlogCritics.

Mr. Buchanan brings up some interesting points. Surely there are counterpoints as well. If you are to disagree with Mr. Buchanan’s piece, please offer some of these counterpoints, rather than just merely shouting, “Pat is a NAZI!” or some such.

And of course, well-reasoned comparisons to the liberation of Iraq are welcomed.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

Powered by

About RJ

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    A Fisking of Pat here

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    News article on Pat’s column here

  • http://www.iamrighturpie.blogspot.com/ jadester

    well, i’m hardly what you’d call balanced, but i did mention it here
    my views on this kinda person are somewhat skewed to begin with, simply because of what i’ve come across from England’s very own resident rabid “i’m not a racist, honest, i just think all our problems are the fault of immigrants” racists.
    Granted, Buchanan does give the impression of being a little more controlled than, for example, Robert Kilroy-Silk (who actually does begin foaming at the mouth when he gets going on “arab terrorists”). And yes, Buchanan raises some interesting points in the article. But there *is* a difference between learning from the past, and living in it.
    WWII finished over 50 years ago, the Cold War ended over 10 years ago, the USSR is no more, communism is hardly any kind of serious threat to the “Western” way of life (unless you have *serious* levels of paranoia) and there’s actually not much of a comparison between the WWII situation and what’s going on now. None of the countries of the world are currently in control of a particularly huge empire. Even those with the biggest “muscle” like the US are kept in check by things like practicality, and their own people. There are, of course, ongoing problems between various countries, but at least we’re seeing improvements in some areas.
    If anything, the biggest danger, at least here in the UK, is our growing lvoe of alcohol affecting everything else we, as residents of the UK, do. We’re already letting apathy sink in across the board when it comes to politics (that’s our own coutnry’s politics, let alone world politics). It will be…interesting to see what happens during the next decade or two.

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    “On October 20, 1942, the US Alien Property Custodian, under the ”Trading With the Enemy Act,” seized the shares of the Union Banking Corporation (UBC), of which Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder…

    …The UBC was established to send American capital to Germany to finance the reorganization of its industry under the Nazis. Their leading German partner was the notorious Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen, who wrote a book admitting much of this called ”I Paid Hitler.”” Like grandfather, like father, like son, when it comes to making secret deals with our enemies…

    Considering the Bush family history and in light of George Bush’s recent comments on Yalta, perhaps George Bush would agree with Buchanan in wishing the Nazis had defeated the Russians?

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Buchanan’s mistake is calling Stalinist Russia worse than Hitlerian Germany. And that’s only one of his mistakes.

    Don’t get me wrong here. There was nothing good or forgivable about what Stalin did to Russia, nor what he and his successors did to Eastern Europe after the war. His regime was unquestionably evil, and the civilized world was right to oppose him, as best they could, after Hitler had been defeated.

    Nevertheless, evil as Stalin was, Hitler was far worse. I’m not talking about the numbers game here. Give them each a scorecard tracking how many millions of deaths they were responsible for, and Stalin would probably win that comparison. But only because we stopped Hitler when he was just hitting the prime of his evil madmanhood.

    Had Hitler been allowed to retain his grip on Europe (even in Buchanan’s jawdroppingly optimistic scenario with Hitler playing nice after France and Britain let him keep Poland) the death toll would have been far higher. He could have completed his project of wiping out the Jews wherever he could reach them, and then turned on other religious and ethnic minority groups as his feverish delusions searched for more scapegoats.

    Even if we grant Buchanan’s premise of Stalin being worse than Hitler (despite all reason and logic proving him utterly wrong on that point) there is yet another reason the Allied leaders had the right priority in ridding the world of Hitler while allowing Stalin to remain.

    Stalinist communism contains the seeds of its own destruction, because it is inherently inefficient. The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 was inevitable, not just from the beginning of the Reagan administration, but from the very beginning of the Russian Revolution in 1917.

    Hitler’s Nazi ideology, by contrast, did not have the same weakness. It had other weaknesses to be sure, but inefficiency was not one of them. Every observer was astonished, and later terrified, by the efficiency and effectiveness of the Nazi regime in Germany. If that had been allowed to remain intact, just so the world could remove Stalin instead, the Nazi regime might well have taken on the role of “world’s only remaining superpower” before the 1950s were over.

    We’d like to believe the United States could have whipped Nazi Germany without any help from Britain or Russia, had the need arisen. That might even be true of the battered and bruised Nazi Germany we faced in 1944. But a securely established Axis, combining all of central Europe’s industrial production with Italy’s agricultural output, with no Russian Front draining its resources, would be an extremely different animal. We would be foolish to assume American military and economic might is quite that invincible.

    If Buchanan can’t see this, he’s a fool, and we’re all damn lucky he had nothing to do with making the decisions that shaped the postwar world.

  • Bob

    I disagree with victor plenty’s post. There was never any evidence that Hitler sought world domination.
    Also, If Hitler was such a commited racist, why did he get into war with the United States in order to support the Japanese after Pearl Harbor? Last time I checked they aren’t white. Hitlers invasion of Poland was in response to documented & proven atrocities being commited against ethnic Germans by the Poles. As for the Holocaust, if I recall Hitlers original plan was to deport the jews to Madagascar & give them their own homeland. However war with England made that impossible.
    Most Baltic states viewed the Germans as liberators, not invaders.
    Pat Buchanan’s article really made a lot of sense. I think the hysterical reaction to it is due to how badly PC brainwashing has crept into the minds of so many. Did you notice how people immediately resorted to the “thats offensive” & “I’m offended” rhetoric that is the cornerstone of PC pseudoreasoning?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Ah, I see that BTP has been drinking deep from the infowars.com well. I wonder if he feels the same way about Teddy Kennedy who’s father was an outspoken supporter of the Nazis. Hey wait, Henry Ford was pro Nazi and the Ford Foundation gives lots of money to Democrat causes. Wow, Democrats must ALL be Nazis.

    There was a point, about 70 years ago, when a lot of people in the US believed that restoring strength in Germany was the only viable way to stop the spread of Communism in Europe. They gave their money and their vocal support to Hitler for a while because Hitler looked like the one person who could pull Germany together and make it a viable guardian for the rest of Europe. This is not because they subscribed to the Nazi philosophy, but because they were anti-communists. At the time they did this the horrors of the Nazi regime were not yet in full bloom, and certainly not fully publicized. By the end of WW2 they had a much better perspective on what Hitler was about than they did when the war started. And guess what, they were entirely correct that something needed to be done to stop communism. They were just wrong about Hitler being the lesser of two evils. If they had backed Stalin at that point and Germany had never developed and Russia had conquered Western Europe you’d be blaming them for that today.

    Dave

  • Bob

    1 Additional thought.

    France & England theoretically declared war on Germany because Germany invaded Poland. Actually BOTH Russia & Germany invaded Poland & split it between them.

    Why did Britian & France ONLY declare war against Germany, instead of Russia as well?

  • Fred

    To the retard who said Bush would support his comments due to his family history, let me remind you, Bush’s father was a highly decorated pilot in WW2 and was shot down and rescued at sea. Bush’s father is a war Hero.

  • RealCon

    Had Hitler been allowed to retain his grip on Europe the death toll would have been much lower for Jews and other Europeans. Had Hitler been allowed to retain his grip on Europe he probably would have done what he was already doing, and continued doing, until long after the British entered the war, which was encouraging the emigration of Jews, with many of them having emigrated to Israel and elsewhere during the 1930‘s, and where hundreds of thousands of Jewish survivors went at the end of the war. It’s true that Hitler didn’t like Jews based on his view that many were communists and had caused Germany’s problems during and after WWI. But it is likely that if the British and French had not entered the war on Poland‘s behalf, many more Jews could have emigrated and would have survived the war along with tens of millions of other Europeans, and it is possible that the population of Israel and Europe would be substantially higher today.

    Keep in mind that, according to William Shirer’s book, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”, following the battle of Dunkirk, “Hitler had no plans for continuing the war against Britain and his General Staff did not bother to furnish him with any, and he (Hitler) was more disturbed about Russian threats in the Balkans and the Baltic than about the British”. With hindsight, it should be obvious that Hitler’s concerns in 1940 were the same concerns that came tp haunt us for over fifty years following the end of WWII.

