← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · friedrich braun
Thread ID: 18208 | Posts: 19 | Started: 2005-05-12
2005-05-12 06:48 | User Profile
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Was World War II worth it?
Posted: May 11, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Patrick J. Buchanan
é 2005 Creators Syndicate Inc.
In the Bush vs. Putin debate on World War II, Putin had far the more difficult assignment. Defending Russia's record in the "Great Patriotic War," the Russian president declared, "Our people not only defended their homeland, they liberated 11 European countries."
Those countries are, presumably: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Finland.
To ascertain whether Moscow truly liberated those lands, we might survey the sons and daughters of the generation that survived liberation by a Red Army that pillaged, raped and murdered its way westward across Europe. As at Katyn Forest, that army eradicated the real heroes who fought to retain the national and Christian character of their countries.
To Bush, these nations were not liberated. "As we mark a victory of six decades ago, we are mindful of a paradox," he said:
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.
Leninism was the Black Death of the 20th Century.
The truths bravely declared by Bush at Riga, Latvia, raise questions that too long remained hidden, buried or ignored.
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.
As 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. No Christian peoples of Europe ever embraced their Soviet captors or Stalinist quislings.
Other questions arise. If Britain endured six years of war and hundreds of thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish freedom, and Polish freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war?
If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and Central Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny even more odious, as Bush implies, did Western Civilization win the war?
In 1938, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain refused. In 1939, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Poland. Chamberlain agreed. At the end of the war Churchill wanted and got, Czechoslovakia and Poland were in Stalin's empire.
How, then, can men proclaim Churchill "Man of the Century"?
True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium from Nazi occupation. 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 ââ¬â on behalf of Poland.
When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France ââ¬â hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires ââ¬â was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?
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 ââ¬â with 50 million dead?
The war Britain and France declared to defend Polish freedom ended up making Poland and all of Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism. And at the festivities in Moscow, Americans and Russians were front and center, smiling ââ¬â not British and French. Understandably.
Yes, Bush has opened up quite a can of worms.
SPECIAL OFFER: Pat Buchanan's book, "The Death of the West," an eye-opening exposé of how immigration invasions are endangering America, is now available at HALF-PRICE from WorldNetDaily's online store! Autographed edition also available!
Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Partyââ¬â¢s candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of the new magazine, The American Conservative. Now a political analyst for MSNBC and a syndicated columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national television shows, and is the author of seven books.
2005-05-12 13:28 | User Profile
[I]Guess who's up in arms?[/I]
WWII comments blasted
BY ANDREW METZ STAFF WRITER
May 12, 2005
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.
The commentator yesterday offered equally provocative answers to other questions: Why destroy Hitler? And why venerate FDR and Churchill?
On the radio and Internet, Buchanan framed his positions as amplification of remarks made over the weekend by President George W. Bush that the pact ending the war brought on a Stalinist domination that was "one of the greatest wrongs of history."
But Buchanan's comments on the Don Imus radio show and in an essay posted on the Web site of his organization, The American Cause, went much further. He suggested that because Germans voted Hitler in, they did not need to be liberated, and that Britain and France drew Germany into the wider conflict.
He did not mention Jews or the Holocaust - the most outrageous omission for Yaffa Eliach, a Holocaust expert and survivor. "For me it is very important to present the truth, to show the murder," Eliach said. "The idea was to kill Jews."....
more at:
[url]http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usbuch124255261may12,0,3075842,print.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines[/url]
2005-05-12 13:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=EDUMAKATEDMOFO]Guess who's up in arms?
WWII comments blasted
BY ANDREW METZ STAFF WRITER
[/QUOTE] With a name like "Metz," it must be the Jews! Go figure.
2005-05-12 13:45 | User Profile
I am 65 and lucky that I will still be alive 50 years from now in order to read what the world will have to say about Bush's war of liberation around the world and how the world were finally able to put down the Jews (Zionists).
