Skip to comments.Was World War II worth it? (Buchanan barf alert)
Posted on 05/11/2005 9:08:36 AM PDT by EveningStar
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 with 50 million dead?
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Right, after all, he did some very good things. Rid Europe of the Jewish scourge, afterall.
My guess, GWB didn't open up a very big can of worms.
Dear Lord - Buchanan is a complete idiot. The thought that anyone would have voted for this moron is an embarrasment.
Changing headlines eh? I thought that was against the rules.
But why destroy Hitler?. Yes, a sad day.
Absolutely false Pat, and I know you know the facts.Here are the facts regarding Hitler coming to power:
The road to power
The political turning point for Hitler came with the Depression which hit Germany in 1930. The democratic regime established in Germany in 1919 (the Weimar Republic) had never been accepted by conservatives and was openly opposed by fascists. The Social Democrats and traditional parties of the centre and right were unable to cope with the shock of the Depression. In the September 1930 elections the Nazis suddenly rose from obscurity to win more than 18% of the vote along with 107 seats in the Reichstag, becoming the second largest party in Germany.
Hitler appealed to the bulk of German farmers, war veterans and the middle-class, who had been hard-hit by both the inflation of the 1920s and the unemployment of the Depression. The urban working classes generally ignored Hitler's appeals and Berlin and the Ruhr towns were particularly hostile. The 1930 election was a disaster for Heinrich Brüning's centre-right government, which was now deprived of a majority in the Reichstag.
Meanwhile in December 1931 Hitler's niece Geli Raubal was found dead in her bedroom in his Munich apartment (his half-sister Angela and her daughter Geli had been with him in Munich since 1929), an apparent suicide. Geli was much younger than he was, and she had used his gun, drawing rumours of a relationship between the two. There is still speculation regarding the circumstances of her death, which is generally viewed as an event of lasting turmoil for Hitler.
While Brüning's austerity measures were bringing little economic improvement, the government was anxious to avoid a presidential election in 1932 and hoped to secure Nazi agreement to an extension of President Paul von Hindenburg's term. Hitler refused and ultimately competed against Hindenburg in the 1932 presidential election, coming in second on both rounds of the election. He attained more than 35% of the vote during the second round in April.
Hindenburg dismissed the government, appointing a new one under the conservative Franz von Papen, which immediately called for new Reichstag elections. In July 1932 the Nazis had their best election showing yet, winning 230 seats and becoming the largest party in the Reichstag. Since the Nazis and the communists now together controlled a majority of the Reichstag, the formation of a stable government of mainstream parties had become impossible. After a vote of no-confidence in the Papen government, supported by 84% of the delegates, the new Reichstag was dissolved and new elections were called.
Papen and the Centre Party (Zentrumspartei) began negotiations to secure Nazi participation in the new government but Hitler set high terms, demanding the Chancellorship along with the President's agreement that he be able to use emergency powers. The offer was rebuffed, and combined with the Nazis' failure to win working class support, some Nazi supporters were alienated. During the November 1932 elections the Nazis lost votes although they remained by far the largest party in the Reichstag. Since Papen had failed to secure a majority, Hindenburg dismissed him and appointed General Kurt von Schleicher, who promised he could secure a majority government by negotiations with both Social Democratic labour unions and the dissident Nazi faction led by Gregor Strasser.
Papen and Alfred Hugenberg (Chairman of the German National People's Party, the DNVP, which before the Nazis were Germany's principal right-wing party) conspired to persuade Hindenburg to appoint Hitler Chancellor in a coalition with the DNVP, promising they would be able to control him. When Schleicher was forced to admit failure in his efforts to form a coalition and asked Hindenburg for yet another Reichstag dissolution, Hindenburg fired him and appointed Hitler Chancellor, Papen Vice-Chancellor and Hugenberg Minister of Economics in a cabinet which included only three Nazis, Hitler, Göring and Wilhelm Frick. On January 30, 1933 Adolf Hitler was officially sworn in as Chancellor in the Reichstag chamber with thousands of Nazi supporters looking on and cheering.
In the March 1933 elections the Nazis received 43.9% of the vote. The party gained control of a majority of seats in the Reichstag through a formal coalition with the DNVP. After the Reichstag was set on fire (and the communists blamed for it) the Enabling Act gave Hitler dictatorial authority, passed by the Reichstag after the Nazis expelled the Communist deputies. Under the Enabling Act the Nazi cabinet had the power to pass legislation just as the Reichstag did. The Act further specified that the cabinet could only approve measures submitted by the Chancellor (Hitler) and that it would lapse after four years time or upon the installation of a new government. The Enabling Act was dutifully renewed every four years, even during World War II.