    Pat Buchnan raises valid points that are worthy of discussion and analysis. Those who decry his views with invective evidently like “free speech” only when it does not go against their preconceived notions.

  • http://cranialcavity.net/wordpress/index.php Marc

    BTP your supposition on Bush agreeing with Buchanan is pure bunk.

    And BTW this is what those on the right do to their wingnuts.

    They cut them down to size as opposed to the left that place them in high esteam at the Democratic National Convention. (ie Michael Moore and J Carter)

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    That link was broken, Marc. I think it should have been THIS. Too many https in your original.

    Dave

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    So, now you want us to believe Hitler wasn’t so bad. Poor, misunderstood Hitler! He only wanted to help save us from bad old Stalin, and we shoulda listened to him!

    Now I regret what I wrote above, which treated this as a serious question worthy of debate. Clearly I was wasting my time there.

    Along with other right wing campaigns of revisionist history, such as those wanting us to believe Lincoln was a monster, this sort of nonsense is really getting old.

    The left has its share of nutty ideas, but the right is demonstrating its ability to match them, absurdity for absurdity, in a race to the bottom of intellectual rigor.

    And people wonder why I’m neither a rightist nor a leftist.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    RealCon is clearly a holocaust desire and presumably a neo-nazi as well. You can tell he’s nuts from the first paragraph. When you post on blogcritics it attracts the attention of both the rational and the irrational who are out there, and you just have to take their comments for what they’re worth. RealCon’s are clearly worth about as much as Pat Buchanan’s.

    Dave

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    An interesting series of posts–and remarkably free of vitriolic outburts, for which I’m grateful given how serious an issue has been raised.

    Bob’s post is the one I have the most problems with. I’ve read a great deal about the issues that led to WWI & WWII, about Hitler’s rise to power, and his attitudes towards any non-Aryans, and I’ve never once heard of the Madagascar plan. If you’ve got evidence on that, I’d love to see it.

    The anti-Jewish attacks, inlcuding the building of camps, began long before England and France declared war. The real atrocities started after Hitler took over Poland, not because of England and France, but because there were so many Jews in Poland, he had to find another solution–the Final Solution.

    And as to Bob’s claim of documented atrocities against Germans by the Polish, again, I’d love to see that documentation. Hitler’s desire to control Poland was political and has been well documented.

    And, I don’t think one can argue that he had no desire for world domination–regardless of one’s point of view of the war, Hitler was one bull mooose looney. I can’t imagine him ever being satisfied.

    One final point about the war in general. Had the Versailles conference that ended WWI not imposed impossible conditions on the Germans, it’s hard to see how a Hitler could have ever come to power in Germany. But he did, and Churchill was one of the few in England to see the threat he represented.

    But Churchill had been tossed out of the government during WWI and was a lone voice in the wilderness. He had no authority, power, or influence over Chamberlain. Had the world listened to him earlier, Hitler would have been stopped long before he’d created his extraordinary military machine.

  • Bob

    Victor, you are committing the classic affront of the ideologue. Rather than countering views you disagree with by offering contrary (verifiable) facts, you engage in mockery & name calling.

    Keep in mind that the victors write the history, generally in the manner which will paint them in the best possible light. Also keep in mind that in wartime blatantly false propaganda is commonly dispersed.
    Having all of Europe under martial law at the end of the war would make suppression/ destruction of embarrassing information quite easy.

    Why is it that you are so positive that your perceptions of reality &/or history are so unquestionably true? Keep in mind that your sources (teachers, history books, official government statements etc.), all simply reflect the “official story” according to the victors. Most of the people who would have influenced your views while growing up would also have been taught this same version of history, & probably relayed it to you in good faith.

    This doesn’t make it true. There are far too many inconsistencies in the “official” history for me to take it at face value.

    This is a serious question worthy of debate. However, unfortunately, you seem to feel that a debate consists of people telling you that you are right. Learn to accept people contradicting your established truths in a polite, respectful, & civilized manner.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    I am polite and respectful in civilized conversation, Bob. Apologia for Hitler simply don’t fit that criterion.

    Your core claim, about poor old Adolf being the innocent victim of some vast conspiracy to make him look worse than he really was, is even more laughable than the theories of those nutjobs who think the Apollo moon landings were faked. That’s quite an outstanding achievement in the field of utterly ridiculous claims.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In the absence of said extraordinary proof, I feel no guilt whatsoever about ridiculing said claims.

  • Bob

    Madagascar plan here and here

    Some of the testimony of surviving victims.

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    What a weird position. Victor, I find myself agreeing with Bob ONLY insofar as he suggests that personal attacks are no substitute for reasonded debate.

    However, I share your astonishment (the nicest word I can find) at any Hitler apologist. And I’m still waiting for Bob to provide evidence for his claims.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Personal attacks? Where? I have attacked ideas here. Quite harshly, to be sure, but such ideas deserve attacks far more harsh than any I’ve had the energy to muster here.

    In such a vigorous attack, there may emerge some hint of suggestion that the supporters of an idea can be tainted by its flaws. Especially when the flaws are so deep and so wide as those in the ideas we are discussing here.

    This is one of the risks one takes when one decides to become a supporter of an execrable and unsupportable idea.

  • Bob

    Victor, your original claim was that Hitler was WORSE than Stalin.

    I have never claimed that Hitler was a “poor innocent victim” He was a totalitarian dictator. This is a classic straw man argument.

    To prove your thesis wrong, I would only have to meet a standard that he was marginally less bad. Nothing more.

    I would like to point out one thing though. Surely in a forum of this nature you would expect to be challenged on your assertions? Yet when I do so, you respond with personal attacks. You then summarily appoint youself god-king of all who gets to determine what constitutes a civilized conversation (that would be one, I assume, one where everyone tells you that your right).

    For someone who claims to be “neither a rightist nor a leftist”, you do exhibit the characteristics of the modern neo-Stalinist left. Then assumption that your perspective is simply beyond challenge, & that anyone who disagrees with your views should be attacked & silenced, not argued with in a rational manner. I assure you sir, that I am

    1) perfectly rational.
    2) quite intelligent.
    3) very well versed in history.

    I however am a critical thinker. I refuse to simply accept what I am told “everybody knows” to be the truth.
    I also do not surrender my mind to self-anoited “experts” (authors, college proffesors, government representatives, etc.)

    I think for myself.

    Try it sometime. Its painful at first but infinately rewarding in the long run.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Ah, now we see the personal attacks. Directed against me, of course, as apparently I am now the nasty evil representative of the “neo-Stalinist left” merely because I won’t roll over and blindly agree with someone who can’t seem to cite any reputable evidence for his ludicrous claims.

    Thanks for at least admitting Hitler was a totalitarian dictator, Bob. Funny to note this was the first time you used that phrase in reference to him. I guess this conversation wasn’t a complete loss after all.

    I will go on thinking for myself, thank you, and decline your suggestion that I ought to appoint you to do all my thinking for me.

  • SFC SKI

    Two factors to introduce into the argument, they may not have had any impact on our decision to go to war.

    Because we (the US) were in conflict with Germany in WWI, it was easier to cast Germany in the role of aggressor and enemy in Europe. While the Russians were not exactly loved by most Americans, there was little to no antagonism between the two. I think, but I am not sure, that most people were unaware of just how badly Stalin was running his country and mistreating his people at that time. Wasn’t here a famous and widely read Western journalist who basically ignored the facts of Russians starving due to failed Stalinist programs in the ’30’s?

    IN any case, the Russians were, if not loved, at least not hated by most Americans at the beginning of WWII.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Americans clearly had trouble figuring out Hitler was dangerous enough to require our military opposition, SFC Ski. Otherwise the United States would not have waited until after the attack on Pearl Harbor before entering the war.

    Some of this may have been related to the red scares of the 1930s, when some Americans thrown into dire poverty by the Depression were tempted by the bright promises of the American Communist Party, and many other Americans responded negatively to the growing influence of the communist movement in this country.