2005-05-12 13:50 | User Profile
[B]...
the mechanistic extermination of European Jewry was actually not worth the effort.
...
He did not mention Jews or the Holocaust - the most outrageous omission for Yaffa Eliach, a Holocaust expert and survivor. "For me it is very important to present the truth, to show the murder," Eliach said. "The idea was to kill Jews."....[/B]
Hey, Jew, why should [B]I [/B] care about anti-Semitism or the so-called holocau$t? Why should [B]I [/B] care about [B]your [/B] story? (Even if we accept, for a moment, the whole preposterous tale hook-line-and-sinker.)
Why should gentiles be constantly bombarded in the media with your phantasms and fabrications?
2005-05-12 15:21 | User Profile
It's debateable whether the Holocaust would have happened at all if the Second World War had not taken place. Also, mass extermination of Jews did not begin in earnest until after Britain declared war on Germany, so it can hardly be given as a reason for war. [URL=http://www.remember.org/educate/mtimeline.html]Holocaust Timeline[/URL]. It's possible that if WW2 had not happened that more Jews would be alive today. Persecution of Jews in the 1930s was deplorable (in my opinion) but not a justification for war, and certainly not one that left millions dead and half of Europe in the hands of Communism.
2005-05-12 15:41 | User Profile
To my knowledge, Buchanan has never touched on "holocaust denial." Nor has Sobran as far as I know (though Sobran does appear at IHR functions). Buchanan deplores the machinations of today's Jews in mid-east affairs, and may even question the wisdom of WWII, as in this column. But outright denial of the gas chamber account has been beyond his reach. If I am wrong, I'll stand corrected.
2005-05-12 17:11 | User Profile
Pat's article is great. Dead-on in every facet. I cannot believe any American wouldn't agree 100%. It's amazing.
2005-05-12 18:19 | User Profile
Any White man who still considers WWII the greatest war "victory" that ever happened is an obvious lemming and needs awakening.
Pat's article is spot on with it's questions and implies, in fact, that no free thinking White Christian man in the 1930's/40's really wanted a war on such a devastating scale, including Hitler. Chamberlain is still called an "appeaser" to this day by the Neocon Media, yet he was acting fully within a White man's sensibility to avoid mutual destruction and fratricide. WWII was started by the Jews and their stooges FDR and Churchill for the benefit of the Jews and the Jews fought that war to last bloody American/British/German White man. The world order completely collapsed after that catastrophic event, only to lead to where we are now.... a mere 60 years later.....which is on the very brink of demolition.
2005-05-12 18:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Pat's article is spot on with it's questions and implies, in fact, that no free thinking White Christian man in the 1930's/40's really wanted a war on such a devastating scale, including Hitler. Chamberlain is still called an "appeaser" to this day by the Neocon Media, yet he was acting fully within a White man's sensibility to avoid mutual destruction and fratricide. [B][I]WWII was started by the Jews and their stooges FDR and Churchill for the benefit of the Jews and the Jews fought that war to last bloody American/British/German White man[/I].[/B] The world order completely collapsed after that catastrophic event, only to lead to where we are now.... a mere 60 years later.....which is on the very brink of demolition.[/QUOTE]Though I have some disagreement with the above interpretation, I feel that substantially the statement is correct. From my book: [QUOTE]When America does think of Europe and World War II, German occupation of the Rhineland and the callous sellout of Czechoslovakia in 1938 in Munich for which we blamed the treacherous, cowardly British government of Neville Chamberlain have been regarded as preliminary activities. That the United States of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was not prepared to do anything to assist the beleaguered government of Czechoslovakia in any meaningful way is not remembered at all as we regard our public display of concern as being sufficient to assert our virtue. Historian A.J.P. Taylor had Leon Blum and the rest of France welcoming the Munich agreement with relief and shame. The British also have had a difficult time in remembering the deal between Hitler and Chamberlain was widely popular at home. Very few Britons were prepared to fight for Czechoslovakia. Some years later in his diary James Forrestal, who served as Secretary of War under Roosevelt, revealed American Ambassador Joseph Kennedy's account of his conversation with Chamberlain. [I][COLOR=Red]The British Prime Minister blamed the American government of Franklin Delano Roosevelt along with world Jewry for forcing England into war.