Skip to comments.Morality -- Trotskyite vs. Christian [It's Pat]
Posted on 06/24/2008 3:08:57 PM PDT by Alouette
Did Hitler's crimes justify the Allies' terror-bombing of Germany?
Indeed they did, answers Christopher Hitchens in his Newsweek response to my new book, "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War": "The stark evidence of the Final Solution has ever since been enough to dispel most doubts about, say, the wisdom or morality of carpet-bombing German cities."
Atheist, Trotskyite and newborn neocon, Hitchens embraces the morality of lex talionis: an eye for an eye. If Germans murdered women and children, the British were morally justified in killing German women and children.
According to British historians, however, Churchill ordered the initial bombing of German cities on his first day in office, the very first day of the Battle of France, on May 10, 1940.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.
How come Pat does not mention the Nazi bombing of Rotterdam and Warsaw?
PAt confuses debating with ingorant leftists and looking at history. Pat is revising history and assuming that we are all ignorant, again. And he is ascerbic to grow up and deal with an argument as anything but a personal attack.
I voted for this idiot in 92... Big mistake..
Pat's whole campaign for a revisionist rejection of our fighting WWII is just bizarre. Our bombing wasn't justified in light of Coventry, the East End, Warsaw, Rotterdam, etc.? Nonsense.
That said, the bombing effort produced checkered results, at best. The Brits couldn't hit much of anything of strategic value, bombing at night. U.S. losses from daylight bombing outweighed what value we got, at least until losses declined after we got fighter cover all the way to and from the target.
Research after the war showed rather than demoralize civilians, bombing tended to reinforce their resolve.
Why did Pat call his article Trotskyite vs. Christian when he’s talking about Churchill’s England, Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia? Is it because he’d rather have a Jewish name representing Communism?
Pat and his fellow paleos is stuck in a time warp.. Mainly in the 30’s and the 50’s.. They need to stop living in the past and live in the present..
Waiting for the sniveling PATrons to emerge from their sewers to defend him.....4....3....2....1....
Not defending Buchanan, but Hitchens did leave himself open to a hell of a lot of criticism. Defeating Nazism and ending the Holocaust justified the Allied tactics in toto, beyond what would be the norm in ‘mundane warfare.’ But Hitch makes it sound as IF the raids were justified as punishment—not as a strategic objective.
War is all about success and if a tactic succeeds then it is justified. It’s all about survival and defeating the enemy. When the existence of your country and your people are on the line you don’t play by Marquis of Queensbury rules.
“The Legend of Dresden”
a scholarly and balanced account in Air Force Magazine;
a decent antidote to some of the revisionism
Surely Mr. Buchanan knows that painting was inspired by a simple
“warm-up” by The Luftwaffe before “the big game”.
“Our bombing wasn’t justified in light of Coventry, the East End, Warsaw, Rotterdam, etc.? Nonsense.”
As I recall, in WWI the belligerents gassed each other without too much moral outrage, but zepplins bombing cities was a great atrocity. In WWII the morality pretty much flipped 180 degrees.
OUR trouble here is that we’re giving Pat Buchanan WAY too much credibility by even listening to what he has to say.
In case anyone is interested in Churchill as a terrorist bomber revisionism.
As an aside, the first German bombing of England was a bit earlier, January 19, 1915, from a Zepplin. But no matter, Churchill was the WWII villan.
This clown was once lauded as the moral voice of the Republican Party. Fair to say those who looked at the GOP as a bunch of loons had something to base their mistaken opinion on.
A snap of the heels to the Pat fans.
PS-A shame GWB isn't a modern day Churchill, but it's fair to say the US sucks to this day by Pat standards. We kill civilians just like Churchill and FDR did. Kind Adolph, he did nothing other than retaliate.
Pardon me while I vomit.
As far as bombing cities, Pat didn’t start the debate. Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki ring a bell? We shouldn’t second guess the people of that era, but that doesn’t mean we should forget what was done. Even now, military strategists debate the necessity of the Dresden bombing and whether such acts are ever justified. That’s a healthy debate IMHO.
Pat also makes some good points about the Soviets. We formed an alliance with Stalin, an evil dictator on par with Hitler. In the process, we sacrificed the freedom of hundreds of millions of people in Eastern Europe. What we did may have been necessary to defeat Hitler, but it resulted in something less than a great victory for western civilization.
Pat is engaged in an intellectual exercise of discussing what ifs. What’s so wrong about that? Could we have stopped Hitler earlier without resorting to a world war? Probably. Hindsight is 20/20.
As long as Buchanan is still spouting in public, "liberals" can say "See. See. That's what conservatices are really like. Pathetic.