    Fortunately for everyone, Germany declared war on the United States just after we declared war on Japan. Without that miscalculation on Hitler’s part, the American public might have continued to resist the idea of helping out the Allies in Europe.

    Maybe I’ve just been brainwashed by a shadowy worldwide conspiracy to hide the real truth from that period of history, but I’m kind of glad Hitler’s regime ended as soon as it did, and I continue to think it would have been better to have ended it even sooner.

    Call me crazy.

  • Bob

    To the claim that I am a Hitler apoligist. I am not, I freely admit he did some terrible things (directly & indirectly)

    Would these things have happened had world events not created desperate situations for Germany? Maybe, Maybe not.

    There are still too many holes in the official version of history for me to uncritically accept all the so-called “known truths”

    Also, as far as your being astonished to hear a so-called “hitler apologist” (which I deny being), do you show the same astonishment for people who are apologists for communism, islamo-fascism, Japanese nationalism, or myriad horrific cultural practices worldwide (female genital mutilation, slavery, sutti, honor killings, the list go’s on & on)

    Why is it, in your mind, that a HITLER apologist is so much more unbelievabe than an apologist for any of these other things?

    I suspect this is because of Hitlers racial views. People are taught nowadays that this is the ultimate taboo (But only for people of European descent) & somehow this elevates Hitler to a greater level of evil than all others.

    Realistically, even if you take the official version of Hitlers actions at face value, They are no worse than that which has been committed by the Japaneese, all communist nations, pretty much every African war that has ever taken place, every militarily victorious Muslim nation. Let alone the Aztecs, Inca’s, Romans,Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Huns, etc. ad infinitum.

    For numbers killed per unit time Hitler is an amature compared to the Rwandan Hutu’s, For percentage of population killed he cannot hold a candle to Pol Pot. For Raw numbers Mao-Tse Tung & Stalin our the winners.

    You have to realize that the idea that you SHOULDN’T commit horrific atrocities against you enemies is a very recent moral & ethical concept, That has basically evolved exclusively in a few western cultural nations. & payed lip service to when convenient by the rest of the world.

  • RealCon

    I find that Bob presents facts — his antagonists tend to present opinions and vitriol.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Real history has inconsistencies, Bob. Real history is messy and imprecise. This is especially true of events as horrific as those of the second World War. Eyewitnesses will differ on many nonessential details in their accounts of such events.

    Only the fantasies of conspiracy theorists have perfect internal consistency, because any discrepancies are easily resolved by inventing additional layers of delusion.

    Real historians must try to resolve discrepancy by documenting facts, not inventing them.

    If the only “evidence” you can cite is vague general complaints about inconsistencies, I will have to continue assuming you have no real evidence at all; no real facts; nothing worth my time.

    Have a nice day.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I’ll just take issue with one thing. How about the persecution of the Germans in the Sudetenland? Got any sources for that. And I’d love to hear about the persecutions of Germans in Czechoslovakia and Hungary too – since that was the pretext for invading them.

    Dave

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    Bob you said this “There was never any evidence that Hitler sought world domination”

    Well, let’s see, Hitler conquered most of Europe and was attacking Britain and Russia as well as sending forces into Africa. And he was building is armed forces as fast as possible.

    Well, seems like a harmless bloke to me? What’s the fuss all about? No evidence here…

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    “Bush’s father was a highly decorated pilot in WW2″

    That is true, and I can’t really explain it other than perhaps he was young and idealistic at the time. It doesn’t really fit in with George Bush Seniors later life. We might recall that George Bush senior was part of the group negotiating with Iran (who was holding Americans hostage) behind the back of an American President (Jimmy Carter). War Time Hero? True. Treasonous politician? Perhaps also true?

    But George Bush Junior is well behind his impetuous youth, I hear idealistic words from him (surprisingly, some of the same foreign policy ideas as Jimmy Carter), but unlike Jimmy Carter, I don’t believe a word he says. Why? Well perhaps its because I have paid attention to what George Bush Junior has said in the past. And unlike some, I didn’t just ignore Bush’s words but treat his statements as if he really means what he says. Then when what he does has only a small connection to what he says, over and over again, then I draw conclusions.

    If I didn’t listen to the words George Bush said, I might consider his Presidency differently. (But I would still have some issues with his competency)

  • http://none@none.com Anti-Nazi

    > I find that Bob presents facts — his antagonists tend to present opinions and vitriol.

    Wrong. For example, Bob says:

    “For Raw numbers Mao-Tse Tung & Stalin our the winners.”

    That’s an opinion. Where are the FACTS?

  • http://home.comcast.net/~proy1/ Paul Roy

    Non PC scrubbed history can be hard to swallow sometimes.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>Wrong. For example, Bob says:

    “For Raw numbers Mao-Tse Tung & Stalin our the winners.”

    That’s an opinion. Where are the FACTS?<<

    Actually, that is a fact, at least as far as Stalin goes – I can’t swear to it on Mao. Stalin’s total death count is higher than Hitler’s, but over a longer period of time. Hitler’s death/year count remains unchallenged.

    Dave

  • Bob

    victor & anti-nazi

    Please define for me, in clear & unambiguous terms, what would meet your criteria for “evidence” or “facts”.

  • RealCon

    What we do not want to acknowledge is that Hitler’s crimes have consistently been put under a microscope, whereas other world-class killers are being given a pass. There is no doubt that our PC-society views killing a white European as something much more worthy of condemnation than the killing of “less-worthy” individuals. Stalin caused the deaths of 15 million Kulaks and untold numbers in Siberian Labor Camps, yet there is no focus on these crimes. How many Americans know that during WWII, for every American POW who died in a Nazi camp, 40 American POW’s died in a Japanese camp…

    We have hardly taken note of other genocides since the end of WWII because we are transfixed on Hitler. No one wants to exonerate Hitler, but there is a tendency to overlook the murderous acts of other tyrants in our quest to burn Hitler’s effigy one more time.

    Reviewing the events of the last century in an unbiased manner offends those whose minds are made up and do not want to be confused by facts.

    It is much easier to denounce those with whom we disagree with generalizations and invective than to provide a reasoned response to what they present.

  • Bob

    Response to BTP.

    Hitler never indicated any interest in world conquest. To answer your charges 1 at a time.

    Hitler conquered Western Europe. Yes, but France & England declared war on Germany (whether or not you think this was justified by Poland, It is none the less true). Belgium & the Netherlands were another story, but may have been viewed as a security necessity. Same with Norway which was needed to assist in cutting off Britain’s & Russia’s supply lines.

    Germany on several occasions attempted to negotiate for peace with Britain, Britain refused.

    North Africa was more a case of Hitler backing up an ally (Italy) which was apparently too incompetent to conquer anything. Seizing the Suez Canal was intended as a means of cutting off Britain from its empire, & securing mid-east oil.

    Russia was an entirely separate story. Fascism & Communism were 2 directly competing totalitarian ideologies. Both sides had made it clear in no uncertain terms that 1 must destroy the other. The original pact (over Poland), was merely an attempt to buy time. In other words, both sides thought that with an additional couple of years of time before war, they could prepare more than the other side. Hitler just struck at what seemed an opportune moment.

    Hitler never attacked Sweden, Switzerland, or Spain after they assumed a public policy of complete neutrality.

    Now, back to the ACTUAL ARTICLE we are supposed to be discussing. WAS WW2 worth it?

    Point 1) our agreement with Britain after our entry into the war was that 90% of our resources went to Europe & only 10% to fighting Japan. Can you imagine how effective we would be in fighting Japan if 100% of our output was dedicated to this cause? Remember, the Japanese were the ones who attacked us.

    Point 2) Russia was never really our ally. For most of the war they had a peace treaty with Japan, & refused to assist in our war effort in this region. They just happened to be a country at war with Germany.

    Point 3) there is absolutely NO QUESTION that communism sought world domination. It is specifically stated in its manifesto. Too this day so-called “progressives” state that socialism has to be imposed worldwide, since it cannot survive if it has to compete directly with other systems.