A series of decrees followed soon after the passage of the Enabling Act. Other parties were suppressed and all opposition was banned. In only a few months Hitler had achieved authoritarian control. President Paul von Hindenburg died on August 2, 1934. Rather than have new presidential elections, Hitler's cabinet passed a law combining the offices of President and Chancellor, with Hitler holding both offices (including the President's decree powers) as "Leader and National Chancellor." This consolidation was claimed by the Nazis to be approved by the electorate in what was actually a show election (the outcome was 90% "approval") in mid-August 1934. Then, in an unprecedented step, Hitler ordered every member of the military to swear a personal oath of allegiance to him.
He's a complete nut. How anyone could argue that our actions during WW II should be questioned is all I need to hear.
The recent furor over Pat Buchanan and what he says about World War II is bringing about a widespread reassessment of the war, and also of one of the supposed villains of the conflict, Adolf Hitler. At first, people were generally condemnatory toward Mr. Buchanan, but since then, after cooler reflection he is getting a warmer reception for his ideas.
Of course, Mr. Hitler has several severe disadvantages going into all this: he has suffered the impact of over 50 years of bad press. Step back and think, if only four years of bad press did-in Dan Quayle, imagine what four or five decades would accomplish. Another of Mr. Hitler's great disadvantages in getting a fair hearing is that age-old dictum: to the victors go the spoils, or to put it in a way more relevant to historical remembrance: it's the winners who write the history. So, with these handicaps -- Mr. Hitler at this point being uniquely-differently-challenged -- Mr. Buchanan simply choosing to link himself in any way with Mr. Hitler was bound to raise people's hackles. And it did!
We are suggesting that with a little more fairness, and with a deeper understanding of the nature of historiography, especially with supposed villains (Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Ventura), that we can come to appreciate not only these disadvantages but, indeed, as Mr. Buchanan has done, to turn it all around and find the good. It was a wise man who first said, "If you can't say nothing good about someone don't say nothing at all." But how many historians have heeded that sage counsel, especially with someone like Mr. Hitler?
To their credit, in recent weeks and days they have started coming around. Pat Buchanan has raised our consciousness -- all of us -- at least a little bit. How did he do this, and what does it mean in terms of his ability to be our President?
Mr. Buchanan is aware that a people who forget their past are doomed to repeat it. He himself admits this fact in his own life. After losing in '92 he promptly forgot it in '93, then after '96 he was oblivious again in '97; now he's running for President again, and projections are that 2001 will be an especially slow year for Pat, mentally-speaking. But with World War II, this fact is true for many of us; and if we weren't even alive during the 1940s, it's harder yet to recall. Those who were there for the most part are suffering Alzheimer's or have lost their mental acuity by other personal failures. It's no wonder, really, that people so softened in their minds have hardened their perceptions of the war into simple cliches like "good vs. evil" and "us vs. them." The truth is, Mr. Hitler never meant any harm: "No harm, No foul" is the way it's supposed to be.
It takes a heroic statesman, though, to clue us all in, and to shake up our memories, that we might not be beclouded in these areas. And Mr. Buchanan is that statesman, that heroic voice crying out in the wilderness.
There are a few great misconceptions surrounding Mr. Hitler and the war effort that need to be dealt with, albeit there are of course so many misconceptions that we can only just scratch the surface.
One misconception we have already alluded to. Mr. Hitler never meant any harm to anyone. The ones in his path who were accidentally tortured, maimed, tortured, robbed, raped, killed, tortured, butchered, and flung into mass graves, were actually to have been the receipients of his benevolence, but circumstances beyond anyone's control "just happened." All of us know about the best-laid intentions. And the bombs that tormented Britain, for a particular example, were only the result of incompetent help: as planes flew in, the wrong buttons were pushed; and in the case of the rockets launched toward Britain, again, wrong buttons. The consoles have been examined extensively in post-war years and it's been proven that these buttons were subject to jamming, one thing or another; you slam a door 40 yards away and one of them engages!
