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?

[WoofDog123]

"Pat jumps the shark on this line. Hitler invaded France long before we entered WWII. And Hitler declared war on us before we declared war on him."

Actually he is referring to britain and france declaring war on germany, which they did when he invaded poland. You are thinking of the United States, which came 2 yrs later.

[WoofDog123]

As I noted in a post above, he is clearly talking about Britain and France declaring war on germany when germany invaded poland. The question posed involved those countries' goals in declaring war on germany.

[Pharmboy]

Very few did vote for him. I think A+bert and one or two others from Stormfront.

[WoofDog123]

If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe?

I am not sure what about the above confuses people into thinking he is referring to something besides GB and France declaring war on Germany when Germany invaded poland.

[dirtboy]

Oh. I see. Buchanan meant that Britain and France "forced" Hitler (mach shemo) to invade all those countries (they provoked him by sitting there on the Maginot line and doing absolutely nothing during the period of Sitzkrieg

Pretty provacative of them, eh?

Good post.

[WoofDog123]

I think you are the only poster to this thread that understands what he is writing. I am amazed at the number of people bashing him that don't even address his premise - that the west sold eastern europe out to the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin.

If you cannot debate, i guess calling names is easier.

[WoofDog123]

" I suspect that most replies on this thread are being posted by people who didn't read the full article first"

I suspect some don't know WWII history, what happened when germany invaded poland is fairly famous.

[WoofDog123]

Well Russian did become a mandatory language in school i think in most if not all warsaw pact countries.

[Blessed]

>Not enough Jews died for Pat's taste. What a loon.<

This has been a pretty civil conversation upp until now.Try reading the Thread before you throw spitballs.

[Blessed]

>" I suspect that most replies on this thread are being posted by people who didn't read the full article first" <

and some are being adde by people that didn't read the thread before commenting.

[sanjacjake]

Why - open this bag..and the ridculous aspect of it..
Poor Pat must lie awake nights thinking up this BS...
Since I lived through it..I, actually, remember all the
intensive, patriotic, military and the factory workers
who all ptched in to make us proud to eliminate this
threat to Europe and the world, when they were in
with Japan to kill us..similar to today..but the suicide
killers today are vert committed to our destruction..and
there are still some political commentators that feel
we are making a mistake...I don't think so..we have to
kill them before they kill us..simple enough? Jake

[WoofDog123]

"No real conservative would write off Israel."

Even a crewmember of the USS Liberty?

Israel looks to its own interests, not ours. They have apparently had contacts with the chinese over some of our technology, including patriot missile tech that we gave them in gulf war I. They need us because a tremendous amount of money goes to them.

I STILL have not read what exactly Pollard was supposed to have given them, though they do still keep trying to get him out.

I think it is good to at least have some objectivity in our views of israel. Nations have no enduring alliances, only enduring interests.

[WoofDog123]

and, particularly in the case of germany, they had been bombed back to the 18th century. They, like japan, were ready to be literally remolded in their civic institutions.

[aShepard]

I haven't read all the thread, but this is taken out of context, IMHO.

Buchanan was on Imus this AM, and his premise was that yes, England, France, declared war on Germany when Hilter took over Poland, and the two countries had declared to defend Poland, but had no way to do so, or probably no intension to do so. This drew all powers into the war.

But at the end of WWII when the territory was divied up, Hilter was dead, the western European counties were occupied by western troops, so they retained their sovereignty, but,

Stalin, who had made nicey-nice with Roosevelt and Churchill, occupied all of the eastern European countries, and in the spoils of war annexed them with the motherland. Thus, in effect Stalin won WWII; as Russia walked away with all this new territory, which the west was unwilling to declare war against Russia in 1945, to wrest control from Stalin, forcing the removal of his troops.

I believe that Buchanan's comments are quite insightful.

[WoofDog123]

I have read that there was rationing into the '50's of some items, and obviously the timing and method of returning colonies to local rule was a direct result.

the world wars pretty much ended european dominance in the world decades if not a century or more earlier than need be.

[WoofDog123]

"Also, part of the reason Hitler was able to invade France was because the US and its allies were leaving him alone"

Actually, the allies of the US (I guess you mean GB and France) declared war on hitler, THEN he invaded benelux and france.

The US was pretty much disengaged from the pre-war stuff in europe as far as I can tell.

[Ohioan]

I didn't change the headline. I added a comment to the end of it. The article is still searchable under the true title.

Yes, to be sure, and your comment seems to have persuaded most of those commenting, not to read the article, which has thus been grossly misrepresented by those assailing it.

The tragedy of World War II was indeed as Pat suggests. Britain and France went to War to save Poland--truly an admirable course. But in the event, Poland was enslaved by Russia for the next almost half a century. Why is it unthinkable to question that outcome? While Britain and France survived, they did not accomplish their objective.

Nor does Pat, anywhere, suggest that Nazi Germany was a good place to live; that the Nazi party was anything but a loathsome, Socialist force, building a monolithic State, completely antithetical to concepts Americans--Pat included in a lifetime of writings--hold sacred. That non-suggestion on Pat's part, is what those assailing Pat keep suggesting is his purpose.

Frankly, it is probably fortunate that Britain and France acted as they did, because that brought things to a head, in the overall power struggle, even though they did not see the War through, as regards Poland. The Germans were well ahead of everyone else in aeronautics and space potential by the end of the War, and it is rather frightening to think what might have happened had there not been a War in 1939, but rather in 1950. Would the Nazis have been able to obtain total control of the air, in such a hypothetical scenario?

But all of that is also speculation. One can project limitless scare scenarios, had history taken a different turn. None of that makes it inappropriate to question aspects of the turn it did take. And the failure of the allies to stand up for Poland and Eastern Europe after the War has been a subject of Conservative commentary ever since. Why is it a "barf alert," when Pat Buchanan raises it once more?

[WoofDog123]

I think you got optimum denunciation of the article and author based entirely on the short piece you include by people who did NOT read the thing.

If I go and excerpt 3 or 4 sentences from a bush speech, I can inadvertently or deliberately distort the message of the speech as a whole. That is a big part of the type of responses you are getting here.

[SJackson]

Actually he is referring to britain and france declaring war on germany, which they did when he invaded poland.

You're right. As did Stalin. His receipe for a kindler, gentler Poland is half Hitler, who would have liquidated the Poles, and half Stalin, who would have liquidated the Poles. In either case Poland exists no more. The distinction isn't clear to me.