[1] In 1938 the England of Chamberlain had nothing to fight with and could not risk war with Hitler[/COLOR][/I]. Old Joe Kennedy thought if England had refrained from entering the war over Poland, Hitler in time would have taken Germany into war with Russia with no resulting conflict with England. Currently in England revisionist historians have been saying if Britain had avoided fighting Germany in World War II, she would be much richer today, and the country would be better for it. Kennedy blamed William Bullitt, then American Ambassador to France, for forcing Roosevelt to insist that Germany be faced down over Poland as neither England or France wanted to fight. American historian, Charles Beard, thought of the war as being necessary for the survival of the nation. What did disturb Mr. Beard was the behavior of the American wealthy who had so little confidence in the citizenry and so little respect for the truth, that they unashamedly lied about the central issue of war or peace.[2] The question of democracy's future perturbed Mr. Beard as he thought the actions of Mr. Roosevelt had left the populace with no effective choice.
Walter Millis editor, [I]The Forrestal Diaries[/I], pp121-2 (Viking Press, 1951)
William Appleman Williams, [I]The Contours of American History[/I], p463 (Quadrangle Paperbacks, 1966)[/QUOTE]I also believe that Chamberlain was substantially right. What galls to this day is the lying by Jews and their stooges in bringing the United States into that war.
2005-05-12 20:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Buster]To my knowledge, Buchanan has never touched on "holocaust denial."[/QUOTE]He wrote a [url=http://www.realchange.org/holocaus.htm#diesel]column[/url] saying that Diesel exhaust cannot kill people; he left to implication that the gas chamber stories were lies. I don't believe them either.
2005-05-12 23:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stanley]He wrote a [url=http://www.realchange.org/holocaus.htm#diesel]column[/url] saying that Diesel exhaust cannot kill people; he left to implication that the gas chamber stories were lies. I don't believe them either.[/QUOTE]
Of course the so called gas chamber are nothing but lies, if you were to look at the building where the so called gas chamber were located you would see that all the windows were open and they were sealed in concrete only after the 1945, when the Jews were confronted with this fact they stated that "Well, the Nazis destroyed the gas chamber and we rebuild it here so that they would look the same".
Many tests has been taken at the spot where the so called gas chamber were located, according to the Jews, and no sign what so ever was found of any kind of poison.
The same goes for the so called six million dead Jews, they had a meeting and at first they decided on ten millions but is was to many and then they decided on two millions and it was to little so at the end it was decided on six millions, the funny part about the whole this is that there were more Jews after the war than before the war, boy, talking about doing a rabbit number.
2005-05-13 04:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stanley]He wrote a [url="http://www.realchange.org/holocaus.htm#diesel"]column[/url] saying that Diesel exhaust cannot kill people; he left to implication that the gas chamber stories were lies. I don't believe them either.[/QUOTE]To my eye, Pat is discreetly pulling out the cards of a very large house of them. He is, in fact, using Gramscian strategy.
Billions of dollars of military spending and millions of deaths have been retrospectively justified on the premise that WW2 was necessary to stop the greatest evil that ever lived. (And by that they mean, of course, Hitler, not Stalin.) Placed in its proper context, two adventurer-conquerors agreeing, among other things, to conquer Poland lacks a degree of emotional punch. The aftermath of the war, as summarized by Pat, points to a truly disappointing outcome. The only thing left to drag out so we can all be appropriately shocked and appalled is the "Holocaust." That story is being chipped away at the one end, and Pat is working on the other.