Another misconception is that Mr. Hitler intended to conquer the world. This ridiculous assertion has gained creedence mostly because at the time it seemed like he was headed in all directions. Toward the East, toward the West, etc. The truth of the matter is that he wanted people everywhere to be strong and self-reliant. There are two ways one can accomplish this goal: one, just by preaching strength and hoping for the best, usually a vain hope; or, two, by challenging people through a direct encounter to reach down and see what they have, that they might meet that challenge. It's still true today that the oyster doesn't produce a pearl without the sand irritating it! And it was true in World War II, that muscle untested becomes flab. In a way -- not to minimize World War II too much -- the whole war effort was basically an encounter group with a lot of very good role-playing.
And one other misconception that we'd like to deal with is this, that Mr. Hitler was "pure evil." He has been called every name in the book: scumbag, worthless, nasty, ugly, nimrod, and bad. At one point, he was even considered to be the Antichrist! Any one of us might turn out to be a little bit "bad," too, if we had all that coming our way. As we all know, an arsenal is more than sticks and stones, it's also words, names, and unfeeling slams. You tell a child that he's Satan, he's the Devil, he's Mephistopheles, he's Old Scratch, he's a "real HITLER" (there it is!) -- and you say it often enough -- next thing you know, you've got a self-fulfilling prophecy! And Mr. Hitler heard this: "Hitler! Hitler! Hitler!" Even his own people callously shouted it at him as he passed! "Hitler! Hitler! Hitler!" Mr. Hitler, however, was bigger than all that, to a point...but he too could be pushed. No one likes a schoolyard bully's antics, and Mr. Hitler was no exception. He was an artist, remember, and he could have an artist's temperament. They do not like to be bullied. When they are bullied they can lash out. So, if you want to blame anyone, look to the Poles, the French, the Russians, the English, the Americans, and go right down the list. If any one of these culprits would have stepped-back and said "Hey" ... (deep breath) ... "what the heck are we doing to this poor guy?....", but it didn't happen until Berlin was reduced to shambles, and Mr. Hitler was dead in his bunker. The poor man couldn't even get a truce that he might enjoy his honeymoon with Eva. The World needs a zero-tolerance policy on this kind of bullying. Think of the world as your body. If your arm has an inflamation or gangrene, you don't just lop it off; but with tender care and patience you nurse it back to full health!
Pat Buchanan has brought these and many other facts to our attention. And as President, with the bully pulpit at his disposal, who knows what else he might do for us? One thing we can say with certainty, that with Pat Buchanan as President we won't be wasting our money with the Defense Department. Because Pat knows and has shown, there's nothing we have that's really worth fighting for. Mr. Hitler fought his hardest, but look at where it got him. We can safely pull back from the world and focus on our own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. And it's true, the Oceans in their vastness are an adequate enough defense against any one, be he friend or foe. Let's change our foes into our friends, and then we'll have everything ... but foes!
Mr. Buchanan is doing this -- yes, more or less in a symbolic way, as Mr. Hitler is no longer with us and cannot be literally redeemed at this point; the world has to suffer its shame. And we hope Mr. Buchanan will continue to do this, as candidate and as President, that the world might find a way to live with itself in peace. And that we might come to see it as true, that there is plenty of Lebensraum -- living space -- for all!
We all have our crosses to bear.
Pat jumps the shark on this line. Hitler invaded France long before we entered WWII. And Hitler declared war on us before we declared war on him.
Which means Pat is just talking out his arse. It's a darn shame to see someone waste his considerable writing skills in such a manner.
Pat. The ultimate anti-Semite.
Hitler had already taken over France when we entered. What is Pat's point?
I regard them my attempt to bridge the red-blue gap.
We went to war to save Poland and ended up with Poland as a puppet of the Soviet Union, and all Of Eastern Europe behind an "Iron Curtain".
Pat's just upset that the Reich ended before ALL the Jews were killed.
What an idiot.
Pat just keeps getting weirder and weirder. I feel like the guy at the party who just can't believe what he just heard. When, I wonder, is Buchanan finally, at long last, going to drop the (admittedly flimsy) disguise and declare himself for what he truly is? It hurts us all when this man is publicly identified as a conservative.
Oh, right. He'd have stayed in Germany if the Czechs, Poles, etc. hadn't provoked him.
There was a time when such blatant misprepresentation of the facts would have been noticed and properly condemned by most of the US populace. Unfortunately, the public schools have so dumbed down their curricula in the last 40 years that most young people can't even tell you when WWI was fought or what started it.
