There's a thought.
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 ...
You make a good point. I still think if you take Stalin's reign from the Great Purge in 1937 to his death in 1953, you will find a similar death toll to the Nazi's from 1933-45. I haven't looked yet, but I think that would be an interesting and probably more useful comparison, as you stated.
True ... and Stalin was not, to our everlasting shame.
In a time versus killing ratio Hitler was supreme.
I think there's more than just correlation, there. Hitler knew his time was running out, and cranked up the pace accordingly. And Hitler was more into industrialised (for lack of a better word) mass murder; Stalin was into mass starvation. That takes longer ... but he had time on his side. As to what the world would look like if we hadn't allied ourselves with Satan (Stalin) ... there's no way that two evil megalomaniacs like Hitler and Stalin would have been 'good neighbors' for any length of time.
France could have overrun the industrial heart of Germany in September 1939. German commanders acknowledged as such after the war.
More total mass murder to his name, exporting evil ideology to a larger part of the world, running a much larger system of concentration camps ... if that's not enough for you, too bad.
>Buchanan also ignores the fact that while Pearl Harbor lay in still-smoking ruins, Hitler took the initative in declaring war on the United States at the same time the Nazis were conducting the 'Wannsee Conference' which planned the extermination of all European Jews after the German invasion of all European nations. ,
Haven't read the article or the thread have you?
The German's invaded France and the rest of Western Europe a year before Pearl harbor.The quote has nothing to do with the US declaring War
Patrick J. Buchanan gets an awful lot of mileage out of being stupid.
"More total mass murder to his name, exporting evil ideology to a larger part of the world, running a much larger system of concentration camps ... if that's not enough for you, too bad."
None of that is logically sufficient because it presupposes that Hitler was stopped, the very point under debate.
SMD & STFU
Is there anything Stalin did that Hitler wouldn't have done, given sufficient time?
I don't think so, which is why I don't think you can say that Stalin was a "worse monster" than Hitler.
And the rape victim was asking for it.
You think Hitler needed an excuse to invade Poland? Good grief. He planned that invasion in "jail" in 1924.
Cool it.
There's a thought.
Thank you.
"I'll do anything, for a few hundred thousand per annum. Me and my sis will, that is."
"I'll write books, run for president, ridicule the party that used to pay me."
"I'll make nice talk about Adolph Hitler, for a few hundred thousand per year."
Next week Pat will feature his article about the nice Japanese, and the bad Americans.
It is part two in his America-the Bad Guys in WWII Series.
Available at discount book outlets, in a few places.
So far I have seen a few people engaged in a very interesting debate a topic which I think would be a great discussion for a history class. However, a lot of people, acting like my liberal friends, would rather call a guy who even raises the discussion "stupid", an "idiot" and I think one Freeper even wished him dead. If he was actually an idiot, you could easily refute his argument with some facts and logic (which some here did a good job of). Instead, you resort to name calling. Brilliant. Welcome to the politically correct Free Republic (some discussions are off limits)!!!
Yes:
1) He convinced cultural elites in the USA and western Europe that he was a good guy, that his evil ideology was the way of the future. To this very day communists infest university faculty, the MSM, and the Democratic Party.
2) He crafted an "inclusive" evil ideology; revolutionaries in South America, Africa, and east Asia readily adopted it as they never could have adopted Naziism. Hitler, with his sick fixation on "aryan" racial purity effectively limited the appeal of his ideology.
Stalin was a far more clever monster than Hitler; cleverness in a monster is a bad thing. QED.
Personal attack in a debate is truly the sign of the weak-minded. So being a Jew makes me a dog, huh? As far as my ancestry, you brought it up, albeit obliquely.
Why don't you go to Stormfront? Statements like yours are welcome there.
Not once did I say communism was preferable to nazism. Do you have problems with readng and comprehension, as well as debate deficiencies?
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.