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?

[ArrogantBustard]

Neither communism nor Nazism should get a pass because of the excesses of the other. Both should be remembered and condemned.

BRILLIANT!!!!!

Thank you!!!

[ariamne]

I'm not ashamed to be a descendant of murdered Jews.

You are quite welcome.

[ariamne]

Exactly! Thank you, Evening Star.

[dirtboy]

Reading comprehension strikes again.In 43 Stalin had no pwer without our armaments.If Roosevelt had made freedom for the Balkins a requirement for helping the russians he would have agreed.No war after 44 would have been neccesary

Sure. Papa Joe would have agreed, marched on to Berlin, and then marched back to Moscow afterwards.

With all due respect, what the heck are you smoking to believe that?

[SJackson]

Well, you know he did make the trains run on time.

That was Mussolini I believe, but the same arguement. An urban legend as well.

[Stultis]

Changing headlines eh? I thought that was against the rules.

No, it's not. Next carping quibble?

(The point it to have the original headline in there, in full if space allows, so that it can be searched on to prevent duplicate postings. Therefore adding something to the headline, particularly if set off as by parenthesis, is not problem. In fact it's helpful as having "Buchanan" in the thread name will help future searches, and might even prevent a duplicate posting if the same Op-Ed was published under a different title.)

[MEGoody]

"Your a product of public education and under 40."

Yes and no.

Are you actually trying to claim that Hitler's goal wasn't world domination? Try talking to a former member of Hitler youth. That is most definitely what they were being taught.

[MEGoody]

"Germany didn't even have the werewithal to invade and conquer Great Britain, let alone the United States."

But if we hadn't fought the war, wherewithal wouldn't have mattered, now would it?

[MEGoody]

"We (England) were actually worse off than before the war."

Carpet bombing will do that.

[GSlob]

In Huntington's terms ("Clash") Poland has always been a part of the Western Civ, thus it returns "home" rather easily. Albeit ideological communism (marxism) originated as a Western heresy, it found its most adequate implementation in Russia, within "Orthodox civ" [because, one could argue - see the books of Alexander Zinoviev, for example] deep affinities with that type of civilization. And as everybody knows, civilizations do run deep, indeed the deepest of all.

[DM1]

"After all, the Germans voted Hitler in. "
um NOOOO idiot needs to read a history book
Hitler LOST his elections, he was APPOINTED by President Hindenburg to the Chancellorship. From there he eroded power and then had his "elections" which were similiar to Saddam Husseins elections.
I used to like Pat looks like he is senile

[SJackson]

I suppose you all are great fans of the Soviets and were so glad they dominated Poland, but I agree with Mr. Buchanan that WWII started out to help Poland, but it's a shame that Poland got lost in the whole deal.

Hitler's aims toward the Polish people was clearly genocidal. After 50 years of National Socialism Poland would have been a nation of model Aryan communities, and what Poles remained would have resided in slave labor camps. They suffered under both regiemes, imo the idea that they would have been "better off" under Hitler demeans that suffering

[x]

When excerpting an article, I look for an eye-catching quote that will get the reader to read the entire article.

Standard procedure is to give the beginning of the article and let readers decide if they want to read the rest. Picking sensational quotes out of context doesn't give a clear idea of what the author's argument is. When you realize that a lot of the people writing back are posting on the basis of your excerpt, not of the actual article, it's all the more important not to skew things by picking the most controversial quotes.

[Blessed]

>Are you actually trying to claim that Hitler's goal wasn't world domination? Try talking to a former member of Hitler youth. That is most definitely what they were being taught.<

Kim Jong and at least 30 crazies at the local asylum have the same goal.Like Hitler desire does not equall ability.

[Junior]

Most of the people who did vote for him were idiots. Remember those senile citizens down in Florida in 2000?

[katana]

communism was worse than nazism

Hmmmm, mass murder by reason of economic class is worse than mass murder on the basis of race and religion. Sorry, except for numbers killed (the communists have had a much longer time frame and much larger expanse of territory in which to do their work) I don't see a great difference between those two sides of the socialist coin.

[MEGoody]

"Kim Jong and at least 30 crazies at the local asylum have the same goal."

Yep, and Hitler took action to accomplish it. Obviously, if no one had fought him and we all just sat around on our hands, he could easily have done it.

Remember, the question is, should we have fought WWII? The answer is, we had no choice.

[Alberta's Child]

Germany did not have the ability to invade and conquer Great Britain at any time between 1917 and 1945 (or even before 1917, for that matter), so the notion that "we'd all be speaking German now" if the U.S. hadn't gotten involved in World War II is utterly ludicrous.

[Blessed]

>Remember, the question is, should we have fought WWII?<

No the question was did we have to?

The answer is yes after France and England made the mistake Pat pointed out.