And to think this prick used to be a Reaganite. How utterly sad.
I didn't change the headline. I added a comment to the end of it. The article is still searchable under the true title.
Well, one of the points he is making - that communism was worse than nazism - is a valid point.
"Was World War II worth it?"
Now let's see. . . .
Buchanan wrote this article in WHAT language?
Japanese? No, didn't see the words ah so desuka anywhere.
In German? No, didn't see the words mein herr.
On yeah. HE WROTE IT IN ENGLISH BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY WASN'T INVADED BY EITHER OF THESE COUNTRIES! ! !
Now if Ole Pat wants to live in a country invaded by another country, why doesn't he move?
Remember, Pat quit the Republican party, thank God.
I voted for him 92.. Big mistake. Yes I'm embarrassed for voting for Pat..
Hitler declared war on us first, you twit. After we declared war on Japan.
There are plenty of threads with Barf Alerts. Why are you upset that Buchanan has a Barf Alert?
I voted for him. Regarding WWII, I've always taken his point to be that we shouldn't have taken sides between the Russians and the Germans. They were ancient and bitter enemies and we might have been better off to let them fight and destroy eachother to the bitter end. Instead, we made Russia an ally to defeat Hitler and ended up with an enemy for the next fifty years.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen Pat write. Good Lord, what's gotten into him? Is he crazy? Geez.
So did Soviet occupied East Germany abandon the German language for Russian or did they just keep speaking German?
Pat needs to go into a home.
I voted for him in '88...even bigger mistake. It only encouraged him.
The statement he makes about drawing Hitler into Western Europe was in reference to the involvement of Great Britain and France in the war, not the U.S.
I suspect that most replies on this thread are being posted by people who didn't read the full article first. Buchanan actually agrees with the basic premise of Bush's speech in Russia earlier this week -- and then proceeds to ask a lot of direct, hard-hitting questions about what the hell World War II was all about. The manner in which the FDR administration signed over Eastern Europe to the Soviets -- after most of the media in this country spent years engaging in a deliberate cover-up of Stalin's atrocities -- was an absolute travesty.
opps...make that '92 as well. I voted for Bob Dole in '88.
Pat makes some good points, and as the junior senator from MA, John F...king Kerry would say, 'it's complicated'. Hitler and the horrors of Nazi Germany needed obliteration, otherwise we'd all be dead or speaking German/Japanese, but it's a lasting shame (euphemism), that FDR and Churchill didn't stand up to Stalin at Yalta.
Sometimes Pat argues odd ideas for the heck of it, not because he seriously believes them.
His idea that France, Holland, and Belgium would never have been invaded by Germany without a British/French D.O.W. on behalf of Poland is ludicrous. It would have happened later, but it still would have happened.
This piece is a nice bookend to Buchanan's piece from a few years ago claiming (laughably) that the Pacific War was the fault of Britain and the US because they'd somehow screwed Japan over in the peace settlement of World War I (a war in which Japan suffered a couple hundred killed and acquired dozens of islands and millions of square miles of ocean by gobbling up Germany's Pacific Islands.)
Pat's apparently gone round the bend. What a loser!
They're not even new or original odd ideas; the whole article is basically recycled from some controversial British historian whose name escapes me at the moment.
Blasphemy!!! HERESY!!!! You're not allowed to SAY that!!!! EVERYBODY knows that right-wing Naziism is, was, and always will be the ULTIMATE EVIL!!! The MSM, Public Schools, politicians, and literati all tell me so ... and they would never lie about anything.
Even in that context, it's an absurd debating point. Pat seems to think that if Hitler had just been left alone, he wouldn't have attacked France. Which IMO is complete nonsense.
What was WWII about? Like all wars, it became something much different than what it was when the conflict started. And although I don't think much of FDR, I'm not sure what he could have done differently regarding the Soviet Union's occupation of central and eastern Europe after the war - unless he would have waged war with the Soviets after Hitler's fall - something I doubt the American people would have supported.
"So did Soviet occupied East Germany abandon the German language for Russian or did they just keep speaking German?"
Ooh, you got me. Boy, what keen insight. I surrender.
You misspelled "crime against humanity".
On another thread [the same subject] I was comparing them as 80-proof vodka vs. 190 proof Everclear grain alcohol. Look at the relative ease and speed of denazification of Germany (or de-fascization of Italy) and compare with the difficulty of decommunization in Russia.