2005-05-14 03:01 | User Profile
Heââ¬â¢s dead right here ââ¬ÅAs at Katyn Forest, that army eradicated the real heroes who fought to retain the national and Christian character of their countries.ââ¬Å but like most WWII analysis it's unsatisfactory to me because it fails to dissect the Great War of which WWII is only a logical extension. WWII could not be avoided no matter what the political will in the West. In the East the commies wanted war and in the West they were too many ââ¬Ëelitesââ¬â¢ in debt to usurers or fat on profits from WWI. Look how the allied nations treated their war objectors, they actually treated them better in WWI than WWII. Declaration of war was decided in board rooms not in parliamentary debate and any dissent was ruthlessly crushed. The ultimate victory in WWII was of plutocracy over national sovereignty.
2005-05-16 04:38 | User Profile
The single great good to come out of the 1939-45 War was the destruction of the Japanese Empire.
And even that left a power vaccuum for the Reds in China & Indochina...
2005-05-16 17:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=na Gaeil is gile]ââ¬ÅAs at[B] Katyn Forest[/B], that army eradicated the real heroes who fought to retain the national and Christian character of their countries.ââ¬Å but like most WWII analysis it's unsatisfactory to me because it fails to dissect the Great War of which WWII is only a logical extension. WWII could not be avoided no matter what the political will in the West. [/QUOTE]The truly affluent have written the history of World War II for their benefit. The Philadelphia [I]Inquirer[/I], a truly dishonest paper, has lied continually about World War II and why it was fought. Placating Jews has always been uppermost in their minds. From my book: [QUOTE]When Le Duc Tho, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Henry Kissinger, died, an obituary appearing in the Philadelphia [I]Inquirer [/I] credited him with being the brains behind the Tet offensive which devastated United States forces in Vietnam.[1] The [I]Inquirer[/I] has revealed a bias in reporting obituaries when they feel an event has occurred so many years before that nobody cares about facts. When Roy Madden, an ex-congressman, died in 1987, the [I]Inquirer [/I] reported he chaired an investigating committee in 1952 into the murders by the Germans in World War II in the Katyn Forest of 4300 Polish Army soldiers. Even in 1952, much less in 1987, the Soviet Union was known to have committed that atrocity.[2] Under the influence of the Jewish left the [I]Inquirer [/I] would never admit the truth of who did execute the savagery.
2005-05-21 02:36 | User Profile
Im a late-comer to this thread and to the ideas behind our country's involvement in WWII. Thanks to Mr. Buchanan, i am planning on doing more research in this area. Its my general opinion that there should have been more effort to keep us out of that war, as well as efforts to keep the British out of the mess. Things just seem to have a way of getting out of control.
2005-05-21 04:16 | User Profile
I feel that in most instances going to war is a kind of strategic failure. As I look across the span of history, I see few wars as bringing any country any long-term advantage. There are almost no real "winners" in war. A smart country avoids war and uses the arts of diplomacy, strategic positioning, propaganda and sometimes a little bullying to get what it wants without firiing a shot. In almost all cases war is a failure. War depletes the public purse, kills a lot of a country's best men and has a terrible effect on public morals.
The USA never really had to worry about a foreign invasion past the middle of the 19th Century. With our wonderful strategic position (with two big oceans on either side of us and having two weak countries on our borders) we could have kept out of most of the world's big and bloody conflicts. Only a bunch of congenital idiots could have gotten us embroiled in nasty conflicts, but the American establishment is just that, a bunch of idiots.
2005-05-21 14:24 | User Profile
Josey,
Here's a suggestion. Study WW I as well. All to often Neocons start in the middle of a series of historical events to muddy the waters. They love using WW II for this hollering about the "holocaust", Hitler, and sometimes Hirohito while ignoring that if the U.S. had stayed the hell out of WW I there was a very good chance there would have been a negotiated peace. They don't want folks to realize if this had come about it would have meant no Hitler and no Lenin.