Posted on 02/18/2004 8:05:48 AM PST by u-89
>1. He should go read his own work Death of the West and understand that Europe is being conquered by islamic immigration.
The following is from Pat's article posted on page one of this thread:
"Taken together, all 22 Arab nations do not have the GDP of Spain. Without oil, their exports are the size of Finland’s. Not one Arab nation can stand up to Israel, let alone the United States. The Islamic threat is not strategic, but demographic. If death comes to the West it will be because we embraced a culture of death—birth control, abortion, sterilization, euthanasia. Western man is dying as Islamic man migrates north to await his passing and inherit his estate.
Said young Lincoln in his Lyceum address, “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”"
As far as Arabs conquering Europe or the US through immigration goes all I can do is ask whose fault is that? They're not breaking down doors, we're throwing open our doors and our bank accounts to them. European socialists, US Democrats and Republicans. The death of the west is by suicide - self murder.
Unconditional surrender allowed us to deNazify Germany.
As for the 22 countries, this is a fallacy. Did Pat just ignore Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Iran, the Turkic Republics, and 1/3 of Africa?
It is enlightening to read intelligent comments on this subject.
We were loaning large sums of money to the Allies to finance their war effort against Germany while we were neutral. We also were manufacturing large quantities of ammunition and other war material and sending it to England, France and Russia. Under the circumstances I quite understand the German interests in getting Mexico to keep us occupied. Who wouldn't do the same under the circumstances? The problem boils down to our choosing sides in a war we had no need to meddle in. Our action begot reactions.
>Unconditional surrender allowed******o deNazify Germany.
Unconditional surrender was a radical concept at the time and not universally appreciated on our side, let alone on the other. What it did do was raise the stakes in the war from the out set, steeled the opposition's resolve and thus prolonging the bloodshed. As I mentioned our non negotiation stance discouraged revolt in the German ranks as they saw no use to toppling the leadership once the war started to go badly. What was in it for them? (I am aware that in July 44 a coup was attempted but that does not invalidate my point which is historically based). What of the Japanese? They set peace feelers out in early 45 but we would not negotiate. Then eight months and hundreds of thousands of casualties later we settle for the one request the Japanese had which was to keep the emperor. Had it not been for our stance perhaps the Japanese might have sued for peace even earlier than they first attempted negotiations - and the Germans too.
One can not use 20/20 hindsight to say the Nazis were so evil it was good they were replaced. The information available after the war was not known before the war and besides we were not at war with them because of human rights abuses. The question is what effect the policy had on the war. What if the Nazis weren't Nazis and just another nation we had cause with? That would remove the premise of your remarks about denazification being needed. We are then back to the policy itself and nothing more. As I said, by instituting the unconditional surrender policy we not only had to defeat the German army where we might find them, like in France or Italy but we were obligated to invade and overrun the nation itself and totally defeat their armies. This put us in the position of occupying a foreign land and then defending that land. It the end the process was long and costly and potentially lethal as it could well have meant another, even larger war involving us. Perhaps the Germans would have fought to the death anyway but historically nations sue for peace long before the prospect of total destruction closes in.
Under the circumstances I quite understand the German interests in getting Mexico to keep us occupied.
We did not commit and act of war against Germany.
Who wouldn't do the same under the circumstances?
Anyone less reckless than Wilhelm II.
The problem boils down to our choosing sides in a war we had no need to meddle in. Our action begot reactions.
1. We did not choose sides until provoked.
2. Isolationism and non-intercourse was a failure when Jefferson tried it.
As far as negotiating with the Japanese, we had a negotiated surrender. We promissed, unofficially, not to overthrow the Emporer.
And of course, if it comes to it, we can help them with that. Our historical reference is Patton...
(good catch, by the way)
Actually we knew quite a lot. We may not have known every single detail of the "final solution" before our troops pushed their way through the gates, but it wasn't really a secret among people in the know either. They didn't talk about it publicly for reasons that still escape me.
But we certainly knew that the Nazis were a virulently racist form of fascism, and we knew that spent years preparing for war, and then executed it. They launched a war on their neighbors that wound up killing millions, and anyone with any wit knew that to leave them in power after such an attack would be a suicidal error.
As for the final comment, that human rights abuses were not the reason for the war, that is all in how you slice it. You said it yourself, if they were just another dictatorial regime, the policy of unconditional surrender would not have made any sense. It would, as you say, make them fight to the bitter end rather than give it up. But they were not just another regime, not even just another fascist regime.
That is completely the point. Fascism is not that unusual an economic system, after all, and Italian fascism would not have warranted any kind of war at all. They could have been left to work out the contradictions in their system until it succeeded or collapsed.
But it was the profoundly evil nature of the Nazi version that required war to the finish. And people knew well the nature of the regime, Churchill was talking about it all through the thirties, warning people what was coming. So the fact that many didn't know does not mean that it was unknowable. Hitler was only secretive about the details, he was always very up front about the broad strokes of who he was, and what he intended.
Really, if the Nazis were just another German party, there would have been no reason to eject them from France. Why bother? But we knew what they were, and to have sat still would have guaranteed a dark age in Europe. Everyone doesn't get it, but fortunately enough do.
There were three genocidal ideologies on the move in Europe prior to mid-century, and all of them were profoundly expansionist. Our great good fortune is that we didn't have to face all three of them at once. Two we handled with the aid of the third, and the third we finished in the fullness of time. Declaring war on the Nazis spared us the long slow-motion philosophical seduction of our people. We didn't declare open war on the communists and the ideology is still eating away at the core of our culture.
ROFL!!
Right, portions of the State Department are very quiet now.
I don't understand why many on this thread do not see that the Islamic Hydra has many heads!
Saddam was one of them, Osama is another!
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.