Very true... and it's the for the RoPers below who think "First the Saturday people, and then the Sunday people."
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 ...
I would not delve into any of the concentration camp topics! When did I give you the idea that I am conversationally suicidal? ;o)
I would refer you to Mr. Google. There's enough material there to give you food for thought for some months. (Pat didn't just pick these questions up out of thin air, for heaven's sake).
Speaking of Google ... I found this article made some interesting points:
http://home.ddc.net/ygg/rj/rj-03.htm
But you have no problem with Prince George, Bill Bennett, Bill Kristol ... etc., etc., ad nauseum?
I appreciate your honest and straightforward reply.
Here is one of the most comprehensive commentaries on Buchanan's diesel fumes remarks.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/~jamie/buchanan/
Basically, there is not much merit to his claims that people cannot die from the inhalation of diesel fumes. (If nothing else, they will die from lack of oxygen.)
But what is more enlightening is that Buchanan's views are the same ones made by Holocaust deniers.
Disgusting. Atrocious. Inane.
He would rather that Hitler had swallowed up Eastern Europe than anyone fight for it. Had Winston been listened to in 1938, the Nazis would have bloodied themselves in the Czech defense and the war would have been over much earlier. In this, Buchanan makes him look like a warmonger.
I'm not usually given to foul language, but a lot of expletives are springing to mind now.
Regards, Ivan
" In the mean time Hitler would have crushed the Russians and therefore elimnated an enemy for us."
There are some arguments that if Hitler had not personally overridden the wishes of his military command regarding strategy in the invasion of russia, targetting moscow vs. more emphasis on southern oil fields, not allowed any retreat for the russian winter, etc., he might have defeated russia anyway. In this matter he appears to have saved stalin from defeat as a consequence of his own massive purging of his officer corp in the years leading up to the war and the impact that had on the soviet military's ability to function during the german invasion.
I never compared those people to RR. YOU compared PJB to Ronald Reagan:
"Pat Buchanan) is the greatest (one of the few) conservative after the hallowed RR."
And that Pat Buchanan is "Reagan-like."
"I've always taken his point to be that we shouldn't have taken sides between the Russians and the Germans."
Interesting. I think that the US had to keep the Russian's viable enough to wage war with Germany and to keep them bogged down on that massive 2nd front. I think we could agree that Hitler's biggest mistake was going to war with Russia. He already occupied Western Europe. Where I think United States really screwed up was not toning down the aid to Russia giving them the capability to capture Eastern Europe.
Looking at it now Russia gained the most in WWII.
I don't think there are any trolls here, just people who want answers. The typical pro-American view of the war, as though we have never made any mistakes in our history, is the PC way of looking at the issue in my opinion. Certainly what we and the Allies did was worth it, but there are questions that are worth asking. I might not agree with Buchanan on everything, or even most things, but at least he has the guts to say things that are quite politically incorrect. The title is a bit misleading, as the war was certainly worth it, but perhaps it didn't accomplish as much as we generally tend to think it did.
I don't think it is un-American to look back at something decades later after the smoke has cleared. We did what we thought was best at the time, and we stopped the Nazis. The question is only, could we have done it better?
I disagree with the implication in your statement that the excerpt was not representative of the article. In fact it was the best (short) extract that could have been made, as Pat is just there reiterating and summarizing the points he made earlier and moving to his conclusion.
Mr. Buchanan did not question the need to rid the world of Hitler and the Nazi's Third Reich..
He questioned the outcome of that war..
Pat doesn't out and out say WWII was "not worth it," but it requires an extremely eccentric reading to deny that this is in fact his conclusion. Pat went so far out of his way to suggest it was "not worth it" to liberate Germany of Hitler that he was driven to say false (not to mention extremely stupid) things like: "the Germans voted Hitler in." Or maybe Pat's just being devious. Notice he contrasts that with the removal of Hitler from leadership, but he knows Hitler was voted into leadership, but rather appointed to the Chancellorship (and then snatching dictatorial power) at a time his party was a minority in the parliament.
That question is fine.
But the question in Buchanan's article was, "Why destroy Hitler?"
Very true... and it's the for the RoPers below who think "First the Saturday people, and then the Sunday people."
Very true... and it's the same for the RoPers below who think "First the Saturday people, and then the Sunday people."
Preview is my friend...
Pat Buchanan is right. Seems everone wants to read his article with a racsim filter, and pick out certain quotes that sound bad when they stand alone.
But the jist of his article is one of those truths we aren't allowed to say: We didn't win WWII. Stalin did. If FDR had not been such a diplomatic idiot, then we might have won, saved Jewish lives and Easter Europe.
As for the Jews who the article does not mention, they are irrevalent in Pat's argument. The Allies did not go to war because Hitler was exterminating Jews. Even after numerous reports from the Polish Underground that extermination camps existed, we chose not to get involved. We dragged our feet, and like in all cases of genocide since, by the time it was over, those who didn't escape Europe were all dead.
Can you say "Mission Accomplished" with such facts?
Hitler was aware of the defense promises France and England made and re-iterated to Poland. He chose war.
I hate when I do that. :o(
No fair swerving to the Clintons. ;o)
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.