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?

[familyop]

"Actually Pat is technically right. Hitler came to power through the vote and was given total power legally by the German parliment."

That's not true. Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Hindenberg after a campaign of intimidation and murder. That's when Hitler came to power. Germany, for the most part, had not been interested in any real democratic government, obviously.

Hitler Named Chancellor

An old comrade of Hitler's sent a telegram to President Hindenburg regarding his new chancellor. Former General Erich Ludendorff had once supported Hitler and had even participated in the failed Beer Hall Putsch in 1923.

"By appointing Hitler Chancellor of the Reich you have handed over our sacred German Fatherland to one of the greatest demagogues of all time. I prophesy to you this evil man will plunge our Reich into the abyss and will inflict immeasurable woe on our nation. Future generations will curse you in your grave for this action." - the telegram to Hindenburg from Ludendorff stated.

Within weeks, Hitler would be absolute dictator of Germany and would set in motion a chain of events resulting in the second World War and the eventual deaths of nearly 50 million humans through that war and through deliberate extermination.

[rdb3]

Oh, I'm not so sure that's the point of this article. I think he's asking a rather open-ended question about how we decide that a war has been "worth it".

Whichever way the wind blows. That still doesn't take away from my point that he feeds his followers red meat like this.

It's an unnecessary stirring of the poop pot. Hitler and Nazis were murdering filth. Stalin and the U.S.S.R. were vile in their bloodlust. Anyone with an ounce of sense and common decency can see this.

As far as the rest of it, if "if" was a fifth of Jack, I'd be drunk. That's a game that bores me, frankly. We will be able to judge our actions in Iraq on their own merit in due time. That time is not now so any speculation is specious in the extreme.

[ArrogantBustard]

You go too far, Ariamne!!!

I never once mentioned your ancestry, other than to say I couldn't care less about it.

The point of which is that identity on the internet can be a very plastic thing. I have no way of verifying any claims of who or what you are, so they are colossaly irrelevant to me.

[liberallarry]

WWII, for the Western Democracies, was about trying to survive in a difficult world.

Chamberlain and Daladier would have liked to see the Russians and Germans destroy each other while they watched from the sidelines but couldn't make it happen. They went to war not to save Poland and eastern Europe but to try to contain Hitler's power before he became too strong. They failed there too - they were too slow to act.

FDR made a deal with Stalin at Yalta in recognition of the facts on the ground, a realpolitic deal. It's easy for arm chair generals to second guess him now, to say he gave away too much.

Arm chair generals are not highly respected - for good reason.

[malakhi]

Hitler had his supporters in the U.S. as well. And I see nothing in South America, Africa or Asia which suggests that they are in any way immune to the temptations of authoritarian fascism.

[MRMEAN]

"Was World War II worth it?"
Now let's see. . . .
Buchanan wrote this article in WHAT language?
Japanese? No, didn't see the words ah so desuka anywhere.
In German? No, didn't see the words mein herr.
On yeah. HE WROTE IT IN ENGLISH BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY WASN'T INVADED BY EITHER OF THESE COUNTRIES! ! !
Now if Ole Pat wants to live in a country invaded by another country, why doesn't he move?

This type of silly, ignorant argument always annoys me. Neither Imperial Japan nor Nazi Germany had the slightest interest in conquering the United States. Even if they did want to invade and conquer the US, neither had the naval or other military resources to do so, even if they had not already greatly extended themselves. Once piece of the US that Japan could have actually taken was Hawaii after Pearl Harbor; they didn't even try. It was FDR who greatly desired war with Japan and Germany; Japan and Germany basically wanted the US to leave them alone; while they carried out their plans for regional conquest.

On the other hand, the Soviet Union was attempting to conquer us; through spy rings, through the CPUSA and it's multitude of front groups the Soviets controlled important unions that dominated key industries, they dominated elite universities, and had a great deal of control over the movie industry (and after the Soviet Union was attached by its former ally Nazi Germany, Hollywood churned out movies that built support for American entrance into the war), and placed their fellow travelers into key government positions; including those immediately around Roosevelt.

The US's actions during WWII greatly expanded the power and territory of our most dangerous enemies, and Pat is right to ask the question, "Was it worth it?"

[ariamne]

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I took your post literally.

[ArrogantBustard]

Naziism was more than authoritarian fascism, as you well know. Hitler viewed the dark-skinned inhabitants of the Southern Hemishphere as untermenschen; his ideology would have had no appeal there. Stalinism, OTOH, was very appealing, and still has its holdouts in places like Cuba.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... Former General Erich Ludendorff had once supported Hitler and had even participated in the failed Beer Hall Putsch in 1923.

