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 ...
I don't know when, but Hitler actually is on record saying:
"In the last six years I had to stand intolerable things from states like Poland."
I'm sure he'd have Buchanan's sympathy, at least.
Lots and lots of people have way over imbibed from the cups of elitist opinion makers.
Neither the left or the so called "right" wishes to see a Pat Buchanan get any traction.
Wouldn't be prudent ... for the tweedledee/tweedledum duopoly.
[T]he motives and designs of France and England were not without their own imperial ambitions; they were no more seeking to "make the world safe for democracy" than was any other European power.
As far as France goes, no argument from me. They were hot for Alsace and Lorraine. The Brits, IIRC, would have stayed out of a war between France and Germany as long as Belgium's neutriality (and territory) were respected. It was the German advance into Belgium (part of the "Schlieffen Plan") that brought Britain in. "Making the world safe for democracy" came from Wilson, not from anyone in Europe, IINM.
Before the U.S. entered the war, Germany had already lost the battle for the seas with England and it was having touble getting needed imports, if it was going to continue the war. Although Britain held the seas, it was in no position to mount a continental land war on its own.
Britain "held the seas" (especially after Jutland) but only on the surface. However, the U-boats were wreaking havoc on Britain's supply lines to the US, its dominions, and its colonies. While the British naval blockade did hurt Germany (people starving in the hundreds of thousands and food riots all over), Germany and Austria-Hungary had the advantage, in terms of military supplies, of better "interior lines," since the Central Powers were (at least after the occupation of Serbia)contiguous.
Without U.S. intervention, the stalemate on the ground had a chance of becoming an armistice in place and then leading to a peace treaty. Whatever 'arrangements' that would have come out of such a treaty, there would have been no great winners or losers, and the treaty itself would not have been the result of some great military victory.
An interesting "what if" scenario. My reading of the ever-inflamed states of mind of the leadership among the warring parties informs me otherwise. I can only say that honorable (and well-informed) minds can disagree on this one.
Germany would not have been already prostrated leading into the depression. Many of the national psychological and economic factors that Hitler relied on would either not have existed or would not have been as severe.
Hitler relied heavily on the "Dolchstoss" (stab in the back) excuse as to why Germany lost, since many believed
it was true (starting at the very top with Ludendorff).
Instead of twenty years of national humiliation, the Weimar Republic would have been in a better position in the 30s and 40s to negotiate the end of Europe's continental imperialisms with a France and England it had chosen to make peace with.
Not sure there would have been a republic in Germany had the war ended without a clear victory on either side. Maybe the Kaiser would have been overthrown, but who can really say?
Before judging where you think Mr. Powell is wrong, read his book; his research, his display of historical context and his historical perspective are all greater than yours or mine.
As I said, I'll look for it.
Best,
es
Never been on a PJB thread before?
This is actually an extraordinarily balanced one! ;o)
The problem w/ Buchanan's article, and many of the defending posts in response, is that it takes a utopian view of history and behavior. Unless the perfect solution is executed, no solution should be executed at all. This is an inversion of a leftwing argument--a leftwing worldview--that suggests since the U.S. isn't perfect, the US is not better than the USSR. I am reminded of what Garofalo said prior to the Iraq War, she said Turkey in the antebellum period killed millions of Armenians, and because of that, our positive relationship w/ Turkey was "less than ideal". Therefore Iraq's atrocities weren't all that bad, or weren't bad enough to act upon. She conveniently neglected two key facts 1) there was no overlap between national interest and human rights back then, and 2.) it was 75 freaking years ago, so nothing could be done to stop those atrocities now, whereas the meat grinders were still running in Iraq. Discernment counts. Just because there isn't an ideal solution to a problem, doesn't mean the problem shouldn't be solved. Just because we won't be able to feed every starving child, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to feed as many as we can.