    Point 4) why is it the people most eminently qualified to answer (those who lived under Soviet tyranny) seemed to be unequivocal that Communism is worse than Fascism? I have personally known several Baltic immigrants as I was growing up. My best friend’s father (from Latvia) fought for the Germans & lost a leg, & told me to my face that he was proud of his service. They viewed the Nazi’s as liberators, not invaders.

  • RealCon

    Again, I find that Bob presents facts — and that his antagonists tend to present opinions and vitriol

  • http://www.iamrighturpie.blogspot.com/ jadester

    The problem with history is, there’s just too much to cover everything in detail in the short time most of us spend at school, so then it’s up to you to learn what you want after that (assuming you want to)
    I imagine it was decided, however long ago, to teach us (this is here in Britain) much more about the evil of Hitler, because that was what our coutnry fought against, and that was what affected us more. Selfish as a country? yes. But there’s not even enough time to cover “just” that very confined view of events, really. I’ve learned alot of what i know about WWII from documentaries on TV. Perhaps i’d know more about the evils of Stalin if i had time to read more books and watch every WWII documentary on both terrestrial AND satellite TV, but i don’t
    From what i’ve seen, Hitler WAS still evil. There are documents and witness testimonies that his plan almost all along was to wipe out the Jews wherever he could reah them. Any claims he made about encouraging simply their emigration were a smokescreen. Sure enough, he even went as far as making a few really very small gestures to give the impression he actually was merely after emigration of all Jews from his territory. The idea being (which worked to some degree) that by the time any countries noticed that might make objections, it’d be too late for them to save many of the Jews. Of course, there was that recent documentary presenting new evidence that Britain actually knew about at least two concentration camps a significant time before deciding to end them. However i didn’t see it all and i forget the reasons and unanswered questions…
    Of course, it’s worth remembering that Hitler wasn’t just after the Jews. He wanted to be rid of anyone and everyone with significant disabilities. His madness was also a little more…fanciful than Stalin’s, at least that the public knew about at the time (maybe not overall though), in that he had the obsession with the Ayran race being the “master race” and all that obsession over “magical” items.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Fascism is worse than communism precisely because fascism tends to be more popular among the rank and file of the citizenry under its yoke.

    The threat of nuclear weapons is not the only reason the western world made the right choice in opposing communism with a policy of containment, rather than with open military confrontation. If denied the opportunity to expand, eventually communism can be counted upon to collapse under its own weight.

    German fascism required a more direct response. This is because it much more easily gained the allegiance of the masses, making it far more efficient at quickly eliminating minorities it considered undesirable. Had Nazi Germany ever been allowed to fully consolidate its rule, over the long term I have no doubt whatsoever the raw numbers of deaths directly caused by Hitler’s ideology would have made Stalin look like an amateur.

    If the Cold War had been between democratic powers and fascist powers, rather than between democratic powers and communist powers, it is quite likely there would still be a Cold War going on today, or that it would have flared into a full-scale nuclear exchange. The fascists would be unlikely to have collapsed from internal pressures, as the communists did.

    Of course any sane person would prefer a world with neither communist nor fascist powers to burden its nightmares. Unfortunately that ideal world was not available to the leaders of the West sixty-odd years ago. Given the choice between five more decades of communism, or Hitler’s “Thousand Year Reich,” any sane person would choose to oppose Hitler first and deal with the communists later.

  • Bob

    Then if Fascism tends to be more popular amongst the rank & file under its yoke, & one has to determine which would be worse to live under, than obviously any “sane” person should choose to live under Fascism. This in & of itself is a validation of Buchanans statement that the Eastern European nations were worse off as a result of WW2, & therefore it was a net loss.

    PS if the collapse of Communism is “inevitable”, how does one explain the remaining communist countries? Not enough time passed?

    How does one know that a victorious Germany would enjoy a “thousand year Reich?” Sounds more like a lively sound bite for a speech than anything else.

    Historically, non-communist authoritarian (read Fascist lite) countries have tended to evolve towards peaceful democracies, while communist nations have not.

    To Jadester: Why do you assume that what you are taught in these “documentaries” is factually true?
    Since Churchill was a hero to the British, it stands to reason they would want to gloss over anything bad about him (& Britian as a whole)

    Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion on the Dresden firebombing raids commited by the British, & do they rise to the level of crimes against humanity?

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    The masses only think they’re better off, for a time. Once the fascist rulers get around to defining them as yet another “undesirable” group to have around in a perfectly regulated system, they won’t be quite so happy about fascism.

    A preference rooted in ignorance is not persuasive to people with the benefit of hindsight.

  • RealCon

    Bob — I believe you‘re wasting your time –don’t argue with the uninformed. Those who base their knowledge on TV documentaries and the mass media have been brain-washed beyond hope. What they don’t get from these biased sources, they fill in with their own emotions. I lived during WWII and I have seen firsthand how PC distortions have been introduced.

  • Bob

    & this differs from the elimination of “undesirable” groups under Communism how?

  • Bob

    Yes, I know using reason against a true believer is hopeless. But there are those, however, that CAN be deprogrammed from their PC indocrtination. But if they never hear opposing views expressed in a calm, reasonable manner, supported by facts, they never will have this opportunity.

    Besides, the meathodology of argument used by Victor & Dave is one of the most effective tools for discrediting their views. Political Correctness is like a mushroom, it can only thrive in the dark. Look at the perpetual attempts to suppress opposing views as opposed to debating them.

    Victors use of the word “sane” is most telling. It implies that those with opposing views, no matter how well argued & supported, are beneath consideration.

    What do you say, Vic? are we YOUR undesirables, fit only for suppresion & eventual extermination?

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Whining about “PC brainwashing” and “true believers” who refuse to blindly accept your odd theories only proves the weakness of your attempts at reasoning, Bob.

    Try coming up with some better arguments and maybe you’ll convince someone.

  • Bob

    Note: please quote the exact phrase at which I have asked you to “blindly accept” my “odd theories”. Please explain what about them (specifically) makes them “odd”. Please only address my actual (verbatum) statements (no more straw man arguments please).

    At what point in time was I “whining”?
    Was the exact phrase “PC Brainwashing” utilized by me at any time?

    At any time have YOU provided independant supporting evidence to support your theories? Or do you just expect us to “blindly accept” your “odd theories”?

  • http://www.iamrighturpie.blogspot.com/ jadester

    yes, i’d choose to live under facism rather than communism. Honest.
    Actually, knowing what i know, if i had to choose between living under the rule of Stalin, and living under the rule of Hitler, i’d choose to join any resistance there was. If there wasn’t any resistance, i’d endeavour to start one. If i appeared to be on my own, i’d attempt to get out, with a backup plan of suicide for if that failed.
    The leaders of the USA and England chose to fight Hitler. After that, it would have been very uncertain had they tried to go on to fight Stalin.
    The problem with pat’s piece is, he’s trying to make out like one of the pair of Hitler and Stalin was any better than the other. The cold hard truth, is that both were inherently evil, and were able to calmly order, watch, and directly participate in, killing of particular groups of people they liked.
    I see how you can say “we’d have been better off supporting hitler and fighting stalin”. I’m guessing you didn’t know either man personally. How do you know, if things had been the other way round, that Hitler wouldn’t have gone on to kill as many people as, or possibly even more people than, Stalin did during his reign of terror?
    Here’s as simple a way to put it as i can think of. Feel free to rip it apart if you want:
    i’m going to assume you know quite alot of people. And that amongst them, is someone you disagree with about quite a few issues. Now, in a totalitarian regime, if it’s successful in its aims, eventually it reaches a point where either you or that person you disagree with would “disappear”.
    Hell, just thinking about it now, makes me grateful for what we have. It’s far from perfect, and there are probably people in the US who feel the same, but at least we have alot of freedom.
    I like being able to tell someone i think they’re wrong, and not fear being thrown in prison (or worse). Believe it or not, I also like the fact that you are in the same position. Otherwise i wouldn’t be joining in this argument right now.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    You openly admit supporting an odd theory, Bob. Every time you claim anyone disagreeing with you is merely a “true believer” blindly holding to a mistaken majority view, you define your own view as the odd one.

