Posted on 05/11/2005 9:08:36 AM PDT by EveningStar
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?
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Is this guy real? How can an idiot like Buchanan still have some following on FR?
Someone that actually read the article. :-)
On September 2nd 1939, it was not clear that the USSR would invade Poland and the Baltics. Britain and France could have invaded Germany in late 1939 or 1940, but failed to co-ordinate. Worse, they were not as well armed as they should have been.
Read the article - it is far different than the excerpt that the original submitted. The title isn't even accurate.
Nothing undemocratic about it, however. Many parliamentary democracies are run that way. If you don't get 50% then you form coalitions to get you there. Hitler got power fair and square.
Citations? Everything I've read, including Hitler's own Mein Kempf, histories, and historical publications, shows that Hitler had no desire to be at war with America, Britian, or even France. When America entered the war, it was obvious that Hitler didn't even have the capacity to invade Britain, or if not the ability, not the will. One of the reasons that Hitler attacked the Soviet Union was that he (idiotically) thought that this move would be approved of by the US and Britain.
All that doesn't say that France, Britain, and the US should not have gone to war to Make the World Safe For Democracy Version II but if that was our goal...why did we give Eastern Europe and China to the Communists? And if that wasn't our goal, what was the point of the whole tragic exercise?
Pat is repeating a line from about 30 years ago. His junk about eastern Europe still being enslaved was valid then, but Pat apparently hasn't noticed the disappearance of the USSR. WW2 was both worth it and necessary, even though many mistakes were made by the Western Allies, primarily in trusting Stalin.
10 million is surely an underestimate. 20-30 million is a better estimate.
Hitler wanted war with France
Pan Europe cannot be summoned to the solution of this problem, but only a Europe with free and independent national States whose areas of interest are divergent and precisely delimited. Only then can the time ripen for Germany, secured by a France pushed back within her own boundaries, and supported by her Army born anew, to lead the way toward the elimination of her territorial need. Once our Folk, however, will have grasped this great geopolitical aim in the east, the consequence will not only be clarity regarding German foreign policy, but also stability, at least for a humanly predictable time, will make it possible to avoid political insanities like those which ultimately entangled our Folk in the World War. And then we will also have ultimately overcome the period of this petty daily clamour and of the completely sterile economic and border policy.I readily concede that Hitler thought that Britain would be an ally or at least neutral, based on his racial theories.
http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/books/zweites/zweites.htm Chapter 5
.why did we give Eastern Europe and China to the Communists? And if that wasn't our goal, what was the point of the whole tragic exercise?
We did not "give" anything to the communists. By 1945, the only way to dislodge the USSR would have been to invade it. We were not willing to fight then.
Teh Republica of China fell in 1948, not 1945. I will not defend Truman's failures here.
Frankly, why all you Pat haters always clog up FR with your childish insults is beyond me. You seem to hate him more than the liberals.
I have come to the conclusion that most of the derogatory posts are the result of pre-concieved notions concerning Mr. Buchanan, not an actual reading of the Buchanan article..
I found the ACTUAL article to be reasonable and articulate, in it's context..
I also found it's conclusions to be fairly accurate as well..
Mr. Buchanan did not question the need to rid the world of Hitler and the Nazi's Third Reich..
He questioned the outcome of that war..
He questioned dealings with Stalin, who Churchill and FDR, specifically, HAD to know was as bad as Hitler or worse..
He questioned the abandonment of Eastern European countries, and others, like Poland, to the Stalinist regime..
If you want to bash Buchanan, do it on those points that are actually objectionable.
In this case, Buchanan's premise is right on target..
Hitler wanted to reclaim the long disputed Alsace-Lorraine region, which France had taken after the German defeat in 1919; but I don't think that he would have gone to war with France specifically for that objective if he could have achieved his objectives in Poland and the east without war with France and Germany; it was France and Britain who declared war on Germany. I don't claim to be an expert here, but I did read the excellent articles in the 13th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannia, which had the history of the war up to about 1940. I will look at your link on this however.
I wont be a bit surprised to hear Buchannan and his followers to say 'HITLER WASNT SUCH A BAD GUY..JUST MISUNDERSTOOD" sometime in the near future. Or perhaps "IF THE JEWS HADNT PROVOKE HIM NONE OF THIS LITTLE PROBLEM WITH GENOCIDE WOULD HAVE HAPPENED". Truely a disgusting bunch of rabble.
Only those statements that characterize him as a nasty, evil "doody-head" are PC enough to pass muster..
Any positive aspect of his administration is instantly taken as some sort of neo-nazi hero worship, which is of coure, "horse hockey"... ( please note: 2, count 'em, 2, scatological references in 2 consecutive paragraphs..)
I don't care for Buchanan..
Repeat for Effect on thick skulls.. I don't care for Buchanan..
The fact remains, Buchanan's article was correct, and reasoned..
Finding fault where none lies, shows a fault in one's own reasoning.. allowing it to be colored by prejudice or hatred..
Pat Buchanan is no Ronald Reagan. In fact, Pat Buchanan has come out against the economic policies of Ronald Reagan.
In his own words, Buchanan states: Reaganism and its twin sister, Thatcherism, create fortunes among the highly educated, but in the middle and working classes, they generate anxiety, insecurity and disparities in income. Since these classes seek stability, security and order from their political systems, above all else, Thatcherism and Reaganism thus undermine the very social structure on which they were built...
The attempt to impose Reaganomics in Europe has also brought backlash, as the jobless rate has risen above 12 percent. Conservative parties have been ousted in Canada, Britain, France and the United States, and the German conservatives are now running behind the socialists....
In Asia, Reaganism was always paid lip service as the giants, China and Japan, embraced nationalism. Asia's tigers grew fat by feeding on the U.S. market, while protecting their own. Their reward: a U.S. merchandise trade deficit running in January at $225 billion a year.
Unbridled capitalism is also an awesome destructive force. It makes men and women obsolete as rapidly as it does the products they produce and the plants that employ them. And the people made obsolete and insecure are workers, employees, "Reagan Democrats," rooted people, conservative people who want to live their lives and raise their families in the same neighborhoods they grew up in.
Unbridled capitalism tells them they cannot.
---------------------------------------------------------------
If Buchanan is a Reagan-like conservative, then why does he advocate postitions that are antithetical to the policies of Ronald Reagan? And why does he blame the policies of Ronald Reagan for "generating anxiety, insecurity and disparities in income"?
(And I would be happy to hear you defend Buchanan on his deisel fuel comments.)
How anyone who lived through the Cold War could have failed to notice that is unbelievable.
In fact, environmentalism and the movement that became the Nazi party have their origins among the same people at the same time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.