Posted on 04/09/2008 9:47:21 AM PDT by Borges
Oh my. Pat you are such an ass. Wars are never, ever good, but they are sometimes not only inevitable but necessary. Only those that prefer slavery over death would think otherwise. People die in wars, and they die in peace. Do they die free or as slaves. That is the eternal question.
The question posed by Pat is “was WWII “Good” vs. “Unnecessary””?
It was necessary because there was no lasting negotiation with Hitler’s tyranny. It was necessary because even the USSR and US Communists were against war with Hitler until he betrayed Uncle Joe Stalin.
We didn’t go hand to hand in war against Joseph Stalin and even more people died under Soviet Communism than under German Nazism.
Its not a bad question from Pat ...as so many are saying all wars are bad ...but Pat has the wrong answer
Its not a bad question from Pat ...as so many are saying all wars are bad ...but Pat has the wrong answer
Within Germany, yes. But when Germany & the Axis gained control of (almost) all of Europe, the brakes were off.
I would add that Buchanan’s point is moot because Germany started the war, so the question of whether the Holocaust somehow a consequence of WW2 is just silly.
You saw this right?
L
Buchanan is now clearly and unequivocally an apologist for Nazism and should be shunned. As in, his remaining friends in the Beltway should no longer have anything to do with him.
How about after you were stuck in the cold or the heat and because you were you broke the back of the Germans offensive during the Battle of the Bulge or ejected the Japs from Guadacanal and sent the Imperial forces of Japan reeling backwards inevitably towards Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sounds good to me.
ordinary foot soldier is stuck there, living one day at a time, with death tugging at his elbow. Good war, that doesn't sound good to me.
The men on the lines didn't have time to see that their tactical efforts would produce strategic results. But the freedom they brought whether foreseen by them or not at the time made their efforts part of a 'good' war.
Are you dissatisfied with the results? What's your point? War sucks so we shouldn't participate? If the results aren't factored in, no war could be seen as positive.
I am overjoyed by the results, but lets not pretend that however important the struggle, however morally just cause, a soldier or marine on the front lines cannot allow himself to think about grand strategy but only on survival - and killing the enemy, of course.
If no one had risen to oppose Nazi militarism on the Continent which Buchanan weeps for, that entire Continent would have been destroyed and enslaved - and given Nazi efficiency and the enormous financial resources of Europe, it would be enslaved today as a vast stronghold of a neopagan empire far more sinister than the EU.
It certainly was a good war - the only person who could possibly think it a bad one is a person who is upset about who won.
I used to like the McLaughlin show where Buchanan would batter eleanor clift around like a cheap toy, but lately they have transcended irritating and wandered into whack-job land.
This crap about trying to equivocate on WWII is offensive to the memories of patriots who fought and bled and died to defend us.
Screw him...
Well said.
I can't believe I actually had respect for this individual as recently as 16 years ago.
His disciples here have not only drunk the Kool-Aid, but have apparently snorted the Kool-Aid mix.
Mind-boggling...
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.