    As such, the burden of proof rests on you, and what you’ve offered so far has been rather thin gruel.

  • RealCon

    Why is Victor whining about “PC brainwashing”? Does Victor believe it doesn’t exist? And what are the “odd theories” that he wants to refute? If Victor is adept at reasoning or presenting arguments, I have not seen it yet. It appears that Victor has a mind of steel – it has been cast and is impenetrable.

  • Bob

    to Jadestar: Amen to that!

    Those of us who live in western liberal democracies (liberal in the classic sense) are the most fortunate people to have ever existed in the history of the human race.

    To your comments about joining/ forming a resistance, double amen!

    I never have claimed to know perfectly what would have happened if we had chosen another path.

    be grateful for our rights & freedoms, & allways be vigilant to anything that may deprive us of them one day.

    Both Hitler & Stalin show that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    If you study the early histories of both Nazi’s & Communism, they both were movements formed to improve the lot of the common man. & at least at the beginning (to a limited extent) they did so.

  • Bob

    Long ago, & far away, their lived a madman.

    He believed in something so ludicrous that he was subjected to scorn & ridicule wherever he went.

    His name was Christopher Columbus, & he thought the earth was round.

    Remember, there is no critical mass, at which if you can get enough people to believe something it magically becomes true.

    A lie is still a lie no matter how many people you can get to repeat it.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Everybody educated knew the earth was round, even back in the days of Columbus. They laughed at him because he was completely wrong about the circumference of the earth. If there had been nothing but ocean between Portugal and Asia, Columbus would have vanished from history in 1492, leaving behind, at most, a footnote about a failed mission of exploration.

    Luckily for him, there was a continent where he thought he would find India. It wasn’t the continent that had India on it, but it had plenty of food and water to get him back to Europe to report his findings.

    Getting back to the modern day, I too am glad to live in a society where I can remain unpersuaded by your arguments without ever wishing to kill you.

    I hope my considered conviction that Hitler was worse than Stalin won’t persuade any neo-Nazis to track me down and kill me. If they do, they’d better use a sniper rifle for the job. I’m kind of a big guy, and if they try to kill me from up close, I might accidentally hurt them.

  • Bob

    OK 2 points for the Columbus thing (although, since only a tiny fraction of the population would have been educated in these days, wouldn’t this have been the “odd” non-majority view?)

    Why would neo-nazi’s want to track you down & kill you? Your meathodology of debate & discourse only serves to discredit those who oppose their views.

    However, this infantile attempt at machismo is pretty consistent with your previous posts. But I am glad you are a big guy. I would hate to think you would have to DEBATE &/or REASON your way out of a wet paper bag some day.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Machismo? Heh, I politely called myself fat. There was no claim of combat ability in what I wrote. You had to imagine it. Thanks for providing yet another example of your vivid imagination, a rich source of “facts” for people with certain worldviews.

  • RealCon

    Victor says, “I’m kind of a big guy, and if they try to kill me from up close, I might accidentally hurt them.” Then he says, “There was no claim of combat ability in what I wrote. You had to imagine it.” Just what was your intent in letting us know that you are a ”big guy” and because of that, you “might hurt them”. What was left to the imagination? Victor, your inconsistent statements have consistently given you away — hang it up.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    That, from an outsider’s viewpoint, sounds like a simple misunderstanding.

    Victor said he was ‘big’ and was thinking along the lines of ‘politely calling myself fat’ but ‘big’ was perceived as musculature and therefore an implication of menancing combat ability.

    Now that the misunderstanding has been cleared up, I think the lines for dialoge/debate would be more open now, rather than closed.

  • RealCon

    Steve S –your point is valid. Victor’s statements caused a simple misunderstanding. But
    the real point is that Victor’s statements are replete with simple misunderstandings.

  • RealCon

    It is obvious that there has been a departure from the central issues raised by Pat Buchanan. Here are his issues and some simple answers:

    1. If Yalta was a betrayal of small nations as immoral as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why do we venerate Churchill and FDR?

    Simple answer: Small nations don’t count. Wars are fought for other reasons. War is good for politicians and business. War took us out of the Great Depression and FDR won four terms because of war.

    2. As FDR and Churchill consigned these peoples to a Stalinist hell run by a monster they alternately and affectionately called “Uncle Joe” and “Old Bear,” why are they not in the history books alongside Neville Chamberlain, who sold out the Czechs at Munich by handing the Sudetenland over to Germany?

    Simple answer: Neville was demonized at the outset of war. Leaders are never demonized at the end of war — unless of course they lose the war.

    3. If Britain endured six years of war and hundreds of thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish freedom, and Polish freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war?

    Simple answer: The war started for a reason that was forgotten later. Once a war starts it takes on a life of its own. What happened after the outset of WWII has no bearing on why it started. Wars generally follow an unpredictable path governed by the laws of unintended consequences.

    4. If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and Central Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny even more odious, as Bush implies, did Western Civilization win the war?

    Simple answer: Of course not. At least not the war that started when Hitler invaded Poland.

    5. When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?

    Simple answer: If it was known at the outset that so many people would die, the price would have been considered too high and Hitler would have been allowed to occupy Poland just as he was allowed to occupy other areas where there were Germanic peoples.

    6. If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a “smashing” success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.

    Simple answer: Indeed, most Germans were happy, so why destroy their cities? Most Germans appeared to be content with Hitler until their cities were reduced to rubble.

    7. If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe?

    Simple answer: What fools we mortals be… The British and French thought it was impossible for Hitler to take over Western Europe. One can’t believe in impossible things so they must have believed they could liberate Poland – why else would they declare war?

    8. Was that worth fighting a world war – with 50 million dead?

    Simple answer: We stumbled into WWII. As with most wars, there were ways to avoid it. But politicians are fearful of looking “weak” and that is not good for re-elections. You kill my cat — I’ll kill your dog — goes well with the general public.

  • RealCon

    It is obvious that there has been a departure from the central issues raised by Pat Buchanan. Here are his issues and some simple answers:

    1. If Yalta was a betrayal of small nations as immoral as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why do we venerate Churchill and FDR?

    Simple answer: Small nations don’t count. Wars are fought for other reasons. War is good for politicians and business. War took us out of the Great Depression and FDR won four terms because of war.

    2. As FDR and Churchill consigned these peoples to a Stalinist hell run by a monster they alternately and affectionately called “Uncle Joe” and “Old Bear,” why are they not in the history books alongside Neville Chamberlain, who sold out the Czechs at Munich by handing the Sudetenland over to Germany?

    Simple answer: Neville was demonized at the outset of war. Leaders are never demonized at the end of war — unless of course they lose the war.

    3. If Britain endured six years of war and hundreds of thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish freedom, and Polish freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war?

    Simple answer: The war started for a reason that was forgotten later. Once a war starts it takes on a life of its own. What happened after the outset of WWII has no bearing on why it started. Wars generally follow an unpredictable path governed by the laws of unintended consequences.

    4. If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and Central Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny even more odious, as Bush implies, did Western Civilization win the war?

    Simple answer: Of course not. At least not the war that started when Hitler invaded Poland.

    5. When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?

    Simple answer: If it was known at the outset that so many people would die, the price would have been considered too high and Hitler would have been allowed to occupy Poland just as he was allowed to occupy other areas where there were Germanic peoples.

    6. If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a “smashing” success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.

    Simple answer: Indeed, most Germans were happy, so why destroy their cities? Most Germans appeared to be content with Hitler until their cities were reduced to rubble.

    7. If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe?

    Simple answer: What fools we mortals be… The British and French thought it was impossible for Hitler to take over Western Europe. One can’t believe in impossible things so they must have believed they could liberate Poland – why else would they declare war?

    8. Was that worth fighting a world war – with 50 million dead?

    Simple answer: We stumbled into WWII. As with most wars, there were ways to avoid it. But politicians are fearful of looking “weak” and that is not good for re-elections. You kill my cat — I’ll kill your dog — goes well with the general public.

  • RealCon

    It is obvious that there has been a departure from the central issues raised by Pat Buchanan. Here are his issues and some simple answers:

    1. If Yalta was a betrayal of small nations as immoral as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why do we venerate Churchill and FDR?

