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 ...
We only entered the War after Pearl Harbor.
Looking back some may say we should have focused on Japan first because nearly 70,000 Americans were being held as POWs at the time and being tortured.
In the mean time Hitler would have crushed the Russians and therefore elimnated an enemy for us. The problem was that we didnt know how long the UK would last and we could not afford to lose them as an ally. So we focused on Germany first. WW2 had nothing to do with saving the Jews if it did then we would have bombed the railways leading to the concentration camps, and even bombed some of the camps themselves. That would have deeply hampered the Nazi killing machine.
I agree with you. My initial impression based on the title and the excerpt did not last after I actually read the article. He brought up some really interesting points. I am proud of what our country and the Allies did in WWII, but enough time has passed that we should be able to look back with a completely objective mind for the sake of history.
A lot of what is on this thread is attack the messenger and completely disregard the message due to the source. Almost none have demonstrated a good grasp of WWII, and not many address the fundamental quandry of GB going to war to 'free' poland just to give it to another mass murdered in the same league with hitler (I am not going to get into silly comparisons of which was worse between stalin and hitler, obviously both were in a class very few attain)
Their was no appeasing Hitler and he had to be destroyed. Hitler was going through Russia and would soon reach the oil fields in Iran. Hitler was then going to meet up with Japanese Forces in India. In the meantime Hitler had his Army spread taking over North Africa and had intel units in South America.
Uboats were off the coast of Long Island. Nazi Saboteurs landed on Long Island but were caught right away by the FBI. If PJB was President when this was happening he would just shrug it off and blame Israel which didnt even exist at the time.
Yes Stalin got Eastern Europe but it was a choice of 2 evils. At the time Stalin and the Commies were not ready for an all out War like Hitler was so we chose to work with Stalin. Just like in the 1980's we worked with Saddam and Osama. Interests stay the same but Allies change!
The same thing would probably happen if David Duke were to start writing opinion pieces.
Buchanan damaged himself. He alone is to blame for his poor public image.
Mr. Powell does not advance any opinion that the German's behaved like saints. He does set the record straight that leading up to, during and post-WWI neither were France and England. And the motives and designs of France and England were not without their own imperial ambitions; they were no more seeking to "make the world safe for democracy" than was any other European power.
Before the U.S. entered the war, Germany had already lost the battle for the seas with England and it was having touble getting needed imports, if it was going to continue the war. Although Britain held the seas, it was in no position to mount a continental land war on its own. Germany and France were in a de-facto stalemate; neither one could advance and both just kept sending the recruits in as more cannon fodder - no one was "winning".
Without U.S. intervention, the stalemate on the ground had a chance of becoming an armistice in place and then leading to a peace treaty. Whatever 'arrangements' that would have come out of such a treaty, there would have been no great winners or losers, and the treaty itself would not have been the result of some great military victory.
Germany would not have been already prostrated leading into the depression. Many of the national psychological and economic factors that Hitler relied on would either not have existed or would not have been as severe. Instead of twenty years of national humiliation, the Weimar Republic would have been in a better position in the 30s and 40s to negotiate the end of Europe's continental imperialisms with a France and England it had chosen to make peace with.
Before judging where you think Mr. Powell is wrong, read his book; his research, his display of historical context and his historical perspective are all greater than yours or mine.
Except the fact that Nazi Forces were advancing to Iran and the Middle EAst and would have had control of the oil fields and then they would have been unstoppable.
Go back to MIT and hang out with Chomsky!
We are talking about Germany at the end of WWI and not WWII. Jim Powells book is about how many of the conditions for WWII were laid down by the way that WWI ended, and may not have led to Hitler (and many other things) if we had let the land-war stalement (WWI) provide no clear or major winner. People today confuse Wilson's democratic hopes with the actual imperial ambitions of all the major European states involved in WWI - England and France included.
But your right about WW1, US never should have gotten involved!
" Buchanan damaged himself. He alone is to blame for his poor public image."
It is unfortunate, there are things in this article that shouldn't be completely supressed from discussion (I refer to the fact that the west DID sell eastern europe out to man certainly in the same general league with Hitler. I was not alive much less an adult then, like most here, so my perspective is that of looking into the past before my time; but nonetheless it is a question with tremendous implications for the subsequent cold war and I am amazed that it is apparnetly taboo. I think WWII in europe was inevitable regardless of what happened in sep 1939, btw.)
I'll even go a step further... I believe that when people are confronted with the harsh reality of certain facts which show that we (The US) continue to create "dragons" only to have to "slay" them at a later date, they simply go into denial as a "natural human" defensive reflex. The reality of what we are doing over and over with economic and foreign policy is simply too much to accept for most. After all... wer'e ALWAYS the good guys... aren't we????
The fact that you are the only poster to even comment on my post further confirms this (IMHO).
BTW: Read "Wall Street And The Rise Of Hitler" By Dr. Antony C. Sutton if you can. The bulid up of Hitler and Nazi Germany is very well documented... Just kind of ignored by most historians for obvious reasons....
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/index.html
Parliamentary democracy at work.
Kid, don't dispute that a lot of people have refuted his argument with facts and logic and I have no desire to support his argument because I disagree with his conclusion. I was just turned off by the fifty to a hundred posts on this thread who just decided to label Buchanan an idiot or wish him dead without adding anything to the discussion.
Well this is an 'attack the messenger' thread so you have to be careful. PJB could say the sky was blue and there would be 100 posts attacking him and his views, few actually mentioning the sky.
I am waiting for the attacks on Bush for his comments in the former USSR about the division of territory in WWII to start, since clearly no one agrees with buchanan that poland and eastern europe got screwed for 2 generations.
"There are many anti-Semites who have drawn the conclusion that stopping Hitler was not worth the cost."
I am sincerely curious to know how people in, say poland, viewed the nazi vs. russian occupation during the active military years (39-4x?), the closest time frame for comparison of since there was no peacetime occupation of poland by germany to compare to post-war poland under soviet control.
" I am dismayed to see signs of political correctness on the FR, perhaps they are trolls????"
No, just a microcosm of the american public on the conservative side.
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.