Buchanan inverts this dubious "Garafola" rationale--since Academia and Hollywood and the media has not lampooned Communism the way it has attacked Nazism, and they think Communism isn't all that bad, therefore Nazism really isn't that bad, and Hitler didn't have ambitions behind Eastern Europe, and it shouldn't be that big of a deal if we stick up for Hitler's political rights to Eastern Europe and Europe as a whole. There has been a pattern in Buchanan's writings, going back to the "President Reagan you should make a speech about dead Nazi soldiers" through his willingness to swallow the "research" of Holocaust deniers hook line and sinker (the diesel gas controversy, he got his information from "Institute for Historical Review", a Holocaust denying institution) through his suggestions that Hitler could have been left alone no harm no foul to the U.S. (re: Republic, not an Empire), this pattern suggests Buchanan isn't just throwing out something for discussion, but he has a worldview that doesn't view National Socialism as *evil*, and he's desperately trying to find ways to rationalize his tolerance of Nazism. And I find this "Hitler only wanted Eastern Europe, he wouldn't have attacked France" disturbing. Why is Adolf Hitler given the benefit of the doubt? Meanwhile, Churchill is blamed for instigating and accelerating WWII. Who is the great conservative ideologue of the 20th Century, Winston Churchill or Adolf Hitler?!? This thread has been a DU wet dream come true.
Buchanan doesn't stop at a common sensical, uncontroversial critique of Yalta and its consequences. If he merely suggested that the good allies in WWII backed down to the whims of the bad ally at Yalta, that point wouldn't be contested. He draws the line when he takes the results of Yalta, and suggests that the whole enterprise might not have been worth it, and that there is no redeeming value in defeating two of the three anti-american totalitarian regimes of the 30s (Germany and Japan). It's that "ideal or nothing, utopia or distopia" leftist psychology coming into play by Buchanan, which leads him to float the indefensible notion of even suggesting stopping Hitler wasn't worth it, and U.S. and Nazi Germany could coexist (yeah, and Germany declared war on the U.S., remember?) along w/ the USSR. The principled argument, it seems, would be instead of the US staying out of the European front, that the US should have taken Patton's Moscow option. The Brits and US would have genuinely been percieved as liberators in Eastern Europe and even in the USSR, and the second European front might not have been as arduous as historians suggest. The Nazis were percieved as liberators at first, until the Germans treated the Eastern Europeans worse than the Soviets did, which led those caught in between to switch back to being Soviet partisans. The U.S/U.K = genuine liberators.
Here are some numbers, in the "Nazi vs. USSR domination of Eastern Europe" argument. According to the Black Book of Communism, which is legitimately considered a Bible for conservatives documenting the evils of Communism, 1 million Eastern Europeans were killed in 45 years of Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.
However--
In 6 years of Nazi domination of Poland, 3-4 million non-Jewish Poles were killed (and 3 million Polish Jews, close to 7 million Poles overall). This is just ONE eastern european country under Nazi domination. The Nazis had plans for the systematic elimination of *peoples*. The Soviets were evil, but they targeted classes, you get rid of the breadwinners and the rest are just slaves to the state. The Nazis, it was simple extermination. So if the Nazis had controlled Eastern Europe for 45 years, there would be no Eastern Europe remaining, no ashes for the Phoenix of Poland to rise from.
Does this exonerate Communism? No. But it puts things in a pragmatic perspective--Communism might have been worse for the world--100 million dead in 85 years and counting, and it might tick us off that it isn't as condemned as it should be, but Nazism was worse for Eastern Europe. So Buchanan's premises (and thus conclusions) are flawed. WWII was worth it because we defeated the greater threat to Europe's survival at the time, we ended two out of three anti-American regimes heading into the nuclear age, and Eastern Europe was at least given an evil ideology that killed them slowly, slow enough that they could overthrow it a generation later, instead of the evil ideology that planned on killing them immediately in the gas chambers. It isn't perfect, but waiting for the perfect solution merely allows the blood of evil to spill without a tourniquet. Insert famous Burke quote here.
I disagree with you about eternal hunts for (all) past political sinners.
But I cannot argue the fact that it has been a one-sided phenomenon to this point. Any speculations as to why?