    Simple answer: Small nations don’t count. Wars are fought for other reasons. War is good for politicians and business. War took us out of the Great Depression and FDR won four terms because of war.

    2. As FDR and Churchill consigned these peoples to a Stalinist hell run by a monster they alternately and affectionately called “Uncle Joe” and “Old Bear,” why are they not in the history books alongside Neville Chamberlain, who sold out the Czechs at Munich by handing the Sudetenland over to Germany?

    Simple answer: Neville was demonized at the outset of war. Leaders are never demonized at the end of war — unless of course they lose the war.

    3. If Britain endured six years of war and hundreds of thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish freedom, and Polish freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war?

    Simple answer: The war started for a reason that was forgotten later. Once a war starts it takes on a life of its own. What happened after the outset of WWII has no bearing on why it started. Wars generally follow an unpredictable path governed by the laws of unintended consequences.

    4. If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and Central Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny even more odious, as Bush implies, did Western Civilization win the war?

    Simple answer: Of course not. At least not the war that started when Hitler invaded Poland.

    5. When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?

    Simple answer: If it was known at the outset that so many people would die, the price would have been considered too high and Hitler would have been allowed to occupy Poland just as he was allowed to occupy other areas where there were Germanic peoples.

    6. If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a “smashing” success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.

    Simple answer: Indeed, most Germans were happy, so why destroy their cities? Most Germans appeared to be content with Hitler until their cities were reduced to rubble.

    7. If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe?

    Simple answer: What fools we mortals be… The British and French thought it was impossible for Hitler to take over Western Europe. One can’t believe in impossible things so they must have believed they could liberate Poland – why else would they declare war?

    8. Was that worth fighting a world war – with 50 million dead?

    Simple answer: We stumbled into WWII. As with most wars, there were ways to avoid it. But politicians are fearful of looking “weak” and that is not good for re-elections. Being considered weak does not go well with the general public.

  • RealCon

    It is obvious that there has been a departure from the central issues raised by Pat Buchanan. Here are his issues and some simple answers:

    1. If Yalta was a betrayal of small nations as immoral as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why do we venerate Churchill and FDR?

    Simple answer: Small nations don’t count. Wars are fought for other reasons. War is good for politicians and business. War took us out of the Great Depression and FDR won four terms because of war.

    2. As FDR and Churchill consigned these peoples to a Stalinist hell run by a monster they alternately and affectionately called “Uncle Joe” and “Old Bear,” why are they not in the history books alongside Neville Chamberlain, who sold out the Czechs at Munich by handing the Sudetenland over to Germany?

    Simple answer: Neville was demonized at the outset of war. Leaders are never demonized at the end of war — unless of course they lose the war.

    3. If Britain endured six years of war and hundreds of thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish freedom, and Polish freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war?

    Simple answer: The war started for a reason that was forgotten later. Once a war starts it takes on a life of its own. What happened after the outset of WWII has no bearing on why it started. Wars generally follow an unpredictable path governed by the laws of unintended consequences.

    4. If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and Central Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny even more odious, as Bush implies, did Western Civilization win the war?

    Simple answer: Of course not. At least not the war that started when Hitler invaded Poland.

    5. When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?

    Simple answer: If it was known at the outset that so many people would die, the price would have been considered too high and Hitler would have been allowed to occupy Poland just as he was allowed to occupy other areas where there were Germanic peoples.

    6. If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a “smashing” success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.

    Simple answer: Indeed, most Germans were happy, so why destroy their cities? Most Germans appeared to be content with Hitler until their cities were reduced to rubble.

    7. If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe?

    Simple answer: What fools we mortals be… The British and French thought it was impossible for Hitler to take over Western Europe. One can’t believe in impossible things so they must have believed they could liberate Poland – why else would they declare war?

    8. Was that worth fighting a world war – with 50 million dead?

    Simple answer: We stumbled into WWII. As with most wars, there were ways to avoid it. But politicians are fearful of looking “weak” and that is not good for re-elections. Being considered weak does not go well with the general public.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Historically, non-communist authoritarian (read Fascist lite) countries have tended to evolve towards peaceful democracies, while communist nations have not. <<

    This, BTW, is an excellent point. One I’ve tried to make again and again to the outrage of leftists on BC. This is the reason why in the past the US has supported moderate dictatorships like Pinochet or the Shah of Iran, or the current Pakistani, Saudi and Egyptian governments. These aren’t ideal states, but they are relatively open and only moderately repressive and show the potential to evolve into something better. And we have seen that happen around the world when we’ve done this in the past.

    Dave

  • SFC SKI

    RealCOn, dod you read Victor Davis Hanson’s article on WWII in National Review Online?

  • http://homepage.mac.com/donfrancisco864/iblog/index.html francisco68

    This discusssion of the ranting of a bizarrely radical shiite Christian rightist seems to have gone astray. What happened to the concept of good and evil? Was Stalin worse or Hitler? That is not the question. Both were included in a continuum of violent authoritarianism.
    The question is: Can the world afford to be enslaved by the forces of torture, murder, evil and the shackling of mens’ minds and actions or must it respond with force to save not only 6 million Jews and the Gypsies, retarded, Communists and Nazi opponents (and all 30 members of my Polish family) but to save the concept of individual liberty and constitutionalism?
    Of course Hitler doesn’t seem so bad after Pol Pot, Mao, Idi Amin dada, and the rest of the forces of darkness that surface every so often (even among the religious rightists and governments of modern Western nations).
    This, of course, should be filed under Opinion not News but it is sort of nice to be able to air one’s own opinions.

  • RealCon

    SFC SKI — I just took a look at the article. What did you get out of it?

  • RealCon

    Francisco68 speaks of the “bizarrely radical shiite Christian rightists” in this discussion. Is that the best you can offer to further the discussion? Buddy, I find you bizarre.

  • RealCon

    SFC SKI — I did learn something interesting from Hanson’s article… Mao Tse-tung used WWII to gain power and then went on to kill 50 million of his own countrymen — about the same number lost in all of World War II. Yet this is one of the best kept secrets on the planet. Why? If you prick Chinese do they not bleed? If you tickle them, do they not laugh? If you poison them, do they not die? Are they forgotten simply because they were only killed by communists?

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Yalta is not comparable to Molotrov-Ribbentrop.

    At Yalta, Churchill and Roosevelt recognized the de facto state of affairs on the ground. Soviet forces had already occupied a good deal of Poland, including Warsaw. They were firmly in control of the Baltic states, and were nearly finished replacing the Germans as the occupiers of Budapest. The British and American forces would have had to fight another exhausting war against the Soviets, in order to remove those troops from Eastern Europe.

    This is completely different from Molotrov and Ribbentrop’s agreement to split Poland between them in an invasion that had not yet taken place when they laid out the terms of their pact.

    Churchill and Roosevelt did not want Stalin in control of Eastern Europe, but they had to deal with the fact that his forces were already there. The sovereignty of these small nations was already lost when the Yalta Conference began.

    Molotrov and Ribbentrop (acting on behalf of Stalin and Hitler, respectively) were agreeing to create a future state of affairs which would deprive small nations of their sovereignty. It was what both sides wanted, even though both had cynical and conflicting aspirations for what the next would be.

    The rest of Buchanan’s arguments are equally worthless examples of specious sophistry, as are those of the people supporting his views here. All of them attempt to exploit some combination of the reader’s ignorance of the events and readiness to accept patently false premises without question.

  • RealCon

    Too many posts are fighting the wrong issue… Pat Buchanan asked: WAS WWII WORTH IT? He didn’t ask HOW it should have been fought — but if it was WORTH FIGHTING at all…

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Buchanan might have earned more respect with honesty in his tactics for discussing that question, instead of using deceptive tactics and false premises.

  • RealCon

    That last comment by Victor is as clear as mud and has about as much value.

  • Bob

    Just 1 comment on the relative difficulty of fighting a war against Russia at the end of WW2. Note, no judgment on advisability, just feasibility.