"By appointing Hitler Chancellor of the Reich you have handed over our sacred German Fatherland to one of the greatest demagogues of all time. I prophesy to you this evil man will plunge our Reich into the abyss and will inflict immeasurable woe on our nation. Future generations will curse you in your grave for this action."

General Ludendorff sounds like a former Buchananite.

[rdb3]

Next week Pat will feature his article about the nice Japanese, and the bad Americans.

Sister Justine Raimondo has already given us the, err... pleasure. Yeah, that's it. She, I mean he, has already tilled that soil. Won't grow a crop, though.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... This type of silly, ignorant argument always annoys me. Neither Imperial Japan nor Nazi Germany had the slightest interest in conquering the United States."

Ignorant.

[SJackson]

Patty was against the war in Iraq, too. He never met a dictator he didn't like.

Including the first one, which had nothing to do with the invasion of Kuwait, rather the defense of Israel, and was supported only by Jews and Amen Corner Christians.

167 posted on 05/11/2005 1:33:14 PM CDT by SJackson

--------------

Uh, what are you smoking?

175 posted on 05/11/2005 1:46:07 PM CDT by WestVirginiaRebel

--------------

A better question, what is Pat and his supporters who feel no one supported Gulf War I other than Jews and Amen Corner Christians.

There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East - the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States
Pat Buchanan, McLaughlin Report , August 26, 1990

[ArrogantBustard]

Understood and accepted.

That cartoon was originally published in 1994, in the New Yorker magazine (which I do not read). I mistakenly ass-u-me'd that everybody was familiar with it.

Absent such familiarity, my comment (taken literally), could only be construed as a really outrageous insult. For that I, in turn, apologise.

[redgolum]

Similar thread here.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1399538/posts?page=1,50

What is sad is that many of the palo cons see any type of foreign war as wrong. Irregardless of the reasons for that war.

[Iscool]

And most Americans aren't even aware that Wall Street took a large role in the financial backing of Hitlers rise to power. We will never know if WW II could have been prevented if such US financial support did not exist for Hitlers embryonic NAZI party.

US foreign policy, and the willingness of US power elites to financially back foreign entities while ignoring the political views and actions of those governments (lesser of two evils scenario) continues to haunt this country to this very day. Most recently Iraq (Saddam), Afghanistan (Bin Laden), North Korea (via Clinton's Sunshine Policy) and the biggest mistake of all IMHO... China.

I fear we will someday pay a huge price for ignoring what China says and does politically... just to keep the shelves at Wally World stocked with cheap goods.

This seems to be lost on most people...I listened to a fella one time on speaking of why the Jews didn't start leaving Germany when they knew things were turning against them...He stated "but the money is so good"...

That's what we have here in America...We know China has threatened to bomb Los Angeles and San Francisco with nuclear warheads but we continue to support China...Why??? "But the money is so good"...

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "This was an indefensible position because they could not enforce it." in reference to the French and British treaty obligation to Poland. 'Enforcing' a treaty is ensuring all signatories to the treaty meet its terms. So I guess 'enforce' isn't exactly what you meant. To use the arrogant flame you posted to another, "You are showing your lack of reading comprehension."

France and Britain made the treaty to deter German aggression, to make Hitler think twice before going through with his plans for eastern expansion. The strategic consideration--that is, sending British and French armies across the breadth of Europe to literally defend Poland was not the rationale for the treaty. Thus, it was not an indefensible position. During the Cold War and even now, the US has nuclear missiles located throughout the world as a deterrence. Deterrence works. By your logic, the presence of those missiles is 'indefensible' simply because it would be impracticable to use them.

[ellery]

Pat has drawn the wrong conclusions. Rather than ask whether WWII was worth it, he should have asked why we stopped when we did.

Because of WWII, half of Europe was liberated and some of the worst atrocities in history were halted. It is absolutely absurd to think that Hitler wouldn't have taken over all of Western Europe and attacked the UK unless provoked by France and Britain. It's very clear that Hitler's plan was world domination -- he even had plans to attack the US eventually.

Yes, we failed to stop Soviet tyranny in half of Europe, and that was an abomination. But it's a downright leftist-flavored argument to claim that no loaf is better than half of one.

[Americanexpat]

They say time heals and over time people forget all the horrors suffered at the hands of Hitler and the Nazis. The people that lived in that time period and fought against that evil are dying out, 20 years from now there may be hardly any left. You get about twenty Buchanan's throwing this stuff out and in the next 50 years there will be monuments to Hitler in every country.