“How come Pat does not mention the Nazi bombing of Rotterdam and Warsaw?”
That was Churchill’s fault, somehow.
Pat is used by the MSM to paint the false picture of Conservatives as Nazis.
We should not permit that. This little Nazi does not speak for us.
This is not a logical, new analysis. It is lies based on lies.
John / Billybob
Depends on whether he still cares about current politics and wants to have credibility as a commentator.
Getting a reputation for publishing things like this week after week means his opinions about other things aren't going to be given credence by most people.
Most columnists have a way of raising interesting issues without appearing obsessed by them, but right now Pat isn't showing that talent.
Pat did a lot to bring the problems of mass immigration into the political conversation, when "mainstream" or "movement" conservatives and neocons weren't interested.
But if he keeps this up he's going to be seen as the man who helped drive that debate back underground.
elmer fudd: “When the existence of your country and your people are on the line you dont play by Marquis of Queensbury rules.”
War is not simply about destroying the enemy. War is about achieving your nation’s objectives at least cost. If playing by Marquis of Queensbury rules achieves those objectives, you play by the rules.
Another Freep thread that ignores the fact that Communist Genocide gave rise to Hitler.
Listen to Rush Limbaugh... :) ...You'll see the danger of the whole "what if" thing, and making big decisions on "wacky" "what ifs"
Congressman Billybob: “Murder of the Jews (and other “undesirables”) by the hundreds of thousands, took place BEFORE his magic date of when the Final Solution was officially put in place.”
Agreed. It’s not so much that I support his entire analysis. It’s more that I think he makes a few good points. Could the war have been averted? Could Britain have saved its empire? Was the Yalta Conference a terrible mistake, an unfortunate necessity, or a grand strategy? Were the attacks on civilians justified? All good questions I think.
SJackson: “We kill civilians just like Churchill and FDR did.”
Actually, WWII helped shape the Laws of Armed Conflict. The three LOAC principles are military necessity, distinction, and proportionality.
We do not intentionally target civilians. That would be a war crime. I’m no military lawyer, but I wonder if FDR and Churchill would be considered war criminals by today’s LOAC. For example, the British nighttime bombings were incredibly inaccurate and almost certainly not able to achieve their military objectives (destruction of factories, some of minimal value to the war effort). Did this violate military necessity and proportionality? Perhaps.
For later read.
I hope Pat gets a good health screen soon.
Terror bombing didn’t work. German industrial output continued to increase until the Ruhr was over ran.
It did however mess up the logistics.
I am so sick of Pat Buchanon and his thinly-veiled Nazi support.
Pat has gone beyond annoying or worth arguing about, and needs a good solid ass-kicking.
I despise him, and I despise the Enemedia for propping up this asshole as a “conservative” voice. He’s not a conservative. He’s a Nazi.
Why do conservative orgs/pages like Townhall and Human Events still run pieces by this Ben `Amaleq?
PS: Despite the constant blather of the "palaeos," Trotskyites are not now and have never been Zionists. In fact, they're allied with the "palaeos" on this issue.
At this rate, he'll need to learn Chinese soon.
Personally I think had Hitler not invaded the Soviet Union, we would have been fighting Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union at the same time. Still we would have won, but the war would have been much bloodier and the lives lost been greater. I agree had we dealt with the Nazis early on, a lot of lives could have been spared. Also, we would have been fighting the Soviet Union instead and killed off Communism early on.
It is called the enemy of enemy is my friend. Granted not a good friend but they where our allies during the war. Sometimes you have deal with the devil to gets things done.
You’re an idiot Pat. There is no “lex talionis: an eye for an eye.”
The Brits were fighting a war, killing their enemy. The Germans were committing a genocide against their own population and those of their allies.
Link to Hitchens
The real fact is Pat is an idiot and I personally never liked him.
So did I.
That is why I will swallow my bile, eat my vomit, put a bag over my head, wrap my self in a flag, grit my teeth, and vote for McCain.
If he pays up afterward, it is just prostitution; if he doesn't, then it is rape; but either is still better than taking it in the rear from the Big-O.
Now that comment was not only racist, but it was also homophobic. You, sir, will be headed to a reeducation camp. Nurse Cratchet will be happy to oversee your proper treatment.
And that implies that there is an effective, fair referee & ringside judges.
Barring that, wipe them out as quickly and cheaply to self as possible, unless they unconditionally surrender.
A war IS about destroying one's ememy, unless one is engaged in an AGRESSIVE war; NOT a defensive war. When attacked, all rules & bets are off.
Geeze, I meant to get ageist & sexist in there, too. I must be slipping!