    The Russian military was quite exhausted at this point. Its ability to sustain attacks against Germany was due to the western front, allied bombing, & a secure rear due to a peace treaty with Japan. It had been forced to move its industrial base east of the Ural Mountains to protect it from Germany, & was quite dependant on allied aid. Also Russian supply lines had to cross the same long, inhospitable landscape that caused the Germans so much trouble.

    Russia had no long range bombers or navy, & therefore would be completely incapable of cutting our supply lines or engaging in strategic bombing of our industrial base.

    At this time US fighter planes were the best in the world (& very long ranged)& could rapidly establish air superiority.

    B-29’s based in Japan would have no trouble reaching all soviet industrial areas, crippling their war industry. B-17’s from Europe could obliterate Soviet installations, troops & supply lines from the west.

    Since Japans surrender was at the order of the Emperor, there would be no insurgency amongst the Japanese people or remaining military, therefore only a skeleton occupation force would be needed. The remaining German army could have been quickly re-armed (under our chosen leadership) to add to our western front numbers.

    Since we had an awesomely functional military machine in the Pacific, we would be able to immediately open a full fledged eastern front against the Soviets, Probably with the assistance of the Chinese nationalists (who viewed Russia as the Chinese communists’ benefactor).

    Between the destruction of Russia’s industry via strategic bombing, a 2 front war & our completely untouched industrial machine (running at full capacity), coupled with the massive raw manpower available too us (allies, converted Germans, Chinese, maybe even Japanese wishing to redeem themselves)
    we would have crushed the Soviet military in no time flat.

    But hindsight is allways 20/20 (sigh)

  • RealCon

    Bob – your point is well taken. We could have won such a war. It was not considered feasible because the American public was so jubilant on VE Day that Truman would have been impeached if there was a continuation of the war.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    It’s pure hubris to claim the Soviet army easily would have been defeated. The British and the Americans were also exhausted after finally stopping Germany.

    Even if the west eventually won it, such a war would have devastated the small nations of Eastern Europe yet again, after they had already been subjected to Nazi invasion and occupation, followed by Soviet invasion and occupation.

    All we’re seeing here is the same self-contradictory logic seen in the Vietnam conflict: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

  • RealCon

    I was expecting Victor to crawl out of the weeds and nitpick.

    The Soviet army would have easily been militarily defeated. The British and the Americans were psychologically exhausted but were not militarily exhausted. As Bob pointed out we had the air power that would have been decisive. The small nations of Eastern Europe would have been hardly impacted by a basically air war. And aside from raw strategic air power, the same threat of atomic weapons that brought down Japan could easily have brought down the Soviet Union. Victor — stop saying that others have “self-contradictory logic” and you are all-knowing. If you believe that you are so smart convince us — but don’t keep telling us to believe it because you say it.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Napoleon thought Russia would easily be defeated. He had all sorts of reasons for thinking so. He was wrong.

    Hitler thought Russia would be easy to beat, too. He had all sorts of reasons for thinking so. He was wrong.

    King Charles XII of Sweden thought he could defeat the Russians. He surely used many convincing arguments to persuade himself of that. He was wrong.

    The British and French thought Russia would be easy to beat in the Crimean War. Surely they had many arguments that seemed sound to them. They were wrong too.

    But now, RealCon and Bob would like us to believe their reasons and arguments about how to easily defeat Russia. The arguments cited above are convincing only to people who have no sense of history.

    Oh, and thanks for the extra gratuitous personal attack against me, RealCon. My work is always so much easier when my opponents sink to that level and weaken their own credibility.

  • RealCon

    Napoleon thought Russia would easily be defeated. He lost primarily because of the Russian winters. And he obviously did not have the military air power of the Allies at the end of WWII. You can’t compare wars of earlier times without adjusting for advances in weapons technology.

    Hitler thought Russia would be easy to beat too. He also lost primarily because of the Russian winters. And he obviously did not have the military air power of the Allies at the end of WWII. It didn’t help that he was fighting on more than one front and that the Allies were supplying the Soviet Union with weaponry.

    King Charles XII of Sweden thought he could defeat the Russians. So what — who knows why he lost and who cares?

    The British and French thought Russia would be easy to beat in the Crimean War. They were fighting on horseback and obviously did not have the military air power of the Allies at the end of WWII.

    Indeed, RealCon and Bob would like us to believe their reasons and arguments about how to easily defeat Russia. The arguments should be convincing to people who have a sense of history but not Victor — and presumably other liberals who have brains fill of facts but whose brains are not properly wired.

    Sorry for the gratuitous personal attack. I just couldn’t resist based on your prior posts. But please keep up your posts — I find them amusing. One more thing Victor — can you spell A-I-R P-O-W-E-R? If you can — study it and figure out what it means in a war.

  • bob

    “Napoleon thought Russia would easily be defeated. He had all sorts of reasons for thinking so. He was wrong.

    Hitler thought Russia would be easy to beat, too. He had all sorts of reasons for thinking so. He was wrong.

    King Charles XII of Sweden thought he could defeat the Russians. He surely used many convincing arguments to persuade himself of that. He was wrong.

    The British and French thought Russia would be easy to beat in the Crimean War. Surely they had many arguments that seemed sound to them. They were wrong too.”

    none of these had:

    1)a massive air force with the capacity for strategic bombing. Russian factories were beyond the range of German bombers.

    2) the ability to wage a 2 front war. or even more fronts. how about a northward attack from Iran or Turkey, or even an amphibious landing in southern Ukraine (to envelope & cut off foreward Russian forces, & seize most of Russia’s oil)

    3) our massive modern logistics capability (even the German army in its prime could not match it)

    4) the advantage of learning directly from a failed campaign how to prepare for a Russian winter

    5) a fully intact modern mass production industrial base beyond the range of any enemy forces.

    6) GEORGE S. “slappin pappy” PATTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I hadn’t even thought about nuclear weapons. I know we were out after the 2 on Japan, but I wonder how long it would take to build more. A single nuke on Moscow would eliminate the entire central Russian leadership, leaving individual units & areas without coordination.

    You are right about the American people being weary of war. They were none too enthusiastic about Korea.

    However, one can always arrange for an “incident” to happen. A lot of people think that was how Pearl Harbor occurred.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Air power is not a magic wand. It would not have made a victory against Russian troops easy. Possible, maybe. Easy, never. Such a war would become lengthy and bog down very quickly, requiring a huge commitment of resources, backed by public support which even you admit was absent at the end of the second world war.

    But please, go on fooling yourselves, it’s really quite helpful to my side of the debate.

    Nifty of you to call me a liberal, too, merely because I disagree with you. I know you think “liberal” is the worst insult in your whole arsenal, but that’s only because you are so drunk on your own propaganda, you’ve forgotten what the word really means. Modern history is full of fine and intelligent liberals, such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and of course, Ronald Reagan. So even though I’m not one myself, I take it as a compliment to be called a liberal.

    I also love the Machiavellian deviousness of Bob’s concluding comment. Yes, if you want to manipulate a government ultimately answerable to the people, you can always arrange for an “incident” to deceive the people. However, you can’t really argue from any high ground of principle if you’re willing to advocate that.

  • RealCon

    Tell Hirohito and the Japanese Empire that Air Power is not a magic wand. It made a victory against a million Japanese Homeland troops so easy it has no precedent in history. It wasn’t just possible, it was easy, without question. The use of overwhelming Air Power makes any such war short and there is no indication that such a war in 1945-46 against “Uncle Joe‘s” Empire would be lengthy or bog down, requiring a huge commitment of resources. The public support absent at the end of WWII was indeed the primary reason why we did not do it, but that has nothing to do with the issue of military might. The point is we could have done it from a military standpoint. Go on fooling yourself. But it’s not helpful to your side of the debate. I call you a liberal because you talk like one — drunk on your own propaganda. You have forgotten what “liberal” really means. The opposite of Liberal is Patriot. Modern history is full of fine and intelligent Patriots, such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and of course, Ronald Reagan. So I’m surprised you take it as a compliment to be called a Liberal. Keep in mind that after WWII, our atomic bomb secrets were given to the Soviets by a group of liberal spies. And with that information, the Soviets were able to produce their own bomb in 1949 and it gave them the power to strike at South Korea without fearing a full scale response by this country. That cost us over 50,000 dead, much, much more than the casualties we would have incurred if we had asked the “Old Bear” if he wanted to go out the way of the Japanese Empire. You are naïve if you believe that you cannot always arrange for an “incident” to deceive the people. You have to realize that we as a country have consistently argued from a high ground of principle as we did just that.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Liberals believe in liberty. That is the root meaning of the word.

