Posted on 05/11/2005 9:08:36 AM PDT by EveningStar
Gimme a break! That makes him a neo-Nazi?
no, it doesn't. i just think it's interesting that he always seems to have a bunch of accolades and compliments for the man. it's almost as if he wishes Hitler had won. I'm not saying he does, but reading his comments could give one that impression. After all, without the US' involvement, Hitler most likely would have.
1. The holocaust only ended because of WW2, if we hadn't gotten involved, all the Jews in Europe would have been dead. So we, along with the Russians, the Brits, and others, did save the Jews
2. Poland is still here today. If we didn't get involved and Hitler won, there'd be no Poland, all the Poles would have been dead and it would be part of Germany. Much in the way that there's no Carthage today-it would be Poland delenda est.
3. Same goes for E. Europe. Hitler played for keeps. And with the bomb, which he 100% would have had without US involvement, he would have kept.
4. Given the utter destruction and death the Allies dealt to the Germans, I wouldn't exactly say they "got away".
Anyone can say WW2 wasn't worth it, but anyone can also question that statement. I could say the Civil War wasn't worth it, that doesn't make it so. So, to clarify, you think Nam was worth it but WW2 wasn't? After all, we didn't save South Vietnam, lost all of Indochina, and to a much greater extent, the North Vietnamese and VC got away scot free with all their atrocities.
2. Poland is still here today.
No thanks to FDR or Churchill. Only thanks to God, for sending leaders like Ronald Reagan, JPII, and Lech Walesa. Poland would have been the same off whether it be German or Soviet rule. Poland has been though germanification before, and it survived.
3. Same goes for E. Europe.
Germanification or Russification? Choose your poison.
4. I wouldn't exactly say they "got away
Most war criminals got away, as there were hundreds of thousands of Germans who commited crimes against humanity. Hilter and Himmler weren't pulling every trigger you know. And today, while Poland is among the poorest in Europe, Germany is the strongest, most prosperous country in Europe, and third in the world. Yeah, those bastards got what they deserved alright!
After all, we didn't save South Vietnam, lost all of Indochina, and to a much greater extent, the North Vietnamese and VC got away scot free with all their atrocities.
My point exactly! You tell me the difference.
Bad example, because liberals really do love Lenin and Stalin :)
Buchanan might not disparage or blame Jews in this article, but he certainly has in conversations and articles past.
Buchanan's claim that we accomplished nothing by stopping Hitler in WWII is so backwards and demented it is laughable. One of Hitler's main aims at attacking and dominating the entire European continent was so he could eradicate the "mongrels", which in his mind was the Jewish race followed by Gypsies and other non arians.
Read Mein Kampf, or read transcripts of speeches he made in the late 1930s and 40s.
And if you think I'm going out of my way to support the Jews, I plead guilty.
As a Christian, I think we have a duty to protect Jews wherever possible.
Sad but true. I am not a Buchananite but he made a serious argument that deserves to be addressed.
Incredibily ridiculous.
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.
Accusing others of what you yourself are doing. A typical tactic of the left - shared by Buchanan supporters. Oh, if we disagree with completely nonsensical assertations we are "haters." Typical.
That's easy! ;o)
It's the same as my reaction to Bush II and our participation in the tragic Iraq puzzle.
As it has evolved, finally reason n(?) became the Wilsonian air-headed screech of spreading democracy.
I give Wilson a little more credit for sincerity than Bush. But, he was even more misguided (IMHO).
Bummer, respectfully, I don't recall saving the Jews ever being an issue!
I grew up with Jews. If THEY knew or anticipated the horror, it never got out into the neighborhood.
Again, I say .. it only became the Jewish World War after the damnable thing was over.
From the article: And this to me is the main problem with it
"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?"
If you have to ask "Why destroy Hitler?" and also look upon the Allied victory with derision and by using "smashing" in quotes, I take it that Pat wasn't too pleased at the Nazi defeat(and feels some measure of sympathy towards them and that he's upset that the Nazi's lost), then that to me tells you all you need to know.
I get the impression after reading this that Pat's desired outcome was a Nazi Victory along with the US staying on the sidelines. ASide from this argument, which will have to end with us agreeing to disagree, let me ask to this: Are you glad the Nazi's lost or would you rather that the US stayed out and the Nazis won. I mean, does the fact the Nazis were defeated upset you? I get the impression it does upset Pat.
On the FDR issue, I agree, he screwed the Jews over a bunch of times and was by no means blameless. And if you say that WW2 history has become dominated by the Holocaust and Jewish issues to the exclusion of other just as valid stories, I'd have to agree with you. But given some of Pat's past comments whenever he talks about WW2 it's not surprising that discussion ends up focused on it.
That makes sense to me. I honestly could stand to do a little more reading on the subject, but I can never seem to find the time. A lot of what has been said in this thread is new to me, and it's all very interesting.
Whatever.
That is a big misconception for sure. My grandparents gave me an old Time Life book that was published maybe a year or two after the end of the war, and I remember it was shocking to me that there was NOTHING mentioned about the Jews or the Holocaust in the entire book. I don't know if it was always taught that way or if I have somehow always ordered the facts in my head to make it that way. In any case it definitley seems to be a fairly common mistake.
So who actually knew what was happenening to the Jews during the war or leading up to it, and why were we not told about it? It just seems so unbelievable that such a thing could be kept from the people, even Jews themselves as you say.
If anyone ask "Why destroy Hitler?", he needs his head examined.
I think one important fact differentiating Pat from his critics is that he always held, in the depository of his heart, hate for the Soviets in the place that most Americans reserved for hate of the Nazis.
This weighs heavily in his view that the 50 million dead, in light of the almost half century curse of the cold war, was a tragic waste.
Would the Germans have been more benign and less expansionist than the Russki's? Imponderable.
Keep in mind too, that conservatives of the non-interventionist stripe hold as their guide star ONLY the security interests of the USA. They also believe that war is an abhorrent step of last resort. Here's a view from another of my iconoclastic hero's that may help to flesh out the paleo attitude on foreign affairs.
Tens of millions died in “the good war,” probably including a Gershwin or an Edison, to say nothing of the misery of countless ordinary people. There is nothing about it to celebrate, unless you’re a politician who profits by the new order that arose in its ruins and survives today. Politicians love to commemorate wars, the men who died in them, and above all the politicians who started them.
Roosevelt and His Critics APRIL 28, 2005 Joe Sobran
Do we have a duty to protect Christians wherever possible? Would you acknowledge that there is more Christian persecution worldwide than Jewish?
You seem to be implying an ongoing, worldwide, vigilance the likes in which our nation has never engaged.
Traditionally our stance has been to focus on securing the safety and welfare of our fellow American citizens without regard to race or religion. That should include making sincere efforts at receiving emigres who have been living in threatening circumstances.
I apologize to my fellow conservatives on these threads.
I just jumped into middle of the fray, yesterday? day before? ... never a good idea. I had previously read the article and remembered it an as excellent review of President Bush's inexplicable trip halfway around the world to pay tribute to Stalinist Russia.
So, by moving Pat's last sentence to appear to be the opening statement you poisoned the discussion-well right off the bat, and it slipped right by me. Shame on me.
In its original context it reads properly as a sarcastic thumb in the eye of Bush's idiotic "democracies don't make war on each other" worldwide campaign.
Your taking it upon yourself (I'm sure you thought you were very clever) to maliciously misdirect the intent of the article is reprehensible.
I return the sentiment ... screw you EveningStar.
Do you think we should have stayed out of 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.