Eloquent post, and I agree with parts of it. But I disagree that Hitler ever intended to exterminate Eastern Europeans in general. Apart from Jews and Gypsies, he planned to use them as slave labor. (At least the Slavs; I don't recall if the Hungarians were excepted.) To be sure, this doesn't really change the conclusion: What Hitler had in store for Eastern Europe was worse even than Communism.
Given the history of French and British (lack of)responses to prior provocations, and their then current level of military preparedness, war was hardly inevitable with even France and Germany; and Hitler certainly had no notion of going to war with America, never mind invading us and making German the US national language, going back to my original response to post 26.
As I've stated earlier you can make the case for US participation in the War in a Make the World Safe For Democracy Version II way; but the way in which we entered and finished the war put American strategic interests; and human rights around the world in a much worse position.
By the way, Buchanan is on the air right now (4:10 Eastern time) on the Howie Carr Show WRKO.com, where you can listen now to Pat talking about this.
Simply post the name "Pat Buchanan" on FR and they come out the woodwork - throwing out childish insults and acting as if Pat was the enemy instead of the liberals. If Pat wrote a column suggesting we make Israel the 51st state - they would still call him a Nazi and Anti-semite.
I get the impression they are either "trolls" - or so consumed by irrational hatred of a TV commentator that they prefer Ted Kennedy or Hillary.
As in one step forward and two steps back?
That was/is considered SOP in European Parliaments.
Course, George is gonna correct all that with his worldwide tour of "democratic instruction".
Absolutely, hell, the "sainted FDR" turned boatloads of Jews from our shores!
The whole Jewish World War nonsense is an after the fact creation/recognition for purposes, some valid, some not for very practical geo/political purposes.
And, he called their pitiful bluff.
Your analysis is not bad, but there was no American thought to "taking out Stalin", to the contrary he was a left-wing/Democrat icon!
I believe what Pat is suggesting is that if Germany had been allowed to take out Russia (or had the good sense to accomplsh it) then the German people themselves would shortly have retired the little house painter (evidence, the attempts on his life, even in wartime).
**I'm much more concerned about communists in the United States in 2005 than national socialists. The communists are much greater in number, they hold actual political and social power, and in some circles they are actually respectable.
If you want to worry about Nazis, fine. Just don't strain on that gnat, whilst swallowing the camel. You might hurt yourself.**
Boggles.
Yeah, we're not worried about the Nazis *TODAY* because they've already been DEFEATED as a political force. That was a result of the war that "wasn't worth it."
Sheesh.
-George
how do you explain this:
In a 1977 column, Buchanan said that despite Hitler's anti-Semitic and genocidal tendencies, he was "an individual of great courage...Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path."
to use words like "great courage", "success", "extraordinary gifts", and "genius" when talking about Hitler is a little puzzling.
Not once does Pat in the article condemn the Nazis and he doesn't really posit an alternate history. So, since you're in his corner on this issue, and for the rest of us, could you please state what the outcome would if been if Pat's path had been followed. What would the world have looked like, what would have happened?
While we can debate your answer, I think you'd acknowledge that absent US Involvement, the Final solution would have come to fruition. Hitler was about 50-60% there as it happened. The fact that Pat doesn't seem to be bothered by that is troubling to many.
In any event, you have brought up some valid points and it's always good to have an airing of views
I'm sure he'd have Buchanan's sympathy, at least.
Sounds more like Prince George/Iraq to me.
Even though the World War was (at best) very much unfinished business in 1945, the two parts which were accomplished (the destruction of the Nazi regime and the end of Japanese imperial ambitions) were unquestionably necessary.
Anyone who thinks that, for eastern Europe, 1945 was not a case of "out of the frying pan, into the fire" is wrong.
You know, one shouldn't have to be required to mention the plight of the Jews and the evil Nazis everytime one talks about WWII. It's equivalent to having to say how much you love minorities as a prerequsite before you criticize affirmative action. Let's cut the PC BS.
We all know about Hitler and the Jews. In fact, it's all we know about WWII because that's all they teach. Buchanan is trying to give a history lesson. This isn't about the Jews this time, its about Russia and their refusal to admit their own atrocities.
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.