    “Patriot” and “liberal” are independent and only loosely linked concepts, not opposites as you falsely assert. Most liberals are patriots. A few are not.

    But it’s no surprise you’d be wrong about this, as you are about so many other things.

  • RealCon

    A true “Liberal” is a “Libertine”. A “Libertine” is “one who acts without moral restraint; a dissolute person and one who defies established religious precepts; a freethinker“. A “Patriot” is “one who loves, supports, and defends one’s country“. If you are a Libertine, how do you get to be a Patriot? How can Liberals be Patriots if as Libertines, they act without moral restraint; and are dissolute? But it’s no surprise you’d be wrong about this, as you are about so many other things.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    So, is it “moral restraint” that leads “patriots” like you and Bob to advocate arranging an “incident” to deceive the people into supporting a war?

    In any event, you’re still absolutely dead wrong about the meaning of the word. Libertine and liberal do not mean the same thing at all. Some liberals may be libertines. Most are not.

    Some self-proclaimed “patriots” may also be libertines, especially those who claim moral superiority while supporting tactics of deception and dishonesty.

  • RealCon

    I don’t recall anyone advocating an “incident” to deceive the people into supporting a war. What was indicated was that it can be and has been done in the past. You are acting like a true LIBERAL when you misquote others to support an argument that you cannot sustain without resorting to this liberal device. Please stop trying to change the meaning of what others say and changing the meaning of words. Libertine and liberal are so closely related, they are virtually synonymous. If a liberal claims not to be a libertine then that person is outside the mainstream of liberalism. I don’t know if “most are not” as you declare. Of course, you don’t know either, yet you declare it to be so, a liberal characteristic. Victor — whenever you cannot answer what someone says, you ignore the main issue and try to pick apart some minor aspect of the subject and then make that the issue in your next post, thereby making it look like you are responding to the main thesis when you are not. This is truly the characteristic of a true LIBERAL.

  • Shark

    re. RealCon on etymology:

    zzzzzzzzz…

    re. RealCon’s use of “liberal” as an epithet

    zzzzzzzzz…

    re. the appearance of yet another angry little rightwing blowhard on Blogcritics:

    HOW FUCKING RARE.

  • RealCon

    This person can’t write — I wonder who reads for him?

  • RealCon

    This moron says I used LIBERAL as an epithet.

    If I wanted to use LIBERAL as an epithet consistent with his manner of speech, I would have said FUCKING LIBERAL.

  • trutrh

    Hey pal, this a load of crap, Ther reason why we defeated hitler was as he was invading everywhere in Europe, He was millitarising, and personally invaded Poland, He also intervened in the Spanish civil war in an insane act of imerpialism, He invaded Poland when Britain and France promissed to defend Poland, Then he invaded Scandinavia, the Benelux lands, and France, and prerpared to invade Briotain, and then invaded the ussr, Then we beat him. We saw him invade these lands, it was not some case of anything else. Stalin was miles better than Hitler. Stalin was responsible for only 20million deaths. While Hitler was responsible for 42million. Most deaths by Stalin were during a civil war and therest in other situations. Th eonly people who claim otherwise are people who have read that that rubbish Mnedveved and Conquest book, that has a crappy view. It says at the bottom of the table that calims Stalin killed 50million, that the numbers of added genocides may be the same figures. In other words he claim a person executed in the Ukrainain famione, as a death in a famine, a death in a gulag and a execution. He also counts people who were never born. For instance in the Ukraina famine the birth rate fell, he includes that as deaths. This is nonsense, as if that were true then that would mean 3.5million not a million died in the Irish famine. And would mean that more people died in world war one than is claimed. For instance all the men were at war during the conflict so that would mean as birth rates fwell hugely around 50milliondied in world war one. And the same happened in Britain, It is insane to claim Stalin killed more, by including a fall in birth rates for the Ukrainiaan famine, but not inclduing the fall ion birth rates in Ukraine during world war two, or the fall in Britain. The stats also claim 10million died in gulags. A insane claim, based on the idea that half the gulag residents died. This claim is dshonest aswell as in the Gulags were ordinary murderers, and war criminals. I do not think that people who were murderers should be included. And anyhow the US alabaman prisons should then be included in that case US “gulags” have killed thousands of people by executions, and putting people in terrible conditions, as criminals allways usually die younger the rest of the population. The gap is 10 years younger for same upbringing people in soem states. The gulag statements is wrong in entirety as it also claims all gulags were as bad as eachother. This is not true. Some gulags were attempts to re-educate, some were virtual death camps, and some were not. Under this the statement of neutral authorities is the huge number 4million died in gulags, political executions and other camps, most of which being inncocent peiople brought to theri during the famine. But to include them twice just so you can claim Hitler was a nice man, is wrong. Hitler was worse and that is that, Stalin caused 20million dead including the post war expulsions. Look at this fact Stalinj said he would kuill all people who surrendered to the nazis in World war two, A wise descion, But in the end loads who had surrendered survived theri stionts in the gulags. We may say well that was evil, but then we have to remember US killings on the Phillipines which killed a million. We have to remember the Japanese empire which killed 27million, in world war two, and remember the first world war which killed 17million. The popular claim that stalin killed more than hitler is nonsese. In truth he killed 20million via famine, and civil war , while hitler kiled 42million. On top of this Stalin ruled longer, and of those barely a million were massacres, for hitler the number is something like 12 million executed

  • asdasd

    Pat Buchanan should also write a piece saying it was terrible for the USA to oppose the Soviet invasion of afghan, and another which say we should not have opposed a soviet conquest of alaska, canada, and the us, and gorbachov raping his wife.

  • Mihos

    “If we tell the Palestinians to combat Hamas, we have to hear what their needs are,” Peres told Israel Radio.

  • http://www.lonympics.co.uk/Worstregimesofthe20thcentury.htm here we are

    the site that shows which regime was worse the nazis, or stalin

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    I found this rather amusing. I’ll share my insights. I don’t have any links that I can attach right now.

    First of all, Columbus lied to Ysabel about his motives for sailing west. Columbus was a hidden Jew who believed that he would hasten the Redemption and the coming of the messiah if he sailed west from Spain.

    Second, while Hitler wanted to deport Jews from Europe, and killed them in Europe because nobody would have them, the Mufti of Jerusalem was able to persuade him to kill them there because he planned to kill them all off anyway.

    Third, when Stalin was poisoned, he had in the works plans to kill all the Jews in the USSR. And Stalin did plan to conquer the world – but he did not have the infrastructure that Hitler was blessed with.

    Fourth, Stalin was responsible for more people dying than Hitler was. I’m not defending Hitler here, merely pointing out that Stalin was at least as bad. Hitler left two good things behind – the autobahns and the Volkswagen.

    Finally, as to Buchanan’s article – he stirred up a big stink, but it basically was a waste of ink. World War II was a continuation of WWI and would have been fought simply because the Germans had been royally screwed over at Versailles, and the order that followed Versailles was too fragile and riddled with too many falsehoods to remain in place.

  • http://www.lonympics.co.uk/Worstregimesofthe20thcentury.htm Jerry

    Hete is a site showing the worst 10 regimes of the century

  • liberal idiot

    Pat Buchanan should have written a piece saying it would be wrong for the US to invade Iraq. If he had, and his advice had been followed, over 2,000 Americans would still be alive, and we would not be faced with borrowing a trillion or more dollars from China.

    Oops… Buchanan did write the piece.

    Sorry Pat, but I’m just another liberal idiot.

    Perhaps the country needs more “wrong-headed” people like Buchanan.

%d bloggers like this: