Was World War II worth it? (Buchanan barf alert)

WorldNetDaily ^ | May 11, 2005 | Patrick J. Buchanan

[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?

[Arkie2]

Pat's apparently gone round the bend. What a loser!

[Strategerist]

Sometimes Pat argues odd ideas for the heck of it, not because he seriously believes them.

They're not even new or original odd ideas; the whole article is basically recycled from some controversial British historian whose name escapes me at the moment.

[ArrogantBustard]

Well, one of the points he is making - that communism was worse than nazism - is a valid point.

Blasphemy!!! HERESY!!!! You're not allowed to SAY that!!!! EVERYBODY knows that right-wing Naziism is, was, and always will be the ULTIMATE EVIL!!! The MSM, Public Schools, politicians, and literati all tell me so ... and they would never lie about anything.

[dirtboy]

The statement he makes about drawing Hitler into Western Europe was in reference to the involvement of Great Britain and France in the war, not the U.S.

Even in that context, it's an absurd debating point. Pat seems to think that if Hitler had just been left alone, he wouldn't have attacked France. Which IMO is complete nonsense.

What was WWII about? Like all wars, it became something much different than what it was when the conflict started. And although I don't think much of FDR, I'm not sure what he could have done differently regarding the Soviet Union's occupation of central and eastern Europe after the war - unless he would have waged war with the Soviets after Hitler's fall - something I doubt the American people would have supported.

[righttackle44]

"So did Soviet occupied East Germany abandon the German language for Russian or did they just keep speaking German?"

Ooh, you got me. Boy, what keen insight. I surrender.

[nkycincinnatikid]

bumppity

[ArrogantBustard]

but it's a lasting shame (euphemism), that FDR and Churchill didn't stand up to Stalin at Yalta.

Lasting shame?

You misspelled "crime against humanity".

[GSlob]

On another thread [the same subject] I was comparing them as 80-proof vodka vs. 190 proof Everclear grain alcohol. Look at the relative ease and speed of denazification of Germany (or de-fascization of Italy) and compare with the difficulty of decommunization in Russia.

[AdamSelene235]

You're the one insisting that a Nazi Trans-Atlantic invasion was not only probable but would have ultimately resulted in an obliteration of American culture down to the linguistic level.

I find your position.....well, unrealistic.

[Wuli]

You should get and read a recently released book titled "Wilsons War". Yes, it is talking about President Wilson but no, it is not talking about WWI. The author is Jim Powell. He writes extremely well, uses a ton of very good research and his arguments are very well thought out.

Today's discussions of Germany at war in the 1930s tend to ignore that WWI was not only a military defeat for Germany, the WWI treaties turned it into an economic basket case for decades; they carved up German territory to the benefit of the Poles, the Czecks, the Russians, Hungary and others; they prohibited Germany from having "overseas" territories (like both France and Britain continued to have) and they required Germany not only to disarm but to help France rearm. On top of that, it seems, from Mr. Powell's point of view, that without U.S. intervention in the 11th hour of the war, it simply would have stopped with a stalemate, with no one having gained or lost much territory, without massive and disproportionate economic burdens on Germany alone, with a healthier democracy and economy in Germany and less carving up of Eastern Europe. Mr. Powell goes on to demonstrate many other critical events that, possibly, may not have grown out of a western Europe where no one won WWI.

I am not at the point of agreeing here with Buchanan, on how we should or should not have gone to war against Hitler, but Jim Powell's book does make one question whether or not WWII was inevitable, as an outcome of our helping end WWI, at the time and in the way we did. I can see, carrying Mr. Powell's arguments a step further, that there might be room for an argument that Germany may have been at war with France and England, by the late 1930s, without Hitler or the Nazis or the Holocaust, simply due to how WWI ended. We have constantly tended to view both wars through the prism of France and Britain; while their views gloss over their own contributions to what Germany became.

Get Mr. Powell's book. It may not bring you to agree with Buchanan, but it should change how you view Europe and particularly our "allies" of two wars over there.

He ends his book with some broad conclusions about what he sees as parallels in our time. I disagree with him over how much today's circumstances differ from the 1940s, in kind and in substance. His book is still a good read; especially now when the configuration of Europe is changing so much as is our choices of allies and partners over there.

[nothingnew]

The manner in which the FDR administration signed over Eastern Europe to the Soviets --

Don't forget or underestimate the Eisenhower follow-up. Disgraceful.

FMCDH(BITS)

[Billthedrill]

It isn't really much of a mystery what Hitler was up to as anyone who has ever slogged through Mein Kampf readily understands. He really did believe in Aryan supremacy and right to rule, and he really did believe that lebensraum was to be had by right of conquest. And he really did act on these beliefs.

As to whether a Thousand-Year Reich would have been easier to live with than communism turned out to be, I have no particular desire to judge - it's sort of like deciding whether you want to put up with AIDS or the Black Plague. "Neither" is a perfectly acceptable answer, and "neither" is what we ended up with, no thanks at all to the isolationists such as Buchanan who would have had us put up with both.

[Texas Federalist]

Well, one of the points he is making - that communism was worse than nazism - is a valid point.

Actually he makes several valid points, even if you disagree with his conclusion. However, everyone on this board sees fit to regress to DU'ers and just call him an idiot rather than rebut his argument.

I do think that he is correct that communism was worse than Nazism. And I agree that the Eastern European fall to communism was a major defeat. The question is, could we have won the war against the Germans without allying with the Russians? If yes, FDR and Churchill were right to enter the war, but made a serious tactical error. If no, the question of whether we should have entered the war hinged on whether the Germans would have invaded Western Europe had we not entered. Buchanan thinks no, I think the obvious answer is yes.

[ariamne]

I wish this idiot were a RAT. I get so tired of my leftie friends throwing him up in my face as a tu quoque.

I sympathize. Cheer up though, they have Ward Churchill, Noam Chomsky, Castro and Streisand on their side. Not to mention radical islam. : }

[FFIGHTER]

After Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, German declared war on the United States, I guess we could have surrendered and made Pat happy.

[white trash redneck]

Cheer up though, they have Ward Churchill, Noam Chomsky, Castro and Streisand on their side. Not to mention radical islam.

Which I rub their noses in every chance I get!