Was World War II worth it?
"In the inflammatory world view of Pat Buchanan, the short answer is no. The war that stopped the Nazis' global campaign and the mechanistic extermination of European Jewry was actually not worth the effort."
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usbuch124255261may12,0,3075842,print.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines
I don't know.
Was the revolutionary War Worth it ? Duhhhhhh.
In retrospect, the Europeans did not deserve our help.
Was World War II worth it?
That depends on whether or not the former allied powers and the axis nations that they remade in their own image succeed in committing cultural suicide and leaving the world to ghetto rappers and jihadists.
This is interesting as a psychological study of a person in advanced stages of dementia, but is a duplicate thread.
Here are some quotes from Buchanan's piece with my 2 cents attached at the end:
"why do we venerate Churchill and FDR?"
"FDR and Churchill consigned these peoples to a Stalinist hell run by a monster they alternately and affectionately called "Uncle Joe" and "Old Bear," why are they not in the history books alongside Neville Chamberlain, who sold out the Czechs at Munich by handing the Sudetenland over to Germany? At least the Sudeten Germans wanted to be with Germany." -I must point out that the vast majority of Czech's did not want to become part of Germany. Buchanan is using the same selective reasoning that Hitler did in justifying his takeover.
"Polish freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war?" -Because Hitler didn't want Poland you F%^&!!! He wanted to take over the world!
"At the end of the war Churchill wanted and got, Czechoslovakia and Poland were in Stalin's empire." -He blames Churchill for WW2. That does it, he's a Nazi.
"How, then, can men proclaim Churchill "Man of the Century"? -Because he saved the world jackass.
"But before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany" -What twisted logic. Either he doesn't understand Hitler, or he does understand Hitler and is a fan of his.
"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." -Not true, in Germany's last free election in 1933 Hitler got less than a third of the vote. He was given power and then used it to destroy democracy. The elections after that were a sham. Him asking "Why destroy Hitler?" is very disturbing, he should not be allowed on MSNBC.
"If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe?" -Once again implying that it was Britain and France that provoked WW2, not Germany. Blatantly false.
I can't go to hard on them for Yalta. Yes, it wasn't the best outcome but a firmer stance could have easily led to a slaughter that would make what had just transpired look like an afternoon tea party. Imagine the one atomic power slugging it out with the most powerful military on the ground in Europe and Asia. That would not have been pretty.
If we had sat it out, the USSR would have ended up ruling ALL of Europe and ALL of continental Asia!
More putrid bile from the pie hole of has-been Patrick J. (for Jew-hater) Buchanan. I'm sure it Pat's view, it would have been just fine for Hitler to have exterminated every Jew on Earth. Buchanan needs to be consigned to the latrine can that other lunatics like Lyndon LaRouche dwell in.
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?
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.
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?
Was the 15th post of this inane article worth it?