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 ...
Agreed. I have to frantically search for the remote to change channels anytime I see that fool on television.
Why listen to you, Patricia?
This moron seriously needs to restudy history. And anyone who says that Nazism wasn't as bad as Communism should ask a Jew who survived the concentration camps what they think.
Also, part of the reason Hitler was able to invade France was because the US and its allies were leaving him alone. And he would have done it anyway, out of revenge for the way Germany was treated after WW 1. Not long ago there was a program on the History Channel detailing Hitler's secret plans for conquest. It's quite clear from his own writings that he wanted a war with the US.
Then look at the lingering difficulties with re-incorporating the former East Germany into unified Germany. The point is the same - the plague of communism is worse, runs deeper and is more difficult to eradicate.
Where is Pat wrong might I ask by the way?
The widespread condemnation of National Socialist evil, accompanied by widespread championing of International Communism, coming from the same people is the great hypocrisy of the late XX Century. Unfortunately, it seems to be spilling over into the XXI Century. Seeing this hypocrisy from Public School teachers, MSM 'droids, Democratic Party Hacks, and other ne'er do wells is disgusting, but expected. Under their disguise, they are themselves communists. Seeing this hypocrisy among alleged conservatives; seeing the utter inability to actually think demonstrated by allegedly respectable folks on this forum is both disgusting and disappointing.
The very suggestion that the outcome of WWII was not 100% happy-happy joy-joy is enough to bring out the brainless innuendos from some folks. One might even be tempted to wonder if they are the ones with "other issues", except that to do so would be to lower oneself to their level.
Actually Pat is technically right. Hitler came to power through the vote and was given total power legally by the German parliment. Again-The Reichstag gave him the power to do what he did. Legal. Immoral, but legal.
I will thank you not to quote Churchill if it backs up Pat's contention. Administrator, remove that post please.
****************
Excellent work. Thanks.
If you want to worry about Nazis, fine. Just don't strain on that gnat, whilst swallowing the camel. You might hurt yourself.
Ist verboten!!!
Buchannan is a Nazi. Everybody on FR knows that! Rational discussion is not allowed; you must hurl insults, and make smarmy innuendos.
It is important to remember that most European countries had been secular and socialist in nature for decades by that point (Germany as far back as the 1870s under Otto von Bismarck, after the unification of the Prussian states). The decade of the 1930s was marked by a major philosophical clash between two different brands of socialism -- the nationalist version that most "conservative" elements in these countries espoused, and the international Marxism (communism) that had risen in the Soviet Union.
Every dispute in Europe in the 1930s must be seen in this light (the civil unrest in France, the Spanish Civil War, etc.), because this was the overriding concern for all of these governments. In this sense, Neville Chamberlain gets a bad rap in the history books as an "appeaser" of Hitler. The reality is that Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler was part of a pragmatic, calculated decision on the part of Britain and France to allow Germany to re-arm in the 1930s to shield Western Europe from the growing threat of Marxism in the Soviet Union. This, in fact, is a role that Germany in its various forms (the small fiefdoms of Prussia, modern Germany, etc.) had played throughout European history -- despite their frequent antagonism towards their western neighbors, they served as a vital bulwark against potential threats from the "barbarians" of the East.
Throughout the 1930s, the governments of Britain and France were content to let Germany and the Soviet Union fight for dominance of Eastern Europe, which would leave neither nation capable of mounting a serious threat to the West. This is why the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was such a turning point in history -- the British and French were so alarmed over this pact that they turned to the United States for support against Germany.
Both the Soviets and the U.S. agreed to wage war against Germany, but they both demanded a heavy price from the Western European powers. The Soviets demanded -- and received -- the right to control Eastern Europe as a buffer region between them and the West, while the United States called for the European nations to abandon their colonies after the war was over.
40 years of communism in Eastern Europe, vs. a decade or so of fascist rule in Italy and Germany. Also, even before the war, Eastern Europe was technologically and economically behind the West. Poland used horse cavalry against the German blitzkrieg! You can't compare the two.
So, because we think Buchanan is a closet (actually, pretty outed these days) nazi, that makes us closet communists; you can throw away the trimmings and get right to the point.
No, the issue is the same one it always is for Nazi symps, whether they are on the left or the right, and I've seen them on both sides: it is the JEWS. Come now, admit it, you'll feel much better.
Well, you know he did make the trains run on time.
I try not to post entire articles because doing so can jeopardize FR by exposing it to copyright violations. Besides, the site of origin deserves the hits and the revenue. Instead, I excerpt them. When excerpting an article, I look for an eye-catching quote that will get the reader to read the entire article.
>And, like I said, exactly how would we make Stalin give up those countries? <
Reading comprehension strikes again.In 43 Stalin had no pwer without our armaments.If Roosevelt had made freedom for the Balkins a requirement for helping the russians he would have agreed.No war after 44 would have been neccesary
That is utter nonsense. Germany didn't even have the werewithal to invade and conquer Great Britain, let alone the United States.
>Any legitimate scholarship and analysis would lead one to the conclusion that WWII had to be fought unless we all wanted to be speaking German and saying "Heil Hitler."<
Let me guess.Your a product of public education and under 40.
Neither communism nor Nazism should get a pass because of the excesses of the other. Both should be remembered and condemned.
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.