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 have heard this too several times. Do you have a reference though? I know that Jan Nowak-Jezioranski wrote written in his memoirs that when he told high ranking officials in the US govt. of the concentration camps, they chose not to believe him.
1. They would have retired the leader who just restored German honor and pride, avenged the defeat at the hands of France, destroyed their hated enemy, the Marxists, enlarged the Reich to its greatest area ever, exterminated the untermenschen juden and made the Reich judenrein for all time, Brought Birtain to its knees, managed to keep the Americans out of the war, etc... That's wishful thinking.
That's analagous to W taking out the Mullahs in Iran, Kim Jong-Il, Chavez, and the ChiComs, getting to appoint 5 judges to SCOTUS and overturning Roe v Wade and all the other hated decisions they've made, neding the illegal immigration problem, and accomplishing all the other items on the conservative agenda, and then having his supporters want to overthrow the guy that just made all their wildest dreams come true. Again, unlikely, from my pov
2. Don't forget, those attempts on Hitler's life were largely a result of the fading fortunes of the Whermact and the disastrous decisions Hitler made. Without US/UK involvement and with Russia defeated, there would be a lot fewer reasons to take him out. And even if they did, given the total grip the Nazis had on the state, one of his underlings such as Hess, Boormann, Goebbels, Himmler, would have taken over. Since Germany was victorious over Russia, all these guys would most likely have been alive and free because there would have been no nuremberg trials.
thoghts?
I agree. There were millions of others killed by Hitler, and if you read his writings and captured Nazi documents, you'll see that once he was finished with the Jews, the Christians would have been next.
I was referring to Pat's past comments and given his history with regards to the hewish issues issues I think it's a valid issue to raise.
And what does questioning Soviet atrocities have to do with questioning whether WW2 was worth it. That's like Jesse Jackson coming out and saying the US victory in the Rveolutionary War wasn't worth it becuase it only opened the door for close to 100 years of slavery and more than 200 + years of institutionalized racism.
Nothing is perfect. What's wrong with saying that the Russians committed atrocities and that defeating the Nazis was worth it, I think both statements are true.
So, in the final analysis, do you think WW2 was worth it. Yes or No?
So, in the final analysis, do you think WW2 was worth it. Yes or No?
Where DID you dig that screed up from? ;o)
The link is right there
Aren't you the punk who accused me of being drunk?
Go back to your links about how the Nazis couldn't kill Polish Christians with diesel fumes (I know, Pat and the Spotlight were talking about Jews, but the technique was first used on Polish political prisoners) and making the case for entry to the US or camp guards. All of this is well documented, and given the concern about racism on FR lately, I'm not interested in disputing the Patsies.
Really?
Even considering that Hitler lifted up a formerly proud nation flat out wasted by the Treaty of Versailles and subsequently thrust into depths of inflation and depression and goose-stepped it into a world-threatening power?
Mr. Buchanan deals in reality, not raw emotion. And, ironically he gets raw emotion in return.
Do you have access to a computer?
Oops, silly me. of course you do.
Top of my head thoughts?
The UK and USA would have emerged stronger and wiser.
I give the German people more credit for long term common sense than many do.
The debate is fun and I think productive in terms of shaping thought.
The decision is as impossible as it is pointless.
You still didn't answer whether or not you think WW2 was worth it. From your posts, though, I gather you'd say no. Would I be correct?
Unabashedly pleased to see you appear considerably more sober this evening!
I mean, hypothetically: If you had control of the US from 1939-1945, would you have kept it out of WW2. What would you have done, that's what I'm trying to get to. We can argue all day about this but I'm just interested in what your ultimate point is, and what you would or wouldn't have done differently
Stuff it pal
I was interupted by little "house guests" at that moment. Please forgive.
So if President Bush gave a speech about Osama using those words, you'd support him. I just think there are certain words that shouldn't be used when describing certain people. If he said the same things about Osama during the campaign that Pat said about Hitler, he would've been clobbered. Pat's entitled to his opinion, as are you.
Have you ever heard Pat denounce Hitler or say anything bad about him? It seems that he only has accolades for him. Again, somewhat puzzling.
As far as lifting them up, if you mean more than 10% of their population killed, their cities in ruin, the loss of huge swaths of land, the end of the German military as an institution having any real meaning, a good chunk of their population delivered to Communist slavery for 40 years, and having their nation, language, and culture forever associated with the worst kind of evil and depravity known to man, then yeah, I'd agree, he did lift them up.
Quite honestly, probably yes ... since I am essentially isolationist.
I believe to the depth of my being that we should send our young people to war only as a last resort.
And, remember until the Japs decided or were provoked to attack us neither we nor Hitler had declared war.
Thank you for your answer. We might disagree, but at least I can respect your answer. I think the problem with Pat is that if you look at some of the stuff he's said, it lends itself to some not so nice explanations. I;m not saying those are true. They may be, they may not be. But I think you can probably understand why a lot of people have problems with him.
On a related point, I think the War that wasn't worth it was WW1. If you think about it, there were a lot of problems that stem from that, not the least of which was WW2, and I'd be interested to hear your thought on Wilson and our participation in "The Great War".
That is the question, isn't it? It seems writing this article wasn't that racist afterall, but quite thought provoking. This was Buchanan's intent.
We didn't save the Jews, we didn't save Poland, we lost all of Eastern Europe, and with the exception of a handful of generals at Nuremburg, most Nazis got away with all their atrocities unpunished.
Also: Why is it okay for people to say Vietnam was not worth it, but controversial/racist to ask the question about WWII?
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.