Replies

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.

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 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