Posted on 05/12/2005 2:08:18 PM PDT by HangnJudge
For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of another empire. V-E day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end the oppression. The agreement in Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. ... The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs in history.
Bush told the awful truth about what really triumphed in World War II east of the Elbe. And it was not freedom. It was Stalin, the most odious tyrant of the century. Where Hitler killed his millions, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Castro murdered their tens of millions....
...If Yalta was a betrayal of small nations as immoral as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why do we venerate Churchill and FDR? At Yalta, this pair secretly ceded those small nations to Stalin, co-signing a cynical "Declaration on Liberated Europe" that was a monstrous lie.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Churchill got with the program early enough to make a difference, unfortnately, the US, for who there does not apparently exist a can not worthy of being kicked far down the road, did not. It's always that way. We never learn.
Well now it is us leading the fight. At the time we were too comfortable in a wrong-headed isolationism
Pat's turned into a bootlicker of Stalin, and to an extent, Hitler. He, although Catholic, may be attracted to pan Slavic, Russophile messianism. On the one hand he claims to lament the fall of the West but increasingly embraces a geopolitical outlook that will precisely lead to the fall of the West.
Yalta was a mistake for the West. I think Russia was exhausted from war and by no means the most powerful military in Europe. We had a war machine that could have easily pushed them back out of Germany and Poland. They depended on us for a lot of their armaments. Of course, looking back, only Poland would have been worth saving :) lol.
/Fort Knox
The island hopping campaign against Japan was designed by Churchill. He was interested in recovering the British colonies lost to Japan in the big offensive that included Pearl Harbor and in holding the rest. It might be that England was more interested in defeating Japan than in stopping Germany, and FDR shared that sentiment.
"It would be helpful this time around if people would read the damn article before bashing Buchanan and calling him a "Nazi.""
I did. Pat enters an interesting debate begun by Bush's speech about Yalta and the end of the war.
But Pat goes further with a deluded view about the beginnings of the war that Hitler only attacked France and England because they declared war over Poland first. As if Hitler wouldn't have attacked France if France didn't declare war over Poland. It's just plain wrong.
Conveniently overlooked by Pat is that Hitler simultaneously attacked Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Yugoslavia, etc. too. Those countries did not declare war on Germany over Poland.
Is Pat a Nazi? At least he's a Naz-symp or fellow traveler.
He has interesting geopolitical observations on China and Russia's futures and elsewhere. But anything any way related to Jews or Israel he goes bananas. Like Gulf War I, for Kuwait and arguably Saudi caused by Iraq, our bill paid much for by Kuwait all he can gather is the war was for Jews. Somewhere. Somehow.
He's transparent now.
What if:
France and England had not declared against Germany in 1939 when Germany and Russia carved up Poland. Germany would not have invaded France. But likely would have continued on against Russia in 1941, as there was deep rivalry between the two socialist governments of National Socialism and Communism.
Germany would have extended itself too far into Siberia, and Hitler would have been incapacitated by Parkinsons by 1946. He never would have had the excuse, or the cover of warfare, to get into the "final solution". We would have maintained diplomatic relations during the early 40's, and would have had observers watching what he did with the jews and preventing the majority of his atrocities.
FDR would not have provoked Japan into Pearl Harbor, and by the 1950's, with imperialism ending all over the planet, Japan would have been hectored into leaving China. And Mao would not have been supported by us, and the Chinese Communists would never have come to power.
The only real downside is the nuclear bomb would never have been invented. And the depression might be with us still.
Without nukes, the world might have kept up with low grade conventional warfare for several more rounds.
Who knows?
When did Pat Buchanan go wrong? Is it the bitterness in coming in a distant 4th to Nader in 2000? Sometimes he sounds more like Noam Chomsky than a Conservative.
The agenda Clinton & Clinton would impose on America--abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat--that's change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country.
Pat Roberts - 1992
I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HIM, BUT HE CAN'T BE ALL BAD....
I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HIM, BUT HE CAN'T BE ALL BAD...
Well, I don't know
Just because I agree with someone doesn't make them or me Bad or Good
whatever that means
But Pat's positions are way over the top in his old age...
Was World War II worth it?
Dunno. Do you speak Japanese?
Was posting this stupid article THREE TIMES worth it?
Me thinks Pat Buchanan and Arianna Huffington would make a great couple. They've got so much in common. Once upon a time, both claimed to be conservatives and now they're complete lunatics.
Is Pat Buchanan worth it? Absolutely not.
I think Pat Buchanan should pose his rhetorical question to concentration camp survivors.
omg, you are going to get me fired. I laughed out loud reading this.....:)
that's a somewhat naive view of hitler. his final solution was one of the raison d'etres of naziism going back to mein kampf. so you think if britain and france had done nothing Hitler would have said, "ok, we got Poland, we're done, let's play nice and sing kum-ba-ya"? Of course not, he would have kept doing. he didn't need an excuse for the final solution, it was part of his makeup and it's ceertainly arguanle that if Germany didn't have to maintain a vast appartus largely dedicated to the mass extermination of Jews theri fortunes in the war woiuld have been different. Japan "hectored in to leaving China" with te end of imperialism. Just like China was hectored in to leaving Tibet with that same end of imperialism. Why would the bomb not have been invented, the Germans most likely would have had it as would others.
We don't.
At least there are some of us who don't. We have been harping on the seditious nature of FDR from the days he was canpaigning in 1932. "New Deal!" Big gubmint is going to take care of you! Vote for me and I'll give you gubmint money!
The same poppycock still wins elections today.
The reason FDR is venerated?
Solely because his name was not "Herbert Hoover."
We still don't speak German or Japanese as our national language. If I remember correctly Uncle Joe double crossed everyone at the end of WWII?
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.